Debate 2012 part deux

Well there was another debate last night.

I have got to say that it was invigorating that Obama actually showed up!

I do believe that Romney started out better, and the deciding points were really made at the beginning, within the first 30 minutes. Then they were relatively evenly paired for the balance.

Of course I was listening on the radio not watching the tv so there might be a difference in the two venues.

Anyway, I am certain that Obama’s supporters are going to count this one as a win. And I will agree that he did far better in this debate than he did in the first.

But I think that if they are going to be honest about it the best they can really say is that it was only a better performance than the president turned in last time.

The only way the idea of Obama winning works is if you do not count that the real issues were where Romney won, economy, foreign relations, track records… it was the petty things that were not issues where Obama could “speak with authority”.

Personally I think Romney had the lead from the beginning… but then I may be adding more to what I heard than really happened.

But let me make the points that I feel most support my theory.

When asked about gun control or fast and furious Obama turned the talk to community colleges.

When asked about gas prices, Obama basically said high prices were a good thing. (not in MY world, I am not getting paid more but I have to pay more.)

When asked about better pay for women, Obama talked about contraceptives for women.

And, just like the vice-presidential debates, Obama continuously interrupted Romney and would not let him finish an answer.

For that matter so did the moderator. I felt that the debate was structured to favor Obama because of that and for other points.
The majority of the questions the moderator allowed were geared toward Democrat talking points, yet on every one I heard Romney give a decent refutation.

In the meantime, most of the time, when a point came up where Obama needed to provide a counter proof or refutation he could not.

Romney also stayed on topic far better than Obama even bringing the debate back from whatever lah lah land that Obama took it to, and gave an answer to the actual question.

Obama did not stay on topic most of the time.

(This, notably, happened in the discussions about the economy, energy and gun control.)

I did feel there were points that Romney COULD have made but he failed to do so. For an example, I would have liked to see Romney make a better point facing down Obama on the issue of Libya.

I also would have liked Romney to make more points using the numbers that are out there. A common complaint the liberals like to come up with the past two weeks has been that the Romney / Ryan team are not providing enough details.

Conveniently these same people are the ones who forget that Obama’s entire plan when running four years ago were “Hope and Change.” And “I’m different than George Bush.” you do not get much more vague than that.

I feel Romney did a good job with pointing out the failures of Obama to actually accomplish the, few, promises he DID make four years ago.

When Romney pointed out that Obama had promised “unemployment down to 5.4%” or that the deficit would be “cut in half” or that Obama had promised his Obama care plan would “reduce the costs for middle class families insurance by $2,500”.

Then Romney went on to point out that the unemployment is 7.8% which is a difference of 9 million Americans. Worse, that figure forgets the thousands of people of working age who have simply left the work force.
Also Romney mentioned that the deficit is doubled from what Obama inherited and the middle class now pays $2,500.00 MORE on their health insurance then they did AND that is going to go up another 2,500 when Obamacare is fully implemented.

Romney also pointed out that welfare recipients have gone from 30 million to 47 million.

All of that, as Romney said, was even though Obama had a super majority in BOTH houses of congress for the first two years of his term.

On top of those, Obama failed to lower any other prices for the middle class or raise the standard of living for any of us.

I would also have added that he has not closed down Guantanamo bay prison.

ALL of those were promises that Obama made ALL if them he failed to complete and he failed in these EVEN THOUGH he had a, filibuster proof, super majority of democrats in congress when he first took office.
That means the republicans could NOT have done anything to stop him if he wanted to pass this legislation. It did not need to be bipartisan.
In fact, to prove it, there were a couple of bills that he did pass that did not have any republican support whatsoever.

So why couldn’t he have done the same on all these things he made a promise on?

I feel that Romney COULD have done a better job pointing at these things but even though he didn’t take it all the way, Obama still failed to adequately answer the points that came out of that.

Of course Romney was playing against a stacked deck.

Like the time that Candy Crowley claimed that Obama had called Libya terrorism when he hadn’t, or the way that she kept blocking Romney, stopping him from being able to respond to claims made by Obama.
Or the way that in this debate Obama got 9% more time to talk than Romney got.

