Wednesday, September 26, 2012

President Obama's 2.9%


Everybody in the Obama echo chamber is talking about Romney’s 47%, but the number that matters is Obama’s 2.9%. That’s the percentage above 50% that he got last time. He won’t get it this time.

Ask yourself, how many people do you know who voted for Obama last time but who are not this time? Now, how many McCain voters do you know who plan on switching to Obama?

The Press is Suppressing Romney Voter Turnout

The press is screaming that it's over for Romney because they want it to be. They are trying to drive public opinion to keep their false idol from falling this November. This sign of desperation is itself an encouraging sign for Romney. Were he losing heroically as a good Republican should, the media would be lauding him and lionizing him as they did noble loser John McCain, and Bob Dole before him.

The reality is, Romney’s moving up and Obama is going down.

2008:  Obama's High Water Mark

The other encouraging thing is that Obama's 52.9% of the vote in 2008 was his high water mark. Cult of personality hysteria drove extremely high participation percentages on the left, and the historical excitement got youth and minorities to turn out for him in record numbers. Well, the hopium smoke has dissipated, the thrill is gone. Sure, they’ll turn out again, but he’ll never whip them into anything like the frenzy of 2008.

Obama will also not get all the moderates he got last time, and finally, he won’t have the votes of what I call “The naily board contingent.” I personally know a handful of people who are non-political but fairly conservative, usually Republican voters, who voted for Obama last time. They did it because it was historical, but also because they were tired of Bush and they were disgusted that the GOP had become indistinguishable from the Democrat party.

They whacked the GOP with a naily board. Those people that I know are all voting for Romney this time, and I believe I can confidently extrapolate out from this miniscule sampling, given the polling data and anecdotal evidence we see around the nation.

Obama has Nowhere to Go but Down

So, Obama has nowhere to go but down. Less people are working than when he became president, median income is down, gas prices have almost doubled, and food and energy costs are eating us alive. His “stimulus” produced doodly-squat, unless you are a Democrat party-approved union, well-heeled green energy mogul, or Wall Street fat cat.

At least FDR’s spending gave men and women the dignity of work while it built libraries, beautiful neoclassical government buildings, bridges and dams. What do we have to show for Obama’s multi-trillion dollar spending spree?

President Obama has a crappy record of no accomplishments, and the world hates us even more now.

But perhaps the worst news of all for President Obama, 60% of Americans think his most powerful super PAC,  the News Media, is full of crap.

As a bonus, I highly recommend The Obama You Don’t Know

109 comments:

Constitutional Insurgent said...

I suppose the proof [one way or the other] will be on November 6th. To use the catchphrase - that's the only poll that counts. All else is political theater.

Silverfiddle said...

True statement. I've used it quite a bit myself. This isn't a "see, my guy's gonna win!" piece so commonly seen on the left, but rather a pushback to refute the media's pro-Obama narrative.

Right Wing Theocrat said...

I sure hope you're right Silver, you folks can't take another 4 years of that disgrace. He will ruin you completely given another chance.

Ducky's here said...

Shouldn't Eddie Haskell and Eddie Munster take responsibility for their lousy campaign instead of blaming the press?

Aries said...

Romney could still upset Obama, regardless of what the polls are saying a lot can happen in the days ahead. But unless something else unexpected happens like a big October surprise, this will be a nail-biter right down to the very last night.
But who knows what the lefty wackos will come up with when they are desperate and have their backs up against the wall.
We've all been waiting for Romney to take the gloves off, lets hope that we see that in the debates.
I'm betting that during the debates we hear that Obama " inherited this mess" at least a dozen times!

Always On Watch said...

Ask yourself, how many people do you know who voted for Obama last time but who are not this time? Now, how many McCain voters do you know who plan on switching to Obama?

Good questions.

Of the several people that I personally know who voted for BHO in 2008, only two will be voting for him this time around -- and one of those is iffy.

Nobody whom I know who voted for McCain in 2008 will be voting for BHO in 2012. Not one!

You're exactly right that Obama cannot afford any erosion of the votes he got in 2008.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

@SF - We're going to disagree on the legitimacy of blaming nearly every woe on alleged media bias...but shouldn't the Romney campaign spend some time focusing on tangible differences between his policy proposals and Obama's administration? And by that, I mean besides placating demographics that are a lock for the GOP to begin with.

If Romney wants to close the gap, he needs to appeal to voters who hold core Conservative values like civil liberties and national defense, instead of possibly pushing them towards Obama, the LP, or simply staying home.

Silverfiddle said...

CI: I am not blaming Romney's woes on the media, just pointing out some facts.

They have embarrassed themselves with their worshipful coverage of their messiah. That doesn't excuse Romney from running a bad campaign.

The press wants this campaign to be over now, like when McLame and Dole ran, and they are doing their best to make it happen.

Romney had better strap it on, or he's done. Look at Obama's approval numbers. The race is Romney's to win or lose.

Jack Whyte said...

If Romney wants to close the gap, he needs to appeal to voters who hold core Conservative values like civil liberties and national defense…

True enough statement, but Romney appears to receive a lot more criticism in the press than his opponent does. No one is highlighting Obama’s contradictory rhetoric, his broken promises, his utter failures, or his duplicity. You want verifiable detail from Romney, but not from Obama. Does this appear entirely fair to you?

Both candidates realize that speeches from the grandstand do not lend themselves to excruciating detail. Ross Perot taught that lesson several years ago when his charts and graphs did little more than put Americans to sleep and propel Clinton into the White House.

But I suppose it is good to see the double standard is alive and well in American politics. Here’s what I find amazing: that anyone with an ounce of brains wants to even serve as president.

Constitutional Insurgent said...

@Jack - "No one is highlighting Obama’s contradictory rhetoric, his broken promises, his utter failures, or his duplicity. You want verifiable detail from Romney, but not from Obama."

I'm not sure howe you figure that I don't want the same from Obama. The difference in my interest in the subject is that while I would never vote for Obama, Romney might [or might have had] a shot at my vote.

I also know of Obama's failings.....ironically, from the media. My estimation of political bias in the media is not nearly strong as others.

Bunkerville said...

The Drudge Report posted a link to a Pennsylvania poll. As I recall, the race was about even.Though it is discouraging that so far no effort by Romney in my neck of the woods.

conservativesonfire said...

Recently an internet friend and I were taking different sides on just how bad things are in this country. He suggested tha living outside of the country for twenty years I was probably not as intouch with America today as those that are living it every day. He went on to tll that in his work he covers a largegeographic area and has a lot of contantct with young adults. He said i wouldn't believe how much young people support entitlements and believe that entitlemnets are rights that can not be taken away. He is right about my being out of touch. So, I sure do hope you are right in your assessment. My instincts tell me you ar right.

skudrunner said...

The left will do whatever it takes to not talk about the Obama recession, lack of job creation, attack on the middle class and pandering to the super rich limousine crowd.
While Americans are being attacked, the leader is on the View and that seems to be fine with the leftist. We have to admit that Romney has done a poor job and given the lemmings a lot of Ammo.

The one thing both parties have in common, they both talk about Romney.

Z said...

great news that your friends/people you know are all now voting Romney.
The Electoral College plays into this heavily, so that's what worries me some.

But, I agree, the MSM will be hot and heavy calling this thing over so Romney's voters don't come out. The good thing might be that Romney's WILL and Obama's won't...after all, his fans are MSM watchers, not most of Romney's people. ..just a thought.

Steve said...

Funny, claiming the media is suppressing the vote just because they report the true fact that polls show Obama ahead; while your party's tactics that do suppress 100's of thousands of legal voters from voting, are being tossed out of courts all over the country for being illegal and discriminatory.
Do facts and truth ever enter your bigoted minds?

Aries said...

This November's election is the most critical in all American history. If the Democrats/Progressive's, liars, cheaters, and moochers prevail we are screwed. So unless Romney/Ryan begin to hammer out the truth about this administration every chance they get and keep up the attacks, we are in for another four years of hell

Steve said...

Hell was watching president Bush attack another country and kill 100's of thousands of their citizens, when that country had nothing to do with 9/11
Hell was watching Bush ruin our economy with his (MBA) fiscal fiasco
Hell was watching millions of Americans lose their homes under the policies of Republiscums
Hell is watching nearly 20 million Americans lose their jobs
Elect Romney and we will all be in Heaven, what a uneducated statement and joke

Silverfiddle said...

Hell is watching Obama double down on all of Bush's mistakes.

Thersites said...

You are forgetting about Gary Johnson's six percent.

Thersites said...

The RNC will pay a price for throwing the Tea Party and
ron Paul supporters under theRomney bus.

Ducky's here said...

I keep getting back to Governor Olympics' statement about the 47%.

Just as Obamacare has its origins in a plan from the Heritage Foundation the Earned Income Credit was originally proposed by Milton Friedman. Even the true believers who can't take their noses out of the Austrian Book of Common Prayer must realize that normals think Mittens is pushing a little too far.

You all may be surprised when your Galtian masters shove a plank up your butt but it will be too late.

Hack said...

The media no longer wants to report public perception, they want to shape it. Every poll done by a major media outlet samples Democrats at 8-20 points higher than Republicans. The more the media, left and right (Yes, even Fox News) becomes entertainment posing as honest, objective journalism through dishonest tactics like this, the more I feel it should be a crime.

skudrunner said...

Steve,

If you would read a little you will come to the understanding that it was Dodd, Frank and Waters that extended the home for the unqualified Clinton push. I don't believe they were Republican. Also you will find that the economy did not start to collapse until the Democrats got control of congress.

Obama will be reelected not because he is qualified but because he has too much going for him. Control of the media, Slimy Reid lying and remember the 47% who do not pay income taxes.

Where we need to focus our efforts is gaining majority of the house and senate so the only way Obama can ruin the country is by executive order.

Silverfiddle said...

"You all may be surprised when your Galtian masters shove a plank up your butt but it will be too late."

The progressive overlords beat them to it.

Ducky's here said...

@skudrunner - Also you will find that the economy did not start to collapse until the Democrats got control of congress.
-------
Post hoc ergo procter hoc?

Refuge for those who won't think and analyze.

Teleologicus said...

I like most of the folks here on this blog will vote for anyone but BO, but I really wish Romney would get out there and attack just a tiny bit. I haven’t seen much from Romney, who should be on the news every night with a major speech.
BO is screwing up badly every day, and the media continues to cover for him. It will take an attack dog to get in the news and set things straight. All I hear is 47%, Romney gaffs, etc. when BO has the whole mid east on fire, the economy in shambles, jobs lost, world hates us, US is weak and hands tied on the battlefield, etc.

We know that the BO & his people are very adept at lying, twisting and contorting the truth, spinning amazing tales.

As many of us here saw coming in 2008 should BO win the election, we are in serious, serious trouble. Frankly, BO has accomplished more than i thought he could in such a short time. Needless to say the corrupt Dem/Lefty Congress facilitated and accelerated the demolition of our Republic.

Rita said...

So "hundreds of thousand of legal voters" are being tossed out by the courts as illegal? Ummm by definition that would make them illegal voters. I guess we're supposed to count illegal votes only when they vote D.

Liberal minds have no brains.

skudrunner said...

Duck,

I am just trying to understand your convoluted logic. Bush is president with a majority democrat congress and it is Bush'e fault things went south. Obama is president with a republican house and it is the republicans fault. Does his highness have any culpability in the sorry state of the economy or does he just get a lifetime pass. He had two years of total majority control and instead of working on job creation he was only concerned about the 10 million without health insurance and to hell with jobs.

"The democrat party had control of both the the House and Senate, starting January 4th, 2007, when the recession began. The democrats kept control until the voters chose the republican party to reclaim the House starting on January 3rd, 2011, after the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency."

wiki.answers.com

Steve said...

All have been trying to understand Skuds convoluted logic. SF is the only one who lets him post comments anymore.

Ducky's here said...

@skudrunner -- I am just trying to understand your convoluted logic. Bush is president with a majority democrat congress and it is Bush'e fault things went south.

--------
Actually, it started going south under Saint Ronnie Raygun.
Deregulation didn't work too well and then he instituted a huge middle class tax increase when the Social Security tax was raised and Social Security made taxable.

Clintoon upped the ante with his Wall Street crew and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (with help from Republican douche bag Dick Armey).

Then Bush pushed the tax cuts for the wealthy and Greenspan (R - Ayn's cabana boy) passed out plenty of free chips for Goldman Sachs, Ameriquest, Countrywide and other non regulated lenders.

It was a joint effort and what really pisses me off about the right wing response is their belief that they can find fault in this fiasco without dashing the entire rotten political system.

As long as you try to make this Dem vs. Repub you are just being taken in by the grift. Saint Ronnie Raygun --> Clintoon --> Chucklenuts --> Obummer.
One common thread, you lose and you won't wise up.

VOTE FOR ROMNEY HE MADE THE BOBSLEDS RUN ON TIME.

Teresa said...

I have heard that there is much discontent from the poor communities because Obama hasn't done more for them or hardly anything for them. My niece isn't voting for Obama this time. Many of the polls hailing Obama as leading are skewed by the number of Democrats in the poll by around 8-10%.

skudrunner said...

The truth sucks and blaming anything on his wonderfullness sucks even more. Reagan took over Carters disaster and brought us prosperity, bummer took over Bush's disaster and brought poverty. I think I will take Reagan's approach any day.

Agree with you Duck, our political system is broken. What was suppose to be a citizen legislature is now a career. Taxes are used as punishment and our elected scumbags throw money at anything that will buy them votes.
Bummer had some good ideas when he was a candidate but of course he kept none of them. Lobbyists were no good but then he hired them, obamacare was not going to be a tax, it now is a tax on the middle class, he was going to unite the country, he has further divided us.

Throw them all out and start new is the answer but that won't happen. The conservatives want to keep some of their earned income the left want to give it to the non-earners

Liberalmann said...

LOLOLOLOLLLL!!!!!


Name-calling begins as reported rift opens between ‘Stench’ Romney and ‘Gilligan’ Ryan

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/26/name-calling-begins-as-reported-rift-opens-between-stench-romney-and-gilligan-ryan/

FreeThinke said...

When you're tan, brown or black,
Because your people were held back,
You will always be cut lots of slack
No matter what and how much you lack,
Because Whitey's been put on the rack
To have his bones stretched till they crack.
The White Man must take all the flack,
Have hIs body tossed into a sack,
And put where he'll never come back,
"Cause his conscience got all out of whack.


~ FreeThinke

Steve said...

"held back" ?

Only a true racist would define the horrors slavery as being held back.

Liberalmann said...

"President Obama has a crappy record of no accomplishments, and the world hates us even more now."

Spoken by true winguts who get their information from Fox News.

Obama prevented a depression, saved Banks, saved the auto industry, created more jobs in his first two years than Bush did in eight years. Had the GOP not filibustered in record numbers all the jobs bills the Dems proposed, unemployment would be much lower. If the GOP hadn't laid off millions of jobs in the public sector (Police, Teachers, Fire Fighters) our unemployment rate would be lower. The GOP won the House on 2010 on the jobs issue yet they haven't proposed a single bill.

Bush increased our debt by over $5 trillion with the items he kept off the budget and unpaid for; the two wars (one was illegal), Medicaid Part D, and tax breaks for the wealthy. Obama put them in the budget. That's how the GOP can now lie and say it's his fault!

Obama Killed Osama, desecrated Al Queda, led a coalition that killed Khadaffi, reformed student loans, increased TAP/Pell grants for students, slowed immigration, put more money into border security than Bush and deported more illegals than Bush, signed the Lilly Ledbetter law granting equal pay for women, credit card reform, ended 'Don't Ask Don't Tell,' Provided many tax incentives and breaks for small businesses and DID NOT raise taxes on the middle class.

But the biggest; passed Health Care Reform after over 100 of trying. Insurance companies can't drop you or deny you coverage and the CBO says it will save us billions over time. Do we really want to go back to a time where you have to hold a Spaghetti Dinner at the local VFV Lodge to pay for a family member's treatments so you don't have to sell your house?

Credit Card Reform, Tap/Pell increases, Student Loan Program, Lily Ledbetter fair pay for women, Lowered taxes for 95% of Americans, More tax cuts for business than Bush....

Tried to move GITMO but the GOP stalled the process by failing to allocate the funds.


His first six months:

A week before he was sworn in, Obama jammed part two of the bank bailout down the throat of his own party — a $350 billion accomplishment.

Two days after he was sworn in, Obama banned the use of "harsh interrogation" and ordered the closing of Guantánamo.

A day later, Obama reversed George W. Bush's funding cutoff to overseas family planning organizations — saving millions of lives with the stroke of a pen.

Three days after that, Obama gave a green light to the California car-emissions standards that Bush had been blocking for six years — an important step on the road to cleaner air and a cooler planet.

Two weeks after that, Obama signed the stimulus bill — a $787 billion accomplishment.
Ten days after that, Obama formally announced America's withdrawal from Iraq.

A week later — we're in early March now — Obama erased Bush's decision to restrict federal funding for stem-cell research.


In June, Obama reset the tone of our relations with the entire Arab world with a single speech — an accomplishment that the Bush administration failed to achieve despite a series of desperate PR moves (anyone remember Charlotte Beers?) and a "public diplomacy" budget of $1 billion a year.

Also in June, Obama unveiled the "Cash for Clunkers" program, a "socialist" giveaway that reanimated the corpse of our car industry — leading, for example, to the billion-dollar profit that Ford announced on Monday.
I haven't even mentioned Sonia Sotomayor, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the order to release the torture memos, Obama's push for charter schools, his $288 billion tax cut, or the end of Bush's war on medical marijuana. Or the minor fact that he seems to have — with Bush's help, it must be said — stopped the financial collapse, revived the credit markets, and nudged the economy toward 3.5 percent growth in the last quarter.

Finntann said...

STEVE: YOU'RE AN IDIOT

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/09/26/name-calling-begins-as-reported-rift-opens-between-stench-romney-and-gilligan-ryan/

(UPDATE: According to a piece at BuzzFeed and a recently added disclaimer at Politico, Roger Simon, the author of “Paul Ryan vs. The Stench” intended the column as a work of satire. To wit:

[Author’s note: Jonathan Swift did not really want Irish people to sell their children for food in 1791; George Orwell did not really want the clocks to strike thirteen in 1984; Paul Ryan, I am sure, calls Mitt Romney something more dignified than “Stench” and Microsoft did not invent PowerPoint as a means to euthanize cattle. At least I am pretty sure Microsoft didn’t.]

Roger Simon is POLITICO’s chief political columnist.


Raw Story regrets the error of taking Mr. Simon at his word.)

This is the second time you've been bit.

Finntann said...

"Obama prevented a depression, saved Banks, saved the auto industry, created more jobs..."

And I might add, when he farts rose-scented unicorns fly out of his ass

Finntann said...

Liberalmann said "The GOP won the House on 2010 on the jobs issue yet they haven't proposed a single bill."

Answer is:

H.R 872, H.R 910, H.J.R 37, H.R 1230, H.R 1229, H.R 1231, H.R 2021, H.R 2018, H.R 1315, H.R 1938, H.R 2587, H.R 2401, H.R 2681, H.R 2250, H.R 2273, H.R 2433, H.R 674

What do they have in common? All passed by the house and stalled by the senate.

You do know the activities of the house and senate are public record...right?

NEXT!

Finntann said...

Sorry about the string of posts... but I keep reading. To cherrypick the highlights:

"Obama Killed Osama"

Funny, I thought it was the SEALs

"the two wars (one was illegal)"

Really? Which one?

"desecrated Al Queda"

Here, try this: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/desecrate

"led a coalition that killed Khadaffi"

So all that administration talk about being in only a supporting role was what? Bullshit?

"slowed immigration"

True, decimating the economy has been an effective immigration control measure... wish we had thought of that.

"and DID NOT raise taxes on the middle class."

Except for the Obamacare load and that thing that's a fine not a tax, right?

"ordered the closing of Guantánamo"

And how's that working out for you?

"reset the tone of our relations with the entire Arab world with a single speech "

ROFLMFAO

Oh god stop... my sides hurt

Silverfiddle said...

Liberalmann: He "saved" the auto industry by handing them $60 billion, over 30 of which will never be paid back. Throw enough money at it and anything can be "saved."

Obama did beat Bush in one respect: He spend money twice as fast. Obama blew through more money in four years than Bush did in eight. Quite an accomplishment.

Desecrated Al Qaeda? Improved relations? Do you watch the news (or own a dictionary?)

Gitmo still isn't closed, and extrajudicial killings are routine.

Banks are still too big to fail and cash for clunkers paid dealerships to destroy perfectly good used cars (destruction of wealth is something liberals are good at), driving up the price of used cars.

Under Obama...

$ Gas prices have doubled
$ Incomes have declined
$ Food has gone up over 20% (8% this past year alone)
$ More people are out of work now than when Obama took office

And you think we're better off? This explains the Obama vote, folks!

Silverfiddle said...

Finn: It's like shooting sucker fish in a barrel, ain't it?

Silverfiddle said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Lots of stupid liberals bit the "Stench" satire, hook, line and sinker.

Watching too much MSLSD rots your brain and turns you into a gullible Obamabot.

C'mon Stevie Girl and Liberalmoonbat, bring us some more, we love shooting down your bs!

skudrunner said...

Good reply SF
One thing to add
Obama spent 60 billion to buy a union votes and the auto companies still filed bankruptcy.
Romney recommended the auto companies but wouldn't have spent 60 billion to do it.
It's only taxpayers money so no loss right liberalwack because it's not your money.

beamish said...

Ask yourself, how many people do you know who voted for Obama last time but who are not this time?

Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Now, how many McCain voters do you know who plan on switching to Obama?

Most I know are either staying home, or voting for Gary Johnson.

Don't get me wrong, there are some who will vote for any Republican running, but I can honestly say nobody I know to be a serious, committed conservative voter is going to vote for Romney. The Republican Party has taken their votes for granted one too many damned times.

beamish said...

The RNC will pay a price for throwing the Tea Party and
ron Paul supporters under theRomney bus.


Ron Paul supporters? What, all 2,063,043 of them?

And the Tea Party is under Romney's bus? I thought they were too busy passing Obama's continuing spending spree resolutions in the House?

Thersites said...

Then why isn't Obama's Senate doing same? Spite?

Liberalmann said...

Nice try with your lapdog responses, guys.

Finntann: All those Bills were bullshit. They all contained more tax breaks for the top1%. The rest of your criticism is just picayune bullshit.
..............


Silverfiddle said: "Under Obama...

$ Gas prices have doubled
$ Incomes have declined
$ Food has gone up over 20% (8% this past year alone)
$ More people are out of work now than when Obama took office"
------------
Even Romney has said the President has nothing to do with controlling gas process. You know this. Obama created more jobs than Bush did in eight. Food=Inflation. The GOP are responsible for income declines with their anti Union attacks as well as the spiral began under Bush. Yup, I'm blaming the cause of all this.
...............

‪skudrunner‬ said…"Obama spent 60 billion to buy a union votes and the auto companies still filed bankruptcy. Romney recommended the auto companies but wouldn't have spent 60 billion to do it."
-----------------
Yeah let's blame Obama for saving the auto industry when Rmoney said he wouldn't have saved them.



Liberalmann said...

The Republican House has done little to improve the economic recovery in the United States. Democratic bills can not get out of committee in the House. And in the Senate the Republicans continue to filibuster any issue that will help the economy forcing the Senate to have 60 votes to pass legislation even if the majority of the Senators vote in favor of it.

This is because the Republicans are willing to destroy the economy just so they can blame Obama for it and bring his defeat in November.

Obama has even shown that he is willing to accept some Republican ideas to solve the nations problem. The Republicans have still voted against legislation the President favored in both houses of Congress with the leaders of the Republican Party forcing its Senators and Representatives to vote the party line and not vote for what they thought was right and beneficial to the economy. You swear your oath of office to the Constitution and not to some tax group that has no part to play in governing the country except to make suggestions on policy. The only oath elected politicians should swear is to support and uphold the Constitution of the United States and in state offices the Constitution of the State and the federal Constitution.

Silverfiddle said...

Bald faced lies, liberalmann.

Obama tried to work with Republicans?

Tell us some more whoppers!

The fact remains...

Under Obama...

$ Gas prices have doubled
$ Incomes have declined
$ Food has gone up over 20% (8% this past year alone)
$ More people are out of work now than when Obama took office

Unlike your unhinged BS, my facts can be verified by government statistics.

On Jobs, the Obama propaganda machine is lying, but you dupes eat it up without even independently investigating for yourself, which is why we laugh at you so much

Here is some study material for you (btw, if you're going to spout the talking points, get them right. Notice how the Obama propagandists always carefully qualify their statements)

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-economic-sleight-of-hand/

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/fact-check-4-5-million-jobs-created-under-175621036--election.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-27/obama-campaign-stretches-truth-on-jobs-reality-check.html

Silverfiddle said...

Obama "saved" the auto industry by taking $60 billion from you and me and handing it to his corporate cronies and union crooks.

Ever heard of bankruptcy laws? That's what failing companies use to put themselves back together. It works all the time, and it doesn't cost taxpayers money.

"Saving" the auto industry is a damning indictment against Barack Milhous Obama, the crookedest man to sit in the Oval office since Nixon.

Finntann said...

I think your statement was quite clear:

"they haven't proposed a single bill."

It is also dead wrong, as I provided you with a list of fifteen of them.

Tap dance boy! Tap dance!

FreeThinke said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
FreeThinke said...

Please DON'T join the chorus against Mr. Nixon. He was FAR more sinned against than sinning. He was in fact the victim of JOURNALISTIC ASSASSINATION -- a journalistic coup d'etat.

Read what FreeThinke said today at Always On Watch about the roots of Rule by Rumor in the Enemedia.

It's a shame that someone with your intellect, insight and broad scope of knowledge has so thoroughly assimilated to The Enemedia's BIG LIE Version of Watergate.

Nixon was not a crook, he was ASSASSINATED by the worst bunch of crooks ever to get filthy hands on the levers of power.

~ FreeThinke

http://freethinkesblog.blogspot.com/?zx=da63e836789862c5

Silverfiddle said...

FT: I find it tiresome that every time I disagree with you you accuse me of being "assimilated to The Enemedia's BIG LIE", or some such insult.

I've read books by the watergate principles. I've looked at the record. It was criminal behavior.

Now, any more criminal than Johnson or other big pols of the time engaged in? No.

Nixon was no worse than any of the other dirty politicians of the time. The press hated him, so they refused to give him the pass that they gave the Kennedy's and other. That's as far as I go to agree with your previous statement.

Thersites said...

Obama has even shown that he is willing to accept some Republican ideas to solve the nations problem.

Here's how Democrats "worked" with Republicans in the "Spirit of Bipartisanship"...

FreeThinke said...

Silver,

You didn't disagree with me about President Nixon, I disagreed with you, but it had nothing to do with you, personally.

You came very close to my point with this statement:

" ... The press hated [Nixon], so they refused to give him the pass that they gave the Kennedys and other. ..."

Look, I was THERE. I saw what was happening on a daily basis. Nixon most assuredly was the victim of a JOURNALISTIC ASSASSINATION. And his forced resignation from the presidency was the official beginning of The Iron-Fisted Rule of the Fourth Estate.

I have no quarrel with you, Kurt, and no desire to be antagonistic towards you. I'm sorry you interpret some of my remarks in that light.

You are a great deal younger than I. I don't pretend that makes me any smarter or any wiser, but it DOES mean that I see things from a very different perspective.

I became conscious and aware long before TELEVISION and MEGA-MEDIA's ENDLESS "NEWS" dominated our lives to the extent they have since the years immediately following JFK's assassination.

How could anyone steeped from BIRTH in that milieu NOT be profoundly affected by the process of MASS HYPNOSIS and constant BRAINWASHING insidiously brought to bear on The American Mind since the enemedia became nothing but One Big Propaganda Mill for Cultural Marxism?

I has affected ALL of us -- even an old curmudgeon like me, despite my painful awareness of it, and constant attempts to neutralize its ubiquitous influence.

That's all I was trying to say.

More and more I feel like "Cassandra," the Seeress of Old, or that frantic character played by Kevin McCarthy in The Body Snatchers.

There's no use whatsoever in knowing the truth, if no one's ever going to believe you.

By responding as you did, you prove my point. It's NOT about YOU and ME or ANYONE in particular, it's about what "THEY" have DONE to this COUNTRY -- and the ruinous effect "THEY" are certain to have on the future -- the lives of our children and grandchildren.

~ FreeThinke

Silverfiddle said...

I'm not looking for a quarrel, either, FT.

I'm not even disputing your point about Nixon (he was crooked, but no more so than the other politicians of his time).

I simply take issue when people suggest I am brainwashed or otherwise do not think about things before I say them.

Bunkerville said...

CNN may be the first chink in Obama's facade. They found the Diary of Steven. Obama blasted them for not turning it over to the U.S. Too many questions for even CNN to defend anymore.They may be the first to start the roll to reality.

Leticia said...

The MSM will never side with the conservatives they are to brainwashed or stupid to believe that their, "GREAT LEADER" is failing miserably in every aspect of his presidency.

There is absolutely NO excuse to ignore the deaths of our Americans.

I pray people will vote him out in November. Otherwise, not only will we see Madonna naked, the whole nation will go to crap, or more so.

Liberalmann said...

Leticia, where other's here are liars, you're just pain dumb.

Silverfiddle said...

"not only will we see Madonna naked"

Aaaaaaaaagh! My eyes! My eyes!

Liberalmaniac: Coming from you, that's a complement to Leticia.

beamish said...

Then why isn't Obama's Senate doing same? Spite?

You seem to be under the bizarre notion that the Republican Party actually has ever had any intentions of taking the White House much less the Senate this election.

Romney spent $250 million dollars trashing conservative candidates in the GOP primaries to keep them off the ticket. I'm sure President Obama will compensate him later, maybe even by 2014.

jez said...

It's not compulsory to see Madonna naked is it? That really would be political correctness / health and safety / whatever bogey-man is fashionable today gone mad.

-FJ said...

Then why isn't Obama's Senate doing same? Spite?

Keep avoiding the question, beamish.

beamish said...

Doing the same what?

"Obama's" Senate is not in charge of the purse strings. (Hint: Ask an actual Constitutionalist)

Romney's Teapublicans control the part of Congress responsible for every penny Obama has spent.

beamish said...

...and since Hillary Clinton's extreme far-left Tea Party "movement" has taken over the House of Representatives (which is Constitutionally charged with the duty of appropriating revenues) in the 2010 mid-term elections, the amount and the rate of Obama's spending spree has INCREASED.

Explain that.

beamish said...

I suspect it has something to do with the extreme far-left Tea Party "movement's" presidential candidate shopping through Donald "let's impose a 14.25% tax on everyone's net worth" Trump, Michelle "Jimmy Carter in '76" Bachmann, Rick "We should have passed Hillarycare in '93" Perry, and Herman "the TARP bailout wasn't big enough" Cain before doubling down on the author of Obomneycare.

You could drop napalm on a Tea Party gathering and be absolutely guaranteed not to singe a conservative.

-FJ said...

Avoidance is just lazy, beamish.

beamish said...

So why are you avoiding the fact that the House of Representatives is the part of the legislative branch where all federal spending is appropriated and approved?

Is it because it's a fact federal spending under Obama has INCREASED at a faster rate under Teapublican control of the House?

beamish said...

It wasn't all that long ago a Republican controlled House under a Democrat President could and would shut down the government to rein in spending and produce a budget surplus.

Now that they're socked with far-left Teapublicans, they roll over for a Democrat President, and talk about how they might get around to reining in spending and balancing the federal budget 20 or 30 years from now.

beamish said...

We have a "Republican" Presidential candidate whining about $700 Billion ct from MEDICARE, for God's sake!

Is it a coincidence that this "Republican" Presidential candidate as a state governor legalized gay "marriage" in Taxachussetts and turned his judicial branch into an abortion services provider for 12 year old girls?

Is there a position Mitt Romney's Teapublicans have that ISN'T far-left?

beamish said...

Why is the Teapublican Party running ads in support of Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill here in Missouri?

I thought Teapublicans wanted control of the Senate?

beamish said...

You know how you can tell Obama isn't a conservative?

Romney isn't spending $1.5 Million a day smearing him.

beamish said...

When Obama gives his victory speech in November, do you think he'l be gracious enough to thank the Tea Party "movement" for their assistance in making the Republican Party irrelevant?

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

Something like "I could have never increased the national debt to over 100% of GDP if Nancy Pelosi had remained Speaker of the House. Thank you, Tea Party!"

Red Herring said...

Sorry, but an attempted proof by verbosity that avoids the original issue is just another red herring.

beamish said...

So you're too much stupid for just one avatar. Your question made no sense in context. The far-left Teapublican House is allowing Obama to spend off-budget (and without-budget).

They're also in control of the chamber of Congress where impeachment proceedings are begun.

The Senate has no bearing whatsoever on the House of Representive's Constitutional duties and powers.

Perhaps Ralph Nader should offer you a primer on the Constitution, so you'll know what conservatives are talking about.



Red Herring said...

And you're too stupid to answer one question, because it exposes the foolishness of your argument.

beamish said...

Both the Senate and the House have passed continuing resolutions to keep Obama's Teapublican-funded spending sprees going. There's your answer (for the fifth time).

You really don't know what a Constitutionalist believes, do you Naderite?

beamish said...

..or is that Nadbagger?

Red Herring said...

Both the Senate and the House have passed continuing resolutions to keep Obama's Teapublican-funded spending sprees going.

... thereby explicitly rejecting President Obama's budget and spending priorities.

But as I'm aware, the Law of Non-contradiction doesn't apply in your universe, so please, don't allow simple things like facts deter you in your continuing attempts at a proof by verbosity. It's amusing, really.

beamish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
beamish said...

No where near as amusing as a Naderite trying to pretend to be conservative, much less intelligent. I'm sorry if my "verbosity" hit you with too many multisyllabics.

I'll try to dumb down for you:

Obama is spending relentlessly and unabated even more so since Teapublicans took over the purse strings.

Explain.

beamish said...

Unless of course, you're trying to argue that since Congress has never passed any of Obama's budget proposals, it's not his fault we're in an economic mess.

beamish said...

(Please, before responding, familiarize yourself with the US Constitution and who in government has fiscal powers.)

Thersites said...

Apparently his spending IS abated to the extent that the Tea Party has prevented the RNC from completely "fusing" with the DNC and passing much higher budgets. But then, you attribute that impediment to SUPPORT for the Obama/DNC bankrupt the nation plan. How IS that possible, beamish? Please, 'splain it in terms that even a simple mind like mine can understand. And please, for my simple sake, try to apply the Law of Non-contradiction this time.

Thersites said...

Oh, and don't forget to apply a little "math"... how 61 Tea Party caucus Republican members control a 435 vote legislative body.

beamish said...

Obama was spending money without Congress' backing 2009-2010 before your beloved left-wingers in the Teapublican Party were elected to take control of the House and "stop him" whereupon Obama's spending without Congress' backing has actually INCREASED.

I would say "please, Teabaggers, stop trying to stop Obama's spending" because what their efforts have achieved is the exact opposite of their alleged intent.

And now the Teapublicans have nominated a Presidential candidate with a leftist policymaking career that makes the leftist Obama look like an underachiever in leftism.

I'd say that was the intent all along. Sorry you were duped.

beamish said...

Should have taken the hint from the gay orgy at C-PAC.

beamish said...

Acta non verba, and all that.

beamish said...

But, since you do have the ear of the Teapublican Party, could you at least ask Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Karl Rove to stop financing Claire McCaskill's attack ads on Todd Akin?

I know Mitt's first instinct is to spend a million bucks a day smearing solid conservatives, but really, Akin is not running for President and we in Missouri would really like to see McCaskill gone.

Thersites said...

You're the one who backed Mitt Romney's stalking horse for president, keeping a Tea Party candidate off the rEpublican ballot, beamish... so quit your whing and sleep in the bed you made for us.

ps The CR was for $100b under Obamney's FY 2012 budget request.

You're welcome..

Thersites said...

pps - Didn't the fusion conservatives drop Akin like a hot potato after that rape thing and defund him.

Sounds like your boys f'd up AGAIN beamish.

Thersites said...

btw - According to the fusion conservatives, it's "Mitt's turn". Promise that you won't be upset in 2016 when they inform you that it's John Huntsman's turn.

beamish said...

Fusion conservatives have nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Fusionists wish to abolish Medicare, not make restoring $700 Billion cut from it their campaign mantra.

You'd know that were you not an ignorant left-wing Naderite putz.

Newt Gingrich was here in St. Louis last week, raising money for Todd Akin, trying to counter Mitt Romney's efforts to keep Claire McCaskill in the Senate.

beamish said...

PS... Mitt Romney IS the Tea Party "movement," you dipshit.

beamish said...

But, for shits-and-giggles, WHICH left-wing Tea Party candidate for President would you have preferred over moneyman Mitt?

Donald "Let's assess a 14.25% tax on everyone's net worth on top of the taxes they already pay" Trump?

Michelle "Thank you Obama for stabilizing commodity prices in Minnesota" Bachmann?

Rick "the TARP bailout is the greatest proposal since Hillarycare" Perry?

Herman "Rainbow PUSH coalition" Cain?

Ron "we should obey Ahmedinejad" Paul?

It's one thing for you to babble incessantly in your left-wing stupidity, but put something on the table, piker.

beamish said...

It's going to be hilarious when Todd Akin gets more votes in Missouri than Mitt Romney - and if he's the only Republican to win one of the 23 Democrat seats up for election.

Thersites said...

Fusionist backer Sheldon Adelson doesn't support Romney? Who knew?

beamish said...

You're going to have a fruitless hell of a time convincing anyone that Sheldon Adelson subscribes to fusionism when you don't even know what fusionism is, Naderite dipshit.

beamish said...

BTW, you were asked which of the left-wing Teabagger candidates you would have preferred over the Tea Party's financier Mitt Romney. Do wipe the stupid off your face and answer.

Thersites said...

Adelson isn't a fusion conservative? Why was he financing Newt, your fusion conservative hero?

Oh yeah....Mittt's stalking horse. Now I remember.

Thersites said...

Mitt Romney, fusion conservatism's poster boy. And beamish, fusion conservatisms biggest booster! Peas in a pod.

beamish said...

FJ,

Yeah, Mitt Romney, like all fusionists, wants to abolish Medicare. That's why he's crying to restore $700 Billion to it.

Is not knowing how stupid you are the symptom or the cause of the nonsense you're spewing?

Thersites said...

Pot to kettle...

Pot to Kettle...

Over...

beamish said...

I suppose fusionism is just another one of those hundreds of topics you refuse to familiarize yourself with.

Keep on faking it 'til you make it, Naderite.

-FJ said...

Pot to Kettle...

Pot to Kettle...

...Out!