Skip to Next Poll »
10
Calling all Libtards - Master Debaters
Hello, Lib-tards. We're getting into the home stretch now, starting with the first debate tonight. Have it at.

Please remember that all opinions are welcome, but this poll is geared towards the liberals here. So it can and often gets heated, so if you can't take the heat stay out of the poll. And let's all remember the CoC. Basically, don't be like our politicians, but disagree without being disagreeable.

*bangs gavel*
| Closed on 11/05/12 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Politics | Numeric Input Opinion Poll
10 Fans
Question
835.6671. Calling all Libtards - Master Debaters

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#96 | 719 days ago

it's long, but something my daddy wrote that pretty much blew my mind:

When Clinton left office, the country was running on surplus budgets. Rather than using those surpluses to reduce the debt, Bush chose to institute tax cuts, and give the money back to the taxpayers. Whether the meltdown was Bush's fault is irrelevant. It happened on his watch, and it is what Obama inherited. Now people are upset that Obama is not resolving the situation fast enough, while still requiring that he play by Bush's rules.

The government is not a business. Businesses, if they want to stay in business, do what they need to maximize profit. That is not the government's role. In this context, the government's role (in my opinion) is to promote the general welfare. And if that means that the government needs to keep people from starving (food stamps), and it needs to be done on the cuff instead of from a surplus, so be it. But what about charity? Couldn't we citizens take care of our own? Yes, probably, but at what personal cost? Would you be willing to disavow your Christianity in order to feed your family? And regardless of your answer, do you now understand the non-Christian's angst when going to the Christian charity to feed his family? The right calls Obama "the food stamp President", as if it's a bad thing; I look at the same set of facts and say, "thank God."

Back to the economy; pretend that you are living your life. You have some debt, sure, but nothing you can't handle. You make plans with the wife, "we're going to knock this debt out and live on the square." Then your pay gets cut (Bush tax cuts). But you still want to get rid of the debt. So you rearrange the budget, and things look bad, but not horrible. Then, after the pay cut, your hours get cut (the recession). You are now, to some extent, living on your credit card. And where you turned the steak into hamburger, and the hamburger into beans and rice, you're still living on the credit card, but your biggest concern is reducing your credit card debt.

Then, you get a job interview, and it's a sure thing. This new job will increase your pay substantially; maybe not enough to stop the bleeding, but enough to apply a tourniquet, and then you can work from there. The only problem is that you don't have enough gas to get to the interview. Sure, you have enough credit to fill your tank, but you've already said that you're not going into any more debt. Period. So do you pass on the sure thing that will make your life better because it would mean more debt, do you say "I like this whole starving and dying a slow death" thing? Or do you do what you know is the best thing for your family under the circumstances?

Your choice, it's a free country.
 
Back to the analogy: Right after you took the pay cut (Bush tax cuts), the wife had a baby. An "oops" baby which you named Afghanistan, but there it is. Then, you convinced each other that the best thing was to have another on purpose. This one you named Iraq. Now, your "family expenditures" budget (defense) couldn't accommodate them, so you decided to pay for them out of your rainy day fund. Which consisted of a credit card.

Iraq is grown and gone, and Afghanistan is leaving soon. But in the meantime, you still have bills to pay, and the wife is complaining about the credit card debt. When you say "I'll just go back to getting paid what I was getting before", she says you're an idiot and a loser. But she keeps on about the credit card debt (which she was more than happy to agree to, before it was spent.). She wants to cut the household budget to pay for the credit card debt. All you want is a freaking tank of gas to get to the interview, but that would be too much.

Then she says, "There's this guy at church I've been talking to. He says that our problems will be solved if we just take another 20% pay cut. He says that if we take the additional pay cut, we'll get enough hours to make up the difference AND get rid of the credit card debt."

You scratch your head and say "Do what?! How is that going to work?"

And she says "Well, he's only going to tell me after I move in with him and turn over the household finances. But it sounds really good. By the way, Afghanistan might be sticking around a little longer than we thought. And our family expenditures budget, even though we're supporting our kids out of the rainy day fund, will be going up higher than it's ever been before. Remember sweet little Korea, and Cold War, and Viet Nam? Well, our family expenditures budget will be higher than when we were paying for any of those kids, even though I'm not pregnant. And we're going to be giving money to the neighbor kids, but only if they think the same way we do. But we're still going to be okay and come out of this smelling like a rose. It would all be okay, if you weren't such a loser."

And you still don't have your tank of gas.

Who is who in this analogy? You are the husband, you are the wife. You're even the guy she's been talking to at church. We are all all of this. Welcome to America.
  
223 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 728 days ago

For the record, I may not watch the debate tonight due to the Orioles game. What I do know is that as long as he doesn't pee on himself, the media will declare Romney the winner. The media are desperate for the horse race to tighten, and this is their chance to make that happen.

Scheduling note: this is the last Libtard I will make until election eve. Then they'll be an election night live thread. I'll parse through the returns so you don't have to listen to Wolf Blitzer!

For now, I'm admittedly not feeling very participative, but you guys have at it.
#2 | 728 days ago

Watching the debate.....makes me realize that I STILL hate all politicians!  Time for another beer....
69  
#3 | 728 days ago

I still don't know any specifics of  Mitts plan.


  
 
#4 | 728 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
Few thoughts

1) Romney absolutely won tonight.


2) The racial implications of tonight's debate are depressing. Romney ran all over Jim Lehrer all night and got no criticism - though history says that will garner no criticism. Obama, once - once! - ignores Lehrer, an old white man, and get criticized.

3) History says if you aren't in the game by October you're done and debates don't matter. Both are implications that Romney has no chance, we shall see how that plays out.

Edit to add: A train of thought out there that Romney played into his "say anything to win, has no real beliefs" stereotype tonight. If, IF, Obama wanted that and planned to take advantage of that tonight was a win. I doubt that, but Obama people have been pretty damn good at their stuff so who knows.
#5 | 728 days ago

Only caught the part where Mitt talked about vouchers, Obama looked like he was battling an illness, and Mitt smirked when it was all over. And of course twitter blew up. Bill Maher's tweets were my favorites. 
13  
#6 | 727 days ago

Oh S***...did I miss THE DEBATE last night?

I'll feel the buzz in 35-45 minutes from now here at work.  When you are in the midfield of the stuff, its hard not to see where the pitch is over the plate.
3  
#7 | 727 days ago
unopescatore (+)

I watched it....it's not like it changed my mind on whom I'm voting for (not that it matters in this state).  Less government control is all I want.....leave me the F alone Feds.

Mitt won....I guess.
#8 | 727 days ago
Nick__ (+)

In my opinion, Romney definitely looked like a Presidential candidate in a debate. He seemed to be on top of all of the topics that were asked and seemed better prepared than Obama.  THAT much, I will give him.

With that being said, along with what Mike mentioned above about ROMNEY being completely RUDE and obnoxious to Jim Lehrer by constantly talking over him and demanding that he have the last say, like a little spoiled brat,, did anyone notice 




66  
#9 | 727 days ago

Well...if you want an impolite, lying, which way is the wind blowing so I can decide what my views are, President...then Mitt Romney is your man. All that was missing last night was a group of Mitt's classmates holding Jim Lehrer down, while Mitt cut his hair.

As gearhead said...it is in the media's best interest to hype a Romney win, because it may shift some people's perception, and make this look like a closer race. I can see a lot of election ads coming out of Romney's performance...ads showing him taking multiple stands on various topics, and asking "Which Mitt Romney is the REAL Mitt Romney?".




 
8  
#10 | 727 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
In my opinion, Romney definitely looked like a Presidential candidate in a debate. He seemed to be on top of all of the topics that were asked and seemed better prepared than Obama.  THAT much, I will give him.

With that being said, along with what Mike mentioned above about ROMNEY being completely RUDE and obnoxious to Jim Lehrer by constantly talking over him and demanding that he have the last say, like a little spoiled brat,, did anyone notice 




did u watch it with those hipster hippies out there?   they're rotting u're mind....pull it together Nick.   Just cause he's from Chi Town doesn't mean u gotta sweat the Obamanator so much. indecision
#11 | 727 days ago

Barry got Mittslapped!
#12 | 727 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
unopescatore wrote:
did u watch it with those hipster hippies out there?   they're rotting u're mind....pull it together Nick.   Just cause he's from Chi Town doesn't mean u gotta sweat the Obamanator so much. indecision
Ha!   What you don't understand about me is that I have an open mind and I'm not brainwashed into believing what one party tells me, like most people!

I am an independent that leans more towards the left, but, I listen and agree to ideas and concepts, regardless of which party they came from.

Romney claims that he is 100% behind education and that MASS is the #1 state in the Nation for education, BUT, he then flip-flops by stating that he is going to cut PBS, which is one of the better and original channels that provide educational topics to people of all ages, especially toddlers!

FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!  

and, not once has he stated what any of his plans are, in detail, with how he's going to better this country!  He throws statements out about improving this and that, but doesn't explain how or where the money will come from to do it.

He's going to create 12 million more jobs - how?
He's going to cut our deficit in half over the next 4 years - how?
He's going to get oil and gas from here and there and incorporate more natural coal - how?

66  
#13 | 727 days ago

I didn't see or hear the debate but after reading and hearing about it a great deal this morning it is sounding like Romney got the best of Obama.  I expect the right leaning media outlet to be on Romney's side but even the left leaning media outlets are conceding he won.  That, of course, won't change most people's minds.  Will it affect the election?  Possible but I'm doubting it. 
#14 | 727 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
Ha!   What you don't understand about me is that I have an open mind and I'm not brainwashed into believing what one party tells me, like most people!

I am an independent that leans more towards the left, but, I listen and agree to ideas and concepts, regardless of which party they came from.

Romney claims that he is 100% behind education and that MASS is the #1 state in the Nation for education, BUT, he then flip-flops by stating that he is going to cut PBS, which is one of the better and original channels that provide educational topics to people of all ages, especially toddlers!

FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!  

and, not once has he stated what any of his plans are, in detail, with how he's going to better this country!  He throws statements out about improving this and that, but doesn't explain how or where the money will come from to do it.

He's going to create 12 million more jobs - how?
He's going to cut our deficit in half over the next 4 years - how?
He's going to get oil and gas from here and there and incorporate more natural coal - how?

u're too far gone already....there's nothing I can do for u.  U must've got into that giant POT field that was growing in the middle of u're city. devil
#15 | 727 days ago



"Ohhh, Mr. Mitt...so you wanna take out the Big Guy, huh..."
3  
#16 | 727 days ago
Nick__ (+)

unopescatore wrote:
u're too far gone already....there's nothing I can do for u.  U must've got into that giant POT field that was growing in the middle of u're city. devil
Typical answer from someone that knows they lost!

Thank you! yes
66  
#17 | 727 days ago
Nick__ (+)

DeeRigga wrote:


"Ohhh, Mr. Mitt...so you wanna take out the Big Guy, huh..."
66  
#18 | 727 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
Typical answer from someone that knows they lost!

Thank you! yes
what did I lose Nick? If Mitt brought back Zima you wouldn't even vote for him. They're both arse clowns, I'm prob voting for the one that takes less of my liberties.....but u do what u gotta do.
#19 | 727 days ago

(Edited by richard_cranium)
Nick__ wrote:
Ha!   What you don't understand about me is that I have an open mind and I'm not brainwashed into believing what one party tells me, like most people!

I am an independent that leans more towards the left, but, I listen and agree to ideas and concepts, regardless of which party they came from.

Romney claims that he is 100% behind education and that MASS is the #1 state in the Nation for education, BUT, he then flip-flops by stating that he is going to cut PBS, which is one of the better and original channels that provide educational topics to people of all ages, especially toddlers!

FLIP-FLOP! FLIP-FLOP!  

and, not once has he stated what any of his plans are, in detail, with how he's going to better this country!  He throws statements out about improving this and that, but doesn't explain how or where the money will come from to do it.

He's going to create 12 million more jobs - how?
He's going to cut our deficit in half over the next 4 years - how?
He's going to get oil and gas from here and there and incorporate more natural coal - how?

He's going to create 12 million more jobs
 
What is funny to me, is that when he first stated this at the RNC. The channel I was watching had a panelist state that, "according to economist the US job market is projected to grow by 11.8 million jobs between 2013-2016, regardless of who is President."

So I guess his plan is to cross his fingers and hope this truly happens.
22  
#20 | 727 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
unopescatore wrote:
what did I lose Nick? If Mitt brought back Zima you wouldn't even vote for him. They're both arse clowns, I'm prob voting for the one that takes less of my liberties.....but u do what u gotta do.
See, there you go!

Not once did I state who I was voting for!  

Don't ASS-U-ME ........it's not good for either of us!  wink
66  
#21 | 727 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
 Republlicans need to leave PBS alone.  CPB received about $420 million last year from the federal government, making it roughly one one-hundredth of one percent, of the overall budget.   Not gonna do squat for the deficit.   They don't like PBS calling out mainstream cable news.  It skews their "facts".   Or in laymans terms, "what we want  you to know/believe.


This was a good program the other day.   Caught it by accident trying to figure out my 3000 channels on Uverse.
I think it touched more than a few nerves.   http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-united-states-of-alec/  Must see TV>

PBS programs won nine News & Documentary Emmy Awards, the most earned by any organization, when the 33rd Annual News & Documentary Emmy Awards were given out October 1st. 

