Decision 2012
Quote: EvenBob
You must be watching a different FOX than me.
Not at all. I just define liberal and conservative much differently than you do:-)
Quote: rdw4potusNot at all. I just define liberal and conservative much differently than you do:-)
What does that mean. CNN and MSNBC are blatantly
for Obama, FOX isn't blatantly for Romney by any
means. There are a ton of Libs on FOX, unfortunately.
Thats why they beat the pants off of everybody, its
hard to tell where they stand. I guarantee you the
people who rail against FOX, never watch FOX.
Obama glass half empty. <-----Fox headline.
Obama glass half full <----- MSNBC
Quote: rxwineFox generally takes the negative on every Obama headline.
Obama glass half empty. <-----Fox headline.
Obama glass half full <----- MSNBC
FNC: "unemployment now at 8.1%"
MSMBC: "Obama policies eliminate workplace stress for 8.1% of population"
Quote: AZDuffmanFNC: "unemployment now at 8.1%"
MSMBC: "Obama policies eliminate workplace stress for 8.1% of population"
CNN: Thanks to Obama, with 23 million people
out of work, familes are bonding like never
before as they have far more quality time together.
4 more years!
Quote: AZDuffmanFNC: "unemployment now at 8.1%"
MSMBC: "Obama policies eliminate workplace stress for 8.1% of population"
That is awesome!!
linky
Quote: EvenBobQuote: s2dbakerThis is an actual headline:
linky
Its a fake. Go to the real FOX page and click on
FOXnation and its nowhere to be seen.
mmmhmmm...a "fake" at nation.foxnews.com It's almost like that's exactly the right address and everything...
Edit: from the main nation.foxnews.com page, click on "on fire" and it's listed right there. Boy, that was sure hard...
must have got Jimmy Carters advice.
Hey, I was trying to do you a favor, I couldn't
believe Obama would do it.
Quote: EvenBobHere's the address of the fake:
http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt/2012/09/13/obama-calls-libyan-president-thank-him-after-us-ambassador-murdered
Here's the total address of the real one.
http://nation.foxnews.com/
You figure it out, its not too tough. Go to the real one
and find this story, its not there.
You can click on that story from your "real" link EB. (It's not fake)
Quote: EvenBobHere's the address of the fake:
http://nation.foxnews.com/egypt/2012/09/13/obama-calls-libyan-president-thank-him-after-us-ambassador-murdered
Here's the total address of the real one.
http://nation.foxnews.com/
You figure it out, its not too tough. Go to the real one
and find this story, its not there.
Yes, it is. Not hard to figure out. Pull your head out of your ass, go to nation.foxnews.com, click on "on fire," notice this story on that page, click on image. Note that after you've clicked on that image, you get the exact same address as the one you keep calling "fake."
must have got Jimmy Carters advice.
Hey, I was trying to do you a favor, I couldn't
believe Obama would do it. LOL!
Quote: EvenBobIts not a fake, Obama did make the call. He
must have got Jimmy Carters advice.
Hey, I was trying to do you a favor, I couldn't
believe Obama would do it. LOL!
Yeah, I'll be sure and catch Obama's resignation speech tomorrow.
Quote: rxwineYeah, I'll be sure and catch Obama's resignation speech tomorrow.
No, all the press cares about is concentrating on Romney.
If Bush was president, this would be a huge story in the
Middle East. But he's not, so its barely worth covering. So
it signals a total collapse of Obama's mid east strategy.
At least he meant well...
Quote: EvenBobIts not a fake, Obama did make the call. He
must have got Jimmy Carters advice.
Hey, I was trying to do you a favor, I couldn't
believe Obama would do it. LOL!
Of course he made the call. I assume it went like this: "Mr. President, thank you for denouncing the violence that killed Ambassador Stevens. Your swift condemnation has undoubtedly helped to stem the violence and avoid further loss of life. As we search for the perpetrators of this terrible crime against humanity, we may need to blow shit up in your country in the coming weeks and months. Mess with that and I'll crush your puny ass. Thanks again!"
