Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on July 24, 2011, 08:08:00 AM
-
Smiley and West Take Obama Critique on the Road (Poverty Tour)
AP via CBS News ^ | Friday, July 22, 2011 | Jesse Washington
Posted on July 24, 2011 11:12:09 AM EDT by kristinn
Black activists Cornel West and Tavis Smiley are planning a 15-city "Poverty Tour" to bring attention to the needy and to what they say are the failings of President Barack Obama.
West, a Princeton University professor, and Smiley, host of a PBS talk show, expect to begin the bus trip Aug. 5 at a Native American reservation in Wisconsin. With visits to soup kitchens, housing projects, farms, families and low-wage workers, they say they hope to create momentum for large-scale job creation programs and put poverty on the 2012 election agenda.
SNIP
Although their tour does not have a specific racial focus, "you can't ignore that black people are catching the most hell in this recession," Smiley said.
SNIP
Mary Frances Berry, a University of Pennsylvania history professor and former chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said she has noticed more black frustration with Obama "in the barbershop, on the street with people. And among my own relatives."
"Everybody likes Obama in the African-American community," Berry said. "But when they see the unemployment numbers, they have friends and relatives getting put out in the street, they don't have jobs and can't find jobs, everyone starts trying to make excuses — Obama can't do anything by himself, he can't get Congress to go along."
"But after they say that over and over again and it gets worse — and it is getting worse — you get some mumblings and grumblings."
On their bus trip, Smiley and West will travel through Hayward, Eau Claire and Madison, Wis.; Milwaukee; Chicago's South Side; Joliet and Pembroke, Ill.; Lima, Ohio; Charleston, West Virginia; Washington, D.C.; Atlanta; Birmingham, Ala.; Columbus and Clarksdale, Miss.; and finish in Memphis.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
-
-
-
All Cornel West Wanted from Obama Was One Phone Call
Elspeth Reeve
Jul 22, 2011
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/07/all-cornel-west-wanted-obama-was-one-phone-call/40304
(6) All the president had to do to keep Cornel West from going on his anti-Obama crusade was pick up the phone. West, once a strong Obama supporter, went on a tirade against him in May, saying the president was "a black mascot of Wall Street oligarchs and a black puppet of corporate plutocrats." The Princeton professor said Obama has "a certain fear of free black men" and "a certain rootlessness, a deracination." And then there was the bit about Obama feeling "most comfortable with upper-middle-class white and Jewish men who consider themselves very smart."
It turns out the motivation for West's comments was a lot more personal than political. West hinted as much in May, saying:
"Brother Barack Obama had no sense of gratitude, no sense of loyalty, no sense of even courtesy, [no] sense of decency, just to say thank you. Is this the kind of manipulative, Machiavellian orientation we ought to get used to? That was on a personal level."
But he revealed the true nature of his feud in an interview with Andrew Goldman for The New York Times Magazine.
Goldman: But you have also acknowledged that this is more than just political — you’ve said that after campaigning for him at 65 events, you were miffed that he didn’t return your phone calls or say thank you.
West: I think he had to keep me at a distance. There’s no doubt that he didn’t want to be identified with a black leftist. But we’re talking about one phone call, man. That’s all. One private phone call.
Goldman: He was running a successful candidacy for president. He might have been busy.
West: So many of the pundits assume that it's just egoism: "Who does Cornel West think he is? The president is busy." But there's such a thing as decency in human relations.
It's true, it is a question of basic human relations. Always call a girl back after a date. It's just polite.
Want to add to this story? Let us know in comments or send an email to the author at ereeve@nationaljournal.com. You can share ideas for stories on the Open Wire.
-
-
I stopped watching after Smiley's stupid comment that the rich should be tax even more. Obviously, he is another left wing moron who has wet dreams about a socialist state where money is distributed to everyone and no one can enjoy the fruits of their own hard work. He also makes it look like everyone who is on welfare or taking unemployment benefits has no choice. That they didn't choose "their lot". That is total BS. Yes, there are people who are in dire need of those benefits, but there are also people who do milk the system. People who consider the UE benefits their overdue vacation time. Able bodied individuals who lie about their situation in order to get food stamps. There are people who are poor because they are lazy. That is a fact.
-
I stopped watching after Smiley's stupid comment that the rich should be tax even more. Obviously, he is another left wing moron who has wet dreams about a socialist state where money is distributed to everyone and no one can enjoy the fruits of their own hard work. He also makes it look like everyone who is on welfare or taking unemployment benefits has no choice. That they didn't choose "their lot". That is total BS. Yes, there are people who are in dire need of those benefits, but there are also people who do milk the system. People who consider the UE benefits their overdue vacation time. Able bodied individuals who lie about their situation in order to get food stamps. There are people who are poor because they are lazy. That is a fact.
actually, Smiley's comment was dead on....the rich do need to be taxed more.....they do not pay their fair share of taxes which is one reason why we are in this mess in the first place
-
I'm pretty sure the "rich" are paying exactly what the government requires of them, otherwise they would be in trouble for tax evasion.
-
Source: The Washington Post
CHICAGO — Kyshandra Jackson was in the laundry room drying a load of clothes when the debate over President Obama’s efforts on behalf of African Americans arrived at her West Side apartment complex. Her predominantly black neighborhood was among the first stops on a week-long road trip that media personality Tavis Smiley and Princeton professor Cornel West are calling “the poverty tour.”
The bus tour, which is drawing large crowds and media attention, ups the stakes on the continued criticism of White House policy toward blacks by Smiley and West and provides a window into how their complaints are playing on the streets of the city Obama calls home.
At the two stops they made in the heart of Chicago’s black community over the weekend, the men and women fell into two camps: those who think Obama needs the push and those who see it as piling on.
Jackson, a 26-year-old single mother who recently found a hospital housekeeping job after nearly a year of unemployment, said, “They are not really giving him a chance.”
Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poverty-tour-fue...
-
Can't listen to these people. We both dislike Obama for much different reasons.
-
-
I'm pretty sure the "rich" are paying exactly what the government requires of them, otherwise they would be in trouble for tax evasion.
no one is blaming the rich...yes they probably are paying what the government says they should..it the government's fault for not taxing them enough..the ich have brainwashed guys like you by claiming that they should have much lower taxes becaus ethey create jobs, etc.....bu its us and the government who create the climate whereby they can be successful....they need to start giving back
-
-
no one is blaming the rich...yes they probably are paying what the government says they should..it the government's fault for not taxing them enough..the ich have brainwashed guys like you by claiming that they should have much lower taxes becaus ethey create jobs, etc.....bu its us and the government who create the climate whereby they can be successful....they need to start giving back
+10
-
By PATRICK GAVIN | 2/15/13 7:38 AM EST
Professor Cornel West continues to be an outspoken critic of Barack Obama, this time likening the president to a “war criminal.”
During Thursday’s “Tavis Smiley Show,” West took on the administration’s drone policy and said, “The chickens are coming home to roost.”
Continue Reading
Text Size
-
+
reset
“We’ve been talking about this for a good while, the immorality of drones, dropping bombs on innocent people. It’s been over 200 children so far. These are war crimes.”
West said, “Let us not be deceived — Nixon, Bush, Obama, they’re war criminals,” adding that “They have killed innocent people in the name of the struggle for freedom, but they’re suspending the law, very much like Wall Street criminals. The law is suspended for them, but the law applies for the rest of us.”
In the past, West has said of Obama: “I don’t think he’s a messiah or even a very progressive politician.” And: “I think brother Barack was just completely mesmerized by the acceptance of the establishment.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/cornel-west-obama-a-war-criminal-87702.html#ixzz2Kybe0par
-
no one is blaming the rich...yes they probably are paying what the government says they should..it the government's fault for not taxing them enough..the ich have brainwashed guys like you by claiming that they should have much lower taxes becaus ethey create jobs, etc.....bu its us and the government who create the climate whereby they can be successful....they need to start giving back
It's their government too, and they pay 100x the taxes you do already. ::)
-
I stopped watching after Smiley's stupid comment that the rich should be tax even more. Obviously, he is another left wing moron who has wet dreams about a socialist state where money is distributed to everyone and no one can enjoy the fruits of their own hard work. He also makes it look like everyone who is on welfare or taking unemployment benefits has no choice. That they didn't choose "their lot". That is total BS. Yes, there are people who are in dire need of those benefits, but there are also people who do milk the system. People who consider the UE benefits their overdue vacation time. Able bodied individuals who lie about their situation in order to get food stamps. There are people who are poor because they are lazy. That is a fact.
Isn't obvious that 333 is not only a closeted and self hating homosexual but also a closeted and self hating socialist. He actually believes that wealthy people should be taxed more. Why else would he have started this thread. He clearly agrees with West and Smiley
-
Isn't obvious that 333 is not only a closeted and self hating homosexual but also a closeted and self hating socialist. He actually believes that wealthy people should be taxed more. Why else would he have started this thread. He clearly agrees with West and Smiley
I dont believe in the income tax - its slavery.
-
I dont believe in the income tax - its slavery.
you're lying
you're obviously a socialist and most likely a communist
what other reason could there be for you starting this thread
-
you're lying
you're obviously a socialist and most likely a communist
what other reason could there be for you starting this thread
To show at least some blacks and leftists have a shred of honesty, unlike the members of the Cult of O-Twink
-
To show at least some blacks and leftists have a shred of honesty, unlike the members of the Cult of O-Twink
they honestly agree with you on their love of socialism
that's obvious
-
Why give away your money to be mismanaged when you can do for yourself with your own money more efficiently? ???
Obviously I can't pave streets, or defend our nation from enemies abroad, etc.... Other than that though...
-
Exactly who "elected" these two to represent African Americans? I didn't see any ballots nor any campaign commercials. There are many black Pastors out there who are also very vocal in their criticisms of Obama. These two narcissistic millionaires do not speak for millions of people.
Any candidate with a "D" next to their name, regardless of their skin color, will continue to get at least 95% of the black vote. It has gotten to the point where all the Democratic candidate has to do is simply show up and speak in a fake southern drawl in an attempt to lower themselves to their audience's level.
It is obvious that liberal policies in general have failed, especially in regard to blacks. Higher unemployment, incarceration rates, broken families, and government sustenance have yet to turn blacks away from voting Democratic each and every time.
-
Exactly who "elected" these two to represent African Americans? I didn't see any ballots nor any campaign commercials. There are many black Pastors out there who are also very vocal in their criticisms of Obama. These two narcissistic millionaires do not speak for millions of people.
Any candidate with a "D" next to their name, regardless of their skin color, will continue to get at least 95% of the black vote. It has gotten to the point where all the Democratic candidate has to do is simply show up and speak in a fake southern drawl in an attempt to lower themselves to their audience's level.
It is obvious that liberal policies in general have failed, especially in regard to blacks. Higher unemployment, incarceration rates, broken families, and government sustenance have yet to turn blacks away from voting Democratic each and every time.
so I guess blacks should stampede to the polls to vote for a party that is 95% white male, does not acknowledge or even have a conversation about problems in the black community, does not campaign at all in the black community, does not want Hispanics in the country period, is constantly proposing anti-women's rights legislation, and says NO to anything that is put before them in the senate.....not to mention they bordered on treason by trying to tear down and de-legitimize their own president in the eyes of the world by claiming for three years that he wasn't a citizen and did not deserve to be president
oh yeah....
-
so I guess blacks should stampede to the polls to vote for a party that is 95% white male, does not acknowledge or even have a conversation about problems in the black community, does not campaign at all in the black community, does not want Hispanics in the country period, is constantly proposing anti-women's rights legislation, and says NO to anything that is put before them in the senate.....not to mention they bordered on treason by trying to tear down and de-legitimize their own president in the eyes of the world by claiming for three years that he wasn't a citizen and did not deserve to be president
oh yeah....
Why should repubs care?
-
Why should repubs care?
They dont.
They only care about the wealthy.
Thats why they dont get many black votes.
-
Why should repubs care?
well.....you're supposed to care about the status and well-being of your own citizens right???????????...oh thats right...minorities aren't true citizens in their eyes
-
well.....you're supposed to care about the status and well-being of your own citizens right???????????...oh thats right...minorities aren't true citizens in their eyes
Never ever going to vote repub ever. Why bother pandering to them?
-
Never ever going to vote repub ever. Why bother pandering to them?
they would if there was a reason to??????????????????????
-
Never ever going to vote repub ever. Why bother pandering to them?
Also George Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004 which was good for him....and he actually got 16% of the black vote in Ohio which many believe swung the election to him...so it can be argues that BLACKS ACTUALLY PUT BUSH IN THE WHITE HOUSE...had Kerry won the black vote in Ohio as Al Gore did before him in 2000, Kerry would have been president
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
-
so I guess blacks should stampede to the polls to vote for a party that is 95% white male, does not acknowledge or even have a conversation about problems in the black community, does not campaign at all in the black community, does not want Hispanics in the country period, is constantly proposing anti-women's rights legislation, and says NO to anything that is put before them in the senate.....not to mention they bordered on treason by trying to tear down and de-legitimize their own president in the eyes of the world by claiming for three years that he wasn't a citizen and did not deserve to be president
oh yeah....
Why should the GOP waste its money in the black community, when it has made itself clear that they'd vote for Satan himself, as long as there's a "D" by his name?
Your claim that the GOP doesn't want Hispanics in the country is beyond absurd. What the GOP doesn't want is people being rewarded for breaking the law without getting caught for x amount of years.
Apparently, you also have a short memory. Remind us again how well the Democrats co-operated with Bush, during his eight years as president.
Black unemployment at near all-time highs; programs were eliminated, keeping black kids trapped in crappy public schools. Food and energy prices, hurting black people more than any other group. Yet, the black community locksteps and puts Obama back into the White House.
Well, elections have consequences. And, black folk are going to feel those consequences big time. But, it won't matter. Most of them will lockstep with whoever is the Dems' 2016 candidate.
-
Why should the GOP waste its money in the black community, when it has made itself clear that they'd vote for Satan himself, as long as there's a "D" by his name?
Your claim that the GOP doesn't want Hispanics in the country is beyond absurd. What the GOP doesn't want is people being rewarded for breaking the law without getting caught for x amount of years.
Apparently, you also have a short memory. Remind us again hos well the Democrats co-operated with Bush, during his eight years as president.
non-cooperation with the presient from another party is n ormal...but the GOP tried to delegitimize the president thats a different story and way overboard.....now I am waiting for your post denying this ever took place
-
non-cooperation with the presient from another party is n ormal...but the GOP tried to delegitimize the president thats a different story and way overboard.....now I am waiting for your post denying this ever took place
PLEASE!!! The Dems, TO THIS DAY, are still bellyaching about 2000, an election Bush won straight-up (and would have won by a larger margin, had the media not called Florida for Gore before all the votes were tallied).
Calling Bush the "president-select" for over 8 years, claiming he "stole" the election, that his brother rigged the polls.....NO! That's not trying to de-legitimize a president. ::)
-
PLEASE!!! The Dems, TO THIS DAY, are still bellyaching about 2000, an election Bush won straight-up (and would have won by a larger margin, had the media not called Florida for Gore before all the votes were tallied).
Calling Bush the "president-select" for over 8 years, claiming he "stole" the election, that his brother rigged the polls.....NO! That's not trying to de-legitimize a president. ::)
avoidance is futile
-
avoidance is futile
Look who's talking. You said it yourself. It's normal.
But, for some reason, the Dems trying to delegitimize Bush is fine. But, cue the weeping and gnashing of teeth, when the GOP does it to Obama.
-
Look who's talking. You said it yourself. It's normal.
But, for some reason, the Dems trying to delegitimize Bush is fine. But, cue the weeping and gnashing of teeth, when the GOP does it to Obama.
Democratas wirship Obama as their god king on earth. Its a cult
-
PLEASE!!! The Dems, TO THIS DAY, are still bellyaching about 2000, an election Bush won straight-up (and would have won by a larger margin, had the media not called Florida for Gore before all the votes were tallied).
Calling Bush the "president-select" for over 8 years, claiming he "stole" the election, that his brother rigged the polls.....NO! That's not trying to de-legitimize a president. ::)
didn't Bush's cousin call Florida FIRST for Faux News (you know, the state where Bush's brother was governor and the list of voting irregularities, suppression and abuses have been well documented)
Eventually Bush was selected POTUS by the Supreme Court in spite of having lost the popular vote
is that what you meant when you wrote "Bush won straight up" and "the media called FL for Gore before all the votes were counted"
-
didn't Bush's cousin call Florida FIRST for Faux News (you know, the state where Bush's brother was governor and the list of voting irregularities, suppression and abuses have been well documented)
Where were those voter irregularities occuring? IN DEMOCRAT counties, particularly the same ones that had the same problems when Clinton was president with a Democrat in charge of the ballots.
Eventually Bush was selected POTUS by the Supreme Court in spite of having lost the popular vote
is that what you meant when you wrote "Bush won straight up" and "the media called FL for Gore before all the votes were counted"
Bush wasn't selected by the Supreme Court. When ALL of the ballots were tallied on election night 2000, BUSH was the winner, not Gore. Had the media (i.e. CBS, ABC, NBC, etc) not called it for Gore, before all the votes were tallied (particuarly in the panhandle, which is on Central time, and just happens to be a conservative sector of the state), Bush's margin of victory would have been beyond the reach of an automatic recount.
Five weeks of recounts....BUSH NEVER LOST HIS LEAD.
He won the machine recount; he won the hand recounts. Even when the libs kept changing the rules and trying to limit the recounts to Democrat-leaning counties, Bush won those; he NEVER LOST HIS LEAD.
The Supreme Court simpley said enough is enough. Or, to coin a phrase from instant replay in football, "The ruling on the field STANDS!"
-
Where were those voter irregularities occuring? IN DEMOCRAT counties, particularly the same ones that had the same problems when Clinton was president with a Democrat in charge of the ballots.
false, they were all over the state and mostly to suppress Dem voters but who gives a shit any more and since it was 13 years ago.
I guess we can just be satisfied that All is Well that Ends Well and certainly the Bush Administration was a fantastic success
Bush wasn't selected by the Supreme Court. When ALL of the ballots were tallied on election night 2000, BUSH was the winner, not Gore. Had the media (i.e. CBS, ABC, NBC, etc) not called it for Gore, before all the votes were tallied (particuarly in the panhandle, which is on Central time, and just happens to be a conservative sector of the state), Bush's margin of victory would have been beyond the reach of an automatic recount.
Five weeks of recounts....BUSH NEVER LOST HIS LEAD.
He won the machine recount; he won the hand recounts. Even when the libs kept changing the rules and trying to limit the recounts to Democrat-leaning counties, Bush won those; he NEVER LOST HIS LEAD.
The Supreme Court simpley said enough is enough. Or, to coin a phrase from instant replay in football, "The ruling on the field STANDS!"
you're right, he wasn't, by the definition of the word, actually selected by the Supreme court. They just allowed the fraud that occurred to be sanctified. Gore should have done more but he pussed out and again, at this point who really cares. The Bush Administration turned out to be a huge success and so in the end everyone was happy
-
false, they were all over the state and mostly to suppress Dem voters but who gives a shit any more and since it was 13 years ago.
I guess we can just be satisfied that All is Well that Ends Well and certainly the Bush Administration was a fantastic success
you're right, he wasn't, by the definition of the word, actually selected by the Supreme court. They just allowed the fraud that occurred to be sanctified. Gore should have done more but he pussed out and again, at this point who really cares. The Bush Administration turned out to be a huge success and so in the end everyone was happy
Gore never won one single recount genius.
-
Gore never won one single recount genius.
there was no official recount genius
besides, who cares at this point
Bush Administration turned out to be awesome
-
there was no official recount genius
besides, who cares at this point
Bush Administration turned out to be awesome
Better than O-SHIT admn. on many counts
lower gas prices
lower health care prices
lower food prices
lower unemployment
lower inflation
lower weekly layoffs
lower people on food stamps and welfare
-
Better than O-SHIT admn. on many counts
lower gas prices
lower health care prices
lower food prices
lower unemployment
lower inflation
lower weekly layoffs
lower people on food stamps and welfare
wrong again on almost everything but who gives a shit
certainly not you
-
wrong again on almost everything but who gives a shit
certainly not you
LOL. How about you refute what I said - you can't. W years were way better for most than under the current communist junta
-
-
false, they were all over the state and mostly to suppress Dem voters but who gives a shit any more and since it was 13 years ago.
No, they weren't. In fact, the problems WORSENED when Dem officials were put in charge.
I guess we can just be satisfied that All is Well that Ends Well and certainly the Bush Administration was a fantastic success
I wouldn't say fantastic, based on the last year or so.
What's Obama's excuse Or what's it going to be, when he fails in his second term, as he did in his first terms (with still high unemployment, enery prices, healthcare premiums, etc)?
you're right, he wasn't, by the definition of the word, actually selected by the Supreme court. They just allowed the fraud that occurred to be sanctified. Gore should have done more but he pussed out and again, at this point who really cares. The Bush Administration turned out to be a huge success and so in the end everyone was happy
What FRAUD? The votes were tallied and Bush WON.
Quite frankly, I was happy! As 333386 stated:
Lower gas prices (except for 2008, which was fixed quickly)
Lower food prices
lower health care prices
lower food prices
lower unemployment
lower inflation
lower weekly layoffs
lower people on food stamps and welfare
What's Obama's excuse?
-
LOL. How about you refute what I said - you can't. W years were way better for most than under the current communist junta
how am I supposed to have a rationale conversation with a mentally ill person
haven't we been down this road one or two times already?
-
Look who's talking. You said it yourself. It's normal.
But, for some reason, the Dems trying to delegitimize Bush is fine. But, cue the weeping and gnashing of teeth, when the GOP does it to Obama.
what the Dems did with Bush was part of politics.....saying that someone is not a citizen when they clearly are is demogoguery......does anyone think that the FBI, NSA etc would let a non-citizen run for prez???..and the Repubs know this....why go down that path all the way to the next election.....
Keep avoiding and keep throwing in other issues...its not working
-
No, they weren't. In fact, the problems WORSENED when Dem officials were put in charge.
I wouldn't say fantastic, based on the last year or so.
What's Obama's excuse Or what's it going to be, when he fails in his second term, as he did in his first terms (with still high unemployment, enery prices, healthcare premiums, etc)?
What FRAUD? The votes were tallied and Bush WON.
Quite frankly, I was happy! As 333386 stated:
Lower gas prices (except for 2008, which was fixed quickly)
Lower food prices
lower health care prices
lower food prices
lower unemployment
lower inflation
lower weekly layoffs
lower people on food stamps and welfare
What's Obama's excuse?
LOL
Hey McWay - if you want to pretend that Obama's first term was a failure to make you feel better about the complete and abject failures of your own party then go right ahead.
Back in reality we know that virtually everything (world wide credit market, US stock market, US employment, US Real Estate, etc... are all much better than the day he took office). You can spare me the long winded delusional tirade. Obama is POTUS for the next four years so your party has about 3 years to find that perfect, super conservative right wing dream candidate that you're sure the voters are just clamoring for and then your party will have a triumphant return where they will do doubt bring the country to the brink of destruction yet again only to be saved by the Dems yet another time
-
LOL
Hey McWay - if you want to pretend that Obama's first term was a failure to make you feel better about the complete and abject failures of your own party then go right ahead.
Back in reality we know that virtually everything (world wide credit market, US stock market, US employment, US Real Estate, etc... are all much better than the day he took office). You can spare me the long winded delusional tirade. Obama is POTUS for the next four years so your party has about 3 years to find that perfect, super conservative right wing dream candidate that you're sure the voters are just clamoring for and then your party will have a triumphant return where they will do doubt bring the country to the brink of destruction yet again only to be saved by the Dems yet another time
if he does that then he'd have nothing to say ::)
-
if he does that then he'd have nothing to say ::)
I prefer the humbled and sane McWay that we saw for about 24 hours after the election
A few days later he doubled down on crazy and has been going full blast ever since
-
I prefer the humbled and sane McWay that we saw for about 24 hours after the election
A few days later he doubled down on crazy and has been going full blast ever since
Lol so true :D
-
I prefer the humbled and sane McWay that we saw for about 24 hours after the election
A few days later he doubled down on crazy and has been going full blast ever since
you know..I was thinking the same thing......he WAS pretty interesting right after the election then he melted down as you said after a week or so and has kept it going....I'm starting to think McWay is actually a shared account like gh15 and there are different guys posting ;D
-
LOL
Hey McWay - if you want to pretend that Obama's first term was a failure to make you feel better about the complete and abject failures of your own party then go right ahead.
Back in reality we know that virtually everything (world wide credit market, US stock market, US employment, US Real Estate, etc... are all much better than the day he took office). You can spare me the long winded delusional tirade. Obama is POTUS for the next four years so your party has about 3 years to find that perfect, super conservative right wing dream candidate that you're sure the voters are just clamoring for and then your party will have a triumphant return where they will do doubt bring the country to the brink of destruction yet again only to be saved by the Dems yet another time
OH, you mean "tirades", like pointing out the fact that Obama DID NOT:
- Cut the deficit in half in his first term
- Keep unemployment under 8%
- Close Gitmo, a year after his exectuitive order was signed
- Keep his word aroud not raising taxes on the middle class
- Reform immigration his first year
- Keep healthcare premums low
- Ensure people could keep their healthcare plans, if they liked them.
Virtually everything is better under Obama...You mean like gas prices, food prices, unemployment rates, immigration, healthcare premiums, black and Latino unemployment, unemployment for women, youth, etc.?
Remind me what those rates were, when Obama took office vs. what they are NOW!!
And, that's just the short list.
The fact that you, Andre, and other libs were daft enough to vote for Obama again, despite those failures, is no fault of mine.
Based on your criticisms of Bush, the concept of a failed president getting a second term shouldn't be a big stretch to you.
I prospered well, during the Bush years, excluding the last one. And, since I'm neither rich nor white, you and Andre can spare me the usual lefty bilge about the GOP being just for wealthy Caucasians.
-
you know..I was thinking the same thing......he WAS pretty interesting right after the election then he melted down as you said after a week or so and has kept it going....I'm starting to think McWay is actually a shared account like gh15 and there are different guys posting ;D
PLEASE!!
Contrary to what you and Straw may think, I'm the same guys I've always been. Nothing changed from the aftermath of the election until now.
As I said, I've seen this story before. It was but 8 years ago, only the GOP was on the other side of the equation. Conservatives thought, much as you and Straw do now, that they had Washington locked for years to come. But, just two years later, they lost Congress; then they lost the White House after that.
When Obama's failures truly manifest themselves, we coul see the same bloodletting in 2014 and 2016, that we saw in 2006 and 2008.
Then, what excuses are you and Straw going to make, when gas prices are still high, jobs are still scarce, healthcare premiums are skyrocketing, etc.?
-
OH, you mean "tirades", like pointing out the fact that Obama DID NOT:
- Cut the deficit in half in his first term
- Keep unemployment under 8%
- Close Gitmo, a year after his exectuitive order was signed
- Keep his word aroud not raising taxes on the middle class
- Reform immigration his first year
- Keep healthcare premums low
- Ensure people could keep their healthcare plans, if they liked them.
And, that's just the short list.
The fact that you, Andre, and other libs were daft enough to vote for Obama again, despite those failures, is no fault of mine.
Based on your criticisms of Bush, the concept of a failed president getting a second term shouldn't be a big stretch to you.
UE was 7.8% just prior to his re-election
There was no tax increase on the middle class
Health Ins. premium have gone down (I cut mine by more then 50%)
As for the others I doubt "some" of the claims you've assigned to Obama but it doesn't really matter because you've become like other posters on this board and just live in a land of make believe
For example, regarding UE, we've talked about this many times before you and you know (though you choose to deny) that UE was below 8%
That's a undeniable fact yet you choose to pretend it didn't happen
what's the point of talking about anything when you live in a state of denial bordering on mental illness
-
UE was 7.8% just prior to his re-election
There was no tax increase on the middle class
Health Ins. premium have gone down (I cut mine by more then 50%)
As for the others I doubt "some" of the claims you've assigned to Obama but it doesn't really matter because you've become like other posters on this board and just live in a land of make believe
For example, regarding UE, we've talked about this many times before you and you know (though you choose to deny) that UE was below 8%
That's a undeniable fact yet you choose to pretend it didn't happen
what's the point of talking about anything when you live in a state of denial bordering on mental illness
LMFAO!!!!!
-
UE was 7.8% just prior to his re-election
It was never supposed to exceed 8% AT ALL, thanks to his stimulus. It was 8% or higher for NEARLY ALL OF HIS FIRST TERM (as predicted, it would dip under 8% just in time for the 2012 election).
There was no tax increase on the middle class
Wrong again! Try ObamaCare, for starters. It was ruled as a tax and defended as such to save it, in court.
Health Ins. premium have gone down (I cut mine by more then 50%)
Not even close. Premiums have gone up by an average of over $2000. But don't take my word for it:
During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.
Investor’s Business Daily’s John Merline was first to note the difference in premiums climbing faster under Obama than the previous four years under Bush.
Experts point to rising health care costs as the driver of increased individual spending and higher premiums.
During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/rising-health-costs-undermine-obama-pledge-to-curb-trend/
As for the others I doubt "some" of the claims you've assigned to Obama but it doesn't really matter because you've become like other posters on this board and just live in a land of make believe
For example, regarding UE, we've talked about this many times before you and you know (though you choose to deny) that UE was below 8%
That's a undeniable fact yet you choose to pretend it didn't happen
what's the point of talking about anything when you live in a state of denial bordering on mental illness
They're assigned to Obama, because his economic team MADE THE CLAIMS ON HIS BEHALF and he did nothing to dispute their findings. As usual, you're making excuses, because those claims didn't come to fruition and, like the cowardly president you support, you want Obama to take credit for policies when they work but run from them when they don't
-
It was never supposed to exceed 8% AT ALL, thanks to his stimulus. It was 8% or higher for NEARLY ALL OF HIS FIRST TERM (as predicted, it would dip under 8% just in time for the 2012 election).
Wrong again! Try ObamaCare, for starters. It was ruled as a tax and defended as such to save it, in court.
Not even close. Premiums have gone up by an average of over $2000. But don't take my word for it:
During Obama’s term, between 2009 to 2012, premiums have climbed $2,370 for the average family with an employer-provided plan – a rate faster than the during the previous four years under President George W. Bush, according to Kaiser.
Investor’s Business Daily’s John Merline was first to note the difference in premiums climbing faster under Obama than the previous four years under Bush.
Experts point to rising health care costs as the driver of increased individual spending and higher premiums.
During the 2008 campaign and health care reform debate in 2009, President Obama said repeatedly that his plan would bend the cost curve downward, ultimately saving the average family $2,500 per year.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/rising-health-costs-undermine-obama-pledge-to-curb-trend/
They're assigned to Obama, because his economic team MADE THE CLAIMS ON HIS BEHALF and he did nothing to dispute their findings. As usual, you're making excuses, because those claims didn't come to fruition and, like the cowardly president you support, you want Obama to take credit for policies when they work but run from them when they don't
my premium went down
there was no tax increase on the middle class (btw - I'm surprised you didn't trot out your willfully idiotic claim about payroll tax along with the idiotic claim about health insurance)
UE was 7.8% prior to re-election.
I always get a laugh when you say things like UE "was never supposed" to exceed 8% as if there is some rule or law that controls things like UE.
UE was over 8% within a few months of him taking office and BEFORE anything he did was put in place. Idiots like you just choose to ignore reality. This is why it's pointless to talk to people such as yourself.
My time would be better spent teaching my dog a card trick
-
my premium went down
there was no tax increase on the middle class (btw - I'm surprised you didn't trot out your willfully idiotic claim about payroll tax along with the idiotic claim about health insurance)
UE was 7.8% prior to re-election.
I always get a laugh when you say things like UE "was never supposed" to exceed 8% as if there is some rule or law that controls things like UE.
UE was over 8% within a few months of him taking office and BEFORE anything he did was put in place. Idiots like you just choose to ignore reality. This is why it's pointless to talk to people such as yourself.
My time would be better spent teaching my dog a card trick
According to O-TWINK - its supposed to be less than 6% by now.
-
LMFAO!!!!!
yeah, crazy people laugh alot, especially at really inappropriate times
You seem to believe that a democratically elected POTUS is a "communist junta"
LOL. How about you refute what I said - you can't. W years were way better for most than under the current communist junta
So, the only conclusion a sane person can come to is that you're either profoundly ignorant or mentally ill
Seriously, just by a literal definition of that term those are the only conclusions..... or a combination of the two
-
According to O-TWINK - its supposed to be less than 6% by now.
so you believe humans have the ability to have absolute control over things like the economy
I guess you think Obama must be some kind of god
-
so you believe humans have the ability to have absolute control over things like the economy
I guess you think Obama must be some kind of god
Obama had the ability to predict that if we implemented his plan, which we did UE would be at sub 6%. Either he lied or he was incredibly wrong, mostly likely both.
-
Obama had the ability to predict that if we implemented his plan, which we did UE would be at sub 6%. Either he lied or he was incredibly wrong, mostly likely both.
apparently you're not familiar with the definition of the word "predict" or "projection" and also not familiar with the time of that "projection"
again, dude, no offense but you're either very very stupid or mentally ill
no point in trying to have a rationale conversation with you
Let's get real. You may not be mentally ill (though I seriously think it's possible) but you're profoundly simple minded and not someone worthy of my time on a topic like this or likely most any topic. Maybe we can have a discussion about which protein powder tasty or something like that but that's about the limits of your intelligence, and again it may not be your fault. It could be an organic problem in your brain
-
apparently you're not familiar with the definition of the word "predict" or "projection" and also not familiar with the time of that "projection"
again, dude, no offense but you're either very very stupid or mentally ill
no point in trying to have a rationale conversation with you
Let's get real. You may not be mentally ill (though I seriously think it's possible) but you're profoundly simple minded and not someone worthy of my time on a topic like this or likely most any topic. Maybe we can have a discussion about which protein powder tasty or something like that but that's about the limits of your intelligence, and again it may not be your fault. It could be an organic problem in your brain
-
my premium went down
Mine went up!
there was no tax increase on the middle class (btw - I'm surprised you didn't trot out your willfully idiotic claim about payroll tax along with the idiotic claim about health insurance)
I don't have to do so. The main ones complaining about it are your fellow Obama worshippers. Somehow, they got the impression that only those EEEEVVVVIIILLL rich people were going to get bilked. I wonder how that happened. ::)
UE was 7.8% prior to re-election.
Yeah! ONE MONTH, prior to re-election (which Rush Limbaugh predicted would happen almost a year in advance).
I always get a laugh when you say things like UE "was never supposed" to exceed 8% as if there is some rule or law that controls things like UE.
UE was over 8% within a few months of him taking office and BEFORE anything he did was put in place. Idiots like you just choose to ignore reality. This is why it's pointless to talk to people such as yourself.
My time would be better spent teaching my dog a card trick
And, numbskulls like you avoid the reality that, AFTER Obama put those things in place, unemplyment not only went over 8%, it stayed over 8% from that time until just ONE MONTH before the election. And, Obama's party had complete control of Washington the first two years of his first term.
It got so bad that even the media (in the tank for Obama, since day one) had to admit that the main reason for unemployment lowering was PEOPLE STOPPED LOOKING FOR WORK, not due to Obama's wonderful policies.
-
apparently you're not familiar with the definition of the word "predict" or "projection" and also not familiar with the time of that "projection"
again, dude, no offense but you're either very very stupid or mentally ill
no point in trying to have a rationale conversation with you
Let's get real. You may not be mentally ill (though I seriously think it's possible) but you're profoundly simple minded and not someone worthy of my time on a topic like this or likely most any topic. Maybe we can have a discussion about which protein powder tasty or something like that but that's about the limits of your intelligence, and again it may not be your fault. It could be an organic problem in your brain
And what happens when projections don't go as advertised again?
Funny!! When certain political pundits' projections didn't go as they said they would, you had nothing but ridicule for them.
Yet, when Obama's economic team projections go belly up, you've got more excuses than a convict, heading back to jail.
-
No, they weren't. In fact, the problems WORSENED when Dem officials were put in charge.
I wouldn't say fantastic, based on the last year or so.
What's Obama's excuse Or what's it going to be, when he fails in his second term, as he did in his first terms (with still high unemployment, enery prices, healthcare premiums, etc)?
What FRAUD? The votes were tallied and Bush WON.
Quite frankly, I was happy! As 333386 stated:
Lower gas prices (except for 2008, which was fixed quickly)
Lower food prices
lower health care prices
lower food prices
lower unemployment
lower inflation
lower weekly layoffs
lower people on food stamps and welfare
What's Obama's excuse?
And despite this he got reelected.
I wonder why..
-
And despite this he got reelected.
I wonder why..
Guilt ridden whites
welfare cases
govt workers
parasites and locusts of society
-
LMFAO!!!!!
Dont laugh at Mcway's mental illness. Its rude.
-
Guilt ridden whites
welfare cases
govt workers
parasites and locusts of society
Sure.
And the other 47% how would you describe them?
-
Guilt ridden whites
welfare cases
govt workers
parasites and locusts of society
Coupled with what Pat Caddell coined as the worst campaign he'd ever seen in his life, regarding Romney's bid for the presidency, due in part to:
- Not going for Obama's throat
- Countering all the bogus claims of Obama's acolytes
- Not pushing more on the social issues, alienating the social conservatives
- Clobbering Obama in the first debate but not finishing him off in the next two (especially the last one on foreign policy, in the wake of Benghazi).
-
Coupled with what Pat Caddell coined as the worst campaign he'd ever seen in his life, regarding Romney's bid for the presidency, due in part to:
- Not going for Obama's throat
- Countering all the bogus claims of Obama's acolytes
- Not pushing more on the social issues, alienating the social conservatives
- Clobbering Obama in the first debate but not finishing him off in the next two (especially the last one on foreign policy, in the wake of Benghazi).
He went at Obamas throat and beyond plenty of lies from the campaign.
Are you high?
-
He went at Obamas throat and beyond plenty of lies from the campaign.
Are you high?
Apparently, you missed the 3rd debate. Whatever you're smoking, lay off it. It's frying your memory.
-
wrong again on almost everything but who gives a shit
certainly not you
Really. Then show us where gas prices were lower under Obama than they were under Bush (Good luck with that one, especially they were under a dollar per gallon in states like Florida and Georgia).
Or food prices were lower under Obama than under Bush.
Here are the other items 333386 listed:
lower health care prices
lower food prices
lower unemployment
lower inflation
lower weekly layoffs
lower people on food stamps and welfare
-
Really. Then show us where gas prices were lower under Obama than they were under Bush.
Or food prices were lower under Obama than under Bush.
Here are the other items 333386 listed:
lower health care prices
lower food prices
lower unemployment
lower inflation
lower weekly layoffs
lower people on food stamps and welfare
gas prices are lower now then they were at their highest point when Bush was in office but only a MORON would think that the POTUS has control over a global commodity so it's a double strike for you on that one
UE during most of 2009 was OWNED by Bush. Again, only a moron would need that explained to them and you're actually dumber than a moron so I won't even bother explaining
Dude - seriously, you seem to have suffered some brain damage after the last election
what's wrong with you
-
gas prices are lower now then they were at their highest point when Bush was in office but only a MORON would think that the POTUS has control over a global commodity so it's a double strike for you on that one
The high gas prices under Bush lasted for a few months. Under Obama, they've lasted FOR YEARS. Yet, in typical cowardly liberal fashion, you look to excuse Obama for every failure on his watch, looking instead for scapegoats.
