That's all I'm sayin'...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/03/barack-obama-iowa-caucus-2012_n_1182458.html

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Wall Street is typically thought of as investment banking
and banking and we were not an investment bank or a bank.
But we were in the financial services sector generally,"
Romney said. "I am not a Wall Street guy, classically
defined.” - Willard "Mitt" Romney, December 29, 2011.

No.



we're not interested in boring cut and paste political threads at this time, I'm sorry. Good luck though. Thank you for coming in.

You aren't saying that. Howard Fineman is saying that. You are doing what Democrats do best - regurgutating other people's opinions and passing them off as fact based. Think for yourself.

I totally understand your desire to pretend the article I linked to isn't true.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I totally understand your desire to pretend the
> article I linked to isn't true.

I totally understand your desire to believe everything the HuffyPoo
says but it's full of bullshit as usual.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I totally understand your desire to pretend the
> article I linked to isn't true.

This much in it is true:

"a president with a 40 percent job approval rating"

However, an analysis of Romney's 2008 and 2012 votes in Iowa indicates he did NOT pick up the same voters. He did remarably well around Des Moines this year while losing there in 2008.

I understand your desire to have the opinions of others which you have adopted as your own validated, but they simply cannot be.

A man was on national television, he was seriously being talked about as a potential presidential candidate, they gave him time and legitimacy. They put him on TV and talked about him like he was a real boy.



and on his way out, he quoted The Pokemon Movie.




what THE FUCK ELSE DO YOU NEED, you pieces of shit asshole conservative shit-dick trickle-down republican fucknuts? THIS IS BULLSHIT. YOU ARE BULLSHIT. THE WHOLE THING IS BULLSHIT.


you're done. You, you're done. Goodbye.

I will never take another republican or conservative seriously again, EVER. One of your front-runner presidential candidates quoted The Pokemon Movie. That's it. I'm tapping out. You're finished. You lose. You get nothing. Goodbye. You are officially one giant tiny clown car full of idiots. I don't know how you can look yourselves in the mirror every morning.


I'm done with you. You're done. This is crap. We're gonna stop it. We're just gonna stop it.

Pokemon Movie.


You LET THIS HAPPEN. You LET THAT HAPPEN.

YOU LET YOUR PARTY BECOME ASSOCIATED IN SOME WAY WITH THE POKEMON MOVIE, AND YOU ALLOWED THAT TO HAPPEN, AND YOU ARE STILL PRETENDING IT'S SERIOUS. YOU'RE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY. EITHER THAT OR YOU ARE JUST PUNKING AMERICA. IS THIS PUNK'D? IS THAT YOUR POLITICAL PARTY NOW?


I am discusted with you. I'm not joking.

The Pokemon Movie.

go stand in the fucking corner.
Attachments:

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Other Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I totally understand your desire to pretend the
> > article I linked to isn't true.
>
> This much in it is true:
>
> "a president with a 40 percent job approval
> rating"
>
> However, an analysis of Romney's 2008 and 2012
> votes in Iowa indicates he did NOT pick up the
> same voters. He did remarably well around Des
> Moines this year while losing there in 2008.
>
> I understand your desire to have the opinions of
> others which you have adopted as your own
> validated, but they simply cannot be.




Pokemon Movie.



that's it. You can't win. I say Pokemon Movie and you're done. You lose.


I can shut you down by saying the words Pokemon Movie.


how does that make you feel?

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Other Guy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I totally understand your desire to pretend
> the
> > > article I linked to isn't true.
> >
> > This much in it is true:
> >
> > "a president with a 40 percent job approval
> > rating"
> >
> > However, an analysis of Romney's 2008 and 2012
> > votes in Iowa indicates he did NOT pick up the
> > same voters. He did remarably well around Des
> > Moines this year while losing there in 2008.
> >
> > I understand your desire to have the opinions
> of
> > others which you have adopted as your own
> > validated, but they simply cannot be.
>
>
>
>
> Pokemon Movie.
>
>
>
> that's it. You can't win. I say Pokemon Movie and
> you're done. You lose.
>
>
> I can shut you down by saying the words Pokemon
> Movie.
>
>
> how does that make you feel?


