New York Primary Election Sept 14: Will you vote?

and yes we are much better off than we were 4 years ago. Now we must get all the jobs back we lost under Bush.

NAC,where's your specific proof that the stim.,was just a crony payoff?As far as the NDAA,it was a legally passed bill and he signed it in the light of day.Romney,said he'd sign it,so did McCain,Bush did sign it,and the majority of conservatives said signing it was the right thing to do.So why do you keep implying it's a democratic law and they are the blame for it?This bill has strong support on both sides of the aisle,so why the continual implying that the dems are trashing the constitution.

Because fox news told them to. They dont know any better.

Jill Stein... I wish the Democrats had her balls so I will vote for Obama which is as close as we can get right now.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm

Obama and Romney, Questioned about Science

http://www.nature.com/news/obama-and-romney-t...

I'll vote, but it will not be for a dumbocrat. I've been voting for over 50 years and in all of that time I voted for one dumbocrat for president. Yep, it was JFK and what a disappointment that s.o.b. was. The only good dumbocrat ever elected president was HST, the rest you can stick where the sun don't shine. As a whole, dumbocrats have no redeeming qualities and if you need an example look at the jackass in there now.

just me wrote:

I'll vote, but it will not be for a dumbocrat. I've been voting for over 50 years and in all of that time I voted for one dumbocrat for president. Yep, it was JFK and what a disappointment that s.o.b. was. The only good dumbocrat ever elected president was HST, the rest you can stick where the sun don't shine. As a whole, dumbocrats have no redeeming qualities and if you need an example look at the jackass in there now.

You seem to be a better example of a jackass to me. You can't even spell democrat.

Just me:are you saying clintons 8 years of prosperity,didn't happen.That LBJ, didnt get passedsome of the greatest civil rights legislation in American history.You also conveniently leave out the fact that the dems controlled congress,all through the cold war,and it was a dem. congress that passed bills and appropriated funds that allowed us to build the best military in history,put a man on the moon and win the cold war.Whoever says the dems are soft on natl. defense,doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.One more thing,the US' vaunted and much feared Cruise Missile,was a direct result of Jimmy Carter pushing for funds to develop and perfect it.Just thought a repuke like you would want to know that.It's not good to revel in your ignorance.Turn off fox and visit a library or some good online history sites.

It's LONG past time to outlaw the republican party for the terrorists they are

Remember how Obama keeps telling us how he saved GM, and how our economy is getting better, it seems the car company he bought is being saved by Govt employees using our tax money to buy new cars. 79% of GM’s sales last month was government purchased.

GM’s sales figures for last month were the best since 2008 , up 16% for the month of June. YIPPEE! Well, wait just a minute. It seems that those rosy sales figures are due primarily to a 79% increase in fleet sales to the U.S.gov ernment in June. That’s right. Our tax dollars are being used to pump up GM’s sales figures ahead of next month’s quarterly report so that Dear Leader can point to Government Motors as a huge success. The incestuous relationship between GM, the UAW and the Regime has never been more glaringly apparent. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. GM is unsustainable without government subsidies and will ultimately go bust again, taking billions of taxpayer dollars down with it.

We bailed out General Motors to the tune of $50 billion.$30 billion of this is effectively a loss, mostly sunk into fattening the United Auto Workers union—fierce Obama supporters—while the actual bondholders were shown the elevator shaft.

Meanwhile, as NewsBusters reports,“We the Taxpayers are still stuck holding 500+ million shares of GM stock. Which we need to sell at $53 per. Which debuted post-bankruptcy at $33 per. And which is currently trading at just over $20 per. Meaning we’ll lose about $15 billion.”

But it gets better. Despite the overwhelming negatives, the tiny bright spot of positive June sales numbers is being heralded by Obama and the leftist press as proof the auto bailout was a “success.”

Obama is now campaigning on the “success” of – the government buying cars from…the government’s car company. With our money.
Americanvision says That’s like you setting up a lemonade stand for your kids. You buy them the lemons, sugar, cups and pitchers – and then buy most of the lemonade yourself.

The pressure is on Government Motors to appear financially strong as this may be the last earnings report before November elections and sets the stage for how “successful” GM is. One of GM’s past tricks to help fudge earnings numbers has been to stuff truck inventory channels. Old habits die hard at GM. According to a Bloomberg report,“GM said inventory of its full-size pickups, which will be refreshed next year, climbed to 238,194 at the end of June, a 135 days’ supply, up from 116 days at the end of May.” 135 days’ supply is huge, the accepted norm is a 60 day supply. The trick here is that GM records revenue when vehicles go into dealership.

Biden dares:'Fact check me,' Romney campaign obliges = with the predictable result: Biden's lyin.'

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/08/be...

