Is There Any "Safe Swing State " For Obama To Campaign In Protest Free ?

[RightWingFerret]

we didnt create 220,000 jobs in March,,,,and dont expect anything close to it when we get the April report.

 

[candycorn]

Pfft....silliness.

Care to bet your tag line? Just until January 1.

If Obama wins, change your tag line to "All hail President Obama, your president, my president, our president." If Romney wins, I'll change it to "All hail President Romney, your president, my president, our president."

Should be an easy victory for you; unless you're full of shit.

Do we have a wager?

 

[RightWingFerret]

I would love to see Obama campaign in Dallas or Fort Worth. Lets see the massive hope and change crowd show up and faint for the one.

 

[candycorn]

Pfft....silliness.

Care to bet your tag line? Just until January 1.

If Obama wins, change your tag line to "All hail President Obama, your president, my president, our president." If Romney wins, I'll change it to "All hail President Romney, your president, my president, our president."

Should be an easy victory for you; unless you're full of shit.

Do we have a wager?

I would love to see you answer my challenge.

Let me guess, you're not that confident, are you....pussy.

 

[candycorn]

Pfft....silliness.

Care to bet your tag line? Just until January 1.

If Obama wins, change your tag line to "All hail President Obama, your president, my president, our president." If Romney wins, I'll change it to "All hail President Romney, your president, my president, our president."

Should be an easy victory for you; unless you're full of shit.

Do we have a wager?

You aren't as confident as your boastful words indicate....wonder why?

 

[IndependntLogic]

Pfft....silliness.

Care to bet your tag line? Just until January 1.

If Obama wins, change your tag line to "All hail President Obama, your president, my president, our president." If Romney wins, I'll change it to "All hail President Romney, your president, my president, our president."

Should be an easy victory for you; unless you're full of shit.

Do we have a wager?

You aren't as confident as your boastful words indicate....wonder why?

Hmmm. He DID Cut & Run pretty quickly when you called him out, didn't he?

 

[candycorn]

Pfft....silliness.

Care to bet your tag line? Just until January 1.

If Obama wins, change your tag line to "All hail President Obama, your president, my president, our president." If Romney wins, I'll change it to "All hail President Romney, your president, my president, our president."

Should be an easy victory for you; unless you're full of shit.

Do we have a wager?

You aren't as confident as your boastful words indicate....wonder why?

Hmmm. He DID Cut & Run pretty quickly when you called him out, didn't he?

To date, nobody has accepted the challenge.

That doesn't bother me.

What bothers me is that the stakes are so incredibly low. I'm not asking anyone who disagrees with Obama's policies to change their tagline to saying something like "Obamacare--YES WE DID" or "Cash for Clunkers? The GOP isn't worth it." All I'm asking is that for 6 weeks, we wager our tagline to celebrate the election of the President. And for all of the bluster of "We don't hate the man, we hate his policies", this is a cardinal sign that the disagreement goes way beyond the policies--because again, I'm not asking anyone to support his policies.

And that does bother me; it saddens me.

The juxtaposition of the op versus the shameful silence when asked to take a stand is funny; I will say that.

 

[Oldstyle]

Who cares?

Bottom line is that you want to reelect a man who hasn't had a plan to get our economy going since the first year of his Presidency when he went with the Larry Summers Keynesian approach and spent a trillion dollars on keeping government workers employed, rewarding the folks who bundled campaign funds for him (Solyndra) and shovel ready jobs that turned out not to exist.

Now his economic plan rests on a tax increase on the wealthy that if it WERE passed would be a drop in the bucket towards our deficit...all the while knowing that it never will be passed because the GOP is going to retain control of Congress.

That isn't someone who's working for America! That's someone who's only concern is retaining HIS job.

Barack Obama made the statement three years ago that if he couldn't fix the economy in three years that he would be a one term President. The three years are up...and he's not even TRYING to fix the economy at this point. So why does he deserve another term?

 

[candycorn]

Who cares?

Bottom line is that you want to reelect a man who hasn't had a plan to get our economy going since the first year of his Presidency when he went with the Larry Summers Keynesian approach and spent a trillion dollars on keeping government workers employed, rewarding the folks who bundled campaign funds for him (Solyndra) and shovel ready jobs that turned out not to exist.

