# Obama loses the once bragged about lead with women voters



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME


----------



## LoneLaugher (Oct 9, 2012)

Silly.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

War on women backfire?


----------



## jwoodie (Oct 9, 2012)

Let's not get overconfident- the Libs are sure to resurrect the GOP's "war on women."


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

jwoodie said:


> Let's not get overconfident- the Libs are sure to resurrect the GOP's "war on women."



Romney wants to cease Title X family planning funding; reverse Roe.
Akin is still in th Congress and is supported by the GOP for the Senate.  

Republicans have cultivated their repuatation with women very carefully.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?



If the stats back up that assertion I will join you. Otherwise I'm just going to point and laugh


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Oct 9, 2012)

Polls are a joke, but I love it now the libtards are whining.....and oversampling republicans? Nope....they may just have an even sample instead of the +8-12 sample they had


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 9, 2012)

The exodus of women started with married women.  Then it spread to professional women who don't want to pay for someone else's birth control and abortions either.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 9, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The exodus of women started with married women.  Then it spread to professional women who don't want to pay for someone else's birth control and abortions either.



What would you know about professional women?


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 9, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > The exodus of women started with married women.  Then it spread to professional women who don't want to pay for someone else's birth control and abortions either.
> ...



Are you ASSuming again?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Oct 9, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Let's call it a well informed hunch.


----------



## Conservative (Oct 9, 2012)

LoneLaugher said:


> Silly.



Yes, now that polls are starting to go against the one, they are just silly. Got it.


----------



## Conservative (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?



only if you can prove it.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

Conservative said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?
> ...



I offered to join if it was proven but i think i get to continue pointing and laughing


----------



## Jackson (Oct 9, 2012)

The surge has just started.  We had a historic debate where the voters could see the big difference between Romney who they didn't know well and an Obama they thought they knew well.

We have three more debates.. Obama cannot defend his record... There's too many failures to addres... The Hope is gone and the Change is there for all of us to evaluate.  I say it's only an upward surge for Romney now.


----------



## Katzndogz (Oct 9, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Well, that's your problem right there!   It's called GIGO.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Oct 9, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



Conservative women don't need our vagina's diapered with free birth control and abortions like liberal chicks do. We actually think and concern ourselves with the economic situation our country finds itself in.. 9.00 free birth control doesn't even register.

NOW Libruls- Out of touch with women, out of touch with the independent female voter.


----------



## beretta304 (Oct 9, 2012)




----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Conservative said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?
> ...



Why, you all couldn't except for 1 or 2 outliers.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



If you can't beat them, join them.


----------



## beretta304 (Oct 9, 2012)

*Romney leads in 11 swing states...*

Daily Swing State Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Jackson said:


> The surge has just started.  We had a historic debate where the voters could see the big difference between Romney who they didn't know well and an Obama they thought they knew well.
> 
> We have three more debates.. Obama cannot defend his record... There's too many failures to addres... The Hope is gone and the Change is there for all of us to evaluate.  I say it's only an upward surge for Romney now.



Care to wager...Obama wins, you stop posting; Romney wins, I stop posting.  Deal?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME
> ...



Now that is hilarious.  How you blend such a disregard for facts with moronic pleading is truly remarkable.


----------



## LadyGunSlinger (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> LadyGunSlinger said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



What a lying pathetic leftist you are.. REMEMBER SANDRA FLUKE??? She headlined at your convention.. All we've heard are LIBERAL NOW HAGS whine about Uncle Sam diapering their vaginas with free birth control and free abortions!!


----------



## AquaAthena (Oct 9, 2012)

Jackson said:


> The surge has just started.  We had a historic debate where the voters could see the big difference between Romney who they didn't know well and an Obama they thought they knew well.
> 
> We have three more debates.. Obama cannot defend his record... There's too many failures to addres... The Hope is gone and the Change is there for all of us to evaluate.  I say it's only an upward surge for Romney now.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > The surge has just started.  We had a historic debate where the voters could see the big difference between Romney who they didn't know well and an Obama they thought they knew well.
> ...



Or you could just stop now....


----------



## naturegirl (Oct 9, 2012)

The left has reduced women to vaginas.  They think they have a right to tell women that's all they are.  Let me be the first to tell them, we are so much more than that.  Don't believe me, wait til November 7th.


----------



## Jackson (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > The surge has just started.  We had a historic debate where the voters could see the big difference between Romney who they didn't know well and an Obama they thought they knew well.
> ...



I wouldn't do that to you, lol!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

Jackson said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



Its a stupid bet anyhow. We all come here for our own pleasure not to give others theirs. 
Liberal logic for ya


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Jackson said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



Ahh, the confidence (or lack thereof) shows; Can't blame you dear.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You're not here to make me laugh?  I guess you are serving a daul purpose.


----------



## kaz (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?



You really didn't follow the polling model discussion did you?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

LadyGunSlinger said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > LadyGunSlinger said:
> ...



She spoke at the convention; did a great job.  Will probably be a fixture on the pundit circuit for 30 years courtesy of Mr. Limbaugh.  

If you did hear that, you should get your hearing checked.  Or you could quote the part about free abortions but we both know you'er talking out of what I'm guessing is an expansive ass.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?
> ...



Nah.  When 1 or 2 polls say one thing, you can blame it on technique.  When there are 40 plus, you guys are just digging for excuses as to why the Governor is doing so poorly.  It's easy to discount those who embrace conspiracy theories in lieu of self-interpsection.


----------



## Conservative (Oct 9, 2012)

Jackson said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...



No worries. I have that bet with candycorn already. Once Obama loses in November, it's bye bye forever to CC, no socks, IP ban and all.


----------



## kaz (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Fair enough, question asked and question answered.  I asked if you understood it, you answered you didn't.  OK, I'll explain it to you again.

The trick is in "likely voter."  The biggest factor generally is modeling that is the prior election.  Here's the thing, Obama got out lots of unlikely voters.  Based on his Presidency and the economy, most of those unlikely voters are not likely to vote this time.  The challenge is figuring out which are which, which affects 1 or 2 or 40 plus polls trying to do it even if they aren't biased.


----------



## beretta304 (Oct 9, 2012)

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...




