2012 Presidential Election

[Mistermoonlight]

Sept 16, 2012 20:34:22 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Ye gods, your condescention just drips through your screed.

If name-calling is restricted only to followers, the democrat party is positively smothered by them in their rank and file.

I find Joe Biden to be so ignorant, intellectually lazy and vapid that I find it extrememly difficult to take him seriously. He's been sucking off the governmental teat for over 30 years and wouldn't know how real jobs are created if he spent a month of Sundays on the campaign trail.

I've watched him in action in the Senate where he loved to preside over ineffectual oversight committee meetings. C-Span hasn't been his greatest friend.

So, my friend, before you try the old leftist trick of trying to dump everyone who doesn't think like you into a "less than intelligent" club, just take a moment to realize that many people have watched Joe and have found him wanting. And not just wanting but pathetic, intellectually barren and a big reason those of us who oppose this current administration are so vocal.

Quit trying to demean and belittle those who use colorful language to slap a politician around. Many of them deserve less.

Compliments on your use of the word 'screed.' It's one you hardly ever see, and I had to look it up myself to know what it meant. I love words, so, thanks to you, I learned a new one today.

In terms of trying to dump anyone who doesn't think like you into a 'less than intelligent' club, here's where Republican Rick Santorum defines the standoff as consisting of 'the elite smart people and media VS church and family.' He says the Republican party will never have the 'smart people.'




I wonder how that makes former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich feel, as he actually has an udergraduate degree in history from Emory, as well as a masters degree and doctorate from Tulane, and has worked as a professor at West Georgia College.

I'd never accuse Mr. Gingrich of being dumb, (even though I don't agree with him) and certainly never the brilliant mind of William F. Buckley. Santorum denigrates his own party, along with the oppostion.

If I have a choice such as the one Mr.Santorum would make, between the best and brightest in public service and the Pat Robertsons, it's not hard for me to make that choice at all.

[SoCal]

Last time I checked the news, the candidates were Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

Maybe I should be re-playing Jimmy Carter's speeches, or perhaps Walter Mondale's or maybe Jesse Jackson's or John Edwards or Howard Dean.

Stick to the candidates.

Not the also-rans.

[AntiArbitrator]

I probably should play it safe and leave this thread alone before crazy rule 205 kicks in, but I cannot resist.


By Ian Kerner Special to CNN

Poll: Republicans have better sex, liberals have more
5,000 single men and women participate in Binghamton University survey
UPDATED 5:55 AM EDT Sep 19, 2012


Read more: www.wbaltv.com/news/health/Poll-Republicans-have-better-sex-liberals-have-more/-/9379230/16653102/-/2yiejl/-/index.html#ixzz26w0OR86E

[3sheets2thewind]

I'm always leary of polls as most are push polls.

Why didn't the article include the questions or the number of questions asked?
Were the answers of the poll a yes, no or multiple choice?

There are a lot of red flags in the article that this was a push poll as a legitimate polling article will include the polling question, state if the answers were yes, no or multiple choice, the average age of the participants, the average income, the average education level, etc. signs of a push poll is a lack of specifications about the polling process.

For those who may not know what a push poll it is when the sponsor (the sponsor for this poll was Match.com) of the poll are looking for a certain kind of answer and the questions are worded in such a way to get the "proper' answer that the sponsor wanted and not really an unbias poll.

[KyleEl]

Sept 12, 2012 17:33:59 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Who cares what Mike Huckabee says?

I'm certainly not going to decide whether or not to vote or who to vote for based on anything Mike Huckabee says or anything Bill Clinton says.

I will vote for the person who most closely supports those positions I support.

If I did that I'd have to vote for Obama.

But I know that's not a good idea. Any reduction in the unemployment rate is people giving up. Any increase in the number of jobs is people taking jobs that don't reflect their abilities and education.

And Obama's solution to the debt is to tax the rich more. While I technically agree with that, there aren't enough rich and if they're paying more taxes they won't hire people even more than they weren't hiring people when W was still in office.

[KyleEl]

Sept 15, 2012 16:40:09 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Well, gee, thank you very little for a suggestion not asked for.



He hasn't got a clue. He has no idea what he is doing. On the day American citizens were being murdered in Libya, he didn't see the need to NOT attend a fund raiser in Las Vegas or rub elbows with Beyonce.

He always has been, is, and always will be a fool.

Plus one of my Facebook friends, who I never actually met though her husband gave me a ride to a meal with my French class once, says Obama could have met with Netanyahu regarding the efforts to stop Iran and Israel from getting into a nuclear war. Instead he appeared on Letterman.

[AntiArbitrator]

Sept 19, 2012 12:39:42 GMT -5 3sheets2thewind said:

I'm always leary of polls as most are push polls.

Why didn't the article include the questions or the number of questions asked?
Were the answers of the poll a yes, no or multiple choice?

There are a lot of red flags in the article that this was a push poll as a legitimate polling article will include the polling question, state if the answers were yes, no or multiple choice, the average age of the participants, the average income, the average education level, etc. signs of a push poll is a lack of specifications about the polling process.

For those who may not know what a push poll it is when the sponsor (the sponsor for this poll was Match.com) of the poll are looking for a certain kind of answer and the questions are worded in such a way to get the "proper' answer that the sponsor wanted and not really an unbias poll.

Sheets, thanks. I will not use the poll as a basis for switching affiliation.

[3sheets2thewind]

Sept 19, 2012 12:58:45 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

Sept 15, 2012 16:40:09 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Well, gee, thank you very little for a suggestion not asked for.



He hasn't got a clue. He has no idea what he is doing. On the day American citizens were being murdered in Libya, he didn't see the need to NOT attend a fund raiser in Las Vegas or rub elbows with Beyonce.

He always has been, is, and always will be a fool.

Plus one of my Facebook friends, who I never actually met though her husband gave me a ride to a meal with my French class once, says Obama could have met with Netanyahu regarding the efforts to stop Iran and Israel from getting into a nuclear war. Instead he appeared on Letterman.

This has been totally debunked Natanyahu NEVER asked to see the president, they never had an appointment. they do speak on the phone.

[SoCal]

Sept 19, 2012 13:10:05 GMT -5 3sheets2thewind said:

Sept 19, 2012 12:58:45 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

Plus one of my Facebook friends, who I never actually met though her husband gave me a ride to a meal with my French class once, says Obama could have met with Netanyahu regarding the efforts to stop Iran and Israel from getting into a nuclear war. Instead he appeared on Letterman.

This has been totally debunked Natanyahu NEVER asked to see the president, they never had an appointment. they do speak on the phone.

Why do you keep quoting me when I haven't said ANYTHING about Barry and Netanyahu?

I was posting about how Barry prefers to go to funraisers (with the 1%'s from Hollywood and recently from the music industry) and appear on cozy shows like Letterman than deal with Americans being killed and embassies being overrun in the middle east.

I guess he had to wait for his teleprompter to arrive before he could make any kind of statement.

And what Romney said about him and the State Dept's initial apology were spot on.

The same lefties who screamed about free speech during the Bush years are strangely quiet now. I guess they only like free speech when it comes to bashing Chritianity and conservatives.

Barry is clueless. He is destroying this country.

How's that for free speech?

[KyleEl]

Sept 19, 2012 13:26:57 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Why do you keep quoting me when I haven't said ANYTHING about Barry and Netanyahu?

I was posting about how Barry prefers to go to funraisers (with the 1%'s from Hollywood and recently from the music industry) and appear on cozy shows like Letterman than deal with Americans being killed and embassies being overrun in the middle east.

I was making that exact point.

[SoCal]

Glad you agree that Barry is a media whore who would rather party with Jay-Z and Beyonce than take care of American citizens serving the government overseas.

Barry sucks.

Ah, free speech, I love you!

[Mistermoonlight]

"Smithers, tell that ragamuffin pauper it's 99%, not 47."

[KyleEl]

Sept 19, 2012 14:20:57 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Glad you agree that Barry is a media whore who would rather party with Jay-Z and Beyonce than take care of American citizens serving the government overseas.

Barry sucks.

Ah, free speech, I love you!

As my Facebook friend said, I want a leader, not a celebrity.

[Mistermoonlight]

Sept 19, 2012 14:20:57 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Glad you agree that Barry is a media whore who would rather party with Jay-Z and Beyonce than take care of American citizens serving the government overseas.

Barry sucks.

Ah, free speech, I love you!

Let's let folks see this horrific appearance on David Letterman in which President Obama dares to come off as a decent, concerned, even witty leader, in shocking opposition to Fox/Republicans naming him the Antichrist.

[SoCal]

I'M NOT VOTING FOR A CELEBRITY OR A GREAT GUEST.

I'M VOTING FOR A LEADER NOT A COMMUNITY AGITATOR.

[AntiArbitrator]

Sept 19, 2012 15:28:50 GMT -5 SoCal said:

I'M NOT VOTING FOR A CELEBRITY OR A GREAT GUEST.

I'M VOTING FOR A LEADER NOT A COMMUNITY AGITATOR.

Is this post in response to crazy rule #72?

72. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, TYPE IN ALL CAPS. SOME OF OUR MEMBERS SUFFER FROM HEARING LOSS.

[SoCal]

Sometimes I think Moon is DEAF.

[AntiArbitrator]

Sept 19, 2012 15:53:16 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Sometimes I think Moon is DEAF.

Do we need a rule regarding SELECTIVE LISTENING?

[KyleEl]

Sept 19, 2012 15:26:10 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

Let's let folks see this horrific appearance on David Letterman in which President Obama dares to come off as a decent, concerned, even witty leader, in shocking opposition to Fox/Republicans naming him the Antichrist.

I accept that he is decent, concerned and even witty, but witty isn't getting the job done.

[Mistermoonlight]

Sept 19, 2012 16:05:48 GMT -5 KyleEl said:

Sept 19, 2012 15:26:10 GMT -5 Mistermoonlight said:

Let's let folks see this horrific appearance on David Letterman in which President Obama dares to come off as a decent, concerned, even witty leader, in shocking opposition to Fox/Republicans naming him the Antichrist.

I accept that he is decent, concerned and even witty, but witty isn't getting the job done.

Apparently neither are 47% of American citizens.

[SoCal]

I haven't heard any mainstream Republican call him the anti-Christ, unlike democrats who routinely called Bush "Hilter."

I don't care how sweet and comfy he looks on a sofa with someone as disgusting and over the board in love with Obama as David Letterman.

Let him appear on a hard hitting news program where he is asked hard questions.....not, "What superpower would you like to have?"

Barry is in over his head and has no idea what he is supposed to do as president. All he knows how to do is campaign, fund raise and make speeches (as long as he has his teleprompter close by).

He's a fool.......and a dangerous fool at that.



New information reveals President Barack Obama conducted interviews with entertainment magazines and posed for a photo spread last Friday as American embassies burned and 21 countries erupted into ant-American protests.
Instead of spending precious time dealing with the developing crisis in the Mid East and with his foreign policy scheme in a total freefall, on Friday morning, September 14, Obama was giving an interview to the entertainment magazine People en Español and participating in a photo session with photographer Omar Cruz.

This interview was not on his public schedule and was hidden from the public.

Friday, September 14th was the same day that four flag-draped coffins of those killed at the U.S. Libyan embassy arrived at Andrews Air Force base.

The interview came to public attention when individuals who work for the magazine tweeted about their visit after the event was over.

Our fearless leader -- what a complete and utter asshole.

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. "

[Aeryn]

displacedcwloungefan.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=general&thread=1726&page=6#70349

[AntiArbitrator]

I love crazy rule #205.

[Mistermoonlight]

Who will Homer vote for?

[SoCal]

Obama: ‘You Can’t Change Washington from the Inside’
Major gaffe overshadows appearance at Univison forum

BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
September 20, 2012 3:31 pm
President Obama has learned something during his presidency: You can’t change Washington from the inside.

“The most important lesson I’ve learned is that you can’t change Washington from the inside,” he told a Univision forum Thursday. “You can only change it from the outside.”

The remark immediately set off the political media on Twitter.

“(This) is perhaps Obama’s worst gaffe since he met Joe the Plumber?” BuzzFeed editor Ben Smith asked on Twitter Thursday afternoon.

I'm voting to send him home to Chi-town where he can work on "changing Washington from the outside."

[KyleEl]

It's a shame candidates need to raise so much money. Mike Huckabee said yesterday that event with Beyonce and Jay-Z was $40,000 a plate and the media were not allowed to take a photo of the tower of champagne or whatever it is.

Seems like these people could spend money actually helping people.

I saw the SNL prime-time special last night. Wow, they're mean to Romney. But it was funny and I hope he can laugh at it too.

[SoCal]

Obama can't seem to decide if it was terrorism or reaction to a film clip:

Posted at 12:11 PM ET, 09/21/2012 TheWashingtonPost Obama’s embassy cover story dissolves
By Jennifer Rubin
It is a measure of how skewed the reporting is and how intellectually inconsistent is most of the “analysis” from the mainstream media that while Mitt Romney’s comment on the embassy attacks held the attention of the press for days (when in fact he had correctly surmised that the administration was trying to make excuses for the embassy attack by expressing regret over an anti-Muslim video), there has been comparatively little concern with a much more critical story: Did the Obama team intentionally lie to voters (or just shoot first and aim later) for a week about what it knew, and did the deaths of four Americans result, in part, from defective security and preparation at the Benghazi consulate? Well, thankfully some reporters are beginning to perk up, although the “opinion makers” are trying their best to bury their heads in the sand, wary, no doubt, about attacking the president and effectively admitting they had failed to grasp the real story.

There is ample evidence that the administration screwed up. The Wall Street Journal has a must-read in-depth report that explains what the administration has refused to tell us:

The deadly assault on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya on Sept. 11 was preceded by a succession of security lapses and misjudgments, compounded by fog-of-battle decisions, that raise questions about whether the scope of the tragedy could have been contained.
U.S. officials issued alerts and ordered security precautions in neighboring Egypt ahead of protests and violence on Sept. 11, but largely overlooked the possibility of trouble at other diplomatic postings in the region.
The State Department chose to maintain only limited security in Benghazi, Libya, despite months of sporadic attacks there on U.S. and other Western missions
That is a scandal of the first order, which in any unbiased media environment would be the biggest story of the year and reason to demand a full explanation from the White House. Did Obama and his advisers incorrectly assess the ongoing threat of jihadists, lack sufficient intelligence on the ground in Libya (after chest-thumping about our leading-from-behind strategy in the war) and fail to grasp that blaming a video is only feeding into the mentality of the jihadists (i.e., the West is to blame for violence)?

Now, let’s see how the administration, either by mendacity or incompetence, put out a false story of the attacks, which is now shredding day by day.

For a week the White House press secretary, the ambassador to the United Nations and the president told us this was about an anti-Muslim video, was spontaneous and did not reflect on the United States or its policies. Then yesterday, as news reports and lawmakers were decrying this as patently false (and the day after a national security official called the assault a “terrorist” attack), the White House changed its tune. Jay Carney for the first time used “terrorist” in connection with the attack. And the president for the first time conceded that the video was a pretext. The Associated Press reports:


President Barack Obama said Thursday that extremists used an anti-Islam video as an excuse to assault U.S. interests overseas, including an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans.
The president’s comments came as Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton faced questions from members of the House and Senate about the Sept. 11 attack on the consulate in Benghazi in a series of closed-door classified briefings on Capitol Hill. . . .
“What we do know is that the natural protests that arose because of the outrage over the video were used as an excuse by extremists to see if they can also directly harm U.S. interests,” the president said at a candidate forum on the Spanish-language network Univision.
Asked if that meant al-Qaida, Obama said, “We don’t know yet.”
In short, only under pressure from outside reports and lawmakers, who openly disputed the administration’s cover story and blew up over a useless briefing, did the administration try an about-face.

There is no way to reconcile the first Obama story (spontaneous, all about the movie) and the new version (terrorism, the movie was a pretext). By definition, terrorists don’t act spontaneously, nor do they get offended by movies. They are “offended” by the West and are at war with us.

National security reporter Eli Lake is one of the few to connect the dots and point the finger back to the White House. He writes:


Ten days after the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, the White House’s official story about the incident appears to be falling apart.
In the days following the killing of the U.S. ambassador and two ex-Navy SEALs, President Obama and top State Department officials portrayed the attack as a spontaneous reaction to an Internet video depicting the Muslim prophet Mohammad as a lascivious brute. The protests, White House spokesman Jay Carney said last week, were “in response to a video—a film—that we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.”
It remains an open question whether the administration was intentionally misleading the public so as to avoid the appearance of an administration failure, or was simply making things up without pinning down the facts (what the Democrats accused Romney of doing). Lake quotes a retired CIA official as saying: “I think this is a case of an administration saying what they wished to be true before waiting for all the facts to come in.” That’s the most generous take on what happened.

But now that we know the administration was wrong, why no demands for an apology, let alone an explanation? Why do the pundits turn a blind eye after raking Romney over the coals for calling out the administration’s first sniveling responses to the attack?

The State Department spokeswoman was doing her best yesterday to be nondefinitive:

QUESTION: Before we leave this part of the world, can I just ask you about reporting out there? That’s – a former Guantanamo detainee – detainees – is believed to have been behind the attack in Benghazi.
MS. NULAND: I saw that report. Frankly, I don’t have anything for you on it one way or the other. The intelligence community, I expect, will speak to it.
That might be the most honest thing said since the murders occurred, namely that the Obama administration doesn’t know very much.

What an idiot we have in the WH.

[SoCal]

For all the so-called undecided voters:

"The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict."--Martin Luther King, Jr.

[jamesottosweethart]

^^^ I believe that the Lord and only the Lord decides who goes where.

God bless you always!!!

Holly

[Mistermoonlight]

It's pretty much over. The 47% comment did it.


But, listen to this message from the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. and wake up. Listen to your little sister. And Nick Fury.



wtfu2012.com/