Now his economic plan rests on a tax increase on the wealthy that if it WERE passed would be a drop in the bucket towards our deficit...all the while knowing that it never will be passed because the GOP is going to retain control of Congress.

That isn't someone who's working for America! That's someone who's only concern is retaining HIS job.

Barack Obama made the statement three years ago that if he couldn't fix the economy in three years that he would be a one term President. The three years are up...and he's not even TRYING to fix the economy at this point. So why does he deserve another term?

I think you summed it up there; the GOP isn't working with him on anything.

The most shockingly incompentent thing I've seen from the Obama Presidency is that he (I think) fully expected that he could just count on rational actors at some level of the country. We know the American Public is irrational for the most part. But I think Obama figured that at some point the "cream rose to the top" and he could find people he could deal with.

He didn't count on the TEA Party having such clout back when it did. So you have this bizarre stance I think too many Americans have; Congress will not work with the President on anything--the same would have been true if the roles were reversed; we all know that--and the President gets the blame. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where there is legitimate questions about the use of American might in the world and why we are using it in countries that were at best remote threats, this is a domestic policy matter that you'd think they could agree on.

 

[rightwinger]

I would love to see Obama campaign in Dallas or Fort Worth. Lets see the massive hope and change crowd show up and faint for the one.

Isn't that what they said to JFK?

 

[Oldstyle]

Who cares?

Bottom line is that you want to reelect a man who hasn't had a plan to get our economy going since the first year of his Presidency when he went with the Larry Summers Keynesian approach and spent a trillion dollars on keeping government workers employed, rewarding the folks who bundled campaign funds for him (Solyndra) and shovel ready jobs that turned out not to exist.

Now his economic plan rests on a tax increase on the wealthy that if it WERE passed would be a drop in the bucket towards our deficit...all the while knowing that it never will be passed because the GOP is going to retain control of Congress.

That isn't someone who's working for America! That's someone who's only concern is retaining HIS job.

Barack Obama made the statement three years ago that if he couldn't fix the economy in three years that he would be a one term President. The three years are up...and he's not even TRYING to fix the economy at this point. So why does he deserve another term?

I think you summed it up there; the GOP isn't working with him on anything.

The most shockingly incompentent thing I've seen from the Obama Presidency is that he (I think) fully expected that he could just count on rational actors at some level of the country. We know the American Public is irrational for the most part. But I think Obama figured that at some point the "cream rose to the top" and he could find people he could deal with.

He didn't count on the TEA Party having such clout back when it did. So you have this bizarre stance I think too many Americans have; Congress will not work with the President on anything--the same would have been true if the roles were reversed; we all know that--and the President gets the blame. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where there is legitimate questions about the use of American might in the world and why we are using it in countries that were at best remote threats, this is a domestic policy matter that you'd think they could agree on.

The GOP isn't working with him? That's your excuse for his incompetance? So if they'd gone along with Cap & Trade our economy would be better off now? Is that what you're maintaining? If the GOP had passed Card Check that would have improved the job situation here in the US? Really?

Barack Obama started his term with super majorities in both the House and the Senate. He chose to use those super majorities to chase ObamaCare...putting the economy and jobs on a back burner while doing so. So using those super majorities, Barry gave us what is probably the worst piece of legislation ever written, something that will most likely not even hold up as constitutional.

But you blame his failure on the GOP?

Amusing stuff, Candy...

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the "clout" that the Tea Party has?

The 2010 midterms were a referendum on Barack Obama's agenda. The AMERICAN PEOPLE overwhelmingly voted against the Democrats and what they had done since taking control of the Senate, House and Oval Office. The Tea Party was simply a way for Americans to vent their anger over the direction that Barry, Harry and Nancy were taking us. You of course view this as the American people being "irrational"...since you feel that a progressive agenda is rational. I'm sorry but the majority of the country doesn't agree with you and they base their opinion on how that progressive agenda has impacted THEIR lives.

 

[candycorn]

Who cares?

