When PJ was on SNL promoting Backspacer they were in a sketch that was a parody of an old Twilight Zone episode (and later remade for the film) about an airplane passenger (Shatner in the original, Lithgow in the film, Jude Law on SNL) who starts freaking out because he sees a strange monster on his airplane wing trying to tear it up and crash it.
Cool. Gotta look for that.
Brian ? Ya never saw that skit?
Its CLASSIC!!
So is the original with Shatner...
I bet you can find the Pearl Jam skit on youtube.
Take me piece by piece..... Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
It is clear based on the last four years and his lack of an agenda.
Haven't we learned that the last 4 years are anything but clear? Pick a stat or a number or an issue and depending on who you ask, things are better or worse than they were before Obama. Conveniently, those opinions often line up with who you happened to back for president. So saying that it's clear to you simply betrays your political leanings, but doesn't make it any "clearer." Saying you'll give the guy a fair shake while simultaneously saying how bad he is, was, or will be, comes off as of course completely disingenuous.
If I thought Obama was going to do a good job, I would have voted for him. I don't think he is going to do a good job. Do I wish he would? Yes. Do I think he will? No. I don't get why you are calling me disingenuous.
So you are saying I cannot simultaneously believe that Obama will fail, but at the same time hope he will succeed? Seems to be a reasonable position for a Republican. If I wanted Obama to succeed, and thought he would succeed, I would have voted for him.
Why did you vote for Obama? You obviously drew conclusions off the last four years, so why can't I?
We both want America to succeed. The difference for us is you think Obama can do it, I don't. That is why I voted Romney and you voted Obama (I am assuming). Nothing disingenuous.
I love that sketch too. Mainly because I love the old Twilight Zone with Shatner. And even the remake of it in the Twilight Zone film with John Lithgow. It would have been great regardless of what band, if any, was in it.
SHATNER!!!!!
It is a great photo (the signature one). What's it from?
When PJ was on SNL promoting Backspacer they were in a sketch that was a parody of an old Twilight Zone episode (and later remade for the film) about an airplane passenger (Shatner in the original, Lithgow in the film, Jude Law on SNL) who starts freaking out because he sees a strange monster on his airplane wing trying to tear it up and crash it.
The reason I thought it was so genius was because I knew the original twilight zone show, and the SNL sketch got it so right! And then PJ suddenly did their bit, and it was then the greatest SNL sketch ever! Especially because of Mike's totally weird take on it! As well as Boom's typical photo-bomb-looking position! does Boom poke his head up like that in photos on purpose? Because seriously, every pic he's in, he's just poking his head up in the back as though it's an on-going joke. I love it!
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,947
When PJ was on SNL promoting Backspacer they were in a sketch that was a parody of an old Twilight Zone episode (and later remade for the film) about an airplane passenger (Shatner in the original, Lithgow in the film, Jude Law on SNL) who starts freaking out because he sees a strange monster on his airplane wing trying to tear it up and crash it.
Cool. Gotta look for that.
Brian ? Ya never saw that skit?
Its CLASSIC!!
So is the original with Shatner...
I bet you can find the Pearl Jam skit on youtube.
I'll look for it tomorrow, Speedy, for sure. Right about now it would look a bit blurry. Better hit the sack.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
If I thought Obama was going to do a good job, I would have voted for him. I don't think he is going to do a good job. Do I wish he would? Yes. Do I think he will? No. I don't get why you are calling me disingenuous.
So you are saying I cannot simultaneously believe that Obama will fail, but at the same time hope he will succeed? Seems to be a reasonable position for a Republican. If I wanted Obama to succeed, and thought he would succeed, I would have voted for him.
Why did you vote for Obama? You obviously drew conclusions off the last four years, so why can't I?
We both want America to succeed. The difference for us is you think Obama can do it, I don't. That is why I voted Romney and you voted Obama (I am assuming). Nothing disingenuous.
I haven't said a word about who I voted for and you can draw all the conclusions you want. My only point is that yes, I do think its a bit disingenuous to say you hope the guy will succeed but also that he has and will fail in the future, especially when you've told supporters of the guy "you get what you deserve." Its transparently obvious that you're pissed about the election outcome, and by telling people they "deserve him," it's concerning that you seem to be more worried about licking your own wounds and finding some barb for people who disagree with you than you are about actually seeing progress.
The reason I'm raising this issue with you is because it is this precise attitude that prevents any true movement. It is this type of attitude that results in filibustering. It is this type of attitude that causes senate Democrats to leave a state to avoid a vote. It is this type of attitude that finds our country deeply divided.
This is also why it was a pleasant surprise to hear a calm, collected and gracious concession speech from Romney.
It's not about an election. If we can't work together on shit, we'll never get anywhere and frankly, there's way too much in the balance to sit idle and throw out barbs at the other side. You might not like my characterization of your comments, but in a thread about a tight election at a critical time in our country, saying you think the winning guy will fail, or that the people who voted for him got what they deserve, or whatever else, comes off inevitably in bad taste.
Sorry.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1
Wow. This girl I know from high school is PISSED on Facebook. She sounds worse than Trump. I find it funny that she's a hardcore Christian (and by extension a Republican) now, when I knew her she smoked and drank everything given to her and blew every guy with a nice car. Now she's crying about how her kids won't grow up in the "great America" she "once knew". I'm sure they can still drink some Boone's Farm and blow the football team.
i have avoided facebook at all costs tonight for this reason, hence me conversing with you fine folks.
I think I'm going to avoid it for the rest of the night too. I was just blessed with another update from her that said she hoped the 2012 prophecies were right so she wouldn't have to live under 4 more years of Obama. I guess it's better for her dead children and the great America she once knew to be particles floating in the vacuum of space than to have the other guy as POTUS.
At this point I'm sure she's just venting, I don't honestly think she wants that, but what a contradiction huh? She acts like her concern is for her kids, and then says she wishes them dead on the same night. I'm going to keep my mouth shut because some people have already pointed that out to her.
Some of my pro-Obama friends are being VERY annoying as well, but she is leading the race when it comes to who is annoying me the most. Goodnight Facebook.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
Haha, "hope". Didn't hear that in Obama's negative campaign and Chicago style politics this time around. Now 'hope' is back. Love it!
how is being a loser going for you... well clearly
I never personally attacked anyone in this thread. Clearly I am not happy that Obama won. I am astonished that after these last four years people believe that Obama is a good leader. Hope was not part of the slogan this go around, but now it seems to be back. That is what I was commenting on. Much worse things said on the Moving Train. Apparently though it is okay to attack people instead of responding with what policies Obama has that will realize the hope he talked about four years ago.
If I thought Obama was going to do a good job, I would have voted for him. I don't think he is going to do a good job. Do I wish he would? Yes. Do I think he will? No. I don't get why you are calling me disingenuous.
So you are saying I cannot simultaneously believe that Obama will fail, but at the same time hope he will succeed? Seems to be a reasonable position for a Republican. If I wanted Obama to succeed, and thought he would succeed, I would have voted for him.
Why did you vote for Obama? You obviously drew conclusions off the last four years, so why can't I?
We both want America to succeed. The difference for us is you think Obama can do it, I don't. That is why I voted Romney and you voted Obama (I am assuming). Nothing disingenuous.
I haven't said a word about who I voted for and you can draw all the conclusions you want. My only point is that yes, I do think its a bit disingenuous to say you hope the guy will succeed but also that he has and will fail in the future, especially when you've told supporters of the guy "you get what you deserve." Its transparently obvious that you're pissed about the election outcome, and by telling people they "deserve him," it's concerning that you seem to be more worried about licking your own wounds and finding some barb for people who disagree with you than you are about actually seeing progress.
The reason I'm raising this issue with you is because it is this precise attitude that prevents any true movement. It is this type of attitude that results in filibustering. It is this type of attitude that causes senate Democrats to leave a state to avoid a vote. It is this type of attitude that finds our country deeply divided.
This is also why it was a pleasant surprise to hear a calm, collected and gracious concession speech from Romney.
It's not about an election. If we can't work together on shit, we'll never get anywhere and frankly, there's way too much in the balance to sit idle and throw out barbs at the other side. You might not like my characterization of your comments, but in a thread about a tight election at a critical time in our country, saying you think the winning guy will fail, or that the people who voted for him got what they deserve, or whatever else, comes off inevitably in bad taste.
Sorry.
Regardless of who you voted for, it still wouldn't make sense for me to love America and then vote for someone I did not think was a good leader. I think Bush failed, and I think Obama is failing. Half the country agrees. Not unreasonable to assume Obama will fail.
Was saying "you deserve him" over the top? Yes. But that is the only fault in my original post that I can find.
I want congress to work together. I would have voted for Jon Tester because he votes against the Dem party on several key issues. I like that he votes the way his electorate believes even if it hurts him within his party. We need more of him. I think the Chicago people that Obama surrounds himself with are not bipartisan though. I honestly though would like to vote ou all congressman and vite in people that work together.
I am pro-life. I do not want abortion to be on the legislative agenda though. I want people to work together on fiscal issues and if that means compromise, then fine. I am just not going to be excited about the current House, Senate and President based on the last 4 years. It was failed leadership which is fixed by bringing in someone new. The country voted status quo and people in this tread think that something happened today. Status quo.
Boehner needs to go. Cantor needs to go. Reed needs to go. Pelosi needs to go.
Regardless of who you voted for, it still wouldn't make sense for me to love America and then vote for someone I did not think was a good leader. I think Bush failed, and I think Obama is failing. Half the country agrees. Not unreasonable to assume Obama will fail.
I think most people are a little too caught up in the moment. This election reminds me a lot of Carter. I'm not saying Carter should have been re-elected, but I only point this out because of the "half the country agrees" comment. Approval ratings change a lot with time, and sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. Carter was ousted in one of the most lopsided elections of all time in terms of the EC, and a pretty sound victory in popular vote, but in hindsight enjoys a high approval rating. Higher than Reagan, who defeated him. He inherited some stuff, fucked up some stuff on his own, but the main factor leading to him getting his ass handed to them was people being impatient and wanting things fixed right now.
One could argue that half the country agrees with you because shit is fucked up right now, and Obama is President right now. I know many people who actually think Obama caused the economic crash, even though it happened while Bush was President. It's kind of a contradiction to question the people who voted against your candidate and not question those that didn't. Half the country agrees with you, but half also disagrees.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen this Romney add in which some woman is asking "what have you done for me?" to Obama, it's struck me as kind of douchey because she's sitting in a nice home and watching Obama on her tablet device. It always makes me think, "you're clearly not one of the people who needs help". Many people, on both sides, voted for what was best for them, and could give two shits about people who are worse off than them.
History repeats, and maybe some people thought they should give Obama a chance to finish what he started instead of just booting him out and starting again because things didn't get fixed as fast as they wanted. Obviously a lot of people probably voted for him for the wrong reasons, just as many people voted for Romney for the wrong reasons.
I can't blame you for voting the way you did, or for having a pessimistic outlook. But I've been somebody who has been thinking that regardless of who won in 2008, it was going to take a lot longer than 4 years to repair the damage. I was extremely surprised by the events that went down tonight, because I didn't think the American people had the patience to allow Obama to keep trying. When Obama got elected I sat there and watched Oprah crying, and all the hooplah and said "he's just going to get Cartered, he's inheriting too much shit". I find it somewhat inspiring that the American people didn't oust a President just because he didn't improve their station in life. But I realize there will be consequences should he not improve things over the next 4 years.
Everybody needs to take a deep breath, and take off their red/blue jerseys, and put on the red, white and blue ones. We don't have time for the bullshit that so many politicians want to put us through for the sake of their party beating the other.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
0
Options
The Juggler
Behind that bush over there. Posts: 47,479
Regardless of who you voted for, it still wouldn't make sense for me to love America and then vote for someone I did not think was a good leader. I think Bush failed, and I think Obama is failing. Half the country agrees. Not unreasonable to assume Obama will fail.
I think most people are a little too caught up in the moment. This election reminds me a lot of Carter. I'm not saying Carter should have been re-elected, but I only point this out because of the "half the country agrees" comment. Approval ratings change a lot with time, and sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. Carter was ousted in one of the most lopsided elections of all time in terms of the EC, and a pretty sound victory in popular vote, but in hindsight enjoys a high approval rating..
.
carter is looked upon favorably for what he has done after getting his ass kicked by reagan.
i assumed they picked ryan to win that swing state and to a lesser degree coat tail the tea party folk ... losing wisconsin gotta be a huge strategic error ...
i assumed they picked ryan to win that swing state and to a lesser degree coat tail the tea party folk ... losing wisconsin gotta be a huge strategic error ...
i assumed they picked ryan to win that swing state and to a lesser degree coat tail the tea party folk ... losing wisconsin gotta be a huge strategic error ...
If Mitt had picked Rubio i think he could have won, scarey.
i assumed they picked ryan to win that swing state and to a lesser degree coat tail the tea party folk ... losing wisconsin gotta be a huge strategic error ...
If Mitt had picked Rubio i think he could have won, scarey.
I'm wondering if Rubio is holding out to be a strong republican candidate down the road. A lot of my staunch republican friends and relatives really like him while they arent very fond of Mitt.
If Mitt had picked Rubio i think he could have won, scarey.
I'm wondering if Rubio is holding out to be a strong republican candidate down the road. A lot of my staunch republican friends and relatives really like him while they arent very fond of Mitt.[/quote]
Hmm, holding out to be the Front Runner, well he might get his chance in 4 years.
carter is looked upon favorably for what he has done after getting his ass kicked by reagan.
I'm sure this is partly true, but also, one of the biggest issues of that election was the Iran Hostage Crisis. And Carter managed to get the hostages back as one of his final acts in office. Although it wasn't announced until right after Reagan took office (Iran didn't want it announced until they were out of their airspace), and for a time Reagan got the credit for it from some people. As it appeared as soon as he took office the crisis was fixed, but Carter was actually responsible. Technically you're right though, this occurred after the ass kicking, but it was something that would have had an effect on the race had it been done sooner. In hindsight people are probably realizing that Carter actually did solve one of the biggest issues of the race, He just didn't do it in time for it to help him. I still don't think he would have won, because there were a lot more issues at the time. The '79 Energy Crisis, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, etc. A lot of stuff was going on.
And you're right, I'm sure a lot of his humanitarian work and other stuff he's done since leaving office really helps with his post-Presidential approval rating.
"See a broad to get dat booty yak 'em, leg 'er down, a smack 'em yak 'em!"
it is nice to not be stressed out or worried about what would have happened if romney won and the gop took the senate. believe it or not, i was really anxious these last few weeks. i thought it was going to be very close.
i think that right now i feel more relieved than anything.
Were you scared they would actually pass legislation instead of collecting paychecks for no work? Ha. The kids of our nation are going to grow up not knowing what legislation is.
i am not sure what you are asking....legislation has to be passed for anything to get done...
There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway
I just got to catch up on this thread. I had to call it a night last night, because contrary to what most right wingers think, Obama supporters actually do have jobs. Anyway, I enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts, they gave me some good laughs. Here is a link to a couple of articles I found interesting:
I hope the links work. Concerning the Washington Post article, Romney seriously has no clue (I am referencing the part of the article where he is talking to reporters on the plane). He cannot relate to the rest of America at all.
Edit: One more note, my state came very close last night to becoming the first southern state to legalize medical marijuana. I think that if it can get on the ballot again, it will pass.
I just got to catch up on this thread. I had to call it a night last night, because contrary to what most right wingers think, Obama supporters actually do have jobs. Anyway, I enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts, they gave me some good laughs. Here is a link to a couple of articles I found interesting:
I hope the links work. Concerning the Washington Post article, Romney seriously has no clue (I am referencing the part of the article where he is talking to reporters on the plane). He cannot relate to the rest of America at all.
Edit: One more note, my state came very close last night to becoming the first southern state to legalize medical marijuana. I think that if it can get on the ballot again, it will pass.
The Post article pretty much sums up Mitt. I'm still flabbergasted that people outside of the nation's elite wanted him as their leader.
carter is looked upon favorably for what he has done after getting his ass kicked by reagan.
I'm sure this is partly true, but also, one of the biggest issues of that election was the Iran Hostage Crisis. And Carter managed to get the hostages back as one of his final acts in office. Although it wasn't announced until right after Reagan took office (Iran didn't want it announced until they were out of their airspace), and for a time Reagan got the credit for it from some people. As it appeared as soon as he took office the crisis was fixed, but Carter was actually responsible. Technically you're right though, this occurred after the ass kicking, but it was something that would have had an effect on the race had it been done sooner. In hindsight people are probably realizing that Carter actually did solve one of the biggest issues of the race, He just didn't do it in time for it to help him. I still don't think he would have won, because there were a lot more issues at the time. The '79 Energy Crisis, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, etc. A lot of stuff was going on.
And you're right, I'm sure a lot of his humanitarian work and other stuff he's done since leaving office really helps with his post-Presidential approval rating.
i am willing to bet that when most people think about jimmy carter's presidency they think about the length of the hostage situation/not how it ended which added to the perceived weakness of the us around the world, soaring inflation, high unemployment, long lines at gas stations, interest rates through the roof and the soviets invading russia among other things.
the humanitarian stuff after leaving office has got to be the overwhelming reason for why people like him now.
Comments
Its CLASSIC!!
So is the original with Shatner...
I bet you can find the Pearl Jam skit on youtube.
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
If I thought Obama was going to do a good job, I would have voted for him. I don't think he is going to do a good job. Do I wish he would? Yes. Do I think he will? No. I don't get why you are calling me disingenuous.
So you are saying I cannot simultaneously believe that Obama will fail, but at the same time hope he will succeed? Seems to be a reasonable position for a Republican. If I wanted Obama to succeed, and thought he would succeed, I would have voted for him.
Why did you vote for Obama? You obviously drew conclusions off the last four years, so why can't I?
We both want America to succeed. The difference for us is you think Obama can do it, I don't. That is why I voted Romney and you voted Obama (I am assuming). Nothing disingenuous.
I'll look for it tomorrow, Speedy, for sure. Right about now it would look a bit blurry.
Haha, "hope". Didn't hear that in Obama's negative campaign and Chicago style politics this time around. Now 'hope' is back. Love it!
how is being a loser going for you... well clearly
I haven't said a word about who I voted for and you can draw all the conclusions you want. My only point is that yes, I do think its a bit disingenuous to say you hope the guy will succeed but also that he has and will fail in the future, especially when you've told supporters of the guy "you get what you deserve." Its transparently obvious that you're pissed about the election outcome, and by telling people they "deserve him," it's concerning that you seem to be more worried about licking your own wounds and finding some barb for people who disagree with you than you are about actually seeing progress.
The reason I'm raising this issue with you is because it is this precise attitude that prevents any true movement. It is this type of attitude that results in filibustering. It is this type of attitude that causes senate Democrats to leave a state to avoid a vote. It is this type of attitude that finds our country deeply divided.
This is also why it was a pleasant surprise to hear a calm, collected and gracious concession speech from Romney.
It's not about an election. If we can't work together on shit, we'll never get anywhere and frankly, there's way too much in the balance to sit idle and throw out barbs at the other side. You might not like my characterization of your comments, but in a thread about a tight election at a critical time in our country, saying you think the winning guy will fail, or that the people who voted for him got what they deserve, or whatever else, comes off inevitably in bad taste.
Sorry.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
I think I'm going to avoid it for the rest of the night too. I was just blessed with another update from her that said she hoped the 2012 prophecies were right so she wouldn't have to live under 4 more years of Obama. I guess it's better for her dead children and the great America she once knew to be particles floating in the vacuum of space than to have the other guy as POTUS.
At this point I'm sure she's just venting, I don't honestly think she wants that, but what a contradiction huh? She acts like her concern is for her kids, and then says she wishes them dead on the same night. I'm going to keep my mouth shut because some people have already pointed that out to her.
Some of my pro-Obama friends are being VERY annoying as well, but she is leading the race when it comes to who is annoying me the most. Goodnight Facebook.
I never personally attacked anyone in this thread. Clearly I am not happy that Obama won. I am astonished that after these last four years people believe that Obama is a good leader. Hope was not part of the slogan this go around, but now it seems to be back. That is what I was commenting on. Much worse things said on the Moving Train. Apparently though it is okay to attack people instead of responding with what policies Obama has that will realize the hope he talked about four years ago.
Regardless of who you voted for, it still wouldn't make sense for me to love America and then vote for someone I did not think was a good leader. I think Bush failed, and I think Obama is failing. Half the country agrees. Not unreasonable to assume Obama will fail.
Was saying "you deserve him" over the top? Yes. But that is the only fault in my original post that I can find.
I want congress to work together. I would have voted for Jon Tester because he votes against the Dem party on several key issues. I like that he votes the way his electorate believes even if it hurts him within his party. We need more of him. I think the Chicago people that Obama surrounds himself with are not bipartisan though. I honestly though would like to vote ou all congressman and vite in people that work together.
I am pro-life. I do not want abortion to be on the legislative agenda though. I want people to work together on fiscal issues and if that means compromise, then fine. I am just not going to be excited about the current House, Senate and President based on the last 4 years. It was failed leadership which is fixed by bringing in someone new. The country voted status quo and people in this tread think that something happened today. Status quo.
Boehner needs to go. Cantor needs to go. Reed needs to go. Pelosi needs to go.
I think most people are a little too caught up in the moment. This election reminds me a lot of Carter. I'm not saying Carter should have been re-elected, but I only point this out because of the "half the country agrees" comment. Approval ratings change a lot with time, and sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. Carter was ousted in one of the most lopsided elections of all time in terms of the EC, and a pretty sound victory in popular vote, but in hindsight enjoys a high approval rating. Higher than Reagan, who defeated him. He inherited some stuff, fucked up some stuff on his own, but the main factor leading to him getting his ass handed to them was people being impatient and wanting things fixed right now.
One could argue that half the country agrees with you because shit is fucked up right now, and Obama is President right now. I know many people who actually think Obama caused the economic crash, even though it happened while Bush was President. It's kind of a contradiction to question the people who voted against your candidate and not question those that didn't. Half the country agrees with you, but half also disagrees.
I can't tell you how many times I've seen this Romney add in which some woman is asking "what have you done for me?" to Obama, it's struck me as kind of douchey because she's sitting in a nice home and watching Obama on her tablet device. It always makes me think, "you're clearly not one of the people who needs help". Many people, on both sides, voted for what was best for them, and could give two shits about people who are worse off than them.
History repeats, and maybe some people thought they should give Obama a chance to finish what he started instead of just booting him out and starting again because things didn't get fixed as fast as they wanted. Obviously a lot of people probably voted for him for the wrong reasons, just as many people voted for Romney for the wrong reasons.
I can't blame you for voting the way you did, or for having a pessimistic outlook. But I've been somebody who has been thinking that regardless of who won in 2008, it was going to take a lot longer than 4 years to repair the damage. I was extremely surprised by the events that went down tonight, because I didn't think the American people had the patience to allow Obama to keep trying. When Obama got elected I sat there and watched Oprah crying, and all the hooplah and said "he's just going to get Cartered, he's inheriting too much shit". I find it somewhat inspiring that the American people didn't oust a President just because he didn't improve their station in life. But I realize there will be consequences should he not improve things over the next 4 years.
Everybody needs to take a deep breath, and take off their red/blue jerseys, and put on the red, white and blue ones. We don't have time for the bullshit that so many politicians want to put us through for the sake of their party beating the other.
carter is looked upon favorably for what he has done after getting his ass kicked by reagan.
Definitely.
My prediction: Romney gets 279/286.
Obama gets 332.....wouldn't have put money on that.
No. He also lost his home town/county.
i assumed they picked ryan to win that swing state and to a lesser degree coat tail the tea party folk ... losing wisconsin gotta be a huge strategic error ...
I think you're right.
If Mitt had picked Rubio i think he could have won, scarey.
well ... i watched cnn's coverage and they kept talking about plan a, b, c ... xx ... haha ... and it seemed like they pooched everything ...
I'm wondering if Rubio is holding out to be a strong republican candidate down the road. A lot of my staunch republican friends and relatives really like him while they arent very fond of Mitt.
I'm wondering if Rubio is holding out to be a strong republican candidate down the road. A lot of my staunch republican friends and relatives really like him while they arent very fond of Mitt.[/quote]
Hmm, holding out to be the Front Runner, well he might get his chance in 4 years.
I'm sure this is partly true, but also, one of the biggest issues of that election was the Iran Hostage Crisis. And Carter managed to get the hostages back as one of his final acts in office. Although it wasn't announced until right after Reagan took office (Iran didn't want it announced until they were out of their airspace), and for a time Reagan got the credit for it from some people. As it appeared as soon as he took office the crisis was fixed, but Carter was actually responsible. Technically you're right though, this occurred after the ass kicking, but it was something that would have had an effect on the race had it been done sooner. In hindsight people are probably realizing that Carter actually did solve one of the biggest issues of the race, He just didn't do it in time for it to help him. I still don't think he would have won, because there were a lot more issues at the time. The '79 Energy Crisis, the Russian invasion of Afghanistan, etc. A lot of stuff was going on.
And you're right, I'm sure a lot of his humanitarian work and other stuff he's done since leaving office really helps with his post-Presidential approval rating.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z4
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/opinion/g ... ?hpt=po_c2
I hope the links work. Concerning the Washington Post article, Romney seriously has no clue (I am referencing the part of the article where he is talking to reporters on the plane). He cannot relate to the rest of America at all.
Edit: One more note, my state came very close last night to becoming the first southern state to legalize medical marijuana. I think that if it can get on the ballot again, it will pass.
fade away...
I am at peace with my lust.....for Eddie.
The Post article pretty much sums up Mitt. I'm still flabbergasted that people outside of the nation's elite wanted him as their leader.
WOOT!
i am willing to bet that when most people think about jimmy carter's presidency they think about the length of the hostage situation/not how it ended which added to the perceived weakness of the us around the world, soaring inflation, high unemployment, long lines at gas stations, interest rates through the roof and the soviets invading russia among other things.
the humanitarian stuff after leaving office has got to be the overwhelming reason for why people like him now.
Ask not what you can do for your country, but what your country can do for you.