So for those reasons I have to say I think that Romney did show himself to be the better man, and thus the winner, in this debate as well.

Now it is out there for the people to decide.
They will be the ones who will make that decision in three weeks.

To them I say good luck.

Vice presidential

So the Vice Presidential debates happened last night.

I was expecting a little bit more from Ryan and less from Biden than actually happened. But I do believe that Ryan still carried the day.

Honestly with the way that Biden kept snorting and chuckling whenever Ryan was trying to talk made him sound like a rude Boor. Add to that the fact that Biden kept whining about Ryan getting “more time” to make his points when it turned out in the timing that Biden had a minute more than Ryan, well that made him sound childish.

Ryan on the other hand came across as a gentleman, well versed in the issues and ready to address them.

Biden did have a few points that I might have liked to have expanded on. On the other hand I think that Ryan was smart in not addressing what programs they would specifically cut funding for.

Think back what was the BIG, Specific proclamation that Obama made before being elected? “The day I am elected I will sign the paperwork to close Guantanamo Bay Prison!”

Here we are four years later and Gitmo is still doing business as usual. Sometimes the exigencies of politics would not allow it. In this issue it seems a case of a no win scenario. If Romney/Ryan make specific promises they will be totally castigated for not keeping their promises. By not saying specifics they are open to make the changes they need without breaking promises.

This is an important point. I think what this means is that we are facing people who are not liars. Talk about a novelty in politics. But whether they are trying to cover their bases or simply not reveal too much I feel they are in a no win anyway. Those people who are against Romney and Ryan to begin with are going to do whatever they can to make Romney and Ryan look bad.

I would caution those people though not to start throwing those stones. Obama was elected just on the vague thought that he would bring in “hope and change” you can’t get much more nonspecific than that.

Also I would like to see some back and forth. If the Obama/Biden ticket is going to make points about specificity or records being hidden or anything else than they need to be prepared to show the exact same regard for the Romney Ryan side.

I do totally expect that the liberals will come out crowing about how well their guy did… and they have reason to. Biden avoided a total melt down screw up, which is VERY rare for this man. But I do not count this one as a win for the liberal side.

First blood vs death match.

So the consensus of the debate last night seems to be that the obvious winner was presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
Obama came across as week, unprepared and unknowledgeable. While Mitt looked certain, confident and capable.

I happened to be at work last night as the debate was going on. That means that, unfortunately I was unable to watch the debate, BUT I did get to listen to it live on the radio as it happened.
To me, listening to this debate, it sounded as if the president was on the defensive for most of the event. He was hemming and hawing and he sounded like he was just not all there. Added to that there was a sense that he was trying to be evasive.

When the moderator asked about one thing Obama had to go over miles of things that he wanted to talk about. He, seemingly, could not stay on one topic throughout the whole debate.
He was consistently using up more time than he was allotted, and he was shaky, only providing generalities when he WAS on topic.

Romney on the other hand generally kept his answers within the time limit EVEN when tracking down ALL the different points to refute that Obama brought up, and his answers tended to have just a little bit more substance.

I heard from people soon after it was over though, and, with a few notable exceptions, they all pretty much said the same things.
“Obama was not engaging, he refused to look Mitt in the eye or look into thew cameras.”
“Obama seemed bored at times.”
“Obama appeared nervous or unprepared.”

On the other side of the coin…

“Romney was confident.”
“He [Romney] had his points well ordered and he expressed himself well.”
“Romney was Confident and appeared honest.”

All good points, and ones that make a real difference.

In trying to find something positive the liberal media outlets seemed to only be able to say
“Obama got in the first Zinger”.

Well wowie! And whoop dee doo!

Here is the thing… I liken this debate to a… well, a duel or a sparring match.

Even if Obama got in the first zinger, that means nothing. I mean after all it is like when in a duel, one of the fighters gets in a cut on his opponent and draws first blood, in some “duels” that would count as a win. BUT this match was not a first blood match. This was a match to the end, or to stay colorful, Death.

