Democrats Won Battle of the Conventions

Courseaire 8 months, 1 week ago

If you mean they won by ramrodding amendments to their platform the same way Obama has been running the Country over the last 3 plus years, ignoring law & the Constitution, then yes they won.

packwilleat 8 months, 1 week ago

Dusty lives under a rock........ I just "fact checked" it. It's true.

AbdominalDohMan 8 months, 1 week ago

Mark the tape. I still stand by my prediction... Romney wins a small majority of popular vote and over 300 in the Electoral College.

aggou 8 months, 1 week ago

Do conventions matter though? I mean, sure, they give you a bump in the polls.

Obama even got around 5-7 points, but now, according to most trackers, the race is back to where it was before either convention began. I'd be saying this had Romney been second and had gotten Obama's "bounce".

Take Clinton in '92. He received a 16 point bounce! but two months later he went on to win, but by 6 points. Conventions are good so people can know your platform, but in the end, the conventions are nothing more than a big party, and nobody remembers them on election day.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Dohman, given the recent state of the electoral map and the latest polls in battleground states, I find this highly unlikely, bordering on the delusional.

The_AnonymusProfit 8 months, 1 week ago

Neither party won the battle of the conventions, neither party was truly competing, the DNC convention was aimed at energizing a base that was severely lethargic and the RNC convention was aimed at pursuading key independent voters. Both succeeded in their goals very well.

There are no actual clear polls other then the Rassmussen polls to indicate anything about what is actually happening out there at the moment.

The most concrete predictor is a University of Colorado Electoral college predictor which has been correct on every single presidential race since 1980. Its margin of error is plus or minus 10 on points. The UC map predicts a Romney win by 102 points.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

That story about the Colorado model's from before the convention, Ryan. Before The Chair. Before Romney shot himself in the foot by trying to politicize American deaths overseas (and I know the howler monkeys love what he said...but everyone else regards it as a serious misstep that made Romney look small).

But keep whistling past that graveyard. And keep telling yourself the only information that matters comes from the one or two statistical outliers[1] (like Rasmussen) who agree with you. It's usually a recipe for disaster.

[1] "an observation that is numerically distant from the rest of the data"

bufordsplay 8 months, 1 week ago

Yes, what a great convention Dusty..people on the floor of YOUR convention were calling for a law against profit?.... and you call the right "nuts." Oh and the booing of god and jerusalem were awsome!! What a great future we have.....

The_AnonymusProfit 8 months, 1 week ago

Dusty, the conventions had no effect on the model, nor did Romney shoot himself in the foot, actually it was the first time that he has truly been on his game, only the pundits think it was a bad move, and fortunately the only people who care what the pundits think are other pundits.

skylinefirepest 8 months, 1 week ago

If I remember correctly, guys, the same ol', same ol' was just a re-hash of four years ago but now "I need more time to finish what I started." If six trillion in under four years is not enough then I cringe to think what another four will do to this country.

AbdominalDohMan 8 months, 1 week ago

Believe the polls, call me delusional, do whatever floats your boat... just remember.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Oh, I will.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.' And God granted it."-Voltaire

cooldaddy 8 months, 1 week ago

I will put one very old Clint Eastwood against the whole bunch of polished politicians anyday. That I remember. The entire Democrat convention was predictable and just ok.

AbdominalDohMan 8 months, 1 week ago

"A witty saying proves nothing."-Voltaire

cooldaddy 8 months, 1 week ago

Yeah...well Voltaire was a Frenchman. Probably wouldn't fight for anything but a bag of bagettes...but if he is your source of wisdom then here is a Voltaire moment regarding wit..."God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." Don't take the clowns on either side too serious. None of them are as bright as they want us to believe, but if they would listen to each other, some good decisions for the people could be made.

fatboy 8 months, 1 week ago

I think that Dusty got his conventions mixed up. NObama's speech was flat and almost identical to the one he gave four years ago. Nothing new. He just wants four more years to really screw things up. When the former Adulterer in Chief got up to speak, it sounded like he was campaigning for Billary for a 2016 run. Time for the Amateur (or "Deceiver") to move aside. I hear where UNC Chapel Hill is looking for a new Chancellor who loves basketball and Socialism. Perhaps NObama would qualify. After all, he was a community organizer.

AbdominalDohMan 8 months, 1 week ago

Voltaire was, by far, nothing as to what I would consider a source of wisdom. Just turning a reference back towards my buddy, Dusty, for rebuttal.

packwilleat 8 months, 1 week ago

No matter what side wins, "we" still lose. But then again that is how it was intended.

cooldaddy 8 months, 1 week ago

I was responding to the 1st Voltaire quote Ab Man... Now I will give you a quote from an old Clint Eastwood movie...as a bounty hunter entered the bar ...The hunter said "I am lookin' for Josey Wales"...'ol Clint said "What do you do for a livin'?" and the hunter said "I am a bounty hunter"...to which Clint said "Dying ain't much of a livin' boy"...Now insert Obama and Romney.Obama opens the bar doors and says " I am lookin' for my opponnet" Romney asks "What do you do for a livin?" and Obama says "Well, I dunno...but I read a telepromptor well" and Romney says "Lying ain't much of a living prez" It ends with a better 8 years ahead. Did I sidetrack into a dream? Do forgive me.Honestly it is not that far-fetched from most of the bull at the conventions.

