The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Catholic church jumping behind empty chair too:

     

    Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons...



    You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.  




    Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.

    It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.




    Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations




    BS.

    The big compromise is Catholic hospital employees are provided free contraception from their insurers and who pays for it?

    It's against the tenets of the church.




    Well, if they're endorsing candidates, the law says they're not really churches at all.

     




    Go to hell you pagan.

    And take your baby killer cult leader with you.




    Yikes! I don't get the reference - is that Obama?  I knew he was a secret Muslim and an Arab, but a baby killer cult leader?

     

     

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Catholic church jumping behind empty chair too:

     

    Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons...



    You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.  




    Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.

    It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.




    Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations




    BS.

    The big compromise is Catholic hospital employees are provided free contraception from their insurers and who pays for it?

    It's against the tenets of the church.




    Well, if they're endorsing candidates, the law says they're not really churches at all.

     




    Go to hell you pagan.

    And take your baby killer cult leader with you.




    Yikes! I don't get the reference - is that Obama?  I knew he was a secret Muslim and an Arab, but a baby killer cult leader?

     

     




    Anyone who subscribes to killing a baby that survives an abortion is despicable.

    Think about it.

    The baby has been born is out of the womb alive and breathing.

     Your President is one of the very few politicians I know of who supports killing the baby.

    There must be a couple somewhere who would adopt a healthy newborn don't you think?

    Has the press ever asked him why he took this stand? No.

    My brother and sister in law flew to Russia and then took a 12 hour train ride to an orphanage in Murmank  where they found and adopted my nephew 20 years ago.

    This is murder.

     

       

     

    Obama In '03: Voted No On Banning Late Term Abortions ... www.realclearpolitics.com/.../obama_in_03_voted_no_on_banning_l... Cached You +1'd this publicly. Undo Aug 22, 2012 – State Sen. Barack Obama tells Illinois Channel that he voted no on banning late term abortions (November 6, 2003).

     

     
  3. 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

     
  4. 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...

     
  5. 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.

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    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...

     



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

     
  7. 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. 

     
  8. 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.

     
  9. 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!

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.




    Takes one to know one.

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    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...

     



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

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to Thesemenarecowards's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.




    Takes one to know one.




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

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    In response to Thesemenarecowards's comment:

    In response to ThatWasMe's comment:

    Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.




    Takes one to know one.




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




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

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

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




    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...??

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from GreginMeffa. Show GreginMeffa's posts

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    'His responses—an aggressive stimulus, bailing out General Motors and Chrysler"

    ------------------------------

     

    Bush did all of that.  Thanks

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

    Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    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...

     




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