The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    This is your boy.

     

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/08/22/obama_in_03_voted_no_on_banning_late_term_abortions.html

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    POLL: 63% Want Obama 2nd Term -- in China...

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    Not enough economists in the country to help him this time around.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

    In short: Obama sukks, but Romney sukks more.

    If the economy really is #1, Romney is a distant #2, or so says the consistently right-of-center Economist.

    If Mitt can't convince stuck-up british financial editors, then what chance does he have with the rest of the globe's economic bright lights...?

    Cue the usual right-wing bluster about liberal Brits, commie rags and other american troglodytisms...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    What's best for the Brits isn't necessarily best for US; we kind of said that in 1776.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    It isn't a question of what is best for the Brits. If the perception of England were so unimportant then Romney would have had no reason to go there earlier this summer and proceed to insult and fumble his way through his visit. But maybe his lack of international tact is a reflection of a belief that our critical and long time allies don't matter.

    Its funny because once upon a time, conservatives attacked Obama for giving the queen an ipod.  Romney goes into country and insults London's preparation for the Olympics and you guys want to pretend that didn't happen.  The Economist, a magazine with no horse in this race endorses Obama and all of a sudden its "so what, who cares what those brits think"

    Another day and another instance of intellectual dishonestly on display. 

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from macnh1. Show macnh1's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    $16 trillion in debt...projected to be $21 trillion with four more years of Obama.....unconscionable how anyone could support that.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from DamainAllen. Show DamainAllen's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    Its a good thing 8 years of GOP leadership left Obama with debt at all and no financial crisis from which to recover.  I don't even know HOW HE SPENT  TRILLION DOLLARS IN 4 YEARS!

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.

    [/QUOTE]


    Takes one to know one.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

    In short: Obama sukks, but Romney sukks more.

    If the economy really is #1, Romney is a distant #2, or so says the consistently right-of-center Economist.

    If Mitt can't convince stuck-up british financial editors, then what chance does he have with the rest of the globe's economic bright lights...?

    Cue the usual right-wing bluster about liberal Brits, commie rags and other american troglodytisms...

     

    [/QUOTE]

    The Economist knows the economy and Obama is their choice:)..... it's just getting better and better for President Obama.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from ThatWasMe. Show ThatWasMe's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to Thesemenarecowards's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.

    [/QUOTE]


    Takes one to know one.

    [/QUOTE]


    You don't have a problem with her because she's socialist like you.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Thesemenarecowards. Show Thesemenarecowards's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to Thesemenarecowards's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.

    [/QUOTE]


    Takes one to know one.

    [/QUOTE]


    You don't have a problem with her because she's socialist like you.

    [/QUOTE]


    I don't know who she is but I do know tha right wing nut jobs like you don't know what 'socialist' means.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    What's best for the Brits isn't necessarily best for US; we kind of said that in 1776.

    [/QUOTE]


    Which is where your mentality remains, sadly, in the 18th century.

    But yeah, the Brits couldn't know a thing or two about economics or finance, could they...??

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one

    In short: Obama sukks, but Romney sukks more.

    If the economy really is #1, Romney is a distant #2, or so says the consistently right-of-center Economist.

    If Mitt can't convince stuck-up british financial editors, then what chance does he have with the rest of the globe's economic bright lights...?

    Cue the usual right-wing bluster about liberal Brits, commie rags and other american troglodytisms...

     

    [/QUOTE]


    The economist is right of center?  Surely you jest.  The economist has been supporting the liberal progressive movement for at least thirty years.

     

Share