TOYTIME 8 months, 1 week ago

boring

pattruslow 8 months, 1 week ago

More than likely, it can be honestly said that the GOP accomplished its convention goal: to go after the undecided voters, the independents, those who could not make up their minds and convince them on how they should vote. Judging by the polls since both conventions ended, the GOP did what they intended - those undecideds have moved into President Obama's court! After the secret video debacle of yesterday, I'll bet they are super glad they did! But, some people never learn to consider facts - living in a dream world is much easier. Ask youself: Am I part of that 47% that Romney doesn't care about? And then tell us why he should be president.

justpassingby2 8 months, 1 week ago

Hard to believe that dusty would continue to write for The Pilot after all his whining about them. Why would you write for someone who bends over backwards in allowing the wingnuts to abuse you? Then they give you a time out like you are 7 years old and make it appear you are in some type of rehab with their ridiculous '..unavailable for commenting..' statement, but here you are as girlie a man as one could ever hope to see! Thanks for proving once again what I have said about you from day 1, you just don't believe in anything! Sad!

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

"COMMUNITY ORGANIZER!"

"TELEPROMPTER! TELEPROMPTER!"

"MUSLIM!'

"APOLOGIZING FOR AMERICA!"

"YER DRINKING THE KOOL-AID! HAW! HAW! HAW!"

Been hearing the same old lies and cliches for the last four years. And now that Romney's imploding what do we hear? More of the same. And it doesn't work any better now than it did four years ago.

by dustyrhoades

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

I am not part of the 47% who pay no federal income tax. None. Romney should be President because he knows economics, and favors pro-growth policies, which can help the vast majority of those who pay nothing have better jobs so that they have more dignity and can contribute to society. Obama is in favor of redistribution of wealth...in his own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJ.... Obama has tried to hide his real beliefs, and many in the country gave him the benefit of the doubt that he was not a socialist. Now, here we have Obama in his own words: redistribution of wealth. As one of my idols, Lady Thatcher, said, the problem with socialism and redistribution is that you eventually run out of other people's money. The liberals here have always ignored Obama's real motives, and have made fun of conservatives who warn folks that he really believes this nonsense. Now, you can defend Obama's own words, where he makes his true intentions known...and maybe some of you will come to understand why his economic policies have not worked. They have not because they cannot. Cheers!

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

http://thepilot.com/users/photos/2012/sep/18/20366/

This is not the face of a man who knows he's winning.

And BTW...2/3 of the people who don't pay any federal income tax are working. They get the earned income tax credit, which was expanded under Reagan, as well as other deductions, so they owe no tax. They also pay payroll, state, sales, and local taxes. Others who owe no tax are seniors on Social security.

R-Money says "I can't worry about those people."

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

And if you think "the working poor need to pay more taxes" is a viable campaign strategy...please try it. Sneers!

AFCHIEF 8 months, 1 week ago

Now here is a smart person. Should be mandatory viewing for all liberals

http://videos2view.net/herself.htm

justpassingby2 8 months, 1 week ago

Thatcher, just what has obama done to offend you, other than obamacare (it offends anyone with a working brain)? Four years in and you still have the same tax code. The whole redistribution of wealth is just for the dummies on the far left to get excited about. We have essentially the same tax code we had under bush. Do you think his donors want to pay their 'fair' share? The wars haven't changed. Used the same bush plan for exiting Iraq. Big business is booming. Oil companies still have their subsidies. Still abusing people in places like GITMO. Friends of the President still getting their just rewards, just like under bush. Lies, lies,and more lies, just like under bush. Same public education system and Wall St smiling from ear to ear. He hasn't put people back to work, just like bush. I know there are some differences but surely not enough to rate him any lower (or higher) than the previous administration.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

DR-- And your thoughts on redistribution of wealth? Without throwing a fit and claiming Obama never said that.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Looks like AFCHIEF has joined Ryan the Anonymous Profit as one of those people too dumb to tell a parody video from the real thing.

Thatcher, any taxation can be defined as redistribution of wealth. But some is necessary to have a civilization or even a government. So when I hear someone yammering about "redistribution of wealth" I realize they're just parroting more loaded buzzwords and that they're not to be taken seriously.

AFCHIEF 8 months, 1 week ago

DR if I'm dumb then what are you to still support the Liar In Chief, Golfer In Chief, Mulsim Lover In Chief should I go on....

Failed to lead or even care during the gulf oil crisis
Close to 6 Trillion dollars and counting in new debt
Unemployment still over 8% and will remain so for the foreseeable future
NO BUDGET in over 3 years
Gave Billions to his campaign supporters for bankrupt green energy companies
Doesn't even know what countries are his allies
TOTALLY mishandling the middle east crisis
FAILED TO put all legislation on the Internet for five days before it comes to a vote

SHOULD I KEEP GOING, and you want to give this FAILURE 4 more years LMAO

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

I was yammering. I see. The "buzzword" "redistribution of wealth," was used by Obama. It is not a "buzzword": it is his belief and it is part of his economic policies. Which is why his policies have failed. They always fail. Was Obama "parroting more loaded buzzwords?" Should he be "taken seriously?"

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Here, Chief, see how many threads you can spam this story to. It's real, I swear it:

Obama: 'Help Us Destroy Jesus And Start A New Age Of Liberal Darkness'

“The streets shall run red with the blood of forced sodomy, performed daily upon every American man, woman, and child!” the commander-in-chief shouted, froth forming around his mouth as the crowd threw hundreds of aborted fetuses onto the stage. “Die, Christians, die!” Slamming his fists on the lectern until his hands began to bleed, Obama proceeded to lay out a “three-point plan of sin and lechery” for his second term. If reelected, the president said, he would begin by banning organized religion entirely—starting with Christianity—and burning all churches to the ground, preferably “with their wretched, Jesus-loving congregants still huddled inside like rats.”

AFCHIEF 8 months, 1 week ago

DR CAN YOU admit that Obama has failed in all those items I listed 40 mins ago.

I bet you can't admit that Obama has failed. But you want 4 more years of this failure.

If Romney is elected and fails, he needs to go also.

mcgal 8 months, 1 week ago

There is evil afoot tonight.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

mcgal-- "There is evil afoot tonight." Correct. And that evil is socialism. Cheers!

mcgal 8 months, 1 week ago

Is that what you call it, Thatcher?

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Yes. Socialism is evil. Cheers!

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Can't "admit" something that's not true, Chief.

But it seems that neither you nor Thatcher know what words mean. In Thatcher's case it's "socialism."

I liked the line humorist Andy Borowitz used the other day: "In other political news, the Dow Jones Industrial Average hit a four-year high, making President Obama the crappiest socialist in history."

AFCHIEF 8 months, 1 week ago

DR Can't admit something thats not true

SO THESE ARE ALL A LIE. Wow dude, thats amazing you cannot even admit to these FACTS

Close to 6 Trillion dollars and counting in new debt Unemployment still over 8% and will remain so for the foreseeable future NO BUDGET in over 3 years Gave Billions to his campaign supporters for bankrupt green energy companies

You have to watch some over news channels besides Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow. Try the Morning Joe show.

Nezumi 8 months, 1 week ago

DR - that is a hilarious article (Onion) - I need to bookmark the Onion again..."Agnosticism, contempt for human life, and radical sexual experimentation shall rule the day!"

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

And in your case, DR, it's "redistribution of wealth," as Obama calls it. I am known for having a difficult time understanding words. Words are hard.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Do any of the liberals here "actually believe in redistribution" of wealth, like Obama says he does? If not, why? If so, why? Cheers!

The_AnonymusProfit 8 months, 1 week ago

This **** is retarded

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

You have to watch some over news channels besides Ed Shultz and Rachel Maddow. Try the Morning Joe show.

Heh.

“The race is not over, he can turn it around, but this is one of the worst weeks in a general election I can remember." — MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, on Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remark, on “Morning Joe”

After noting that a strong Romney debate performance could deflate the controversy, Scarborough wrung his hands and decried perceived gaffes by the campaign: "...we had Clint Eastwood and then we had the chair, and then over this past week, it's been absolutely remarkable. You combined Libya and the press conference, which is polling horribly for him, the campaign shakeup yesterday that was in several publications, and then this video, very, very bad news."

SCARBOROUGH: Well, I – just a few points of view that are a little different than what Mitt Romney said. He said he has a terrific campaign. Actually he doesn't. He says that the campaign workers are working well together, well, actually, no, they're not working well together, and that his campaign's going in the right direction. No, it's not. And this is not being said by liberals, who are gleeful about what's happened to Mitt Romney's campaign over the past couple of weeks, these are conservatives.

These are GOP strategists. These are people that have invested in the Reagan revolution, invested in the Gingrich revolution of '94, invested in George W. Bush's campaign. They are so depressed this morning they just can't believe that Mitt Romney is blowing a race against a president who they believe has mismanaged the economy terribly over the past four years, has spent us $5 trillion deeper into debt, has run trillion-dollar deficits per year, has had the largest stimulus spending bill ever, has had the largest health care plan ever, and it's not working. Unemployment is still 8% plus, the economy is still in tatters, and Mitt Romney is blowing this race. It is too much for many Republicans to handle.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Scarborough: Romney needs to be told 'this is going poorly; you're going to lose'

Scarborough: Romney does sound like a plutocrat in those remarks

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

You cited Joe Scarborough. Noted. My question was do you believe in redistribution of wealth, like Obama says he does? If not, why not. If so, why?

