JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I am saying coming here and saying "Obama had a super majority for two years" when Fraken took 8 months to be sat, and while Kennedy and Bird were dying and had to be wheeled into the Senate for the one or two votes they made to break the filibuster is rewriting history. This goes with out mention the need of the vote of a man who spoke out to nominate the guys who ran against Obama. Mean while to ignore the fact REPUBLICANS controlled the WHOLE government for 6 years and those 6 years they got almost everything they wanted. Those 6 years also lead up to finical melt down. So you fault Obama who didn't actually have a super majority at any time for not fixing a problem that was 30 years in the making in 3 or 4 votes he could pass whatever he wanted before Republicans got in to BLOCK EVERYTHING. Meanwhile you ignore Bush who actually did get to do everything he wanted and it lead to the problem in the first place. It is crazy. So the year long battle it took to ram through health care with his majority, you just forgot about that, or are you lying again? Which is it? Are you stupid? Or just a liar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) So the year long battle it took to ram through health care with his majority, you just forgot about that, or are you lying again? Which is it? Are you stupid? Or just a liar? I said it right there. He got 3 or 4 votes after the smoke cleared, they had to wheel two Senators in for it because you know they were dying. That is all he got. Unlike Bush who passed most of his agenda and it did nothing. I get though you can't read so I'll give you pass. Want to try again? Edited September 9, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I said it right there. He got 3 or 4 votes after the smoke cleared, they had to wheel two Senators in for it because you know they were dying. That is all he got. Unlike Bush who passed most of his agenda and it did nothing. I get though you can't read so I'll give you pass. Want to try again? Yep. He could have done any number of things with that majority. He made his choice: Ignore jobs to instead ram through a unilateral piece of liberal entitlement legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Yep. He could have done any number of things with that majority. He made his choice: Ignore jobs to instead ram through a unilateral piece of liberal entitlement legislation. He did make a choice. Stimulus which saved millions of jobs, and Health care which saved and will continue to save American lives. There is only so much you can do with 3 or 4 votes. It isn't like Bush who got everything he wanted and still ended his presidency with out one private sector job gain and the dow lower then he started. Although here we are 4 years later private sectors jobs up under Obama, dow up. He did a lot with only 3 or 4 votes for sure. To bad he didn't get more huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) He did make a choice. Stimulus which saved millions of jobs, and Health care which saved and will continue to save American lives. There is only so much you can do with 3 or 4 votes. It isn't like Bush who got everything he wanted and still ended his presidency with out one private sector job gain and the dow lower then he started. Although here we are 4 years later private sectors jobs up under Obama, dow up. He did a lot with only 3 or 4 votes for sure. To bad he didn't get more huh? Yep. A whole lot of nothing. Carter, anyone? LOL!!! Face it, the guy's incompetent. Edited September 9, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Yep. A whole lot of nothing. Carter, anyone? LOL!!! Face it, the guy's incompetent. Hate to tell you this but you guys got to run on Carter for 30 years but now there is a whole generation that doesn't even remember Carter. Guess who the Dems get for the next 30 year though? Bush. Romney just like Bush. He has the same policies that will end with 800,000 jobs a month lost just like Bush. Heck even Carter polls higher then Bush. BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Hate to tell you this but you guys got to run on Carter for 30 years but now there is a whole generation that doesn't even remember Carter. Guess who the Dems get for the next 30 year though? Bush. Romney just like Bush. He has the same policies that will end with 800,000 jobs a month lost just like Bush. Heck even Carter polls higher then Bush. BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH BUSH. Yep. When you can't run on your record you try something else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Yep. When you can't run on your record you try something else You were just the one talking about running against Carter. It is like you have no idea how you sound sometimes. That you are as crazy as you come off which I can not believe. Are you that crazy? Would you say that you find you don't fit into society at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 You were just the one talking about running against Carter. It is like you have no idea how you sound sometimes. That you are as crazy as you come off which I can not believe. Are you that crazy? Would you say that you find you don't fit into society at all? Trolling isn't necessarily crazy, but it is mean-spirited and generally amounts to some type of dishonesty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 You were just the one talking about running against Carter. It is like you have no idea how you sound sometimes. That you are as crazy as you come off which I can not believe. Are you that crazy? Would you say that you find you don't fit into society at all? Making a Carter reference when referring to, you know, the guy who's actually President, you know, like right now? It's funny you say that about society. The funny thing is, I have read a lot about this, but never actually witnessed it until right now. How liberals live in this little bubble of perception that everybody thinks the way they do, or they must be crazy. Like when George W Bush won in 2004, liberal reporters in Washington were all astounded: "how is it possible that he won? I don't know a single person who voted for him" Exactly. You need to get out more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Making a Carter reference when referring to, you know, the guy who's actually President, you know, like right now? It's funny you say that about society. The funny thing is, I have read a lot about this, but never actually witnessed it until right now. How liberals