See you have to realize that, in a death match, who drew first blood really does not matter. What matters is who gets in the final kill. That is the “blow” that counts, that is the point that wins.

And the general idea seems to be that that person was Mitt Romney.

Sadly after the debates I looked into some of the news feeds that I follow and I found one place where people were commenting on the debate. There were three young men there who were talking about how they thought Obama was the better choice and the better debater.

None of them talked well about it, they could not offer any kind of substance to their contention. Two of these young men were Americans and both had profile pictures that hid their faces completely, almost like they were ashamed. The third man was from England and he kept trying to compare what they have in England to what we have and he was touting the system they have as the better one.

Of course I love to make the point when this comes up that America is NOT England or France or Canada or Australia or…
We are AMERICA and I have always said if you want to live in a country like England then you ought to move to England . the same applies for every other country choice.

I did not actually use that argument in this case but I did point out a few things that seemed to slip his mind. Although I do have to admit that he made one very good point. When another “debater” said “stay out of this, this is American politics, you worry about your queen and royals.” He said that “America does not end at [her] borders, decisions made in America affect the whole world.” His examples of such were

1. America (Bush) “started” the war in Iraq.
2. The collapse of the American Housing market [was a major contributor to] the global recession.
(actually he said it was the collapse of the American economy that CAUSED the global recession.)
3. American conservatives keep supporting the “oppressive” nation of Israel and that is leading to instability in the middle east.

He is right about some of that. But I tried reasoning with him, though I am not sure if I got through.

I tried to respond nicely, I pointed out that we did not start the war that it was terrorism that led to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He said “the planes that were flown into the WTC did not come from Iraq.” I agreed then pointed out that every one of the allied “spy” groups were certain that the hijackers who grabbed the planes DID get trained in Iraq and that was the basis for the war.

I also pointed out that while it is nice to think that we are solely responsible for the financial conditions we are in, America was NOT the only problem and other nations are turning out to be worse than us in that regard. (it is Greece, Italy and Spain that are having the real problems right now that Europe has to keep bailing out.)

And finally, it is the Palestinians, NOT the Israelis who have declared Jihad against Jews and have stated that the only way there will be peace is when “ALL the jews are dead!”

But I am getting off topic.

One of the young (American) men there, was saying that He felt Obama won . What did he base this idea on?…


Honestly, come to think of it, I do not know. He was unclear and imprecise. Hmm I guess much like Obama himself. Just kidding.

But really where is the evidence that Obama stepped up? It just does not exist.

This young man (who identified himself as someone who relies on the government to survive… maybe that was why he needed Obama to win so bad.) would only say that “Romney is a liar”. Every time he was asked to substantiate his claim he could not. Every time he was challenged he resorted to name calling foul language and threats.

He stated at one point that he was smarter than any of the people he was debating and all of them were just so far under his “intelligence level” that he didn’t know why he bothered.
One of the people he had been debating said “since I have been tested with an I.Q. of 165 and am a member of MENSA, I think the question of who has more intelligence is aimed the wrong way.”

All the other young man could say at that moment was “well you are just an idiotic *^%$% &&(& %^$# %$@# (&%%.”

Talk about an intelligent answer!
But that is the problem, these people are basing their politics on feelings and emotions. They are reaching out trying to get whatever they can with little or no regard for the needs or welfare of others or the nation.

They are reacting to things on a visceral level instead of careful, Sober, thought and facts.

Now if you have followed my blog for any period of time, or if you know me then you realize where my opinion lies. And yes I am rough on those who tend to think differently than I politically speaking.

But this debate was not Obama’s shining moment. As I listened to the debate I identified many places where I though t Romney could have done a better job expressing himself. I do not think that the debate performance that Romney turned in was the best he could have done. BUT it did far outshine the job that the president has done.

And come to think of it, Romney may not be the absolute best choice we could have. But he is what we have to choose from. And in reality I think he will do the same in the presidency as he did in last night’s debate. Maybe not perfectly, but a HECK of a lot better than his opponent.