 
#22 | 727 days ago

i got mad at the debates because i woke up about 15 minutes to the end and in my grogginess, couldn't figure out what the hell that line graph in the middle was measuring or how it worked.

that and when the cnn guy was all "let's take it to the spin room," it was not a spinning room, but a bunch of really boring people debating the debate.

i was really surprised by mitt. i think that's the first time i've heard his voice. i think he'd be best suited in a job where he records books-on-tape.
#23 | 727 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
what did I lose Nick? If Mitt brought back Zima you wouldn't even vote for him. They're both arse clowns, I'm prob voting for the one that takes less of my liberties.....but u do what u gotta do.
I'm prob voting for the one that takes less of my liberties.

A vote for Gary Johnson then perhaps?   smiley
#24 | 727 days ago

....is there a giant p*t field growing in the middle of chicago?
#25 | 727 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
....is there a giant p*t field growing in the middle of chicago?
Was.

Two cops found it by accident.

1500 perfectly good plants destroyed.
#26 | 727 days ago

When I predicted that the media would fall over themselves to declare a Romney win, I did not expect that he would actually win and Obama would basically give it to him. Electorically, I'm done being disappointed. Lick your wounds, let the right wing crow for a few days (that is, until they realize some of the things Romney Etch-a-Sketched too), and move on.

However, Obama pretty much personified every criticism the far left has had of him. Feckless, defensive, not willing to fight for progressive ideas, throwing himself on Simpson-Bowles. It was a greatest hits of liberals getting kicked theoretically in the nuts. My fellow liberals and Democrats, if you took anything from that debate last night, it should be that President Obama is not, and has probably never been, a progressive. Any lingering thoughts I had that he might be died last night. If I vote for him (and since I'm in a deep blue state, I don't have to), it will solely be because I loathe Romney and the GOP as much as I do.
#27 | 727 days ago

(Edited by Eric_)
unopescatore wrote:
did u watch it with those hipster hippies out there?   they're rotting u're mind....pull it together Nick.   Just cause he's from Chi Town doesn't mean u gotta sweat the Obamanator so much. indecision
Do you just have "hippie" in your AutoText for every time you don't agree 100% with someone? If you're only going to go ad hominem all the time, at least get some different material.
#28 | 726 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
Was.

Two cops found it by accident.

1500 perfectly good plants destroyed.
Yeah...there WAS a disturbance in the Force...but I feel - yes - I feel they are not being destroyed THAT way...

(Hey Kev...could I borrow that pic of You and your crew for this one?)

cool
3  
#29 | 726 days ago

Flip Flop began today with Romney saying "He was wrong" about the 47% video.   Pandering continues.
There are so many parts to the overall video, I could make negative commercials every week til November 6th.
#30 | 726 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Eric_ wrote:
Do you just have "hippie" in your AutoText for every time you don't agree 100% with someone? If you're only going to go ad hominem all the time, at least get some different material.
no it's gotta be under 50% for me to use the word Hippy.
#31 | 726 days ago
unopescatore (+)

ML31 wrote:
I'm prob voting for the one that takes less of my liberties.

A vote for Gary Johnson then perhaps?   smiley
did Gary Johnson use to play for the Mets? lol
#32 | 726 days ago

...and the right wing has completely (once again) lost their $h!t.

It must be terrifying being a conservative in America considering apparently every God damn thing is a conspiracy to make you look bad.
#33 | 726 days ago

(Edited by MIKELIN8)
In Obama's defense...it must be tough to debate an amoeba.

Or should I say jellyfish?

Chameleon?

How would you best describe Mitt Romney?
8  
#34 | 726 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
I still don't know any specifics of  Mitts plan.


  
 
he doesn't have any other than to blast Obama's plans. The scary part is people are too stupid to see that. His economic plans are like the Emperor's New Clothes--nothing to it at all but lies and deceipt.
6969  
#35 | 723 days ago

I'm thinking after the "chair"incident, the President was helping Mitt.
367  
#36 | 722 days ago
Nick__ (+)

66  
#37 | 722 days ago

#38 | 722 days ago

#39 | 722 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
66  
#40 | 722 days ago
Nick__ (+)

66  
#41 | 722 days ago

That choom picture makes me dizzy
#42 | 722 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
Cactus_Jack wrote:
That choom picture makes me dizzy
The CPD and I are enjoying it........especially after that 1500 plant bust........whoops! surprise

NEVER MIND!  cool
66  
#43 | 722 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
u're such a front runner bro
#44 | 722 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
unopescatore wrote:
u're such a front runner bro
Does that mean that it makes you the ass runner???   hahahahaha!  wink
66  
#45 | 722 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
dancefail 3 Some people just shouldnt dance (10 GIFs)
#46 | 722 days ago

DeeRigga wrote:
Yeah...there WAS a disturbance in the Force...but I feel - yes - I feel they are not being destroyed THAT way...

(Hey Kev...could I borrow that pic of You and your crew for this one?)

cool
Dee you are more than welcome to borrow my pic. It is rather funny cause we were all cooks(3 guys) at an Outback Steakhouse when this pic was taken. So if you are ever at an Outback(or any restaurant) and wondering why your food is taking so long. Just remember that there are probably at least 3 people in the kitchen in the same state of mind as the 3 guys are in this pic.

22  
#47 | 721 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
#48 | 721 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
Apparently securing big birds money is more important than securing this guys life



then again he waaaas just a bump in the road.
#49 | 721 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
mojo wrote:
Apparently securing big birds money is more important than securing this guys life



then again he waaaas just a bump in the road.
PBS takes up less than 1% of the National debt!

Cancelling that network is NOT going to help with the deficit!

I thought SHMITT was all for Education???  If so, why does he want to take the #1 educational channel off of the air???

hmmmmmm?!?!?

And how was the attack on the 4 US citizens in Libya, Obama's fault?

It's not like he knew, 1 year in advance, about a terrorist attack that was going to happen on US soil and did nothing about it!







All I smell is 


66  
#50 | 721 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
PBS takes up less than 1% of the National debt!

Cancelling that network is NOT going to help with the deficit!

I thought SHMITT was all for Education???  If so, why does he want to take the #1 educational channel off of the air???

hmmmmmm?!?!?

And how was the attack on the 4 US citizens in Libya, Obama's fault?

It's not like he knew, 1 year in advance, about a terrorist attack that was going to happen on US soil and did nothing about it!







All I smell is 


u just don't get it....it's ok....most people don't till it's too late. 

PBS. indecision   Keep slupring him up Nick.

#51 | 721 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
PBS takes up less than 1% of the National debt!

Cancelling that network is NOT going to help with the deficit!

I thought SHMITT was all for Education???  If so, why does he want to take the #1 educational channel off of the air???

hmmmmmm?!?!?

And how was the attack on the 4 US citizens in Libya, Obama's fault?

It's not like he knew, 1 year in advance, about a terrorist attack that was going to happen on US soil and did nothing about it!







All I smell is 


Nicky....watch this video....it's easy to follow and it's TRUE.....not some made up propaganda BS u're reading on a regular basis....I know the chick is pretty hot and has a nice rack....but concentrate on what she's saying and PLEASE get u're head out of your arse bro u're smarter then that....aren't u. indecision

http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/...y_25367989&v=3
#52 | 721 days ago
Nick__ (+)

unopescatore wrote:
u just don't get it....it's ok....most people don't till it's too late. 

PBS. indecision   Keep slupring him up Nick.



Once again




66  
#53 | 721 days ago

So only the stuff posted and found by a particular dude is "TRUE.....and not some made up BS"? Ugh. 
13  
#54 | 721 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:


Once again




u and u're pain in the arse red x pics....I freaken sware Nick....u're lucky I have another PC to view this stuff. indecision


dude....I'm not a Romney supporter....I just HATE what Obama has done and what he will continue to do.

u've been hanging with the wrong crowd bro....they've rotted u're mind....pull it together.
#55 | 721 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kteacher wrote:
So only the stuff posted and found by a particular dude is "TRUE.....and not some made up BS"? Ugh. 
so the #'s aren't true?????....or just cause it's on a site that u don't agree with you dismiss it.....u need to pull it together as well.   This site is pretty much hopeless, so I expect as much.   keep drinking the government kool-aide.

#56 | 721 days ago

So...the media tripped all over itself to tell us how great Romney did last week (discounting the lies and downplaying the fact-checking). Now, they are all aghast that the polls have tightened.

Cause...meet effect.

Hey, to all of you who changed your mind, tell me how you now support a candidate who should have been wearing a red nose, whiteface, a painted-on smile (oh...that's really his smile?) and circles around his eyes for his entire campaign? 

For those of you who are slow (and voted for GWB...twice), I am talking about Mitt Romney.
8  
#57 | 721 days ago

MIKELIN8 wrote:
So...the media tripped all over itself to tell us how great Romney did last week (discounting the lies and downplaying the fact-checking). Now, they are all aghast that the polls have tightened.

Cause...meet effect.

Hey, to all of you who changed your mind, tell me how you now support a candidate who should have been wearing a red nose, whiteface, a painted-on smile (oh...that's really his smile?) and circles around his eyes for his entire campaign? 

For those of you who are slow (and voted for GWB...twice), I am talking about Mitt Romney.
<---- Slow and proud.
#58 | 721 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
PBS takes up less than 1% of the National debt!

Cancelling that network is NOT going to help with the deficit!

I thought SHMITT was all for Education???  If so, why does he want to take the #1 educational channel off of the air???

hmmmmmm?!?!?

And how was the attack on the 4 US citizens in Libya, Obama's fault?

It's not like he knew, 1 year in advance, about a terrorist attack that was going to happen on US soil and did nothing about it!







All I smell is 


I dont recall him saying anything about cancelling PBS, I'm pretty sure he talked about cuting the funding to PBS and if people feel it is such a great and educational tool then they can help keep it funded when PBS has their telethon thing every six months. Afterall it is the Public Broadcasting System not the Government Funded Broadcast Sysytem.
#59 | 721 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
mojo wrote:
I dont recall him saying anything about cancelling PBS, I'm pretty sure he talked about cuting the funding to PBS and if people feel it is such a great and educational tool then they can help keep it funded when PBS has their telethon thing every six months. Afterall it is the Public Broadcasting System not the Government Funded Broadcast Sysytem.
In the debate, he stated that he would be cancelling PBS!  Yes, he did!

Once again, the government funding, which is not 100% is still less than 1% of the national debt!  I don't see how this is going to help our deficit?  The only thing it will help is Wall Street, which is where he plans on sending those funds to!


At any rate, these past 4 years are still better than what we had for the previous 8 years before that!

Hundreds of thousand of jobs have been created and 2 major terrorists have been caught and killed!

and, Barry's cabinet is still cleaning up that TARD's crap from the last administration!






66  
#60 | 721 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
In the debate, he stated that he would be cancelling PBS!  Yes, he did!

Once again, the government funding, which is not 100% is still less than 1% of the national debt!  I don't see how this is going to help our deficit?  The only thing it will help is Wall Street, which is where he plans on sending those funds to!


At any rate, these past 4 years are still better than what we had for the previous 8 years before that!

Hundreds of thousand of jobs have been created and 2 major terrorists have been caught and killed!

and, Barry's cabinet is still cleaning up that TARD's crap from the last administration!






480 million a year for PBS=6 hours of Defense spending
#61 | 721 days ago

I'm just *shocked* that this degenerated into immature squabbling. Shocked, I say.
#62 | 721 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
I'm just *shocked* that this degenerated into immature squabbling. Shocked, I say.
Why should this be any different than the debates themselves?
#63 | 721 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
so the #'s aren't true?????....or just cause it's on a site that u don't agree with you dismiss it.....u need to pull it together as well.   This site is pretty much hopeless, so I expect as much.   keep drinking the government kool-aide.

I don't know what you are talking writing about. Your link went nowhere. 

If I'm drinking "kool-aide", what are you drinking? 
13  
#64 | 721 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
kteacher wrote:
I don't know what you are talking writing about. Your link went nowhere. 

If I'm drinking "kool-aide", what are you drinking? 
The purp.

Only thing that can get you that screwed up.


/odds of any one on here getting this1:100000000000000000000
#65 | 721 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
Eric_ wrote:
I'm just *shocked* that this degenerated into immature squabbling. Shocked, I say.
Did you expect anything less? wink

Sometimes you DO have to reach other levels to communicate.
66  
#66 | 721 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
In the debate, he stated that he would be cancelling PBS!  Yes, he did!

Once again, the government funding, which is not 100% is still less than 1% of the national debt!  I don't see how this is going to help our deficit?  The only thing it will help is Wall Street, which is where he plans on sending those funds to!


At any rate, these past 4 years are still better than what we had for the previous 8 years before that!

Hundreds of thousand of jobs have been created and 2 major terrorists have been caught and killed!

and, Barry's cabinet is still cleaning up that TARD's crap from the last administration!






