ChrisWeigant.com

Friday Talking Points [225] -- Talking Back

[ Posted Friday, August 31st, 2012 – 16:38 PDT ]

We have reached the eye of the hurricane. Half the storm is over. The Republican Party held their national nominating convention all week, and the Democrats are getting ready to hold theirs next week. So we enter these few days of calm between the howling winds, and to mark the occasion we're going with a unique format here today.

Rather than our usual weekly wrapup, awards categories, and suggestions for effective talking points for Democrats to use next week, we're instead going to do something we don't believe we've ever done before -- concentrate almost exclusively on the other side's talking points. The Democratic speeches for Charlotte are being fine-tuned right now, and so we felt it was important to lay out the Republican talking points that need to be shot down next week.

A wrapup of the political week seems sort of redundant at this point, seeing as how I've written daily wraps of the Republican speeches all week (if you missed them, please check out Day One, Day Two, and Day Three). Monday, I attempted to offend the entire universe of political partisanship and wonkery -- across the spectrum -- by prominently using the dictionary definition of "bigot," so if you missed that and need a breather between conventions, check that out too.

Self-promotion aside, though, what we are hoping for during next week's convention is for Democrats to take back a few narratives which seem to be slipping away from them. Oh, one last ego note: I will be attending the Democratic National Convention, so check back for lots of posts and surprises next week.

Where was I? Oh, right -- slip sliding away. Obama's team has done a stellar job all summer of keeping Romney back on his heels and playing defense. However, while the Obama team's offense is notably a whole lot better than Democrats usually manage, they seem to be neglecting their defense in the war of words. Now, campaign strategists would always much rather be playing offense, as when the candidate goes into a defensive crouch they lose track of driving the message. But you can't ignore these things for too long, as the picture the other side paints in the public eye can sometimes stick -- even if it is completely and utterly false.

Which certainly describes quite a number of the attacks the Romney team are now launching. Pretty much ever since Paul Ryan got named as Mitt Romney's running mate, the Obama team has not done all that great a job of knocking down some of the strange things coming out of Ryan's mouth. Democrats have seemingly decided that "Well, everyone knows that's ridiculous nonsense, so we don't even have to explain why to the public." They have -- quite wrongly -- either trusted the mainstream media to get the true facts out (good luck with that, these days), or attempted to go into "professor mode" and explain in 2,000 or 3,000 words the technicalities involved in the wrongness of the GOP's stance.

Neither is good enough. The mainstream media, right now, seems to be astonished that Republicans have chosen the "we're going to ignore all the fact-checkers" route. This is mostly due to the media's overwhelming overestimation of their own importance. Which leaves Democrats to get the message out. But the Democrats -- so far -- have been unable to come up with quick and easy answers to the talking points emanating from the other side. Folks, you can't just sit back and smugly point to the fact-checkers -- you've got to get out there and make your own case.

This shouldn't be all that tough, guys. The facts are squarely on the Democrats' side. But we need bumpersticker answers. Slogans. Talking points, not to put too fine a point on it. Not an in-depth discussion of why the other side's position is horsefeathers, but a snappy putdown to showcase the wrongness of the Republican position.

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 225 (8/31/12)

The Democratic National Convention will be the big event to roll out such crowd-pleasing sloganeering. You can include a few details in a speech, as long as it contains a memorable "takeaway" line which sums the whole argument up. And -- importantly -- can be referred to later in an ad or a political discussion with just one pithy phrase.

With every Democratic speechwriter working overtime this weekend, we thought we'd identify the talking points emerging from the Republican conclave, and offer up some suggestions. Our starting point is the other side's talking points, this week.

I got kind of carried away on the first one, which was one reason for the abbreviated column format this week. But here are some of the things Democrats (and Obama, especially) need to counter from the stage this coming week.

 

1
   $716 billion

Democrats, from Obama on down, seem astonished that Republicans are attacking them on Medicare. Democrats seem lulled into the complacency of "Well, we always win on Medicare, so we don't even have to fight -- we'll just win by default." This is wrongheaded thinking. If there was ever a wake-up call to Democrats, it was when Paul Ryan threw down a gauntlet during his convention speech: "We will win this debate!"

Here is the Republican talking point, as it currently stands:

"Seniors should be aware that President Obama is raiding the piggybank of Medicare to the tune of $716 billion dollars, to pay for Obamacare for people who aren't you. Republicans will save Medicare and restore these cuts to seniors."

There are so many things wrong with this position, you would think it would be quite easy to shoot down. Perhaps it is because there are so many things wrong with it that it has so far befuddled Democrats trying to easily refute it. The old "it's hard to know where to begin..." problem, I guess.

To construct a decent talking point to counter this argument will require some data digging. Somebody needs to do the math on Paul Ryan's budget, to put this another way. Look into the figures ten and twenty years down the road.

"Ryan and Romney are using 'Mediscare' tactics to make seniors think Obama is cutting Medicare benefits. This is false. If it were true, then why did Paul Ryan include the same cuts in the budget which he wrote, and why did every Republican in the House vote for these cuts? The House Republican budget cuts exactly the same $716 billion. Both parties have voted for these cuts, so I can't imagine what Ryan's problem is now. I mean, he wrote this budget, and now he seems to be saying he was so overwhelmed with Obama's leadership on the issue that he stuck the cuts into his budget -- or something."

That's one way of fighting back. Here's another:

"You know where those cuts come from? They come from a Republican program -- Medicare Advantage -- which was sold as a way to save money for Medicare by using the private insurance industry. You know what? It didn't work. It costs more money for the private sector to do it, it turns out. This is nothing more than a subsidy to the health insurance industry, which does not pay for one single benefit for seniors -- not one doctor's office visit, not one test, not one prescription. That's why we're phasing the program out -- because it costs taxpayers too much to waste money on the private sector for the exact same benefits Medicare can provide cheaper.

Here's a third way of attacking the Ryan nonsense:

"Ryan and Romney say they're going to restore that $716 billion to Medicare. But, by doing so, they shorten the life of the program by eight years -- so it won't survive past 2016 without changes. But all the changes they've been proposing won't start for a full decade. So they are promising to speed faster towards Medicare's bankruptcy without a clue what they'll do before their ten-year plan kicks in."

And even a fourth way, the one you'll need the budget math for:

"Ryan and Romney are trying to sell some snake oil to America's seniors. They say they're going to 'restore' Medicare money, but when you look at the Paul Ryan plan for Medicare, when it starts it will cut ($X trillion) in the following decade from Medicare. They're weeping crocodile tears over $716 billion that won't change a single seniors' benefits, and yet they are planning on raiding trillions which will destroy the guarantee of Medicare by tossing out the guarantee of service Medicare now provides."

There are actually many ways to fight back on this issue, but Democrats have so far seemed to content themselves with getting off into the weeds, rather than going for the jugular. This really needs to change, and I'm really hoping to see some fire-breathing and quotable lines from the convention next week.

 

2
   Wavers for welfare

This seems to be emerging as the second-biggest attack which the Democrats seem too astonished to forcefully rebut. Guys, you simply cannot sit back and trust that the public will read all the fact-checkers and decide on their own that this is a lie.

The best way to return fire on this one would be to get one of the governors who requested one of these waivers to cut an ad or speak at the convention. Ideally, get one of the two Republican governors, although that's probably too much to ask.

"I'm the governor of the great state of (X), and I'm here to tell you that when Republicans say President Obama is somehow weakening the work requirements for welfare, they are flat-out lying to you. Every fact-checker in the universe has declared this a whopping big falsehood, but in case you haven't heard, what the governors are requesting is that the federal government allow the states to achieve the same goals for work -- and indeed, even better results -- by experimenting at the state level with what works best for our state. Two of the governors who have requested such waivers are Republicans -- why don't you ask them if they're weakening work requirements! The Republican Party used to be for allowing states to have more flexibility in federal government programs, but bizarrely in this instance they are attacking what they used to support. Make no mistake -- if anyone tells you Barack Obama is weakening welfare work requirements, they are lying to you!"

 

3
   Private sector job experience needed? Really?

This one is particularly annoying, because it is so pathetically easy to shoot down.

"I noticed during the Republican convention they made a lot of noise about how Barack Obama had no private sector job experience. The Republican crowd cheered each time this point was made. Well, what I'd like to ask Mitt Romney is: if private sector job experience is so powerfully necessary to be president, then why did you name Paul Ryan as your running mate? Paul Ryan has been working in Washington politics since roughly the same time he started shaving. He's cashed a government check of some sort or another since he was sixteen years old, in fact. So, Mitt, I guess private sector experience isn't a big qualification after all, huh? Or perhaps having 'I drove the Oscar Meyer weinermobile' on your resume is good enough to be in line for the Oval Office...."

 

4
   What a load of B/S

Personally, I prefer the term "Bowles/Simpson" rather than "Simpson/Bowles" because it makes such a better acronym.

"I noticed Paul Ryan tried to take President Obama to task for not supporting the Bowles/Simpson commission. This has become a favorite refrain of the Republicans, but it is utter nonsense. The report they're talking about would raise taxes by one trillion dollars. The Senate Republicans bravely voted for this report, but the Bowles/Simpson commission never actually approved it -- because Paul Ryan and the other House Republicans on the commission refused to vote for it. Since that time, I have not heard a single Republican say that they would vote for raising taxes to the tune of one trillion dollars. President Obama could have cut a deal along similar lines to the Bowles/Simpson suggestions, but once again Paul Ryan and the House Republicans walked away from the table. These are the facts about the report. What Paul Ryan is trying to sell should be called the 'B/S report' because that's exactly what it is."

