Author Topic: Obama vs Romney  (Read 70676 times)

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #525 on: June 14, 2012, 07:47:22 PM »
Lots of shit I could reply to, but I don't really care to. None the less, the drivers license thing is especially of issue to me as people didn't need one 70 years ago in many states and drivers are not "better" due to licensing than they were before.

LOL... so ridiculous. Even if a license wasn't required in some states 70 years ago that's hardly an argument that a license shouldn't be required today.

70 years ago, in the early '40s, there were significantly fewer vehicles on the road and a significantly smaller and less complex road network. Additionally, the number of miles traveled by vehicles was also dramatically lower than it is today; one reference I found says that in 1940's all cars combined traveled about 20 billion miles per year; in the late '90s that figure was and 2,500 billion miles per year and traffic codes were basically non-existent.


People who lived in Mass were deprived of their right to spend their $ any way they wanted.

People who lived in Massachusetts could move. Or lobby their elected officials. Or seek to overturn the law, using whatever means the Constitution of the State provides.


They were deprived of their right.  Because 51% of the population said it was okay?

Did the State Constitution prohibit the State from exercising the powers it exercised?


What happens when 51% of the people who live in the state say we should deprive ppl of other rights?

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a Constitution which imposes limits on what the Government can and cannot do.


I just LOVE how suddenly romneycare is okay now.  It sucked back then, it sucks now.

I don't like Romneycare. I agree that it sucks and never thought it "ok". But that has nothing to do with whether the State could pass the relevant legislation - it could and did. And what Massachusetts did says nothing about whether similar Federal legislation would be constitutional.


Obamacare is romneycare in all 50 states.  It's wrong to force americans to buy anything cause their neighbors outnumber them.

The Government of the State of Massachusetts has powers, under its Constitution, that the Government of the United States does not have, because the United States Constitution limits the Federal Government and reserves all powers not granted to it for the States and the People.

MCWAY

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19258
  • Getbig!
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #526 on: June 14, 2012, 07:53:36 PM »
"THEY" = less than 100% of the population.

There was something between 1 and 49% of people who lived there who didn't want the govt to force them to buy something.

I love how repubs scream 'states rights!' yet are willing to give up far more of their rights because "well, the majority of my state says so..."

I can understand everyone rallying around ROmney, but for everyone to start saying romneycare was what the people wanted - it's still an individual mandate that was imposed on people who opposed it.  it's still bullshit, just like obamacare.

Obamacare is romneycare in all 50 states.  It's wrong to force americans to buy anything cause their neighbors outnumber them.

States' rights means that the citizens of that state get to determine certain policies.

Here's a news flash. No law or statute passed has 100% support. 51% of the electorate is all it takes to pass laws and amendments directly, unless a state's constitution say otherwise (my home state of Florida requires 60% supermajority for an amendment to be passed).


tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #527 on: June 14, 2012, 07:54:46 PM »
LOL... so ridiculous. Even if a license wasn't required in some states 70 years ago that's hardly an argument that a license shouldn't be required today.

70 years ago, in the early '40s, there were significantly fewer vehicles on the road and a significantly smaller and less complex road network. Additionally, the number of miles traveled by vehicles was also dramatically lower than it is today; one reference I found says that in 1940's all cars combined traveled about 20 billion miles per year; in the late '90s that figure was and 2,500 billion miles per year and traffic codes were basically non-existent.



What does that have to do with anything? Seriously... There is no real correlation except one where you feel "safety" needs to be addressed.

Did we need to license people to ride horses? How about jump out of planes?

It's control in the guise of safety and I can't stand it.

It's absolutely not a necessity and they have people, such as you, warped into believing you need to be "licensed" for everything.

