Taro T

You really believe the debates don't matter? They seemed to matter in 2000. Even SNL was among others going on about the 'lock box' and the sighing didn't work against Gore. Ronnie saying 'there you go again' didn't have an effect in that election? Heck, Ford saying that Eastern Europe wasn't under Soviet domination didn't have an effect? Clinton doing the 'empathy thing' while HW looked at his watch seemed to seal the deal in '92. Sorry. I disagree that the debates don't matter. They might not, but I expect they will.

I understand what Ryan brings to the table for Romney - he helps keep this a 'big issue / it's the economy, stupid' election. But if Romney wins, wouldn't it be better for him to have Ryan in the House getting budgets passed rather than being the occassional tie breaker in the Senate?

What, you think they give people the Nobel Peace Prize for nothing?!?! He must have done SOMETHING those 1st couple of days in office to earn the nomination for a major award. And then, to win the award less than 10 months after taking office, he HAD to have done SOMETHING. They are very serious people, the Nobel Committee, they don't just make **** up.

Works for the 'regular' board. My way works in the mobile version as well. PS - Thanks again for all you do to keep this place and SS running.

You can do that, you just have to be crafty. In your browser, you should see the ip address for this page (http://forums.twobil...e/page__st__100) up near the top of the page; the page_st_100 means that this is the 6th page of the thread (w/ 20 posts per page, the 100th reply begins the 6th page). If you want to jump to the 2nd page, change that to http://forums.twobil...re/page__st__20 and if you want to jump to the 7th page, choose http://forums.twobil...e/page__st__120 . It's a bit of a pain, but it will move you around in a thread a lot quicker than 'next' or 'prev'.

GG, There is a workaround for that. In the box at the top showing the the actual address of the page you're on (http://forums....) towards the end, you will see a page_st_nn#xxxxxx, where 'nn' is a number like 20, 40, 80, 260, etc. That shows which reply is the 1st of that page, if you're seeing 20 posts per page and want to jump to the 4th page, change 'nn' to 80. Not elegant, but it works.

Well, those 2 parties are well known to have nearly identical platforms. :wacko: :wallbash: Actually, in fairness, they are both usually in favor of legalizing pot, so TBC has that working for him.

Really?!? Funny, was he also lying about running the Salt Lake City Olympics in '99? Do they still vent the fumes from the boats in the lock into the lock operator's office?

So you don't think that throwing unsubstantiated innuendo around is sleazy? If that's the case, OK.

Whoever made that statement was on the right track but not quite there. It should have been: if you work hard and people like to watch you work, you shouldn't have to pay any taxes at all. Athletes, musicians, actors, faux celebrities (like anyone on any MTV show), Congress-critters (hey, they've got their own show on C-SPAN), etc. should be allowed to never pay taxes (even stuff like sales taxes and property taxes, right Mr. Rangel?). People that work hard, but don't have adoring fans like small businessmen, large corporation CEO's (unless they work for 'cool' companies like Apple), and anyone making $0.01 more than me that isn't considered an entertainer should have their taxes doubled at a minimum. That should pretty much sum it up.

Wasn't the interview given in his office? If so, he pretty much has carte blanche to say whatever he wants. My understanding of that was always that they could say whatever they want as long as they're on the steps or in the Capitol. As soon as they're dumb enough to say something like that outside of the Capitol, they're fair game. So, was it a sleazy thing to say? Absolutely. Was it illegal? Very doubtful.

Fixed it for you.

Well, in fairness, that could take an hour or 2 out of a busy person's day. If they REAAALLY were concerned about the rights of the voter, they'd bring the ID application paperwork and ID to the voter. And they should make sure they have a pen brought to the voter as well. Forcing someone to go out and buy a $0.39 Bic ballpoint could be considered a poll tax. Because it isn't right to make somebody make any kind of effort at all to excercise their right to vote.

So, we're expected to believe that prior to this past weekend you DID see Mitt Romney as Presidential material? Really? And the lack of bitterness in your posts is truly refreshing. /sarcasm

I. Sheesh, I'd've thought even a transplant Canuck could figure that one out.

That was clear. Post was meant to reply to post above yours. Because you can buy beer with a fake ID? Being in NY, it doesn't really matter who I vote for. If my vote ends up being the difference maker, then the President ABSOLUTELY isn't getting re-elected.