 

5
   Divisive? Oh, please.

This has got to be the biggest belly laugh of all time in American politics. But, once again, you've got to point it out.

"I was seriously amused at watching the Republicans try to label Obama and the Democrats as being somehow more 'divisive' than Republicans. I mean, did you count the number of times Republicans framed the issues as 'us' versus 'them'? Have these people never watched Fox News? Republicans try to pit groups of Americans against each other on a daily basis. This is politics, people, between two parties with divided views about where to take the country in the future. There is nothing new about it. There is nothing different about it -- it happens all the time. To me all this talk of how 'divisive' Democrats are is nothing more than whining and sour grapes by Republicans who seem to be astonished that Democrats have learned to fight back. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

 

6
   Refugees? Really, Mitt?

OK, this one is just never going to be used. Democrats aren't going to "go there" -- which is probably a good idea, politically. But I just had to get it off my chest, so I hope you'll excuse me.

"I heard a lot of talk during the Republican convention about Latinos. The only word that seemed conspicuously absent was 'immigration.' Although I did notice that Mitt Romney talked about his own family's immigration to America. Their second immigration, I should say. The Mitt video referred to his relatives as 'refugees from revolution,' but didn't explain what it was all about. The Romney clan, in fact, moved out of America, because they refused to follow the laws of the United States. They moved down to Mexico so they could practice polygamy -- this is historical fact. They came back to America from Mexico when they decided that the United States was a better place to live after all. I guess you could use the word 'refugee' but the reason the Romney clan was down there in the first place was a refusal to live within the laws of this country -- a family decision made generations ago."

 

7
   Say what?

This had to be the heaviest irony of the entire Republican convention (Clint Eastwood was definitely more "memorable" although not in a good way...).

"I noticed during the Republican convention one of Mitt Romney's sons pandering to Latino voters by speaking from the podium in Spanish. Why do I say 'pandering'? Because this is a political party that had just voted for federal 'English-only' laws in their platform document. I'm not sure how this would work, you'll have to ask them. Maybe there'll be a federal law that bans Spanish from being spoken by politicians, who knows? I just found the whole spectacle ironic in the extreme. Tune in to the Democratic National Convention next week -- not only do we welcome Spanish being spoken on our stage, we also would never think of passing discriminatory laws which would somehow outlaw Spanish in America. The choice is pretty easy for Latinos, pandering or full support -- and the polls reflect that reality."

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at:
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

141 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [225] -- Talking Back”

  1. [1] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    "Seniors should be aware that President Obama is raiding the piggybank of Medicare to the tune of $716 billion dollars, to pay for Obamacare for people who aren't you. Republicans will save Medicare and restore these cuts to seniors."

    There are so many things wrong with this position, you would think it would be quite easy to shoot down. Perhaps it is because there are so many things wrong with it that it has so far befuddled Democrats trying to easily refute it. The old "it's hard to know where to begin..." problem, I guess.

    I think the Left's biggest problem is that the majority of seniors just plain don't support Obamacare. They don't want their Medicare intertwined with it. Remember the protests at the beginning of the HCR debate, with the seniors waving signs that said "Hands off my Medicare"? They meant it. And they don't want their Medicare Advantage messed with, either. This is the first reality that the Left needs to wrap its head around. This is the "forest for the trees" that you folks are missing.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    Now, this is the kind of stuff that gives "talking points" a very good name indeed! And, nobody does this better than you. NOBODY!

    It's almost an unfair fight in that ALL the facts, if not always the political reality as far as voters are concerned, really are with the Democrats. I can't imagine another political convention that could be built so entirely on a pack of deliberate lies and dissemination of misleading information as this one was.

    By the way, do you know what the agenda is for Charlotte ... lineup of speakers, etc.?

  3. [3] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    This seems to be emerging as the second-biggest attack which the Democrats seem too astonished to forcefully rebut. Guys, you simply cannot sit back and trust that the public will read all the fact-checkers and decide on their own that this is a lie.

    Again with the "lie" allegation. There are simply two sides to the story, Chris: http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/obama-guts-welfare-reform/ The Right is arguing that HHS does not have the authority to grant those "waivers" and, in doing so, the administration is gutting the heart of the legislation.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "The truth is not half-way between right and wrong."

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Chris1962 -

    That sign actually said "Get your government hands off my Medicare" -- which is proof positive of the ridiculousness of that position, since Medicare is (gasp!) socialized government medicine in the first place. Nice try, though.

    How, exactly, do you explain Ryan matching Obama's Medicare cuts? I'm curious, because I've never heard any rational excuse for that... or for the fact that every Republican in the House voted for those cuts.

    And... hoo boy... you're quoting Heritage as some sort of disintrested party? Boy, that's rich (in more ways than one...).

    LizM -

    Go to "charlottein2012.com" or "demconvention.com" to see lineups...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Monday, I attempted to offend the entire universe of political partisanship and wonkery -- across the spectrum -- by prominently using the dictionary definition of "bigot,"

    "Attempted" my arse. You did a damn good job of it!! :D J/K :D

    And... hoo boy... you're quoting Heritage as some sort of disintrested party? Boy, that's rich (in more ways than one...).

    Nice double meaning.. :D

    But if we're going to start limiting our referencial sources, then how about ya'all cut HuffPo or Daily Kos from ya'all's repertoire?? :D

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    How, exactly, do you explain Ryan matching Obama's Medicare cuts? I'm curious, because I've never heard any rational excuse for that... or for the fact that every Republican in the House voted for those cuts.

    Simple... If I understand the facts correctly (and it's true, I may not) Ryan's plan doesn't touch medicare in the here and now. All seniors already on Medicare won't see any cuts..

    Again, if I understand things correctly, the Ryan/GOP plan only changes Medicare for those under 55. In other words, those who are NOT on Medicare yet...

    That's why Ryan's plan works and Obama's/Democrat's plan doesn't..

    Or, to be more accurate, that's why Ryan's plan is popular with Seniors in the here and now and the Obama/Democrat plan is not...

    Who woulda thunked that not only was it the GOP that would develop the cajones to actually jump on the third rail, but they would actually be WINNING the hearts and minds of Americans over it!

    "Strange times."
    -Dean Winchester, SUPERNATURAL

    Of course, if my facts are wrong (which hardly EVER happens :D ) then this comment is moot...

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    'I'm here to learn': Romney preparing for presidency as he shows up Obama with visit to storm-ravaged Louisiana
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2196389/Mitt-Romney-heads-storm-hit-Louisiana-President-Obama-hits-campaign-trail.html#ixzz25DC2O817

    Ya'all just HAVE to admit it...

    This was a huge campaign coup for Camp Romney...

    Michale.....

  9. [9] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    -- which is proof positive of the ridiculousness of that position, since Medicare is (gasp!) socialized government medicine in the first place.

    Like people had a choice. They were forced to pay into that program for decades. And with today's seniors now dependent upon it, they do not want the government messing with the program that they had been guaranteed. That's the point the Left keeps missing as they myopically focus on the "savings" (otherwise known as spin for "cuts"), which affect doctors and hospitals and, in turn, affects seniors. So I suggest that the Left figure out a "message" that changes seniors' attitudes about CrapCare, which Romney is tellig them he'll repeal on day one. That, in itself, is a difference between the Romney/Ryan plan and Obama's, and seniors are liking the sound of it.

  10. [10] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    And... hoo boy... you're quoting Heritage as some sort of disintrested party?

    I didn't say they're disinterested. They're laying out the Right's position. And bashing them for doing so doesn't make the Right's position go away; nor does it turn their position into a "lie." So that's another area where the Left needs to hone its "messaging," as screaming "LIES!" and sliming the messenger (a standard tactic of the Left's) does not make for a strategic communications formula. I think the Left does itself an immense disservice by constantly crying "LIES!" like the boy who cried wolf, and backing up their assertions with "fact checking" sites, which boil down to little more than op-ed pieces, authored by self-interested partisans.

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    That's the point the Left keeps missing as they myopically focus on the "savings" (otherwise known as spin for "cuts"), which affect doctors and hospitals and, in turn, affects seniors.

    interesting point, and in a sense you're right - it's important to draw a distinction between "cuts" and "savings." if you go to the store and buy something, you pay a certain amount of money and get a certain amount on the product. if the consumer spends the same and gets less, then it is a cut. if the consumer spends less but gets the same amount due to increased efficiency, it's savings.

    and here i thought republicans were in favor of increased efficiency. perhaps the reagan religious doctrine of government as "the problem" doesn't allow for the possibility of a government saving money instead of just spending it.

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    They moved down to Mexico so they could practice polygamy -- this is historical fact. They came back to America from Mexico when they decided that the United States was a better place to live after all.

    and thus began the long romney tradition of flip-flopping on absolutely everything. did he also vote for immigration reform before he voted against it?

    well-stated talking point, CW

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    They moved down to Mexico so they could practice polygamy --

    Even as agnostic/atheist as I am, I would STILL prefer a religion that practices polygamy as opposed to a religion that practices beheadings.