Bottom line is that you want to reelect a man who hasn't had a plan to get our economy going since the first year of his Presidency when he went with the Larry Summers Keynesian approach and spent a trillion dollars on keeping government workers employed, rewarding the folks who bundled campaign funds for him (Solyndra) and shovel ready jobs that turned out not to exist.

Now his economic plan rests on a tax increase on the wealthy that if it WERE passed would be a drop in the bucket towards our deficit...all the while knowing that it never will be passed because the GOP is going to retain control of Congress.

That isn't someone who's working for America! That's someone who's only concern is retaining HIS job.

Barack Obama made the statement three years ago that if he couldn't fix the economy in three years that he would be a one term President. The three years are up...and he's not even TRYING to fix the economy at this point. So why does he deserve another term?

I think you summed it up there; the GOP isn't working with him on anything.

The most shockingly incompentent thing I've seen from the Obama Presidency is that he (I think) fully expected that he could just count on rational actors at some level of the country. We know the American Public is irrational for the most part. But I think Obama figured that at some point the "cream rose to the top" and he could find people he could deal with.

He didn't count on the TEA Party having such clout back when it did. So you have this bizarre stance I think too many Americans have; Congress will not work with the President on anything--the same would have been true if the roles were reversed; we all know that--and the President gets the blame. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where there is legitimate questions about the use of American might in the world and why we are using it in countries that were at best remote threats, this is a domestic policy matter that you'd think they could agree on.

The GOP isn't working with him? That's your excuse for his incompetance? So if they'd gone along with Cap & Trade our economy would be better off now? Is that what you're maintaining? If the GOP had passed Card Check that would have improved the job situation here in the US? Really?

I doubt we'd be much better off or much worse for it; one way or the other. The real shame is that there are finite materials at work here and when you're not advancing, you're sitting still. We'd, at least, have stability in some sectors of the economy where we currently do not have any. That is for certain.

Barack Obama started his term with super majorities in both the House and the Senate. He chose to use those super majorities to chase ObamaCare...putting the economy and jobs on a back burner while doing so.

Again, a totally partisan attack from the GOP on this topic as well. From my seat in the healthcare industry, the HA's in our system like stability. We can make money in any climate pretty much. What we don't like is not knowing the climate.

So using those super majorities, Barry gave us what is probably the worst piece of legislation ever written, something that will most likely not even hold up as constitutional.

I doubt it's the worst and I don't think you would actually believe that yourself given that we've had the 3/5ths compromise, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, et. al. It's these moronic juvenile and frankly stupid comments that make the right wing look so bafoonish.

That being said, I don't see where the mandate to buy health insurance can be deemed Constitutional so I'll agree with you in this narrow portion of the Health Care Act.

His name is Barack by the way.

But you blame his failure on the GOP?

Amusing stuff, Candy...

Failure? We have a GOP House who gets no blame? Cool... We have a Senate where either side in the minority whips out the filibuster at every opportunity? Cool... I do like how you totally discount a full one-third of our government's existence when it suits you. Amusing stuff indeed.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Obama is leading in every poll in almost every swing state. He will win 290 / 248. The GOP will hold the House and split the senate.

 

[candycorn]

As for the "clout" that the Tea Party has?

The 2010 midterms were a referendum on Barack Obama's agenda. The AMERICAN PEOPLE overwhelmingly voted against the Democrats and what they had done since taking control of the Senate, House and Oval Office. The Tea Party was simply a way for Americans to vent their anger over the direction that Barry, Harry and Nancy were taking us. You of course view this as the American people being "irrational"...since you feel that a progressive agenda is rational. I'm sorry but the majority of the country doesn't agree with you and they base their opinion on how that progressive agenda has impacted THEIR lives.

Yes, the same TEA party (TEA is an acronym by the way) people who don't want government healthcare are the same people who worry about medicare sustainability. It's on the left too.

The American Public is irrational; left, right, or up the middle. We elect a President from one party and in 2-4 years, give him a Congress controlled by a different party. Irrationality is there.

The TEA party is extremely irrational if anything but they are just a symptom of a long set-in disease of either us not knowing, not caring, or (at worst) knowing what we want but not knowing how to go about getting it/not having the intestinal fortitude to go about getting it. Either that or not demanding enough from our politicians.

