Galt/Barleycorn/Deacon watches Charles Sourkrauthammer.
The most bitter man on television. Course if you broke you neck diving into the pool and were paralyzed you would likely be a sour asshole too. Originally Posted by catnipdipper
- Whirlaway
- 02-01-2012, 02:40 PM
Wrong; Keith Olberman followed by the drunk Chris Matthews !
- wellendowed1911
- 02-01-2012, 03:09 PM
Are you serious? Given the state of the economy and the unemployment rate, Obama should be down 10 points to a chimpanzee.Tim I have been trying to get WhirlWay to open his eyes- if we have 8% UE rate and Obama is at a tie with a leading GOP contender that should scare the hell out of the GOP base- as you mentioned with current conditions Obama should be way behind. There's a reason why the GOP don't what to pass any good bills because they want the economy in shambles but this has backfired big time.
We'll see. Long way to go, Obama has got a lot of money to spend, is a hell of a lot better campaigner than Romney is, and Romney will be battered and bruised by the end of the primary process. Originally Posted by timpage
Also, Whirlway if you need me to send you the links- both Santorum and Newt have both said that if Romney is the nominee that he will not be able to defeat Obama- so Romney's own contenders don't see him winning. Also, the fact that 1/3 of GOP voters as of today wants someone else to run how in the hell could that be anything but trouble for the GOP??????
- Whirlaway
- 02-01-2012, 03:15 PM
And how did it play out when Hillary said Obama can't beat McCain ??? McCain.............so, Obama's own contenders didn't see him winning in 2008 !
Your point is what?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...inton-argue-1/
Your point is what?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...inton-argue-1/
Also, Whirlway if you need me to send you the links- both Santorum and Newt have both said that if Romney is the nominee that he will not be able to defeat Obama- so Romney's own contenders don't see him winning. Also, the fact that 1/3 of GOP voters as of today wants someone else to run how in the hell could that be anything but trouble for the GOP?????? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
- JD Barleycorn
- 02-01-2012, 03:21 PM
Like I said earlier, it is a state by state election. Here is what Gallup says about it
- wellendowed1911
- 02-01-2012, 03:24 PM
And how did it play out when Hillary said Obama can't beat McCain ??? McCain.............so, Obama's own contenders didn't see him winning in 2008 !Whirlway maybe I missed something but can you quote me where Clinton said verbatim that Obama would lose to McCain or Mccain will beat Obama? What I read is she stated McCain would be a formidable opponent and that their were battleground states that Dems must win to beat Mccain.
Your point is what?
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...inton-argue-1/ Originally Posted by Whirlaway
If I say that the NY Giants will be a very tough team to beat in the SuperBowl that is not the same as me saying the Patriots will surely lose- 2 different things. However, maybe I misread the article so please quote me where she said the words:"Obama can't or will not beat McCain" I sure as hell can quote you where Santorum and Newt both in their words and nothing taking out of context that Mitt will not beat Obama.
- JD Barleycorn
- 02-01-2012, 03:25 PM
CDN, who is John? Another fig in your imagination. Yes, I said fig. It is all fruity up there.
- Whirlaway
- 02-01-2012, 03:28 PM
Post the links if they exists.......I doubt Santorum or Newt were any more explicit than Hillary's own assertion that Obama can't beat McCain.
......Also, Whirlway if you need me to send you the links- both Santorum and Newt have both said that if Romney is the nominee that he will not be able to defeat Obama- .............. Originally Posted by wellendowed1911
- wellendowed1911
- 02-01-2012, 03:33 PM
Post the links if they exists....... Originally Posted by WhirlawayHere is Santorum's quote: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...y-in-november/
And keep in mind Santorum went as far as saying Mitt will get destroyed by Obama- can you admit that Clinton never made that comment and you and the article took it out of context? I will post Newt's comment about Mitt vs Obama after you answer my question.
In case you can't find it this is the actual quote from Santorum: He said Barack Obama would "destroy" Romney in the general election because he does not represent a "bold and courageous" contrast to the president.
- TheDaliLama
- 02-01-2012, 03:35 PM
President Mitt Romney will be an excellent President.
Much much better the Mr Obama.
Isn't odd how the B.O.ZOS aren't chanting "4 more years"?
I guess that's hard to do with that lousy record he has.
Much much better the Mr Obama.
Isn't odd how the B.O.ZOS aren't chanting "4 more years"?
I guess that's hard to do with that lousy record he has.
- wellendowed1911
- 02-01-2012, 04:13 PM
President Mitt Romney will be an excellent President.I am sure millions of independents are waiting to vote for Romney- the same Romney who has swiss bank accounts and accounts in the Cayman Islands in order avoid paying fees that many Americas pay and to take advantage of a tax system that majority of Americans think needs to be changed. The same Romney who was bold enough to bet 10k on a national debate. The same Romney who just hours ago said he is not concerned about the poor. No one is buying Romney's effort to appeal to the Middle class- Obama 2012!!!!
Much much better the Mr Obama.
Isn't odd how the B.O.ZOS aren't chanting "4 more years"?
I guess that's hard to do with that lousy record he has. Originally Posted by TheDaliLama
- CuteOldGuy
- 02-01-2012, 04:20 PM
There is a reason why the Republicans will likely lose in November. They are idiots. This election was theirs to lose, and I think they will show their talent for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But that's just my opinion.
- wellendowed1911
- 02-01-2012, 04:37 PM
- TheDaliLama
- 02-01-2012, 04:59 PM
"No one is buying Romney's effort to appeal to the Middle class"
What? Still no "4 more years" ?
You are whistling down the train tracks and you don't hear the train coming.
But take heart .... COG is still a bigger fool than you.
What? Still no "4 more years" ?
You are whistling down the train tracks and you don't hear the train coming.
But take heart .... COG is still a bigger fool than you.
- I B Hankering
- 02-01-2012, 05:00 PM
The one exception might be the Jews but if you think they're voting for Romney/Gingrich/Santorum, I've got a bridge I want to sell you. Originally Posted by timpageYour imaginary bridge and your imaginary Jewish vote for Obama will not fill a thimble. The Catholic vote was non-partisan in 2008. Catholics today are mobilizing against Obama for 2012.
- Texas Contrarian
- 02-01-2012, 06:24 PM
The Republican Party is obviously pretty good at shooting itself in the foot, so I agree with others who believe that Obama's re-election may be a better-than-even bet, although obviously a lot can happen between now and November.
But Romney's economic "plan" -- whatever it may be -- could hardly be as bad as Obama's, which in brief terms can be described as the following:
1) Pay off favored constituents with a virtually unprecedented tsunami of spending on practically everything imaginable, under the guise that we needed a huge "stimulus package", although at no time in history has such an effort ever boosted the economy to greater prosperity. (And it's been tried plenty of times.)
2) Score a big political victory by cramming through a health care "reform" plan, no matter how expensive it is, how much it needs to be adorned with payoffs of one kind or another to get enough votes for passage, and no matter how much its overhang of uncertainty damages the economy.
3) Cut taxes for lower income groups as much as possible. When it's no longer possible to further cut income taxes, slash payroll taxes by two percentage points, and claim that we then need even more payroll tax cuts. Follow up by claiming that such further cuts would be an integral part of a "jobs bill."
4) Answer predictable angst about the deficit with politically popular tax increases on the "wealthy", even though it's obvious to any reasonably well-informed person that would make barely a dent in the deficit.
Debate on the latter point is getting ridiculous. Check out this nonsense from The New York Times editorial board:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/op...ml?ref=opinion
These clowns think raising the capital gains tax rate to the rate on ordinary income would raise an additional $45 billion per year!
No one ever learns anything from history. Pushing the capital gains tax rate to nearly 40% was tried in the 1970s. It backfired. The rate was then dropped back to 28% in 1978, even with Jimmy Carter in the White House and a large Democratic congressional majority.
If I'm ever in a New York restaurant and am advised that everyone at a nearby table is a New York Times opinion writer, I'm going to ask what they're drinking. That must be some damn good stuff!
But Romney's economic "plan" -- whatever it may be -- could hardly be as bad as Obama's, which in brief terms can be described as the following:
1) Pay off favored constituents with a virtually unprecedented tsunami of spending on practically everything imaginable, under the guise that we needed a huge "stimulus package", although at no time in history has such an effort ever boosted the economy to greater prosperity. (And it's been tried plenty of times.)
2) Score a big political victory by cramming through a health care "reform" plan, no matter how expensive it is, how much it needs to be adorned with payoffs of one kind or another to get enough votes for passage, and no matter how much its overhang of uncertainty damages the economy.
3) Cut taxes for lower income groups as much as possible. When it's no longer possible to further cut income taxes, slash payroll taxes by two percentage points, and claim that we then need even more payroll tax cuts. Follow up by claiming that such further cuts would be an integral part of a "jobs bill."
4) Answer predictable angst about the deficit with politically popular tax increases on the "wealthy", even though it's obvious to any reasonably well-informed person that would make barely a dent in the deficit.
Debate on the latter point is getting ridiculous. Check out this nonsense from The New York Times editorial board:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/op...ml?ref=opinion
These clowns think raising the capital gains tax rate to the rate on ordinary income would raise an additional $45 billion per year!
No one ever learns anything from history. Pushing the capital gains tax rate to nearly 40% was tried in the 1970s. It backfired. The rate was then dropped back to 28% in 1978, even with Jimmy Carter in the White House and a large Democratic congressional majority.
If I'm ever in a New York restaurant and am advised that everyone at a nearby table is a New York Times opinion writer, I'm going to ask what they're drinking. That must be some damn good stuff!