It makes me feel relieved. Like when I ass raped you with a mailbox.

George SoreAss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The HuffyPoo [is] full of bullshit as usual.

Really? You mean the campaign in Iowa wasn't dismal & nasty? Romney isn't unpopular with the base; Paul isn't too far out of the mainstream to be nominated, let alone elected; and, Santorum didn't lose his last Senate race, in Pennsylvania, by 17 points, and isn't far to the right of the country on social issues?

You mean the GOP turnout last night wasn't roughly half of that for the 2008 the Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama race? It was the kind of show of interest and enthusiasm that would presage a Republican surge next fall?

You mean Romney did (finally!) break the 25% barrier? You'd argue that Romney sparked excitement or has growing appeal to GOP-tard voters?

Do tell: Where's the bullshit?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Wall Street is typically thought of as investment banking
and banking and we were not an investment bank or a bank.
But we were in the financial services sector generally,"
Romney said. "I am not a Wall Street guy, classically
defined.” - Willard "Mitt" Romney, December 29, 2011.

you're making America into a joke. You're joking. Watch that Rick Perry ad where he's in the woods, talking about fags and how somehow, on some strange planet, that has something to do with prayer in school....and we can't have fags, we need prayer in school.....fags, prayer, fag marriage, gay fag prayer marriage in school...........




this is not serious. It's not real.


I refuse to believe this is real. This is not happening. Nobody is taking that kind of thing seriously. It can't be. If there are large amounts of people watching that ad and not laughing, then I'm done. I quit America.


please, I know everyone hates me...but I'm being serious right now. Please tell me I'm not alone. Please tell me this is not for real. I can't live in a world where that Rick Perry ad is not taken as a total and complete joke. It's farce. Complete farce.

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [Romney] did remarkably well around Des Moines this
> year while losing there in 2008.

Yes, but he lost at least as many Eastern Iowa GOP-tard
votes to Santorum as he gained in Des Moines.

Overall, Wilbur earned slightly fewer voters last night
than he did in '08.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Wall Street is typically thought of as investment banking
and banking and we were not an investment bank or a bank.
But we were in the financial services sector generally,"
Romney said. "I am not a Wall Street guy, classically
defined.” - Willard "Mitt" Romney, December 29, 2011.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > did remarkably well around Des Moines this
> > year while losing there in 2008.
>
> Yes, but he lost at least as many Eastern Iowa
> GOP-tard
> votes to Santorum as he gained in Des Moines.
>
> Overall, Wilbur earned slightly fewer voters last
> night
> than he did in '08.


They aren't the same voters. Fineman contended they were. He (and you) are not entitled to make shit up.

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They aren't the same voters. Fineman contended
> they were.

No, he did not. Here's what Fineman actually wrote:

"Romney appears to be getting almost exactly what he
got the time before -- and in many cases he was probably
getting the very same voters."

Wilbur did, in fact, garner almost exactly the same number
of votes last night as in 2008. There is also an very high
probability that many of last night's Ronemy voters also
voted for him in 2008.

Yours was a pathetic attempt at spin. Neither Mr. Fineman
nor I are "making shit up".

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Wall Street is typically thought of as investment banking
and banking and we were not an investment bank or a bank.
But we were in the financial services sector generally,"
Romney said. "I am not a Wall Street guy, classically
defined.” - Willard "Mitt" Romney, December 29, 2011.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yours was a pathetic attempt at spin.

LOL. The only one spinning here is Mr. Fineman. Not a thing about last night was good for President Obama. Romney getting anywhere near the top is not good for the President. The response ot the President's address last night was anemic.

> Neither Mr. Fineman
> nor I are "making shit up".

No, you aren't making shit up. You are just borrowing someone else's opinion because you can't form one on your own. Mr. Fineman is making shit up.

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a thing about last night was good for
> President Obama. Romney getting anywhere near the
> top is not good for the President.

Hardly. Perhaps someone you know can read and will
read Mr. Fineman's article to you.