Not CANCELLING PBS...cutting the funding....PBS will have to have a few more fundraisers and phone-a-thons...
69  
#67 | 721 days ago

icfeet wrote:
Not CANCELLING PBS...cutting the funding....PBS will have to have a few more fundraisers and phone-a-thons...
But really, getting rid of PBS is like.. doing nothing. Its not a solution. And Its the only specific Mittens dropped.
#68 | 720 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
<---- Slow and proud.
I'm ashamed to love you.
#69 | 720 days ago

(Edited by kobe_lova)
Sidebar: Am I the only one in this thread that grew up watching PBS? Sesame Street? Reading Rainbow? Bob Ross? Readalong? 3-2-1 Contact? Zoom? Mr. Rogers? Slim Goodbody? Nova?  (Gawd, I loved Nova) Ghostwriter? Electric company reruns? How could you not love and appreciate it. I mean candidate Romney, I understand, but you all?! It's disheartening. Hellooo... if you don't think these shows had a positive effect, you're wrong. I mean I'm sure some of you didn't watch. Some of you grew up in a perfect educational system, chock full of endless resources so you may not see the significance, albeit small significance, of the PBS channels. Blah, blah... there is no good reason to cancel/cut funding for PBS. And, it's pretty stupid that it's having to be discussed at all right now on any platform. It's equally stupid that people don't see it as the shiny distraction it is.

Plus, my kid and I love Sesame Street still. Booo all of this.
#70 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kteacher wrote:
I don't know what you are talking writing about. Your link went nowhere. 

If I'm drinking "kool-aide", what are you drinking? 
common sense......u should try it some time.
#71 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

(Edited by unopescatore)
icfeet wrote:
Not CANCELLING PBS...cutting the funding....PBS will have to have a few more fundraisers and phone-a-thons...
nick just don't get it.....it's like talking to a wall.
#72 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
Sidebar: Am I the only one in this thread that grew up watching PBS? Sesame Street? Reading Rainbow? Bob Ross? Readalong? 3-2-1 Contact? Zoom? Mr. Rogers? Slim Goodbody? Nova?  (Gawd, I loved Nova) Ghostwriter? Electric company reruns? How could you not love and appreciate it. I mean candidate Romney, I understand, but you all?! It's disheartening. Hellooo... if you don't think these shows had a positive effect, you're wrong. I mean I'm sure some of you didn't watch. Some of you grew up in a perfect educational system, chock full of endless resources so you may not see the significance, albeit small significance, of the PBS channels. Blah, blah... there is no good reason to cancel/cut funding for PBS. And, it's pretty stupid that it's having to be discussed at all right now on any platform. It's equally stupid that people don't see it as the shiny distraction it is.

Plus, my kid and I love Sesame Street still. Booo all of this.
PBS rules....nobody is gonna cancel it....they make money hand over fist...and that's what my link was about.  It's just more non-sense to distract, from REAL issues.
#73 | 720 days ago
Nick__ (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
Sidebar: Am I the only one in this thread that grew up watching PBS? Sesame Street? Reading Rainbow? Bob Ross? Readalong? 3-2-1 Contact? Zoom? Mr. Rogers? Slim Goodbody? Nova?  (Gawd, I loved Nova) Ghostwriter? Electric company reruns? How could you not love and appreciate it. I mean candidate Romney, I understand, but you all?! It's disheartening. Hellooo... if you don't think these shows had a positive effect, you're wrong. I mean I'm sure some of you didn't watch. Some of you grew up in a perfect educational system, chock full of endless resources so you may not see the significance, albeit small significance, of the PBS channels. Blah, blah... there is no good reason to cancel/cut funding for PBS. And, it's pretty stupid that it's having to be discussed at all right now on any platform. It's equally stupid that people don't see it as the shiny distraction it is.

Plus, my kid and I love Sesame Street still. Booo all of this.
No...i did......I watched SS, ZOOM, Electric Company back when Morgan Freeman was on it.

I still watch some of their shows today, but, mainly for the concerts.


Nova was pretty bad ass too!



66  
#74 | 720 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
common sense......u should try it some time.
Don't you personal attack me, Mr. "Common Sense"! They don't like that around here. Toodles. 


P.S. I'm sure you've heard this many times, but your link is BRoKEN. 
13  
#75 | 720 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
unopescatore wrote:
nick just don't get it.....it's like talking to a wall.
Oh, I get it............in fact, MOST OF US, get it......If you want to debate what is being stated in here, that's one thing, but to criticize people for their freedom of choice, is wrong (and that's not the word I wanted to use) wink

But, to each their own......I'm not here to convince you that ROMNEY is NOT the right choice! We all have the freedom to choose who we want and to have our own opinions!

Who wants a President who changes his mind and stance every month?!?!  Do you need examples because there are plenty of them stemming back to when BullshMITT was running for Governor and I would be more than happy to provide them.
66  
#76 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kteacher wrote:
Don't you personal attack me, Mr. "Common Sense"! They don't like that around here. Toodles. 


P.S. I'm sure you've heard this many times, but your link is BRoKEN. 
oh jezz....here we go with the personal attack non sense.


get u're bro-in-law in here....I'm sure he has a picnic with you.

no...u're the only one who said the link is broken....must've been cut off from government funding. indecision

here:

http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25367989&topic_id=26315628&tcid=vpp_copy_25367989&v=3
#77 | 720 days ago

(Edited by kteacher)
unopescatore wrote:
oh jezz....here we go with the personal attack non sense.


get u're bro-in-law in here....I'm sure he has a picnic with you.

no...u're the only one who said the link is broken....must've been cut off from government funding. indecision

here:

http://www.video.theblaze.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=25367989&topic_id=26315628&tcid=vpp_copy_25367989&v=3
You're the one always mentioning the personal attack business...........so I felt it was necessary............and it also added to my personal enjoyment. 

My bro-in law and you would probably live happily ever after. Aww. How cute. 

Let's be real. I'm probably the only one who even attempted to click on your link and tell you that it was broken. laugh


p.S. Your link worked. How is this round table  any different from others on MSNBC or elsewhere? (by the way, the curly haired guy was on Bill Maher last Friday.........better debate. )
13  
#78 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
Oh, I get it............in fact, MOST OF US, get it......If you want to debate what is being stated in here, that's one thing, but to criticize people for their freedom of choice, is wrong (and that's not the word I wanted to use) wink

But, to each their own......I'm not here to convince you that ROMNEY is NOT the right choice! We all have the freedom to choose who we want and to have our own opinions!

Who wants a President who changes his mind and stance every month?!?!  Do you need examples because there are plenty of them stemming back to when BullshMITT was running for Governor and I would be more than happy to provide them.




Keep talking about PBS dude. indecision Obama always tells the truth....like what happened in Libya. indecision

#79 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kteacher wrote:
You're the one always mentioning the personal attack business...........so I felt it was necessary............and it also added to my personal enjoyment. 

My bro-in law and you would probably live happily ever after. Aww. How cute. 

Let's be real. I'm probably the only one who even attempted to click on your link and tell you that it was broken. laugh


p.S. Your link worked. How is this round table  any different from others on MSNBC or elsewhere? (by the way, the curly haired guy was on Bill Maher last Friday.........better debate. )
lol....get that dude a faniq account....I need more peeps like me on here. laugh

u're prob right about u being the only one who tried to click on it....try it now if u'ed like....it's not a virus....I promise.   It's really for Hipster Nick and his PBS crazyness.

I'd like a thrid choice for Pres....but that aint happening.
#80 | 720 days ago
Nick__ (+)

unopescatore wrote:




Keep talking about PBS dude. indecision Obama always tells the truth....like what happened in Libya. indecision

PBS is just one example and none of you have debated that any of us where incorrect with what he have stated!

There are many other topics to debate, that was just one of them!
66  
#81 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kteacher wrote:
You're the one always mentioning the personal attack business...........so I felt it was necessary............and it also added to my personal enjoyment. 

My bro-in law and you would probably live happily ever after. Aww. How cute. 

Let's be real. I'm probably the only one who even attempted to click on your link and tell you that it was broken. laugh


p.S. Your link worked. How is this round table  any different from others on MSNBC or elsewhere? (by the way, the curly haired guy was on Bill Maher last Friday.........better debate. )
just gotta sift through the non-sense.
#82 | 720 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
In the debate, he stated that he would be cancelling PBS!  Yes, he did!

Once again, the government funding, which is not 100% is still less than 1% of the national debt!  I don't see how this is going to help our deficit?  The only thing it will help is Wall Street, which is where he plans on sending those funds to!


At any rate, these past 4 years are still better than what we had for the previous 8 years before that!

Hundreds of thousand of jobs have been created and 2 major terrorists have been caught and killed!

and, Barry's cabinet is still cleaning up that TARD's crap from the last administration!






Stopping subsidies to PBS is not cancelling PBS, big difference!  Here ya go.

Where and when has he stated he would be sending money to Wall Street? just wondering, maybe something I missed.

There are probably 23 million people willing to disagree that we are better off than we were 4 years ago.

And unemployment is still over 8%, but I'll give ya that one. Jobs arent going to come back over night. 2 major terrorist may be dead but that didnt stop what happened in Bengazi and the adminstations subsequent clusterf**k.

W was a tard, but Barry keeps signing off on stuff he put in place.

We probably arent ever going to agree on this stuff, so i'll just have to agree to disagree.
#83 | 720 days ago

It's funny how a lot of my republican friends (and trust me they are about an 80-20 majority) have been a little quieter on the Romney flaunting since his foreign policy speech at VMI..

It just fascinates me that people have no problem not recognizing the fact that this guy is a walking farce and no matter how ridiculous he makes himself look, people refuse to see through his bullsh*t.

Hell, even the foreign press recognizes it
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-delusional-foreign-policy
#84 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
PBS is just one example and none of you have debated that any of us where incorrect with what he have stated!

There are many other topics to debate, that was just one of them!
but yet u still have a hard on about PBS.....go relieve yourself bro. laugh
#85 | 720 days ago

Stop talking about PBS.
#86 | 720 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
Stop talking about PBS.
u should know better by now. indecision


what about PMS. devil
#87 | 720 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
u should know better by now. indecision


what about PMS. devil
physically, it exists. mentally, it's just an excuse.
#88 | 720 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
Unfortunately, Social Security's probably going to take a whack even if Obama's re-elected. Deficit reduction mania has taken over the Beltway, and yes, cutting SS is very much on the table. The GOP wants it cut bad (I would argue they really want to get rid of it completely) and most of the Dems are willing to do it, including the president. There's already another "Gang" in the Senate to work on "the problem." The Great Sellout is coming. Trust me on this.

I keep trying to find a reason not to think we're all completely *bleeped,* but I can't. I just can't.
#89 | 720 days ago

I'm about to drop a couple of recent stories and quotes. See if you can find the connection.

A Wisconsin state rep was quoted as saying "some girls rape easy."

It was discovered that in 2000, Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) pressured his mistress to have an abortion.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) characterized such things as evolution and the Big Bang theory (the theory, not the TV show) as "lies straight from the pit of Hell."

Just today, Mitt Romney said that people don't die because they do not have health insurance. This is not true, and if even you want to argue no one *directly* dies from not having insurance, it's hard to argue it doesn't indirectly contribute at least.

Also, the "rich a-holes threatening to fire people if Obama wins" thing has started up again. It's warmed over from 2008, but the guy admits to doing it. Funny, last time I checked voter intimidation is illegal.

This is why the false equivalency narrative irritates me so much. Who on the liberal/Democratic side talks with such heated rhetoric? These aren't just random yahoos, these are elected officials. Seriously, someone find me some. I'd also love to hear the conservatives thoughts on some of this. Do you agree with this language and rhetoric,  because again, it's mostly coming from elected officials in the Republican Party?
#90 | 720 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
<---- Slow and proud.
So...tell me why I should hand the country over to the same people who almost drove it into the ground...
8  
#91 | 720 days ago

Well, THAT was fun.
#92 | 719 days ago

Didn't see this one coming:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/state-regional-education/florida-to-measure-student-goals-by-race/nSbNt/


I looked at the news for a few minutes this a.m.  Apparently there were two debates last night.  I ony saw the one. 

#93 | 719 days ago

Mr Vice President Joe Biden rocks! Mr Ryan's eyes freaked me out, I could hardly look at him. I giggled through most of the debate, a couple of times I wanted to shake that kid by the shoulders.
367  
#94 | 719 days ago

MIKELIN8 wrote:
So...tell me why I should hand the country over to the same people who almost drove it into the ground...
Because it was a lot slower bus than the rocket ship Barry's driving!
#95 | 719 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
Because it was a lot slower bus than the rocket ship Barry's driving!
I'm a space bound rocket ship and your heart's the moon
And I'm aiming right at you
Right at you
#96 | 719 days ago

it's long, but something my daddy wrote that pretty much blew my mind:

When Clinton left office, the country was running on surplus budgets. Rather than using those surpluses to reduce the debt, Bush chose to institute tax cuts, and give the money back to the taxpayers. Whether the meltdown was Bush's fault is irrelevant. It happened on his watch, and it is what Obama inherited. Now people are upset that Obama is not resolving the situation fast enough, while still requiring that he play by Bush's rules.

The government is not a business. Businesses, if they want to stay in business, do what they need to maximize profit. That is not the government's role. In this context, the government's role (in my opinion) is to promote the general welfare. And if that means that the government needs to keep people from starving (food stamps), and it needs to be done on the cuff instead of from a surplus, so be it. But what about charity? Couldn't we citizens take care of our own? Yes, probably, but at what personal cost? Would you be willing to disavow your Christianity in order to feed your family? And regardless of your answer, do you now understand the non-Christian's angst when going to the Christian charity to feed his family? The right calls Obama "the food stamp President", as if it's a bad thing; I look at the same set of facts and say, "thank God."