If she shows up, she likely doesn't even know how to cast her vote.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio]Original Obamaphone Lady: Obama Voter Says Vote for Obama because he gives a free Phone - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 9, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



60+ million americans got to see the real Mitt Romney without the dishonest political spin about him from the left during the first debate.  This is why all the polls are changing.


----------



## depotoo (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?



Among registered voters
Republican voters 403 5.7 percentage points
Democratic voters 396 5.7 percentage points
Independent voters 364 6.0 percentage points
Obama supporters 552 4.8 percentage points
Romney supporters 567 4.8 percentage points

http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-8-12 Political Release.pdf

I would not call that much of an oversampling.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Let's not get overconfident- the Libs are sure to resurrect the GOP's "war on women."
> ...



Roe v Wade is so far down on the list of things that Mitt Romney is going to be working to "fix" that it's laughable that you use it as the reason not to vote for someone who "DOES" have the abilities to fix our economy.

The truth is...Mitt Romney is a moderate Republican.  He's not going to go after Roe v Wade because he's intelligent enough to understand that pushing a hot button issue like that would cause so much animosity between conservatives and liberals that it would destroy the bi-partisanship needed to govern effectively.  Barack Obama was NOT intelligent enough to do the same thing in regards to ObamaCare.  He pushed through the liberal "holy grail" because he had super majorities but in the process he destroyed any future bi-partisan cooperation needed to fix all of the other problems the country faced.  It's the kind of political mistake that a Junior Senator with two years experience in Washington makes.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

depotoo said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?
> ...



Funny, on many of the "oversampling democrat theads" nutjobs from the right bragged about lying to pollsters.  Funny how none of that is brought up now.

I understand; it's good news for Governor Romney who is a good and decent man.  And you guys want to trumpet it as loudly as you can.  I get that.  But it's strange how whenever there is facts adverse to the Governor, it's a media invention or a pollster bias that generated them; is it not?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Just telling you what your candidate's website says.  If you don't know what your candidate believes, perhaps you should study it some more...

And the next President will likely have the chance to appoint justices who will have an effect on the court for the next generation.  

We don't want the "king flip flopper" making those appointments do we?  Romney is a "shitty choice"...you want him appointing justices?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME
> ...



They haven't taken into account the good unemployment news.  Well, it's not good news for Republicans I guess but the polls will return to the status quo pretty soon.

Obama has it wrapped up electorally anyway.


----------



## Full-Auto (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Explain how a lower participation rate is good news.  Can you little mind handle that????


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Oct 9, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > No.  They're oversampling republicans.  Can liberals make that argument now?
> ...



Me too


----------



## naturegirl (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Sorry, not everyone falls for Obama's lies anymore.  Most people with an IQ above 60 understand there's something wrong when you only add 114,000 jobs and the GDP is below 1.5.  That makes unemployment fall??  Think they're not questioning those numbers??  This is not good news, it's bad, very bad.  Part time jobs are now considered work because there are no full time jobs available.  

Nope, this shouldn't help Obama at all because it's not good news.  I'm thinking Romney or Ryan will point that out during the upcoming debates.


----------



## depotoo (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



and I have seen left "nutjobs" as you call them also state they pretend to be Republicans in polls.  And, having checked almost every poll out there, on its political makeup as they come out, the oversampling of the Dems has been at much, much larger margins than this shows towards Reps.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

Candycorn seems to be in a real tizzy over this news. 

Ahh good times. Will be sad if she leaves though. Makes it hard to rub in an election loss if romney wins


----------



## NoNukes (Oct 9, 2012)

RDD_1210 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Notice that she did not deny it.


----------



## hazlnut (Oct 9, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



I thought polls were liberal and oversampled.  Now they're okay?


----------



## kaz (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Hitting the lowest unemployment in his Presidency of ... 7.8% ... is "good news" for Obama.  7.8% is the best he did in four years.  And you're celebrating that as good for him being re-elected.

One question, is there bourbon in your kool-aid?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Too bad the truth is, so called "conservative" Presidents have nominated far more centrist Supreme Court Justices than so called "liberal" Presidents have.

Every chance a Democrat gets to put someone in the court we get a far left liberal appointee...with Republicans we've gotten centrist Justices like Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor, Stevens and Roberts.  So which party would be better at appointing Justices who aren't ideologues?  I find it rather amusing that you worry about Romney...who's as moderate as they come...appointing Supreme Court Justices but you don't have any concerns at all about Barry appointing more far left Justices.  The fact is that Republicans have nominated far fewer "extreme" Justices than Democrats have and Romney would most likely continue that trend.


----------



## Conservative (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Candycorn: They oversampled Republicans!
Reality: Um, no, they didn't.
Candycorn: Um, they lied to the pollsters! Yeah, that's it. They lied!
Reality: Got any proof?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



The most recent Pew research poll was done after the new 7.8 UE number came out.



> The poll, conducted by Pew Research Center from Thursday through Sunday and released on Monday, shows Romney leading Obama among likely voters nationwide, 49 percent to 45 percent. Pew: Romney Leads By 4 In Post-Debate Survey - Yahoo! News



No he doesn't, ohio is in a tie now as of polls from yesterday (after the UE numbers)


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



It takes a little while for the news to gel.  

Obama's got it in the bag.  You should get used to it.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Conservative said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



Now you know how idiotic you sound when you point out the same nonsense a few days ago.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


That is this week's Romney.  You never know what Romney will show up.  




Oldstyle said:


> ...appointing Supreme Court Justices but you don't have any concerns at all about Barry appointing more far left Justices.  The fact is that Republicans have nominated far fewer "extreme" Justices than Democrats have and Romney would most likely continue that trend.



Yes, Scalia is really moderate; so is Thomas.  Fail.

I can't wait until the day Obama replaces Scalia with a non ideologue.  Suh-weet!


----------



## Conservative (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Where did I point out oversampling of Democrats? Please, link to the post I did that in...

Here's a clue...

I just did an Advanced search on my name, limited to posts, with the words oversampling... then oversampled... then over sampling... then over sampled... 4 different searches... NADA.

Put up or shut up, bitch.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



Had an Asti Moscato  at Mortons a few days ago.  Oh my goodness; top shelf good!  

It is good news for Obama; the optics of it show the UE rate going down.  Electorally it is just what the doctor ordered and muted Mitt's post-debate bounce somewhat.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

depotoo said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...




