Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
a ... a ... a ... what do you call someone who thinks Obama might be Satan? A deviler? A Sataner? A Lucifer-er? Anyway, unlike GTardz, she ain't those near as I can tell.
A Beelzebubber!
Here we go, usual liberal misrepresentation. I never - ever - said Obama might be Satan. I said that because his name in Hebrew translates into the words that Jesus used to describe Satan in Luke, that devout Christians have a legitimate concern about it. I stand by that. Fact and translation trumps casual pop culture perception for me. As far as the rest, read the very bottom of my signature before saying anything else, because you're proving it.
And now the fascist racist pig obama is fighting for Gay marriage,This evil punk obama will be
in the 20 percent approval ratings soon!
You still haven't answered the question: what will Obama do when has to turn over his citizenship records to several states which are demanding them for Obama to get on their ballots - records Obama has been bleeding taxpayer funds to keep hidden from lawsuits demanding disclosure. no lawyer can save him this time, so what will he do, Skippy?
I have no idea what is going to happen, Skippy. But I'm not speaking in absolutes, as you are when you said
reality check: Obama won't be in the game. He won;t turn over his long form birth certificate and several states are enacting laws that will require him to do so to be part of the game in 2012. ... Obama won't be in the game in 2012. rely on it. ... Obama can't run or won't because he will not turn over his citizenship documents. This is a done deal. cry me a river.
Since you are making absolute statements, I'm calling you on it. I think you're full of bullshit. And I'm offering you a chance I assumed all you conservatards would relish - the chance not only to prove yourself right, but also to take money from a "liberal." Yet, given the opportunity, you put your tail between your legs and run away.
Make money on a $10,00.00 bet with an obnoxious stranger on a message board. Boy, Skippy, you're just too cool! NOT!
TORO = EPIC FAIL!
"MR COOL"! LOL!
See ya later, Skippy!
WAIT A MINUTE! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?!
You're saying there was a confluence of happenstance circumstances that formed a perfect storm for the democrats to lose, not because people thought the democrats sucked? This has all the makings of a joke without a laugh track!
1. Obama's number were - as they are again - in the toilet.
No, they're not.
2. the democrats in congress had the worst approval ratings since congressional approval ratings originated. What is all this, an attempt to keep the liberal base somehow energized?
Congress in general had bad ratings. Pay attention.
Here's the Democrat historicals:
Congress: Democrats
Here's the Republican historicals:
Congress: Republicans
3. Wherever Obama went to help, the candidate almost always wound up with lower ratings.
4. Obama promised jobs through bankruptcy amounts of spending, jobs that never materialized.
Yes, they did.
5. The democrats crafted Obamacare in secret, and passed it on Christmas eve despite 70% of polled American not wanting it.
It took one solid year of floor debates in both houses, and five fucking drafts to debate before it was finally passed. And there was never a time when 70% of polled Americans were against it.
Now you can slide the numbers around a bit, or find some justification for the occasional this or that, but taken together you cannot realistically extrapolate that the result of the November 2010 elections in which democrats lost by historic numbers is not due to the fact that the democrats governed very badly in the eyes of the public and they gave the house back to the republicans, in strong measure to stop Obama from having complete control.
Democrats like it better when there is not a majority of one party controlling everything. We're the only party that recognizes that leads to gridlock.
Every pundit knows this. the guy on the street know it. How on earth can you begin to pretend that the results were some extraordinary alignment of bad circumstances that just happened to make the democrats lose when their poll numbers were already in the bottom of the sewer.
Every pundit knows that is NOT true, pal. You just make it up as your go along. Quite funny.
Take up writing fiction. It's what you're good at.
Even funnier^ -- as the current cliche goes: You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
Wow, couldn't even quote me without bickering endlessly. Not a single fact sited. Holy shit, i have never seen such a collection of fucked up, defensive, passive-aggressive liberal sociopaths anywhere on the internet except for Media Matters. This thread sets a record. i thought this place was going to be at least somewhat conservative friendly with all the patriotic imagery. This is uber-liberal, piranha shark Trollsville, USA! Look at maggie sucking the air out of a whole page lest the truth get one breath. God damn.
The left will always claim that there is no one out there who can beat him,,,DESPITE WHAT HAPPENED IN NOVEMBER 2010! and how would they know? they don't even know who's running! we could make a list of candidates that would beat Obama in a 55/45 landslide! God I Hope John Thune And Huckabee Run,,either one will have Ubama crapping his pants!
John Thune announced a couple of hours ago he's not running, and Huckabee also is leaning against running, saying it's too grueling a process. Sorry, buddy!
I pray that Huckabee doesn't run. We dont need him.
I have no idea what is going to happen, Skippy. But I'm not speaking in absolutes, as you are when you said
Since you are making absolute statements, I'm calling you on it. I think you're full of bullshit. And I'm offering you a chance I assumed all you conservatards would relish - the chance not only to prove yourself right, but also to take money from a "liberal." Yet, given the opportunity, you put your tail between your legs and run away.
Make money on a $10,00.00 bet with an obnoxious stranger on a message board. Boy, Skippy, you're just too cool! NOT!
TORO = EPIC FAIL!
"MR COOL"! LOL!
See ya later, Skippy!
Toro explained to you how it would work, but you must have ignored that too.
a ... a ... a ... what do you call someone who thinks Obama might be Satan? A deviler? A Sataner? A Lucifer-er? Anyway, unlike GTardz, she ain't those near as I can tell.
A Beelzebubber!
Here we go, usual liberal misrepresentation. I never - ever - said Obama might be Satan. I said that because his name in Hebrew translates into the words that Jesus used to describe Satan in Luke, that devout Christians have a legitimate concern about it. I stand by that. Fact and translation trumps casual pop culture perception for me. As far as the rest, read the very bottom of my signature before saying anything else, because you're proving it.
States? Plural? Has Texas joined Arizona? Obama would lose those two anyway, but there might be a helluva lot of lawsuits by private citizens who would become disenfranchised from voting if Obama's name is kept off the ballot. Of course clowns like you don't understand that kind of common sense logic.
Assuming by some chance this guy is correct and Obama's name was kept off, how would anyone be disenfranchised by this? They are more than free enough to vote for Obama even if his name isnt on the ballot.
John Thune announced a couple of hours ago he's not running, and Huckabee also is leaning against running, saying it's too grueling a process. Sorry, buddy!
I pray that Huckabee doesn't run. We dont need him.
I say very seriously that this is very sad. I really hope the Republicans can come up with SOME candidate that combines all the finest qualities of those currently way at the bottom of this latest polling by Gallup. If these three dominate the news cycle for the next 2 years, meaning the others won't stand a chance, the GOP is in serious trouble. I'm looking forward to serious, grownup debates on the issues that affect us all, and I don't see that happening if the Republicans can't come up with a credible candidate.
Huckabee, Palin, Romney Tie for Lead in GOP '12 Preferences
States? Plural? Has Texas joined Arizona? Obama would lose those two anyway, but there might be a helluva lot of lawsuits by private citizens who would become disenfranchised from voting if Obama's name is kept off the ballot. Of course clowns like you don't understand that kind of common sense logic.
Assuming by some chance this guy is correct and Obama's name was kept off, how would anyone be disenfranchised by this? They are more than free enough to vote for Obama even if his name isnt on the ballot.
I see such an effort as backfiring, big time, if states decide to go that route. For one thing, just the legality of it would probably take up so much potential court time that the entire national election would have to be postponed just because of the blatant ignorance of a few states who, as it progressed, would become laughing stocks. Just ask yourself if you would want to be a citizen of some state where "The Birfers" succeeded in their bigoted agenda. (And that IS what it is.)
Thank you, Pale Rider!
*Takes bow* as liberals go insane.
It always is the same response by liberals: lie or severely distort the facts and then call the objector a racist. The same slimy, disgusting, dishonest tactics every time.
I can hear him now, with that same phony, mock authority rise-and-fall delivery, reading from his teleprompter: "I need you all to write my name in the ballots in those states, because the leaders there seem to have some trouble with my color and funny name...." while brain-numbed Obots bused in from union organizing stations applaud madly and everyone else says "fuck you".
Obama will virtually certainly not run - or not be able to run - again because he'll never disclose those records without a court order or congressional subpoena.
Of course, the SCOTUS has just recently agreed to have a conference on a "birther" lawsuit, also, so Barry might not even have the chance to make up his own mind about 2012 and the states - it may be made up for him well before that. Remember, those state laws demand the long form and other records Obama is hiding, not the short form he issued - the language is quite explicit.
I wonder what Obama's approval ratings will be when he starts making up excuses about not being eligible in those states?
The USSC is has agreed to no such thing. In fact, it has thrown out at least three "lawsuits" already unworthy of its agenda, which should tell you something. But nooooooooo...
MaggieMae, is Gstarz a disciple of Alinki? What a slime ball of projection.
Obama won't be on the ballot in half a dozens states because at least that many our of 11 so far are expected to pass laws demanding Obama release his long form and other citizenship records before he can get on the ballot, and he's been fighting lawsuits like crazy to keep it hidden. Even ultra-liberal Mother Jones News has said they think this may signal the end of obama's presidency.
So when the time comes and he has to turn over the records he's spent millions in taxpayer money defending from disclosure in lawsuits, what do you think he will do, because Gibbs the White House isn't even talking - and time is running out for Obama to shit or get off the pot.
Proof positive you're clueless. Robert Gibbs is no longer the press secretary, hasn't been for over a week. Now pull your head out of the far right wing extremist websites, and you might just get an education, including the fact that if Obama has spent over $50,000 defending those bogus lawsuits, I would be surprised. (And it depends on who is being sued: The US Government or Obama personally, whether taxpayers pay for the defense.) All Obama's lawyers do is request (and receive) dismissals. A dismissal request takes about a half an hour to write and file. Obama has received about 10-15 dismissals to date, and several judges have called the lawsuits against him "frivolous." Paralegals can do that kind of work.
This asswipe isn't interested in "getting an education", so you shouldn't waste your fingers typing the above to him.
The USSC is has agreed to no such thing. In fact, it has thrown out at least three "lawsuits" already unworthy of its agenda, which should tell you something. But nooooooooo...
MaggieMae, is Gstarz a disciple of Alinki? What a slime ball of projection.
Let's see:
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.
Yup.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
Only if it's working. In his case, it isn't.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
Some are good at that, some lousy at it. The good ones have the ideology right (correct) but fail the reality test. The lousy ones quote bloggers who claim to have experience, but don't.
Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
He (they) still don't have this one down pat, yet.
Rule 5: Ridicule is mans most potent weapon. Its hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
This only works when one is correct, and then adds emphasis with ridicule. Ridiculing just to bully is childish.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. If your people arent having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.
I don't think GStarz is having fun. He wasn't expecting such a smackdown.
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
GStarz fails miserably here.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.
The RWNM en mass are experts at this. Individually, not so much. They fail miserably.
Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of OHare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the citys reputation.
Probably the favorite of the right. From invading Iraq which maybe was a threat someday, right up to Glenn Beck's conspiracy threat that Islamofacists partnering with Communists will install a Caliphate in this country...soon.
Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, Okay, what would you do?
Nope. They need more practice with that one. I ask that question on all sorts of issues confronting us, and they just scamper off.
Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Dont try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.
A tie with Rule 9. It's classic conservative propaganda.
Edit to add link:
Rules for Radicals
I don't think they allow anything but small amounts to be exchanged in your sanitarium.
States are demanding his long form birth certificate. What do you think he will do?
States? Plural? Has Texas joined Arizona? Obama would lose those two anyway, but there might be a helluva lot of lawsuits by private citizens who would become disenfranchised from voting if Obama's name is kept off the ballot. Of course clowns like you don't understand that kind of common sense logic.