    I am silly that way...

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:


    RASMUSSEN: ROMNEY 47% OBAMA 44%...

    GALLUP: ROMNEY 47% OBAMA 46%...

    Someone mentioned polling?? :D

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://world.time.com/2012/08/31/exclusive-u-s-scales-back-military-exercise-with-israel-affecting-potential-iran-strike/

    Yea, Obama is solidly behind Israel...

    "In a pig's eye!"
    -Dr Leonard McCoy, STAR TREK, Amok Time

    Michale.....

  16. [16] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    and here i thought republicans were in favor of increased efficiency.

    And they've got their own proposition for achieving it, which is laid out in very simple terms: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/medicare But the point is how seniors perceive things. I think the Left's "messaging" problem lies in the fact that seniors do not like CrapCare and don't want their programs entangled in it or messed with. So that's the first obstacle folks on the Left have to overcome as they craft their communication strategy. And, personally speaking, I don't think wheeling Grandma off a cliff is the way to go about it.

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, personally speaking, I don't think wheeling Grandma off a cliff is the way to go about it.

    Can't argue the logic of that.. :D

    It seems that everything Team Obama has done has been to appeal to the base...

    Ironically enough, T.O. is finding out NOW what I have been saying for the entire year...

    What appeals to the base will turn off the Independents and NPAs...

    Obama seems to think he can win re-election without us..

    As my dad used to tell me, "{He's} got another think coming!"...

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    DNC Security Rules Trigger Free Speech Worries
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162-57504782/dnc-security-rules-trigger-free-speech-worries/

    Any 'red lines' yet??

    Michale.....

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    "If you didn’t DVR it, let me recap it for you. Everything is bad, it’s Obama’s fault, and Gov. Romney is the only one who knows the secret to creating jobs and growing the economy."
    -President Barack Obama

    Well, it's easy to predict what the message will be in Charlotte...

    *******SPOILERS*********** ****SPOILERS*****

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    *

    "Everything is bad, it’s Bush’s fault, and Barack The First is the only one who knows the secret to creating jobs and growing the economy."

    See?? Now ya'all don't even have to WATCH the Dem Convention.....

    Yer weekum.... :D

    Michale.....

  20. [20] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW

    They have -- quite wrongly -- either trusted the mainstream media to get the true facts out

    I disagree. For once the mainstream media in unison called Ryan out on his lies as soon as they'd left his mouth. The fact that Republicans are up in arms, with the usual 'liberal media bias' being thrown around and arguing about technicalities ('the plant wasn't closed, it was temporarily put on standby!'), shows that they have actually got the message of Republican lies out.

    Interestingly the ratings are down for the GOP Convention. But Romney FINALLY got ahead of Obama in the Rasmus poll and he might overtake Obama on the RCP national average for the first time in 2012! ;)

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    But Romney FINALLY got ahead of Obama in the Rasmus poll and he might overtake Obama on the RCP national average for the first time in 2012! ;)

    If I recall correctly Romney is, pretty much, where Reagan was.

    And we know how THAT election turned out, eh? :D

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    ('the plant wasn't closed, it was temporarily put on standby!'),

    And yet, AP reported in April of 2009 that cars were still coming out of that plant...

    Further, Ryan never blamed Obama for the plant closing.. Why is this so hard to grasp??

    Ryan blamed Obama for giving the factory workers false hope.

    Can you deny that THAT is true???

    I mean, seriously. If ya'all are going to accuse someone of LYING, doesn't it behoove ya'all to, of I dunno, make sure it was an ACTUAL lie??

    It's "BUSH LIED" all over again!!

    If ya'all are going to go into ATTACK THE GOP PRESIDENT-mode again, it's probably best to wait until we actually HAVE the GOP President, eh? :D

    Michale.....

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama Lies While Accusing the Romney Campaign of Lying
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-lies-while-accusing-romney-campaign-lying_651431.html

    Oh yea..

    Democrats don't lie as often as Republicans!

    HA!!!!!!

    Michale....

  24. [24] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    So, what does the prestigious Weekly Standard have to say about Obama's lies?

    Just give us the equivalent of a quick thumbnail sketch and we'll get the gist of it. :)

  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Obama Lies While Accusing the Romney Campaign of Lying

    CW - like I said it is stuff like Michale's comments and articles like the one he linked to (quoted) that shows for once the mainstream media actually got the call correct and stood up to the Ryan lies. Now Republicans and the Right are clutching at any straws they can to try and prove a point, 'technically the plant was on standby' 'a car was produced there in April 2009' etc. including accusing Obama of lying when he correctly paraphrases Republican statements because he didn't get them correct word for word lol.

  26. [26] 
    michty6 wrote:

    When fact-checkers join the realm of 'liberal media bias' then you know Republicans are pissed off and upset they couldn't get away with their lies. It's ok though guys, it's only one week. It will be forgotten by the time the next set of monstrous lies about welfare or healthcare hits the air next week...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So, what does the prestigious Weekly Standard have to say about Obama's lies?

    There is not enough room in Wegantia to chronicle them all. :D

    Obama's entire 2008 campaign was one big lie... :D

    Michale

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    A TALE OF TWO TEE-SHIRTS
    http://sjfm.us/temp/ibuiltthis.jpg

    For some reason, THIS shirt is a lot more comfortable.. :D

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    What you simply cannot comprehend is that Democrats lie as much as Republicans...

    If you add in the Hypocrisy factor, then the Democratic Party's "LIE QUOTIENT" is thru the roof!

    But hay.. I admit.. I could be wrong..

    We'll know on 7 Nov whether I was or not... :D

    Michale....

  30. [30] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    For some reason, THIS shirt is a lot more comfortable.. :D

    Hahahaha! Excellent, Michale!

  31. [31] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    When fact-checkers join the realm of 'liberal media bias' then you know Republicans are pissed off

    Republicans have their own "fact checkers," michty. That's the point you keep missing: All these "fact checker" folks are little more than op-ed writers, giving their "facts" their own Left or Right spin. http://washingtonexaminer.com/fact-check-obama-promised-and-failed-to-keep-janesville-gm-plant-open/article/2506462#.UENrIVR8szp

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Washington Post, and a host of other liberal media outlets, are calling this passage “misleading” because the Janesville plant “closed before the president was inaugurated.” The Post is dead wrong. Here are the facts:

    1. On February 13, 2008 Obama said in Janesville : “I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years.”

    2. In June 2008 GM announced that the Janesville plant would stop production of medium-duty trucks by the end of 2009, and stop production of large SUVs in 2010 or sooner.

    3. In October 2008 Obama doubled down on his promise to keep Janesville plant open: “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”

    4. In December 2008 GM idled production of GM SUVs at the Janesville plant. Medium-duty truck assembly continued.

    5. In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production of medium-duty trucks.

    6. In September 2011, more than two years after Obama was inaugurated, GM reiterates that Janesville plant is on “stand by status.” Auto industry observer David Cole, tells the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel it would be premature to say the Janesville plant will never reopen.

    6. Today the GM facility in Janesville still has not been retooled “so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs,” as Obama promised.

    Which simply proves what I have always suspected..

    For Democrats, a "lie" is simply a truth that they don't like or puts them in a bad light...

    Michale.....

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Thanks for nothing ... can't say that I'm surprised, :(

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Notice that whether the plant closed or not is COMPLETELY and UTTERLY irrelevant....

    The simple fact is, Candidate Obama gave HOPE to the plant workers that they plant would remain open and viable... "for a hundred years"...

    Candidate Obama gave the workers hope..

    President Obama took that hope away...

    It's THAT simple....

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    5. In April 2009, four months after Obama was inaugurated, GM idled production of medium-duty trucks.

    6. In September 2011, more than two years after Obama was inaugurated, GM reiterates that Janesville plant is on “stand by status.” Auto industry observer David Cole, tells the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel it would be premature to say the Janesville plant will never reopen.

    7. Today the GM facility in Janesville still has not been retooled “so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs,” as Obama promised.

    Interesting how the Left's "fact checkers" handily, and quite deliberately, omitted those uncomfortable facts, isn't it? The Left falls for that "omission" tactic every time.

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    “As president, I will lead an effort to retool plants like the GM facility in Janesville so we can build the fuel-efficient cars of tomorrow and create good-paying jobs in Wisconsin and all across America.”
    -Barack Obama

    Where is the re-tooling??

    Where are the fuel-efficient cars???

    Where are the good paying jobs in Wisconsin???

    Where are the good paying jobs all across America???

    "President Obama?? YOU'RE FIRED!!"
    -The American People, 6 Nov 2012

    Michale.....

  37. [37] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris
    Interesting how the Left's "fact checkers" handily, and quite deliberately, omitted those uncomfortable facts, isn't it? The Left falls for that "omission" tactic every time.

    Lol at the 'left's fact-checkers'. Funny that independent fact-checkers only become this when you're pissed off with them because they don't support the lies portrayed by your VP candidate. Yet on this very blog you have linked to fact-check many a time to support you when they back you up. Hypocrisy much?