Back to the economy; pretend that you are living your life. You have some debt, sure, but nothing you can't handle. You make plans with the wife, "we're going to knock this debt out and live on the square." Then your pay gets cut (Bush tax cuts). But you still want to get rid of the debt. So you rearrange the budget, and things look bad, but not horrible. Then, after the pay cut, your hours get cut (the recession). You are now, to some extent, living on your credit card. And where you turned the steak into hamburger, and the hamburger into beans and rice, you're still living on the credit card, but your biggest concern is reducing your credit card debt.

Then, you get a job interview, and it's a sure thing. This new job will increase your pay substantially; maybe not enough to stop the bleeding, but enough to apply a tourniquet, and then you can work from there. The only problem is that you don't have enough gas to get to the interview. Sure, you have enough credit to fill your tank, but you've already said that you're not going into any more debt. Period. So do you pass on the sure thing that will make your life better because it would mean more debt, do you say "I like this whole starving and dying a slow death" thing? Or do you do what you know is the best thing for your family under the circumstances?

Your choice, it's a free country.
 
Back to the analogy: Right after you took the pay cut (Bush tax cuts), the wife had a baby. An "oops" baby which you named Afghanistan, but there it is. Then, you convinced each other that the best thing was to have another on purpose. This one you named Iraq. Now, your "family expenditures" budget (defense) couldn't accommodate them, so you decided to pay for them out of your rainy day fund. Which consisted of a credit card.

Iraq is grown and gone, and Afghanistan is leaving soon. But in the meantime, you still have bills to pay, and the wife is complaining about the credit card debt. When you say "I'll just go back to getting paid what I was getting before", she says you're an idiot and a loser. But she keeps on about the credit card debt (which she was more than happy to agree to, before it was spent.). She wants to cut the household budget to pay for the credit card debt. All you want is a freaking tank of gas to get to the interview, but that would be too much.

Then she says, "There's this guy at church I've been talking to. He says that our problems will be solved if we just take another 20% pay cut. He says that if we take the additional pay cut, we'll get enough hours to make up the difference AND get rid of the credit card debt."

You scratch your head and say "Do what?! How is that going to work?"

And she says "Well, he's only going to tell me after I move in with him and turn over the household finances. But it sounds really good. By the way, Afghanistan might be sticking around a little longer than we thought. And our family expenditures budget, even though we're supporting our kids out of the rainy day fund, will be going up higher than it's ever been before. Remember sweet little Korea, and Cold War, and Viet Nam? Well, our family expenditures budget will be higher than when we were paying for any of those kids, even though I'm not pregnant. And we're going to be giving money to the neighbor kids, but only if they think the same way we do. But we're still going to be okay and come out of this smelling like a rose. It would all be okay, if you weren't such a loser."

And you still don't have your tank of gas.

Who is who in this analogy? You are the husband, you are the wife. You're even the guy she's been talking to at church. We are all all of this. Welcome to America.
#97 | 719 days ago

"The economy is moving in the wrong direction, it is growing at 1.3%."-Paul Ryan

How is a growing economy the wrong direction?
22  
#98 | 719 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
I'm a space bound rocket ship and your heart's the moon
And I'm aiming right at you
Right at you
Does this arouse anyone else here?
#99 | 719 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
Because it was a lot slower bus than the rocket ship Barry's driving!
You make no sense...one party gave away a surplus, started two wars while cutting taxes, passed a prescription drug benefit without paying for it, left the country's economy in a real mess, obstructed every effort to make things better in the last 4 years, and you want me to believe that the other party is to blame?

Pith does not equal intelligence. 
8  
#100 | 719 days ago

MIKELIN8 wrote:
You make no sense...one party gave away a surplus, started two wars while cutting taxes, passed a prescription drug benefit without paying for it, left the country's economy in a real mess, obstructed every effort to make things better in the last 4 years, and you want me to believe that the other party is to blame?

Pith does not equal intelligence. 
Last time I checked, I make perfect sense to me and a few hundred million others.  You and yours can continue to blame the prior administration, but I aint buying no kool-aide stands. 

Go pith up a rope.
#101 | 719 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
Last time I checked, I make perfect sense to me and a few hundred million others.  You and yours can continue to blame the prior administration, but I aint buying no kool-aide stands. 

Go pith up a rope.
The prior admin left a sh**y mess, and you know this, but that's not why I'm here.



*
#102 | 718 days ago
Nick__ (+)

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
it's long, but something my daddy wrote that pretty much blew my mind:

When Clinton left office, the country was running on surplus budgets. Rather than using those surpluses to reduce the debt, Bush chose to institute tax cuts, and give the money back to the taxpayers. Whether the meltdown was Bush's fault is irrelevant. It happened on his watch, and it is what Obama inherited. Now people are upset that Obama is not resolving the situation fast enough, while still requiring that he play by Bush's rules.

The government is not a business. Businesses, if they want to stay in business, do what they need to maximize profit. That is not the government's role. In this context, the government's role (in my opinion) is to promote the general welfare. And if that means that the government needs to keep people from starving (food stamps), and it needs to be done on the cuff instead of from a surplus, so be it. But what about charity? Couldn't we citizens take care of our own? Yes, probably, but at what personal cost? Would you be willing to disavow your Christianity in order to feed your family? And regardless of your answer, do you now understand the non-Christian's angst when going to the Christian charity to feed his family? The right calls Obama "the food stamp President", as if it's a bad thing; I look at the same set of facts and say, "thank God."

Back to the economy; pretend that you are living your life. You have some debt, sure, but nothing you can't handle. You make plans with the wife, "we're going to knock this debt out and live on the square." Then your pay gets cut (Bush tax cuts). But you still want to get rid of the debt. So you rearrange the budget, and things look bad, but not horrible. Then, after the pay cut, your hours get cut (the recession). You are now, to some extent, living on your credit card. And where you turned the steak into hamburger, and the hamburger into beans and rice, you're still living on the credit card, but your biggest concern is reducing your credit card debt.

Then, you get a job interview, and it's a sure thing. This new job will increase your pay substantially; maybe not enough to stop the bleeding, but enough to apply a tourniquet, and then you can work from there. The only problem is that you don't have enough gas to get to the interview. Sure, you have enough credit to fill your tank, but you've already said that you're not going into any more debt. Period. So do you pass on the sure thing that will make your life better because it would mean more debt, do you say "I like this whole starving and dying a slow death" thing? Or do you do what you know is the best thing for your family under the circumstances?

Your choice, it's a free country.
 
Back to the analogy: Right after you took the pay cut (Bush tax cuts), the wife had a baby. An "oops" baby which you named Afghanistan, but there it is. Then, you convinced each other that the best thing was to have another on purpose. This one you named Iraq. Now, your "family expenditures" budget (defense) couldn't accommodate them, so you decided to pay for them out of your rainy day fund. Which consisted of a credit card.

Iraq is grown and gone, and Afghanistan is leaving soon. But in the meantime, you still have bills to pay, and the wife is complaining about the credit card debt. When you say "I'll just go back to getting paid what I was getting before", she says you're an idiot and a loser. But she keeps on about the credit card debt (which she was more than happy to agree to, before it was spent.). She wants to cut the household budget to pay for the credit card debt. All you want is a freaking tank of gas to get to the interview, but that would be too much.

Then she says, "There's this guy at church I've been talking to. He says that our problems will be solved if we just take another 20% pay cut. He says that if we take the additional pay cut, we'll get enough hours to make up the difference AND get rid of the credit card debt."

You scratch your head and say "Do what?! How is that going to work?"

And she says "Well, he's only going to tell me after I move in with him and turn over the household finances. But it sounds really good. By the way, Afghanistan might be sticking around a little longer than we thought. And our family expenditures budget, even though we're supporting our kids out of the rainy day fund, will be going up higher than it's ever been before. Remember sweet little Korea, and Cold War, and Viet Nam? Well, our family expenditures budget will be higher than when we were paying for any of those kids, even though I'm not pregnant. And we're going to be giving money to the neighbor kids, but only if they think the same way we do. But we're still going to be okay and come out of this smelling like a rose. It would all be okay, if you weren't such a loser."

And you still don't have your tank of gas.

Who is who in this analogy? You are the husband, you are the wife. You're even the guy she's been talking to at church. We are all all of this. Welcome to America.
woah!!  surprise


That was very, very deeeeeeep!
And extremely well written! yes

I think I need another cool
66  
#103 | 718 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
it's long, but something my daddy wrote that pretty much blew my mind:

When Clinton left office, the country was running on surplus budgets. Rather than using those surpluses to reduce the debt, Bush chose to institute tax cuts, and give the money back to the taxpayers. Whether the meltdown was Bush's fault is irrelevant. It happened on his watch, and it is what Obama inherited. Now people are upset that Obama is not resolving the situation fast enough, while still requiring that he play by Bush's rules.

The government is not a business. Businesses, if they want to stay in business, do what they need to maximize profit. That is not the government's role. In this context, the government's role (in my opinion) is to promote the general welfare. And if that means that the government needs to keep people from starving (food stamps), and it needs to be done on the cuff instead of from a surplus, so be it. But what about charity? Couldn't we citizens take care of our own? Yes, probably, but at what personal cost? Would you be willing to disavow your Christianity in order to feed your family? And regardless of your answer, do you now understand the non-Christian's angst when going to the Christian charity to feed his family? The right calls Obama "the food stamp President", as if it's a bad thing; I look at the same set of facts and say, "thank God."

Back to the economy; pretend that you are living your life. You have some debt, sure, but nothing you can't handle. You make plans with the wife, "we're going to knock this debt out and live on the square." Then your pay gets cut (Bush tax cuts). But you still want to get rid of the debt. So you rearrange the budget, and things look bad, but not horrible. Then, after the pay cut, your hours get cut (the recession). You are now, to some extent, living on your credit card. And where you turned the steak into hamburger, and the hamburger into beans and rice, you're still living on the credit card, but your biggest concern is reducing your credit card debt.

Then, you get a job interview, and it's a sure thing. This new job will increase your pay substantially; maybe not enough to stop the bleeding, but enough to apply a tourniquet, and then you can work from there. The only problem is that you don't have enough gas to get to the interview. Sure, you have enough credit to fill your tank, but you've already said that you're not going into any more debt. Period. So do you pass on the sure thing that will make your life better because it would mean more debt, do you say "I like this whole starving and dying a slow death" thing? Or do you do what you know is the best thing for your family under the circumstances?

Your choice, it's a free country.
 
Back to the analogy: Right after you took the pay cut (Bush tax cuts), the wife had a baby. An "oops" baby which you named Afghanistan, but there it is. Then, you convinced each other that the best thing was to have another on purpose. This one you named Iraq. Now, your "family expenditures" budget (defense) couldn't accommodate them, so you decided to pay for them out of your rainy day fund. Which consisted of a credit card.

Iraq is grown and gone, and Afghanistan is leaving soon. But in the meantime, you still have bills to pay, and the wife is complaining about the credit card debt. When you say "I'll just go back to getting paid what I was getting before", she says you're an idiot and a loser. But she keeps on about the credit card debt (which she was more than happy to agree to, before it was spent.). She wants to cut the household budget to pay for the credit card debt. All you want is a freaking tank of gas to get to the interview, but that would be too much.

Then she says, "There's this guy at church I've been talking to. He says that our problems will be solved if we just take another 20% pay cut. He says that if we take the additional pay cut, we'll get enough hours to make up the difference AND get rid of the credit card debt."

You scratch your head and say "Do what?! How is that going to work?"

And she says "Well, he's only going to tell me after I move in with him and turn over the household finances. But it sounds really good. By the way, Afghanistan might be sticking around a little longer than we thought. And our family expenditures budget, even though we're supporting our kids out of the rainy day fund, will be going up higher than it's ever been before. Remember sweet little Korea, and Cold War, and Viet Nam? Well, our family expenditures budget will be higher than when we were paying for any of those kids, even though I'm not pregnant. And we're going to be giving money to the neighbor kids, but only if they think the same way we do. But we're still going to be okay and come out of this smelling like a rose. It would all be okay, if you weren't such a loser."

And you still don't have your tank of gas.

Who is who in this analogy? You are the husband, you are the wife. You're even the guy she's been talking to at church. We are all all of this. Welcome to America.
The problem is the politicians...BOTH Dems and Repubs...

Here's my two cents...Tax CUTS work at increasing revenue to the federal treasury.  Kennedy cut taxes, revenues went UP.  Reagan cut taxes, revenues went UP.  Bush cut taxes, and revenues went UP.  SO what is the problem?  CONGRESS!!! Insead of payng down the debt, they looked at all this new money and spent it.  Dems and Repubs BOTH went wild spending.

Many politicians think taxes are a zero-sum gain...if you RAISE taxes by 10 billion, you will have $10 billion...however, that's NOT the way it works, because people will try to find ways to shelter their money, so maybe they won't pay as much in taxes.  I pay over $1000/week in taxes between state and federal taxes....IF I had a tax CUT, I'd have more money in my pocket-to hire staff, purchase new equipment, or maybe just going out to dinner a little more....that would necessitate having manufacturers making more goods, which means more employees, which equals more people paying taxes and going out to dinner, consuming, etc.  I used to laugh at the government when they paid $700 for a hammer and $300 for toilet seats...until I opened my own business and was introducetd to something called "quarterly taxes". Then, I realized that money they were wasting was MINE!

Solution?  TERM LIMITS for Congressmen and Senators....give someone 12 years max in each chamber...if they can't get something done in that time, they should't be there in the first plae.  Also, have the Congressmen actually HAVE the money present, rather than projections of how much they EXPECT to have....
69  
#104 | 718 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
icfeet wrote:
The problem is the politicians...BOTH Dems and Repubs...

Here's my two cents...Tax CUTS work at increasing revenue to the federal treasury.  Kennedy cut taxes, revenues went UP.  Reagan cut taxes, revenues went UP.  Bush cut taxes, and revenues went UP.  SO what is the problem?  CONGRESS!!! Insead of payng down the debt, they looked at all this new money and spent it.  Dems and Repubs BOTH went wild spending.

Many politicians think taxes are a zero-sum gain...if you RAISE taxes by 10 billion, you will have $10 billion...however, that's NOT the way it works, because people will try to find ways to shelter their money, so maybe they won't pay as much in taxes.  I pay over $1000/week in taxes between state and federal taxes....IF I had a tax CUT, I'd have more money in my pocket-to hire staff, purchase new equipment, or maybe just going out to dinner a little more....that would necessitate having manufacturers making more goods, which means more employees, which equals more people paying taxes and going out to dinner, consuming, etc.  I used to laugh at the government when they paid $700 for a hammer and $300 for toilet seats...until I opened my own business and was introducetd to something called "quarterly taxes". Then, I realized that money they were wasting was MINE!

Solution?  TERM LIMITS for Congressmen and Senators....give someone 12 years max in each chamber...if they can't get something done in that time, they should't be there in the first plae.  Also, have the Congressmen actually HAVE the money present, rather than projections of how much they EXPECT to have....
1) All those policitians's cut taxes are at a much higher rate than our current rate. Pretending that's relevant is laughable.

2) As a son of a small biz owner, that's all wrong. You would need a massive tax cut, much larger than even Romney is proposing (which is gigantic) to even hire one more person. Tax cuts don't create jobs and even then you wouldn't hire because you don't hire unless demand demands it.

3)  Term limits are stupid. No reason to get rid of good people because they've been there for a while.
#105 | 716 days ago

Solution?  TERM LIMITS for Congressmen and Senators....give someone 12 years max in each chamber...if they can't get something done in that time, they should't be there in the first plae.  Also, have the Congressmen actually HAVE the money present, rather than projections of how much they EXPECT to have....

except I say 4 year terms, just like the President and also, why are we paying them after they leave office?
I leave a job, I don't get lifetime benefits. End that shiotz immediately.
367  
#106 | 715 days ago

tumblr_mbl67eNhIw1qcb5fko1_500
#107 | 715 days ago

icfeet wrote:
The problem is the politicians...BOTH Dems and Repubs...

Here's my two cents...Tax CUTS work at increasing revenue to the federal treasury.  Kennedy cut taxes, revenues went UP.  Reagan cut taxes, revenues went UP.  Bush cut taxes, and revenues went UP.  SO what is the problem?  CONGRESS!!! Insead of payng down the debt, they looked at all this new money and spent it.  Dems and Repubs BOTH went wild spending.

Many politicians think taxes are a zero-sum gain...if you RAISE taxes by 10 billion, you will have $10 billion...however, that's NOT the way it works, because people will try to find ways to shelter their money, so maybe they won't pay as much in taxes.  I pay over $1000/week in taxes between state and federal taxes....IF I had a tax CUT, I'd have more money in my pocket-to hire staff, purchase new equipment, or maybe just going out to dinner a little more....that would necessitate having manufacturers making more goods, which means more employees, which equals more people paying taxes and going out to dinner, consuming, etc.  I used to laugh at the government when they paid $700 for a hammer and $300 for toilet seats...until I opened my own business and was introducetd to something called "quarterly taxes". Then, I realized that money they were wasting was MINE!

Solution?  TERM LIMITS for Congressmen and Senators....give someone 12 years max in each chamber...if they can't get something done in that time, they should't be there in the first plae.  Also, have the Congressmen actually HAVE the money present, rather than projections of how much they EXPECT to have....
First off, thank you for actually bringing some substance instead of just name calling and general trolling. I do plan on responding, hopefully tomorrow. Someone remind me.
#108 | 715 days ago

My thoughts for tonight essentially echo Charlie Pierce (I could link to him almost every day). This whole thing is theater, nothing more. That said, I could definitely see the Beltway media pumping up Obama after this one if he doesn't blow it again. Why? Because then they can say Romney won one debate, and Obama won one debate. The race is tied! Always remember, the horse race is what the MSM wants more than anything.

The alternative is Obama blows it again, in which case the media will bury his candidacy. As much as I don't want to agree with these Fourth Estate cocktail party jackasses, I'm enough of an alarmist and cynic that I will probably feel the same.
#109 | 715 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
Think Obama played that pitch perfect. The right is continually attacking Candy Crowley which is probably the best sign they know they lost.  This is key though.  Romney still lacks a truly legitimate path to 270 and he won't gain it tonight. That in itself, is an Obama win.

Edit to add: The one thing that will probably get replayed over and over is that Libya exchange that Romney completely bungled, and in my opinion lost any aura of Presidential-ness he may have gained in the last debate.
#110 | 715 days ago

Listened to the first hour on the radio.  Was driving and didn't feel like listening to the ALCS.  Ugh.  What a terrible error.  Nobody actually answered any of the questions asked.  It was just a long winded he said she said. 

Worthless.
#111 | 714 days ago

"I will create 12 million new jobs in my first four years"-Mitt Romney at the RNC.
"Government does not create jobs! Government does not create jobs!"-Mitt Romney yesterdays debate.
Tell me again how you are going to create 12 millions new jobs in your first 4 years Mitt Romney.
22  
#112 | 714 days ago

(Edited by MIKELIN8)
MIKELIN8 wrote:
You make no sense...one party gave away a surplus, started two wars while cutting taxes, passed a prescription drug benefit without paying for it, left the country's economy in a real mess, obstructed every effort to make things better in the last 4 years, and you want me to believe that the other party is to blame?

Pith does not equal intelligence. 
I blame the prior administration for leaving such a big hole to dig out of. You seem to be blaming the current administration for not digging out quickly enough. While you blame the President, you seem to forgive the recalcitrant Republicans in Congress, who have spent the entire term saying no to anything which could have helped make the digging go faster.
8  
#113 | 714 days ago

#114 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

most of u slurp Obama so bad and have already made up u're mind....it's like watching u're favorite team....you can't be subjective in any way shape or form. indecision
#115 | 714 days ago

13  
#116 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kteacher wrote:
specially u....Obama is like the Kings to u. laugh


just own it Teach. cheeky
#117 | 714 days ago
Nick__ (+)

unopescatore wrote:
most of u slurp Obama so bad and have already made up u're mind....it's like watching u're favorite team....you can't be subjective in any way shape or form. indecision
And some of you are either sooo brainwashed or have your heads soo far up..........to know the difference!

Explain this to me, why is it that the State of Massachusetts, FLIP FLOPNEY's own state, has Obama +20 points ahead of Flopney??

I will tell you why. Because Flopney was the Gov of that state and the people of Mass already know about his BS, lies and his constant mind changing!

If Flopney was the correct person to lead this country, you would THINK that his state would have his back?!  -  FACT!

NEXT!!!
66  
#118 | 714 days ago

#119 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
most of u slurp Obama so bad and have already made up u're mind....it's like watching u're favorite team....you can't be subjective in any way shape or form. indecision
you*


Did you mean objective?


Also, You are the least objective person I've ever seen in these polls. I'm not even sure why you post here. I assume just to say the word slurp.
#120 | 714 days ago

#121 | 714 days ago

#122 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
you*


Did you mean objective?


Also, You are the least objective person I've ever seen in these polls. I'm not even sure why you post here. I assume just to say the word slurp.
it is a nice word isn't it.


slurp em up

they both suck arse....hows that.
#123 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
And some of you are either sooo brainwashed or have your heads soo far up..........to know the difference!

Explain this to me, why is it that the State of Massachusetts, FLIP FLOPNEY's own state, has Obama +20 points ahead of Flopney??

I will tell you why. Because Flopney was the Gov of that state and the people of Mass already know about his BS, lies and his constant mind changing!

If Flopney was the correct person to lead this country, you would THINK that his state would have his back?!  -  FACT!

NEXT!!!
Mass is full of Massholes....u should move there, u'd fit right in.
#124 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
it is a nice word isn't it.


slurp em up

they both suck arse....hows that.
Ugh.
#125 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
Mass is full of Massholes....u should move there, u'd fit right in.
You do realize, you just called Romney an arsehole? Why would anyone vote for one of those?
367  
#126 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

JenX63 wrote:
You do realize, you just called Romney an arsehole? Why would anyone vote for one of those?
well I gotta vote for one of them.  I can't biatch and moan about stuff and not vote.  I'm trying to sift through all the BS they spew...it's tough though.  I call some of my best friends arseholes....what's u're point Jen? laugh


most on here are not objective or subjective....whatever correct term is. indecision   god damn hippies
#127 | 714 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
unopescatore wrote:
Mass is full of Massholes....u should move there, u'd fit right in.
That's a personal attack. You are lucky that I'm a cool guy and that I can stand you enough not to report you on this!

HA!, who am I kidding, I'm not sure I would report anyone?  Then again, there are a few that .....NEVER MIND!

If that is the best comeback to the FACTS that I posted, well, then, it's apparent that WE both know that Flopney is not the answer!

Just wait 4 more years when there will be 2 new liars vying for office. wink

The fact that someone would vote for a Flip Flopping, ever mind changing, no facts to back up what I say, candidate, kind of says a lot about that voters character. - and before you reply to this, once again, i have never, once, stated who I was voting for, so, don't you go assuming, again!
66  
#128 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
That's a personal attack. You are lucky that I'm a cool guy and that I can stand you enough not to report you on this!

HA!, who am I kidding, I'm not sure I would report anyone?  Then again, there are a few that .....NEVER MIND!

If that is the best comeback to the FACTS that I posted, well, then, it's apparent that WE both know that Flopney is not the answer!

Just wait 4 more years when there will be 2 new liars vying for office. wink

The fact that someone would vote for a Flip Flopping, ever mind changing, no facts to back up what I say, candidate, kind of says a lot about that voters character. - and before you reply to this, once again, i have never, once, stated who I was voting for, so, don't you go assuming, again!
I meant it in a nice way though Nick.

I know I assume correctly. ;)
#129 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
well I gotta vote for one of them.  I can't biatch and moan about stuff and not vote.  I'm trying to sift through all the BS they spew...it's tough though.  I call some of my best friends arseholes....what's u're point Jen? laugh


most on here are not objective or subjective....whatever correct term is. indecision   god damn hippies
That most people that are here are not Objective/Subjective is only your opinion, which you are entitled to. I respect that you want to vote for who YOU think would best serve this country, but, don't attack me or others for wanting the same right. I voted for Obama last time around, not just because Palin was/might could of been in office (yes that's exactly why), I based it on my research and who I could believe. Has President Obama done everything he promised? No, but neither has any other President that I know of. He TRIED, that is what I am looking at. The fact that the Republicans got together and said, Hell No, we aren't doing anything was just plain ignorant and hurt a lot of folks. He did bring down some pretty bad dudes and he is continuing to do the best job he can, (in my opinion) with what he  has to work with. Am I voting for Romney, OH HELL NO! That's my right, and it's yours to vote for whom ever you choose. 

It's ok to be an arsehole.
367  
#130 | 714 days ago

Did I just get called a hippie for knowing the meaning of the words objective and subjective? :|
#131 | 714 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
Did I just get called a hippie for knowing the meaning of the words objective and subjective? :|
It is just his go to phrase when he knows that he can't argue with facts. 

Isn't G*d d@mn a violation of the Q CoC?
22  
#132 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

JenX63 wrote:
That most people that are here are not Objective/Subjective is only your opinion, which you are entitled to. I respect that you want to vote for who YOU think would best serve this country, but, don't attack me or others for wanting the same right. I voted for Obama last time around, not just because Palin was/might could of been in office (yes that's exactly why), I based it on my research and who I could believe. Has President Obama done everything he promised? No, but neither has any other President that I know of. He TRIED, that is what I am looking at. The fact that the Republicans got together and said, Hell No, we aren't doing anything was just plain ignorant and hurt a lot of folks. He did bring down some pretty bad dudes and he is continuing to do the best job he can, (in my opinion) with what he  has to work with. Am I voting for Romney, OH HELL NO! That's my right, and it's yours to vote for whom ever you choose. 

It's ok to be an arsehole.
I dunno Jen....I mean u just typed u're opinion as well. I'll tell ya this....IF I was a Obama supporter you wouldn't say anything to me.....matter of fact you'ld prob agree with me....u might even like me (yea I know that's a far stretch). This Pres will go down as prob one of the worst Pres we've ever had.....book it.

& where did I attack u or others? I did attack the jackoff who created the thread....but that was a while ago. An attack to me is saying: I'll kick u're arse or something like that. Vaginafacation of America continues. :-(
#133 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
Did I just get called a hippie for knowing the meaning of the words objective and subjective? :|
no...it was just a general term for crazy liberals....I see some crazy liberals on here see it as a personal attack.   they're just trying to get me kicked off....it might just work though.
#134 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
I dunno Jen....I mean u just typed u're opinion as well. I'll tell ya this....IF I was a Obama supporter you wouldn't say anything to me.....matter of fact you'ld prob agree with me....u might even like me (yea I know that's a far stretch). This Pres will go down as prob one of the worst Pres we've ever had.....book it.

& where did I attack u or others? I did attack the jackoff who created the thread....but that was a while ago. An attack to me is saying: I'll kick u're arse or something like that. Vaginafacation of America continues. :-(
You are a walnut not yet shelled......you typed your opinion several times, I didn't respond each time. If the Republicans could come up with some one, NOT Romney I might change my mind. The talk is everywhere Joe, I am not sure what news agency you subscribe to, but coming from all sides, is they threw Romney under the bus and are concentrating on 2016. What's that suppose to say to me? I can't believe anything Romney says, be it his voice, his looks, whatever you want to call it., and his running mate? smh, he's not pro-choice, he's pro life with a couple of exceptions...i'm stopping now...I. you, everyone has to measure and vote on what they feel good with. I really don't care who you vote for. As long as you vote.
367  
#135 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

richard_cranium wrote:
It is just his go to phrase when he knows that he can't argue with facts. 

Isn't G*d d@mn a violation of the Q CoC?
u would point that out....u're like Fredo from the Godfather.   I smell a rat.
#136 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
no...it was just a general term for crazy liberals....I see some crazy liberals on here see it as a personal attack.   they're just trying to get me kicked off....it might just work though.
Or don't violate the CoC and you don't have to worry about getting/someone trying to get you kicked off the Q. enlightened
22  
#137 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

JenX63 wrote:
You are a walnut not yet shelled......you typed your opinion several times, I didn't respond each time. If the Republicans could come up with some one, NOT Romney I might change my mind. The talk is everywhere Joe, I am not sure what news agency you subscribe to, but coming from all sides, is they threw Romney under the bus and are concentrating on 2016. What's that suppose to say to me? I can't believe anything Romney says, be it his voice, his looks, whatever you want to call it., and his running mate? smh, he's not pro-choice, he's pro life with a couple of exceptions...i'm stopping now...I. you, everyone has to measure and vote on what they feel good with. I really don't care who you vote for. As long as you vote.
did u just attack me Jen. laugh  u're right....it's just a lotta chirping.  I don't listen to any one news agency.  Romney does suck arse, but I can't stand the dude in the White House....obamacare and being such a passy on foriegn policy.  Gov is there to keep us safe.....that's it....other than that leave me the hell alone.  I aint mad at anyone for voting for Obama....do what ya gotta do. 

Foreskins are going down Sunday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   now that's an attack.
#138 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

richard_cranium wrote:
Or don't violate the CoC and you don't have to worry about getting/someone trying to get you kicked off the Q. enlightened
yea ok Fredo


tampons are in isle 12
#139 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
no...it was just a general term for crazy liberals....I see some crazy liberals on here see it as a personal attack.   they're just trying to get me kicked off....it might just work though.
Oh, cause I don't think I am a hippie.
#140 | 714 days ago

(Edited by richard_cranium)
unopescatore wrote:
yea ok Fredo


tampons are in isle 12
Being a unmarried male, that does not live with any females. The location of tampons is of no use to me.

I thought this was a political thread, not a thread about shopping aisles.
22  
#141 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
Oh, cause I don't think I am a hippie.
me either
#142 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

richard_cranium wrote:
Being a unmarried male, that does not live with any females. The location of tampons is of no use to me.

I thought this was a political thread, not a thread about shopping aisles.
cool.....go live with gearhead, I'm sure you're both equally sucessfull with women. laugh


come on....that's not funny? devil  Ok back to politics....man I hate politics.
#143 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
cool.....go live with gearhead, I'm sure you're both equally sucessfull with women. laugh


come on....that's not funny? devil  Ok back to politics....man I hate politics.
The number of times I laugh at sh!t you post is the same as the number of f*cks I give. If you don't want to talk about politics then don't post in a political thread! enlightened 
22  
#144 | 714 days ago

#145 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

richard_cranium wrote:
The number of times I laugh at sh!t you post is the same as the number of f*cks I give. If you don't want to talk about politics then don't post in a political thread! enlightened 
u keep talking about coc....not me.
#146 | 714 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
unopescatore wrote:
I dunno Jen....I mean u just typed u're opinion as well. I'll tell ya this....IF I was a Obama supporter you wouldn't say anything to me.....matter of fact you'ld prob agree with me....u might even like me (yea I know that's a far stretch). This Pres will go down as prob one of the worst Pres we've ever had.....book it.

& where did I attack u or others? I did attack the jackoff who created the thread....but that was a while ago. An attack to me is saying: I'll kick u're arse or something like that. Vaginafacation of America continues. :-(
This Pres will go down as prob one of the worst Pres we've ever had.....book it

Ok, now THAT was theee most ridiculous and far from the truth comments I have ever heard!

What rock have you been living under?

GEORGE W BUSH, won't be touched, as thee worst president we've ever had, in a very, VERY long time!

The more you comment in here, the more and more you are painting yourself as someone that you shouldn't want to be painted as!

You sit here and tell the Obama supporters that they are closed-minded and are not seeing the whole picture, and YET, you sit there and claim that Obama may be one of the worst Presidents of all times?!?!   hahahahahahahahaha!  Really!?!?

(must use the edit filter on what I want to say, so not to attack) - UGH!

UNBELIEVABLE!  frown
66  
#147 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
This Pres will go down as prob one of the worst Pres we've ever had.....book it

Ok, now THAT was theee most ridiculous and far from the truth comments I have ever heard!

What rock have you been living under?

GEORGE W BUSH, won't be touched, as thee worst president we've ever had, in a very, VERY long time!

The more you comment in here, the more and more you are painting yourself as someone that you shouldn't want to be painted as!

You sit here and tell the Obama supporters that they are closed-minded and are not seeing the whole picture, and YET, you sit there and claim that Obama may be one of the worst Presidents of all times?!?!   hahahahahahahahaha!  Really!?!?

(must use the edit filter on what I want to say, so not to attack) - UGH!

UNBELIEVABLE!  frown
it's not funny.....it's our country
#148 | 714 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
unopescatore wrote:
it's not funny.....it's our country
4.5 million jobs have been created, even though there were 4 million jobs lost prior to the past 30 months, most of those were projected losses from the previous administration downfall.....with an estimated 12 million more jobs to be created over the next 5 years

2 Major terrorist figures have been captured and killed (Bin Laden & Hussein)

The economy has grown +1.3% since he took office after having a negative reporting leading up to his term

European leaders are more willing to work with the USA more now than in the previous 8 years.

You are right, Obama has done a poor job  frown


He took over a country that was in a downward spiral....nothing seen since the great depression, which, if you do your homework, you will see that it takes, a minimum of, anywhere from 5-10 years to re-cover from!
66  
#149 | 714 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
4.5 million jobs have been created, even though there were 4 million jobs lost prior to the past 30 months, most of those were projected losses from the previous administration downfall.....with an estimated 12 million more jobs to be created over the next 5 years

2 Major terrorist figures have been captured and killed (Bin Laden & Hussein)

The economy has grown +1.3% since he took office after having a negative reporting leading up to his term

European leaders are more willing to work with the USA more now than in the previous 8 years.

You are right, Obama has done a poor job  frown


He took over a country that was in a downward spiral....nothing seen since the great depression, which, if you do your homework, you will see that it takes, a minimum of, anywhere from 5-10 years to re-cover from!
the Pres didn't do that sh-t Nick....the American people did. a lotta the jobs that were created are those green jobs....which obama was in bed with to support his election. the truth is there....u just gotta be willing to look for it. ;) Come on Nick.
#150 | 714 days ago
Nick__ (+)

unopescatore wrote:
the Pres didn't do that sh-t Nick....the American people did. a lotta the jobs that were created are those green jobs....which obama was in bed with to support his election. the truth is there....u just gotta be willing to look for it. ;) Come on Nick.
oh...ok

66  
#151 | 714 days ago

Nick__ wrote:
4.5 million jobs have been created, even though there were 4 million jobs lost prior to the past 30 months, most of those were projected losses from the previous administration downfall.....with an estimated 12 million more jobs to be created over the next 5 years

2 Major terrorist figures have been captured and killed (Bin Laden & Hussein)

The economy has grown +1.3% since he took office after having a negative reporting leading up to his term

European leaders are more willing to work with the USA more now than in the previous 8 years.

You are right, Obama has done a poor job  frown


He took over a country that was in a downward spiral....nothing seen since the great depression, which, if you do your homework, you will see that it takes, a minimum of, anywhere from 5-10 years to re-cover from!
(you mean Bin Laden and Kaddhafi/Quaddaffi/Qadaffhi-Hussein was captured under the previous president)
69  
#152 | 714 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
Did I just get called a hippie for knowing the meaning of the words objective and subjective? :|
You and all your fancy book learnin'.
#153 | 714 days ago

I love all this political squabbling.  I got news for you F'ers.  You are all wrong...and you're all right.

Seriously, you F'ers know how I feel about lying, thieving, scumsucking, murderous, traiterous pieces of $h*t  politicians.

I can tell you right now who should run this country to get it un-f**ked...


ME
#154 | 714 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
I love all this political squabbling.  I got news for you F'ers.  You are all wrong...and you're all right.

Seriously, you F'ers know how I feel about lying, thieving, scumsucking, murderous, traiterous pieces of $h*t  politicians.

I can tell you right now who should run this country to get it un-f**ked...


ME
Ill write you in.
#155 | 714 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
I love all this political squabbling.  I got news for you F'ers.  You are all wrong...and you're all right.

Seriously, you F'ers know how I feel about lying, thieving, scumsucking, murderous, traiterous pieces of $h*t  politicians.

I can tell you right now who should run this country to get it un-f**ked...


ME
I'll show you my boobs if you make me Secretary of State.

(And this is how croneyism begins.)
#156 | 714 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I'll show you my boobs if you make me Secretary of State.

(And this is how croneyism begins.)
Done.  Payment in advance, please.
#157 | 714 days ago

She's a damn lying ass politician.
#158 | 714 days ago

Cactus_Jack wrote:
Done.  Payment in advance, please.
Psshh!  Like I'm gonna fall for THAT one.







Again.
#159 | 714 days ago

Jason_ wrote:
She's a damn lying ass politician.
Brother, I would make you the Ambassador to the UN, but my first official act would be kicking their sorry a$$e$ out of the U.S.
#160 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
no...it was just a general term for crazy liberals....I see some crazy liberals on here see it as a personal attack.   they're just trying to get me kicked off....it might just work though.
I don't see it as that, but you clearly intend it to be. Also, opinions by definition are subjective, so that attack makes no sense.

I also don't understand how a man who orders drones to kill people like he's ordering breakfast is a "foreign policy passy (sic)" (Classy, really), but whatever.

Everyone else, are we ready to just starting ignoring him? It's clearly not a productive use of pixels.
#161 | 714 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
specially u....Obama is like the Kings to u. laugh


just own it Teach. cheeky
No. He's like Obama to me. The Kings are like the Kings to me. Apples are like apples to me. Pizza is like pizza. I could go on if need be. 
13  
#162 | 714 days ago

(Edited by kteacher)
Cactus_Jack wrote:
I love all this political squabbling.  I got news for you F'ers.  You are all wrong...and you're all right.

Seriously, you F'ers know how I feel about lying, thieving, scumsucking, murderous, traiterous pieces of $h*t  politicians.

I can tell you right now who should run this country to get it un-f**ked...


ME
Will I get a raise, be treated like the "future employee maker" that I am, and not be blamed? 

I need these answered, or I will be fighting hard for your opponent. 
13  
#163 | 714 days ago

kteacher wrote:
Will I get a raise, be treated like the "future employee maker" that I am, and not be blamed? 

I need these answered, or I will be fighting hard for your opponent. 
He's going to put you in his binder.
#164 | 714 days ago

kteacher wrote:
Will I get a raise, be treated like the "future employee maker" that I am, and not be blamed? 

I need these answered, or I will be fighting hard for your opponent. 
You're a government employee, and thus don't have a real job. Expect benefits cuts and layoffs.
#165 | 714 days ago

Jason_ wrote:
He's going to put you in his binder.
And make sure you get home in time to cook dinner.
#166 | 714 days ago

(Edited by kteacher)
Eric_ wrote:
You're a government employee, and thus don't have a real job. Expect benefits cuts and layoffs.
That's right.

Ha! Darn my silly little woman's brain! (funny how only certain "government" jobs are bad.........for instance..nobody talks much about prison workers, those who make the weapons used in prisons, those who arrest the people in prison, or cops......interesting and funny....because those good government employees tend to sway Republican)
13  
#167 | 714 days ago

kteacher wrote:
That's right.

Ha! Darn my silly little woman's brain! (funny how only certain "government" jobs are bad.........for instance..nobody talks much about prison workers, those who make the weapons used in prisons, those who arrest the people in prison, or cops......interesting and funny....because those good government employees tend to sway Republican)
And nobody touches defense either, though you could argue no two types of government spending have had greater negative effects on the citizenry than the justice system and defense.  Not that we go can without either, but both need massive reforming and reprioritizing.
#168 | 714 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
And nobody touches defense either, though you could argue no two types of government spending have had greater negative effects on the citizenry than the justice system and defense.  Not that we go can without either, but both need massive reforming and reprioritizing.
Sequestration will take a big bite out of Defense spending. However it's so blunt and indiscriminate that I wouldn't call it reform. Plus, there will be furloughs, and while they say no layoffs, I don't exactly believe them, so it makes me very very nervous.
#169 | 714 days ago

Man, I love when you two speak this way.


...and Old Mike when he wants.


Hot.

not Old Mike, but I still like it.
#170 | 714 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
Sequestration will take a big bite out of Defense spending. However it's so blunt and indiscriminate that I wouldn't call it reform. Plus, there will be furloughs, and while they say no layoffs, I don't exactly believe them, so it makes me very very nervous.
I still doubt Sequestration actually happens, and its definitely far from reform. Granted, it was intended so, but it hasn't worked out so far.
#171 | 714 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
Man, I love when you two speak this way.


...and Old Mike when he wants.


Hot.

not Old Mike, but I still like it.
gee thanks. 







(SHUT UP! I know she wasn't talking about me, but I wanted to jump in anyway. Let. Me. Be.)
13  
#172 | 714 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
kteacher wrote:
Will I get a raise, be treated like the "future employee maker" that I am, and not be blamed? 

I need these answered, or I will be fighting hard for your opponent. 
If Janet does what she says, I think a lot of us will be a getting a raise! 
66  
#173 | 714 days ago

icfeet wrote:
The problem is the politicians...BOTH Dems and Repubs...

Here's my two cents...Tax CUTS work at increasing revenue to the federal treasury.  Kennedy cut taxes, revenues went UP.  Reagan cut taxes, revenues went UP.  Bush cut taxes, and revenues went UP.  SO what is the problem?  CONGRESS!!! Insead of payng down the debt, they looked at all this new money and spent it.  Dems and Repubs BOTH went wild spending.

Many politicians think taxes are a zero-sum gain...if you RAISE taxes by 10 billion, you will have $10 billion...however, that's NOT the way it works, because people will try to find ways to shelter their money, so maybe they won't pay as much in taxes.  I pay over $1000/week in taxes between state and federal taxes....IF I had a tax CUT, I'd have more money in my pocket-to hire staff, purchase new equipment, or maybe just going out to dinner a little more....that would necessitate having manufacturers making more goods, which means more employees, which equals more people paying taxes and going out to dinner, consuming, etc.  I used to laugh at the government when they paid $700 for a hammer and $300 for toilet seats...until I opened my own business and was introducetd to something called "quarterly taxes". Then, I realized that money they were wasting was MINE!

Solution?  TERM LIMITS for Congressmen and Senators....give someone 12 years max in each chamber...if they can't get something done in that time, they should't be there in the first plae.  Also, have the Congressmen actually HAVE the money present, rather than projections of how much they EXPECT to have....
OK, finally ready to respond to this.

The problem with your theory of "taxes gets cut, revenues go up" is when does it end. By that logic, you could claim the rate that will allow for the highest revenue is zero. Plus, revenues went up after Clinton raised rates in 1993. Just looking at recent years especially, you can see the relationship between economy strength and tax revenue. I'll also note that these tax rates are the lowest in history, and have been since Bush's 2003 tax cuts, and we can see the strength of the economy. There is no hard evidence tax cuts are some kind of panacea.

So using your estimate, you pay approx. $55,000 a year in taxes (you said a bit over a grand to week, so I added a bit on 52k). Reverse engineering that using federal marginal tax rates for married filing joint doesn't even get you into the highest bracket.*

* Let me acknowledge here that I didn't include state taxes for simplicity sake, and yes, this is a very rudimentary analysis since I don't have your actual information, which is of course your and your business alone. I just like playing with numbers, even if I have to make them up the best I can.

Anyway, at that tax payment level, even with a 20% cut Romney is proposing would cut your taxes by approx. $11,000. That's not likely enough to purchase significant new equipment in your business (I'm talking a significant machine like an X-ray, please correct me otherwise because I don't know much about podiatry), and it's certainly not enough to hire someone. That tax cut isn't going to get someone hired. The part of having more disposable income is true if you are inclined to use it on such things, but that's not a guarantee on either end of the income spectrum. I recall a lot of people using their checks from Bush to pay off debt/save, and of course where's rich people's incentive to invest and hire if demand is down?

Two other quick things.

1.) When was the last time a "$700 hammer" story came out?

2.) Remember when the last California budget crisis was a few years ago? Thanks to their term limit laws, the elected official with the most experience in budgeting? Arnold Schwarzenegger. That does not seem like something I'd want to repeat on the federal level. Plus, you'd be given them even more incentive to spend half their time angling for their post-Congress lobbying job.

I'll stop for now, but someone remind me to find the fiscal multipliers of tax cuts and other fiscal stimulative measures such as food stamps. A quick search isn't helping right now.
#174 | 713 days ago



 
#175 | 713 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Eric_ wrote:
I don't see it as that, but you clearly intend it to be. Also, opinions by definition are subjective, so that attack makes no sense.

I also don't understand how a man who orders drones to kill people like he's ordering breakfast is a "foreign policy passy (sic)" (Classy, really), but whatever.

Everyone else, are we ready to just starting ignoring him? It's clearly not a productive use of pixels.
please do me a favor an ignore me then. t-ts on a bull.
#176 | 713 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kteacher wrote:
No. He's like Obama to me. The Kings are like the Kings to me. Apples are like apples to me. Pizza is like pizza. I could go on if need be. 
stop it Teach....why do u have to argue all the time when you know exactly what I'm talking about....just own it....would ya. get that bro in law on here....I'm so out #'ed it's not even funny.
#177 | 713 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Nick__ wrote:
If Janet does what she says, I think a lot of us will be a getting a raise! 
Janet runs the Asbury Park Gay Parade....that's the extent of her public service.
#178 | 713 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
And make sure you get home in time to cook dinner.
Nekkid.

Don't forget nekkid.
#179 | 713 days ago

It may have been too late to get involved (my bad for my laziness), but if it works out, I'll be canvassing for Maryland Question 6 (the gay marriage referendum) on Saturday afternoon. Given how much I complain about things, I should really be getting involved and trying to make something happen, and this is as good a start as I can do in this state.
#180 | 712 days ago
unopescatore (+)

Eric_ wrote:
It may have been too late to get involved (my bad for my laziness), but if it works out, I'll be canvassing for Maryland Question 6 (the gay marriage referendum) on Saturday afternoon. Given how much I complain about things, I should really be getting involved and trying to make something happen, and this is as good a start as I can do in this state.
that's a great place to pick up chicks dude.....geniuos!!!!!!
#181 | 712 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
please do me a favor an ignore me then. t-ts on a bull.
(see above) Hmmmmmmmmm. 
13  
#182 | 712 days ago

ridiculous.
#183 | 712 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kteacher wrote:
(see above) Hmmmmmmmmm. 
he's spose to ignore me if he likes....I didn't say I'd ignore him.....Hmmmmmmmmm indecision    is this why Cali sucks with Education. surprise  Hmmmmmmmmm


BOOM
#184 | 712 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kobe_lova wrote:
ridiculous.
#185 | 711 days ago

Today I learned that canvassing a primarily Orthodox Jewish neighborhood on a Saturday is a bad idea.
#186 | 711 days ago

(Edited by ohwell_)
Eric_ wrote:
Today I learned that canvassing a primarily Orthodox Jewish neighborhood on a Saturday is a bad idea.
Oy.


http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/florida-elections-officials-to-oversee-duplication/nShyk/
#187 | 711 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
Today I learned that canvassing a primarily Orthodox Jewish neighborhood on a Saturday is a bad idea.
Oy.
#188 | 711 days ago

Aussi Aussi Aussi
#189 | 711 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
Today I learned that canvassing a primarily Orthodox Jewish neighborhood on a Saturday is a bad idea.
I believe that's known as Field Organizer Fail.
#190 | 711 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
I believe that's known as Field Organizer Fail.
Hard to argue with that. Of those that were actually around to answer the door, most were in favor (only 2 against all day), so there is that. This isn't the area those for marriage equality have to worry about though. Hopefully they learned their lesson and don't try to canvass that area next Saturday (I'm out of town, so I can't help them next weekend).
#191 | 709 days ago

.
#192 | 709 days ago

#193 | 709 days ago

I'm 2 for 2 in predicting how the media will spin the debate theater before show time. I might as well go for the trifecta.

For this one, I suspect the media will try as hard as they can to call it tie, that way it keeps the race where it is. They've been breathlessly reporting that the Race is a Dead Heat! (or even Romney favored, which makes no sense since none of the major poll aggregrator/prediction sites have shown Romney with more than 270 EVs at any point) Horse race rules above all else, so that will be the media's primary goal.

If they do decide to declare a winner, it will be Romney. The "Republican Daddy" myth regarding national security dies hard.

I do have a question for you all. What is your view on giving money to campaigns? I've never had any interest in it. Why feed the beast, so to speak? However, after my canvassing experience and given that money now equals speech, I'm wondering if it's time for me to get over myself.
#194 | 709 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
I'm about to drop a couple of recent stories and quotes. See if you can find the connection.

A Wisconsin state rep was quoted as saying "some girls rape easy."

It was discovered that in 2000, Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) pressured his mistress to have an abortion.

Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) characterized such things as evolution and the Big Bang theory (the theory, not the TV show) as "lies straight from the pit of Hell."

Just today, Mitt Romney said that people don't die because they do not have health insurance. This is not true, and if even you want to argue no one *directly* dies from not having insurance, it's hard to argue it doesn't indirectly contribute at least.

Also, the "rich a-holes threatening to fire people if Obama wins" thing has started up again. It's warmed over from 2008, but the guy admits to doing it. Funny, last time I checked voter intimidation is illegal.

This is why the false equivalency narrative irritates me so much. Who on the liberal/Democratic side talks with such heated rhetoric? These aren't just random yahoos, these are elected officials. Seriously, someone find me some. I'd also love to hear the conservatives thoughts on some of this. Do you agree with this language and rhetoric,  because again, it's mostly coming from elected officials in the Republican Party?
I will note that a week and a half ago I asked for conservative thoughts on these comments from GOP elected officials (primarily), and/or similar examples of heated rhetoric from liberals and Democrats. Thus far, there has been no response.
#195 | 709 days ago

Have given small amounts to Barack Obama and a few Congressional campaigns. That's about it. I do it more for my sake to feel involved because what I'm given isn't really doing $h!t.
#196 | 709 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
Two pretty telling facts tonight:

1) Romney never brough up Benghazi. He realized he can't win that last week.

2) Most tweeted about and Googled moment is "horses and bayonets" which made Romney look like a clown.

This debate will have easily the lowest viewership, but its two debates in a row Romney got clown'd on national television.  Insta-polls are showing a decisive Obama win. Giving Obama is still a good betting favorite, this is probably good news. If I were Obama I'd just hammer away at Ohio the next two weeks. That's where all of Romney's hopes lie.
#197 | 708 days ago

#fouryearscloser
#198 | 708 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
most of u slurp Obama so bad and have already made up u're mind....it's like watching u're favorite team....you can't be subjective in any way shape or form. indecision
Most of the noise you make is pretty hilarious...this is a little contrite.

Do you really feel that MITT ROMNEY and/or the GOBP (That is NOT a TYPO) will set America right with the rhetoric they are spewing?

Which side of the %tile do YOU sit on that makes you comfortable with Romney's plans to hold an administration of ANY sorts? 

These debate antics don't worry you?

This is my second or third input on this thread, and all I see are insults thrown at the Obama campaign and his supporters - I say this:

Don't Talk S***... Republicans had 8 years (2000 -2008) to make things better, and instead...
- Found a way to fleece the US Populance of money while lining their own pockets for years to come
- Stretch a war and search that could have been over in HALF the time and money spent, and
- Found a way to allow foreign business to control our exporting and importing controls. 

Please, do not show your ignorance by using insults to cover the inadequacies of the leadership of your party.  Send them some feedback to help strengthen their causes, because right now...things are looking very weak over there
indecision
3  
#199 | 708 days ago
unopescatore (+)

DeeRigga wrote:
Most of the noise you make is pretty hilarious...this is a little contrite.

Do you really feel that MITT ROMNEY and/or the GOBP (That is NOT a TYPO) will set America right with the rhetoric they are spewing?

Which side of the %tile do YOU sit on that makes you comfortable with Romney's plans to hold an administration of ANY sorts? 

These debate antics don't worry you?

This is my second or third input on this thread, and all I see are insults thrown at the Obama campaign and his supporters - I say this:

Don't Talk S***... Republicans had 8 years (2000 -2008) to make things better, and instead...
- Found a way to fleece the US Populance of money while lining their own pockets for years to come
- Stretch a war and search that could have been over in HALF the time and money spent, and
- Found a way to allow foreign business to control our exporting and importing controls. 