LOL! How on earth does anyone become disenfranchised if Obama keeps himself off the ballot? - because all he needs to do is show his citizenship records to get on. If he refuses to obey simple state laws, Obama keeps himself off the ballot! Besides, "disenfranchised voters" can write him in!
This all assumes that obama cannot get on the ballot because he won;t turn over his citizenship records. Do you hear what you're saying - or read what you're writing? You have conceded that he may not be eligible. This means he should not ever be president at all, unless you think that you're wanting him to be trumps constitutional eligibility requirements. (and there are 11 states now working through legislation of this kind, not just two, of which half a dozen are expected to pass, including a few in states Obama won)
LOL. Complete admission Obama is a fraud! Good God. it doesn't get any better than this!
states? Plural? Has texas joined arizona? Obama would lose those two anyway, but there might be a helluva lot of lawsuits by private citizens who would become disenfranchised from voting if obama's name is kept off the ballot. Of course clowns like you don't understand that kind of common sense logic.
lol! How on earth does anyone become disenfranchised if obama keeps himself off the ballot? - because all he needs to do is show his citizenship records to get on. If he refuses to obey simple state laws, obama keeps himself off the ballot! Besides, "disenfranchised voters" can write him in!
this all assumes that obama cannot get on the ballot because he won;t turn over his citizenship records. Do you hear what you're saying - or read what you're writing? you have conceded that he may not be eligible. this means he should not ever be president at all, unless you think that you're wanting him to be trumps constitutional eligibility requirements. (and there are 11 states now working through legislation of this kind, not just two, of which half a dozen are expected to pass, including a few in states obama won)
lol. Complete admission obama is a fraud! Good god. It doesn't get any better than this!
show where i've conceded or admitted any such thing.
Really good. I linked to him earlier in this thread.
Nate Silver has also documented well why Rasmussen isn't reliable anymore, which is I myself will dismiss them "out of hand".
Here's what Silver said
While waiting for the remaining results to trickle in from states like Colorado and Alaska, I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year including from FiveThirtyEight because its polls showed a strong lean toward Republican candidates.
Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.
Every pollster is entitled to a bad cycle now and again and Rasmussen has had some good cycles in the past. But their polling took a major downturn this year.
Live Blogging Election Night - NYTimes.com
Has he said anything else? If so, could you link it?
My impression of Rasmussen is that they are a professional pollster first and foremost. They may be conservative, but it does them no good to be seen as having biased work. Why would you hire them if they are flawed? Generally, people hire pollsters to have an accurate understanding of whatever issue they wish to address, not to pay a lot of money to yes-men. But if I'm wrong, please show me.
Nate Silver has also documented well why Rasmussen isn't reliable anymore, which is I myself will dismiss them "out of hand".
Here's what Silver said
While waiting for the remaining results to trickle in from states like Colorado and Alaska, I did a quick check on the accuracy of polls from the firm Rasmussen Reports, which came under heavy criticism this year including from FiveThirtyEight because its polls showed a strong lean toward Republican candidates.
Indeed, Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points.
Every pollster is entitled to a bad cycle now and again and Rasmussen has had some good cycles in the past. But their polling took a major downturn this year.
Live Blogging Election Night - NYTimes.com
Has he said anything else? If so, could you link it?
My impression of Rasmussen is that they are a professional pollster first and foremost. They may be conservative, but it does them no good to be seen as having biased work. Why would you hire them if they are flawed? Generally, people hire pollsters to have an accurate understanding of whatever issue they wish to address, not to pay a lot of money to yes-men. But if I'm wrong, please show me.
I agree with you that Rasmussen is a legitimate pollster, but it does raise a red flag among a lot of folks when Rasmussen is consistently the ONLY poll that conservatives ever refer to.
I agree with you that Rasmussen is a legitimate pollster, but it does raise a red flag among a lot of folks when Rasmussen is consistently the ONLY poll that conservatives ever refer to.