Quote: rdw4potusOf course he made the call. I assume it went like this: "Mr. President, thank you for denouncing the violence that killed Ambassador Stevens. Your swift condemnation has undoubtedly helped to stem the violence and avoid further loss of life. As we search for the perpetrators of this terrible crime against humanity, we may need to blow shit up in your country in the coming weeks and months. Mess with that and I'll crush your puny ass. Thanks again!"
LOL! Is he channeling Ronald Regan? It went more like
this:
"Yes, um, we're really sorry that you were driven
to kill our ambassador and, um, we'll try to do better.
Please accept our apologies for not doing more to
appease your people's hatred of us. I can't blame
them, we deserve it."
Quote: EvenBobLOL! Is he channeling Ronald Regan? It went more like
this:
"Yes, um, we're really sorry that you were driven
to kill our ambassador and, um, we'll try to do better.
Please accept our apologies for not doing more to
appease your people's hatred of us. I can't blame
them, we deserve it."
You're probably right. And the best part is that you voted for him and I didn't. How sweet is that? :-)
Quote: rdw4potusYou're probably right. And the best part is that you voted for him and I didn't. How sweet is that? :-)
Not as sweet as Nov 7th is going to be.
Quote: EvenBobNot as sweet as Nov 7th is going to be.
I'm surprised to hear you say that. Obama is going to win handily, and I was under the impression that was something you didn't want to see happen.
Quote: rdw4potusObama is going to win handily, .
ROTFLMAO!!!
Quote: EvenBobNo, all the press cares about is concentrating on Romney.
If Bush was president, this would be a huge story in the
Middle East. But he's not, so its barely worth covering. So
it signals a total collapse of Obama's mid east strategy.
At least he meant well...
Remember, Bob, I think Obama has been a total failure, too, and believe that the country will be in bad shape if he is given 4 more years to spend a trillion a year more than we take in, but, come on...... 'signals a total collapse of Obama's mid east strategy'? I think that a tougher strategy that any Republican would employ would make these type of attacks more common, not less common. If President Romney was asked about he film and gave an answer such as this-- "In our country you don't have to give excuses for, and there is no penalty for, FREE SPEECH." You don't think that they'd be trying to scale the walls....?
Quote: SOOPOORemember, Bob, I think Obama has been a total failure, too, and believe that the country will be in bad shape if he is given 4 more years to spend a trillion a year more than we take in, but, come on...... 'signals a total collapse of Obama's mid east strategy'? I think that a tougher strategy that any Republican would employ would make these type of attacks more common, not less common. If President Romney was asked about he film and gave an answer such as this-- "In our country you don't have to give excuses for, and there is no penalty for, FREE SPEECH." You don't think that they'd be trying to scale the walls....?
They might or they might not. But at least Romney would be looking out for America first and not acting sorry and embarassed that he is associated with the USA.
Do we ever get an apology for their people burning and walking on the American Flag during their demonstrations??
Obama is trying to "be liked" in the Middle East. As any street-smart person knows, in life there will be some people who do not like you and will never like you, no matter what you do. And as any person who even casually has read "The Prince" understands that while it is best to be feared and liked, if you lose being freared and are still not liked then you have real problems.
Obama has given the USA real problems here.
Quote: AZDuffman
Do we ever get an apology for their people burning and walking on the American Flag during their demonstrations??
Yes.
Quote: AZDuffman
Do we ever get an apology for their people burning and walking on the American Flag during their demonstrations??
Of course. But it's a matter of decorum and not a news item. Their government apologizes to our government...
It certainly not something you'll ever see on Fox News.Quote: rdw4potusOf course. But it's a matter of decorum and not a news item. Their government apologizes to our government...
Quote: s2dbakerIt certainly not something you'll ever see on Fox News.
