The Truth Team

I thought they were vinyl. :razz:
Actually they were both, depending on the era. Original disks were very hard wax, often on cylinders. But they were delicate.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnsizkVjGm8]One of a kind Wax Cylinder breaks on camera - YouTube[/ame]

They then went to plastic and vinyl as technology came available. So the original phrase used by deejays of "Stacks of Wax" was used for years after the material was no longer used.

pardon me....
NEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRD!!!!

I used to run a reel to reel! In an ancient library where I volunteered showing exhibits to the tourists.
Hubby still has a slide projector and carousels full of slides!

:eusa_hand:
We really need a sarcasm font on this board....oh JOEEEEEEy! :eusa_angel:
Let me find the microfilm on this 'sarrrrcasm' you speak of. ;)
 
Isn't that cute!

Truth Team - Barack Obama


TruthTeam.jpg



Bat-signal_1989_film.jpg

I love the "groups" tab. Nothing like breeding hatred by dividing people into subgroups inside your cult. Brings the LOLZ.
 
There is going to be a shit ton of bald faced lies put out by various lobbyists, think tanks, free republic, viral emails, Breitbart and others, should Obama just take it? Not organize an internet campaign? Just allow smears to become entrenched like the birther nonsense? Quit getting offended that Obama is making an effort to get reelected. Worry about the tactics that forced his campaign to proactively battle the smear machine, it is going to cost the republicans dearly.

Note: Telling the truth about Obama's record is NOT a smear.

If people told the truth I would not complain at all. Do you deny the existence of a R/W smear machine or do you just believe everything that confirms your fears and satisfies your partisanship on the internet?
No, I am not a leftist.

And you're edging perilously close to "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" paranoia.

blackhelocopypi2.jpg
 
There is going to be a shit ton of bald faced lies put out by various lobbyists, think tanks, free republic, viral emails, Breitbart and others, should Obama just take it? Not organize an internet campaign? Just allow smears to become entrenched like the birther nonsense? Quit getting offended that Obama is making an effort to get reelected. Worry about the tactics that forced his campaign to proactively battle the smear machine, it is going to cost the republicans dearly.

Note: Telling the truth about Obama's record is NOT a smear.
it is to those who worship him.
As we've seen in this thread.
 
Note: Telling the truth about Obama's record is NOT a smear.
it is to those who worship him.

So you think he is a secret radical Muslim illegal alien who was educated in a terrorist madrassa and pals around with terrorists too?

Note: Not worshiping Obama does NOT mean you believe loony conspiracy theories.

What is it with you leftists? Nothing but binary thinking. Black & white, no shades of gray, no nuance.
 
Note: Telling the truth about Obama's record is NOT a smear.
it is to those who worship him.

So you think he is a secret radical Muslim illegal alien who was educated in a terrorist madrassa and pals around with terrorists too?

That and having the most radical socialist redistributing policies we've ever had. My god, he wants to increase income taxes on the wealthy by a whole 3%. Radical Marxist Anarchist I tell ya!

Radical Marxist Anarchist. (an secret muslim too)

:eek:
 
I think Obama is not a particularly good president, but the GOP has failed to really understand why they lost in 2008 and why they will lose even bigger in 2012.

The GOP has been taken over by Wall Street and the Religious crazies, and that's not where most Americans are living right now. That the GOP thinks it has a winning issue with contraception, and issue that was litigated 40 years ago, is kind of telling.

Contraception is part of our modren life. It's like they are running against putting flouride in the water.
Explain the landslide losses in 2010 for the DNC, and the soon to be 20 retiring democrats who have strong links to how badly this economy is doing?

Midterms. Usually meaningless. The out of party gets some gains and then thinks they've been given a mandate. Happened with the Democrats in 1982 and the Republicans in 1994. Then they get up against the cold hard reality that the President still really calls the shots and the half the electorate that showed up for him is going to be ticked off that the quarter of the electorate is overplaying its hand.

As far as retirements- A lot of people from both parties are retiring, due to redistricting, or they are just tired of not making any real money.

Obama will win re-election unless something goes seriously wrong with the economy. But the GOP is probalby going to get pushed back 15 seats minimum. My Congressman is going to be a one-term wonder.

The Senate is another story, because the GOP took such a beating in 2006, the Democrats are defending too many seats this time. So they will probably take the Senate.
 
Democrats are cartoonish.

They think everyone out there is a braindead MTV junkie, so these type of "hip" websites will get "da word out."

They are going to get their asses kicked in November.
 
Democrats are cartoonish.

They think everyone out there is a braindead MTV junkie, so these type of "hip" websites will get "da word out."

They are going to get their asses kicked in November.



Well, actually it could be effective.

2 million young people in the swing states wined and dined and programmed and generally made to feel very important.

That's 2 million guaranteed Obama votes in those critical states. Plus whoever they might manage to proselytize.

That's a pretty good investment.
 
Midterms. Usually meaningless. The out of party gets some gains and then thinks they've been given a mandate. Happened with the Democrats in 1982 and the Republicans in 1994. Then they get up against the cold hard reality that the President still really calls the shots and the half the electorate that showed up for him is going to be ticked off that the quarter of the electorate is overplaying its hand.

Interesting minimalization. That then doesn't explain that why W had gains in the mid term elections in 2002, which was the first time the president's party gained then in 100 years IIRC. Midterms often show to be an indicator of the nations approval of the policies this president had been pushing through What was significant in 2010 though was not that the Dems lost. It was to be somewhat expected, but rather it was a loss of monumental proportion. Made 1994 look like a minor grumble compared to a riot. It happened not only at the federal level but the state and local levels too. Places that had been all but one party rule or controlled by the dems changed hands for the first time in sometimes half a century! It was not an inconsequential election, it was a sea change. The tide has started reversing course.

As far as retirements- A lot of people from both parties are retiring, due to redistricting, or they are just tired of not making any real money.

Again, minimizing the reality.

Retiring — (20 House: 12D, 8R; 9 Senate: 6D, 1I, 2R)



  • Dan Boren (D-Okla.), 38, 4 terms
  • Dan Burton (R-Ind.), 73, 15 terms
  • Dennis Cardoza (D-Calif.), 52, 5 terms
  • Jerry Costello (D-Ill.), 62, 12 terms
  • Geoff Davis (R-Ky.), 53, 4 terms
  • Barney Frank (D-Mass.), 71, 16 terms
  • Elton Gallegly (R-Calif.), 67, 13 terms
  • Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas), 66, 7 terms
  • Wally Herger (R-Calif.), 66, 13 terms
  • Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), 73, 10 terms
  • Dale Kildee (D-Mich.), 82, 18 terms
  • Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), 77, 17 terms
  • Brad Miller (D-N.C.), 58, 5 terms
  • Sue Myrick (R-N.C.), 70, 9 terms
  • John Olver (D-Mass.), 75, 10 terms
  • Todd Platts (R-Pa.), 49, 6 terms
  • Mike Ross (D-Ark.), 50, 6 terms
  • Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), 40, 3 terms
  • Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.), 74, 10 terms
Steve Austria (R-Ohio), 53, 2 terms
  • Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii), 87, 3 terms
  • Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), 68, 5 terms
  • Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), 63, 3 terms
  • Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), 68, 3 terms
  • Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), 77, 4 terms
  • Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), 69, 3 terms
  • Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 69, 4 terms
  • Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), 70, 2 terms
  • Jim Webb (D-Va.), 65, 1 term

Resigned — (5 House: 4D, 1R; 1 Senate: 1R)



  • Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), 41, 3 terms
  • Jane Harman (D-Calif.), 66, 6 terms
  • Chris Lee (R-N.Y.), 47, 2 terms
  • Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.), 47, 7 terms
  • David Wu (D-Ore.), 56, 7 terms

  • John Ensign (R-Nev.), 53, 2 terms

These are not insignificant.

Obama will win re-election unless something goes seriously wrong with the economy.

Oh he's got a LOT to worry about on that front. So far the public's been fooled. But if the predicted gas price spike hits by memorial day driving us up to 4.50 a gallon he's done for. The economy is too delicate to handle it, and people vote their pocketbooks. Whomever the candidate that opposes him will be just has to ask the same question Reagan did: "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" Even if you say it's W's fault. It's irrelevant. Most people don't think that deep about it anymore and they also will say "It's been 4 years and you STILL haven't fixed it like you promised."

But, who knows?

The Senate is another story, because the GOP took such a beating in 2006, the Democrats are defending too many seats this time. So they will probably take the Senate.

Not to mention the ton of open seats in areas that the polling for dems is not as solid as it used to be. It's going to be ugly ugly ugly this election year for the senate.
 
Democrats are cartoonish.

They think everyone out there is a braindead MTV junkie, so these type of "hip" websites will get "da word out."

They are going to get their asses kicked in November.

Worked for Clinton in the 1990's. Worked for Obama in 2008.

Actually, this is another aspect to consider. In 2008, Obama's demographic skewed a lot younger than McCains.

Which means while more college kids have entered the voting pool since 2008, a lot of McCain's voters are taking a dirt nap right now.

Here's the thing. I don't know a single Obama voter in 2008 who tells me he just can't wait to go out and vote for Romney. Not. A. One.

I know a few McCain supporters, myself included, who will not vote for Romney under any circumstance.
 
Midterms. Usually meaningless. The out of party gets some gains and then thinks they've been given a mandate. Happened with the Democrats in 1982 and the Republicans in 1994. Then they get up against the cold hard reality that the President still really calls the shots and the half the electorate that showed up for him is going to be ticked off that the quarter of the electorate is overplaying its hand.

Interesting minimalization. That then doesn't explain that why W had gains in the mid term elections in 2002, which was the first time the president's party gained then in 100 years IIRC. Midterms often show to be an indicator of the nations approval of the policies this president had been pushing through What was significant in 2010 though was not that the Dems lost. It was to be somewhat expected, but rather it was a loss of monumental proportion. Made 1994 look like a minor grumble compared to a riot. It happened not only at the federal level but the state and local levels too. Places that had been all but one party rule or controlled by the dems changed hands for the first time in sometimes half a century! It was not an inconsequential election, it was a sea change. The tide has started reversing course.

As far as retirements- A lot of people from both parties are retiring, due to redistricting, or they are just tired of not making any real money.

Again, minimizing the reality.



These are not insignificant.

Obama will win re-election unless something goes seriously wrong with the economy.

Oh he's got a LOT to worry about on that front. So far the public's been fooled. But if the predicted gas price spike hits by memorial day driving us up to 4.50 a gallon he's done for. The economy is too delicate to handle it, and people vote their pocketbooks. Whomever the candidate that opposes him will be just has to ask the same question Reagan did: "Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?" Even if you say it's W's fault. It's irrelevant. Most people don't think that deep about it anymore and they also will say "It's been 4 years and you STILL haven't fixed it like you promised."

But, who knows?

The Senate is another story, because the GOP took such a beating in 2006, the Democrats are defending too many seats this time. So they will probably take the Senate.

Not to mention the ton of open seats in areas that the polling for dems is not as solid as it used to be. It's going to be ugly ugly ugly this election year for the senate.

And the Amount of Democrats that will NOT want to be seen with him as they fight for thier political lives.
 
Fitz- a couple things about your document dump. First, a lot of the figures you cite are kind of meanigless. So Harman and Costello are retiring, but there's no way a Republican win their districts.

Wu resigned, but the Democrats just rewon the seat with a replacment. Weiner seat went to a Republican, but that was only because the Democrats didn't contest it. They know that district is being eliminated in remapping.

Meanwhile, here is IL, I live in IL-8. Used to live in IL-6, but they redistricted. Joe Walsh only won by a few hundred votes (not bothering to look up the exact number) but since then, they redrew the boundries to make it more friendly to a Democrat. on top of that, Walsh has gotten a lot of bad press because we found out he had stiffed his kids on child support for years.

The Democrats are going to run Tammy Duckworth, a woman who lost both legs in Iraq. Now, I voted against Tammy when she ran in the sixth in 2006. This time. Hmmm. War Hero vs. Deadbeat Dad. Gonna be a tough one.
 

Forum List

Back
Top