OCinBuffalo

Yeah...because they use Likely Voters(LV), not Adults = "whoever I can find on the street/at the mall/answers their home phone...at 10 o'clock in the morning on a weekday". They also don't use samples that include 38% registered Republican voters, 46% registered Democrat voters.....and try to tell us that...shockingly...Obama is up by 6 points. But...but...but...they are all Likely Voters... And then they claim that Rasmussen is biased?

Nah....you can be a good guy, and have fun, be likeable, etc....and just have a job that many people don't like. How many cops do you know? You hate them in their jobs, but at the bar, Sabres games, etc...a lot of them can be a riot. I see Obama doing the things his job requires, just doing them poorly. It doesn't mean he's not a decent guy, or wouldn't be qualified to do other jobs. I have not yet begun to show off. Sing it with me: "No-oh-oh-oh. No Reply at all. There's no reply at all" Your empty suits can't hang with Ryan...and Romney has landed some nice punches in the last 2 days. "Take it back to Chicago" Zing! So bad that CNN cut away right after that....before it got any worse for you. See here: http://www.realclear...to_chicago.html Remember: That's realclearpolitics dogging you....not me. Meanwhile Biden has....performed exactly as expected. "Put y'all back in chains", in a Southern accent? What do your Hollywood friends have to say about those insensitive comments? Is that not the best example of racist pandering there is? Yeah you are the party of sensitivity and tolerance, and that's your VP. You and they should enjoy wallowing in that. But wait...aren't these your actual values: keep minorities dependent on you so that they have to keep voting for you? Is this your example of "strength"? Is this "leadership"? As I said....it's always just a matter of time before I am proven right....this time we only had to wait 2 days. The Biden public whipping, I mean debate, is on Oct. 11, and that's just a matter of time as well. Now...should I write down your number now, and crush you then, or are you done right now?

Yeah...one guy's trouble with his wife... ....invalidates an entire group of people and a movement that is deeply supported in every state of in the union, and millions of people. If only it did, huh tomato can? Then you wouldn't have to deal with the arguments you can defeat huh? Again: they keep trying to kill the "leaders" of the TEA party! :lol: Aparently they will never learn. Good. Nothing finear(edit: finear? oops. Wait...yes, finear....a cross of funny and linear...as in linear thinker...one who is incapable of abstraction = the people who struggle to understand the TEA party) than watching a liberal struggle with an untenable concept.

Hmmm. is the Greek Chrous calling the plays...or is Obama? I'm not being a wiseass, I just don't know. Do you? That's kinda why I like my explanation: if Obama's focus is on some things, greening America, restructuring America, and then, every so often somebody hauls him into a room and says "unemployement is this" or "growth is that" he responds with "well none of that is reason enough for me to be in this meeting, now can I go back to what I was doing? All of this is fine....our real problem is over here."

NOOOOOOOOOOO! Wait...this is just a message board....and you don't actually have the power to make me Joe Biden. Whew!

It's not a gaffe...if you look at it the right way. You just have to get yourself within "the wrong". Premises Obama is trying to restructure the country and therefore: results, unemployment, growth...don't matter. The progress towards his design is the standard by which he is measuring his activity. The private sector doesn't matter, unless it's not doing well enough, and gets in the way of restructuring effort. The public sector, both growing it and modifying it is what matters, as the new design is dependent upon it. The real problem, and what thus far has eluded Obama's understanding, is that the states, counties etc. haven't been able to withstand the lack of revenue(um, requires private sector growth, but let's stay within the wrong)...and are restructuring in another direction as a result. Therefore, states, etc. are being restructured, forcibly and/or by default, in a manner that will almost certainly be incongruent with Obama's design for the Federal government, and American society on the whole. That's why incorrectly describing the status of the private sector, good or bad, isn't really a "mistake", for Obama. In Obama's view, it's doing well enough to not be in the way. The problem, as he sees it, is that the lesser governments aren't in a position to respond to his efforts, and in fact are going the other way. This is even happening in places like NYS. So, he and his efforts are frustrated. He can't keep remaking the country into being "government-centered" if whole parts of it are moving away from government(ahem, Wisconsin). Hence..."the private sector isn't my problem here, my problem is the public sector" .....or "the private sector is doing fine". Now, it's hysterical for those of us that aren't hinderded by nonsense...we can see how this thinking is backasswards. It's not "progressive" either. You can't do what he wants without having a good economy to start with. It's simply wrong. But, if you can get yourself within "the wrong"... you can see saying "the private sector is doing fine" is no mistake at all, and is actually quite correct.

