Magox

I understand what you are saying, but politics is a contact sport. The reason why the shouting down in this instance from my perspective extremely effective is because today was the launch of ATTACK ROMNEY part deux. The reason why that is significant is because as you probably know, campaigns want to win news cycles, and the news cycle that the Obama campaign wanted for today, was AxleRod going to Mass. and hammering his record, and then of course they would get lots of free coverage on all the News outlets, covering his attack on Romney. Instead of that, my guess is that at least half of the coverage won't be so much the substance of what Axlerod was saying, but an image of AxleRod getting visibly frustrated and stooping down to the same level of some protesters out on the street. This is yet another news cycle that Romney will win, on a day that was suppose to be seen as an important one for the Obama c campaign.

I had this discussion with JA earlier, I contended that ROmney would run a better general election campaign than what we saw in the Primaries, simply because his core is much closer to the middle than that of the most energized which are the far righties. As we all saw, the unveiling of the Bain attacks hasn't been nearly as effective as what the Obama campaign had hoped for, so now they are launching their new line of attack,which is focusing on ROmneys record as Gov. of Mass. Today was the first day, and it started with this on Morning Joe. Deval Patrick isn’t much of an attack dog. Yikes! However that is not as a result of Romney's campaigns doing, thats just someone who has a hard time demonizing ROmney. This next clip is all a result of ROmney's campaign. You gotta check this video out. This speaks to the agility of the Romney campaign. This was suppose to be a big day for the Obama attack campaign, and I can't get over how petulant and small Axlerod came off. He Actually told those that were protesting that they should "quiet down". The man was visibly frustrated

Learn something new every day. So I guess this thread did have some value for me afterall.

Im guessing you are done with doing work around the house.

These sort of subjects peak your interest. That's all.

Jboy, your sweeping generalizations of people from N.C is similar to those who do the same of the Muslim religion. Just sayin'

Wow, those two polls aren't even close to one another.

To equate "Muslims" as terrorists is absurd. If you qualified your point with extremist Muslims that would be one thing, but to categorize the entire religion is astonishingly ignorant.

Yeah, I believe Fitzpatrick has shown that he CAN get the job done. Having said that I do have my reservations, first I noticed towards the latter half of the year, that his confidence had gone down, you could see it in his body language. There were countless instances where I would see him walking onto the field before a drive with his head held down. So he's gonna have to get his MOJO back, thats first and foremost. The other area that I have concerns with him is his deep ball. Simply put, it's awful. I'm hoping he practices that long ball a good bit during the offseason, there were numerous opportunities for key plays during games and TD's that were squandered because of his woeful inaccurate deep ball. In regards to his "leash", well I think without a doubt that having Vince Young on the team made his leash that much shorter. It's tough to say when they would yank him, I don't believe you can accurately put a number on it. There are many variables that I believe Chan would look at, such as Wins/Losses, his performance with INT's/TDs, his accuracy, how the team is driving down the field and body language. I'd say that he is my biggest concern for the year for the Bills.

The justifications from your perspective for disqualifying them was because of where they were drafted?

Obama is showing a real profile of courage by campaigning in Wisconsin on behalf of Barrett and the Unions, for what is arguably the biggest election of the year, aside from the presidential election. He really has been putting it all on the line for them. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/229485-unions-angry-with-washington-democrats-over-lack-of-help-in-wisconsin

One problem with that argument, Clinton signed the repeal in 99 along with the expansion of CRA.

I do agree, that the main risk this economy is facing right now, are outside of Obama's control. But hey, that's politics, I mean the 08 Obama campaign, blamed Bush's deregulation and tax policies for the financial crisis, and as a result, that crushed McCain. When I ask some of the mouthbreathing wingnuts from the left, which regulation did Bush deregulate that caused the financial crisis? Of course there is no plausible answer. Then when I ask, how did the Bush tax cuts cause the crisis? Then the answers get even sillier. The point is that, to a degree, if the economy slows down further, it probably would have a good bit to do with Europe. However, it's politics and the one at the helm is the one who usually the one held accountable. Having said that, the Obama's economy is a 2-2.5% GDP growth economy, it is a stagnant one that has virtually no dynamism or vigor to it. So what I would say is that if the economy remains the same as what we are seeing today, it will be a matter of who wins the messaging war. If the economy improves from where it is right now, Obama most likely win, if it slows, Romney wins.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76752.html#ixzz1vsx6XCCc

Well, I'm not going to answer that question, because that wasn't my point. Don't you think it's a bit hilariously hypocritical to on one hand criticize that private equity is a function that serves investors needs through short-term gains at the expense of middle-class workers and on the other hand, go visit a factory, and tout that factories importance to the economy that happened to be primarily funded through private equity? In other words, without private equity he wouldn't of even been there campaigning.

That's not the point, the point is that the Obama administration is ripping Private Equity, in the sense that the primary function of the business is to create wealth for it's investors at the expense of hard working people of the middle class. Here you have a case where Obama is set to tout this company in Iowa today in a campaign style speech, with money that the government provided, yet it was because of Private Equity, which funded the vast majority of the company that is making it all possible. This is dripping with irony.

You wanna read some funny ****? check this out Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/24/obama-visiting-wind-turbine-factory-where-private-equity-blows-govt-financing-away/#ixzz1vpo0zX2j You can't make this **** up

I actually respect the typical "swing voters", they aren't so ideologically driven and will turn out for whoever they believe have the best message. From my perspective, the worst kind of voters are the hard core Right and left wingers, the ones who subscribe to the rigid philosophies endorsed by The Limbaughs and Ed Schultz's of the world. ughhh Yeah, they've been running a good campaign and today in an interview with Mark Halperin, he went into a little more specifics, which is something that the left have been whining about recently.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/christian-heinze/229009-romney-rocks-the-independent-vote

Cramer is what I call a stock cheerleader. Ever since the time Jon Stewart pwnd him on his show, from my perspective he became irrelevant, not to mention that he's a Democrat and happens to think Tim Geithner is doing a good job . If you want to do a fair analysis, look at the companies that Bain Capital purchased, try to research how many people were employed when Bain Capital stepped in and how many people were employed when Romney left in 1999. I've gone over this a few times, and I keep getting somewhere 60,000-90,000 net jobs created. That doesn't even include all the jobs that were saved, but for the sake of not using the Obama administrations metric of success, we won't include that, plus it would be virtually impossible for someone like me to come up with an accurate number. Just between Sports Authority, Staples and the Steel Company there were over 55,000 net jobs created, and the amount of jobs lost aren't that significant, even the companies that the Obama administration likes to highlight didn't even have 1000 jobs between the two of them.

The best way to figure out how many jobs that were created as a result of Bain Capital's involvement, in my opinion, is to see when Romney was in control of Bain and when he departed, and then add all the jobs created and subtract it by the ones lost during his tenure. That to me sounds like the logical thing to do. Here is a detailed look into Bain.

It's not, aside from N.H. That will go to the wire.