Early voting in Ohio has the GOP WAY up over the Dems.
"The GOP is 250,000 votes ahead of where they were 4 years ago in early voting in Ohio – a state Obama won by 260,000 votes. This is HUGE.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I was voting for a puppy rather than Obama before “you didn’t build that” based on record. After “you didn’t build that” I hate him, and will vote for a puppy rather than him based on his record. [/quote]
For someone that seemingly gets angry at the left for out of context quoting this is a doozy.
If you read the entire passage of his remarks do you think he is taking individual effort out of the equation or simply stating that while individual effort is important if not key that no man is an island and there are certain things brought to the table by society that contributed to the success of a business. And certainly if you benefit from things in society you have an obligation to it as well.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
CNN poll has it tied at 49%, with Romney leading with independents by 22%. So how could it be tied? By imagining turnout will favor the Dems better than in 2008. They’re sample, 41% Dems vs. 29% pubs. D+12 and it’s, more favorable for the Dems than 2008, and it still ends up a tie…
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/05/cnn-poll-all-tied-at-49/[/quote]
Gee…you think maybe CNN is in the tank for Obama? OMG! Now how could that be? As I said if Rasmussen or Gallup doesn’t say it, then it’s not really a poll. It’s just a bunch of biased guys sitting around calling their friends and making up numbers. One more point on this, pollsters have gone the way of the general news media. Tell me where can you watch, or read unbiased news anymore? Answer: Very, very few places. And pollsters have gone the same way.
Here’s a piece of history that some may or may not know, but I think it’s one of the most relevant pieces of information regarding tomorrow’s Presidential election:
Never before in the history of Presidential politics has any candidate of either party ever captured Ohio unless they’ve also captured the independent vote!
[/quote]
Rasmussen has it tied today as well. And we all know that you consider them God’s gift to polling. Are they in the tank for Obama?
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I was voting for a puppy rather than Obama before “you didn’t build that” based on record. After “you didn’t build that” I hate him, and will vote for a puppy rather than him based on his record. [/quote]
For someone that seemingly gets angry at the left for out of context quoting this is a doozy.
If you read the entire passage of his remarks do you think he is taking individual effort out of the equation or simply stating that while individual effort is important if not key that no man is an island and there are certain things brought to the table by society that contributed to the success of a business. And certainly if you benefit from things in society you have an obligation to it as well.[/quote]
I’ve tried man, many times. You’re not breaking through on that one–it’s like it hits a chord in the deepest reach of their souls.
Just chuckle and move on.
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
CNN poll has it tied at 49%, with Romney leading with independents by 22%. So how could it be tied? By imagining turnout will favor the Dems better than in 2008. They’re sample, 41% Dems vs. 29% pubs. D+12 and it’s, more favorable for the Dems than 2008, and it still ends up a tie…
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/05/cnn-poll-all-tied-at-49/[/quote]
Gee…you think maybe CNN is in the tank for Obama? OMG! Now how could that be? As I said if Rasmussen or Gallup doesn’t say it, then it’s not really a poll. It’s just a bunch of biased guys sitting around calling their friends and making up numbers. One more point on this, pollsters have gone the way of the general news media. Tell me where can you watch, or read unbiased news anymore? Answer: Very, very few places. And pollsters have gone the same way.
Here’s a piece of history that some may or may not know, but I think it’s one of the most relevant pieces of information regarding tomorrow’s Presidential election:
Never before in the history of Presidential politics has any candidate of either party ever captured Ohio unless they’ve also captured the independent vote!
[/quote]
Rasmussen has it tied today as well. And we all know that you consider them God’s gift to polling. Are they in the tank for Obama?[/quote]
I’m sorry that you just don’t get it.
You look at the results of a poll and think it is the same as any other poll IF they come to a similar conclusion. Well, that is not the case grooski.
And if I thought that you would actually read the differences and were here to do more than wave the left wing flag I’d be glad to explain it to you.
But, we both know that’s not the case so…
Bye!
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I was voting for a puppy rather than Obama before “you didn’t build that” based on record. After “you didn’t build that” I hate him, and will vote for a puppy rather than him based on his record. [/quote]
For someone that seemingly gets angry at the left for out of context quoting this is a doozy.
If you read the entire passage of his remarks do you think he is taking individual effort out of the equation or simply stating that while individual effort is important if not key that no man is an island and there are certain things brought to the table by society that contributed to the success of a business. And certainly if you benefit from things in society you have an obligation to it as well.[/quote]
I’ve ben through this 20 times onthis board. And clearly stated in the posts around this one my case.
