Of course, here's the problem for independents and undecided:
What if you agree with the criticisms made of Obama, and you aren't sure you believe he deserves a second term, but you have no faith in the other guy to do better, and you don't agree with his plans?
Clearly, Obama's only course of action is to abandon his 90+%* likelihood of winning the Electoral College, concede the race, and settle into retirement.
Enjoy your moment. But keep in mind that the challenger nearly always beats the incumbent in the first debate, and if that were decisive, we would have had a President Kerry.
You can also vote for one of the third party candidates.
The standard argument against this is that you are wasting your vote by doing so.
I don't quite get how voting for someone who I don't want to be president isn't wasting my vote either.
The nice bit, of course, is that if the election is close in a given state we can be confident that things will be decided by either (a) the courts or (b) voter fraud.
This should make it even easier to vote for the guy (or gal) who you actually *WANT* to be president.
Ah, yes. But most don't consider Obama a "failure." They are disappointed - but most would say C+.
Of course, there is the simple argument for change - and there is the counter that the economy is stable - though "stagnant" - but potentially improving.
The question is whether changing horses offers that "chance for success." And, I'd say most undecided just don't at this point believe that Romney's plan offers any better chance of success.
Talk all you want, your man was made to look like a fool last night. Doesn't mean the election is over either way, but this facade of calm, cool, smooth, intelligent is definitely put to rest.
I think it's so telling when someone hides behind a mask don't you? In the meantime, this was the real Romney, the one the media didn't want anyone to know about. Between the tired rhetoric of Obama and the pointed and knowledgeable patter from Romney, it made Obama look stale, petulant and bumbling. And that, dear anonymous, like it or not, is the REAL Obama.
most people in my circle don't seem to care about this debate very much but i have encountered so many Romney people giving one another high fives and bragging about his success (and also Obama's failure which is telling). I don't see how that is an effective strategy considering that the man hasn't won yet.
Oh dear, I sincerely hope MikeAT is joking. Anyway, the challenger nearly always wins the first debate. Obama is the [much] better choice, and the country will realize that come election day.
@Anon, let's see if you can make an intelligent comment. Why, in your opinion, is B Hussein Obama the better choice for the American people?
Romney is not my favorite but, as with many of the decisions you have in life, the choices are which is the less bad. Then again, this "less bad" choice is pretty easy.
Unlike in 2008, B Hussein actually has a record and it's something he cannot defend. Unemployment, high energy prices, the highest deficits in the history of the world, two credit rating downgrades for the US in less than a year. No wonder the man-child is trying to run like he's the outsider, not the occupant of the White House for the last four years.
Because *that's* why he's been a failure, right? Because MikeAT plays games with the man's name? You've got nothing to defend, anonymous, so you attack something so trivial. Speaks volumes.
To answer your question Anon, people said "You can't say that" about the man-child's middle name. Sorry, I can call him a dirty son of a bitch if I want to. For the moment it is a free country. So that is how I choose to refer to him.
I've answered your question Anon, now answer mine.
Wow, Mike. And you scolded me for profanity and told me to act like an adult on this forum when I wrote the letters BS. Guess the rules have changed.
Anon, Mike is a bit extreme in his contempt for the President, so it's not worth arguing. Though he often has legitimate data for his criticisms, and so it can be worth the debate. Then again, since he discounts other data as "falsified," this one is definitely not worth it.
In regards to President Obama, Mike, I will say this:
I am not voting for him - and most likely going with Gary Johnson. But for people like Anon, these are the reasons he is "a better choice" for the American people:
1. The economy that was about to fall off a cliff in '09 didn't and is "stable" to say the least.
2. The stock market is near 14000, countless companies and sectors are posting record profits, and the private sector is sitting on $4 trillion in cash reserves.
2A. The unemployment rate has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8% and the economy has added jobs for three consecutive years.
2B. The economy is no longer bleeding jobs at hundreds of thousands a month.
2C. Some people are happy that the government is there to provide food assistance to families with kids while they look for work and wait for companies to start hiring again.
3. The American auto industry has rebounded and is doing quite well, saving potentially 12 million jobs when all associated industries are factored in.
4. Millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and public health employees didn't lose their jobs when the Crash of '08 threatened catastrophic failure.
5. Bin Laden is dead, Iraq war is over, Afghan conflict is winding down, AlQeada is busted into pieces.
6. Millions of people have health insurance who didn't, and now people like me and my family can't be dropped for getting sick, won't hit mandatory maximum payouts, and can't be denied coverage.
7. People believe there is a floor for tax rates, and it's above 30%. They know you can't pay off $15 trillion in debt by spending cuts alone - and that supply side cuts will never grow us out of debt. So, if they want to pay down the debt, they choose someone who is rational enough to offer 3:1 spending cuts and revenue.
8. They believe a woman's reproductive system is her business, not the government's, and they understand the value of cancer screenings and counseling for the working poor.
9. They don't believe in prejudice against people for sexual identity. They believe in equal protection under the law.
10. They believe in renewable energy and they know that the fossil fuel industry has received govt subsidy for more than a century. So, they support tax rebates for companies in this field while it's growing - knowing some will fail just as some oil and mining companies have gone out of business in the past century despite similar supports.
11. They believe President Obama understands them more than Romney does.
12. They simply like him better.
13. They don't trust someone who would turn Medicare into a voucher system.
14. They trust the Democrats on immigration reform, believing the DREAM Act is a good idea. Which means they believe his party is less prejudiced against minorities. Not saying it is - but perception matters ... a bunch.
So, these are some reasons. And you don't have to agree with them. It's just the other side. And you could go tit-for-tat with your responses. But these are simply reasons why some people would think Obama is "a better choice."
And, that said, Anon has a point about your emphasis on the president's middle name. You can simply argue that it is his name and you can use it. But you don't refer to Clinton as Jefferson or Bush as Walker. So, you are clearly emphasizing a man's ethnic - muslim-sounding - name as a way of steering the discussion toward race. And, the scariest thing is you justify or don't see your racial bias and contempt.
And that is still quite sad. Especially because you carry a gun and a badge.
Well mazenko, gotta give you this, you are consistent. Your memory is selective, as is your feigned outrage.
I didn't object to your use of the initials BS. You wrote out the words. I used profanity once or twice on RotLC when Darren first started the blog and he objected saying he wanted it family friendly. I agreed, apologized and have kept my comments to that standard.
As far as my calling B Hussein a son of a bitch, I will refer you to the definition of bitch from Merriam-Webster:
the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
I was raised that if it’s in the Bible it’s not obscene. The words hell, damn, ass and bitch are fair game.
Now the difference between bitch and your print out of BS. The definition from Merriam-Webster: usually vulgar : to talk foolishly, boastfully, or idly
usually vulgar : to engage in a discursive discussion
transitive verb usually vulgar : to talk nonsense to especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading
Notice the two leading words of each definition, usually vulgar. You lowered the standard of the debate in that previous post, I didn’t.
Mazenko, I'm being entirely serious here: how many of those "really good things" do you think are *because* of Obama's actions and how many of them are *in spite of* Obama's actions?
And I don't see how referring to Obama by his middle name is "racist". It's certainly derogatory, but let's not cheapen the idea with racism thusly. I've known MikeAT a long time and he judges people individually, not as members of groups--just like I do. His references to Obama as the "man-child" are similarly directed at the individual, not at his skin color.
Mazenko, I won’t answer your list of “accomplishments” because I asked anon for reasons, not you.
As far as the middle name, no I didn’t call Clinton “Jefferson”. When I wanted to use an insulting name it was usually “Bubba”, just like his wife is know as “Mrs Bill Clinton”. I occasionally referred to George W Bush as “W” but for some reason “objective” and “non partisan” people like Dan Rather would call him “George Bush Junior” or “George Bush the Younger”. One, he’s not a junior. Two, the term “Younger” for a sitting President is rather insulting. But unlike little Danny, I’m not claiming to be non partisan.
But from the time he came on the scene there were people who said “you can’t mention Obama’s middle name, that’s racist!” or words to that effect. How the hell is mentioning his middle name racist? It’s his name. So yes, I will use it as I see fit. He doesn’t like like, tough, get out of the center chair. Or prove you’re worthy of my respect. Show some leadership and toughness.
Do I have contempt for the manchild, yes. He has earned it. And he was contempt for this country. But it’s not based on racial bias. It’s based on the fact he’s a danger to this country. The fact you can’t deal with people challenging your world view without throwing accusations is not my shortcoming, but yours.
BTY, from the Urban Dictionary, the definition of manchild An adult male who still posesses psychological traits of a child. Traits include, but are not necessarily limited to: - whining - pettyness - trying to pass the blame for their own underdeveloped judgement - not "stepping up to the plate" when it's their role to. - secretly still finds 3rd grade bathroom humor amusing. - is able to connect with his children, but only as another child, not as a father. - not to mention an overall insecurity in who he is as a man, from which similar traits sprout...
2. manchild A child who outwardly appears like an adult -- conventionally this means a full grown male that acts immaturely, or pursues childish interests. For example, it's acceptable to play games like World of Warcraft, but it's generally unacceptable to spend twelve hours a day doing so and/or attending conventions...
7. manchild Barack Obama "It's Bush's fault, not mine, cuz I'm a manchild."
Denying your use of "Hussein" to inflame racial bias doesn't make it go away, Mike. But I grew up around too many people with your attitude to believe you'll see it so simply. I can only hope to have rational discussion, and hope that someday you'll soften your prejudice.
As far as the reasons that "you won't answer my list because you "asked" someone else (as if that makes sense), I don't expect a refutation. You simply act as if there are no rational reasons to think Obama is "a better choice," and I pointed out plenty. However, they are subjective. So, they are the reasons someone would prefer him. And you have equally rational reasons why you don't.
That's the beauty of this country. And, hopefully, if you read through the list, you will at least concede the value to half the country of those reasons. Those are their reasons. They have a right to them, and they are not "wrong" to believe he is a "better choice." He's simply their choice, not yours.
If a zillion people make a stupid choice, it's *still* a stupid choice. Or, to use some alternative homespun folk wisdom, you can put lipstick on a pig--but it's still a pig.
Yes, D. But your term "stupid" is also subjective, and so you're putting lipstick on the other pig. There are positives and negatives with each side. You can argue that President Obama is the worts president ever and that the economy is a disaster, but there is plenty of legitimate evidence to the contrary.
The "I won't dignify that with a response" answer. Wow, Mike. That is pretty weak from someone who regularly posts incredibly long detailed "arguments" and then asks for a detailed answer.
And on this one you're just going to say "Rubbish" and pick up your ball and go home with your tail between your legs? You're getting soft, bud.
Oh, and keep in mind that exit polls on Bush put him over in many counties because voters "liked him better" and felt like they could "sit down and have a beer with him."
Thanks for playing on this one. I don't think I've ever known you to give up so ... feebly.
The "I won't dignify that with a response" answer. Wow, Mike. That is pretty weak from someone who regularly posts incredibly long detailed "arguments" and then asks for a detailed answer.
Didn’t say anything of the sort. I said I won’t answer your vent because anon can speak for himself.
Oh, and keep in mind that exit polls on Bush put him over in many counties because voters "liked him better" and felt like they could "sit down and have a beer with him."
You are an Obamaite man. Leadership has nothing to do with being liked, having a beer, etc. It’s go something to do with bringing a group to something better, moving forward, be it a corporate department, a military unit, a college team or a country. Making individuals part of a team, getting more out of them then they knew they could do, achieving things. Real leadership in the Presidency, both Bush’s, Reagan, Ike, even JFK and LBJ. Obama has no clue what the concept is. He never did anything before becoming president and what he has accomplished since January 20th, 2009 has pretty much been bad.
“Leading from behind” is not leadership. It’s hoping for something to happen, and hope is not a plan.
So go and vote from behind for Obama. Please, voting for Gary Johnson. Colorado is notionally in play and if you vote for a third party candidate, to the right of the Democratic nominee is simply voting against the Republican nominee. Then again you would never vote for Romney. Just be a man about it, pull the lever for your man-child Barry and say you’re voting against Romney. I voted against B Hussein in 2008 (I loath John McCain) and I’m voting against him again this year. But I’m not making up a story why.
No, you're saying you have no answers to the points. It's not about who answers it. I answered your question and you said, I'm not going to answer that rubbish.
And, my vote indicates I simply think more deeply about the issues than you.
And, with all the time you keep putting in to this, you can't simply acknowledge the points made - and either respond in kind or concede that there are legitimate reasons he is a better choice for some people - not the absolute right choice, but a better choice for some people.
But keep trying. You'll probably find a counterargument with two or three weeks to think about it.
40 comments:
No question - Obama truly was "an empty chair."
Of course, here's the problem for independents and undecided:
What if you agree with the criticisms made of Obama, and you aren't sure you believe he deserves a second term, but you have no faith in the other guy to do better, and you don't agree with his plans?
That's where 6% of the country is right now.
Hmmm.
You can stick with *known* failure, or take a chance on success.
Clearly, Obama's only course of action is to abandon his 90+%* likelihood of winning the Electoral College, concede the race, and settle into retirement.
Enjoy your moment. But keep in mind that the challenger nearly always beats the incumbent in the first debate, and if that were decisive, we would have had a President Kerry.
*See Nate Silver's "Nowcast" at Five Thirty Eight. And recall that Silver nailed the 2008 Electoral College.
If winning isn't everything, why do they keep score?
Darren said
You can stick with *known* failure, or take a chance on success.
That's the logic that gave California the Governator. What a savior he turned out to be!
The election will not turn on this debate. Too much of the electorate is already decided and Obama's leading in too many swing states.
To the extent that the election is over, Obama has already won.
You can also vote for one of the third party candidates.
The standard argument against this is that you are wasting your vote by doing so.
I don't quite get how voting for someone who I don't want to be president isn't wasting my vote either.
The nice bit, of course, is that if the election is close in a given state we can be confident that things will be decided by either (a) the courts or (b) voter fraud.
This should make it even easier to vote for the guy (or gal) who you actually *WANT* to be president.
-Mark Roulo
"... or take a chance on success."
Are you suggesting "Hope for Change"?
Just sayin'.
Ah, yes. But most don't consider Obama a "failure." They are disappointed - but most would say C+.
Of course, there is the simple argument for change - and there is the counter that the economy is stable - though "stagnant" - but potentially improving.
The question is whether changing horses offers that "chance for success." And, I'd say most undecided just don't at this point believe that Romney's plan offers any better chance of success.
That's why they're still balking.
Talk all you want, your man was made to look like a fool last night. Doesn't mean the election is over either way, but this facade of calm, cool, smooth, intelligent is definitely put to rest.
No, Obama hasn't won .Romney held is own and we will see this again.
Racist?
I think it's so telling when someone hides behind a mask don't you? In the meantime, this was the real Romney, the one the media didn't want anyone to know about. Between the tired rhetoric of Obama and the pointed and knowledgeable patter from Romney, it made Obama look stale, petulant and bumbling. And that, dear anonymous, like it or not, is the REAL Obama.
Gary Johnson for President.
most people in my circle don't seem to care about this debate very much but i have encountered so many Romney people giving one another high fives and bragging about his success (and also Obama's failure which is telling). I don't see how that is an effective strategy considering that the man hasn't won yet.
No one's saying the election's over, any more than cheering when your team scores a touchdown means the game's over.
:) football metpahors
But we *are* in the 4th Quarter. Romney is down by 2, he's got the ball, and he's driving, taking advantage of that big Obama turnover.
If Obama gets the ball back, will he just run the clock out? If he's behind, will he try a Hail Mary?
A Hail Mary....like falsified unemployment stats?
Oh dear, I sincerely hope MikeAT is joking. Anyway, the challenger nearly always wins the first debate. Obama is the [much] better choice, and the country will realize that come election day.
Sometimes the challenger wins the election, too, which is what *I* hope happens on election day.
@Anon, let's see if you can make an intelligent comment. Why, in your opinion, is B Hussein Obama the better choice for the American people?
Romney is not my favorite but, as with many of the decisions you have in life, the choices are which is the less bad. Then again, this "less bad" choice is pretty easy.
Unlike in 2008, B Hussein actually has a record and it's something he cannot defend. Unemployment, high energy prices, the highest deficits in the history of the world, two credit rating downgrades for the US in less than a year. No wonder the man-child is trying to run like he's the outsider, not the occupant of the White House for the last four years.
So again, explain why America needs more of this?
Interesting how you choose to type out fully his middle name but not his first.
Because *that's* why he's been a failure, right? Because MikeAT plays games with the man's name? You've got nothing to defend, anonymous, so you attack something so trivial. Speaks volumes.
To answer your question Anon, people said "You can't say that" about the man-child's middle name. Sorry, I can call him a dirty son of a bitch if I want to. For the moment it is a free country. So that is how I choose to refer to him.
I've answered your question Anon, now answer mine.
Wow, Mike. And you scolded me for profanity and told me to act like an adult on this forum when I wrote the letters BS. Guess the rules have changed.
Anon, Mike is a bit extreme in his contempt for the President, so it's not worth arguing. Though he often has legitimate data for his criticisms, and so it can be worth the debate. Then again, since he discounts other data as "falsified," this one is definitely not worth it.
In regards to President Obama, Mike, I will say this:
I am not voting for him - and most likely going with Gary Johnson. But for people like Anon, these are the reasons he is "a better choice" for the American people:
1. The economy that was about to fall off a cliff in '09 didn't and is "stable" to say the least.
2. The stock market is near 14000, countless companies and sectors are posting record profits, and the private sector is sitting on $4 trillion in cash reserves.
2A. The unemployment rate has dropped from 10.2% to 7.8% and the economy has added jobs for three consecutive years.
2B. The economy is no longer bleeding jobs at hundreds of thousands a month.
2C. Some people are happy that the government is there to provide food assistance to families with kids while they look for work and wait for companies to start hiring again.
3. The American auto industry has rebounded and is doing quite well, saving potentially 12 million jobs when all associated industries are factored in.
4. Millions of teachers, firefighters, police officers, and public health employees didn't lose their jobs when the Crash of '08 threatened catastrophic failure.
5. Bin Laden is dead, Iraq war is over, Afghan conflict is winding down, AlQeada is busted into pieces.
6. Millions of people have health insurance who didn't, and now people like me and my family can't be dropped for getting sick, won't hit mandatory maximum payouts, and can't be denied coverage.
7. People believe there is a floor for tax rates, and it's above 30%. They know you can't pay off $15 trillion in debt by spending cuts alone - and that supply side cuts will never grow us out of debt. So, if they want to pay down the debt, they choose someone who is rational enough to offer 3:1 spending cuts and revenue.
8. They believe a woman's reproductive system is her business, not the government's, and they understand the value of cancer screenings and counseling for the working poor.
9. They don't believe in prejudice against people for sexual identity. They believe in equal protection under the law.
10. They believe in renewable energy and they know that the fossil fuel industry has received govt subsidy for more than a century. So, they support tax rebates for companies in this field while it's growing - knowing some will fail just as some oil and mining companies have gone out of business in the past century despite similar supports.
11. They believe President Obama understands them more than Romney does.
12. They simply like him better.
13. They don't trust someone who would turn Medicare into a voucher system.
14. They trust the Democrats on immigration reform, believing the DREAM Act is a good idea. Which means they believe his party is less prejudiced against minorities. Not saying it is - but perception matters ... a bunch.
So, these are some reasons. And you don't have to agree with them. It's just the other side. And you could go tit-for-tat with your responses. But these are simply reasons why some people would think Obama is "a better choice."
And, that said, Anon has a point about your emphasis on the president's middle name. You can simply argue that it is his name and you can use it. But you don't refer to Clinton as Jefferson or Bush as Walker. So, you are clearly emphasizing a man's ethnic - muslim-sounding - name as a way of steering the discussion toward race. And, the scariest thing is you justify or don't see your racial bias and contempt.
And that is still quite sad. Especially because you carry a gun and a badge.
Well mazenko, gotta give you this, you are consistent. Your memory is selective, as is your feigned outrage.
I didn't object to your use of the initials BS. You wrote out the words. I used profanity once or twice on RotLC when Darren first started the blog and he objected saying he wanted it family friendly. I agreed, apologized and have kept my comments to that standard.
As far as my calling B Hussein a son of a bitch, I will refer you to the definition of bitch from Merriam-Webster:
the female of the dog or some other carnivorous mammals
I was raised that if it’s in the Bible it’s not obscene. The words hell, damn, ass and bitch are fair game.
Now the difference between bitch and your print out of BS. The definition from Merriam-Webster:
usually vulgar : to talk foolishly, boastfully, or idly
usually vulgar : to engage in a discursive discussion
transitive verb
usually vulgar : to talk nonsense to especially with the intention of deceiving or misleading
Notice the two leading words of each definition, usually vulgar. You lowered the standard of the debate in that previous post, I didn’t.
Mazenko, I'm being entirely serious here: how many of those "really good things" do you think are *because* of Obama's actions and how many of them are *in spite of* Obama's actions?
And I don't see how referring to Obama by his middle name is "racist". It's certainly derogatory, but let's not cheapen the idea with racism thusly. I've known MikeAT a long time and he judges people individually, not as members of groups--just like I do. His references to Obama as the "man-child" are similarly directed at the individual, not at his skin color.
Mazenko, I won’t answer your list of “accomplishments” because I asked anon for reasons, not you.
As far as the middle name, no I didn’t call Clinton “Jefferson”. When I wanted to use an insulting name it was usually “Bubba”, just like his wife is know as “Mrs Bill Clinton”. I occasionally referred to George W Bush as “W” but for some reason “objective” and “non partisan” people like Dan Rather would call him “George Bush Junior” or “George Bush the Younger”. One, he’s not a junior. Two, the term “Younger” for a sitting President is rather insulting. But unlike little Danny, I’m not claiming to be non partisan.
But from the time he came on the scene there were people who said “you can’t mention Obama’s middle name, that’s racist!” or words to that effect. How the hell is mentioning his middle name racist? It’s his name. So yes, I will use it as I see fit. He doesn’t like like, tough, get out of the center chair. Or prove you’re worthy of my respect. Show some leadership and toughness.
Do I have contempt for the manchild, yes. He has earned it. And he was contempt for this country. But it’s not based on racial bias. It’s based on the fact he’s a danger to this country. The fact you can’t deal with people challenging your world view without throwing accusations is not my shortcoming, but yours.
BTY, from the Urban Dictionary, the definition of manchild
An adult male who still posesses psychological traits of a child. Traits include, but are not necessarily limited to:
- whining
- pettyness
- trying to pass the blame for their own underdeveloped judgement
- not "stepping up to the plate" when it's their role to.
- secretly still finds 3rd grade bathroom humor amusing.
- is able to connect with his children, but only as another child, not as a father.
- not to mention an overall insecurity in who he is as a man, from which similar traits sprout...
2. manchild
A child who outwardly appears like an adult -- conventionally this means a full grown male that acts immaturely, or pursues childish interests. For example, it's acceptable to play games like World of Warcraft, but it's generally unacceptable to spend twelve hours a day doing so and/or attending conventions...
7. manchild
Barack Obama
"It's Bush's fault, not mine, cuz I'm a manchild."
Denying your use of "Hussein" to inflame racial bias doesn't make it go away, Mike. But I grew up around too many people with your attitude to believe you'll see it so simply. I can only hope to have rational discussion, and hope that someday you'll soften your prejudice.
As far as the reasons that "you won't answer my list because you "asked" someone else (as if that makes sense), I don't expect a refutation. You simply act as if there are no rational reasons to think Obama is "a better choice," and I pointed out plenty. However, they are subjective. So, they are the reasons someone would prefer him. And you have equally rational reasons why you don't.
That's the beauty of this country. And, hopefully, if you read through the list, you will at least concede the value to half the country of those reasons. Those are their reasons. They have a right to them, and they are not "wrong" to believe he is a "better choice." He's simply their choice, not yours.
And that's OK.
If a zillion people make a stupid choice, it's *still* a stupid choice. Or, to use some alternative homespun folk wisdom, you can put lipstick on a pig--but it's still a pig.
mazenko
You went on a rant and put up a list of garbage. But I'll leave you with one comment on your gibberish.
12. They simply like him better.
Strange, I always believed it was more important to be respected than liked.
Yes, D. But your term "stupid" is also subjective, and so you're putting lipstick on the other pig. There are positives and negatives with each side. You can argue that President Obama is the worts president ever and that the economy is a disaster, but there is plenty of legitimate evidence to the contrary.
There are talking points to the contrary, not legitimate evidence.
Ha, Ha, Ha ...
The "I won't dignify that with a response" answer. Wow, Mike. That is pretty weak from someone who regularly posts incredibly long detailed "arguments" and then asks for a detailed answer.
And on this one you're just going to say "Rubbish" and pick up your ball and go home with your tail between your legs? You're getting soft, bud.
Oh, and keep in mind that exit polls on Bush put him over in many counties because voters "liked him better" and felt like they could "sit down and have a beer with him."
Thanks for playing on this one. I don't think I've ever known you to give up so ... feebly.
And, D.?
"Talking points, not evidence?" What does that even mean? There are numbers and statistics and examples.
To quote Kurt Cobain, "Oh, well, whatever, nevermind."
The "I won't dignify that with a response" answer. Wow, Mike. That is pretty weak from someone who regularly posts incredibly long detailed "arguments" and then asks for a detailed answer.
Didn’t say anything of the sort. I said I won’t answer your vent because anon can speak for himself.
Oh, and keep in mind that exit polls on Bush put him over in many counties because voters "liked him better" and felt like they could "sit down and have a beer with him."
You are an Obamaite man. Leadership has nothing to do with being liked, having a beer, etc. It’s go something to do with bringing a group to something better, moving forward, be it a corporate department, a military unit, a college team or a country. Making individuals part of a team, getting more out of them then they knew they could do, achieving things. Real leadership in the Presidency, both Bush’s, Reagan, Ike, even JFK and LBJ. Obama has no clue what the concept is. He never did anything before becoming president and what he has accomplished since January 20th, 2009 has pretty much been bad.
“Leading from behind” is not leadership. It’s hoping for something to happen, and hope is not a plan.
So go and vote from behind for Obama. Please, voting for Gary Johnson. Colorado is notionally in play and if you vote for a third party candidate, to the right of the Democratic nominee is simply voting against the Republican nominee. Then again you would never vote for Romney. Just be a man about it, pull the lever for your man-child Barry and say you’re voting against Romney. I voted against B Hussein in 2008 (I loath John McCain) and I’m voting against him again this year. But I’m not making up a story why.
No, you're saying you have no answers to the points. It's not about who answers it. I answered your question and you said, I'm not going to answer that rubbish.
And, my vote indicates I simply think more deeply about the issues than you.
As usual mazenko, wrong.
, I'm not going to answer that rubbish.
No, actually I said “But I'll leave you with one comment on your gibberish.”
But I actually got to agree with you on one point. If you want to call your comments rubbish, I won’t disagree.
And, with all the time you keep putting in to this, you can't simply acknowledge the points made - and either respond in kind or concede that there are legitimate reasons he is a better choice for some people - not the absolute right choice, but a better choice for some people.
But keep trying. You'll probably find a counterargument with two or three weeks to think about it.
Post a Comment