I don't really care if the other country apologies for the flag-burning of their radicals--our flag gets burnt here, too, and I find it insulting but it is what it is. What I do care about is the protection of our embassies by both our government and the governments of the host countries. Whether we have a President Obama or a President Romney, that person needs to do a better job of making sure our folks are protected. The President must DEMAND our folks are protected and abandon those countries who do not provide sufficient protection.
All foreign aid should be cut off to any country who does not cooperate.
SOOPOO made the point that a stronger response may lead to more protests. We can't play the wimp when it comes to protecting our people. President Obama has tried the friendly approach after being told it wouldn't work. It didn't. It won't. If there are more protests, so be it.
There is a faction of the Muslim religion that wants to kill everyone who does not want to be a part of their religion. You can't make nice with people that take that attitude. Do you think they'll want to kill us any less?
Work with the others that don't want that, be strong, and protect our people.
Let's stop sticking our nose in their business, propping up dictators, and having our young men die for no valid reason.
Just let them kill each other. That's what they are gonna do when we leave anyway !
Quote: SOOPOObut, come on...... 'signals a total collapse of Obama's mid east strategy'? ?
I was making a joke. Obama has no mid east strategy.
Unless constantly apologising, bowing when you meet
them, and rolling on your back peeing yourself, trying
not to piss them off, is a strategy.
Quote: SOOPOOhiding behind 'no internet bets'.
Hiding? And they usually work out so well. Like
your bet with HB, no probems there. Just that HB
will call the police if she see's you and Nareed has
been suspended for 30 days as an indirect result
of the bet.
No, I made my position clear on betting, too much
melodrama involved.
I wish it were melodrama, at least that has a soundtrack.
Quote: EvenBobI was making a joke. Obama has no mid east strategy.
.
And Obama made that point yesterday when he
didn't know if Egypt was an ally or an enemy. He
has no defined mid east policies, except begging
them to like us.
As was pointed out, he won't accuse 50 percent of the U.S. of being free loaders into a news interview though. Would it really hurt his voter base, or just the ones he's trying to fool into voting for him?
Quote:“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” the Republican presidential nominee says in a secretly recorded video from a fundraiser that was obtained by Mother Jones magazine from an unidentified person. It also was posted online by the Huffington Post.
“All right -- there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent on government, who believe that, that they are victims, who believe that government has the responsibility to care for them,” Romney says on the video, adding that they “believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-09-17/romney-distracted-by-comments-on-government-dependent-victims
Quote: EvenBobHe
has no defined mid east policies, except begging
them to like us.
He's also good at giving them money and guns. That counts, right?
But at least he's not Romney. First the fundraiser tape was leaked, then he said that he'd tighten trade with China. Talk about getting it from all sides...big business and lefties are all having a field day with him today. He just can't take many more days like this.
Quote: s2dbakerFood!?! The nerve! Have we no workhouses? Have we no prisons?
Come on, Stu--- There are many, me included, that believe people should be responsible for providing themselves with food. That belief does NOT preclude a safety net (welfare) for those that CANNOT do it for themselves, not for those that CHOOSE not to do it for themselves. The same can be said for housing and health care.
I'll never forget when in Med School I went to the fish store to buy the cheapest fish they sold, whiting, while the person in front of me on the checkout line was buying lobsters with food stamps....
Quote: SOOPOO
I'll never forget when in Med School I went to the fish store to buy the cheapest fish they sold, whiting, while the person in front of me on the checkout line was buying lobsters with food stamps....
It's absolutely amazing how often that sort of thing happens. I worked in a grocery store while I was in college, and some of the food stamp recipients bought crazy things. Saffron, lobster, steak. They'd even barter their food stamp money for cash to buy smokes or beer.
But, what Romney said is that 47% of the country is reliant on Government assistance and in Obama's pocket. In other words, every single democrat in the country is reliant on Government assistance. I get that he was at a partisan fundraiser, but if that's actually what he thinks then he's just not Presidential material. Obama really isn't, either, so that sucks.....