> No, you aren't making shit up.

Are you on drugs or just confused? At 11:29 am you wrote:

"He (and you) are not entitled to make shit up."

Well, which is it?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Wall Street is typically thought of as investment banking
and banking and we were not an investment bank or a bank.
But we were in the financial services sector generally,"
Romney said. "I am not a Wall Street guy, classically
defined.” - Willard "Mitt" Romney, December 29, 2011.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hardly. Perhaps someone you know can read and
> will
> read Mr. Fineman's article to you.

Clearly I can read it. Clearly I can critically analyze it. Clearly you can read it but certainly not analyze it. Mr. Fineman might as well have made a "choo choo" sound as he spoon fed you that horse shit. You swallowed it whole.

> > No, you aren't making shit up.
>
> Are you on drugs or just confused? At 11:29 am
> you wrote:
>
> "He (and you) are not entitled to make shit up."
>
> Well, which is it?

He made it up and you regurgitated it perfectly after he spoon fed it to you. Better?

Mr. Misery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> go stand in the fucking corner.

You actually expressed that quite well.

And I'm not kidding.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Misery Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > go stand in the fucking corner.
>
> You actually expressed that quite well.
>
> And I'm not kidding.


+1. Mr. Mis definitely had it right when he told the OP to stand in a corner.

1 year left Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 4 more years, II Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Misery Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > go stand in the fucking corner.
> >
> > You actually expressed that quite well.
> >
> > And I'm not kidding.
>
>
> +1. Mr. Mis definitely had it right when he told
> the OP to stand in a corner.

I second that.

^^^ multiple anon Mr. Misery posts

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Clearly I can critically analyze it.

You have not made that clear at all.
Repetitively labeling the opinions of
another as 'bullshit' is not critical
analysis. Try again.

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mr. Mis definitely had it right when he told
> the OP to stand in a corner.

Pst... He was speaking of Hermain Cain.
You really aren't very bright.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Clearly I can critically analyze it.
>
> You have not made that clear at all.
> Repetitively labeling the opinions of
> another as 'bullshit' is not critical
> analysis. Try again.


Oh, I have shown you why Mr. Fineman was wrong. In one post, you deleted them. In another you ignored them. I can't help it if you won't learn to think on your own or question what some may write on Huffington Post. As for trying again, I have more than proven my points that Mr. Fineman is not accurate in his assessment and that you are simply his parrot.

I get it though. I understand the desperation. We saw it last year. Democrats thought they would do better in the midterms. They used to look for a silver lining in every dark cloud. They ended up taking a beating. The same thing will happen this year.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mr. Mis definitely had it right when he told
> > the OP to stand in a corner.
>
> Pst... He was speaking of Hermain Cain.
> You really aren't very bright.


Pst... Who told you to come up with that? We all know you didn't think of it on your own.

Barack Bobaman has been a president in america. What else do you want. You can't do anything as a president. It doesn't matter. We could have a ham sandwich as president and it wouldn't matter. I know that. So what.


even though these nuts have no chance of winning, it's sad, and disturbing. It speaks sadly of our nationality. To have clowns on parade like this, and the fact that we have That GUy and The Other Guy or whoever the fuck you are analyzing it like it's real and it means anything--SERIOUS BUSINESS, FOLKS!---is even sadder somehow. It's the WWE. You two dunces are arguing about this garbage like you're arguing about who has the better finishing move---The Undertaker or Doink the Clown. Who will win the Cruiser-Weight Belt at this year's SummerSlam? And you are talking about it as if it's real.


you're all disgusting, and you all make me sick.


you make me feel like puking.

complete garbage.

Pokemon Movie. Prayer in schools. Gay marriage. SOCIALIST! HEY, THIS GUY'S A SOCIALIST! LET'S GIT 'IM! Privatize everything. Free enterprise, we trickle down on you. Enjoy our trickle. You like the idea of being trickled down on? Job creators? Right. Because everyone knows the richer an enterprise gets, the more charitable it becomes, and the rich should keep every red cent because then they can hire BILLIONS AND TRILLIONS of employees.....and they would perish the thought of employing as FEW people for AS LITTLE MONEY as they could LEGALLY GET AWAY WITH. Because businesses love to pay employees MORE wherever possible instead of LESS wherever possible. When I go into the grocery store, I know I always am eager to pay MORE for LESS and the man behind the counter and the man behind the man behind the counter is more than happy to allow me to pay LESS for MORE whenever possible. It's not an adversarial relationship. When you go into a store, you are looking to buy less for more, and the store owner is looking to accept less for more. He wants to sell you more of his product for less of your money, and that is how business works. And you likewise want to buy less of his product for more of your money, and that's how consumerism works. And employers, job creators, especially the larger they become, want to employ more people for more money. They WANT to employ you and pay you more even though they are LARGE and the LARGER they get, the more they could afford to pay you less or TERMINATE YOU at their leisure. The rich are Job Creators, clearly. The less you pay in taxes, the better off everyone under you will be. Tricklin' it down, takin' off the shirt.

trickle down into our mouths. It's a great feeling, to be trickled down on. Wouldn't you love it?

I know I do.

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, I have shown you why Mr. Fineman was wrong.

Not that I’ve noticed. If so, in which post(s)?

you don't like BIG GOVERNMENT you say?


that's cool. I can hang with that.



you realize you've traded this intrusive, scary BIG GOVERNMENT for another, different kind of big government, tho? Same thing, different packaging.


I hate it when institutions become BIG and are allowed to INTRUDE and INTERFERE in my life, right? Republican, right? You okay with how BIG institutions like General Motors or Bank of America are tho? That's an acceptable BIG GOVERNMENT. A BIG GOVERNMENT everybody can agree on.....even the boss. Bank of America don't INTRUDE or INTERFERE or FUCK YOU OVER none, does they? Long as we keep those FAT CATS IN WASHINGTON out of our lives, everything'll be fine. And open the god damn floodgates. Off to the races.

nah.....we're all good with that.




knuckleheads.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh, I have shown you why Mr. Fineman was wrong.
>
>
> Not that I’ve noticed. If so, in which post(s)?




your attention to the fine detail of white noise and bullshit is stunning.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Oh, I have shown you why Mr. Fineman was wrong.
>
>
> Not that I’ve noticed. If so, in which post(s)?


Wow. You are slower than I thought. I told you he had Romney's vote tallies wrong. I told you he thinks that Obama won when Obama gave a pep talk to his base in Iowa at over 200 locations and not a sinle person applauded. But, because it wasn't fed to you my Mr. Fineman, you did not digest it.

ughh....

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I told you he had Romney's vote tallies wrong.

And I explained to you @ 11:46 AM that Mr. Fineman is
correct an you are wrong.

> I told you he thinks that Obama won when Obama
> gave a pep talk to his base in Iowa at over 200
> locations and not a sinle person applauded.

1) President Obama DID win the Iowa Democratic Caucuses,
because he was the only candidate. Duh.

2) Who applaudes a TV monitor? Again, duh.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Wall Street is typically thought of as investment banking
and banking and we were not an investment bank or a bank.
But we were in the financial services sector generally,"
Romney said. "I am not a Wall Street guy, classically
defined.” - Willard "Mitt" Romney, December 29, 2011.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 2) Who applaudes a TV monitor? Again, duh.


Obama supporters. People just like you:

http://blog.mlive.com/saginawnews_impact/2009/01/large_JNS.InaugAtTemple.jpg

http://www.goerie.thinkhost.com/mt/campaign08/obamawatch0828photo2.jpg

http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090120-harlem-hmed-11a.grid-6x2.jpg

Yeah. Duh, indeed.

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Other Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2) Who applaudes a TV monitor? Again, duh.
>
>
> Obama supporters.

If you expect folks to respond to every speech President Obama makes the same way they responded to his inaugural address, you're a complete GOP-tard. Duh, indeed.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Other Guy Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > 2) Who applaudes a TV monitor? Again, duh.
> >
> >
> > Obama supporters.
>
> If you expect folks to respond to every speech
> President Obama makes the same way they responded
> to his inaugural address, you're a complete
> GOP-tard. Duh, indeed.