So what you're saying is that both sides lie to pollsters?  Gee, okay.  I doubt the 40 or so polls that all have Obama ahead electorally are all based on lies but whatever gets you through the day there junior.

Obama is cruising!


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Candycorn seems to be in a real tizzy over this news.
> 
> Ahh good times. Will be sad if she leaves though. Makes it hard to rub in an election loss if romney wins



You're the one voting for a self-described "shitty choice".  The jokes on you loser.


----------



## Conservative (Oct 9, 2012)

Conservative said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



still waiting, bitch.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Candycorn seems to be in a real tizzy over this news.
> ...



I would vote for my dog at this point you nimrod


----------



## Conservative (Oct 9, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



cricket... cricket... cricket...


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 9, 2012)

How's that research into oversampling coming candycorn? Did ya find the stats to back it up? ? ? ?


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 9, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Fail?  Go ahead and name a moderate Justice that was named by a Democrat.


----------



## kaz (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> So what you're saying is that both sides lie to pollsters?  Gee, okay.  I doubt the 40 or so polls that all have Obama ahead electorally are all based on lies but whatever gets you through the day there junior.
> 
> Obama is cruising!



Democrats lie all the time and say they are Republicans who support Obama.  Look how many we have on this site?  Joe, RW,  ...

On the other hand, how many obviously Republican posters say they are Democrats supporting Romney?   {crickets}

Actually with non-liberals we tend to be far less willing to respond to pollsters.  I live in North Carolina and am called endlessly by survey groups, I have yet to answer the phone.

Unfortunately for you, the problems with polls don't stop there.  Obama being black brought out many unlikely voters for the left.  And McCain being a tired W clone caused many likely voters to sit on their hands.  It's hard to model that even if you are not biased and are trying.

Obama being black is also an issue, many moderates voted for him because they thought they were supposed to vote for the black guy, and now they don't want to but don't want to say it.

And finally, as the debate has shown, the media by insulating people from Romney himself and only allowing most to see their liberal portrayal of him questioned his ability to appear Presidential.  The debates end that as they see directly he is.  Just like Carter collapsed like a house of cards once people actually heard from Reagan directly.

You clearly sense this, which is why the left are in such a panic running around screaming liar lair like eight year olds.  Enjoy October, November is going to be very, very ugly for you.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Might be a superior choice to the liberal Mitt Romney.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> How's that research into oversampling coming candycorn? Did ya find the stats to back it up? ? ? ?



I was supposed to be doing research?  Nah, I just did the old conservative reflex of never blaming someone I'm supporting for anything.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



There haven't been many since the GOP has controlled the White House for so many years.  That will change soon....can't wait!


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > So what you're saying is that both sides lie to pollsters?  Gee, okay.  I doubt the 40 or so polls that all have Obama ahead electorally are all based on lies but whatever gets you through the day there junior.
> ...


Bucs90 is (if you believe him).  



kaz said:


> Actually with non-liberals we tend to be far less willing to respond to pollsters.  I live in North Carolina and am called endlessly by survey groups, I have yet to answer the phone.


Sounds about right.




kaz said:


> Unfortunately for you, the problems with polls don't stop there.  Obama being black brought out many unlikely voters for the left.  And McCain being a tired W clone caused many likely voters to sit on their hands.  It's hard to model that even if you are not biased and are trying.


It's a category killer to be sure.  However, stating that 40+ polls are all oversampling one party or another is silly.  




kaz said:


> Obama being black is also an issue,


Yes, many won't vote for him for that reason alone.



kaz said:


> many moderates voted for him because they thought they were supposed to vote for the black guy, and now they don't want to but don't want to say it.



Now that's funny....as if someone will get into the booth and do what they are "supposed to do" in a secret ballot.  Shut the fuck up.



kaz said:


> And finally, as the debate has shown, the media by insulating people from Romney himself and only allowing most to see their liberal portrayal of him questioned his ability to appear Presidential.  The debates end that as they see directly he is.  Just like Carter collapsed like a house of cards once people actually heard from Reagan directly.


Since you can't blame polls, you're now blaming the media or the BLS...always a victim you republicans.




kaz said:


> You clearly sense this, which is why the left are in such a panic running around screaming liar lair like eight year olds.  Enjoy October, November is going to be very, very ugly for you.



*Fine...lets make a bet; Romney wins, I stop posting.  Obama wins, you stop posting.

Does that sound like me panicing?  Don't want that; I'll offer you the sig-line challenge.  
C'mon; put up or shut up.*


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2012)

News for women polling for obama

ABC NewsSwing-State Moms Trust Romney on Economy, Obama on Women
Businessweek* - 1 hour ago
Swing-State Moms Trust Romney on Economy, Obama on Women ... A Bloomberg News Swing Voter poll in Ohio and Virginia reveals an ...

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...d-moms-trust-romney-on-economy-obama-on-women


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Well at least he wouldn't be on the dinner menu or stuck on top of the car...


----------



## kaz (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> *Fine...lets make a bet; Romney wins, I stop posting.  Obama wins, you stop posting.
> 
> Does that sound like me panicing?  Don't want that; I'll offer you the sig-line challenge.
> C'mon; put up or shut up.*



I'm not a Republican, I'm a libertarian, and with the amount of posting you must know that by now.  You're just not smart enough to know the difference.  And I'm very vocal about disagreeing with Republicans on the war on terror, abortion, the war on drugs, ...

As for the wager, I don't make stupid bets, but I will bet youthe following:

if you win, I'll put in my sig:  candycorn was right and I was wrong, Obama won

if I win you don't have to do anything, I don't really care.

Do we have a bet?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > *Fine...lets make a bet; Romney wins, I stop posting.  Obama wins, you stop posting.
> ...


I don't read many of your posts.  I stick to interesting or intelligent commentary.




kaz said:


> You're just not smart enough to know the difference.
> 
> And I'm very vocal about disagreeing with Republicans on the war on terror, abortion, the war on drugs, ...
> 
> ...



With those stipulations sure...  How long you going to leave it up for?


----------



## kaz (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Given the number of my posts that you respond to, it's an interesting admission that you didn't read them.  Given the shallowness of your responses, it's not surprising, but I wasn't thinking you'd admit it.



candycorn said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> > You're just not smart enough to know the difference.
> ...



Inauguration day


----------



## PredFan (Oct 10, 2012)

It's encouraging to know that women are actually smarter than Obama and the DNC thinks they are.


----------



## Conservative (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> I stick to interesting or intelligent commentary.



you might want to try posting some on occasion.


----------



## PredFan (Oct 10, 2012)

Conservative said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > I stick to interesting or intelligent commentary.
> ...



He's ignorant enough to support obama, so there isn't much hope of that.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You're kidding, right?  The White House has been controlled by Democrats for the past four years and two Justices were appointed.  Were either of them moderates?  Bill Clinton was in the White House for eight years.  Did HE appoint any moderate Justices?

The truth of the matter is that the GOP has a history of appointing moderates to the Court whereas the Democrats have a history of appointing card carrying liberals to the Court.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > kaz said:
> ...



In all seriousness, I don't read a lot of posts by ideologues.  Flopper was the most interesting poster here along with RW and a few others.  Seriously, when--for example-- Crusader Frank, Gasbag or Conservarag post something, its almost a sure bet it will be slanted, unfair, and inaccurate.  That goes for a great many more than those 3 (Bripat comes to mind) but again in all seriousness; why waste my time other than to point out the incorrectness of the post?

I can admit that Obama has lied, made serious mistakes, has been a good president, not great, and lost the debate last week.  Few, if any, who are conservatives can admit that Romney has made mistake after mistake, that the chair stunt was stupid, and that he's flip flopped yet again when he's now in favor of regulation, will not sponsor abortion legislation, etc...  

I guess it's anything to win and you can't govern if you don't win but it would seem that you would deman at least a modicum of consistency from your candidate.  In the next debate he may say that he was the manager for Aerosmith and was the original author of _50 Shades of Grey_ and you guys will be here with some made up fact to support the claims.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Just because you're in office doesn't mean you get to appoint justices.  Getting rid of Scalia will be a very welcome thing since Obama's choice will be 180 degrees opposite of him.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

Conservative said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > I stick to interesting or intelligent commentary.
> ...



We all could do better in that.  You're right.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



You amuse me, Candy...I point out the fact that it's the Democrats that are the ones who ALWAYS nominate ideologues to the Supreme Court while Republicans are the ones who have nominated the scant few "moderates" we have and you come up with excuse after excuse for why Democrats never DO nominate moderates.

Just admit it...you hate the idea of a moderate like Romney being able to nominate someone to the Supreme Court but you LOVE the idea of a far left Barack Obama packing that court with far left judges.

Double standard much?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2012)

Oh, shut up if you are going to lie.  Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are ideologues, oK.  The only reaons for me that I do not include Roberts is that he fooled all of us and found the ACA constitutional on suspect grounds.



Oldstyle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


----------



## mamooth (Oct 10, 2012)

Perhaps Oldstyle can tell us where in the Constitution we can find the words "Corporations are people" or "Money is free speech". 

What? You mean conservative activist justices made that up, as part of their "living constitution" philosophy? 

Yet Oldstyle demands even more such conservative judicial activists. He must really be a "living constitution" devotee.


----------



## kaz (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> In all seriousness, I don't read a lot of posts by ideologues.  Flopper was the most interesting poster here along with RW and a few others.  Seriously, when--for example-- Crusader Frank, Gasbag or Conservarag post something, its almost a sure bet it will be slanted, unfair, and inaccurate.  That goes for a great many more than those 3 (Bripat comes to mind) but again in all seriousness; why waste my time other than to point out the incorrectness of the post?
> 
> I can admit that Obama has lied, made serious mistakes, has been a good president, not great, and lost the debate last week.  Few, if any, who are conservatives can admit that Romney has made mistake after mistake, that the chair stunt was stupid, and that he's flip flopped yet again when he's now in favor of regulation, will not sponsor abortion legislation, etc...
> 
> I guess it's anything to win and you can't govern if you don't win but it would seem that you would deman at least a modicum of consistency from your candidate.  In the next debate he may say that he was the manager for Aerosmith and was the original author of _50 Shades of Grey_ and you guys will be here with some made up fact to support the claims.



You are so full of it


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Nothing to admit; I started 2  threads about why I don't want Romney appointing judges; he is on record as wanting Roe overturned.  If you don't believe me; check his website.  

The only ones who can overturn Roe is the Supreme Court whose which members he may and likely will have power to appoint if elected.  

There is nothing to admit; I'm always happy to reference my previous statements on the topic.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 10, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



What's obvious is that no Democrat has appointed a moderate in decades!  It's the Republicans that have appointed those.  One more example of how you folks on the far left are always accusing "us" of being "extreme" when in fact it's YOU that appoint far left ideologues every chance you get.

The reason you can't name a moderate appointed by a Democrat is that THEY DON'T EXIST!!!!


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

kaz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > In all seriousness, I don't read a lot of posts by ideologues.  Flopper was the most interesting poster here along with RW and a few others.  Seriously, when--for example-- Crusader Frank, Gasbag or Conservarag post something, its almost a sure bet it will be slanted, unfair, and inaccurate.  That goes for a great many more than those 3 (Bripat comes to mind) but again in all seriousness; why waste my time other than to point out the incorrectness of the post?
> ...



Wow...quite a snappy comeback.  It is a pattern of making excuses for the Governor:

1st you all blamed the press for the lackluster performance of the Governor.

Next; it was the pollsters who were against the Governor and supposedly over sampled democrats (somehow they only managed to do it in states where Obama was winning) in something like 40 consistent polls

After this, when the Unemployment Rate dropped below eight percent, you guys then alleged that the BLS was all of the sudden in Obama's camp.  

There is nothing you guys won't allege to prop up the Governor.  If anyone else was making excuse after excuse after excuse for someone; would you rationalize that the excuses were valid or that there was something was wrong with the person they're making the excuse for?


----------



## candycorn (Oct 10, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



What justices are you considering "moderate"?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 10, 2012)

Scalia, Alito, Thomas.

You are just a lying fuck, Oldstyle.


Oldstyle said:


> What's obvious is that no Democrat has appointed a moderate in decades!  It's the Republicans that have appointed those.  One more example of how you folks on the far left are always accusing "us" of being "extreme" when in fact it's YOU that appoint far left ideologues every chance you get.
> 
> The reason you can't name a moderate appointed by a Democrat is that THEY DON'T EXIST!!!!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 10, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Scalia, Alito, Thomas.
> 
> You are just a lying fuck, Oldstyle.
> 
> ...



And you are just a fake fuck jakey


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2012)

Ummm . . . actually, Gramps, you are simply being a homer.  For real, squeal, Alito and Thomas and Scalia are ideologues.  That's the point.

So get over it, hmmm.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 11, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ummm . . . actually, Gramps, you are simply being a homer.  For real, squeal, Alito and Thomas and Scalia are ideologues.  That's the point.
> 
> So get over it, hmmm.



So what? That's your opinion and i couldn't care less. Don't flatter yourself


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor, Stevens and Roberts?  All appointed by Republicans.  So name one "moderate" Justice that was named by a Democrat, Candy...

The truth is...you can't...because Democrats don't choose moderates...they choose far left Justices like Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor.

Yet you come on here and accuse the GOP of being the Party that nominates "extreme" Justices.  It's why I find the progressives here so amusing...


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 11, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Scalia, Alito, Thomas.
> 
> You are just a lying fuck, Oldstyle.
> 
> ...



Try to keep up, Jake...

I didn't say that Republicans hadn't named any far right Justices...I simply pointed out that Republicans are the only ones that named Justices that were moderates.  How that makes me a "lying fuck", you'll have to explain.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2012)

Now, you modify it as ou should have in the beginning.

Balance in your accusations, boy, balance.

This is better.



Oldstyle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Scalia, Alito, Thomas.
> ...


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 11, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Now, you modify it as ou should have in the beginning.
> 
> Balance in your accusations, boy, balance.
> 
> ...



I didn't "modify" anything...you not being bright enough to understand my point isn't my problem...it's your problem.  Balance?  What the heck are you babbling about?  You just accused me of being a "lying fuck" because I pointed out a MASSIVE flaw in Candy's notion that we can't elect a Republican because they will appoint "extreme" Justices to the high court.

Now would you like to help out Candy by pointing out all of the "moderate" Justices that have been appointed by Democrats?  She seems to be struggling with that.

I would imagine that if Mitt Romney WERE to appoint a Supreme Court Justice that his choice would be another moderate judge.  Why do I say that?  Because Mitt Romney is a moderate.  Duh?


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 11, 2012)

Did any of you conservatives who keep complaining about 'skewed' polls complain about the Pew Poll?

It has a 5 point 'oversample' of Republicans.  36% to 31%.


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 11, 2012)

Has this been confirmed in any other poll?  I'm too lazy to look right now, baseball has started.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 11, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



So you pick some justices appointed by Republicans and call them moderates but ignore Scalia and Thomas 2/9 of the court?  

So, accoring to you we have the following extremeists appointed by Republicans:

Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.

We have the following extremeists appointed by Democrats:

Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg

And the following are moderates accoring to you appointed by Republicans.

Kennedy, Stevens, and Roberts (whom I guess is now considered a moderate???).

The republican record is 3 extremeists and 3 "moderates" counting Roberts as a moderate.  So it's a 50/50 chance that a Republican will appoint a caveman--according to your statistics.  No thanks.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 11, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Did any of you conservatives who keep complaining about 'skewed' polls complain about the Pew Poll?
> 
> It has a 5 point 'oversample' of Republicans.  36% to 31%.



I guess their red-hot magnifying glass got sort of cloudy when Romney started winning.  Amazing how the "fair and balanced" crew missed that one.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 11, 2012)

Yup, it is you, who were mention "bad" democrats without talking about "bad" pubs, although homes like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas were pointed out twice.

Act the dick, get treated like a prick.



Oldstyle said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Now, you modify it as ou should have in the beginning.
> ...


----------



## 2ndAmendment (Oct 11, 2012)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



I can't imagine ANY woman being in Obama's corner.  muslims hate women and it shows.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Oct 11, 2012)

candycorn said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > Did any of you conservatives who keep complaining about 'skewed' polls complain about the Pew Poll?
> ...



Oddly, 

the turnaround in  the results of this poll vs. their last one almost exactly matched their turnaround in how many R's vs. D's they polled.

What's funnier is, unskewedpolls.com called the skewing in this one a big Zero.  lol


----------



## jillian (Oct 11, 2012)

2ndAmendment said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME
> ...



because a rabid rightwingnut misogynist knows how women think?


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Oct 11, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



I've been too busy with a plumbing nightmare at work for the last couple days to keep up with the thread. BUT Had i known about the poll being oversampled in our favor i would call it bunk as well.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 16, 2012)

NYcarbineer said:


> Did any of you conservatives who keep complaining about 'skewed' polls complain about the Pew Poll?
> 
> It has a 5 point 'oversample' of Republicans.  36% to 31%.



I'm not a conservative but yes I complain if the poll is skewed either way.  It should be a balanced sample or else you get unbalanced results.

With over 95% of polls oversampling democrats this poll's oversampling of republicans was the anomoly and not the norm.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 16, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



And what are the chances that a Democrat will appoint a moderate?  Zero?  You just can't bring yourself to admit that your party has been the one who's been appointing nothing BUT extreme Justices for years now and the GOP...the party you ACCUSE of appointing extreme Justices is in fact the only one to appoint moderate Justices.

Reality is a bitch...isn't it, Candy?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 16, 2012)

Stop it, Oldstyle.  The GOP presidents were not trying to appoint moderates but instead hardcore conservatives.  They got fooled.


----------



## AceRothstein (Oct 16, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> I'm not a conservative but yes I complain if the poll is skewed either way.  It should be a balanced sample or else you get unbalanced results.



Then you don't understand how polling works.


----------



## Oldstyle (Oct 16, 2012)

JakeStarkey said:


> Stop it, Oldstyle.  The GOP presidents were not trying to appoint moderates but instead hardcore conservatives.  They got fooled.



They got fooled on all those Justices?  LOL

Who are you kidding, Jake!  The truth of the matter is that those GOP Presidents you refer to were in reality much more moderate than you folks on the Left ever would admit.

They named some moderates.

Can the same be said for Democratic Presidents?  Name the last "moderate" that was named by a Democrat?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 16, 2012)

If you mean Eisenhower, and Nixon, and Ford, and George H W Bush, yes, they were moderate.

To today's far right, they are all a buncha socialists!


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Oct 16, 2012)

AceRothstein said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not a conservative but yes I complain if the poll is skewed either way.  It should be a balanced sample or else you get unbalanced results.
> ...



I completely understand how polling works which is why I never put much stock in individual polls.  Instead I look at the sample base of a specific polling institution and compare the sample base to the results over time to try and get a feel for the direction of things.

Don't be a dick just to be a dick man, if you want to act all smart at least explain it to the person your trying to have a wisenheimer attitude with .


----------



## Conservative (Oct 16, 2012)

jillian said:


> 2ndAmendment said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



and you know how ALL women think, simply by virtue of being one?


----------



## decker (Oct 16, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...


well no doubt direction of polls have gone romney way since first debate


----------



## candycorn (Dec 8, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



He got it back:








What happened?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 8, 2013)

*Obama loses the once bragged about lead with women voters *

He never lost it, apparently, and that bodes badly for GOP candidates who not reach out honestly women voters.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 8, 2013)

What happened is you got no life so you be trollin.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Dec 8, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> *Obama loses the once bragged about lead with women voters *
> 
> He never lost it, apparently, and that bodes badly for GOP candidates who not reach out honestly women voters.



True:  



> The message that too many women heard from the GOP (and that Democrats exploited) was negative  finger-wagging at contraception and demeaning women in the military (as Rick Santorum did), commenting in outlandish ways about rape and decrying gay marriage. For those women not already in sync with Republicans, it came across as harsh, off-putting and mean spirited. They concluded that the GOP had nothing for them and, if they were single mothers, that Republicans didnt really approve of them.
> 
> The GOP?s problem with women voters


----------



## Listening (Dec 8, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



Half the GOP is made up of a women.

The GOP has put forth some real morons as of late, but women still know what is in their best interest.

Common Core.....the left just can't do much better and shooting itself in it's oversized ass.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME
> ...



Women do know what is best and vote accordingly.  The 45 states in Common Core each design their own programs.  Yes, we have put forth some real reactionary far right morons lately.  Let's stop that and step in to the 21st century.


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 9, 2013)

How many of those women are in college?

Generation Opportunity Takes ?Opt-Out? of Obamacare Message to College Students | The Weekly Standard

&#8220;The events that we&#8217;ve done at college campuses and college towns across the country have been enormously successful in getting young people interested in learning more about their healthcare options under Obamacare,&#8221; Generation Opportunity president Evan Feinberg, who was not at the event, told me over the phone afterward.

&#8220;We&#8217;ve found that without a doubt, our message that they can take control of their healthcare and choose to &#8216;opt-out&#8217; of Obamacare and find a better deal for themselves by buying private insurance outside of Obamacare, that message has really resonated with them because they&#8217;re really worried about Obamacare,&#8221; he continued. &#8220;They don&#8217;t want to buy Obamacare.&#8221;

Zepeda and his friends Lane Bullock, a fellow junior, and Stephen Fox, a pre-med student, expressed the very concerns Feinberg outlined. &#8220;I think the free market should work out health care. I think it should be privatized. The government shouldn&#8217;t get involved,&#8221; Fox said. &#8220;Young people don&#8217;t need it&#8212;the majority that is&#8212;I mean we&#8217;re all healthy,&#8221; he said nodding in the direction of his friends.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2013)

All of that merely reinforces the reactionary concept that the free market was offering an equitable and cost healthy choice and accessibility to quality health care for all Americans.

That was not the case.  Thus, ACA was passed, because the GOP never did anything when it had the chance accept to take care of the health and medical industries at the expense of the customer base.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 9, 2013)

Jake are you capable of posting without using that word in every post? It really is making you look fairly shallow. 

PS. What is my agenda?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 9, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> What happened is you got no life so you be trollin.



Gee, you look stupid.  Looks usually aren't everything...but in your case, it seems to be true.

332-206.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Jake are you capable of posting without using that word in every post? It really is making you look fairly shallow.
> 
> PS. What is my agenda?



I don't think the reactionaries who use "liberal" or "lefty" with their "radical agendas" would agree if your criticism were applied to them.

Check my sig.

My point is this that the extremes, whether yours or rdean's, are not good for America.


----------



## Meister (Dec 9, 2013)

candycorn said:


> jwoodie said:
> 
> 
> > Let's not get overconfident- the Libs are sure to resurrect the GOP's "war on women."
> ...



 BS, what they want is to have the abortion issue be a state issue and not a fed issue.....like it should be and used to be.
Republicans haven't cultivated no such thing, the democrat/media smear machines have cultivated what the low informed voter is indoctrinated with.


----------



## AceRothstein (Dec 9, 2013)

decker said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



Concerned about anything these days?


----------



## candycorn (Dec 9, 2013)

Meister said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > jwoodie said:
> ...



Those uppity women...damn them...wanting to control their bodies and all.  Soon they'll want to vote and everything.  Maybe that should be a state issue also...


----------



## Meister (Dec 9, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Oh, you're a goofball.  :


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2013)

we're all goofballs


----------



## Antares (Dec 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > Jake are you capable of posting without using that word in every post? It really is making you look fairly shallow.
> ...



A) You aren't intelligent enough to drive anyone crazy
B) You are the stupid fuck who though that the subsidies were to help out with Dr. reimbursements.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Antares, your influence is null, son.

Actually, you are the one who is lost about subsidies.  Try again.

This is too easy.

To be extreme conservative requires extensive brain cell loss.


----------



## Antares (Dec 9, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Sure thing 

Except you are a stupid fuck and I do subsidies all day long.

Too funny.


----------



## Antares (Dec 9, 2013)

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

Did you want the opportunity to prove your assertion about the subsidies?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2013)

Antares, so you are the person whom I thought you had to be.

Too stupid.

You can't prove your silly assertion at all.  You, like the unnamed individual of the link, are embedded in the heatlh care industry insurance companies, and will lie your assess off to keep your jobs.

Well, if ACA collapses and we go to single payer, you will lose your jobs.

We won't go back to the way it was, so that won't secure your job.

Since we Republicans believe in personal accountability and loyalty up. . . . well, son, you better work your ass off.

 you silly person.  If you do a good job, save your position, you too may retire some day.


----------



## AquaAthena (Dec 9, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



And Hispanics and etc., and we ain't seen nuttin yet. It's all downhill for the Messiah and his minions.

*Article today:* Sounds right to me. 

A few days ago I wrote that Barack Obamas coalition of the ascendant was collapsing. I cited in particular a Harvard University Institute for Politics poll that found that among young Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 Obamas approval rating is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago.

Just after that poll was published, the Gallup organization reported President Obamas job approval rating among Hispanics has dropped 23 points over the last 12 months, the most among major subgroups and nearly twice the national average. A year ago his approval rating among Hispanics was 75 percent; its now 52 percent. And in 39 subgroups listed in the Gallup survey, Mr. Obama has lost support in every single one over the last year.

This is yet more empirical evidence that the Obama presidency is at a perilous political moment.

In response, the president is trying to do several things: rally his base (by focusing on issues like the minimum wage), change the subject (to issues like income inequality), and attack Republicans (which Mr. Obama does habitually). This kind of short-term, tactical approach is basically worthless. It might win the president a news cycle or two. But his presidency is in disrepair for fundamental reasons and because of fundamental flawsand unless and until they are corrected, the president will discover that as bad as this year has been, next year will be worse. 

Hispanics Defecting from Obama in Huge Numbers « Commentary Magazine


----------



## Listening (Dec 9, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Women were voting (in local elections) in the liberal bastion of Wyoming decades before 19th.

The nerve of a conservative state.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 9, 2013)

Listening said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



The women of the west before 1900 were not anything like their conservative sisters in the South and New York who could not vote.

Suffrage was a progressive/liberal movement.

The female voters of Utah Territory supported polygamy, which would have been a liberal-conservative conundrum.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 10, 2013)

Listening said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



A 'now' conservative state...back in the late 1800's/early 1900's the "wild" west was pretty liberal.  Men actually danced with one another in frontier towns due to the lack of women.  Today's conservatives would vomit at such a suggestion.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 10, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



Men dancing with men is liberal? I thought it was just tacky...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 10, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



I gather in the mining camps that was not all that uncommon.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country-western_dance*

1 Dances; 2 Dance floor etiquette; 3 Lead and follow; 4 History ... names depending on the area of the U.S., and even in the particular dance hall. ... *Miners in the California Gold Rush danced with one another if ladies were not available.*


----------



## candycorn (Dec 10, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Listening said:
> ...



It's the history of the "conservative" state of Wyoming, Utah, and California, etc...
It probably explains Larry Craig and mis-placed indignation.


----------



## Antares (Dec 10, 2013)

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]



JakeStarkey said:


> Antares, so you are the person whom I thought you had to be.
> 
> Too stupid.
> 
> ...



You dumbshit, I told you I was Roo when I change, what a moron.

*You can't prove your silly assertion at all.  You, like the unnamed individual of the link, are embedded in the heatlh care industry insurance companies, and will lie your assess off to keep your jobs.*

(smile) The subsidies are for the insureds, they are to help them pay the premiums for the insurance.

Again, you are an idiot.

*Well, if ACA collapses and we go to single payer, you will lose your jobs.

We won't go back to the way it was, so that won't secure your job.*

LOL, I've said from day 1 this was to get us to single payor...once again you are an imbecile.

*Since we Republicans believe in personal accountability and loyalty up. . . . well, son, you better work your ass off.

 you silly person.  If you do a good job, save your position, you too may retire some day*

My job isn't as important as what I do every day, help others....you confuse me with you..you have no integrity and zero honesty.

You aren't a Republican pops....you voted for Obama and we all know it.

Now, did you want to prove that the subsidies are to help with Dr. reimbursements as you claimed?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 10, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



There go lying again, and just two months ago you were crying about good ACA was for people who never had health care.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 10, 2013)

> You dumbshit, I told you I was Roo when I change, what a moron



No, you did not.  And you fell on your face again.


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 10, 2013)

At this rate Obama is NOT going to win reelection!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 10, 2013)

Don't tell Antares.  Let him pretend he discovered that all by himself.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 10, 2013)

News Flash: The election is over. Details at 11


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 10, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> News Flash: The election is over. Details at 11



You're a quick one, aren't you!


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac (Dec 10, 2013)

Indeependent said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > News Flash: The election is over. Details at 11
> ...



I do what I can


----------



## Indeependent (Dec 10, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> Indeependent said:
> 
> 
> > Grampa Murked U said:
> ...



Hey man, good for you!


----------



## Antares (Dec 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> > You dumbshit, I told you I was Roo when I change, what a moron
> 
> 
> 
> No, you did not.  And you fell on your face again.



Fraid so Jake.

You think everybody is a liar and a fraud because you are....it jus ain't so.

My friend you are indeed the village idiot.


----------



## Antares (Dec 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 11, 2013)

Antares is failing again.  Such a silly little roo.

*Obama loses the once bragged about lead with women voters *  Antares thinks Obama is running again.


----------



## Antares (Dec 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares is failing again.  Such a silly little roo.
> 
> *Obama loses the once bragged about lead with women voters *  Antares thinks Obama is running again.



Deflection, you are indeed a liar and a fraud 

Did you want to talk about the subsidies Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 11, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares is failing again.  Such a silly little roo.
> ...



 You don't understand the subsidies, though you say you work with them.

You are sad.


----------



## Antares (Dec 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You didn't answer the question Fakey.

Did you want to discuss them?


----------



## Antares (Dec 11, 2013)

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

Here is what I do not understand....

Dr. making 80 grand with 6 kids gets 1100 a month to help HIM pay for his Health Insurance.

A family of 3 making 20 grand gets nothing.

I ain't woiking.


----------



## Antares (Dec 11, 2013)

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]

What do you do when that family of 3 who qualifies for $184 and cannot afford to buy the new plans breaks down and cries while she is on the phone with you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 11, 2013)

Antares said:


> [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
> 
> What do you do when that family of 3 who qualifies for $184 and cannot afford to buy the new plans breaks down and cries while she is on the phone with you?



Because it did not happen.  Any more than when the people who broke down and cried because they could insurance, that you wrote about.


----------



## Antares (Dec 11, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
> ...



I feel sorry for you Jake 

Unlike you I never lie...and  because you try and hide behind your deflections thinking it makes you safe in no way diminishes what is happening.

Here is thing Fakey....the truth requires nobody to believe it is the truth.
It just is.

I hope no one in your family emulates your idiocy....if they do YOU have perpetuated a culture of lies and deceit and corrupted those who came after you....(sadly shaking my head)

Carry on, we both know you are an abject liar.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 11, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



You lie all the time, Antares, when it suits you; you just can't keep it straight when you do.

You write about those who are hurt by ACA and cry about it, and you write about those who it is a life saver and cry about it.

You lie: that is what a far right reactionary who can't stop the world from changing does.


----------



## Antares (Dec 12, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Poor Jake, the ball is in your court, prove it.

Did you want to talk about the subsidies Jake?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 12, 2013)

Antares said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Antares said:
> ...



Don't have to, because you have been caught lying again.


----------



## Antares (Dec 12, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Antares said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Meaning you don't have or know shit

I own you Fakey 

Did you want to talk about subsidies dad?


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 19, 2013)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



And the President is running for what? Perhaps a more interesting point for you would be how is Hillary doing with the female vote?


----------



## Meister (Dec 19, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME
> ...



A person with a little common sense might understand that the female dissatisfaction might spill over at least to the 2014 election.  I know, I know, no common sense on your behalf, rocks.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 20, 2013)

Really, Meister? And who got their asses kicked in the 2012 elections? You 'Conservatives' were posting suicide watchs for ]Liberals', and then what happened? 

The reality is that if Hillary runs, she will get most of the women's vote. Not merely because she is a women, but because the GOP has taken an eighteenth century stand on women's rights. Barefoot and pregnant just doesn't buy it any more.

If the GOP continues down this path, they lose the women's vote, that of the minorities, and most of the upper middle class workers votes. And you flat ass lose elections. 

Jake, and a number of other sane Republicans, like Jake and Toro, have been trying to explain this to you. And your reaction has been to label them RINO's. Incredibly stupid.


----------



## Meister (Dec 20, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Really, Meister? And who got their asses kicked in the 2012 elections? You 'Conservatives' were posting suicide watchs for ]Liberals', and then what happened?
> 
> The reality is that if Hillary runs, she will get most of the women's vote. Not merely because she is a women, but because the GOP has taken an eighteenth century stand on women's rights. Barefoot and pregnant just doesn't buy it any more.
> 
> ...



Might want to look at the polls, rocks, Obama isn't doing too well and that should spill over to the mid terms with such low numbers.....that's a bit of reality for you....it's just the way it works.
Please get out of the echo chamber with the war on women's rights, dude....it's just not there no matter how the the left and their media keeps beating that drum.
Hilary has a lot of baggage, who knows how that will all play out....I know one thing, you don't have the intellect even to begin to argue the point.
Your messiah has hurt his own party with his ideology....a lot of dems including women and minorities are feeling it.
Toro hasn't explained anything to me, rocks.....and Jake is no republican, RINO or otherwise.....I never said they were RINO's, so don't go projecting, it just makes you look foolish.

Hey, how is that flu epidemic that you were fear mongering 3 years ago working out for you? idiot


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 20, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> Really, Meister? And who got their asses kicked in the 2012 elections? You 'Conservatives' were posting suicide watchs for ]Liberals', and then what happened?
> 
> The reality is that if Hillary runs, she will get most of the women's vote. Not merely because she is a women, but because the GOP has taken an eighteenth century stand on women's rights. Barefoot and pregnant just doesn't buy it any more.
> 
> ...



Ah, yes...the GOP's "war on women"!  It was laughable when the main stream media made it a campaign issue in 2012 instead of the competence of the candidates running.  That was always a crock and it remains a crock.


----------



## Oldstyle (Dec 20, 2013)

The GOP may lose elections in the short run because it doesn't pander to voting blocks with promises of freebies but in the long run the Democrats will ruin the country BECAUSE those promises can't be paid for.  At that point someone's going to have to fix this mess and it WON'T be a Democrat.


----------



## Old Rocks (Dec 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> The GOP may lose elections in the short run because it doesn't pander to voting blocks with promises of freebies but in the long run the Democrats will ruin the country BECAUSE those promises can't be paid for.  At that point someone's going to have to fix this mess and it WON'T be a Democrat.



Is that an attempt at humor? 2008. The nation is headed for the Second Great Republican Depression. We are losing over 500,000 jobs a month, the market is going straight down. After two terms of the GOP running things, the nation was damned near in the poor house. Now, after 5 years of Dems, we are finally down to 7% unemployment, the market is at new records on a weekly basis and optimism is high for this to continue for a while. 

We are still fixing the mess that the GOP left us the last time they had power. Really don't want to go down that road again.


----------



## candycorn (Dec 20, 2013)

Oldstyle said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > Really, Meister? And who got their asses kicked in the 2012 elections? You 'Conservatives' were posting suicide watchs for ]Liberals', and then what happened?
> ...



It's actually shifted into high gear in the last 3 years.  Look for payback in 2016.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jan 21, 2014)

Antares said:


> [MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Everything I said was true and  you have just shown you can't disprove any of it.

Loyalty up, podjo; shut up, podjo; work your ass off.

That is the American way: learn it, love it, live it.


----------



## candycorn (Oct 9, 2014)

Grampa Murked U said:


> A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME



How'd it go?


----------



## kaz (Oct 9, 2014)

Old Rocks said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP may lose elections in the short run because it doesn't pander to voting blocks with promises of freebies but in the long run the Democrats will ruin the country BECAUSE those promises can't be paid for.  At that point someone's going to have to fix this mess and it WON'T be a Democrat.
> ...



You're right in that for both the Great Depression and the Great Recession that Republicans taxing and spending like Democrats was a major cause.  Republicans need to learn from that and learn to practice the fiscal conservatism they preach.  Not sure though why that would mean anyone should support an actual Democrat though.


----------



## candycorn (Aug 12, 2015)

candycorn said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> > A 12 point swing in the latest PEW poll says it all. They could only pad the polls for so long. It seems their train has derailed BIG TIME
> ...


Bump


----------

