Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 Time CNN poll in Ohio has it 36D/27R?....................................... 9 points?.................................... 4 points more than '08? That's just embarrassing. So Ohio was D+5 in 2008 and Time just released a D+9 with Obama under 50% ( 49-44.)...........and you are celebrating I guess ignorance IS bliss. So, I guess your prediction is that Romney wins Ohio? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Not that I really care although I find the string of these to be funny...but in all honesty w/ out being partisan how can you say that isn't basically what he said. "Even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen." This whole "you don't get it" gig is stupid...there isn't much to get. Life is wonderful and it's Gods intent, even when it comes from rape. Duck boy doesn't have anything wrong there... Thinking that it might have a major affect on the Presidential race seems to be a little batschit crazy, but "a little batschit crazy" is a step up for Davey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 Thinking that it might have a major affect on the Presidential race seems to be a little batschit crazy, but "a little batschit crazy" is a step up for Davey. Another state going to Obama might affect the race is crazy? You are stupid. You are a stupid person Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Another state going to Obama might affect the race is crazy? You are stupid. You are a stupid person Missed the point again, didn't you, Davey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 David Gergan on Ohio: "In the pivotal state of Ohio, for example, the Obama campaign has three times as many offices, often captained by experienced young people. By contrast, a major Republican figure in the state, throwing up his hands, told me that the Romney field team looked like a high school civics class. The Romney team heartily disagrees, of course; we'll just have to wait and see." http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/opinion/gergen-who-will-win/index.html Missed the point again, didn't you, Davey? The point is that you are a total and complete idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 David Gergan on Ohio: "In the pivotal state of Ohio, for example, the Obama campaign has three times as many offices, often captained by experienced young people. By contrast, a major Republican figure in the state, throwing up his hands, told me that the Romney field team looked like a high school civics class. The Romney team heartily disagrees, of course; we'll just have to wait and see." http://www.cnn.com/2...-win/index.html The point is that you are a total and complete idiot. And you of course refuse to address the issues and fall back on calling people names. Go get your diaper changed before you come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 David Gergan on Ohio: "In the pivotal state of Ohio, for example, the Obama campaign has three times as many offices, often captained by experienced young people. By contrast, a major Republican figure in the state, throwing up his hands, told me that the Romney field team looked like a high school civics class. The Romney team heartily disagrees, of course; we'll just have to wait and see." http://www.cnn.com/2...-win/index.html And your quote above, when taken into context (assuming it's true), should frighten the Democrats to death. Let me be clear: The President has 3x the boots on the ground and Romney has a high school organization by comparison, and they are STILL TIED IN OHIO. You should be quite concerned... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 She's smart enough to caucus with the Democrats in the Senate? Yup, good enough for me!So for you it's not about the quality and personal integrity of the individual candidate, it's exclusively about the Blue People and the Red People? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 Oh my gawd.....a hardcore liberal leftist is up in the polls in a hardcore, liberal state!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/virginia/ Nice! Obama back on top in the Old Dominion!! Poor old Robert E. Lee rolling in his grave So for you it's not about the quality and personal integrity of the individual candidate, it's exclusively about the Blue People and the Red People? You are against supporting a certain political party? I support the Democratic parties policies and Warren is a leader in the Democractic party, whats wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 http://www.publicpol.../main/virginia/ Nice! Obama back on top in the Old Dominion!! Sorry, DD, per usual, you are wrong. about Virginia. about General Lee. about everything. RCP Average 10/7 - 10/24 -- -- 48.3................ 46.8 ...........Romney+1.5 FOX News 10/23 - 10/24 ...... 47 ................... 45............................ Romney +2 Rasmussen 10/24 - 10/24 .........50................. 48............................. Romney +2 ARG ...........10/12 - 10/14 ......... 48................... 47.........................Romney +1 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 25, 2012 Author Share Posted October 25, 2012 Rasmussen[/url] 10/24 - 10/24 .........50................. 48............................. Romney +2 ARG ...........10/12 - 10/14 ......... 48................... 47.........................Romney +1 . Ha ha ha, you better hope that poll is wrong and Fox, lol, and Rassmussen, lol, are right. Romney is a dead duck early on election night if Obama captures Lee's home state. I wonder what that old slave holding a-hole would say about a black guy being president. Of course a lot of those old Confedates traitors thought Lincoln had black blood, so I guess we know what he'd do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 You are against supporting a certain political party? I support the Democratic parties policies and Warren is a leader in the Democractic party, whats wrong with that? I'm 100% against blind hyper-partisanship, because it's destructive to the fabric of America. Strict allegiance to a single political party, regardless of which one it is inevitably leads to corruption of it's office holders as Brand Name incumbency takes root, and the Brand Names are not held accountable as scandals, poor moral judgement, hypocrisy, and even blatant criminal behavior are ignored in favor of replacing a good person who has a different letter after their name. On the one hand you have a woman who you view as a leader of your prefered party who exemplifies, on a personal level, neary every single thing that party is opposed to. She has gamed the system committing fraud for her own benefit. She has helped large corporations wage war against their labor force, siding with those corporate interests against the health care of their employees. She knowingly took advantage of low-income borrowers in the housing crash turning a huge personal profit at the expense of the working poor and middle class. On the other you have a pro-choice fiscal conservative, who with his first congressional vote sided with Senate Democrats passing a jobs bill, has sided with President Obama on every single issue surrounding the war in Afghanistan, and very vocally broke with his party voting to repeal Don't Ask; Don't Tell. Infact, being the second most moderate voice in the Senate on either side of the isle, he voted with his party only 54% of the time. If principled individuals with the willingness and ability to compromise who don't view the political opposition as an enemy, but rather as a partner is the way forward to prosperity, and obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism is bad, then so is your hyper-partisan allegiance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxrock Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'm 100% against blind hyper-partisanship, because it's destructive to the fabric of America. Strict allegiance to a single political party, regardless of which one it is inevitably leads to corruption of it's office holders as Brand Name incumbency takes root, and the Brand Names are not held accountable as scandals, poor moral judgement, hypocrisy, and even blatant criminal behavior are ignored in favor of replacing a good person who has a different letter after their name. On the one hand you have a woman who you view as a leader of your prefered party who exemplifies, on a personal level, neary every single thing that party is opposed to. She has gamed the system committing fraud for her own benefit. She has helped large corporations wage war against their labor force, siding with those corporate interests against the health care of their employees. She knowingly took advantage of low-income borrowers in the housing crash turning a huge personal profit at the expense of the working poor and middle class. On the other you have a pro-choice fiscal conservative, who with his first congressional vote sided with Senate Democrats passing a jobs bill, has sided with President Obama on every single issue surrounding the war in Afghanistan, and very vocally broke with his party voting to repeal Don't Ask; Don't Tell. Infact, being the second most moderate voice in the Senate on either side of the isle, he voted with his party only 54% of the time. If principled individuals with the willingness and ability to compromise who don't view the political opposition as an enemy, but rather as a partner is the way forward to prosperity, and obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism is bad, then so is your hyper-partisan allegiance. Hear, hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'm 100% against blind hyper-partisanship, because it's destructive to the fabric of America. Strict allegiance to a single political party, the On the other you have a pro-choice fiscal conservative, who with his first congressional vote sided with Senate Democrats passing a jobs bill, has sided with President Obama on every single issue surrounding the war in Afghanistan, and very vocally broke with his party voting of the isle, he voted with his party only 54% of the ti If principled individuals with the willingness and ability to compromise who don't view the political opposition as an enemy, but rather as a partner is the way forward to prosperity, and obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism is bad, then so is your hyper-partisan allegiance. You are full of chit. Which Democrats do you like now that are in the White House? Obama, Biden or Clinton or any of the other cabinet members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'm 100% against blind hyper-partisanship, because it's destructive to the fabric of America. .... If principled individuals with the willingness and ability to compromise who don't view the political opposition as an enemy, but rather as a partner is the way forward to prosperity, and obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism is bad, then so is your hyper-partisan allegiance. I'll second Oxrock's "Hear, Hear!" Represent the people, no the party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 You are full of chit. Which Democrats do you like now that are in the White House? Obama, Biden or Clinton or any of the other cabinet members? I won't quibble with you f'd up question. How about Petraeus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 I'll second Oxrock's "Hear, Hear!" Represent the people, no the party. Elizabeth Warren is in no way so bad that she would embarrass the Democratic Party. She is a fine candidate I won't quibble with you f'd up question. How about Petraeus? What about him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 26, 2012 Share Posted October 26, 2012 Elizabeth Warren is in no way so bad that she would embarrass the Democratic Party. She is a fine candidate What about him? Are you questioning the CIA Director? You're in trouble now. No little ruse like changing your screen name from DiN to DD will fool him. Welcome to Obama's "hit list". I'd be on the lookout for drones if I were you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duck_dodgers007 Posted October 26, 2012 Author Share Posted October 26, 2012 Are you questioning the CIA Director? You're in trouble now. No little ruse like changing your screen name from DiN to DD will fool him. Welcome to Obama's "hit list". I'd be on the lookout for drones if I were you. Lol, What??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts