Obama vs Romney

[Soul Crusher]

Wow - how long until he is under the bus? 

[MCWAY]

I'm talking about FACTS.

Obama has ZERO leverage going into a National debate.

The economy is in neutral with zero signs of going forward because businesses have no clue what he is going to do with tax policies in the future so they are basically sitting on their hands.

His attorney general should sitting in a jail cell right now and is openly mocked by at least one Senator, with more to follow. That situation is hanging over Obama like a vulture.

Bill Clinton is publicly going around and criticizing him.

The AFL-CIO just dropped him, so there goes a few hundred thousand, potentially a few MILLION votes...white and hispanic blue collars are jumping off his platform in droves.

Fellow democrats are beginning to distance themselves. Obama couldn't even show his face in Wisconsin because it would have made the drubbing the Democrats took that much worse.

All Obama has is the blacks who vote for him solely because his skin color is the same as theirs, the hardcore liberals and some of the entitlement welfare crowd with a few hardcore Union households sprinkled in. Basically 45% on a GOOD day and at this point it's looking like closer to 43 or 44% being cast in steel, definitely going to vote Obama regardless.
What the fuck is he going to possibly say on that stage in November without looking like the incompetent jerkoff that he has evidently proven himself to be??

And he is going against up against a guy who LOVES nothing more than to be the dominant guy in the room and put someone weaker in his place, and he has all the leverage to do so in this case.

I'm not some hard core right winger by any stretch but how can anyone refute ANYTHING I have written here.

And, he's even losing some black votes, because of the lousy numbers among blacks in terms of unemployment AND his gay "marriage" debacle. It's to the point, where Obama doing cheesy R&B ads to court fleeing African-American voters.

[Soul Crusher]

And, he's even losing some black votes, because of the lousy numbers among blacks in terms of unemployment AND his gay "marriage" debacle. It's to the point, where Obama doing cheesy R&B ads to court fleeing African-American voters.

That ad had be snapping my fingers to the beat laughing very VERY loudly.   

[polychronopolous]

And, he's even losing some black votes, because of the lousy numbers among blacks in terms of unemployment AND his gay "marriage" debacle. It's to the point, where Obama doing cheesy R&B ads to court fleeing African-American voters.

He might lose some of the black vote but I bet he still gets 90% pretty easily.

Just look on this forum, you got guys like Option D and Wiggs who are otherwise pretty smart dudes but for whatever reason they will defend this incompetent bum to the very end regardless of massive amounts of evidence that he is doing an EPICALLY horrible job.

I can't explain it, but it is what it is.

[MCWAY]

He might lose some of the black vote but I bet he still gets 90% pretty easily.

Just look on this forum, you got guys like Option D and Wiggs who are otherwise pretty smart dudes but for whatever reason they will defend this incompetent bum to the very end regardless of massive amounts of evidence that he is doing an EPICALLY horrible job.

I can't explain it, but it is what it is.

Even so, that's devastating for Obama, especially if those losses are in certain swing states. Remember that Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004. If Romney gets that (and the working-class white vote), Obama is DOOMED.

Now, it's getting to the point where all the left can do is, you guessed it, blame Bush:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/13/msnbcs_mika_brzezinski_im_hoping_blaming_bush_will_work.html

[polychronopolous]

Even so, that's devastating for Obama, especially if those losses are in certain swing states. Remember that Bush got 11% of the black vote in 2004. If Romney gets that (and the working-class white vote), Obama is DOOMED.

Now, it's getting to the point where all the left can do is, you guessed it, blame Bush:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/13/msnbcs_mika_brzezinski_im_hoping_blaming_bush_will_work.html

I would be SHOCKED if Obama got less than 90% of the black vote even with the gay marriage and unemployment issue but you might be onto something. It isn't something I have thought too much about but it will be interesting to watch.

[MCWAY]

I would be SHOCKED if Obama got less than 90% of the black vote even with the gay marriage and unemployment issue but you might be onto something. It isn't something I have thought too much about but it will be interesting to watch.

Remember that there were 13 marriage amendments on the ballot in 2004 (11 on election day). There are four this time around. But, Obama "evolved" (i.e. he sold out, because his gay campaign bundlers read him the riot act) in favor of gay "marriage".

As stated earlier, it's where those black voters are that counts. Obama can kiss North Carolina goodbye. And Florida will be next.

