Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"When Laura Ingraham asks Romney if it is hard argument to make that 'Obama is making the economy better, but vote for me,' Romney says 'Do you have a better one Laura?'"
This guy is a slimball, serial flip-flopper and a dolt. He's spent half his time in every debate saying the economy is in decline but here says it's getting better but not because of Obama. Willard claims that recessions always get better. Ok, if that's the case we don't need your services Willard. Go back to the Caymans.
"When Laura Ingraham asks Romney if it is hard argument to make that 'Obama is making the economy better, but vote for me,' Romney says 'Do you have a better one Laura?'"
This guy is a slimball, serial flip-flopper and a dolt. He's spent half his time in every debate saying the economy is in decline but here says it's getting better but not because of Obama. Willard claims that recessions always get better. Ok, if that's the case we don't need your services Willard. Go back to the Caymans.
Funny, during the debate last night he said it wasn't. Why can't he make up his mind?
The platform of pretty much all of them, except maybe Paul, is bible thumping good, Obama bad. Defining your campaign based upon your opponent is a losing effort.
Referring to Mitt Romney as "Willard" evokes Al Sharpton, who has coined the use of the word "Willard" in his utter contempt for the man.
For that reason, I give very little credence to those who co-opt Al Sharpton, the OP included. Al Sharpton should not be your role model.
Regarding the economy, Mitt said nothing wrong: Economies are cyclical. They do recover eventually. Always have. There's no proof whatsoever that Barack Obama's policies are the direct reason for the recovery. Indirect contributions are worthless. Show me that Barack Obama is the reason for the recovery, because that's what Mitt Romney has been arguing against. Can the OP do that? Very doubtful.
Referring to Mitt Romney as "Willard" evokes nothing more than Al Sharpton, who has coined the use of the word "Willard" in his utter contempt for the man.
For that reason, I give very little credence to those who co-opt Al Sharpton, the OP included. Al Sharpton should not be your role model.
Regarding the economy, Mitt said nothing wrong: Economies are cyclical. They do recover eventually. Always have. There's no proof whatsoever that Barack Obama's policies are the direct reason for the recovery. Indirect contributions are worthless. Show me that Barack Obama is the reason for the recovery, because that's what Mitt Romney has been arguing against. Can the OP prove me wrong?
I thought his given name was Willard, how could that be utter contempt? However isn't this similar to those that continued to evoke the Presidents middle name? How is this different?
As far as the economy, again during the interview with Laura Ingram last week he stated the economy has gotten better, but last night he claimed that it has not. You can't have it both ways. When it appears to be an uptick in the economy it wasn't due to this administrations policy, but when its bad its due to this administration policies?
I thought his given name was Willard, how could that be utter contempt? However isn't this similar to those that continued to evoke the Presidents middle name? How is this different?
As far as the economy, again during the interview with Laura Ingram last week he stated the economy has gotten better, but last night he claimed that it has not. You can't have it both ways. When it appears to be an uptick in the economy it wasn't due to this administrations policy, but when its bad its due to this administration policies?
I didn't see the debate. Can you find me a quote showing that Romney said the economy is not getting better?
If you don't like people doing something, don't do it yourself
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroGuyDC
Regarding the economy, Mitt said nothing wrong: Economies are cyclical. They do recover eventually. Always have. There's no proof whatsoever that Barack Obama's policies are the direct reason for the recovery. Indirect contributions are worthless. Show me that Barack Obama is the reason for the recovery, because that's what Mitt Romney has been arguing against. Can the OP do that? Very doubtful.
Actually there is, and it has been available starting at the end of 2009.
Willful ignorance? Is there proof that Barack Obama created jobs, and those jobs are the reason the economy has seen positive signs?
No, not in the links you provided. In fact, jobs are the least of the reasons the economy is showing positive signs. Try again.
Wait who said anything about the President creating jobs. I wish you guys make up your minds, either the Government create jobs or they don't. Which one is it. That wasn't bought up in the OP. It was clear that Romney has flipped flopped on whether the economy has improved. So I ask again, why is it when the economy has improved its NOT because of the Presidents policies, but when its bad, its absolutely because of his policies? Why do those who disgree on either side attempt to have it both ways. Thats the definition of hypocritical
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