Look at Marco Rubio; in Pennsylvania campaigning for Romney who already has the nomination sewn up.
Rubio campaigns with Romney, raising VP speculation - Yahoo! News

The people of Florida sent this chump to Congress and he's getting paid while not in the Senate, not in Florida, but in Pennsylvania campaigning in a contest that is long-since over. Funny how the TEA party isn't talking about this.

Now I could point out, probably, a dozen times the Democrats did the same thing and could likely point them out in the next few weeks when they are going to be doing the same thing. Rubio is just the most recent example of the irrationality of the American Public.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Safe Swing States for Obama? Seems Romney is in more trouble in the swing states:

NV: Obama +6.7%
OH: Obama +5.3%
PA: Obama +6 %
FL: Obama +4%
VA: Obama +4%
CO: Obama +7%
MO: Romney +3%
NH: Obama +3%
MI: Obama +11%
AZ: Romney +4% (really? This is is even being called a swing state???)

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Click on the swing state to see the latest polls.

 

[candycorn]

Safe Swing States for Obama? Seems Romney is in more trouble in the swing states:

NV: Obama +6.7%
OH: Obama +5.3%
PA: Obama +6 %
FL: Obama +4%
VA: Obama +4%
CO: Obama +7%
MO: Romney +3%
NH: Obama +3%
MI: Obama +11%
AZ: Romney +4% (really? This is is even being called a swing state???)

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Click on the swing state to see the latest polls.

The President was in Boca last week; the crowd seemed pretty excited.

 

[rightwinger]

Safe Swing States for Obama? Seems Romney is in more trouble in the swing states:

NV: Obama +6.7%
OH: Obama +5.3%
PA: Obama +6 %
FL: Obama +4%
VA: Obama +4%
CO: Obama +7%
MO: Romney +3%
NH: Obama +3%
MI: Obama +11%
AZ: Romney +4% (really? This is is even being called a swing state???)

RealClearPolitics - 2012 Election Maps - Battle for White House

Click on the swing state to see the latest polls.

The President was in Boca last week; the crowd seemed pretty excited.

The key is that Obama has a 57 pt lead in non swing states going into election day. Romney will have to take six out of the eight swing states he is trailing in

 

[Oldstyle]

I think you summed it up there; the GOP isn't working with him on anything.

The most shockingly incompentent thing I've seen from the Obama Presidency is that he (I think) fully expected that he could just count on rational actors at some level of the country. We know the American Public is irrational for the most part. But I think Obama figured that at some point the "cream rose to the top" and he could find people he could deal with.

He didn't count on the TEA Party having such clout back when it did. So you have this bizarre stance I think too many Americans have; Congress will not work with the President on anything--the same would have been true if the roles were reversed; we all know that--and the President gets the blame. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan where there is legitimate questions about the use of American might in the world and why we are using it in countries that were at best remote threats, this is a domestic policy matter that you'd think they could agree on.

The GOP isn't working with him? That's your excuse for his incompetance? So if they'd gone along with Cap & Trade our economy would be better off now? Is that what you're maintaining? If the GOP had passed Card Check that would have improved the job situation here in the US? Really?

I doubt we'd be much better off or much worse for it; one way or the other. The real shame is that there are finite materials at work here and when you're not advancing, you're sitting still. We'd, at least, have stability in some sectors of the economy where we currently do not have any. That is for certain.


Again, a totally partisan attack from the GOP on this topic as well. From my seat in the healthcare industry, the HA's in our system like stability. We can make money in any climate pretty much. What we don't like is not knowing the climate.

So using those super majorities, Barry gave us what is probably the worst piece of legislation ever written, something that will most likely not even hold up as constitutional.

I doubt it's the worst and I don't think you would actually believe that yourself given that we've had the 3/5ths compromise, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, et. al. It's these moronic juvenile and frankly stupid comments that make the right wing look so bafoonish.

That being said, I don't see where the mandate to buy health insurance can be deemed Constitutional so I'll agree with you in this narrow portion of the Health Care Act.

His name is Barack by the way.

But you blame his failure on the GOP?

Amusing stuff, Candy...

Failure? We have a GOP House who gets no blame? Cool... We have a Senate where either side in the minority whips out the filibuster at every opportunity? Cool... I do like how you totally discount a full one-third of our government's existence when it suits you. Amusing stuff indeed.

I "discount" blaming the GOP for one simple reason, Candy...when Obama and the progressives HAD control of things and the GOP was locked out in the hall twiddling their thumbs (you remember those "glorious days" for Democrats back in '09?) what Barry, Harry and Nancy DID with that control is what got Democrats voted out of office in record numbers in the 2010 midterms. To sit there and say that the problem is that the GOP wouldn't go along with a progressive agenda once the electorate had spoken LOUDLY and quite CLEARLY that they didn't like the direction we were headed in is frankly amusing.

Barack Obama made a very apt statement to Eric Cantor back in 2009. He told him that elections have consequences and that the Democrats had won, basically telling Cantor to sit down and shut up. And you know what? Obama was right. Elections DO have consequences and the Democrats HAD won. So progressives got ObamaCare and the Obama Stimulus. The American people looked at what they had done and in the 2010 midterms they sent a message to Washington that they were not pleased. But did THAT election have consequences with this Administration? Did they change course in any appreciative manner? No. Suddenly in 2010...elections DIDN'T have consequences because "they" (the progressives) knew better than the electorate and "they" would do what was best for the rest of us whether we wanted it or not.

 

[candycorn]

The GOP isn't working with him? That's your excuse for his incompetance? So if they'd gone along with Cap & Trade our economy would be better off now? Is that what you're maintaining? If the GOP had passed Card Check that would have improved the job situation here in the US? Really?

I doubt we'd be much better off or much worse for it; one way or the other. The real shame is that there are finite materials at work here and when you're not advancing, you're sitting still. We'd, at least, have stability in some sectors of the economy where we currently do not have any. That is for certain.


Again, a totally partisan attack from the GOP on this topic as well. From my seat in the healthcare industry, the HA's in our system like stability. We can make money in any climate pretty much. What we don't like is not knowing the climate.


I doubt it's the worst and I don't think you would actually believe that yourself given that we've had the 3/5ths compromise, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, et. al. It's these moronic juvenile and frankly stupid comments that make the right wing look so bafoonish.

That being said, I don't see where the mandate to buy health insurance can be deemed Constitutional so I'll agree with you in this narrow portion of the Health Care Act.

His name is Barack by the way.

But you blame his failure on the GOP?

Amusing stuff, Candy...

Failure? We have a GOP House who gets no blame? Cool... We have a Senate where either side in the minority whips out the filibuster at every opportunity? Cool... I do like how you totally discount a full one-third of our government's existence when it suits you. Amusing stuff indeed.

I "discount" blaming the GOP for one simple reason, Candy...when Obama and the progressives HAD control of things and the GOP was locked out in the hall twiddling their thumbs (you remember those "glorious days" for Democrats back in '09?) what Barry, Harry and Nancy DID with that control is what got Democrats voted out of office in record numbers in the 2010 midterms. To sit there and say that the problem is that the GOP wouldn't go along with a progressive agenda once the electorate had spoken LOUDLY and quite CLEARLY that they didn't like the direction we were headed in is frankly amusing.

Barack Obama made a very apt statement to Eric Cantor back in 2009. He told him that elections have consequences and that the Democrats had won, basically telling Cantor to sit down and shut up. And you know what? Obama was right. Elections DO have consequences and the Democrats HAD won. So progressives got ObamaCare and the Obama Stimulus. The American people looked at what they had done and in the 2010 midterms they sent a message to Washington that they were not pleased. But did THAT election have consequences with this Administration? Did they change course in any appreciative manner? No. Suddenly in 2010...elections DIDN'T have consequences because "they" (the progressives) knew better than the electorate and "they" would do what was best for the rest of us whether we wanted it or not.

So whoever got control of the House of Representatives in an election should have their entire program initiated...that is your summation?

Wow...okay....I guess that whole Constitution document is no longer relevant?