Frailty of US-Pakistan relations.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


History shows what happens when a controlling force takes over a sovereign nation.

Look at our early history. Britain controlled the new World with and iron Fist. What did the Yankees do, we fought them. We gained Independence form an unruly totalitarian regime. As we progress we will end up as we did back in 1776, we will fight for our freedom.

Now, look at N Africa. See what is happening?

Now, I am not going to go all Glen Beck on everyone but, there will be a time after Obama that we will see a president who will be worse and destroy this country. This president will crush us economically, physically, spiritually. Our freedom and free-will will be crushed. As a people, we will employ a deceleration of independence form this regime. This current political system we have will crumble. The constitution will remain, but be revised by the people for the people.

Anticipate a Revolution here.
 



The 2012 Electoral Math Looks Good for the GOP
The presidential election will likely be decided in 14 states.

The number 270 will come to dominate almost every waking moment for the Obama re-election high command in Chicago—as well as for their counterparts in the headquarters of the GOP nominee next year.

Two hundred seventy is the number of Electoral College votes needed to win the White House. Strategists on both sides will obsess on how to cobble together enough states to reach that total.

Since the 2008 election, 18 states have experienced a change in their number of electoral votes because of the decennial census. Some (mostly red ones) have gained electoral votes and some (mostly blue) have lost electoral votes. John McCain would have closed the gap by 14 electoral votes in 2008 if the contest had been run under the 2012 Electoral College distribution.

Most states are not in play. Mr. Obama will not win Utah and Wyoming, and the Republican nominee will not carry the District of Columbia or Rhode Island. But right now 14 states (with 172 electoral votes) are up for grabs.

Mr. Obama narrowly won three traditionally Republican states in 2008: Indiana, Virginia and North Carolina. Democrats last carried the first two in 1964 and the third in 1976.

The president will be hard-pressed to win these states and their 39 electoral votes next year, especially Indiana and North Carolina. Democrats will have their convention in Charlotte in an attempt to hold the latter. But a 2009 study by political scientists Michael J. Berry and Kenneth Bickers (of the University of Colorado at Boulder and Denver, respectively) found "no evidence that hosting a national nominating convention has any discernible effect on the ultimate vote in that state."

Ohio, with 18 electoral votes, and Florida, with 29, both went Democratic in 2008 (they went Republican in 2004), but the swing in each was less than the national average. This indicates some weakness for Mr. Obama that has persisted: A recent Quinnipiac University poll in Florida shows the president losing to a generic, unnamed Republican by three points.

There are nine other states that have frequently been battlegrounds in recent contests. There is every reason to believe they will be so again.

According to recent polls (conducted by Public Policy Polling and the polling arms of Suffolk and Quinnipiac universities, the University of New Hampshire, and Dartmouth College), Mr. Obama trails former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in New Hampshire (four electoral votes), and he leads a generic, unnamed Republican by only one point in Pennsylvania (20 votes), a state he carried last time by over 10%. He leads a Republican (both unnamed and named) in the Midwest states of Michigan (16 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (six), and Minnesota (10)—but with less than 50%.

Then there are Western battlegrounds: Colorado (nine electoral votes), New Mexico (five) and Nevada (six). Mr. Obama leads in the first two with more than 50%—albeit in polls by Public Policy Polling, a Democratic firm that tends to be more generous to its party's candidates. But in Nevada, Mr. Obama trails Mr. Romney in a poll conducted by the same firm.

The 2012 presidential election is likely to be decided in 14 states. If Mr. Obama loses the three states he narrowly carried in 2008 plus Ohio and Florida, then the GOP would win back the White House by swiping any one of the nine remaining battlegrounds. This is a good place for the party to be right now.

The GOP could benefit from the enthusiasm and new registrations generated in its primaries, just as Democrats did in 2008. It also helps that there are Republican governors in 10 of the 14 battleground states. Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus is planning a big ground game in these states to register, persuade and turn out the vote.

Team Obama can't afford to only play defense. They say they will make plays for Georgia, Arizona and Texas. The first is a long shot; the last two are either attempts to sucker the GOP into a defensive crouch or simply represent bravado. Neither state is likely to go Democratic.

The president's team is already focused on its Electoral College math project. According to CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, since January President Obama has made 40 stops in 15 states. Twelve stops were in battleground states and of the remaining 28 events, 15 were fund raisers in Democratic treasure houses like New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco.

