Liberals turning on Obama

[huevonkiller]

With you, who the hell knows? My guess, you are referring to how the ancient Greeks got high on nutmeg.

Haha I can't wait to see you a few years from now out on the street.

I'm not complaining. And who is "we"? But are you saying you have a plan? If so please share it.

barfo

I asked you first why are you so scared?

My plan is to cut the Dem's coward spending and terrible central planning, and run on a government of about ~2 trillion like many other Libertarians suggest.

 

[huevonkiller]

Any suggestions?

Dude he's messing with you. He supports Obama almost 100% he's just embarrassed how badly he's failed.

I remember how he was defending Barry's plan to cut 3 trillion and raise taxes by 1 trillion, and raise the debt ceiling.

 

[barfo]

Lol stop ejaculating already over the polls, we're a year off buddy.

Wasn't it you who posted:

There's a website for all this.... And Obama's not doing swell.

Yeah, I think it was.

We're going to get more debt, more negative outlooks, and more downgrades. I'm glad because I hate your terrible policies. :]

You think things are going to go badly, and you are happy about that? Ok. I guess that shows your colors.

Man this is too easy. Pick up a book stop pounding your chest you're not proving anything.

Heh.

Yeah FDR isn't as liberal as this payaso.

Okey doke.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Any suggestions?

Suggestions for who should run against him? If you mean, are there democrats I'd rather have than Obama, probably, but it doesn't matter because none of them are going to run.

barfo

 

[ABM]

Dude he's messing with you.....

Nah, just call me Zohan.

 

[barfo]

Dude he's messing with you. He supports Obama almost 100% he's just embarrassed how badly he's failed.

I remember how he was defending Barry's plan to cut 3 trillion and raise taxes by 1 trillion, and raise the debt ceiling.

I'm not embarrassed in the least. I don't support Obama 100%, he's caved to the forces of stupidity far too often to get my 100% rating.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Wasn't it you who posted:



Yeah, I think it was.

Yeah it is called being objective, the site is better than your source. I didn't celebrate Romney over Obama.

You think things are going to go badly, and you are happy about that? Ok. I guess that shows your colors.

the alternative is we never get downgraded and we continue to live in the fantasy world where your policies work.

Absolutely I love to see you squirm and make up one-liners to hide behind the fact your math is weaker.

Heh.



Okey doke.

barfo

Dude it is called collective bargaining, I even gave you a hint. I'm real nice like that. :]

 

[ABM]

Suggestions for who should run against him? If you mean, are there democrats I'd rather have than Obama, probably, but it doesn't matter because none of them are going to run.

barfo

A sad statement. A very sad statement, indeed. A pity, actually.

 

[barfo]

Yeah it is called being objective, the site is better than your source.

Uhm, my source was exactly the same site as your source.

Dude it is called collective bargaining, I even gave you a hint. I'm real nice like that. :]

Wow. That just blew my mind, dude. It's like you have this, like, amazing ability to, like, just type random shit and think it means something. Dude.

barfo

 

[barfo]

A sad statement. A very sad statement, indeed. A pity, actually.

If you say so. I'd call it political reality. Same reason no republican ran against GWB in 2004.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Uhm, my source was exactly the same site as your source.

Ummm no it isn't. I gave them a website you didn't.

Stop dodging the real attacks by the way.

Wow. That just blew my mind, dude. It's like you have this, like, amazing ability to, like, just type random shit and think it means something. Dude.

barfo

You're so typical, bitching instead of learning. When you actually want to discuss politics educate yourself.

Even FDR thinks you're funny.

 

[ABM]

If you say so. I'd call it political reality. Same reason no republican ran against GWB in 2004.

barfo

Where's Hillary in all this?

 

[huevonkiller]

She's barfo's other secret crush.

 

[barfo]

Ummm no it isn't. I gave them a website you didn't.

Them? Who is "them"?

You're so typical, bitching instead of learning. When you actually want to discuss politics educate yourself.

Ha ha.

Even FDR thinks you're funny.

All the x-presidents enjoy my humor.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Where's Hillary in all this?

Very unlikely to run, unless Obama decides not to.

barfo

 

[huevonkiller]

Them? Who is "them"?

Laker fans obviously.

Ha ha.

You don't know basic history I think that's pretty sad.

All the x-presidents enjoy my humor.

barfo

At you, not with.

Lol.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, the point is there is a website for all this, which I linked to. Let's also note that I was responding to Denny posting a poll. Let's also note that 'the website for this' shows that Obama beats every one of the Republican candidates when matched head-to-head.

barfo

Those polls show Obama beats republican candidates in NY and California.

In states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada... you know, the swing states... Obama's in deep shit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60640_Page4.html

And putting aside the bleak psychological climate Obama faces as he starts his run, the physical terrain — the states needed to add up to 270 electoral votes — looks more difficult than Democratic officials had expected even a few months ago. Obama’s electoral map from 2008 will be tough to duplicate, with all three perennial bellwethers — Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania — once again up for grabs.

The states Obama won in 2008 have lost six electoral votes, complicating his quest. And in most of the nine states Obama won that Sen. John Kerry lost in 2004 — Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado — Democrats took a drubbing in the midterms. One poll has half the voters in Ohio down on Obama’s job performance, for instance.

Democrats say they are encouraged that the Republican governors in three critical states — Rick Scott in Florida, John Kasich in Ohio and Scott Walker in Wisconsin — have taken a hit in polls in recent months and look as if they may be less help to the Republican nominee than they would be if they were politically stronger.

Looking at Obama’s 2008 swing-state wins, Democrats have all but given up on Indiana and know that he will have trouble keeping two other traditionally red states, Virginia and North Carolina; may have been hurt in Florida by unhappiness in the Jewish community about Obama’s handling of Israel; and will have a dogfight for the Rust Belt prizes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where one respected state poll had him narrowly lagging Romney). Obama’s reelection strategy depends on running strong in the Mountain West, most critically in Colorado.

But without at least a couple of the traditional bellwether states, Obama will be a one-term president.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

Those polls show Obama beats republican candidates in NY and California.

In states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Nevada... you know, the swing states... Obama's in deep shit.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/60640_Page4.html

And putting aside the bleak psychological climate Obama faces as he starts his run, the physical terrain — the states needed to add up to 270 electoral votes — looks more difficult than Democratic officials had expected even a few months ago. Obama’s electoral map from 2008 will be tough to duplicate, with all three perennial bellwethers — Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania — once again up for grabs.

The states Obama won in 2008 have lost six electoral votes, complicating his quest. And in most of the nine states Obama won that Sen. John Kerry lost in 2004 — Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado — Democrats took a drubbing in the midterms. One poll has half the voters in Ohio down on Obama’s job performance, for instance.

Democrats say they are encouraged that the Republican governors in three critical states — Rick Scott in Florida, John Kasich in Ohio and Scott Walker in Wisconsin — have taken a hit in polls in recent months and look as if they may be less help to the Republican nominee than they would be if they were politically stronger.

Looking at Obama’s 2008 swing-state wins, Democrats have all but given up on Indiana and know that he will have trouble keeping two other traditionally red states, Virginia and North Carolina; may have been hurt in Florida by unhappiness in the Jewish community about Obama’s handling of Israel; and will have a dogfight for the Rust Belt prizes of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan (where one respected state poll had him narrowly lagging Romney). Obama’s reelection strategy depends on running strong in the Mountain West, most critically in Colorado.

But without at least a couple of the traditional bellwether states, Obama will be a one-term president.

In Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and unions can "manufacturer" enough fraudulent votes to take the state away from the GOP if it's reasonably close. They've done it before. If the GOP isn't split, they have a real shot at winning the election. If they do split (my personal opinion), it'll be an easy win for Obama.

 

[Denny Crane]

If Obama wins, he might be the first president to win with just 10 states. OK, maybe 13 states.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

If Obama wins, he might be the first president to win with just 10 states. OK, maybe 13 states.

If he does, it will almost certainly be with a plurality and not a majority.

 

[blazerboy30]

I'm not embarrassed in the least. I don't support Obama 100%, he's caved to the forces of stupidity far too often to get my 100% rating.

barfo

You should be embarrassed. The stupid policies that have aligned with your policies have gotten this country even further in a hole. And if more of his policies aligned with yours to get him a 100% rating, we'd be even worse off.

You should be embarrassed and ashamed for wanting to see the country fail.

 

[maxiep]

I understand Liberal frustration. They are--if the polling numbers are correct--approximately 20% of the population, but they had a perfect storm in 2008 which carried them to power. They were legislatably able to do whatever they wished for two years, but their policies didn't have their intended effect. In fact, they made things worse. Worse yet, they finally spent up to our credit card limit and found constraints on what they could spend.

It's a difficult reality to face when what you believe so strongly simply doesn't work in the real world. Just as mercantilism was finally proven in the 18th Century to be an ineffective social policy to increase societal wealth, so has the EU and Obamanomics proven that Keynesianism is headed for the ash heap of history.

 

[bluefrog]

I understand Liberal frustration. They are--if the polling numbers are correct--approximately 20% of the population, but they had a perfect storm in 2008 which carried them to power. They were legislatably able to do whatever they wished for two years, but their policies didn't have their intended effect. In fact, they made things worse. Worse yet, they finally spent up to our credit card limit and found constraints on what they could spend.

While it is a popular narrative to blame the economic condition of the country and fiscal problems of the federal government on "liberal ideology" it's not an honest depiction. Looking at the price tag of liberal spending, the $800 billion stimulus package and 1 billion "cash for clunkers", 801 billion dollars is a lot of money but it hardly "spent up" out "credit card limit".

If we're calling medicare, medicaid, and social security programs (the largest chunk of federal spending - about 46%) part of "liberal ideology" then we need to push the number of "liberals" in American to 60% or 70% because these programs have wide spread support with voters from both parties.

It's a difficult reality to face when what you believe so strongly simply doesn't work in the real world. Just as mercantilism was finally proven in the 18th Century to be an ineffective social policy to increase societal wealth, so has the EU and Obamanomics proven that Keynesianism is headed for the ash heap of history.

Which Keynesianism are we talking about here? Are you sure you're not think of "socialism"?

 

[Denny Crane]

Aside from defense/military spending, what else does the govt. spend on but "liberal" spending programs?

 

[huevonkiller]

You should be embarrassed. The stupid policies that have aligned with your policies have gotten this country even further in a hole. And if more of his policies aligned with yours to get him a 100% rating, we'd be even worse off.

You should be embarrassed and ashamed for wanting to see the country fail.

His argument is terrible since he supports all the main policies that have failed us.

Maxie got it right, it is hard to face the fact that one's policies are simply good feel nonsense. Obama has been the perfect leader for the Left, he hasn't done anything outside their norms. He's a hardcore Demy and we're paying the price for it.

 

[huevonkiller]

Aside from defense/military spending, what else does the govt. spend on but "liberal" spending programs?

Yeah I'm pretty sure Dems are primarily the ones riding that Social Security train for votes.

Libertarians need to take back that word "liberal" like I previously stated. It is confusing for international politics. We're the only "liberal" movement.

 

[maxiep]

While it is a popular narrative to blame the economic condition of the country and fiscal problems of the federal government on "liberal ideology" it's not an honest depiction. Looking at the price tag of liberal spending, the $800 billion stimulus package and 1 billion "cash for clunkers", 801 billion dollars is a lot of money but it hardly "spent up" out "credit card limit".

I didn't state my point well. I don't blame the Democrats 100% for hitting our credit limit; they just happened to be in power when it happened. The freespending Republicans under Bush ran it up plenty themselves. My point was one of timing rather than blame (although I would assign at least 55% of the blame to the Democrats). When our debt problems finally messed with our credit rating is when the unlimited budget finally got some constraints.

If we're calling medicare, medicaid, and social security programs (the largest chunk of federal spending - about 46%) part of "liberal ideology" then we need to push the number of "liberals" in American to 60% or 70% because these programs have wide spread support with voters from both parties.

I don't understand how programs everyone pays into has to do with ideology. If they were given benefits they didn't pay for and/or their income was redistributed, then you could call it "liberal". When people are asked to describe themselves, only 20% identify as "liberal". That statistic was the basis for my statement.

Which Keynesianism are we talking about here? Are you sure you're not think of "socialism"?

I'm talking about demand-side economics.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

I understand Liberal frustration. They are--if the polling numbers are correct--approximately 20% of the population, but they had a perfect storm in 2008 which carried them to power. They were legislatably able to do whatever they wished for two years, but their policies didn't have their intended effect. In fact, they made things worse. Worse yet, they finally spent up to our credit card limit and found constraints on what they could spend.

It's a difficult reality to face when what you believe so strongly simply doesn't work in the real world. Just as mercantilism was finally proven in the 18th Century to be an ineffective social policy to increase societal wealth, so has the EU and Obamanomics proven that Keynesianism is headed for the ash heap of history.

I think you mean, "Die, Liberals, Die."

 

[maxiep]

I think you mean, "Die, Liberals, Die."

Jesus, but are you butthurt.

Nice ad hominem, however. White flag acknowledged.