I disagree. I expect that he'll start rolling out statements about what he'd do right before the convention. The President gave him a big softball with the 'you didn't build that.' No point in returning the favor this far before the election. If we're into September and Romney is still only pointing out flaws with current policy and not highlighting any of his own, then he'll be messing up. While it would be good to have him talking now about what he'd do from a voter's standpoint, the President would love it so he can point out the 'see, he wants to take your ___ away' and then run the video in context.

Sooooo, you like the job President Obama's been doing? Yep. Why? He had a plan and it worked. It did?!?!? Yep. How do you know it worked? / Why do you think it worked well? He told me it did. Sooooo, you're planning on voting for President Obama? Depends. Depends on what? Whether I can get an ID in time. I've only got 3 months left to get one and I've heard it can take up to 10 years.

In a broad sense I would consider it a sitcom. Though I didn't consider SCTV to be a sitcom, even though it had a similar premise. It might not meet the technical qualification, but I'd maintain it does. The actors maintain the same character in each episode (unlike SCTV where actors would portray multiple roles, some of them completely non-recurring) and there is definitely a situation that lends to the comedy - lodge members to an obscure Canadian town's version of the Moose putting on a (public access) television show. Yes there were skits, but the characters in them were always playing the same character. Btw, did you know that Ranger Gord was Sam Malone's neighbor that bought his 'Vette and was married to kindergarden teacher Dana Delaney? Remember, I'm pulling for you; we're all in this together. Keep your stick on the ice.

Haven't seen anybody mention The Red Green Show. Somehow that one should have ended up on my list as well. Agree with those that liked Green Acres. And am absolutely in shock that I forgot to include Bundy's, oops Married, with Children. Bundy's have to knock something out of the top 10. Probably Sports Night.

Are you trying to imply that GM & Chrysler didn't file for bankruptcy? ( which btw - they did) Or are you trying to imply that Romney thought those 2 should have been liquidated? (which btw - he didn't) Going through a bankruptcy does not mean the company will be liquidated. If it did, there'd be no domestic airline industry.

How the !@#$ you go from the bolded above to "women adore him?" YOU apparently adore him and are projecting YOUR favoring of his stance on the issues you listed above into meaning that women will flock to him, apparently because he's dreamy. What job creation? If "women's rights" (code word for abortion) were the be all end all, then ALL women would be Democrats. Women as a bloc are far more divided than African Americans or other racial minority groups tend to be. The rest of the "quiver" of issues you've come up with are social issues which will not trump economic issues unless the economy takes a major upturn in the next 3 months. As much as you apparently desperately want the election to come down to social issues, it is not looking like that is what people are focused on currently. IF it does come down to social issues, the President will likely get re-elected. Right now, and for the past 45 or so months, it's looking like this election will be decided by the economy. Most of the women I know aren't too thrilled with the direction that's headed in currently. And on a separate note, you said yourself, the President has been on the attack for 6 months. There are still 3 more months to go before people go to the polling stations. People want to hear what's right with the country, not just how this new guy is the devil. Attacking the other guy doesn't LOOK presidential. The tactics used, by both sides, will likely change significantly throughout the next 3+ months. If the President doesn't take the high road himself, he will give Mr. Romney an opportunity to look more presidential than the current President. If that happens, President Obama's election chances are in deep trouble. Past Presidents have let their campaign staff do their dirty work, the current WH occupant might be wise to follow that tack.

And I would suspect the polls conducted by the 2 campaigns would be a bit different than those run by the independent orgs. Market research is a good thing; if you don't know what your customers want, you can't give it to them. But alot of the questions asked by the independent orgs tend to not tell a whole lot about the nuances that the campaigns themselves need. Though, on a slightly different topic, I not sure why TBC keeps claiming the President is "adored by women." He's polling about 12% ahead with them currently. That's not exactly 'let's build a statue to him' territory.

Pretty much. But without them the talking heads have got even less than the nothing they currently blather on.

Regarding the bold: we shall see in November. That is still more than 3 months, 2 conventions, and ~3 debates from now. Right now the polls are tight; something will eventually make them swing. I expect the polls to stay tight until ~mid-October and then one candidate will pull away from the other and the final result won't look close. I know you want Romney to lose, I don't know that you'll get your wish. Clearly statistics ain't your bag. You do realize that Carter was beating Reagan in most polls until the very end of the campaign, right? So, because he was leading in '79 and June of '80, he won the election, right? The only poll that counts is the one on November 6. The only ones that will tell us anything relevant will start to show up after the 1st debate.