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.

(Huffington Post)   Bill Maher on Obama's debate performance: "It looks like he took my million and spent it all on weed"   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 234
    More: Amusing, Bill Maher, obama, The Big Lebowski, teleprompters  
•       •       •

2232 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Oct 2012 at 7:05 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-06 07:55:21 PM
The other guy repeated the number $716 billion as often as he could, alluded to death panels, and took a swipe at Big Bird. Who cares what Obama said? He should have just stood there and smiled while Romney reloaded and shot himself in the other foot too.
 
2012-10-06 07:55:26 PM

eraser8: whidbey: Bill Maher can say whatever he wants.

It's you I have a problem with if either you're sitting on the fence, or waffling on your own support of this administration.

Seriously?

Maher didn't say he was sitting on the fence. He just pointed out that the president performed MISERABLY in Wednesday's debate. And, that, simply, is the truth.

Mr. Obama, in my opinion, did worse than Mr. Bush in 2004. He did worse than Mr. Reagan in 1984. He did worse than Carter in 1980.

The ONLY thing the president had going for him to this point was an image of competence and an opponent who was batshiat insane. But, Mr. Obama DID NOT come across as competent in the debate. He came across as completely unprepared and out of his depth. Mr. Romney came across as nearly human. And, so what if Romney lied constantly? Being dishonest has NEVER been a handicap in American elections.

A lot of people have told me I've being too pessimistic...but, I honestly think that the president needs two STELLAR performances to undo the damage he did to himself this week. If he can't manage that, then I suspect he'll lose the election.  And, as a "bonus," I suspect the Democrats will lose the Senate to boot.


You sound.. concerned. One bad night does not erase his accomplishments for the past four years, Obama is running on a hell of a lot more than being the only adult in the room (although that helps). His performance was no where near as bad as you are putting on. How do I know you are being disingenuous? Because in the Reagan debate Reagan really looked like he was getting early onset dementia. He stood there silently for like 30 seconds. Obama was way too subdued, but he never looked out of it. Romney will probably get a 1 or 2 point bump in the polls, maybe not with the new good jobs numbers.
 
2012-10-06 07:56:58 PM

amiable: One bad night does not erase his accomplishments for the past four years


inb4 "what accomplishments?"
 
2012-10-06 07:57:41 PM
Oh good lord. This freaking out over the first of three debates is getting tiresome. I'm still confident Obama's going to win (because Mitt Romney can't just stop being Mitt Romney) but fark it: just have some surrogates release Romney's tax records so the rest of the debates can be a moot point and I can get some peace and quiet this month.
 
2012-10-06 08:02:09 PM

eraser8: A lot of people have told me I've being too pessimistic...but, I honestly think that the president needs two STELLAR performances to undo the damage he did to himself this week. If he can't manage that, then I suspect he'll lose the election. And, as a "bonus," I suspect the Democrats will lose the Senate to boot.


The dark side in me wants Full GOP control. I want them to screw up everything so badly and have everyone see it, and have the boomers suffer on catfood and the white trash in their trailers realizing they'll never "win the lotto"
The only way Americans can learn is by pain and suffering.
 
2012-10-06 08:03:13 PM

smitty04: Stewart: 'Deeply Divided Nation' Has Agreed On Something - Obama's Debate Performance Sucked


Obama's campaign staff needs to make him watch that episode.

/Clockwork Orange style, if necessary.
 
2012-10-06 08:04:00 PM

Podna: eraser8: A lot of people have told me I've being too pessimistic...but, I honestly think that the president needs two STELLAR performances to undo the damage he did to himself this week. If he can't manage that, then I suspect he'll lose the election. And, as a "bonus," I suspect the Democrats will lose the Senate to boot.

The dark side in me wants Full GOP control. I want them to screw up everything so badly and have everyone see it, and have the boomers suffer on catfood and the white trash in their trailers realizing they'll never "win the lotto"
The only way Americans can learn is by pain and suffering.


There's a word for that:

2000.

I guess I should be amused that people forget that easily. Even you.
 
2012-10-06 08:07:53 PM

amiable: eraser8: whidbey: Bill Maher can say whatever he wants.

It's you I have a problem with if either you're sitting on the fence, or waffling on your own support of this administration.

Seriously?

Maher didn't say he was sitting on the fence. He just pointed out that the president performed MISERABLY in Wednesday's debate. And, that, simply, is the truth.

Mr. Obama, in my opinion, did worse than Mr. Bush in 2004. He did worse than Mr. Reagan in 1984. He did worse than Carter in 1980.

The ONLY thing the president had going for him to this point was an image of competence and an opponent who was batshiat insane. But, Mr. Obama DID NOT come across as competent in the debate. He came across as completely unprepared and out of his depth. Mr. Romney came across as nearly human. And, so what if Romney lied constantly? Being dishonest has NEVER been a handicap in American elections.

A lot of people have told me I've being too pessimistic...but, I honestly think that the president needs two STELLAR performances to undo the damage he did to himself this week. If he can't manage that, then I suspect he'll lose the election.  And, as a "bonus," I suspect the Democrats will lose the Senate to boot.

You sound.. concerned.


I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

amiable: One bad night does not erase his accomplishments for the past four years...


I suppose that's part of the problem: I don't think Mr. Obama is a particularly accomplished president. As I've written over and over, the president has continually negotiated with himself and given the Republicans EVERYTHING they've wanted in terms of policy and, yet, failed to get a single one of their votes. The result has been ineffectual regulation of Wall Street, a national health care plan that keeps the US among the worst in the world and he's overseen a moribund economy because he refused to implement the kind of stimulus that would have been effective.

Is he better than Romney? Of course. But, don't fool yourself: he's been a center-right president. And, he performed so badly Wednesday that I wouldn't at all be surprised if he loses the election.
 
2012-10-06 08:09:05 PM

eraser8: I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.


I'm really not getting this. Specific examples, please.
 
2012-10-06 08:09:53 PM

eraser8: Linux_Yes: shower_in_my_socks: The remaining debates will likely be a draw. I think Obama's shiatty performance was a combination of wanting to play it safe combined with the staggering cynicism of Romney completely rewriting his entire platform in 90 minutes. Obama should have recognized this and called him out on it in the moment, not 24 hours later. But it won't farking happen again. Romney's bump will be temporary.


that and i think it was a combo of fatigue and utter contempt for the psycho Turd liar Rmoney is. Obama knows exactly what Mittens is and what Mittens agenda is.

Then why the fark didn't the president call out that lying farker on his bullshiat? Why did Mr. Obama nod, as if agreeing, when that shiatbag Romney made noises about the "unsustainability" of Social Security? Why did the president allow Mr. Romney to recast the election as a referendum on the last 4 years instead of a contest between two choices for the future (which is much more favorable to the incumbent)?

And, by the way, why are Farkers making excuses for the president? He failed. Epically. Extraordinarily.

I'm not going to whistle past the graveyard and post things I want to be true when I don't believe everything is okay. I don't understand why anybody would.



do you remember the debates between Gore and george jr?? Gore clearly won all three debates (it was obvious to me and 90% of the people i asked) but he was labled as being a bully and arrogant and bush ended up winning in november when it should not even have been close. bush was viewed as the underdog. the straightforward kinda' guy you could have a beer with. Rmoney may have 'won' the debate, but he'll lose the election. its weird i know, but why take any chances when your man is winning? i think Obama will be more aggressive next debate, but he won't trounce Mittens like he could because he know's how that could hurt him since he's the sitting President.

i think Obama and his team knows more than we think they know.
 
2012-10-06 08:11:21 PM

Linux_Yes: Rmoney may have 'won' the debate, but he'll lose the election.


I hope you're right...but, I don't have confidence that you are.
 
2012-10-06 08:11:41 PM

eraser8: I suppose that's part of the problem: I don't think Mr. Obama is a particularly accomplished president.


I have reposted in my profile a huge list of accomplishments this administration and Congress has achieved.

If you don't find them the least bit impressive, then you're willfully playing cynic.
 
2012-10-06 08:13:19 PM

whidbey: eraser8: I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

I'm really not getting this. Specific examples, please.


Wednesday, October 3, 2012.
 
2012-10-06 08:15:06 PM

eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

I'm really not getting this. Specific examples, please.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012.


So you really don't have any specific example of how "the President is farking things up for himself."
How surprising.
 
2012-10-06 08:15:40 PM

Shrugging Atlas: I'm not sure why so many bricks are still being shiat over one debate. At the end of the day the biggest things that have come out of it are Romney wanting to kill big bird, a laundry list of bullshiat Romney said that's already showing up in ads, and Obama having said nothing stupid that can be used against him.


Seriously. I know Obama wasn't exactly stellar, but when people keep describing his performance as horrible, disastrous, an epic fail, and a complete and utter tragedy that has changed the entire campaign to Romney's favor, I have to wonder if I saw a difference debate than everyone else.
 
2012-10-06 08:17:31 PM

Gyrfalcon: It's possible this is the real explanation for Obama's lackluster performance.


He was in Denver. Maybe he got some medicinal chocolate from a dispensary.
 
2012-10-06 08:18:17 PM

eraser8: I'm not going to whistle past the graveyard and post things I want to be true when I don't believe everything is okay. I don't understand why anybody would.


eraser8: The president has to erase that impression or, I genuinely believe, he'll be a one-termer.

 
2012-10-06 08:18:29 PM

whidbey: eraser8: I suppose that's part of the problem: I don't think Mr. Obama is a particularly accomplished president.

I have reposted in my profile a huge list of accomplishments this administration and Congress has achieved.

If you don't find them the least bit impressive, then you're willfully playing cynic.


Pretty much everything he's done could have been done by a Republican. Mr. Obama has relied on center-right solutions to problems. That's not good for the country.

I'm not playing cynic. In fact, I'm not playing anything. I'm a liberal. I don't think the president's policies have been all that successful. And, that's to be expected when the president has embraced the policies crafted by Republicans.
 
2012-10-06 08:19:54 PM

whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

I'm really not getting this. Specific examples, please.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

So you really don't have any specific example of how "the President is farking things up for himself."
How surprising.


The whole debate was an example of the president's farking things up for himself.
 
2012-10-06 08:23:48 PM

eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

I'm really not getting this. Specific examples, please.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

So you really don't have any specific example of how "the President is farking things up for himself."
How surprising.

The whole debate was an example of the president's farking things up for himself.


"And at some point I think the American people have to ask themselves: Is the reason that Gov. Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret, because they are too good?"

Yea, Obama was 100% crap all night...
 
2012-10-06 08:23:58 PM

Podna: eraser8: A lot of people have told me I've being too pessimistic...but, I honestly think that the president needs two STELLAR performances to undo the damage he did to himself this week. If he can't manage that, then I suspect he'll lose the election. And, as a "bonus," I suspect the Democrats will lose the Senate to boot.

The dark side in me wants Full GOP control. I want them to screw up everything so badly and have everyone see it, and have the boomers suffer on catfood and the white trash in their trailers realizing they'll never "win the lotto"
The only way Americans can learn is by pain and suffering.


This has been the rallying cry of the more progressive than thou blogosphere since roughly October 2009. Here's the problem with that:

You give the GOP full control, you give them 30 years of control on the Supreme Court where the major mission is to deny any non conservative plaintiff standing.

You get a party that has proven that they will use the cover of "voter fraud" to disenfranchise as many people who might not vote for them as they can.

Give them power on the state level, and they will gerrymander states into republican safe hold after republican safe hold.

If you give them full control, you may never get it back.
 
2012-10-06 08:24:22 PM

eraser8: Pretty much everything he's done could have been done by a Republican. Mr. Obama has relied on center-right solutions to problems. That's not good for the country.


What kind of bullshiat answer is that? Name for us a Republican who would have touted any of the first 5 accomplishments alone. You can't.

In fact, I'm not playing anything. I'm a liberal.

No, right now, you're working for the Republican party. Maybe you should see if you can get some free pizza out of this. Do some phonebanking.

. I don't think the president's policies have been all that successful.

That's nice. Again, accomplishments. Made by this administration. Which you're flat-out ignoring.

And, that's to be expected when the president has embraced the policies crafted by Republicans.

Still hung up on the "nuh-uh, Obamacare is a Republican creation" mindset, I see.

Yeah. You sound concerned, all right. Nothing to see here.
 
2012-10-06 08:25:48 PM

eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

I'm really not getting this. Specific examples, please.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

So you really don't have any specific example of how "the President is farking things up for himself."
How surprising.

The whole debate was an example of the president's farking things up for himself.


Look, I've given you enough of my time.

You really need to drop this point if you can't provide what's asked of you. So you're a cynic?
Big deal. Stay home next month.
 
2012-10-06 08:26:55 PM

Car_Ramrod: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

I'm really not getting this. Specific examples, please.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

So you really don't have any specific example of how "the President is farking things up for himself."
How surprising.

The whole debate was an example of the president's farking things up for himself.

"And at some point I think the American people have to ask themselves: Is the reason that Gov. Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret, because they are too good?"

Yea, Obama was 100% crap all night...


If it makes you better to feel that Obama was great, have at it.

I have a different perspective. I'd like to see the president to be reelected. And, I don't think that's going to happen if half the country refuses to acknowledge the reality that Mr. Obama flailed horribly Wednesday night.
 
2012-10-06 08:27:52 PM

Car_Ramrod: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: I AM CONCERNED. Because I don't want that shiatbag Mitt Romney to win. It would be a disaster for the country. But, the president is farking things up for himself. Royally.

I'm really not getting this. Specific examples, please.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

So you really don't have any specific example of how "the President is farking things up for himself."
How surprising.

The whole debate was an example of the president's farking things up for himself.

"And at some point I think the American people have to ask themselves: Is the reason that Gov. Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret, because they are too good?"

Yea, Obama was 100% crap all night...


Amazing. This is one of those times I hope our Fark Troll World is just entertainment after all, and doesn't reflect what's really going on.
 
2012-10-06 08:28:02 PM

eiger: Anyone who took that to be anywhere near a factually correct statement is an idiot. And anyone who took it to be intended as anything close to a factual statement needs to get that stick that is clearly lodged up their ass removed.

Comedians often say things that are not in any real sense "true" in order to make a point or create laughter. This might come as a shock to you but when many comedians discuss their personal lives, you should probably not take what they are saying as strictly autobiographical.


And there's something very different about stretching the truth to make a joke that involves a plausible lie and telling a joke that is only funny if that untrue thing were true.

For instance, if a joke started off "Can you imagine if McCain won the election? Why today, we could be blah blah blah." That's the basis for what might end up being a funny joke. But if a joke started with "Hey, remember when McCain won the election? Why today we are blah blah blah." That's not the beginning of a funny joke. It's just stupid.

So in this case, saying "It looks like he took my million and spent it all on weed" is just stupid. The joke relies on him having given a million dollars to Obama, which never happened. If the joke had been "It looks like that Obama SuperPAC I gave a million dollars to used it to buy Obama weed" then it would have the possibility to be funny, but the joke as stated in the headline is just stupid.
 
2012-10-06 08:29:24 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Makh: Obama is a master troll, however. I wonder what strategy he is playing at with this.

There's no strategy per say...at least not one that was evident in the actual debate.

The bottom line:

1. The guy's not perfect and he's never been great at debates, particularly the non-town hall style.
2. Try debating someone who stands there and insists over and over again that the sky is green and their tax plan will create potato deficit. It's pretty farking hard.

I'm not sure why so many bricks are still being shiat over one debate. At the end of the day the biggest things that have come out of it are Romney wanting to kill big bird, a laundry list of bullshiat Romney said that's already showing up in ads, and Obama having said nothing stupid that can be used against him. Romney no doubt won a battle....and it's even more noteworthy than normal given the fact the guy has been a complete fark up for months on end without a single positive news cycle under his belt. But is it going to have a long term impact on the polls...particularly with the job numbers and the recent surplus news from the CBO? I for one really doubt it.


Yeah, this. It was how Reagan got Carter in their debates too, that "There you go again," thing. Reagan's witty comeback was itself a lie, because he misstated Carter's actual position, yet there was no way for Carter to rebut it at that moment. Carter would have had to walk back the entire debate up to that moment and of course he could not. So he "lost".

If your opponent says something that's a blatant lie and yet can't be refuted in the debate format, what can you do? Romney says "Here's my nebulous yet unstated plan that will completely counteract everything that's been done over the past 90 years, now over to you Mr. President," and gives nothing that can be addressed in a 90 second response--and given that "What a load of steaming bullshiat" isn't really proper debating style--there isn't much else a person can say.

Also, anyone who plans to let Romney's "brilliant" performance in a half-hour debate override everything he's said and done for the past six months is a drooling retard who shouldn't be allowed out on the street. I mean really: "Yes, I've heard about Bain Capital, and his refusal to release his tax returns, saw his gloating over the Libyan Embassy deaths and his inappropriate remarks on the 47%--but what a debater! Clearly he should be our president!"
 
2012-10-06 08:29:43 PM

eraser8: And, I don't think that's going to happen if half the country refuses to acknowledge the reality that Mr. Obama flailed horribly Wednesday night.


You've yet to prove how he has.

So far, it's you and Fox News. Feel good about that?
 
2012-10-06 08:30:04 PM

whidbey: No, right now, you're working for the Republican party.


You're an idiot.

Fark off. Seriously.

You're the one working for the Republican party because you refuse to find fault with the president's performance when fault is OBVIOUS.

You ARE NOT HELPING Mr. Obama by acting like a blind person. If the president loses next month, you should pat yourself on the back, because you helped it happen.
 
2012-10-06 08:31:20 PM
Man, the level of concern trolling these days really takes me back to 2008.
 
2012-10-06 08:31:30 PM
Top ten fark reasons Obama lost the debate

10. It was the altitude
9. Mittens lied
8. Mittens cheated
7. Thinking about a romantic night with Michelle
6. Tired
5. Stressed out in dealing with recent events
4. It's the moderator's fault
3. Strategery
2. TOTUS
1. Morman evil eye
 
2012-10-06 08:32:45 PM

LargeCanine: Makh: Girl From The North Country: They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

That pisses me off. Because when we do, the response from conservatives is the vote Republican because those people are never wrong. And any criticism you mentioned gets brought up in the future of how ALL Democrats are bad. Plus you agreed with that statement and are now backpedaling. However, criticize the Republican candidates and you are a commie who hates America.

Oh BS.


You don't read this website much, do ya?

I don't know why you have invoked Bob Saget.
 
2012-10-06 08:33:03 PM

eraser8: whidbey: No, right now, you're working for the Republican party.

You're an idiot.

Fark off. Seriously.

You're the one working for the Republican party because you refuse to find fault with the president's performance when fault is OBVIOUS.

You ARE NOT HELPING Mr. Obama by acting like a blind person. If the president loses next month, you should pat yourself on the back, because you helped it happen.


Look, I know I'm being extra hard on you, but you have failed to deliver here. Any of your claims.
 
2012-10-06 08:34:18 PM

whidbey: eraser8: And, I don't think that's going to happen if half the country refuses to acknowledge the reality that Mr. Obama flailed horribly Wednesday night.

You've yet to prove how he has.

So far, it's you and Fox News. Feel good about that?


Me. And, Fox "News." And, Chris Matthews. And, Bill Maher (TFL). And, Andrew Sullivan. And, TPM.
 
2012-10-06 08:35:48 PM

whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: No, right now, you're working for the Republican party.

You're an idiot.

Fark off. Seriously.

You're the one working for the Republican party because you refuse to find fault with the president's performance when fault is OBVIOUS.

You ARE NOT HELPING Mr. Obama by acting like a blind person. If the president loses next month, you should pat yourself on the back, because you helped it happen.

Look, I know I'm being extra hard on you, but you have failed to deliver here. Any of your claims.


I don't think you're being extra hard on me. I think you're being extra stupid.

Pretending the president is in great shape after Wednesday is a ridiculously moronic thing to do...unless you're secretly a Republican.
 
2012-10-06 08:38:09 PM

eraser8: Pretending the president is in great shape after Wednesday is a ridiculously moronic thing to do...unless you're secretly Nate Silver, who gives the president over an 80% chance to win the election.


FTFY
 
2012-10-06 08:38:45 PM

eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: No, right now, you're working for the Republican party.

You're an idiot.

Fark off. Seriously.

You're the one working for the Republican party because you refuse to find fault with the president's performance when fault is OBVIOUS.

You ARE NOT HELPING Mr. Obama by acting like a blind person. If the president loses next month, you should pat yourself on the back, because you helped it happen.

Look, I know I'm being extra hard on you, but you have failed to deliver here. Any of your claims.

I don't think you're being extra hard on me. I think you're being extra stupid.

Pretending the president is in great shape after Wednesday is a ridiculously moronic thing to do...unless you're secretly a Republican.


Again, if it's so obvious he farked up the whole thing, then it should be easy for you to provide specific examples like I asked.

Your personal attacks tell me you don't really have any.
 
2012-10-06 08:42:12 PM

Nobodyn0se: eraser8: Pretending the president is in great shape after Wednesday is a ridiculously moronic thing to do...unless you're secretly Nate Silver, who gives the president over an 80% chance to win the election.

FTFY


NATE SILVER:
This might be bad for business - but you probably ought not to pay too much attention to the numbers you see in the right-hand column of this blog over the next day or two.

It's just too soon answer the question of what impact Wednesday night's debate in Denver, which instant-reaction polls judged to be a clear win for Mitt Romney, will have on the head-to-head polls.
Also, don't know whether you've noticed, but Mr. Silver's predictions have shown a sharp decline in the president's chances. After only a couple of days.

This is serious. Pretending it's not happening is stupid.
 
2012-10-06 08:43:53 PM

whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: No, right now, you're working for the Republican party.

You're an idiot.

Fark off. Seriously.

You're the one working for the Republican party because you refuse to find fault with the president's performance when fault is OBVIOUS.

You ARE NOT HELPING Mr. Obama by acting like a blind person. If the president loses next month, you should pat yourself on the back, because you helped it happen.

Look, I know I'm being extra hard on you, but you have failed to deliver here. Any of your claims.

I don't think you're being extra hard on me. I think you're being extra stupid.

Pretending the president is in great shape after Wednesday is a ridiculously moronic thing to do...unless you're secretly a Republican.

Again, if it's so obvious he farked up the whole thing, then it should be easy for you to provide specific examples like I asked.

Your personal attacks tell me you don't really have any.


Fine. You don't want to admit the president farked up? That's your right. I'll just assume you're a closet Republican...because if the president doesn't make a significant change, he's going to lose.
 
2012-10-06 08:46:24 PM

eraser8: This is serious. Pretending it's not happening is stupid.


I'm not pretending it isn't serious, or that he hasn't dropped a lot in the polls. I'm pointing out that the president is still in great shape. Those aren't mutually exclusive.
 
2012-10-06 08:47:01 PM

badaboom: Link


Delusory waste of time.
 
2012-10-06 08:47:29 PM

eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: And, I don't think that's going to happen if half the country refuses to acknowledge the reality that Mr. Obama flailed horribly Wednesday night.

You've yet to prove how he has.

So far, it's you and Fox News. Feel good about that?

Me. And, Fox "News." And, Chris Matthews. And, Bill Maher (TFL). And, Andrew Sullivan. And, TPM.


So you're a liberal, but you let a bunch of center-right leaning media outlets and a comedian shape your views?

I listened to the debates. I heard Obama successfully counter Romney's lack of a plan, how his administration took on Medicare fraud, and other things.

I'm not going to change your mind, you can't even bring yourself to admit this administration has achieved anything.

Again, name for me a Republican that would have pushed for the first 5 items on that list?
 
2012-10-06 08:47:36 PM

whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: No, right now, you're working for the Republican party.

You're an idiot.

Fark off. Seriously.

You're the one working for the Republican party because you refuse to find fault with the president's performance when fault is OBVIOUS.

You ARE NOT HELPING Mr. Obama by acting like a blind person. If the president loses next month, you should pat yourself on the back, because you helped it happen.

Look, I know I'm being extra hard on you, but you have failed to deliver here. Any of your claims.

I don't think you're being extra hard on me. I think you're being extra stupid.

Pretending the president is in great shape after Wednesday is a ridiculously moronic thing to do...unless you're secretly a Republican.

Again, if it's so obvious he farked up the whole thing, then it should be easy for you to provide specific examples like I asked.

Your personal attacks tell me you don't really have any.


You are either with us, or you are with the terrorists?

Someone on the left can criticize Obama and still be part of the left.
 
2012-10-06 08:47:49 PM
Wow, you libtards are really turning on each other. The fear is palpable.....
 
2012-10-06 08:49:14 PM

eraser8: If the remaining debates are a draw, I would bet on a Romney presidency.



No way. Even after this bump, Romney will still be at least slightly behind. But one debate win and two draws when you're the underdog means you lose. Add to that Obama's enormous fundraising haul, good economic news, and his superior GOTV ground game. In short, there's a lot more to this race than one debate "win." If they trade blows in their two remaining debates and come out with no clear winner, Obama's (possibly narrow) lead holds. Romney has to thump Obama in the remaining debates to have a good chance.
 
2012-10-06 08:52:00 PM

eraser8: Nobodyn0se: eraser8: Pretending the president is in great shape after Wednesday is a ridiculously moronic thing to do...unless you're secretly Nate Silver, who gives the president over an 80% chance to win the election.

FTFY

NATE SILVER: This might be bad for business - but you probably ought not to pay too much attention to the numbers you see in the right-hand column of this blog over the next day or two.

It's just too soon answer the question of what impact Wednesday night's debate in Denver, which instant-reaction polls judged to be a clear win for Mitt Romney, will have on the head-to-head polls.

Also, don't know whether you've noticed, but Mr. Silver's predictions have shown a sharp decline in the president's chances. After only a couple of days.

This is serious. Pretending it's not happening is stupid.


Right, because ambiguity only works one way.

And a change from 90% chance of winning to 80% chance (which he specifically told you to ignore anyway) is a "sharp decline" much in the same way that going from 180 pounds to 185 pounds over Thanksgiving weekend suddenly turns you into a morbidly obese land whale.
 
2012-10-06 08:52:26 PM

badaboom: Wow, you libtards are really turning on each other.



You just don't recognize a party where people aren't in perfect lock-step with their masters regardless of what they say. In a big tent, people actually disagree and are allowed to do so without being thrown out of the room. But not with the republitards. Romney wants to cut taxes last week? Cool. Romney doesn't want to do it this week? Whatever, man. He signed anti-gun legislation and has supported gun control? Don't worry, the NRA will still endorse him. As long as your "team" wins, who gives a fark what his principles are, right?
 
2012-10-06 08:53:28 PM

shower_in_my_socks: eraser8: If the remaining debates are a draw, I would bet on a Romney presidency.


No way. Even after this bump, Romney will still be at least slightly behind. But one debate win and two draws when you're the underdog means you lose. Add to that Obama's enormous fundraising haul, good economic news, and his superior GOTV ground game. In short, there's a lot more to this race than one debate "win." If they trade blows in their two remaining debates and come out with no clear winner, Obama's (possibly narrow) lead holds. Romney has to thump Obama in the remaining debates to have a good chance.


Yeah good luck in the next 2 debates. Can't wait to hear Obama defend his foreign policy. After he spikes the football again about Osama and brags about his drone strikes killing innocent civilians, what else can he brag about. Romney is going to clean his clock again. If you think style over substance played in a role in the first debate wait till Romney starts waving the flag.
 
2012-10-06 08:53:32 PM
Uh, subby.... you misspelled his name. It's not B-I-L-L. It's P-I-G. Pig Maher.
 
2012-10-06 08:54:34 PM

shower_in_my_socks: badaboom: Wow, you libtards are really turning on each other.


You just don't recognize a party where people aren't in perfect lock-step with their masters regardless of what they say. In a big tent, people actually disagree and are allowed to do so without being thrown out of the room. But not with the republitards. Romney wants to cut taxes last week? Cool. Romney doesn't want to do it this week? Whatever, man. He signed anti-gun legislation and has supported gun control? Don't worry, the NRA will still endorse him. As long as your "team" wins, who gives a fark what his principles are, right?


So much fun to watch you guys implode....
 
Displayed 50 of 234 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report