[polychronopolous]

Remember that there were 13 marriage amendments on http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;quote=6154359;topic=421639.475;num_replies=481;sesc=5369a5c4d355af355fc2100404ac3406the ballot in 2004 (11 on election day). There are four this time around. But, Obama "evolved" (i.e. he sold out, because his gay campaign bundlers read him the riot act) in favor of gay "marriage".

As stated earlier, it's where those black voters are that counts. Obama can kiss North Carolina goodbye. And Florida will be next.

Is the POTENTIAL for a Mondale '84 type loss there for Obama even though he is going against a candidate like Romney who is no Ronald Reagan? Or is that overstating it?

[Soul Crusher]

Remember that there were 13 marriage amendments on http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=post;quote=6154359;topic=421639.475;num_replies=481;sesc=5369a5c4d355af355fc2100404ac3406the ballot in 2004 (11 on election day). There are four this time around. But, Obama "evolved" (i.e. he sold out, because his gay campaign bundlers read him the riot act) in favor of gay "marriage".

As stated earlier, it's where those black voters are that counts. Obama can kiss North Carolina goodbye. And Florida will be next.
[/quote

Is the POTENTIAL for a Mondale '84 type loss there for Obama even though he is going against a candidate like Romney who is no Ronald Reagan? Or is that overstating it?

I'd say more a repeat of 2008 in reverse. 

[MCWAY]

Is the POTENTIAL for a Mondale '84 type loss there for Obama even though he is going against a candidate like Romney who is no Ronald Reagan? Or is that overstating it?

Maybe just a bit! But, I want to see a massacre. Beatdowns take away most of the liberals' excuses for losing, not all, but most.

[garebear]

And, he's even losing some black votes, because of the lousy numbers among blacks in terms of unemployment AND his gay "marriage" debacle. It's to the point, where Obama doing cheesy R&B ads to court fleeing African-American voters.

Your "religion" is your justification for hate.

[polychronopolous]

Your "religion" is your justification for hate.

There is nothing in MCWAYs post to suggest that he is full of hate in the least bit. I feel that we are simply discussing the current political landscape as it stands. If you are capable of making a point without using the word "racism" or "hate" I would love to hear it.

[garebear]

There is nothing in MCWAYs post to suggest that he is full of hate in the least bit. I feel that we are simply discussing the current political landscape as it stands. If you are capable of making a point without using the word "racism" or "hate" I would love to hear it.

MCWAY uses quotation marks for things he doesn't agree with. I was attempting to do the same.

Denying others rights is hate.

I'm truly sorry this had to be spelled out for you.

[MCWAY]

MCWAY uses quotation marks for things he doesn't agree with. I was attempting to do the same.

Denying others rights is hate.

I'm truly sorry this had to be spelled out for you.

What you don't get is you can't deny anyone anything, until that thing is defined. And, that's the gist with marriage: HOW IS IT DEFINED?

The longstanding definition is one man and one woman. The issue is whether this issue should be changed to accomodate homosexuals, and if so, where does that change end?

One man, two women? Two men, one woman? Three women? Four women and one man?

Or do adults have to be involved at all? A boy and a woman? A girl and a man? Three girls and two men?

What about relatives closer than first or second cousins? Same-sex siblings? Opposite sex siblings?

There is nothing in MCWAYs post to suggest that he is full of hate in the least bit. I feel that we are simply discussing the current political landscape as it stands. If you are capable of making a point without using the word "racism" or "hate" I would love to hear it.

Garebear is like many gay "marriage" supporters, who act like spoiled brats. You "hate" them, unless you cater to them and give them what they want how they want it.

And, he has to have it spelled out for him that Obama's pandering to gays is going to have him bleed yet more voters, including African-American ones. If there's one bipartisan issue, it's that marriage is one man and one woman (as is evident by the lopsided losses gay "marriage" supporters take, when state marriage amendments go on the ballot).

[garebear]

What you don't get is you can't deny anyone anything, until that thing is defined. And, that's the gist with marriage: HOW IS IT DEFINED?

The longstanding definition is one man and one woman. The issue is whether this issue should be changed to accomodate homosexuals, and if so, where does that change end?

One man, two women? Two men, one woman? Three women? Four women and one man?

Or do adults have to be involved at all? A boy and a woman? A girl and a man? Three girls and two men?

What about relatives closer than first or second cousins? Same-sex siblings? Opposite sex siblings?