This is exactly right. Another way to say it: Mitt Romney cares about solving the problem, getting results, and to be seen by all others as getting results exactly as much as Barack Obama cares about pushing the ideology, results aren't important as changing the structure, and therefore he is not, truly, the President of all.

In actuality the MSM isn't going to slip one by....the internet. Dan Rather the Great...was taken down by kids who know computer stuff....and a Professor...of Fonts(had no idea such thing even existed). You could never get those two groups together anywhere...but the internet. In IT, and I'm sure elsewhere, we have this concept of "extra eyes". Often, when debugging code, you just can't find the reason why it won't work. You can spend hours, and get nowhere, but you don't. Instead, you ask a buddy to take a look, and he finds the semi-colon you didn't have in the right place, in seconds. You got a set of extra eyes on the problem and it was over quick. (Yeah, yeah, I know all about code completion and IDE plugins...this is just an example for them...you nerds and tools.) The internet is a infinite mass of extra eyes. And mistakes....like flipping the page up so that we can see "Property of Obama Campaign" is written on it...may not be seen by one person....but it will ALWAYS be seen by the internet.

Obama: "I invested in the auto industry..." etc. No, assclown. We made the investment. You are just the broker that sold us your investment, and collectively, we were dumb enough to buy into it, and you. Now, the real investors, us, are gonna lose X Billions on this....Hmm...what should we do with a broker like that? Especially since he has a track record of bringing us exactly 0 worthy "investments"? How many more "investments" like this can we make? It's not enough just to get rid of this broker....we need to make sure we never hire another one like him ever again.

1. Colorado just went to from leans Obama to Toss Up. IMHO...that means CO will go Romney. It's the only conclusion that makes sense. What is Obama going to do between then and now that is going to make it go back? Is Obama gonna do tax reform, or something else that people want before Nov? Spending a boatload of money there may hold it at Toss up...but I don't think it moves back to lean Obama. 2. It's no surprise that...since few in the media understand the TEA party....most would not understand who is actually IN the TEA party. There's all kinds of people in the TEA party...including TONS of seniors. So, this "Ryan kills Florida " analysis is preposterous. Look at these poll results: http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/04/gallup-seniors.php Hey Josh....it's only "counterintuitive" for you, and the rest of the media. Why would seniors...who are most likely to vote Republican, least susceptable to candidate "marketing", and most likely to respond to somebody who is every bit the man he says he is.....not respond overwhelmingly to Paul Ryan? Therefore, this Florida thing is ridiculous. As was said above...Rubio gets who Romney would have gotten anyway. Ryan gets people excited. In fact, Obama needs to be up by 10 in a Florida poll for me to believe that he can win it...that's because: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/08/01/us/politics/01quinnipiac-new-york-times-cbs-poll.html see? They keep stacking the deck with registered Democrats in these polls. 6 points in Florida, 7 in OH, and 6 in PA = And, the undecided thing above means Romney gets 2-3 points at the end. So...6 points(stacked deck) + 2-3 points(undecided late moves)= Obama needs to be winning by 10 in one of these polls for me to believe that he will win Florida.

Ahh, but therin lies the beauty of the TEA party design. Perhaps the best way to think of it: An organization whose design and ideology is decentalized...is a concept that is intellectually untenable...for those who can only conceive of top-down, "all policy must be accepted as written", centralization. As all rules/ref changes will be based on that centralized thinking....they simply cannot affect the TEA party as intended. The other TEA party design point: some can denigrate Paul Ryan on old media, and try to scare seniors with him. But, apparently these people aren't aware of how many seniors are in the TEA party! Think about it: what the hell else do these guys have to do all day? Does anybody realize how many emails these bastards send out? Go create a sock puppet, sign up, and see for yourself. And this is borne out by the latest polls: 43% of seniors like Paul Ryan, with only 22% not liking him. That's nearly double. The rest don't know him. With that much of a head start....good luck trying to tell me that seniors hate Paul Ryan. The TEA party isn't a homogenous group, like "latinos", or "teachers". Seniors are in there in full force, but so are 20-somethings. Again, old thinking being applied to the TEA party = FAIL. It isn't a self-interest or identity-based special interest. Rather, it's a genuine, SELFLESS movement based on shared vision. "All of us, together"...has destroyed "us vs. them" and "what's in it for me?"...in every election the TEA party has worked but 2. That's around a 200-2 record. Except for a very few members(1 that I know of), the TEA party personally and collectively accepts the blame for not winning the Senate. They have learned that they need to get into races a lot earlier to make sure they know who they are supporting. But again, they accept the blame, will learn from it, and won't make them again. Can you say the same about "progressives"? No. You can say the exact opposite: when they lose...it's everybody else's fault, and therefore, they learn nothing. That's why the TEA party wins, and that's why none of the nonsense(racist, hateful, violent, cynical) BS charges have stuck: the TEA party is positive, and inclusive. Those that oppose it, especially given how they have CHOSEN to do so, have defined themselves as derisive, and divisive. And really? That's exactly what they F'ing are.