Just a way to take your hard earned dollar... nothing more.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #528 on: June 14, 2012, 08:19:49 PM »
Democratic Pollster: Obama's Negative Tone And Messaging Is Going To Lose Him Michigan
Business Insider ^ | June 14, 2012 | Brett LoGiurato
Posted on June 14, 2012 10:46:57 PM EDT by 2ndDivisionVet

Michigan has become a clear swing state in the 2012 election, a new poll released Thursday by Michigan polling agency Foster McCollum White and Associates found.

And a Democratic pollster warned that if President Barack Obama doesn't change his message and tone in the campaign, he will be in severe danger of losing the state — and the election — to Republican nominee Mitt Romney.

The poll shows that Obama's lead in Michigan — much like in fellow Midwestern state Wisconsin — has all but evaporated. He has just more than a point lead in the state, a similar finding to an EPIC-MRA poll last week that gave Romney a slim lead. Here's a nice pie-chart breakdown (Obama actually rounds up to 47 percent):

(GRAPH AT LINK)

Why the slip in Michigan, a state where one recent poll by Public Policy Polling found Obama leading by an astounding 14 points? Eric Foster, president of Foster McCollum and White, told Business Insider that it's because of Obama's tone and message in the campaign thus far....

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #529 on: June 14, 2012, 09:25:13 PM »
What does that have to do with anything? Seriously... There is no real correlation except one where you feel "safety" needs to be addressed.

It has to do with a lot, not the least of which is that the government has a legitimate interest in controlling who gets to operate a motor vehicle on its public roads.


Did we need to license people to ride horses?

So if we didn't need to do X, with X involving locomotion it means we don't need to do Y since Y also involves locomotion?


How about jump out of planes?

Getting pulled over midair would be cool.


It's control in the guise of safety and I can't stand it.

It's establishing a minimum level of competency to operate a motor vehicle on roads owned by the State.


It's absolutely not a necessity and they have people, such as you, warped into believing you need to be "licensed" for everything.

Ooh... people such as me. Another person who can't go for thirty seconds without throwing a veiled ad hominem.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #530 on: June 14, 2012, 09:56:16 PM »
It has to do with a lot, not the least of which is that the government has a legitimate interest in controlling who gets to operate a motor vehicle on its public roads.


Getting pulled over midair would be cool.


It's establishing a minimum level of competency to operate a motor vehicle on roads owned by the State.


Ooh... people such as me. Another person who can't go for thirty seconds without throwing a veiled ad hominem.


I said such as you, because you are arguing "for" the licensing.

Why would you argue for something if you didn't believe in it?

That's not "ad hominem" at all.

Fact. You are arguing for it.... Hence, people such as you, are FOR it. I'm not attacking you, I'm simply stating that if you argue "for" one side, you must AGREE with that side.

Do you disagree?

Please explain why then.

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #531 on: June 14, 2012, 10:39:05 PM »
I said such as you, because you are arguing "for" the licensing.

I'm not arguing for licensing. I'm saying that the government's position is that there is a compelling government interest in issuing drivers licenses to allow the operation of motor vehicles on what are, essentially, the government's roads. While I agree with that position to some degree, there is a significant difference between that and arguing for licensing.


Why would you argue for something if you didn't believe in it?

Again, I didn't argue for licensing. Stating the positions that Governments adopted in requiring licensing of drivers hardly qualifies as me arguing for licensing.


Fact. You are arguing for it....

You're either confused or fact doesn't mean what you think it means. See above.


Hence, people such as you, are FOR it. I'm not attacking you, I'm simply stating that if you argue "for" one side, you must AGREE with that side.

Are you serious? That's completely and utterly false. Again, I can argue for something without necessarily agreeing with that side. I argue, for example, that the assholes from Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest even though I find their particular message despicable. I also argue that anabolic steroids are useful enhancers of athletic performance too; it doesn't mean I demand their use by athletes - or that I even support their use.


Do you disagree?

