If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(MSNBC)   Obama campaign says they will be outspent in election. Article also claims their campaign ($61 million) and Romney's ($14 million) are equal in amounts spent so far. Sounds like Democrat math, all right   (firstread.msnbc.msn.com) divider line 157
    More: Asinine, Michelle Obama, Obama campaign, G20 summit, Crossroads GPS, economic values, NBC Nightly News, NBC News, political editor  
•       •       •

933 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Jun 2012 at 11:08 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



157 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-21 08:06:06 AM
"will be outspent"

not

"have been outspent"

Reading comprehension. How does it work?
 
2012-06-21 08:57:15 AM

BunkyBrewman: "will be outspent"

not

"have been outspent"

Reading comprehension. How does it work?


but but

libs.... BAAAD
 
2012-06-21 09:00:32 AM
Yeah... Democrats can't count

/and subby can't read
 
2012-06-21 09:11:19 AM
Oh good. A greenlit troll thread.
 
2012-06-21 09:15:40 AM

SilentStrider: Oh good. A greenlit troll thread.


It's not a troll, submitter simply has a different opinion, which is of course perfectly valid.
 
2012-06-21 09:20:52 AM
rlv.zcache.com

/hot
 
2012-06-21 09:21:56 AM
FTFA: The ad-spending numbers for the general election show the two sides to be even right now. According to data from NBC/SMG Delta, the Obama campaign has spent nearly $61 million on advertising, versus $14 million for the Romney camp.

hahaha. Here they are comparing direct spending by the Obama and Romney campaigns only and Obama is outspending Romney 4 to 1.

As for the Super PACs, it is notoriously vague which individual they support. Usually they just support certain issues - and one candidate may agree with them on one issue while the other candidate agrees with them on another issue. Or both candidates may agree or disagree with the issue the Super PAC supports. I am sure MSNBC miscategorized some Super PACs.
 
2012-06-21 09:25:48 AM

SlothB77: As for the Super PACs, it is notoriously vague which individual they support.


lolwut

Oh wait, you're serious.

Let me laugh even harder!
 
2012-06-21 09:32:53 AM
It's so notoriously vague which candidate Restore our Future supports that when you google for "Mitt Romney Super PAC" it only shows up in the entire first page of results.
 
2012-06-21 09:49:34 AM
Let's put this into perspective on why so many billionaires are throwing money into this election.

lh5.googleusercontent.com

This is about investment, and not just with Romney but across the board, in all 50 States, and the reach that corporate money will have in all of them. That is why we are seeing the numbers that we are--just for the Primaries, and certainly with the PAC and third party spending for the benefit of Romney. He is an investment in the future. Just not for the taxpayer or the general populace.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-21 09:54:13 AM
It's entirely appropriate that the right is being represented by a headline written by someone who can't read. Good job admins!
 
2012-06-21 09:57:42 AM

hubiestubert: Let's put this into perspective on why so many billionaires are throwing money into this election.

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 511x640]

This is about investment, and not just with Romney but across the board, in all 50 States, and the reach that corporate money will have in all of them. That is why we are seeing the numbers that we are--just for the Primaries, and certainly with the PAC and third party spending for the benefit of Romney. He is an investment in the future. Just not for the taxpayer or the general populace.


That right there is why Obama has to win. I'm sure Scalia will hang on out of spite though.
 
2012-06-21 10:21:26 AM
FTFA: The ad-spending numbers for the general election show the two sides to be even right now. According to data from NBC/SMG Delta, the Obama campaign has spent nearly $61 million on advertising, versus $14 million for the Romney camp.

Only in Democrat Farker minds is $61 million equal to $14 million.
 
2012-06-21 10:24:07 AM

I_C_Weener: Only in Democrat Farker minds is $61 million equal to $14 million.


Except nobody is saying it is.
 
2012-06-21 10:30:58 AM

Aarontology: I_C_Weener: Only in Democrat Farker minds is $61 million equal to $14 million.

Except nobody is saying it is.


Oh, all those posts above then critiquing the headline are saying that the headline saying "will be outspent" is not the same as "will be outspent" then?

How is the headline inaccurate? It isn't . Well, except for the dig at the end.

Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.
 
2012-06-21 10:32:28 AM

I_C_Weener: Aarontology: I_C_Weener: Only in Democrat Farker minds is $61 million equal to $14 million.

Except nobody is saying it is.

Oh, all those posts above then critiquing the headline are saying that the headline saying "will be outspent" is not the same as "will be outspent" then?

How is the headline inaccurate? It isn't . Well, except for the dig at the end.

Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.


Did you read the next freaking paragraph?

But when you factor in all the outside groups -- including the Super PACs (which have to disclose their donors) and 501c4s (which don't) -- Romney and his allies reach parity with Obama and his allies, $73 million to $73 million.

Jesus. You're as bad as Fox News with the clip where they cut off Obama just before he says he can prioritize enforcement.
 
2012-06-21 10:32:52 AM
But when you factor in all the outside groups -- including the Super PACs (which have to disclose their donors) and 501c4s (which don't) -- Romney and his allies reach parity with Obama and his allies, $73 million to $73 million.

Sorry, submitter and also the fark mod perpetuating the lie in the headline.
 
2012-06-21 10:36:44 AM

I_C_Weener: Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.


I love that people still think this. It's so quaint and 2008.
 
2012-06-21 10:37:34 AM

I_C_Weener: Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.


You gonna come back and admit you were wrong now?
 
2012-06-21 10:37:51 AM

I_C_Weener: Aarontology: I_C_Weener: Only in Democrat Farker minds is $61 million equal to $14 million.

Except nobody is saying it is.

Oh, all those posts above then critiquing the headline are saying that the headline saying "will be outspent" is not the same as "will be outspent" then?

How is the headline inaccurate? It isn't . Well, except for the dig at the end.

Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.


Did any of those posts say $61 is the same as $14? No? Then stop saying they were. It's lying. They're saying that it's possible that Obama will be outspent this campaign, and you fly off your freeper handle and make up shiat about what they're saying.

Especially when there's plenty of factual stuff to criticize them on, instead of claiming people are saying something they're not. But instead you'd rather biatch and moan about "lol those guys" and whine about lockstep whenever someone calls you on the blatant lie you told.

Now again. Show me where any one of these people said $61million is the same as $14 million and you might have a point.
 
2012-06-21 10:39:21 AM

cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: Aarontology: I_C_Weener: Only in Democrat Farker minds is $61 million equal to $14 million.

Except nobody is saying it is.

Oh, all those posts above then critiquing the headline are saying that the headline saying "will be outspent" is not the same as "will be outspent" then?

How is the headline inaccurate? It isn't . Well, except for the dig at the end.

Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.

Did you read the next freaking paragraph?

But when you factor in all the outside groups -- including the Super PACs (which have to disclose their donors) and 501c4s (which don't) -- Romney and his allies reach parity with Obama and his allies, $73 million to $73 million.

Jesus. You're as bad as Fox News with the clip where they cut off Obama just before he says he can prioritize enforcement.


Did the headline mention that? No. It mentioned exactly what it says. It says in one line "even" and in the next sentence disproves it. The headline doesn't mention the PACs. It doesn't need to. And yet, you don't see that the headline is 100% accurate as to the article portions it talks about.

Yes, PACs can even it up. That isn't what the poor writing in that paragraph that the headline makes fun of says.

If you want the entire article reprinted in a headline, you are going to need to ask Fark for more headline space. Otherwise, relax and enjoy the headlines poking fun where they can. In this case...even is not even.

Reading comprehension....how does it work?
 
2012-06-21 10:39:41 AM
But then again, I don't expect anything other than lies and bullshiat from a Romney supporter.

Tell us, MR. Wiener. What's Romney for/against/takes credit for/always opposed today? Can you even tell any more? Or do you just accept every single lie he tells you because :"LOL THOSE OBAMA GUYS ARE ALL LOCKSTEP"
 
2012-06-21 10:42:01 AM
IF YOU ONLY FOCUS ON THE HEADLINE INSTEAD OF THE ARTICLE AND OTHER FACTORS IT PROVES MY ASSERTION!

WHY DON'T YOU LOCKSTEPPERS AGREE WITH ME?!?! OMG
 
2012-06-21 10:42:54 AM

Aarontology: IF YOU ONLY FOCUS ON THE HEADLINE INSTEAD OF THE ARTICLE AND OTHER FACTORS IT PROVES MY ASSERTION!

WHY DON'T YOU LOCKSTEPPERS AGREE WITH ME?!?! OMG


The author of the article inserted an unnecessary line break, therefore libs bad
 
2012-06-21 10:42:58 AM

cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.

You gonna come back and admit you were wrong now?


No. I'm not. The article claims even and in the next sentence claims millions apart. It can't be both. In the same paragraph. IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. The headline is making fun of that.

Are you incapable of reading that? REALLY? Are you so partisan that you can't see that is what the headline is pointing to? REALLY?

Sad really.
 
2012-06-21 10:45:05 AM
I don't get it. The neg voters are rallying in this thread.....a story put out by BSNBC.

/go figure
 
2012-06-21 10:46:12 AM

I_C_Weener: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.

You gonna come back and admit you were wrong now?

No. I'm not. The article claims even and in the next sentence claims millions apart. It can't be both. In the same paragraph. IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. The headline is making fun of that.

Are you incapable of reading that? REALLY? Are you so partisan that you can't see that is what the headline is pointing to? REALLY?

Sad really.


maybe you should work on making your shiatty headlines more clear, subby.
 
2012-06-21 10:46:35 AM

I_C_Weener: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.

You gonna come back and admit you were wrong now?

No. I'm not. The article claims even and in the next sentence claims millions apart. It can't be both. In the same paragraph. IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. The headline is making fun of that.

Are you incapable of reading that? REALLY? Are you so partisan that you can't see that is what the headline is pointing to? REALLY?

Sad really.


Headline: Article also claims their campaign ($61 million) and Romney's ($14 million) are equal in amounts spent so far

Article: The ad-spending numbers for the general election show the two sides to be even right now.

Are we done now?
 
2012-06-21 10:54:03 AM

Aarontology: I_C_Weener: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.

You gonna come back and admit you were wrong now?

No. I'm not. The article claims even and in the next sentence claims millions apart. It can't be both. In the same paragraph. IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. The headline is making fun of that.

Are you incapable of reading that? REALLY? Are you so partisan that you can't see that is what the headline is pointing to? REALLY?

Sad really.

maybe you should work on making your shiatty headlines more clear, subby.


Not sure how much more clear it can be.

"Article also claims their campaign ($61 million) and Romney's ($14 million) are equal in amounts spent so far."

Since it does claim that...in the same paragraph that it claims spending by the CAMPAIGNS is even. Sorry you have trouble reading what is in front of you.

How blinded do you have to be to critique the headline almost directly quoting the article and claim that it is inaccurate as to what it citing to? The answer is clear.

The headline wasn't talking about the PACs, neither was the paragraph being pointed out as stupid. Yes, later it does claim equivalency via PACS in the article. But that isn't what is being pointed out.

The desire to silence an opposing viewpoint has never been more obvious as this disingenuous protest in this thread.

Good luck not having a coronary over a headline...an accurate one.
 
2012-06-21 10:54:38 AM

I_C_Weener: Are you so partisan


I_C_Weener: Only in Democrat Farker minds

 
2012-06-21 10:55:34 AM

EnviroDude: I don't get it. The neg voters are rallying in this thread.....a story put out by BSNBC.

/go figure


No Breitbart links for them to panic over, I guess.
 
2012-06-21 10:57:27 AM

I_C_Weener: Good luck not having a coronary over a headline...an accurate one.


You going to reply to my evidence that you're still wrong?
 
2012-06-21 11:00:41 AM
Well this went well.
 
2012-06-21 11:01:37 AM

I_C_Weener: Aarontology: I_C_Weener: cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: Anything even tangentially related to not 100% in lockstep with Obama campaign, and you guys go nuts.

Every post in the first 10 complains about inaccuracy in the headline. Yet, the headline is 100% accurate as to the article.

You gonna come back and admit you were wrong now?

No. I'm not. The article claims even and in the next sentence claims millions apart. It can't be both. In the same paragraph. IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH. The headline is making fun of that.

Are you incapable of reading that? REALLY? Are you so partisan that you can't see that is what the headline is pointing to? REALLY?

Sad really.

maybe you should work on making your shiatty headlines more clear, subby.

Not sure how much more clear it can be.

"Article also claims their campaign ($61 million) and Romney's ($14 million) are equal in amounts spent so far."

Since it does claim that...in the same paragraph that it claims spending by the CAMPAIGNS is even. Sorry you have trouble reading what is in front of you.

How blinded do you have to be to critique the headline almost directly quoting the article and claim that it is inaccurate as to what it citing to? The answer is clear.

The headline wasn't talking about the PACs, neither was the paragraph being pointed out as stupid. Yes, later it does claim equivalency via PACS in the article. But that isn't what is being pointed out.

The desire to silence an opposing viewpoint has never been more obvious as this disingenuous protest in this thread.

Good luck not having a coronary over a headline...an accurate one.


Which part of that proves your original lie that they were saying $61 million is the same as $14 million? You know. In the Democratic Farker minds you said were thinking that?

You're the one who flipped right the hell out when I pointed out that nobody was saying those two numbers were the same. Sorry that you can't handle being called on your own lies.
 
2012-06-21 11:03:17 AM

cameroncrazy1984: I_C_Weener: Good luck not having a coronary over a headline...an accurate one.

You going to reply to my evidence that you're still wrong?


The paragraph reads "even" in one sentence and then disproves it in the next sentence. THEN another paragraph talks further about PACs. Are you going to claim that is good, clear writing? Because that is what you are defending...not the spending amounts. The writing. You know...what the headline is making fun of.
 
2012-06-21 11:04:38 AM
Jesus farking christ, still banging the "silencing opposing viewpoints" drum are we?
 
2012-06-21 11:06:27 AM

I_C_Weener: The paragraph reads "even" in one sentence and then disproves it in the next sentence. THEN another paragraph talks further about PACs. Are you going to claim that is good, clear writing? Because that is what you are defending...not the spending amounts. The writing. You know...what the headline is making fun of.


Do you understand that the word "side" is different than "campaign"?

Apparently not, since it's been shown to you twice and you still haven't read it.
 
2012-06-21 11:09:54 AM
Wow. It smells like monkey poo in here.

/ducks
 
2012-06-21 11:10:29 AM

hubiestubert: Let's put this into perspective on why so many billionaires are throwing money into this election.

[lh5.googleusercontent.com image 511x640]

This is about investment, and not just with Romney but across the board, in all 50 States, and the reach that corporate money will have in all of them. That is why we are seeing the numbers that we are--just for the Primaries, and certainly with the PAC and third party spending for the benefit of Romney. He is an investment in the future. Just not for the taxpayer or the general populace.


No possible way Scalia voluntarily retires without a Republican in office.
 
2012-06-21 11:15:01 AM
YEP - Democrat math: the kind that includes ALL the variables, not just the ones that the GOP wants to include, like Super PAC money from a dozen billionaires trying to buy an election and subjugate the American people with anonymity.
 
2012-06-21 11:16:31 AM

cameroncrazy1984: It's so notoriously vague which candidate Restore our Future supports that when you google for "Mitt Romney Super PAC" it only shows up in the entire first page of results.


Yeah I'm already tired of seeing their lies on the TV. Last night the same anti-Obama ad was running about every 20 minutes or so on ABC.

/SuperPAC's aren't exactly coy on who they support or oppose
 
2012-06-21 11:16:59 AM
ever heard of citizens united, subtard? try reading the first paragraph of the article
 
2012-06-21 11:17:39 AM
As opposed to Republic math.
 
2012-06-21 11:18:47 AM

qorkfiend: No possible way Scalia voluntarily retires without a Republican in office.


Well, he could always choke on a BOD. Ya gotta be optimistic about these things.
 
2012-06-21 11:19:41 AM
Yeah, that's right! Those evil Repubs are gonna try to buy the election! It's not like Obama's gonna try to do the same thing!
 
2012-06-21 11:20:45 AM

I_C_Weener: The paragraph reads "even" in one sentence and then disproves it in the next sentence. THEN another paragraph talks further about PACs. Are you going to claim that is good, clear writing? Because that is what you are defending...not the spending amounts. The writing. You know...what the headline is making fun of.


Are you incredibly bored today or have you decided that the "I'm just going to be a goddamn idiot all the time" thing is going to be permanent?

Because you have gone above and beyond in this thread.

I can only imagine there is an obtuse black hole forming in your office at this moment because it is impossible (according to the laws of physics) for something to be more dense than you are at this very moment.
 
2012-06-21 11:25:11 AM

Hydra: Yeah, that's right! Those evil Repubs are gonna try to buy the election! It's not like Obama's gonna try to do the same thing!


From your link: "some observers believe.." followed by a reference to exactly one person - who just happens to have worked as an advisor to Romney.

Damn you, Fartbongo and your election-buying ways!
 
2012-06-21 11:25:51 AM
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-06-21 11:26:18 AM
it's plainly obvious that neither a republican nor a democrat should have any place in american government.
 
2012-06-21 11:28:48 AM
1.) The amount they spend is not the same as the amount they're taking in, now isn't it?

2.) Are you shiatting me? Liberal billionaires like George Soros are way more frugal in campaign contributions than republicans. The Koch brothers are throwing away money like drunken sailors at a hooker sale. Hell, Sheldon Adelson and Foster Friess went as far as single-handedly funding campaigns. Are you farking serious?
 
Displayed 50 of 157 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report