At this point, the 2012 election is shaping up to be much closer than 2008. Mr. Obama has the considerable benefits of incumbency but also a dismal record. The electoral map has shrunk for him: Key states that went for him last time are unlikely to do so again. This election is within the GOP's grasp. The quality of the Republican candidate's campaign and message will decide whether it becomes so.

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, May 4, 2011.
 



You've got [strike]mail[/strike] bad news. :lol:

Obama Takes a Page From Nixon's Handbook

Come November 2012, independents will remember the president's earlier appeals to the hard left.
President Barack Obama's re-election campaign is now up and operating. It's an interesting amalgam: Tactically, it's Bushian—but strategically, it's Nixonian.

The Obama approach copies the tactical emphasis of President George W. Bush's 2004 re-election effort. On Monday, Mr. Obama's manager Jim Messina told volunteers that the campaign would focus on "expanding the electorate . . . growing the grass roots . . . measuring progress; and working for every vote." With his emphasis on metrics and growing the electorate, Mr. Messina sounded a lot like Mr. Bush's 2004 campaign manager, Ken Mehlman, outlining the Bush campaign's re-election priorities. (That strategy worked: Mr. Bush got 25% more votes in '04 than he did in 2000.)

A metric-driven approach that relies on grass-roots volunteers will serve Mr. Obama well, especially compared to the Democrats' 2004 campaign, which emphasized paid canvassers recruited from temp agencies and union halls. Voters know the difference between a personal appeal from a passionate volunteer and a pro-forma pitch from someone more interested in a check than a cause.

But Mr. Obama is making a mistake by following the advice of President Richard Nixon, who argued White House hopefuls must run to their party's flank in the primary and tack back to the center for the general election. While Mr. Obama doesn't face a primary challenge, the White House is worried about the intensity of the Democratic base and feels compelled to feed it red meat now.

This bit of conventional wisdom assumes two things. First, that ordinary voters aren't paying attention now (they are). And second, that veering hard left in 2011 won't limit Mr. Obama's appeal in 2012 (it will). Many swing voters are repelled by the class-warfare rhetoric Mr. Obama uses to fire up the Democratic base. Appealing to envy is usually not a winning formula.

Impressions once created are hard to change. When they do, change is often accompanied by disappointment, as evidenced by what's happened since those hope-filled days of 2008, when independents believed Mr. Obama meant it when he pledged to lead us into new era of post-partisanship.

By 2010, the reality of the Obama presidency—with its spending binges and deficits—had soured voters. The man who promised hope and change was revealed as a calculating politician. Independents reacted last fall by voting for Republicans for Congress by 56% to 37% after going for Mr. Obama by 52% to 44% two years earlier.

The president is also in trouble on the issues. In the Gallup poll late last month, just 39% approved of his handling of the economy. Only 33% approved of his handling of the deficit. And Pollster.com's summary this week shows an average of 49.9% disapprove of Mr. Obama's health-care reform, while 37.3% approve.

Mr. Obama's Nixonian strategy will do nothing to change these numbers. Instead, it risks permanently alienating independents, soft Republicans, and a few Democrats who dislike his appeal to the hard left. Savaging the GOP's deficit-reduction plan as "radical" and "nothing serious" may fire up Daily Kos bloggers and gratify Nancy Pelosi. But it's likely to turn off swing voters.

The president will face no serious Democratic primary opponent, and it will be at least next March or April before the GOP settles on its candidate. So while Mr. Obama does need to raise funds and build a grass-roots network in battleground states, he did not need to abandon his role as chief executive for campaigner-in-chief quite so quickly.

Mr. Obama had a better strategy available. He could have decided to focus for as long as possible on making progress on major issues like entitlement reform. He could have asked Congress in his State of the Union address to join him and then seriously try to get it done. Republicans were in no position to rebuff his overture. He would have looked confident and in command. If something passed, the nation would have applauded his leadership. If nothing passed, voters would have appreciated his attempt.

But that moment is lost. It's clear Mr. Obama likes campaigning more than governing. And for this president, campaigning means knocking down straw men and delivering a steady stream of misleading attacks. It means depicting opponents as indecent, heartless people who take special delight in targeting seniors and autistic children. It means basking in the adulation of a partisan crowd rather than engaging in the difficult work of passing bipartisan legislation.