    And yes both the two mainstream independent fact-checkers did point this out. You just didn't bother to read them fully since they don't agree with your world view:

    Fact-check "It’s true that the plant didn’t last another year, as Ryan said. In fact, the Business Journal in Milwaukee wrote that the assembly plant shut down on Dec. 23, 2008, at the tail end of the Bush administration, a victim of the financial crisis and dwindling demand for the SUVs produced at the plant. That’s nearly one month before Obama was sworn into office.

    About 100 workers were kept on in 2009 to finish a truck order and help shut down the plant, according to the Associated Press.

    Politifact:The plant was effectively shut down on Dec. 23, 2008, when GM ceased production of SUVs there and laid off 1,200 workers. (Several dozen workers stayed on another four months to finish an order of small- to medium-duty trucks for Isuzu Motors.)

    Oh and the damn sneaky left somehow managed to conspire to forge this photograph: http://media.gazettextra.com/img/photos/2008/12/24/LastGMBannerPose_t715.jpg?529764a1de2bdd0f74a9fb4f856b01a9d617b3e9

    The biggest forgery since the forged birth certificate! Damn you liberal media and your conspiracys! Damn yoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh and the damn sneaky left somehow managed to conspire to forge this photograph: http://media.gazettextra.com/img/photos/2008/12/24/LastGMBannerPose_t715.jpg?529764a1de2bdd0f74a9fb4f856b01a

    Yea, and Bush stood under a banner that said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED..

    And the Hysterical Left accepted that utterly and completely... Right, michty??? :D

    Michale.....

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I noticed how ya are utterly incapable of addressing points 4, 5 ,6 and er.. 6 in comment #32..

    Strange how you CLAIM to want "facts" but the ONLY facts you will accept are the "facts" that paint the Democrats in a good light and the Republicans in a bad light..

    Why is that???

    Michale.....

  40. [40] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Lol at the 'left's fact-checkers'. Funny that independent fact-checkers

    LOL at the "independent fact checkers."

    About 100 workers were kept on in 2009 to finish a truck order and help shut down the plant

    So why is the Left lying about the plant shutting down in 2008, before O had assumed office?

  41. [41] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Politifact:The plant was effectively shut down on Dec. 23, 2000

    Does "effectively" mean "permanently"? No? Then I suggest you start paying closer attention to words, michty. You just got done quoting "FactCheck" ("About 100 workers were kept on in 2009 to finish a truck order and help shut down the plant"), and then you go on to show a 2008 pic referencing the last vehicle. Except that that a truck order was still being finished in 2009. Talk out of both sides of your mouth much?

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Politifact:The plant was effectively shut down on Dec. 23, 2000

    It's Clinton with his, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is" all over again..

    What IS it about the Left that they have to equivocate up the arse???

    Probably because they know that if they actually talk straight, everyone will realize what a bunch of bunk their foundation really is...

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting factoid...

    When I wore my Pro-Obama tee, I had one of the worst weekends on record..

    When I wore my Pro-American Business Owner tee.....

    http://sjfm.us/temp/workweek.jpg

    .....well... A picture is worth a thousand words....

    Now, I am not saying there is a correlation....

    Or is there?????

    "Mom! Make Dad quit talking like that!"
    -Lisa Simpson

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    It's Clinton with his, "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is" all over again..

    Speaking of Clinton... http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/how_clinton_plans_to_upstage_the_2FwMFHFfkOGNT8OfwaFkmO

    I find it amazing that O's trying to run on Bill's record.

    BTW, that Politifact quote has a typo. It's 2008, not 2000. I didn't catch it before I had posted it. This board doesn't have an editing gizmo, so I thought I'd alert folks: "Politifact:The plant was effectively shut down on Dec. 23, 2008..."

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Speaking of Clinton...

    "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags."
    President Bill Clinton, 2008

    Once again, because the guy has a '-D' after his name, that is ignored.

    Michale.....

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/03/books/no-easy-day-by-mark-owen-with-kevin-maurer.html?_r=2&hp

    This is why Owen's revelations aren't any big deal compared to the leaks that the White House engineered...

    Barring a worst case scenario previously described, it's doubtful that anything said by Owen will get anyone imprisoned, tortured or killed, except maybe the SEAL himself...

    "Shit, lady.. That's the business I'm in"
    -General Ira Potter, THE FINAL OPTION

    The White House cannot make the same claim of no consequences..

    Michale.....

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/var/plain/storage/images/media/romney_vs_obama/september_2012/romney_vs_obama_september_2_2012/768162-1-eng-US/romney_vs_obama_september_2_2012.jpg

    What?? No worries?? :D

    Of course, polls don't mean anything when they don't support Democrats... :D

    What WAS I thinking???

    Michale...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry for the spewage.. I am practicing for the Holiday Drive.. :D

    As I said above, a picture is worth a thousand words..

    http://a.abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/ht_TNCZ_sux_obama_banner_jt_120901_wblog.jpg

    SOME Iowans doesn't think too highly of Obama.. :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://thedailybanter.com/2012/09/john-cusacks-argument-against-obama/

    While I feel somewhat "dirty" agreeing with such a blatant Hollywood elitest, he does sum up completely why I can't understand the support Obama engenders from the Left...

    When it comes to many of the Left's "values", Obama seems to be as bad as Bush..

    I guess they must have spiked the Obama kool-aid with a mind-numbing agent....

    It's the only explanation that makes sense...

    Either that, or the '-D' after the name is even MORE important to the Left than I realize...

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    Either that, or the '-D' after the name is even MORE important to the Left than I realize...

    To be fair, the '-R' is just as important to the Hysterical Right..

    Ahhhh to be a political atheist....

    Ya'all should try it sometime. :D

    Jump in, the water's fine!!!

    Michale.....

  51. [51] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    Sorry for the spewage.. I am practicing for the Holiday Drive.. :D

    Don't ever apologize for that! Just keep on keeping on, as they say ... :)

    Thanksgiving is just around the corner when the spewing will be good!

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/03/u-texas-backs-professor-in-battle-with-gay-blogger/

    This is why hysterical activists are so dangerous..

    They don't care about the facts or science..

    They just want to further their own agenda, by hook or by crook...

    Of course, most everyone here would label this professor a bigot.. Of course, if the study when the OTHER way, this professor would be labeled a hero....

    Such is the case with the political bigots...

    Michale.....
    Michale.....

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    Don't ever apologize for that! Just keep on keeping on, as they say ... :)

    Thanksgiving is just around the corner when the spewing will be good!

    "It's guuuuuuudd"
    -Jim Carrey, BRUCE ALMIGHTY

    :D

    Michale....

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    Of course, most everyone here would label this professor a bigot.. Of course, if the study when the OTHER way, this professor would be labeled a hero....

    Too tortured syntax..

    Amend that to read:

    Of course, the Hysterical Left would label this professor a bigot. Which is ironic because, if the study had gone the OTHER way, this professor would be labeled a hero....

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Obama Administration has officially thrown Israel under the bus...

    'Iran must steer clear of US interests in Gulf'

    Washington reportedly sends Tehran indirect message saying it will not back Israeli strike on nuclear facilities as long as Iran refrains from attacking American facilities in Persian Gulf
    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4276276,00.html

    Michale.....

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962[44]

    I find it amazing that O's trying to run on Bill's record.

    That's not quite the way to interpret what Obama is trying to do and what Clinton will do Wednesday night at the convention.

    Let me put this as simply as I can ...

    Under Clinton's stewardship, the pro-growth economic policies put in place resulted in job creation and a budget surplus. Granted, the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the absence of an effective financial regulatory regime helped to set the stage for the financial crisis of 2007/2008.

    During the Bush/Cheney era, on the other hand, economic policies severely curtailed job creation while the deficit and debt rose exponentially as a result of two wars off the books, tax cuts skewed toward the wealthiest Americans (in the midst of two wars, no less) and a very expensive and ineffective prescription drug policy, not to mention the financial crisis of 2007/08.

    And, so, a simple comparison between the Clinton and Bush years is quite instructive when trying to determine which economic policies are effective and lead to economic growth.

    Unfortunately, Romney/Ryan and the rest of the Republicans have not learned these lessons. They want to return to the failed policies of the Republican cult of economic failure. Even President Clinton learned the lesson of how important financial regulatory reform is to the health of the financial system as a whole whereas Romney/Ryan want to repeal Dodd-Frank.

    So, it's not a case of Obama running on Clinton's record. It's just a recognition of what works to improve the economy and what doesn't. I think you will continue to hear more about the comparison of economic policies that have been put in place over the course of the last couple of decades and how they have impacted economic growth. And, perhaps, some lessons will be learned.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, so, a simple comparison between the Clinton and Bush years is quite instructive when trying to determine which economic policies are effective and lead to economic growth.

    Not necessarily..

    Clinton had the Dot Com bubble which was a HUGE plus to the economy...

    Further, Bush had 9/11 which was a HUGE negative to the economy...

    Without the huge impact that both events had on the US economy, there is no telling WHAT may have happened..

    The fact that a Democrat happened to be POTUS when the PLUS happened and a Republican happened to be POTUS when the NEG happened is purely happenstance..

    It's impossible to draw any accurate conclusion of economic prowess of any given political ideology based on those two limited and highly isolated examples..

    Michale....

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's impossible to draw any accurate conclusion of economic prowess of any given political ideology based on those two limited and highly isolated examples..

    "Mr Gambini? That was a lucid, intelligent and well thought-out objection.. OVERRULED!"
    -Fred Gwynne, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

  59. [59] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    So, how do you explain the Romney/Ryan aversion to financial regulatory reform?

  60. [60] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    By the way, stop talking to yourself, Michale!

    :-)

  61. [61] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Chris
    You in July on this blog: Not until I read the FactCheck article did I realize how truly desperate Team-O was.

    Michale in July: I take it you didn't read the factcheck.org report, eh?

    You this week LOL at the "independent fact checkers."

    Funny how FactCheck is fine to quote when it supports you, but when it doesn't 'lol it's not independent'. It's just the usual right-wing response, when they disagree the media becomes the 'biased liberal media' and when they agree it becomes 'look at what the media say, Obama is desperate!'

    Michale
    I noticed how ya are utterly incapable of addressing points 4, 5 ,6 and er.. 6 in comment #32..

    Sure
    4. Agree - all the fact-checkers do too.
    5. Agree - all the fact-checkers do too.
    6. Agree - all the fact-checkers do too.

    I don't really have much else to say other than you and Chris has proved your inability to actually read what the independent fact-checkers have said, even when I quote it on here.

    Chris
    Does "effectively" mean "permanently"? No?

    I am not sure what you are attempting to argue here but let's take it to it's logical conclusion:

    You believe mothballing a place isn't shutting it down - since 'effectively closing' a place isn't 'permanently' closing a place! Fine lets go with it.

    You posted under point (6) in your list of points that the plant is still mothballed today.

    So basically it still isn't permanently closed today, it is only 'effectively closed'. And since you don't believe being mothballed or effectively closed is the same as closed then, under your logic, the plant is still open today!

    So Ryan is wrong about the plant closing full stop, the date doesn't even matter, since your logic shows you believe a mothballed plant isn't a closed plant.

    In addition to this, Obama's promise of keeping the plant open for 100 years is still on as, in your world, the plant is still 'open' today.

    Congratulations, you just completely destroyed your argument. Fwiw I don't believe this, since I know that mothballing is effectively closing. I am just showing you how stupid your argument is when you take it to it's logical conclusion...

    Michale
    The fact that a Democrat happened to be POTUS when the PLUS happened and a Republican happened to be POTUS when the NEG happened is purely happenstance

    Amazing! I'd love to hear you actually apply your logic to Obama. Because in you and Republicans world Obama is responsible for EVERYTHING - you completely ignoring the fact he had the worst House of all time, because it suits you to do so. Yet when it is pointed out the records of Clinton and Bush, all of a sudden you want to have your cake and eat it, so the argument changes to 'well you can't blame the President for everything!'. Well played.

  62. [62] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Granted, the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the absence of an effective financial regulatory regime helped to set the stage for the financial crisis of 2007/2008.

    Oh, I'll say: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/view/?utm_campaign=viewpage&utm_medium=grid&utm_source=grid

  63. [63] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Maybe you didn't get the memo. I'm not interested in your links. I'm interested in what YOU have to say about this.

    For instance, why do you think Romney/Ryan are so against effective fin reg reform? Why do they want to repeal Dodd-Frank?

  64. [64] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty,

    Are you addressing your comments to CW or to Chris1962?

    It could be terribly confusing to newcomers here. I'm just sayin' ...

  65. [65] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Maybe you didn't get the memo. I'm not interested in your links.

    It's PBS, Liz. You're safe. It even has lots of pics of Geithner in there. G'head, learn some facts.

  66. [66] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Sorry please read Chris as Chris62...

  67. [67] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Why don't you want to share your own thoughts about any of this?

  68. [68] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I'll sum up the argument for you Liz:

    (1) All Republican Presidents are not responsible for any economic problems or recession - those were created by their Democratic predecessors/Democratic Congress.
    (2) All Republican Presidents are, however, responsible for economic successes. These are very rare though - which is the fault of the Democrats (see (1), definitely not the Republican policies which are not worthy of being re-considered.
    (3) Democratic Presidents economic successes are due to Republicans in general (see (2)). The fact that Democrats followed different economic policies than Republicans is nothing to do with the success. Or, they are not really successes, just future problems passed on to Republicans (see (1)).
    (4) Democratic Presidents economic failures are completely their fault. A Democratic President blaming their predecessor or Republican House is just trying to make excuses that Republicans see right though(see Obama).

  69. [69] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michty,

    Sorry please read Chris as Chris62...

    Unless, of course it's one of my comments where I start off with Chris, ...

    What am I going to do with you?!

    I understand that Chris1962 likes the nickname, CB ... why don't you just use that and then any confusion between Chris and Chris1962, God forbid, will be avoided. Deal?

  70. [70] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Why don't you want to share your own thoughts about any of this?

    The video says it all, Liz. I think there ever even pics of Biden in there.

  71. [71] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty[66]

    That was about as clear as mud.

    :-)

  72. [72] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Are you trying hard to come across as being thick-skulled or does it just come naturally?

  73. [73] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Not interested in your insults, Liz. Oh, but I've already said that before, haven't I?

  74. [74] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris1962,

    Okay, now I know you're a girl ... no guy would be so hypersensitive or so repetitive, ad nauseam ... oh, wait ...

    In any case, come back only when you have something worthwhile to say. Okay, dear? Heh.

  75. [75] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So, how do you explain the Romney/Ryan aversion to financial regulatory reform?

    We won't know there is any actual aversion until Romney and Ryan begin actual governing..

    Remember, Obama said a LOT of things in 2008-2009 that never came to pass..

    On the other hand, I think that we definitely should follow Obama's advice he gave in Feb of 2009...

    "If I can't turn this economy around in 3 years, I don't *DESERVE* a second term."

    We should ALL heed Obama's advice....

    I understand that Chris1962 likes the nickname, CB ... why don't you just use that and then any confusion between Chris and Chris1962, God forbid, will be avoided. Deal?

    I second that....

    Michty,

    Amazing! I'd love to hear you actually apply your logic to Obama. Because in you and Republicans world Obama is responsible for EVERYTHING - you completely ignoring the fact he had the worst House of all time, because it suits you to do so.

    HE HAD A DEMOCRAT HOUSE!!!!!!!

    So WHO is ignoring the facts and who isn't!???

    Obama had a VIRTUAL LOCK on ALL facets of government for the first two years of his administration.. He HAD the chance to REALLY help this country...

    But he choose to REALLY help Democrats only..

    It's poetic justice that, in his efforts to HELP Democrats he actually HURT them beyond belief..

    Hence, the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010....

    "None of these facts are in dispute, Mr President!!"
    -Klingon Ambassador, STAR TREK VI The Undiscovered Country

    Michale......

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oh snap.....

    Michale.....

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80591_Page2.html

    BBBWWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    Once again Republicans prove that they can motivate the American people, while Democrats will always prove that they can bloviate to the American people... :D

    This is one of those times I wish I could say I am a Republican...

    Michale...

  78. [78] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Okay, now I know you're a girl ... no guy would be so hypersensitive or so repetitive, ad nauseam ... oh, wait ...

    In any case, come back only when you have something worthwhile to say. Okay, dear? Heh.

    Gosh, more insults. What, pray tell, were the chances.

  79. [79] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What, pray tell, were the chances.

    Excellent! From your perspective, at least. :)

  80. [80] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Well, yeah, since all you ever do is hurl insults — when you aren't otherwise occupied with trying to squeeze your idol worship of Geithner and Biden into a post, that is. Carry on, Liz.

  81. [81] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80591_Page2.html

    BBBWWWWAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    LOL! I like the one of the chair on Mount Rushmore. It reminds me of the shrine constructed of sand.
    http://www.examiner.com/article/giant-sand-obama-sculpture-damaged-by-rain

  82. [82] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Once again Republicans prove that they can motivate the American people, while Democrats will always prove that they can bloviate to the American people... :D

    I like the pic with the chair on Mount Rushmore. It reminds me of the Obama Mt. Rushmore sand shrine: http://www.examiner.com/article/giant-sand-obama-sculpture-damaged-by-rain

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    I like the pic with the chair on Mount Rushmore. It reminds me of the Obama Mt. Rushmore sand shrine:

    Yep, it's like Obama's campaign seal that was a near duplicate of the Presidential Seal..

    That's our POTUS....

    A legend in his own mind...

    Michale.....

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    Team Obama is not previewing Clinton's speech before Weds night..

    There's no need, says Team Obama. What could possibly go wrong!!? :D

    Someone pass the popcorn!! :D

    Michale......

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    And another great one passes...

    Michael Clarke Duncan passed away at age 54..

    It's sad times we live in.

    Michale

  86. [86] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The Obama Jobs Recovery Picture Book

    https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1_lCc4UfUvUHimoeAv9UTOMvYtferO5EaO9wKHj4GFeE/edit?pli=1#slide=id.p13

    Good summary: Did his policies work, as the President claims? Only if his goal was to come in last place.

    Don’t be fooled when Obama touts how many jobs have been created.

    We lost jobs every single month until his agenda was stalled when he lost his 60th vote in the Senate.

    Only afterwards have we added any jobs, with most of those gains occurring since the Republican landslide in the House fully repudiated his agenda.

    This marked a collective sigh of relief by job creators that the worst just might be over.

    From now on, notice that every time Obama quotes a jobs figure, he begins his measurement period (eg. “In the last 27 months…) from the time his agenda was stopped.

    In John Kerryesque fashion, his policies worked - as soon as they were stopped.

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    In John Kerryesque fashion, his policies worked - as soon as they were stopped.

    Oooooo good find!!! :D

    "That oughta clinch up their sphincters!"
    -Rachael Phelps, Major League II

    :D

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    michty6 wrote:

    From now on, notice that every time Obama quotes a jobs figure, he begins his measurement period (eg. “In the last 27 months…) from the time his agenda was stopped.

    Lol CB you just proved my post in [68] perfectly. I'm just going to refer back to this when dealing with you guys now. I should add a new rule:

    (5) Anything good that happens during a Democratic Presidency is due to Republicans; anything bad that happens is due to Democrats.

    In other news, Romney got to -0.1 in the RCP average after the convention so, so, so, so close to taking the lead in 2012 for the first time. Unfortunately he's back to -0.3 today. Shame. Could've had his first 2012 lead in the post convention bounce but now that's going to be pretty unlikely to happen...

  89. [89] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    Obama had a VIRTUAL LOCK on ALL facets of government for the first two years of his administration.. He HAD the chance to REALLY help this country..

    So those 70 bills during 2009-2010 (an all time record high of all time at that point in time) that were blocked and did not pass due to the filibuster don't exist in your made up world?

    Those 70 bills actually passed in your made up world where Obama had a lock on Government?

    Those 70 bills are in fact law in your made up world where Obama had a lock on Government? So we should act as if they are law because they must've actually passed since Obama had a lock on Government?

    OPEN YOUR EYES. STOP BELIEVING THE RHETORIC.

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol CB you just proved my post in [68] perfectly. I'm just going to refer back to this when dealing with you guys now. I should add a new rule:

    Do you have any FACTS to back up that CB is WRONG in her conclusion???

    You are always big on "facts"....

    So, is what CB said factual or not???

    Michale.....

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/9/4/orange_city_man_arre.html

    I think the kid is an Obama supporter and he was so desperate to convince himself that the last 3+ years has been a bad dream... :D

    Michale.....

  92. [92] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Do you have any FACTS to back up that CB is WRONG in her conclusion???

    You are always big on "facts"

    Well the burden of proof is not on me. CB is saying 'Obama is responsible for the bad stuff but Republicans the good stuff that happened the last 4 years!' (lol) so the burden of proof is on her.

    I'd point to the stimulus bill as being the main driver of any jobs creation or economic recovery. Since the Republicans didn't actually pass any economic bills, to suggest they are responsible for the jobs creation (and Democrats the jobs destruction) is, quite frankly, laughable. It is really trying to stretch reality.

  93. [93] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Btw Mr Ryan admitted today the plant closed in December 2008 and that he wasn't blaming Obama for this - he was blaming him for failing to get it re-opened: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/04/paul-ryan-today_n_1853759.html

    I hope your right-wing fact-checkers rate his new comments as 'totally false' given their previous claims that the plant wasn't 'closed' until 2009 lol.

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well the burden of proof is not on me. CB is saying 'Obama is responsible for the bad stuff but Republicans the good stuff that happened the last 4 years!' (lol) so the burden of proof is on her.

    Ahhhh Ahhhhh Ahhhh....

    Harry Reid has established (and even won an award for it) that when an accuser makes an accusation, it's up to the ACCUSE'EE to prove it wrong....

    But let me crystallize it for you...

    Were there any jobs added during the Obama administration prior to Scott Brown's election?

    If you can show that there were, then CB's source is in error...

    If you can't show that there were, then the conclusion stands as factual..

    Gods bless Harry Reid... :D

    Btw Mr Ryan admitted today the plant closed in December 2008

    Ahhh So NOW Ryan is a reliable source??? :D

    Michale.....

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ahhhh Ahhhhh Ahhhh....

    Harry Reid has established (and even won an award for it) that when an accuser makes an accusation, it's up to the ACCUSE'EE to prove it wrong....

    I just KNEW that was gonna come back and bite ya'all on the arse!!! :D

    Michale.....

  96. [96] 
    Michale wrote:

    Totally off the wall and apropos of nothing (which is the norm for FTPs :D)

    http://www.g4tv.com/videos/60531/what-to-expect-in-madden-nfl-13/?quality=hd

    Anyone see the gameplay for Madden 13??

    I am not much of a gamer anymore and haven't played a Madden game since 10.. But my gods, look at the graphics!!!

    WOW

    Michale.....

  97. [97] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Btw Mr Ryan admitted today the plant closed in December 2008

    He never said otherwise, in the first place. It's just another case of the Left hearing what it wants to hear instead of what was actually said.

    Ryan: Speech didn’t say Obama responsible for GM plant closure

    "Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Tuesday defended his Republican National Committee speech and said he had not accused President Obama of being responsible for the closure of an auto plant in Janesville, Wis.

    "What they're trying to suggest is that I said that Barack Obama was responsible for our plant shutdown in Janesville," Ryan said Monday on NBC's "Today" show. "That is not what I was saying. Read the speech. What I was saying is the president ought to be held to account for his broken promises...."
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/247273-paul-ryan-janesville-story-was-about-obamas-broken-promises

  98. [98] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Harry Reid has established (and even won an award for it) that when an accuser makes an accusation, it's up to the ACCUSE'EE to prove it wrong....

    LOL. Gotta love how the rules are always bass-akwards on Planet Liberal. They've created such a neat little world for themselves.

  99. [99] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I would love to see you guys in a court room. I'd give you 1 minute of your retarded backward arguments before the judge threw you out.

    Especially when you're making retarded claims like 'Republicans, despite never passing a single economic bill, are responsible for the recovery and all the jobs - look at the timing!' (lol). Obviously this, and Republicans economic plans as a whole, totally forget why a recovery was necessary in the first place - in the style of Michale:

    "Don't mention the Bush. I mentioned him once, but I think I got away with it!"
    - Basil Fawlty

    Luckily most Americans don't view reality like you both do (my rule I presented in [68]) or President Romney and the subsequent destruction of American social values would be a shoe-in.

  100. [100] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. Michale - Romney is down to 41.8% on In-Trade. I would suggest you make a bet given your 89% confidence (the source of which you never provided) on a Romney victory... but in fact I think it is better that you wait until the end of this week when he might have dropped below 40% and you'll get an even bigger (possibly even a full 50%) edge!

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    Especially when you're making retarded claims like 'Republicans, despite never passing a single economic bill, are responsible for the recovery and all the jobs - look at the timing!' (lol).

    OK.... Then how would YOU explain the FACT (since you can't dispute it) that jobs started being created to the DAY that Democrats lost their golden majority???

    Luck??? Happenstance?? Pixie Fairy Dust???

    Yea, would love to see the FACTS that support THAT contention! :D

    PS. Michale - Romney is down to 41.8% on In-Trade. I would suggest you make a bet given your 89% confidence (the source of which you never provided) on a Romney victory... but in fact I think it is better that you wait until the end of this week when he might have dropped below 40% and you'll get an even bigger (possibly even a full 50%) edge!

    Sounding a tad desperate there, ain'tcha?? :D

    NO incumbent has EVER won re-election with Unemployment past 7.2% since FDR....

    DEMs in government has been shrinking steadily since the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010...

    Do the math, michty....

    Michale.....

  102. [102] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I would love to see you guys in a court room. I'd give you 1 minute of your retarded backward arguments before the judge threw you out.

    Last I checked, the prosecutor, or plaintiff, making the allegation, gets to prove his case, not the defendant who's being accused.

    I thought the Left looked down on the use of "retarded" as a slur. Or does that only apply if the Right uses it?

  103. [103] 
    michty6 wrote:

    OK.... Then how would YOU explain the FACT (since you can't dispute it) that jobs started being created to the DAY that Democrats lost their golden majority???
    Luck??? Happenstance?? Pixie Fairy Dust???
    Yea, would love to see the FACTS that support THAT contention! :D

    You're kidding right? My God the American education system is badly failing you guys.

    Ok let me start with what you do know.
    - You know bills take quite a long time to write?
    - Also quite a long time to pass? That passing a bill isn't a simple process that takes minutes?
    - And once passed, bills take quite a long time to enact? A good example for you might be that the larger sections of the ACA don't start until 2014...
    - Also that the US Government doesn't need to pass bills everyday for the country to function?
    - So a bill passed a long time ago could still be helping to function the country today?
    - Like the Government doesn't get together today, the 4th Sept and say 'what bills should we pass for tomorrow the 5th of Sept so the country doesn't shut down'?

    Some info: http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17

    NO incumbent has EVER won re-election with Unemployment past 7.2% since FDR....

    DEMs in government has been shrinking steadily since the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010

    Lol exactly - you should be betting your house and everything on In-Trade getting such great odds if you believe this. The point is: I am looking at the numbers. They tell me that whatever the Republicans are doing isn't working. And when Mitt Romney says he is 'preparing for the debates' I would guess he is actually drawing up a plan C...

  104. [104] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    CB is saying 'Obama is responsible for the bad stuff but Republicans the good stuff that happened the last 4 years!'

    Wow, I get quotation marks around something I never said this time. You've got a real bad habit of using your own personal characterizations and convenient translations to describe what others have said, michty. Keep doing that, and I'll keep ignoring you, k?

  105. [105] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Last I checked, the prosecutor, or plaintiff, making the allegation, gets to prove his case, not the defendant who's being accused.

    Uhm I'm going to disagree. The accused still gets to provide evidence! What happens is one side makes an allegation and provides evidence in support of said allegation - before the court stage, the judge decides if this is enough evidence to even proceed with to court. Then, in court, the evidence is presented in further detail by the prosecution before the other side firstly rebuts this evidence but also provides evidence of their own.

    This is different to you and Michale's courtroom where one side can make a rhetorical, nonsensical statement without providing any evidence and then demand that the other side be required to provide evidence to disprove it... and even then such evidences is glanced over, ignored and the final verdict is 'Republicans are responsible for good things, Democrats bad things!'.

    I thought the Left looked down on the use of "retarded" as a slur. Or does that only apply if the Right uses it?

    I love how one person is 'the left' in you and Michale's world. Again - not quite how things work in real life...

    But I actually agree with this although I still find myself throwing the word in occasionally. My apologies for any offence in using this word.

  106. [106] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Wow, I get quotation marks around something I never said this time. You've got a real bad habit of using your own personal characterizations and convenient translations to describe what others have said, michty. Keep doing that, and I'll keep ignoring you, k?

    Sorry but inverted commas are usually intended to paraphrase. Quotation marks look like this " " and, from what I gather, the standard procedure on this site is to put quotations in italics or even say "I quote". But if you're going to play semantical crap again lets just end the debate now this is the last time I bother responding to one of your stupid posts about language and being 'misquoted' 'misinterpreted' or 'misunderstood' (PS. these single quotes once again indicate paraphrasing not quoting).

  107. [107] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Especially when you're making retarded claims like 'Republicans, despite never passing a single economic bill, are responsible for the recovery and all the jobs - look at the timing!' (lol).

    Voters sent Republicans in to put the brakes on O's policies in 2010, michty. And that's what they did. Yeah, interesting timing, all right. Or "cause and effect" might be another way of looking at it.

  108. [108] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CB

    Voters sent Republicans in to put the brakes on O's policies in 2010, michty. And that's what they did. Yeah, interesting timing, all right. Or "cause and effect" might be another way of looking at it.

    You seriously think economies work in 1-2 year cycles? Or short-term cycles? What about the jobs added in 2010? And the jobs trend going into 2011?

    I don't believe you guys are stupid enough to actually believe this and I think you're just winding me up - although I'm kind of getting scared that you do actually believe this... If you are winding me up well played indeed, you win and I fell for it.

  109. [109] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Sorry but inverted commas are usually intended to paraphrase.

    The Brits usually reverse the American quotation order, using single quotation marks first, and then double quotation marks to enclose quotations within quotations. But the point is your convenient characterizations and translations in place of what's actually said. You really need to stop doing that.

    Uhm I'm going to disagree. The accused still gets to provide evidence!

    If they wish. The point, however, is that the prosecutor/plaintiff has to prove the allegation, not the defendant.

  110. [110] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CB

    Ah sorry I didn't realise the inverted commas difference. But I am going to continue to paraphrase where possible. You can either deal with it, paraphrase back if you like or just not bother responding - I'll leave the choice to you.

    It is you and Michale providing the allegation. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that jobs created in 2011-12 should be associated to Republicans (perhaps ONE bill might help?) but I'd love to hear it (if you actually believe this and aren't just winding me up...).

  111. [111] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    You seriously think economies work in...

    Back to your tedious "do you think?" games, having nothing to do with business owners' confidence, but a handy little way to detour away from the point, as usual? That's when I go back to ignoring you, michty.

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is you and Michale providing the allegation. You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence that jobs created in 2011-12 should be associated to Republicans (perhaps ONE bill might help?) but I'd love to hear it (if you actually believe this and aren't just winding me up...).

    Michty, Michty, Michty....

    You have failed to acknowledge the Reid Precedent..

    It's not up to the ACCUSER to prove their case....

    It's up to YOU to refute it..

    So, find the evidence that SHOWS me n CB are wrong..

    Until you can, you have absolutely NO CASE...

    This is the Reid Precedent...

    You live by the sword, you die by the sword... :D

    "Ahhhh, Kirk.. My old friend, Kirk. Do you know the Klingon proverb that says 'revenge is a dish best served cold'. It is very cold in space."
    -Kahn, STAR TREK II

    Michale.....

  113. [113] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Ah sorry I didn't realise the inverted commas difference. But I am going to continue to paraphrase where possible. You can either deal with it, paraphrase back if you like or just not bother responding - I'll leave the choice to you.

    I'll take the just-not-bother-responding choice, since I find your game-playing beyond boring.

  114. [114] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or, if you prefer, you can hop on over to the OBAMA WATCH commentary and try to defend Democrats throwing Israel under the bus...

    You MIGHT have better luck there... :D

    "No, not really. I can't back that up"
    -Dr Evil, AUSTIN POWERS: The Spy Who Shagged Me

    :D

    Michale.....

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Debt Is 16 *TRILLION* dollars...
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/sep/4/debt-tops-16-trillion/

    WAY TO GO, OBAMA!!!

    :^/

    What was it that Obama said?? That Bush having an 8 Trillion Dollar Debt is "unpatriotic"???

    I guess that makes Obama an out and out traitor, eh???

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  117. [117] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CB
    I'll take the just-not-bother-responding choice, since I find your game-playing beyond boring.

    I'll make a deal with you. I'll ignore your comments, you ignore mine? Everytime we chat about something it disintegrates into a semantics argument. This will save us both the hassle.

    Michale
    You have failed to acknowledge the Reid Precedent..
    It's not up to the ACCUSER to prove their case

    This is your problem you put 'the left' in one group. Not everyone things the same. I don't agree with what Reid said. So I will apply the normal burden of evidence on YOU the accuser. Of course this should be pretty simple, you just have to name 1 bill (I already have named 1 bill and I'm not even making the accusation!).

    When your accusations are so silly and a blatant misunderstanding of your own political system I would guess (hope) that even you know how stupid they are!

  118. [118] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/president-obama-counts-harold-kumar-latest-web-campaign-ad-article-1.1151246

    Well, at least Obama can count on the STONER vote... :^/

    I still think the 'Jake Grafton' novel Under Seige has the best solution to the rampant drug problem...

    Michale.....

  119. [119] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  120. [120] 
    Michale wrote:

    "I categorically deny that I ever characterized Republican policies as harmful to Israel. Bipartisan support is a paramount national interest for Israel, and we have great friends on both sides of the aisle."
    -Ambassador Michael Oren

    Now THAT's a bitch-slap if I have ever seen one!!! :D

    Michale.....

  121. [121] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Everytime we chat about something it disintegrates into a semantics argument.

    Yeah, that's because you're hell bent on deceitfully mischaracterizing and misrepresenting statements, michty, in your never-ending quest to detour away from the point, or to simply mischaracterize for your own benefit. That stuff got old way long ago (I see Michale got a little sick of it, too), so, yeah, I have no problem going back to ignoring you.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    The problem as I see it, is that michty suffers the same malady that our POTUS is stricken with..

    They are simply INCAPABLE of admitting when they are wrong...

    Michale.....

  123. [123] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale
    So, yeah, I have no problem going back to ignoring you.

    Agreed. Lets call it an indefinite this time.

  124. [124] 
    Chris1962 wrote:
  125. [125] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Whoops I meant CB not Michale.

    Michale debating you is fun, I will continue this ;)

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale debating you is fun, I will continue this ;)

    I only have one question...

    When we have President Elect Romney, will you admit that you were wrong??

    Michale....

  127. [127] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Wrong about what?

    I'd say that I agree that Romney has about a 40% chance of winning, probably less - around 30% I'd say. Barring a large fall in job creation or something in Europe which slows the economy vastly between now and the election I see no path to victory for him on his current platform. I'd say the probability of him winning is strongly correlated to the probability of the economy faltering between now and the election...

  128. [128] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Oh dear it seems even Fox has admitted your arguments in this thread are wrong: http://www.foxbusiness.com/investing/2012/09/04/history-shows-markets-gdp-outperform-under-democrats/

  129. [129] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'd say that I agree that Romney has about a 40% chance of winning, probably less - around 30% I'd say. Barring a large fall in job creation or something in Europe which slows the economy vastly between now and the election I see no path to victory for him on his current platform. I'd say the probability of him winning is strongly correlated to the probability of the economy faltering between now and the election...

    So, when Romney does win, will you admit that you were wrong? :D

    Oh dear it seems even Fox has admitted your arguments in this thread are wrong:

    It's worth it, just to see you quote Fox News...

    So, will YOU admit that FoxNews doesn't have a conservative bias??

    After all, a news media with a conservative bias would NEVER post anything that was Pro Democrat, as FNC just did... :D

    Michale.....

  130. [130] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is your problem you put 'the left' in one group. Not everyone things the same. I don't agree with what Reid said.

    Yet you didn't speak out against it when he said it.

    So, you were FOR it until such time being FOR it didn't work to your benefit, so then you were against it... :D

    But, if you are now AGAINST what Reid said, then you concede that Romney shouldn't have to show any more tax returns, as he has released what is customary and that should suffice..

    Of course, if Obama wants to MATCH the transparency he wants from Romney, he (Obama) could always release his school records. :D

    Funny... Since Romney tied the release of tax records to the release of school records, Team Obama has been REAL quiet about Romney's tax records..

    I guess Obama doesn't want ANYTHING to remind Americans that Obama is still keeping secrets about his past.. :D

  131. [131] 
    Michale wrote:

    4.5 million jobs have been created since the president took office — though that number refers only to private sector employment gains over the past 29 months and leaves out state and local government jobs that continue to disappear each month.
    http://news.yahoo.com/first-lady-says-husband-man-trust-024143640--election.html

    Obama is over his head. Democrats simply cannot fix this economy...

    Michale.....

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:
  133. [133] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/obama2.jpg

    Oh gods, give me a frak'in break!!!

    It's funny how the Left always condemns religious hysterical and fanaticism...

    But, apparently, only when it comes from the Right....

    Michale.....

  134. [134] 
    michty6 wrote:

    So, will YOU admit that FoxNews doesn't have a conservative bias??
    After all, a news media with a conservative bias would NEVER post anything that was Pro Democrat, as FNC just did

    Lol one real article looking at the facts does not an unbiased news make. In fact, I'd expect any biased news organisation to throw in the odd unbiased article so they can say 'Look! We aren't biased!'

    Yet you didn't speak out against it when he said it.

    Perhaps you should read the Friday thread where this was mentioned again? I very clearly spoke out against it and called it stupid. It's just whenever I do criticise Democrats you just completely ignore it and continually accuse me of being biased...

    Of course, if Obama wants to MATCH the transparency he wants from Romney, he (Obama) could always release his school records.

    I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'match' lol. You see Obama is already more transparent than Romney. Romney needs to 'match' him not the other way round...

    Funny... Since Romney tied the release of tax records to the release of school records, Team Obama has been REAL quiet about Romney's tax records..

    What on earth are you talking about? Want to bet that this is mentioned in almost every speak at the DNC? Or play a drinking game where you drink when you hear 'tax returns' - you'll go through a lot of alcohol!

    though that number refers only to private sector employment gains over the past 29 months and leaves out state and local government jobs that continue to disappear each month...

    Obama is over his head. Democrats simply cannot fix this economy...

    Lol Michale you've accidentally quoated a PRO-Obama article lolol! You completely missed the point here. The point is Obama is creating private sector jobs whilst America continues to shed Government jobs. If the same amount of people were employed in the public sector as in 2008, the unemployment rate would be 7.1% today: http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/08/03-jobs-greenstone-looney.

    But shhhh don't mention this to the right-wingers. Government decreasing under 'socialist' Obama. Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Their minds will explode!

  135. [135] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol one real article looking at the facts does not an unbiased news make. In fact, I'd expect any biased news organisation to throw in the odd unbiased article so they can say 'Look! We aren't biased!'

    Yea, but the problem with your theory is that FNC displays MANY of those types of Pro Left articles each and every day..

    Which utterly and completely blows your FNC IS RIGHT BIASED theory right out of the water.. :D

    Perhaps you should read the Friday thread where this was mentioned again? I very clearly spoke out against it and called it stupid. It's just whenever I do criticise Democrats you just completely ignore it and continually accuse me of being biased...

    Link please?? :D

    I don't think you understand the meaning of the word 'match' lol. You see Obama is already more transparent than Romney. Romney needs to 'match' him not the other way round...

    In YOUR little world, I am sure you believe that.. But here in the real world, Obama hasn't been very transparent at all..

    At least not with the records that Americans WANT to see... School Records, FAST Furious, etc etc etc..

    What on earth are you talking about? Want to bet that this is mentioned in almost every speak at the DNC? Or play a drinking game where you drink when you hear 'tax returns' - you'll go through a lot of alcohol!

    Prove it... :D

    Lol Michale you've accidentally quoated a PRO-Obama article lolol! You completely missed the point here. The point is Obama is creating private sector jobs whilst America continues to shed Government jobs. If the same amount of people were employed in the public sector as in 2008, the unemployment rate would be 7.1% today:

    Obama only started CREATING jobs in Jan of 2010..

    Hmmmm What happened then??

    Oh yea, that's right. Republicans regained some control over Congress...

    However, Obama STILL hasn't replaced all the jobs that were lost under HIS watch..

    Cue the BLAME BUSH PITY PARTY...

    Michale.....

  136. [136] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yea, but the problem with your theory is that FNC displays MANY of those types of Pro Left articles each and every day..
    Which utterly and completely blows your FNC IS RIGHT BIASED theory right out of the water

    I don't think you understand how bias works. For example, would you say a site that has 95% right-wing articles and 5% left-wing is unbiased because they have 'many' left-wing articles every day? Bias is measure this way, not by 'oh a few articles that are not biased appear'. Anyway I thought we were in agreement that MSN was left, Fox was right?

    Link please?? :D
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/08/03/ftp221/
    Read post 63.

    At least not with the records that Americans WANT to see... School Records, FAST Furious, etc etc etc

    Nope. These are things you and other nut-job-right-wing-conspiracy-nuts want to see. Show me ANY evidence that "Americans" want to see this? (Like the many polls where >50% Americans agree that Romney should show more tax returns). My guess is you'll probably just ignore this comment, as what happens when we usually debate this and it becomes clear you are very wrong on the transparency issue...

    Obama only started CREATING jobs in Jan of 2010..
    Hmmmm What happened then??
    Oh yea, that's right. Republicans regained some control over Congress...

    I think you need a history lesson. In January 2010 Republicans did not have control of any element of Congress (although they were still filibustering like crazy, so had 'some' control in this sense...). But shhhh let's not talk about the millions of jobs created in 2010 and the fact that the trend of American job creation was heavily upwards when Republican took seat in 2011 - that is counter to your 'Democrats are at fault for all bad things, Republicans responsible for all good things' nonsensical argument lol...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Link please?? :D
    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/08/03/ftp221/
    Read post 63.

    Credit where credit is due.

    You did, in fact, say how dumb a remark it was...

    Kudos to you...

    I think you need a history lesson. In January 2010 Republicans did not have control of any element of Congress

    Actually, you are in error...

    On 19 Jan 2010, Brown won the Massachusetts Special Election which effectively ended Democrats complete domination of the Senate..

    Up until this point, Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

    So, it's accurate to say that Republicans regained some of control of Congress in Jan of 2010...

    Interestingly enough, it is around this time frame that the US stopped LOSING jobs and started GAINING jobs..

    Of course, there is not enough data to say, unequivocally, that Republicans were responsible for the stopping of the hemorrhaging of the jobs during the Obama Administration..

    But it IS an interesting coincidence.. :D If it IS in fact, a coincidence... :D

  138. [138] 
    michty6 wrote:

    On 19 Jan 2010, Brown won the Massachusetts Special Election which effectively ended Democrats complete domination of the Senate..

    Up until this point, Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority.

    Nope. Again you have repeated many times about this 'filbuster-proof' nonsense and many times I have had to correct you. Do you think the 39 bills blocked from passing in 2009 (fact) magically appeared out of nowhere? Are those 39 bills block in 2009 magically still law??

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/morning-doh-chris-christie-falsely-claims-president-obama-had-filibuster-proof-majority-for-2-years/

    Aside from this you really are getting into hilarious territory where you are claiming that Democrats are responsible for bad things, Republicans good things even when Democrats have a majority in both Houses and the Presidency lolololol. Your total bias and view of reality is starting to slip further and further away into a dream world...

  139. [139] 
    Michale wrote:

    From your OWN link, Michty

    the Democrats didn’t reach that 60-seat threshold in the Senate until Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) was sworn in on July 7, 2009. They lost that majority upon the swearing-in of Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) on Feb. 4, 2010,

    OBAMA HAD A FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY **FACT**

    BROWN's ELECTION ENDED THAT FILIBUSTER PROOF MAJORITY **FACT**

    You want to play semantic games, fine..

    But at least acknowledge the facts..

    BROWN's election ended the Democrats LOCK on the Senate...

    At around the same time, the US stopped LOSING jobs and started GAINING jobs..

    These are the facts that no amount of semantic games will erase...

    Jesus H Christ!

    Michale.....

  140. [140] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale

    AGAIN read the WHOLE ARTICLE lol:
    s Mother Jones‘ Kevin Drum points out, though, the actual amount of time the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority, when you factor in the late Sen. Ted Kennedy‘s illness and the winter recess, amounts to 14 weeks.

    - 39 bills were blocked in 2009 - FACT. I notice you completely ignored this (again) since it directly refutes your claim Democrats had a 'lock' on Congress and were free to pass whatever they wanted... So should Americans be following the laws in these bills since in your right-wing media world there is no way bills could've been blocked by Republicans in 2009??

  141. [141] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    This shouldn't be all that tough, guys. The facts are squarely on the Democrats' side. But we need bumpersticker answers. Slogans.

    You and Jon Stewart are on the same wavelength, Chris. Check out the second video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/jon-stewart-jabs-dems-for-lukewarm-dnc-video_n_1857344.html

Comments for this article are closed.
[Powered by WordPress]