On October 19 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote: This is too rich. By the same log that y'all are using, basically every poll from a media outlet out there should be ignored because they are biased. CBS? NYTtimes? CNN? All liberal hacks! Ergo, their polls must be biased!
Go find something structurally wrong with the poll and then come back to me.
I must say, it is hilarious that you guys are still in denial over what is happening and what is coming. I really am going to enjoy it when the panic sets in.
Wow. Despite posting constant bullshit throughout this entire thread(and others), you've still managed to stay civil for the most part. Now you've gone down to the level of trolling. Congrats.
No sane person would argue that Obama has a 100% chance of winning this, but no sane person would argue that Romney has it in the bag either.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
One thing to note is that your personal political affiliation changes depending on the location and political sphere you are in. For years growing up in Texas, I was liberal, as I valued social justice and freedom. Money and fiscal conservatism hadn't even crossed my mind. When I moved to the midwest, I noticed that my politcal views stayed the same, but my affiliation changed because the area I was in already had social freedoms granted, but were struggling fiscally (or in some cases, flourishing due to fiscal conservatism).
By the time I ended up in California, I was a stanch conservative, though I cannot point you toward a any changes in my ideology since I was in Texas... What you value and how you want to approach issues is definitely affected by your local population and the prominent issues facing them.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
You know, the other day I had a Republican friend post an article about some guy peeing on a Mitt Romney sign. I told her that it was stupid to post it. Such acts (on both the left and right) are the bottom dregs of the party and have no place in an actual political discussion. Resorting to such slander (even if it did happen) distracts from the actual issues at hand.
Swiftboating, for example, was planned and executed by high-ranking operatives within the Republican apparatus. On the other hand, pissing on a sign was the act of some ignorant (and more likely than not intoxicated) twit.
ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
On October 19 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote: This is too rich. By the same log that y'all are using, basically every poll from a media outlet out there should be ignored because they are biased. CBS? NYTtimes? CNN? All liberal hacks! Ergo, their polls must be biased!
Go find something structurally wrong with the poll and then come back to me.
I must say, it is hilarious that you guys are still in denial over what is happening and what is coming. I really am going to enjoy it when the panic sets in.
Wow. Despite posting constant bullshit throughout this entire thread(and others), you've still managed to stay civil for the most part. Now you've gone down to the level of trolling. Congrats.
No sane person would argue that Obama has a 100% chance of winning this, but no sane person would argue that Romney has it in the bag either.
I don't think anyone here would agree that this post is the most outrageous thing xDaunt has posted, though I tend to think what he posts makes more sense than alot of the people here, I don't see how this particular post is trolling. He is basically saying the same thing everyone else was saying about Obama when the roles were reversed.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
On October 19 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote: This is too rich. By the same log that y'all are using, basically every poll from a media outlet out there should be ignored because they are biased. CBS? NYTtimes? CNN? All liberal hacks! Ergo, their polls must be biased!
Go find something structurally wrong with the poll and then come back to me.
I must say, it is hilarious that you guys are still in denial over what is happening and what is coming. I really am going to enjoy it when the panic sets in.
Wow. Despite posting constant bullshit throughout this entire thread(and others), you've still managed to stay civil for the most part. Now you've gone down to the level of trolling. Congrats.
No sane person would argue that Obama has a 100% chance of winning this, but no sane person would argue that Romney has it in the bag either.
I don't think anyone here would agree that this post is the most outrageous thing xDaunt has posted, though I tend to think what he posts makes more sense than alot of the people here, I don't see how this particular post is trolling. He is basically saying the same thing everyone else was saying about Obama when the roles were reversed.
My comments on stereotyping probably would be the most "outrageous" thing that I have posted in terms of causing the most outrage.
A new poll shows Republican Mitt Romney leading in Pennsylvania, a state that Republicans had all but written off just weeks ago but which is now listed as a toss up by the Real Clear Politics website.
Susquehanna Polling and Research provided The Washington Examiner with a poll it conducted for state party officials that shows Romney with a 49 percent to 45 percent lead over President Obama.
It's the first poll to show Romney leading among likely voters in the Keystone State.
"The polling is very clear that the race is certainly up for grabs and Republicans have a tendency to never believe it," Susquehanna President James Lee told The Examiner.
The Examiner's editorial page is heavily conservative; it is headed by Mark Tapscott, with American Spectator senior editor Quin Hillyer serving as its associate editor. The paper's national political coverage, which also appears in Examiner papers in Baltimore and San Francisco, was previously headed by Bill Sammon, a former Washington Times reporter who has written several books praising George W. Bush. (Sammon is now the deputy managing editor for Fox News Channel's Washington bureau.[1]) Chris Stirewalt, who has been described as "a true conservative voice"[2], is the Examiner's political editor. Mary Katherine Ham, former managing editor of the conservative Townhall.com, briefly served as the Examiner's online editor for a few months in 2008 [3] before joining the Weekly Standard.[4] Matthew Sheffield, executive editor of the Media Research Center blog NewsBusters, is in charge of the Examiner's website.[5] Byron York, formerly of National Review, joined the paper in February 2009.[6]
Oh nos! A clearly conservative paper reports polls favoring Romney!
And right before the latest debate too!
You forgot to mention the part where even the poll that was sampled is highly biased. Susquehanna Polling & Research has been the Republican pollster of choice in Pennsylvania for many years now.
Not to mention the Washington Examiner is one of the most blatantly biased sources I've seen out there.
Kerry was a fine candidate I think, though Edwards did turn out to be a scumbag. Unfortunately, the Republicans (Karl Rove to be exact) decided to stoop to a new low in attack ads with swiftboat.
No joke. I was pretty much republican until 2004. It was awhile before I self labeled as "liberal" (was always socially liberal, fiscally not so) but seeing the swiftboat attacks was just fucking sickening.
This picture more than anything made me realize how vile many in the Republican base were and I never looked back.
She's just fucking stupid, not fucking vile. Last time I checked "Obama Phone" isn't an official campaign strategy. The GOP was worshipping soldiers while ridiculing a veteran for his service to America. And this was from the fucking top and the base ate it up. Don't even try to compare the two.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Sure, but you still identify Republican. When people respond to you by criticizing Republicans, your first inclination is to get defensive or to criticize Democrats. When people respond to me by criticizing Republicans, I just shrug and say, "So? I'm not a Republican."
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Sure, but you still identify Republican. When people respond to you by criticizing Republicans, your first inclination is to get defensive or to criticize Democrats. When people respond to me by criticizing Republicans, I just shrug and say, "So? I'm not a Republican."
I only defend republicans when appropriate. I have no problem throwing republicans under the bus when they do something stupid or agreeing with democrats who criticisize republicans for something that they did that is legitimately stupid.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
Like xDaunt, I criticize "my party" all the time. I disagree with the party stance on many things but there is no viable alternative in my opinion. The main problem is that when you're faced with what is a bad choice and an even worse choice you're going to work hard to get the bad choice done.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
On October 19 2012 06:42 Focuspants wrote: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Mitch Mcconnell
You dont need any more proof about them being obstructionists. Their entire goal is for him to fail. They are holding the country hostage for political gain. Look at the spending cut/revenue increase discussions. An agreement couldnt be reached because the republicans refused to allow the rich to be taxed, even if they would get many things they want in return. What the hell kind of policy is that during a recession where the middle and lower classes are being railed? Theyre a bullshit party.
I guess I just don't see how this is different from every other presidency. When Bush was president Democrats wanted him to be a one-term president too.
You're very obviously leaving out the critical point. According to Mitch McConnell, the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT THING they want to achieve is for Obama to be a 1-term president. Sure Democrats wouldn't want Bush to be in for a second term, but they never said they were willing to put that goal ahead of the well-being of Americans.
I'm going to repeat it here so you wont leave it out next time. The single most important thing they want to achieve is to make sure Obama isn't re-elected. This means if it were a choice between helping Americans or making Obama look bad, they'd choose making Obama look bad.
It's true. That's just the shortened version, but I doubt the context would change what one can infer from his statement.
On the flip side, it felt to me like not only Congress and the Senate, but all of the media and plenty of the populace wanted to make sure George W. didn't get another four years either. I was surprised he succeeded in nabbing a second term, what with all the negativity aimed at him.
Actually, the context is important. I love how the same people bitch about the "You didn't build that" being taken out of context and then use that quote over and over again (and the other way around).
The Facts
McConnell made his remarks in an interview that appeared in the National Journal on Oct. 23, 2010 — nearly two years after Obama was elected president. The interview took place on the eve the of the midterm elections. The interview is relatively short, so we will print it in its entirety, with key portions highlighted.
NJ: You’ve been studying the history of presidents who lost part or all of Congress in their first term. Why?
McConnell: In the last 100 years, three presidents suffered big defeats in Congress in their first term and then won reelection: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and the most recent example, Bill Clinton. I read a lot of history anyway, but I am trying to apply those lessons to current situations in hopes of not making the same mistakes.
NJ: What have you learned?
McConnell: After 1994, the public had the impression we Republicans overpromised and underdelivered. We suffered from some degree of hubris and acted as if the president was irrelevant and we would roll over him. By the summer of 1995, he was already on the way to being reelected, and we were hanging on for our lives.
NJ: What does this mean now?
McConnell: We need to be honest with the public. This election is about them, not us. And we need to treat this election as the first step in retaking the government. We need to say to everyone on Election Day, “Those of you who helped make this a good day, you need to go out and help us finish the job.”
NJ: What’s the job?
McConnell: The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.
NJ: Does that mean endless, or at least frequent, confrontation with the president?
McConnell: If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he’s willing to meet us halfway on some of the biggest issues, it’s not inappropriate for us to do business with him.
NJ: What are the big issues?
McConnell: It is possible the president’s advisers will tell him he has to do something to get right with the public on his levels of spending and [on] lowering the national debt. If he were to heed that advice, he would, I imagine, find more support among our conference than he would among some in the Senate in his own party. I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change. So, we’ll see. The next move is going to be up to him.
NJ: What will you seek from the president on the tax issue?
McConnell: At the very least, I believe we should extend all of the Bush tax cuts. And I prefer to describe this as keeping current tax policy. It’s been on the books for 10 years. Now, how long that [extension] is, is something we can discuss. It was clear his position was not [favored] among all Senate Democrats. They had their own divisions. I don’t think those divisions are going to be any less in November and December.
On October 19 2012 08:58 jdseemoreglass wrote: ZeaL, you gotta remember to keep philosophical ideals/ideology separate and distinct from the two party system. If you identify with either party you are bound to throw principle aside. People in this thread tear Republicans and Democrats to pieces and neither of it bothers me because I don't identify as Republican or Democrat. Even if you reach the conclusion one party is more despicable than another, that has nothing to do with your own beliefs.
I criticize republicans all of the time. I'm conservative first and a republican second. I only vote republican because there is no viable alternative.
Same. I still haven't filled out my absentee ballot yet because I'm considering trying to vote for a third party this election 'cause I despise the Reps so much as well as the Dems. (Parents tried that; said they paid for it by getting 4 years of Clinton. )
I think most conservatives, if they are completely honest with themselves, would realize they would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney.
I think most people would take Clinton over W. Bush, Obama, or even Romney. I would say definitely Obama or W. Bush, but not sure about Romney (he has yet to prove himself as a President so...yeah)
On October 19 2012 09:22 oneofthem wrote: what did obama do that made you hate him lol
Wasted an opportunity to be an amazing President leaving him with only the following ammunition to get re-elected:
Convince people that everything bad was Bush's fault Convince people that the rich man is out to get them Convince people that the white man is out to get them Convince people that his opponent hates women Convince people that Big Bird is getting fired
EPT![[image loading]](http://bp1.blogger.com/_QTMkWfqFyfk/SHGY4lb05MI/AAAAAAAAA0s/OHXT63QtXVg/s400/purple_heart_bandaid.jpg)
)