Demonstrable Ignorance of Material #1: Wait...was Reagan responsible for Clinton's success...or was it us start-up tech guys? Demonstrable Ignorance of Material #2: Nowhere did anybody ever call Gingrich a traitor. In fact quite the opposite. Why would Gingrich base his recent campaign for President, on his ability to get things done in Washington, if he was "the traitor". Gingrich got in trouble for hypocrisy on the Lewinsky thing, and corruption. Not because he worked with Clinton. Clinton's sucess has mostly to do with Clinton, followed by a Gingrich's need to deliver something after having finally taken the House after 50 years of Democrat dominance. It's obvious that business conditions helped, but it's just as obvious that the message that was sent in 1994....long before the tech boom, was that it was "safe" to have the tech boom. It's obvious that Reagan's policies helped Clinton....because Reagan made the concept of restructuring government acceptable as a solution. Clinton used that, and his personal popularity to be truly "flexible"...to the point that he used the well-documented "triangulation" strategy...to take credit for deploying Republican ideas, some with modification, some right out of the box. This is the real history of this. What you said above is laughable. The only thing that surpasses my wonder at history repeating itself...is your ability to miss it...twice. Yeah..The Contract with America freshman class of legislators....they weren't like the TEA party people at all. Nah, they lacked partisanship, and couldn't wait to work with Clinton...after having been elected on a platorm of ripping him a new one. The ONLY difference here: how Clinton responded to getting whipped in 1994....vs how Obama responded in 2010 and ALL of this happened BEFORE the Lewinsky scandal. 4-5 years before in fact. So WTF are you talking about? The only person that Obama could have controlled was himself...and he did that poorly. He should have called up Dick Morris, gotten Clinton's gameplan, and run with it...if he was competent, if he was wise enough to see that the country was simply pissed at Bush...but not interested in becoming Europe....he would have been OK. But, instead he either chose to believe the BS...or he just doesn't know any better...because he's incompetent.. Obama has nobody to blame but himself. All we need do is look at who the Republicans identified at the #1 political liability: Obama. Not nutty members of Congress that Obama supported. Not policy this or that, like health care for Clinton. No. The man himself, and his obvious inability to do the job. Think about it: Obamacare is a MASSIVE liability that Republicans could have chosen...but the man himself is the bigger liability, and Obamacare is now 5th on the list of what Romney talks about? The Republicans know it, I know it, we all know it. It's reality, regardless of whether you want to accept it. You haven't understood most of what I said here: I am pointing out bad CHOICES that Obama made...over and over, when he already had a recent example, in Clinton, of what making the right choices could have gotten him. He sucks....because he made these bad choices, not because he is "evil" He's a good guy, and I can see him being effective in a lot of jobs. See..I'm not a Bush-deranged Democrat. Obama has simply shown that he's not the right guy for this job. Even if Obama wins....it will be by such a close margin..and by such a goofy coalition....that it won't matter. He will be the least-powerful President since Ford, and that will be dangerous for the world.

I just gave you a series of specifc, factual events that prove that compromise is not only possible....but "winnable". And you respond with this? Who's the awful contributor to the board again? All you have is ad hominem, and name calling. I don't understand? Ok, then tell me specifically what I don't understand about the history of Bill Clinton/Newt Gingrich and the deals they put together. Go ahead, show us how familiar you are with the material. I can't believe I say: "willful ignorance of the material being discussed is the problem that always gets them"....and you respond as you have. Do I neeed to spell it out further?

Except for the one Bill Clinton negotiated...and then out-negotiated Newt Gingrich on...right? Yeah...the one that actually got "raising taxes on the rich" accomplished, with a Republican House? The one that raised taxes to 39%? The one that didn't happen exactly the way I said? You don't even know why you win, when you do. All you know is that you win once in a long while, and mostly lose. No introspection whatsoever. See? It's as I said: it's always just a matter of time until you liberals say something completely batty, you are broken and scattered, and all I have to do is ride you down. Retarded? How retarded do you have to be to not know WHY Bill Clinton is so good for your party? And, why Hillary would have been so good? The Republicans have to get elected too...and they would have been happy to work with a 60 pt approval rating Obama(or Hillary). Hell, if he had handled it right, he would have had Republicans pushing each other out of the way to be standing next to him on any legislation, no matter how small. But he didn't handle it right, did he? No, he listened to idiots...who are all now back at their college campuses. He didn't take a strong interest...in his own Presidency , and treated it like an intellectual discussion that he was merely moderating. Or...facilitating? He hasn't even met with his own members of Congress for years. If he isn't talking to them....what the F is he doing with the Republicans? That is why Obama deserves to lose. The job can be done....but it, again, DEMANDS COMPETENCE.

Sitll butt hurt over your "reading comprehension"? Jesus...it's no big deal. Here's the thing: I was here in 2005, and I will be here long after you run away like the rest of the liberals who either can't hang...or who are proven wrong by events as they unfold. Just ask the "surge won't work people". Long gone. The passage of time killed them, therefore...all I need is time. Time is on my side, and you can cry all you want, but when you get done...I will still be here, giggling, as your willful ignorance of the material continues to put you on the wrong side of history. Just ask the "generals" who knew nothing about military...anything...yet "knew" what would happen with The Surge. Objectively, did you not see that, after the way the first 2 years of Obama's term went..(ahem, back of the bus) the Republicans, seeing the damage he was doing to the country and himself, in every facet of the job, would NOT correctly see Obama himself as problem #1 for the country? And political liability #1 for the next election? We can't fix the debt, entitlements, or anything as long as we have incomepetence, never mind poorly considered ideology, in positions of power. This isn't about opinion, this is about competence. Hillary would NEVER, EVER have let things get this bad. Many may not agree with her opinion on a range of things...but she is competent. She never would have run things the way those ass clowns did the first 2 years. She knows better, because she is competent. Most importantly, Hillary never would have created Simpson Bowles to being with...why? Because she is competent. Instead, she would have lead the compromise herself. That's because, she is competent, and she's not so concerned with putting herself out there, and risking damaging her self image...that she would allow her failure to lead...to damage her external image. Did I mention she was competent? Hillary would know the calls from the deep pockets liberla donors were coming...so...because she is competent, she would have never allowed herself to put into a position where she had to "pick" or be the arbiter. Instead, she'd do what her husband did: negotiate, deploy a bunch of Republican ideas, declare victory, and then congratulate those liberal donors on beating the Republicans....before they knew what hit them. That's because...she's competent.

Flexible? As in spending all the money and time to put Simpson Bowles together...and then not doing any of it? Why did that happen? Oh I dunno...perhaps a call from liberal deep pocket donors who labor under the delusion that we don't have to IMMEDIATELY fix entitlements? So much for..."flexibility". In contrast, which Republican extremist wants to get into a running battle with Romney/Ryan? Therefore, who has the real "flexibility"? Dude. Don't respond right away. Instead, go get some good sleep and then tomorrow, ask yourself: is Obama's lack of a budget plan, or the fact that he is the first President in history to not pass a single budget during his entire term....really...an advantage? First analyze that politically, then practically, then think about what is truly good for the country. In what possible, rational, way is this a "good thing" for Obama, or for anybody? Jesus. I knew it was bad...but I didn't think it was this bad. You guys really don't know what to think...do you? I suggest reading up on what Carville has to say. He's trying to save the party. So is Clinton. The best way to do that? Stay home on election day, reorganize, and come back in 2016...because this? This is just going to be painful. I want a reasonable Democratic party to keep Republicans in line. This, is not that.

Heh....if the TEA party was going to do anything....they'd do something like what the original guys did....not take over a town....how about take over a server or 2? How about take over social media? Not by hacking, but by running a very efficient "instant response" to....crap....like you posted here. The "writers" of that "paper" don't understand the TEA party at all. Feel free to use the search function, because I've already extensively covered the reasons why they can't understand. It's not just that "progessives" are inferior to the TEA party in terms of intelligence, although that doesn't help. No: the main reason they don't get it...is that it's a new idea. They are trying to map their, old, tired way of thinking onto it, and that just doesn't work. The TEA party is better at life in general than the people they are competing against. Therefore, they have 0 reason "to take their ball and go home". Rather, they will simply dunk on them, over and over. Keep moving off the ball, and setting those hard screens to set up the easy, open shot: "you don't get to call failure...change....and class warfare...hope". If anybody will be running home crying...it's the Public Worker's unions, the college professors, and the "just give it to me" people.(Edit: am I talking about welfare...or trial lawyers...you figure it out) You know, Obama's base. I always laugh when I hear pathetic attempts at analyzing the TEA party by liberals. They don't know what they don't know about the TEA party...so it's always going to be a wonderful source of hilarity. Like this post. But, hey, there's hope for you. At least you recognized the problem: bad premises about the TEA party make for bizarre conclusions...don't they? The next step is to start analyzing your premises. I'll leave you to it.

What? Where did I say you were one of those who are trying to marginalize the debates? Reading comprehension?

Oh it absolutely is. The right will never say that: they will say "you are too stupid to get it". Or, they would spend the next 5 pages of a thread explaining what you don't get, in the hopes that you will get it, but if you don't, then they would say "you are too stupid to get it". But never, ever would they allow your ignorance or stupidity to slide without making damn sure you were held accountable for it. Hence, "you are too stupid", rather than "you just don't". The right isn't interested in your feelings...as much as they are in your ability to contaminate the rest of the world with your idiocy. Hence: "you just don't get it" can never ever be a real device of the right. Kinda like: Obama is a f'ing idiot for the way the stimulus was handled....it's not that he just doesn't get economics. Edit: Easy way to remember: the right is for NOT everbody gets a trophy. The more "debates are no big deal" posts I read? The more fear I smell. There's fear and insecurity....asses are puckering....little drops of sweat instantly squirting out of armpits.\ And of course... I am ing.

No, it's just that neither of you understand strength, real strength, because I seriously doubt either of you have ever had to be, really. I don't know if you are weak. But I do know: you ain't strong. Strong people don't have tell other people how moral they are birdog, do they? They are not "moral by association" either, Mr. That's Why I'm a Democrat. They just show it. Smart people don't have to tell other's how good they are at "subtext " tgreg, do they? They just show it. Thus, when confronted with real strength, or upon seeing the real weakness in the people you support(Ryan Vs. Obama), it makes you uncomfortable. So, you do the only thing you can: make a "joke" and hope that prevents others from noticing your/their inadequacies. Yeah...good one. I thought you were a writer? If you're going to make fun of me, let's see some effort. Of course...I'm not calling either of you weak, that's for other posters to decide. However, one thing I'm absolutely sure is a sign of weakness: Putting Paul Ryan in the front row and bashing on him...because you are too scared to take him on man to man is pure weakness. Neither of you 2 have addressed that point directly, man to man. Instead you are trying to "find" humor....where it already exists in a form you don't comprehend. Well, will you be strong, really strong....or will you choose weakness? I wrote it in a style that you've never heard, have you? Now, anybody whose every been on a team, any kind of team, that doesn't suck, that is expected to win, but there's a good chance they won't, and whose winning or losing will actually matter and affect lives forever, and that knows that will require real blood, real sweat and real tears? They've heard that language before. You....haven't. Again, not saying you're weak...it's just that you don't really know it, do you? Hint: It's not chest thumping...it's the exact opposite....but you are struggling with that too, aren't you?

What is this post? Just give me a non-prevarication and move along!

pBills would also be nice.... Although ....lybob has sorta taken over the "I'm largely drawing conclusions based on my confusions" role. But I want my personal whipping boy, Bad Lieutenant to return. Used to love ripping him up, then trolling him, then back to ripping. He had no clue...and he would get sooooo angry.

All we need to illustrate the preposterous nature of socialism....or Obama's "social justice" (which is NOT socialism, but something else)? Art. Yes...art. The thing liberals claim to know all about. Art comes from the mind...not the teacher. But...ask the artist to share the credit, or the cash, derived from their work sometime. Tell them that they didn't build that themselves....and that most of what they did came from their influences, or the guy who made the paint/keyboard, and not from them....and see the hypocrtical tears tears start to flow. Why are they so quick to sue over royalities....if they had help, and "it takes a village", and they needed their precious governement to do what they have? Even somebody with an NEA grant...did the grant come up with the art...or did it just pay for lattes....while you were coming up with the art?

Yes, this is the conner verson of "declare victory and go home". He seems to forget that some of us where there for every single idiotic thread...when he was strating 4 a day in 2008, etc. Didn't seem to hate the board too much then...did he? But, now that everything we told conner would happen, literally, everything has come to pass....he hates that he has to come here....and face the music. The fun part: he can't help himself....so it seems we WILL have him to kick around...again.

Because Romney is really a vampire....and Obama really is just another in a long line of vampire hunters....going back to Abe Lincoln? Because...only that, only that, would excuse his terrible performance and unhinged neeed to see his ideology, rather than what is practical for right now, deployed no matter the cost to the country.