live in this little bubble of perception that everybody thinks the way they do, or they must be crazy. Like when George W Bush won in 2004, liberal reporters in Washington were all astounded: "how is it possible that he won? I don't know a single person who voted for him" Exactly. You need to get out more. So making a Carter reference is just fine but making a Bush reference to the guy who is running on his ideas isn't. Got it maybe you aren't crazy maybe you are just the worlds biggest hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 So making a Carter reference is just fine but making a Bush reference to the guy who is running on his ideas isn't. Got it maybe you aren't crazy maybe you are just the worlds biggest hypocrite. Well let's just stick to the guys running right now, then, shall we? Romney is a stellar individual with a stellar life history of successfully managing various turnarounds, created companies with over 100,000 employees today, fixing he Olympics donating over $25 million to charities, starting education foundations, helping the poor with, you know, his OWN money, raising a wonderful family with a proud, non-marxist past. Obama is a two year junior senator who was elected on the backs of a war-weary economically frightened electorate who came into office and who's record is astoundingly similar to, you know....Carter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Well let's just stick to the guys running right now, then, shall we? Romney is a stellar individual with a stellar life history of successfully managing various turnarounds, created companies with over 100,000 employees today, fixing he Olympics donating over $25 million to charities, starting education foundations, helping the poor with, you know, his OWN money, raising a wonderful family with a proud, non-marxist past. Obama is a two year junior senator who was elected on the backs of a war-weary economically frightened electorate who came into office and who's record is astoundingly similar to, you know....Carter. Yah I notice you glossed over the whole Romney being the Governor of Mass at time when they were last in the nation in Job creation, where he passed a health care bill identical to Obama's. I see you mention his Olympics works with out mentioning those Olympics Romney ran cost more then the 7 Olympics which held in the years before his all added together. I see you give him credit for creating jobs but you don't mention the jobs he destroyed. I find it super funny in a list of like 8 accomplishments one of them you come up with is he is a non-marxist. That is really one of his top 8 accomplishments? In basketball that is what we call having a really weak bench when you got 8 deep and the last guy can't even dribble the ball. That isn't an achievement sorry. As for Obama. He isn't a junior Senator he is the president and has been for the last 4 years. Maybe you can get over it already. As for his record being similar to Carter, I would say his record reflects Carter almost as much as ROMNEY'S REFLECTS BUSH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) As for Obama. He isn't a junior Senator he is the president and has been for the last 4 years. Yep - sure has been. Watching the speakers at the Democrat National Convention you'd think Romney had been President for the past 4 years. And Obama was the new guy Edited September 9, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Yep - sure has been. Watching the speakers at the Democrat National Convention you'd think Romney had been President for the past 4 years. And Obama was the new guy You must have watched a different convention. Must be why Obama's gotten a bounce and Romney got a negative bounce. The convention I and the rest of America watched was very much about the question of who is better for the nation and it seems like they changed a lot of opinions. Must be why you are so bitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) You must have watched a different convention. Must be why Obama's gotten a bounce and Romney got a negative bounce. The convention I and the rest of America watched was very much about the question of who is better for the nation and it seems like they changed a lot of opinions. Must be why you are so bitter. I'm not bitter at all. Reagan trailed Carter by 4 points at this point in 1980. The topic of this discussion is "could Obama lose". I'm suggestion he will lose. This election will be decided on turnout. The first person to realize this was Mitt Romney, which is why he picked Paul Ryan. Just as in the red wave of 2010, Tea Party will be out in huge numbers to make sure this guy is a one termer. Mark my words. What with the Wasilla dirt searching and burying the Reverend Wright story, the media pretty much had to drag Barry Soetero across the finish line, winning a paltry 56-44 over a geriatric bi-partisan slug. Romney is no dummy, and he's no McCain. He's got a fantastic ground game in place already. Besides, if you look at the underlying math in these polls, almost all of them are using a Dem +5-+8 sample (meaning 8% more Dems vote than GOPs), which is hugely misleading given that in 2010 it was Dem +2 I believe. Edited September 9, 2012 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I'm not bitter at all. Reagan trailed Carter by 4 points at this point in 1980. The topic of this discussion is "could Obama lose". I'm suggestion he will lose. This election will be decided on turnout. The first person to realize this was Mitt Romney, which is why he picked Paul Ryan. Just as in the red wave of 2010, Tea Party will be out in huge numbers to make sure this guy is a one termer. Mark my words. What with the Wasilla dirt searching and burying the Reverend Wright story, the media pretty much had to drag Barry Soetero across the finish line, winning a paltry 56-44 over a geriatric bi-partisan slug. Romney is no dummy, and he's no McCain. He's got a fantastic ground game in place already. But he didn't. See when you aggregate all the polls like we do now Carter never lead Reagan. Five Thirty Eight did a write up on it maybe you should try reading it instead of repeating a known lie. You are just wrong. You are living in a fantasy world. Sure Obama could lose but it is becoming harder and harder to see how. Romney's campaign and Obama's campaign are both saying Obama has a 9 point lead in Ohio. Want to tell me how Romney wins with out Ohio? I have read no reports on anything you claim. Which leads me to believe you live a fantasy world. Romney has the debates