The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012

[daws101]

if Lincoln were alive today his size14's would be square in the ass the party.

why do u think Lincoln left the republican party?

Lincoln was killed by a democrat, he had no choice but to leave but when he left he took everything including his lasty breath. THANKS DNC.

nice spin:John Wilkes Booth was the assassin of beloved President and anti-slavery liberal Abraham Lincoln. He was an angry cooperhead aka "peace democrat", when that meant "pro slavery" of course. At that time the Republicans were far more anti-slavery than the democrats and many Southern Democrats were KKK members.

Boothe supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War and hoped killing Abraham Lincoln would prevent freed slaves getting the vote.

time has changed both parties...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yes, bush and Cheney are out of office.. everything else is cake.

So basically, you don't give a fuck if the nation is in a depression, if unemployment is through the roof, and if our credit rating is downgraded because spending is insane. All that matters to you is partisan politics.

Got it. Thanks for sharing. Now go die, you anti-American Obama-jock-sniffing dipshit.

another specious assumtion ..all of it wrong.

We'll be in Great Depression 2 by 2011 -- here are 30 reasons why - Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

 

[Intense]

this is cold hard facts people.

The republican party has worked to keep legal American voters from voting for decades.

They still are

OMG another "Nasty Reps keeping minorities from voting" bunch of bs.

TDM needs to realize that NO ONE is going to need to cheat to beat Barry.

I would be more concerned with any cheating that will get him re-elected.

Is ACORN still around???

"The chart is based on the sources cited in the footnotes. The chart is only to provide accurate information about ACORN, its leaders and successor organizations."
If you have corrections or additional information, please contact us.

Contact the ACU at [email protected] or (703)836-8602 with any new information.

http://www.conservative.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/ACORN-Organizations.pdf

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why do u think Lincoln left the republican party?

Lincoln was killed by a democrat, he had no choice but to leave but when he left he took everything including his lasty breath. THANKS DNC.

nice spin:John Wilkes Booth was the assassin of beloved President and anti-slavery liberal Abraham Lincoln. He was an angry cooperhead aka "peace democrat", when that meant "pro slavery" of course. At that time the Republicans were far more anti-slavery than the democrats and many Southern Democrats were KKK members.

Boothe supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War and hoped killing Abraham Lincoln would prevent freed slaves getting the vote.

time has changed both parties...

Nice spin? saying lincoln was killed by a democrat is not spin it's the truth.

Boothe supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War and hoped killing Abraham Lincoln would prevent freed slaves getting the vote.

Booth the democrat intent for killing Lincoln had nothing to do with keeping blacks from voting.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

By Nick Baumann

If Pennsylvania Republicans and their buddies in other states execute a plan to change election rules, Obama has a one-way ticket to Losertown.

Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president.

Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of the state Legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)

More: The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012 | Mother Jones

The GOP doesn't need this to beat Obama. All they need in order to win next year is to not be him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

your point? all of that began before Obama was president. instead of whining why not put your big boy pants on and stop holding things up in Washington.

My point?

ok I'll play are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Holding things up? it's a good thing to not allow spending drunks behind the wheel of the economy engine they tend to run things off the cliff. It's a good thing to do nothing when you know the plan is a failure before it begins.

like bush did.
you can never know if a plan is a failure until it's put into action.

most have said no obama thats not going to work and the most had it right imagine that.

 

[daws101]

So basically, you don't give a fuck if the nation is in a depression, if unemployment is through the roof, and if our credit rating is downgraded because spending is insane. All that matters to you is partisan politics.

Got it. Thanks for sharing. Now go die, you anti-American Obama-jock-sniffing dipshit.

another specious assumtion ..all of it wrong.

We'll be in Great Depression 2 by 2011 -- here are 30 reasons why - Paul B. Farrell - MarketWatch

Already read that..thanks

 

[daws101]

My point?

ok I'll play are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?
Holding things up? it's a good thing to not allow spending drunks behind the wheel of the economy engine they tend to run things off the cliff. It's a good thing to do nothing when you know the plan is a failure before it begins.

like bush did.
you can never know if a plan is a failure until it's put into action.

most have said no obama thats not going to work and the most had it right imagine that.

most of whom?

 

[daws101]

Lincoln was killed by a democrat, he had no choice but to leave but when he left he took everything including his lasty breath. THANKS DNC.

nice spin:John Wilkes Booth was the assassin of beloved President and anti-slavery liberal Abraham Lincoln. He was an angry cooperhead aka "peace democrat", when that meant "pro slavery" of course. At that time the Republicans were far more anti-slavery than the democrats and many Southern Democrats were KKK members.

Boothe supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War and hoped killing Abraham Lincoln would prevent freed slaves getting the vote.

time has changed both parties...

Nice spin? saying lincoln was killed by a democrat is not spin it's the truth.

Boothe supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War and hoped killing Abraham Lincoln would prevent freed slaves getting the vote.

Booth the democrat intent for killing Lincoln had nothing to do with keeping blacks from voting.

it's only true in an historical framework and doesn't reflect the democratic party of today , just as it does'nt reflect the republicans of Lincoln's time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

nice spin:John Wilkes Booth was the assassin of beloved President and anti-slavery liberal Abraham Lincoln. He was an angry cooperhead aka "peace democrat", when that meant "pro slavery" of course. At that time the Republicans were far more anti-slavery than the democrats and many Southern Democrats were KKK members.

Boothe supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War and hoped killing Abraham Lincoln would prevent freed slaves getting the vote.

time has changed both parties...

Nice spin? saying lincoln was killed by a democrat is not spin it's the truth.

Boothe supported the Confederacy in the American Civil War and hoped killing Abraham Lincoln would prevent freed slaves getting the vote.

Booth the democrat intent for killing Lincoln had nothing to do with keeping blacks from voting.

it's only true in an historical framework and doesn't reflect the democratic party of today , just as it does'nt reflect the republicans of Lincoln's time.

Right like liberals love to claim the founders were liberals. Right sure yell yell.

 

[daws101]

Nice spin? saying lincoln was killed by a democrat is not spin it's the truth.



Booth the democrat intent for killing Lincoln had nothing to do with keeping blacks from voting.

it's only true in an historical framework and doesn't reflect the democratic party of today , just as it does'nt reflect the republicans of Lincoln's time.

Right like liberals love to claim the founders were liberals. Right sure yell yell.

as a matter of fact they were by the standards of the time...jefferson was the biggest of them all he even rewrote the bible....that's very liberal by any standard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

it's only true in an historical framework and doesn't reflect the democratic party of today , just as it does'nt reflect the republicans of Lincoln's time.

Right like liberals love to claim the founders were liberals. Right sure yell yell.

as a matter of fact they were by the standards of the time...jefferson was the biggest of them all he even rewrote the bible....that's very liberal by any standard.

By saying that liberals have now become conservatives and conservatives have become liberals.

 

[daws101]

Right like liberals love to claim the founders were liberals. Right sure yell yell.

as a matter of fact they were by the standards of the time...jefferson was the biggest of them all he even rewrote the bible....that's very liberal by any standard.

By saying that liberals have now become conservatives and conservatives have become liberals.

wrong again or a logical fallacy In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

 

[Noendinsight]

Obama = Carter

 

[JoeB131]

By Nick Baumann

If Pennsylvania Republicans and their buddies in other states execute a plan to change election rules, Obama has a one-way ticket to Losertown.

Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president.

Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of the state Legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)

More: The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012 | Mother Jones

Not seeing a problem here. In fact, I think this would be great if ALL FIFTY states (or at least the ones that have more than one congressional district) did it this way.

The left has (rightfully, in my heretical opinion) complained that the electoral college distorts democracy and allows a guy to win if he loses the popular vote. If we allocated electors proportionately, the chances of that happening will be much less.

Better, it will force BOTH Candidates to actually spend time in the states.

PA was ignored last time because Polls said Obama would win easily. If he has to work for some of those districts, so much the better.

Not seeing a problem here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

as a matter of fact they were by the standards of the time...jefferson was the biggest of them all he even rewrote the bible....that's very liberal by any standard.

By saying that liberals have now become conservatives and conservatives have become liberals.

wrong again or a logical fallacy In informal logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually incorrect argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (e.g. appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.

Todays liberals are for the existing government afterall thats what you're trying to say.
That would make them conservative now using your logic.

 

[FA_Q2]

By Nick Baumann

If Pennsylvania Republicans and their buddies in other states execute a plan to change election rules, Obama has a one-way ticket to Losertown.

Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them.

The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president.

Here's the rub, though: Each state gets to determine how its electoral votes are allocated. Currently, 48 states and DC use a winner-take-all system in which the candidate who wins the popular vote in the state gets all of its electoral votes. Under the Republican plan—which has been endorsed by top GOPers in both houses of the state Legislature, as well as the governor, Tom Corbett—Pennsylvania would change from this system to one where each congressional district gets its own electoral vote. (Two electoral votes—one for each of the state's two senators—would go to the statewide winner.)

More: The GOP's Genius Plan to Beat Obama in 2012 | Mother Jones

Not seeing a problem here. In fact, I think this would be great if ALL FIFTY states (or at least the ones that have more than one congressional district) did it this way.

The left has (rightfully, in my heretical opinion) complained that the electoral college distorts democracy and allows a guy to win if he loses the popular vote. If we allocated electors proportionately, the chances of that happening will be much less.

Better, it will force BOTH Candidates to actually spend time in the states.

PA was ignored last time because Polls said Obama would win easily. If he has to work for some of those districts, so much the better.

Not seeing a problem here.

More than not a problem, it is how things should be done. Unfortunately, an idea that a hack supports on one day because it goes for their guy will attack it the next if they think it will become bad for their guy.

The twisted world of hackery...

 

[Cecilie1200]

yes, bush and Cheney are out of office.. everything else is cake.

So basically, you don't give a fuck if the nation is in a depression, if unemployment is through the roof, and if our credit rating is downgraded because spending is insane. All that matters to you is partisan politics.

Got it. Thanks for sharing. Now go die, you anti-American Obama-jock-sniffing dipshit.

another specious assumtion ..all of it wrong.

Oh, well, since you denied it with no evidence to support you, I'll certainly believe . . . exactly what I did before, only more so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

it's only true in an historical framework and doesn't reflect the democratic party of today , just as it does'nt reflect the republicans of Lincoln's time.

Right like liberals love to claim the founders were liberals. Right sure yell yell.

as a matter of fact they were by the standards of the time...jefferson was the biggest of them all he even rewrote the bible....that's very liberal by any standard.

He did not "rewrite the Bible". Christ, I'm tired of hearing newbie leftist punks come in here prattling this lie as though they've said something brilliant. All you really accomplish is to display your abysmal ignorance and lack of education.

"The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth", which is erroneously called the "Jefferson Bible", is a compilation of Biblical text concerning Jesus' life and teachings, intended as a way of extracting and distilling the essence of those teachings. It's not an uncommon method of putting together devotionals and Bible studies, and no one accuses THEIR authors of "rewriting the Bible".

 

[daws101]

So basically, you don't give a fuck if the nation is in a depression, if unemployment is through the roof, and if our credit rating is downgraded because spending is insane. All that matters to you is partisan politics.

Got it. Thanks for sharing. Now go die, you anti-American Obama-jock-sniffing dipshit.

another specious assumtion ..all of it wrong.

Oh, well, since you denied it with no evidence to support you, I'll certainly believe . . . exactly what I did before, only more so.

sarcasim is self evident....to any one not wraped in the blame game....