Points that show the failure of Obama's ideology

Some companies that Obama has given tax dollars to that still failed

Solyndra (green energy/solar)
Amonex (Green energy/ Solar)

Chevy sold just 603 Volts in January 2012. (It sold almost five times as many gas-guzzling, 12 mpg Suburbans that same month.) Nissan moved just 676 Leafs, and the company hasn't sold more than 1,000 in five months.

Consumers' lack of interest in electric cars helped push another Obama-backed company — Ener1 — into bankruptcy protection late last week, despite the $118 million grant its battery-making subsidiary got from the Energy Dept. As the CEO put it, the company suffered a lack of demand, thanks to lower-than-hoped-for electric car sales.

Ener1 joins two other failed green companies — Solyndra and Beacon Power — that took $571 million in taxpayer subsidies down with them.


Unfortunately, like a bad investor, Obama wants to double down on his failure.

"The payoffs on these public investments don't always come right away," he said in his January State of the Union speech. "Some technologies don't pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy."

That may be so, but solar, wind and electric cars are hardly new technologies — electric cars were being sold back in the late 1800s.

Indeed, the only thing new here is

from a piece of the $800 billion economic stimulus package passed in 2009.

At least four other companies have received stimulus funding only to later file for bankruptcy, and two of those were working on alternative energy.

Evergreen Solar Inc., reportedly received $5.3 million of stimulus cash through a state grant to install 11,000 photovoltaic panels installed at 11 colleges and universities, a recycling facility and an education center in Massachusetts.

The company, once a rock star in the solar industry, filed for bankruptcy protection last month, saying it couldn't compete with Chinese rivals without reorganizing. The company intends to focus on building up its manufacturing facility in China.

SpectraWatt, based in Hopewell Junction, N.Y., is also a solar cell company that was spun out of Intel in 2008. In June 2009, SpectraWatt received a $500,000 grant from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory as part of the stimulus package. SpectraWatt was one of 13 companies to receive the money to help develop ways to improve solar cells without changing current manufacturing processes.

The company filed for bankruptcy last month, saying it could not compete with its Chinese competitors, which receive "considerable government and financial support."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/#ixzz217xQ6UhG


Another winner of stimulus who ultimately lost is Mountain Plaza Inc. Despite declaring bankruptcy in 2003, the company received $424,000 from the Tennessee Department of Transportation as part of a grant aimed at installing "truck stop electrification" systems that allow idling truckers to plug-in during extended stops and turn off their exhaust-belching, environment polluting diesel engines.

Mountain Plaza had filed for bankruptcy protection again in June 2010. TDOT, which received a $2 million stimulus grant from the Environmental Protection Agency for the project, said it didn't learn about the bankruptcy until October, but it is closely monitoring the project.

Elsewhere, Olsen's Crop Service and Olsen's Mills Acquisition Co. also failed despite Olsen's Mills receiving $10 million to increase employment, add equipment and machinery, refinance existing debts and work capital for operations and acquire land. The payout -- part of a $64 million package to nine rural businesses in Wisconsin for economic development loan assistance -- was delivered in January 2010, after Olsen's Mills filed for bankruptcy protection for defaulting on a $60 million bank loan.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/15/despite-stimulus-funding-solyndra-and-4-other-companies-have-hit-rock-bottom/#ixzz217xr82C3

Three hundred million dollars went to Johnson Controls to make electric batteries. According to the White House, which errs on the side of optimism if not delusion, that led to the creation of ...drum roll please...150 jobs. That comes out to a cost of $2 million per job. Investor's Business Daily has listed more examples of the "Wasted Stimulus" but the examples abound are far too numerous to list in a single column. Green jobs are a myth-like unicorns, writes Walter Russell Mead.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/obama_green_jobs_con_job_and_the_ill_wind_that_blows_from_spain.html#ixzz217ylykOD


It is a useful exercise to compare and contrast the job growth in the oil and gas industry versus that of the green economy. In other words, compare reality versus fantasy. Stephen Moore writes in the Wall Street Journal:

President Obama is expected to seek another $250 billion or so in new stimulus funds next week, with plenty of money for clean energy and the creation of so-called green jobs.

Never mind that no one can seem to find many Americans who got green jobs as a result of the original stimulus spending.

