President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Behshad]

Here's a poll out today showing Romney up roughly 48% to 47% over O in Florida, this poll oversampled Dems by 5.6%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2 ... L_0918.pdf

Now wait a second. You said polls are rigged Of course , NOW theyre not cause you like the numbers ? But if it changes to Obama leading then theyre BAD BAD polls!

Hey Sushi, Your boyfriend is the hypocrite

[Behshad]

[The Sushi Hunter]

Here's a poll out today showing Romney up roughly 48% to 47% over O in Florida, this poll oversampled Dems by 5.6%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2 ... L_0918.pdf

Now wait a second. You said polls are rigged Of course , NOW theyre not cause you like the numbers ? But if it changes to Obama leading then theyre BAD BAD polls!

Hey Sushi, Your boyfriend is the hypocrite

I don't recall that I said polls are rigged. I do recall saying they don't mean anything to me until after the elections though. Please direct me as to where I said polls are rigged.

[Behshad]

Here's a poll out today showing Romney up roughly 48% to 47% over O in Florida, this poll oversampled Dems by 5.6%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/docs/2 ... L_0918.pdf

Now wait a second. You said polls are rigged Of course , NOW theyre not cause you like the numbers ? But if it changes to Obama leading then theyre BAD BAD polls!

Hey Sushi, Your boyfriend is the hypocrite

I don't recall that I said polls are rigged. I do recall saying they don't mean anything to me until after the elections though. Please direct me as to where I said polls are rigged.

I dont recall quoting YOU , did I !? My post was pointed at your buddy FF !
I mentioned your name at the bottom, to point out your boyfriends fine qualities

[The Sushi Hunter]

My post was pointed at your buddy FF ! I mentioned your name at the bottom, to point out your boyfriends fine qualities

LOL Good one Behshad. I'm going to have to go out to lunch for a Sbux hot chocolate over that one, really. You must be involved in a same sex orgy playing circle jerk with other members on this board with slurpmencum as the pivot man. You guys are funny! With people like you...who couldn't be happier?

[Michigan Girl]

I don't think it's a matter of cutting out 47% of the country because they don't matter, although
that is the way the media is spinning it ...I believe it's more a matter of how can we make that 47%
less reliable on the government for effin everything. Granted, there are a small
percent within that 47% who want to work and take care of their families and are un/underemployed
through no fault of their own, but there are also those who didn't work prior to the economic
devasation and have taken complete advantage. I know one does not have to be of one
particular party to see this.

[The Sushi Hunter]

I don't think it's a matter of cutting out 47% of the country because they don't matter, although
that is the way the media is spinning it ...I believe it's more a matter of how can we make that 47%
less reliable on the government for effin everything. Granted, there are a small
percent within that 47% who want to work and take care of their families and are un/underemployed
through no fault of their own, but there are also those who didn't work prior to the economic
devasation and have taken complete advantage. I know one does not have to be of one
particular party to see this.

Quite true, but like everything it's easier said than done. I've mingled with long term unemployed local folks in my area and they don't seem too excited to get working or reenter the workforce after losing their jobs, just as long as the unemployment keeps on rolling in.

[Behshad]

I don't think it's a matter of cutting out 47% of the country because they don't matter, although
that is the way the media is spinning it ...I believe it's more a matter of how can we make that 47%
less reliable on the government for effin everything. Granted, there are a small
percent within that 47% who want to work and take care of their families and are un/underemployed
through no fault of their own, but there are also those who didn't work prior to the economic
devasation and have taken complete advantage. I know one does not have to be of one
particular party to see this.

Quite true, but like everything it's easier said than done. I've mingled with long term unemployed local folks in my area and they don't seem too excited to get working or reenter the workforce after losing their jobs, just as long as the unemployment keeps on rolling in.

And you think Romney will magically motivate these people to get back to work?
The problem isnt that there arent any jobs out there. The problem is people's laziness and no matter who gets in office, we will still have the same problem. We can't change that.

[The Sushi Hunter]

I don't think it's a matter of cutting out 47% of the country because they don't matter, although
that is the way the media is spinning it ...I believe it's more a matter of how can we make that 47%
less reliable on the government for effin everything. Granted, there are a small
percent within that 47% who want to work and take care of their families and are un/underemployed
through no fault of their own, but there are also those who didn't work prior to the economic
devasation and have taken complete advantage. I know one does not have to be of one
particular party to see this.

Quite true, but like everything it's easier said than done. I've mingled with long term unemployed local folks in my area and they don't seem too excited to get working or reenter the workforce after losing their jobs, just as long as the unemployment keeps on rolling in.

And you think Romney will magically motivate these people to get back to work?
The problem isnt that there arent any jobs out there. The problem is people's laziness and no matter who gets in office, we will still have the same problem. We can't change that.

I never claimed Romney could for sure. But from what has already, or in this case what has not occurred, Obama hasn't been able to do it. So what are we going to do? Vote for Obama for another four years and see if he can "magically" do it in a second term?

[Behshad]

I don't think it's a matter of cutting out 47% of the country because they don't matter, although
that is the way the media is spinning it ...I believe it's more a matter of how can we make that 47%
less reliable on the government for effin everything. Granted, there are a small
percent within that 47% who want to work and take care of their families and are un/underemployed
through no fault of their own, but there are also those who didn't work prior to the economic
devasation and have taken complete advantage. I know one does not have to be of one
particular party to see this.

Quite true, but like everything it's easier said than done. I've mingled with long term unemployed local folks in my area and they don't seem too excited to get working or reenter the workforce after losing their jobs, just as long as the unemployment keeps on rolling in.

And you think Romney will magically motivate these people to get back to work?
The problem isnt that there arent any jobs out there. The problem is people's laziness and no matter who gets in office, we will still have the same problem. We can't change that.

I never claimed Romney could for sure. But from what has already, or in this case what has not occurred, Obama hasn't been able to do it. So what are we going to do? Vote for Obama for another four years and see if he can "magically" do it in a second term?

No I dont think either of them can change that. However , if we have to support these lazy bones, I do not want to pay MORE towards it out of my pocket as a result of tax breaks for the wealthy. I dont see why they should get a tax break and I should have to make up for it. That is exactly what will happen with Romney in office.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Either way, it's going to come out of our pockets regardless.

[Behshad]

Either way, it's going to come out of our pockets regardless.

But with Romney in office , we would have to contribute MORE

[The Sushi Hunter]

Either way, it's going to come out of our pockets regardless.

But with Romney in office , we would have to contribute MORE

Are you certain about that?

Either way, it's going to come out of our pockets regardless. If the so called "rich" are taxed higher, they will make up that difference by charging us more. Rich become rich because they've created, built, etc. ways to make money from people, i.e. business owners. If the government increases what they pay, only a fool doesn't think that the owners are not going to increase their prices to make up their new overhead losses in higher taxes. Charging the rich will eventually trickle down to come out of the average citizen's pocket.

A few years back I had an opportunity to go on unemployment. I was laid off from a good paying job with lots of benefits that I had for many years and built my lifestyle around. Instead of going on unemployment, I took a pitiful low paying job at a bank. I could have actually made more money being on unemployment then doing that job. Going to work everyday does cost money in fuel and such. But I'm not into handouts due to how hard I've worked all my life. I ended up quitting the bank and going back to school full time. Two years later I got done with school and then went through a handful of scrub entry level jobs at various locations. And over a year ago I got the job I have now where I make more than I made before I was even laid off years back at the one job that had the good pay and benefits.

So the premise of my story is, there are lots of people out there who've lost their jobs just like I did and in the same financial situation in the beginning, but not so many will take up a lower paying job over unemployment. So after so much time on unemployment, what are they going to put on their resume? That's another reason they shouldn't be content with being on unemployment for long periods of time. If you're a hiring manager, who would you consider for the job, A) someone that hasn't worked in years or B) someone who's current in the workforce? The answer probably also depends on the job and who's the hiring manager.

[Behshad]

Either way, it's going to come out of our pockets regardless.

But with Romney in office , we would have to contribute MORE

Are you certain about that?

Either way, it's going to come out of our pockets regardless. If the so called "rich" are taxed higher, they will make up that difference by charging us more. Rich become rich because they've created, built, etc. ways to make money from people, i.e. business owners. If the government increases what they pay, only a fool doesn't think that the owners are not going to increase their prices to make up their new overhead losses in higher taxes. Charging the rich will eventually trickle down to come out of the average citizen's pocket.

A few years back I had an opportunity to go on unemployment. I was laid off from a good paying job with lots of benefits that I had for many years and built my lifestyle around. Instead of going on unemployment, I took a pitiful low paying job at a bank. I could have actually made more money being on unemployment then doing that job. Going to work everyday does cost money in fuel and such. But I'm not into handouts due to how hard I've worked all my life. I ended up quitting the bank and going back to school full time. Two years later I got done with school and then went through a handful of scrub entry level jobs at various locations. And over a year ago I got the job I have now where I make more than I made before I was even laid off years back at the one job that had the good pay and benefits.

So the premise of my story is, there are lots of people out there who've lost their jobs just like I did and in the same financial situation in the beginning, but not so many will take up a lower paying job over unemployment. So after so much time on unemployment, what are they going to put on their resume? That's another reason they shouldn't be content with being on unemployment for long periods of time. If you're a hiring manager, who would you consider for the job, A) someone that hasn't worked in years or B) someone who's current in the workforce? The answer probably also depends on the job and who's the hiring manager.

Yes I am certain about that. And they already control what we pay so I dont buy that excuse.
Listen, I dont want the rich to get taxed HIGHER! I just dont want them to have a tax break that I have to make up for !
I just want them to pay the same tax the pay now, but without any loopholes.


And unfortunately not everyone thinks like you when it comes to unemployment. Funny people who complain about big government and all, are the first to stick out their hand for Government help and would rather do that instead of taking a less paying job. Kudos to you to have your pride and taking a job instead of sitting on your ass at home and live off of unemployment.

[conversationpc]

The Gallup poll, which was at +7 for Obama not long after the DNC convention now has Obama up 1.

[Behshad]

The Gallup poll, which was at +7 for Obama not long after the DNC convention now has Obama up 1.

Thanks Alan Jr

[Behshad]

Obama In 1998: "I Actually Believe In Redistribution"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

Talk about grasping at straws, going back 14 years !
Good job Captain!

[The Sushi Hunter]

Kudos to you to have your pride and taking a job instead of sitting on your ass at home and live off of unemployment.

I have a family that relies on me so it was quite easy. Family comes first, pride in work that I have to do to support them comes last.

[Behshad]

Kudos to you to have your pride and taking a job instead of sitting on your ass at home and live off of unemployment.

I have a family that relies on me so it was quite easy. Family comes first, pride in work that I have to do to support them comes last.

OK I take back what I said about FF being your boyfriend, cause youre better than that. But I still think there is hope for you to see things from an angle closer to reality. You are middle class. With either of those two candidates you will get screwed once way or another, but you will get screwed over MORE with Romney in office , simply because you dont make more than $250000 a year !

[conversationpc]

The Gallup poll, which was at +7 for Obama not long after the DNC convention now has Obama up 1.

Thanks Alan Jr

[Behshad]

The Gallup poll, which was at +7 for Obama not long after the DNC convention now has Obama up 1.

Thanks Alan Jr

That's my name, B likes to think he's funny. There's 10,000 Comedians out of work and B tries to be funny.

Youre the one whos trying to be funny with your polls left and right, but then say polls dont count if Democrats lead Youre pretty good at being funny and thats about it

[Michigan Girl]

About that 47% statement....

From CNBC

I wish you could provide better #'s, FF, almost 10,000 is not good enough. However, we do
know that there are at least 75% (75.000001 counting me) people in the USA who do agree that we need to
DETACH these breast sucking six year olds from Lady Liberty and teach them to eat with a fork ...
but, in doing so, we must make sure not to stab ourselves in the ass w/that fork.

[slucero]

for you polling sluts... you really are wasting your time with polls right now..

Gauging the Accuracy of Election Polls
http://www.people-press.org/methodology ... ion-polls/


Although polls have occasionally failed to predict who will win an election (most recently in the 2008 Democratic primary election in New Hampshire), polling’s track record is actually very good. The National Council for Public Polls ( http://www.ncpp.org/ )has conducted analysis of presidential election polling accuracy from 1936 to the present and provides reports summarizing these results on their website.

The good track record of final pre-election polls does not mean that all pre-election polls are reliable. Polls conducted early in an election season should be taken as snapshots in time, and obviously cannot capture the impact of the campaign and events to come. This publication examines presidential election polls conducted well in advance of the election and attempts to gauge how predictive they are:


How Reliable Are the Early Presidential Polls? February 14, 2007
http://www.people-press.org/2007/02/14/ ... ial-polls/



These publications provide a few tips to help in reading polls and deciding how much weight to give them:


The Bounce Effect September 11, 2008
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/947/the-bounce-effect

Beware of the Bounce August 4, 2000
http://www.people-press.org/2000/08/04/ ... he-bounce/

Another Bush Lead Vanishes? July 14, 2000
http://www.people-press.org/2000/07/14/ ... -vanishes/

So Who’s Ahead? April 14, 2000
http://www.people-press.org/2000/04/14/so-whos-ahead/


National polls sometimes attempt to gauge how voters will vote in elections for the U.S. House of Representatives. Of course, there is no national election for the House; instead there are elections in each of the 435 congressional districts. But pollsters have found that the so-called “generic ballot test,” which asks whether respondents intend to vote for the Republican or the Democratic candidate in their local race for the House, can provide an accurate estimate of the vote on which projections about party gains and losses in seats can be based. The following publications illustrate the use of the generic ballot test and some of the issues involved in using it:

Why The Generic Ballot Test? October 1, 2002
http://www.people-press.org/2002/10/01/ ... llot-test/

The Generic House Ballot and Committed Views on Clinton October 7, 1998
http://www.people-press.org/1998/10/07/ ... n-clinton/

Voters Not So Angry, Not So Interested June 15, 1998
http://www.people-press.org/1998/06/15/ ... nterested/

Generic Congressional Measures Less Accurate In Presidential Years September 18, 1996
http://www.people-press.org/1996/09/18/ ... ial-years/

[The Sushi Hunter]

The Gallup poll, which was at +7 for Obama not long after the DNC convention now has Obama up 1.

Thanks Alan Jr

That's my name, B likes to think he's funny. There's 10,000 Comedians out of work and B tries to be funny.

Youre the one whos trying to be funny with your polls left and right, but then say polls dont count if Democrats lead Youre pretty good at being funny and thats about it

These are the type of poles I like what they have on them:

[Behshad]

About that 47% statement....

From CNBC

I wish you could provide better #'s, FF, almost 10,000 is not good enough. However, we do
know that there are at least 75% (75.000001 counting me) people in the USA who do agree that we need to
DETACH these breast sucking six year olds from Lady Liberty and teach them to eat with a fork ...
but, in doing so, we must make sure not to stab ourselves in the ass w/that fork.

And most importantly , We'd like to see Romney's plan to get these six year olds off the tits!

[Behshad]

About that 47% statement....

From CNBC

I wish you could provide better #'s, FF, almost 10,000 is not good enough. However, we do
know that there are at least 75% (75.000001 counting me) people in the USA who do agree that we need to
DETACH these breast sucking six year olds from Lady Liberty and teach them to eat with a fork ...
but, in doing so, we must make sure not to stab ourselves in the ass w/that fork.

I voted as many times as I could MG.

7000 times ? lol

[Michigan Girl]

About that 47% statement....

From CNBC

I wish you could provide better #'s, FF, almost 10,000 is not good enough. However, we do
know that there are at least *75% (75.000001 counting me)of the people in the USA who do agree that we need to
DETACH these breast sucking six year olds from Lady Liberty and teach them to eat with a fork ...
but, in doing so, we must make sure not to stab ourselves in the ass w/that fork.

And most importantly , We'd like to see Romney's plan to get these six year olds off the tits!

Absolutely ...I would love to see an end to the enablers. I don't care who they are and what
their party ...they are enabling Americans to death.



*Correction to my previous post ...it is 75% of those polled not 75% of the USA .... please excuse.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

“If paying taxes is as “patriotic” as the Democrats claim it is, why do they want 47% exempted from it?”

The problem is not that too few people pay income tax. It is that big government is actively destroying everyone's lives. Government should be small, that everyone only pays a little bit.

"Big Government" has nothing to do with this. Explain how being in a tax bracket that happens to cause you to not pay income taxes has anything to do with "Big Government". And, how making government smaller will change this.

Of course it (big government) does. For every dollar the government spends, there is one less dollar that that is in the private sector available for investment, saving or private consumption.

So, you like the Republican plan of raising taxes on these people, which ALSO removes the $'s from the private sector, and blah, blah, blah...as you wrote above, and I wrote earlier.

no I dont support any plan to raise tax on any income band, including the poor, taxes of any kind on any income bracket is unjust

Big government spending

...is not what we are talking about.

I know, what I was doing was criticizing Romney for obscuring the real issue with his comments

& There's is nothing wrong being in a lower tax bracket per se - I myself am glad that 47 percent of folks don't have to pay income tax- but it does nothing better for your life in itself.

Again, FF's - and Romney's - complaint is they don't pay taxes. If you want them to pay taxes, raise their income...don't raise their taxes or remove the Earned Income Credit, etc. That's just plain stupid.

You are in fact, lowering their income. That may have the affect of making MORE people MORE dependent on "Big Government".

Again I was simply agreeing that Romney's complaint is pure nonsense and that in fact that alot of folks don't have to pay taxes is a good thing. My point is that if he and everyone else would quit pitting everybody against each other and focus on the real problem (which I see as oppressive government) he might not be in such dire straits.

I think you will find that we both agree the man is just not with it , although I clearly reach this conclusion from a different vantage point than you do.

[conversationpc]

Youre the one whos trying to be funny with your polls left and right, but then say polls dont count if Democrats lead

Polls don't count...If they're weighted heavily in favor of one political pursuasion, which several of the major polls are right now.

Have you applied for a job with the DNC. I hear they're looking for a really good spin doctor for Obama's foreign policy right about now. I think you qualify.

[RedWingFan]

Notice how none of the Obama ball suckers on here never talks about how government spending is the way to jump start the economy anymore, or how all these foreign countries will love us if we elect Bamster?

Utter and complete failure.

48 more days.