koheesti Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 As Jack Welch, former CEO of General Electric points out, the drop to 7.8% unemployment rate combined with the drop the previous month means that in 60 days the unemployment rate fell .6 % and no one seriously believes that to be true. He makes an excellent point. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/05/jack_welch_explains_tweet_claiming_jobs_numbers_were_fixed_by_obama_admin.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 From what I heard this morning, one of Romney's regularly chanted mantras this campaign has been that unemployment has not been under 8% since Obama took office. So now he'll either have to make it a less catchy mantra, or change it to 7%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 7.8 has a pretty nice ring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 7.8 has a pretty nice ring. I don't think you could do a better job of illustrating the damage that the was done under Bush and the progress Obama has made in redressing it than in this graph; you have the Boom and the Bust all in one picture. http://data.bls.gov/generated_files/graphics/latest_numbers_LNS14000000_2002_2012_all_period_M09_data.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) How about this one. http://tarpon.files....ie-man-can1.jpg Edited October 7, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Touche. But another figure that seems to be up on 2008.... Weinstein, executive producer of films as diverse as "The English Patient," "The Artist" and the most recent "Rambo" movie in a filmmaking career dating back to the 1970s, is a well-known supporter of the Democratic party.His exclusive Obama fundraiser in August at his seaside compound in Westport, Connecticut was attended by about 50 people, the Hollywood Reporter trade journal reported. Tickets cost $38,5000 each. Holy crap! Edited October 7, 2012 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uptheos Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I'm really looking forward to the Vice Presidential debate next week. Me too, but I wish there was a voice over for Paul Ryan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Most people think that Ryan will wipe the floor with Biden, but Biden is an experienced debater who has run for president and vice president, so he has lots of experience. As far as I can tell, Ryan has never debated on a major level at all. However, Biden has an Achilles Heel that could make him careful about coming out and calling anyone a liar directly.- the incidents of plagiarism and fabrication that forced Joe Biden to quit the 1988 presidential race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) Most people think that Ryan will wipe the floor with Biden, but Biden is an experienced debater who has run for president and vice president, so he has lots of experience. As far as I can tell, Ryan has never debated on a major level at all. However, Biden has an Achilles Heel that could make him careful about coming out and calling anyone a liar directly.- the incidents of plagiarism and fabrication that forced Joe Biden to quit the 1988 presidential race. I think Ryan is clearly Biden's intellectual superior on the economic issues that the country faces. But Biden first won election to the Senate 39 years ago and has too much experience to be taken lightly despite his funny gaffes. To think this time 4 years ago, Obama had about 100 days experience as a Senator before he started his run for President. Certainly shows now, eh? Edited October 7, 2012 by koheesti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Most people think that Ryan will wipe the floor with Biden, but Biden is an experienced debater who has run for president and vice president, so he has lots of experience. As far as I can tell, Ryan has never debated on a major level at all. However, Biden has an Achilles Heel that could make him careful about coming out and calling anyone a liar directly.- the incidents of plagiarism and fabrication that forced Joe Biden to quit the 1988 presidential race. I think Ryan is clearly Biden's intellectual superior on the economic issues that the country faces. But Biden first won election to the Senate 39 years ago and has too much experience to be taken lightly despite his funny gaffes. To think this time 4 years ago, Obama had about 100 days experience as a Senator before he started his run for President. Certainly shows now, eh? Ryan is certainly an accomplished budget technocrat, but with merely an undergraduate degree, and a fraction of the debate experience of Biden, I'd hardly call him intellectually superior or even equivalent to Biden by any stretch, in spite of Biden having Turrets. Comedians have dubbed this the debate between the J.C. Penney underwear model and everyone's crazy uncle. Biden is comedy gaffe gold, but Ryan could come across as another dogmatic right winger whippersnapper, unlike someone like Rubio, for example. Biden connects with blue collar and elderly, and even if Ryan starts kicking Biden's butt, he may come across arrogant to these viewers. In any event, Obama can't afford Biden to lose this one. Pressure is on Biden after Obama's lackluster debate performance http://news.yahoo.com/pressure-biden-obamas-lackluster-debate-performance-220150755--business.