BLZFAN4LIFE Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Which is why Obama won...he was, in front of a live TV audience, a "victim", which is the basis of his entire campaign. Better yet, he's a "victim" who demonstrated empathy to all the other victims out there. Romney's strong, focused performance was too his detriment, because ultimately a majority of the electorate isn't voting for a leader, they're electing a goddamned candy striper. "Snuffelupagus." You idiot. Can't anyone spell on this board? ... Says the guy who needs a lesson in to, too and two. Priceless you braniac!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 ... Says the guy who needs a lesson in to, too and two. Priceless you braniac!!! And I had it spelled right in the first place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Snuffleupagus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 "Millions of lunch-goers everywhere, are all on edge, thinking it's probably better not to start that inane conversation, and just eat their food quietly. This follows a massive restructuring of the TSA ....." So...why put her in charge of the House? Let her be a fundraiser/something else. Why in the hell do you want "idiot" being associated with "Democrat" in such a public way, every single time she opens her mouth? Or, do you like Biden? Look at this way: as soon as Gingrich became not even half the liability that Pelosi is, he was gone. If you won't do that, then you don't take the country seriously. Therefore, we have 0 reason to take you seriously. No amount of money, and not even an electorate that is majority Democrat....saves you from us not taking you seriously. Just ask Fauxchahontas...and then, ask Scott Brown. The majority of people....only care about Pelosi's batshit antics on TV. They don't need to know the details...they know batshit crazy when they see it. Why do I have to tell you what we all know, including you...but that you refuse to admit...for reasons passing understanding? Do you think that somehow you could make the Pelosi situation any worse by admitting it? No way. No friggn way. Just admit it and get it over with. You'll feel better, and gain some respect....starting with self-respect. Are you crazy? Do you just talk speak to fictional characters while talking at real people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Was Obama Rattled By Developing Donor Scandal Story? President Obama reelection campaign, rattled by his Wednesday night debate performance, could be in for even worse news. According to knowlegable sources, a national magazine and a national web site are preparing a blockbuster donor scandal story. Sources told Secrets that the Obama campaign has been trying to block the story. But a key source said it plans to publish the story Friday or, more likely, Monday. According to the sources, a taxpayer watchdog group conducted a nine-month investigation into presidential and congressional fundraising and has uncovered thousands of cases of credit card solicitations and donations to Obama and Capitol Hill, allegedly from unsecure accounts, and many from overseas. That might be a violation of federal election laws. The Obama campaign has received hundreds of millions in small dollar donations, many via credit card donations through their website. On Thursday, the campaign announced a record September donor haul of $150 million. At the end of the 2008 presidential campaign, the Obama-Biden effort was hit with a similar scandal. At the time, the Washington Post reported that the Obama campaign let donors use "largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity." . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Except he said that Obama would win about 100 times. Doesn't mean I won't be disappointed. I'm just prepared for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 Doesn't mean I won't be disappointed. I'm just prepared for it. Truer words have never come from a Bills fans mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 loud noises, and who is more of an !@#$ wins these debates. meaning, if you really care about it, and thought it was important, well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 loud noises, and who is more of an !@#$ wins these debates. meaning, if you really care about it, and thought it was important, well.... Important/accurate as a predictor of the end result? Historically...it's not. But important to Mitt Romney and a huge win? Absolutely. There is no debate about that. C'mon now Marcell...don't be such a party pooper. Repubs are happy b/c Obama did not look as good as Romney. They should be. Let them be. hehe...no need to sour puss everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjl2nd Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Yeah, let the Republicans be happy over this. At least now they don't sound THAT crazy when they say Romney is going to win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Important/accurate as a predictor of the end result? Historically...it's not. But important to Mitt Romney and a huge win? Absolutely. There is no debate about that. C'mon now Marcell...don't be such a party pooper. Repubs are happy b/c Obama did not look as good as Romney. They should be. Let them be. hehe...no need to sour puss everything. what does that mean, " to win" a debate. i mean, is that really what we should be doing. i know this is idealism, but i was thinking about this, and my conversations with people... it would ideal to go into a political discussion slowly, and more so asking questions, making sure you even know what your opponent is saying... idk, w/e Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 what does that mean, " to win" a debate. i mean, is that really what we should be doing. i know this is idealism, but i was thinking about this, and my conversations with people... it would ideal to go into a political discussion slowly, and more so asking questions, making sure you even know what your opponent is saying... idk, w/e "Winning a debate" means you got the better of your opponent. And almost everyone admits that Romney got the better of Barry, most notable as evidenced by the meltdown of the MSM, and the excuse-making for Barry's poor showing. The left is in a tizzy over Wednesday and can't even get their stories straight, and Barry is even claiming that Romney "can't run on his record." But beyond the issues, as I've said, 68M people got to see Romney outside of attack ads or edited clips, which was another "win" for him. Today the jobs report comes out and if unemployment is still above 8%, it's another "win." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Myth Romney said that half of all the 2009 stimulus-supported clean energy companies went under. The TRUTH is that it was 3 of 13. Maybe he should hire PBS's Count do do his math. Mitt Romney claimed that if the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, it will kill jobs. Forbes debunked this myth and concluded that, “But the GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny. There is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work. Mitt Romney claims he is not cutting taxes for the wealthy - Romney actually began the debate completely reinventing his tax plan. Romney claimed that his tax plan isn’t a $5 trillion tax cut. However, yesterday his own running mate Paul Ryan touted Romney’s 20% tax cut across the board. http://www.rollingst...t-lies-20121004 Myth Said "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work." The Right Wing Republicans are LEMMINGS drinking the Kool-Aid by the bucket load ----------------------- Oh and Doc. Ask yourself WHY Obama didn't look Myth in the face during much of the debate. He was afraid he'd bust put laughing. Romney got the better becasue he was "amped" up and Obama looked like he was on ludes. Edited October 5, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 what does that mean, " to win" a debate. i mean, is that really what we should be doing. i know this is idealism, but i was thinking about this, and my conversations with people... it would ideal to go into a political discussion slowly, and more so asking questions, making sure you even know what your opponent is saying... idk, w/e To be prepared, know the topics and present the information cognitively. Not talk about how your grandma in Hawaii lived on social security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) Are you crazy? Do you just talk speak to fictional characters while talking at real people? Not sure...you'd have to tell me what talk speaking is. ( If you gonna go for the shot...execution is everything. EDIT: I had something nasty here, but then, it wasn't = your mistake. Let's do a lacrosse analogy instead. Next time, make sure your feet are set, and your stick is vertical, before you shoot. Makes it harder to stop that way. Try again. Clown(I will keep this) ) Also...no amount of yelling at me...is going to make Nancy Pelosi less of a buffoon, or, make Democrat '= Idiot, every time she's on TV. Edited October 5, 2012 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Myth Romney said that half of all the 2009 stimulus-supported clean energy companies went under. The TRUTH is that it was 3 of 13. Maybe he should hire PBS's Count do do his math. Mitt Romney claimed that if the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, it will kill jobs. Forbes debunked this myth and concluded that, “But the GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny. There is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work. Mitt Romney claims he is not cutting taxes for the wealthy - Romney actually began the debate completely reinventing his tax plan. Romney claimed that his tax plan isn’t a $5 trillion tax cut. However, yesterday his own running mate Paul Ryan touted Romney’s 20% tax cut across the board. http://www.rollingst...t-lies-20121004 Myth Said "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work." The Right Wing Republicans are LEMMINGS drinking the Kool-Aid by the bucket load ----------------------- Oh and Doc. Ask yourself WHY Obama didn't look Myth in the face during much of the debate. He was afraid he'd bust put laughing. Romney got the better becasue he was "amped" up and Obama looked like he was on ludes. The "Council on Tax Fairness" stated yesterday that Romney's tax proposals were not only plausable, but doable if the economy could grow at even a very modest 2%. They went on to say that if Obamacare was repealed and and entitlements were reduced to the level they were under Clinton, then an economy growing at a 3% level would produce a surplus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The "Council on Tax Fairness" stated yesterday that Romney's tax proposals were not only plausable, but doable if the economy could grow at even a very modest 2%. They went on to say that if Obamacare was repealed and and entitlements were reduced to the level they were under Clinton, then an economy growing at a 3% level would produce a surplus. And as I mentioned before, the Tax Policy Center that Barry keeps citing refuted Barry's claims about Romney having to raise taxes on the middle class. Myth Romney said that half of all the 2009 stimulus-supported clean energy companies went under. The TRUTH is that it was 3 of 13. Maybe he should hire PBS's Count do do his math. Mitt Romney claimed that if the Bush tax cuts expire for the wealthiest Americans, it will kill jobs. Forbes debunked this myth and concluded that, “But the GOP meme suggesting that tax cuts equals jobs while, conversely, tax increases on the so-called “job creators” mean less work for the rest of us, simply does not survive any reasonable scrutiny. There is nothing in the way of actual data to support the notion that putting more money into the pockets of the wealthiest Americans will inure to the benefit of those looking for work. Mitt Romney claims he is not cutting taxes for the wealthy - Romney actually began the debate completely reinventing his tax plan. Romney claimed that his tax plan isn’t a $5 trillion tax cut. However, yesterday his own running mate Paul Ryan touted Romney’s 20% tax cut across the board. http://www.rollingst...t-lies-20121004 Myth Said "We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country." Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23 million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6 million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work." The Right Wing Republicans are LEMMINGS drinking the Kool-Aid by the bucket load ----------------------- Oh and Doc. Ask yourself WHY Obama didn't look Myth in the face during much of the debate. He was afraid he'd bust put laughing. Romney got the better becasue he was "amped" up and Obama looked like he was on ludes. This list looks like more than 3 failed companies. And Barry couldn't look Romney in the eye because he couldn't lie straight to his face. That's lying 101. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Romney actually began the debate completely reinventing his tax plan... Now how can you possibly know that when Romney refuses to provide any details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 The "Council on Tax Fairness" stated yesterday that Romney's tax proposals were not only plausable, but doable if the economy could grow at even a very modest 2%. They went on to say that if Obamacare was repealed and and entitlements were reduced to the level they were under Clinton, then an economy growing at a 3% level would produce a surplus. I'm sure the "council" is totally unbiased....Here's a simple critique: the reason we have exploding future deficits is the retiring babyboom generation moving onto medicare (the main culprit) and collecting SS. In order to get back to the level of "Clinton entitlements," the per capita benefits would have to be reduce significantly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I'm sure the "council" is totally unbiased.... Here's a simple critique: the reason we have exploding future deficits is the retiring babyboom generation moving onto medicare (the main culprit) and collecting SS. In order to get back to the level of "Clinton entitlements," the per capita benefits would have to be reduce significantly. I've never seen a more unbiased organization in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Now how can you possibly know that when Romney refuses to provide any details? Is it me or did anyone else just hear BF4E's head explode? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts