|
| Posted by: Boldwin
- [40937423] Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 03:52
|
| | | 1 | Boldwin
ID: 40937423 Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 04:35
|
Letterman's Top Ten:
|
|
| | | 2 | Boldwin
ID: 37932618 Sat, Oct 06, 2012, 22:39
|


Roadkilldiaries Huffpo
|
|
| | |
| | | 6 | Boldwin
ID: 589301022 Wed, Oct 10, 2012, 23:31
|
Ann Althouse may have figured out the MSM game. If you are obsessing with how bad Obama did, [besides lowering expectations next time] you aren't discussing how great Romney did.
|
|
| | |
| | | 8 | Boldwin
ID: 589301022 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 02:00
|
Obama counting on Joe Biden to pull his chestnuts out of the fire.
Bwahaha!
|
|
| | | 9 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 02:42
|
Don't underestimate Biden. He's got boatloads of foreign policy experience that Ryan has only read about in magazines. And since Romney has already rejected the Ryan budget plan, Biden has a lot of room to cut Ryan down to size with.
His debate against Palin was a thing of beauty.
|
|
| | | 10 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 07:38
|
Biden lost the debate against Palin IMO. It was a thing of beauty.
|
|
| | | 11 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 08:47
|
Say...HUH?!?!?!?
|
|
| | | 12 | Razor
ID: 177192916 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 09:28
|
The expectations for Palin were extremely low. The fact that she did not say anything embarrassingly stupid was a win for her, but Biden also did well to refrain from what could appear to bullying. Both held their ground, but from the perspective of which campaign most benefited from the debate performance, it was Obama's. His campaign had the big lead and the debate did nothing to change that, unlike this year.
|
|
| | | 13 | Boldwin
ID: 589301022 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 21:38
|
Drunkblogging the debate snippets:
5:51PM What was Jill Biden doing in a White House briefing?
Oh, right — she’s the brains of the family.
5:54PM Nevermind. That wasn’t Jill Biden, that was the moderator. There’s so much inbreeding amongst the Complicit Media and high-level Democrats that it’s difficult to tell the difference.
6:06PM Ryan need to hit Raddatz, Gingrich style. Instead he’s hitting Biden. He’s OK, but he missed the narrative. “OK” won’t cut it with Raddatz and her fat thumb on the scale.
6:08PM “It’s never too early to speak out for our values.”
Biden flashes that smile of his, which is nearly as genuine as his hairline.
6:11PM “We weren’t told they wanted more security” in Benghazi.
[total lie]
6:12PM “There were requests for extra security, those requests were not followed.”
6:22PM Something just clicked in Biden’s head. It was something from debate camp where they told him to “stop smiling like an xxxhole.”
6:23PM Unemployment fell below 8 percent for the first time in four years? Joe Biden, you didn’t build that.
6:25PM “These people are… my neighbors.”
Really, Joe? “These people” live near a golf course or the Naval Observatory?
|
|
| | | 14 | Boldwin
ID: 589301022 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 21:41
|
6:34PM “Was it a good idea to spend taxpayer money on electric cars in Finland?”
|
|
| | | 15 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 21:51
|
I have to assume those posts are like reading a transcript of Mystery Science Theater 3000, only if the robots were being voiced by Rush Limbaugh's more conservative, eviler twin and were more robotic in their thinking.
|
|
| | | 16 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 22:13
|
Gish Gallop
The Romney/Ryan debate tactic
|
|
| | | 17 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 22:44
|
Biden with a very good effort, IMO. He wasn't taking the half-baked talking points, and Ryan's inability to answer some easy questions will be one of the takeaways.
|
|
| | | 18 | TB
ID: 451028614 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 22:58
|
I thought Biden was terrible. Came across very frustrated and seemed more focused on interrupting with side-bar type remarks. I can't believe that guy is our actual Vice President and will probably get four more years to shit up the economy.
|
|
| | | 19 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:02
|
The VP has less to do with the economy than a senator from Delaware, or a congressman from Wisconsin.
|
|
| | | 20 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:03
|
Biden did exactly what his job is. He made Ryan defend, defend, defend, and he called Ryan on his bogus lies.
TB..what do you mean sh*t up the economy? By every metric out there, the economy is substantially better today than it was 4 years ago.
|
|
| | | 21 | TB
ID: 451028614 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:10
|
You should post that in the fun stuff and jokes thread.
|
|
| | | 22 | TB
ID: 451028614 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:11
|
Sorry to double post, but really that is like the funniest thing I've ever seen you post and I can't stop laughing.
|
|
| | | 23 | chode
ID: 5971121 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:12
|
"Biden with a very good effort"? Wow. We see what we want to see, I suppose.
|
|
| | | 24 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:18
|
Stock market doubled under Obama? Check.
Bled 700,000 jobs the month Obama was sworn in, now 30+ months of job growth? Check.
Lowest nr of new unemployment claims in 4 years? (4 1/2 actually) Check.
Private sector job count in the black? Check.
Incoming budget deficit, 1.2 trillion. Current deficit, 1/3 trillion. Spending largely under control? Check. (a 100 billion increase after the recession, thats under control)
I dont see the humor.
|
|
| | | 25 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:19
|
I thought they were both bad.
|
|
| | | 26 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:24
|
The VP candidate is the ticket's spokesperson. Ryan I thought did poorer with it than Biden, mostly because he seemed to both lack conviction in what wasn't his own work, and Biden could draw from personal experience (and did) while Ryan could only project.
I like Ryan, though I don't agree with him on many things. I certainly think that the ticket would have been better served if Ryan had gone through the nomination process chosen him atop the ticket, while taking Romney at the bottom. He would then be defending his own talking points, which he is very good at.
Tonight people saw Ryan unable to answer simple questions about things like how he would pay for his tax cuts, and what conditions are necessary to delay an Afghanistan withdrawal. They saw a passionate Biden.
Tonight stopped the bleeding for the Dems. And with less than 4 weeks to go the Romney/Ryan ticket has to find a way to make up ground.
|
|
| | | 27 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:24
|
24... Current deficit should read 1.3 trillion
|
|
| | | 28 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:29
|
BTW, I think both sides played to their base quite a bit, so it shouldn't be a surprise that the Right saw Ryan "winning" this thing.
But playing the to base this late in the game is a losing strategy for the GOP since they are behind. For myself, I'll take this kind of debate every day of the week--Obama/Biden can run out the clock and win by about 70 electoral college votes.
|
|
| | | 29 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:32
|
Exactly PD. If FL falls in the Obama column, that MAY, be enough by itself TO declare 'game over' and put Obama over 270.
|
|
| | | 30 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:36
|
FL is current leaning to Romney (as I would expect it to). If somehow the Medicare message makes it go to Obama, and he also takes OH (which is still pretty solidly Obama's even after debate-gate), literally every other swing state can go to Romney and Obama would still win.
Romney has to win FL. Otherwise he's got no shot at all. And even with FL he's still got to win at least two states currently leaning Obama's way.
|
|
| | | 31 | chode
ID: 5971121 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:50
|
Well I'd say the jury is still out on what the impact of this debate (if any) will be, so let's hold off on definitively declaring that it "stopped the bleeding" minutes after it ended.
One fan's "passionate" is another man's curmudgeon. And I suspect that's what many people will take away from tonight - that Joe Biden is too frustrated to let the other guy talk without interrupting with sidebar guffaws.
But I do agree he had to come out and be proactive and not allow himself to get walked on like Obama did. So that was presumably the strategy, and if it took a few rude moments to ensure that didn't happen, I'm sure that's a trade the Dems will rightfully live with.
I also agree that it shouldn't be surprising that the Dems think they "won" either (which is why I said as much about both sides already). Perhaps we'll know in a day or so how the nebulous "undecideds" will call it. PV is probably right (like he is so often). But in a thread specifically about the debates I'll prefer to actually discuss how the debates went, instead of casting them in a shadow of how they don't matter given the current electoral college projections. I'm sure there's another place for that.
|
|
| | | 32 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Thu, Oct 11, 2012, 23:59
|
Good points. I don't think you can separate Biden's performance from Obama's "effort" the last debate, however. Clearly Biden's job was to bring the passionate left-of-center middle class core to the front again to recapture the momentum that completely stalled last week for them.
I admired Ryan's ability to stay cool, but he was a lot like Obama in the last debate: sticking to his talking points in a wonky, dispassionate way. He is the GOP team's "smart guy" but he wasn't entirely inspiring. Many of his best efforts (Libya, deficit spending, abortion) were well responded to by Biden.
The Right will take away that Ryan wasn't entirely blown out of the water on foreign policy--in some ways he identified shortcomings and worked to exploit them. But he lost "points" by losing his way on what exactly he would do with Iraq. (In fact, Ryan's arguments on some issues fell right apart when he was asked to be specific, which has been a problem for the campaign).
|
|
| | | 33 | Boldwin
ID: 289441121 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 00:35
|
Biden at least managed to not leave liberals in sputtering rage and disbelief but out of the 6 focus group polls I've seen only one claimed Biden didn't lose.
|
|
| | | 34 | Boldwin
ID: 289441121 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 00:39
|
This is not the best look for Biden. [nor is it the absolute worst] Conservatives will be happy to go to the polls on the question of whether happy times are here again.
|
|
| | | 35 | Boldwin
ID: 289441121 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 00:44
|
Liberals will want to see CBS' polling and whistle past all the others.
|
|
| | | 36 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 00:49
|
No B. Not as narrow minded as you think.
(A) VP debates arent much impactful. Look at Quayles performance. (B) Biden did his job.
|
|
| | | 37 | Biliruben
ID: 358252515 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 01:03
|
Laughing at the lies, I've read.
|
|
| | | 38 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 01:18
|
Anyone who actually watched the debates realizes that he was laughing at what Ryan was saying (the lies and half-truths, mostly. But no one who saw the debates could feel Biden was laughing at the issues).
This is pretty typical, though, of the GOP. They had a bad debate so they take out-of-context stuff to make the case they couldn't make directly.
Haven't seen any instant polling, but if they aren't among the undecideds I think they will likely reflect the bias of the respondent's party this late in the game.
|
|
| | | 39 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 01:37
|
Been reading a bit more--the Right has fixated on the "Biden was a big insensitive meanie" meme.
If that is the GOP spin on this thing, then Biden won this thing hands down.
Best twitter of the night: "FOX kept trying to cut away to run the first debate again."
|
|
| | | 40 | Boldwin
ID: 289441121 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 04:44
|
Anyone who saw the debate came away thinking Ryan was approaching these issues veeery soberly and Biden was just a bit flippant. Unless you were more intent on holding on to a preconceived opinion of the man than in taking his measure.
Biden did manage to control his ego. Which was a major accomplishment, knowing him.
He just about fell into the trap. He veered into a Lloyd Benson moment, but pulled the punch just enuff to avoid trigging the 'yeah, you may have hung around the establishment a long long time but you aren't Kennedy either, clown' gag reflex.
Well he triggered it in me, but maybe the low information voters escaped it.
He had a better grasp of the day to day battles than I expected, or perhaps I should say he discussed them without getting flustered and making boneheaded gaffes, again which is a major accomplishment for him.
|
|
| | | 41 | Building 7 Leader
ID: 171572711 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 07:44
|
The Saturday Night Live script will write itself.
|
|
| | | 42 | Great One
ID: 2431114 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 10:43
|
I have to say I was laughing quite a bit at what Ryan was saying too... can't blame him!
I love his tax plan. Way to provide a detailed plan!
Also loved when he said Romney was a "car guy" and in touch with Detroit. Guess he never read the "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed. Someone needs to post the Daily Show where Romney takes credit for the bailout even after writing that.
|
|
| | | 43 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 12:17
|
Ryan brought up that Obama promised to bring unemployment down to 6%, and in the next breath said he and Romney's 5 point plan would create 12 million jobs in the next 4 years.
How, you ask?
"Let me tell you how I will create 12 million jobs when President Obama couldn't," says Romney. "First, my energy independence policy means more than three million new jobs. Many of them in manufacturing. My tax reform plan to lower rates for the middle class and for small business creates seven million more."
"And expanding trade, cracking down on China, and improving job training takes us to over 12 million new jobs." link
I'm all for optimism, but what if Romney is elected and only 4 million jobs are created? Is it fair, then, for his opponent in 2016 to paint him a failure because he didn't fulfill his promise? There are so many elements that come into play when it comes to job creation, most of them out of the realm of presidential control, that such a promise should be taken for what it really is: an estimation based on best case scenarios that rarely reach the heights such rhetoric espouses.
|
|
| | | 44 | Razor
ID: 177192916 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 12:50
|
I think that's being generous, PV. Most of these numbers aren't best case scenarios of sounds statistical projections. They are practically made up numbers supported by precious little data.
|
|
| | | 45 | chode
ID: 3610616 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 14:22
|
"made up numbers supported by precious little data"
Just to be clear: Are you including Obama's numbers/promises in that description?
|
|
| | | 46 | slug
ID: 167132313 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 14:22
|
Moody’s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs. The CBO assumes 9.6 million jobs will be created in the next four years (they are required to assume that the "fiscal cliff" will happen)
|
|
| | | 47 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 14:24
|
Interesting. As I've said before, Romney's entire plan is: "Be the GOP candidate when the economy forces Obama out, and be the President when the economy goes through its natural recovery."
|
|
| | | 48 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 15:23
|
Like I said, I'm all for optimism, and have been a proponent of future economic growth despite being regularly drowned out by our resident self-appointed "conservative" who predicts complete economic destruction here and globally as an intentional action by socialists, Marxists, Rothschilds, Soros, UN, enviromentalists, ACORN, labor unions, Muslim Brotherhood or whoever happens to be boogeyman du jour.
While there's a contingency like Moody's Mark Zandi and George Mason U's Keith Hall, there's also a contingency predicting economic turmoil and a double dip recession like Barton Biggs and Jack Rasmus. I mention these two, because they're not making predictions on one hand and asking you to invest with them on the other, which is the case with most economic doom predictors.
The economy is recovering. The markets are stable, unemployment is down, consumer sentiment is up, mortgage rates are historically low, inflation is minimal. How much of this is can be attributed to Obama's policies is debatable, but it's disingenuous to label him a failure, then, as PD states, be the President when the economy goes through its natural recovery.
|
|
| | | 49 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 15:44
|
I still say, the GOP owuld have been fr better served as a party, had they not sh*t all over the candidacy of Huntsman. It just amazes me, they went for Romney. Huntsman is the more genuine of the two by a HUGE margin, is just as if not more conservative, but is also known to the left as an Ambassador and has far more "built in" trust then amongst both the left AND the indies. Hunstman-Obama debates? I dont imagine it was be as expected, that Obama would do overly well as he is expected to vs Romeny.
|
|
| | | 50 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 16:11
|
The President can delay or help bring closer recovery, through policies such as food stamp programs, S-CHIP, unemployment insurance, and investment in jobs.
The economy would one day recovery anyway, but we'd all be poorer, for longer, with much misery, in the meantime. But hey--we'd probably have a balanced budget so that's OK, right?
Romney's commitment to these recession fighters is practically non-existent.
|
|
| | | 51 | Boldwin
ID: 409351215 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 16:37
|
Biggest moment of the night: When Biden flat-out lied about the admin not being aware security was insufficient in Benghazzi.BIDEN: "Well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. We did not know they wanted more security again. And by the way, at the time we were told exactly — we said exactly what the intelligence community told us that they knew. That was the assessment. And as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view."
RYAN: "There were requests for more security."
THE FACTS: Ryan is right, judging by testimony from Obama administration officials at the hearing a day earlier.
Charlene R. Lamb, a deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security, told lawmakers she refused requests for more security in Benghazi, saying the department wanted to train Libyans to protect the consulate. "Yes, sir, I said personally I would not support it," she said.
Eric Nordstrom, who was the top security official in Libya earlier this year, testified he was criticized for seeking more security. He said conversations he had with people in Washington led him to believe that it was "abundantly clear we were not going to get resources until the aftermath of an incident. How thin does the ice have to get before someone falls through?"
He said his exasperation reached a point where he told a colleague that "for me the Taliban is on the inside of the building." [the state dept -B] The question of course is to what extent the public is aware of this as the lapdog press covers for the administration.
But this is really a huge issue that is percolating upwards in people's consciousness.
The president's mismanagement of the jihadi threat. Writ large over the entire muslim world over-run by the muslim brotherhood or in particular in Benghazzi.
OBL is dead, al qaeda is doing great thanks to USA support for 'arab spring' jihadi revolutions.
People are uneasy, they sense this on some level.
Cracks in the defense are visible. Witness Wasserman Schultz and Stephanie Cutter getting grilled by the media over administration Benghazzi lies.
These legacy media types know this is big. When this fully blows up they are gonna have egg all over their face if they completely lie down for Obama on this.
I wonder how many low information voters are vaguely aware of Banghazzi? Nine Jihadi attacks on 9/11, USA ambassador killed. It's getting even their attention.
|
|
| | | 52 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 17:19
|
Cracks in the defense are visible. Witness Wasserman Schultz and Stephanie Cutter getting grilled by the media over administration Benghazzi lies.
Because these two know more information? I have no idea why "grilling" these two will show anything at all about this issue.
|
|
| | | 53 | Boldwin
ID: 409351215 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 17:31
|
I have no idea why "grilling" these two will show anything at all about this issue.
How long do you think Obama can dodge something this huge by refusing to hold a press conference?
Can you imagine the press firestorm if Bush had refused to hold a press conference after 9/11?
Until Obama musters up his courage, we just get spin from Jay Carney, Schutlz and Cutter, various spokesmen for Obama, as well as leaks from the state dept.
|
|
| | | 54 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 17:58
|
You never read the story of the little boy who cried wolf as a child, did you?
|
|
| | | 55 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 18:06
|
An Embassy in country "A" asks for more security. That request, and decision, will almost certainly NEVER be made by the WH. It would be rcvd, processed and acted upon at a much lower level.
The question then becomes, who or what "we", was Biden referring to. He and Pres Obama? He almost certainly exactly right in saying they were never asked. "WE" as in the State Dept, is clearly wrong. So, who or what "we".
I'll grant you, his answer was not very good on this one and he did not handle it as well as he might have. HOWEVER, Ryan lied through his teeth when he said it took Obama 2 weeks to acknowledge it was terrorists. Pres Obama said THE NEXT DAY in a WH press conference, it was a terrorist attcak.
|
|
| | | 56 | Boldwin
ID: 409351215 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 18:50
|
It might be hard to believe after his assault on Mitt Romney in last night’s debate, but there’s a scenario under which Joe Biden could serve as Mitt Romney’s vice president.
...a 269–269 electoral vote tie would send the presidential election over to the House of Representatives. Such an outcome...would favor Romney over President Obama.
But in such a case, it would fall on the Senate to choose the vice president, with each Senator getting a vote. Given that it’s quite possible (arguably likely) that Democrats will retain control of the Senate, it means that they could vote for Biden to remain on as VP, even if the House elects Romney as president.
In theory, if the election outcome is a 50-50 Senate, Biden could be the tie-breaking vote for himself. This would allow him to remain on as VP and for the Democrats to retain effective control of the Senate. It would also usher in the Romney-Biden administration.
Here’s another, even wilder possibility: If the House ends up deadlocked...this scenario could produce a President Biden. Hard to believe we are actually living a scenario worse than that one.
|
|
| | | 57 | Boldwin
ID: 409351215 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 18:59
|
What a jackass Joe Biden is smiling all thru the debate like he's Mr Know it all I thought he was a dumb sh** b4but now an arrogant idiot — Tawny Kitaen (@Tawny_Kitaen) October 12, 2012
As if she wasn't perfect enuff before...
|
|
| | | 58 | Pancho Villa
ID: 1010151016 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 19:03
|
Perfect? Didn't she physically her assault her husband, who pitched for the Angels?
|
|
| | | 59 | Boldwin
ID: 409351215 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 19:04
|
You say that like it's a bad thing.
|
|
| | | 60 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 19:29
|
Yes, I think domestic violence is a bad thing.
|
|
| | | 61 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 20:24
|
#53: I think you miss my point. You seem to be taking the fact that these Dems are getting questioned by the press as some sort of evidence of wrongdoing by the Administration.
Those two don't know anything. Why not strongly question a couple of Democratic freshmen Congressmen?
I realize that, when the Right senses blood in the water (real or imagined) it turns mean and spiteful. But making stuff up about people who don't know anything getting questioned isn't going to help you attain anything.
|
|
| | | 62 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 20:24
|
#57: See #39.
|
|
| | | 63 | Boldwin
ID: 409351215 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 20:31
|
Hmmm...physically attacked by Tawny Kitaen...hmmm.
|
|
| | | 64 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 20:34
|
Lessons from Boldwin, #746: Remember kids, domestic violence is a good thing when it's your political allies doing it.
Also, value life.
|
|
| | | 65 | Boldwin
ID: 409351215 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 20:49
|
He has no sense of humor whatsoever.
|
|
| | | 66 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 20:50
|
ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, you meant HUMOROUS domestic violence.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|
| | | 67 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 21:10
|
Not just domestic violence. Turns out she's also been a crack head, another malady I don't find especially funny.
|
|
| | | 70 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 21:54
|
There was also a hilarious DUI arrest in 2009, as well as a comical $12 million extortion attempt.
"Bachelor Party" actress Tawny Kitaen has filed a $12 million lawsuit against her estranged husband, St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Chuck Finley, the Associated Press reports.
Kitaen claims in court papers that she promoted Finley's career by lending him her own celebrity -- and that she even picked out his hair color to alter his boyish image.
Told you it was comical. Finley's hair color must have added some speed to his fastball, or kept him from hanging curves. Lending Finley her own celebrity must have been comforting when facing Ken Griffey Jr.
|
|
| | | 71 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 12, 2012, 21:54
|
Seems someone, didnt like Ryan getting swatted last night:
Gunshot at Obama Colorado office
(Yes, I am going to ignore the sheer stupidity t requires, to make light of domestic violence.)
|
|
| | | 72 | Tree
ID: 39191313 Sat, Oct 13, 2012, 14:30
|
Perfect? Didn't she physically her assault her husband, who pitched for the Angels?
not to mention the drug arrest, the DUI arrest, and multiple stints in rehab.
for some people, multiple arrests = perfection. this has been long established.
|
|
| | | 73 | Boldwin
ID: 409351215 Sat, Oct 13, 2012, 17:01
|
I've been laughing all day over the response they wouldn't let me post. My wife wonders why my mood is so upbeat!
|
|
| | | 74 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Sat, Oct 13, 2012, 19:44
|
You know that you are supposed to see a doctor if that lasts more than 4 hours, yes?
|
|
| | | 77 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 22:58
|
A solid W for Obama tonight, I think. Anyone watch?
|
|
| | | 78 | biliruben
ID: 21841115 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:02
|
I only caught the last half, and apparently saw the two solid blows from Romney, so I thought it more a tie. Apparently Obama hit him pretty hard on in tax nonsense early to get Romney's knees knocking, and I liked his final remarks.
Very aggressive, attacking Obama. What he needed.
The attacking may turn off some women, but I'll have to defer to our resident expert on women for the definitive call on that one.
|
|
| | | 79 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:20
|
Romney made some hay pointing out promises Obama made in 2008 that haven't been kept.
Of course, Romney is making a ton of promises in this election that he may have to contend with 4 years from now.
It's my contention that campaign promises should never be framed as "promises." Much of what is promised is out of the control of presidential powers, and there are almost certainly going to be developments that alter the course of events.
Obama needs to do a better job responding to the constant refrain that the economy is in shambles, partly because he made too many promises that were unattainable, much like Romney is doing now. Obama needs to remind the country that the economy was in shambles in January 2009, and great strides have been made to stabilize and grow the economy since then.
He should have pointed out that those who claim Europe is about to fail, that today the European markets skyrocketed. The US markets had the biggest two days in months, and are closing in on all time highs. Consumer confidence is up, unemployment is down. It's almost like Obama fears polarizing his more liberal base by pointing out Wall Street success.
|
|
| | | 80 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:32
|
Andrew Sullivan?Obama halted Romney's momentum in its tracks and his performance will bring women voters in particular flooding back. Altho I am not so sure he an expert on women's feelings. I believe anything short of an obvious meltdown would have been called an 'Obama comeback Kid' performance by the lapdog media.
|
|
| | | 81 | Great One
ID: 512531316 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:33
|
I also don't get why he never says a few key things... are they seen as too aggressive or rude?
1. Gas prices? Were higher in 2008 in Bush's last year than they are now. 2. Taxes? I am raising taxes on MYSELF to help this country and Congress won't let me! this would show how he puts his country first.
|
|
| | | 82 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:38
|
Obama totally ducked the Libya question, although he ducked it rather well.
|
|
| | | 83 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:40
|
Saw the whole thing, Obama was the exact opposite of what he was in Denver. In Denver, he looked like a weak candidate for the president. Tonight, he seemed to remember he *IS* the president, and he commanded the stage and the respect the office calls for.
He made solid gains with women, and I think stopped the erosion which has been ongoing for 2 weeks now,
|
|
| | | 84 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:41
|
Good points. I have thought for some time that Romney was making real headway when he was pointing out some of the errors the Administration made early on in response to the recession. The fact that no one knew the debt of the trouble we were in is not, in itself, a very effective response to that.
I do think that Romney's constant harping on China and Europe doesn't give him much traction, however.
|
|
| | | 85 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:42
|
My #84 was directed at #79.
|
|
| | | 86 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 16, 2012, 23:45
|
I think Romney hurt himself with women, when he answered the "How will you help women in the workplace", by regaling with the story of how he let his CoS go home early so she could cook dinner. (unsaid was the rest of the sentiment...like a good lil woman should). While unsaid, I dont feel it was missed by women.
|
|
| | | 87 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 00:33
|
Candy Crowley's 'Big Lie' save:
It took the Obama more than two weeks, until Oct. 9 to finally admit Benghazi was not a video protest but rather admit it was a terrorist attack.
Anyone who was paying attention knows the administration was out to blame as long as possible the video and even more mindblowing, attempted to make Romney's response the focus of new coverage.
|
|
| | | 88 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 00:37
|
When Mickey Kaus calls out Crowley, you know she was in the wrong.
|
|
| | | 89 | Seattle Zen
ID: 4811181319 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 00:51
|
Obama obliterated Romney. His tax plan is the biggest farse in a presidential campaign I can remember. Can we come up with a silly nickname for it to adequately express our derision like "Lockbox" or something? Eminiating capital gains and interest income tax? Ridiculous!!!!
|
|
| | | 90 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 00:53
|
Np B, she wasnt wrong. On Sep 12, n the Rose Garden, Obama called it a terrorist attack. Del with it dude, cause its the truth.
Exactly Zen. MOST "middle class", dont see enough CG or interest income, to make their car payment once year from it. Bogus offering that sounds good, and achieves nothing.
|
|
| | | 91 | Seattle Zen
ID: 4811181319 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 00:55
|
Romney would impose tariffs on Chinese imports? Who the hell are you kidding? Does anyone honestly believe he would look at the Republican oligarchs who import those goods, "hey, sorry guys, I'm going to kill your profits, why don 't you open a factory here?" LOL!!!
|
|
| | | 92 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 00:56
|
I guess Crowley is going to lose the "voting for the moderator" vote, then.
|
|
| | | 93 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 01:03
|
link
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.(emphasis added)
From the transcript
|
|
| | | 94 | Tree
ID: 53555306 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 01:40
|
Stop confusing him with the truth
|
|
| | | 95 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 01:48
|
I reread every word in the 'day after' Rose Garden speech and my take is the same as Mickey Kaus'.
|
|
| | | 96 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 01:50
|
I dont much give a damn WHAT your take is, the words are right there.
|
|
| | | 97 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 01:53
|
He stuck that mealy mouthed escape hatch at the end of a long dishonest attempt to say the exact opposite. To describe a terrorist attack as a protest that went wrong, and then Obama stuck to that lie for over two weeks.
It was indeed devastating when the moderator steps in and lies for Obama at Obama's most vulnerable moment.
|
|
| | | 98 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 02:14
|
It reminded me of [in reverse] Hillary not taking responsibility.
She initially claimed she was taking responsibility, [one sentence at no cost to herself] and then spent the entire rest of the announcement describing why she wasn't going to take responsibility.
|
|
| | | 99 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 02:21
|
Romney flubbed it on Libya. Completely and utterly. He'll have his chance again for the next debate (which is solely focused on foreign policy). In the meantime his minions will cry about the moderator in the hopes no one will notice Romney was destroyed by Obama on the question. He never recovered after that.
As I said before, Romney's best chance to make up ground was in debate #1, since he could hit Obama hardest on the economy there. And he did. Rommey is weakest on foreign policy, since there in really no difference between his policy plans and Cheney's neo-con dreams of the last administration, which Obama will take great joy in pointing out several times in the next debate.
I, for one, hope Romney can explain why he wants to reduce unemployment insurance here at home to prevent government dependence, but that we should keep our options open to staying in Afghanistan because they depend upon us for their own security, and we can't trust that security to the Afghan troops we trained.
|
|
| | | 100 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 02:49
|
Romney didn't flub it, Crowley screwed him.
For two weeks plus, Obama and every Obama spokesman the press could buttonhole, was asked if this was a terrorist attack and the press was deflected with a 'the events are under investigation' no comment on that.
And Crowley lets Obama slip away claiming the opposite? Worse than that, she jammed Obama thru the escape hatch herself.
Since when in a debate does the moderator answer the question for the president when he's on the ropes?
|
|
| | | 101 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 04:06
|
The man's face was ashen at the end of the exchange. Cry about the moderator all you want--Romney whiffed.
|
|
| | | 102 | Tree
ID: 53555306 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 05:11
|
:: sigh :: i tried to help out with 94, but to no avail. too many people pointing out the truth, and he gets massively confused.
|
|
| | | 103 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 06:49
|
The next debate is supposed to focus on foreign policy. It is my hope that Crowley's shocking moderator moment will focus the attention on the issue she was running interference for.
Every debate in which Obama does not manage to make the 'Romney is the Bain boogeyman' meme stick is in reality a win for Romney because Obama's campaign really doesn't have any other bullets. I don't think a foreign policy debate will accomplish that either.
|
|
| | | 104 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 09:34
|
Crowley interupted Romney 28 times, Obama just 9 times.
Crowley gave Obama more than 4 minutes more than Romney.
One of the so-called "undecided voters" was really a media coordinator for Code Pink.
Crowley answered for Obama when Obama was hit at his most vulnerable spot and couldn't answer.
And yet we have a thread denying media bias.
|
|
| | | 105 | Tree
ID: 57842011 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 09:43
|
One of the so-called "undecided voters" was really a media coordinator for Code Pink.
do you even read the links you put up? or just enjoy being dishonest...
here's the headline to the story you linked us to.
Was “Undecided” Questioner Catherine Fenton Former Media Coordinator of CodePink Long Island? [UPDATE: Probably not]
|
|
| | | 106 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 09:53
|
And yet we have a thread denying media bias.
We also have a thread where you fallaciously posted made-up words in a 60 Minutes' interview. I'd normally give the benefit of doubt that you were simply being lazy, except that interview had been previously discussed practically line by line, so the intent was deliberate. This disqualifies you from commenting on bias.
|
|
| | | 107 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 09:58
|
Crowley answered for Obama when Obama was hit at his most vulnerable spot and couldn't answer.
Couldnt answer? lmao I think you need to watch that segment f the debate again, and pay particular attention to Obamas facial expressions. He was giddy, when Romney first sad anything about the "day after". Obama KNEW where Romney was gonna try and strike and was waiting for it. Obama CALLED for the transcript.
Your obscene blindness to reality, is really getting tiresome.
|
|
| | | 108 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 10:22
|
He was giddy? Really? Of course he was giddy. He was in his comfort zone with the media fighting his fights for him.
|
|
| | | 109 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 10:23
|
"Crowley interupted Romney 28 times, Obama just 9 times."
It's the job of a good moderator to interrupt when someone's telling a lie.
|
|
| | | 110 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 10:24
|
Crowley even admitted after the debate that Romney was right on that point.
|
|
| | |
| | | 112 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 11:30
|
Romney was right on that point.
Well, actually he was not. After the debate she was kind enough to Romney to offer the benefit that what he meant to say might have been correct. But what Romney said and what Crowley gave him the benefit of possibly intending well after the fact are two different things:MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I -- I certainly do. I certainly do. I -- I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I -- I -- I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.
MS. CROWLEY: It -- he did in fact, sir.
So let me -- let me call it an act of terrorism -- (inaudible) --
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)
MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.
MR. ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration -- (applause) -- indicated that this was a -- a reaction to a -- to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.
MS. CROWLEY: They did. Crowley after the debate (from Boldwin's link): And I think actually, you know because, right after that I did turn around and say, but you’re totally correct that they spent two weeks telling us this was about a tape and that that there was a, you know, this riot outside the Benghazi consulate which there wasn’t.
It’s just that was the natural thing coming out of me going, ‘Actually he did, you know, call it an act of terror.’ Uh, when, you know, half the crowd clapped for that and the other half clapped for ‘But they kept telling us this was a tape, this was caused by a tape’ so, you know, in the main, the thrust of what Governor Romney was saying, which is why I went back and said that, um, but I just think he picked the wrong kind of way to go about talking about it if that makes sense. And finally, from the Rose Garden transcript:No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.
|
|
| | | 113 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 12:15
|
All post debate polls give Obama clear win (the "ALL" is in the linked headline, not my insertion)
Best line in the article:
"Fun, Twitter-led drive uniting women around and against Mitt’s “binder” comment. Expect to see some walking binders in this month’s Halloween parades." lol
|
|
| | | 114 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 12:53
|
That is one of the most unserious moments in American politics ever.
Romney makes a perfectly verifiable case for being the most woman friendly inclusive administration in the country [countering millions of dollars wasted in attack ads against him on the WoW meme] and the left's solution is a Beavis and Butthead moment, 'He said Binders'.
Really? The mention of office supplies gets you to line up twice for kink?
|
|
| | | 115 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 13:01
|
Perfectly verifiable case? You mean for his answer to the womans question, what would he do to hep woman in the workplace, and his solution is to let them off early so they can go home and fix dinner????????
|
|
| | | 116 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 13:02
|
I thought he made a strong case for his work in Massachusetts and his cabinet (as he has in the past) but it was undone by that word.
Word choices matter in a debate.
|
|
| | | 117 | Seattle Zen
ID: 47630913 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 13:08
|
Romney told that young women that he really understands women, for instance, he KNOWS that they need to be given flexible schedules so they can be home to feed their kids.
Really? Women need to be coddled?
He wondered, "why are there not a bunch of women applying for these jobs? Go find me some women."
Why did you not already have a binder full of women OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD who you would want in your administration? You had to ask your male henchmen to round up a whole binder full for you.
The bottom line is - you didn't support the Lilly Ledbetter Act and would do NOTHING to shrink the women pay gap because Republicans do not believe in the government getting involved in shrinking the gap.
|
|
| | | 118 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 13:30
|
I have no problem with Romney making that effort. I, for one, don't take him to task for not already having the binders of women but give him credit for asking for one and following through. We can't all start from a place in which we are already
He does have some natural limits to what he'll do, however. The most obvious hole in the GOPs argument about women's rights is that they don't support the Lily Ledbetter Act.
|
|
| | | 119 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:06
|
MITH
No, you are just wrong on the facts. Obama spent two weeks denying it was a terror attack and claiming it was a protest gone wrong, when in fact his people watched it go down live on video feed, knew perfectly well it was a terrorist attack pure and simple without a hint of protest involved. No investigation needed whatsoever to know that it was a terrorist attack. And Obama lied for two weeks about it. He lied to the UN he lied to the press when he wasn't ducking them, he lied to you and me about it. He put a man in prison to further the story.
It isn't about the failure in security tho that would kill any presidential career without the MSM in his pocket.
He didn't even lie about it because he didn't want four deaths and a terrorist attack on his record.
He lied about it and stretched the reveal out as long as he could because he needs to keep one fact from penetrating the zeitgeist for one more month.
He needs people for another month to hold onto the meme that he administered the coup de grace to al qaeda, when in fact he put them in power all over the muslim world. When people fully grasp that there was a coordinated multi-pronged terrorist deadly wave of attacks all across the muslim world on 9/11...everything changes.
The libs will still not take any credit for it. They put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of the Sunni world as surely as they put the Ayatollah's radicals in power over the Shia. They'll blame Bush for inflaming islam in the first place. They'll accuse people like me of wanting a world war with islam, when nothing is farther from the truth. I just saw it plain as day.
The Bush approach was producing stable governments capable of resisting the move to a global caliphate. Obama's approach led to a world war that will come closer than you can imagine to achieving that.
Watch the timeline of the long line of denials and disinformation directed at the American people. wrt Banghazi.
|
|
| | | 120 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:11
|
No B, you are IGNORING the transcript. Read it again. Pay particular attention to the sentence that starts with:
NO ACTS OF TERROR.....
|
|
| | | 121 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:14
|
Oh, but Sarge, I'm sure he was talking about something completely different and unrelated (while directly addressing that).
|
|
| | | 122 | Boldwin
ID: 09251621 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:15
|
You may be willing to let him always have it both ways but I am not.
You can't deny it an infinite number of times and then point to a very indirect comment tucked in at the end of a long denial suggesting otherwise and claim the suggested exception was the rule.
|
|
| | | 123 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:22
|
give him credit for asking for one and following through.
Sure, if you take his word for it that it was his impetus that got more women brought into the MA government.
Statement from the Massachusetts Government Appointments Project regarding that exchange in last night's debate:Prior to the 2002 gubernatorial election, MassGAP approached the campaigns of candidates Shannon O’Brien and Mitt Romney and asked them both to commit to: (1).“Make best efforts” to ensure that the number of women in appointed state positions is proportionate to the population of women in Massachusetts; (2). Select a transition team whose composition is proportionate to the women in the Commonwealth; and (3). Meet with MassGAP representatives regularly during the appointments process. Both campaigns made a commitment to this process.
Following the election, MassGAP formed committees for each cabinet post in the administration and began the process of recruiting, interviewing, and vetting women applicants. Those committees selected top applicants for each position and presented this information to the administration for follow-up interviews and consideration for appointment.
Prior to the 2002 election, women comprised approximately 30 percent of appointed senior-level positions in Massachusetts government. By 2004, 42 percent of the new appointments made by the Romney administration were women. Subsequently, however, from 2004-2006 the percentage of newly-appointed women in these senior appointed positions dropped to 25 percent. SO Romney deserves credit for agreeing to MassGAP's proposal and allowing them to recruit (and interview and vett) applicants and for apparently appointing/hiring a good number of them.Of course that's notably different than the version of the story that Romney told last night, the one in which he decided on his own, as governor, that he needed more women in his cabinet - and that when he couldn't find any, he approached womens' groups to help him recruit. Or if you prefer, as Romney put it:And — important topic and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the — the chance to pull together a Cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men. And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, how come all the people for these jobs are — are all men?
They said, well, these are the people that have the qualifications. And I said, well, gosh, can't we — can't we find some — some women that are also qualified?
And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet. I went to a number of women's groups and said, can you help us find folks? And I brought us whole binders full of — of women. I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my cabinet and my senior staff that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.
Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can't be here until 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5:00 so I can be there for — making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you. And let's please also recall that the question he attempted to answer with this semi-true anecdote was one about whether he intends to do anything about the wage/gender gap, not whether women should be represented in the workplace, or whatever his point was.
|
|
| | | 124 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:23
|
I'm willing to not be a lying scumbag about it. So at least I've got that going for me.
|
|
| | | 125 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:28
|
No, you are just wrong on the facts.
I've already shown the facts. Romney claimed Obama didn't call it a terror act in the Rose Garden speech. Turns out that was in fact the exact phrase Obama used.
If Romney had said the administration obfuscated the facts for two weeks that would have been true. Crowley agreed to exactly that during the debate once Romney realized where he went wrong. Unless you can show me that the provided transcripts are wrong, my facts are exactly right.
I'm sorry they don't fit with your worldview, but that doesn't make them wrong - even for you.
|
|
| | | 126 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:29
|
at the end of a long denial suggesting otherwise
Haha! Now who's got his facts all wrong. Same guy as almost always around here.
|
|
| | | 127 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:39
|
The requirement from the GOP that their politics is as inerrant as their Bible gets rather tiresome at times.
Like the Bible, note that "inerrant" isn't the same as "consistent."
|
|
| | | 128 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:43
|
It isn't about the failure in security tho that would kill any presidential career without the MSM in his pocket.
This is a particularly stupid statement. Four Americans died. That's certainly tragic and outrageous enough but it isn't the 3,000 that dies 11 years earlier in Bush's first term, only a short time after the bombings of three embassies and the USS Cole. Or 241 marines who died in Beiruit in Reagan's first term shortly after the Iran hostage crisis. Both men of course were reelected.
|
|
| | | 129 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 14:48
|
Additionally B, you and the GOP have a whole separate issue anyway, regarding your screams and rants over the denial of additional security. You see, it turns out that those requests, were focused on the EMBASSY in Tripoli, not the Consulate in Benghazi, which is where the attack took place. So even if approved, it would have achieved absolutely nothing at all.
those damn facts that cause the GOP so much heartburn
The requests were denied, but they were largely focused on extending the tours of security guards at the American Embassy in Tripoli — not at the diplomatic compound in Benghazi, 400 miles away. And State Department officials testified this week during a hearing by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that extending the tour of additional guards — a 16-member military security team — through mid-September would not have changed the bloody outcome because they were based in Tripoli, not Benghazi.
|
|
| | | 130 | Boldwin
ID: 539121714 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 15:20
|
MITH he used the term NO ACTS OF TERROR but he didn't connect it to Banghazi. He had just set up a long long denial that it was anything other than a protest that got out of hand. It is just special pleading to claim that that little fig leaf undoes all massive weeks of lying he did denying it was terrorism or if it was terrorism, it wasn't confirmed terrorism.
Is there no fence you will not let him ride?
|
|
| | | 131 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 15:24
|
if you take his word for it that it was his impetus that got more women brought into the MA government.
Unlike modern day Catholics, there's not a whole lot of wriggle room when it comes to being a good Mormon. They are not timid with excommunications. As a pragmatist, it makes sense that Romney would see the wisdom of having some token women in his administration, but as a serious practicing old school Mormon, I can pretty much assure you that privately he feels women should procreate, rear children, scrapbook, and leave the business of politics and the business of business to the men.
Perhaps that seems like too much of a generalization, but living in the most concentrated population of Mormons anywhere in the world(not talking Salt Lake where the Mormon population is barely a majority any more, talking Northern Utah County where the Mormon population is 85+%), I am keenly aware of the place Mormon women are expected to occupy in society.
Of course there are exceptions, and as the Church has been getting more and more exposure the past decade, you're likely to see more Mormon women in politics and businesses that have been traditionally reserved for men.
Perhaps it would be better to draw your own conclusions by reading from the official LDS website. Especially enlightening are the comments.
|
|
| | | 132 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 15:27
|
Jeez, you seem to believe that the winner is the one that pressed the "terror" button fastest. By that standard, Obama won, but you don't seem to like that.
How about this September 13th speech in Colorado, in which he was more explicit?
The problem, as usual, is that the Right is trying to solve the wrong problem. I'd rather figure out what exactly went right, what went wrong, and correct it. The Right wants whatever happened (they don't know either) to reflect poorly on Obama in some way.
Live by the buzzword, die by the buzzword.
|
|
| | | 133 | Boldwin
ID: 539121714 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 15:30
|
He is mentally prepared for the inevitable. Are you?
|
|
| | | 134 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 15:31
|
Surely you can't be serious.
|
|
| | | 135 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 15:33
|
The complete Rose Garden transcript from 9/12/2012
he didn't connect it to Banghazi
The purpose of the speech was a response to Benghazi. Through the speech he never stopped talking about the attack. The paragraph in question reads:Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.
As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done. He had just set up a long long denial that it was anything other than a protest that got out of hand.
Funny, words like protest or demonstration never appeared even once in the speech.
A long long denial that it waas a terror attack would require multiple phrases which directly counter any assertion that it was an act of terror. Perhaps you can copy and paste thise many numerous denial-type phrases in the link I have provided?
|
|
| | | 136 | Boldwin
ID: 539121714 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 15:39
|
PD
Closer but still no cigar. He does not actually connect the word to the act. He'll let you think he did, but he was still sending out spokespersons to deny that enuff was known to call this specific incident terrorism.
Let me give you an example. Imagine Bill Clinton denied repeatedly committing sexual harrassment and/or rape. And then he states, "'What, you think we let rapists and sexual harrassers walk around unpunished?' My administration will not tolerate sexual harrassment."
In that example did he admit to sexual harrassment just because the term is ever so loosely associated with the act?
|
|
| | | 137 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 15:47
|
What else could he possibly be referring to? If the words "acts of terror" mean anything (and, by the bleating of the Right today it surely must) then the fact that he used those words should put this whole mini-meme to rest.
What's next: "OK, he said it, but he didn't really mean it!"?
The Right's unseriousness on this issue has become Obama's most effective talking point on Libya.
|
|
| | | 138 | Boldwin
ID: 539121714 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 16:17
|
1) He or his significant others at the WH sat there and watched the terrorist act go down in real time.
2) He and his significant others refused point blank to describe it as terrorism despite two weeks of withering questioning.
3) How in the world can you describe that as 'calling it terrorism'?
|
|
| | | 139 | Tree
ID: 57842011 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 16:41
|
Baldwin - He does not actually connect the word to the act.
Obama - No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans...
he must have been referring to four different Americans when he said "acts of terror". Moe, Larry, Curly, and Shemp? or maybe Groucho, Harpo, Chico, and Zeppo?
because the American Right, right now, are certainly acting like jokes.
|
|
| | | 140 | Boldwin
ID: 539121714 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 17:17
|
He was just riding the fence. He knew perfectly well he had no intention of admitting it was a terrorist act until the election was over.
Tuff on terrorism, but can't recognize it if it slaps you in the face.
|
|
| | | 141 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 17:31
|
It must be wonderful to be able to lie so convincingly to yourself about people you hate so much.
|
|
| | | 142 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 17:36
|
Yes B, thats why he called it an act of terror twice on 9/12 and again on 9/13.
Acts of trolling shouldnt be tolerated.
|
|
| | | 144 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 18:06
|
At some point, we really need to start a "no blatantly making stuff up" rule here. Or just move the posts to a "zero content" thread.
And yes, I realize that for the far right, the world itself is treated as a zero content thread. And it needs to be called what it is, both on this forum and in the world. Pathetic lies.
|
|
| | | 145 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Wed, Oct 17, 2012, 18:35
|
|
|
| | |
| | | 147 | Boldwin
ID: 479431822 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 00:49
|
Oh, we left a little out of that story, didn't we, PD?
Like that Fenton is a media coordinator for Code Pink, dishonestly infiltrating a supposedly neutral audience of 'independents' to feed Obama a 'women's issue' softball.
If there was such a thing as Karma she would have a truckload teetering over her head ready to drop.
|
|
| | | 148 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 01:01
|
B? See post 105, and your own link post 104, where it says PROBABLY NOT.
Really dude...sad, sorry, pathetic...take your pick
|
|
| | | 149 | Tree
ID: 57842011 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 01:07
|
Like that Fenton is a media coordinator for Code Pink, dishonestly infiltrating a supposedly neutral audience of 'independents' to feed Obama a 'women's issue' softball.
repeating a lie doesn't make it true.
YOUR OWN LINK said it wasn't true. perhaps if you'd read posts other than your own, you might have seen the post immediately following yours pointing out the folly of your claim - undermined by the very link in which you posted.
|
|
| | |
| | | 151 | Boldwin
ID: 479431822 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 01:18
|
It didn't say that when I posted #104. That has been updated since. No it appears unlikely a 24 yr old K teacher owns a 5 yr old communications company in NYC.
Volokh and I seem to have fallen into the same trap as the newsman who 'discovered' the Denver shooter may have been a conservative.
|
|
| | | 152 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 01:21
|
105 was posted...9 minutes after your 104 Boldwin.
|
|
| | | 153 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 01:22
|
and...you really needed someone else to tell you that 24 yr old, wasnt the same person? (or, is research something you prefer to leave to PV et al?)
|
|
| | | 154 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 02:06
|
I don't want to pile on here, but we left a little out of that story, didn't we, PD? seems a little over-the-top. Hopefully we'll all come here a little more cautiously.
Except for sarge. He's a lost cause...
:)
|
|
| | | 155 | Tree
ID: 57842011 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 09:15
|
I seem to have fallen into the same trap
and in less than 10 minutes. record time!
you should read posts aside from your own.
|
|
| | | 156 | biliruben
ID: 41431323 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 09:32
|
Volokh would never have put up such nonsense.
It was Jim Lindgen. One of the reasons I've stopped reading the previously pretty reasonable Volokh.
|
|
| | | 157 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 10:35
|
They[the libs] put the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of the Sunni world as surely as they put the Ayatollah's radicals in power over the Shia.
Sometimes outrageougly biased accusations like these are cleverly hidden within the bulk of throwaway posts that reveal a world view consistent with the mockery of intelligence we're subjected to here on a daily basis.
Suffice it to say the Muslim Brotherhood is not in charge of the Sunni world, unless you consider the Sunni world to exclude virtually every country with a dominant Sunni population.
|
|
| | | 158 | Boldwin
ID: 4917199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 10:44
|
It's a done deal. I would be amazed if any sunni country isn't under the MB thumb in a decade. Five years possibly. The rolling wave of 'arab spring' MB revolutions makes it inevitable.
|
|
| | | 159 | Tree
ID: 24945199 Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 10:47
|
It's a done deal
much Like that Fenton is a media coordinator for Code Pink, dishonestly infiltrating a supposedly neutral audience of 'independents' to feed Obama a 'women's issue' softball.?
the significant majority of what you post here - and by significant, i'd say i'm underestimating when i say 85% - is either a lie, misinformation, or a prediction that has yet to, nor will ever, come true.
|
|
| | | 160 | Boldwin
ID: 99252021 Sun, Oct 21, 2012, 00:23
|
|
|
| | |
| | | 162 | Boldwin
ID: 99252021 Sun, Oct 21, 2012, 05:13
|
No, here is where I am coming from. Obama and his compliant MSM and Candy Crowley are trying to paint out the role of al qaeda affiliates like Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), etc. and paint in the filmaker and non-existant protest crowds as the culprits for 9/11/12 attacks. Just as if they were some Orwellian propaganda department redrawing the history.
|
|
| | | 163 | Mith
ID: 18451815 Sun, Oct 21, 2012, 09:42
|
Unless some game-changing news breaks before tomorrow night or Obama repeats his performance from the first debate, Romney is going to get crushed in the foreign policy debate.
His go-to talking points are the terrible arguments that 1. Obama failed to get Iraq to agree to keep American troops there (laughable that any other outcome was possible after Abu Ghraib and Paul Bremmer and 6 or 7 figures of dead Iraqi friends and family members) 2. that he "dropped the ball" on the Green Revolution in Iran (while even the staunchest neocon critics weren't offering any actual policy alternatives at the time) and 3. that he invented a story about a protest in Benghazi to cover up an act of terror on his watch - which has now been proven untrue.
A poor showing would be tough on Mitt, after the Libya discussion was easily his weakest exchange of last week's debate. He's going to look really bad on foreign policy. If I were Obama I'd have a huge buy in defense-themed TV ads ready to play the moment the debate ends.
|
|
| | | 164 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Sun, Oct 21, 2012, 12:58
|
Re: 161 -- you seem to have linked some political story instead of a picture of Mars with that headline. Please correct this egregious error.
|
|
| | |
| | | 166 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 12:58
|
How Democrats and Republicans wage war
One of these retired flag officers told me: "Democrats admit they don't know anything about military matters. They consult. They ask questions. They listen."
He added: "Republican presidents all assume they're some mix of John Wayne and Patton. Plans are for nerds. Caution is for wimps."
An excellent piece. With the upcoming debate being on foreign policy, the differences here ARE entirely relevant.
|
|
| | | 167 | Boldwin
ID: 579112216 Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 19:21
|
Which is the party of Dr Strangelove with drone controls in his bedroom in case he should get the urge to kill something?
|
|
| | | 168 | Boldwin
ID: 579112216 Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 20:32
|
Taking bets:
Will Bob Schieffer answer the hard questions for Obama, like Candy Crowley did?
"Read the transcript Candy". [like we arranged] - famous journ-O-list moments in history
|
|
| | | 169 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 20:35
|
Proof? Being in your head doesn't count.
I have no doubt that Romney will, again, try to push the moderator around. The only question that remains is will the moderator let him.
|
|
| | | 170 | Razor
ID: 139162221 Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 22:16
|
It's not over yet, but Obama is showing his chops in foreign policy. Romney's attacks on the President's have been mostly vague while agreeing with him on several policy points. I don't think Romney is going to win any votes tonight.
|
|
| | | 171 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 22:30
|
Romney is clearly showing, that he is out of his element here. Foreign policy, is a VAST weakness for him, as it was for Obama in 2008. Obama however, named a recognized Foreign Policy wizard, as his VP candidate.
|
|
| | | 172 | Boldwin
ID: 579112216 Mon, Oct 22, 2012, 22:38
|
Wizzard. Witch, you mean.
|
|
| | | 173 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 00:24
|
Romney's best moments were in the first half hour or so, where he basically nodded at all the wonderful Obama foreign policy moves. He was in full Etch-A-sketch mode, trying to look like a calm peacemaker commander-in-chief. Unfortunately none of his own ideas would fit his new clothes so he decided to borrow Obama's.
After that the grind started, and Obama took him to task. Best moment for Obama was the dismantle of Romney's "smallest navy since 1916" argument.
|
|
| | | 174 | Tree
ID: 57842011 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 02:24
|
"we have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them."
man. that is laying the smack down. holy moley.
|
|
| | | 175 | Boldwin
ID: 579112216 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 03:07
|
I'm not sure anyone watched this debate.
|
|
| | | 176 | Boldwin
ID: 579112216 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 05:38
|
Peanut Tillman vs Megatron
There was yer epic battle of the night.
|
|
| | | 177 | Boldwin
ID: 579112216 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 05:46
|
My takeaway, Hiring a bunch of teachers and giving them all raises is a hellofaway to jumpstart an economy....not.
And the Obama death stare isn't impressing anyone. Not on any stage.
|
|
| | | 178 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 06:29
|
|
|
| | |
| | | 181 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 06:43
|
Thinking back on the previous debate it strikes me that we've got an administration supposedly digging us out of a depression, for whom the idea that resumes come in binders is a novel and funny idea that never occurred to them.
|
|
| | | 182 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 06:46
|
Asking Democrats to fix a broken economy is like asking rodeo clowns to build a rocketship.
|
|
| | | 183 | Tree
ID: 57842011 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 09:03
|
I'm not sure anyone watched this debate.
speak for yourself. oh, wait, you are. especially since so far you've only commented on domestic issues, when the overall debate was on foreign policy.
this was not a knockout, but it was a pretty thorough smackdown.
|
|
| | | 184 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 11:07
|
Asking Democrats to fix a broken economy is like asking rodeo clowns to build a rocketship
I'm sure this goes over well at RedState but here we' do more fact-based than faith-based political commentary. Which is probably why you appear to be having so much trouble in the other thread regarding Obama and his "cousin."
In 3 years Obama has paid down about $300 billion off the deficit, which is $300 billion more than Bush. Clinton, of course, balanced the budget (and I give plenty of credit to the GOP then for working with him on it).
Romney clearly wants a re-do over the Bush Administration. But that is exactly what got us into this fiscal trouble. Americans aren't going to be so stupid as to think just doing it again (including spending $4 trillion on the military that they neither want nor need) will work just because this time we got a guy who apparently has no political core.
|
|
| | | 185 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 11:13
|
resumes come in binders is a novel
Your posts these days seriously read like they were pulled from comment threads at conservative web sites. There appears to be no real research behind them. You know the full story of the binders, yes? There were no actual resumes, then were done by an outside group (MassGAP) for both the candidates that year in Massachusetts, and they were done for senior level positions. And they were done while this country was still doing well--only a year or so into Bush's first term (i.e., not during a recession).
|
|
| | |
| | | 187 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 11:27
|
In 3 years Obama has paid down about $300 billion off the deficit - PD
Bullfeathers. I notice there was no link on that fantasy.
BTW if Romney intends to be a compassionate conservative ala Bush, ie. give in to the liberal wishlist despite talking the conservative talk, we will indeed be in for more budget busting. Tea Party congressmen had better ride him to insure he doesn't. --- I know how the moonbats on MSNBC carried on about binders like they were some kind of republican kink instead of honest research into qualified candidates.
|
|
| | | 188 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 11:29
|
Sarge.
I know which party added days of red tape and mountains of taxes to every small businessman's week. I know who is the deliberate enemy of business and prosperity.
|
|
| | | 189 | Great One
ID: 2431114 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 11:35
|
Then why is the economy better when they are in office according to Bloomberg and Fox Business?
|
|
| | | 190 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 11:41
|
Bullfeathers
Funny what you know lately.
The numbers are not hard to find.
FY 2012: $1,089 billion FY 2011: $1,300 billion FY 2010: $1,293 billion FY 2009: $1,413 billion
|
|
| | | 191 | Tree
ID: 439482310 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 11:57
|
He refuses to be lured into more research.
|
|
| | | 192 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 11:57
|
I think paid down is bit a misleading term, since nothing has been paid, spent less would be more accurate.
re 186: i think you can read two things for those links either a) they show nothing of relevance or b)the presidential party probably has little impact on the economy. I guess either make your point that the GOP is no better than the dems on the economy.
|
|
| | | 193 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 12:00
|
no boikin...my point, and history bears it out...is that the economy does better under Dems. Straight forward, simple, truth.
|
|
| | | 194 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 12:03
|
I think sarge's point was that Dems are better for the economy, not that they are the same. Certainly there appears to be a consumer and investor confidence which has a historic co-relational existence with Democratic administrations. Confidence is a dicey thing, of course, but we need not examine how tightly those things exist to show that Baldwin's premise is false--merely showing how history says otherwise is enough.
#192: That might be accurate, I think, though we should remember that the comparison is also with the previous budget projections (including those going back quite a bit). And honest reporting requires the recognition that Bush's budgets didn't have the Iraq was on them (it was off-budget, and "paid" for through emergency appropriations). So I tend to think that the numbers are actually a little better (more accurate now, in other words).
|
|
| | | 195 | Great One
ID: 2431114 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 12:04
|
First Boldwin gives PD a hard time for not having a link... then sarge gives great links from reputable sources to illustrate his point and those aren't good enough apparently. So maybe PD realized its not worth the effort to post links that Boldwin would dismiss anyway. You should start posting links that say one thing but then go to Nickelodeon website or something ridiculous just to see if he actually reads them.
|
|
| | |
| | | 197 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 12:28
|
re 193: It also does better when the NFC wins the Super Bowl, but neither of these associations are necessarily useful for prediction.
|
|
| | | 198 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 12:32
|
"I know who is the deliberate enemy of business and prosperity."
