AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 15

post #561 of 886
3/30/12 at 4:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Like I've said ( but MJ chose to omit ) we've been over this before.

Who cares?

Along with the cycles theory, "I'm not he only one who things this" and "Once when I heard Paul Krugman speak"..."we've been over this" is just another one of your vacuous throwaway lines.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #562 of 886
3/30/12 at 5:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

He doesn't get that.

You don't get it. For Libertarians, it's all or it's nothing. (That way they can claim their 'system' has never been proven to fail, as no one has tried it 100%.)
Reply
Reply
post #563 of 886
3/30/12 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

You don't get it. For Libertarians, it's all or it's nothing. (That way they can claim their 'system' has never been proven to fail, as no one has tried it 100%.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #564 of 886
3/30/12 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

We are past compromise and from the begining of Obama's term in office because it was republicans ( after 8 long years ) that handed over this mess in the beginning.

And yet you've never demonstrated what the GOP did to create this mess. Nor are you capable of acknowledging that the economy was quite healthy for most of the those 8 years. In fact, in 2005 Alan Greenspan said the U.S. economy was the best he had ever seen it. And let's not forget that Dems ran Congress fro 2007-2011.

Quote:


Quit pretending that if it had been a republican that everything would be all rosy right now.

I never claimed that. Things may have been better depending on who that person was.


Quote:
No one could have solved this in this amount of time but they could have made this into a Real depression with the wrong party in control. You know, the ones that let this happen.

Right...so basically you're regurgitating the "it could have been worse" line that is the centerpiece of Obama's reelection campaign. And again..what does "let this happen" mean? You're claiming that "no one" could solve the problem, but you're blaming one party for creating it.

Quote:

However the GOP continues to shoot itself in the foot daily.

How?

Quote:
Baring some big scandal Obama will get his second term.

There is little reason to think that is true when looking at historical precedent on the economy.

Quote:
With these other jokers Mr. Moon base, Mr Religious nutcase, and Mr. Gameshow host things could be very bad to just plain scary.

Romney will be the nominee. Now, are you honestly suggesting Obama is a better option? If so, I'd like an explanation as to why, specifically.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #565 of 886
4/4/12 at 7:36am
Thread Starter 
Obama instructs the press that they really shouldn't report on opposition to him oh and of course nothing is his fault.

Of course AP fact check has quite the different take on his distortions and convenient omissions.

Normally AP isn't very good at fact checking the president nor are most members of the media but of course when they become the target, one of Obama's MANY targets this week, they actually go do their job to cover their own backsides.

For another, if Republicans have moved to the right on health care, it's also true that Obama has moved to the left. He strenuously opposed a mandate forcing people to obtain health insurance until he won office and changed his mind.

Hard to argue with the type of reasoning that actually got the man elected. Let's review it.

"She'd have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don't have such a mandate because I don't think the problem is that people don't want health insurance, it's that they can't afford it." He added, "Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."

Sounds pretty centrist as a candidate but as a president, not so much.

Quote:
OBAMA: "You'd think they'd say: 'You know what? Maybe some rules and regulations are necessary to protect the economy and prevent people from being taken advantage of by insurance companies or credit card companies or mortgage lenders.'"

THE FACTS: As zealous as they sound on the subject, Republicans aren't proposing to throw out all regulations. Romney, for one, proposes changing, but not repealing, the Sarbanes-Oxley law that tightened accounting regulations in response to corporate scandals. He does want to repeal the Dodd-Frank law toughening financial-industry regulations after the meltdown in that sector, and he wants environmental rules loosened to spur energy production.

Even in the heat of GOP primaries, however, Romney wasn't talking about throwing out the federal rulebook. "We don't want to tell the world that Republicans are against all regulation," he said. "No, regulation is necessary to make a free market work. But it has to be updated and modern."

It's that old "strawman" argument that President Obama is rather famous for using. All the forum leftists probably wonder how their reasoning become crappy so quickly when it consists of nothing but Obama strawmen and Maher/Stewart/Colbert mockery.

Quote:
THE FACTS: Obama is right that cap and trade was a Republican idea first put in place to control sulfur dioxide emissions, or acid rain, under the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments that passed overwhelmingly. The idea is to cap overall emissions of a certain pollutant while letting companies trade pollution allowances, essentially using a combination of the government and private market to make the environment cleaner.

But in recent years, cap and trade failed when Democrats controlled the Senate and the House. Moreover, Republicans argued the legislation was not a truly market-driven mechanism. It would have auctioned off pollution allowances to companies, raising money for the government to help offset higher energy bills and invest in cleaner energy technologies.

They wanted a system that would distribute the allowances for free, letting the private market determine their value. That's how it worked with acid rain.

Republicans have not abandoned the notion of environmental protection, although the presidential primary rhetoric all geared to more drilling and energy production could lead one to think so.

Republicans aren't the gigantic strawman that Obama claims about them? Shocking. Republicans wanted to set pollution limits and then let the companies trade their pollution allocations to each other for money instead of siphoning the monies off to pay for crony capitalism? Shocking again.

Quote:
Many Republicans into the 1990s, and in some cases beyond, supported the idea of requiring people to have health insurance, even if they disagreed with Democrats on how universal coverage should work. Now that idea is decidedly purged from the GOP mainstream.

But until he became president, Obama, too, thought a mandate was a bad idea. In the 2008 campaign, it was his "core belief" that everyone would get health insurance, without the coercion of a mandate, if only high-quality coverage were affordable.

He relentlessly criticized his primary opponent Hillary Rodham Clinton in debates, speeches, ads and mailers for proposing a mandate, taking it so far that she waved one of his mailers in the air and barked, "Shame on you, Barack Obama," slamming "your tactics and your behavior in this campaign."

So here is the reasoning in case you haven't figured it out. Republicans are extremists for adopting Obama's old position on mandates.

Quote:
OBAMA: "At the beginning of the last decade, the wealthiest Americans received a huge tax cut in 2001 and another huge tax cut in 2003. We were promised that these tax cuts would lead to faster job growth. They did not. The wealthy got wealthier. We would expect that. The income of the top 1 percent has grown by more than 275 percent over the last few decades to an average of $1.3 million a year. But prosperity sure didn't trickle down."

THE FACTS: You wouldn't know from his statement that taxes in 2001 and 2003 were cut across the board, not just for the wealthy. President George W. Bush's package trimmed rates for all taxable income levels, doubled the child tax credit and substantially raised the amount of money people can put in individual retirement accounts. The political fight these days is over whether to keep extending the tax cuts for the wealthiest. Obama supports keeping the lower rates for the rest and has pushed similar tax cuts of his own excluding the wealthiest, however.

Obama's position is hateful and absurd. Tax cuts are great and move the economy, unless you are rich. How does that make sense to anyone?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #566 of 886
4/4/12 at 7:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Obama instructs the press that they really shouldn't report on opposition to him oh and of course nothing is his fault.

Interestingly what you point out here is simply a specific instance of a general pattern of thought and behavior that has plagued him at least since he began running for President where Obama is simply right (without any need to demonstrate, prove or logically explain why or how) and those who disagree with him or suggest an alternative route to similar goals are simply wrong (without any need to demonstrate, prove or logically explain why or how.)

This is often expressed in the casual smile, chuckle or shaking of the head to indicate the dismissal of something that is so obviously wrong.

This is what happens when you mix narcissism and arrogance.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #567 of 886
4/4/12 at 8:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Interestingly what you point out here is simply a specific instance of a general pattern of thought and behavior that has plagued him at least since he began running for President where Obama is simply right (without any need to demonstrate, prove or logically explain why or how) and those who disagree with him or suggest an alternative route to similar goals are simply wrong (without any need to demonstrate, prove or logically explain why or how.)

This is often expressed in the casual smile, chuckle or shaking of the head to indicate the dismissal of something that is so obviously wrong.

This is what happens when you mix narcissism and arrogance.

This is what happens when you have been told how wonderful, intelligent and morally right you are since you were in college. While his youth may not have been easy, he was the golden boy since his graduate school days. Brilliant lawyer, professor, community organizer, legislator and Senator...surrounded by Yes Men and convinced of the moral supremacy of his intellect and politically positions.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #568 of 886
4/6/12 at 12:52pm
Thread Starter 
Big jobs miss.



Quote:
Recall that back in 2009, White House economists Jared Bernstein and Christina Romer used their old-fashioned Keynesian model to predict how the $800 billion stimulus would affect employment. According to their model—as displayed in the above chart, updated—unemployment should be around 5.8% today.

But the true measure of U.S. unemployment is far worse:

1. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.8% today down from last month—the U-3 unemployment rate would be 10.9%.

2. But what if you take into the account the aging of the Baby Boomers, which means the labor force participation (LFP) rate should be trending lower. Indeed, it has been doing just that since 2000. Before the Great Recession, the Congressional Budget Office predicted what the LFP would be in 2012, assuming such demographic changes. Using that number, the real unemployment rate would be 10.5%.

3. Of course, the LFP rate usually falls during recessions. Yet even if you discount for that and the aging issue, the real unemployment rate would be 9.4%.

4. Then there’s the broader, U-6 measure of unemployment which includes the discouraged plus part-timers who wish they had full time work. That unemployment rate, perhaps the truest measure of the labor market’s health, is still a sky-high 14.5%.

5. The employment-population ratio dipped to 58.5% vs. 61% in December 2008. A historically low level of the U.S. population is actually working.

It is ugly out there.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #569 of 886
4/6/12 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Big jobs miss.





It is ugly out there.

Wait...you mean Obamanomics is still not working?!

Whodathunkit.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #570 of 886
4/6/12 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

And yet you've never demonstrated what the GOP did to create this mess. Nor are you capable of acknowledging that the economy was quite healthy for most of the those 8 years. In fact, in 2005 Alan Greenspan said the U.S. economy was the best he had ever seen it. And let's not forget that Dems ran Congress fro 2007-2011.



I never claimed that. Things may have been better depending on who that person was.




Right...so basically you're regurgitating the "it could have been worse" line that is the centerpiece of Obama's reelection campaign. And again..what does "let this happen" mean? You're claiming that "no one" could solve the problem, but you're blaming one party for creating it.



How?



There is little reason to think that is true when looking at historical precedent on the economy.



Romney will be the nominee. Now, are you honestly suggesting Obama is a better option? If so, I'd like an explanation as to why, specifically.

Romney would never follow up on his promises. Get Real.

Quote:
And yet you've never demonstrated what the GOP did to create this mess

They were in charge weren't they? Just like you are holding Obama and the Democrats responsible now so fair is fair. Plus we've been over many times as to what I didn't like with the Bush years. So why waste time going over it again? You don't agree. That doesn't make it true however.

What the GOP has to offer this time are jokers. I'm not the only one who thinks so. You know that. Barring some kind of unforseen upset Obama will get his second term and you guys will be wringing your hands for another 4 years. Either that or the GOP candidate will be under extreme pressure when things don't get better under his leadership ( and of course we liberals will be all over that ). So take your pick.

Things are starting to look up so maybe the GOP hopes to get in on the improvement and take credit for it!

By all means though please keep this ridiculous thread going until November!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #571 of 886
4/6/12 at 6:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

...we've been over many times...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

...I'm not the only one who thinks so...

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #572 of 886
4/6/12 at 6:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


Laugh it up!

Let me guess you don't care because it won't be Ron Paul right?

Well the rest of us who are dealing with what can really happen do care.

Fortunately ( true to form ) the GOP has continued their talent for shooting themselves in the foot. So I'm pretty confident that there won't be a republican sitting in the Whitehouse in January.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #573 of 886
4/6/12 at 6:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Laugh it up!

Just laughing at your repeated vacuous refrains.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Let me guess you don't care because it won't be Ron Paul right?

Well the rest of us who are dealing with what can really happen do care.

I do care. I know Ron Paul will not be President and would be unlikely to achieve anything he wanted if he were.

I don't expect much to change if Romney gets elected as I view Romney = Obama = Bush. Possibly each successive one worse than than the previous.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Fortunately ( true to form ) the GOP has continued their talent for shooting themselves in the foot. So I'm pretty confident that there won't be a republican sitting in the Whitehouse in January.

I'm fairly confident of that also. And I actually think that might be a good thing for the country...but almost certainly not for the reasons you think.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #574 of 886
4/6/12 at 7:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Just laughing at your repeated vacuous refrains.




I do care. I know Ron Paul will not be President and would be unlikely to achieve anything he wanted if he were.

I don't expect much to change if Romney gets elected as I view Romney = Obama = Bush. Possibly each successive one worse than than the previous.




I'm fairly confident of that also. And I actually think that might be a good thing for the country...but almost certainly not for the reasons you think.

I'm " vacuous " however you seem to agree with quite a bit of what I've said in that last post. Not for the reasons I think right?

Perhaps you think that the GOP will mend their ways because of this defeat? I wouldn't hold my breath. Or perhaps you think the country will suffer another downturn while Obama's in his second term. Not really likely at this point. Or maybe you think nothing will change and that will make people want a Libertarian candidate? I don't think that one's really in the cards either.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #575 of 886
4/6/12 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm " vacuous "

No, you're repeated "jimmac-isms" are vacuous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Perhaps you think that the GOP will mend their ways because of this defeat?

Possibly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I wouldn't hold my breath.

I'm not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Or perhaps you think the country will suffer another downturn while Obama's in his second term.

I'm almost certain of that.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Or maybe you think nothing will change and that will make people want a Libertarian candidate?

Seems unlikely, but I it's possible that the socialism this country is flirting with (even more than in the past) will be exposed for the cancer it is. But I'm not holding my breath for that either. I don't have a lot of faith in the American public waking up any time soon.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #576 of 886
4/7/12 at 4:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Laugh it up!

Let me guess you don't care because it won't be Ron Paul right?

Well the rest of us who are dealing with what can really happen do care.

Fortunately ( true to form ) the GOP has continued their talent for shooting themselves in the foot. So I'm pretty confident that there won't be a republican sitting in the Whitehouse in January.

Amen I hope you are right about this.Screw the republicans they are selfish and arrogant and inhumane!
Reply
Reply
post #577 of 886
4/7/12 at 6:37am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Romney would never follow up on his promises. Get Real.

How do you know that? And has Obama followed up on his? That's what you don't get...it's one guy vs. the other guy. Pick one and explain why he's your choice.

Quote:


They were in charge weren't they?

Not when the financial crisis hit, they weren't. Not for two years prior.

Quote:
Just like you are holding Obama and the Democrats responsible now so fair is fair.

No, not "just like" how I'm holding the Democrats responsible. Not at all. I'm holding them responsible for their specific actions...and then the visible results. You have no specifics whatsoever.

Quote:

Plus we've been over many times as to what I didn't like with the Bush years. So why waste time going over it again? You don't agree. That doesn't make it true however.

It's jimmacfest 2012®


Quote:

What the GOP has to offer this time are jokers.

Yes, you've expressed that completely idiotic opinion in that past.

Quote:
I'm not the only one who thinks so. You know that.

Right. That's because there is no shortage of people who lack critical thinking and communication skills.

Quote:

Barring some kind of unforseen upset Obama will get his second term and you guys will be wringing your hands for another 4 years.


Typical Blue Team vs. Red Team crap from you. "We" are worried about what will happen to this nation if Barry Soetoro gets another term. And once again jimmac, your opinion on the likelihood of Obama's reelection is completely unsupported by historical precedent and data.

Quote:

Either that or the GOP candidate will be under extreme pressure when things don't get better under his leadership ( and of course we liberals will be all over that ). So take your pick.

You'll be all over any GOP leader no matter what the results. You were complaining in 2005 that 5% unemployment and a surging economy was "OK but not as good as it should be." If Romney is elected and the economy starts growing by 5% per annum, and unemployment drops under 6%, you'll be saying either Obama did it, or things are still terrible (in which case it will be Bush's fault).

Quote:

Things are starting to look up so maybe the GOP hopes to get in on the improvement and take credit for it!

By all means though please keep this ridiculous thread going until November!

Ehhh...are they?

Ben Bernanke isn't so sure.

And then there the record number of people NOT in the labor force---88 million.

Obviously, it's Bush's fault.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #578 of 886
4/7/12 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

How do you know that? And has Obama followed up on his? That's what you don't get...it's one guy vs. the other guy. Pick one and explain why he's your choice.



Not when the financial crisis hit, they weren't. Not for two years prior.



No, not "just like" how I'm holding the Democrats responsible. Not at all. I'm holding them responsible for their specific actions...and then the visible results. You have no specifics whatsoever.



It's jimmacfest 2012®




Yes, you've expressed that completely idiotic opinion in that past.



Right. That's because there is no shortage of people who lack critical thinking and communication skills.




Typical Blue Team vs. Red Team crap from you. "We" are worried about what will happen to this nation if Barry Soetoro gets another term. And once again jimmac, your opinion on the likelihood of Obama's reelection is completely unsupported by historical precedent and data.



You'll be all over any GOP leader no matter what the results. You were complaining in 2005 that 5% unemployment and a surging economy was "OK but not as good as it should be." If Romney is elected and the economy starts growing by 5% per annum, and unemployment drops under 6%, you'll be saying either Obama did it, or things are still terrible (in which case it will be Bush's fault).



Ehhh...are they?

Ben Bernanke isn't so sure.

And then there the record number of people NOT in the labor force---88 million.

Obviously, it's Bush's fault.

It'll probably go something like this : Obama will win, the economy will continue to improve, and you'll be no where to be found until the smoke clears. Or you'll be demanding a recount and claiming Romney really won for years just like you did with the WMD in Iraq as they were still just over the next sand dune somewhere!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #579 of 886
4/7/12 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

It'll probably go something like this : Obama will win, the economy will continue to improve, and you'll be no where to be found until the smoke clears.

What makes you think any of that will happen?

Quote:

Or you'll be demanding a recount and claiming Romney really won for years

That would depend on whether or not there was evidence he really won.

Quote:

just like you did with the WMD in Iraq as they were still just over the next sand dune somewhere!

Yeah, that was my claim, jimmac.

It's not surprising you continue to bring up the lack of WMD in Iraq after nearly 10 years though. It's been pretty much the only thing you've ever been right about in that time. As I said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #580 of 886
4/7/12 at 4:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What makes you think any of that will happen?



That would depend on whether or not there was evidence he really won.



Yeah, that was my claim, jimmac.

It's not surprising you continue to bring up the lack of WMD in Iraq after nearly 10 years though. It's been pretty much the only thing you've ever been right about in that time. As I said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Quote:
What makes you think any of that will happen?

Reading the news and knowing your M.O. from before. Oh! I forgot! You don't believe anything that doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

Quote:
That would depend on whether or not there was evidence he really won.

Oh God! It's starting already!

Quote:
It's not surprising you continue to bring up the lack of WMD in Iraq after nearly 10 years though. It's been pretty much the only thing you've ever been right about in that time. As I said, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.[/

Not really. It's just the only one you acknowledge. I've been right about many things. Like the last election.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #581 of 886
4/8/12 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Reading the news and knowing your M.O. from before. Oh! I forgot! You don't believe anything that doesn't tell you what you want to hear.

The "news" doesn't support your claims. And my M.O. is to look at data in the form of polls, stats and historical precedent. You just take shots in the dark and say Haily Marys.

Quote:

Oh God! It's starting already!

So you completely discount the possibility of voter fraud or other anomalies? But wait...only if it happens when the GOP appears to have been wronged. Got it.

Quote:

Not really. It's just the only one you acknowledge. I've been right about many things. Like the last election.

The last election result was obviously going to go Barry Soetoro's way. The polling in the last 6 weeks was clear. Obama was consistently up for that time. So yeah, great work on that one.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #582 of 886
4/8/12 at 10:07am
  • e1618978
  • will burn in the Fiery Pit of Hell.


Obama currently has a 60% chance of being elected, according to intrade.
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
45 2a3 300b 211 845 833
Reply
post #583 of 886
4/8/12 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The "news" doesn't support your claims. And my M.O. is to look at data in the form of polls, stats and historical precedent. You just take shots in the dark and say Haily Marys.



So you completely discount the possibility of voter fraud or other anomalies? But wait...only if it happens when the GOP appears to have been wronged. Got it.



The last election result was obviously going to go Barry Soetoro's way. The polling in the last 6 weeks was clear. Obama was consistently up for that time. So yeah, great work on that one.



Quote:
The "news" doesn't support your claims

Nah! The news doesn't say anything about Romney ( or any of the other GOP candidates ) saying stuff that offends or alienates whole demographics. It also doesn't say anything about Romney trailing Obama in the polls.

Quote:
The last election result was obviously going to go Barry Soetoro's way. The polling in the last 6 weeks was clear. Obama was consistently up for that time.

What was the name of that thread you started during the last election? Something about the Democrats melting down?

However you are really great at denial. I'll give you that.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #584 of 886
4/9/12 at 4:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Nah! The news doesn't say anything about Romney ( or any of the other GOP candidates ) saying stuff that offends or alienates whole demographics. It also doesn't say anything about Romney trailing Obama in the polls.

Yes, the "news" says plenty about the Republicans waging a War on Women™ and Offending the Poor®. That's because your news sources are incredibly biased. You'll notice that Jimmac's News Hour also doesn't mention real unemployment, crushing debts, record deficits, insulting the PM of Israel, promising Russia we'll give away the farm after the election, past racist, terrorist and anti-American associations (Ayers, Wright, Bell), slow economic growth, a continually declining housing market, DECLINING oil production on federal lands, a 50% reduction in federal oil leases and Obamacare costing twice as much as we were told.


Quote:

What was the name of that thread you started during the last election? Something about the Democrats melting down?

That thread was started on 9/14/2008...approximately...wait for it....6 weeks before the election. At the time, polling showed McCain ahead. Palin had not yet been politically assassinated by the media. The financial crisis hit two days later. When that thread was started, the polls showed a 9 point swing in McCain's direction...from +5 Obama to +3-4 McCain. Shortly thereafter, the economic/financial crisis happened, Palin was targeted mercilessly and McCain made a series of missteps (flying off to "save the day" with the bailout bill, for example). The polls soon changed dramatically, and so did my thoughts on who would win the election.

Quote:

However you are really great at denial. I'll give you that.

"Denial" to you is anyone who disagrees with your unsupported opinions. My predictions on this and any election are based on...again....current data and historical data/precedent. Specifically:

1. Current polling data shows Obama leading by about the margin of error. The most recent Rasmussen tracking poll shows Obama's lead down to 2, or half the margin. Keep in mind this is a national poll and is during the most negative part of the GOP's primary.

2. Obama's approval index is -17. That means that 17 percent more people strongly disapprove than strongly approve.

3. Unemployment is 8.2%, officially. No President in the last 100 years has been reelected with unemployment over 7.2% other than Ronald Reagan. At the time, unemployment was coming down rapidly. Unemployment is still higher than when Obama took office.

4. Real unemployment (accounting for those who have stopped looking) is near 11%. If we add in underemployed persons, the rate is approximately 17%. Not exactly a good number for reelection, agreed?

5. Economic growth is about 2%. Previous recoveries have seen 4-5% growth during the rebound. Also, here is an article explaining how economic growth and unemployment affect an incumbent President's chances. Hint: Low growth during their term means they lose.

6. Gas prices, gas prices, gas prices. According to this article, the last 5 gas spikes correlated with the incumbent party losing the Presidential election.


Now, there is plenty of other data on economic performance, national security, state polls, the enthusiasm gap, etc. But let's just stop here for a second. All of the above shows Obama is highly unlikely to be reelected without a sea change in the political and economic environment. I invite you to post data that supports your prediction of an Obama victory "unless something big happens."
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #585 of 886
4/9/12 at 4:39pm
Gas Prices Grow More Under Obama than Carter

Quote:
Under the Carter administration, gas prices increased by 103.77 percent. Gas prices since Obama took office have risen by 103.79 percent. No other presidents in recent years have struggled as much with soaring oil prices. Under the Reagan administration, gas prices actually dropped 66 percent. When Bill Clinton was president, gas prices grew by roughly 30 percent, and under both Bush presidencies, gas prices rose by 20 percent.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #586 of 886
4/9/12 at 5:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Yes, the "news" says plenty about the Republicans waging a War on Women™ and Offending the Poor®. That's because your news sources are incredibly biased. You'll notice that Jimmac's News Hour also doesn't mention real unemployment, crushing debts, record deficits, insulting the PM of Israel, promising Russia we'll give away the farm after the election, past racist, terrorist and anti-American associations (Ayers, Wright, Bell), slow economic growth, a continually declining housing market, DECLINING oil production on federal lands, a 50% reduction in federal oil leases and Obamacare costing twice as much as we were told.




That thread was started on 9/14/2008...approximately...wait for it....6 weeks before the election. At the time, polling showed McCain ahead. Palin had not yet been politically assassinated by the media. The financial crisis hit two days later. When that thread was started, the polls showed a 9 point swing in McCain's direction...from +5 Obama to +3-4 McCain. Shortly thereafter, the economic/financial crisis happened, Palin was targeted mercilessly and McCain made a series of missteps (flying off to "save the day" with the bailout bill, for example). The polls soon changed dramatically, and so did my thoughts on who would win the election.



"Denial" to you is anyone who disagrees with your unsupported opinions. My predictions on this and any election are based on...again....current data and historical data/precedent. Specifically:

1. Current polling data shows Obama leading by about the margin of error. The most recent Rasmussen tracking poll shows Obama's lead down to 2, or half the margin. Keep in mind this is a national poll and is during the most negative part of the GOP's primary.

2. Obama's approval index is -17. That means that 17 percent more people strongly disapprove than strongly approve.

3. Unemployment is 8.2%, officially. No President in the last 100 years has been reelected with unemployment over 7.2% other than Ronald Reagan. At the time, unemployment was coming down rapidly. Unemployment is still higher than when Obama took office.

4. Real unemployment (accounting for those who have stopped looking) is near 11%. If we add in underemployed persons, the rate is approximately 17%. Not exactly a good number for reelection, agreed?

5. Economic growth is about 2%. Previous recoveries have seen 4-5% growth during the rebound. Also, here is an article explaining how economic growth and unemployment affect an incumbent President's chances. Hint: Low growth during their term means they lose.

6. Gas prices, gas prices, gas prices. According to this article, the last 5 gas spikes correlated with the incumbent party losing the Presidential election.


Now, there is plenty of other data on economic performance, national security, state polls, the enthusiasm gap, etc. But let's just stop here for a second. All of the above shows Obama is highly unlikely to be reelected without a sea change in the political and economic environment. I invite you to post data that supports your prediction of an Obama victory "unless something big happens."



Good old wishful thinking!

Quote:
That's because your news sources are incredibly biased.

Do you mean sources that most of the voters listen to as well?
I knew the " Liberal media " crap would enter in to this. Like I've said you only listen to news reports that say what you want to hear.
So your official stance is you're predicting a Romney win eh?

Like I've said denial.

Sure some kind of negative press or fumble could sink Obama before the election but the way it looks right now I think it's pretty much in the bag.The voters just don't like your guys.

Gosh I guess we'll just have to see won't we? However SDW you seem as out of touch with what's going on in the U.S. right now as the candidates you support.

Oh well
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #587 of 886
4/9/12 at 6:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post



Good old wishful thinking!

So your official stance is you're predicting a Romney win eh?

Like I've said denial.

Gosh I guess we'll just have to see won't we?

Oh well


I assume that even our most liberal members will admit that you are either unable to support your argument, or are simply unwilling to. So far, your prediction of an Obama win is based on:
  • "Wishful thinking, SDW!"
  • The Republicans are jokers!
  • Romney is an out of touch rich guy!
  • Things are getting better!
  • You're in denial!

Care to post ANY data or precedent showing Obama will be reelected?
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #588 of 886
4/9/12 at 6:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I assume that even our most liberal members will admit that you are either unable to support your argument, or are simply unwilling to. So far, your prediction of an Obama win is based on:
  • "Wishful thinking, SDW!"
  • The Republicans are jokers!
  • Romney is an out of touch rich guy!
  • Things are getting better!
  • You're in denial!

Care to post ANY data or precedent showing Obama will be reelected?

Bascially the liberals are disappointed with Obama but not so much that they can't see any of what the GOP is offering is far worse. Most of the voters feel that way. Also the GOP is sharply divided. that's not good for any party that wants to win an election. Sure Romney will come out on top but that doesn't mean every Republican will be for him.

Go ahead and depend on those numbers that seem to tell you what you want to hear. I'm listening to the mood of the country.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #589 of 886
4/9/12 at 6:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I'm listening to the mood of the country.

I seem to recall that you were listening to the mood of the country way back when you were sharing your "cycles" theory which had the Democrats in control for like another generation or something only to have them have their asses kicked a mere 2 years into Obama's term.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #590 of 886
4/9/12 at 7:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I seem to recall that you were listening to the mood of the country way back when you were sharing your "cycles" theory which had the Democrats in control for like another generation or something only to have them have their asses kicked a mere 2 years into Obama's term.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #591 of 886
4/10/12 at 5:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Bascially the liberals are disappointed with Obama but not so much that they can't see any of what the GOP is offering is far worse.

I agree. However, you've not shown any data to support this. Again.

Quote:
Most of the voters feel that way.

That is not true...not according to polling. If it was, you'd see a big gap between Obama and the GOP challengers. Even The Santorum is only down by 6.

Quote:
Also the GOP is sharply divided. that's not good for any party that wants to win an election.

That has been the media narrative. It's no different than the Obama/Hillary struggle.

Quote:
Sure Romney will come out on top but that doesn't mean every Republican will be for him.

That's an easy statement to be correct about, because no one ever gets ALL the support of a party. That said, the question is whether or not enough Republicans will support him. If you look at polling, you'll find that GOP voters will vote for almost any Republican over Obama. You're underestimating how badly conservatives and libertarians want to defeat the man they see as a disaster. In any case, we get into the enthusiasm gap here. Obama has a serious problem with that, especially among his base and left-leaning supporters. He's also down big amongst moderates. What did you think all the racial and gender issue stuff was about? It's about his reeelection and nothing more.

Quote:

Go ahead and depend on those numbers that seem to tell you what you want to hear. I'm listening to the mood of the country.

The numbers tell us the mood of the country. What do you use...your gut? Do you predict the weather by listening to the mood of the planet? The mood of the country predicts an Obama loss. Right Track/Wrong Track numbers are horrendous for Obama. Unemployment. GDP. Debt. Deficit. Concern about jobs and deficit/debt put together make up 73% of voters' top concerns. Nearly EVERY data point shows Obama losing. Of course, that doesn't mean he will. I don't underestimate the GOP's ability to screw up.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I seem to recall that you were listening to the mood of the country way back when you were sharing your "cycles" theory which had the Democrats in control for like another generation or something only to have them have their asses kicked a mere 2 years into Obama's term.

To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #592 of 886
4/10/12 at 5:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I agree. However, you've not shown any data to support this. Again.



That is not true...not according to polling. If it was, you'd see a big gap between Obama and the GOP challengers. Even The Santorum is only down by 6.



That has been the media narrative. It's no different than the Obama/Hillary struggle.



That's an easy statement to be correct about, because no one ever gets ALL the support of a party. That said, the question is whether or not enough Republicans will support him. If you look at polling, you'll find that GOP voters will vote for almost any Republican over Obama. You're underestimating how badly conservatives and libertarians want to defeat the man they see as a disaster. In any case, we get into the enthusiasm gap here. Obama has a serious problem with that, especially among his base and left-leaning supporters. He's also down big amongst moderates. What did you think all the racial and gender issue stuff was about? It's about his reeelection and nothing more.



The numbers tell us the mood of the country. What do you use...your gut? Do you predict the weather by listening to the mood of the planet? The mood of the country predicts an Obama loss. Right Track/Wrong Track numbers are horrendous for Obama. Unemployment. GDP. Debt. Deficit. Concern about jobs and deficit/debt put together make up 73% of voters' top concerns. Nearly EVERY data point shows Obama losing. Of course, that doesn't mean he will. I don't underestimate the GOP's ability to screw up.





Republican.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #593 of 886
4/10/12 at 5:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I seem to recall that you were listening to the mood of the country way back when you were sharing your "cycles" theory which had the Democrats in control for like another generation or something only to have them have their asses kicked a mere 2 years into Obama's term.

What I was saying here ( and I didn't list any timeline ) is that the voters aren't buying what the right is selling anymore ( not like the way they did in the first 10 years of this century ). That's what's changed and it's still there.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #594 of 886
4/11/12 at 4:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Republican.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

What I was saying here ( and I didn't list any timeline ) is that the voters aren't buying what the right is selling anymore ( not like the way they did in the first 10 years of this century ). That's what's changed and it's still there.


Who do you even bother posting here? You're making a fool of yourself.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #595 of 886
4/11/12 at 5:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Who do you even bother posting here? You're making a fool of yourself.

Quote:
Who do you even bother posting here? You're making a fool of yourself.

Perfect!


Yes with your spelling Bees and such you're much too smart for me!

Please post more like this!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #596 of 886
4/12/12 at 2:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Perfect!


Yes with your spelling Bees and such you're much too smart for me!

Please post more like this!

Let's review: I posted...once again...specific data showing why the President is unlikely to be reelected. After posting historical election data on everything from unemployment to gas prices to GDP, you told me this:

Quote:
"Good old wishful thinking!

and

Quote:
Republican


Maybe we should take a vote as to who thinks you're making a fool of yourself. Jesus...at least BR tries.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #597 of 886
4/12/12 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Let's review: I posted...once again...specific data showing why the President is unlikely to be reelected. After posting historical election data on everything from unemployment to gas prices to GDP, you told me this:



and




Maybe we should take a vote as to who thinks you're making a fool of yourself. Jesus...at least BR tries.

Who, what, Where, why?

You'd think a teacher would proof read.

Well spell check won't help you with that one!

You really like calling people names don't you.

And your specific data taken from specific sites and interpreted specifically by yourself you mean.

Yes by all means take a poll on who everyone here thinks is more of a fool. No fair if only your cohorts vote.

By the way they're predicitng that gas prices are soon to stabilize. And what horse shit trying to hang that one on Obama!

What things like that says to me is that the Greedy Ol' Party is desperate. The only way Romney will get elected is if there's extreme voter apathy like 2000 when Bush got his greedy toe in the door.

As far as your historical data you must know by now that these aren't normal times so that same data might not mean as much as you think.

So lets review : You base your claims on GOP rhetoric as proof that Obama will lose to Romney in the next election right?

Here's a little something to help your day along. Something on your boy : http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...ender-gap?lite

Quote:
Romney spins 'war on women' to close GOP gender gap

Quote:
That Democratic argument reached a fever pitch on Wednesday when a Romney surrogate, speaking on a conference call, hesitated to say whether Romney supported a law making it easier for women to file lawsuits challenging pay disparities.

A spokesperson for Romney said later in the day that the former governor wouldn't do anything to change current law, but Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chairwoman, nonetheless called the Romney campaign's momentary failure to provide an answer "utterly shocking."

Quote:
“Women voters, especially the more independent-minded female voters in the swing states are critical to either party if they want to win,” Judy said. “Mitt Romney has an opportunity to get some of those women back."

Also anyone should know that if women don't support him you might as well put a fork in him because if you haven't realized by now women basically call the shots.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #598 of 886
4/13/12 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Who, what, Where, why?

You'd think a teacher would proof read.

Well spell check won't help you with that one!

You really like calling people names don't you.

Can you demonstrate the huge grammatical error I made? I can't find it. As for names, that's not so. I'm simply opining that you look like a fool.

Quote:

And your specific data taken from specific sites and interpreted specifically by yourself you mean.

False. I am providing hard factual data and stating indisputable facts. An example is the statement "no president has been re-elected with +7.2% unemployment except Reagan." That is a fact free of interpretation. Another fact is that the last five gas spikes have coincided with incumbent party losing the Presidency. Facts, jimmac. Not opinions.

Quote:

Yes by all means take a poll on who everyone here thinks is more of a fool. No fair if only your cohorts vote.

I didn't say you were a fool. I said you were making yourself look like a fool.

Quote:

By the way they're predicitng that gas prices are soon to stabilize. And what horse shit trying to hang that one on Obama!

Ding dong, you're wrong. Gas prices are expected to rise. And I didn't hang it all on Obama. His policies have undoubtedly contributed, however.

Quote:

What things like that says to me is that the Greedy Ol' Party is desperate. The only way Romney will get elected is if there's extreme voter apathy like 2000 when Bush got his greedy toe in the door.

Another unsupported claim and prediction.

Quote:

As far as your historical data you must know by now that these aren't normal times so that same data might not mean as much as you think.

Right. The historical data doesn't matter because this time it's different?

Quote:

So lets review : You base your claims on GOP rhetoric as proof that Obama will lose to Romney in the next election right?

The only claim I'm making is that Obama is unlikely to be re-elected based on past trends and current data. GOP rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Quote:

Here's a little something to help your day along. Something on your boy : http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...ender-gap?lite


Also anyone should know that if women don't support him you might as well put a fork in him because if you haven't realized by now women basically call the shots.

What claim are you making? Are you claiming that women don't support Romney? That is not true. There is currently a gender gap in the polls, caused partly by idiots like Santorum who are out fo the mainstream on social issues, and caused partly by the Democrats' phony "War on Women" mantra they've been tossing around. The problem is, it really came back to bite them in the butt when one of their own DNC operatives insulted pretty much every stay at home mom in the country.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #599 of 886
4/13/12 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Can you demonstrate the huge grammatical error I made? I can't find it. As for names, that's not so. I'm simply opining that you look like a fool.



False. I am providing hard factual data and stating indisputable facts. An example is the statement "no president has been re-elected with +7.2% unemployment except Reagan." That is a fact free of interpretation. Another fact is that the last five gas spikes have coincided with incumbent party losing the Presidency. Facts, jimmac. Not opinions.



I didn't say you were a fool. I said you were making yourself look like a fool.



Ding dong, you're wrong. Gas prices are expected to rise. And I didn't hang it all on Obama. His policies have undoubtedly contributed, however.



Another unsupported claim and prediction.



Right. The historical data doesn't matter because this time it's different?



The only claim I'm making is that Obama is unlikely to be re-elected based on past trends and current data. GOP rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with it.



What claim are you making? Are you claiming that women don't support Romney? That is not true. There is currently a gender gap in the polls, caused partly by idiots like Santorum who are out fo the mainstream on social issues, and caused partly by the Democrats' phony "War on Women" mantra they've been tossing around. The problem is, it really came back to bite them in the butt when one of their own DNC operatives insulted pretty much every stay at home mom in the country.

Quote:
Can you demonstrate the huge grammatical error I made? I can't find it.

Do you understand the difference between " Who " and Why "? It doesn't sound like it.

Listen this is the same kind of stupid shit you were shoveling my way not long ago so if it doesn't taste good being on the other end don't blame me.

Look you can provide all the statistics in the world but you must know how easy it is to lie with statistics. You can mke things seem like an open and shut case but in the end it doesn't turn out that way.

Quote:
I didn't say you were a fool. I said you were making yourself look like a fool.

I know what you meant.

Quote:
The only claim I'm making is that Obama is unlikely to be re-elected based on past trends and current data. GOP rhetoric has absolutely nothing to do with it.

And I'm claiming the only ones who like Romney are Republicans. You have to win over the other side before he can win.

Quote:
Democrats' phony "War on Women" mantra they've been tossing around.

Is real. Just ask some nonrepublican women.

Quote:
it really came back to bite them in the butt when one of their own DNC operatives insulted pretty much every stay at home mom in the country

Yes Republicans aren't the only ones who shoot their mouths off. I didn't make this up : http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...v6S_story.html


And finally : http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...146665375.html

Quote:
Mitt Romney’s electoral trouble with women — more precisely with college-educated women — is real enough. Recent polling has Romney trailing President Obama by 18 points among this group in Ohio, with similar gaps in other battleground states.

Quote:
Researchers say gas prices may have leveled off.

According to the Lundberg survey, the price at the pump has gone up about 11.5 cents in the last two weeks. That's the smallest increase for a two week period since January.

Researchers say even though we're heading into a season of higher demand, unused supplies should help keep gas prices lower. Steady crude oil prices are also helping to keep gas prices from rising.

In past weeks, analysts expected gas prices to hit a peak in late April or early May.

And : http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ana...y-have-peaked/

Quote:
The panic over $5.00 per gallon gas may have been overblown:


Gasoline prices, which have vexed President Obama politically in recent months, may have reached their peak, according to energy analysts.

Prices at the pump reached nearly $3.94 last Friday, the highest point this year, according to AAA. But prices have decreased slightly over the last five days, reversing increases that began in December of last year.

Analysts say prices could continue to decline.

“What this could potentially mean for motorists is that prices could take a bit of a breather or they might fall,” said Patrick DeHaan, senior petroleum analyst at gasbuddy.com.

Let me guess you'd rather not hear that. Anyway we'll see who's prediction is right. What usually happens with a situation like this is people drive less driving down the demand which drives down the price.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #600 of 886
4/13/12 at 7:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And finally : http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/lo...146665375.html





And : http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ana...y-have-peaked/



Let me guess you'd rather not hear that.

Let me see if I have this right...

A few years ago when Bush was in office and gas prices are where they are now (after 8 years), everyone on the left was screaming about the Bush oil industry favoritism and sticking bumper stickers on their cars saying "Gas was only $1.80 per gallon when Bush took office." But now that gas prices might not hit $5 a gallon but are at that same level (after only 3 years), things are just fine and no one is buying bumper stickers that say "Gas was only $1.80 per gallon when Obama took office" (which is about what it was).

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.