Please, do not show your ignorance by using insults to cover the inadequacies of the leadership of your party.  Send them some feedback to help strengthen their causes, because right now...things are looking very weak over there
indecision
looks like I struck a nerve....must be some truth to my chirping.

Obama sucks like the Cowboys.....Romney sucks like the Eagles......choose a sucky team and stop whinning. devil

for the last time....I'm a not a Republican

bah bah bah blacksheep have you any wool. indecision

cowboys suck....I feel I had to throw that in again for some reason.
#200 | 708 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
unopescatore wrote:
looks like I struck a nerve....must be some truth to my chirping.

Obama sucks like the Cowboys.....Romney sucks like the Eagles......choose a sucky team and stop whinning. devil

for the last time....I'm a not a Republican

bah bah bah blacksheep have you any wool. indecision

cowboys suck....I feel I had to throw that in again for some reason.
Something I've always wondered is why conservatives pretend they aren't Republicans. We all know you're voting Romney and that it was never a question for you. You're no different than many conservatives, and yet you all come home on election day. Why lie to yourself and everyone else? You're a Republican.

Look, there's things that bother me a lot about President Obama and the Democrats but I'd simply being lieing if I said I didn't support either one.  They're much closer to me and my positions than the Republicans and they're (in my opinion) our nation's best hope to gradually get where we need to.  You're no different on the other side. Why lie about it?
#201 | 708 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kantwistaye wrote:
Something I've always wondered is why conservatives pretend they aren't Republicans. We all know you're voting Romney and that it was never a question for you. You're no different than many conservatives, and yet you all come home on election day. Why lie to yourself and everyone else? You're a Republican.

Look, there's things that bother me a lot about President Obama and the Democrats but I'd simply being lieing if I said I didn't support either one.  They're much closer to me and my positions than the Republicans and they're (in my opinion) our nation's best hope to gradually get where we need to.  You're no different on the other side. Why lie about it?
so u're calling me a liar I guess....that's funny....u don't even know me and u're telling me what I'm about. Sounds like more government control cept on the Q. I'm a registered independent.....end of story.
#202 | 708 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
so u're calling me a liar I guess....that's funny....u don't even know me and u're telling me what I'm about. Sounds like more government control cept on the Q. I'm a registered independent.....end of story.
I won't call you a liar...Funny Looking - Yes - Not a liar

Kev...Call that Funny Looking Guy a Liar!!
3  
#203 | 708 days ago

DeeRigga wrote:
I won't call you a liar...Funny Looking - Yes - Not a liar

Kev...Call that Funny Looking Guy a Liar!!
All I can say is that if the Cowboys suck, then that would mean any team that lost to them would suck worse.

Not sure if that makes him a liar or simply ill informed.
22  
#204 | 708 days ago

richard_cranium wrote:
All I can say is that if the Cowboys suck, then that would mean any team that lost to them would suck worse.

Not sure if that makes him a liar or simply ill informed.
wink

Uno...I have decided you are an Ill-informed liar.

an Independant Ill-Informed Liar...I wanna be sure I got that right, and didn't say Ill-Informed Lying Republican.


I had to throw that in there...
3  
#205 | 708 days ago

I know this has absolutely nothing to do with the oh-so-important issues being discussed here, but I am posting this here because f**k you.

gorgeous redheads 29 Dreamin of redheads again? Drink it in...(40 Photos)
#206 | 708 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
unopescatore wrote:
so u're calling me a liar I guess....that's funny....u don't even know me and u're telling me what I'm about. Sounds like more government control cept on the Q. I'm a registered independent.....end of story.
I'm registered nothing (to be fair, doesn't really matter in my state) but that doesn't mean anything.

Serious question, will you vote for anyone other than a Republican on November 6th?

And, when's the last time you voted for a Dem/3rd party in a House, Senate, or Presidential race? (Local races can be crazy so forget those).
#207 | 708 days ago

kantwistaye wrote:
Two pretty telling facts tonight:

1) Romney never brough up Benghazi. He realized he can't win that last week.

2) Most tweeted about and Googled moment is "horses and bayonets" which made Romney look like a clown.

This debate will have easily the lowest viewership, but its two debates in a row Romney got clown'd on national television.  Insta-polls are showing a decisive Obama win. Giving Obama is still a good betting favorite, this is probably good news. If I were Obama I'd just hammer away at Ohio the next two weeks. That's where all of Romney's hopes lie.
My prediction ended up wrong. The CW ended up being "Obama won, but it doesn't matter because the debate wasn't about the economy." That's one way to keep the horse race up. Unfortunately, it's probably going to stay within a margin close enough to steal. Remember that every official that will have anything to do with counting the votes in Ohio is a Republican.

Also, I think I need to take a break from reading Atrios for a while. It's making me even more cynical and depressed. I truly understand why people choose to remain blissfully ignorant now.
#208 | 708 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
Eric_ wrote:
My prediction ended up wrong. The CW ended up being "Obama won, but it doesn't matter because the debate wasn't about the economy." That's one way to keep the horse race up. Unfortunately, it's probably going to stay within a margin close enough to steal. Remember that every official that will have anything to do with counting the votes in Ohio is a Republican.

Also, I think I need to take a break from reading Atrios for a while. It's making me even more cynical and depressed. I truly understand why people choose to remain blissfully ignorant now.
Speaking of CW.. I've never been a fan of Politico but man did Mike Allen and co. hit rock bottom tonight. Completely falling for Romney's pretty blatant bluffing. Its almost sad to see.

Lots of issues with Ohio, but keep in mind, even if Romney wins FLOHVA, he still needs another state. Still a major uphill battle for him.

Edit to add: Lots of potential oddities with Ohio, but maybe not enough to worry yet. Romney has huge structural issues there with GM and unions.
#209 | 707 days ago
unopescatore (+)

kantwistaye wrote:
I'm registered nothing (to be fair, doesn't really matter in my state) but that doesn't mean anything.

Serious question, will you vote for anyone other than a Republican on November 6th?

And, when's the last time you voted for a Dem/3rd party in a House, Senate, or Presidential race? (Local races can be crazy so forget those).
I didn't vote for Bush....other then that I've pretty much voted Rep since then besides some state crap. I don't like Obama....but I guess that's my problem....& not yours.
#210 | 699 days ago

Some notes as we wind to the end of this thing.
  • The Nate Silver backlash has begun from the usual suspects. The Village thrives on uncertainty, and Silver and other quants provide the exact opposite (to a point).
  • It's funny how Republicans keep pushing the "Romney momentum" thing when he has yet to have a lead in enough states to get 270 EVs at any point.
  • That said, I'm still nervous because it's clear that while Obama is definitely a slight to moderate favorite, this is gonna be in the margin of litigation.
  • After reading Pierce's endorsement of Obama, and noting the possibly of electoral college win/popular vote loss, my vote is now leaning towards Obama, instead of Jill Stein or being a smartass and voting for Kodos. If I feel like it, I'll post in full how I voted later.
  • The early voting lines here in blue state Maryland have been huge. I would've tried to vote early, but I'm too impatient in wait in hour plus lines. I'll take my chances early election morning.
  • I don't like Gov. Chris Christie at all, but I appreciate him concentrating on the task at hand and appreciating the President's assistance. The fact that he is being vilified for it tells you everything you need to know about the right wing.
  • Speaking of idiotic punditry, here's ABC's Jon Karl via the publication we don't link to here:
I think more than any other race I've covered this is one where both sides genuinely seem to believe they're going to win. That's different ... Given that, it's hard for somebody covering the race to make a call. I'm completely confused. I have no idea who's going to win. And I usually have a sense of who's going to win.

And they wonder why we pay more attention to Nate Silver than the Villagers.
  • In policy land, Wonkblog has an interactive feature where you can try to make Romney and Obama's tax plans add up. I haven't had the chance to try it yet, but I'll get to it soon.
  • Finally, as stated in the first post, the next thread will come Monday night and serve as the Election Night live thread. I hope you all join me and we finally end this thing (hopefully).
#211 | 696 days ago

A few more quick thoughts I want to get in before the new thread tomorrow.
  • Spending money in PA, MI, and MN in the last week out of the blue is not "expanding the map" or "playing offense." It's desperation.
  • If you have been following on what's going in Florida and Ohio this weekend, I'm guessing you want to vomit as much as I do. Rick Scott and Jon Husted and pure evil, plain and simple. This is my number one worry.
  • Nate Silver yesterday laid it on the line. The way the polls have consolidated towards Obama, and this is essentially all the polls, the only way Romney can win is if all the polls were biased. That's biased as a statistical term, not in the way we usually think of bias by the way. There's a non-zero chance of this of course. Nate has it as a little less than 1 in 6 of it occurring (I would say shenanigans could also cause a Romney win, but Nate's not in a position to come out and say that.). That's where we stand with 2 days to go.
#212 | 696 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
I won't link to it as to not break a rule here, but Politico was discussing mandates in a piece today. Certainly, neither Romney nor Obama would get overwhelming mandates in this election so their overall point is correct but their argument is a bit disturbing. They point out Obama will win Hispanics, African-Americans, single women, and highly educated urban whites, but because Obama will get destroyed in voting by whites, that's why it isn't a broad mandate. Because apparently only white votes matter? And if one was to make the broad mandate argument (one that would be silly, but whatever) they actually laid out the reason FOR it. Obama is going to win with a much more diverse coalition than Romney will win/lose with.
#213 | 696 days ago

(Edited by kantwistaye)
Well, I'm going to break a rule.

Here's a piece from Politico ripping the worst American politician we know in recent history (He's even a Democrat!) Evan Bayh. He might be a news story tomorrow complaining about the broken Washington D.C. politics that he created.

Its worth noting, this man while debating the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, if you will) had financial stakes in the health care industry and never once disclosed his opinion was personally motivated. 

Evan Bayh is everything wrong with D.C. and its sad and pathetic that because he says a few things about working across the aisle, we pretend that he's geniunely there to do some good.
#214 | 696 days ago

(Edited by Eric_)
kantwistaye wrote:
Well, I'm going to break a rule.

Here's a piece from Politico ripping the worst American politician we know in recent history (He's even a Democrat!) Evan Bayh. He might be a news story tomorrow complaining about the broken Washington D.C. politics that he created.

Its worth noting, this man while debating the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare, if you will) had financial stakes in the health care industry and never once disclosed his opinion was personally motivated. 

Evan Bayh is everything wrong with D.C. and its sad and pathetic that because he says a few things about working across the aisle, we pretend that he's geniunely there to do some good.
Everything you say here is correct. However, I PQ'ed you for breaking one of the rules. Sorry, dems the breaks.

What you discussed in your post above this one shows why it's a rule.
#215 | 695 days ago

I agree that it's desperation to suddenly start pushing in PA.  I don't think we're even considered a "swing state" anymore.  The state hasn't gone to a Republican since Bush the 1st in 1988, and now that a judge has put the new voter ID law on hold until AFTER Tuesday's elections, there's no way this state is going red.
69  
#216 | 695 days ago

SOE in my county is defying Gov Scott and accepting absentee ballots today!
Would you believe there were bomb threats that closed precincts in another county?
SOE in PBC kept the polling place I tried to vote at on Saturday (4 hour wait, I left) until 2:30 a.m.
#217 | 695 days ago

(Edited by kobe_lova)
What rules?


(Laurel you have no picture for your avatar unless I scroll over it...)
#218 | 695 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
What rules?


(Laurel you have no picture for your avatar unless I scroll over it...)
It's in limbo.  Do you see the mustache or the pink ribbons?  I see both,   damn tequilla still kickin.
I tried to change it 3 or 4 days ago.  Get a pop up ad.
#219 | 695 days ago

snort
#220 | 695 days ago

ohwell_ wrote:
It's in limbo.  Do you see the mustache or the pink ribbons?  I see both,   damn tequilla still kickin.
I tried to change it 3 or 4 days ago.  Get a pop up ad.
It's a blue tee with a moustache.
#221 | 695 days ago

kobe_lova wrote:
What rules?


(Laurel you have no picture for your avatar unless I scroll over it...)
The Three Rules of Libtard thread:

1.) No mentioning of the 2016 Presidential Race
2.) No linking to Politico (the worst political media publication)
3.) No linking to anything written by Mark Halperin (the biggest Beltway hack of all)
#222 | 695 days ago

Go here. This one is closed.

*bangs gavel*
#223 | 694 days ago

Eric_ wrote:
The Three Rules of Libtard thread:

1.) No mentioning of the 2016 Presidential Race
2.) No linking to Politico (the worst political media publication)
3.) No linking to anything written by Mark Halperin (the biggest Beltway hack of all)
LOL. Political nerdspeak. I'm all caught up now. Thanks ;)

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
Filter Error 9/29
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/29/14
8 opinions | 27 comments | Last by ohwell_
Filter Error 9/26
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/26/14
5 opinions | 24 comments | Last by kteacher
Filter Error 9/24
Asked by ms_hippie_queen | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/24/14
9 opinions | 10 comments | Last by woody050681
Filter Error 9/25
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/25/14
8 opinions | 19 comments | Last by Cali_Kat
Filter Error 9/23
Asked by kobe_lova | Locker Room | 1 questions asked 09/23/14
6 opinions | 20 comments | Last by Beaneaters