- Obama’s syntax was awful and insulting
- His message, put a different way would have been fine
- He never admitted to wording it badly, that I’ve seen, so leads me to believe…
- So all those businesses that fail, that is your fault too? Or poor choices? You can’t have it both ways
- Pride is important, you don’t ever, ever, as a leader diminish your people’s pride on purpose. He worded it in a way that took pride from one group, in order to get another group to turn to the government as a savior when the first group got upset.
- That statement was a blantent attempt to “spread the success around”. Statist 101.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
CNN poll has it tied at 49%, with Romney leading with independents by 22%. So how could it be tied? By imagining turnout will favor the Dems better than in 2008. Their sample, 41% Dems vs. 29% pubs. D+12 and it’s and it still ends up a tie…
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/05/cnn-poll-all-tied-at-49/[/quote]
That is an amazing statistic merely days from an election. The independent vote at -22% for an incumbent?
And a number of polls have had (likely) inflated Democratic samples.
Also, over the weekend, two New York papers flipped from their 2008 Obama endorsement and endorsed Romney, including the New York Daily News.
New York is not going to go for Romney, but quite a sign of the times.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
–it’s like it hits a chord in the deepest reach of their souls.
[/quote]
This should tell you something…
But laugh at them instead and move on.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I was voting for a puppy rather than Obama before “you didn’t build that” based on record. After “you didn’t build that” I hate him, and will vote for a puppy rather than him based on his record. [/quote]
For someone that seemingly gets angry at the left for out of context quoting this is a doozy.
If you read the entire passage of his remarks do you think he is taking individual effort out of the equation or simply stating that while individual effort is important if not key that no man is an island and there are certain things brought to the table by society that contributed to the success of a business. And certainly if you benefit from things in society you have an obligation to it as well.[/quote]
I’ve tried man, many times. You’re not breaking through on that one–it’s like it hits a chord in the deepest reach of their souls.
Just chuckle and move on.[/quote]
And here are the reasons:
-
Squandered two years where both houses of congress were democrat passing national health care which 65% of the people at the time didn’t want.
-
Not vetted by the press (this bothered everyone who was not left wing)
-
The most left wing President in the history of American Presidents.
-
The most inexperienced Presidents in the history of American Presidents
-
Says and does things, on a regular basis which speaks to his left wing ideology.
-
Rarely negotiates with the other side it’s his way or the highway.
There’s more but this is the basis for all the lack of love…
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve tried man, many times. You’re not breaking through on that one–it’s like it hits a chord in the deepest reach of their souls.
Just chuckle and move on.[/quote]
The problem, is, of course, context - the context of Obama’s many other statements. From “bitter clingers” to “at some point, you’ve made enough money” to the failure of the Warren Court to adequately address wealth distribution to “corporate fatcats”, etc.
Yes, the problem is precisely the context with “you didn’t build that” statement. Just pan out with your lens.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Also, over the weekend, two New York papers flipped from their 2008 Obama endorsement and endorsed Romney, including the New York Daily News.
New York is not going to go for Romney, but quite a sign of the times.[/quote]
Good point, while NY has not voted for a republican since Reagan in 1984 it does send a message to everyone. NY is a big and important state and when people see that (I think it is) four major NY papers have endorsed Romney that sends a powerful message to the rest of the country.
Go after policies all you’d like, but the “my feelings are so hurt” line is old and tired. Mitt Romney has said little things here and there that piss me off too–doesn’t mean I hate him. And the comments are taken willfully and blindly out of context, as I’ve shown many times.
Again, it was said here that "I HATE Obama because of “you didn’t build that.”
That, it’s pretty obvious, is ridiculous.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve tried man, many times. You’re not breaking through on that one–it’s like it hits a chord in the deepest reach of their souls.
Just chuckle and move on.[/quote]
The problem, is, of course, context - the context of Obama’s many other statements. From “bitter clingers” to “at some point, you’ve made enough money” to the failure of the Warren Court to adequately address wealth distribution to “corporate fatcats”, etc.
Yes, the problem is precisely the context with “you didn’t build that” statement. Just pan out with your lens.[/quote]
And words flow from the heart as my Mom used to say.
In fact, I’ve heard Romney mention America and love of country more times over the past 6 months than Obama has in four years.
Not only doesn’t Obama understand American exceptionalism. He’s not really on board with the American dream.
At least that’s what about half the country is picking up.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Again, it was said here that "I HATE Obama because of “you didn’t build that.”
[/quote]
Now, you are the one taking my words willfully and blindly out of context.
Suppose what’s good for the goose as they say…
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Yeah he got a little prickly there. I guess I deserved that irrelevant retort. Inaccurate as usual though it was. I know you agree with me here though ZEB. Bush AND his entire presidency continue to be lied about in truly mind boggling fashion. I have had no problem criticizing him either, but the smear campaign on ol GW is sumthin to behold indeed. [/quote]
I want you to call this election right now Tirib. And I want you to call the exact percentage that each candidate will get.
Are you up for it?[/quote]
I don’t even think you’ve bothered to call that specifically. Why ask him then? What do you think percentage wise?[/quote]
I know who is going to win but if I tell you guys then that will take all the fun out of it for you. Sort of like peeking at your gift before Christimas. Now you woldn’t want me to do that would you?
Would you?
[/quote]
Zeb, are you serious?
I want to know what you think is going to happen.
You mentioned the hurricane ruined it for Romney. Do you still believe that?
I will state again that I think, as I have, that Romney will post a decisive win. Over 300 electoral votes, possibly more than 320. I think OH and PA, and certainly FL will go to Romney. [/quote]
For Romney to get even 315 electoral votes he needs to win the following states in addition to what he has “in the bag”
Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa, Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin.
Basically what you’re saying is that you feel he is going to run the board on Obama. And also steal PA which is a blue state in Presidential elections.
Is that what you’re saying he’s going to do?[/quote]
This is my first time “calling” any kind of Presidential race in such a detailed manner. I don’t know that he’ll do that well, but I believe it will NOT be a squeaker.
I want you to tell me what you believe. It is easy to say you “know” what the outcome is going to be (unless you were being facetious), and then say, “well, yes, I knew that is what was going to happen all along,” come Wednesday morning. Another thing altogether to put your money where your mouth is, risk your pride, and say what you actually believe before it happens.
I have learned a lot from you this election cycle. Probably more from you than any other single poster. I’ve followed your every post on this board with great interest, particularly as I began to see that everything you predicted was coming to pass. So, yeah, I’d certainly like to hear what you think is going to happen. Not sure what it is keeping you from going ahead and saying. It’s NOT like us getting to peek at our Christmas presents, though, until you actually make your call BEFORE the election, and then turn out to be right. Until that moment, it’s just…well, a lot of talk.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
In fact, I’ve heard Romney mention America and love of country more times over the past 6 months than Obama has in four years.
[/quote]
This is the kind of thing that’s said by a Republican in a liberal caricature.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Again, it was said here that "I HATE Obama because of “you didn’t build that.”
[/quote]
Now, you are the one taking my words willfully and blindly out of context.
Suppose what’s good for the goose as they say…[/quote]
“I was voting for a puppy rather than Obama before “you didn’t build that” based on record. After “you didn’t build that” I hate him, and will vote for a puppy rather than him based on his record.”
That was the entire post, verbatim.
I took NOTHING out of context.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I’ve tried man, many times. You’re not breaking through on that one–it’s like it hits a chord in the deepest reach of their souls.
Just chuckle and move on.[/quote]
The problem, is, of course, context - the context of Obama’s many other statements. From “bitter clingers” to “at some point, you’ve made enough money” to the failure of the Warren Court to adequately address wealth distribution to “corporate fatcats”, etc.
Yes, the problem is precisely the context with “you didn’t build that” statement. Just pan out with your lens.[/quote]
In addition, if it really honestly was not meant that way, he, as President of the United States, should have taken a moment to clarify to the millions, literally millions of American people, whom he represents, that that was NOT what he meant, and that he sincerely apologizes for the poor choice of wording.
Instead, we got his typical narcissistic response: That’s not what I meant. Work on your reading comprehension, I’m out for a game of basketball.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Again, it was said here that "I HATE Obama because of “you didn’t build that.”
[/quote]
Now, you are the one taking my words willfully and blindly out of context.
Suppose what’s good for the goose as they say…[/quote]
“I was voting for a puppy rather than Obama before “you didn’t build that” based on record. After “you didn’t build that” I hate him, and will vote for a puppy rather than him based on his record.”
That was the entire post, verbatim.
I took NOTHING out of context.
[/quote]
You openly ignored the other two posts that related to this one. You know, where I explain how and why “you didn’t build that” pushed me over the edge.
But it’s okay, feel free to ignore the rest of the speech, and laugh, oops I mean my posts and reasoning.
And for the record, I broke my posts up the way I did on purpose. To prove the very point that in an attempt to champion the “you’re taking it out of context, look at the whole speech” people will do just what they are complaining others are doing to pass judgement of their own.