ChrisWeigant.com

Revenge Of The Pot-Smoking, Gay-Marrying, Women-Empowering, DREAMing Liberals

[ Posted Wednesday, November 7th, 2012 – 17:23 PST ]

I have to admit, I did not write a concession column, just in case I needed it.

Seriously, a man running for the most powerful office in the country didn't bother to plan for one of the two contingencies that were guaranteed to happen last night? And he wanted us to let him make crucial decisions for all of us? Willard Mitt Romney's shocking lack of preparedness last night, when it came to speech time, was truly the icing on the sweet, sweet cake of Barack Hussein Obama's second victorious election, at least for me.

Then I looked around at the rest of the election, and saw that America hadn't just re-elected a black man to the White House, but the entire country lurched leftwards last night in a significant fashion. Which is what my title refers to (conceived in homage to the greatest subtitle on a book, ever: Geoff Nunberg's Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show). Because Obama wasn't the only big winner last night -- so was pot smoking, and gay rights, and women, and Latinos. And liberalism. We're now a center-left country, so don't let anyone tell you differently (at least for the next two years).

In the very same election, the citizens of multiple states voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana and to legalize same-sex marriage -- both for the first time ever. That is stunning, when you think about it. It's the beginning of the victorious conclusion to the Sexual Revolution and the triumph of the hippies of the 1960s. Both of which consisted mostly of liberals, as I recall.

Now, states have decriminalized marijuana before, and even flirted with semi-legalization of cannabis previously, but for the first time, Colorado and Washington states have poked a rather large blunt instrument into the eye of the federal government with their vote. Same-sex marriage is legal in a few states, but it has never been approved by voters before now. This is the arc of history -- you can see it bending before you.

Does this mean we're all about to enter a liberal paradise? Well, no. Things never work out quite that easily in the real world. The Justice Department will likely fight back against the concept of legal weed, and if history is any guide, they'll fight back rather fiercely. After all, an entire industry has been built around the "War On (Some) Drugs," and billions of dollars are spent every year to keep this industry humming. So I don't expect it to go away any time soon, or to suddenly declare defeat. The drug warriors are almost religiously committed to their cause, which requires them to have an absolute faith in their beliefs, even when concrete evidence contradicts such beliefs. The number of states which have legalized marijuana for medicinal use was increased yesterday, and is now approaching half of all the United States -- and yet, the federal government refuses to admit that anyone, anywhere is using pot to alleviate suffering. Even though there are people alive who still get marijuana as a prescription for glaucoma from the very same federal government. As I said, it's a matter of faith, not rationality. All of which will lead to a gigantic court fight.

But it's a fight that is long overdue. A legal case of "Scopes Monkey Trial" proportions. Even if the case is ultimately lost at the Supreme Court, it is going to spur a political discussion that every politician since Nancy Reagan's time has been doing their best to avoid (most famously, by Bill Clinton, who "didn't inhale"). That right there is going to turn out to be a good thing, in my opinion, no matter what the outcome. Let's haul the whole subject out into the light of day and have a big political debate. It's about freakin' time.

On the gay rights front, many who voted in this election for the first time may not even remember the recent history of this fight. Back in the 1990s and 2000s, gay marriage (and gay rights in general) were used as a heavy club in elections -- by Republicans. It was the wedgiest of wedge issues they had going for them. Their reasoning was: "The more we say the word 'homosexual,' the more the suburban moderate voters are going to be scared of the liberal Democrats, and they'll reliably turn out and vote Republican." This seems like a stupid thing to do, now, but it surely wasn't back then -- because it worked so well. Want to increase GOP turnout in a weak state? Toss an anti-gay amendment on the ballot. Worked like a charm for them, while gay activists were slowly making ground getting people to accept merely same sex "domestic partnerships" or "civil unions."

The voters would reliably turn out and vote against any sort of rights for gays. Proposition 8 passed -- in California, of all places -- just four short years ago. The same election Barack Obama won the White House, the supposedly-ultraliberal California voted down gay marriage. Anti-gay marriage ballot measures worked for the Republicans thirty-two times, remember. Until last night. Meaning putting gay marriage on the ballot is now going to come from liberals and not conservatives, not just because it's the right thing to do, but because it can indeed win at the ballot box. There are several cases heading to the Supreme Court on gay marriage, and the federal ban on it in particular, and this is going to be another epic legal showdown. And for the first time, gay rights activists can point to victories and say "the voters approve." That wasn't possible before today.

In 2012, the Republicans waged a "War On Women." The knuckle-draggers came out from their dark spots to paint a vision for the future of women's health rights in this country -- moving us all right back to around the 1950s. They lost at the ballot box, and they lost big. By my count, the Tea Party has now snatched defeat from the hands of the Republican Party in five Senate races. The GOP could have five more seats today, to put it another way. Last night, women voters prevented at least two of these candidates from making it to Washington. Women voters everywhere broke in an enormous wave not just for President Obama, but for liberalism on women's health issues.

Finally, the Latinos of America have weighed both political parties in the balance and (not surprisingly) decided to go with the one who wasn't demonizing and demagoguing and scapegoating them constantly. Some Republicans have been crying in the wilderness for years now on this subject, and warning that the Republican Party is dwindling as it relies solely on older white men who really do want to return to the 1950s. Perhaps the Tea Partiers will listen, but I'm betting not. I'm betting that whenever immigration reform gets discussed the first, last, and only word out of their mouths will be "Amnesty!" The only thing that's going to save the Republican Party is when they lose Texas as a reliable state -- and any chance of gaining the White House with it. This could happen in 2016 or 2020, by some estimates. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush and all the rest of the moderates will be ignored until disaster strikes. And losing Texas would indeed be a disaster, because while Mitt Romney found it hard to put together 270 electoral votes, no Republican will ever be able to do so without Texas' 38 votes. Until the party rejects its anti-immigrant stance, that is, at some point in the far future.

We all woke up to a different country this morning. Barack Obama is going to be our president for the next four years. He'll have his ups and downs, but we know who he is and we all dearly hope he will be less restrained now in his own liberalism because he'll never have to run for any election again. The conservatives will fight him every step of the way, of course. The progressives will likely fight him from the other direction, whenever a compromise is detected. Maybe, through all of this, Barack Obama can finish some of the things he started in his first term.

America woke up more liberal this morning -- it's an undeniable fact. Legal weed. Rocky Mountain high, indeed! Voters approving of marriage equality. Anti-abortion extremists losing easy Senate races. Immigration reform a real possibility. America is, as the Obama campaign slogan said, about to move "Forward!"

But one note of caution. The political winds have indeed shifted, but they can shift right back again in the blink of an eye. America is basically getting sick of our two political parties, because neither ever seems to get much done. What this has meant, since George W. Bush's time, is a whirlwind of tacking back and forth. America's political pendulum swings faster and faster -- from Obama's first victorious wave in 2008, to the Tea Party election of 2010, to now.

Personally, I'm hoping Barack Obama now steals a page from the George W. Bush playbook. Because the obsession inside the Beltway is soon going to become "Does Obama have a true 'mandate' to govern?" You could feel it sprouting and taking root last night, when the idiots who pass for our national political chattering class got all in a tizzy over the fact that Mitt Romney was still leading in the national popular vote count even after Obama had clearly won the Electoral College. "Will Romney win the popular vote?" they all smugly asked themselves -- not noticing that California's votes hadn't been counted yet. I mean, it's pretty predictable that California was going to add millions to Obama's total, but nobody even mentioned this fact. This is inside-the-Beltwayism at its worst, folks.

So I'm hoping that Obama does exactly what George W. Bush did (twice, as I recall) when asked how he could possibly govern without a clear mandate. Bush replied that he had all the mandate he needed, since he won the election... next question, please. That was all it took to shut up the media obsession. He didn't get asked the question much after that point, since all the reporters knew what he would say. Obama should do exactly the same thing, the first time someone uses "mandate" in a question to him. "I won. That's my mandate. Next question."

That way, maybe we actually can move forward, starting immediately.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

218 Comments on “Revenge Of The Pot-Smoking, Gay-Marrying, Women-Empowering, DREAMing Liberals”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Seriously, a man running for the most powerful office in the country didn't bother to plan for one of the two contingencies that were guaranteed to happen last night? And he wanted us to let him make crucial decisions for all of us?

    The former Governor really looked a bit shell-shocked. But, not nearly as shell-shocked as his wife did! :)

    Seriously, the former Governor never demonstrated in the course of more than six years running for president that he was prepared for the job. In fact, he actually got worse with time.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I was listening to some analysis of the exit polling concering the women vote and was really struck by something.

    The gender gap did not vanish as I had heard it would, with 55% of women voting for Obama to Romney's 44%. That was reassuring for obvious reasons. :)

    However, there was a gap within the gender gap. They broke down the women vote by race and found that 70% of white women voted for Romney and 30% for Obama. I think that must mean that most, if not all, Latinas and African-American and other minority women voted for Obama. I'm not sure how the men vote broke down by race.

    I don't think there is a good story there.

  3. [3] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Romney? Who's that guy? Oh is he the 47% guy who ran against Obama in 2012. Yeh I remember him. He was as slimy as it gets...

    In all seriousness though this column definitely gets the gist of last nights election. It wasn't just about Obama winning but a new wave hitting America. And Obama is absolutely leading this wave. Gay marriage is the perfect example of this - now favored in the polls and with actual voting evidence of this - since Obama took his stance earlier this year.

    And on the demographic front, I just saw this pie chart which I thought pretty much sums up the election and where the Republican party is just now.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/9783/large/coalition.gif?1352298101

  4. [4] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,

    The only thing that's going to save the Republican Party is when they lose Texas as a reliable state -- and any chance of gaining the White House with it. This could happen in 2016 or 2020, by some estimates. Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush and all the rest of the moderates will be ignored until disaster strikes

    I've included another cool graph on Demographics below which illustrates your point (alongside the other one I just linked).

    I also think Obama will get the DREAM Act passed and that will keep Hispanics on board with the democrats for a long time. I believe if Romney had won he would've done the same thing to try and win them back.

    http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/9782/large/demochange.gif?1352298100

  5. [5] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    LizM -

    Check out the figures for single v. married women. O won single women something like 70%. There's a gap there, too.

    michty6 -

    That is a stunning, stunnning graphic. Worth 1,000 words, easily...

    -CW

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    You could feel it sprouting and taking root last night, when the idiots who pass for our national political chattering class got all in a tizzy over the fact that Mitt Romney was still leading in the national popular vote count even after Obama had clearly won the Electoral College. "Will Romney win the popular vote?" they all smugly asked themselves -- not noticing that California's votes hadn't been counted yet. I mean, it's pretty predictable that California was going to add millions to Obama's total, but nobody even mentioned this fact. This is inside-the-Beltwayism at its worst, folks.

    This must have been very perplexing and annoying. I watched CNN the entire evening and, to give credit where credit is due, they mentioned California on more than one occasion whenever they pointed out the Romney lead in the popular vote saying that would change when the votes in California, Oregon and Washington state were eventually counted.

  7. [7] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    American women are one confused lot!

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obama should do exactly the same thing, the first time someone uses "mandate" in a question to him. "I won. That's my mandate. Next question."

    That way, maybe we actually can move forward, starting immediately.

    Indeed! That would surely be one very clear sign that Obama has learned some valuable first term lessons about how to govern and lead effectively.

  9. [9] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty,

    I believe if Romney had won he would've done the same thing to try and win them back.

    I'm not sure what you're basing that optimism on - after all, Moderate Mitt would have had the same congressional Republicans to deal with that President Obama does.

    For instance, Speaker Boehner today, in his little TelePrompTer speech gave no indication that compromise was in the cards for allowing the higher end Bush/Cheney era tax cuts expire.

    My point is simply that it sounds like the congressional Republicans haven't changed their collective mindset on any issue that demands compromise. I don't think they see the Dream Act as the route of choice to winning back the Hispanic vote, in other words.

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    so cw,

    did you get every single state right?

  11. [11] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Liz,
    It was more based on the fact that Republicans make all their decisions with political calculations in mind. Even at the detriment of democracy. I think they would've passed this, with Democrat support obviously, as a 'we like Hispanics and we are bi-partisan' type thing.

    CW,
    You could feel it sprouting and taking root last night, when the idiots who pass for our national political chattering class

    I don't know you but I never heard them hammering on about the fact that Romney lost his home State so badly. In 2000 Gore lost Tennessee by only 4 points and they were yapping on about how embarrassing this was. That 47% guy who ran against Obama lost his home State by almost TWENTY FIVE points. Yet this barely got a mention. Has any candidate ever performed as badly in their home State? Certainly not in modern times as far as I'm aware...

  12. [12] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty,

    Maybe the congressional Republicans will agree to allow the Obama/Biden high end tax cuts (formerly known as the Bush/Cheney era high end tax cuts) to expire, on schedule, at the end of this year because they like the idea of fiscal responsibility and want to show their bipartisan side.

    Stranger things have happened, I suppose ... but, that's not the impression Speaker Boehner left with his little speech today.

  13. [13] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    michty,

    ...and, they lost Ryan's home state, too.

    When was the last time both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates lost their respective states?

  14. [14] 
    dsws wrote:

    He [Romney] was as slimy as it gets...

    Unfortunately, there's far worse out there. To the best of our knowledge, Mittens hasn't cheated on his wife, for example.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    Romney cheated on the country through his constant lies and misinformation. That's as slimy as it gets, my friend.

    Furthermore, he's been running for president for six years and still doesn't know where Iran is ... you know, the country he's keen to bomb.

  16. [16] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    When was the last time both the presidential and vice-presidential candidates lost their respective states?

    Pretty sure it was McGovern/Shriver in 72.

    To the best of our knowledge, Mittens hasn't cheated on his wife, for example.

    Did you see the faux "November Surprise" article about him being arrested and held after a traffic stop when in college, when he confessed to the officer he had done Coke? Cola-Cola, that was.

  17. [17] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    If FL goes for Obama, I got 51 out of 51. Woo hoo!

    micthy6 and LizM -

    It's even worse. Romney can make a claim to 4 states being his "home" state (much as Obama can claim both Hawaii and Illinois). MA, he lost big time. MI, where he was born and his dad was governor, he lost resoundingly. CA and NH, where he has vacation houses, lost and lost. Mitt's 0 for 4, add Ryan in and it's 0 for 5.

    You're right, I haven't heard much of anyone commenting on this... especially MA, which was just brutal (by the numbers).

    -CW

  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Chris,

    I think you can go ahead and call your predictions a clean sweep!

    Excellent work!

    P.S. I have a couple of comments pending at HP that will need to be edited - if they are ever posted - and one of them looks like is was meant for you but was supposed to be a reply to someone else! :)

  19. [19] 
    dsws wrote:

    Cross-posted from HuffPo:

    “Their [the Republicans'] course is clear. Tomorrow and Friday they should make conciliatory noises to appease the MSM. On Saturday they should quietly point to a shiny object. On Sunday, the MSM will focus on the shiny object, and forget that the election ever happened. On Monday, the Republicans should stake out a position to the right of all their previous positions, but do so in a calm and reasoned-sounding tone of voice. On Tuesday, if they do, the MSM will hail the restoration of calm and reason to the Republican Party. On Wednesday, Obama will offer today's Republican position as a compromise. The Republicans should meekly accept it. The MSM will then hail them as great compromisers. Next Thursday they should keep quiet again, and point to another shiny object. Next Friday, they should start reviling Wednesday's deal as an act of my-way-or-the-highway dictatorship shoved down the throats of the American people by that awful Kenyan Communist in the White House. They should continue to do so until November 2014, when everyone but the Tea Party enthusiasts will once again not bother to vote, leading to another "shellacking".

    But at the same time they should support some Spanish-speaking megachurches, and Spanish-speaking clones of Rush Limbaugh, and some Spanish-speaking right-wing social-issues organizations that spend all their money on fundraising. And from November 2014 to November 2016 they should work on putting a more moderate-sounding face on the same old same-old.”

    Took about four hours to make it through moderation over there. Not sure why it was singled out for in-depth scrutiny.

  20. [20] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    dsws,

    Hey, at least your comment made it!

    The HP moderators continue to save me from myself. :)

  21. [21] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Tomorrow and Friday they should make conciliatory noises to appease the MSM. On Saturday they should quietly point to a shiny object. On Sunday, the MSM will focus on the shiny object, and forget that the election ever happened. On Monday, the Republicans should stake out a position to the right of all their previous positions, but do so in a calm and reasoned-sounding tone of voice.

    This sounds about err ... right ...

    I think the corporate media is already talking about how Obama needs to compromise and something something scary fiscal cliff.

    -David

  22. [22] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, just saw the news about Allen West ...

    Wow. I'm going to miss that bloated gasbag.

    -David

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK, it's time to bring ya'all back down to earth.. :D

    First, Benghazi.. It's already back in the news and it's going to be pounded home again and again by a GOP thirsty for blood and an American public demanding answers.. The In-The-Bag-For-Obama MSM will do their best to squelch and kill the story, but it will develop a life of it's own. This will likely lead to Impeachment proceedings for Obama..

    Second. Iran. It's still on course for having a Nuclear Weapon ("Nuclear wessels" :D) and Obama has absolutely NO EXCUSE to keep restraining Israel. My guess is Obama will STILL restrain Israel to appease his peace-nik base and Israel will flip Obama the bird and go it alone...

    Finally, an unrestrained Obama is truly a frightful thing to contemplate.. I had hoped that Obama and Democrats would be graceful winners and TRULY go down the path of bi-partisanship... But, from all reports, it looks like they are going to be as vengeful and bloodthirsty as Republicans... So, look for the partisanship to get worse and worse. I would have thought that wouldn't be possible..

    So, by all means, do the Snoopy Happy Dance. No doubt ya'all have earned it...

    It's a great day for Democrats...

    But it's a bad, very bad day for this country...

    About the only silver lining that I can come up with is that as worse off as ALL Americans are today, they will be 20x worse off in two and four years. Which will mean the pendulum will swing back to the Right for the foreseeable....

    Michale.....

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    One has to wonder..

    Will Obama and the Left continue to blame Bush for the country's problem??

    Or will the man up and start taking some responsibility for their actions that have caused problems???

    Doubtful, but we can hope.. :D

    Michale....

  25. [25] 
    akadjian wrote:

    "I’ve got egg on my face. I predicted a Romney landslide and, instead, we ended up with an Obama squeaker." - Dick Morris

    Wait a second ... when Morris predicts a 325-213 win, it's a "landslide," but when Obama wins 332-206 (assuming Florida goes -D) , it's a "squeaker".

    Oh well ... keep living in unreality world, Dick. The longer you do, the easier it makes it.

    First, Benghazi.. It's already back in the news ...

    Conservative news? Or real news?

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/07/bob-woodward-romney-benghazi_n_2090833.html#slide=49210

    "You can't write if you don't have anything." - Bob Woodward on his reaction when Romney allies tried to bring him a so-called "insider source" on Benghazi

    This quote should be caveated with "unless you're a conservative pundit ..."

    -David

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Or will the man up and start taking some responsibility for their actions that have caused problems???

    Or will they man up and start taking some responsibility for their actions that have caused problems???

    My bust

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/07/foreign-policy-in-obamas-second-term/

    Yea, it's a dark dark day for America...

    Michale.....

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    Conservative news? Or real news?

    Depends on your definition of "real"... If you mean news that is really happening in the world, then yes. REAL news..

    If you mean news as the In-The-Bag-For-Obama MSM "news" then no... Not REAL news...

    I ask you to do one thing. Because you are likely one of the few here who CAN do it..

    What would you have thought if Benghazi had happened under a GOP President...

    Be honest....

    Michale.....

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Among the new group of state lawmakers to emerge from Election Day on Tuesday is Brian Banks, who has been convicted eight times for felonies involving bad checks and credit card fraud.

    Banks, a Democrat and lifelong Detroiter, won a seat in Lansing as a state representative for the 1st District, representing the east side of Detroit, Harper Woods, and the tony Grosse Pointes. He won 68 percent of the vote to Republican Dan Schulte’s 32 percent.
    http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2012/11/07/detroiters-elect-ex-con-brian-banks-as-state-rep/

    Welcome to Obama's Amerika... :^/

    Michale.....

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    This will likely lead to Impeachment proceedings for Obama..

    On the other hand, an impeached Obama would mean a President Biden...

    With all respect to Liz, I dunno if THAT would be better for the country or not.. :D

    Michale.....

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    "You can't write if you don't have anything." - Bob Woodward on his reaction when Romney allies tried to bring him a so-called "insider source" on Benghazi

    This quote should be caveated with "unless you're a conservative pundit ..."

    Yea, because Liberal pundits would NEVER write about fluff or biased things..

    Just ask Chris Obama-Gives-Me-A-Tingle-Up-My-Leg/I-Am-Glad-There-Was-Hurricane-Sandy Matthews... :^/

    Michale....

  32. [32] 
    akadjian wrote:

    What would you have thought if Benghazi had happened under a GOP President.

    Pretty much the same thing I think whenever a situation like this happens. First reaction, this is horrible (ambassador getting killed). Second reaction, let's assess the situation and not panic. Third, let's go after the people who committed the crime, the criminals, not scapegoat an entire people for political reasons.

    This is the exact same response I had under an actual GOP president to an event much more horrific than the assassination of Ambassador Stevens.

    I'm glad the GOP has decided to keep bringing this up though because it's a great opportunity to contrast competent foreign policy with ... ahem ... not so competent foreign policy

    So here's my question for you, Michale. Given the election, how do you think the GOP should change? Or not change?

    -David

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    About the only silver lining that I can come up with is that as worse off as ALL Americans are today, they will be 20x worse off in two and four years. Which will mean the pendulum will swing back to the Right for the foreseeable....

    Unfortunately for you, Michale, your credibility when it comes to such assertions is currently at zero and going BACKWARD!

    I mean that sincerely ... I'm not trying to be facetious, here.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    Pretty much the same thing I think whenever a situation like this happens.

    Com'on!! I said, 'be honest'!! :D

    One only has to recall how the Left (including everyone here) savaged Bush over Abu Ghraib (which barely rose to the level of inconsequential college hazing) to know how the Left would react to Benghazi under a GOP Administration...

    Ya'all would have been apoplectic if a US Ambassador and three others were killed and a GOP President had ignored many previous security warnings and then lied and tried to cover it up to win an election..

    I may have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night.. :D

    I'm glad the GOP has decided to keep bringing this up though because it's a great opportunity to contrast competent foreign policy with ... ahem ... not so competent foreign policy

    You mean "competent foreign policy" were security warnings from the boots on the ground are ignored and it culminates in the brutal murder of our ambassador?? Or maybe you mean "competent foreign policy" where an administration tries to pass off a bullshit story about an obscure anti-Mohammed short clip and a fantasy protest...

    If THAT is what you consider "competent" then you have dropped the bar WAY WAY low since the Bush Administration.. :D

    So here's my question for you, Michale. Given the election, how do you think the GOP should change? Or not change?

    I don't think they should.. While I can't explain this election, especially in light of the shellacking given the Left in 2010, I think the BEST thing the GOP can do is to continue opposing the Left's agenda which is detrimental to this country and it's security and freedom...

    If that doesn't work, then so be it.

    "If we are to be damned, let us be damned for what we really are."
    -Captain Jean Luc Picard, STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION, Encounter At Farpoint

    Michale.....

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    You mean "competent foreign policy" were security warnings from the boots on the ground are ignored and it culminates in the brutal murder of our ambassador?? Or maybe you mean "competent foreign policy" where an administration tries to pass off a bullshit story about an obscure anti-Mohammed short clip and a fantasy protest...

    Or maybe you mean "competent foreign policy" whereas our President turned the entire Mid-East over to radical Islamist fundamentalists and put every roadblock imaginable in front of Israel to prevent her from defending herself...

    Michale....

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry to rain on ya'alls parade...

    But these are the FACTS.

    This IS the reality....

    Playing ostrich won't make it any better...

    Michale...

  37. [37] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I don't think they should..

    Excellent. Hopefully, the Dick Morris' of the world feel the same way.

    But it's probably not likely to be the case. I bet something changes ... it's just not clear yet what.

    -David

  38. [38] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Dsws,
    [19] is just so spot on it's unreal

    Michale,
    But these are the FACTS...This IS the reality.

    Lololol it seems you didn't get hit hard enough with Tuesday's reality brick. Not a huge surprise. And I will be reporting you to the FBI for 'continued abuse of the word fact'

    Do you even remember the foreign policy debate? When that 47%-guy-who-lost-to-Obama was forced to basically praise Obama's foreign policy? Where that 47%-guy-who-lost-to-Obama practically endorsed Obama based on his foreign policy?

    Do you remember back then how far from this reality you were, where you were posting 5000 comments on here about how Benghazi would cost Obama the election? I think we need a larger reality brick... It seems like the last one just temporary stunned you and you're just back to your usual fantasy world imaginations...

    If your comments on here are anything to go by, Republicans will have learned nothing from the smack-to-the-face-by-reality they got on Tuesday.

  39. [39] 
    akadjian wrote:

    If your comments on here are anything to go by, Republicans will have learned nothing from the smack-to-the-face-by-reality they got on Tuesday.

    But maybe if we just spend more ... and just confuse the issue more w/ wedge issues ... and go after the liberal media ... we can buy our way to victory!

    (Ah, let us hope ...)
    -David

  40. [40] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Anyone know what is going on in Florida wrt why the results are not in yet?

    Also, if it is within 0.5% (which by Florida law triggers a recount) do they still do the recount even though the election is over?

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Unfortunately for you, Michale, your credibility when it comes to such assertions is currently at zero and going BACKWARD!

    I mean that sincerely ... I'm not trying to be facetious, here.

    Don't you think I know that?? :D

    But I call them as I see them... Yea, I have been wrong.. But I have also been dead on ballz right too... Remember Benghazi?? I called it in the first 12 hours and ya'all held onto Obama's BS of a protest gone bad and some obscure anti-mohammed video..

    Did being so dead wrong on Benghazi stop ya'all from making predictions?? Of course not. Nor should it...

    Sometimes I get the bear, sometimes the bear gets me..

    It is what it is... :D

    Michale.....

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Which of my facts (that ARE facts and not expert opinion) are in error??

    Michale.....

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    But it's probably not likely to be the case. I bet something changes ... it's just not clear yet what.

    Nothing will change unless Democrats realize that the answer is NOT more government..

    You yourself concede as much... Hopefully the rest of the Left will follow suit...

    Excellent. Hopefully, the Dick Morris' of the world feel the same way.

    Once again, I am constrained to point out that when DM had a '-D' behind his name, ya'all loved him...

    Michale.....

  44. [44] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Which of my facts (that ARE facts and not expert opinion) are in error??

    Lol I am looking through [34-36] and I do not see one single fact before you made the statement 'these are the facts'. Not one. Just the usual ranting about whatever Fox has told you you should be angry about...

  45. [45] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nothing will change unless Democrats realize that the answer is NOT more government

    If you include the military as 'Government', given that it is funded 100% by them, then I am 10000% in agreement with you here. In terms of overblown departments of Government this would be no.1 by 10000 country miles.

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michy,

    Point to ONE FACT that is in error and provide supporting evidence to support your claim..

    Just ONE fact...

    Michale

  47. [47] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    I could just quote the entire 2 posts. Because there are no facts in there. Just a bunch of rants followed by the statement 'those are the facts'. This is pretty usual for you in your constant abuse of the word 'fact'. For example, Obama "turned the entire Mid-East over to radical Islamist fundamentalists" - 'those are the facts' lol.

  48. [48] 
    michty6 wrote:

    This is what I think Obama's plan of action should be:

    Obama: Here is our deal that we just got a large mandate to enact

    House: We are going to continue to obstruct!

    Obama: Fair enough. How is 2014 looking for you? I've got time. My mandate is a 4 year one

  49. [49] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    If there are so many examples, why are you having trouble singling one out? :D

    Point to ONE FACT that is not factual...

    Just one...

    Obama: Fair enough. How is 2014 looking for you? I've got time. My mandate is a 4 year one

    MANDATE!!!????

    BBBWWWWHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You got jokes :D

    Michale.....

  50. [50] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Sure here are a list of statements that were not 'facts' (to save you time checking I am quoting every statement you made):

    "One only has to recall how the Left (including everyone here) savaged Bush over Abu Ghraib (which barely rose to the level of inconsequential college hazing) to know how the Left would react to Benghazi under a GOP Administration..."

    "You mean "competent foreign policy" were security warnings from the boots on the ground are ignored and it culminates in the brutal murder of our ambassador?"

    "Or maybe you mean "competent foreign policy" where an administration tries to pass off a bullshit story about an obscure anti-Mohammed short clip and a fantasy protest..."

    " I think the BEST thing the GOP can do is to continue opposing the Left's agenda which is detrimental to this country and it's security and freedom..."

    "Or maybe you mean "competent foreign policy" whereas our President turned the entire Mid-East over to radical Islamist fundamentalists and put every roadblock imaginable in front of Israel to prevent her from defending herself.."

    I'd love to know which one of these includes 'facts'. Because I see nothing but your usual ranting based on what Fox News has told you to be angry about.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya know what's REALLY funny??

    NONE of you will admit you were wrong about Benghazi...

    Michty, you specifically argued with me that there WAS a protest in Benghazi and I told you there wasn't..

    Did you admit you were wrong??

    Of course not..

    I don't have a problem admitting when I am wrong. It happens so rarely, that I don't mind throwing ya'all a bone when it does happen. :D

    But I don't think ANYONE here has admitted they were wrong. About ANYTHING... :D

    Michale....

  52. [52] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I don't even know if there was a protest at Benghazi. That was my stance back then and that is my stance now. Only you were silly enough to jump to conclusions and make predictions (surprise, surprise they were all anti-Obama) after the incident.

    I really don't care though. You're only riled up about it because you've been listening to the right-wing echo chamber trying to make a story out of it for weeks. The rest of America and the world moved on.

  53. [53] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Just read this Rachel Maddow piece. Michale, you might want to read it as the shot of reality you had on Tuesday doesn't appear to have cured your reality-phobia... This was right after a video showing Karl Rove arguing that Fox called Ohio too early:

    Ohio really did go to the president last night.

    And he really did win.
    And he really was born in Hawaii.
    And he really is -legitimately- President of the United States.
    Again.

    And the Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make-up a fake unemployment rate last month.
    And the Congressional Research Service really can find no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy.

    And the polls were not skewed to over-sample Democrats.
    And Nate Silver was not making up fake projections about the election to make conservatives feel bad.
    He was doing math.

    And climate change is real.
    And rape really does cause pregnancy sometimes.
    And evolution is a thing.
    And Benghazi was an attack on us. It was not a scandal by us.

    And no one is taking away anyone’s guns.
    And taxes haven’t gone up.
    And the deficit is dropping, actually.
    And Saddam Hussein didn’t have weapons of mass destruction.

    And the moon landing was real.
    And FEMA is not building concentration camps.
    And UN election observers aren’t taking over Texas.
    And moderate reforms of the regulations on the insurance industry and the financial services industry in this country are not the same thing as communism.

    Last night was a good night for Liberals for obvious reasons. But it was also a good night for this country as a whole... Because if the Republican party and the conservative movement and the conservative media is stuck in a vacuum-sealed door-locked spin cycle of telling each other what makes them feel good and denying the factual, lived truth of the world, then we are all deprived as a nation of the constructive debate about competing feasible ideas about real problems

  54. [54] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Nothing will change unless Democrats realize that the answer is NOT more government.

    But government has shrunk under Obama.

    This doesn't even make sense. No one is arguing to expand it.

    It's hard to negotiate with someone when they're yelling about a situation which doesn't exist.

    Think about it like this, Michale. How much could we accomplish if I were calling you a "racist"?

    -David

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't even know if there was a protest at Benghazi.

    You stated there was a protest.... I can find the link, if you want to deny it.. :D

    I understand. Many on the Left share that same trait. Incapable of admitting they're wrong.... :D

    Lemme know if you find anything I said as a fact that was not factual....

    I'll be around.. :D

    Michale

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    But government has shrunk under Obama.

    Depends on how you define "government"... Surely expanding the debt by tens of trillions of dollars is NOT an argument for smaller government...

    Think about it like this, Michale. How much could we accomplish if I were calling you a "racist"?

    BTDT.... :D

    Answer is, we couldn't..

    But YA'ALL have to do YOUR part..

    You say you want "FACTS" but when the facts go against Obama, ya'all clam up or write it off as a "rant"..

    You want to have a SERIOUS discussion, you have to be able to admit when you (and Obama) are wrong..

    So far, there is no evidence that ya'all are capable of that...

    Let's start with an easy one...

    Was Obama wrong to ignore the worsening security situation in Libya?

    Michale....

  57. [57] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Depends on how you define "government"

    There-in lies the problem. Many on the right want to define Government as 'entitlement programs'. The left want to define Government as 'Government'. Our definition includes military, the largest most bloated part of the Government by 10000 miles. Many people on the right cannot fathom cuts to military as it isn't in their narrow limited ridiculous definition of Government.

    Was Obama wrong to ignore the worsening security situation in Libya?

    There is no evidence that this is the case. This is the problem with all your rants coming from the right-wing echo chamber. They ignore reality. I would've thought you might have learned from Tuesday but it does not appear to be the case.

  58. [58] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no evidence that this is the case.

    There is TONS of evidence that this is the case..

    But you ignore it because it goes against Obama..

    This is exactly why no rational discussion is possible..

    Because ya'all simply REFUSE to acknowledge the facts when they go against Obama...

    Still waiting for you to point out ONE FACT that is not factual.... :D

    Michale....

  59. [59] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Number one reason Benghazi will have no traction outside the Fever Swamps?

    General Petraeus would end up under the bus. The CIA has considerable culpability in all of it.

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    The CIA has considerable culpability in all of it.

    Actually, not as much as the Left would hope.. There is multiple-sourced evidence to suggest that the CIA was geared up and ready to roll, but were told to stand down...

    Another one of those pesky and inconvenient facts that no one here will acknowledge... :D

    Michale....

  61. [61] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    There is multiple-sourced evidence to suggest that the CIA was geared up and ready to roll, but were told to stand down...

    That's an interesting and relevant claim. One that could be backed up, or, maybe, refuted. That's what debate and discussion should be about.

    Another one of those pesky and inconvenient facts that no one here will acknowledge..

    Continuous statements like this, on the other hand, is tedious, annoying, and counterproductive. Some might even call it trolling.

  62. [62] 
    michty6 wrote:

    LB,
    There is no interesting discussion to be had on Benghazi. It was a terrorist attack, 4 Americans died. That's about it. In the meantime there has been a hurricane on American soil with over 100 Americans dead and millions without power. Which one of these news stories do you think Fox spends it's time on? Which one do you think is worth of discussion?

    But of course there are people who want to make it more than a terrorist attack to suit their own biased agenda/warped view of reality, such as Michale, repeating exaggerated claims they see on Fox News/inside-the-right-wing-echo-chamber that Obama practically staged the whole thing himself and shot Stevens between the eyes with his own Kenyan hands.

    They look to spin the truth (as usual) and create their own reality (as usual) with flimsy and useless evidence (ignoring all evidence against them (as usual) and the fact that this is still under investigation by the parties involved with ACTUAL evidence).

    Unfortunately, even with Tuesday's slap in the face to try and wake up these people, including Michale, to reality it doesn't appear that the world has a slap hard enough. We can keep slapping or just leave them to go riding their unicorns on their merry, lunatic, fanciful ways

    And that's my final word on Benghazi.

  63. [63] 
    michty6 wrote:

    It seems that Democrats actually got 0.5m more votes than Republicans in the House. That's American democracy at work for you!

    http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/07/1159631/americans-voted-for-a-democratic-house-gerrymandering-the-supreme-court-gave-them-speaker-boehner/?mobile=nc

  64. [64] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Rush Limbaugh

    Now, let's go back to the polls, the preelection polls, and they all were showing Democrat samples of plus six, plus seven, and plus 11, and we pooh-poohed it. Let's go back and remember how these samples happened. The pollsters do not go out -- let's say the CNN, 49-49 tie, this is the day before the election with a Democrat plus 11 sample. They don't go out and find a sample that's a thousand people. They don't purposely find a sample with 11% more Democrats or a sample of plus 11 more Democrats. It's just the way it happened. They called their sample of a thousand people, and of the thousand people, when they finished, that sample had a Democrat plus 11 advantage. It turned out to be dead right. Well, not plus 11, it was Democrat plus six or plus seven. Dead right.

    OMG. Reality finally hit Rush. Amazing. If only he had listened when EVERYBODY not in the right-wing-echo-chamber was saying EXACTLY THIS before the election!

  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    That's an interesting and relevant claim. One that could be backed up, or, maybe, refuted. That's what debate and discussion should be about.

    Exactly..

    The problem here is that most everyone simply writes it off as Right Wing propaganda... And they do so SOLELY AND COMPLETELY because it paints Obama in a bad light...

    In short, they analyze FACTS thru the prism of ObamaCanDoNoWrong and then go from there...

    That's why rational debate is near impossible here.. Because most everyone here is on a different plane of existence than reality...

    Michale....

  66. [66] 
    Michale wrote:

    There is no interesting discussion to be had on Benghazi.

    You see my point, LB???

    It was a terrorist attack, 4 Americans died.

    Yea, but before it was a response to an obscure video.. THEN it was a protest gone bad..

    It's only when the American Public wouldn't swallow such obvious BS, did the Administration change the story AGAIN..

    Find me ONE instance where the Administration said it was a TERRORIST ATTACK within 7 days of the attack..

    You can't because it didn't happen...

    Michale....

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    That's an interesting and relevant claim. One that could be backed up, or, maybe, refuted. That's what debate and discussion should be about.

    https://www.google.com/search?q=Benghazi%20%22Told%20To%20Stand%20Down%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

    Consider it "backed up".....

    Now let's see anyone come up with anything to refute it...

    {{{chhiiiirrrrrppppppp}}} {{{chirrrrrrrppppppp}}}

  68. [68] 
    michty6 wrote:

    That's why rational debate is near impossible here.. Because most everyone here is on a different plane of existence than reality.

    I couldn't agree more. I thought Tuesday would have been a reality check for you, especially since you posted on here about 1000 times 'we'll see who is right on Nov 7th' in discussions about poll accuracy or stuff like 'Benghazi will cost Obama the election'. But, like I said before, apparently Michale-world reality lives on as if Tuesday never happened. Fox News and the right-wing-echo-chamber reality was completely exposed but 2 days later they go back to being correct again lol.

  69. [69] 
    Michale wrote:

    That\s the difference between me and most everyone else here, yourself included..

    I have no problem admitting when I am wrong when the facts warrant it.

    You cannot make the same claim..

    You argued with me that there was a protest. I told you there wasn't..

    You were wrong, I was right..

    I argued that the video had NOTHING to do with the attack..

    You parroted the Obama line and said it did..

    I was right. You were wrong..

    "These are the facts of the case. And they are {indisputable}"
    -Captain Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN

    I know, I know.. You will attempt to re-write recent history...

    But we all know the facts... :D

    Michale....

  70. [70] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Consider it "backed up".....
    Now let's see anyone come up with anything to refute it...
    {{{chhiiiirrrrrppppppp}}} {{{chirrrrrrrppppppp}}}

    Ok I am going to give you one last reality SLAP in the face. This is it. This will absolutely be my last post on Benghazi in the hopes of slapping you back into reality (after this I give up).

    You said:"There is multiple-sourced evidence to suggest that the CIA was geared up and ready to roll, but were told to stand down.."

    Which LB called an interesting claim, asking for back-up.

    Your back-up was a Google link.

    Well I suggest you check your own Google link and click on the 2nd result. It is called: Benghazi timeline challenges Fox News story. Lol.

    In it you will find the following response FROM THE CIA to your claim:

    We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate. In fact, it is important to remember how many lives were saved by courageous Americans who put their own safety at risk that night—and that some of those selfless Americans gave their lives in the effort to rescue their comrades.

    You can also read more about why this bullshit Fox story wasn't reported in the mainstream at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-newss-benghazi-bombshell-why-havent-other-media-followed/2012/11/01/3d5da68e-2437-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

    I mean of course anyone with half a brain living in the real world knows it isn't real. It makes no sense at all. But of course, Fox and you live in a different reality...

    Now: SLAP. NOW WAKE THE FUCK UP TO REALITY!! ;)

  71. [71] 
    dsws wrote:

    What's the supposed scandal about the Benghazi attack? That Obama called it an "act of terror", rather than "terrorism"? That we have US personnel out in unstable parts of the world who aren't all in fortified "green zones", and therefore are vulnerable to large attacks? That the ten CIA personnel in the area weren't sent to fight the 125-150 militia after the attack began? That Susan Rice went on talk shows and said what the CIA had told her?

    That Obama didn't respond by starting a war with some country that had nothing to do with it?

  72. [72] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    You are simply incapable of accepting ANY facts outside your kool-aid binge...

    'nuff said on that..

    dsws,

    What's the supposed scandal about the Benghazi attack? That Obama called it an "act of terror", rather than "terrorism"?

    The Giffords was an act of terror.. It was not terrorist attack.

    The Batman theater shooting was an act of terror. It was not a terrorist attack.

    The Fort Hood shooting was an act of terror. It was not a terrorist attack.

    Hurricane Sandy was a (natural) act of terror. It was not a terrorist attack...

    Why wouldn't Obama say it was a terrorist attack? They knew within 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack.. *I* knew within 12 hours...

    Michale.....

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    WOW... You found ONE link out of over a million links that you can spin to match your biased reality...

    Impressive... :D

    The facts are evident..

    YOU refuse to acknowledge them... You don't even think it's an issue worthy of discussion...

    Michale.....

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    The Giffords was an act of terror.. It was not terrorist attack.

    The Giffords attack was an act of terror.. It was not terrorist attack.

    My bust

  75. [75] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Yes Michale, ignore all the facts that don't support your warped view of reality. Fox is probably correct above anyone else. I remember that working out really well for you on Tuesday...

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Fox is probably correct above anyone else

    They were right when they said there was no protest.

    YOU were wrong..

    This is fact...

    I know, I know... You can't admit it..

    That's OK... :D

    Michale....

  77. [77] 
    michty6 wrote:

    That's it. I am getting the fact police out right now. This abuse has gone on long enough, 'fact' can't take it anymore!

  78. [78] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's it. I am getting the fact police out right now. This abuse has gone on long enough, 'fact' can't take it anymore!

    It's easy.. Just point to ONE FACT that I stated that WASN'T a fact..

    Of course, it will require you to substantiate it...

    I suspect that's what's causing ya the grief.. :D

    Michale.....

  79. [79] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    michty,
    Michale does not care what the facts are — he only cares about the truthiness of it all. I find it admirable that you continue to try.