Do I agree with what? The need for licensing? I have no strong feelings, one way or the other. I think that there is no fundamental right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. I think that having to demonstrate a minimum standard of competency in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways is sensible. Is a government-issued license the only means to ensure that? No. Is a government-issued license an effective way of enforcing such a minimum standard? Probably, although I'm sure it's not ideal.

tu_holmes

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 15922
  • Robot
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #532 on: June 14, 2012, 11:34:25 PM »
I'm not arguing for licensing. I'm saying that the government's position is that there is a compelling government interest in issuing drivers licenses to allow the operation of motor vehicles on what are, essentially, the government's roads. While I agree with that position to some degree, there is a significant difference between that and arguing for licensing.


Again, I didn't argue for licensing. Stating the positions that Governments adopted in requiring licensing of drivers hardly qualifies as me arguing for licensing.


You're either confused or fact doesn't mean what you think it means. See above.


Are you serious? That's completely and utterly false. Again, I can argue for something without necessarily agreeing with that side. I argue, for example, that the assholes from Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest even though I find their particular message despicable. I also argue that anabolic steroids are useful enhancers of athletic performance too; it doesn't mean I demand their use by athletes - or that I even support their use.


Do I agree with what? The need for licensing? I have no strong feelings, one way or the other. I think that there is no fundamental right to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways. I think that having to demonstrate a minimum standard of competency in order to operate a motor vehicle on public roadways is sensible. Is a government-issued license the only means to ensure that? No. Is a government-issued license an effective way of enforcing such a minimum standard? Probably, although I'm sure it's not ideal.

Your statements certainly give the implication that you agree with the governments stance.

If that's not true, then ok. I simply responded based upon what I perceived was your position.

All there is to it

avxo

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5605
  • Iron Pumping University Math Professor
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #533 on: June 15, 2012, 12:42:30 AM »
Your statements certainly give the implication that you agree with the governments stance.

If that's not true, then ok. I simply responded based upon what I perceived was your position.

All there is to it

I neither agree nor disagree wholly.

As I said, I do believe that there is a compelling government and public interest to ensure the drivers are well-versed in the rules of the road and that they have a minimum standard of competency in the operation of a motor vehicle. A government-issued driver's license is probably not an ideal solution (I believe that the functions of government should be very limited) but replacing it with some else is not something that really concerns me for two reasons:

(a) I think that the current system operates reasonably well - at least as far as I can tell - and I feel the charges associated with the issuance of a license are (at least in my state) more than reasonable, especially considering the increased costs that the State had to incur to comply with the REAL ID act.

(b) There are other issues that I feel are more important and that I would prefer to have addressed; when it comes right down to it, drivers licenses just aren't high on my priority list.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #534 on: June 15, 2012, 05:48:53 AM »
[ Invalid YouTube link ]


ouch.   

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #535 on: June 16, 2012, 01:10:51 PM »

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #536 on: June 16, 2012, 04:00:14 PM »

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63943
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #537 on: June 17, 2012, 03:04:23 AM »
[ Invalid YouTube link ]


ouch.   

That's a great ad. 

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #538 on: June 19, 2012, 12:01:19 PM »
Yes, Pennsylvania Is Still a Swing State (Romney expands playing field)
 New Republic ^ | 06/19/2012 | William Galston

Posted on Tuesday, June 19, 2012 10:25:27 AM by SeekAndFind

The past month has seen the momentum of the 2012 presidential election shift significantly. The national race is now in a virtual dead heat, and most key swing states are within the margin of error. And most important, it appears that Mitt Romney has expanded the playing field to include some states previously thought to be securely in President Obama’s column—including, in my view, Pennsylvania.

I base these conclusions on an analysis of surveys conducted since the beginning of June. Here’s what they show. (When there are multiple surveys, as there are in most cases, these figures represent averages.)

Wisconsin is an unexpected addition to the list. It’s hard, though, to think of a state whose politics are more volatile this year. The most recent presidential surveys may reflect the extraordinary Republican mobilization that kept Scott Walker in the governor’s mansion, and these passions may cool. Or they may not.

In my view, which I first ventured last month, it makes sense to consider adding Pennsylvania to the list, even though Obama carried it by more than 10 points in 2008. The latest Quinnipiac survey gives the president a 6-point edge (46-40), but his support remains well below 50 percent, as it has in most previous surveys for the past six months.

Obama’s job approval among Pennsylvanians stands at only 46, versus 49 percent who disapprove of his performance as president. Forty-eight percent think he deserves to be reelected, while 47 percent do not. And 56 percent are dissatisfied with the way things are going in their state, versus 43 percent who are satisfied.


(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #539 on: June 19, 2012, 01:40:28 PM »
pretty sad we're in the middle of a great depression and obama is still leading by 6 in Penn, where so many ppl are unemployed.

i highly doubt Jeb would be training Obama by six points right now...

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #540 on: June 19, 2012, 01:41:31 PM »

June 19, 2012
Mitt Romney's in It to Win It
By Ebben Raves




Mitt Romney will beat President Obama in this fall's election, most likely by a substantial margin.  There.  I said it.  I may have a plate full of hat in my future, but I doubt it.

Pundits will give you the usual reasons for a Romney victory, but it all boils down to two things: first, Romney took the time to build an organization and second, and most important, he wants to win.  Tea Party patriots and constitutional conservatives would be smart to learn a lesson from this.

While many conservatives were swooning over the latest firebrand candidate to carry their cause, Romney was already running out the clock before the game even started.  Since before the 2008 election, he has been steadily building a campaign Team, networking, collecting endorsements and raising money.  He knew how the system worked and used it to his advantage.  The Tea  Party movement has only been in existence since 2009, and then made the mistake of not coalescing behind a single candidate early enough in the race to counter Romney.  We swung for the fences and struck out.  Team Romney took walks, stole bases, hit singles and scored runs.  The lesson that needs to be taken from this is that the Tea Party must start building their bench right now in order to have one of their own win the presidency.  Although there are some admired personalities, none of them possessed what it took to beat Romney.  

Some may point to Obama's meteoric rise from obscurity and argue that all it takes is a well run campaign and a weak opponent to win.   This would be a false argument.  You would have to discount the fact that the Democratic Party has shifted to a party run by the far left in all its forms: elitist intellectuals, communists, crony capitalists, and race baiters.  The mold was poured and Obama fit perfectly.   He was the one they were waiting for.

What may be the most important factor favoring Mitt Romney, though, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that he actually wants to win.  Initially, many of us were worried that Romney would play hardball in the primaries and then lay down in the general election.  McCain did this in the last election by making too many of Obama's flaws off limits.  Many of us waited for that strike that never happened.  Many of us voted for Palin because at least she was not afraid to fight and we knew it.  As evidenced by Romney's quick rebuttal of the dog on the roof, the nimble timing of the Solyndra speech and his bus honking the horn at an Obama rally, he's not afraid to get under the president's skin.  He is aware of his own weaknesses and stays away from them but is not afraid to fight back.

Why is this important?  We need to look no further than Patton's speech to the Third Army in 1944.  "Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."  Despite the efforts of the politically correct to breed this out of us, there are many of us left to whom these words still ring true.  Ron Paul's people were not afraid to fight, to use any tactic necessary to win, and made gains rarely seen against the Republican establishment.  Barack Obama played hardball to stun Hillary in the caucuses.   Her people, especially many white, traditional Democrats, never had a chance.  Neither Paul's nor Obama's people were afraid to bend or even break the rules.  The difference was one group had the majority of the party behind it.

Tea partiers speak in reverent tones of the patriots who took part in the original Boston Tea  Party, but many would be appalled at the antics of the real Sam Adams.  The original patriots knew what was at stake and were not afraid to do what it took to win.  They built their organizations and weren't afraid to upset people.  They didn't play nice.

Mitt Romney is not the choice of many conservatives, but helping him win accomplishes two things:  it removes very dangerous people from the knobs of power in this country and it buys time to build a real organization.  Worst case, it is still preferable to be in a bus doing ninety miles an hour heading towards the cliff than to actually be over it.  Meantime, Mitt Romney may surprise us and govern as a conservative or he may not, but one thing seems sure, he is in it to win it.

Ebben Raves is a veteran, constitutional conservative activist, Project Appleseed instructor and speaker who teaches American history and has been a guest on several talk radio shows.  He can be reached at ebshumidors@yahoo.com.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/06/mitt_romneys.html at June 19, 2012 - 03:38:49 PM CDT

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #541 on: June 19, 2012, 01:43:58 PM »
pretty sad we're in the middle of a great depression and obama is still leading by 6 in Penn, where so many ppl are unemployed.

i highly doubt Jeb would be training Obama by six points right now...

Again - the typical obama voter does not care about the state of the economy as most obama voters are single issue voters who would care nothing if the nation was in flames.

1.  95ers
2.  Radical abortion voters
3.  Gays
4.  public sector employees
5.  college marxist professors
6.  racist minorities
7.  Enviro-marxists
8.  jews
9.  guilt ridden white leftists

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #542 on: June 19, 2012, 03:29:20 PM »
Again - the typical obama voter does not care about the state of the economy as most obama voters are single issue voters who would care nothing if the nation was in flames.

1.  95ers
2.  Radical abortion voters
3.  Gays
4.  public sector employees
5.  college marxist professors
6.  racist minorities
7.  Enviro-marxists
8.  jews
9.  guilt ridden white leftists

what % of the population is this little list you made here?

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #543 on: June 19, 2012, 03:34:09 PM »
what % of the population is this little list you made here?

Probably 40-45%

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #544 on: June 19, 2012, 04:02:24 PM »
Probably 40-45%

so why doesn't he lose the election?   the other 55-60% support romney, right?

why dont polls reflect this?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63943
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #545 on: June 19, 2012, 05:40:03 PM »

June 19, 2012
Mitt Romney's in It to Win It
By Ebben Raves




Mitt Romney will beat President Obama in this fall's election, most likely by a substantial margin.  There.  I said it.  I may have a plate full of hat in my future, but I doubt it.

Pundits will give you the usual reasons for a Romney victory, but it all boils down to two things: first, Romney took the time to build an organization and second, and most important, he wants to win.  Tea Party patriots and constitutional conservatives would be smart to learn a lesson from this.

While many conservatives were swooning over the latest firebrand candidate to carry their cause, Romney was already running out the clock before the game even started.  Since before the 2008 election, he has been steadily building a campaign Team, networking, collecting endorsements and raising money.  He knew how the system worked and used it to his advantage.  The Tea  Party movement has only been in existence since 2009, and then made the mistake of not coalescing behind a single candidate early enough in the race to counter Romney.  We swung for the fences and struck out.  Team Romney took walks, stole bases, hit singles and scored runs.  The lesson that needs to be taken from this is that the Tea Party must start building their bench right now in order to have one of their own win the presidency.  Although there are some admired personalities, none of them possessed what it took to beat Romney.  

Some may point to Obama's meteoric rise from obscurity and argue that all it takes is a well run campaign and a weak opponent to win.   This would be a false argument.  You would have to discount the fact that the Democratic Party has shifted to a party run by the far left in all its forms: elitist intellectuals, communists, crony capitalists, and race baiters.  The mold was poured and Obama fit perfectly.   He was the one they were waiting for.

What may be the most important factor favoring Mitt Romney, though, is that it is becoming increasingly clear that he actually wants to win.  Initially, many of us were worried that Romney would play hardball in the primaries and then lay down in the general election.  McCain did this in the last election by making too many of Obama's flaws off limits.  Many of us waited for that strike that never happened.  Many of us voted for Palin because at least she was not afraid to fight and we knew it.  As evidenced by Romney's quick rebuttal of the dog on the roof, the nimble timing of the Solyndra speech and his bus honking the horn at an Obama rally, he's not afraid to get under the president's skin.  He is aware of his own weaknesses and stays away from them but is not afraid to fight back.

Why is this important?  We need to look no further than Patton's speech to the Third Army in 1944.  "Americans love to fight, traditionally. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle."  Despite the efforts of the politically correct to breed this out of us, there are many of us left to whom these words still ring true.  Ron Paul's people were not afraid to fight, to use any tactic necessary to win, and made gains rarely seen against the Republican establishment.  Barack Obama played hardball to stun Hillary in the caucuses.   Her people, especially many white, traditional Democrats, never had a chance.  Neither Paul's nor Obama's people were afraid to bend or even break the rules.  The difference was one group had the majority of the party behind it.

Tea partiers speak in reverent tones of the patriots who took part in the original Boston Tea  Party, but many would be appalled at the antics of the real Sam Adams.  The original patriots knew what was at stake and were not afraid to do what it took to win.  They built their organizations and weren't afraid to upset people.  They didn't play nice.

Mitt Romney is not the choice of many conservatives, but helping him win accomplishes two things:  it removes very dangerous people from the knobs of power in this country and it buys time to build a real organization.  Worst case, it is still preferable to be in a bus doing ninety miles an hour heading towards the cliff than to actually be over it.  Meantime, Mitt Romney may surprise us and govern as a conservative or he may not, but one thing seems sure, he is in it to win it.

Ebben Raves is a veteran, constitutional conservative activist, Project Appleseed instructor and speaker who teaches American history and has been a guest on several talk radio shows.  He can be reached at ebshumidors@yahoo.com.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/06/mitt_romneys.html at June 19, 2012 - 03:38:49 PM CDT

Good commentary.  I agree with this, except for the extremist language and the margin of victory.

The Tea Party will help Romney.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #546 on: June 19, 2012, 07:21:36 PM »
SEIU To Focus On 8 Battleground States [Will Spend $85M: ACORN By Another Name!]
Wall St. J ^ | June 19, 2012 | Melanie Trottman
Posted on June 19, 2012 9:20:35 PM EDT by Steelfish

June 19, 2012 SEIU To Focus On 8 Battleground States

By Melanie Trottman

The Service Employees International Union said it will spend a similar amount of money to re-elect President Barack Obama as it did in 2008, but will reach out to three times as many potential voters this year with a focus on eight battleground states.

The union spent about $85 million in 2008 and “this year will look similar,” said political director Brandon Davis.

“But that’s not where our advantage is. Our advantage quite frankly is on the ground,” Mr. Davis told reporters on a conference call Tuesday afternoon.

The union plans to make 13 million phone calls, knock on more than three million doors and hold more than one million conversations with potential voters in battleground states including Colorado, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. That’s fewer states than the 14 it targeted in 2008, underscoring its strategy to deepen and expand its reach in key locations.

The union hopes to rely on 100,000 volunteers and 750 full-time campaign workers in battleground states. It plans to expand its reach in part by contacting more non-union members and sharpening its focus on registering Latinos and African-Americans, said SEIU officials.

Organized labor is facing the prospect of weakening political power and declining membership as state lawmakers cut benefits and bargaining rights of public-sector union workers. Still, unions remain one of the Democratic party’s most loyal supporters, using their funding and network of members to generate votes.

“We will have the final word when we speak up with our votes,” said Eliseo Medina, SEIU’s international secretary treasurer.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...

Oly15

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 643
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #547 on: June 19, 2012, 09:07:54 PM »
[ Invalid YouTube link ]


ouch.   

Lol brutal.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39792
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #548 on: June 21, 2012, 02:26:39 PM »
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63943
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Obama vs Romney
« Reply #549 on: June 21, 2012, 10:13:25 PM »
[ Invalid YouTube link ]

I like it.   :)