Garebear is like many gay "marriage" supporters, who act like spoiled brats. You "hate" them, unless you cater to them and give them what they want how they want it.

Is that really the best you can come up with? THAT'S it for your justification?

Yes, I'm a spoiled brat. I want equal rights for human beings. You must "cater" to me.

You're the one asking for special treatment, that other people live by the rules of your "religion".

[MCWAY]

Is that really the best you can come up with? THAT'S it for your justification?

Yes, I'm a spoiled brat. I want equal rights for human beings. You must "cater" to me.

You're the one asking for special treatment, that other people live by the rules of your "religion".

If you don't like my religion, try that Islam stuff (BTW, if you live in their country, you have to live by the rules of their religion).

Or, you could be an atheist. But, last time I checked, guys like Stalin and Hitler weren't all that cool with it either.

And, as usual, you missed the point by a country mile. To what right are you referring? How is that right defined? And why is anyone obligated to change the definition of it?

[polychronopolous]

I've yet to see gearbare make a decent point on anything without sound like a whiny little white boy bottom bitch. It's hard to take anything "he" says serious. I've got a few veins in my 14 inch sleeveless shirt arms so I'm tough grrrrr!!!

[avxo]

If you don't like my religion, try that Islam stuff

Shit is shit, no matter how you cut, slice or dice it.

Or, you could be an atheist.

Great choice. But then who would tell you what's good and force you to do it?

But, last time I checked, guys like Stalin and Hitler weren't all that cool with it either.

Not this "bad people were atheist" bullshit again... Stalin attended seminary on a scholarship and did extremely well before he was expelled. Hitler, at least publicly, also praised Christian culture, going so far as to state that his Christian beliefs pointed him to a Jesus Christ, whom he called his "Lord and Savior."


Now, on the subject of gay marriage, I've already stated my viewpoints before: I think that there should be civil unions available to consenting adults which afford one all the legal benefits a marriage currently offers; religions could then perform marriages according to their own rules and regulations, with the marriage then automatically being recognized as a valid civil union.

[MCWAY]

Shit is shit, no matter how you cut, slice or dice it.

That might explain why I'm not an atheist or a humanist.

Great choice. But then who would tell you what's good and force you to do it?

Hmmm....humanist/communist leaders didn't have a problem doing that to people.

Not this "bad people were atheist" bullshit again... Stalin attended seminary on a scholarship and did extremely well before he was expelled. Hitler, at least publicly, also praised Christian culture, going so far as to state that his Christian beliefs pointed him to a Jesus Christ, whom he called his "Lord and Savior."

Richard Dawkins was an altar boy in the Espicopalian church. Does that mean his current atheist beliefs are void?

Between the two of them, they racked up a body count that made the Crusade and Jihads look like a Jello wrestling match. And, they all did it in the name of making their governments (and ultimately themselves) the deity of their respective countries.

For this reason, and others, I've long deduced that atheism simply put is man worshipping himself. But, that's another issue for another thread.

Now, on the subject of gay marriage, I've already stated my viewpoints before: I think that there should be civil unions available to consenting adults which afford one all the legal benefits a marriage currently offers; religions could then perform marriages according to their own rules and regulations, with the marriage then automatically being recognized as a valid civil union.

And, therein lies my point. You've confined this civil unions/gay "marriage" stuff to adults. WHO ARE YOU to say that it should just be adults. I'm sure the NAMBLA crew (many of whom also support gay "marriage") might disagree with your assessment.

Shouldn't they have the right to unite with young boys? And, does limiting civil unions to adults make you the "bigot" that gay activists claim other people are, who say marriage is one man and one woman?

[avxo]

Hmmm....humanist/communist leaders didn't have a problem doing that to people.

Leaders, in general, don't have a problem telling people what to do

Richard Dawkins was an altar boy in the Espicopalian church. Does that mean his current atheist beliefs are void?

No, but that's not the point I was trying to make. See below.

Between the two of them, they racked up a body count that made the Crusade and Jihads look like a Jello wrestling match. And, they all did it in the name of making their governments (and ultimately themselves) the deity of their respective countries.

You ascribed the actions of Stalin or Hitler to atheism. They did not rack up the body count in the name of atheism or because of any atheism dictum. The crusades and jihad (and other "holy wars") on the other hand...

And, therein lies my point. You've confined this civil unions/gay "marriage" stuff to adults. WHO ARE YOU to say that it should just be adults. I'm sure the NAMBLA crew (many of whom also support gay "marriage") might disagree with your assessment.