If you think all those photos are of his inaugural, you are complete retard, regardless of party affiliation. Besides, backpeddle much? You asked a question about who applauds a TV monitor. I showed you one and now you are whining again.

This was a campaign event, plain and simple, not a single person in attendance was motivated to applaud. It is a complete lack of motivation and enthusiasm.

Duh, definitely.

sleepy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you think all those photos are of his
> inaugural...

Fair enough. The 1st & last photos show
President Obama's inaugural. The middle
one shows his acceptance speech at the
DNC in Denver. You’re remarkably
disingenuous, even for a GOP-tard.
Regardless, if you think President Obama' s
supporters should/would applaud the broadcast
of every speech the man makes, you're simply not
very bright. Duh, right back attcha.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“Wall Street is typically thought of as investment banking
and banking and we were not an investment bank or a bank.
But we were in the financial services sector generally,"
Romney said. "I am not a Wall Street guy, classically
defined.” - Willard "Mitt" Romney, December 29, 2011.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2012 03:21PM by The Other Guy.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> sleepy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you think all those photos are of his
> > inaugural...
>
> Fair enough. The 1st & last photos show
> President Obama's inaugural. The middle
> one shows his acceptance speech at the
> DNC in Denver. You’re remarkably
> disingenuous, even for a GOP-tard.
> Regardless, if you think President Obama' s
> supporters should/would applaud the broadcast
> of every speech the man makes, you're simply not
> very bright. Duh, right back attcha.


This isn't just a speech. I have been in locales where even his state of the union has garnered applause from viewers. This is a campaign speech intended to motivate and rejuvinate his most loyal of partisans. Applause is certainly warranted and expected. He was addressing gatherings of multiple people across a state. The lack of reception indicates a lack of passion.

The Other Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I totally understand your desire to pretend the
> article I linked to isn't true.


the Huffington Post might as well be classified as fiction reading material. No one reads that paper except spoon fed liberals who question nothing obama says or does.

This guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This isn't just a speech.

Really? How so?

> I have been in locales where even his state of the
> union has garnered applause from viewers.

And I have witnessed televised speeches that did not
garner applause. So?

> This is a campaign speech intended to motivate and
> rejuvinate his most loyal of partisans.

On which GOP-tard blog did you read that assessment?

> Applause is certainly warranted and expected.

Not so much, unless it's a momentous occasion, like an
acceptance or inaugural speech.

> The lack of reception indicates a lack of passion.

By all means, continue to underestimate the level support
for President Obama. It will be the downfall of the GOP
ticket in Nov.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/04/2012 04:55PM by This Guy.

This Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This isn't just a speech.
>
> Really? How so?

See above and below. You aren't too quick, are you? I guess that would explain why you tried to silence your oppositiony by hijacking user names.

> > I have been in locales where even his state of
> the
> > union has garnered applause from viewers.
>
> And I have witnessed televised speeches that did
> not
> garner applause. So?

You actually address this below when you address inaugurals and acceptances. Please keep up and at least make an attempt at consistency.

> > This is a campaign speech intended to motivate
> and
> > rejuvinate his most loyal of partisans.
>
> On which GOP-tard blog did you read that
> assessment?

Unlike you, I don't need blogs to form an opinion based upon facts. You might want to check with Mr. Fineman for how to respond.

> > Applause is certainly warranted and expected.
>
> Not so much, unless it's a momentous occasion,
> like an
> acceptance or inaugural speech.

Nope, see where I pointed out he got applause at a SOU? There is that consistency thing you are having trouble with.

> > The lack of reception indicates a lack of
> passion.
>
> By all means, continue to underestimate the level
> support
> for President Obama. It will be the downfall of
> the GOP
> ticket in Nov.

Nah, President Obama will be the downfall of the Democrat ticket in Nov.

This Guy Wrote:

> By all means, continue to underestimate the level
> support
> for President Obama. It will be the downfall of
> the GOP
> ticket in Nov.


