How Selfish Can Omama Be

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Romney has run a pretty good campaign and has pulled close. At this point in time, what relevance does all of this birther crap have? The trumps and palins of the world promote this garbage and it hurts Romney. It hurts the republican party.

The issues are out there and there are plenty of things this admin has done to criticize. It seems silly to me to divert attention from those issues to focus on his transcripts which most moderates couldn't care less about. Aren't those the votes romney needs? He already has the votes of the tea party people and they are the only ones that seem to care.

Don't get me wrong- I am voting Obama and I couldn't be more pleased every time Sarah palin opens her mouth and reminds the country what the republican party has become. This trump nonsense was better than any ads Obama could pay for. At the same time, have any of you right wingers considered that maybe this birther topic needs to be put to bed and that just maybe it is hurting your guy? Just sayin

anyone who still believed the birther crap as late as 2009 would never be convinced by evidence. they're lifers.

but it's a topic that only works in favor of the democrats. the more the republicans tie themselves to something that causes a gag reflex in rational people, the better.

so shhhh.

People who believe the birth certificate are authentic are morons. Pure and simple.

You don't have a shred of undeniable proof that he is. But that is beside the point.

The birther issue was created by the people who choose Presidents. Yes they do exist.

Obama's existence is to primarily destroy the foundations of this country and give money to muslim extremists. It doesn't matter if he was born in the most patriotic place in America.

He is anything but a patriot. And the media is complicit in his agenda. Right after the consulate attacks he used a youtube documentary to get a discussion going about free speech. Indirectly where you can't tie him to it. The true believers/cult followers need absolute evidence.

People not knee-deep in the two party cult tend to see through it. Dealing with people like hi_i'm_god is pointless. He thinks the msm, the same one that shows dancing with the stars after news, is credible.

Clown shoes.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

anyone who still believed the birther crap as late as 2009 would never be convinced by evidence. they're lifers.

but it's a topic that only works in favor of the democrats. the more the republicans tie themselves to something that causes a gag reflex in rational people, the better.

so shhhh.

I'm most interested in this election result in Congress:

Only about 30-36% of Americans rate themselves as proudly associated with the most extreme elements of the 2012 version of the John Birch Society: ObamaHateMuslimKenyanSocialist stuff

So that leaves a huge center gap of "rational Republicans" who recoiled in horror at the GOP primary freak show of Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, plus abhorrence for truly extreme crazy folks like Alan West, Steve King, Joe Walsh.

They probably voted McCain 2008 - but Romney? They've watched the last four years of House-Senate GOP sabotage against everything, and they are not happy. Government needs two parties and cooperation to work (like Christie working with Obama in the face of disaster)

I can't wait to see if the Tea Bag 36% can hold their congressional seats, or if rationality will overtake the non-TeaBag portion of the remaining GOP that now calls themselves "independents".

Obama will win, that's a given. He's got every swing state but NC. The Senate will remain Democratic.

It's the 25 seat difference in the House that will reveal which way this nation wants to go.

[Antitrust32]

I dont get this "every swing state" stuff.


I mean, Romney might have a better chance in Florida than Obama at this point.

Or is Florida not a swing state now?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I dont get this "every swing state" stuff.


I mean, Romney might have a better chance in Florida than Obama at this point.

Or is Florida not a swing state now?

The only definition of a swing state I ever heard was from Carville and he said that a swing state is a state the candidate can't win the election w/out taking. So Ohio would be a swing state for both, Florida more for Romney, Michigan is one for Obama, etc..

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by GBBob

The only definition of a swing state I ever heard was from Carville and he said that a swing state is a state the candidate can't win the election w/out taking. So Ohio would be a swing state for both, Florida more for Romney, Michigan is one for Obama, etc..

a swing state is a state with no clear party majority-in an election, it can 'swing' either way. some states vote purely demo or rep, regardless of candidate. swing states, you never know til the votes are counted.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I dont get this "every swing state" stuff.


I mean, Romney might have a better chance in Florida than Obama at this point.

Or is Florida not a swing state now?

Swing states are states that are not "safe" for a candidate. Illinois is obviously "safe Obama" and Texas is "safe Romney".

There are 10 swing states, now only eight. The eight left, that will determine the election, are OH, NH, FL, PA, NC, IA, NV, CO. All those states are now leaning Obama in aggregate polling except NC, which should be pretty sure for Romney.

Obama started with more "safe Obama" states than Romney had "safe Romney" states. Obama was always over 270 electoral votes. Romney was always in the position of having to win votes to get to 270, and still is.

Obama only had to win 1 or 2 swing states to assure victory. Romney always had to win virtually all of them to win.

Florida has had overwhelming (greater than 2008 numbers) early turnout, nearly all Democratic. Florida is in "likely Obama" column.

TPM.com has a good polling page, where they aggregate the polls, and an excellent reputation for accuracy. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ click on "polls" in the header

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com page also has excellent, accurate analysis of swing states. www.fivethirtyeight.com

[dellinger63]

with Romney donating his own money and asking for donations from his supporters for the Red Cross while Obama ate his free sandwich from the Red Cross and donating taxpayer money today made my point!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

with Romney donating his own money and asking for donations from his supporters for the Red Cross while Obama ate his free sandwich from the Red Cross and donating taxpayer money today made my point!

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. Granted I'm talking in general. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary. It's actually kind of funny. They think that if they vote democrat and are vocal about how evil they think republicans are, this makes them a good person and no further good deeds are necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. What I'm about to say is a generalization. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

.....they are complete fcking whack jobs.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. What I'm about to say is a generalization. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

Clinton wrote off used underwear.

Biden gave less than $500 on $500K

And Riot is looking for someone to subsidize her insurance.

Of course she cares so much about womens' right to abortion and contraceptive coverage she ignores the lifetime ramifications of a gang rape by saying 'she'll be OK!'

Generally they are the epitomy of hypocrites no doubt!

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. Granted I'm talking in general. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary. It's actually kind of funny. They think that if they vote democrat and are vocal about how evil they think republicans are, this makes them a good person and no further good deeds are necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

quite scientific. And you know this how? all of your worldly travels? all of your liberal friends that make up an accurate cross section?

I know conservatives that are extremely generous and i know liberals that are extremely generous. This isn't quite as stupid as your quote about keeping a baby when you are raped by someone you know but it is still pretty dumb.

How old are you anyway?

[Dahoss]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Do you know what most liberals think? I'm not making this up. I am serious. Granted I'm talking in general. It's not true for all liberals but in general liberals think that they don't need to give money to charity. They think that simply voting democrat is enough. They feel like they have done their part by voting democrat. They think that if they vote democrat that makes them a good person and no further action is necessary. It's actually kind of funny. They think that if they vote democrat and are vocal about how evil they think republicans are, this makes them a good person and no further good deeds are necessary.

I bet I could do a great job on this site of predicting which people are the least generous when it comes to donating money to charity. I'm not going to mention any names but I would say that in general, if you look at the most outspoken and angry liberals, it would be a safe bet to say that these people gave little or no money to charity.

You're kidding right? I mean, this is you trolling, right?

Has to be.

Because what kind of supporting evidence could you possibly provide to back up your opinion here?

It'd be like me saying I could do a great job predicting who uses the internet to troll for naive pu.ssy. Oh wait, I can do that.

[bigrun]

Who's the boss?

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Swing states are states that are not "safe" for a candidate. Illinois is obviously "safe Obama" and Texas is "safe Romney".

There are 10 swing states, now only eight. The eight left, that will determine the election, are OH, NH, FL, PA, NC, IA, NV, CO. All those states are now leaning Obama in aggregate polling except NC, which should be pretty sure for Romney.

Obama started with more "safe Obama" states than Romney had "safe Romney" states. Obama was always over 270 electoral votes. Romney was always in the position of having to win votes to get to 270, and still is.

Obama only had to win 1 or 2 swing states to assure victory. Romney always had to win virtually all of them to win.

Florida has had overwhelming (greater than 2008 numbers) early turnout, nearly all Democratic.

TPM.com has a good polling page, where they aggregate the polls, and an excellent reputation for accuracy. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/ click on "polls" in the header

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight.com page also has excellent, accurate analysis of swing states. www.fivethirtyeight.com

You've been touting this as though it was a fact for some time. It isn't true. I don't know what you have to gain by continuing to spout this. Furthermore, to echo Anti's point, any state that is +/- 2 or less points is hardly "likely" or "leaning" either direction.

Obama has always had no more than 259 EC votes. When he lost FL, he has been hovering around 235. He's currently 237.

This is the fact:

Florida is in "likely Obama" column.

Oh, I see. It's your delusions.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

You've been touting this as though it was a fact for some time. It isn't true. I don't know what you have to gain by continuing to spout this

Nothing. It's just the truth. I'm quoting Nate Silver's long-term electoral college voting chart, which aggregates multiple national polls and state polls (the big guys and the little guys), which never shows Obama below 270 electoral votes.

You can see it, here: www.fivethirtyeight.com

See that top graph? Electoral college vote since June? See the black line down the middle at 270 votes? Obama always above that line, Romney always below that line.

You, on the other hand, appear to be quoting only one poll, not an aggregate of all of them.

What poll are you quoting? You didn't reference who the poll was from, or the date it was taken.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Riot

Nothing. It's just the truth. I'm quoting Nate Silver's long-term electoral college voting chart, which aggregates multiple national polls and state polls, which never shows Obama below 270 electoral votes.

You can see it, here: www.fivethirtyeight.com

You, on the other hand, appear to be quoting only one poll, not an aggregate of all of them.

What poll are you quoting? You didn't reference who the poll was from, or the date it was taken.

Oh I see, you post the two most left leaning polls in existence as judge others. Got it. You are screwed and you know it.