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Well Romney has showed his hand on the Middle East. Should make for an interesting debate when they come to Foreign Policy. Romney Would Arm Syrian Rebels . October 8, 2012 Mitt Romney has said that, were he to defeat Barack Obama in next month’s US election, he would arm the Syrian opposition. Romney believes that a defeat for Bashar al-Assad would constitute a strategic defeat for Iran. He also declared that Syria is a big player in the Middle East, and it is important that the US supports democratic forces which he considers as important future allies. http://www.freshties.com/wp/?p=13993 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Comedians have dubbed this the debate between the J.C. Penney underwear model and everyone's crazy uncle. One called it the showdown between the wonk and the wacko. There is little doubt that Ryan is the more intelligent of the pair, but he has little experience debating, so that gives Biden at least one edge. On the other hand, he has to defend Obama's atrocious record and that ain't easy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 There is little doubt that Ryan is the more intelligent of the pair Again, there is no doubt that Ryan is a very smart man and has an encyclopedic knowledge of the budget, but apart from reading Ayn Rand in high school and memorizing reams of budget data and becoming a subject matter expert, he did not pursue any higher degrees, nor has been long tested in the trenches in front of a national audience, as has Biden. For example: Joe Biden defeated Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee in 1987. Everyone wrote off Biden, though also a J.D. and trained as a lawyer, graduated near the bottom of his class. Bork, alternatively, by every account is and was a brilliant legal scholar. Joe Biden was the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus it fell to him to lead the fight against Bork. Ted Kennedy and other prominent Democrats could make all the speeches they wanted, but only Joe Biden would lead the questioning of Robert Bork in front of the national media and with the American public watching on television.... Biden stunned his critics with questioning of Robert Bork defined not by gaffes but with articulate arguments easily understandable to the voters watching the confirmation process. In contrast, Robert Bork's responses to the committee were delivered in a condescending tone befitting a professor lecturing a truculent student, and he made no attempt to hide his opposition to abortion rights and privacy rights in general. America listened to the plainspoken Sen. Biden and they liked what he had to say. When Joe Biden was finished, public opinion had been turned against Bork and his nomination was rejected first by the Judiciary Committee in a 9-4 vote and later by the a 58-42 vote of the full Senate. http://www.huffingto..._b_1947159.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Biden claimed during his run for the 1988 presidential nomination, that he had, “ participated in sit-ins to desegregate restaurants and movie houses”, but he didn’t. Professors caught him plagiarizing in law school in the 1960s and the public caught him plagiarizing in politics in the 1980s, causing him to have to quit the 1988 election. Maybe, Biden is smarter that he seems and maybe he is a decent debater, but all in all, he still makes Dan Quayle look like Albert Einstein. Edited October 9, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 There's no denying Biden is a dork, and I guess I understand why Obama picked him, but that brings up a good point. Quayle, Palin, my God, the choices for running mates has been atrocious for many of these candidates in both parties... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uptheos Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 the choices for running mates has been atrocious for many of these candidates in both parties... Yup, makes you wonder about the capabilities and judgement of the Commander in Chief's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 There's no denying Biden is a dork, and I guess I understand why Obama picked him, but that brings up a good point. Quayle, Palin, my God, the choices for running mates has been atrocious for many of these candidates in both parties... I think Obama picked Biden because he needed someone on the ticket with actual experience in national politics (Obama had 100 days in the Senate at the time and had never managed anything even 1/10 the size of Waslia, Alaska) plus Biden was on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the extent of Obama's foreign experience was when he was 8 years old living in Indonesia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) New Poll Shocker! Romney evens Obama among women! Pew found that Romney made substantial gains over the past month among women, whites and those younger than 50. He even drew level among women, where Obama has held a clear advantage for months and by 18 points a month ago. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2214753/Mitt-Romneys-52-point-debate-victory-Obama-biggest-Gallup-poll-history.html#ixzz28m9lDzJf This pic is from the link and is hilarious. Edited October 9, 2012 by koheesti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 One month is nothing. Romney's out of time. Almost impossible to turn enough of the swing states at this late date. That's a silly and desperate statement. One month isn't enough for opinions to change? LOL The Pew poll is devastating, just devastating. Before the debate, Obama had a 51 - 43 lead; now, Romney has a 49 - 45 lead. That's a simply unprecedented reversal for a candidate in October. Before Obama had leads on every policy issue and personal characteristic; now Romney leads in almost all of them. Obama's performance gave Romney a 12 point swing! I repeat: a 12 point swing. Romney's favorables are above Obama's now. Yes, you read that right. Romney's favorables are higher than Obama's right now. That gender gap that was Obama's firewall? Over in one night: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/did-obama-just-throw-the-entire-election-away.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) Good article and it is from an Obama supporter. I don't see much of substance happening in the next presidential debate as it is town hall style and it will be difficult for either side to get a significant advantage. The last debate with a foreign policy theme will be crucial, but with the al-Qaeda attack in Libya and the attempted cover up, Romney will have plenty of ammunition against Obama and no one in America is going to care that Romney got under the skin of a few snobby Brits by telling the truth about the Olympics. Things will certainly be interesting until November 6. Or maybe, just maybe, Obama can regain our trust and confidence somehow in the next debate. Maybe he can begin to give us a positive vision of what he wants to do (amazing that it's October and some of us are still trying to help him, but he cannot). Maybe if Romney can turn this whole campaign around in 90 minutes, Obama can now do the same. But I doubt it. A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves. http://andrewsulliva...ction-away.html Edited October 9, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I like Andrew Sullivan, and his analysis is frighteningly portentous for Obama supporters. Meanwhile, Obama has been making light of his disastrous showing in Hollywood, trying to crack self-effacing jokes, but I don't think even Hollywood is laughing. If this plays out for Romney, it will be a historic meltdown of a Presidency never seen before. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Good article and it is from an Obama supporter. I don't see much of substance happening in the next presidential debate as it is town hall style and it will be difficult for either side to get a significant advantage. The last debate with a foreign policy theme will be crucial, but with the al-Qaeda attack in Libya and the attempted cover up, Romney will have plenty of ammunition against Obama and no one iin America s going to care that Romney got under the skin of a few snobby Brits by telling the truth about the Olympics. Things will certainly be interesting until November 6.Or maybe, just maybe, Obama can regain our trust and confidence somehow in the next debate. Maybe he can begin to give us a positive vision of what he wants to do (amazing that it's October and some of us are still trying to help him, but he cannot). Maybe if Romney can turn this whole campaign around in 90 minutes, Obama can now do the same. But I doubt it. A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves. http://andrewsulliva...ction-away.html So you liked an article that states directly and unequivocally that Romney "was and is a shameless liar and opportunist". As long as the rest of it tells you what you want hear, right? Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Speaking of articles in the Daily Beast, how about the theory posited there (and elsewhere) that Obama doesn't really want a second term anymore? Interesting notion. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Good article and it is from an Obama supporter. I don't see much of substance happening in the next presidential debate as it is town hall style and it will be difficult for either side to get a significant advantage. The last debate with a foreign policy theme will be crucial, but with the al-Qaeda attack in Libya and the attempted cover up, Romney will have plenty of ammunition against Obama and no one iin America s going to care that Romney got under the skin of a few snobby Brits by telling the truth about the Olympics. Things will certainly be interesting until November 6.Or maybe, just maybe, Obama can regain our trust and confidence somehow in the next debate. Maybe he can begin to give us a positive vision of what he wants to do (amazing that it's October and some of us are still trying to help him, but he cannot). Maybe if Romney can turn this whole campaign around in 90 minutes, Obama can now do the same. But I doubt it. A sitting president does not recover from being obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and get much of a chance to come back. He has, at a critical moment, deeply depressed his base and his supporters and independents are flocking to Romney in droves. http://andrewsulliva...ction-away.html So you liked an article that states directly and unequivocally that Romney "was and is a shameless liar and opportunist". As long as the rest of it tells you what you want hear, right? No, but I liked the part of the article that was true - that Obama has very likely blown the election and that he was obliterated on substance, style and likability in the first debate and does not have much of a chance of a come back. The fact that it comes from a brain-washed Obama acolyte a few wekks before the election gives the surrender more substance. Oh, so now it's not a good article? You only like the part that coincides with your opinion. Got it. (I think calling someone who regards himself as a conservative "a brain washed Obama acolyte'" is a bit of stretch -- but it's the sort of absurdly over the top rhetoric that fits with your extreme prejudices, isn't it? ) Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Nasty baiting posts removed. Continued posting inflammatory posts is going to earn suspensions. Enough of the crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Good article and it is from an Obama supporter. So you liked an article that states directly and unequivocally that Romney "was and is a shameless liar and opportunist". As long as the rest of it tells you what you want hear, right? Andrew Sullivan is an Obama supporter so when he writes negative stuff about Obama it shouldn't be ignored as if it were written by someone anti-Obama. When your own friends and allies go public with what's wrong with you, you've got a problem. On the other hand, when pro-Obama Sullivan writes negative things about Romney, ...duh, what did you expect? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koheesti Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 (edited) So you liked an article that states directly and unequivocally that Romney "was and is a shameless liar and opportunist". As long as the rest of it tells you what you want hear, right? Speaking of shameless liars and opportunists...remember that old 2007 video of Obama talking all ghetto style about how New York (after 9/11) and Miami (after Hurricane Andrew) had the 10% Stanfford Act requirement waived but NOT New Orleans after Katrina because the gov't doesn't care about them (black people)? Well, it turns out that Obama has told the biggest lie since Nixon's infamous, "I am not a crook". Obama gave that speech on June 7, 2007. Two weeks earlier the Senate (of which Obama was a member) had voted 80-14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans. So Obama LIED to the audience, to get them all worked up. But that's not even the worst part...Obama himself voted AGAINST the waiver for New Orleans. Talk about a SHAMELESS liar. Phony in Chief The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007 shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 Senators who voted against -- repeat, AGAINST -- the legislation which included the waiver. If you know any true believers in Obama, show them the transcript of his June 5, 2007 speech at Hampton University (available from the Federal News Service) and then show them page S6823 of the Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, which lists which Senators voted which way on the waiver of the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans. http://www.realclear...ief_115715.html Edited October 9, 2012 by koheesti 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Speaking of articles in the Daily Beast, how about the theory posited there (and elsewhere) that Obama doesn't really want a second term anymore? Interesting notion. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app This is an interesting notion, and it is being speculated that Obama is burned out. In addition to being ridiculed by some of his most ardent supporters for his debate performance, we are now seeing some defections: Consider, for example, the anguished acknowledgment of Buzz Bissinger (author of “Friday Night Lights”) that after a childhood on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, where the Republican voting machine levers have rusted from disuse, and after a lifetime of casting Democratic ballots, he is voting for Mitt Romney.What makes Bissinger’s piece so damaging is that he is not retreating from his Democratic roots, nor even embracing Romney’s policies. Rather, he has concluded that Obama is “burnt-out. ... He is no longer the chosen one.” http://news.yahoo.co...€™t-ignore.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteeleJoe Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 I think it's easy to forget that being President is in many ways a very, very hard job (so is campaigning) and unless you really really want the job it would be hard to keep at either of them. (Perhaps even some of the POTUS that weren't very good at their job deserve some measure of credit for just managing to stick it out.) Some people say Obama had ambitions to really make the sort of changes that just aren't possible to make. And that he gets bored easily and moves on to new challenges. He's a guy used to succeeding and being praised and now arguably neither of those things are happening as much as he'd like. So...carry on dealing with a rather hopeless war, a world-wide financial meltdown, a seemingly irresolvable political divide, constant criticism OR go on the lecture circuit, make millions and maybe even do some good as an ex- POTUS al la Bill Clinton...the latter would be an understandable if not especially noble choice (maybe even a subconscious one). Then again, we may see something very different in the coming weeks -- someone who appears to really want to win. Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa app 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloudhopper Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Check out this abuse of power to manipulate the election - http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2012/10/09/obama_asks_big_business_to_break_the_law_99925.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
.thumb.png.76be522b3b43e7458166b9dac9e422ed.png)
Recommended Posts