All youre doing is accusing him of doing the same thing youre doing about whoever runs against Obama. The people that dont like what hes doing are more motivated than the majority of people that will revote for Obama as most of his supporters are even disappointed with him so far (not all, and probably not you, but a lot are). Doesnt mean they wont still vote for him but they make make absolutely sure to like in 08.

Also theres a good number of gay voters who are just one issue voters with gay marriage. Obama will lose those votes to Gary Johnson. The record number of first time voters in 08 is unlikely to see all of those voters voting again in 2012.

Its not going to be a landslide either way. Most GOPers are just optimistic about a defeat. Any liberal that thinks that its not possible to beat Obama is living in a fantasy world. As long as Paul doesnt completely screw everything up running as an independent its going to be a long battle.

This Guy Wrote:

> By all means, continue to underestimate the level
> support
> for President Obama. It will be the downfall of
> the GOP
> ticket in Nov.


You have a valid point. Obama has sewn up support from :

Unemployed who want to see their benefits continue another four years and never had any intention of working in the first place.

Blacks who vote for race identity alone, also this is not racist for some reason

Those on welfare who see bigger and better benefits coming at the expense of others

Liberals and assorted dead head democrats who pull the D lever regardless of qualifications, electing Gerry Connolly and Jim Moran for instance

Anyone else who has a haterd of anyone more successful than themselves

Four more years of obama would leave the U S like Greece.

LMAO, yeah and Obama is the clear winner in the rest of the primaries too. You would of thought the republicans would of learned from Palin.

This. Guy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You have a valid point. Obama has sewn up support
> from: Unemployed; Blacks; Those on welfare; Liberals;
> and, Anyone else.

You're right: President Obama has a broad base of support.

Keep in mind, my myopic friend, that voters prefer to vote
for candidates rather than agianst them. The match-up will
be President Obama v. Wilbur and President Obama will win.

Truth Be Told Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This. Guy Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You have a valid point. Obama has sewn up
> support
> > from: Unemployed; Blacks; Those on welfare;
> Liberals;
> > and, Anyone else.
>
> You're right: President Obama has a broad base of
> support.
>
> Keep in mind, my myopic friend, that voters prefer
> to vote
> for candidates rather than agianst them. The
> match-up will
> be President Obama v. Wilbur and President Obama
> will win.



You are deluding yourself if you think anyone voted FOR Obama in the last election. People in 2008 were voting the same way they voted in 2006 - AGAINST Bush. In 2010, people voted AGAINST Obama. Look at the Tea Partiers that won in 2010. Do you honestly think people voted FOR them? Hell no! They were voting AGAINST Obama. That will likely carry over in 2012. I voted against Bush in 2008, but will vote against Obama this year.

all about against Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People in 2008 were voting the same way they
> voted in 2006 - AGAINST Bush.

You’re aware that Bush wasn’t on the ballot in ’08, right?

> In 2010, people voted AGAINST Obama.

You’re aware that President Obama wasn’t on the ballot in ’10, right?

> Look at the Tea Partiers that won in 2010. Do you honestly think
> people voted FOR them?

As Tip O’Neil noted, all politics is local. Congressional elections
aren’t national; they’re local. Yes, I do believe that people vote FOR
their Representatives, not to make a national political statement. PS –
Notice how all of those teabagger freshman have been co-opted by Boehner?

> I voted against Bush in 2008, but will vote against Obama this
> year.

Hmm… You voted against a man who wasn’t on the ballot? That doesn’t make
sense. I voted for President Obama in ’08 and I’ll do the same this year. I believe millions of other voters will do the same.

Truth Be Told Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> all about against Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > People in 2008 were voting the same way they
> > voted in 2006 - AGAINST Bush.
>
> You’re aware that Bush wasn’t on the ballot in
> ’08, right?

Sure. What the hell do you think Obama meant by "change"? Exit polls confirmed that Bush was a deciding factor in many voters' minds. McCain did not entirely escape the shadow of George W. Bush. Fully 71% of voters said they disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president, and 48% of voters said they thought if McCain were elected, he would mainly continue Bush's policies. Among voters who said that McCain would continue Bush's policies, the vast majority (90%) favored Obama.