Quote: rdw4potusIt's absolutely amazing how often that sort of thing happens. I worked in a grocery store while I was in college, and some of the food stamp recipients bought crazy things. Saffron, lobster, steak. They'd even barter their food stamp money for cash to buy smokes or beer.
But, what Romney said is that 47% of the country is reliant on Government assistance and in Obama's pocket. In other words, every single democrat in the country is reliant on Government assistance. I get that he was at a partisan fundraiser, but if that's actually what he thinks then he's just not Presidential material. Obama really isn't, either, so that sucks.....
The phrase 'government assistance' of course can be misleading. In that 47% are social security recipients. I don't consider that government assistance, but rather a return on the moneys collected over the decades before. Since I mentioned Med School..... I went to a public Med School, and my tuition was far less than those at private Med Schools, so 'someone', probably New York State, was 'assisting me'. Maybe back then I should have been in that 47%, but probably wasn't considered to be.
He's done.
(I'm going to go ahead an jinx it)Quote: EvenBobROTFLMAO!!!Quote: rdw4potusObama is going to win handily, .
Hey Bob, still rolling on the floor there?
Probability of Reaching 270
Democrats 92%
Republicans 7%
Neither (Tie) < 1%
Source
Obama was +1% in 2012, and he was +6% in 2008 on this same date.
Privately some key repub operatives are concluding that the presidency is gone. 4 senate candidates in tight races have all but jumped ship from team Romney. The bigwigs like Karl Rove will probably not abandon team Romney until after the first debate, but if things don't change, they will at that point. Will shift all the PAC money from Romney, to house and Senate races. With the presidency fading in the rear-view mirror and the senate not far behind, they will really focus on house races.
The house never seemed to be in question this election. The dems need a 25 seat pick up to regain. With a close presidential race expected it was assumed that only a few seats would change hands and the house would remain republican. Predictwise gives the Dems only a 27% chance or regaining the house. But that is up from 12% a few weeks ago. There are really only 80-100 house seats that swing back and forth through different cycles, but the repubs took most of those with a big sweep in 2010, so they are theirs to lose. If President Obama registers 5 and 6% and greater victories in some of these swing states that are currently predicted, then these house seats begin to fall as well. This weak showing that Romney is headed towards could be the repubs worst nightmare. I am not saying he is there yet, but he needs a game changer and is running out of time. It is late in the 3rd quarter and he is down by 2 touchdowns.
Quote: s2dbaker(I'm going to go ahead an jinx it)Quote: EvenBobROTFLMAO!!!Quote: rdw4potusObama is going to win handily, .
Hey Bob, still rolling on the floor there?
These are the articles that tell you the inside
stories you never hear in the Obummer media.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose/
Sorry Bob, if you can't accept DailyKos as a source, then I can't accept WingNutDaily as a source either.Quote: EvenBobhttp://www.wnd.com/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose
Quote: EvenBob
These are the articles that tell you the inside
stories you never hear in the Obummer media.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/09/secret-retirement-plans-does-obama-expect-to-lose/
You know Bob, although sometimes, I think you post just wanting to be combative and exercise your debating skills, I feel pretty certain and certainly hope that you sincerely believe Romney and the Repub direction to be the way to go. I can respect that 'your' guy doing poorly is difficult for you.
I try to be objective in my views. Maybe, I am not as objective as I think I am at times, but I don't look down at the green grass and claim it to be purple, because I would like to be purple.
I can appreciate that you think the current president has been a disaster and that 4 more years would be an even bigger nightmare. You would have so much more credibility if you showed some objectivity. How about something along the lines, of even though you strongly support Mr Romney and hope like hell that he wins, acknowledging that he is not a great candidate. He seems to have a hard time connecting with people and getting his message across. He commits many unforced errors that take him and the topic of conversation off message for days at a time. I don't even blame him for all of his situation. His campaign seems to be very disorganized and he has gotten some bad advice. He has some good, career type campaign people, like Kevin Madden, but they are struggling. Kind of like watching a good quarterback like Peyton Manning throw 3 interceptions in the first quarter. Team Romney is having a bad game.