    Michale,
    No one here ever denied anything happening in Benghazi. My memory of the conversations here were that it was an ongoing investigation and that the information was coming fast and furious and it would take a while for the truth of the day to come out — with the exception of your conspiracy theories, of course.
    Since you want to split hairs, let's define your two phrases that you say mean all the difference in whether President Obama adequately acknowledged what happened in Benghazi fast enough for you. A search of Google to "define [insert terrorist phrase]" returns the following:

    terrorist attack - a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims.
    act of terror - the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear

    There is no difference. You are splitting hairs on a bald head.
    And we do not ignore facts. Your list of Google results are all partisan websites feeding off of each other to keep a story going. They are essentially an infinite loop, with no credibility to anyone who is not a regular reader.
    Also, since most everyone here seems to be in agreement as to what the facts are, the onus is on you to prove otherwise.

  80. [80] 
    akadjian wrote:

    The Giffords was an act of terror.. It was not terrorist attack.

    So the entire scandal is about Obama using "act of terror" instead of "terrorist attack"?

    Quite frankly that doesn't sound like much of a scandal.

    I think it's time to switch to a more scandalous scandal. When is the NHL lockout going to end?

    -David

    "You can't write if you don't have anything." - Bob Woodward

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    That Susan Rice went on talk shows and said what the CIA had told her?

    No... Susan Rice went on talk shows and said what OBAMA told her to say..

    The CIA knew in the first 24 hours that it was a terrorist attack and that there was no protest and that the video had NOTHING to do with it...

    The CIA told Obama. Obama lied thru his teeth..

    It's THAT simple...

    Now, when a President with an '-R' behind his name does that, it's a heinous crime..

    When a President with a '-D' does it, it's no big deal...

    For the gods' sake, why not admit what is glaringly out in the open!???

    Ya'all are willing to give a president a pass for lying if it's a Democrat President...

    Jeeesh.....

    Michale.....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    No, the entire scandal is that the Obama administration said it was a protest gone bad, that it was because of the video..

    Do you deny this???

    Why do I even bother??

    Ya'all simply CANNOT admit when Obama is wrong...

    Ninjaf,

    Of course "everyone" is in agreement...

    "Everyone" is in agreement that Obama walks on water and can do no wrong...

    If you went to a Right Wing site and said Obama is the greatest thing since frozen pizza, "everyone" would be in agreement that you are totally whacked??

    Would that make it so???

    Of course not..

    NO ONE here can acknowledge ANY facts that show Obama is wrong...

    As to your definition of terrorism, it's WAY off...

    Like I said, it's impossible to discuss this rationally because none of you (save one) are in a rational state of mind..

    You see how ya'all reacted to Abu Ghraib...

    You see how y'all reacted to Benghazi...

    It's simply NOT POSSIBLE to explain this any other way than you are biased in Obama's favor and will refuse ANY facts that calls Obama's actions into question..

    Ya'all are simply not rational about it...

    It's THAT simple...

    Michale.....

  83. [83] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know how I know that I am right???

    Ya'all go on and on about how I don't care about facts..

    Yet NOT ONE SINGLE ONE OF YOU can refute the facts I posted...

    NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON...

    NOT ONE SINGLE FACT....

    Until someone can point to ONE FACT I have posted and provide facts of their own to prove it's wrong, ya'all are simply wrong...

    There is no shame in admitting you are wrong.. Why is it so hard to do???

    Michale....

  84. [84] 
    michty6 wrote:

    What are you talking about? I directly refuted your facts and you just passed it off.

    You: Obama told the CIA not to go in to help
    Me: Really? Well here is a statement FROM THE CIA denying this
    You: *More rants about unsubstantiated Fox claims*

    You are still gone to reality. The Tuesday wake-up call is still ringing and you are choosing to ignore it...

  85. [85] 
    Michale wrote:

    Do you know how I know that I am right about Benghazi??

    Because, if it had been a GOP President, ya'all would be saying the EXACT same thing I am saying.... Except, we would all be in complete agreement.. :D

    Michale....

  86. [86] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    You have been shown multiple sources proving you wrong in different threads here. You simply refuse to accept the sources because you say they are biased in the wrong direction — despite the sources being reputable news organizations. There is nothing anyone can show you to disprove the truthiness you feel. Fox News and The Blaze do not have the same credibility as Reuters, AP, and other news organizations that have been around for decades, except to true believers.
    And Abu Ghraib was not a hazing incident. What fraternity or organization were those prisoners being initiated into? Those photos have been used as a recruiting tool to continue the war against America by those who would commit acts of violence against us. We like to imagine America is a beacon of hope to the world, and those pictures were the opposite of that (never mind the actual mindset and acts behind them). Everything in those pictures betrayed American ideals that we don't treat even our enemies as sub-human. Why? Because we are better than everyone else (Conservatives like to call this American exceptionalism) and to behave otherwise brings us down to "their level."

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    You: Obama told the CIA not to go in to help
    Me: Really? Well here is a statement FROM THE CIA denying this
    You: *More rants about unsubstantiated Fox claims*

    Your rants against FoxNews have absolutely NO credibility since A> you have quoted them on many occasions when it suited your agenda and 2> you were wrong and *I* and FNC were right about the protest...

    The is multiple-sourced evidence that the CIA was told to stand down...

    This is fact..

    You continuing to deny this fact simply shows how desperate you are...

    Michale.....

  88. [88] 
    Michale wrote:

    Like I said, it's a moot point..

    Ya'all simply won't believe ANY facts that show Obama in a bad light...

    That's another one of those facts no one here will concede...

    And so it goes and so it goes...

    Michale.....

  89. [89] 
    akadjian wrote:

    No, the entire scandal is that the Obama administration said it was a protest gone bad, that it was because of the video.

    But you just said Obama said it was an "act of terror".

    How can it be both an "act of terror" and the administration saying it was because of a video?

    It seems pretty clear that Obama said it was an act of terror. And ... he said it almost immediately.

    If this is the case, then you're just mad because Obama didn't say "terrorist attack".

    Which, as I said, seems pretty silly to be arguing about as I don't really see the difference.

    I'm happy to continue arguing though because it's a winning issue for liberals. I hope John Boehner and the rest of the Republicans are too. I just bet they won't and try to quietly let it die.

    -David

  90. [90] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ninjaf,

    . Fox News and The Blaze do not have the same credibility as Reuters, AP, and other news organizations that have been around for decades,

    In other words, those MSM that have shown they are in the bag for Obama, THOSE are the only organizations that have credibility here..

    I wish I could say I am surprised... But I am not..

    And Abu Ghraib was not a hazing incident.

    If you look at what happened at Abu Ghraib and look at what happens on college campus every day in the US, there is no difference.. Hell, what happened in Abu Ghraib is TAME by comparison...

    As far as how terrorists USE it, big deal.. If they didn't have Abu Ghraib, they would have something else..

    Do you really want this country to base their decisions on what terrorists say???

    SERIOUSLY!!????

    It's useless to debate anyone who can't accept basic facts... It's useless to debate anyone who can't admit when they are wrong..

    I have shown that I can do both...

    With an exception or two, no one here can make that claim...

    That's what it all boils down to..

    Michale....

  91. [91] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Ya'all simply won't believe ANY facts that show Obama in a bad light...

    I mean I don't know how many times I have to repeat it: just because it was on Fox News does not make it a fact! Lol. Over and over and over again you report things in the media like they are 'fact' when even the media isn't reporting them as 'fact' but as 'our source said'. Here is a guide for you that I'll hope you use because 'fact' is getting suicidal at the abuse you are giving it:

    'A source said' =/= 'Fact'
    'Fox News said' = 'Very likely to be biased crap'

  92. [92] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    In other words, those MSM that have shown they are in the bag for Obama, THOSE are the only organizations that have credibility here..

    Who, besides Fox News and PARTISAN organizations with an agenda, have credibility with you, if these institutions that have been around providing news for over a hundred years (some of them) do not?

    If you are such an independent thinker, why is it OK to you for an organization to have a Right bias but not Left? A bias is still a bias, no matter which side benefits. A true independent thinker doesn't want facts presented with a slant.

  93. [93] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Here Michale. To illustrate the use of actual FACTS here is my fact-based view of Benghazi:

    - The Benghazi Consulate was attached on 9/11.
    - 4 Americans died.
    - The attack happened during a period when many people in that area were protesting a stupid Muslim video.
    - In the aftermath the timeline and details of the attack were fuzzy.
    - Fox News believes that it knows lots of crazy things about the attack, almost every single one of them (purely coindentally!) blaming Obama for the attack and attempting to paint him in a bad light during a heated election campaign.
    - Fox News was not on the ground during the attack and has no first hand evidence whatsoever, just quotes from 'sources'.
    - Stories on Fox News have been refuted by many other news agencies and even those who were involved in the stories.
    - Nobody knows, other than the guys on the ground there, exactly what happened yet.
    - Even then people on the ground are giving contrasting stories about what happened due to the chaotic nature of the incident.
    - An official investigation is still under-way to determine the ACTUAL circumstances of the attack. Until then almost everything is speculation tainted by bias.

  94. [94] 
    michty6 wrote:

    * by 'that area' I mean 'that area in the world' just so there is no confusion

  95. [95] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Both of these from one link on Michale's search:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/post/fox-newss-benghazi-bombshell-why-havent-other-media-followed/2012/11/01/3d5da68e-2437-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_blog.html

    Fox transcript:
    Fox News has learned from sources who were on the ground in Benghazi that an urgent request from the CIA annex for military back-up during the attack on the U.S. consulate and subsequent attack several hours later on the annex itself was denied by the CIA chain of command who also told the CIA operators twice to stand down rather than help the ambassador’s team when shots were heard at approximately 9:40 p.m. in Benghazi on Sept. 11.

    CIA official statement:
    We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.

    Now, while believing what the CIA says might not be the best idea, more often, in my experience, believing what Fox says is even less good an idea.

  96. [96] 
    michty6 wrote:

    LB,
    I already pointed this out (see[70]). Arguing using facts and evidence like this won't work. Michale is waaaay down the rabbit hole.

  97. [97] 
    michty6 wrote:

    This would be the point where Michale would say 'well we'll see who was right on the 6th of November when the American people fire Obama for his incompetence in dealing with Benghazi' ;)

  98. [98] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, while believing what the CIA says might not be the best idea, more often, in my experience, believing what Fox says is even less good an idea.

    Here's the funny thing, though..

    Fox News had intel that there was no protest..

    Obama Administration flatly stated that there WAS a protest..

    Obama was wrong.. Fox News was right..

    This is undeniably factual...

    So, what makes anyone believe that NOW, the Obama administration is right and Fox News is wrong???

    Other than the kool-aid, I mean...

    It's pointless to discuss anything with ya'all. Ya'all start at the point that Obama can do no wrong and then move on from there...

    No one here (sans one or two) will call Obama on his screw ups...

    For the next 4 years, I might as well be talking to a room full of brick walls... :^/

    Michale.....

  99. [99] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    We can say with confidence that the Agency reacted quickly to aid our colleagues during that terrible evening in Benghazi. Moreover, no one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.

    NO ONE has claimed that anyone in the CIA told anyone in Benghazi to stand down...

    But it's clear from the evidence that someone in the Obama Administration told the CIA to stand down...

    FoxNews has eyewitness evidence that this occurred..

    Do you (ANY of you) have ANY evidence (other than the Obama Administration's word) that FoxNews is wrong???

    No... None of you do....

    Yet, you STILL believe the Obama Administration over FoxNews, even though the Administration has already been caught in a lie, vis a vis the fantasy protest...

    Like I said.. No one is interested in facts that cast Obama et al in a bad light...

    This is fact...

    Michale.....

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/09/14/ftp226/#comments

    Might want to read over this commentary..

    This is where everyone here claimed that FoxNews was full of shit and that the Obama Administration was right when they said that there was no protest/demonstration..

    Yet, we come to find out that it was the Obama Administration (and everyone here) who was full of shit and that Fox News (and yours truly) called it dead on ballz accurate..

    This is fact....

    Michale.....

  101. [101] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hmmmm ...

    FoxNews vs. CIA

    It's clearly not a contest. The CIA is a liberal communist Obama plot, so I'm going w/ FoxNews

    :)

    -David

  102. [102] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's not the CIA vs FoxNews...

    It's FoxNews vs the Obama Administration...

    And considering it's was Fox News that was right and Obama was lying when it comes to the protest/demonstration, no RATIONAL person would put any faith in the Obama Administration..

    Unless, they were just a bunch of Obama-Bots...

    Michale.....

  103. [103] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, well well... What's this???

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/11/08/report-holder-announces-he-might-not-stay-on-as-attorney-general/

    Looks like I called it dead on balls accurate AGAIN..... :D

    Michale.....

  104. [104] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    But here is where we disconnect, Michale.

    If the President issued an order to stand down, it would have been communicated directly to the Director of the CIA. That order would then be transmitted down to the deputy director involved, and thence down to the operational units concerned.

    That contradicts the CIA statement. Thence, either:

    1) the Director, for whatever reasons, did not transmit the order (hence the "under the bus comment I made earlier), or

    2) the statement that no order was conveyed at any level is a lie, or

    3) there was no such order from the President.

    See the source of my skepticism, as well as my suspicion that the problem is in CIA's court?

  105. [105] 
    michty6 wrote:

    LB,
    You (we all) are fighting a losing battle. Michale has probably the worst logic and most abuse of the word 'fact' I've ever seen from anybody. I feel sorry for 'facts' Mum and Dad, they didn't deserve this when they spawned this word.

    Take this example:

    FoxNews has eyewitness evidence that this occurred..
    Do you (ANY of you) have ANY evidence (other than the Obama Administration's word) that FoxNews is wrong???
    No... None of you do....

    Yet, you STILL believe the Obama Administration over FoxNews, even though the Administration has already been caught in a lie, vis a vis the fantasy protest...

    Like I said.. No one is interested in facts that cast Obama et al in a bad light...
    This is fact...

    Apparently Fox News can make stuff up and everyone else must prove them wrong otherwise it's FACT! I'd love to see Justice Michale on the bench:
    'Well Fox News says you killed that poor man in Libya and unless you can prove them wrong you're going to jail!

    'But Judge, no-one can prove anything in Libya! No-one knows what went on, it's still being investigated. And many unbiased reports dispute every single thing that Fox says!'

    'Sorry son, Fox News has spoken and we all know they are right all the time - look at all those gay marriage referendums that got voted down, and admire President Romney's landslide victory - off to prison you go!'

    Next, we should believe Fox News over the Obama administration. Because clearly Fox News has access to intelligence that the Obama adminstrastion doesn't. That is a FACT. Lol.

    Finally, Michale claims to FACTUALLY KNOW how we all view Obama. As a fact. Amazing.

    Michale, you are a lunatic. This election has made you even more crazy and fanatical than you were before the election - which I thought would take something!

    Instead of opening your eyes to reality, you've decided that to keep burrowing down the rabbit hole is a better method. Rush Limbaugh would be proud (more on that tomorrow).

  106. [106] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's FoxNews vs the Obama Administration.

    It looks more like FoxNews vs. the CIA, the rest of the media, and everyone else involved

    So I guess you could believe ...

    1) Everyone else
    2) FoxNews and everyone else is part of a liberal conspiracy

    Again, this is a no brainer (at least now).

    Maybe at some point there will be some actual evidence that something else is the case. But right now it looks like Fox ginned this up for the election.

    And now it's making conservatives look like really, really sad, sore losers.

    -David

    p.s. Now on the funny side ...

    http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

  107. [107] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    The current leader in the Chauvinist Asshole (Senate league) contest is Sen. Johnson of WI. Speaking of working with Sen.-elect Tammy Baldwin, he said:

    "Hopefully I can sit down and lay out for her my best understanding of the federal budget because they're simply the facts," he said. "Hopefully she'll agree with what the facts are and work toward common sense solutions."

    Of course, Ms. Baldwin has served in Congress since 1999 while Johnson took office in 2011.

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    If the President issued an order to stand down, it would have been communicated directly to the Director of the CIA.

    Not true..

    No offense, but you don't understand how things work in that area of the world.

    The CIA personnel were attached to the State Department. TDY, if you will..

    Ergo, the order would go thru the State Department.

    So, the CIA statement is likely factually true and correct..

    That doesn't mean that the order to stand down was not given...

    David,

    Maybe at some point there will be some actual evidence that something else is the case. But right now it looks like Fox ginned this up for the election.

    And yet, Benghazi is STILL being pursued. Which would make your claim erroneous...

    The point is simple, David. So simple that NO ONE here will acknowledge it..

    "Everyone Else" said that there was a protest..

    Fox News (and yours truly) said there wasn't a protest..

    "Everyone Else" was wrong. FNC and I were right.

    Is this or is this not a fact??

    Of course it's a fact..

    Now... "Everyone Else" says that no order was given to stand down.

    FoxNews (and yours truly) says that there was an order given to stand down..

    WHY believe "Everyone Else" this time around??

    Answer: Because you WANT to. Because you NEED to.

    Ya'all don't care about FACTS.. If you did, the FACT that FNC and I were RIGHT when "Everyone Else" was wrong would figure into your reasoning...

    That's what is so frustrating about dealing with you people... You are biased in the extreme in favor of Obama and you refuse to acknowledge ANY facts that might show Obama frak'ed up..

    To add further insult, you call into question *MY* facts, even though I provide PROOF. And you do so w/o bringing in ANY proof of your own.

    It's like debating a five-year old whose only response to a well-reasoned debate is, "Because I said so!! Nyaaa Nyaaa Nyaaa!!"

    It's maddening..

    You want another example??

    The claim that ya'all would react the exact same way if Benghazi happened under a GOP president. That's laughable in the extreme.. I know and "Everyone Else" here knows that if Benghazi had happened under a GOP President, ya'all would be out for blood..

    We KNOW this to be true, because we saw how ya'all reacted to Abu Ghraib, which was NOTHING compared to Benghazi..

    If ya'all simply won't admit when Obama is wrong (and, by extension, YA'ALL are wrong) then I really have to wonder what the hell am I doing here..

    Debating a five year old has it's charms at first, but if there is never going to be any answer from the child but "Because I said so!! Nyaaa Nyaaa Nyaaa!!" then it's seems illogical to stick around...

    Michale.....

  109. [109] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's what is so frustrating about dealing with you people... You are biased in the extreme in favor of Obama and you refuse to acknowledge ANY facts that might show Obama frak'ed up.

    Ummm ... sure, Michale.

    It's a liberal conspiracy of everyone but you and Fox.

    I think it's time for another topic. This has reached the point of absurdity.

    Best of luck tilting at windmills, Michale! Hopefully Fox will continue too as it makes them look less and less credible

    -David

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's a liberal conspiracy of everyone but you and Fox.

    "There you go again"
    -Ronald Reagan

    You simply prove my point..

    With religious fanatics, it's "God said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

    With ya'all here, it's "Obama said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

    When I was growing up, the Liberal mantra was "Believe nothing, question everything."

    Today, ya'all are "Believe everything, question nothing." when the President has a '-D' behind his name..

    Think about it. Has ANYONE here *seriously* questioned Obama's actions on ANYTHING!??

    Not ONE single time....

    Shouldn't that be setting off some alarm bells???

    Like I said, it's useless to even discuss anything. In every contest there must be a SEMBLANCE of a chance for success. Or else, it's not worth participating..

    Debating ya'all about politics, there IS no chance of success because there IS no change anyone here will concede their wrong...

    To put it into proper context, imagine if I came in here on the morning of 7 Nov and was ecstatic that Romney won the election. Ya'all, of course, think I am whacked and offer up all sorts of links and proof that Romney lost..

    But I refuse to accept it. Despite ALL the proof to the contrary, I maintain that Romney won the election..

    THAT is how I feel debating with ya'all... No matter how many facts I offer up, ya'all simply refuse to accept them..

    Ya'all were dead wrong about there being a Benghazi protest. This is FACT.. Yet no one here will even concede THAT..

    Can ANYONE point to ANY commentary where ANYONE here said, "I was wrong"...

    Besides me, not at all..

    So, either EVERYONE here is ALWAYS right...

    Or NO ONE here will admit when they are wrong...

    I think ya'all can figure out which is the correct answer...

    But yer right. It's pointless. Until such time as ya'all can admit that you are NOT always right, it really IS absurd to expect rational debate...

    Michale...

  111. [111] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/09/14/ftp226/#comments

    Read thru that commentary...

    Read how I was ridiculed and laughed at..

    Yet, I turned out to be 1000% DEAD ON BALLZ ACCURATE...

    Any type of apology given??
    Nope..

    Any admission that "Everyone Else" was wrong?? Nada..

    Any conciliatory gesture or comment??
    ZIP....

    ANY TYPE OF CONCESSION TO THE FACTS WHATSOEVER!???
    NONE...

    So, you tell me.. Who is being absurd??

  112. [112] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    This debate is like all others we have on here with you: totally pointless. You come in with one view and despite overwhelming evidence that your view is wrong or biased you refuse to budge and just start shouting about how we're all biased or 'drinking kool-aid' or similar rhetoric.

    It is exactly like the birther situation, you are completely blind to reality and stuck dug down in your Fox News made hole refusing to get out. I would've thought after Tuesday you would have learned better, but obviously not. Keep believing Fox News when all other things says they are dead wrong. That served you well on Tuesday, I am sure it will continue to serve you well in future.

  113. [113] 
    michty6 wrote:

    David,
    p.s. Now on the funny side ...

    http://whitepeoplemourningromney.tumblr.com/

    There is one 'I'm moving to Australia because their President is a Christian and actually supports what he says'.

    OMG. This one statement must be a record breaker in terms of 'most amount of ignorance ever uttered in one sentence'! Amazing!

  114. [114] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Probably one of the best commentaries on the election I've read (although I'm biased towards the BBC). I'll quote some excerpts mainly for Michale.

    "Conservatism, in my humble opinion, did not lose last night. It's just very difficult to beat Santa Claus."

    Read those two sentences carefully, for they tell you a lot about the massive psychological problem the Republicans face - and why it will be extraordinarily difficult and painful for them to deal with reality...

    Limbaugh and millions of grassroots conservative militants approach politics as if it were a dogmatic religion. For them, conservatism is the Spotless Bride of Ronald Reagan and nothing about it can be falsified.

    If voters reject the religion of conservatism, it's because they are too sinful to see and embrace the truth...

    The point is simply that imputing politics with moral grandiosity and quasi-religious fervour makes deviation from ideology an extremely risky proposition...

    Under their framework, there is no need to rethink what conservatism means or how conservatives behave in light of new facts or changing circumstances.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20257611

  115. [115] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    blaaa blaaa blaaaa blaaaa

    Still can't admit you were wrong, eh?? :D

    "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem! Quit being part of the fucking problem!!!"
    -John McClane, DIE HARD

    :D

    You were wrong, Michty.. Admit it and you'll feel better...

    Michale.....

  116. [116] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Still blind to reality Michale? Don't you remember our little bet a couple of months back?

  117. [117] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Ruh roh I found it. This was actually on Sept 11th when you were quoting some study that predicted a Romney win and was 89% and I was trying to convince you to look at facts and reality. Then we made a bet. Let's see how accurate we were:

    Michale: "Unless you see something I don't, the only states the UoC report lists as Obama losing are:

    North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Colorado, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.

    So, I'll go with that.. Unless you are seeing something in the report that I am not seeing."

    Me: "Romney: North Carolina (69%),
    Obama: Colorado (74%), Florida (65%), New Hampshire (84%), Ohio (75%), Virginia (74%), Wisconsin (83%), Minnesota (96%), Pennsylvania (93%).

    Minnesota is the funniest. Democrats haven't lost that since 1972. But the UoC model knows better!"

    Thread: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/09/10/romneys-new-health-care-plan/

  118. [118] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Oh I found another beauty on the same thread.

    Michale: 'Blah blah blah Fox News says Obama has been mean to Israel so it must be true blah blah blah. I found a link which means it must be FACT!' To quote you "I think Obama just lost the American Jewish vote 'in toto'."

    Exit polls: Jewish vote: Obama 69%, Romney 30%

    But no. Reality is wrong. Fox is right.

  119. [119] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    You have not presented facts. We have shown you multiple sources with information contrary to what you are saying are the facts. If anyone is refusing to believe what they are shown, it is you. You don't want to believe it. You want to believe that there was some sort of failure or malfeasance by the Obama Administration.

    The reason no one here will agree with you on what you call facts is because the facts have not been settled. The investigation is still ongoing. The facts have not been established. And as far as the protests being non-existent that night, even as recently as last week, I have heard that there are still witnesses saying that there were protesters there. And I heard this without even following this story.

    David and michty are right...I think it is time to leave this topic alone. You are hijacking every thread with this discussion. It might be best to agree to disagree.

    michty,
    That BBC article is interesting. Thanks for sharing.

  120. [120] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Another one.

    Michale: 'Blah blah blah Fox News says Obama walked into Benghazi and shot Stevens between the eyes blah blah blah. This will definitely cost him the election, he'll probably be impeached etc'

    Exit polls - Foreign policy: Obama 56%, Romney 33%

    Exit polls - Trust Obama to handle an International crisis: Yes 57%, No 42%

    But no. Reality is probably wrong. Fox is probably right.

  121. [121] 
    TheStig wrote:

    It's astonishing the Republicans didn't see this coming. By Republicans, I mean the professionals, not the rank and file, although the latter still could have seen it if they looked/listened/watched/bumped into news sources outside their comfort zone.

    So, why didn't Romney and the Republican leadership see the Iceberg?

    1. Inertia.

    Generals tend to re-fight the last successful war, and the GOP did well in 2010, even if the lost the White House in 2008. Tea Party grass root anger and enthusiasm was going to carry the day.

    2. Too much Citizens United Cash

    Never in the course of human events has so much been owed to so few to achieve such meager results.
    In theory, there isn't supposed to be any coordination between Citizens United generated money and The Romney Campaign, and in practice, that seems to have been mostly true! The ad barrages coming from the corporations and wealthy donors focused on issues the voters didn't care much about, and typically had rather bad production values to boot. Wealthy guys like Sheldon Adelman and the Koch bros. are political amateurs who can hurt as much as they help. Ten times more ads are not ten times more effective.

    3. Feared their own troops more than the enemy

    Much as the Republicans want the Tea Party energy, they know the Tea Party ideology is toxic. That said, Republican politicians know the Tea Party must be obeyed, or at least pandered to very loudly. Basically, hold hands, close your eyes and jump.

    4. Lack of high ranking people with statistical savvy who were willing to yell "Iceberg"

    Dick Morris is not a statistician. Carl Rove is not a statistician. They are bull sh*tters. Do not believe your own bs. The data were out there, it was out there on this very Chris Weigant blog in highly readable form, it was there as aggregated polls, it was out there in prediction markets, and did I mention Nate Silver? Any one source can be wrong, but not dozens. Plenty of people saw the 'berg, and lots of them must of been Republicans. Apparently, no Republican statisticians are considered VIPs worthy of attention.

    By the way, did you see the Democratic ground game in Ohio? Micro targeted marketing with comfy one on one human interaction, plus roving vans to get souls to polls. I'm making one of those French "blowing a kiss" gestures right now. Good use of money, time and people.

    5. Lack of time due to back stabbing GOP primary process.

    Nuff said.

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Thank you for showing PERFECTLY exactly the problem here.

    Ya'all revel in celebrating when I am wrong.. Ya laugh and point fingers and say how funny it is that Michale is wrong..

    Yet NONE of you have the maturity to admit when ya'all are wrong...

    Ninjaf,

    Read thru your comments here:

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/09/14/ftp226/#comments

    When ya'all can admit you were wrong, come talk to me...

    Michale....

  123. [123] 
    Michale wrote:

    All I ask is that ya'all show AT LEAST as much maturity as I do...

    I guess that is too much to ask... :^/

    Michale

  124. [124] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Please don't take anything personally. I just thought you might have used Tuesday as a chance to look in the mirror and possibly re-examine your sources of information because they haven proven to be very inaccurate. It seems like from your response in this thread that you've actually gone the other direction, believe Fox EVEN MORE than previously and not re-examined the lies and nonsense you're hearing daily...

  125. [125] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Btw love Krugman's blog today. Puts into words exactly what I've been thinking for a while now.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/09/opinion/krugman-lets-not-make-a-deal.html?_r=1&

  126. [126] 
    Michale wrote:

    It seems like from your response in this thread that you've actually gone the other direction, believe Fox EVEN MORE than previously and not re-examined the lies and nonsense you're hearing daily...

    Two problems with your statements.

    1- YOU quote FNC when it suits your agenda to do so..

    2- FNC was right and YOU were wrong about Obama's fantasy Benghazi Protest.

    Two FACTS that you simply CANNOT refute..

    Here's where you come back with "Oh it's impossible to talk to you, I'm done" type response.. Which is standard when you can't argue facts...

    Michale.....

  127. [127] 
    Michale wrote:

    What *IS* it with you people!?

    Is there some kind of Lefty creed that says you simple CAN'T admit when yer wrong??

    Call me silly, but I was always taught that if yer wrong if ya make a mistake, you own up to it..

    I guess that makes me in the minority here in more ways then one..

    Michale...

  128. [128] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Two problems with your statements.

    1- YOU quote FNC when it suits your agenda to do so..

    2- FNC was right and YOU were wrong about Obama's fantasy Benghazi Protest.

    Two FACTS that you simply CANNOT refute..

    1. No I quote FNC only in 1 circumstance: to show EVEN Fox is agreeing on an issue (usually in a vein of surprise). You know this but you keep repeating this rhetoric (like all other rhetoric). Just like I also quote Rush Limbaugh, for the same reason, this does not legitimise in anyway anything Rush/Fox says.

    2. No it is not 'fact'. It is Fox News opinion. Others have other opinions. This could not be further from FACT if you made it up yourself. We keep repeating this over and over and over again but you don't get it. Just because Fox News says it DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE/FACT. I would've thought after Tuesday you might have realised this...

    3. Check out this BBC news story below. I'll summarise for you: the word 'Fact' has launched legal action against Michale of the CW.com forum for constant abuse and misuse. Quoting a lawyer on the case: "'Fact' has just had enough of years of abuse from Michale. Before the election 'Fact' was thrown around and checked all over the media and he thought his misuse would've stopped - but now he is having to take personal legal action to ensure that he is, once again, used properly. Michale will be hearing from Fact's lawyers in due course."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/fact-sues-Michale

  129. [129] 
    ninjaf wrote:

    Michale,
    I re-read those comments from me. None of them require me to concede anything to you. In fact, in one of the comments I admitted that I had remembered something incorrectly and corrected the record (which shows I can admit when I am wrong). I am sorry if you feel otherwise; you are going to remain unsatisfied because there is nothing for me to "admit." I even posted earlier today that I am still hearing that there are some witness reports of a protest.

    As for quoting FNC, the only times I have seen it used on here have been in the context of "Even Fox News is reporting this..." as a way of trying to convince you of something — never as a first (or even single) source.

  130. [130] 
    dsws wrote:

    On Monday, the Republicans should stake out a position to the right of all their previous positions, but do so in a calm and reasoned-sounding tone of voice.

    I was off by a few days. Yesterday, some Republican was on NPR speaking in a calm and reasoned-sounding tone of voice, saying that it would be ok to have the poor pay more taxes as long as the rich pay less.

  131. [131] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Actually David you were spot on. The day after the election Boehner came out and made a calm, reasonable statement that Republicans were willing to compromise (!)...as long as that compromise was to follow exactly Romney's tax plan and not raise taxes.

    Sadly, some media organisations actually bought it. Like the NYT http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/politics/back-to-bargaining-table-with-fiscal-cliff-dead-ahead.html?pagewanted=all

    Apparently, according to the NYT, a 'Conciliatory Tone' is demanding that: "he was ready to accept a budget deal that raises federal revenue as long as it is linked to an overhaul of entitlements and a reform of the tax code that closes loopholes, curtails or eliminates deductions and lowers income tax rates."

    i.e. I am adopting a conciliatory tone while stating that I am willing to accept a deal to enact the Republican tax plan that just got walloped at the polls. LOL.

  132. [132] 
    Michale wrote:

    I even posted earlier today that I am still hearing that there are some witness reports of a protest.

    Yea.. And I heard reports that Obama really didn't win the election..

    I give up...

    None of you can admit when you are wrong... It's useless to even come in here armed with facts because ya'all obfuscate and spin and outright ignore anything that doesn't meet your ObamaLove devotion...

    Granted, it's taken me a year or so to realize, but it's impossible to reason with fanatics.

    And I am done trying..

    Michale.....

  133. [133] 
    michty6 wrote:

    armed with facts

    Fact's legal team is gathering more evidence by the hour ;)

  134. [134] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Actually David you were spot on. The day after the election Boehner came out and made a calm, reasonable statement that Republicans were willing to compromise ... as long as that compromise was to follow exactly Romney's tax plan and not raise taxes.

    It's what Republicans always say "Why won't you compromise and accept my plan exactly"

    Sure, it's a negotiating tactic. But if the media were to actually come out and call their bullshit "How is this compromise?" instead of simply repeating this insane claim that the Democrats won't work w/ Republicans ... this crap wouldn't happen.

    Oddly enough though, I believe the Repubs have dug themselves an odd hole though. Because if you're going to call Democrats uncompromising even when you're giving in 100%, what's the incentive for Dems? Why not just call the bluff?

    This is what Krugman argues and this is what many liberals here have been arguing for the past 4 years.

    No matter what you do, they're going to hate you. And they've already told you they won't compromise. So why not do what you believe?

    Believe it or not, this extreme Republican position actually strengthens the Democratic negotiation position. Here's to hoping Obama is starting to believe!

    -David

  135. [135] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Here's to hoping Obama is starting to believe!

    Yes same here. Democrats just annihilated Republicans at the polls, winning the Presidential vote, gaining seats in the Senate and winning the House vote (but not the House because America hates democracy and Republican courts allowed Republicans anti-democratic re-districting).

    I am with Krugman on this one: if going over the cliff is the only way to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire then over the cliff we go. There are a tonne of military cuts included too (not enough imo).

    I'd rather see him attempt to go over the cliff then put back in the things in the fiscal cliff package that he doesn't like after, than attempt to compromise to a bad deal beforehand...

  136. [136] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Hahaha just saw this quote. Funny enough this exact thing happened to me on election night when someone asked me 'did the rape guy win?':

    You know your party is in trouble when people ask 'did the rape guy win' and you have to ask 'which one?'
    - Alex Baldwin

  137. [137] 
    michty6 wrote:
  138. [138] 
    akadjian wrote:

    BTW, Michty, holy crap ... I think I just found my favorite election story ...

    http://dailycurrant.com/2012/11/06/george-bush-accidently-votes-obama/

    Sometimes you can't make this stuff up :)

    -David

  139. [139] 
    akadjian wrote:

    (Or maybe you can ... :) )

  140. [140] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Haha I actually read that Bush story on election day. I am not sure if it is true, obviously no-one will really know (except Fox because they do know and they are FACT).

  141. [141] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Just in case you haven't read this yet, here's a remarkable statistic: even if Romney had won Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, he still would have lost. This makes it all the weirder that he and his team were so sure they were going to win all the way to the end. After all, it's plausible that if turnout had been slightly different he could have reeled in those three states, which he lost by only two or three points. But which state would have been the fourth? Pennsylvania? He lost it by 5 points. Colorado? 5 points. New Hampshire? 6 points. Iowa? 6 points. Nevada? 7 points. Wisconsin? 7 points. What possible turnout models could they have been cooking up in their back rooms that convinced them any of those states were truly in play?

  142. [142] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Great post by Sam Wang on the House and American non-democracy. He speculates that Democrats could've won the popular vote by as much as 5% of the popular vote and not taken the House.

    Democracy - American style!

    http://election.princeton.edu/2012/11/09/the-new-house-with-less-democracy/

  143. [143] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yeah ... check out some of the districts in Ohio. It's absurd ...

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/06/1117337/-Ohio-Fights-Grotesque-Gerrymanders

    Very much a shame that the Issue to have an independent panel draw the districts here in Ohio failed.

    My only regret of the election

  144. [144] 
    akadjian wrote:

    It's also kind of interesting that the conservative Supreme Court had a big hand in upholding extreme gerrymandering ...

    http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/vieth_v_jubelirer/

  145. [145] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I hope that a new bill to federally control elections, including re-districting is implemented. Obama hinted at doing something during his victory speech. I believe this would require constitutional amendment though, so could be difficult...

  146. [146] 
    akadjian wrote:
  147. [147] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Well it looks like the Republicans in the House and Obama are both drawing a line in the sand over tax increase. Pretty ridiculous.

    Especially when you consider that For months and months and months Obama and 'that 47% guy who lost to Obama' repeatedly said: 'This election is a clear choice between two very different visions'.

    Well America chose. And they chose overwhelmingly for the Democratic vision, handing the President a comfortable win, increasing the Senate count and winning the popular House vote (even though Republicans maintained the Senate thanks to their undemocratic re-districting).

    Now after all this rhetoric, Republicans have decided: 'well we did say it was a choice but since we lost you chose the other party, we have now decided we don't care and want you to pick our choice anyway.' Amazing. But not surprising.

  148. [148] 
    dsws wrote:

    Rather than having an independent panel draw districts, I would like to get rid of them entirely. Let people decide which House seat to vote for.

  149. [149] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: As the Benghazi Turns

    At [59], I wrote: General Petraeus would end up under the bus. The CIA has considerable culpability in all of it.

    Instead, a decorated and honorable soldier suddenly decides that an affair, not before made public, is reason for him to fall on his sword.

    He was slated to testify under oath next week on Benghazi. Now, he will not.

  150. [150] 
    michty6 wrote:

    LB,
    Absolute nonsense, the whole Benghazi thing is a massive Obama cover-up. Fox told me. It's fact.

  151. [151] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    the whole Benghazi thing is a massive Obama cover-up. Fox told me. It's fact.

    This is, honestly, a very interesting development. If it hasn't already, I'll bet the Fox/Drudge/Swamp spin will be that Gen. Petraeus took a bullet for Obama.

    They're in a bit of a bind with any other story. The Right, (as should we all, BTW) holds the General in high regard. After all, there have even recently been "XXX-Petraeus" Republican ticket ideas floated for '16.

    Michale, I'm not mocking the notion that something is up with this. It's quite unlikely something isn't. All I'm pointing out is that this has made things much more opaque and serpentine. But now, real journalists will begin to sense something in the wind. We might have a chance to really find out.

  152. [152] 
    Michale wrote:

    LB,

    Michale, I'm not mocking the notion that something is up with this.

    I appreciate that, but it's for naught...

    Serious rational debate is gone here..

    Mocking is all anyone does now...

    Michale.....

  153. [153] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Mocking is all anyone does now.

    No one is mocking, Michale. We're just saying look at the credibility of the story. When a journalist like Bob Woodward turns down a story, it's because there isn't enough to really back it up. It's all conjecture and speculation.

    All I'm pointing out is that this has made things much more opaque and serpentine. But now, real journalists will begin to sense something in the wind.

    It certainly is an interesting development, LB.

    -David

  154. [154] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one is mocking, Michale.

    We must not be reading the same chrisweigant.com

    There is nothing BUT mocking..

    Absolute nonsense, the whole Benghazi thing is a massive Obama cover-up. Fox told me. It's fact.

    Nope.. No mocking whatsoever, right?? :D

    We're just saying look at the credibility of the story.

    Yes, but you define "credibility" by the content of the story, not the track record of the reporting...

    It's all conjecture and speculation.

    So was everything that ya'all castigated BUSH over..

    Yet that didn't stop the hysterics, did it??

    You know how I know I am right?? Because if it had been a GOP president, ya'all would be saying EXACTLY what I have been saying. We BOTH know that it's true..

    Michale....

  155. [155] 
    Michale wrote:

    No one is mocking, Michale.

    You see my point? When discussing Obama ya'all completely deny reality. Of course there was mocking. From practically EVERY Weigantian, there has been mocking..

    Read a book called PERRY'S PLANET... It'll be an eyeopener as it is exactly analogous to the situation here...

    Ideological conditioning that allows one to completely deny reality and the evidence of their own senses...

    Michale....

  156. [156] 
    Michale wrote:

    Read a book called PERRY'S PLANET... It'll be an eyeopener as it is exactly analogous to the situation here...

    Anyways, it's a Star Trek novel (naturally) that deals with a society where a "disease" was introduced into the population that made it so, when any violent impulses were felt, it would render the person unconscious...

    However, a subset of society was immune to the "disease" and they would prey on those who could not fight back..

    Over the generations, those suffering from the disease developed a "blind spot" to violence. They simply would not see it. Or, more accurately, it would not register in their minds...

    That's what I see happening here. Ya'all have developed a blind spot with Obama so that ANYTHING that occurs that shows Obama to be wrong, incompetent or bad, it's simply not registered...

    The simple fact that some of you still believe that there WAS a protest in Benghazi, even though the report has been thoroughly discredited is a perfect example of this blind spot...

    It's likely going to take another 4-6 years to get ya'all over this conditioning, but don't worry.. I am here to help... :D

    Michale.....

  157. [157] 
    akadjian wrote:

    you define "credibility" by the content of the story, not the track record of the reporting

    No. I define credibility as actual evidence or multiple firsthand reports. For example, the "source" the Romney camp brought to Bob Woodward didn't have any evidence or firsthand knowledge.

    "He finally showed up and he didn't have anything where he had any firsthand knowledge." - Bob Woodward

    Fox chose to use this "source".

    The other networks didn't find it credible enough.

    Now the reason they need more sources or evidence is because with one person, the person may have an ulterior motivation (such as electing Romney).

    This is what's known as journalistic integrity.

    -David

    p.s. If I chose to include the "track record" of the reporting, it would also undermine Fox's credibility as their track record is partisan.

  158. [158] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    No. I define credibility as actual evidence or multiple firsthand reports.

    You mean like actual EMAILS from Benghazi officials to Obama Administration officials and back??

    The kinds of emails that show there was no protest, that security arrangements were inadequate, that military and CIA forces were ordered to back down.

    Would you consider THAT as reliable evidence??

    p.s. If I chose to include the "track record" of the reporting, it would also undermine Fox's credibility as their track record is partisan.

    What about FNC's track record on Benghazi??

    FNC 1
    Obama et al 0

    If you move the goal posts on what constitutes credibility, you can make ANYTHING you want be "fact"... :D

    Ya'all are always, I mean ALWAYS slamming the MSM for their biased reporting..

    EXCEPT when it is biased in Obama's favor...

    Michale.....

  159. [159] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    Ideological conditioning that allows one to completely deny reality and the evidence of their own senses...

    Honestly, you need to take a look in the mirror. You, being someone who believes Obama wasn't born in America, preaching this to everyone around here is pretty much the picture perfect definition of hypocritical.

    You have this inane ability to ignore everything that doesn't fit in with your view of the world and reality, whilst giving far too much relevance to things that do. Benghazi is the perfect example of this: from the minute it occurred you had concluded what YOU believed happened and that the ultimate conclusion in your mind was that it was Obama's fault. Since then you have basically sought out evidence which fits in with this hypothesis (of which FNC fed you plenty because that's what they do) and ignored everything else that suggests otherwise.

