Thread: US Election

Ok then it seems as good a time as any to discuss this, with the US election looming who's going to win it and why, any ideas?

Ok since we've had no takers and it is kind of the biggest event in politics I better get the ball rolling and give an opinion. I think Obama is under real pressure and may well actually lose. Despite the fact he's got the black and minority votes in bag, has already proved he can be President and is universally loved around the world folks in America just don't seem to think he's done a good enough job, given the humongous level of expectation on him is probarbly a little unfair, also the fact that his opponent Mitt Romney is turning out to be far more competent than most had expected to the point that many are starting to actually see him as a man could be the next leader of the free world. Now couple all this with the fact that many Americans seem very disillusioned with the state of the economy it's all starting to look like very bad news for the President.

Not enough angry white old men for Romney to win. The Republican party has sadly gone out its way to disenfranchise women and minorities in recent decades. While I wouldn't mind seeing Romney win, I think a loss would be better for the party and hope it would return them to a more moderate ideologies of the past such as past republican leadership who established the highway system (Eisenhower), EPA (Nixon), clamped down on CFC emissions (Reagan), proposed cap and trade to control pollution (Reagan), willing to cut losses internationally (Reagan pulling back marine), supported gay rights (Reagan), recommended mandatory health cover by businesses(Nixon), and individuals (Heritage), didn't' try to legislate scientific conclusions, etc.

Despite Obama's lackluster performance I don't think the Republicans can overcome their own taint in recent years.

According to the polls, it's a close race. Not too long ago, it looked like a lock for Obama, but things changed. After the first debate, people got their first look at Romney, unfiltered by the liberal media spin machine and the negative advertising. The latest poll I saw had Romney with a slim lead in the electoral college.

The sacking of the diplomatic mission in Benghazi is a big problem for Obama. Before that, he could spike the football over the killing of Bin Laden, and let people think al Qaeda was defeated. It upset his story line of "Bin Laden's dead and General Motors is alive." This is why he was so desperate to spin it as a random mob demonstration over a film trailer on youtube instead of an al Qaeda attack.

What Obama has going for him in the long term is the changing demographics, with more people joining the 47% who are dependent on the government. These people are afraid the Republicans will take away their gravy train. So, I'm afraid for the future of the country, but maybe it won't happen just yet.

Is Obama really universally loved around the world? Probably not quite, since I read somewhere that the Taliban wanted to assassinate him. In any case, that won't sway too many American votes, other than the people who would vote for him anyway.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

What Obama has going for him in the long term is the changing demographics, with more people joining the 47% who are dependent on the government. These people are afraid the Republicans will take away their gravy train. So, I'm afraid for the future of the country, but maybe it won't happen just yet.

Possibly some of the Americans that didn't have health care or have become homeless probarbly don't see government support for them as a gravy train, perhaps they might evan see large tax cuts for multi millionaires or billionaires as a gravy train especially if some of them are struggling to afford to feed or clothe their children. Perhaps these people would be more in favour of a President that they perceive as having more socialistic leanings (Obama). But again Obama would need all of these people to go out and vote for him, I think the turn out will be crucial.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Is Obama really universally loved around the world? Probably not quite, since I read somewhere that the Taliban wanted to assassinate him. In any case, that won't sway too many American votes, other than the people who would vote for him anyway.

I wasn't expecting anyone to take me quite so literally, but yes I'm sure you are correct, but then again I think it would be pretty fair to say there are groups like the Taliban that seem like they would hate any American President whether it is Obama or if it were indeed Romney, simply for the fact they are American and what they represent. I'm sure the fact that Obama is so popular around the world in promoting America and an ideal of justice and freedom probarbly does make them dislike him even more though.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Not enough angry white old men for Romney to win. The Republican party has sadly gone out its way to disenfranchise women and minorities in recent decades. While I wouldn't mind seeing Romney win, I think a loss would be better for the party and hope it would return them to a more moderate ideologies of the past such as past republican leadership who established the highway system (Eisenhower), EPA (Nixon), clamped down on CFC emissions (Reagan), proposed cap and trade to control pollution (Reagan), willing to cut losses internationally (Reagan pulling back marine), supported gay rights (Reagan), recommended mandatory health cover by businesses(Nixon), and individuals (Heritage), didn't' try to legislate scientific conclusions, etc.

Despite Obama's lackluster performance I don't think the Republicans can overcome their own taint in recent years.

I think Harold might well be right actually, much of the news coverage we are getting here is now suggesting the race has tightened up and might now be to close to call.

The two party undemocratic theater is a farce and a fraud. Id rather read Jesse Ventura's latest book than watch the msm reality show parade.

ok
I voted ("early") today----------------obama

where this will go? I really do not know.
I was disapointed during the 1st 2 years when obama could have pushed a more liberal agenda, but place the blame on his preference for bipartisan support, and Nancy Pelosi's constant attacks on republicans, which interfered with her president's desire for a bipartisan coalition moving the best for the populace forward.

poor fool
will he have the balls to do more?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The Republican party has sadly gone out its way to disenfranchise women and minorities in recent decades. .

Explain your bigotry. I'm all ears. If I could, I'd pass your comment on to the 54% of Hispanic voters in my congressional district who voted Republican two years ago. They bounced a Hispanic Democrat and replaced him with one of those "old white men", a Republican. The only people my party has "disenfranchised" are morons, bigots, and race-baiters, people who'd make blanket statements like the one quoted above.

Pogomutt. I vote replublican about 80% of the time, this time was no different. (I voted a couple weeks ago).

Explain your bigotry

Don't flame. You are free to attack positions, not people.

Is anyone (besides me) voting for the next supreme court?

It's always at the top of my list. Almost certain the next president will replace 1 to 3.

what do you hope to gain from Romney judges?

Watched the debate last night, Romney didn't say he wouldn't invade Iran, but he did say what he'd do for the US economy and Obama fudged the question. Obama's responce about his first foreign trip to a holocaust momument was very good though. Also Romney said the first thing he'd do is brand China a currency manipulator, well everyone already knows this, probarbly not going to help international relationships much. I must admit I was quite suprised by how much they both agreed on policy though. But they did differ on arming the Syrian rebels, Romney saying they should be armed, yet admitting he doesn't know who's who in the Syrian rebels does sort of like leave the viewer wondering just to whom he would start giving weapons to. Also Obama tried to claim all the credit for the Libyan operation for which the US played only a minor role and which was organised and run by the British and French of which Obama made no mention. Also Romney seemed to suggest he'd do away with Obama care to help fund a $1,000,000,000,000 increase in military funding, so instead of spending money on health care for sick americans he wants to spend even more money on weapons, despite the fact America already has the most powerful military in the world by a huge margin, seems to suggest his priorities are a bit off key on this one. But before this starts to sound too one sided it should be noted he did actually give a good confident performance, seemed to know what he was talking about even in relation to foreign policy, despite his lack of experience, so I think that people would have thought even if they didn't agree with his individual policies overall he would be a good or acceptable leader. He also comes across as more inteligent than Bush and more likeable than McCain, if not quite as inteligent as Obama but more articulate which again was a suprise.

All things considered Obama might have come out slightly on top, but again Romney was the real winner because it gave the world a real chance to see a man that actually looks quite capable of being America's next President.

Originally Posted by sculptor

what do you hope to gain from Romney judges?

I didn't vote for him (nor Obama). Even if Romney wins, I don't think Romney would appoint any crazies. It looks like the democrats are going to hold the senate and wouldn't confirm anyone too radical--the beauty of our system; and unless the senate rules change they'd still be able to stall a nomination for a radical in the 2nd two years. I also think Romney is much more moderate and pragmatic than what he needed to appear to be to win the republican nomination.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

ars. I also think Romney is much more moderate and pragmatic than what he needed to appear to be to win the republican nomination.

Well I think the fact that he's not Sarah Palin makes him eminently more qualified for President.

CBS Had 46% voting for Romney
and 48% voting for Obama

Originally Posted by Harold14370

According to the polls, it's a close race. Not too long ago, it looked like a lock for Obama, but things changed. After the first debate, people got their first look at Romney, unfiltered by the liberal media spin machine and the negative advertising. The latest poll I saw had Romney with a slim lead in the electoral college.