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Just in case you forgot Obama says he believes in redistribution of wealth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJ.... Focus.

AFCHIEF 8 months, 1 week ago

Thatch, DR cannot even admit to Obamanation adding $6 trillion to the debt. Good luck with question.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Thatcher, I've already addressed your redistribution of wealth question by noting that, as used by you, it's a meaningless buzzword. Sorry, I won't parrot the "OMG OBAMA is so awful!" answer you seem to so desperately crave, but you're getting as blockheaded and annoying as fuggy when HE beats the dead horse to a fine powder when he doesn't get the answer he wanted.

And as for quoting Scarborough, do you just not read AFCHIEF's posts? I mean, I can understand that, because they're relentlessly stupid, but if you'd just looked, you'd realize why I was mentioning Morning Joe.

justpassingby2 8 months, 1 week ago

Okay thatcher, you buried the poor little girlie man as usual. No need to cause another meltdown.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

And Chief can't admit that the guy he demanded I watch is telling is hero Mitt that he's losing the election.

Yawn. Bored now. Off to write next week's column. The monkeys will really gibber in rage over this one.

And BTW, no one's even considering dropping my column at the Pilot. I have it on good authority from all concerned, but thanks for all the poorly spelled semi-illiterate nastygrams. They remind me why I'm not a conservative.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Not done JPB2. DR-- As I said in my original post, the "buzzword" was used by Obama himself. Do you agree with Obama or not? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJ.... Forget "buzzwords." Do you agree with Obama's own words? Yes or no.

The_AnonymusProfit 8 months, 1 week ago

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/18/obama-middle-east-mess-imagine-if-this-was-george-w-bush/

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

And whether DR has another meltdown is up to him. Not me. Cheers!

The_AnonymusProfit 8 months, 1 week ago

Just incase yall forgot what happens when you have a president like obama who ignores what the truth really is...

This is the consequence, some of us have obviously forgotten.

September 11, 2001 - As It Happened - The South Tower Attack by aaroman01

JD 8 months, 1 week ago

Second time you posted that video as some sort of insult to Obama. Obama wasn't asking for a memo wondering who Al-Qaida was a few months before or sitting dumbfounded infront of kids turning pale.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

"Yawn. Bored now." I might do the same if I was a liberal who had no answer. But since I'm a conservative, I'd answer it. DR will not.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Okay, back now. Column written. You're going to love it.

JD, as Mittens falls further and further behind, they're going to get more shrill and hysterical. We've seen it here already. Now it's OMG IF OBAMA'S ELECTED THERE'LL BE ANOTHER 9/11.!

Take it for what it is: panic.

Now, as for the video the Right has dug up from 1998 in a flailing attempt to counter mittens' statements of this very year, and which Thatcher is flogging like a rented mule. Let's take it point by point, even though, unlike the Romney video (which Mother Jones is releasing in its entirety), we only have a very brief clip without context.

Obama mentions that they've apparently just been talking about policy issues surrounding the "Working poor." You know, part of that 47% that doesn't pay taxes, so Mitt can't worry about them.

"I think what we're going to have to do is resuscitate the notion that government can be effective at all." Agreed.

"There has been a systematic, I don't think it's too strong to call it a propaganda campaign, against the possibility of government action and its efficacy." Agreed.

"I think some of it has been deserved." Agreed.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

"The Chicago housing authority has not been a model of good policy making." I know nothing about this example, so I can't agree or disagree.

"And neither, have been the Chicago Public schools." Again, I know noting about the Chicago public schools in 1998.I have a friend who has a child in them now and she doesn't seem to have any complaints.

"What that means is that, as we resuscitate this notion that we're all in this thing together..." Strongly agree with this notion, which the right clearly despises.

'Leave nobody behind...." Hmmmm. Sounds familiar. Agree.

"We do have to be innovative in thinking of the delivery systems that are actually effective and meet people where they live." Agree.

"And my suggestion I guess would be that the trick , and I think this would be one of the few areas where I think there would be technical issues that would have to be dealt with as well as political issues, I think the trick is how do we structure government systems that pool resources..."

What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.

"And hence facilitate some redistribution, because I do believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level." I've seen some stories insert the word [wealth] here in brackets, which is not what was said.

"So that everybody's got a shot." Of course, the right's going to hate that idea. I agree that everyone should have a shot.

So, given that Obama is talking about "redistribution" of undefined "resources" on a "certain level." to create "delivery systems" that "meet people where they live"--which should be a worthy goal of any government, then yes, I agree with this clip you've been waving around as if it was Obama quoting the Little Red Book. Sadly for you, it doesn't mean anything like you claim it does.

Now. Thatcher, I demand that you go through each of the points as I've broken them down and tell me if you agree or disagree.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

It's a sad commentary on the right that the minute they hear the word "redistribution" they go off baying like a pack of hounds without really listening to what's actually being said. And I predict they still won't listen, the simpletons will l just seize on that one word and claim it means Obama's a Marxist. Again, if he is, he's really bad at it, because the capitalists are doing great.

AFCHIEF 8 months, 1 week ago

Obama reelected, $25 trillion in debt, unemployment over 10%, still no budget, and Muslims will still hate us even though Obama professes he is one of them.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

So Chief do you agree with Scarborough, (who YOU recommended) that Romney's losing?

AFCHIEF 8 months, 1 week ago

No I don't. Because the left wing media will continue to paint the election over. After the debates the election will unfold and hopefully the country will watch and learn.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

(Reuters) - Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was the loser in a political fight over U.S. reaction to attacks last week on American diplomatic compounds in Libya and Egypt, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll on Tuesday. Four in 10 U.S. voters felt less favorably toward Romney after hearing about his criticism of President Barack Obama's handling of the attacks in which the U.S. ambassador to Libya was killed. Only 26 percent of the registered voters polled felt worse about Obama after hearing about the Democrat's comments about the violence in the Middle East, the survey said.

NATIONAL: OBAMA GAINS OVER ROMNEY

Incumbent has edge on handling foreign policy in wake of Middle East violence

Fully 9-in-10 likely voters have heard about the recent violence and protests at U.S. embassies in Africa and the Middle East, including 61% who have heard a lot about this and 29% who have heard a little. When asked about the two presidential contenders’ public response to the situation, 39% of likely voters approve of how Obama has handled the situation to 27% who disapprove, with the remainder being unaware of the president’s response. Opinion is more divided on how Mitt Romney has dealt with the situation – just 25% of likely voters approve of the GOP nominee’s response to 29% who disapprove. The poll also found that a majority (51%) of likely voters trust Obama more than Romney (42%) to handle the nation’s foreign policy. “If the past week was Mitt Romney’s opportunity to show how he would handle a foreign crisis, the GOP nominee did not put his best foot forward as far as voters are concerned,” said Patrick Murray, director of the New Jersey-based Monmouth University Polling Institute.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

No I don't. Because the left wing media will continue to paint the election over.

So now you regard Scarborough as "left wing media"? You told me he was the one I should be watching.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

How about Peggy Noonan, Chief? Do you regard Reagan's former speech writer as "left wing media"?

http://blogs.wsj.com/peggynoonan/2012/09/18/time-for-an-intervention/

Romney’s theory of the case is all wrong. His understanding of the political topography is wrong. And his tone is fatalistic. I can’t win these guys who will only vote their economic interests, but I can win these guys who will vote their economic interests, plus some guys in the middle, whoever they are. That’s too small and pinched and narrow. That’s not how Republicans emerge victorious—”I can’t win these guys.” You have to have more respect than that, and more affection, you don’t write anyone off, you invite everyone in. Reagan in 1984 used to put out his hand: “Come too, come walk with me.” Come join, come help, whatever is happening in your life. You know what Romney sounded like? Like a kid new to politics who thinks he got the inside lowdown on how it works from some operative. But those old operatives, they never know how it works. They knew how it worked for one cycle back in the day. They’re jockeys who rode Seabiscuit and thought they won a race.

justpassingby2 8 months, 1 week ago

On one side you have the right debating issues, even taking their candidate to task for missteps and on the other side we have the perfect incumbent that has never made a misstep in 4 years. See how stupid you and the left look dusty? You are telling everyone that at least some people on the right are being honest but you can't name someone on the left being honest! Maybe its the meds but the girlie man gets 'funnier' with his every post!

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

So how about you, justpassing? Do you agree with Scarborough and Noonan that Romney's losing this one? Or are you still just trolling?

justpassingby2 8 months, 1 week ago

I've said repeatedly that obama will win. The incumbent has every advantage and no President had lower expectations put upon him than obama. What is so sad is we thought we won last election and ended up with 4 more years of bush/cheney politics and policies. You are the epitome of 'its okay if done by democrats'. And to be sure you have your counterparts on the other side. I give Scars and Nooner credit for speaking their minds. Wish people on the left would have done the same when obama pissed on their heads and told them it was raining with his broken promises and failed leadership. This is why I began imploring democrats 2 years ago to let obama know you weren't happy with his performance. Not to abandon him but to remind him of WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD DO! In hindsight we wrongly reelected clinton and bush and in 4 years we will look back and know we were wrong again to reelect the incumbent! Lot easier to clean up a 4 year mess than an 8 year mess.

JimRussell44 8 months, 1 week ago

You can almost smell the fear on this website. The "anybody by Obama" crowd are literally and verbally reeking fear. Can't say that I blame them. Had I painted myself into the corner with a ticket like Romney/Ryan, I would be very afraid too. With less than 60 days to go and the debates yet to be held, will they even make it to the end without their tiny little minds exploding? Stay tuned.

Speaking of staying tuned, kind of funny to see those who think nobody watches MSNBC recommending that we watch MSNBC. Evidently, Fox News must be turning on the Romney ticket.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

It's clear you don't know any actual leftists, justpassing. The actual left, rather than the left of your fantasies, has been savaging Obama since he invited Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration. I quit reading some of my favorite left wing blogs because I was sick of the OMG WE ARE BETRAYED OBAMA IS JUST LIKE BUSH nonsense. You had actual leftists like Jane Hamsher (the well-known Firebagger) appearing with Grover Norquist, of all people, demanding that "Obamacare" be killed. Of course they wanted it killed because it wasn't single payer, which a real leftist would have insisted on..

So I call shenanigans on your claim to be a Democrat, or you'd know about these things. These were actual debates going on in the party, and your insistence that "the left" was solidly behind Obama is sheer right wing bunkum. It took the realization that people like Santorum, Newt, and R-money could roll back decades of progressive gains to get them to stop bickering.

So, based on what you clearly don't know about the left or the Democratic Party, and your parroting of right wing talking points, I conclude that you're clearly nothing but a concern troll[2], and a transparent one at that.

[1] A person nominally of the political left viewed as excessively critical of President Barack Obama, especially if the tendency is to reflexively or obsessively criticize him and seemingly not other political figures. Etymology: Jane Hamsher's popular, left-leaning FireDogLake blog was regarded by Democratic moderates as having gone around the bend in being hypercritical, such as when Hamsher appeared on Fox News to denounce Obama's Health Care Bill, got involved with Neocon zealot Grover Norquist and even reportedly Tea Party activists. Thus, FireDogLake + Teabagger.

[2]In an argument (usually a political debate), a concern troll is someone who is on one side of the discussion, but pretends to be a supporter of the other side with "concerns". The idea behind this is that your opponents will take your arguments more seriously if they think you're an ally. Concern trolls who use fake identities are sometimes known as sockpuppets.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

The "anybody by Obama" crowd are literally and verbally reeking fear. Can't say that I blame them. Had I painted myself into the corner with a ticket like Romney/Ryan, I would be very afraid too.

Yeah, that's one funny thing. They don't even like Gov. Etch a Sketch that much. but they've bought into this "everybody hates Obama so it doesn't matter who we nominate" shtick...and now that's failing, the Romney campaign is floundering and debating a new message in mid-September, and they're freaking out and defending Romney like he's the One True Voice of Conservatism. But since they don't really believe that, they're just ramping up the attacks on the President to the point of total hysteria. There's a lot of speculation on one of my favorite blogs as to which right winger will drop the first "n-word." The favorite seems to be Rush Limbaugh, but I suspect it'll be someone like Trump, caught when he doesn't realize he's being recorded.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/mitt-romneys-severe-conservatism_652663.html

The reason such remarks keep slipping out of Mitt Romney's mouth is not that Romney wants to wage a class war against lower-income Americans. The likely problem is that Mitt Romney is not a conservative--or at least wasn't a conservative until late in life--but he is running for president as the nominee of the conservative party on a conservative platform. So he has trouble defending conservative ideas. And when he sells himself to conservatives, he sometimes comes across as a right-wing caricature.

So, Chief, is The Weekly Standard now "left wing media"?

tarheelz 8 months, 1 week ago

I have never so thoroughly enjoyed watching a presidential candidate's campaign implode. To Romney's handlers...he almost looks "life-like" but he is in serious need of an empathy chip.

SH59 8 months, 1 week ago

As I wrote in another conversation: Sadly Romney is going down hill and won't make it to the presidency. At least the Republicans have another 4 years to come up with a decent candidate who knows what he's doing and someone who isn't ruled by the Tea Party. They have really screwed things up this year and it's all going to backfire on them in November.

JD 8 months, 1 week ago

I like how Romney is doubling down on insulting poor Republican states.

by JD

Courseaire 8 months, 1 week ago

So, if I read your chart right, the medium number is 35% rather than 47%, but that represents all filers, not those that voted for or will vote for Obama. Still pretty pathetic.

Noluv4thugs 8 months, 1 week ago

I don't even read Jerry's columns anymore. it's the SSDD, always recycled thoughts very few of which are his own. He is not worth the time to argue with. Romney or Obama, doesn't matter. They're going to do what the money tells them to do. i love weak simple-minded fools, their a reminder that not everything has evolved.

JD 8 months, 1 week ago

Courseaire

You are reading it wrong. What's pathetic, that Romeny is reduced to insulting his base and calling them Democrats. Yea it's pathetic just like Romney.

The red states have the higher rate of those that depend on welfare and do not pay federal taxes in the most. And the number is not 35%. The smallest red number is 39% while the highest is 45%, which puts the average at about 43% of people in Republican states collect benefits that Mitt is decrying against those Republican states as a Democratic fault for them not paying taxes.

Mitt the Twit needs to stop being divisive and playing at dirty politics. But he has no substance to run on and just the option of "not Obama." Of course 'If he was Latino'...

Courseaire 8 months, 1 week ago

Yes, but who is paying the taxes and who is collecting the benefits? The chart doesn't show that and really has no correlation to what Romney said. The difference between a red state & blue state is minimal at best with the exception of maybe California, Maryland and Mass,

JD 8 months, 1 week ago

Yes it does, read the legend Courseaire. The blue highlighted states are states that pay the most in federal taxes. The red takes the most and pays the least. Interesting the states that take the most and pay the least are Republican leaning states. Understanding charts is more than looking at a pretty picture. So if the mean of the red states are 43% that is a +/- 4% off from what Romney said so yes it has relevance.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Meanwhile, speaking of maps, here's the electoral map, from the conservative-leaning Real Clear Politics:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Obama picks up Wisconsin (ahead by an average of 6.4 points) and Michigan (ahead by an average of 6.3) to give him 247 out of the 270 he needs. And remember, this is the most cautious of the electoral vote counting sites when it comes to giving a state to a candidate. They still have Ohio tied, even though Obama's up by 4.2 there. They also have Virginia (where Obama's up by 3), and Nevada (up by 3.3) as tied. Any of those go to Obama and he gets a second term. Again. Mitt has to run the table, which he shows no signs of being able to do so far.

Now please share your delusions, off topic insults, and hand-waving away of inconvenient numbers with me. I'm thoroughly enjoying the desperation.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

DR's attempts, in a small way, to dispirit conservatives. It's what they do. And it's funny. Cheers!

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Thatcher: I might say the same if I was a conservative who had no answer. Like you have no answer to my analysis of the video you were touting above, after repeatedly demanding I respond to it.

Bombardiers!

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Uh...where to start? Obama says on the clip that he believes in redistribution of wealth. Conservatives have always known this, but apparently it was news to you. So, your "analysis" (your word) was to say (1 day ago, 1 day and 1 hour ago, 21 hours and 23 min. ago) that I was using "buzzwords," despite the fact that Obama was saying these very words himself. Very keen "analysis." But we poor souls who are not as smart as you think you are, will still wait, breathlessly, for your every objective poll update. Because, even though you think we're stupid, we all know you are the most objective, fair-minded, and kind soul to ever grace these threads. Cheers!

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Your fair, objective "analysis" is legend here. Cheers!

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Obama says on the clip that he believes in redistribution of wealth.

Give me the time--minute and second- on the clip where he uses the word "wealth."

Algiers!

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Sure! 0-1:36 minute (including the "we need to pool resources" at 1:26, before redistributing them). Hope that helps.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Let me guess, DR, you're going to claim that Obama wanted to redistribute the savings from cutting the deficit in half. You are so funny!

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

For those following along, here's what Obama said about his desire to redistribute weath: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJ.... DR seems to think that Obama wanted to redistribute something other than wealth. He won't tell us what that is, but he'll go down in flames trying to distort what Obama (and DR) actually believe. They want to redistribute wealth.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Sure! 0-1:36 minute (including the "we need to pool resources" at 1:26, before redistributing them). Hope that helps.

I said, show me where he uses the word "wealth," Thatcher.

You're admitting he doesn't use the term "wealth," right? So when you say he says he wants to redostribute "wealth," that's not true, right? It's not what he said, is it?

Duck and dive, wriggle and turn, and try to change the subject all you want, Thatcher, but it's not what Obama said. and you know it.

Souvenirs!

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Thatcher is going to keep claiming that Barack Obama said he wanted to "redistribute wealth" when the very link he keeps obsessively posting proves that he's lying.

That sort of thing is the very essence of wingnuttery: the idea that the way to deal with being caught in a lie is to repeat the lie over and over and over. No wonder you like Mittens and Lyin' Ryan so much. It's their modus operandi. *And that's why they're losing.*

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Golly DR, I think Obama wanted to redistribute antique cars. Or maybe he wanted to redistribute the common cold. Of course, he could have wanted to redistribute spandex. Just tell us, DR: what do you believe Obama wanted to redistribute? If not wealth, what else? Just tell us.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Now I'm lying? You've gone from pathetic to just being sad. When you actually tell folks here what Obama wants to redistribute (as discussed in the clip), maybe some will listen to you. If it's not wealth, then I'm sure you will tell everyone here what it is Obama wants to redistribute. Just tell us DR. What does Obama want to redistribute?

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

I've already answered what "resources" might have been, Thatcher. But of course, you're going to keep claiming that I haven't. Just like you're going to keep claiming that Obama said "wealth' when he didn't.

You're done here.Oh, I'm sure your little sock monkey justpassing will be along presently to tell you how you showed the 'girly man'. I'm sure AFCHIEF and Ryan the Anonymous Profit will join in as well. Preacher Geoff will probably be along to shake his finger, too.

That's your fan base, Thatcher. A mentally challenged twelve year old who's snickering at how clever he is as he posts anonymous insults on his parent's computer, an insufferable hypocrite, and a pair of nimrods too blessed dumb to tell parody videos from real ones. Cheers!

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Wow DR! That was an amazing post. But please tell everyone here what it is that Obama wants to redistribute. Instead of saying Thatcher "you're done here," or talking about "sock monkeys," let me ask you again in MC7s way: WHAT DOES OBAMA WANT TO REDISTRIBUTE, AND IF IT'S NOT WEALTH, THEN WHAT IS IT? Just tell us? "Sock monkeys" are stupid, and calling my friend Geoff names does NOTHING. Answer the question. C'mon DR, all the liberals here are counting on you to tell them what Obama wants to redistribute. If not wealth, what? (P.S. Calling him "Preacher Geoff" is appropriate...you should listen to him).

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

How many times do I have to post something before you'll admit reading it?

*What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.

What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.

What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.*

Is that enough, Thatcher? Or do you need some more?

What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Hope this helps.

Have a nice night.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Thanks DR!! Your best post ever! Too funny!!!

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Or, it "could be" whatever you want it to be. Hilarious!

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

But he doesn't say "Wealth." Admit it.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

No. He says "the common cold." Admit it. Go to bed. This is pathetic.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Your worst night. Ever.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Still can't admit the truth, Thatcher? Very sad.

You sort of remind me of Colin Powell. You used to have a reputation for credibility here, then you squandered it in the service of a lie. Now you're just another wingnut.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Your best post ever! Too funny!!!

Your worst night. Ever.

BTW, if you'd really done as well as you want people to think you have, you wouldn't have felt the need to post either of these, let alone both. Just sayin'.

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Oh, dear, Thatcher...it appears as if more of the video which you've been touting as proof positive that Obama's a socialist has surfaced...and it makes you look even more foolish. Because the very next sentence after the place where your video cut off is this:

How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.

*The video circulated by Republicans, which has used as fodder for an attack on Obama, includes a longer reflection by Obama about talking about how government action can be effective. But the clip has been cut short after the word "shot; Obama's words about competition, the marketplace and innovation are omitted from the clip.

Now what will Thatcher do?

(1) Double down on the lie? "Obama still said he likes redistributing wealth!"

(2) Complain about how mean I'm being?

(3) Avoid the subject by telling me I'm having a "meltdown"?

(4) Try and change the subject?

(5) Run out the clock and run away till the comments close, then repeat the Zombie Lie in another thread?

(6) Rag on MSNBC, who has the whole tape, without ever acknowledging the dishonest edit?

Stay tuned....

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

I choose (7): Post the entire MSNBC clip. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/19/13971913-in-rest-of-98-clip-obama-speaks-of-competition-and-the-marketplace?lite. Now, back to my question: tell us, DR, what does Obama want to redistribute? And how will that redistribution affect the "marketplace" and "competition?"

dustyrhoades 8 months, 1 week ago

Since you need it a few more times:

What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.What exactly does 'resources' mean? Could be people, could be money, could be materiel. It's pretty clear that Obama here is talking about small scale "where people live" structures and effective utilization of resources rather than some grand scheme of confiscation.

It's clear you've given up having an honest discussion about this, in favor of obnoxiously asking the same question over and over after it's already been answered, multiple times. You've lost, and everyone here knows it.

how will that redistribution affect the "marketplace" and "competition?"

I don't know, and it's not addressed in the clip. I'd repeat that a hundred times, but even then I don't think it'd do the job. I don't think you're dense; I think watching your hero's victory chances declining has sent you into a desperate attempt to throw something, anything at the wall to see if it sticks. Well, it's sticking to the Republicans, again. Jeers!

Courseaire 8 months, 1 week ago

I hear that as part of Obama's redistribution of "Resources" plan, he's going to rent rooms at the White House. The Wealthy pay $5,000 per night, Middle Class $500 per night, Low Income only $5 per night and deposit the proceeds into the Food Stamp program.

Thatcher 8 months, 1 week ago

Other than Charlie Sheen, I've never seen someone so obsessed with proclaiming themselves as "winning." So while you're "winning," DR, please tell us (based upon your explanation) how Obama intends to redistribute "people?" And how would Obama redistribute "materiel?" And if you get a chance, take a look at the meaning of "redistribution." Go ahead! It's fun! For liberals, it's heaven!

Democrats Won Battle of the Conventions

More like this story

Comments

May events