Moore does note that energy jobs are being created at a rapid clip, but in the one sector that Obama considers a mortal political enemy and villain; the oil and gas industry.

According to data from the Federal Reserve Board's Industrial Production Indexes, the oil and gas industry, which the Obama Energy Department loathes, has had more growth in output than any other manufacturing industry in the U.S. from 2005 through 2011. As a reward, the administration is proposing $35 billion in new taxes on the industry to slow it down. Even if we accept the dubious White House claim that all the oil and gas tax write-offs are unwarranted loopholes, a 2011 Congressional Research Service study finds that per unit of electricity produced, for every two cents of tax subsidy to Big Oil, Big Green (wind and solar) get closer to $1 in handouts.


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/obama_green_jobs_con_job_and_the_ill_wind_that_blows_from_spain.html#ixzz217zKTB6l



Update: 7/19/12: The Amonix solar manufacturing plant in North Las Vegas, subsidized by more than $20 million in federal tax credits and grants given by Obama Administration, has closed its 214,000 square foot facility a year after it opened.

Solar Trust of America: FAIL - Filed Bankruptcy in Oakland, CA, April 3, 2012 – On April 2, 2012


Bright Source: FAIL - Bright Source warned Obama’s Energy Department officials in March 2011 that delays in approving a $1.6 billion U.S. loan guarantee would embarrass the White House and force the solar-energy company to close. Lost Billions of dollars but Getting More Money To Keep Trying. Canyou say, “This isnt working?”


Solyndra: FAIL - Obama gave Solyndra $500,000,000 in taxpayer money and Solyndra shut its doors and laid off 1100 workers in August 2011 After Billions in Losses due to failure to make a solar product that works!


LSP Energy: FAIL - LSPEnergy LP filed bankruptcy protection and a sale of its assets in Feb 2012


Energy Conversion Devices: FAIL – On February 14, 2012 Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy


Abound Solar: FAIL - Abound Solar received a $400 million loan guarantee from Barack Obama announced in June, 2012 that it would file for bankruptcy


SunPower: FAIL – SunPower stopped producing solar cells last year at near bankruptcy restructured only with help of, get this, oil giant TOTAL who owns 60% stake. Irony! Still struggling…


Beacon Power: FAIL – Beacon Power Corp filed for bankruptcy Oct 2011 just a year after Obama approved $43 million loan Government loan guarantee


Ecotality: FAIL - ECOtality, a San Francisco green-tech company that never earned any money on the verge of bankruptcy after receiving roughly $115 million in two loan guarantees from Obama


A123 Solar: FAIL-A123 received $279 million from taxpayers thanks to President Obama’s Department of Energy loan guarantees and after the Solyndra bankruptcy is getting another $500M from Obama and it has lost $400M


UniSolar: FAIL - Uni-Solar filed for Ch 11 bankruptcy in June 20 this year laid off hundreds got more Obama money still failing but still in business


Azure Dynamics: FAIL - Azure Dynamics files for bankruptcy in June ter millions in Obama “Stimulus”


Evergreen Solar: FAIL - Evergreen Solar received $527 Million in Taxpayer money from Obama filed bankruptcy


Ener1: FAIL received more than $100 million in government funding from the Obama administration filed for bankruptcy January 2012


And many many more on the horizon…

Is this election a Hobson's choice?

Recently I heard a radio talk show host declare that the only way that Mitt Romney can win this election is by being like Barack Obama.

Instantly my first thought was “why should I bother voting then?” I do not believe that Barack Obama has done a very good job. In fact I find his capabilities to be far less than I was afraid they might be when he first ran for election. But if the only way to beat him is to become him then it does not matter who you vote for. There is no ne to vote for, there is no choice. It becomes either put Obama back in office, or the next best thing to it or don’t vote at all. How is that a choice?

And if there is no choice, then the country is ultimately lost. The “grand experiment” has failed. That’s it wave the white flag, it’s time to just lay down and give up.

I hope that there is a choice this election. But maybe it is time to start encouraging all of you to accept the Lord Jesus Christ. Because at this point, if there really is no hope left for the country, we need to get ready to meet our maker.

So… as a flashback to other times and such here is a phrase that will come in handy for you to paint on those “sandwich” boards you will be wearing.

REPENT FOR THE KINGDOM OF GOD IS NIGH

Hmm maybe that ought to have been the title for this post…

The wonder of it all.

I had a dream last night. I dreamed that the government said only one person per household would be allowed to vote.
I kind of passed it off for a while but then while I was at work I started thinking about it and I realized something.
IF someone like a democrat/liberal thought of doing that they would be doing two different things.
One, they would be decreasing the number of votes made against them.
Two, they would be encouraging people to allow gay marriage

You see such a move could be useful to certain parties.

If only one person in a household can vote than wouldn’t that mean that married families only get one vote? Of course it does so they are marginalized. But Gays aren’t allowed to marry like that so they are not one household even if they live together. They tend to vote liberal so it is a boost for the liberals.

OR

It is a boost for the gays to get married. Because if I want them to be as hamstrung as I am then I will vote to let them marry so that they also are on e household and they get to have only one vote. Just like me.

How clever would that be huh? Still maybe that would cause the conservative side a little relief too because then the gays would say, wait if I get married I lose my right to vote??? Screw that! I don’t want to get married.
Then again, the married couples are already taxed more and treated worse than everyone else and they still want it so who knows?

Chick-Fil-A

About a month ago, there was a call for a boycott against Chick-Fil-A, then there was a backlash against the boycott. Let me tell you, I think that “boycott” has been better advertising for Chick-Fil-A than anything else! And for that I am truly thankful.

I have really been enjoying some of the reports of the issues going on in this case. I have heard people of all stripes coming out in support of the right of Chick-Fil-A’s president to have an opinion and to voice it.

I have seen news reports from all over the country on this subject. From the store in Atlanta that had to close several hours early because they ran out of food to the one in Philadelphia where they had to call the police to provide crowd control because the crowds were so large.
I liked the account I heard where a customer of one store heard the employee at the register apologizing because they had to stop taking orders for half an hour so the kitchen could catch up. I liked hearing about the customers in a store telling the employees “look it’s ok, if you have a towel we can use WE will bus the tables for you guys so you can keep serving people.

I have heard and seen reports from all OVER the country! From Florida to California! Even Yahoo news reported on stores in Colorado, Georgia, Indiana and other places.

I have heard that even the ACLU is supporting Chick-Fil-A! And the point is simple.

People have the right to say whatever they want. It is called the first amendment.

I have always supported free speech. As long as it is clean speech. That is to say that you can say whatever you like. You can say things that I would disagree with, the only requirement I have is that the language you use is socially acceptable. (no swearing or lewd/rudeness)

In that way I think in that way the current events are a fine example of freedom of speech.

There is also the point that this blowback is coming from the fact that certain people (mostly Liberals) are saying that people cannot say what they want.
In fact I heard one guy call in to a radio talk show last night and declare that he thinks it is a great idea, even necessary, for the government to prohibit business from having any opinion that disagrees with his viewpoint. But he could not get it through his head that if the government can stop one person from their free speech then they can stop ANY speech.

There are people IN OUR GOVERNMENT who have tried to hold Chick-Fil-A back, to deny them their rights, over this issue. (the Mayors of Boston, Washington and Chicago)

Most Notable among the offenders is Rahm Emmanuel. A former member of Obama’s cabinet, now the mayor of Chicago, who said that HE “[would] not let Chick-Fil-A open any more stores in Chicago.”

Personally, I think that Obama’s administration is soon going to have to cut ties with Rahm over this thing that is if they want to have ANY chance at looking like the kind of people we want to have leading the nation.

Some politicians are jumping in on the side of the first amendment, like the 17 Republican congressmen who signed papers supporting Chick-Fil-A.

All in all though I have to say to all those who keep screaming about how they want the government to control all these businesses, You keep it up!
If you keep doing this people will see your idiocy and they will soon move to the area of sanity and away from your stupidity.
That means better government and better food at stores like Chick-Fil-A.

That is all good.