See this? Right here? This is why we can't have nice things on this forum. This is why.
|
|
| | | 199 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 13:21
|
or boikin, when it rains on the 3rd wed of Mar. Do you have a point, or are you just being contentious?
Economic policy, is set by the Pres. History shows us, that Democratic policies show a markedly improved performance vs Republican policies. Now, you want to dispute that? Fine, find relevant facts, not meaningless anecdotes.
|
|
| | | 200 | Great One
ID: 2431114 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 13:29
|
classy... Conservative political pundit Ann Coulter called President Obama a "retard" after his debate Monday night with Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
In a Twitter post moments after the 90-minute event in Boca Raton, Fla., Miss Coulter said, "I highly approve of Romney's decision to be kind and gentle to the retard."
|
|
| | | 201 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 13:51
|
You mean, the retard whose policies Romney repeatedly agreed with?
|
|
| | | 202 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 13:52
|
Conservative political pundit Ann Coulter
It's way past time pundits like Ann Coulter(and his slavish devotee on this forum) cease to be called conservative.
|
|
| | | 203 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 13:53
|
Now, now. The point is that calling someone "retard" is wrong. Wrong for them. Wrong for us. Let's not claim that Republicans are wrong in how they do politics, then take up their antics when a fat target comes along.
|
|
| | | 204 | Frick
ID: 2193319 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 14:07
|
Sarge, what time frame are you looking at? In the last 40 years, we are on our 3rd Dem President? The economy was great under Clinton, but awful under Carter. I'm not including Obama, but in general you would have to say that economy has not done well (I don't blame him for that.)
To say that the economy is under the control of the President is laughable at best. That is even truer today than in the past, due to the interdependencies of the global economy.
Re: 202 My biggest hope is that after this election, the Rep starts to marginalize the radical right, not promote them as the baseline.
|
|
| | | 205 | Mith
ID: 98342014 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 14:09
|
Wont happen if Obama wins another term.
And probably not if he loses, either.
|
|
| | | 206 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 14:14
|
Why a Romney win is bad for America
Essentially, Republicans looked around when Obama was sworn in and saw political opportunity. They had lost the White House and faced steep Democratic majorities in the Senate and House. In a way, this made them weak; they had no power to advance their own agenda. But it also gave them strength; they had considerable power to stall Obama’s agenda, and with economic anxiety rampant, it seemed logical to assume voters would blame the ruling party if things didn’t turn around quickly.
The result is that Republicans devoted themselves not to constructively criticizing Democratic proposals, crafting feasible alternatives, and accepting olive branches from the administration but instead to cranking up the hysteria and treating virtually every Obama initiative as a step toward socialism. They matched this with legislative obstruction, tying up scores of nominations, forcing a record number of filibusters, and forcing Democrats to pass their agenda on party-line votes.
A Romney win, signals the electorate that blame, is more valuable than credit. Elect Romney, give him a majority in the House and the Senate, then dont be surprised if the Dems make the GOP record nr of filibusters, look like a warm-up session. Romney, could find himself fortunate to pass gas, because his legislation could go nowhere. And the electorate, would have only itself to blame.
|
|
| | | 207 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 14:25
|
It's just a matter of fact. I know where the next unnecessary piece of red tape in my way is going to come from. They are going to generate another unnecessary form for another unnecessary public employee to check off. They are going to employ another heartless inflexible martinet to screw with me. They are going to tie one hand behind my back and limit my options. They are going to cut off the next wrung in the ladder above me. They are going to make sure that the next 6K I earn entirely disappears in taxes.
They are going to make every villain in every media vehicle look just like me. He's a man, he's the sum of all evils. He's a businessman, he's the sum of all evils. He's white, he's the sum of all evils. He's christian, he's the sum of all evils. He's a loyal family man, he's the oppressor, the dufus, the boring, the blind, you name it.
I know who cannot wait to get in my way as a businessman and just a regular ambitious american family man and ruin it for me.
|
|
| | | 208 | DWetzel
ID: 25740420 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 14:29
|
Well, if you want to go through life blaming everyone else for your own sad, pathetic, failures instead of looking in the mirror in the morning, that's your business, but those of us on Planet Earth know you're full of it.
It's just a fact.
|
|
| | | 209 | Great One
ID: 2431114 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 14:31
|
You know who else a Romney win is bad for? Fox News! I bet they secretly hope Obama wins to help their ratings.
|
|
| | | 210 | Great One
ID: 2431114 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 14:33
|
Sounds like you need to move to Costa Rica and get some of that awesome health care they have.
|
|
| | | 211 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 14:42
|
personal income growth, by economic class, under Dems compared to Reps
The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart….
Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.
Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)
In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats. (source)
|
|
| | | 212 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 16:52
|
There are so many factors Sarge's analysis misses that it's difficult to know where to start. Republicans always have to replenish the military after every Dem administration ignores the military. Military spending is not particularly good for the economy, tho it does beat being conquered. Getting to spend the peace dividends that Republican administrations earn is what I'd call a lagging indicator. Squandering money blowing up bubbles is something Dems are great at but tho they help their short-term numbers, devastates the country longterm.
|
|
| | | 213 | boikin
ID: 532592112 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 17:00
|
Interesting read, best part:
The class gradient of income growth under Republican presidents is roughly similar in election years and non-election years, with income growth at the 95th percentile exceeding growth at the 20th percentile by about 1.5 percentage points. However, average growth at every income level has been about 2 percentage points higher in presidential election years than in non-election years. Whether through political skill or pure luck, post-war Republican presidents have regularly produced robust income growth in the run-up to presidential elections.
In stark contrast, Democratic presidents have produced much less income growth in presidential election years than in non-election years. These differences, too, are on the order of 2 percentage points, with real incomes at all levels growing by about 3 percent in non-election years but only about 1 percent (and actually falling at the top of the income distribution) in presidential election years. As a result, families at every income level have experienced much 22 more election-year income growth under Republican presidents than under Democratic presidents. Even families at the 20th percentile of the income distribution have seen about twice as much election-year income growth under Republican presidents (2.1 percent) as under Democratic presidents (1.0 percent); the corresponding figures in non-election years are .1 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively.
Which is mostly interesting that in election years typically years with little legislation the economy does this best which would indicated, that like I said before, neither party has much control.
|
|
| | | 214 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 17:05
|
stocks are better under Dems, corporate profits are better, national debt rises more slowly, median household income is higher, unemployment is lower, GDP is higher; by every economic indicator you can point to, we do better under a Dem administration than a Rep one. EVERY single one of those measures, is more favorable under Dem than Rep. And your answer, is defense spending?!?!?!?!?!?
|
|
| | | 215 | Pancho Villa
ID: 59645318 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 20:07
|
And your answer, is defense spending?!?!?!?!?!?
Cmonn, sarge, you're old enough to remember when we almost got conquered by Nicaragua, not to mention that close call with Grenada.
|
|
| | | 216 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 22:53
|
Sarge, I don't even know where to begin. If your recent economic pronouncements were correct Greece would even now be leading the world as the shining example of how to run a country.
|
|
| | | 217 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 22:59
|
The Democratic Party doesn't run Greece.
|
|
| | | 218 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Tue, Oct 23, 2012, 23:12
|
< If your recent economic pronouncements were correct...
IF?!?!?!?! Its a matter of historic record. It is raining here in Weaverville, CA right now. When I say tomorrow, it rained yesterday, there is no need for you to wonder IF I am correct. It will be a matter of record. So to, with the results indicated above.
|
|
| | |
| | | 220 | Boldwin
ID: 29929235 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 00:15
|
Sarge, if Obama has actually paid down the national debt the way you claim I'll eat my hat.
|
|
| | | 221 | sarge33rd
ID: 12554167 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 00:19
|
I never said he paid down the national debt. I said, as did MITH, that e has reduced the annual deficit. My references above, show that the overall debt grows more slowly under Dems, historically, than under Reps. (Obamas data set, is too new to be included. Indeed, most references dont show GWBs 2nd term and some dont show his 1st, because the studies were conducted before it was available. I would however predict a 2016 national debt of 20 trillion under Obama and 22 trillion under Romney)
|
|
| | |
| | | 223 | Perm Dude
ID: 3210201915 Wed, Oct 24, 2012, 01:00
|
That's a stretch.
Ha!
|
|
| | |
|
|