Well there's another leaked audio of Obama emphasizing the need for redistribution of wealth. The guy has a socialist agenda..let's face it. You have to be deaf, dumb, and blind not to recognize it. If the Republicans had a presidential candidate with a better personality, who could articulate his points better and more forcefully, and the vast majority of news media wasn't in Obama's back pocket, the Republicans would probably win in a landslide.
-
Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
-
FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!
Why Romney's Video Comments Have Killed His Candidacy
- Thread starter Mayhem
- Start date
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
CNBC, left leaning? :rofl2: Larry Kudlow, Maria Bartiromo, Michele Caruso-Cabrera, Joe Kernan and Brian Sullivan are all prominent commentators or anchors on CNBC. And where did the TEA party get its first national attention? Have you ever heard of Rick Santelli? Probably not. You probably don't even watch CNBC on a regular basis. You probably think that MSNBC and CNBC are the same thing.
It's actually boosted his base.
You realize that "boosting his base" is the last thing he needs to to right? The base for either side has already made their decision on who to vote for. Its the undecided moderates and independents that a candidate needs to win over if they want to win an election. Sarah Palin did a great job of "boosting the base" for McCain and how well did that turn out?
Sam Fisher
Banned
CNBC, left leaning? :rofl2: Larry Kudlow, Maria Bartiromo, Michele Caruso-Cabrera, Joe Kernan and Brian Sullivan are all prominent commentators or anchors on CNBC. And where did the TEA party get its first national attention? Have you ever heard of Rick Santelli? Probably not. You probably don't even watch CNBC on a regular basis. You probably think that MSNBC and CNBC are the same thing.
MSNBC (stylized as msnbc) is a cable news and information channel based in the United States available in the US, Europe, South Africa, the Middle East and Canada. Its name was derived from the most common abbreviations for Microsoft and the National Broadcasting Company.[6]
MSNBC and msnbc.com were founded in 1996 as partnerships of Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit, which is now NBCUniversal.[7] The online partnership of msnbc.com ended on July 16, 2012 and the site was rebranded as NBCNews.com.[citation needed] MSNBC shares the NBC logo of a rainbow peacock with its sister channels NBC, CNBC, NBC Sports Network, and ShopNBC.
Following accusations of political bias in the channel's programming and news operations, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its progressive leanings in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline "Lean Forward.
Feel free to remove not only your foot from your mouth, but the shoe and laces as well.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Dude, how do you manage to fuck up your OWN quote???
How about I remove my foot from your ass? Wouldn't you like that better?
You really are just as dumb as you seem, aren't you? You offered the quote... now, what does it (actually) say? That these channels are owned by the same company and MSNBC is "progressive leaning". Did we not already know that? Where does it say anything about CNBC being left leaning or progressive? Where is that? I'll save you the reading time: it doesn't... because it's not. Fox News, Fox Business News, Speed Channel and TruTV are also owned by the same company. And TruTV presents scripted reality shows as being "real", when they're not. So could I just assume that whatever is on FBN is just a make believe presentation posing as business news? No, I sometimes watch FBN, and while some of their commentators are far right, it's not the same as Fox News or TruTV.
You don't know anything about business, but you do seem to follow sports. So by your logic, NBC Sports Channel is left leaning and Speed Channel is right leaning? Have any evidence of that? No? Didn't think so. Now go home and get your shine box!
MSNBC (stylized as msnbc) is a cable news and information channel based in the United States available in the US, Europe, South Africa, the Middle East and Canada. Its name was derived from the most common abbreviations for Microsoft and the National Broadcasting Company.[6]
MSNBC and msnbc.com were founded in 1996 as partnerships of Microsoft and General Electric's NBC unit, which is now NBCUniversal.[7] The online partnership of msnbc.com ended on July 16, 2012 and the site was rebranded as NBCNews.com.[citation needed] MSNBC shares the NBC logo of a rainbow peacock with its sister channels NBC, CNBC, NBC Sports Network, and ShopNBC.
Following accusations of political bias in the channel's programming and news operations, MSNBC publicly acknowledged its progressive leanings in October 2010 while launching a marketing campaign with the tagline "Lean Forward.
Feel free to remove not only your foot from your mouth, but the shoe and laces as well.
How about I remove my foot from your ass? Wouldn't you like that better?
You really are just as dumb as you seem, aren't you? You offered the quote... now, what does it (actually) say? That these channels are owned by the same company and MSNBC is "progressive leaning". Did we not already know that? Where does it say anything about CNBC being left leaning or progressive? Where is that? I'll save you the reading time: it doesn't... because it's not. Fox News, Fox Business News, Speed Channel and TruTV are also owned by the same company. And TruTV presents scripted reality shows as being "real", when they're not. So could I just assume that whatever is on FBN is just a make believe presentation posing as business news? No, I sometimes watch FBN, and while some of their commentators are far right, it's not the same as Fox News or TruTV.
You don't know anything about business, but you do seem to follow sports. So by your logic, NBC Sports Channel is left leaning and Speed Channel is right leaning? Have any evidence of that? No? Didn't think so. Now go home and get your shine box!
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
The only way Romney loses if able-bodied people who love living on the dole get up and vote.
He's correct. :clap:
A victim class that refuses to take responsibility for themselves and don't care who they hurt or take money from.
He's correct. :clap:
A victim class that refuses to take responsibility for themselves and don't care who they hurt or take money from.
Sam Fisher
Banned
Re: Dude, how do you manage to fuck up your OWN quote???
Dude take your meds and chill. None of the shit in here means a damn thing. Plus, didn't you say not too long ago that you weren't going to reply to my posts anymore?
Gotcha!
How about I remove my foot from your ass? Wouldn't you like that better?
You really are just as dumb as you seem, aren't you? You offered the quote... now, what does it (actually) say? That these channels are owned by the same company and MSNBC is "progressive leaning". Did we not already know that? Where does it say anything about CNBC being left leaning or progressive? Where is that? I'll save you the reading time: it doesn't... because it's not. Fox News, Fox Business News, Speed Channel and TruTV are also owned by the same company. And TruTV presents scripted reality shows as being "real", when they're not. So could I just assume that whatever is on FBN is just a make believe presentation posing as business news? No, I sometimes watch FBN, and while some of their commentators are far right, it's not the same as Fox News or TruTV.
You don't know anything about business, but you do seem to follow sports. So by your logic, NBC Sports Channel is left leaning and Speed Channel is right leaning? Have any evidence of that? No? Didn't think so. Now go home and get your shine box!
Dude take your meds and chill. None of the shit in here means a damn thing. Plus, didn't you say not too long ago that you weren't going to reply to my posts anymore?
Gotcha!
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Re: Dude, how do you manage to fuck up your OWN quote???
What is the point in replying to the retard Sam's threads?
I'll talk to a street corner preacher if he walks up to me. But I won't seek him out. Same with you. I won't avoid you if you post in other people's threads or mine, but no, I haven't posted in yours.
Now, I'm back to watch that raging left-winger, Rick Santelli, on CNBC. :rofl2:
BTW, that final IndyCar race that they showed on that left wing NBC Sports last weekend sure was good. I just hope that the F1 race that's going to be on right wing Speed Channel this weekend will be half as good. See, how could a man not reply to a wingnut that divides the world up into conservative/liberal... and can't think past that? Speaking of meds, try lithium. It might help you.
Dude take your meds and chill. None of the shit in here means a damn thing. Plus, didn't you say not too long ago that you weren't going to reply to my posts anymore?
Gotcha!
What is the point in replying to the retard Sam's threads?
I'll talk to a street corner preacher if he walks up to me. But I won't seek him out. Same with you. I won't avoid you if you post in other people's threads or mine, but no, I haven't posted in yours.
Now, I'm back to watch that raging left-winger, Rick Santelli, on CNBC. :rofl2:
BTW, that final IndyCar race that they showed on that left wing NBC Sports last weekend sure was good. I just hope that the F1 race that's going to be on right wing Speed Channel this weekend will be half as good. See, how could a man not reply to a wingnut that divides the world up into conservative/liberal... and can't think past that? Speaking of meds, try lithium. It might help you.
I was going to post this if no one else did. This is brilliant. It is quite devastating for Fox and the GOP. Stewart has really taken them to task. If you haven't seen it, look up his comparison of coverage of the two national conventions. It's hard to believe how inconsistent they are.
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
I'll attempt to give an accurate, unbiased reply, Georges. You are correct: the unemployment rate is higher now than when Obama was inaugurated. The rate of job creation is higher than when he was inaugurated - we are no longer losing jobs. We are no longer in recession, as when he was elected/took office. We are now in a technical period of economic recovery. The rate of GDP growth is higher. I believe business bankruptcies and bank failures are down from that point and I know the foreclosure rate is lower. In fact, foreclosures are at a five year low.
As for crime rates, yes, they are lower under Obama. This is according to valid data from the FBI (the same source that would be used for W. Bush or Reagan
): FBI Crime statsI am not suggesting that things are great, or even good, Georges. We do have a great many issues. And I'm not suggesting that Obama should get an A for his overall performance. Overall (domestic economy and foreign policy) I'd give him a C to C-. But since Romney has thus far refused to even take the test, and can't seem to offer any substantive details on what his plan would be (other than the cliche, cut taxes & deregulate), I'm sorry, but even if I didn't vote for Obama, I would not vote for Romney. See, I didn't know what a neocon was in 1999. And I voted for W. Bush in 2000 and that became the only vote I've ever cast in my life that I truly regretted. Romney is (IMO) just an even worse version of George W. Bush. If pressed, I'd probably vote for W. Bush (again) before I'd vote for Romney.
I'm pretty decent at reading and interpreting stats. That's kinda how I make my living now. So if the only basis that Romney's supporters have for me voting for their boy is to misrepresent (or lie) about stats, that dog don't hunt with this ol' boy. You can try that with Tea Party types. But it didn't take me 6-7 years at 3 or 4 different unaccredited community colleges to get a 4 year degree, like their queen, Sarah Pee.
I'll attempt to give an accurate, unbiased reply, Georges. You are correct: the unemployment rate is higher now than when Obama was inaugurated. The rate of job creation is higher than when he was inaugurated - we are no longer losing jobs. We are no longer in recession, as when he was elected/took office. We are now in a technical period of economic recovery. The rate of GDP growth is higher. I believe business bankruptcies and bank failures are down from that point and I know the foreclosure rate is lower. In fact, foreclosures are at a five year low.
As for crime rates, yes, they are lower under Obama. This is according to valid data from the FBI (the same source that would be used for W. Bush or Reagan
I am not suggesting that things are great, or even good, Georges. We do have a great many issues. And I'm not suggesting that Obama should get an A for his overall performance. Overall (domestic economy and foreign policy) I'd give him a C to C-. But since Romney has thus far refused to even take the test, and can't seem to offer any substantive details on what his plan would be (other than the cliche, cut taxes & deregulate), I'm sorry, but even if I didn't vote for Obama, I would not vote for Romney. See, I didn't know what a neocon was in 1999. And I voted for W. Bush in 2000 and that became the only vote I've ever cast in my life that I truly regretted. Romney is (IMO) just an even worse version of George W. Bush. If pressed, I'd probably vote for W. Bush (again) before I'd vote for Romney.
I'm pretty decent at reading and interpreting stats. That's kinda how I make my living now. So if the only basis that Romney's supporters have for me voting for their boy is to misrepresent (or lie) about stats, that dog don't hunt with this ol' boy. You can try that with Tea Party types. But it didn't take me 6-7 years at 3 or 4 different unaccredited community colleges to get a 4 year degree, like their queen, Sarah Pee.
Excellent post.
larss
I'm watching some specialist videos
I actually pointed out in another post that Unemployment was rising fast when Obama took office. It slowed and peaked about 8 or 9 months in and has fallen steadily since then.
Sam Fisher
Banned
No it hasn't. Read the facts.
The unemployment rate is 8.1% but is that the real number of people out of work in America? Not even close.
As reported, 115,000 jobs were added in April, which is considerably lower than previously predicted. But still the number of jobs added brought the jobless rate down by .1 percent, which sure seems like things are moving in the right direction, albeit slowly.
But the devil is in the details, and the truth is that the numbers hide a disturbing trend of people exiting the work universe by not even trying to find a job.
"The unemployment rate has fallen a full percentage point since August to a three-year low. But last month's decline was not due to job growth. The government only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for work.
"In April, the percentage of adults working or looking for work fell to the lowest level in more than 30 years."
So if you add back all the people who have stopped looking for work you get a "real" unemployment rate of almost 15 percent.
"Factoring in those discouraged adults and others working part time for lack of full time opportunities, the unemployment rate is about 14.5 percent. Adding college graduates in low-skill positions, like counterwork at Starbucks, and the unemployment rate is likely closer to 18 percent," writes Peter Morici .
President Obama thinks the holy grail for his reelection is getting the unemployment rate under 8 percent. And that may just be the number come November. But if the reduced jobless number actually happens because of people giving up rather than getting into the job market, then we'll be facing four more years of sustained, high unemployment and the consequences of that damage, both domestically and internationally, ought to concern every American.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capit...ent_rate_Dz8PweHqsH1MVVwgkK51mI#ixzz277sRYOjF
Here it is on Youtube. Stewart sums it up beautifully at the 8:50 mark.
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=GcBS1M6hamM
Similar threads