I would confine civil unions to adults, yes. Just like we already require that any other contract that is entered into must be entered into by consenting adults in order to be valid.

Shouldn't they have the right to unite with young boys? And, does limiting civil unions to adults make you the "bigot" that gay activists claim other people are, who say marriage is one man and one woman?

It's not about a right to unite with anybody. It's about who has the legal authority to enter into legally binding contracts. Adults do (with some exceptions) and children do not. It really is a simple principle.

[MCWAY]

Leaders, in general, don't have a problem telling people what to do


No, but that's not the point I was trying to make. See below.



You ascribed the actions of Stalin or Hitler to atheism. They did not rack up the body count in the name of atheism or because of any atheism dictum. The crusades and jihad (and other "holy wars") on the other hand...

Sure they did. That atheist dictum is that man must create his own heaven on earth, because there is no God. And, apparently that attempt of creating their own heavenly utopia meant whacking a few million people (their own and several others). With Hitler, in particular, the goal was to have, as he put it, the swatiska replace the cross, for Germany's salvation.

I would confine civil unions to adults, yes. Just like we already require that any other contract that is entered into must be entered into by consenting adults in order to be valid.


It's not about a right to unite with anybody. It's about who has the legal authority to enter into legally binding contracts. Adults do (with some exceptions) and children do not. It really is a simple principle.

Again, who are you to "discriminate" against letting kids enter these type of contracts?

It's a simple principle that man and woman should comprise a marriage. But, some folks tend to have a problem with that.

[avxo]

Sure they did. That atheist dictum is that man must create his own heaven on earth, because there is no God. And, apparently that attempt of creating their own heavenly utopia meant whacking a few million people (their own and several others). With Hitler, in particular, the goal was to have, as he put it, the swatiska replace the cross, for Germany's salvation.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but there is no "atheism dictum." There is a secret handshake though. 

Again, who are you to "discriminate" against letting kids enter these type of contracts?

It's not me. We, as a society, have decided that one cannot enter into legally binding contracts until one reaches the age of majority. You're free to call that discrimination if you like.

It's a simple principle that man and woman should comprise a marriage. But, some folks tend to have a problem with that.

Folks tend to have problems with all sorts of things... some stupid, some not.

What people call their relationship isn't much of a concern to me; what is a concern (and quite troubling) is the notion that religious authorities should be forced to perform "marriages" against the beliefs of a particular religion or religious denomination, because I don't believe that people should be forced to act at the point of the government's proverbial gun.

I think that civil unions make sense, because right now marriage (whether by a Priest or a Judge) affords the couple certain legal benefits (such as rights of survivorship, hospital visitation rights, healthcare decision rights, etc.) which are not available to all members of our society. It is those rights that I think it's perfectly rational to make available to all consenting adults (your cries about discrimination notwithstanding) in the form of civil unions.

But I am genuinely curious to understand your objection. Do you object to the word "marriage"? Or do you object to the concept of a civil union? Is there something specific about civil unions that you object to?

[whork]

That might explain why I'm not an atheist or a humanist.

Hmmm....humanist/communist leaders didn't have a problem doing that to people.

Richard Dawkins was an altar boy in the Espicopalian church. Does that mean his current atheist beliefs are void?

Between the two of them, they racked up a body count that made the Crusade and Jihads look like a Jello wrestling match. And, they all did it in the name of making their governments (and ultimately themselves) the deity of their respective countries.

For this reason, and others, I've long deduced that atheism simply put is man worshipping himself. But, that's another issue for another thread.

And, therein lies my point. You've confined this civil unions/gay "marriage" stuff to adults. WHO ARE YOU to say that it should just be adults. I'm sure the NAMBLA crew (many of whom also support gay "marriage") might disagree with your assessment.

Shouldn't they have the right to unite with young boys? And, does limiting civil unions to adults make you the "bigot" that gay activists claim other people are, who say marriage is one man and one woman?

Do you believe in Jesus? I mean REALLY believe?

[andreisdaman]

I can't believe these stupid anti-obama threads keep going to 20 pages with all your sycophants posting with you

[Soul Crusher]

I can't believe these stupid anti-obama threads keep going to 20 pages with all your sycophants posting with you

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections


Romney is going to win Michigan.


Barakadashian is going down harder than barney frank and perez hilton.