ROMNEY DESTROYS OBAMA WOW

Prince Of Dorkness

whygohome wrote:

Is Ohio out of reach? I think all swing states are in play.

They're not.

Most of them are way out of Romney's reach even if Barack Obama shits his pants in the next one and barfs on the floor in the one after that.

Remember how the RNC was a 3-day disaster and aside from Ann Romney making up some silly story about having to use an ironing board as a dining room table, Chris Christie pumping his own 2016 run, Clint Eastwood doing a cringe-worthy comedy routine and Paul Ryan telling a massive string of lies... not much happened?

Do you know anyone who changed their support after that? Nobody did. Romney's numbers were totally flat. Nobody joined the party... nobody left.

Same thing will happen here. Supporters shrugged and continued on... Obama supporters told some very mean jokes that they didn't think would change anyone's minds... just like tomorrow.

Nobody really cares although it's nice to see our resident conservatives getting SO darn excited about it.

whygohome

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Is Ohio out of reach? I think all swing states are in play.

They're not.

Most of them are way out of Romney's reach even if Barack Obama shits his pants in the next one and barfs on the floor in the one after that.

Remember how the RNC was a 3-day disaster and aside from Ann Romney making up some silly story about having to use an ironing board as a dining room table, Chris Christie pumping his own 2016 run, Clint Eastwood doing a cringe-worthy comedy routine and Paul Ryan telling a massive string of lies... not much happened?

Do you know anyone who changed their support after that? Nobody did. Romney's numbers were totally flat. Nobody joined the party... nobody left.

Same thing will happen here. Supporters shrugged and continued on... Obama supporters told some very mean jokes that they didn't think would change anyone's minds... just like tomorrow.

Nobody really cares although it's nice to see our resident conservatives getting SO darn excited about it.

Tomorrow's jobs number will be weak, and the rate will go up to 8.2%. I am voting for Obama, and I think the Republicans in Congress have done a masterful job with their propaganda and obstructionist campaign, but it comes down to the economy: More people will like Mitt's plans than Obama's record.

The funny thing is though (as I stated on another thread) in my opinion, the field is, and has been, perfectly set for trickle-down economics. Taxes are low--loopholes-- CEO pay is unchanged, corporate profits are very strong, Wall St. is through the roof......it's a shame. The poor and the working class ALWAYS pay.

So, if anyone derides the economy's performance, they are basically saying that trickle-down economics--voodoo economics--does not work

Prince Of Dorkness

whygohome wrote:

but it comes down to the economy: More people will like Mitt's plans than Obama's record.

Which is what they've been saying for over a year. And the number that impresses me the most is that the majority of voters do believe that the Republicans have intentionally sabotaged the economy to keep the president from being re-elected. It's like Mean Girls.

whygohome

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

whygohome wrote:

but it comes down to the economy: More people will like Mitt's plans than Obama's record.

Which is what they've been saying for over a year. And the number that impresses me the most is that the majority of voters do believe that the Republicans have intentionally sabotaged the economy to keep the president from being re-elected. It's like Mean Girls.

Unfortunately, I don't think they see it that way. History will.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... f=politics

Prince Of Dorkness

whygohome wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't think they see it that way. History will.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... f=politics

A Reuters/Ipsos poll? Really? That's about as accurate as the day-after bump every politician gets after their convention. Well... every one but Mitt.

How about you call his mom and ask her what she thinks?

Let's wait a week until the actual reliable polls come out before we start sucking each other's thumbs.



yeah. Thumbs.

Let's go with that.

whygohome

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't think they see it that way. History will.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... f=politics

A Reuters/Ipsos poll? Really? That's about as accurate as the day-after bump every politician gets after their convention. Well... every one but Mitt.

How about you call his mom and ask her what she thinks?

Let's wait a week until the actual reliable polls come out before we start sucking each other's thumbs.



yeah. Thumbs.

Let's go with that.

I'm all in for Obama, but that performance.......And, I think Reuters is a reputable source.
Romney has a lot, a lot, of ground to make up, but last night was a serious blow.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

whygohome wrote:

That's true. Pearl Jam have really turned into some type of corporation, huh? But, in the end, the people don't have to buy the stuff....especially if they can't afford it, or if they are putting it all on credit cards.

that's what I mean. the band is perfectly within their right to put out all the merch they want to, but if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

bootlegger10

I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.

Let's give someone else a chance.

People love all of the programs Obama wants to create, but forget that every program is paid for in part from a loan from China.

All these programs are going to be great until the country goes bankrupt. I could eat steak dinners every night and buy a new car every year, and take 2 months of vacations, but I'd go break in a few years and be homeless. Raising or lowering taxes is not going to change the deficit much, it is the spending that is out of control.

Give someone else a chance. Give someone else a chance. That was all 2008 was. Obama had no ideas and just screamed "hope". He was the epitome of "give me a chance to change the country because the other party failed". Well, we are closer to bankruptcy and have an even more expensive health care system. Obama had his chance and failed. The last two years have brought no significant legislation, I wonder what the next two years will bring because he'll be a lame duck the last two years.

Prince Of Dorkness

whygohome wrote:

I'm all in for Obama, but that performance.......And, I think Reuters is a reputable source.
Romney has a lot, a lot, of ground to make up, but last night was a serious blow.

I honestly don't agree.

I really don't think it makes a difference.

Maybe fewer people think he's a boob. But it's not going to change anything.

Prince Of Dorkness

bootlegger10 wrote:

I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.

The debt he racked up is mostly paying for the things that Bush bought without having a way to pay for it.

And you want to give someone a chance who wants to go back to that.

Ok.

http://aggravatedjasun.tumblr.com/post/32429609414

whygohome

bootlegger10 wrote:

I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.

Let's give someone else a chance.

People love all of the programs Obama wants to create, but forget that every program is paid for in part from a loan from China.

All these programs are going to be great until the country goes bankrupt. I could eat steak dinners every night and buy a new car every year, and take 2 months of vacations, but I'd go break in a few years and be homeless. Raising or lowering taxes is not going to change the deficit much, it is the spending that is out of control.

Give someone else a chance. Give someone else a chance. That was all 2008 was. Obama had no ideas and just screamed "hope". He was the epitome of "give me a chance to change the country because the other party failed". Well, we are closer to bankruptcy and have an even more expensive health care system. Obama had his chance and failed. The last two years have brought no significant legislation, I wonder what the next two years will bring because he'll be a lame duck the last two years.

Dude, we're all for good debate here, but come on.

whygohome

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

whygohome wrote:

I'm all in for Obama, but that performance.......And, I think Reuters is a reputable source.
Romney has a lot, a lot, of ground to make up, but last night was a serious blow.

I honestly don't agree.

I really don't think it makes a difference.

Maybe fewer people think he's a boob. But it's not going to change anything.

I hope you're right, brother.

bootlegger10

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.

The debt he racked up is mostly paying for the things that Bush bought without having a way to pay for it.

And you want to give someone a chance who wants to go back to that.

Ok.

http://aggravatedjasun.tumblr.com/post/32429609414

Is it fun being a tough guy on the internet? Hopefully you don't make up excuses in your life like you do for Obama. I

Where is my logic wrong? Obama raised the debt at a faster pace than Bush. Romney hasn't raised the debt. If you want to elect someone who hasn't raised the debt are you going to vote for the guy in office who has continued to raise the debt or the guy who says he is going to reduce the debt?

It is very logical. I never said Romney was absolutely going to lower the debt, I just said why vote for the guy who has proved he can't lower the debt. Maybe Romney will fail too. But I am not going to vote for a failure (Obama) and will vote to give someone else a chance.

You say the current debt is bush's fault. If true, why hasn't Obama done anything to change the policies in the last two years? You are going to vote for the guy who maintains Bush's policies?

bootlegger10

whygohome wrote:

bootlegger10 wrote:

I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.

Let's give someone else a chance.

People love all of the programs Obama wants to create, but forget that every program is paid for in part from a loan from China.

All these programs are going to be great until the country goes bankrupt. I could eat steak dinners every night and buy a new car every year, and take 2 months of vacations, but I'd go break in a few years and be homeless. Raising or lowering taxes is not going to change the deficit much, it is the spending that is out of control.

Give someone else a chance. Give someone else a chance. That was all 2008 was. Obama had no ideas and just screamed "hope". He was the epitome of "give me a chance to change the country because the other party failed". Well, we are closer to bankruptcy and have an even more expensive health care system. Obama had his chance and failed. The last two years have brought no significant legislation, I wonder what the next two years will bring because he'll be a lame duck the last two years.

Dude, we're all for good debate here, but come on.

So what is the problem? Obama raised the debt at a huge pace. I want to reduce the debt. Would be really stupid to vote for Obama if I want the debt lowered. If Romney increase the debt then I will vote him out next time.

The country would be better off if we held politicians accountable like this instead of voting based on party lines or issues that neither side intends to change (like abortion).

whygohome

bootlegger10 wrote:

So what is the problem? Obama raised the debt at a huge pace. I want to reduce the debt. Would be really stupid to vote for Obama if I want the debt lowered. If Romney increase the debt then I will vote him out next time.

The country would be better off if we held politicians accountable like this instead of voting based on party lines or issues that neither side intends to change (like abortion).

That's fine, dude. You're right; it's all good. It's just that they were very basic statements--true, but basic. There are a lot of reasons for the debt, deficit, unemployment, etc.

Might as well give another person a try.

My take is this (I am copying this from another one of my posts; it's late, I'm being lazy and simply
taking a break from my work because I have writer's block):
The funny thing is though (as I stated on another thread) in my opinion, the field is, and has been, perfectly set for trickle-down economics. Taxes are low--loopholes-- CEO pay is unchanged, corporate profits are very strong, Wall St. is through the roof......it's a shame. The poor and the working class ALWAYS pay.
And now we want to double-down on this approach? Other than the Stimulus, which analysts have said staved off a more severe recession and which was 1/3 tax cuts, Obama hasn't been able to pass any other legislation. See: Republican obstructionism.
So, if one is to say that Obama has failed because of his policies, they are basically saying that trickle-down economics--the plant hat Romney wants to double-down on--is a failure.
And, there's this:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012 ... t_freeland

A lot of hypocrisy going on. Is it too much of a stretch to think these CEOs, these poor, poor fuckbags, are not hiring out of spite. If Romney wins, watch hiring spike. This won't be because of policies, this will be because of their dislike/hatred of Obama because Obama yelled at them....waahhhh

Prince Of Dorkness

bootlegger10 wrote:

Is it fun being a tough guy on the internet? Hopefully you don't make up excuses in your life like you do for Obama.

Prove me wrong.

Where is my logic wrong? Obama raised the debt at a faster pace than Bush.

No... Obama is still paying for the debt created by him. Two unfunded wars, millions of jobs lost... tax cuts we couldn't afford, a prescription drug plan that had no plan to actually pay for it.

That's the problem when you elect a rich brat who has never had to really budget for anything. Never had to worry where the money was going to come from. They just... get things they want and the money just shows up.

That's what Mitt Romney is. He worries about cash this year? Fire some of the help and sell one of the condos.

Let's see how he runs the country. Hope you don't have kids or parents who might need to see a doctor any time soon.

Romney hasn't raised the debt.

really?

Because he's fired how many thousands of people who then had to take unemployment? Did that just pay for itself?

why hasn't Obama done anything to change the policies in the last two years? You are going to vote for the guy who maintains Bush's policies?

Uh... no... actually, it looks like you are. You get it that the president isn't Dumbledore, right? That huge problems like we had four years ago can't just go away in a couple years? That especially when bitter Republicans who are angry he won the election and have said their #1 goal is to ruin him, it's hard to actually make real changes but we STILL have GM alive, Bin Ladin dead, the stock market worth double what it was and that we're not losing 800,000 jobs PER MONTH like before?

But you want to vote for another spoiled rich guy who says that anyone who has ever taken any form of government help is a lazy moocher he plans to set adrift? Whines that veterans on disability "think they're entitled to food?"

Good luck with that.



You are the problem with American politics. You want everything to just magically fix itself. It doesn't work like that.

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

whygohome wrote:

That's true. Pearl Jam have really turned into some type of corporation, huh? But, in the end, the people don't have to buy the stuff....especially if they can't afford it, or if they are putting it all on credit cards.

that's what I mean. the band is perfectly within their right to put out all the merch they want to, but if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

I completely agree with this.

And, perhaps this is a tangent that should be its own thread, but it got me thinking. How is this any different from those who were "duped" into buying/taking out loans on homes they couldn't afford?

How are banks and loan institutions villified for their part while putting no accountability toward the purchaser who should know what they can and cannot afford?

Isn't the burden of responsibility on the consumer the same regardless of what is being consumed?

(I get that buying a home and seeing PJ or buying their merchandise are financially different situations, but to me, the concept is essentially similar)

whygohome

hedonist wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

whygohome wrote:

That's true. Pearl Jam have really turned into some type of corporation, huh? But, in the end, the people don't have to buy the stuff....especially if they can't afford it, or if they are putting it all on credit cards.

that's what I mean. the band is perfectly within their right to put out all the merch they want to, but if you can't afford it, don't buy it.

I completely agree with this.

And, perhaps this is a tangent that should be its own thread, but it got me thinking. How is this any different from those who were "duped" into buying/taking out loans on homes they couldn't afford?

How are banks and loan institutions villified for their part while putting no accountability toward the purchaser who should know what they can and cannot afford?

Isn't the burden of responsibility on the consumer the same regardless of what is being consumed?

(I get that buying a home and seeing PJ or buying their merchandise are financially different situations, but to me, the concept is essentially similar)

To a point...but not really the same thing at all.
It's too big of a topic to elucidate in a thread; and, where you place blame will rest on your political and economic views.
Some want to blame the industry, some want to blame the borrowers, some want to blame government, etc.

Everyone has blood on their hands

hedonist

whygohome wrote:

hedonist wrote:

I completely agree with this.

And, perhaps this is a tangent that should be its own thread, but it got me thinking. How is this any different from those who were "duped" into buying/taking out loans on homes they couldn't afford?

How are banks and loan institutions villified for their part while putting no accountability toward the purchaser who should know what they can and cannot afford?

Isn't the burden of responsibility on the consumer the same regardless of what is being consumed?

(I get that buying a home and seeing PJ or buying their merchandise are financially different situations, but to me, the concept is essentially similar)

To a point...but not really the same thing at all.
It's too big of a topic to elucidate in a thread; and, where you place blame will rest on your political and economic views.
Some want to blame the industry, some want to blame the borrowers, some want to blame government, etc.

Everyone has blood on their hands

I blame the irresponsible and dishonest, which has nothing to do with my political views.

My economic views are about common sense and responsibility. No matter how much I'm being wooed to make a purchase, why would I do so when I clearly can't afford it?

callen

bootlegger10 wrote:

I wouldn't vote for George W. Bush again for President since he racked up a lot of debt. I'm not going to vote for Obama because he racked up even more debt than Bush. Would be insane to think Obama is going to balance the budget.

Let's give someone else a chance.

People love all of the programs Obama wants to create, but forget that every program is paid for in part from a loan from China.

All these programs are going to be great until the country goes bankrupt. I could eat steak dinners every night and buy a new car every year, and take 2 months of vacations, but I'd go break in a few years and be homeless. Raising or lowering taxes is not going to change the deficit much, it is the spending that is out of control.

Give someone else a chance. Give someone else a chance. That was all 2008 was. Obama had no ideas and just screamed "hope". He was the epitome of "give me a chance to change the country because the other party failed". Well, we are closer to bankruptcy and have an even more expensive health care system. Obama had his chance and failed. The last two years have brought no significant legislation, I wonder what the next two years will bring because he'll be a lame duck the last two years.

Voted 4 Obama and will do so again with great heartache due to the spending you mentioned in your message. Romney is a weasel and have no trust in the guy. Add social positions he accepted once he all of a sudden became a rep nominee, can see he is not genuine. If he becomes a chicken hawk president, which he may as he'll reap rewards, he'll easily outspend Obama. So in the end, Obama's better for me and probably better for US.