Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;948932]I'll just say this, [B][I]we have liberals and conservatives who are members of this forum that have served proudly in our nation's armed forces. Our politics may differ, but we're all patriots nonetheless. [/I][/B]
[/quote]Well said, couldn't agree with you more!

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=JoeRedskin;948851]Sorry, I know too many people who would vote for Hitler if he supported their positions (whichever side it might be) on gay marriage and abortion. To my mind, Romney is on the losing side of these issues in terms of votes (i.e. regardless of how you feel as to the right and wrong of the underlying issue, more voters support Obama on these issues)[/quote]I know you live in the People's Republic of MD and don't get out much....but I would refer you to these polls that show on abortion and gay marriage a majority do not support those positions:

[URL="http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm"]Abortion[/URL]

[URL="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/08/10/same-sex_marriage_polls_votes_and_courts_115053.html"]Same-Sex Marriage: Polls, Votes and Courts | RealClearPolitics[/URL]


[quote]Ultimately, I foresee myself casting a protest vote for the Libertarians this year. (I am a citizen of the Democratic Party sub-committee known as the State of Maryland so it really doesn't matter for whom I vote. The electoral votes are already in the bank).

Blech to it all.[/quote]I've got an address here in VA and we could use the help if you change your mind :cool-smil

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;948847]Being fiery doesn't win elections, making the voters feel you care about them and their lives does. Obama left one too many unused trump-cards at the table though I think Obama did a good job explaining his policies and positions vs Romney's.

There are 3 more quarters left in the game and the deck is still hot.[/quote]I never thought I would say this.....but I actually feel a bit bad for Obama and the way the media wings of the DNC (msnbc, etc.) are ready to throw him under the bus. You could see it everywhere last night and this AM. They're setting up to dump an election loss squarely on him and trash the guy because he can't defend the last 3 1/2 years (I say policies, others will say bad situation, folks in the middle would say both),his far left ideology (yes I know that's a debatable point), and he can't live up to the diety-like aspirations the clowns (yes, Chris Matthews I mean you) in the left wing media put on him.

These two-faced, opportunistic, back-stabbers have carried the water and covered for Obama since 2007. Now they're ready to throw him to the wolves and cover their own hind-quarters....and this is before any real polls have come out suggesting a drastic shift in nationwide polls. Shameful. But, Obama has taken advantage of these useful idiots all this time also. Moral of the story, be careful who you make your bed with.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;948932]You seem to be carelessly reading and seeing what you want in my post. That, or you're being blatantly dishonest. The word "freedom" never appeared in my post and neither did the military's role in protecting said freedoms. In fact, you dragged the military into this. Not once did I make any inference to our men and women in uniform.

On top of your misguided response, you seem to equate being liberal with a disdain for our military. I'll just say this, we have liberals [I]and [/I]conservatives who are members of this forum that have served proudly in our nation's armed forces. Our politics may differ, but we're all patriots nonetheless.

But let me clarify my original post. From 1955-1968, particularly in the segregated south, many civil rights activists were martyred as they petitioned gov't to grant them voting rights. The Women's Suffrage Movement in the late 19th century and early 20th century, which culminated in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment;[I] "The United States Constitution prohibits any United States citizen to be denied the right to vote based on sex. It was ratified on August 18, 1920. [/I]"

So yes, I stand by my original post. Men and women have fought, suffered, and many have died for the right to vote in this country. I don't see what's controversial about that.[/quote]

You did mention freedoms of this country, you mentioned the right to vote, Thats a freedom we have in this country.

I will apologize for the comment but will not watch as as dems have gone out of their way to suppress military vote (as they have done in multiple elections, most recently a month or two ago in Ohio) then watch as they claim people have the right to vote. If that right is for people of this country, we should all include the military in that, dont you agree? After all, they have died to give and keep our freedoms. They deserve that vote.

You want to talk about the suppression of votes but will always forget about ones that are suppressed that dont go for your candidate, as evidenced by your failure to mention the military when you were on the subject.

If the conversation is vote suppression, then lets talk about all of it. Not just wanting ID's to be shown. So when you are talking about voter suppression, and seem to forget about our men and women in uniform, then I am going to say something. The reason I said something was because you brought up voter suppression and went out of your way to avoid the military, and even got mad when I brought them up. Thay have had their vote suppressed for a long time. My dad is a retired Colonel in the Air Force, I have seen that voter suppression first hand.

So shall we talk about all voter suppression, or are we going to keep avoiding the men and women who proudly have served this country while complaining about other votes? Thats what is so controversial about it.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;948786]President Obama was off last night. No other way to put it. Romney won, Obama lost.

Two more debates to go and a [B]jobs report tomorrow[/B].[/quote]


Most are predicting the DOL's jobs report to be modest in the 115k range. Although this sounds interesting and also very resonable:

[url=http://trimtabs.com/blog/2012/10/03/trimtabs-says-u-s-economy-adds-210000-jobs-september/]TrimTabs Says U.S. Economy Adds 210,000 Jobs in September - TrimTabs Money Blog[/url]

Anything over 150k will probably be very good for Obama.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=saden1;948847]Being fiery doesn't win elections, making the voters feel you care about them and their lives does. Obama left one too many unused trump-cards at the table though I think Obama did a good job explaining his policies and positions vs Romney's.

There are 3 more quarters left in the game and the deck is still hot.[/quote]

Yea, the same old policies he said he was going to do in his first term.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Daseal;948843]I haven't seen it yet, it's on the DVR for tonight. However, [B]I heard the moderation was absolutely horrible (for both sides)[/B]. Will the same moderator do all of the debates or do they typically switch it up?

Sounds like Obama dropped this one pretty bad and Mitt came out strong. I have a feeling Ryan will own Biden pretty hard. I'm not a Biden fan at all in general. Seems weird and against net neutrality. Paul Ryan, although I don't agree with many of his stances, seems pretty charismatic and smart.[/quote]


I heard a little over half of the debate, the first half of which was on radio in a car, but i thought it was the best moderater i have ever heard. I didnt realize there was only one moderater at first and i thought the debate was a little out of control then i started to realize what was going on. It wasnt a Meet the Press talking points style Q&A. Rather it was an actual debate.

From a person that really gets under my skin, but cant help but completely agree with on Lehrer:


[quote]“He made the moderator not a factor in the debate. He left the debate up to the debaters. If Mitt Romney was going to have a really tough question put to him, President Obama was going to have to do it. And the same thing the other way around.[/quote]

[quote]“I think Jim Lehrer made a great choice, all the way through," O'Donnell added. "Staying out of it as much as he did was the thing to do. I think we’ve had way too much grandstanding by debate moderators, way too much prosecuting by debate moderators. Let the debaters do it. If you find yourself bored or somehow disappointed in the debate, it’s the debaters fault.”[/quote]

[URL="http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/msnbcs-lawrence-odonnell-i-liked-the-job-jim-lehrer-137472.html"]MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell: 'I liked the job Jim Lehrer did' - POLITICO.com[/URL]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

I'm sure after watching registrations being poached by conservative seniors' groups, AARP is heading for the hills after being a major advocate for ObamaCare. Best to hedge their bets if Obama gets his clock cleaned again in the next two debates, Romney wins, and I see some "Capital Gains" of my own :laughing-.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/04/aarp-objects-to-obama-invoking-group-support-during-debate/]AARP objects to Obama invoking group's support during debate | Fox News[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

i never pay much attention, i sell my vote every election anyways.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

Fact check yo.

[url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2012/10/03/fact-checking-the-debate/1612241/?kjnd=aO%2FPwB1%2FXEP3oJRFkg8zkrpcYPI8hHdtJ06jCWiKVJMWjavhnaU0GUNmhjisl8O6-6a566b39-ccf1-4b21-9fab-231340067375_nDO7CU28zUlH7ZIIFslJr7ZHE7xBLYq0yX0dzo%2Foj0UVZlKNT3tlEs19NnYEixwK]Fact checking the debate[/url]

And for the liberal media moaners, [url=http://news.yahoo.com/obama-romney-debate-fact-check-told-biggest-whoppers-074200768--election.html]The Obama-Romney debate fact-check: Who told the biggest whoppers? - Yahoo! News[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=mlmpetert;948994]Most are predicting the DOL's jobs report to be modest in the 115k range. Although this sounds interesting and also very resonable:

[url=http://trimtabs.com/blog/2012/10/03/trimtabs-says-u-s-economy-adds-210000-jobs-september/]TrimTabs Says U.S. Economy Adds 210,000 Jobs in September - TrimTabs Money Blog[/url]

Anything over 150k will probably be very good for Obama.[/quote]

Unless it's over 200k, which I highly doubt, it won't matter much one way or the other. Already baked into the numbers.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;948984]I never thought I would say this.....but I actually feel a bit bad for Obama and the way the media wings of the DNC (msnbc, etc.) are ready to throw him under the bus. You could see it everywhere last night and this AM. They're setting up to dump an election loss squarely on him and trash the guy because he can't defend the last 3 1/2 years (I say policies, others will say bad situation, folks in the middle would say both),his far left ideology (yes I know that's a debatable point), and he can't live up to the diety-like aspirations the clowns (yes, Chris Matthews I mean you) in the left wing media put on him.

These two-faced, opportunistic, back-stabbers have carried the water and covered for Obama since 2007. Now they're ready to throw him to the wolves and cover their own hind-quarters....and this is before any real polls have come out suggesting a drastic shift in nationwide polls. Shameful. But, Obama has taken advantage of these useful idiots all this time also. Moral of the story, be careful who you make your bed with.[/quote]

They are going wild but lets be honest here, they are going after him because he wasnt aggressive enough. This is somethingthat can easily mitigated. Team Obama is a pretty smart bunch and these barking dogs will change thier and sing his praises like bird of paradise.

This is a rope-a-dope, and Romney is the dope.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

JOBS: NFP added 114K jobs; 86K jobs revised upward previous 2 months; Labor force participation ticked up a tenth, suggesting rate didn't drop due to less people looking for work.

Unemployment rate at 7.8%, lower than when Obama took office. More work to do.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;949140]JOBS: NFP added 114K jobs; 86K jobs revised upward previous 2 months; Labor force participation ticked up a tenth, suggesting rate didn't drop due to less people looking for work.

Unemployment rate at 7.8%, lower than when Obama took office. More work to do.[/quote]

Also add that most of those jobs added are part time low paying jobs.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;949140]JOBS: NFP added 114K jobs; 86K jobs revised upward previous 2 months; Labor force participation ticked up a tenth, suggesting rate didn't drop due to less people looking for work.

Unemployment rate at 7.8%, lower than when Obama took office. More work to do.[/quote]LOTS more work to do. From BLS:

[URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf[/URL]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. [/FONT]That's less than the annual inflation rate.

[FONT=Times New Roman][LEFT]The number of [/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman]long-term unemployed [/B][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman](those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed[/LEFT]
at 4.8 million and accounted for 40.1 percent of the unemployed.

[FONT=Times New Roman]The overall trend in the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat.
[/FONT][/FONT]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=firstdown;949165]Also add that most of those jobs added are part time low paying jobs.[/quote]

Most? You got a link for that?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;949174]LOTS more work to do. From BLS:

[URL]http://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf[/URL]

[FONT=Times New Roman]Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have risen by 1.8 percent. [/FONT]That's less than the annual inflation rate.

[FONT=Times New Roman][LEFT]The number of [/FONT][B][FONT=Times New Roman]long-term unemployed [/B][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman](those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was little changed[/LEFT]
at 4.8 million and accounted for 40.1 percent of the unemployed.

[FONT=Times New Roman]The overall trend in the employment-population ratio for this year has been flat.
[/FONT][/FONT][/quote]

Yeah, wages have been consistently stagnant (flat) for many years now and declined during the recession.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;949140]JOBS: NFP added 114K jobs; 86K jobs revised upward previous 2 months; Labor force participation ticked up a tenth, suggesting rate didn't drop due to less people looking for work.

[B]Unemployment rate at 7.8%[/B], lower than when Obama took office. More work to do.[/quote]


Definitely very good news for Obama, but maybe not so much those looking for work.

Any reasonable economist has to question the disparity between the 2 numbers. And right now i think everyone is kind of scratching their heads trying to explain it.

I initially heard the report on the radio this morning and the economist they had on was really surprised by the difference and couldnt explain it. He did mentioned that the household survey is much more volatile than the establishment survey. Im sure its way off but that the real number is still well over 200k new jobs. I believe its susposed to be revised 2 days before the election.

[IMG]http://wordpress.washingtonexaminer.com/beltway-confidential/files/2012/10/Screen-shot-2012-10-05-at-10.31.20-AM.png[/IMG]

[url=http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2509951#.UG8MbBgWUlb]BLS claims almost 1 million Americans found new jobs | WashingtonExaminer.com[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

The problem with these theories is the ADP actually has job growth higher (162K) and Gallup has unemployment even lower than BLS for several weeks. These coming from private entities.

My attitude is choose one. All three can't be wrong.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=12thMan;949193]Most? You got a link for that?[/quote]

[url=http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-jobless-rate-falls-7-123110416.html]US jobless rate falls to 7.8 pct., 44-month low - Yahoo! Finance[/url]


Many of the jobs the economy added last month were part time. The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million, the most since February 2009.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% we cant look at it objective? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people struggling for Mitt's sake?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Chico23231;949238]i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% [B]we cant look at it objective[/B]? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people struggling for Mitt's sake?[/quote]


Thats all im trying to do. And i dont think firstdown or anyone here is routing for a continuation of bad numbers.

I dont think there has ever been this type of disparity before. Its not just a big difference, its a huge difference. Looking at it objectively is trying to figure out why.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=mlmpetert;949239]Thats all im trying to do. And i dont think firstdown or anyone here is routing for a continuation of bad numbers.

I dont think there has ever been this type of disparity before. Its not just a big difference, its a huge difference. Looking at it objectively is trying to figure out why.[/quote]

Let me help you then, lower unemployment numbers are good. Its always a positive, never a negative.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Chico23231;949238]i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% we cant look at it objective? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people struggling for Mitt's sake?[/quote]

Funny now the left wants to look at things objectively. When Bush was in office when someone lost their job it made national news and the country was going to hell. Any positive news about the economy was then followed by 4 or 5 negative things about the economy. I just point out that alot of the jobs were part time jobs (which is true) and the left gets all up set.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?smid=FB-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-E-FB-SM-LIN-RSJ-100512-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click[/url]


There really should be buzzers or fact checkers in debates to BUZZ when candidates are lying.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Chico23231;949238]i guess with its good news with unemployment under 8% we cant look at it objective? So part time jobs JUST started getting included in employment numbers? I guess we should root for a continuation of unemployment/people[B] struggling[/B] for Mitt's sake?[/quote]


What side is having the melt down?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PePhqHoqYQ"]EPIC MELTDOWN: Chris Matthews UNLOADS On Obama after First presidential DEBATE - YouTube[/ame]


and this one never gets old

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDwODbl3muE[/ame]

this is what happens to liberals

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgMSKCfwvQ[/ame]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;949250][url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?smid=FB-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-E-FB-SM-LIN-RSJ-100512-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click[/url]


There really should be buzzers or fact checkers in debates to BUZZ when candidates are lying.[/quote]Electric shock collars around the candidates necks, jolts administered to be decided by CBO, factcheck.org, whatever organizations can be determined to be fair if any.

And have a 2 minute "shot clock" visible in front of them (so the debaters can see it, and and behind them so all the observers can see it.) When time's up, the debater's mike is cut off and camera cut away, so the moderator can tell the other debater his time is about to start. No exceptions. If the debater tries to continue talking, he gets shocked.

And have more than the Big Two party candidates in these debates. Libertarian, Green, Communist, Constitution, any other decent size parties, at least pick a couple to make it at least a four way debate. It might make things more honest.

I know this is all fanciful, but can we at least have the electric shock collars?

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;948979]I know you live in the People's Republic of MD and don't get out much....but I would refer you to these polls that show on abortion and gay marriage a majority do not support those positions: :cool-smil[/quote]
SS ,you're way to smart to fall for that poll crap, you and I both know it's bias,where were the calls made to ,....bet a bunch were to the "Bible belt"now call SanFran and see how many are against same sex marriage.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;918581][IMG]http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/547477_299236103497771_123753431046040_675224_1706278863_n.jpg[/IMG][/quote]

LOL! How that guy is still ahead in the polls is a mystery to me.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=Bishop Hammer;949287]LOL! How that guy is still ahead in the polls is a mystery to me.[/quote]

Because the guy he's running against is even worse. Sad but true.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;949292]Because the guy he's running against is even worse. Sad but true.[/quote]



BINGO,lock thread now!(joke)

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;949250][URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?smid=FB-nytimes&WT.mc_id=OP-E-FB-SM-LIN-RSJ-100512-NYT-NA&WT.mc_ev=click[/URL]


There really should be buzzers or fact checkers in debates to BUZZ when candidates are lying.[/quote]

Every debate would sound like it's attended by a swam of large bees.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=RedskinRat;949332]Every debate would sound like it's attended by a swam of large bees.[/quote]


...and on that note.



[url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff?sc=fb&cc=fp]Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff : Shots - Health Blog : NPR[/url]



It's really bad when your own campaign has to correct your mistakes in the debate and even sadder that some of the American people buy the bullshit that Romney is saying. Not sure what Obama was thinking or doing in this debate allowing him to get away with it.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

I don't care who does it but programs like these need to stay ....not be cut!!!



[url=http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/10/nj_military_families_stung_by.html#incart_river_default]N.J. military families stung by loss of program for disabled kids | NJ.com[/url]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/VHvTd.jpg[/IMG]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=NC_Skins;950365][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/VHvTd.jpg[/IMG][/quote]


lol...ya got my vote!

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

let's just vote on every issue instead of voting for candidates, every 2 years should do it.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[I]This morning, the non-partisan group, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released its [URL="http://www.examiner.com/article/gai-report-exposes-obama-campaign-accepting-foreign-donations"]109 page report[/URL], the first ever analysis of election campaign donations issues called, “America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?” raises indications the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage. The use of the CVV number for donation transactions is non-existent by the Obama campaign among other suspicious activity.[/I]

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

[quote=RedskinRat;950587][I]This morning, the non-partisan group, Government Accountability Institute (GAI) released its [URL="http://www.examiner.com/article/gai-report-exposes-obama-campaign-accepting-foreign-donations"]109 page report[/URL], the first ever analysis of election campaign donations issues called, “America the Vulnerable: Are Foreign and Fraudulent Online Campaign Contributions Influencing U.S. Elections?” raises indications the Obama campaign has potentially violated federal election law by failing to prevent the use of fraudulent or foreign credit card transactions on the official Obama for America [OFA] donation webpage. The use of the CVV number for donation transactions is non-existent by the Obama campaign among other suspicious activity.[/I][/quote]

That's old news.

Re: 2012 Presidential Election (free for all edition)
 

thinking about putting up a canidate sign in my yard that says: "MITT is da SHITT"