UE during most of 2009 was OWNED by Bush. Again, only a moron would need that explained to them and you're actually dumber than a moron so I won't even bother explaining
Dude - seriously, you seem to have suffered some brain damage after the last election
what's wrong with you
And UE from 2010 ONWARDS is squarely on Obama. Yet, like the clueless and spineless sap you are, you fail to acknowledge that, as well as the fact that Obama's projections on unemployment fell WAY SHORT.
And YES, they are his, despite your utterly boneheaded attemps to assign responsibility to anyone and everyone but him.
And, like the coward you are, you DODGED 333386's points that all of those items listed were better under Bush, than they were under Obama, even in Bush's worst year (his last one).
-
The high gas prices under Bush lasted for a few months. Under Obama, they've lasted FOR YEARS. Yet, in typical cowardly liberal fashion, you look to excuse Obama for every failure on his watch, looking instead for scapegoats.
And UE from 2010 ONWARDS is squarely on Obama. Yet, like the clueless and spineless sap you are, you fail to acknowledge that, as well as the fact that Obama's projections on unemployment fell WAY SHORT.
And YES, they are his, despite your utterly boneheaded attemps to assign responsibility to anyone and everyone but him.
And, like the coward you are, you DODGED 333386's points that all of those items listed were better under Bush, than they were under Obama, even in Bush's worst year (his last one).
highest prices were under BUSH but then as the worldwide economy crumbled at the end of the Bush Administration the demand for gas dropped and the price went down (again EVERYONE knows this except you). Repeatedly, the POTUS does not control the price of gas.
Here's George Bush to remind you of this undisputed fact so every time you mention the price of gas as if it's Obama's fault you just keep reminding everyone how stupid you are
UE peaked in 2009 (under a Bush budget and prior to much of the stimulus dollars being put into effect)
Again, this is stuff that even your average moron knows and understands so still can't quite figure out why you don't understand it
UE is lower now than anytime since Feb 2009
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
-
werent you talking shit about Cornel West like a year ago
LANDSLIDE COMING
-
werent you talking shit about Cornel West like a year ago
LANDSLIDE COMING
I think the shock of the last election really fucked with McWays head
The dude was convinced there was NO WAY that Obama could win
The approval ratings, the Gallup poll, some stupid football game - they all pointed to a guaranteed landslide for Romney yet when the votes were tallied the landslide (based virtually the very same electoral tallies that were supposed to equal a landslide for Romney) was for Obama
I think something in his brain broke that day and he's never been quite the same since then (and it wasn't exactly like he had a firm grasp on reality prior to the election)
-
I think the shock of the last election really fucked with McWays head
The dude was convinced there was NO WAY that Obama could win
The approval ratings, the Gallup poll, some stupid football game - they all pointed to a guaranteed landslide for Romney yet when the votes were tallied the landslide (based virtually the very same electoral tallies that were supposed to equal a landslide for Romney) was for Obama
I think something in his brain broke that day and he's never been quite the same since then (and it wasn't exactly like he had a firm grasp on reality prior to the election)
agreed......he's lost his mind.....at least before he was rational....now he's one brain cell above 3333
-
highest prices were under BUSH but then as the worldwide economy crumbled at the end of the Bush Administration the demand for gas dropped and the price went down (again EVERYONE knows this except you). Repeatedly, the POTUS does not control the price of gas.
Here's George Bush to remind you of this undisputed fact so every time you mention the price of gas as if it's Obama's fault you just keep reminding everyone how stupid you are
The high gas prices under Bush lasted A FEW MONTHS. Under Obama, they've been $3 a gallon or more FOR YEARS.
By the end of 2008, gas was back under $2 a gallon. They shot BACK UP under Obama and have been $3 or more ever since then.
UE peaked in 2009 (under a Bush budget and prior to much of the stimulus dollars being put into effect)
Again, this is stuff that even your average moron knows and understands so still can't quite figure out why you don't understand it
UE is lower now than anytime since Feb 2009
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?request_action=wh&graph_name=LN_cpsbref3
Unemployment was NOT supposed to exceed 8% under Obama's stimulus, a fact you repeatedly dodge and look utterly silly doing so. AFTER Obama's stimulus and AFTER several other Obama policies, unemployment went over 8% and stayed over 8% until (SURPRISE, SURPRISE!! ::) ) a month before the election including unemployment of at least 9.5% for ALL of 2010.
That's 44 months straight of Obama's first term.
-
:D
-
I think the shock of the last election really fucked with McWays head
The dude was convinced there was NO WAY that Obama could win
The approval ratings, the Gallup poll, some stupid football game - they all pointed to a guaranteed landslide for Romney yet when the votes were tallied the landslide (based virtually the very same electoral tallies that were supposed to equal a landslide for Romney) was for Obama
I think something in his brain broke that day and he's never been quite the same since then (and it wasn't exactly like he had a firm grasp on reality prior to the election)
The only thing broke is your memory banks. NOWHERE did I claim that Romney would win in a landslide. That was 333386 (apparently, you and Andre are sharing the same brain, because you can't differentiate between his statements and mine).
In fact, I went on record as stating that Romney might get 275 to 295 EC votes, hardly a landslide.
For Romney to win, he had to get AT LEAST the same amount of GOP voters that McCain did, which he didn't. I went on the record as stating that, too.
agreed......he's lost his mind.....at least before he was rational....now he's one brain cell above 3333
That would fall on YOU and your fellow Obama voters. What 333386 and I find so ironically funny is that the same many of the Obama sheep are now bleating, because their beloved messiah's policies are literally costing them money and their jobs. And, it's only going to get worse as the years go by.
-
:D
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=389714.0;attach=506085;image)
EXACTLY!!!
It was ALL BUSH'S FAULT, when gas was hight for a few months. Now, that they're back up as high (if not higher) under Obama, double was it was when he took office, Straw is hemming and hawing with the usual liberal excuses.
And he STILL keeps ducking the questions about those items supposedly lower under Obama than under Bush.
-
EXACTLY!!!
It was ALL BUSH'S FAULT, when gas was hight for a few months. Now, that they're back up as high (if not higher) under Obama, double was it was when he took office, Straw is hemming and hawing with the usual liberal excuses.
And he STILL keep ducking the questions about those items supposedly lower under Obama than under Bush.
And its heading up while O-TWINK is promising even higher costs.
-
Really. Then show us where gas prices were lower under Obama than they were under Bush (Good luck with that one, especially they were under a dollar per gallon in states like Florida and Georgia).
Or food prices were lower under Obama than under Bush.
Here are the other items 333386 listed:
lower health care prices
lower food prices
lower unemployment
lower inflation
lower weekly layoffs
lower people on food stamps and welfare
Its the state of things when he left office that matters you idiot.
Its then you see the results of the policies.
-
Its the state of things when he left office that matters you idiot.
Its then you see the results of the policies.
Yet, you voted for Obama AGAIN, despite the state of things in his first term.
If you're looking for idiots, the nearest reflective surface will provide you with a good start.
We're barely two months into Obama's second term and the disasters keep piling up. AND YOU VOTED FOR THIS.....AGAIN.
-
Yet, you voted for Obama AGAIN, despite the state of things in his first term.
If you're looking for idiots, the nearest reflective surface will provide you with a good start.
We're barely two months into Obama's second term and the disasters keep piling up. AND YOU VOTED FOR THIS.....AGAIN.
Compare Bush from when he took office until he left office.
Now Obama from when he took office until now.
Its not that hard really.
-
The only thing broke is your memory banks. NOWHERE did I claim that Romney would win in a landslide. That was 333386 (apparently, you and Andre are sharing the same brain, because you can't differentiate between his statements and mine).
In fact, I went on record as stating that Romney might get 275 to 295 EC votes, hardly a landslide.
For Romney to win, he had to get AT LEAST the same amount of GOP voters that McCain did, which he didn't. I went on the record as stating that, too.
That would fall on YOU and your fellow Obama voters. What 333386 and I find so ironically funny is that the same many of the Obama sheep are now bleating, because their beloved messiah's policies are literally costing them money and their jobs. And, it's only going to get worse as the years go by.
right, you didn't claim it you just posted other people claiming it and agreeing with them
BTW - things are MUCH better now then when Obama took office so maybe you'll understand why I'm not too worried about your prediction that for some reason, after getting MUCH BETTER, things are suddenly going to get worse "as the years go by"
Especially, when it's less than a week for election?
BTW, you know things are getting hairy when, even in HuffPo's electoral map, Obama is under 270 (after being well over 300, just a month ago).
Mitt Romney set to win, maybe by a mile
Republican momentum makes prez desperate
One week from today, the Boston Herald’s front page will either read “Obama Pulls Out Victory” Or “Romney Wins.” (Actually, given that this is the Herald the headline will be something clever like, “He’s Barack In Charge!” or “Sweet Mitt-ory!”)
I predict the latter. One week from today, Mitt wins.
I’ll even go a step farther. I’ll ask the question poll watchers across America are thinking but afraid to ask: Is this election over?
If your source of news is MSNBC or the Boston Globe-Democrat, obviously not. If anything, you think President Obama is on the verge of a massive sweep from North Carolina to Nevada.
But if you’ve been watching the polls and the campaigns at all objectively, you’re starting to see a picture develop. One where Romney’s the winner well before bedtime.
I believe we’re on the verge of a solid Romney win for two reasons. One is the objective evidence. The other is the ugly desperation of the Obama campaign in its final days.
First the numbers. And let’s start with the big one: Before Gallup suspended polling due to Hurricane Sandy, Mitt Romney was at or above 50 percent among likely voters for 14 consecutive days. No candidate above 50 percent at this point has ever lost the presidential race.
Ever.
The president, on the other hand, has peaked at 47 percent. The Battleground Poll model shows Obama losing 52 percent to 47 percent. Rasmussen daily tracking has Obama losing 49 percent to 47 percent. Pew has him tied: 47 percent to 47 percent. But more important, all the polls show Obama sliding or stuck. None show any upward movement.
Obama supporters are quick to tell you “the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day.” Two things: a) that’s what candidates who are behind always say; b) this is election day.
Thanks to early voting, millions of votes have already been cast. Four years ago on this day — Halloweek — Gallup released a poll of folks who’d already voted and found Obama was beating John McCain by 15 points.
This year? He’s losing to Mitt Romney 52 percent to 45 percent — a set swing of 22 points. The wrong way.
But who cares if Obama loses the popular vote (and he will, by the way)? All that matters is winning the Electoral College vote in the “swing states!” That’s Obama’s path to victory!
OK. But what is a swing state? Forget Virginia and Ohio. Obama’s lost so much ground he’s been forced to send Joe Biden to Pennsylvania and Bill Clinton to Minnesota — a state so blue Ronald Reagan never carried it.
The president, on the other hand, is only up by 6 among the loony-left granola-crunchers of Oregon.
Those are the numbers. The campaign Obama’s running looks even worse
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view/20221031mitt_set_to_win_maybe_by_a_mile_republican_momentum_makes_prez_desperate/
You mean this one?
Romney Should Win in a Landslide
By Dick Morris
If the election were held today, Mitt Romney would win by a landslide.
The published polls reflect a close race for two reasons:
1. They poll only registered voters, not likely voters. Rasmussen is the only pollster who tests likely voters, and his latest tracking poll has Romney ahead by 48-43.2. As discussed in previous columns, a study of the undecided voters in the past eight elections in which incumbents sought a second term as president reveals that only Bush-43 gained any of the undecided vote. Johnson in ’64, Nixon in ’72, Ford in ’76, Carter in ’80, Reagan in ’84, Bush in ’92 and Clinton in ’96 all failed to pick up a single undecided vote.
So when polls show President Obama at 45 percent of the vote, they are really reflecting a likely 55-45 Romney victory, at the very least.
Gallup has amassed over 150,000 interviews over all of 2011 and compared them with a like number in 2010. It finds that Obama has a better than 50 percent job approval in only 10 states and the District of Columbia. And his approval has dropped in almost every single state. Even in California, it has fallen from 55 percent in 2010 to
50.5 percent in 2011.
Over the period of May 4-6, I completed a poll of 400 likely voters in Michigan and found Romney leading by 45-43! And Michigan is one of the most pro-Democrat of the swing states.
I also found that Obama’s personal favorability, which has usually run about 10 to 20 points higher than his job approval, is now equal to his job rating. In Michigan, his personal favorability among likely voters is 47-47, while his job rating is 50-48. Romney’s favorability is 49-42.
Obama’s crashing personal favorability reflects the backlash from his recent speeches. In substance, their focus on class warfare and their bombastic, demagogic style are not playing well with the voters. They do not seem in the least presidential.
Nor does his message of attacking Big Oil seem constructive. Voters all distrust Big Oil and would rather see them get punished, but they do not see in repealing their tax breaks a way of lowering prices at the pump or of increasing the supply of oil.
Obama’s trip to Afghanistan looks like grandstanding, and his insinuation that Romney would never have launched the strike looks like a low partisan blow.
Obama cannot summon the commitment he got in 2008 by negatives or partisanship. It was precisely to change the “toxic” atmosphere in Washington that he was elected. To fan it now is not the way to regain the affection of those who have turned on him.
If the election were held today, Obama would lose by at least 10 points and would carry only about a dozen states with fewer than 150 electoral votes.
And the Republicans would keep their Senate seats in Arizona, Texas and Nevada while picking up seats in Virginia, Florida, Indiana, Nebraska, North Dakota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Missouri and Montana. The GOP will also have good shots at victory in the Senate races in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and — if Chris Shays wins the primary — Connecticut. Only in Maine are their fortunes likely to dim.
The journalists in the mainstream media, who are not politicians and have never run campaigns, do not realize what is happening. The Democrats, as delusional in 2012 as they were in 2010, are too much into their own euphoria to realize it. But America is sharply and totally rejecting Obama and all he stands for and embracing Romney as a good alternative. While few are saying these words, they are the truth.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/05/10/romney_should_win_in_a_landslide_114108.html
OK, it's an older one. ;D
-
right, you didn't claim it you just posted other people claiming it and agreeing with them
WRONG!!! Or did you forget:
I forgot about that, too.
Since these terms of Andre makes no sense, I'm not agreeing to them.
With that said, my pick:
Romney: 275 - 295 EC votes (popular vote 52-48). As I've stated elsewhere, I think he sweeps the Southeast, gets Colorado, and wins Ohio.
Upset special: He gets Wisconsin or Pennsylvania.
BTW - things are MUCH better now then when Obama took office so maybe you'll understand why I'm not too worried about your prediction that for some reason, after getting MUCH BETTER, things are suddenly going to get worse "as the years go by"
WRONG AGAIN!!
Gas: $1.86 when Obama took office; $3.73 NOW
People on food stamps: 32 million, when Obama took office; 48 million NOW!
Healthcare premiums: Over $2000 higher for families than they were when he took office. Yeah, yeah, YOURS went down: Big DEAL ::) .
Unemployment: 7.8% when he took office; 7.9% NOW!! (over 8% for 44 straight months of his first term).
Black unemployment: 9% when he took office; 14% NOW!!
Stop me any time you like.
Higher unemployment, higher premiums, gas prices, food prices, less take home pay, more people on food stamps, etc.,
Where's the "much better" part again?
-
WRONG!!! Or did you forget:
WRONG AGAIN!!
Gas: $1.86 when Obama took office; $3.73 NOW
pon food stamps: 32 million, when Obama took office; 48 million NOW!
Healthcare premiums: Over $2000 higher for families than they were when he took office. Yeah, yeah, YOURS went down: Big DEAL ::) .
Unemployment: 7.6% when he took office; 7.9% NOW!! (over 8% for 44 straight months of his first term).
Black unemployment: 9% when he took office; 14% NOW!!
Stop me any time you like.
how many more times do you want to LIE about both UE and GAS prices
and why do you keep wanting to pretend (or do you actually believe) that the POTUS controls a worldwide commodity market that is run by a foreign cartel?
-
how many more times do you want to LIE about both UE and GAS prices
Look who's talking! Was unemployment 7.9% when Obama took office? NO!!