> > In 2010, people voted AGAINST Obama.
>
> You’re aware that President Obama wasn’t on
> the ballot in ’10, right?

Exit Polls:

"Forty-five percent of voters said they approved of Obama's job performance; 54 percent disapproved -- and voted 85-11 percent for GOP House candidates. Critically, just a third said the administration's economic stimulus program has helped the economy -- a harsh judgment after $800 billion spent."

> > Look at the Tea Partiers that won in 2010. Do
> you honestly think
> > people voted FOR them?
>
> As Tip O’Neil noted, all politics is local.

Not in the years 2006-2010.

> Congressional elections
> aren’t national; they’re local.

Not in the years 2006-2010.

> Yes, I do
> believe that people vote FOR
> their Representatives, not to make a national
> political statement.

Local interests were completely ignored by the tea party.

> PS –
> Notice how all of those teabagger freshman have
> been co-opted by Boehner?

Your attempted point actually supports my premise. They ran on their own agenda, not Boehner's. They act collevtively and attempt to leverage their power within their caucus. Thanks for proving my point.

> > I voted against Bush in 2008, but will vote
> against Obama this
> > year.
>
> Hmm… You voted against a man who wasn’t on
> the ballot?

Count me among the numerous voters who though McCain would be a continuation of Bush. He wasn't dubbed McSame for nothing. Something tells me you probably used that term. Did you? Why did you use it if Bush wasn't a factor?

> That doesn’t make sense.

Sure it does and millions of other voters did the exact same thing.

> I voted for President Obama in ’08 and
> I’ll do the same this year. I believe millions
> of other voters will do the same.

So, you are projecting that millions of people will vote for one of the two major party candidates? Way to go out on a limb there, Nostradamus. You do realize that McCain got nearly 60M votes, don't you?

all about against Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure. What the hell do you think Obama meant by
> "change"? Exit polls confirmed that Bush was a
> deciding factor in many voters' minds. McCain did
> not entirely escape the shadow of George W. Bush.
> Fully 71% of voters said they disapprove of the
> job George W. Bush is doing as president, and 48%
> of voters said they thought if McCain were
> elected, he would mainly continue Bush's policies.
> Among voters who said that McCain would continue
> Bush's policies, the vast majority (90%) favored
> Obama.

I’ll agree that voters wanted change in ’08. That’s why they
voted FOR President Obama over McCain, because
he was viewed as an agent of change.

> "Forty-five percent of voters said they approved
> of Obama's job performance; 54 percent disapproved
> -- and voted 85-11 percent for GOP House
> candidates. Critically, just a third said the
> administration's economic stimulus program has
> helped the economy -- a harsh judgment after $800
> billion spent."
That’s not Exit polling, just random polling. Get serious.

> They ran on their own agenda, not Boehner's.

Yes, because they needed to win individually, at the local
level, by garnering voter FOR them.

> Thanks for proving my point.

No, really, thanks for proving mine.

> He wasn't dubbed McSame for nothing. Something
> tells me you probably used that term. Did you? Why
> did you use it if Bush wasn't a factor?

I didn’t say Bush wasn’t a factor, he just wasn’t the
deciding factor, which is your assertion.

Truth Be Told Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’ll agree that voters wanted change in ’08.
> That’s why they
> voted FOR President Obama over McCain, because
> he was viewed as an agent of change.

Change from what/who? You seriously can't be this dense. Obama was/is an empty suit. There was nothing to vote for. Hell, I voted for him, and I can freely admit it. I certainly couldn't tolerate another Bush term. Obama even ran on that mantra: "No matter what the costs, no matter what the consequences, John McCain seems determined to carry out a third Bush term" March 20, 2008.

> > "Forty-five percent of voters said they
> approved
> > of Obama's job performance; 54 percent
> disapproved
> > -- and voted 85-11 percent for GOP House
> > candidates. Critically, just a third said the
> > administration's economic stimulus program has
> > helped the economy -- a harsh judgment after
> $800
> > billion spent."
> That’s not Exit polling, just random polling.
> Get serious.

I retract my previous question because the answer is yes, you are that dense. It was from the 2010 ABC exit poll. Look it up. The same poll found: "The "angry" vote differential, in particular, was huge -- vastly more so than in 1992 or 1994, the previous times the question was asked. Tuesday, angry voters (26 percent overall) went 84-13 percent in favor of Republicans for House. That gaping 71-point margin widened from 39 points, 73-34 percent, in favor of the Republicans, in 1994, and a 20-point margin, 56-36, for House Democrats among angry voters in 1992." "Angry" voters aren't voting for someone. They are voting against someone.

Look at 2006, to further prove my point: "After a sweeping Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in Tuesday's midterm election, and with control of the Senate hanging in the balance, exit polls indicated views of President Bush and the war in Iraq were key to the outcome.

According to CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider, voters were angry and wanted change -- and the old adage that all politics is local did not apply this year."

> > They ran on their own agenda, not Boehner's.
>
> Yes, because they needed to win individually, at
> the local
> level, by garnering voter FOR them.

They ran on a collective tea party agenda and they are sticking together as freshmen.

> > He wasn't dubbed McSame for nothing. Something
> > tells me you probably used that term. Did you?
> Why
> > did you use it if Bush wasn't a factor?
>
> I didn’t say Bush wasn’t a factor, he just
> wasn’t the
> deciding factor, which is your assertion.

An assertion proven through exit polling. So far, I am the only one providing numbers and facts. You are just whining. Until you can back up your points with poll numbers or facts, you might want to go back to the kiddie table.

show me a pollall about against Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama was/is an empty suit. There was
> nothing to vote for.

That is YOUR opinion.

> An assertion proven through exit polling.

Please. All you’ve “proven” is your fondness for you own opinion.

I enjoy a lively discussion. I do not enjoy being gratuitously insulted.

Good day, Sir/ Madame.

Truth Be Told Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> show me a pollall about against Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama was/is an empty suit. There was
> > nothing to vote for.
>
> That is YOUR opinion.

One shared by many. However, factually speaking, his career was extremely limited prior to his election. His accomplishments in professional and public life were scarce. Point being, there was really nothing to vote FOR.

> > An assertion proven through exit polling.
>
> Please. All you’ve “proven” is your
> fondness for you own opinion.

Nope, sorry. I have backed up my assertions with exit polling data. You, however, have backed up your statements with, well, nothing at all.

> I enjoy a lively discussion.

When you are capable of backing up your assertions, the conversation might turn lively.

> I do not enjoy being
> gratuitously insulted.

To be conisdered gratituitous, the insults would need to be unwarranted. In this situation, your inability to provide any evidence to support your conclusions and your flippant dismissal of what was clearly exit polling data indicates the insults were factual and more than justified.

> Good day, Sir/ Madame.


Good day.

> ...However, factually speaking, his career was extremely limited prior to his
> election. His accomplishments in professional and public life were scarce...

Hmmm...I wonder...if The Haters say things like this often enough, does it make them true?

Hmmm...

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > ...However, factually speaking, his career was
> extremely limited prior to his
> > election. His accomplishments in professional
> and public life were scarce...
>
> Hmmm...I wonder...if The Haters say things like
> this often enough, does it make them true?
>
> Hmmm...


It isn't hating if it is the truth. His resume was pretty thin to be President.

one pager Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It isn't hating if it is the truth. His resume
> was pretty thin to be President.

True true - outstanding student, outstanding graduate student, community organizer, state senator, US senator, President.

Pitiful.

Just pitiful.

4 more years, II Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> outstanding student,

Was he? How do you know? He has never released his transcripts from any of his educational institutions. While he graduated with honors from HLS, we know he graduated without honors from Columbia. It is a stretch to state he was an outstanding student when you can't point to any fact to support that assertion.

> community organizer,

And? Was he successful at it or was it a way to introduce himself to constituents.

> state senator,

MAjor accomplishments?

> US senator,

An absentee one that won his election over a cupcake opponent.