Since Mr. Obama can't make an affirmative case for his re-election, he has decided to try convincing voters that Republicans are monstrous. As a result, America is likely to see the most negative re-election campaign ever mounted by a sitting president.

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, April 27, 2011.
 
Rove. I think Obama is his own worst enemy regarding his public speaking talent which will be put to test with the relection season soon to be upon us. Voters are seeing through him beneath the surface 2 1/2 years later and realizing what a failure his domestic policy is and has been. His teflon image, which is wearing off with every public appearance and the opening of his mouth, will be wearing excessively thin by 11/12. Lots to dislike as well as mounting public dissatisfaction with his time spent to date. The dissatisfaction and negativity around him will continue to mount. Now Obama is the great military mind of out times. 😉 Let's see if He gains momentum by withdrawing troops coming soon to a TV near you.
 
Yeah the Obama administration are a bunch of geniuses like that. After Obama is defeated next year the government should fund a new agency to oversee the possibility of anyone so unqualified for the position of President never be elected again. Looks like the housing market will still be realing by election time. Well, we happen to be a buyer, so in that respect it's good for us.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/housing-crash-is-getting-worse-2011-05-09?link=MW_latest_news
 
Well, when U.S. money dries up (if only because it has become worthless), we'll see what Pukistan does.
President Reagan asked the question "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" The resounding "YES!" carried him to a landslide in his second term. Should 0bama be so foolish as to ask that question, the "Hell NO!" will deafen him. The Democrats have no one left to loot in order to buy votes. I don't expect whoever wins to really fix anything (Government doesn't "fix" anything; that's the private sector's job, when unencumbered by Government interference), but 0bama should be toast.
 
il_fullxfull_47089034.jpg
 
So, am I too stupid of an American that I should not vote? I cannot keep up with gamer and badge...

Maybe I should just stop with all the nonsense of who is right and who is wrong...both are wrong and none are right. So, why should I care who I should vote for?

This is a legitimate question guys.
 


When I was in high school '69-73 my girlfriend's father was the mayor of the city we lived in. When I was eighteen He asked me to register to vote for him. I did and He won. So, voting covers many issues including local and state politics. I would suggest you find out who is the Mayor, start dating his daughter and thumb your nose at the local police when they pull you over for speeding in your '64 Chevy like I did. He will be the one signing their checks. 😉

If you are not registered yet, google registar of voters for your county or check the city web page. I just helped my 18 year old son register online to vote last week. The Nixon Library is close by. I've always liked the family. Maybe my son can work there as a Cabana boy should they ever expand the library's extracurricular activities. He's into muscle building so I have high expectations for my future inlaws on his side.

 
I'm gonna ask my wife who she is. Iremember in high school the girls were not allowed to wear pants. So they showed up for class nekkid a lot of days. No, no I mean the girls were reqired to wear dresses. We called the library, 'the beaver shot palace'. Then during the hot summer of '70, the girls asked if they could have permisssion to wear shorts because of the heat. The rest is history. In Jr. High school the guys had to waer their shirttails tucked in. The grade school my kids went to requires a school approved polo shirt and NO pants that look like they are carrying a load. WE didn't have these when I went to school.

http://www.hatchventures.com/Subs.html

I think that is pic of jdj's first love. Her brother was Oliver Klosoff.
 


Nah, you are just an imbesile. Kidding dog! If you are preparing for college take some courses in political science, American history, sociology (The science of society) and psychology (the study of human behavior). Then PM me after this song no loger applies. 😉 Imagine you are girl in my high school wearing a dress when you are listening. Nevermind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2C3ZTMwaek
 


Should I come back wearing subs?
 
Funny Badge; sad, but funny. Yeah, curricula have been manipulated by the parasites to conceal how far they've taken us from the ideals of individual rights (and responsibilities) with which this country was founded.
 
Do you agree/disagree with and/or support the current state of government policy, budget choices, and political discourse? The best way to ensure that your view is represented within the laws, appropriations, and actions of your government is to know who your Local, State, and Federal representatives are and what they stand for. Vote for a schmuck and you schmucky laws. Vote for someone who honestly wants to create positive change and you get a laws and policy that solves problems and promotes prosperity.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom