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  
•       •       •

2233 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
 
2012-10-06 04:15:41 PM
i196.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-06 04:20:59 PM
Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.
 
2012-10-06 04:56:59 PM

Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.

 
2012-10-06 05:42:14 PM

PhiloeBedoe: Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.

 
2012-10-06 06:18:58 PM
Comrade Maher belittled the Dear Leader? That does it - he forfeits his seat on the Supreme Soviet.

/in b4 y0u know who
 
2012-10-06 07:11:17 PM
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.
 
2012-10-06 07:11:23 PM
Next time give it to charity you stupid fark. The guy raised $180 million last month alone. I think he's good on cash.
 
2012-10-06 07:12:16 PM
Obama is a master troll, however. I wonder what strategy he is playing at with this.
 
2012-10-06 07:12:55 PM
This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.
 
2012-10-06 07:13:17 PM
It's possible this is the real explanation for Obama's lackluster performance.
 
2012-10-06 07:15:34 PM
0bama kept calm and pointed out Romney's lies when he could and made sure to speak slowly and not give any bad soundbites that can be used against him in the future. He knew what he was doing, and with a large lead you don't want to go full derp and come across as angry.
 
2012-10-06 07:16:07 PM

PhiloeBedoe: Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.



a.abcnews.com

I guess that makes this guy 100x as stupid as Maher right?

www.realaspen.com


and these guys about 400x as stupid as Maher
 
2012-10-06 07:16:24 PM
You ever debated Mitt Romney... ON WEED???
 
2012-10-06 07:20:31 PM

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.
 
2012-10-06 07:21:21 PM

Fabric_Man: You ever debated Mitt Romney... ON WEED???


It would be the only way I could be in the same room with Romney and not kill him, honestly.
 
2012-10-06 07:22:12 PM

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.
 
2012-10-06 07:23:20 PM

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.
 
2012-10-06 07:23:36 PM

Hobodeluxe: PhiloeBedoe: Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.


[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

I guess that makes this guy 100x as stupid as Maher right?

[www.realaspen.com image 400x280]


and these guys about 400x as stupid as Maher


Yes, it probably does as a matter of fact for all the good that cash has done for them and Romney.
 
2012-10-06 07:24:44 PM

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


Did you, perhaps, mean per se?
 
2012-10-06 07:27:18 PM

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.
 
2012-10-06 07:28:26 PM

eraser8: Shrugging Atlas: There's no strategy per say...at least not one that was evident in the actual debate.

Did you, perhaps, mean per se?


Christ my eyes rolled so hard they actually hurt. Yes, you caught me. I did in fact mean to type per se.
 
2012-10-06 07:28:49 PM
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.
 
2012-10-06 07:30:03 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Hobodeluxe: PhiloeBedoe: Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.


[a.abcnews.com image 640x360]

I guess that makes this guy 100x as stupid as Maher right?

[www.realaspen.com image 400x280]


and these guys about 400x as stupid as Maher

Yes, it probably does as a matter of fact for all the good that cash has done for them and Romney.


that's where I disagree with you. these guys stand to make a huge R.O.I. if Mitt wins.
 
2012-10-06 07:30:51 PM

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


He's going to play the Joe Biden card. Old school Democrat with absolutely nothing to lose is going to go nuts on the policy/numbers wonk who wants to undo Social Security and Medicare.  Come Thursday morning every one will know the real Romney/Ryan plan, and last weeks debate will be forgotten.

/Maybe
//Would be cool to see
 
2012-10-06 07:31:04 PM
 
2012-10-06 07:34:37 PM

Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.



yep. Repubicans prefer their alternate universe. its great because they can believe whatever they want to and suddenly it becomes fact.
 
2012-10-06 07:35:01 PM
static01.mediaite.com
Stewart: 'Deeply Divided Nation' Has Agreed On Something - Obama's Debate Performance Sucked
 
2012-10-06 07:35:20 PM

shower_in_my_socks: The remaining debates will likely be a draw...Romney's bump will be temporary.


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

As I wrote earlier, the president was being buoyed by the impression that he was the only adult running (and, for that matter, the only adult in Washington). But, Mr. Obama's miserable performance washed all that away. He was unprepared and looked like a scared schoolboy.

The president has to erase that impression or, I genuinely believe, he'll be a one-termer.
 
2012-10-06 07:35:42 PM

Hobodeluxe: that's where I disagree with you. these guys stand to make a huge R.O.I. if Mitt wins.


Of course they do, but they've received absolutely jack shiat for it so far except for Romney being down in the polls for months on end. A trend that's only showing signs of being reversed by Romney wielding retard strength in the debate combined with Obama playing prevent defense. Basically their combined half a billion dollars hasn't returned squat for them...and it's not like Romney won't generate piles and piles of cash and tax cuts for them in the event he wins whether they donated or not.
 
2012-10-06 07:36:23 PM

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.
 
2012-10-06 07:36:31 PM
I'm gonna give this ti Bill or any other guy who's already voting for Obama who's still gnashing their teeth over the debate, and wailing for all to see:

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-06 07:37:59 PM
No Mr. Maher, Obama didn't do anything with the money you gave him because you didn't give him any money. Giving to a SuperPAC is not the same thing as giving to a candidate. I would think someone in your position would understand this.
 
2012-10-06 07:39:20 PM
so much for the 5k contribution limit
 
2012-10-06 07:39:23 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.


I'm sure you do.
 
2012-10-06 07:39:39 PM

intelligent comment below: 0bama kept calm and pointed out Romney's lies when he could and made sure to speak slowly and not give any bad soundbites that can be used against him in the future. He knew what he was doing, and with a large lead you don't want to go full derp and come across as angry.



i kinda felt that way too. i do think he might have been a bit fatique but then again, why take any chances when you are clearly winning?

Obama was playing it super safe and not giving the other side any talking points. he let Rmoney blow his load and kept his cool because he's President and he's going to get a second term.

this had not dimished one iota my conviction that Obama will win in november. i only question i have is will the win be to what degree will he win.
 
2012-10-06 07:40:08 PM

IlGreven: I'm gonna give this ti Bill or any other guy who's already voting for Obama who's still gnashing their teeth over the debate, and wailing for all to see:

[YOU'RE NOT HELPING.JPG]


No farking shiat.
 
2012-10-06 07:40:10 PM

badaboom: Link


That was some high grade crazy.
 
2012-10-06 07:42:48 PM

Shrugging Atlas: Hobodeluxe: that's where I disagree with you. these guys stand to make a huge R.O.I. if Mitt wins.

Of course they do, but they've received absolutely jack shiat for it so far except for Romney being down in the polls for months on end. A trend that's only showing signs of being reversed by Romney wielding retard strength in the debate combined with Obama playing prevent defense. Basically their combined half a billion dollars hasn't returned squat for them...and it's not like Romney won't generate piles and piles of cash and tax cuts for them in the event he wins whether they donated or not.


I don't know if they've blown it on nothing yet or not. Romney is still competitive. If not for the carpet bombing of ads he wouldn't be anywhere near winning.
 
2012-10-06 07:43:02 PM

IlGreven: I'm gonna give this ti Bill or any other guy who's already voting for Obama who's still gnashing their teeth over the debate, and wailing for all to see:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


But haven't you heard?? A year of campaigning, a billion dollars in ads, a favorable electoral college map, an improving economy, still better fav/unfav ratings than Romney, and incredibly strong polling numbers in key states like Ohio is all undone by one shiatty debate! It's true! Unless Obama removes Romney's head and spine like Sub Zero in the next debate we're all dooooooomed!
 
2012-10-06 07:43:09 PM

Nobodyn0se: No Mr. Maher, Obama didn't do anything with the money you gave him because you didn't give him any money. Giving to a SuperPAC is not the same thing as giving to a candidate. I would think someone in your position would understand this.


There is a category of things called "jokes." They often exaggerate in order to be something called "funny."
 
2012-10-06 07:43:18 PM

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.
 
2012-10-06 07:45:00 PM

eiger: There is a category of things called "jokes." They often exaggerate in order to be something called "funny."


I understand that. Do you understand that there is a difference between "exaggeration" and "factually incorrect"?
 
2012-10-06 07:46:51 PM

eiger: badaboom: Link

That was some high grade crazy.


The Castle Bravo of derp.
 
2012-10-06 07:47:58 PM

Hobodeluxe: I don't know if they've blown it on nothing yet or not. Romney is still competitive. If not for the carpet bombing of ads he wouldn't be anywhere near winning.


I suppose we'll probably never know. Personally I think the thing keeping Romney in it has had far more to do with the state of the economy and the fact 40+% of the population long ago decided they wouldn't vote for Obama even with a gun to their head. I have a hard time believing the ads have had that large of an impact given there's no way to make Romney look good (unless you count standing by in a debate and letting him lie his ass off for 90 minutes) and there's been four years of Fox News telling anyone willing to listen that he's a Socialist Kenyan out to destroy America and take our guns.
 
2012-10-06 07:49:28 PM

Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.


I'm happy that this was a Maher-hate thread right out of the gate. Gotta set the narrative in a constructive fashion.
 
2012-10-06 07:50:34 PM
Personally, I would love to hear Obaba say at the next debate, "You are one lying corporate raiding cracker. Why don't you get my 47% black ass a cup of coffee, and make yourself useful?"
 
2012-10-06 07:51:08 PM

Nobodyn0se: No Mr. Maher, Obama didn't do anything with the money you gave him because you didn't give him any money. Giving to a SuperPAC is not the same thing as giving to a candidate. I would think someone in your position would understand this.


Yeah, whatever SuperPAC he gave to, they could totally just spend it on Anti-Obama ads.

//semantics? african-american epithet, please
 
2012-10-06 07:52:06 PM
If Obama loses this election, I'll never vote for him again.
 
2012-10-06 07:53:00 PM

Nobodyn0se: eiger: There is a category of things called "jokes." They often exaggerate in order to be something called "funny."

I understand that. Do you understand that there is a difference between "exaggeration" and "factually incorrect"?


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.
 
2012-10-06 07:54:30 PM

Fabric_Man: You ever debated Mitt Romney... ON WEED???


You ever debated Mitt Romney ...

IN BED?

/that really doesn't work, does it? The weed one is much better
//mon 
///limpest performance by Mr Obama since he had that dream where he was diggin a pum pum with Beyonce and her face turned into Ann Romney's
 
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....
 
2012-10-06 08:55:19 PM

Podna: 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.


I used to believe the same thing. Eventually I came to realize, however, that these people are too stupid to learn. They'll never learn the lesson you're trying to teach them.
 
2012-10-06 08:56:08 PM
Bill Maher should STFU. he is a stand up comedian. an actor. and not a very good one at that.
 
2012-10-06 08:56:32 PM

badaboom: After he spikes the football again about Osama and brags about his drone strikes killing innocent civilians, what else can he brag about.



LOL. Because a Republican is going to go all hippy on the president over drone attacks. Oh, wait. It's Romney. He'll say f*cking anything to get elected, and you'll still blow him.
 
2012-10-06 08:56:32 PM

Nobodyn0se: 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.


As I pointed out earlier: I view this as more serious than Bush in 2004 or Reagan in 1984 or Carter in 1980. The president's greatest argument for reelection was his competence and the insanity of his opponent.

From my perspective, the president pissed his advantage away.

Can he repair the damage his performance wrought? Certainly. But, in my opinion, he doesn't have much margin for error.
 
2012-10-06 08:57:40 PM

whidbey: 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 watched the debates and listened to them. I thought the president performed excrementally.

Mr. Obama wasn't good. I'm not going to try to convince myself that he was.

I prefer reality to fantasy.
 
2012-10-06 08:57:48 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?


IMO, the left are far more likely to think for themselves rather than just being a part of the herd. It is one of the most admirable qualities that the Democratic party possesses. To challenge ones social group makes evolution become faster, unlike the GOP who are stuck using outdated ideas.
 
2012-10-06 08:58:04 PM

badaboom: So much fun to watch you guys implode....



I wasn't going to ignore you because I want to see you here when Rmoney is giving his concession speech. But we all know you won't show your face when that happens, so buh bye now.
 
2012-10-06 08:59:34 PM

eraser8: From my perspective, the president pissed his advantage away.


Well, as soon as you get some actual evidence that his advantage is gone, let me know.
 
2012-10-06 09:00:26 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.


I hope you're right.

But, I don't think you are.
 
2012-10-06 09:00:59 PM

shower_in_my_socks: badaboom: So much fun to watch you guys implode....


I wasn't going to ignore you because I want to see you here when Rmoney is giving his concession speech. But we all know you won't show your face when that happens, so buh bye now.


Wait, before you leave I need to give you some advice. Woolite works best for your little girl panties.
 
2012-10-06 09:03:10 PM

eraser8: whidbey: 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 watched the debates and listened to them. I thought the president performed excrementally.

Mr. Obama wasn't good. I'm not going to try to convince myself that he was.

I prefer reality to fantasy.


You've pretty much bought the "Obama f*cked up" fantasy, so I would have to say i disagree with this.
 
2012-10-06 09:04:23 PM
Despite eraser8's concern, I read a post by someone the other day who had a theory that Obama gave the Republicans a mulligan so that they'd have some false hope about Romney's chances, thus funneling more money into his campaign and draining it from the other races, which are more important. And, you know, now that I think about it, I get the impression that Obama was struggling to restrain himself during the debate. Perhaps this guy's theory is right.
 
2012-10-06 09:04:38 PM

badaboom: After he ... brags about his drone strikes killing innocent civilians, what else can he brag about.


Killing orders of magnitude less than your hero Shrub? The hypocrisy is revolting, apparently the right's strategy is to thrash is sh1at so much no one can stand being around them.
 
2012-10-06 09:04:41 PM

whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: 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 watched the debates and listened to them. I thought the president performed excrementally.

Mr. Obama wasn't good. I'm not going to try to convince myself that he was.

I prefer reality to fantasy.

You've pretty much bought the "Obama f*cked up" fantasy, so I would have to say i disagree with this.


When you have many pundits like Bill Maher and Chris Mathews who are both extremely in the pro-Obama camp saying that Obama sucked, I think it is safe to say that Obama sucked
 
2012-10-06 09:05:39 PM

whidbey: eraser8: whidbey: 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 watched the debates and listened to them. I thought the president performed excrementally.

Mr. Obama wasn't good. I'm not going to try to convince myself that he was.

I prefer reality to fantasy.

You've pretty much bought the "Obama f*cked up" fantasy, so I would have to say i disagree with this.


Fine.

I've said my piece.

If you believe the president's performance wasn't all that bad, that's your right.

I have a different view.
 
2012-10-06 09:06:37 PM
Oh he spent it on weed because he's black and weed makes you lazy. Maher is such a racist.
 
2012-10-06 09:09:07 PM

Podna: The dark side in me wants Full GOP control. I want them to screw up everything so badly and have everyone see it



If half the country didn't learn this after the 8 year catastrophe of the Bush administration, they are never going to learn. And the damage done to social programs would be nearly impossible to reverse, never mind the continued ballooning of our national debt (which always happens when the GOP is in charge, despite claiming to be "adults" when it comes to debt), combined with economy-killing austerity measures and more completely pointless wars, like another trillion blown on a boondoggle in Iran along with who knows how many more thousands of dead Americans.

If the right wing retards here in this thread can be fooled into believing that a recession that hit during Dubya's 7th farking year in office -- and massive joblessness that took hold AFTER two farking tax cuts that were touted as "JOB CREATING!" -- is the fault of the guy who took over the White House a farking year later, then they'll believe anything. They are the gullible useful idiots that ever politician dreams of. Even Romney must be shaking his head at the switch he's pulled on the ignorant republican voters who nominated a completely different person in August, but haven't noticed one bit, and who wouldn't dream of criticizing their guy even if they did notice.
 
2012-10-06 09:09:24 PM
Everyone thought Kerry won the debates in '04. How did that turn out?
 
2012-10-06 09:13:19 PM
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is bombing the airwaves here in Ohio using Rmoney's debate performance. Hard Mode: No mention of Big Bird.

Rmoney, meanwhile, uh, maybe he's running his ads during Murder She Wrote in WeTV or something. I caught one anti-Obama PAC ad and that was it.
 
2012-10-06 09:13:26 PM

eraser8: No way. Even after this bump, Romney will still be at least slightly behind.

I hope you're right.

But, I don't think you are.



I think it's very Chicken Little to assume that A) one debate wins it all, B) none of the other things Obama's campaign is doing better will have an affect, C) that Romney won't have another serious 47% type gaffe before this is over, and D) that Romney's bump will automatically last. I'll be shocked if Silver gives Romney more than a 35% chance of winning this time next week. I'm not math genius, but that's not enough, and he won't get the rest of the way if the remaining debates are toss-ups.
 
2012-10-06 09:14:41 PM

eraser8: If you believe the president's performance wasn't all that bad, that's your right.

I have a different view.


It's not going to change my vote. I can't imagine why it would change any other's. Who, in your mind, is suddenly going to rally behind Romney because all of a sudden he looks like a human being in the first debate? How does that change any of what's happened earlier with what he said and what the Republicans are still pledging to do?

tl:dr You're over-reacting. Heavily.
 
2012-10-06 09:15:23 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is bombing the airwaves here in Ohio using Rmoney's debate performance. Hard Mode: No mention of Big Bird.



Obama just raised over $180M this week from over 1M individual donors. That's not the math of a campaign that can be derailed by one debate four weeks before election day.
 
2012-10-06 09:15:58 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Obama just raised over $180M this week


CORRECTION: This past MONTH, not week.
 
2012-10-06 09:17:05 PM

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is bombing the airwaves here in Ohio using Rmoney's debate performance. Hard Mode: No mention of Big Bird.

Rmoney, meanwhile, uh, maybe he's running his ads during Murder She Wrote in WeTV or something. I caught one anti-Obama PAC ad and that was it.


I sometimes wonder how the battleground state ads are doing around this time in the campaign. Being in Illinois I don't get that environment, which is a blessing, don't get me wrong.

Tried searching youtube but it's full of bad parodies and ads that I'm not sure are airing n TV at this time...
 
2012-10-06 09:18:04 PM

shower_in_my_socks: Obama just raised over $180M this week from over 1M individual donors. That's not the math of a campaign that can be derailed by one debate four weeks before election day.


July and August, you couldn't change the channel without catching a Rmoney ad or from one of his PACs. A couple weeks back they all but vanished. Granted, this is northeast Ohio, but you'd think they'd still be trying here if they thought Ohio was in play, right?
 
2012-10-06 09:22:26 PM

neenerist: badaboom: After he ... brags about his drone strikes killing innocent civilians, what else can he brag about.

Killing orders of magnitude less than your hero Shrub? The hypocrisy is revolting, apparently the right's strategy is to thrash is sh1at so much no one can stand being around them.


Hypocrisy? When's the last time you saw an anti-war protest? Nobel Peace prize President, what a joke. If you libs stuck to your principles you would be holding Obama's feet to the fire about still being in Afghanistan, executions without trials, and killing innocent people with drones. Instead all we hear is crickets.
 
2012-10-06 09:23:33 PM

jigger: Oh he spent it on weed because he's black and weed makes you lazy. Maher is such a racist.


Guess you have never heard of the Choom gang.
 
2012-10-06 09:25:10 PM

James F. Campbell: Despite eraser8's concern, I read a post by someone the other day who had a theory that Obama gave the Republicans a mulligan so that they'd have some false hope about Romney's chances, thus funneling more money into his campaign and draining it from the other races, which are more important. And, you know, now that I think about it, I get the impression that Obama was struggling to restrain himself during the debate. Perhaps this guy's theory is right.


The Rocky Three plan? Keep grasping.....
 
2012-10-06 09:29:02 PM

badaboom: Instead all we hear is crickets.


I hear one guy saying we're out of Afghanistan in 2014. I hear another guy wanting war with Iran.

But both sides are bad, so don't bother trying to stop yet another land war in Asia.
 
2012-10-06 09:39:35 PM

Gyrfalcon: Fabric_Man: You ever debated Mitt Romney... ON WEED???
It would be the only way I could be in the same room with Romney and not kill him, honestly.


Hell, I was stoned and I couldn't watch the debate with the sound on. Sometimes I think I'm too emotional.

Then I smoke some pot and know I am.
 
2012-10-06 09:39:48 PM

badaboom: Hypocrisy? When's the last time you saw an anti-war protest? Nobel Peace prize President, what a joke. If you libs stuck to your principles you would be holding Obama's feet to the fire about still being in Afghanistan, executions without trials, and killing innocent people with drones. Instead all we hear is crickets.


Apparently the right's strategy is to thrash in sh1at so much no one can stand being around them. Well played.
 
2012-10-06 09:46:31 PM

badaboom: 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....


When? Where? Good luck in the election. 2008 all over again. Then we will watch you implode
 
2012-10-06 09:49:25 PM

cman: 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?

IMO, the left are far more likely to think for themselves rather than just being a part of the herd. It is one of the most admirable qualities that the Democratic party possesses. To challenge ones social group makes evolution become faster, unlike the GOP who are stuck using outdated ideas.


B-b-but, evolution isn't real! It's a lie straight outta hell itself! The entire House Science Committee says so!
 
2012-10-06 09:50:13 PM

badaboom: Hypocrisy? When's the last time you saw an anti-war protest? Nobel Peace prize President, what a joke. If you libs stuck to your principles you would be holding Obama's feet to the fire about still being in Afghanistan, executions without trials, and killing innocent people with drones. Instead all we hear is crickets.


Because he ended Iraq which everyone protested over, and is tough on terror so the gop can't ping being weak on him. Game set match
 
2012-10-06 09:50:54 PM

badaboom: neenerist: badaboom: After he ... brags about his drone strikes killing innocent civilians, what else can he brag about.

Killing orders of magnitude less than your hero Shrub? The hypocrisy is revolting, apparently the right's strategy is to thrash is sh1at so much no one can stand being around them.

Hypocrisy? When's the last time you saw an anti-war protest? Nobel Peace prize President, what a joke. If you libs stuck to your principles you would be holding Obama's feet to the fire about still being in Afghanistan, executions without trials, and killing innocent people with drones. Instead all we hear is crickets.


The big anti-war protests were protesting the war in Iraq. Y'know, the illegal one, based on lies, that we're now out of. And Obama is ending Afghanistan too...unless Republicans take over again and block that while invading Iran.

And having frequently visited DC over the years, I can tell you that the same small, anti-ANY-WAR-EVER folks still protest, like they always do.

And yes, I get that you're pissed Obama took out the Right's #1 bogeyman, but guess what? Nobody except utter dipshiats thinks the SEALs were wrong to take him out. Same with al-Awaki, and every other member of al-Qaeda that the military, under Obama's command, has taken out.
 
2012-10-06 09:51:53 PM

whidbey: It's not going to change my vote. I can't imagine why it would change any other's. Who, in your mind, is suddenly going to rally behind Romney because all of a sudden he looks like a human being in the first debate? How does that change any of what's happened earlier with what he said and what the Republicans are still pledging to do?


He acted like an arrogant asshole, since he is one. But of course people who think that the Presidential race is a football game are all for the most aggressive person on the field. The actual words or the meanings of them are just the crowd roaring. RA RA RA look at him go!!!!
 
2012-10-06 10:06:22 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.


That happened already. Remember Bush? Two terrible wars, flushing a surplus down the toilet, destroying the economy, etc?

Dems won en mass, and then two years later, when they hadn't cleaned the Republican mess up fast enough, the blame was all put on them.

Americans will learn a lesson for ten minutes then forget all about it.
 
2012-10-06 10:11:00 PM
Why didn't Maher give the money directly to "The Poor"?
 
2012-10-06 10:25:47 PM

badaboom: what else can he brag about


How 'bout the fact that "Al-Qaeda #2" now has a life expectancy comparable to that of "Spinal Tap Drummer"?
 
2012-10-06 10:27:59 PM

Vectron: Why didn't Maher give the money directly to "The Poor"?


Help a million poor people once or ensure that the poor aren't ground up as Soylent Green vis a vis the Romney administration.

Coeyagi - Bringing da Math when da Math be hard.
 
2012-10-06 10:34:44 PM

Shrugging Atlas: IlGreven: I'm gonna give this ti Bill or any other guy who's already voting for Obama who's still gnashing their teeth over the debate, and wailing for all to see:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]

But haven't you heard?? A year of campaigning, a billion dollars in ads, a favorable electoral college map, an improving economy, still better fav/unfav ratings than Romney, and incredibly strong polling numbers in key states like Ohio is all undone by one shiatty debate! It's true! Unless Obama removes Romney's head and spine like Sub Zero in the next debate we're all dooooooomed!


Actually, I think that could solve a great number of the political problems if Republicans were disemboweled on stage.
 
2012-10-06 10:39:09 PM

Vectron: Why didn't Maher give the money directly to "The Poor"?



Your mom required cash only no check
 
2012-10-06 10:40:37 PM

intelligent comment below: Vectron: Why didn't Maher give the money directly to "The Poor"?


Your mom required cash only no check


I am in A.C. right now. The amount of Check Cashing places is kinda uhf*ckingbelievable. His mom would do well here.
 
2012-10-06 10:41:21 PM

Mithiwithi: badaboom: what else can he brag about

How 'bout the fact that "Al-Qaeda #2" now has a life expectancy comparable to that of "Spinal Tap Drummer"?


And that al-Qaeda, as an organization, has been reduced from attacking us on our own soil to using a riot as cover to attack a consulate?
 
2012-10-06 10:48:17 PM

Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.


because no Republicans have expressed dissatisfaction with Romney all year
 
2012-10-06 10:49:15 PM

LordJiro: Mithiwithi: badaboom: what else can he brag about

How 'bout the fact that "Al-Qaeda #2" now has a life expectancy comparable to that of "Spinal Tap Drummer"?

And that al-Qaeda, as an organization, has been reduced from attacking us on our own soil to using a riot as cover to attack a consulate?


But just remember, Obama not only deep sixed our economy further but somehow managed to flush our foreign diplomacy down the toilet.

If Obama f*cked up as much sh*t as the GOP claims, the man would have to sleep 2 hours a night to actively pursue the utter f*cking destruction of America as prophesized by any dickhead who gushes at how wonky Karl Rove is.
 
2012-10-06 10:53:20 PM

soup sandwich: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

because no Republicans have expressed dissatisfaction with Romney all year


They have, yet the 47% eff up in a normal non-Ailes-raped universe would have Fox & Friends hosts cock-punching a lifelike mannequin of Romney (aka Romney) at being such a dumb mother*cker.

They are not beyond policing themselves, but don't act like they do it every time they should or even close to that (nor do Dems).
 
2012-10-06 11:14:43 PM
the czar just wanted our money, the reds, they want our minds,,,,,
/told to me by my babushka
 
2012-10-06 11:48:47 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.


If he loses next month it will be because he failed to make a good case for a liberal alternative to the fark You, I've Got Mine republican philosophy. And if he really can't (or won't, more likely) do that? fark him.
 
2012-10-07 12:43:46 AM

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


Look, I'll agree that his debate performance was abysmal (the rumours that he tanked on purpose as part of the long game seem fairly likely, but we'll see how it goes), but... Shut up. Seriously, just shut up. I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage. From reversing the recession, to kickstarting health care reform, to pointing us on the path to civil rights for gay people, to ending the Iraq War while taking out dozens of top terrorists - he's probably the most accomplished President within my lifetime. Is he perfect? Hell no. Does he deserve a second term regardless? Hell yes.
 
2012-10-07 12:55:57 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage.


eraser is a 100% concern-troll. fits the pattern in every respect.
 
2012-10-07 01:19:22 AM

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

Look, I'll agree that his debate performance was abysmal (the rumours that he tanked on purpose as part of the long game seem fairly likely, but we'll see how it goes), but... Shut up. Seriously, just shut up. I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage. From reversing the recession, to kickstarting health care reform, to pointing us on the path to civil rights for gay people, to ending the Iraq War while taking out dozens of top terrorists - he's probably the most accomplished President within my lifetime. Is he perfect? Hell no. Does he deserve a second term regardless? Hell yes.


So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.
 
2012-10-07 01:20:25 AM

bullwrinkle: So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.



To get him to run to the center, say stupid things, and create a bunch of soundbites to use in attack ads. And that's exactly what the Obama campaign is doing
 
2012-10-07 01:43:29 AM

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

Look, I'll agree that his debate performance was abysmal (the rumours that he tanked on purpose as part of the long game seem fairly likely, but we'll see how it goes), but... Shut up. Seriously, just shut up. I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage. From reversing the recession, to kickstarting health care reform, to pointing us on the path to civil rights for gay people, to ending the Iraq War while taking out dozens of top terrorists - he's probably the most accomplished President within my lifetime. Is he perfect? Hell no. Does he deserve a second term regardless? Hell yes.

So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.


What, pray tell, does the American media remember about the debates? "Obama did somewhat worse than expected" versus "Romney wants to kill Big Bird.".One of those is going to be more damaging to a campaign than the other, and will linger. The other will be forgotten by the next debate.

Remember, Obama plays the long game. Even if he screws up, he tends to find a way to use that. And you just know that, in some room somewhere, Romney, or some other high-profile Republican, is preparing to shove his foot into his mouth again, to remind America just how farked up the GOP is.
 
2012-10-07 01:50:31 AM

bullwrinkle: So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.


Hey, I didn't come up with the theory. :P I'm not completely sold on it, but as ICB and LordJiro have explained, it makes sense.

LordJiro: Remember, Obama plays the long game. Even if he screws up, he tends to find a way to use that. And you just know that, in some room somewhere, Romney, or some other high-profile Republican, is preparing to shove his foot into his mouth again, to remind America just how farked up the GOP is.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-07 02:02:16 AM

intelligent comment below: bullwrinkle: So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.


To get him to run to the center, say stupid things, and create a bunch of soundbites to use in attack ads. And that's exactly what the Obama campaign is doing


What was it around 67 million and more who wactched on the internet saw his performance which
I believe has a much greater impact. Romney didn't deliver a knock out punch and Obama could have a least been more engaged and he still would have his sound bites.
 
2012-10-07 02:22:01 AM
www.independentsentinel.com
 
2012-10-07 02:31:13 AM

eraser8: 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.


Seriously, dude? One debate has you crying gloom and doom?

...You and people like you (including Maher) are doing more to drive people to Romney (or to stay home) than Obama's performance in the debate did.
 
2012-10-07 02:33:43 AM
So, does Maher deduct that million as a business expense now that he's used it as joke fodder?
 
2012-10-07 02:39:18 AM

BSABSVR: 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.


We smoke so much here you get a contact high as soon as you step off the airplane.
 
2012-10-07 02:41:34 AM
I do not get the people claiming Mitt Romney won anything. I'm listening to Rachel Maddow talking with Dan Rather the other night, discussing Romney's 'win', and I'm shaking my head, going 'who decided that?'

/back to reading the rest of the thread.
 
2012-10-07 02:41:46 AM

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.


...who's the "Obama supporter" saying that he farked up so badly in one debate that his opponent even has a chance to win at the polls, when all indicators previous to the debate have Obama so far ahead it would take a miracle to win?

You're acting like the debate was the Super Bowl, when it barely qualified as a preseason game.
 
2012-10-07 02:42:33 AM

Alphax: I do not get the people claiming Mitt Romney won anything. I'm listening to Rachel Maddow talking with Dan Rather the other night, discussing Romney's 'win', and I'm shaking my head, going 'who decided that?'

/back to reading the rest of the thread.


Probably the people who make more money on a horse race than a boat race.
 
2012-10-07 02:46:09 AM

eraser8: And, he performed so badly Wednesday that I wouldn't at all be surprised if he loses the election.


inmydaytrollingmeantsomething.jpg
 
2012-10-07 02:51:23 AM
www.realitychex.com
 
2012-10-07 03:07:35 AM

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

Look, I'll agree that his debate performance was abysmal (the rumours that he tanked on purpose as part of the long game seem fairly likely, but we'll see how it goes), but... Shut up. Seriously, just shut up. I can't tell whether you're doomsaying for cynicism's sake or just trolling, but nobody can honestly believe that Obama "Isn't accomplished" without having suffered from some sort of major brain damage. From reversing the recession, to kickstarting health care reform, to pointing us on the path to civil rights for gay people, to ending the Iraq War while taking out dozens of top terrorists - he's probably the most accomplished President within my lifetime. Is he perfect? Hell no. Does he deserve a second term regardless? Hell yes.

So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.

What, pray tell, does the American media remember about the debates? "Obama did somewhat worse than expected" versus "Romney wants to kill Big Bird.".One of those is going to be more damaging to a campaign than the other, and will linger. The other will be forgotten by the next debate.

Remember, Obama plays the long game. Even if he screws up, he tends to find a way to use that. And you just know that, in some room somewhere, Romney, or some other high-profile Republican, is preparing to shove his foot into his mouth again, to remind America just how farked up the GOP is.


Your premise about Obama's long game is reasonable but the Obama shrills are making so many excuses about his performance from the altitude to not coming across as an angry black man. I'm sure
Obama will do better at the town hall next week. I don't think Big Bird is a big deal and Romney can come up with something cleaver to counter the "controversy" but it sure will be asked by someone in the next debate. As far as remembering the debates Bush 41 looking at his watch and Nixon 5 o'clock shadow / sweating to name a few.
 
2012-10-07 03:19:26 AM

The Great EZE: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is bombing the airwaves here in Ohio using Rmoney's debate performance. Hard Mode: No mention of Big Bird.

Rmoney, meanwhile, uh, maybe he's running his ads during Murder She Wrote in WeTV or something. I caught one anti-Obama PAC ad and that was it.

I sometimes wonder how the battleground state ads are doing around this time in the campaign. Being in Illinois I don't get that environment, which is a blessing, don't get me wrong.

Tried searching youtube but it's full of bad parodies and ads that I'm not sure are airing n TV at this time...


Here in Colorado, the evening news has maybe one or two advertisements during the entire hour that are not political. You can't even escape to the cable networks. And Romney is still running an ad that states unemployment is 8.1% and there hasn't been net job growth under Obama, both claims which are now false. This shows you just how short-sighted and unorganized Romney's campaign is. They should have known when they bought and scheduled these ads that the numbers could be different when they ran, and now they are blatantly false advertising.

Bottom line? Romney changing half of his positions as soon as the debate started was a sucker-punch and Obama having an off night meant his chin was turned just right for that punch to land square. What I want to know is, amongst all of this Romney-fellating, why have I not heard the term "flip-flop" once?
 
2012-10-07 03:46:44 AM
He would have at least been funny on weed.
 
2012-10-07 04:09:31 AM

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


My advice to you: never gamble.
 
2012-10-07 04:22:39 AM

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

My advice to you: never gamble.


Never under estimate the easy choice of willful ignorance and machoism. It's nice to think people would act logically but recent history tells a different story.
 
2012-10-07 04:49:29 AM
Obama was obviously, visibly tired (the backstory on that could be interesting) and his tactics and demeanor were too passive. Continually looking down to take notes indicated a baffling debate-prep error.

Romney came not to defend his previously-stated positions but to furiously shake his etch-a-sketch. He leaned heavily on an animated alpha-dog approach and extensive lying/flipfloppery, which could easily have backfired but seems to have gone over well with many viewers. He took more risks and they paid off, but it cost him in terms of handing ammunition to the Obama campaign for later use.

The moderator was utterly worthless, failing to ask worthwhile questions, prompt useful exchanges, or enforce the agreed-upon rules.

Overall I thought there was little remarkable about the whole show. Little actual debate was had. Romney calling for Big Bird's head will be the defining exchange.
 
2012-10-07 05:04:35 AM
Really,... he has nothing solid to stand on. What is Obama supposed to do? He followed the same basic course of government, and really has no clue about innovation.
 
2012-10-07 05:09:36 AM

imprimere: Really,... he has nothing solid to stand on. What is Obama supposed to do? He followed the same basic course of government, and really has no clue about innovation.


He who? Romney? Obama?

President Obama has plenty to stand on.
 
2012-10-07 05:29:51 AM
The media has a vested interest in a close race, and surprise surprise, the day after the first debate, they all declare that Romney stomped Obama into the dirt.

Maher is a comedian with a reputation for saying the unexpected, and surprise surprise, he said the unexpected. He cracked a joke. Knock me over with a feather.
 
2012-10-07 07:53:29 AM

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


letmelaughevenharder.jpg

You've got to be kidding with this shiat. If the election were to take place today, Obama would win by almost 100 EVs. Romney winning every single swing state because of one debate performance? Please. You're forgetting that there are hardly any likely voters who are still undecided. Seriously. The swing states, except for maybe Ohio (because for some reason that state corners the market on these "undecided" morons) are already swung. The next two debates could go just like this one did, and Obama would still be a 2:1 favorite in the election, worst case.

eraser8: He failed. Epically. Extraordinarily.


You're being a Chicken Little. Obama wasn't good, but it wasn't the end of the world.

eraser8: 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.


Look, Obama hasn't turned out to be nearly liberal enough in his first term for me either, but he's still managed to do a lot of very good things for this country in the face of probably the most unified opposition the Republicans are capable of bringing to the fore. I have the feeling that he's going to shift much further to the left during his second term, especially if the Democrats win back a few Senate seats, which looks likely. I could of course be wrong, but AFAIC it's worth it to elect this guy again to find out, because I think he's really, honestly trying to help people. Thinking he was going to enact a single payer healthcare system or completely restructure the flow of money around and through Washington was a little naiive. You have to do things in small steps in this country, or people freak out. Obama unquestionably moved us in the right direction, and paved the way for more forward steps in the future.

There's also the larger goal of beating the GOP enough times in a row that they decide to finally abandon their current strategies and experiment with moving closer to the center again. Which, in turn, will leave room for the Dems to move further left, where they belong. The Boomers are starting to die off, and once a significant percentage of them are gone, it will change the political landscape. If the Dems can get one more two-term president into the White House after Obama, I think we might see a return to a more balanced divide between the parties.
 
2012-10-07 08:07:17 AM

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: The moderator was utterly worthless, failing to ask worthwhile questions, prompt useful exchanges, or enforce the agreed-upon rules.


Yeah, it's always bad form to blame the referees (or, in this case, the moderator) but asking "What's the difference between you two?" over and over and over and over again is probably a more egregious lack of effort than Obama's whiff. It's really easy for a pathological liar to perform his art when you give him a blank canvas to work with.
 
2012-10-07 08:13:25 AM

Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.


Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"
 
2012-10-07 08:13:31 AM

smitty04: [www.realitychex.com image 600x446]


Infographic trolling - because I have proven utterly incapable of making an argument myself.
 
2012-10-07 08:15:44 AM

jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"


Because it's not as "useless" as say hundreds of bills limiting abortion. And Obama ALSO put forth jobs bills - you know you can do things CONCURRENTLY in government, right?
 
2012-10-07 08:20:44 AM

Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.


Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.
 
2012-10-07 08:21:31 AM

bullwrinkle: So Obama took a "dive" as part of some strategy to draw Mitt in to.....what? Some how with all the criticism on both sides and Romney surge in the polls doesen't seems to be working out for him. Also a huge and unnecessary risk for him to take.


I don't think his plan was to tank on purpose, but you also have to look at what the candidates are trying to accomplish with the debates. Normally, the debates are a fight for undecided voters, but this election is not going to be affected much by those people, because there are hardly any left. Best case scenario for the debates on that front is that Romney takes Ohio. That's really all he has to gain from undecideds, and it's not even close to enough to win him the election at this point.

What IS important is for each side to turn out as much of their base as possible. If Romney fires up his base, and Obama doesn't, he has a shot. But if Obama gets his side going too, Romney has almost no chance to win. So through THAT lens, ask yourself what effect each of the two candidates' performances had.

Romney jumped so far to the center during his performance, it HAD to leave a bad taste in the mouths of the 'Baggers and reactionaries. Even if he picks up a couple of points nationally with undecideds, I think if he keeps up that kind of talk, he's going to see serious de-motivation in his base. The polls might not pick it up at first, but his turnout will suffer if he keeps up the "regulation is a good thing" talk.

Obama didn't look like "Step back, I GOT this" Obama. He looked more like, "WTF? I'm still the same guy, but this idiot is lying his head off. I could use a hand, voters." If he had gotten snarky, or flat-out called Romney a liar, he would have looked unpresidential. He couldn't prepare well-polished comebacks to Romney's policies, because Romney flipped on his entire platform harder than a pancake in a trapeze act. So he did the best he could do, which was to bide his time, say what he knew was safe, and let Romney run his mouth. I'll repeat what I've said before: If Obama had wiped the floor with Romney, it would have done him more harm than good with his own voting bloc. Mark my words- Obama will win this election by a margin that is inversely proportional to his expected performance. The closer it looks, the larger his margin of victory will be. The more it looks like he's going to mop up, the fewer young people will actually turn out.

This debate looked like a Romney win from up close, but I think it will turn out to benefit Obama more in the long run. Romney gave WAY too much ground on his policies (not that that word means much when applied to him) and paid exactly one sentence worth of lip-service to each of his far-right voting blocs.
 
2012-10-07 08:25:17 AM

The Numbers: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.


Actually, no. MSNBC pundits all called it for Romney that night, and haven't walked it back (they have of course attacked Romney for the outright bullish*t inherent in his debate performance). Obviously you've not been paying attention to anything resembling reality.

If it was Fox News and Obama slam dunked it, they would either outright lie and call it for Romney or attack Obama for some 14 year old video that he made.
 
2012-10-07 08:28:08 AM

The Numbers: Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.


How do you think it sat with staunch conservatives to hear Romney admit that the only difference between his Healthcare plan and Obama's was that he had "bipartisan support" for his. Do you think that affected their opinion of him favorably? What about his other flip-flops? I'm not even talking about the hypocrisy or anything like that... I just mean, presentation and demeanor aside (because they were obviously the areas where he was the stronger of the two candidates) how do you think the actual words that came out of Romney's mouth were perceived by hard-core conservatives? What do you think that will do to voter turnout?
 
2012-10-07 08:36:27 AM

coeyagi: The Numbers: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.

Actually, no. MSNBC pundits all called it for Romney that night, and haven't walked it back (they have of course attacked Romney for the outright bullish*t inherent in his debate performance). Obviously you've not been paying attention to anything resembling reality.

If it was Fox News and Obama slam dunked it, they would either outright lie and call it for Romney or attack Obama for some 14 year old video that he made.


Have you not read any of the threads about the debate? Not even this one?
 
2012-10-07 08:53:13 AM
I think the most likely answer and one I haven't heard expressed yet is that Michele wasn't happy about the debate being on their anniversary. They probably had a fight and it threw Obama off his game.

And considering how it started to turn around in the latter half it had to have been really close to debate time.
 
2012-10-07 08:53:25 AM

The Numbers: coeyagi: The Numbers: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Clearly you've not been paying much attention these past few days. Plenty of Dems desperately searching for alternate realities they can embrace to avoid the fact of Obama's debate defeat.

Actually, no. MSNBC pundits all called it for Romney that night, and haven't walked it back (they have of course attacked Romney for the outright bullish*t inherent in his debate performance). Obviously you've not been paying attention to anything resembling reality.

If it was Fox News and Obama slam dunked it, they would either outright lie and call it for Romney or attack Obama for some 14 year old video that he made.

Have you not read any of the threads about the debate? Not even this one?


I have. Most admit Romney won while decrying his lies.

But keep up your whining.
 
2012-10-07 09:08:35 AM

Z-clipped: I just mean, presentation and demeanor aside (because they were obviously the areas where he was the stronger of the two candidates) how do you think the actual words that came out of Romney's mouth were perceived by hard-core conservatives? What do you think that will do to voter turnout?


Seriously? Feel free to name the last time Republican supporters were that concerned about the content of their candidates' policies they treated that as a higher priority than beating the Dem.

Republicans respond to a candidate who is bold and aggressive in pursuing their policies, even if those policies happen to point in the wrong direction for the country. It doesn't matter to Republicans how much Romney flip-flops, so long as he appears in control and doesn't admit to being wrong.
 
2012-10-07 09:24:14 AM

The Great EZE: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: The moderator was utterly worthless, failing to ask worthwhile questions, prompt useful exchanges, or enforce the agreed-upon rules.

Yeah, it's always bad form to blame the referees (or, in this case, the moderator) but asking "What's the difference between you two?" over and over and over and over again is probably a more egregious lack of effort than Obama's whiff. It's really easy for a pathological liar to perform his art when you give him a blank canvas to work with.


I still think that misses the point. This is how debates go:

Moderator: Would you answer this question?

Candidate: Now I'll ramble on about something else entirely, regurgitating talking points.

True of every debate I've ever watched. Moderators are ciphers. If they show backbone, then they're howled down as bullies, "why don't you just let the candidates talk."
 
2012-10-07 09:32:13 AM
The only way Obama is going to be re-elected is if they have Clinton in black-face and do the remaining debates.
 
2012-10-07 09:32:14 AM
Romney could be declared the winner of the next two debates, but if you are familiar with the few policies and facts he's revealed outside of debates, why would someone switch their votes? I admit Romney did look better than Obama in the debate, but Romney's facts were weak.
 
2012-10-07 09:37:39 AM

The Numbers: Seriously? Feel free to name the last time Republican supporters were that concerned about the content of their candidates' policies they treated that as a higher priority than beating the Dem.


I'm not saying they will vote for Obama because of anything Romney says... he could eat a live baby on TV and they'd still identify as Republican. But with all of the Centrist shiat he's spewing now, I think more than a few of the bible-thumpers and hardcore 'baggers will stay home rather than vote for a guy who's talking like he's a Blue Dog. It's much harder to look at Romney and convince yourself that, despite his pandering to the middle, he really bleeds Southern Red than it was for someone with Dubya's demeanor.

I think Romney's going to lose on turnout if he hangs on to just about anything he said in this last debate.
 
2012-10-07 09:44:36 AM

jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"


NeoCon say what? Sorry that Fox News feeds you inaccurate information but I will take these facts from the fine scholars at MIT instead... "By September 2012, the Kaiser tracking polls even suggested that support exceeded opposition, with 45 percent viewing the law favorably and only 40 percent viewing it unfavorably.."

Facts
 
2012-10-07 09:53:37 AM

coeyagi: smitty04: [www.realitychex.com image 600x446]

Infographic trolling - because I have proven utterly incapable of making an argument myself.


The funny thing is Horsey is a left-wing cartoonist.
 
2012-10-07 09:54:51 AM

Girl From The North Country: jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"

NeoCon say what? Sorry that Fox News feeds you inaccurate information but I will take these facts from the fine scholars at MIT instead... "By September 2012, the Kaiser tracking polls even suggested that support exceeded opposition, with 45 percent viewing the law favorably and only 40 percent viewing it unfavorably.."

Facts


It's always been close to 50/50, but in the eyes of Republicans, that's a "massive opposition".
 
2012-10-07 09:56:07 AM

skinink: Romney could be declared the winner of the next two debates, but if you are familiar with the few policies and facts he's revealed outside of debates, why would someone switch their votes? I admit Romney did look better than Obama in the debate, but Romney's facts were weak.


I watched as much of the debate as I could stand. If the current national tracking polls are an indication, and I have good understanding of their importance, Romney did not win the debate, Obama behaved weak. Obama lost voter confidence.

Nate Silver recently had Romney in the "Now Cast" at 2% and Obama at 98%. After the debate, Obama is in free fall. All the national polls except one still contain some predebate interviews meaning that they may underestimate Obama's damage.

Voters switched. The reason was Obama did not look like the man they would choose to stand up to other countries, and frankly, he did not look like the man they would choose to stand up to the worst nut jobs of the Republican party.
 
2012-10-07 09:57:43 AM

Mrtraveler01: Girl From The North Country: jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"

NeoCon say what? Sorry that Fox News feeds you inaccurate information but I will take these facts from the fine scholars at MIT instead... "By September 2012, the Kaiser tracking polls even suggested that support exceeded opposition, with 45 percent viewing the law favorably and only 40 percent viewing it unfavorably.."

Facts

It's always been close to 50/50, but in the eyes of Republicans, that's a "massive opposition".


Yes and the reason 40% still oppose is because Fox tells them so.
 
2012-10-07 09:59:57 AM

Mrtraveler01: It's always been close to 50/50, but in the eyes of Republicans, that's a "massive opposition".


The stupid part of that characterization by the Republicans is that 50% opposed number includes 20% of folks who don't like the law because it does not go far enough.
 
2012-10-07 10:01:54 AM

Girl From The North Country: Mrtraveler01: Girl From The North Country: jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"

NeoCon say what? Sorry that Fox News feeds you inaccurate information but I will take these facts from the fine scholars at MIT instead... "By September 2012, the Kaiser tracking polls even suggested that support exceeded opposition, with 45 percent viewing the law favorably and only 40 percent viewing it unfavorably.."

Facts

It's always been close to 50/50, but in the eyes of Republicans, that's a "massive opposition".

Yes and the reason 40% still oppose is because Fox tells them so.


More or less. Plus:

Delay: The stupid part of that characterization by the Republicans is that 50% opposed number includes 20% of folks who don't like the law because it does not go far enough.

 
2012-10-07 10:06:06 AM

LordJiro: What, pray tell, does the American media remember about the debates? "Obama did somewhat worse than expected" versus "Romney wants to kill Big Bird.".One of those is going to be more damaging to a campaign than the other, and will linger. The other will be forgotten by the next debate.


I find it odd that so many people don't seem to think that Obama doing badly in the debate and Romney saying he'd kill Big Bird are both possible. I'm hesitant to really declare Romney the victor, but that doesn't mean that Obama did well. I think Romney did what he had to do at that moment: put a stop to the bleeding in his sinking campaign, so he threw out quite a bit of redmeat to his base at the risk of ignoring everyone else. I'm pretty sure it worked.

Sorry, but the Long Game strategy seems to be largely bullshiat to me. To me, it's an absolutely baseless explanation. The same excuse is applied to Obama's reluctance to take on the shriller components of congress, yet whatever strategy is behind this Long Game, I think Obama has little to show for it and mostly comes off as Obama not understanding/anticipating that absolutely batshiat-insanity of the GOP, of which Romney's deluge of bullshiat is very much a part of.


I don't think the debate will turn the outcome of the election (though a repeat in the next 2 possibly could), but the pure amount of spin put on this by fellow Obama supporters is much more disheartening than Obama's performance.
 
2012-10-07 10:14:51 AM
While I agree that random liberals on the interwebs are putting some ridiculous spins on Obama's performance, the Media types on the left (Maddow et al) have been pretty fair about calling it what it was.
 
2012-10-07 10:29:58 AM

FeedTheCollapse: I don't think the debate will turn the outcome of the election (though a repeat in the next 2 possibly could), but the pure amount of spin put on this by fellow Obama supporters is much more disheartening than Obama's performance.


It has been pointed out by quite a few commentators that the Republican party is a cobbled together bunch of single issue voting blocks. There are wealthy folks who want the taxes raised on the middle class, and the destruction of Social Security, to pay for a massive tax cut for themselves. Typical "trickle down" greedsters. There are Right-wing Christian political groups that support socially conservative policies. Some of these are down-right deranged. There are the small government Tea Party folks. And a a diverse group of disaffected old white males.

The only group Obama needed to stand up to in this particular debate were the trickle-down folks. This is the group most closely aligned to actual thinking humans. And, Obama didn't do it. He couldn't bring himself to say, "Social Security is financially sound and it is not going to be eroded under my watch to pay for more tax cuts to the wealthy." Instead, he nodded in agreement with Romney that the program is broke.
 
2012-10-07 11:08:38 AM
*checks 538* Obama's chance of winning is at 80%. EVERYBODY PANIC!
 
2012-10-07 11:32:24 AM
IlGreven: 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.

Seriously, dude? One debate has you crying gloom and doom?

...You and people like you (including Maher) are doing more to drive people to Romney (or to stay home) than Obama's performance in the debate did.



I've got him farkied as "concern troll" for any future surprises.

Seriously, any "liberal" who pulls that kind of crying game about one debate?

Needs a slap.
 
2012-10-07 11:33:19 AM
Ooh "nested strong/b tags."

Just the thing for breakfast.
 
2012-10-07 11:37:38 AM

Delay: skinink: Romney could be declared the winner of the next two debates, but if you are familiar with the few policies and facts he's revealed outside of debates, why would someone switch their votes? I admit Romney did look better than Obama in the debate, but Romney's facts were weak.

I watched as much of the debate as I could stand. If the current national tracking polls are an indication, and I have good understanding of their importance, Romney did not win the debate, Obama behaved weak. Obama lost voter confidence.

Nate Silver recently had Romney in the "Now Cast" at 2% and Obama at 98%. After the debate, Obama is in free fall. All the national polls except one still contain some predebate interviews meaning that they may underestimate Obama's damage.

Voters switched. The reason was Obama did not look like the man they would choose to stand up to other countries, and frankly, he did not look like the man they would choose to stand up to the worst nut jobs of the Republican party.


Yeah Romney doubled his chances in the nowcast since Wednesday from less than four percent to eight percent.

That's like scoring a touchdown down 49-0 and making it 49-7 with three minutes left in the 4th quarter.
 
2012-10-07 11:54:26 AM
Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%

Link

images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-10-07 12:11:37 PM

Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.

 
2012-10-07 12:17:21 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.


Oh no, he threw a single debate! Everybody start the hand-wringing!
 
2012-10-07 12:20:31 PM

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

I am absolutely retarded and losing this "debate."

Please mock me, mercilessly.

 
2012-10-07 12:26:13 PM

eraser8: If you believe the president's performance wasn't all that bad, that's your right.


You're not even paying attention to what you're arguing. Nobody is saying the president did a stellar job, they're simply stating that one single debate is not enough to blow his advantage. But by all means, continue stamping your little feet and getting pissed off at everybody else for not seeing things your way.

When everybody else holds a different opinion than you, that just means that they're all the stupid ones. Occam's razor, amirite?
 
2012-10-07 12:38:56 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: eraser8: If you believe the president's performance wasn't all that bad, that's your right.

You're not even paying attention to what you're arguing. Nobody is saying the president did a stellar job, they're simply stating that one single debate is not enough to blow his advantage. But by all means, continue stamping your little feet and getting pissed off at everybody else for not seeing things your way.

When everybody else holds a different opinion than you, that just means that they're all the stupid ones. Occam's razor, amirite?


What I don't understand is why an Obama supporter is spending so much time and effort undermining other Obama supporters.
 
2012-10-07 12:42:50 PM

skykid: That's like scoring a touchdown down 49-0 and making it 49-7 with three minutes left in the 4th quarter.


OK. Let's go with the football analogy. Five Thirty Eight used the same football game analogy, but his score is different than yours. And, Nate Silver backed the percent likelihood analogy with the outcomes of hundreds of NFL football games. He said his analysis showed, prior to the debate, Romney was essentially a touchdown down in the fourth quarter. Not some 49-0 deficit as you post.

Silver also indicated that if something turned in Romney's favor, such as Obama failing to show up to the debate, Romney could prevail. Nobody's hand wringing here, but it's time for Obama to perform. And if he performs as horribly in the next two, as it appears some of the OfA folks posting here believe is acceptable, Obama is going to lose.

Now OfA folks, what do you think he should do to step it up? Continue to agree with Republicans or stand up for the underlying principles of the Democratic party?
 
2012-10-07 01:16:15 PM

ferretman: Mitt Romney attracting support from 49% of voters nationwide, while President Obama earns the vote from 47%

Link


Was the HAHA guy for you using Rasmussen as a serious indicator?
 
2012-10-07 01:45:06 PM
Delay: OK. Let's go with the football analogy. Five Thirty Eight used the same football game analogy, but his score is different than yours. And, Nate Silver backed the percent likelihood analogy with the outcomes of hundreds of NFL football games. He said his analysis showed, prior to the debate, Romney was essentially a touchdown down in the fourth quarter. Not some 49-0 deficit as you post.

Dude the guys winning percentage was under 5% that speaks volumes as to how bad the Romney Campaign is where one performance where he didn't crap his pants is suddenly this giant "Gamechanger". And I would expect once the bounce from this poll fades away he's going to end up back where he started thanks to Big Bird and Mr. Welch's crying over the unemployment rate.

Silver also indicated that if something turned in Romney's favor, such as Obama failing to show up to the debate, Romney could prevail. Nobody's hand wringing here, but it's time for Obama to perform. And if he performs as horribly in the next two, as it appears some of the OfA folks posting here believe is acceptable, Obama is going to lose.

Dude John Kerry beat GWB in all three debates in '04 and that election was much closer than this one is now. Second, Obama has a pretty easy path to 270, he has roughly over 240 electoral votes and when looking at the map Romney's paths to victory seem hard to reach. Early voting is already happening in some swing states and that favors Obama very handily, coupled with him having a better GOTV campaign and Romney being a walking gaffe machine.

Even if Romney were somehow able to win the next two debates its too little, too late since he's sunk his campaign a long time ago between 47% and Eastwood Yells At Chair.
 
2012-10-07 02:05:50 PM

skykid: Even if Romney were somehow able to win the next two debates its too little, too late since he's sunk his campaign a long time ago between 47% and Eastwood Yells At Chair.


Everyone expected President Obama would perform according to his past. These debate statements are previously screened by focus groups and stand ins at length. They are entirely scripted. Here is Obama's:

You know, four years ago I said that I'm not a perfect man and I wouldn't be a perfect president. And that's probably a promise that Governor Romney thinks I've kept.

OfA folks would gain some credibility with me if whoever and whatever focus group came up with that shiat s/he would be publicly shamed and the nation would be promised that that person would NEVER have anything to do with a second Obama administration.
 
2012-10-07 02:08:16 PM

Gyrfalcon: Fabric_Man: You ever debated Mitt Romney... ON WEED???

It would be the only way I could be in the same room with Romney and not kill him, honestly.


I want to be facebook friends with, just in case
 
2012-10-07 02:14:39 PM

skykid: Even if Romney were somehow able to win the next two debates its too little, too late since he's sunk his campaign a long time ago between 47% and Eastwood Yells At Chair.


Does this look like a man who is confident that Romney's campaign is sunk?

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-10-07 02:16:42 PM

Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.

 
2012-10-07 02:39:57 PM

Delay: skykid: Even if Romney were somehow able to win the next two debates its too little, too late since he's sunk his campaign a long time ago between 47% and Eastwood Yells At Chair.

Does this look like a man who is confident that Romney's campaign is sunk?

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 640x360]


OK FARK Independent keep farking that chicken and believing that it's a "horserace".
 
2012-10-07 02:44:21 PM
I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the media can, in lockstep, declare him the winner despite the sheer number of lies he told. I mean, they don't even mention it.

Lying about the other candidate is a mainstay, lying about your own positions is absolutely incredible.
 
2012-10-07 02:53:18 PM

novalord2: I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the media can, in lockstep, declare him the winner despite the sheer number of lies he told. I mean, they don't even mention it.

Lying about the other candidate is a mainstay, lying about your own positions is absolutely incredible.


Like I said the media has to pretend Romney has a chance in order to make this last month interesting. Can't sell ads without a "horserace" narrative.
 
2012-10-07 04:24:22 PM

Triumph: Bil Maher has a lot of nerve giving a million bucks to a politician and then proceeding to call anybody else stupid.


How else will he validate his bitter, misogynist, holier-than-EVERYbody lifestyle?
 
2012-10-07 08:07:02 PM

eraser8: he's overseen a moribund economy because he refused to implement the kind of stimulus that would have been effective.


With a democratic senate, house and white house with a commerce-clause friendly court, what stimulus wasn't passed?

If it worked - it would be working. We've bailed out banks, auto companies and created works projects. The Stimulus was only supposed to prevent bread lines, not be a long term economic engine. Obama himself admitted that they wasted money on shovel ready jobs. Jobs come from private capital and investment. Not from government creating money out of thin air. If you think Obama's a center-right politician on fiscal issues, you're a moron. Socially, yes...He's still anti-weed and for all but 6 months of his political career, against gay marriage.

There's nothing center-right about a guy who believes that no individual can succeed unless there's collective salvation.
 
2012-10-07 08:26:20 PM

o5iiawah: eraser8: he's overseen a moribund economy because he refused to implement the kind of stimulus that would have been effective.

With a democratic senate, house and white house with a commerce-clause friendly court, what stimulus wasn't passed?

If it worked - it would be working.


1. The bailout was Bush, not Obama.
2. Proof that the stimulus worked is the fact that we are not all eating beans out of a tin can and walking around with hobo sacks.

By every quantitative and qualitative measure at the end of Bush's term/beginning of Obama's we were headed toward great depression 2. The fact that we staggered through with just a sluggish recovery is a testament to the fact that the bailout/stimulus did work. Note: this came with a lot of undesirable downsides such as the moral hazard of bailing out the jackholes who got us into this mess in the first place. But to get angry that the guy who inflated the life raft didn't pick you up in a yacht instead is pretty silly.
 
2012-10-07 08:45:44 PM
I don't see why this debate outcome was surprising. We saw the real Romney and the real Obama.
 
2012-10-07 08:54:31 PM
1/10

Not bad but too late
 
2012-10-08 01:35:51 AM
Obama Is a Master Debater.
 
2012-10-08 02:16:39 AM

jjorsett: Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.

Then I look forward to the outcry saying, "Why did you waste your political capital pushing thru a massively unpopular health care bill instead of working on the economy?"



Since health care is one of the costliest sectors of spending, how is that not "working on the economy?"

You are the prototypical tea bagger
 
2012-10-08 02:20:02 AM

Delay: skinink: Romney could be declared the winner of the next two debates, but if you are familiar with the few policies and facts he's revealed outside of debates, why would someone switch their votes? I admit Romney did look better than Obama in the debate, but Romney's facts were weak.

I watched as much of the debate as I could stand. If the current national tracking polls are an indication, and I have good understanding of their importance, Romney did not win the debate, Obama behaved weak. Obama lost voter confidence.

Nate Silver recently had Romney in the "Now Cast" at 2% and Obama at 98%. After the debate, Obama is in free fall. All the national polls except one still contain some predebate interviews meaning that they may underestimate Obama's damage.

Voters switched. The reason was Obama did not look like the man they would choose to stand up to other countries, and frankly, he did not look like the man they would choose to stand up to the worst nut jobs of the Republican party.


free fall?

You people are high

Obama still has a 76% chance of winning the electoral college, down from a little over 80

OH NO IT'S A FREE FALL
 
2012-10-08 02:22:50 AM

o5iiawah: There's nothing center-right about a guy who believes that no individual can succeed unless there's collective salvation.



Economic Darwinists like you have pulled the party so far to the right, everyone else looks like a filthy Communist
 
2012-10-08 02:53:07 AM

Girl From The North Country: This is one of many ways Dems are different then Repubs. They will actually call out the crap their candidates do rather than try to rewrite the facts.


This is one of the many times that people falsely assume Bill Maher is a Democrat.

He's a libertarian. Kinda fits with his being an adolescent know-it-all dick.
 
2012-10-08 05:56:38 AM

intelligent comment below:

Economic Darwinists like you have pulled the party so far to the right, everyone else looks like a filthy Communist


Please don't sully Darwin's decent name with scum he would have despised..
 
2012-10-08 10:03:34 AM

IlGreven: I'm gonna give this ti Bill or any other guy who's already voting for Obama who's still gnashing their teeth over the debate, and wailing for all to see:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


This is a funny reference given that Jon Stewart also wailed and gnashed his teeth over it.
 
2012-10-08 05:13:27 PM

intelligent comment below: o5iiawah: There's nothing center-right about a guy who believes that no individual can succeed unless there's collective salvation.


Economic Darwinists like you have pulled the party so far to the right, everyone else looks like a filthy Communist


Those are Obama's own words. I havent "pulled the party" anywhere.
 
Displayed 234 of 234 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report