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 67
    More: Amusing, Bill Maher, obama, The Big Lebowski, teleprompters  
•       •       •

2233 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Oct 2012 at 7:05 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-06 07:12:55 PM  
8 votes:
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 04:20:59 PM  
6 votes:
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 08:04:00 PM  
4 votes:

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 07:22:12 PM  
4 votes:

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 07:15:34 PM  
4 votes:
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 10:06:22 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:23:58 PM  
3 votes:

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 07:55:26 PM  
3 votes:

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 07:55:21 PM  
3 votes:
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.
2012-10-07 12:43:46 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-10-06 08:42:12 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:18:29 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:07:53 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:43:18 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:35:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:23:20 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:21:21 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:20:31 PM  
2 votes:

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 07:12:16 PM  
2 votes:
Obama is a master troll, however. I wonder what strategy he is playing at with this.
2012-10-06 07:11:23 PM  
2 votes:
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 05:42:14 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:56:59 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:21:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:53:29 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:09:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:49:29 AM  
1 votes:
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 04:09:31 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:46:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 02:41:34 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:19:22 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:55:57 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-10-06 09:14:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:09:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:04:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:03:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:59:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:58:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:56:32 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:53:28 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:52:26 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:47:49 PM  
1 votes:
Wow, you libtards are really turning on each other. The fear is palpable.....
2012-10-06 08:47:36 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:46:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:43:53 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:38:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:35:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:33:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:30:04 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:29:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:29:24 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:27:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:25:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:24:22 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:23:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:18:17 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:15:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:15:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:11:41 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:09:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:02:09 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:51:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:45:00 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:39:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:37:59 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:36:31 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:30:51 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:16:07 PM  
1 votes:

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
 
Displayed 67 of 67 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report