President Obama Re-Elected - Page 1061

On October 26 2012 15:36 BluePanther wrote:



Furthermore, that article accuses Wisconsin as vote-rigging. We only use automated counters that leave a paper trail (and have been counted in the past). They are verified as being legit.

Now I do some election law, and our system is by NO means good (our government agency is incompetent as can be). However, I have no reason to think there is any sort of voting system rigging going on.

On October 27 2012 00:10 radiatoren wrote:

Those numbers are very crooked. I am pretty sure that it is no longer a 90% sure victory for Obama. Essentially it takes a singe north-eastern state to turn the table, if we can count New Hampshire as Romneys (it is shown as Obamas, but it is a single poll with 9 point lead for Obama with a small Romney lead in all the rest!). If Ohio, Michigan or Wisconsin tips over, Romney will be US president. Much of the US elections are about getting people off the couch and down voting for both parties. Stealing voters is not as important as getting the bases to vote. Last election Obama got a lot of excited minority groups to vote, while many are less fired up about voting this time around! How bad that trend is will determine a good part of the election.

On October 27 2012 00:32 ZeaL. wrote:


http://www.270towin.com/2012_election_predictions.php?mapid=TFq

Is what I think is most likely. You can toss in NH + IA and its still an Obama win, and this is being pretty generous for Romney. Of course, if OH goes Romney all bets are off but I still think its about 70-30 for Obama.

Last night, it was revealed that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had ordered more security at the U.S. mission in Benghazi before it was attacked where four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens were murdered by Al-Qaeda but President Obama denied the request.

On October 26 2012 20:12 ahappystar wrote:
Such a shame the Third party debates get so little attention. Wheres the democracy in there only being two parties at the 'official' televised debates. The Democrats and the Republicans have been pedaling the same politics for years, it doesn't matter who comes to power its the same crap over and over. It's like people don't have a choice in america

EDIT: I just realized that maybe my post goes against that third part in the note at the top of the thread, it's just sad to see Romney vs. Obama the only thing being shown in the media because the people that own the media are the same ones financing the 'main' parties, and the same people are financing both parties so it doesn't matter who wins.

On October 27 2012 00:39 Swazi Spring wrote:
Things aren't looking good for the regime:


Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no

On October 27 2012 00:39 Swazi Spring wrote:
Things aren't looking good for the regime:


Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no

Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton, titled, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005.[2] Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes [that] don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life." [3]. The book was attacked not only by liberals, but by conservatives as well. John Podhoretz wrote in the New York Post, “Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn’t have to suffer through another word.” In National Review James Geraghty wrote, “Folks, there are plenty of arguments against Hillary Clinton, her policies, her views, her proposals, and her philosophies. This stuff ain’t it. Nobody on the right, left, or center ought to stoop to this level.”[1]

On October 27 2012 00:39 Swazi Spring wrote:
Things aren't looking good for the regime:


Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no

On October 26 2012 23:57 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

No, not really.

Edit: There's no special deduction for shipping jobs overseas (which he often implies) and making business expenses when they just so happen to involve outsourcing nondeductible would be an extremely messy addition to the tax code. I also don't see how Obama plans to close any so-called tax breaks without either more jobs going overseas or US businesses getting shut out of foreign markets.

So unless he has something useful to say he should stop with this line of BS.

The news broke on TheBlazeTV’s “Wilkow!” hosted by Andrew Wilkow, by best-selling author, Ed Klein who said the legal counsel to Clinton had informed him of this information.

On October 27 2012 00:39 Swazi Spring wrote:
Things aren't looking good for the regime:


Source: http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi-obama-said-no

On October 27 2012 01:19 kwizach wrote:

Yes, yes really, as explained in the politifact article. Obama's statement, as he made it, was true.

On October 27 2012 01:47 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Obama has made many statements on the topic - not just one statement in one way.

The politifact article wasn't good. You can't just label a normal business expense a tax break for shipping jobs overseas.

Nor can you complain about other countries having lower tax rates, and companies taking advantage of that, without explaining how you are going to tax foreign companies.

And even assuming Obama can pull the tax change off what good will it do? Companies based in other countries will just move to the lower tax zone and put the US company out of business anyways.

On October 27 2012 02:24 Swazi Spring wrote:
You guys listening to Rush Limbaugh this morning?

On October 27 2012 02:25 sam!zdat wrote:


you know it

On October 27 2012 01:58 kwizach wrote:

The statement Obama made which was evaluated in the politifact article was that the federal tax code had "loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas". This was perfectly true - the article mentioned such loopholes giving incentives. What other statement on the topic by Obama is, according to you, false?

It was one of the most heated and perplexing moments in the presidential debate last night. Barack Obama pledged to "close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas" and instead "provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States." As things stand, he added, "you can actually take a deduction for moving a plant overseas. I think most Americans would say that doesn't make sense. And all that raises revenue."