On a related note: I predicted Paul Ryan would be the VP pick several months before it happened (posted on a thread here). I thought and was afraid he would be somewhat of a game changer. So far he has all but disappeared. Wisconsin, which was immediately moved back in play after his selection, has now been moved back to the president's column by most sources. I almost feel bad for Mr Ryan. He had a bright future and probably had a reasonable shot at running for president someday. Being on a ticket that gets clobbered, will probably prevent that from happening. I do think it a smart move for Romney and Ryan to team up on this current bus tour through Ohio that starts on Friday. Ryan is actually a stronger candidate that Romeny in my opinion and can only help.
Quote: kewlj
I can appreciate that you think the current president has been a disaster and that 4 more years would be an even bigger nightmare.
'Think' he's a disaster? Good god, look around. The guy is
a total fraud. 4 more years of him and we may never
recover. This isn't a joke, he has to go. I'd support Daffy
Duck to get rid of this disaster of a president. More and
more comes out every day as to who this guy really is.
Whoever takes his place will at least be FOR America and
not dead set against it. That in itself might save us.
Quote: kewljThe house never seemed to be in question this election. The dems need a 25 seat pick up to regain. With a close presidential race expected it was assumed that only a few seats would change hands and the house would remain republican. Predictwise gives the Dems only a 27% chance or regaining the house. But that is up from 12% a few weeks ago. There are really only 80-100 house seats that swing back and forth through different cycles, but the repubs took most of those with a big sweep in 2010, so they are theirs to lose.
The 2010 election was the largest change in party seats in the House since WWII. I agree that it would be nearly impossible to regain control.
Do you think that the Republicans will keep the Democrats to 200 seats or under?
It is possible that the 2006 & 2008 elections will be seen as the exceptions over a 3 decade period.
Election, Democrats, Change
2010 , 193 , -64
2008 , 257 , 24
2006 , 233 , 31
2004 , 202 , -3
2002 , 205 , -7
2000 , 212 , 1
1998 , 211 , 5
1996 , 206 , 2
1994 , 204 , -54
1992 , 258 , -9
1990 , 267 , 7
1988 , 260 , 2
1986 , 258 , 5
1984 , 253 , -16
1982 , 269 , 27
1980 , 242 , -35
1978 , 277 , -15
1976 , 292 , 1
1974 , 291 , 49
1972 , 242 , -13
1970 , 255 , 12
1968 , 243 , -4
1966 , 247 , -48
1964 , 295 , 36
1962 , 259 , -4
1960 , 263 , -20
1958 , 283 , 49
1956 , 234 , 2
1954 , 232 , 19
1952 , 213 , -22
1950 , 235 , -28
1948 , 263 , 75
1946 , 188 , -54
1944, 242 , 20
1942 , 222 , -45
1940 , 267 , 5
1938 , 262 , -72
1936 , 334 , 12
1934 , 322 , 9
1932 , 313 , 97
1930 , 216 , 52
Quote: pacomartinThe 2010 election was the largest change in party seats in the House since WWII. I agree that it would be nearly impossible to regain control.
Do you think that the Republicans will keep the Democrats to 200 seats or under?
It is possible that the 2006 & 2008 elections will be seen as the exceptions over a 3 decade period.
I didn't re-post all of your data in an effort to save space, pacomartin. If I understand correctly what you are saying, well 1992 thru 2012 is a 2 decade period not 3, but no matter. :) In answer to your question, I don't know. I haven't begun to look at the house races. I think most analysts are only now beginning to do so. It was just assumed that in a close presidential election, the house wasn't really in play. If it continues to look like a possible sizable win for the democrats, especially in the key swing states, I am sure it will become much more of an issue going forward. You will see the repub super-pacs dump ALL of their money into house races if this happens. That will be interesting.
tossup's at 23. So if the Dems take all the tossup's (they
won't) they still aren't even close.
Senate 48 D 44R 8Tossup Now that will be close.
