Thanks for clarifying that.  I wasn't sure what I heard but I wasn't going to challenge her on her accuracy.  That's a zero sum game.

But I do believe that a president who has the right policies in mind can certainly get this country going in the right direction again.  What Obama's biggest problem is that he fosters uncertainty.  We still haven't heard what Obama will do in his second term.  Will he let the Bush tax cuts expire ?  What will he do with the debt ceiling ?  What will he do with the tax code and rates, period ?  All I hear is that he will spend more and cut nothing.  His budget proposals are even laughed at by his own party.

I really do believe that business given a set of rules that lasts for more than a couple of months at a time will find a way to conduct business profitably.  If Obama would simply commit to something for more than a minute, things would get better.  He's busy enacting regulations that have unintended consequences.  Look at all the business losses taken in the first year of Obama care as all the businesses did required accounting adjustments regarding pension and existing health insurance arraigements with current employees.  Remember how Obama and Sebelius went ballisitic and told businesses to shut up and stop telling about all those charge offs ?  Threatening them with federal actions.

Uncertainty is the biggest job killer there is.  Obama's primary skill is breeding uncertainty.  Romney if nothing else will bring stability and predictability to the table.  Business needs little else to find its own way.

Yeah this is over simplified, but I hope I made my drift clear.

He did not say by the end of his first year but by the end of his first term.

Either way no President has the kind of control to make that happen.

So Romney says he is gonna lower unemployment to 6% by the end of his first year. You believe him? Candidates say a lot of things, then they get into the WH and find out what the real story is. 

So Romney says he is gonna lower unemployment to 6% by the end of his first year. You believe him? Candidates say a lot of things, then they get into the WH and find out what the real story is. 

I stand corrected.  I shall never again say that he didn't try to close Gitmo. 

He just hasn't succeeded in closing it within his first year of office, which was a specific promise.

He issued an executive order to close Guantanamo shortly after his inauguration. Congress (specifically the Senate) refused to allocate funds to move the prisoners, which meant there wasn't much chance of carrying out the order.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?_r=1

Wrong.
Elroy is sarcastic and demeaning and you know it.
Odor

Meh,.is right.

  Spealing of silly on face value...

He issued an executive order to close Guantanamo shortly after his inauguration. Congress (specifically the Senate) refused to allocate funds to move the prisoners, which meant there wasn't much chance of carrying out the order.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/us/politics/22gitmo.html?_r=1

HC only mentioned the Senate and I limited my reply to her premise. 

And Obama could have closed Gitmo with a simple executive order.  Which he didn't.  Doesn't mean that the executive order would stand up, but at least he could say and mean that he really did try and close it but was prevented by Congress from doing so.  He uses executive orders to do end runs around Congress all the time.  The EPA is a prime example.

No executive order, fail.  Just another lie.  Rather simple, isn't it ?
And Elroy ?  meh ... I find BO offensive because it reminds me of body oder.

HC only mentioned the Senate and I limited my reply to her premise. 

And Obama could have closed Gitmo with a simple executive order.  Which he didn't.  Doesn't mean that the executive order would stand up, but at least he could say and mean that he really did try and close it but was prevented by Congress from doing so.  He uses executive orders to do end runs around Congress all the time.  The EPA is a prime example.

No executive order, fail.  Just another lie.  Rather simple, isn't it ?
And Elroy ?  meh ... I find BO offensive because it reminds me of body oder.

 kurtster wrote: Spealing of silly on face value...

"Elroy", assuming you mean Obama and by context you must, I interpret as an somewhat offensive at least and insulting at worst. The Republican House prevented the closing of Gitmo, btw.  Lots of real issues to go after BO, (sorry bHo), on, rather than issues you can lay right on the Republican door.

Harry Reid is Senate Majority Leader and has issues to account for to all,  But the Senate cannot act w/o the House and John Boehner has a "just say No" policy he may come to regret. The Congress is Two Entities, remember?

 steeler wrote:I generally like Obama, (I think he is very unfairly blamed for not fixing W.'s huge mess immediately, for one thing) but I agree with you. 

.....
Edit:  I find myself at times wishing Hilary had been elected in 2008.

Oh look.  We seem to have some common ground.  

Foreign policy is, and always has been, one of my main focuses.

Even I? 

I actually have been a proponent of breaking out of the 2-party system for quite some time.  I have voted for third party candidates in the past, but that does not mean I will do so in this jupcoming presidential election. Does not mean I will not, either.  I have not made a decision on that, and am looking at Johnson.  The comments here over time have been  helpful in that regard and are having an influence on me.  I do not think I will vote for Romney. That said, I do think he is a qualified candidate, as is Obama.  Better choices in the aggregate than we have had in the recent past, in my opinion.    

Agreed, but boy is that particular issue low on my personal totem pole. Their are many much bigger things where there are stark contrast between him and the megalithic, static and entrenched 2 party system that has dominated this country for a long, long time. I think even you will have to agree with me on that.

It is complex and folk who pretend otherwise are deluding themselves, seeking to delude others, or both. It is difficult, if not impossible, to unring the various bells. Let's face it, the use of drones in Pakistan and Yemen is an intrusion  into the sovereignty of those nations — as was the mission that ended with the killing of bin Laden.  In general, we have the cloak of using the drones at the behest of the sitting government. And it can be argued that we are trying to do right.  However, think of it this way:  If another country were running drones over the U.S. under similar circumstances, how would we view that?  I think we know the answer.

I suspect that the approaches of Obama, Romney, and Johnson to matters involving Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, al-Queda, etc., and the use of drones in those areas and against those affiliated with terrorism would not differ fundamentally.

I agree, and that is a lot of what I like about him. I think that there will continue to be instances all over the world where we will need to be involved. They just need to be a lot smaller and more targeted. I' love to just say "defend our shores only", but given the world today I don't think that's really a great idea.  Maybe after 25 years of scaling back, in the future somewhere we may be able to have only humanitarian aid abroad, but it's going to take a long time to get there, and a lot of work with other entities both friendly and foe. 

I doubt I'll agree with every decision he makes, or even every platform he proposes. But I'll take 75% agreement and directionally correct, over "just better than the other guy". 

I agree, and that is a lot of what I like about him. I think that there will continue to be instances all over the world where we will need to be involved. They just need to be a lot smaller and more targeted. I' love to just say "defend our shores only", but given the world today I don't think that's really a great idea.  Maybe after 25 years of scaling back, in the future somewhere we may be able to have only humanitarian aid abroad, but it's going to take a long time to get there, and a lot of work with other entities both friendly and foe. 

I doubt I'll agree with every decision he makes, or even every platform he proposes. But I'll take 75% agreement and directionally correct, over "just better than the other guy".