Was GAS over $3 when Obama took office? NO!
And, as typical cowardly fashion, you ducked the food stamps, healthcare, and the black unemployment rates.
and why do you keep wanting to pretend (or do you actually believe) that the POTUS controls a worldwide commodity market that is run by a foreign cartel?
Why do YOU keep wanting to pretend that Bush was NOT held primarily responsible for gas prices, during his second term, other than your pathetic attempts to hold Obama to a different standard than that to which Bush was held?
BTW, since you didn't catch it last time, WHERE is the "much better" part again?
-
Look who's talking! Was unemployment 7.9% when Obama took office? NO!!
Was GAS over $3 when Obama took office? NO!
And, as typical cowardly fashion, you ducked the food stamps, healthcare, and the black unemployment rates.
Why do YOU keep wanting to pretend that Bush was NOT held primarily responsible for gas prices, during his second term, other than your pathetic attempts to hold Obama to a different standard than that to which Bush was held?
BTW, since you didn't catch it last time, WHERE is the "much better" part again?
Bush didnt control gas prices nor does Obama.
But whoever is in charge will get the blame.
But its stil bs
-
Bush didnt control gas prices nor does Obama.
But whoever is in charge will get the blame.
But its stil bs
Tell that to our buddies in the media.
-
Tell that to our buddies in the media.
Well then we need to be better than them.
-
Tell that to our buddies in the media.
so the media LIES to you and you know they are LYING to you
and therefore you REPEAT the lie and insist it's true
-
so the media LIES to you and you know they are LYING to you
and therefore you REPEAT the lie and insist it's true
Are you really this clueless or is this a special presentation for me?
What I pointed out is the media's rather selective outrage/criticism, basically holding one president primarily responsible for high gas prices on his watch, but not the other on his respective watch.
-
Are you really this clueless or is this a special presentation for me?
What I pointed out is the media's rather selective outrage/criticism, basically holding one president primarily responsible for high gas prices on his watch, but not the other on his respective watch.
Hey Dopey,
are you trying to say "the media" has not falsely accused Obama of being responsible for gas prices like they falsely accused Bush
Is that why you've decided to pretend that the POTUS can control gas prices and justify your own false allegations on Obama ?
-
Hey Dopey,
are you trying to say "the media" has not falsely accused Obama of being responsible for gas prices like they falsely accused Bush
Is that why you've decided to pretend that the POTUS can control gas prices and justify your own false allegations on Obama ?
Obama blamed w remember.
-
Obama blamed w remember.
Romney blamed Obama for gas prices too....remember
-
Are you really this clueless or is this a special presentation for me?
What I pointed out is the media's rather selective outrage/criticism, basically holding one president primarily responsible for high gas prices on his watch, but not the other on his respective watch.
The most watched news outlet blame Obama for gas prices and everything else.
Or do you not consider FOX = media?
-
The most watched news outlet blame Obama for gas prices and everything else.
Or do you not consider FOX = media?
I do consider Fox News as media. But that's one station. I guess you're ignoring CBS, ABC, NBC/MSNBC, CNN, to say nothing of the papers (i.e. the New York Times).
-
I swear to God.. im sure of it..3333 is a troll
In the video...THAT YOU POSTED.... in the first MINUTE. Cornell West says "i thought there was going to be an end to the Reagon Era"
He also goes on to say that its retarded to call Obama a socialist because of his record on Wall Street Help...
Both are things you are on the opposite end of the spectrum of.. but youre touting it like its the gosepel of John,,,
Will you please make up your mind
-
I swear to God.. im sure of it..3333 is a troll
In the video...THAT YOU POSTED.... in the first MINUTE. Cornell West says "i thought there was going to be an end to the Reagon Era"
He also goes on to say that its retarded to call Obama a socialist because of his record on Wall Street Help...
Both are things you are on the opposite end of the spectrum of.. but youre touting it like its the gosepel of John,,,
Will you please make up your mind
Im pretty sure 333 never actually reads/watch what he posts.
He is not just a nut he is also lazy.
-
Im pretty sure 333 never actually reads/watch what he posts.
He is not just a nut he is also lazy.
yeah, but at least he has no shame and there is no limit to the depth he will go to humiliate himself
-
yeah, but at least he has no shame and there is no limit to the depth he will go to humiliate himself
I think Obama is a communist piece of shit / Cornel West called him a war criminal the other day / Farakhan called him a murderer
All 3 are fine by me.
-
I think Obama is a communist piece of shit / Cornel West called him a war criminal the other day / Farakhan called him a murderer
All 3 are fine by me.
I'm sure if a Republican POTUS were doing drone strikes you would be 100% fine with it
-
I think Obama is a communist piece of shit / Cornel West called him a war criminal the other day / Farakhan called him a murderer
All 3 are fine by me.
So.....West is correct in war criminal department, but wrong in the communist department?
Is that what you are saying?
-
yeah, but at least he has no shame and there is no limit to the depth he will go to humiliate himself
You got to play to your strenghts.
-
I'm sure if a Republican POTUS were doing drone strikes you would be 100% fine with it
Absolutely not. The idea that we are going to do NDAA, drone strikes on citizens wo due process, etc is treason to me, regardless who does it.
-
So.....West is correct in war criminal department, but wrong in the communist department?
Is that what you are saying?
Obama is sort of a hybrid Fascist / Communist since he utilizes the private sector to carry out his collectivist/statist agenda
-
Obama is sort of a hybrid Fascist / Communist since he utilizes the private sector to carry out his collectivist/statist agenda
So... West dosent think hes a Communist... and you disagree with that?
but west thinks hes a war criminal.....and you agree with that?
-
So... West dosent think hes a Communist... and you disagree with that?
but west thinks hes a war criminal.....and you agree with that?
West thinks Obama is more a fascist than communist - which is fine obama is both IMHO.
War criminal? Absolutely.
-
West thinks Obama is more a fascist than communist - which is fine obama is both IMHO.
War criminal? Absolutely.
you're a surrender monkey who hates the United States and loves the terrorists
-
you're a surrender monkey who hates the United States and loves the terrorists
I dont think every citizen is a terrorist wo due process like that ghetto crackhead does
-
I dont think every citizen is a terrorist wo due process like that ghetto crackhead does
Not even liberals?;D
-
I'm sure if a Republican POTUS were doing drone strikes you would be 100% fine with it
Not if.
Never.
A Republican POTUS has NEVER ordered drone strikes on citizens. This idea was created by the party that supposedly is for protecting the rights of ALL citizens. Oh, the hypocrisy.
-
I'm sure if a Republican POTUS were doing drone strikes you would be 100% fine with it
of course...they are so delusional they don't realize this..or maybe they do
-
Not if.
Never.
A Republican POTUS has NEVER ordered drone strikes on citizens. This idea was created by the party that supposedly is for protecting the rights of ALL citizens. Oh, the hypocrisy.
Are you talking about the guy that joined Al Queda...or is there another situation with this...i havent followed. LAst i remember there was a dude that had joined the terroist group that had killed Americans.
Is there another target?
-
Are you talking about the guy that joined Al Queda...or is there another situation with this...i havent followed. LAst i remember there was a dude that had joined the terroist group that had killed Americans.
Is there another target?
4700 dead and counting among a few american citizens killed by that rat thug you voted for 2 times thinking he was better than W.
-
4700 dead and counting among a few american citizens killed by that rat thug you voted for 2 times thinking he was better than W.
pussified surrender monkey
since when do you give a rats ass about any American citizen?
you yourself have wished mass death on innocent Americans more than once on this board
-
4700 dead and counting among a few american citizens killed by that rat thug you voted for 2 times thinking he was better than W.
are you retarded... i asked a question and your post did nothing to answer it... which is why i dont ask you questions..because you my friend... are retarded
-
are you retarded... i asked a question and your post did nothing to answer it... which is why i dont ask you questions..because you my friend... are retarded
Look it up. Like west said Obama is a war criminal
-
pussified surrender monkey
since when do you give a rats ass about any American citizen?
you yourself have wished mass death on innocent Americans more than once on this board
especially the black ones