The sacking of the diplomatic mission in Benghazi is a big problem for Obama. Before that, he could spike the football over the killing of Bin Laden, and let people think al Qaeda was defeated. It upset his story line of "Bin Laden's dead and General Motors is alive." This is why he was so desperate to spin it as a random mob demonstration over a film trailer on youtube instead of an al Qaeda attack.

What Obama has going for him in the long term is the changing demographics, with more people joining the 47% who are dependent on the government. These people are afraid the Republicans will take away their gravy train. So, I'm afraid for the future of the country, but maybe it won't happen just yet.

Is Obama really universally loved around the world? Probably not quite, since I read somewhere that the Taliban wanted to assassinate him. In any case, that won't sway too many American votes, other than the people who would vote for him anyway.

Perhaps there are some liberal biased, main stream media sources like MSNBC?..

But CBS, NBC, and ABC all all republican biased. These tv stations are owned by corporations like GE.

In the book "Crimes Against Nature" by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
Kennedy explained that during the time of GW Bush, he had to make promises to the tv station ceo's, that he would not say anything bad About GW Bush on the air. It seems these tv station owners, were looking forward to their GW Bush tax cuts.

Or look at the way the main stream media, attacked Bill Clinton, because he lied about his personal life. The main stream media spent more time attacking Clintons personal life lie, than it spend talking bad, about about every republican president combined since Reagan.


It appears that the Taliban does not like Obama, but European countries love Obama. I think one reason why European countries love Obama so much, is because they know GW Bush attacked Iraq for nothing, with a huge web of lies. I think Obama symbolized the end of the Iraq war for Europeans.

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Harold14370

According to the polls, it's a close race. Not too long ago, it looked like a lock for Obama, but things changed. After the first debate, people got their first look at Romney, unfiltered by the liberal media spin machine and the negative advertising. The latest poll I saw had Romney with a slim lead in the electoral college.

The sacking of the diplomatic mission in Benghazi is a big problem for Obama. Before that, he could spike the football over the killing of Bin Laden, and let people think al Qaeda was defeated. It upset his story line of "Bin Laden's dead and General Motors is alive." This is why he was so desperate to spin it as a random mob demonstration over a film trailer on youtube instead of an al Qaeda attack.

What Obama has going for him in the long term is the changing demographics, with more people joining the 47% who are dependent on the government. These people are afraid the Republicans will take away their gravy train. So, I'm afraid for the future of the country, but maybe it won't happen just yet.

Is Obama really universally loved around the world? Probably not quite, since I read somewhere that the Taliban wanted to assassinate him. In any case, that won't sway too many American votes, other than the people who would vote for him anyway.

Perhaps there are some liberal biased, main stream media sources like MSNBC?..

But CBS, NBC, and ABC all all republican biased. These tv stations are owned by corporations like GE.

In the book "Crimes Against Nature" by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
Kennedy explained that during the time of GW Bush, he had to make promises to the tv station ceo's, that he would not say anything bad About GW Bush on the air. It seems these tv station owners, were looking forward to their GW Bush tax cuts.

Or look at the way the main stream media, attacked Bill Clinton, because he lied about his personal life. The main stream media spent more time attacking Clintons personal life lie, than it spend talking bad, about about every republican president combined since Reagan.

Wow, Chad. Anybody who is left of the mainstream news media has to be way, way out there. Robert F Kennedy Jr. is a Democrat party hack. The mainstream media didn't investigate a tenth of the Clinton scandals. Clinton lied under oath. That's perjury. Did you think the media could ignore an impeachment trial?

Here is a list of journalists who contributed to political campaigns, along with the party they contributed to.
List of journalists taking sides - politics | NBC News Guess which party got the overwhelming majority?

Here is a list of newspaper endorsments in the last presidential election. 65-25 Obama.
2008 General Election Editorial Endorsements by Major Newspapers

Did you watch the first two presidential debates? The supposedly neutral moderators gave more speaking time to Obama and interrupted Romney much more often. Candy Crowley even joined in the debate on Obama's side.

Damn shame the President let Bob's Obama Bin Laden go past--perhaps he felt sorry for the senile bastard.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Harold14370

According to the polls, it's a close race. Not too long ago, it looked like a lock for Obama, but things changed. After the first debate, people got their first look at Romney, unfiltered by the liberal media spin machine and the negative advertising. The latest poll I saw had Romney with a slim lead in the electoral college.

Is Obama really universally loved around the world? Probably not quite, since I read somewhere that the Taliban wanted to assassinate him. In any case, that won't sway too many American votes, other than the people who would vote for him anyway.

Perhaps there are some liberal biased, main stream media sources like MSNBC?..

But CBS, NBC, and ABC all all republican biased. These tv stations are owned by corporations like GE.

In the book "Crimes Against Nature" by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
Kennedy explained that during the time of GW Bush, he had to make promises to the tv station ceo's, that he would not say anything bad About GW Bush on the air. It seems these tv station owners, were looking forward to their GW Bush tax cuts.

Or look at the way the main stream media, attacked Bill Clinton, because he lied about his personal life. The main stream media spent more time attacking Clintons personal life lie, than it spend talking bad, about about every republican president combined since Reagan.

Wow, Chad. Anybody who is left of the mainstream news media has to be way, way out there. Robert F Kennedy Jr. is a Democrat party hack. The mainstream media didn't investigate a tenth of the Clinton scandals. Clinton lied under oath. That's perjury. Did you think the media could ignore an impeachment trial?

Here is a list of journalists who contributed to political campaigns, along with the party they contributed to.
List of journalists taking sides - politics | NBC News Guess which party got the overwhelming majority?

Here is a list of newspaper endorsments in the last presidential election. 65-25 Obama.
2008 General Election Editorial Endorsements by Major Newspapers

Did you watch the first two presidential debates? The supposedly neutral moderators gave more speaking time to Obama and interrupted Romney much more often. Candy Crowley even joined in the debate on Obama's side.

(EDITED to make accurate, because of/ from Harold's comments.)


It is the owners/ceo's of these tv stations that call the shots. And the owners of these tv stations do not want their reporters, to say anything bad about republicans, corporations, ex.ex.. Even if those reporters give money to the democrats, their ceo bosses do not want them to run negative stories about republicans.

The documentary "Fear and Favor in the News Room", interviews real life main stream reporters and they state, they are stopped from writing hard hitting stories, that could effect corporations, tv station owners, and ceo's low tax rates ex.ex. ex.ex.



Did you ever hear about the following (real life) news story,

A group of coal power plant owners gave GW Bush $100 million dollars for his campaign. After GW Bush won, he did the power plant owners a favor. As a favor Bush killed a law called "the new source rule." The abolishing of this law caused extra pollution to be let out into Americas air. This extra pollution caused 10,000's of American children to get so sick, they were not able to go outside to play (these kids got asma and they could not breath.)

"Politician takes $100 million dollars, he does a favor for it. The favor causes 10,000's of kids, to get so sick they cant breath."

Did the mainstream media air this story? Hell no.

People talk about Americas large corporations doing this and that. These tv stations are one of those large corporations.



Yes I watched some of the debates, and I did not notice reporters giving Obama favors, but perhaps they did?
But I did notice the popular mainstream reporters, that spoke after the debates that I watched. They all seemed to praise Romney.

No, of course the media never run a negative story about a Republican. Sure, they don't. Maybe that's why Dan Rather ran the bogus story about Bush that got him fired. Rather wasn't stopped by his corporate bosses at See BS or any other mainstream news media. He was exposed by bloggers who discovered Rather was using forged documents.

Chris Matthews got a thrill up his leg over Obama. Did any other news reporter ever get a thrill up their leg about a Republican? Can you even imagine that happening?

Do you ever watch The View? How about David Letterman? How about Oprah Winfrey? The media are flooded with Obama worshippers. Why can't you see that, Chad?

The facts are there about the debates. Watch them over again yourself if you don't believe it. Count up how many minutes Obama is speaking and how many minutes Romney gets. Count the number of interruptions. You are so biased, it's pitiful.

Candy Crowley's boss at CNN didn't criticise her, he praised her performance. He said it was okay that she gave Obama more time, because Obama speaks slower!!! Honest to god, he actually said that.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, of course the media never run a negative story about a Republican. Sure, they don't. Maybe that's why Dan Rather ran the bogus story about Bush that got him fired. Rather wasn't stopped by his corporate bosses at See BS or any other mainstream news media. He was exposed by bloggers who discovered Rather was using forged documents.

Chris Matthews got a thrill up his leg over Obama. Did any other news reporter ever get a thrill up their leg about a Republican? Can you even imagine that happening?

Do you ever watch The View? How about David Letterman? How about Oprah Winfrey? The media are flooded with Obama worshippers. Why can't you see that, Chad?

The facts are there about the debates. Watch them over again yourself if you don't believe it. Count up how many minutes Obama is speaking and how many minutes Romney gets. Count the number of interruptions. You are so biased, it's pitiful.

Candy Crowley's boss at CNN didn't criticise her, he praised her performance. He said it was okay that she gave Obama more time, because Obama speaks slower!!! Honest to god, he actually said that.

(EDITED by/from Harolds comments.)




Well I stand corrected, the main stream media did run a negative story about GW Bush.
I guess they can sneak past their bosses sometimes.
But Dan Rather was fired for it.

Do reporters always get fired when the run a untrue story?
Or do they only get fired, when that story is about republicans?


But can you discredit anything else, I have said in this thread?



In the following link, time 11:40-16:00 shows part of my point.

Fear and Favor In The Newsroom - YouTube



And the 11:40-16:00 minutes in the link above, is more about how corporations control whats on the news, rather than Americas political parties. The corporations that own our tv stations, have killed hard hitting journalism.

Have a good one,
Chad.

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, of course the media never run a negative story about a Republican. Sure, they don't. Maybe that's why Dan Rather ran the bogus story about Bush that got him fired. Rather wasn't stopped by his corporate bosses at See BS or any other mainstream news media. He was exposed by bloggers who discovered Rather was using forged documents.

Chris Matthews got a thrill up his leg over Obama. Did any other news reporter ever get a thrill up their leg about a Republican? Can you even imagine that happening?

Do you ever watch The View? How about David Letterman? How about Oprah Winfrey? The media are flooded with Obama worshippers. Why can't you see that, Chad?

The facts are there about the debates. Watch them over again yourself if you don't believe it. Count up how many minutes Obama is speaking and how many minutes Romney gets. Count the number of interruptions. You are so biased, it's pitiful.

Candy Crowley's boss at CNN didn't criticise her, he praised her performance. He said it was okay that she gave Obama more time, because Obama speaks slower!!! Honest to god, he actually said that.

Well I stand corrected, the main stream media did run a negative story about GW Bush.
I guess it happens sometimes.

It wasn't just a negative story. They abandoned all journalistic standards and used forged documents in their zeal to get Bush.

But can you discredit anything else, I have said in this thread?

Can you discredit anything I said? I proved that the mainstream media hire an overwhelming number of journalists who support Democrats. I proved that most of the major newspapers endorse Democrats. I showed that the news networks cheated in favor of Obama in the debates. Yet you want to tell me the media favor Republicans.

If the media are owned by the corporations, and they favor Democrats, maybe that means the Democrats are in bed with corporate interests more than Republicans. After all, there is Solyndra, which went bankrupt taking tax money, then there was a car battery manufacturer supported by Obama who just went bankrupt. Obama talks a good game on renewable energy, but what has he actually done?

It occured to me the other day that the only reason I favour an Obama victory is that I think it would be better for America. Now why should I get all upset over a Romney victory just because it would be bad for America? I mean what do I care? He'll loosen up controls on the oil industry, so my job should be secure past retirement age. The only losers will be , in the short term, many poorer Americans and in the long term, America in general. So, really, it won't actually be a bad thing for me. It should also hasten the transition to a reallignment of global power, with the US substantially 'downgraded'. Yes, I think I've convinced myself: roll on a victory for Romney.

Originally Posted by John Galt

It occured to me the other day that the only reason I favour an Obama victory is that I think it would be better for America. Now why should I get all upset over a Romney victory just because it would be bad for America? I mean what do I care? He'll loosen up controls on the oil industry, so my job should be secure past retirement age. The only losers will be , in the short term, many poorer Americans and in the long term, America in general. So, really, it won't actually be a bad thing for me. It should also hasten the transition to a reallignment of global power, with the US substantially 'downgraded'. Yes, I think I've convinced myself: roll on a victory for Romney.

Also John it would mean that Sarah Palin wouldn't be the Republican candidate in 2016, which would mean at least 4 extra years before she could get her hands on the controls America's nuclear arsenal, the mere thought sends shivers down the spine.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, of course the media never run a negative story about a Republican. Sure, they don't. Maybe that's why Dan Rather ran the bogus story about Bush that got him fired. Rather wasn't stopped by his corporate bosses at See BS or any other mainstream news media. He was exposed by bloggers who discovered Rather was using forged documents.

Chris Matthews got a thrill up his leg over Obama. Did any other news reporter ever get a thrill up their leg about a Republican? Can you even imagine that happening?

Do you ever watch The View? How about David Letterman? How about Oprah Winfrey? The media are flooded with Obama worshippers. Why can't you see that, Chad?

The facts are there about the debates. Watch them over again yourself if you don't believe it. Count up how many minutes Obama is speaking and how many minutes Romney gets. Count the number of interruptions. You are so biased, it's pitiful.

Candy Crowley's boss at CNN didn't criticise her, he praised her performance. He said it was okay that she gave Obama more time, because Obama speaks slower!!! Honest to god, he actually said that.

Well I stand corrected, the main stream media did run a negative story about GW Bush.
I guess it happens sometimes.

It wasn't just a negative story. They abandoned all journalistic standards and used forged documents in their zeal to get Bush.

But can you discredit anything else, I have said in this thread?

Can you discredit anything I said? I proved that the mainstream media hire an overwhelming number of journalists who support Democrats. I proved that most of the major newspapers endorse Democrats. I showed that the news networks cheated in favor of Obama in the debates. Yet you want to tell me the media favor Republicans.

If the media are owned by the corporations, and they favor Democrats, maybe that means the Democrats are in bed with corporate interests more than Republicans. After all, there is Solyndra, which went bankrupt taking tax money, then there was a car battery manufacturer supported by Obama who just went bankrupt. Obama talks a good game on renewable energy, but what has he actually done?

1.) I believe perhaps you proved, that most journalists (who give money to politics) favor democrats.

2.) Maybe you proved that more newspapers indorse democrats.

3.) You (said) "the news networks cheated in favor of Obama in the debates."

(Harold/ Administrator, I realize your duties to this forum, will not allow you the time, to be able to research as much as I can.)



My response to your above statements,

1.) My source "Fear and favor in the news room", has high level journalists, producers, and executives stating, "Large corporations like GE control the content of what news is given to the American people, not reporters."

2.) Perhaps the reason these newspapers endorsed democrats more, is because they know the following things. "Republicans created Americas dangerous national deficits and national debt." And these newspapers also know that "republicans tell Americas people huge amounts of lies." ex.ex.

Should a newspaper endorse a political party, that creates huge deficits and debt, and also lies to the American people?


3.) you said "the news networks cheated in favor of Obama in the debates." Can you show evidence of this?


But Perhaps that PBS reporter got mad, when Romney said he was stopping support for PBS.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by chad

Originally Posted by Harold14370

No, of course the media never run a negative story about a Republican. Sure, they don't. Maybe that's why Dan Rather ran the bogus story about Bush that got him fired. Rather wasn't stopped by his corporate bosses at See BS or any other mainstream news media. He was exposed by bloggers who discovered Rather was using forged documents.

Chris Matthews got a thrill up his leg over Obama. Did any other news reporter ever get a thrill up their leg about a Republican? Can you even imagine that happening?

Do you ever watch The View? How about David Letterman? How about Oprah Winfrey? The media are flooded with Obama worshippers. Why can't you see that, Chad?

The facts are there about the debates. Watch them over again yourself if you don't believe it. Count up how many minutes Obama is speaking and how many minutes Romney gets. Count the number of interruptions. You are so biased, it's pitiful.

Candy Crowley's boss at CNN didn't criticise her, he praised her performance. He said it was okay that she gave Obama more time, because Obama speaks slower!!! Honest to god, he actually said that.

Well I stand corrected, the main stream media did run a negative story about GW Bush.
I guess it happens sometimes.

It wasn't just a negative story. They abandoned all journalistic standards and used forged documents in their zeal to get Bush.

But can you discredit anything else, I have said in this thread?

Can you discredit anything I said? I proved that the mainstream media hire an overwhelming number of journalists who support Democrats. I proved that most of the major newspapers endorse Democrats. I showed that the news networks cheated in favor of Obama in the debates. Yet you want to tell me the media favor Republicans.

If the media are owned by the corporations, and they favor Democrats, maybe that means the Democrats are in bed with corporate interests more than Republicans. After all, there is Solyndra, which went bankrupt taking tax money, then there was a car battery manufacturer supported by Obama who just went bankrupt. Obama talks a good game on renewable energy, but what has he actually done?

The mainstream media tv stations, are liberal-biased?
Lets look at the amount of air time dedicated to speaking negative things, about each party.


The following are negative things, said about democrat presidents, by CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN news ex.ex.


1.) Bill Clinton's personal life lie.

Would you say that the media, spent more air time on this lie issue, than it spent talking negative things, about all republican presidents combined, since Reagan?



2.) Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio suggests Obama's birth certificate is a forgery - Political Hotsheet - CBS News



3.) Obama is against prayer.

Obama tones down National Day of Prayer observance - CNN.com

Obama Scales Back on Prayer Day | NBC4 Washington


(And I could list more sources, of the tv media saying negative things about democrat presidents.)





The following are negative things, that the media has said about republicans.

1.) Dan rather said negative things about GW Bush's military service.

(Can you add anymore negative things, said by the mainstream tv media, said about republicans.)




How can the TV media have a liberal bias, if they spend more time saying negative things about democrats.
And this liberal media bias claim becomes laughable, when one realizes, Dan Rather was fired for saying, untrue negative things about GW Bush.

The following source states that 4 CBS news workers were fired for saying those untrue negative things about GW Bush.
CBS Ousts 4 For Bush Guard Story - CBS News



The main stream media reported that "Obama's birth certificate was fake."
But since Obama is the US president as you read this, could we assume that the "fake b. certificate" story was untrue?

Was anyone fired for running this likely untrue story about a democrats fake birth certificate?
Did the main stream media investigate the claim, that Obama's birth certificate is fake, or did they just let the story run?

Not only does the mainstream tv media, run more negative stories about democrats.
They also fire workers who say untrue bad things about republicans.

But when reporters say "Obama's birth certificate is fake" there no investigation, and no one gets fired.



The American tv media does not have a liberal bias, they have a large corporation bias, they have a bias for corporations like GE (that own the tv stations.)

And who does GE like more, democrats or republicans? TRUST ME GE LIKES THE REPUBLICANS...

1.) Bill Clinton's personal life lie.

Would you say that the media, spent more air time on this lie issue, than it spent talking negative things, about all republican presidents combined, since Reagan?

As well they should have since he lied under oath. The media realized that the rule of law actually means something to "We the People."

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

1.) Bill Clinton's personal life lie.

Would you say that the media, spent more air time on this lie issue, than it spent talking negative things, about all republican presidents combined, since Reagan?

As well they should have since he lied under oath. The media realized that the rule of law actually means something to "We the People."

I hate to repeat these things, but what else can I do?




Why did the US media not report on the following story?

GW Bush took $100 million dollars in campaign money, from a group of coal power plant owners. When Bush got elected he did those power plant owners a favor. Bush killed a law called "the new source rule." When Bush killed that law it let out extra smoke pollution. This extra pollution caused 10,000's of US children to get so sick, they were unable to even go outside to play (because they got asma and could not breath.)

Bush took $100 million dollars. Then he did a favor for the money. The favor he did caused 10,000's of US children, to get so sick, they were unable to breath good enough, to even go outside to play.

What didn't the media speak of this story?

Do you think a personal lie about human reproduction, is more important than 10,000's of US children being made bedridden sick?




Then GW Bush's White House told 935 documented lies, to get America to invade Iraq.

Why didn't the media speak of this story?

Do you think a personal lie about human reproduction, is more important than 935 lies being told by a White House, and those lies causing 1,000's of US troops to be killed?





Or GW Bush turned Clintons balanced budget, and no deficits into dangerous deficits and debt.

Why does the media not speak of this.

Do you think a personal lie about human reproduction, is more important than huge deficits and debt in Americas government?




I could list many more outrageous acts done by GW Bush and his White house.
That the US media never spoke about.



Why didn't the media speak of GW Bush's acts? Because corporations like GE own all the news networks. And these corporations love republicans like GW Bush.
Bush gave these corporations huge tax cuts, Bush lied for them and said global warming was not happening, ex.ex.ex.ex.ex. So they loved Bush.



But the ceo's at GE, ex.ex. that own all of our news outlets, they hate democrats like Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton raises ceo's taxes, Bill Clinton raises GE's federal taxes from 0%, and he does not lie and say global warming is not happening, ex.ex.ex.


This why no reporter speaks of the outrageous acts done by republicans like GW Bush. GW Bush gave the corporations that own the media outlets (huge) amounts of money.


But what happens when a democrat like Clinton says a lie about human reproduction? The ceo's at the news networks, order their trucks, satellite hookups, and all available reporters to Clintons White house. The ceo's order their reporters to camp out/sleep outside the White house. Then ceo's order their reporters to follow Clinton around and ask him questions about human reproduction.

But when Bush let out extra pollution, that made 10,000's of US children bedridden sick, the ceo's order all their reporters "to not speak of that matter."

Do you really think Clintons lie about human reproduction, was more important than all the listed acts committed by GW Bush?


I promise I don't intend to be rude,
Chad.

Chad, if the media didn't report the stories, how did you find out about them? Are they even true? I doubt it.

There was a credible allegation that Clinton raped Kathleen Willey. Was that reported in the mainstream media?

Originally Posted by sculptor

ok
I voted ("early") today----------------obama

where this will go? I really do not know.
I was disapointed during the 1st 2 years when obama could have pushed a more liberal agenda, but place the blame on his preference for bipartisan support, and Nancy Pelosi's constant attacks on republicans, which interfered with her president's desire for a bipartisan coalition moving the best for the populace forward.

poor fool
will he have the balls to do more?

Now that he has finished repairing the rape that was perpetrated on the Nation, and is no longer required to spend his time in fundraising, I have high hopes that Obama's next term will start building for our future.


Everyone is pooh-pooing the slight drop in unemployment, but consider this. If in each of the next four years Obama is able to reduce unemployment by 1.2 % (4 x 1.2 = 4.8) the unemployment percentage will have been reduced to 4 %, which indicates a thriving economy in general.

Anyone who expects that this timetable can be moved up is a fool. The economic damage was tremendous, the cure will take time.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Chad, if the media didn't report the stories, how did you find out about them? Are they even true? I doubt it.

There was a credible allegation that Clinton raped Kathleen Willey. Was that reported in the mainstream media?

I learned these things on dish satellite tv from (2) non-corporate tv channels, called Freespeach TV and LinkTV. And also when I spoke about the negative health effects caused by GW Bush's pollution law changes, I forgot to mention that GW Bush's pollution law changes, also kill 1,000's of Americans each year.


I said,

GW Bush took $100 million dollars in campaign money, from a group of coal power plant owners. When Bush got elected he did those power plant owners a favor. Bush killed a law called "the new source rule." When Bush killed that law it let out extra smoke pollution. This extra pollution causes 10,000's of US children to get so sick, they are unable to even go outside to play (because they got asma and could not breath.)




The coal power plant owners gave GW Bush and the GOP, around $100 million dollars. The following links show this money flow.

Coal Scores With Wager on Bush Belief that mineral is part of "balanced" energy policy lifts industry outlook Dan Morgan / Washington Post 25mar01

Big Oil's Influence in Washington . NOW | PBS

(Though this 2nd source is about energy industry contributions, it shows ---favors--- granted by the GW Bush White House.)

If you would like better sources, for coal power plant campaign money given to GW Bush, please inform me.



I said, "When Bush got elected he did those power plant owners a favor. Bush killed a law called "the new source rule." (Most people call this law the new source review.)


The following wiki. link explains "the new source rule/new source review." Section 1.3 "The Bush Administration", explains how GW Bush's White House abolished/relaxed these laws. It also explains the health effects of these reductions.


New Source Review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



The following source's (not related to GW Bush) are used to show the dangers of coal power plants, they show how these coal power plants, kill approximately 30,000 American people a year.


Coal-Burning Power Plants Dangerous for Your Health - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com

Deadly power plants? Study fuels debate - US news - Environment | NBC News

STUDY SAYS COAL PLANT POLLUTION KILLS 30,000 A YEAR

http://www.edf.org/sites/default/fil...th-impacts.pdf

Dangers of Coal-Burning Power Plants



Note: GW Bush's White House called their "new source review" replacement laws, "the clean air act" as a smoke screen. The following source states how the EPA's own numbers state, that GW Bush's laws slow down the pollution cleanup, and how GW Bush's laws make the cleanup 2x slower. This is stated in section: "Air – Citations (weakening Clean Air Act)"


ET 04/04: The Bush Administration's record on the environment - citations


The Bush White House also lied and said, their new laws will save America money. But the fact is, the money spent on health problems caused by GW Bush's law changes, is much greater than the money GW Bush said would be saved. One of the following sources explains this.



The following source explains, how 1,000's of people are (killed) each year, because of GW Bush's White House's new source review law changes.
This source also explains the 80,000 to 120,000 asma cases, that are caused by GW Bush's law changes each year. This information is stated at the bottom of the page.


Power to Kill - Clean Air Task Force (CATF)



The following link also explains GW Bush's clean air law changes. Page #3 explains the deaths and asma caused by GW Bush's law changes.

Changing All the Rules - NYTimes.com




The following links also explain this subject, or are related to this subject.


Big Oil's Influence in Washington . NOW | PBS

Coal Scores With Wager on Bush Belief that mineral is part of "balanced" energy policy lifts industry outlook Dan Morgan / Washington Post 25mar01

New Source Review | Earthjustice

EPA To Relax Utility Pollution Rules - Asthma - Health News | Aetna InteliHealth

Childhood Asthma On The Rise As Political Battles Threaten EPA's Air Pollution Rules

Protecting babies from neurotoxins - CNN.com



(GW BUSH'S WHITE HOUSE ALSO DID 25?-30+ OTHER THINGS, THAT MANY -MIGHT- CONSIDER TO BE WORSE THAN THE ABOVE.)





I also said,

"GW Bush's White House told 935 documented lies, to get America to invade Iraq."


The following sources show this.

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN

Bush Administration Lied 935 Times About Iraq Before Invasion: Study - Music, Celebrity, Artist News | MTV.com

Study: Bushies Lied 935 Times to Sell Iraq Invasion | Alternet

Fallenmonk: 935 Lies




Then I said, "GW Bush turned Clintons balanced budget, and no deficits into dangerous deficits and debt."

Bill Clinton had a balanced budget, and erased Americas deficits.

GW Bush by tax cuts, and an Iraq war started with 935 lies, turned Clintons balanced budget, into huge deficits and debt.


If you would like sources for the above statements, then please inform me. I don't have the time to search for them at this moment.


Chad.

Chad you've been told to stop ranting time and time again as well as to focus on the content of the thread, this ones being about the election, instead of putting up the same material time and time again.

Giving you the weekend off.

Well looks like the end of the campaign could be affected by Sandy, but by now I would have thought that everyone's pretty much made their minds up anyway. The candidates appear neck and neck in the polls (47% each) so it certainly looks like being a close one. A BBC poll of 21 leading countries shows international support massively in favour of the President with Obama polling 50% and Romney only 9%, of the 21 leading countries only Pakistan shows more support for Romney. With France showing the most, and an over whelming, support for the President at a huge 72% rating.

Pew Research US Election Poll:

http://www.people-press.org/files/le...%20Release.pdf

BBC International US Election Poll:

BBC News - BBC poll: Rest of world favours Obama

Most people have made up their minds, but the storm could affect turnout. I think this will help Romney, because Republicans will crawl across broken glass to vote the idiot out of office. Dems are depressed because of Obamas rather slipshod performance in his first term. Luckily for him, the Obama-friendly media are not asking him about his failure to help the ambassador in Libya. He went to bed, so he could be bright eyed and bushy tailed for his fund raising in Las Vegas.

Luckily, foreigners are not allowed to vote in our election, unless they are illegal aliens, who are not required to show any ID, thanks to the Democrats. However, you can contribute illegally to Obama's web site, since he did not set up any filters to screen out foreign donors.

Unfortunately it seems the huge anonymous corporate donations to superpacs also leave us exposed to foreign manipulation regardless of political parties.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Luckily, foreigners are not allowed to vote in our election, unless they are illegal aliens, who are not required to show any ID, thanks to the Democrats. However, you can contribute illegally to Obama's web site, since he did not set up any filters to screen out foreign donors.

Well Harold I have to say I'm somewhat surprised by this revelation about possible foreign donors to US political campaigns, whilst I like Obama and think he is a good President and if I was American would probarbly vote for him, that is my personal opinion and whilst I'm quite happy to have an opinion I wouldn't want that my opinion could or would affect the political election of America or any other country than my own, likewise to making political donations. Even if it were legal to donate money to the US election campaign, as a foreigner I still wouldn't as again I don't believe that people from other countries should interfere in the elections of sovereign nations.

So to clarify, I'm happy to have, and discuss my opinion but as a Non American I shouldn't nor should any other Non American have any say or influence in the outcome of the election. I feel we are all allowed our opinions and allowed to share them though, this is because we are all free people and will hopefully will always be so.

Obviously Mitt Romney. He's hotter. Verified truth: Why I'm Voting for Mitt Romney - YouTube

Edit: (I'm not the sexy lady in the above video)

Originally Posted by johnha

He's hotter.

I would like to think that most a Americans will have different criteria than that for voting for their President, I would image most take a well reasoned approach and way up the pro's and cons to come a sensible decision. I think it is a sorry a state of affairs if there are people that really want to decide their President on the basis of "He's hotter". But hey that's just imho.

I'll be a tad more comfortable when this quadrennial orgy of disinformation and mudslinging and automated phone calls is over.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Chad you've been told to stop ranting time and time again as well as to focus on the content of the thread, this ones being about the election, instead of putting up the same material time and time again.

Giving you the weekend off.

When you ban me from the forum, I always feel disappointed at first.

But in the end I always consider your decisions, to be great to fair.

I now consider your latest choice to be good. Perhaps I should have started a new thread, rather than posting.


Thank you for keeping me in line,
Chad.

Well looks like his handling of Sandy is boosting Obama's poll rating. Not that I'm suggesting for one second he's doing anything political over Sandy, it just seems in times of crisis people always look to the leader or person in charge and right now Obama is that man so it is to him they are looking. Will probarbly be a shame though if the entire election comes down to this and is solely decided by the Presidents handling of a crisis, but sometimes such is the nature of politics.

I listened to Sean Hannity today. He spoke with Herman Cain. Cain has been promoting Mitt Romney in the battleground states, Ohio in particular. He said he believes Mitt Romney will win, that he will win the popular vote easily and win a "squeaker" in the electoral college. The possibility of voter fraud came up, and there is no doubt that the hurricane has given the Democrats more opportunity to cheat. I would not trust the Democrats as far as I can throw them. I regret now that I voted for Bill Clinton. We've had 4 years of rhetoric with no solutions of any kind. Obama has failed. Unemployment remains high, and the war in Afghanistan drags on. 6 trillion dollars have been added to the national debt. Obama is still blaming Bush. He ignores "Fast and Furious" and has lied about the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi, blaming it on a youtube video. What a joke! Obama has not earned reelection. Our one "hope" lies with dismissing this failed president and putting Mitt Romney in the White House.

SEAN HANNITY Home - The Sean Hannity Show

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Will probarbly be a shame though if the entire election comes down to this and is solely decided by the Presidents handling of a crisis, but sometimes such is the nature of politics.

It's actually a better criteria than used by many people, such as blind allegiance to a party, skin color, or someones good looks etc.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Will probarbly be a shame though if the entire election comes down to this and is solely decided by the Presidents handling of a crisis, but sometimes such is the nature of politics.

It's actually a better criteria than used by many people, such as blind allegiance to a party, skin color, or someones good looks etc.

Yes well that's certainly hard to disagree with, perhaps what I was hoping for is that people choose to cast their vote after carefully considering the issues and have come to a decision based on a strong balance of all the major issues, not just be easily influenced by random events.

Most of the major bookies now have Obama as 4 to 1 on to be re elected. But even a day seems a long time in politics at the moment and know one knows what tomorrow holds. How many more twists may we yet see?, I wonder.

Anyone not voting?

duplication

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Well looks like his handling of Sandy is boosting Obama's poll rating. Not that I'm suggesting for one second he's doing anything political over Sandy, it just seems in times of crisis people always look to the leader or person in charge and right now Obama is that man so it is to him they are looking. Will probarbly be a shame though if the entire election comes down to this and is solely decided by the Presidents handling of a crisis, but sometimes such is the nature of politics.

Obama proved his worth in several crises of National importance, during this term. What has Romney proved during times of crisis?

Will probarbly be a shame though if the entire election comes down to this and is solely decided by the Presidents handling of a crisis

Well, people's mental comparison is how Bush handled Katrina, which no-one could claim was anything other than disastrous. Romney has to deal with people putting that together with his own statements about dismantling FEMA.

If handling disasters just happens to be at the forefront of people's minds, Romney and his team should have had a strategy in place if they really understood the implications of their policy. Very few disasters come with more than a few days warning.

Obama did nothing different than Bush with his hurricane response, except to receive the usual fawning press coverage that Democrats always get. What happened in New Orleans was the fault of Ray Nagan the idiot mayor who left the busses parked that could have been evacuating people.

Obama flubbed the gulf oil spill and the Benghazi attack in a major way.

Originally Posted by adelady

Very few disasters come with more than a few days warning.

But all disasters come with a standard set of characteristics. That's how we recognise them as disasters.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Sandy or Katrina is in a way they'd both been forecast for at least ten years. To a large degree, New York took those warnings more seriously. New Orleans planning was one of the worth examples of local and state disaster preparation of modern times (e.g., the flooded buses, failure to warn people, failure to do drills that would have told them the new stadium would be a magnet for people etc.). Between the much better FEMA and homeland security integration and competent local and state response, sure the president looks better--not so hard when people like Brown, who wouldn't let FEMA lay the ground work before the storm aren't in the way--and still has the Gaul to complain that FEMA stood up too early for Sandy.

(wild guess du jour)
Obama wins!
(by a landslide?)

Worst nightmare is we don't find out for months because recounts are tied up in court battles.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Obama did nothing different than Bush with his hurricane response, except to receive the usual fawning press coverage that Democrats always get. What happened in New Orleans was the fault of Ray Nagan the idiot mayor who left the busses parked that could have been evacuating people.

Obama flubbed the gulf oil spill and the Benghazi attack in a major way.

??
In times of chaos things go wrong. Someone does not warn another, etc, etc. I am not talking about Nagan, I am talking about FEMA. Need I go further?

How exactly did Obama flub the gulf oil spill?
The Oil spill was caused by greedy oil tycoons who wanted to save a few thousand dollars by installing inferior valves.
Obama responded appropriately, pending investigations which were (perhaps still are) being conducted.

The outrage at the story development in the Benghazi incident is a complete straw man (actually a red herring).
There is a lot of yelling and screaming about some confused and frightened diplomats using terms such as "we think" and "we believe" as if they were declared in a court of law. The point is that this will be thoroughly investigated and explained.

What I find discouraging is the automatic and immediate pointing the blame at Obama. Obama is now being "blamed" for stabilizing the economy from an historic economic collapse. He was not personally responsible for any of these events, but he has fixed or is busy fixing them all to the benefit of the population. Give the man a break!

Originally Posted by Write4U

The Oil spill was caused by greedy oil tycoons who wanted to save a few thousand dollars by installing inferior valves. ... !

psst, that's a few(several) million $
and
ahem:
sometimes you paint with too broad a brush
The drilling project was over time, and way over budget and the project manager decided to take a couple shortcuts, to ease the ongoing deficit.,, and,,, it was only an exploratory well... not much roi
blame it on his bosses, ok........but who actually made the decisions?

corporate responsibility is an idealistic fantasy, though they do have deep pockets, so making them pay helps.
but
Individuals make decisions, and individuals should be invited to discuss their pre accident reasoning. (or maybe nothing is really learned?)

On November 16, an independent 15-member committee released a report stating BP and others, including federal regulators, ignored “near misses”. University of Michigan engineering practice professor and committee chairman Donald Winter that sealing the well continued “despite several indications of potential hazard”. For example, tests showed the cement was not strong enough to prevent oil and gas from escaping. Also, BP lost drilling materials in the hole. According to Donald Winter, the panel of investigators could not pin the explosion aboard the rig on a single decision made by BP, or anyone else, they found that the companies’ focus on speed over safety, given that the well was behind schedule costing BP $1.5 million a day-helped lead to the accident. As Donald Winter told the New York Times, “A large number of decisions were made that were highly questionable and potentially contributed to the blowout of the Macondo well… Virtually all were made in favour of approaches which were shorter in time and lower in cost. That gives us concern that there was not proper consideration of the tradeoffs between cost and schedule and risk and safety.” A document obtained by Greenwire, shows BP PLC, Halliburton Co. and Transocean Ltd. made a series of 11 unnecessary decisions that may have increased the chances of disaster. The document outlines 11 specific decisions that BP and its contractors made ahead of the disaster that may have increased risk on the rig. At least nine of the decisions saved time, the document shows, and the majority of the decisions were made by BP personnel on shore. These decisions were most likely made to try to save money since the well was significantly underperforming.

On December 8th Joe Keith, a senior Halliburton manager, admitted to the U.S. Coast Guard-Interior Department panel in Houston that he left his post aboard Transocean’s rig to smoke a cigarette on the night of the April disaster in the Gulf. While he was away from his monitors, charts entered into evidence showed that pressure data indicated the well was filling up with explosive natural gas and crude

Read more: Parallel Project Training Blog | APM Project Management Articles, Information and News from ParallelProjectTraining.com » Deepwater Horizon a Case in Risk Management

Parallel Project Training Blog | APM Project Management Articles, Information and News from ParallelProjectTraining.com » Deepwater Horizon a Case in Risk Management

Now, can I get back to my yacht race?
I sure hope Joe wishes he had assigned someone else to monitor his station while he "stepped out for a smoke"

Sculptor,

Theres a (good) chance Dick Cheney caused the spill, from his political favors given to the oil industry.


Gulf Oil Spill: Ties to Cheney and Acoustic Switch Not Installed - Salem-News.Com

Gulf Oil Spill: Ties to Cheney and Acoustic Switch Not Installed | Veterans Today

Rofl.

Originally Posted by Write4U

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Obama did nothing different than Bush with his hurricane response, except to receive the usual fawning press coverage that Democrats always get. What happened in New Orleans was the fault of Ray Nagan the idiot mayor who left the busses parked that could have been evacuating people.

Obama flubbed the gulf oil spill and the Benghazi attack in a major way.

??
In times of chaos things go wrong. Someone does not warn another, etc, etc. I am not talking about Nagan, I am talking about FEMA. Need I go further?

They were not warned??? Jeezus, everybody with a television everywhere around the world knew the hurricane was coming.

How exactly did Obama flub the gulf oil spill?
The Oil spill was caused by greedy oil tycoons who wanted to save a few thousand dollars by installing inferior valves.
Obama responded appropriately, pending investigations which were (perhaps still are) being conducted.

It was the Obama administration which failed to perform adequate inspections. Obama dithered, went golfing, and did nothing to coordinate cleanup efforts.

The outrage at the story development in the Benghazi incident is a complete
straw man (actually a red herring).
There is a lot of yelling and screaming about some confused and frightened diplomats using terms such as "we think" and "we believe" as if they were declared in a court of law. The point is that this will be thoroughly investigated and explained.

It will be investigated and explained when the election is over and the press finally start to ask some questions about it. There is an obvious cover-up going on. We know that from the simple fact that they lied about it for 2 weeks blaming it on a riot cause by the film.

What I find discouraging is the automatic and immediate pointing the blame at Obama. Obama is now being "blamed" for stabilizing the economy from an historic economic collapse. He was not personally responsible for any of these events, but he has fixed or is busy fixing them all to the benefit of the population. Give the man a break!

If making things worse is fixing, then he is fixing. By his own criteria and what he promised, he's failed.

I think the Bengazi stuff is entire BS given most of the bogus info that Faux News has been circulating. Its hard to find anything right they've gotten right in their reporting, from deliberately calling the tiny consolute an embassy, to claims Obama didn't say it was a terror attack in spite of having a new conf about it the very next morning, to the claims a C130 gun ship was near when in fact it was 500 miles off and on the ground probably-best case 3 hours away. The hard fact is nothing done that night could have saved those men or done much better than the two rescue teams already sent in--the first one there in less than an hour the next about about six hours later. It sucks, no one likes it, but that's pretty much how it went.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day. Romney popular vote...Obama Electoral ...that's my call on this.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

I think the Bengazi stuff is entire BS given most of the bogus info that Faux News has been circulating. Its hard to find anything right they've gotten right in their reporting, from deliberately calling the tiny consolute an embassy, to claims Obama didn't say it was a terror attack in spite of having a new conf about it the very next morning,

If he said it was a terror attack, why did he then go on Letterman 2 weeks later saying it was a riot over a film. You can't have it both ways.

to the claims a C130 gun ship was near when in fact it was 500 miles off and on the ground probably-best case 3 hours away. The hard fact is nothing done that night could have saved those men or done much better than the two rescue teams already sent in--the first one there in less than an hour the next about about six hours later. It sucks, no one likes it, but that's pretty much how it went.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day. Romney popular vote...Obama Electoral ...that's my call on this.

How about the removal of security forces before the attack, and the repeated denial of requests for more security?

So when are the results going to be announce on the election?

I think it's a real shame that a vote wasn't carried out on the science forum... just to compare results.

...later saying it was a riot over a film

He was on Letterman 6 days after the attack. No mention of a riot preceding the attack. The President specifically said the video caused offense that causes terrorist to use it as an excuse to attack us.

How about the removal of security forces before the attack, and the repeated denial of requests for more security?

There was no removal of security forces. That consulate was denied more security in the months preceding the attack, or more correctly after earlier ones. Certainly worth investigations, but probably a resource driven decision that went wrong, and way below the President's radar.

So when are the results going to be announce on the election?

Some time in December after watching for smoke colors coming out of the Supreme Court over the next weeks.

dec 17 the electoral college meets

do we really still need an electoral college?

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

...later saying it was a riot over a film

He was on Letterman 6 days after the attack. No mention of a riot preceding the attack. The President specifically said the video caused offense that causes terrorist to use it as an excuse to attack us.

You are parsing words, like Clinton's definition of the word "is." The first words out of Obama's mouth were about a shadowy character who made a film. He knew that had nothing to do with it. It was intentionally misleading. In other words, a lie.

How about the removal of security forces before the attack, and the repeated denial of requests for more security?

There was no removal of security forces. That consulate was denied more security in the months preceding the attack, or more correctly after earlier ones. Certainly worth investigations, but probably a resource driven decision that went wrong, and way below the President's radar.

Yes there was a removal of security forces. Green Beret says U.S. needed more security in Libya before attack - New York Daily News
"Green Beret Lt. Col. Andrew Wood, whose team was pulled from Libya in August, told CBS that he and Ambassador Chris Stevens, one of four Americans killed in the Sept. 11 attack, "felt we needed more, not less" security, and made their opinions known to superiors."

And yes, below Obama's radar. He's good at throwing someone else under the bus for his failure in leadership.

Unless I'm fundamentally missing something the President is advised as to what the Military are capable of by both the Defence Secretary and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bearing this in mind surely if it would have been possible to prevent the deaths in Libya then they would have been responsible for advising the President so and how it could be done. So if they couldn't come up with a way, then how was the President supposed to? He can only choose from the available options presented to him, when there arn't any options what can he do? Yes the President makes the big decsions and carries the ultimate responsiblity but he his also dependant on the actions of others and the actual military limitations, at the end of the day he is not God and to suggest he would not have saved those men's lives if he had the option and chance to do so just quite frankly seems illogical and wrong.

Go Romney. Another Brit in the White House.

From break downs of the electoral colleges for the country I think a win for Obama is likely, even if Romney gets Virginia, Florida, and Ohio. I do not believe Obama has done an excellent job, but considering the mess he inherited I think he did okay. Like Lynx-Fox, I believe a loss for the Republican party might be a good thing and bring them back to being more moderate.

Harold I'm not parsing words at all, go back and watch the Letterman talk. It's exactly as I said. He said the Innocence video was used as an excuse by terrorist to attack the consulate. What he said is very clear and that story is still consistent with what we know. The extreme factions of our party, unfortunately piled on by folks such as Hannity which disgustingly took advantage of a fathers grief, has fabricated a coverup that never existed and so badly distorted the facts surrounding the incident that they have no credibility left about the matter. I suppose a good sign is Romney didn't use it the last debate--I'm guessing he actually looked at the subject and realized how whacked and distorted the entire thing had become. If he wins tonight that might be a good sign that had can distinguish between facts and trumped up fictions.

I thought you meant removal of security from Benghazi. Did you ask where that team was stationed? His team was in Benghazi, 3 hours away which like the gun ship, couldn't have stopped this event or the deaths on 9/11. The LTC even says as much that he doesn't know whether it would mattered even if he had accompanied the Ambassador. The Ambassador was in fact augmented with security by the Benghazi team anyhow. He also says another team was rotated in, meaning there was no net loss of security at all. You won't get an argument that the overall situation in Libya was misread, the consulate, which are almost always difficult to secure, probably shouldn't have been open. That's about the only real question remaining and to a certain degree so much Monday morning quarterbacking.

If the maya doomsday calendar holds true : Romney

Joking aside... I hope Obama wins, but I think ROmney will win.

CNN just called it for Obama

"Dewey Defeats Truman" ?

It is done. Obama has been re-elected.

Obama yes. Aaaaaand those two awful men Akin and Mourdock are out. Hanging their heads in well-earned shame.

Remarkable, in view of the Citizens United ruling. Perhaps our democracy is stronger than appears by all the squabbling and hate mongering.
Perhaps in this information age the electorate is becoming more literate (in spite of Faux News).

I'm glad Obama got re-elected. Now Romney can still help by paying more taxes. He paid 14% last year? Seriously?

Oh well, four more years it is.

I heard George Bush Jr. accidentally voted for Obama and then when the officials refused to let him re-cast the vote he complained at how flawed the USA election system is. I guess that also means that he won the past election with a flawed election process?

Originally Posted by pyoko

I heard George Bush Jr. accidentally voted for Obama and then when the officials refused to let him re-cast the vote he complained at how flawed the USA election system is. I guess that also means that he won the past election with a flawed election process?

Hoax. Report that Bush voted for Obama by accident is a hoax

Originally Posted by pyoko

I heard George Bush Jr. accidentally voted for Obama and then when the officials refused to let him re-cast the vote he complained at how flawed the USA election system is. I guess that also means that he won the past election with a flawed election process?

You can not be serious.

Looks like Donald is in one, he is calling for a revolution.

Election 2012: Donald Trump tweets anger following 'disgusting injustice' of Obama's re-election | Mail Online

Screw that mop-headed egomaniac.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Screw that mop-headed egomaniac.

Wow, that is a bit rough. Chad will probably agree with you.

Congratulations to President Obama on being re elected to a second term in office. It's a great day for America and the rest of world, well done Mr President.

Found this little snippet on American Thinker.

Blog: The last stand of the white electorate?

Originally Posted by adelady

Obama yes. Aaaaaand those two awful men Akin and Mourdock are out. Hanging their heads in well-earned shame.

Well here in Washington I could celebrate by smoking some bud legally. Damn! I really never thought I'd see the day. I'm also, glad health care will be able to move forward again. I have to say the Washington state voters surprised me in a good way on all the local issues.

The house is still republican, and moderates on both sides lost
so
more congressional gridlock?

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Screw that mop-headed egomaniac.

Wow, that is a bit rough. Chad will probably agree with you.

Maybe. NOT a fan of the guy.

obama now has to find a way to deal with the fiscal cliff. From what I understand, if it is allowed to continue, things will first get worse during the first half of next year, but then start improving during the second half with huge debt getting taken care of as time goes by. Why not simply ride it out for the first while?

Originally Posted by arKane

Originally Posted by adelady

Obama yes. Aaaaaand those two awful men Akin and Mourdock are out. Hanging their heads in well-earned shame.

Well here in Washington I could celebrate by smoking some bud legally. Damn! I really never thought I'd see the day. I'm also, glad health care will be able to move forward again. I have to say the Washington state voters surprised me in a good way on all the local issues.

2 states stand in defiance of federal marijuana regulations------"for recreational use" at least the lie of "medical marijuana" is being retired.
(reminds me of an Indiana sheriff, from the 80s, who ran on the pledge that he and his "special deputies" would fight any "federal government I.R.S. goon squads" who tried to confiscate property belonging to citizens of his county)

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.............

Originally Posted by KALSTER

obama now has to find a way to deal with the fiscal cliff. From what I understand, if it is allowed to continue, things will first get worse during the first half of next year, but then start improving during the second half with huge debt getting taken care of as time goes by. Why not simply ride it out for the first while?

It probably wouldn't be that bad anyhow.

-Time on unemployment back to six months, instead of years which has allowed many people to sit around waiting for manna from heaven instead of packing up and moving to where the jobs are.
-Social security tax rates back to supporting the long term amounts needed to found it for the next three decades
-Capital gains back to the Clinton years and the increased revenue the government desperately needs
-A delay on some of the next taxes imposed by "ObamaCare"
-Across the board cuts in discretionary spending evenly proportioned across programs. It would mean some austerity measures, but by no means all that deep by historical comparisons.

The legislature hates it because it takes things our of their hands and it would mean a fundamental failure of their primary jobs. For the nation though...its really not that bad. Perhaps even better than what ever feeble attempts at compromise get made by our current congressional leadership.

Originally Posted by sculptor

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.............

The feds won't enforce their part except on federal installations.

I once listened to a federal agent applaud the efforts to shut down a pot "field," on Fort Lewis--going on and on about the huge success of the operation and fine example of local, state and federal cooperation. It had been a six month operation, involving manned surveillance, advanced helicopter mounted cameras that could read certain pot detection frequencies and an analysis team. That is until one brave soul, (not me), asked the simple questions, like how much did the operation cost...I don't remember the answer but at $4K/hour just to fly those helos well it was a pile of money. And how large was the pot "field." Two plants near the parameter fence. Yaa!

--
Maine, Maryland and Washington vote to support gay marriage. This will prompt more court challenges to DOMA, a law that won't be defended by the White House.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by sculptor

It'll be interesting to see how this one plays out.............

The feds won't enforce their part except on federal installations.

I once listened to a federal agent applaud the efforts to shut down a pot "field," on Fort Lewis--going on and on about the huge success of the operation and fine example of local, state and federal cooperation. It had been a six month operation, involving manned surveillance, advanced helicopter mounted cameras that could read certain pot detection frequencies and an analysis team. That is until one brave soul, (not me), asked the simple questions, like how much did the operation cost...I don't remember the answer but at $4K/hour just to fly those helos well it was a pile of money. And how large was the pot "field." Two plants near the parameter fence. Yaa!

--
Maine, Maryland and Washington vote to support gay marriage. This will prompt more court challenges to DOMA, a law that won't be defended by the White House.

It has oft been said that you cannot regulate morality.
however
It would seem that regulation does lead to insanity.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by pyoko

I heard George Bush Jr. accidentally voted for Obama and then when the officials refused to let him re-cast the vote he complained at how flawed the USA election system is. I guess that also means that he won the past election with a flawed election process?

You can not be serious.

Apparently it was a hoax, and a believable one. It was uncovered today.

Originally Posted by pyoko

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by pyoko

I heard George Bush Jr. accidentally voted for Obama and then when the officials refused to let him re-cast the vote he complained at how flawed the USA election system is. I guess that also means that he won the past election with a flawed election process?

You can not be serious.

Apparently it was a hoax, and a believable one. It was uncovered today.

It shows how gullible you folks are. You probably still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

I voted yesterday and I just wanted to come here and say, "You're welcome". I did my part to keep Mourdock out of power.

Until the Republicans get their heads out of the 1930's, I'll be swinging between Democrat and Libertarian. I don't know what happened to the GOP, but I sincerely hope this loss causes them to turn the looking glass inward. Of course, the easier path would be to suggest that the Democrats are manipulative or that the general population wants government handouts and knows nothing of politics.

Chris Christie gave me hope by throwing out the partisanship when it mattered. I just hope it doesn't take a hurricane to change everyone's mind toward mutual cooperation.

Found this little snippet on American Thinker.

If you think any of it's worth reading, you'll have to quote a paragraph or so here for me. I accidentally finished up at American Stinker a few weeks before Obama was first elected. I needed a long soak in a very hot tub to get the filth off me. Never again.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

I just hope it doesn't take a hurricane to change everyone's mind toward mutual cooperation.

Hopefully it did.

Must say, Obama was looking very glum for quite a while. His speach after he was confirmed for a second term was the most upbeat I have seen him in a long time. Not that I follow American politics that often though.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by pyoko

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by pyoko

I heard George Bush Jr. accidentally voted for Obama and then when the officials refused to let him re-cast the vote he complained at how flawed the USA election system is. I guess that also means that he won the past election with a flawed election process?

You can not be serious.

Apparently it was a hoax, and a believable one. It was uncovered today.

It shows how gullible you folks are. You probably still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

I would not put it past Bush.

Originally Posted by adelady

Found this little snippet on American Thinker.

If you think any of it's worth reading, you'll have to quote a paragraph or so here for me. I accidentally finished up at American Stinker a few weeks before Obama was first elected. I needed a long soak in a very hot tub to get the filth off me. Never again.

Adelady, if accidentally reading the American Thinker had such a bad effect on you, perhaps you need some sort of counselling, after all, it is only words through a key board. The American Thinker is a very popular web site, and being politically correct is not a course of concern on this web site.
Here is a link to the Mail On Line, a much respected UK newspaper. The article talks about a divided nation, and race plays a very important part of that, and that is a fact.

" Angered by the Republican candidate’s hardline stance on immigration, Hispanics supported Mr Obama by an overwhelming 70 per cent to 30 per cent margin. "

Read more: How winning the Hispanic vote was key: Obama swept back into White House thanks to new powerhouse of American politics | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
​How winning the Hispanic vote was key: Obama swept back into White House thanks to new powerhouse of American politics | Mail Online

Originally Posted by adelady

Obama yes. Aaaaaand those two awful men Akin and Mourdock are out. Hanging their heads in well-earned shame.

Couldn't agree more. I think Richard Mourdock may well have been mentally disturbed, who in their right mind comes out with pregnancy from rape is "something that God intended to happen", but to actually come out with whilst standing for office, the thought political suicide things to mind. Also I think it serves to highlight just how out of touch some of these 'Tea Party' nutters are.

Then you have Todd Akin, he is either as nuts as Mourdock or he has had one of the worst educations I can imagine, he comes out with "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down", firstly since when is rape legitimate or not? it's either rape or it isn't. But almost as bad, just how exactly does he assume that women can stop themselves from getting pregnant? As far as I'm aware it's biologically impossible.

I have a strong feeling here it will turn out he went to some ultra right wing/religeous school that doesn't really know the difference between fact and fiction, nevermind teach it.

if accidentally reading the American Thinker had such a bad effect on you, perhaps you need some sort of counselling, after all, it is only words through a key board. The American Thinker is a very popular web site, and being politically correct is not a course of concern on this web site.

Accidentally refers to the fact I was following a reasonable, even highly intellectual, education discussion elsewhere which had a link to a site which turned out to be a sewer of vile, absolutely foul, racist filth. If you think that that referring to black people and the Obama family in particular as monkeys, or as intellectually inferior, or other terms I won't repeat, should be permitted in the name of freeze peach, then I'll willingly condemn such a warped interpretation of 'free speech' that prides itself on saying things that civilised people should be profoundly ashamed of.

I certainly wouldn't allow anyone to say such things in my home, and I'd not hold back from telling people they should refrain from saying such things in my presence anywhere else. I might have a vocabulary as bad as any sailor in vigorous face to face conversation, but I wouldn't convey such disgusting sentiments in any form of language.

Not being concerned about being politically correct is one thing. Willingly participating in debased conversation - and encouraging others to display the very worst of themselves - is another thing entirely. It's not me who needs counselling, I fancy

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by pyoko

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by pyoko

I heard George Bush Jr. accidentally voted for Obama and then when the officials refused to let him re-cast the vote he complained at how flawed the USA election system is. I guess that also means that he won the past election with a flawed election process?

You can not be serious.

Apparently it was a hoax, and a believable one. It was uncovered today.

It shows how gullible you folks are. You probably still think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house.

Im sorry Harold, but that is totally uncalled for. Had the amount of vitriol you have been posting over the last fer months been coming from any other member they would have been suspended or banned by now. WHY is this being allowed to continue?