left, that is where he has to win this thing. I don't even think burying Obama in negative adds is going to work at this point but they can try that as well. Right now Five Thirty Eight of NYT who called almost every election in the last 4 years is reporting Obama's chances are 80 he will win. If all registered voters did vote his chances go up to 90%. I'll stick with the guy who has a reputation instead of a crazy person on the Internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 But he didn't. See when you aggregate all the polls like we do now Carter never lead Reagan. Five Thirty Eight did a write up on it maybe you should try reading it instead of repeating a known lie. You are just wrong. You are living in a fantasy world. Sure Obama could lose but it is becoming harder and harder to see how. Romney's campaign and Obama's campaign are both saying Obama has a 9 point lead in Ohio. Want to tell me how Romney wins with out Ohio? I have read no reports on anything you claim. Which leads me to believe you live a fantasy world. Romney has the debates left, that is where he has to win this thing. I don't even think burying Obama in negative adds is going to work at this point but they can try that as well. Right now Five Thirty Eight of NYT who called almost every election in the last 4 years is reporting Obama's chances are 80 he will win. If all registered voters did vote his chances go up to 90%. I'll stick with the guy who has a reputation instead of a crazy person on the Internet. Hey bub, you're betting with conventional wisdom - good for you! Way to go out on a limb. I started this thread because I believe there are many factors that are not being given much weight. It's common political warfare to try to "enhance" the public's perception of your guy's lead to dishearten the opposition. As for negative ads, I just about fell off my chair hearing that complaint from an Obama supporter. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Hey bub, you're betting with conventional wisdom - good for you! Way to go out on a limb. I started this thread because I believe there are many factors that are not being given much weight. It's common political warfare to try to "enhance" the public's perception of your guy's lead to dishearten the opposition. As for negative ads, I just about fell off my chair hearing that complaint from an Obama supporter. :lol: Not wisdom I am going with someone who has an actual tract record we can measure. You are going with your fantasy. I am going with someone who has been perfecting a mathematical model based on on many many many different things. Someone who was so good in the last election the NYT gave him a job doing it. It has nothing to with "enhancement" it has to do with Math and what is Bill Clinton says "arithmetic" something that escapes most conservatives. Pop over five thirty eight sometime and read up on the actual state of the race and not just how you see out of your basement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Not wisdom I am going with someone who has an actual tract record we can measure. You are going with your fantasy. I am going with someone who has been perfecting a mathematical model based on on many many many different things. Someone who was so good in the last election the NYT gave him a job doing it. It has nothing to with "enhancement" it has to do with Math and what is Bill Clinton says "arithmetic" something that escapes most conservatives. Pop over five thirty eight sometime and read up on the actual state of the race and not just how you see out of your basement. Fantasy eh? These guys have been right since 1980. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 (edited) Fantasy eh? These guys have been right since 1980. If you read five thirty eight who actually did an analysis on that model you would know for some unknown reason that this prediction model is brand new and has never been used before. So it has actually NEVER BEEN RIGHT. Maybe you should read up on it. You don't get have a brand new model then claim it always predicts the election because it doesn't. Although good for you. You tried to find something that supports your fantasy. The debates or some other game changer needs to happen for Romney. If you think if he stays with the current game plan he is going win well then your are crazier then I thought. Edited September 9, 2012 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted September 9, 2012 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 If you read five thirty eight who actually did an analysis on that model you would know for some unknown reason that this prediction model is brand new and has never been used before. So it has actually NEVER BEEN RIGHT. Maybe you should read up on it. You don't get have a brand new model then claim it always predicts the election because it doesn't. Although good for you. You tried to find something that supports your fantasy. The debates or some other game changer needs to happen for Romney. If you think if he stays with the current game plan he is going win well then your are crazier then I thought. I really hope that come November a good chunk of Obama supporters think that way too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 I really hope that come November a good chunk of Obama supporters think that way too. Keep hoping I think that is all you got right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted September 9, 2012 Report Share Posted September 9, 2012 Well let's just stick to the guys running right now, then, shall we? Romney is a stellar individual with a stellar life history of successfully managing various turnarounds, created companies with over 100,000 employees today, fixing he Olympics donating over $25 million to charities, starting education foundations, helping the poor with, you know, his OWN money, raising a wonderful family with a proud, non-marxist past. Obama is a two year junior senator who was elected on the backs of a war-weary economically frightened electorate who came into office and who's record is astoundingly similar to, you know....Carter. My stomach hurts and I think I broke another chair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BC_chick Posted September 11, 2012 Report Share Posted September 11, 2012 Fantasy eh? These guys have been right since 1980. So has Intrade and they have an Obama win at 60% right now. Nobody knows for sure, of course, but the consensus right now is that Romney is the underdog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.