    Then when you come out in this forum blathering your nonsense and people ignore you, you think it's because we're biased or blind or drinking kool-aid or other such phrases that you use.

    Like I keep repeating, Tues should have been a wake-up call to you. Instead you have chosen to ignore it and continue on your merry ways ignoring real evidence of the reality out there and seeking 'evidence' that fits in with your continued perception of reality. Until this changes there can be no sensible discussion on Benghazi or anything. The discussion will, as this one has, continue to degenerate into your reality/FNC vs actual reality. In this case actual reality on Benghazi is akin to 'no-one really knows, the timeline is fuzzy' but your reality/FNC reality is 'it is as clear as daylight what happened and it's Obama's fault!'.

  160. [160] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Would you consider THAT as reliable evidence?

    Sure.

    However, the question is evidence of what.

    In the aftermath of an attack, you're likely to receive multiple reports about what happened.

    Were the e-mails an intelligence assessment?

    Seems to me it would make more sense to investigate the matter rather than go off half cocked.

    This is why I still don't see any real controversy other than the manufactured kind yet.

    -David

  161. [161] 
    Michale wrote:

    You, being someone who believes Obama wasn't born in America,

    There you go again. Creating fantasy accusations out of NOTHING..

    I never claimed that I believed ANYTHING of the sort..

    I simply maintain that, speaking objectively, there IS compelling evidence that needs to be explained..

    David,

    Were the e-mails an intelligence assessment?

    Yes, many of them were... Have you bothered reading any of them???

    Surely it would make sense for you to READ the evidence before you pass judgment on it, no???

    This is why I still don't see any real controversy other than the manufactured kind yet.

    That's because you come to the conclusion FIRST (it's manufactured evidence) and therefore frees you up from the obligation of actually having to examine the evidence...

    Michale....

  162. [162] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I never claimed that I believed ANYTHING of the sort.

    I'm confused. So your conceding that Obama was born in America? Because one of the 1st conversations I had with you on here was you arguing otherwise for hundreds of posts...

  163. [163] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Yes, many of them were... Have you bothered reading any of them?

    I did. These don't look like an intelligence assessment.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/24/us/libya-benghazi-e-mails/index.html

    Where are the ones you claim to be an intelligence assessment?

    it's manufactured evidence

    Again, no one ever came to this conclusion. I'm not sure where you get this stuff, Michale.

    What we've said is that the evidence we've seen isn't convincing, conclusive, or even indicative of poor decision making.

    I would also say that the controversy was largely manufactured using insufficient evidence.

    What do the e-mails indicate? That there was an unclear picture immediately after the attack?

    Ummm. That's not a controversy.

    After an attack like this, don't you often have different sources saying different things? Doesn't it usually take a while to find out what really happened?

    Where's the controversy?

    -David

  164. [164] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I never claimed that I believed ANYTHING of the sort.

    BTW- You loved the birther non-sense! I also remember you going on for pages and pages about how Obama should release his birth certificate.

    If you didn't believe it, why did you keep asking for him to release his birth certificate?

    Or are you saying you were politically motivated :)

    -David

  165. [165] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    What's ironic here is you are guilty of exactly the same thing that you falsely accuse me of..

    You ignore ANY evidence, no matter how substantiated, if it puts Obama in a bad light..

    As far as Obama's birth, I said it before and I'll say it again. To the objective mind, there is compelling evidence that has yet to be explained...

    David,

    These do:

    reuters.com/article/2012/10/24/us-usa-benghazi-emails-idUSBRE89N02C20121024

    And lo and behold, they come from REUTERS, a news source that Weigantians have confirmed as "legitimate"...

    Here is a listing of previous hi-level security meetings re: the security situation in Benghazi...

    aei-ideas.org/2012/10/benghazi-the-focus-of-numerous-attacks-and-a-clear-soft-target/

    Spin away....

    After an attack like this, don't you often have different sources saying different things? Doesn't it usually take a while to find out what really happened?

    Really?? Because that wasn't ya'alls story in the immediate aftermath of the attack.. THEN, ya'alls story was that it was a protest gone bad and some OBSCURE anti-Mohamed video...

    Where was your "let's wait a while and see" attitude then???

    No, the "let's wait a while" attitude came when it was obvious to ANYONE that ya'alls story was complete and utter felgercarb... Only THEN, did ya'all want to "wait and see" because it was obvious to anyone that Obama et al left people to die because of a re-election campaign...

    "You are most transparent, O'Neill. I can see right thru you."
    -T'ealc, STARGATE SG1, 200

    :D

    Michale.....

  166. [166] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    BTW- You loved the birther non-sense! I also remember you going on for pages and pages about how Obama should release his birth certificate.

    Of course I loved it.. Just as ya'all loved Abu Ghraib, Iraq and all the other clubs that ya'all used to use to beat Bush and the GOP over the head with... :D

    If you didn't believe it, why did you keep asking for him to release his birth certificate?

    Because there were doubts. And "the most transparent administration in history" should not have any qualms about erasing doubts, no??

    Why hide it if there is nothing to hide??

    I believe that was YA'ALL's mantra during the Bush years, right??

    Ain't it pesky how these past facts come up and totally negate any pro-Obama argument ya'all make?? :D

    Michale...

  167. [167] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    As far as Obama's birth, I said it before and I'll say it again. To the objective mind, there is compelling evidence that has yet to be explained...

    I see that now you have done with your abuse of the word 'fact' that you have turned your attention to the word 'objective'! Damn you and your word abuse! ;)

    Considering you have stated a thousand times on here about how much you hate Obama and he personally let you down (etc etc), you might want to consider that this does not in anyway whatsoever make you 'objective'. Again this is an example of you forming an opinion and ignoring all evidence counter to this opinion, while elevating and exaggerating 'evidence' that supports it...

  168. [168] 
    Michale wrote:

    I readily admit that I am not objective about Obama.

    The difference between myself and ya'all is that I *CAN* be objective.

    Ya'all have proven time and time again that ya'all simply CAN"T be objective about Obama's faults..

    Hell, ya'all even refuse to admit that Obama *HAS* faults..

    It doesn't get more biased than that...

    Michale.....

  169. [169] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Ya'all have proven time and time again that ya'all simply CAN"T be objective about Obama's faults..
    Hell, ya'all even refuse to admit that Obama *HAS* faults..
    It doesn't get more biased than that..

    Lol once again no. It's just that when we do fault Obama it will be for ACTUAL faults not stuff that we made up or saw on FNC or a lunatic conspiracy theory or blaming him for a terrorist attack...

    Like, for example, if Obama goes ahead and extends the Bush tax-cuts for millionaires or caves to the Republicans (again) in the next few weeks you bet I'm going to be on here moaning about him...

  170. [170] 
    akadjian wrote:

    it was obvious to anyone that Obama et al left people to die because of a re-election campaign

    Here's the issue ...

    There are e-mails. BTW, the CNN link I sent had the actual e-mails from your Reuters article.

    Now the e-mails show Email #1) someone reporting that there is an attack, #2) someone reporting that the attack is over, and #3) someone saying that the embassy claimed Ansar al Sharia claimed responsibility on Facebook/Twitter.

    From these e-mails, the amazing thing is that you get:

    it was obvious to anyone that Obama et al left people to die because of a re-election campaign

    Reuters never said "Obama left people to die".

    I don't even know if Fox went that far. But to you, it's obvious.

    We'll see what the investigation has to say. I kind of doubt that they'll say "Obama left people to die".

    Oh, but that's right ... the commission is part of the liberal conspiracy. So they would never say that.

    Sounds more like you have some Obama issues to work through :)

    -David

  171. [171] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Hell, ya'all even refuse to admit that Obama *HAS* faults.

    You mean we don't buy into birtherism? Or that Obama is a socialist Muslim? Or that Obama left people in Benghazi to die?

    I think Obama has many faults. But you seem to prefer talking about his fictional ones.

    -David

  172. [172] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Obama has many faults. But you seem to prefer talking about his fictional ones.

    And you refuse to talk about the alleged "real ones"...

    Care to enlighten me?? :D

    Michale.....

  173. [173] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Just watch the deficit deal Michale. People on the left are just waiting to pounce on the slightest bit of over-the-top compromise from Obama... (I certainly am)

  174. [174] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Care to enlighten me?

    Michty nailed my big one. Obama has a strong negotiating hand after the election. I want to see him play it. Not compromise it away from the get go just to get a deal (see healthcare reform & previous "grand bargain" capitulation).

    So far I'm hopeful. I was glad to hear him say he'd veto any proposal that didn't include a tax hike for those making more than $250,000.

    -David

  175. [175] 
    Michale wrote:

    OK So, you are both agreed that if Obama does 'A' you will disagree with him..

    OK.. Good.. That's a red line.... We'll see how it plays out..

    Now, let's look at the LAST 4 years...

    Any mistakes...???

    Michale.....

  176. [176] 
    Michale wrote:

    Also keep in mind, Obama said a LOT of things in the previous 4 years that he never followed thru on..

    Ya'all gave him a pass on those..

    So, if Obama DOES compromise on the deficit deal, why would I believe you wouldn't give him a pass again???

    Michale.....

  177. [177] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Where did we give him a pass?

    I don't know how many times we go through this on here. It seems like you have selective short term memory issues. At least once a week we go through this dance and right at the next week we're back to square one in the routine where you seem to think we won't criticise Obama... It's kinda boring Michale.

  178. [178] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Any mistakes...?

    I always thought he should have made financial reform his #1 priority. Before healthcare.

    Ya'all gave him a pass on those.

    Huh?

    Yunno, it's really not clear what you're going for here, Michale.

    Whenever you say "y'all" it usually means some mythical leftie that doesn't exist.

    Just because we vote for and supported Obama over Romney doesn't mean he's the "messiah" you seem to think everyone sees him as.

    It just means we think he was a much better alternative than the opposition.

    -David

  179. [179] 
    Michale wrote:

    By giving him a pass, I mean you still support Obama, even after he crosses a red line...

    How many times does Obama have to break promises (Gitmo, rendition, torture, summary executions) before ya say enough is enough??

    Or is the Party line more important than anything else???

    Michale......

  180. [180] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    This is the problem when you have a 2 party system and 1 party is bat-shit-crazy. It leaves those not happy with the administration with very little choice.

    Aside from that, I doubt you will find any politician or leader who exactly resembles every single thing you believe in. If you're waiting for that person you might win a prize as 'most naive person in the world'!

  181. [181] 
    Michale wrote:

    If you're waiting for that person you might win a prize as 'most naive person in the world'!

    Yea, I know...

    Actually believing in things like principles and integrity.........

    Yea, naive is my middle name...

    "Mine's Cornelius. You tell anyone, I'll kill you."
    -Bruce Willis, THE LAST BOYSCOUT

    :D

    Funny thing is, when I was growing up, that's what Liberals seemed to believe in..

    Nowadays, they are pale mirror images of the Conservatives they despise...

    Michale......

  182. [182] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nowadays, they are pale mirror images of the Conservatives they despise

    Lol I have been telling you this for months on here, in particular that Obama has governed from a centre-right position, but you (and everyone else on the right) just ignores this because it's much easier to call him a socialist/communist/whatever-made-up-thing-is-trending since it's much easier to run against 'fake Obama' than real Obama...

    The reality is it is very very unlikely you will find a politician who has the same views on you on almost every issue. That's why the 'best fit' approach to selecting your candidate makes the most sense...

  183. [183] 
    Michale wrote:

    The reality is it is very very unlikely you will find a politician who has the same views on you on almost every issue. That's why the 'best fit' approach to selecting your candidate makes the most sense...

    We agree on that 1000%...

    But I could never agree with a politician who would treat Israel as Obama has treated Israel and who would allow Iran time to finish nuclear weapons..

    At least with me, there are lines I will not cross, regardless of Party affiliation...

    Once again, I am likely alone in that...

    Michale.....

  184. [184] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I mean you still support Obama, even after he crosses a red line.

    I will say it again.

    I support what I believe to be the best alternative.

    If Republicans had better ideas, maybe they'd be worthy of support.

    But they don't have any ideas these days. They're pretty much obsessed with things like Obama's birth certificate, what a Muslim socialist Obama is, that Obama left people in Benghazi to die, or whatever the latest Rush Limbaugh conspiracy is.

    In other words ... not just negative attacks ... but outright insane negative attacks.

    To be honest, I'm not sure I'd trust these types of Republicans with being able to make toast, much less run a country.

    If Republicans didn't have an unlimited amount of money to spend, I think Obama would likely have won with 80-90% of the vote.

    -David

  185. [185] 
    dsws wrote:

    Seriously, a man running for the most powerful office in the country didn't bother to plan for one of the two contingencies that were guaranteed to happen last night? And he wanted us to let him make crucial decisions for all of us?

    It makes sense to prepare most for contingencies where your preparedness (or lack thereof) matters most. Mitt Romney is now irrelevant, hooray. So I have no problem with him not being prepared for this contingency. Pretty much all his preparedness for events beyond the election should have been focused on the possible transition to his hypothetical administration.

  186. [186] 
    Michale wrote:

    I support what I believe to be the best alternative.

    If Republicans had better ideas, maybe they'd be worthy of support.

    So, no matter how much Obama tramples on your ideals and principles, you will support him because you believe that Republicans are worse...

    Hmmmmmmm

    Then let me ask you. Where is Obama's incentive to actually improve and do better??

    If you (and all the people like you) are going to support Democrats, no matter how bad they screw ya'all over, there is actually NO incentive for them to do anything else...

    Michale.....

  187. [187] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Where is Obama's incentive to actually improve and do better?

    I could ask you the same about the other party, but instead, I'll answer as I think this is a really excellent question.

    In a two-party system, you don't move the goal posts by not supporting candidates. Republicans have demonstrated this admirably over the past 30 years.

    You move the goal posts by putting the most liberal candidates you can in office and then putting pressure on them to support who brought them to the dance. Then you work to keep electing better and better candidates.

    The only thing you accomplish by not supporting the best liberals we have is electing conservatives.

    Which is why I'm guessing you're proposing this strategy :)

    -David

  188. [188] 
    dsws wrote:

    You move your party two ways. First, by getting involved in primaries. Second, by organizing groups that have clear partisan leanings but are independent of the party proper, to support some of your party's general-election candidates and ignore others. (And in the vanishingly rare instances where the other party does better, to cross party lines and support the other party's candidate.)

  189. [189] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Also it comes down a lot to who the person in power 'owes', as I posted before the election when I picked up an endorsement that described this in better terms than I could.

    In 2008 Obama received the backing of the top Corporations in America; in 2012 they abandoned him to back 'Mr Corporation' 47% -guy.

    In this sense 2012 was a completely different election than 2008 in that Obama owes his grass-roots supporters considerably more now than back then.

    It is for this reason I believe he will actually, finally put his foot down - we will see over the deficit negotiations.

    But I could never agree with a politician who would treat Israel as Obama has treated Israel and who would allow Iran time to finish nuclear weapons..

    Again you refer to 'fake Obama' made up by the Republicans. Real Obama has done no such things.

  190. [190] 
    Michale wrote:

    It is for this reason I believe he will actually, finally put his foot down - we will see over the deficit negotiations.

    I'll remind you of this and watch you spin it when Obama does the same thing about Bush's Tax Cuts :D

    Real Obama has done no such things.

    Bullshit... You're living in a fantasy world again...

    Joshua, care to chime in??? :D

    Michale.....

  191. [191] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Bullshit... You're living in a fantasy world again...

    Nope I live in a world of facts. Need I remind you again:

    2012 Presidential election Jewish vote = Obama 69%, Romney 30%

    Is this the reaction you'd expect to a President who 'through Israel under the bus' or whatever crap Fox is peddling? Or perhaps, just maybe, Fox is full of it. If this statistic doesn't convince you which one of us is living in a 'fantasy world' regarding Israel, I give up trying.

  192. [192] 
    michty6 wrote:

    * threw not through. I hate doing that, need to stop typing so quick!

  193. [193] 
    akadjian wrote:

    First, by getting involved in primaries. Second, by organizing groups that have clear partisan leanings but are independent of the party proper, to support some of your party's general-election candidates and ignore others.

    Well put dsws! And it doesn't hurt if you can gain the support of as much of the public as possible.

    Gay rights advocates have done an outstanding job, for example, with everyone across the board.

    -David

  194. [194] 
    Michale wrote:

    David,

    I could ask you the same about the other party,

    That's why I don't support Partys. I support policies.. :D When Democrats push a policy I agree with, I support it to the hilt...

    but instead, I'll answer as I think this is a really excellent question.

    I have my moments.. :D

    The only thing you accomplish by not supporting the best liberals we have is electing conservatives.

    Not true.. The only thing you accomplish BY supporting liberals who don't do what you want is you will never truly get what you want..

    Sure, in the short term, more conservatives get elected. But, in the long term, you show future liberal candidates that you mean what you say and cannot be steamrolled by Party loyalty...

    Apparently ya'all are all about quantity at the expense of quality???

    By being this way, you guarantee you will never have the leadership you want..

    Michale...

  195. [195] 
    akadjian wrote:

    That's why I don't support Partys. I support policies.. :D

    Why'd you support Romney then?

    You yourself admitted that you had no idea what he was going to do once elected.

    Nobody did as I don't think he mentioned any specifics the entire campaign.

    The only thing you accomplish BY supporting liberals who don't do what you want is you will never truly get what you want.

    But I've already gotten a lot of what I wanted to see. And in all likelihood, will see more.

    -David

  196. [196] 
    Michale wrote:

    Why'd you support Romney then?

    Because he's a change from the incompetence of the Obama Administration..

    You yourself admitted that you had no idea what he was going to do once elected.

    Just like I had no idea that Obama was going to be such a bad leader....

    But I've already gotten a lot of what I wanted to see. And in all likelihood, will see more.

    As long as you can live with a President that, when it comes to CT policies, is more Bush then Bush...... Well, if yer happy, then I'm happy.. :D

    Michale

  197. [197] 
    Michale wrote:

    As long as you can live with a President that, when it comes to CT policies, is more Bush then Bush...... Well, if yer happy, then I'm happy.. :D

    I am curious though.. You have already conceded that Obama extending the Bush Tax Cuts is a "red line" of sorts for you...

    Is it a large enough red line that, if crossed, would cause you to actively campaign and/or advocate AGAINST Obama??

    If not, does such a red line exist??

    If so, what is it??

    Enquiring minds want to know.. :D

    Michale...

  198. [198] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,
    That's why I don't support Partys. I support policies.. :D When Democrats push a policy I agree with, I support it to the hilt...

    Followed by:
    Because he's a change from the incompetence of the Obama Administration..

    Lolol you crack me up sometimes! It is amazing to hear you say this considering no matter how much goading I gave you you could not bring up or discuss Obama or Romney policies on here. I think I asked you to name a policy hundreds of times and you just fall back to the rhetoric of 'he is incompetent' - which suggest to mean you've just been brainwashed by Fox et al.

    Is it a large enough red line that, if crossed, would cause you to actively campaign and/or advocate AGAINST Obama??
    If not, does such a red line exist??
    If so, what is it??

    Sure I would advocate against Obama. But that doesn't mean I would advocate for Republicans. Nor regret supporting Obama. Because I DO believe in POLICY. And the Republican policy on taxes is way way way way way way worse than the WORST Democratic policy on taxes. This is the problem with how radical and crazy Republicans are just now, they are not a viable alternative to anyone who is moderate or reasonable at all. Their economic policies would drive America and the World back into recession. I believe I've made my views and evidence of this pretty clear on here, including a couple of articles.

    There is always the potential, of course, that Republicans show themselves in the next few years to be more moderate and reasonable on taxes and deficit reduction. I won't be holding my breath though since, if they were reasonable, reversing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy wouldn't even be an issue.... They'd first have to ditch the radical right Tea Party and Libertarian elements of their party that control most of their agenda. I don't see that happening soon, especially since they kept the House (despite losing the popular House vote). Losing the House would've been the only thing that awakened them to reality. Now I think they'll go more crazy...

  199. [199] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sure I would advocate against Obama.

    That's all I wanted to hear.. :D

    "Thank You..."
    -Murphy, ROBOCOP

    :D

    Michale....

  200. [200] 
    dsws wrote:

    The only thing you accomplish by not supporting the best liberals we have is electing conservatives.

    If only. What we "accomplish" is electing right-wing radicals.

  201. [201] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Btw I don't even agree with Obama's tax policy as it stands. I think calling only those earning >$250k 'wealthy' is laughable.

    I would personally end the tax cuts for those earning >$100k. Maybe even lower. The idea that someone earning $150k is struggling is laughable. I wouldn't even call that person middle-class.

    America has a massive national debt and a massive deficit. Giving tax cuts to people earning $100k-250k isn't going to help close this.

    Then of course, there's the military. Don't get me started on what I'd do with that. I think between reasonable tax rates on those earning >$100k and military cuts you could get your deficit down to close to $0 in a short space of time.

  202. [202] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Plus if Obama's starting point for negotiations was $100k it is much more likely he'd get his wish to end tax cuts at $250k.

    By starting at his actual point (rookie mistake in negotiating) of $250k it is far more likely they will compromise to $500k or $1m. I think this is probably the most likely outcome of the negotiations sadly.

  203. [203] 
    dsws wrote:

    Sure I would advocate against Obama.

    What does that mean at this point, when he's not running for anything? If people try to get him to run for a third term, I certainly won't be among them. I certainly have different opinions from his on various points of policy.

    I decided when he extended the Bush tax cuts that I wouldn't campaign for him this year, and I didn't. I did some GOTV for Elizabeth Warren, which may have added some votes for Obama as well. I voted for him again. But I didn't go to New Hampshire this time, which I probably would have if I had been more enthusiastic.

    That's what you do when one major party is clearly better than the other. You support candidates from the better one, but vary your level of support of different politicians according to (among other things) their actions while in office.

  204. [204] 
    michty6 wrote:

    I don't know what it's meant to mean. Maybe posting comments on here about how I disagree with him (which I already do). You'll have to ask Michale. I think Michale lives in this world (which I like to call Michale-world) where he believes that everyone everywhere is kissing Obama's ass for no reason, completely ignoring the criticisms of him and his policies that are made... Actually I can summarise why he believes this in 3 letters: FNC.

  205. [205] 
    michty6 wrote:

    PS. Warren 2016 imo.

  206. [206] 
    dsws wrote:

    Maybe, but my guess is no. She didn't seem like a presidential-caliber campaigner to me.

    On the other hand, I'm often wrong about such things. I didn't think Romney had a chance at the nomination.

  207. [207] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think Michale lives in this world (which I like to call Michale-world) where he believes that everyone everywhere is kissing Obama's ass for no reason,

    Yea... It's called 'reality'... You might want to try it some time. :D

    Anyone who doesn't believe that the vast majority of the MSM is in the bag for Obama is either delusional, ignorant or simply Left-Biased..

    I would wager that ya know a LOT about Abu Ghraib... I would further wager that you know comparatively NOTHING about the Afghani kill teams..

    Now, why do you think that is??

    We know TONS of information about Valerie Plame.. Comparatively speaking, we know NOTHING about Benghazi...

    Again.. Why do you think that is??

    Michale....

  208. [208] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Lol I literally know nothing to very little of anything you mentioned in that last post. I probably know more about Benghazi and I don't even particularly care about that.

    This is the problem when you try to portray YOUR view of the world or YOUR view of the 'left' on to the actual world/'left'.

  209. [209] 
    Michale wrote:

    Lol I literally know nothing to very little of anything you mentioned in that last post.

    Again, that's my point..

    The MSM just LOVED to go after the Presidency when it was a Bush in the White House..

    Now that we have Obama???

    Not so much...

    No one can deny this.... At least not rationally and/or logically...

    Michale....

  210. [210] 
    michty6 wrote:

    The MSM just LOVED to go after the Presidency when it was a Bush in the White House..
    Now that we have Obama???
    Not so much...
    No one can deny this.... At least not rationally and/or logically...

    Again: completely and utter bull-crap. This is rhetoric sold by Fox that you have bought hook line and sinker. It is the usual Fox crap, repeat it enough times and people will start to believe it. The 'war' against the 'liberal media'. Basically journalism of the lowest level (as I referred to in today's column) not based on fact, or reality but opinion and rhetoric.

    You forget that, for example, when Bush ran in both 2000 and 2004 the media as a whole ran a tonne of bullshit against both Gore and Kerry (like the infamous Al Gore 'I invented the internet' made up nonsense). But since you watch Fox and believe what it tells you, you won't have seen any of this.

  211. [211] 
    Michale wrote:

    This is rhetoric sold by Fox that you have bought hook line and sinker

    Nope.. It's the evidence of my own observations...

    How else do you explain the media feeding frenzy that was Abu Ghraib and the virtually NOTHING about the Afghani Kill Teams.

    The ONLY logical explanation that fits the facts is that the MSM is in the bag for Obama...

    You can deny it all you want.. But, as usual, you are simply denying reality...

    Michale....

  212. [212] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Nope.. It's the evidence of my own observations..

    Right exactly. And you may not realise it but your own observations (like mine) are heavily biased by the news networks and things you read. So, even if you don't realise it, you are being influenced by Fox in this regard - since you have admitted that Fox is your favoured network for news coverage (although you also state you read others).

    This is why facts and factual arguments are much better than 'observations'. What you are saying is nothing more than rhetoric and opinion - 'observations' fall under these categories and do not fall under 'fact'.

    Let me give you an analogy: say there is a news network that millions of people watch and it covers 'Afghani Kill teams' 24/7 for weeks on end. However, since you don't watch this, you never end up 'observing' this and remain stuck on your Fox News created agenda; on the other hand someone watching this news network will 'observe' the exact opposite - that news is saturated by coverage of this and completely ignores Abu Ghraib! Hence the flaw in using 'observations' to judge reality, as different people will create different 'realities' in their heads.

    Essentially this analogy fits Fox perfectly as no news network in America selectively picks what it will cover more than Fox does. And it covers it from the same angle with the same rhetoric over and over again, hammering home their propaganda (hats off to them, they are very good at this).

    Until you recognise this, it is YOU who will always be denying reality.

  213. [213] 
    Michale wrote:

    You forget that, for example, when Bush ran in both 2000 and 2004 the media as a whole ran a tonne of bullshit against both Gore and Kerry (like the infamous Al Gore 'I invented the internet' made up nonsense). But since you watch Fox and believe what it tells you, you won't have seen any of this.

    What part of "The MSM is in the bag for OBAMA" did you not understand???

    As far as Gore?? Don't EVEN get me started on that crazed sex-poodle con artist...

    Michale.....

  214. [214] 
    michty6 wrote:

    What part of "The MSM is in the bag for OBAMA" did you not understand?

    Oh I understand. I see it on Fox every day. Just that I actually read much of the MSM and I don't see it. And I also don't believe what Fox (or Rush, who says the same thing frequently) tells me I'm supposed to believe every day.

    But hey I'm different, I generally base my views and opinions on facts...

  215. [215] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Let me give you a FACT-BASED not observation based argument for making a case of 'bias' in a media organisation:

    - This particular organisation is owned by Rupert Murdoch, who has a history of running politically motivated organisations in many countries around the world. He has had secret meetings with PMs, Presidents and pushed his Conservative agenda, which he does not hide, in many countries around the world.
    - This particular organisation's current President, Roger Ailes, was a full time political consultant to Republican candidates during the 60s, 70 and 80s. He worked with Bush on the 1988 and 1992 campaigns.
    - This particular organisation has many many pundits who actually were affiliated with or even represented in Congress the Republican party. In fact, many Republican party members become 'contributors' to the network when they retire.
    - The polling outfit used by this particular organisation is run by a guy called 'Scott Rasmussen' who makes no qualms about his Conservative views on his site. His polls also skewed 4.6% Republican in 2008, and around 5% Republican in 2012 (TBD) in the EC.
    - The most watched programme on this particular network, based on factual viewing figures, is the Bill O'Reilly show. What is O'Reilly's political affiliation? He was a registered Republican from 1994-2000, only changing this when it was revealed in the media.
    - Many documentaries have come out with evidence that Fox presenters are told to report certain subjects in a certain way (i.e. be biased).
    - A 2007 study looked at the introduction of Fox News into local U.S. markets between 1996 and 2000, and found that in the 2000 presidential election "Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns that broadcast Fox News". The study's estimates "imply that Fox News convinced 3 to 28 percent of its viewers to vote Republican, depending on the audience measure"

    Facts>Observations any day of the week. Observations, by their very nature, are subject to sample bias.

  216. [216] 
    Michale wrote:

    What part of "The MSM is in the bag for **OBAMA**" do you not understand???

    Michale.....

  217. [217] 
    michty6 wrote:

    What part of 'fact-based evidence' not 'it must be true because I heard it on Fox' do you now understand???

  218. [218] 
    michty6 wrote:

    * not

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