Yes,it's all the fault of greedy unions.Imagine wanting decent wages and a safe work place.That's why all the jobs shipped overseas,were non- union jobs.These southern states didn't have any problem with bribing foreign auto companies to build there,by offering them hug tax breaks with taxpayer dollars.And don't think for a minute,some fed.tax dollars weren't slipped in there somehow.If the fed govt. is going to buy cars,it might as well be from an American automaker.Rightwingers and republicans don't give a shi t about America.

democrat wrote:

NAC,where's your specific proof that the stim.,was just a crony payoff?As far as the NDAA,it was a legally passed bill and he signed it in the light of day.Romney,said he'd sign it,so did McCain,Bush did sign it,and the majority of conservatives said signing it was the right thing to do.So why do you keep implying it's a democratic law and they are the blame for it?This bill has strong support on both sides of the aisle,so why the continual implying that the dems are trashing the constitution.

You're completely missing the point about the NDAA. First of all, the fact that you said that "he signed it in the light of day" couldn't help but make me chuckle. He signed it on 12/31/2011. New Year's Eve. Would you sign something you wanted on the front page on New Year's Eve? Of course not. It was intended to slip through as many cracks as possible.

As for support of the bill, you have to understand that you and I form our opinions about bills very differently. You seem to form your opinion based on who supports the bill (Dems/Reps) and who signed the bill. I base my opinion based on WHAT IS IN THE BILL.

Sections 1021 & 1022 of the NDAA are in complete contrast to the Constitution. Indefinite detainment of US citizens without due process is not something I will ever support, regardless of which politicians say it is good. And the fact that indefinite detainment of citizens is about the only thing that both sides could agree on says a lot about the state of our government.

Yet you decide that this, like everything else, has to be a left/right issue. I criticize something Obama signed (based on it's merits), and your response is that the right is all for it too! That does not make it good policy! What is in the bill is far more important than who signed it.

Until we remember that we are Americans, not republicans/democrats, we're going to get un-American laws like this.

Now... Obama said that he doesn't support sections 1021 & 1022 but he signed the bill under the guise that he wouldn't use those fancy new executive powers. Judge Katherine B. Forrest then ruled sections 1021 & 1022 unconstitutional. Problem solved, right? Wrong. Obama is currently appealing that decision.

So which is it? If he SAYS he doesn't support that part of the bill, why is he appealing the court's decision to get that power back? Again, his WORDS are different than his ACTIONS. Is indefinite detainment of US citizens the "CHANGE" you voted for in 2008?

By the way, you know why the Republicans aren't calling him out on this? Because they want this (unconstitutional) power too when they are in charge!!! Wake up! This isn't a left/right issue ... this is an America issue. We should ALL be against this.

I agree. Both sides should be against this.
This law is as bad as the so called pat act.

liberal wrote:

I agree. Both sides should be against this.
This law is as bad as the so called pat act.

Exactly. The left was correct to criticize the patriot act when Bush was in office. Now that Obama is in, though... the tune has changed. Somehow the left now supports not only the patriot act, but also the NDAA that dwarfs it.

What happened???

Wow 616 lies in 33 weeks!

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/08/mitt-...

I don't support ndaa or patriotic act,but you give a tilt to your posts,nac,saying Obama is a dangerous threat.Well if Romney said he'd sign it,why haven't you also said he's a dangerous threat to our constitution?Also if you check The ACLU,that you on the right are always criticizing as being unamerican, are up in arms about this,and the only group with any promience,promising legal action.So don't tell me the left is hypocritically accepting this bill.The southern poverty center has also cited it's opposition to this bill.What I don't see is any oposition, from the organized right.They tried to destroy acorn,for trying to get poor people to vote,but suspend Habeous Corpus and not a word.I personally sent a letter to my 3 reps in dc and Pres. Obama saying this bill was a piece of shi t and shouldn't be signed,now ask yourself this,how many whiny Americans,who say their rights are being eroded,did like wise.People refuse to register their dissent and disgust,then wonder,why they get shit on.How many called in on Walter Reed scandal,I did.Lazy bastards who don't get off their ass and tell the govt. what they think.deserve what they get.

Democrat... Re-read my post. Stop labeling me as "on the right" (I'm not), and stop putting words in my mouth.

Re-read and respond like an adult, not like someone that is offended that I dared criticize your hero.

If you can't do that, don't respond at all.

Oh look. Today mitt changed his position again. Now hes for obamacare. He went from repeal it in full on day 1 to theres a lot of parts of obamacare he likes and will keep....so for everyone spouting obamacare as the worst socialist thing on earth...did your position just change now as well? Cuz that would be awkward for you if it didn't...

nac wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly. The left was correct to criticize the patriot act when Bush was in office. Now that Obama is in, though... the tune has changed. Somehow the left now supports not only the patriot act, but also the NDAA that dwarfs it.
What happened???

While I agree ndaa was bullshit, theres a difference between it and the patriot act. Threw ndaa had numerous positions that we need as a military (funds, regulations, resolutions, provisions,etc) and this one part obama openly disagreed with and was forced between screw over our military or pass this horrible provision.

The patriot act had no positive provisions. It was all just spy on americans. It was all bad. At least with ndaa you can look at it and say , that sux and you were between a rock and a hard place. Obama pointed out as well that this was a good reason to pass a bil to approve line item vetos.