To: Halfmanhalfamazing
They’ll control whoever ends up in the White House. It’s a tidy system.
2 posted on
08/24/2011 4:43:43 AM PDT by
Wolfie
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Outta the frying pan and into the fire. It’s a debatable subject as to which would be worse, Obama or Romney. I will never have to choose between the two.
3 posted on
08/24/2011 4:44:07 AM PDT by
Graybeard58
(The only problem some people have with tyranny is that theyÂ’re not the tyrant.)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
150,000 is this from the onion, LOL,
4 posted on
08/24/2011 4:46:50 AM PDT by
org.whodat
(What does the Republican party stand for////??? absolutely nothing.)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I wouldn’t read too much into it, other than Wall Street’s opinion on Obama’s re-election chances. It is all about business.
The Dems could screw over Wall Street every which way, including Wednesday, and business would still give the Dems most of the bulk of campaign contributions if Wall street thought they’d get re-elected, because business has to still work with the feds.
6 posted on
08/24/2011 4:49:10 AM PDT by
Jonty30
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Romney has promised Wall Street that he’ll get Cap & Trade passed if elected.
11 posted on
08/24/2011 4:54:24 AM PDT by
jimbo123
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
"
As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal." [Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]
12 posted on
08/24/2011 4:56:09 AM PDT by
Diogenesis
(No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session. - Mark Twain)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
13 posted on
08/24/2011 4:58:05 AM PDT by
jimbo123
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Shifting from a progressive libtard to a progressive RINO.....that's a shift of epic proportions on the Charlie Sheen "WINNER" scale of about nothing...... =.=
15 posted on
08/24/2011 5:14:02 AM PDT by
cranked
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
Obama supporters will probably contribute heavily to Romney.
Romney could well be the Bob Dole of 2012. If you want 4 more years of Obama, you want Romney to be his opponent in the general election. Your second choice is probably "W" (Rick W Perry) because you can run against George W. Bush and his policies again.
IMO, Obama vs. Romney = Obama victory, and Obama vs. Perry is too close to call right now. Obama vs. any other truly conservative Republican is a loss for Obama.
This is the election when conservatives need to stop holding their noses and get a real conservative on the ticket. If the Ruling class Republicans thwart that, the country is lost until we either clean up the Republican party or replace it with a truly conservative, constitutional party.
16 posted on
08/24/2011 5:15:59 AM PDT by
cc2k
( If having an "R" makes you conservative, does walking into a barn make you a horse's (_*_)?)
To: Halfmanhalfamazing
I guess the silver lining is that is a whole lot of cash that won’t be going into Obama’s re-election coffers. (it also frees him to run an anti-Wall Street campaign though)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson