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.

(The New York Times)   In the midst of increasing GOP criticism, Nate Silver posts his final forecast update: Oh, I'm afraid President Obama will be quite re-elected, when your talking points arrive   (fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com) divider line 302
    More: Followup, President Obama, GOP, talking points  
•       •       •

10814 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Nov 2012 at 8:41 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-06 10:10:45 AM  

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.


Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.
 
2012-11-06 10:10:46 AM  

Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.


I think the only thing he will prove if there is backlash against a Romney win is that Americans really are too tremendously stupid to handle basic math. Statistics isn't even a particularly complicated branch of math.

Sorry, you can continue your flecks of spittle now.
 
2012-11-06 10:12:06 AM  

ChuDogg: I'm not voting as neither one is going to return to solvency


Only one office up for election in your district? Odd.
 
2012-11-06 10:12:06 AM  

Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.


You do realize that a Romney victory doesn't disprove Silver in any way, shape, or form, right? Or do you not understand probabilities?
 
2012-11-06 10:13:34 AM  

Thunderpipes: Just wish even once, you liberals and your Messiah would explain how exploding the national debt and discouraging success leads us to long term, or even short term economic prosperity. Even the CBO has a damned gloomy forecast for the country.

You literally don't care about the future. At the end of his second term, Obama will have added more debt to the country than all Presidents in history that came before him, combined. And once again, you guys are all for that. It is not even a defensible position, no wonder you avoid talking about it.


I still cannot comprehend how you continue to survive with your head wedged so firmly up your ass? Have you evolved to the point that you can survive on methane emissions now?

Oh, I'm sorry, in your case it would be 'intelligently designed'.

That said, if you could spew more than right wing noise and platitudes, people might actually listen. But since you don't, they'll continue to dog pile on your lack of intelligence. Have fun. :)
 
2012-11-06 10:14:07 AM  

Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.


Oh wow.. the bullshiat detector - it's over NINE THOUSAND!!!
 
2012-11-06 10:14:15 AM  

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.


Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

By fair share, what do you mean exactly, pay all the taxes instead of most?
 
2012-11-06 10:16:56 AM  

Leeds: Who the f**k is Nate Silver and why has fark begun to mention him 20 times a day?

Did he even exist before this week?


I was gonna ask the same thing, then I read the thread and how you got flamed by the herpa derp crowd that wouldn't answer your question.

Thanks for posting the answer you had to go find for yourself.

Now I get the impresstion that is an eerily accurate statistician that came from the world of baseball (which is crazy about statistics). Welcome to my favorites list with the tag line "Guy willing to take the hit for asking the obvious questions I was about to."
 
2012-11-06 10:17:52 AM  

Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.


So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget. 

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.
 
2012-11-06 10:20:03 AM  

Thunderpipes: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.

Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

By fair share, what do you mean exactly, pay all the taxes instead of most?


I dunno. I guess we would have to compromise somewhere between their share of income and their share of wealth.
 
2012-11-06 10:22:25 AM  

BeesNuts: The Why Not Guy: sammyk: Kind of strange that there is a 7 point swing in one day and that's all that's said. If Obama takes Florida this one will be over early.

Nate's 55% or 52.5% refer to the candidates chances of winning the state based on computer simulations, not the poll numbers. A small gain in the polls can lead to a larger gain in chance of winning when other variables are factored in. The swings are higher so close to the election because the time has run out for a last minute game changer. Therefore even a small lead means a high percentage of victory.

Obama didn't gain 7% in Florida's polls. His odds of winning Florida went up by 7%.

If Obama wins Florida and Ohio we can all go to bed before the Daily Show comes on.


If Obama wins FL Romney can have OH,NV,CO,WI and VA and he still loses.

Link
 
2012-11-06 10:25:27 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget. 

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.


To solve this requires cuts all over the place, those are just two small examples. The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth. Remember, we have Obamacare looming in 2014 and it so far keeps costing more and making business even more wary.

Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

Obama has no plan whatsoever, but to tax the rich, make success an evil word. CBO projections are just dismal and get worse each year. Compounding interest cannot be wished away by starry eyes kids. What do we do in a decade when interest payment on the debt alone are in the 1 trillion dollar range? Tax the rich?
 
2012-11-06 10:26:52 AM  

Thunderpipes: SacriliciousBeerSwiller: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that.

Won't need to argue it if the wealthy far right would just pay their fair share of taxes.

Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

By fair share, what do you mean exactly, pay all the taxes instead of most?


You think "growth" is something that rich people just decide to generate, out of the goodness of their hearts, as a means of rewarding us for not taxing them?

Of course not. All wealth is created through labor, and who is it again that does all of the "making" in this country? It aint the wealthy, I'll tell you that much.

Next time someone says to you "I never got a job from a poor person", politely remind them that the largest private employers in the world are the poor people who shop at WalMart. Those jobs are not created out of the charity of the Walton family.
 
2012-11-06 10:28:04 AM  
At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.
 
2012-11-06 10:28:49 AM  

Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.


And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?
 
2012-11-06 10:30:12 AM  
STOP REPLYING TO THE SELF-PARODY TROLL.
 
2012-11-06 10:30:54 AM  

Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that...


So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?
 
2012-11-06 10:31:20 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?


Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.
 
2012-11-06 10:31:34 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?


Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials
 
2012-11-06 10:31:55 AM  

crazyeddie: Thunderpipes: So what will the liberal argument be in 2016 when the debt is 20-22 trillion? Can't wait to see that...

So no response to hugram's post, then? No rejoinder for the wall of facts that contradicts you at every turn? Ok then. If you can't play by the rules of civil and moral discourse, where each side actually presents evidence and reasons for believing things, then you can be dismissed for what we all know you are.

Either address the facts, or keep snivelling. The choice is yours. Do you have the backbone to do the right thing?


Nobody made any logical argument whatsoever, when they do, I respond.
 
2012-11-06 10:35:01 AM  

Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials


The only question I would have about that is, were they actual party officials there as observers, or were they the 'True the Vote' group?

One has a pretty valid reason to be there, the other is a group of Teatards looking to try and disenfranchise minority voters through intimidation.
 
2012-11-06 10:35:48 AM  

Thunderpipes: Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?


This is still as retarded as sentiment as it has ever been in this country. People work for farking beans because they have to eat. When Labor Demand exceeds Labor Participation you can talk about discouraging excellence or whatever. But this entire concept that people won't work hard if you tax them at 35% instead of 32% on every dollar made over 300k is farking *dumb*. And you know it. I know you FEEL like higher taxes will make people not want to work hard or whatever. But deep down you know that in the context of this election, the point is moot, and ridiculous.
 
2012-11-06 10:38:05 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

The only question I would have about that is, were they actual party officials there as observers, or were they the 'True the Vote' group?

One has a pretty valid reason to be there, the other is a group of Teatards looking to try and disenfranchise minority voters through intimidation.


No, according to the articles, they are the minority inspectors and minority clerks. They are supposed to be there.
 
905
2012-11-06 10:39:08 AM  

depmode98: This is the data:
[farm9.staticflickr.com image 658x412]

You can drag a Republican over and stick his nose in it, but it does not matter. In the face of numbers, the part of his brain that understands high level thinking will shut down.


Yes, but how much do those jobs pay on average? Are a good chunk of those $35k + jobs or minimum wage McJobs?

You can't assume that those jobs are all "living middle class" jobs based on that graph. I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown if you have one.

As for the "health care being deficit neutral" comment I saw above, the cost is still passed on to business and the taxpayer, let's not kid ourselves. The money has to come from somewhere.
 
2012-11-06 10:39:31 AM  
I think if Obama wins Virginia, which is in the first group of states to close, it will be all over early.
 
2012-11-06 10:39:33 AM  

BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

This is still as retarded as sentiment as it has ever been in this country. People work for farking beans because they have to eat. When Labor Demand exceeds Labor Participation you can talk about discouraging excellence or whatever. But this entire concept that people won't work hard if you tax them at 35% instead of 32% on every dollar made over 300k is farking *dumb*. And you know it. I know you FEEL like higher taxes will make people not want to work hard or whatever. But deep down you know that in the context of this election, the point is moot, and ridiculous.



Wouldn't it be nice if our economy was roaring and we didn't fall into finger pointing over budget issues?

I hope that the next president will focus on the economy, the current one certainly didn't.

// A rising tide floats all boats
 
2012-11-06 10:40:07 AM  

INeedAName: Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.

Brilliant post. Well done sir. You said all of the idiotic things an actual Republican thinks, and with a straight face too, as if you actually believed them yourself. I'm impressed.


Thanks! If I had to actually type that out I almost definitely couldn't have done it, but I can't make any claims to it. It was just the newest comment at 538 when I read the article. I was impressed too.
 
2012-11-06 10:40:08 AM  

Thunderpipes: The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth.


Romney wants to do the opposite and you think he's more serious about the deficit?
 
2012-11-06 10:40:26 AM  

Thunderpipes: I understand this is a far left message board,


There are some intelligent, insightful conservative posters here. They just aren't you.
 
2012-11-06 10:41:41 AM  

Robots are Strong: INeedAName: Robots are Strong: I see Nate hedged ever so slightly at the end of his long commitment to liberal ascendancy. If he's wrong, he says he will have to "reexamine" his assumptions.

What he will need to reexamine is his overarching trust that conservatives cannot foster big turnouts through commitment and enthusiasm.

If he is wrong, Nate should not even be around any longer to reexamine anything. He will have proved that he, as Obama, is grossly incompetent at anything except telling a liberal audience and editors what they want to hear. He ought to be as unemployed as the millions of Americans who are victims of the Obama non-recovery.

The editors of the Times should have to reexamine who will replace him, and how they will rebuild their own reputation and loss of standing to FoxNews as the leading enlightened observers of the American political scene.

There is more than the oval office on the line here.

Brilliant post. Well done sir. You said all of the idiotic things an actual Republican thinks, and with a straight face too, as if you actually believed them yourself. I'm impressed.

Thanks! If I had to actually type that out I almost definitely couldn't have done it, but I can't make any claims to it. It was just the newest comment at 538 when I read the article. I was impressed too.


(whew) Good, you're not insane.
 
2012-11-06 10:41:42 AM  

Leeds: No, according to the articles, they are the minority inspectors and minority clerks. They are supposed to be there.


Then it was pretty damn dumb of the people who threw them out.
 
2012-11-06 10:43:12 AM  
The sad fact is:

The News media persist in re-framing poll data as info-tainment geared to maximizing ad revenue, and by treating hard data as being less accurate their expert's "gut feeling".

This has created a market vacuum for reality, which has in turn created the impartial "expert analyst", a serious mathematician/statistician who can make a name for himself (herself) by cutting out the B.S.

538/Silver are only filling in a market created for them, a market that the Vegas odds makers have long filled anyway.
 
2012-11-06 10:43:27 AM  
Politics make people really stupid. Watching people in this thread is like watching your friend who is in a bad relationship who won't realize it until about 3 months after it ends. Step away and think about what you're doing you dunderheads.
 
2012-11-06 10:43:43 AM  

Thunderpipes: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Google it, several news sites have it up. Black Panthers are back too.


The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?
 
2012-11-06 10:43:56 AM  

Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials


It's not even uncommon for Philly. It was a problem in the last election, too.
 
2012-11-06 10:44:53 AM  

Thunderpipes: Bush had nothing to do with the housing crisis, it was Democrats.


Well, aside from the fact that that statement has nothing to do with the graph I posted, there's still a great deal of speculation regarding who was responsible for the housing crash. Most reliable sources say both parties. But even if we assume it was completely the Dems, what in the world does that have to do with Obama? He wasn't even in office during that time. Let's keep focus on the argument, or you'll have none.
 
2012-11-06 10:45:21 AM  

theorellior: STOP REPLYING TO THE SELF-PARODY TROLL.


QFT. Today of all days don't waste your time. Lets focus on reality.
 
2012-11-06 10:45:59 AM  
Here is what happened.

Just last week there was a clear real world demonstration that Obama can lead in a crisis.
It happened in real time and he did well much better than the past administration did in a similar situation.
Since it happened in front of everyone there was no time to respin it no time to re-write history to make him look bad.

He and his people stepped up and did their job and did it well working to save people. At the same time Romeny and his teem continued their stump speeches and normal activity, after they got grief from that they continued with a small veneer of charity work for the swing states affected. When the word got out that he was only sending support to swing states that caused a stink and they changed again, and sent support to all the states effected.

The net result is that Obama looked professional Presidential and willing to put the politics aside to get the job of helping Americans in need done.
Romney looked less compassionate and less willing to sacrifice politics for the people.

If I had been sitting on the fence that would have pushed me to Obama, Hell if I was a moderate Republican it would have moved me to Obama. Just like the polls are showing.
 
2012-11-06 10:46:04 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: Leeds: No, according to the articles, they are the minority inspectors and minority clerks. They are supposed to be there.

Then it was pretty damn dumb of the people who threw them out.


What was dumb about it? They got 2.5 hours of oversight-free balloting. In Philly, those precinct ballots will never be contested or overturned, despite the irregularities. There was nothing to lose by doing it.
 
2012-11-06 10:47:10 AM  

Leeds: BeesNuts: Thunderpipes: Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

This is still as retarded as sentiment as it has ever been in this country. People work for farking beans because they have to eat. When Labor Demand exceeds Labor Participation you can talk about discouraging excellence or whatever. But this entire concept that people won't work hard if you tax them at 35% instead of 32% on every dollar made over 300k is farking *dumb*. And you know it. I know you FEEL like higher taxes will make people not want to work hard or whatever. But deep down you know that in the context of this election, the point is moot, and ridiculous.


Wouldn't it be nice if our economy was roaring and we didn't fall into finger pointing over budget issues?

I hope that the next president will focus on the economy, the current one certainly didn't.

// A rising tide floats all boats


Got any more platitudes to throw out there? C'mon, get em all out. :p

For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.
 
2012-11-06 10:47:47 AM  

This text is now purple: Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials

It's not even uncommon for Philly. It was a problem in the last election, too.


Slavery was a problem in the South some time ago, guess they should have let is slide?
 
2012-11-06 10:48:20 AM  

Leeds: AurizenDarkstar: Thunderpipes: At least libs are staying true to form.

At least 70 Republican poll workers have been thrown out, sometimes physically from Pennsylvania polling stations by Democrats. Judge had to step in. This, this is what you guys are all about and it just sucks.

And you can show a link to this happening, outside of your fevered imagination?

Oddly enough- it seems like a legit issue:

Judge issuing order to reinstate booted Philadelphia election officials


From your Link
"Despite the high number of officials who were allegedly booted, the dispute itself is not uncommon for Philadelphia. Fred Voigt, legal counsel for the city commissioners, said these kinds of face-offs happen "with regularity" in the City of Brotherly Love.

"It happens all the time," Voigt said. He said court-appointed Republican officials typically show up on Election Day and end up squaring off against stand-in officials at the polling sites filling in the open seats.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/06/judge-issuing-order-to-rein state-booted-philadelphia-election-officials/#ixzz2BSSZmvna
"
 
2012-11-06 10:49:23 AM  

GrizzlyPouch: Headso: MemeSlave: Headso: I hope the guy is right, supreme court justice appointees alone are a reason to fear a bishop president.

As opposed to a Catholic one? Or a Muslim? Or a Jew?

any high level religious figure, he's not just a mormon he's a mormon bishop, so yeah a catholic bishop running for president would be just as bad as would their muslim and jewish counterparts.

Just curious, why does it make you feel so superior to be anti religion?

Even people who are considered geniuses have had faith.

Not flaming you, just curious about why you feel this way


It's not just that he has faith or even that he is religious or even that he thinks god lives on a particular planet. It is that he is a BISHOP in that religious institution and it is a bad idea to have high officials from a church in charge of political policy for everyone in the country who doesn't believe like they do. A simple catholic, mormon, muslim or jew is different than a Bishop, Iman, or Rabbi, they don't have an institutional duty to promote the churches line.
 
2012-11-06 10:49:27 AM  

Thunderpipes: midigod: Thunderpipes: math does not lie.

You're right, it doesn't:
[www.blogforarizona.com image 500x294]

Think about it, you tools are orgasmic to vote for a President who is responsible for the worst financial outlook for the country in your life.

I'm sorry, but the prize for worst economic outlook goes to GW Bush, not BH Obama.  Looking at that graph in Jan of '09 looked much, MUCH worse than it does now. Not even a contest.

Bush had nothing to do with the housing crisis, it was Democrats. Doesn't matter who was elected, the country would have turned around, it is a matter of how much. 7% unemployment is the new norm. 67% debt to GDP when Bush left, we will pass 100% this year. When my son goes to college, that will be 180% of GDP. How can our kids possibly recover from this?


If you really think that it was the Democrats alone who created the housing crisis situation, you are hopelessly partisan. I hope that kid can think for himself because his father is a simpleton fool. Enjoy your 4 more years.
 
2012-11-06 10:49:37 AM  

mitEj: Here is what happened.

Just last week there was a clear real world demonstration that Obama can lead in a crisis.
It happened in real time and he did well much better than the past administration did in a similar situation.
Since it happened in front of everyone there was no time to respin it no time to re-write history to make him look bad.

He and his people stepped up and did their job and did it well working to save people. At the same time Romeny and his teem continued their stump speeches and normal activity, after they got grief from that they continued with a small veneer of charity work for the swing states affected. When the word got out that he was only sending support to swing states that caused a stink and they changed again, and sent support to all the states effected.

The net result is that Obama looked professional Presidential and willing to put the politics aside to get the job of helping Americans in need done.
Romney looked less compassionate and less willing to sacrifice politics for the people.

If I had been sitting on the fence that would have pushed me to Obama, Hell if I was a moderate Republican it would have moved me to Obama. Just like the polls are showing.


Meanwhile, on this morning's episode of fox and friends, all I saw was the Doocy crew talking about the thousands of people who are without power, cold, hungry and alone with no food and water, dying in the streets and NOBODY IS HELPING THEM OMG!

They never said "this is Obama's Katrina." But it was farking obvious what they were going for. A redux of the coverage received by Katrina in the hours leading up to voting time. Can't let him have that little win, now can we?
 
2012-11-06 10:49:49 AM  

Thunderpipes: Mrtraveler01: Thunderpipes: Pretty stupid, since even taxing the crap out of the wealthy will barely make a dent, and will stall growth further.

So does cutting funding to NPR/PBS and Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't stop the GOP from harping on about it acting like it would make a big difference in the budget. 

So you can either admit that both things make very little impact on the budget or admit that both things will help pay off the deficit/debt one step at a time.

Anything else makes you look like a dishonest partisan shill.

To solve this requires cuts all over the place, those are just two small examples. The big thing is SS, medicare reform, reduce military spending, and encourage growth. Remember, we have Obamacare looming in 2014 and it so far keeps costing more and making business even more wary.

Bottom line is, punishing people for hard work and success, while rewarding lazy people and government workers/unions does not make the average person want to bust their ass. Why work hard, when you don't have to?

Obama has no plan whatsoever, but to tax the rich, make success an evil word. CBO projections are just dismal and get worse each year. Compounding interest cannot be wished away by starry eyes kids. What do we do in a decade when interest payment on the debt alone are in the 1 trillion dollar range? Tax the rich?


Out of the four things you listed, Mitt Romney promised not to touch two, and actually promised to do the opposite of one (military spending). And it's certainly not settled who will "encourage growth" although I have a feeling your mind is made up on that one.

A modest tax increase on the rich in terms of letting the bush cuts expire for that income bracket will absolutely lower the deficit. In contrast you have Mitt Romney's plan to... well I guess we've covered that.

I certainly wouldn't mind, and I bet several others here wouldn't mind, if we let the Bush tax cuts expire for everyone. Combined with entitlement reform, defense cuts, etc., well now we're talking. So why do you oppose the candidate who has already began that discussion?
 
2012-11-06 10:49:52 AM  
Thunderpipes's kid isn't going to college and will probably fark a relative.
 
2012-11-06 10:50:13 AM  

BeesNuts: For not focusing on the economy, the current president sure did a bang up job of keeping the boat afloat on an anemic tide. Further, keeping with that analogy, 2% growth feels like a tide, whereas the 15-20% growth we see in bubble economies feels more like a tsunami. One of those tends to be moderately destructive. I know which I'd prefer.


You're content with 2% growth????????????

Is it really possible that you don't have any out of work friends and you evidently don't know anyone with kids who intend on entering the job market in the next decade.

Because we can't get back to full employment if we have people entering the job market at a faster pace than we create jobs. That's what this paltry 2% growth gives us.

Please reconsider your position. At present you are basically saying "screw America."
 
2012-11-06 10:50:46 AM  

BeesNuts: The question that nobody seemed to ask was "why were they thrown out?"

If they were electioneering and not poll watching, that's a no no.

As for the BPP, shall I call you a hypocrite for wanting to throw out poll watchers you disagree with? Or should I assume you are just a regular old racist who thinks "being black" is an intimidation tactic?


1. They were Republicans in a city that's 90% Democrat. That's the only reason.
2. Would it also be racist for black voters to challenge a poll-watcher who was a Klansman?
 
2012-11-06 10:51:29 AM  

midigod: Well, aside from the fact that that statement has nothing to do with the graph I posted, there's still a great deal of speculation regarding who was responsible for the housing crash. Most reliable sources say both parties.


most reliable sources say it was banks loaning out money to anyone who applied, in the heyday you could get a loan for a home with no income documentation. Banks were not compelled by the government to do that.
 
Displayed 50 of 302 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report