Bill Maher Admits: 'I Think Romney Could Totally Beat Obama' - 2012 Presidential Race - Fox Nation

I completely agree with tomcraig, Cain is the candidate the left is most afraid of because he will beat Obama. Cain has shocked the left and the establishment right by leading in the polls. I like all the Republican candidates and will vote for which ever one wins the nomination, but I hope it's Cain.

Great, lets call sexual harassment "inappropriate' behavior" and it's really something to know that a slime ball is the best the Republicans have to offer; and Elaine? a sexual predator has your vote?

I would be pretty shocked if the GOP went into the election with a candidate with multiple sexual harassment allegations. You can just imagine what the election is going to be like if every night theres a live interview with yet-another woman about exactly what happened, followed by hours of pundits picking apart what's sexual harassment and what's not sexual harassment.

That's all we're going to hear about for the next year if he gets the nomination.

Cain is hardly a "sexual predator," He is accused of what individual women see as "inappropriate" behavior. He did NOT rape them and he is NO Bill Clinton (who the left so joyously loves). One of the reports is that he compared one women's height to his wife, making her feel uncomfortable. If thats the truth that is completely out of line and i'd consider her money hungry.

As for being the best candidate in the field of republicans, it is not Cain, it is clear cut Romney. Obama will not fair well against Cain or Romney and in a debate stands no chance against Romney. They have the SAME education, except Romney has more education and real business experience.

Great, lets call sexual harassment "inappropriate' behavior" and it's really something to know that a slime ball is the best the Republicans have to offer; and Elaine? a sexual predator has your vote?

Maggie, obviously you fell for the media's smear campaign against Cain. He's already been investigated and cleared of any wrong doing. The only thing that happened was some lowlife money grubbers looking for a payday. It happens everyday to people in high level positions.

If Cain had actually sexually harassed anyone, don't you think they'd have held out for some big bucks instead of a severance package to leave the company?

The legal record says Sexual Harrasment and 45K is big bucks for some and "the big bad media" reported the legal record, as in FACTS. But hey Elaine go ahead and support the predator who has no respect for women.

Bill Clinton who?

Runner, um, Bill didn't sexually harass anyone. He had consensual sex with an adult.

Elaine, Obviously you fell for the Cain lies and his ever changing stories. Too bad you're in the minority. His Koch connection will be as under scrutiny and we'll see the last of him soon. There is no smear campaign. The job of the nmedia is to report on candidates running for president. It's not their fault Cain sexually harassed employees and the company he worked for made settlements to make the victims to make the problem go away. But of course, it is the conservative way to play the victim and blame everyone and everything but themself without taking any personal responsibility for anything.

Um, and no it doesn't happen every day. I've worked with hundreds of executives and none have been accused of sexual harassment. And no the victims would not have held out for some big bucks, because it is an extremely difficult and a long long process so it is easier to just take the money offered and leave as most companies offer what for them is a fraction of what it would cost to fight a sexual harassment lawsuit to make the problem go away.

tom

I think Cain will win; because he isn't the establishment's candidate. Romney or Perry are backed by the blue-blood and rich Republicans.

The Koch brothers who are known supporters and funders of Cain's campaign are not "blue-blood rich Republicans? He has admitted as much.

Do I need to go into all the anti-democratic activities around the country the Koch brothers are funding with their immense wealth. Wisconsin come to mind?

The legal record says Sexual Harrasment and 45K is big bucks for some and "the big bad media" reported the legal record, as in FACTS.

The legal record says cleared of all charges. FACT.

But hey Elaine go ahead and support the predator who has no respect for women.

Media smear campaigns are obviously very effective to the gullible and uninformed.

PREDATOR?!?!? Oh PULLEAASSSE.............................@!$%#ing spare us the dramatics, Herman Cain is no more of a sexual predator than you are right with your extremely off base and incredibly obnoxious accusations.

Do you even know the legal definition of sexual predaotr? Obviously not.

I completely agree with tomcraig, Cain is the candidate the left is most afraid of because he will beat Obama

WHAT!! As a liberal, I WANT Cain to run. It would be a tight race against Obama but Obama's odds would greatly increase against Cain. Not only would Obama win but it would be a very entertaining election.

It has already been fun, watching Cain fumble his sex scandals, learning about the possible fraud in his election, his gaffe on abortion, his weird campaign ads (have you seen the yellow flowers one?), oh men and the whole "Koch Brothers are my brothers from another mother," that was a hoot!!! And oh oh the 9,9,9 tax plan borrowed from a sims games, or how he quoted a poem that was really actually a quote from a Pokemon movie!!!

You really can't make this stuff up. Its just too funny. Please oh please oh please let Cain be the GOP nominee. You couldn't wrap a better present for the holidays.

it would be a very entertaining election.

It will be that, but not for the liberals.

It will be that, but not for the liberals.

I think I can speak for most liberals when I say, we are really enjoying watching Cain. If you watch the more liberal news world you'd see just how much of a laugh we are having watching this guy. And I don't mean that in any demeaning way, I'm sure he is a decent guy in person (maybe).

I guess the more serious question that would come out of a campaign between Obama and Cain is, can 2 billionaire brothers, really buy a presidency?

I think I can speak for most liberals when I say, we are really enjoying watching Cain.

Well, you can certainly speak for yourself, and I'm enjoying watching Cain too.

Glad you are enjoying the elections as well even though they are for different reasons. Though if you don't mind me asking. What is it about Cain that you love?

I seem to remember the Left's freak out during the 2008 Republican Primary over Romney when he was leading over McCain. Didn't many on the left started saying that McCain was the best choice then?

No one can compete with Romney's fiscal record or debating skills. He will win the Presidency.

Its easy to support a candidate when he is not running, he is on a publicity book signing tour, his campaign is a joke, only less than Romneys 5th time run. If you had real candidates you wouldn't be clamoring for cain. I wish he was running, I think it would be great to have 2 african american candidates by both major parties. But Cain is not serious.

I trust Bill Maher less than I trust Obama. What this tells us is the Dems think Obama would be able to beat Romney. In the next few months the Democrats/Progressives and our mainstream lefty Press are going to be working very hard to influence who the Republican candidate is based on one goal, Obama's re-election.

No one can compete with Romney's fiscal record or debating skills. He will win the Presidency.

Romney's fiscal record isn't that great, but it is less grim than what Obama is currently dealing with. As for debating skills, Obama can beat Romney hands down. Romney does a horrible job thinking on his feet and talking to people one on one. The whole "cooperations are people too," is a great example.

The legal record says Sexual Harrasment and 45K is big bucks for some and "the big bad media" reported the legal record, as in FACTS.

If these women got around 45k before... they are going to be getting a whole lot more now that he's a candidate. Some of these news outlets pay 500k+ for an interview, and then there's the book deals. These women could be looking at multi million dollar deals at this point.

I was hoping Cain would end up as the Republican candidate. I had this bumper-sticker for the election campaign. Cain and Unable

please please please dont choose the anti establishment candidate cain.... OOOOOOO PLEASE DONT.

funny as hell all of yall attacked Obama for his lack of experience and then yall are jumping all over cain.

I wonder if the GOP if willing to dump their huge bigot block by electing a black man. Somehow I doubt it.

IT is also hilarious the party of family values, who was soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo offended by clinton defouling the office of president, are now going to elect this man who has had no less than 3 ALLEGATIONS MADE AGAINST HIM, INCLUDING ONE RECENTLY.

Of course if it was against obama, you would want to spare no penny investigating it, no matter how long ago, but with cain.. "MEDIA IS OUT TO GET HIM"

and yall dont even see the hypocracy at all.

Adventerous-

Have you looked into his record turning around companies, Olympics, Mass. He even was asked to return to the company that taught him how to turn around a business. He was asked to return to turn that bussiness around and he did it.

Whatever he touches turns around, what happens after that is not his fault.

Cain can't handle himself in a one on one conservation. I don't understand it. He does well in debates but is unable to convey his view points clearly and consistently in a simple interview. He would be a disaster.

Drummerboy:

Sexual Predator:

"The term sexual predator is used pejoratively about a person who is seen as obtaining or trying to obtain sexual intercourse in a metaphorically predatory manner...The term is applied according to a person's moral beliefs, and does not necessarily denote criminal behaviour. For example, an adult male who cruises a bar looking for consensual sex from an adult female could be considered a sexual predator by some."

What do you call someone who makes unwanted sexual advances on a woman?

Elaine: When someone apologizes for two settlements and a third accusation in SPITE OF being informed they are enablers as well as apologists. Says a lot about them wanting to win at women's expense.

What do you call someone who makes unwanted sexual advances on a woman?

What do you a woman who makes false sexual harassment accusations for money?

What a lame assed attempt to justify you calling someone something they're obviously not maggiemoo. Not only did you fail to name your source, you blatantly misquoted the article by copying and pasting only certain sentences within the article and put them together in order to give the appearance that what you quoted was written as you posted it which is a complete fabrication of what the article really says:

http://www.1union1.com/Sexualpredator.html

You took the first sentence of the first paragraph and combined it with the the second paragraph when in reality the entire first paragraph reads as follows:

The term sexual predator is used pejoratively about a person who is seen as obtaining or trying to obtain sexual intercourse in a metaphorically predatory manner. Analogous to how a predator hunts down its prey, so the sexual predator is thought to "hunt" for his or her sex partners. People who commit sex crimes, such as rape or child sexual abuse, are commonly referred to as sexual predators, particularly in tabloid media or as a power phrase by politicians.

Here:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5048506_definition-sexual-predator.html

Take note in particular of the following paragraph:

The term "sexual predator" doesn't always indicate that a person has committed a crime, since the legal definition of the term varies according to each state. Usually, law enforcement uses the term "sexual predator" when talking about someone who searches for a victim regardless of whether the person actually attacks somebody or commits a crime.

You should be ashamed of yourself for attempting such a juvenile ruse.

Not only did you just destroy any credibility you have but your entire accusation about Cain is nothing more than an EPIC FAIL.

What do you a woman who makes false sexual harassment accusations for money?

Are you always so quick to dismiss a womans word over a mans? Multiple women? Is this witness just making it up?

"This occurred at a restaurant in Crystal City (Virginia) and everybody was aware of it," said Wilson, who was a consultant for the organization at the time, in the KTOK interview. "It was only a matter of time because so many people were aware of what took place, so many people were aware of her situation, the fact she left-everybody knew with the campaign that this would eventually come up."

In his description of the event to the radio station KTOK, Wilson said "I was the pollster at the National Restaurant Association when Herman Cain was head of it, and I was around a couple of times when this happened and anyone who was involved with the NRA at the time, knew that this was going to come up."

On the radio, he predicted "if she (the alleged victim) comes out and talks about it, like I said, it'll probably be the end of his campaign."

Between Palin and Cain the republikan party has been leaping in with every half wit that is not white or male in reaction to Obama's Presidency. the lack of diversity and lack of vetting is really hurting you now.

Hey Drummerboy: Nice try, you see the quote marks, highlighted text and the ... as in "dot dot dot" where I left out and picked back up the definition from Wiki which you also failed to site? And really what exactly was left out between the ... that would change the definition? Nothing, get a grip, you want to defend and apologize for a sexual predator have at it, I think it is pathetic and revolting. By the way it's not MY accusation about Cain, it's his victims.

What do you a woman who makes false sexual harassment accusations for money?

Well you don't call her the recipient of $45,000 and a settlement now do you?

Oh bull@!$%# maggiemoo, you did it on purpose and I know it and you know it and anyone who reads this knows it.

Go look up the legal definition of sexual predator on a law website, then come back and talk your @!$%# some more.

Your accusation is just like you credibility is now:

EPIC FAIL!

PROVE that Herman Cain is by LEGAL DEFINITION, a sexual predator. Has he been convicted of any crime? Is he out hunting for victims? Has he sexually assaulted anyone?

Like I said on another thread earlier today, I'd bet a dollar to a dime you're one of those women who would accuse a man of rape for telling you you have a nice ass. Someone coming up to you and saying something like: "HEY BABY, YOU LOOK HOT" would be considered sexual harassment to you wouldn't it?

Go find one prosecuting attorney, ANY prosecuting attorney in any state in the nation and have them validate that Herman Cain should be considered a sexual predator for what he did. I dare you, go find one to cooborate your bull@!$%#. Short of that you have nothing with which to validate your obnoxious, dumbass and very slanderous accusation.

Get the @!$%# over it and grow up, you're not Gloria Steinem and Herman Cain is no sexual predator.

Now prove your bull@!$%# or have the integrity to admit you cannot.

You are correct, I purposely identified my definition as being quoted from a source and paraphrased, so glad you FINALLY understand it.

You will also please note that my definition of sexual predator says "NON CRIMINAL act" now if you need to look that up please do.

You are also correct that if someone in a workplace approaches a male or female with "HEY BABY, YOU LOOK HOT" that is sexual harassment and they could be fired. You're starting to get it.

I'm sure Herman would appreciate your vehement defense of his unwanted sexual advances on at least three women, I'm sure he needs a lot of friends like you.

You obviously missed the part of the CoH about attacking fellow Viners. Since you can't argue respectfully and without attacking me you are on ignore.

Good call tom, anytime the attack media dogs come on strong sniffing for any little tidbit, it means they are afraid of his strength, very, very afraid.

Good to know, since it means FOX has been afraid of Obama's strength since the day he was inaugurated. 8)

You're not going to ignore me, yopu can't stand it that you got exposed for the fraud your comment and subsequent defense of that bull@!$%# for what it is, BULL@!$%#.

And I've not violated the COH, I have in no way attacked you, I've obviously told the truth though as your comment reflects.

You are also correct that if someone in a workplace approaches a male or female with "HEY BABY, YOU LOOK HOT" that is sexual harassment and they could be fired.

You should also either garner some reading comprehension skills or stop with the blatant misquote of people. I never said anything about a workplace did I, so there goes a lil more of your already non-existent credibility.

You will also please note that my definition of sexual predator says "NON CRIMINAL act" now if you need to look that up please do.

Nobody gives a @!$%# about YOUR definition. Go bring me a LEGAL definition from ANY STATE STATUTES/CRIMINAL CODE.

And the only thing I "GET" where you and your dribble are concerned is that it's bull@!$%#, plain and simple.

And I still dare you to find anyone, any law enforcement official, and lawyer, any judge, ANYONE, to validate that Herman Cain is guilty of being a sexual predator.

Your comment about Herman Cain can neither be proven in a court of law nor does it reflect positively on anything converning the topic at hand, it's a cowardly, hatefull and bull@!$%# lie, pure and simple.

Now prove your statement if you can.

I have never seen a more childish post on newsvine and my options are many. Cain is no where near a sexual predator. To compare cain to a sexual predator, you'd have to consider every man that asks another lady to try on a jacket during the holidays b/c they are siliar size as their wife as a sexual predator. You would have to consider ever male that ever approached a single lady at a bar as a sexual predator. You are simply being irrational and hateful b/c he is from an opposing party.

Also, someone said that the republicans are bigots. That is such a load of $hit. Micheal Steele (chairman RNC)/ black, bobby jindal (gov. lu) Indian, Gary Franks (congress -1997), JC Watts (congress -2003), tim scott (congress 2011-present), Allen West (2011- present) AND the list could go on and on. Your statement is misinformed, hatefull and utterly and disrespectfully ignorantly FALSE!!

BACK TO THE ELECTION

Cain would beat Obama---as obama won the election due to the 96% vote from the African American community, split that with Cain and watch Obama lose.

Romney would also beat Obama--- Romney has a proven centralist record with more education, experience, and working executorship experience then Obama. Not to mention Romney has both a JD and MBA from Harvard, while Obama only has a JD. Romney is a much more rounded candidate and realizes that things happen dynamically in life, which is why he has changed on ideas. As a business person knows, to be successful, you need to adapt to current situations and that is what America needs as a president right now. America needs a president that can adapt to our present situation and come up with real fiscal business oriented (sp) solutions. It is true that 92% of Americans are employeed by business, while only 8% are employeed by government, we NEED a business mind to work with business (small and large) to get the nation back on the business ideology of transformation and innovation, GET AMERICA WORKING AGAIN!!!

Great comment Sam, extremely on point where the obnoxious allegation of Herman Cain being a sexual predator is concerned. Exzactly the very reason I stated this is a woman who who call the police on a man for telling her she had a nice ass.

Cain, if he holds on and gets the nomination, will certainly beat Obama due not only the splitting of the black vote, but if Cain does hang on to win the nomination, this lil speedbump this week will become an asset because it will be seen as Cain facing down adversity and coming out on top. I believe he's more of a "common folk" person that Obama with his elitist attitude.

SAM-496624 @ #2.39

What a wonderful voice of reason! Friend sent.

Sam: You are simply being irrational and hateful b/c he is from an opposing party.

I'd say you and Elaine are apologists because he is from your party. I also think Romney would be the best candidate but my fervent hope is that Cain gets the nomination, I sincerely wish so many lawyers and the NRA hadn't all agreed that what occurred was sexual harassment and settled with the women, which really is the telling blow, if they had been "putting on coats" there would be no settlement. Even lawyers know there is nothing to pay off in that situation. Obama wouldn't need to show up to beat Cain so I really hope he gets the nod.

Hi Elaine! Happy Sunday! I'm going to walk the dog and do house chores (yes I can afford my payment, I have Personal Responsibility) so won't be seeing you for awhile, have a super day.

Hi Elaine! Happy Sunday! I'm going to walk the dog and do house chores (yes I can afford my payment, I have Personal Responsibility) so won't be seeing you for awhile, have a super day.

Hi Maggie, Happy Sunday to you too. I'm doing chores as well (and all my bills are paid too, I also have Personal Responsibility) and I'll be enjoying a day of NFL football.

I'd say you and Elaine are apologists because he is from your party.

No reason to apologize for the truth. I don't fall for media smears and I'd feel the same way no matter which party was being attacked by lies. Being a Libertarian, I'm not blinded by party affiliations. That's where you and I differ.

Where maggiemoo and I differ is in working knowledge of being a lawyer. It is a fact, that lawyers will have businesses pay out a "small" sum of money (rather the allegations are true or false) b/c the negative comments in the media is worse for the business then handing out a 35k dollar check. Even if Cain was 100% innocent and the lady tossed out allegations, and the press put even one article about it in a paper, business would drop substantially, b/c people like you believe the first thing they hear.

The country i live in, hires people that walk about the PRISON with a check book, listen to complaints and write $10k checks all day. It is cheaper for them to write a $10k check then to pay the county attorney $500/hr + court fees. One litigation (when the country was falsely accused and found innocent on all charges) cost the county $5 million. Soooooo lets compare the option here, write a $10k check with no negative publicity or go to court that cost $5million with negative publicity? The decision is simple. That is why this women got the check, not b/c Cain was guilty.

babina

Runner, um, Bill didn't sexually harass anyone. He had consensual sex with an adult.

.Babina, are you aware that Paula Jones was awarded $850, 000 from Clinton in her suit?

I know it didn't get the kind of press that these charges are getting even though the charges were actually more serious, but there were at least three cases:

• http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/realitycheck/2011/20111101124925.aspx

And you will notice that in that article they don't even count his indescretion with Monica Lewinsky - and I have to say I have seen many people get in trouble for having a relationship with someone when they are in a position of authority over the other person's job, consenual or not.

The fact that you immediately came to Clinton's defense and dismissed these cases of harassement charges actually proves the point that Clinton was forgiven for worse. (although I am guessing you were thinking of either the Flowers case or Lewinsky in your comment . . .but even the idea that as you were making the post you had apparently forgotten about these very serious charges says quite a bit.)

But of course, it is the conservative way to play the victim

as opposed to how well Paula Jones was treated???!

(sarc - in case you cannot tell)

RuthAnn: If you have followed the discussion Sam, Drummerboy2011 and Elaine are all of the opinion that a settlement, or this type of charge is OK. I guess it just depends on your POV or party. Why no comment to them? BTW Clinton was impeached I wouldn't call that forgiven.

If you have followed the discussion Sam, Drummerboy2011 and Elaine are all of the opinion that a settlement, or this type of charge is OK.

And you keep spinning and denying the fact that Cain was cleared of any wrong doing, and that the employees left the company with a severance package. People leave companies every day in this country with a severance package. According to your logic, they must have all been paid off by companies everywhere who are hiding illegal activities.

Clinton was not impeached due to these charges -

I was not commenting on settlement and what anybodythinks about them, Babina included . . .I was pointing out that Babina was completely forgetting that Clinton not only faced charges of sexual harassment, he faced more serious and specific charges.

The point was brought up that Clinton was and is fully supported by many people, (on both sides of the political aisle actually), and when it was brought up Babina made the comment that he had not sexually harassed anyone.

even after that comment, shockingly - no one corrected it for another some 30 posts!

That should be proof positive that there is no room for crucifying Cain over anonymous charges which are non-specific; now if the charges become specific and the women choose to come forward, (bravely, as Paula Jones et al did), then there will be reason to address the issue; if the charges are as serious or more than the ones Clinton faced than I think they should certainly be addressed and people who did not and have not supported Clinton would have room to criticize Cain supporters.

But that is not the situation as it stands.

So you know - I even found the way Hillary was treated by many at the time to be quite scandalous; I can remember several conversations with Clinton supporters who made comments that if Hillary wasn't a cold fish than Bill wouldn't cheat and I would not tolerate it . . .even if I were not a Hillary fan, blaming her for his bad behavior was inexcusable.

Since his presidency Clinton has done work which has endeared him to many people on both political sides and he has done work with both Pres. Bush's; indeed his relationship with republicans has seemed to soar as well as his relationship with Hillary. I do not wish ill upon him, but to ignore that he had those charges or try and change the history is wrong.

If Cain was actually charged with a CRIME, then it would not be alright. However, after investigation, he was cleared of any and all wrong doing. As you continue to say Cain is a sexual predator. You have ZERO idea the actions of a real sexual predator, ask your local jail for a tour and look at the REAL sexual predators that have actually then CONVICTED of a CRIME!

If you have followed the discussion Sam, Drummerboy2011 and Elaine are all of the opinion that a settlement, or this type of charge is OK

Maggiemoo, unless you can show me exactly where I said any settlement is/was and/or should be okay, then kindly keep your lies to yourself and my name out of your mouth, because I've said nothing of the sort. You're parading all over this website calling Herman Cain a sexual predator which is about as far from the truth as a person can get. then you posted some lame assed and entirely misquoted bull@!$%# from Wikipedia as your proof. Yopu've yet to accept my challenge to bring legal professionals to the table to validate what you've said, you've yet to accept my challenge to post here ANY legal definition of sexual predator and then you prance around here with all that phony happy Sunday bull@!$%# when everyone here knows you don't mean one tittle of it.

If you want to know what I think of that settlement then ask me, but don't speak for me, you're obviously not up to the task.

RuthAnn: I'd have to say we agree on Clinton and I also agree with you about Hillary, I found those comments to be disturbing. Cain should receive the same level of scrutiny as Clinton did when he was dogged by the accusations and the stories saturated the media. As it should have been. Cain is going to have to answer to the settlements his lawyers and the NRA made with these women, and last I heard he stated he would not discuss the matter - way to fan the flames!

Carry on the vetting, Cain's character is still blind to you.

Ohh so scared of his ignorance of nuclear proliferation, foreign policy and his 27% consumption tax. His non candidacy is calculated by the kochs to kill perrys campaign to take support from that texas buffoon to make way for their milquetoast romney, because he is the only one with a prayer of winning against the president, and only if the economy reverses into recession. They guy won't get but more than 25% of his base to actually like him

Cain has no chance. He has no political experience, his tax-plan is full of massive holes and he is a walking gaffe.

However, don't take my word for it. Just ask the president of ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

I would love for yall to pick any one of the mega nuts.
Perry, cain, bachman.. GOOOOO FOR IT, we really arent scared, it is funny you would think the left is "scared of someone who could win"

we really dont care about right or left, it is his policies that are the problem. But keep up the parable. Hey did you hear, "TERRORISTS HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS" I know it is true cause some right winger said it was. So it just got to be.

Just ask the president of ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan.

hahaha...hilarious!

It makes them feel better.
Dont you know they are always the ones being oppressed.
everything is always the medias fault.
Bush would have been popular if the media didnt have BDS.
we wouldnt have lost vietnam without that pesky media letting america know that 50k of them were now dead for .. what? rice patties?

When Obama wins again, they will just make up excuses. IT wasnt that the country hated bush and the right wing, it was the media's love affair with Obama, dont you know the media was the ones that got record people to go out and listen to what Obama had to say, some 10 times the ammount of the highest attendance that mccain/palin saw.. it was the media i tells ya.

Cain can win the primary, but all the mess he says to appeal to the TGOP base will sink him in the general election

Rommney could win the general election, but the TGOP primary is going to grind him into a fine powder

and someone please explain the differance between "could" and "will" to these people

Yup.

Sorry, republicans. None of your "leaders" have a chance at the presidency.

Can we please borrow your crystal ball Creeping?

I recall similar statements being uttered in 2010, and well....

FYI....BO is precisely on target, historically to be one of the most spectactular disasterous first and only 1 term presidents, ever recorded. All the indicators show him well below any hope of relection at this month in his presidency. Unless he can pull off actual 'hope and change' within 11 months, he is burnt toast.

historically to be one of the most spectactular disasterous first and only 1 term presidents

Got proof for that? Anything?

Didn't think so.

Yes, I'll post my bank account statement. /s/ Go to the grocery store, stop at the gas station, is your money going as far as it used to? No? Guess why.

No need to guess. I know why -

Proven failed republican policies.

Yes, I'll post my bank account statement. /s/

Let me quote your idol Cain. Blame yourself.

Go to the grocery store, stop at the gas station

Stop republican congress from blocking speculation reform, inflation is negligible.

Guess why.

We lost 9% of GDP in Bushs' last qtr

Obama ran his election campaign on hope and change.

And lie after lie after lie, don't forget the lies.

hope and change.

Unfortunately, nobody could predict the levels of obstinate (even seditious) resistance and obstruction that republicans and teabaggers engaged in.

Their admitted, and only goal is to make President Obama a one-term president, regardless of the damage caused to the Nation as a result.

And lie after lie after lie, don't forget the lies.

Which lies?

Run

And? if you're looking for change, when republicans faced the same catastrophe their policies caused unemployment to go from 3.2% to 25%, 9% loss of GDP became 25% loss of Gdp. After 5 qtrs of negative growth and losing 700,000 jobs a month we have had . But then republicns don't know about recovering from the disasters they create...

And lie after lie after lie, don't forget the lies.

Which lies?

You're joking right? You honestly don't believe Obama has lied? At all in any way?

How about let's start with his bold faced lie on national television about even running for the presidency.

Yep, that's a good place to start, the guy went on national television and lied about finishing his senatorial term and running for the presidency.

At all in any way?

You said "lie after lie after lie." That's a lot of lies.

Just so you know, ALL politicians lie. You, however" implied that President Obama has done nothing but lie.

Got proof? Or did you just want to pop in and make silly accusations that you got from Fox News or Rush?

FAIL.

drummerboy

What lies? be more specific...

Or did you just want to pop in and make silly accusations that you got from Fox News or Rush?

Perhaps you should find out more about a person before throwing ouot preposterous assumptions. I neither watch Fox News nor do I listen to Rush Limbaugh.

FAIL.

Got proof?

Did you not read what I wrote directly above about Obama lying about his very candicacy in a nationally televised interview?

FAIL.

What lies? be more specific...

Obviously you didn't read what I wrote directly above either Randy. How much more specific can a person be than this in #5.14:

How about let's start with his bold faced lie on national television about even running for the presidency.

And lie after lie after lie, don't forget the lies.

Must be a whole lot of lies...care to come up with more than just one?

No?

Not surprised.

Must be a whole lot of lies...care to come up with more than just one?

So you agree he lied about his running for office, good.

There are plenty more where that one came from, however, to be honest, you already know this and simply seem to be gunning for a fight, one which you'll never win with me, and, with all due respect, this is kind of boring to me, it's simply too easy where you're concerned.

All the best to you.

He lied about running for office? Could you be more specific. Do you mean he lied about his decision to run for office? I don't see how that can be a lie.

I mean exactly what I said, not what you twist whow you think what I said should read in order to try and deflect fom Obama telling a bold faced lie on national television.

Here:

January 22nd, 2008, on “Meet the Press,”, the following exchange took place between Obama and Tim Russeret:

Russert: “When we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election, I said, ‘There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?’”

Obama: “I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.”

Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?”

Obama: “I will not.”

Here let my copy that last statement for you again in case the tears in your eyes are prohibiting you from reading it clearly:

Russert: “So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?”

Obama: “I will not.”

This exchange took place on the record in a nationally televised interview, it's an historical fact.

drummer your date is wrong
there wasnt even a show on Jan 22nd 2008, and Obama wasnt on the show that year till May 8th of 2008

and from the transcripts Ive checked so far, not once did Tim Russert replay the exchange from Nov 7th 2004

oh, and while yes, on Mov 7th in 2004 he did say he's serve out his term, what you linked wasnt even the actual interview

if your going to harp on someone else's honestly, it helps if you are at the least, honest yourself

from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6430019/ns/meet_the_press/t/transcript-november/

MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, you know there's been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as U.S. senator from Illinois?

SEN.-ELECT OBAMA: Absolutely. You know, a little--some of this hype's been a little overblown. It's flattering, but I have to remind people that I haven't been sworn in yet. I don't know where the rest rooms are in the Senate. I'm going to have to figure out how to work the phones, answer constituent mail. I expect to be in the Senate for quite some time, and hopefully I'll build up my seniority from my current position, which I believe is 99th out of 100.

MR. RUSSERT: Barack Obama, we thank you for sharing your views.

drummerboy,

the definition of a lie is a false statement made with a deliberate intent to deceive. You have proven that Obama made a false statement, but you haven't proven a deliberate intent to deceive. All the quote that you've cited shows is that he changed his mind. At the time of the interview he had no intention of running. But due to public pressure because of his growing popularity and by personal reasons only known by a few, he changed his mind.

Now if you proved that, for example, he was collecting campaign donations or setting up his campaign staff while he denied not wanting to run for president. Then I would say you are absolutely right that he lied, because you would have proven deceit. Until then, you are just blowing hot air.

Good catch D Luniz

I found the quote drummerboy was referring to, he just got the date wrong. Now I could call you a liar drummerboy but I can't prove you had any intent to deceive us by getting the date wrong. You have no motive to do so. So the lesson here is, think things through before you call people liars.

Anyway he was referring to the show on Jan 22nd of 2006 not 2008. Russert mentioned it on his Oct 22nd interview with Obama and played the tape with that quote.

Here is the transcript. The quote is halfway through the transcript.

And here is the actual transcript from Jan 22nd 2006

I love google.

considering he put

Here let my copy that last statement for you again in case the tears in your eyes are prohibiting you from reading it clearly:

Id say he has motive

Nah, getting the date wrong undermines his only proof of Obama lying. It's weak evidence as it is and he seems pretty adamant that this is damning information. Unless...perhaps he wants us to prove him wrong in his diabolical plan to show how elitist we are for outsmarting him, and in doing so, outsmarting us all. The plot thickens!

My bad on the date, I made a typo, it was supposed to be 2006.

As for the rest of you trying to explain this abovious lie away, save it for someone who gives a @!$%# about apologetic excuses, the guy lied to Tim Russert on meet the press, period, end of story.

And if you call a televised transcript of Obama stating emphatically he would finish his senatorial term and not run for office weak then you need to lay off the magic mushrooms. The guy has lied, REPEATEDLY since day one, he's nothing more than a two-bit Chicago thug of a politician with nothing more than a personal agenda at heart.

think things through before you call people liars.

I have and Obama is. And I seriously doubt you're an attorney so again, spare us the technical bull@!$%#, this isn't a courtroom and Obama isn't on trial, he's simply a liar, not to mention a self serving and extremely terrible president.

And I seriously doubt you're an attorney so again, spare us the technical bull@!$%#

I'm no attorney but I'm pretty sure there is nothing technical in looking up the definition of the word lie. Here I'll try again:

lie
[lahy]   Origin

lie

¹   [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.

noun
1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; anintentional untruth; a falsehood.

2.
something intended or serving to convey a false impression;imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.

3.
an inaccurate or false statement.

4.
the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at hisaccusers.

What Obama said was not a lie because he wasn't intentionally deceiving anyone. At the time he was making the statement, he was being very truthful. He had no intention of running for President in 2006. He simply changed his mind. I hope that still doesn't sound too technical for you.

The guy has lied, REPEATEDLY since day one...

That is a very bold statement that you have still yet to prove.

what lies? LOL...he lied about so many things people are keeping tabs..but here's a few of my favs:

His uncle helped liberate the Jews at Auchwitz(?)... really?

Here try this - a laundry list:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/one_obama_presser_36_obama_lies_and_deceptions.html

http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/

OK now we are getting somewhere. A laundry list of (alleged) lies. I know Obama has lied before. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. He is a politician. You show me a politician that has never lied and I'll show you a goose that can lay golden eggs. But when you make a bold statement like "The guy has lied, REPEATEDLY since day one," or "he lied about running for office," you'd better have a reputable source and hard evidence to back up your accusation.

I can't comment on all the accusations so I'll just pick the top one from americanthinker. In my opinion, they are half right. The BPC did show that the US could pay for key government obligations and avoid a default. It listed them as:

• Interest in our debt
• Social Security
• Medicare/Medicaid
• Defense Contracts
• Unemployment Benefits

Those obligations could have been met. However the BPC report also said that would be all we could pay. We would be unable to pay (default?) the rest of our bills which would include:

• Military Active Duty Pay
• Veterans Affairs Programs
• Federal Salaries/Benefits
• Dept. of Education
• Food/Nutrition Services
• Dept. of Labor
• Dept. of Justice
• Dept. of Energy
• Health & Human Services
• Federal Highway Admin.
• EPA
• IRS Refunds
• Small Business Admin.
• Federal Transit Admin
• and Other Spending

This would amount to a 44% cut in government spending. Coincidentally most of those are programs Republicans want to get rid of anyway. The BPC was right that technically not meeting those other obligations isn't really a default because they aren't the governments main obligations. But IMO that's like saying a person with HIV technically doesn't have AIDS. It is true that HIV and AIDS are different but most people think of it as one and the same. The government being unable to pay its non-essential debts is virtually the same as the government defaulting. Jay Powell a member of the BPC said:

“It all depends on what you mean by default. I don't even want to get into the labeling contest. It is clear that there is enough cash coming in to let you pay interest on the debt. That is a true fact. It's also clear that there's nowhere near enough money to pay all of your legally mandated obligations, so one might say you’re defaulting on your non-debt obligations. But again I don’t want to get into the labeling contests”

And here is a quote I pulled from politifact:

Lawrence J. White, an economist at New York University's Stern School of Business, said that "if the federal government delays payment to anyone, then certainly in a common-sense sense, the government has defaulted on its obligations."

Also the americanthinker said:

Obama is using pure political scare tactics to deceive uneducated voters into supporting his position. There is no risk to "the full faith and credit of the United States" unless Treasury chooses to default.

That isn't true, our credit rating dropped even after the whole debt ceiling talks was over. So yes our full faith and credit was at serious risk.

On a side note your sources are far far less than reputable sources. The americanthinker IMO, is a blog for people who don't like to think. I've never heard of the audacityofhypocrisy.com but I randomly picked a lie on there long laundry list and fell upon this one:

75) “I did not take money from oil companies” -LIAR- It is against the law to take money from oil companies. None of your opponents take money from oil companies either.

They accused Obama of lying yet proved his statement to be true. It would be one thing if he said he didn't take money from oil companies and they provided evidence that show he did take money from oil companies. But they argue he lied when he said that he didn't take money from oil companies because it would be illegal if he did!? That's like saying 1+1 isn't 2.

I really think you guys need to look up the definition of lie, because some of your examples miss the mark by miles.

well, in Obama's speech back in Sept they facts check (the AP of all things), and once again...things didn't add up - they rarely do.

There's a difference between an occasional gaffe and blatant lying - at this point Obama's is almost pathological, like he is incapable of telling the dern truth...

The AP on Obama's pokulous III:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/09/ap-fact-check-skewers-porkulus-ii-economic-boogaloo-speech/

AP Fact check before a joint session of Congress in 2009:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/10/ap-fact-checks-obama-speech/

the AP Fact check on libya:

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/03/28/ap-fact-check-destroys-obamas-libya-speech

the rest you can find for yourself...they are readily available. Every time I hear him on the TV I turn it off because almost everything he says is a pure lie. Sorry, but that's just the way I see it.

That laundry list lists a bunch ...you had to go to #75 before picking one...that says something.

vol fain in chatt,

Awesome, thanks for the sources. That's some good info.

I disagree with most of what AP was saying and actually noticed that they were written by the same guy, Calvin Woodward. I can't comment on every single one of those points because it would make this posts super long and nobody would read it anyway. So I'm just going to pick your first link. I disagree with the title from AP Fact Checking Obama's Job Plan because that piece was written a day after Obama introduced his jobs plan. Not all the facts were known about the plan, so it is strange that AP would fact check them when there aren't even enough facts. For example the first "fact check" was on whether or not the bill will be paid for. Obama said he would release the details a week later, which he did. Quite frankly it wasn't as detailed as I'd hoped. Yet before the details were released on how Obama plans to pay for it, AP has already decided that it can't be paid for. IMO that's just bad reporting. I would have preferred if he debunked the actual proposal on payment that the President made a week later rather than trying to read the tea leaves a week earlier.

On the 2nd point about it not being bipartisan the AP report said it wouldn't be bipartisan because it has stuff in there that Republicans wouldn't like. Namely letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire. Again, bad reporting! Yes Republicans wouldn't like the end to tax cuts, what the AP failed to mention is that Democrats wouldn't like cuts to Medicare and Social Security. Yes it is bipartisan because there is stuff in there that both sides like and stuff in there that both sides hate.

On the last 2 points about it being deficit-neutral and immediately effective, I can kinda see the point AP is making as valid, though I think the reporter is jumping the gun and reading the tea leaves a bit early. Without enough information out there to actually check, how can a reporter claim to be fact checking anything. But that's just my opinion. I understand that there are fine prints in Obama's jobs plan that won't entirely fit the goals he mentioned. In politics few things are quite so simple to have no strings. But I fail to see how any of that is out of the ordinary or proof that Obama is a habitual liar. And as I said before, show me a politician that has never lied and I'll show a goose that lays golden eggs. I don't disagree with you guys that Obama hasn't always been honest, but I disagree with calling him a pathological liar or your false outrage.

That laundry list lists a bunch ...you had to go to #75 before picking one...that says something.

Oh yah I know they were a bunch and I'm sure I could debunk most of them I just picked one I could debunk with as few words as possible so as not to end up writing a book on them. But I was skimming through them randomly, debunking them as I was going, and came across #75 where the author wasn't even trying to sound intelligent. So how do you expect me to take anything he says seriously when he makes bonehead remarks like that. And they were a lot of dumb ones in there but #75 just stopped me on my tracks.

@5.33 Are you telling me that Obama and company chose to bail out the banks, support cash for clunkers, a failed stimulus pkg(s) plan, and send money to other Countries, etc, etc, etc, instead of budgeting for the debt he knew we were already to committed to?

The stimulus plan didn't fail. If by "budgeting for the debt" you mean cut spending, yes he did all that rather than budget for the debt. If Obama didn't spend what he did, the global economy would be in a much worse situation. And unless I'm missing something, it was Bush that bailed out the banks not Obama.

OK now I have a question for you guys. Who in you opinion is the most honest Republican in politics right now?

*crickets*

I won't vote for Romney because he changes his position an every issue if he think he can get another vote.

Jeff ...a quick review of your past comments begs the Question ...

Is there any Republican you would vote for?

Its seems that calling Tea Party members "teabaggers" would make one believe ....The answer is NO!

Let me guess, the Teabaggers weren't doing the same thing with all those absurd looking outfits they wore? Personally I think the mask looks cool.

#96.1

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/04/8633442-uk-bomb-plot-mask-becomes-occupy-symbol?commentId=59624318#c59624318

Is there any Republican you would vote for?

Not in the current field. Not a single one. I am merely voicing my thoughts as to why I think Maher said that.

yes, but the least conservative republican wont get nominated

the tea party will make sure of that

Let's see, Romney passed health care insurance reform in Massachusetts with an individual mandate that was used to craft the Affordable care Act, had the worst job creation record as governor of Massachusetts, made his considerable fortune closing compaines and moving thousands of jobs overseas, his only opinions and views on everything are based soley upon which way the wind is blowing on any particular day.

No character, no integrity and could care less about the middle and working class individuals of this nation.

"Corporations are people, my friend!" - Willard Mitt Romney, Iowa Sate Fair 2011

Yeah, Romney has about a snowball's chance in &*## to beat the president.

Babina,

Most corporations are people and all corporations are owned by people.

If states want to pass health care reform that is their business. Most issues are handled better by the states, and often can become a proving ground for what does and doesn't work.

Romney can out debate Obama, Romney actually appeals to independents more than Obama, Romney has more experience than Obama in business and more experience than Obama had going into his Presidency in government issues. He is capable with or without a teleprompter.

He will bring us back to the middle and unlike the last two Presidents will get us back on the right fiscal track, because that is what he does.

I love the way cons are so against big government but don't have a clue that what they are advocating is the incraese of state governments into huge governments and a piecemeal system that would eventually implode on itself.

Romney does what he believes is what the people he is trying to appeal to on any given day want. That is what Romney does.

The president will wipe the floor with Romnety and any other fool stupid enough to debate him. He'll make Romney look like the tool he is. And the best part is, he'll do it effortlessly with class, grace, facts and the truth.

Just like this house republican retreat where the president effortlessly made the republicans all look like fools by telling the truth based upon facts, with class and grace, all while exposing thier lies. That is what the independent voter sees. That, and the relentless ham-stringing of the president by the do nothing republicans no matter the cost to this nation and the middle and working class people. Yep, that is what we all see.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5vOMIN673A

Our founding fathers envisioned a small federal government leaving as much control as possible up to the states. Now we have too many redundant federal programs and some federal agencies that have little to know check on their power.

Romney has a record of turning things around for the better, Obama has a record of blaming others that he couldn't.

Commonsense, I am glad you can read the minds of people who have been dead for over two hundred years. Please list the Romney accomplishments that turned anything around.

Babina, I can't read minds but maybe you could read this you might find it insightful.

Romney was sworn in as the 70th governor of Massachusetts on January 2, 2003. Both houses of the Massachusetts state legislature held large Democratic majorities.^[93] He picked his cabinet and advisors more on managerial abilities than partisan affiliation.^[12] Upon entering office in the middle of a fiscal year, Romney faced an immediate $650 million shortfall and a projected $3 billion deficit for the next year.^[85]Unexpected revenue of $1.0–1.3 billion from a previously enacted capital gains tax increase and $500 million in unanticipated federal grants decreased the deficit to $1.2–1.5 billion.^[94][95] Through a combination of spending cuts, increased fees, and removal of corporate tax loopholes, by 2006 the state had a $600–700 million surplus.^[85][94][96]

Romney supported raising various fees by more than $300 million, including those for driver's licenses, marriage licenses, and gun licenses.^[85][94] Romney increased a special gasoline retailer fee by 2 cents per gallon, generating about $60 million per year in additional revenue.^[85][94] (Opponents said the reliance on fees sometimes imposed a hardship on those who could least afford them.^[94]) Romney also closed tax loopholes that brought in another $181 million from businesses over the next two years and over $300 million for his term.^[85][97] These initial loophole actions, fueled by Romney's sense of rectitude and in the face of conservative and corporate critics that considered them tax increases, won plaudits from legislators as an example of political courage.^[97]

The state legislature, with Romney's support, also cut spending by $1.6 billion, including $700 million in reductions in state aid to cities and towns.^[98] The cuts also included a $140 million reduction in state funding for higher education, which led state-run colleges and universities to increase tuition by 63 percent over four years.^[85][94] Romney sought additional cuts in his last year as Massachusetts governor by vetoing nearly 250 items in the state budget, but all of them were overridden by the Democratic-dominated legislature.^[99]

There's more

Babina, Rather than trying to read people's minds maybe you should read what they wrote, often ones words give insight into what they are thinking.

The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicity. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address.

"The way to have safe government is not to trust it all to the one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to everyone exactly the functions in which he is competent....To let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations..... The State Governments with the Civil Rights, Laws, Police and administration of what concerns the State generally. The Counties with the local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these Republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations until it ends in the administration of everyman's farm by himself, by placing under everyone what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best." Thomas Jefferson

You know common, it went right over your head. These people lived over 200 years ago. They crafted a living document meant to be amended as the times required. I am certain they could not imagine a world that we live in now. Your over-simplification of Jefferson's words is truly offensive.

Increase in capital gains tax, accepting federal grant money, closed cooperate tax loopholes, raising fees and taxes! Careful Commonsenseinchange, you are making Romney sound like a bleeding heart liberal.

Babina, Jefferson speaks in principle and these principles are timeless. That you find them offensive speaks to your more refined political views.

Adventerous, You should reread the above post. The capital gains taxes increases were not enacted under his watch. Many leading Republicans are for closing tax loopholes.

Romney governed from the middle, but that is what we need right now. He did allow taxes to increase but he did more spending cuts than anything and he was able to do that with a democratic congress that had a large enough majority to veto.

Adventerous, You should reread the above post. The capital gains taxes increases were not enacted under his watch. Many leading Republicans are for closing tax loopholes.

I understood your post just fine. He could have stopped or lowered the capital gains tax. He is now campaigning to end the capital gains tax. But you've just proven by showing his record that raising the capital gains tax actually helps. Thank you.

Romney governed from the middle, but that is what we need right now. He did allow taxes to increase but he did more spending cuts than anything and he was able to do that with a democratic congress that had a large enough majority to veto.

And with all his efforts Massachusetts still ended up 4 to last in jobs numbers and ranking near bottom in the labor market. And as for spending cuts, he approved raises for 2,700 state government managers. Which cost the state about $3.5 million. He paid for this pay raise by laying off workers. Which contributed to his dismal job numbers.

So when he wins who are you going to blame that on??? voter fraud?? illegals voting?? whats your scapegoat??

Obama will in no way win a second term. Even his own supporters are at this point so angry and disillusioned with the guy that he's lucky they don't run a different democrat in his place. There will be no need to blame anything on anything because he will never win next year.

Barak Obama is Barak Obama's own worst enemy.

An Obama win would be history-breaking. No President has ever won re-election with the "Misery Index" in double digits over the past 50 years.

The "Misery Index" is simple... it's the unemployment rate (9.8%) plus the inflation rate (3%) which makes Obama's current "Misery Index" 12.8 and well above the re-electability threshold.

Even if historical trend are broken and Mr. Obama defies all odds to win a second term (becoming only the second Democrat in 60 years to do so) his victory will be quite hollow because he's got no working relationship with Congress whatsoever. Obama would be the lamest lame duck that ever limped into the White House for a second term. He's already compromised more to Republicans than John McCain would have. He'd have to compromise even more in a lame duck session.

It's a win-win for Republicans, even if Obama wins (astonishingly) re-election for a lame duck Presidency even lamer than his current term.

It should all be good for book sales though.

And speaking engagements.

Failin' Palin (R-Quitter) demonstrated that this is pretty lucrative. For a while, anyway.

the country will not elect a Mormon

Harry Reid is Mormon. And in fact, there are 19 current elected officials who are Mormon. Looks like you are alone in your prejudice.

The people who vote for Harry Reid aren't going to vote for Romney.

The people who vote for Harry Reid

The people who vote for Harry Reid are imbecilic morons.

Alpha -

The fools who voted for Harry Reid voted for a Mormon.

Is this another proglib double standard?

Black Conservatives = bad

Conservative Women = evil

Conservative Mormons = unelectable

BUT....Liberal 'anything', just fine an dandy.

Gawd, this is just too easy.

Oooops.

The people who vote for Harry Reid are imbecilic morons.

Wow. What an insightful and penetrating analysis.

Wow. What an insightful and penetrating analysis

Wow. What an extremely weak and feeble attempt at slamming someone.

#14.4 - The people who vote for Harry Reid are imbecilic morons.

#14.6 - Wow. What an insightful and penetrating analysis.

Creeping - If you could put away partisanship for 5 minutes and evaluate Reids record on corrupt business dealings, racist gaffs, nepotism and inept stewardship of is position....you just might agree with #14.4.

Nevada has the dubious honor of having one of the worst unemployment rates in America. And it didn't just happen after this past election, it was tanking long before the 'voters' brought that guy back.

Native- I love the reality of your comments. I have noticed that liberals rarely want to defend themselves when someone hits them on an indefensible issue like there own hypocracy. In fact their only defense to tuff issues is to redirect the argument to conservative flaws.

I have noticed that liberals rarely want to defend themselves when someone hits them on an indefensible issue like there own hypocracy.

"Hypocrisy."

Very helpful to the discussion.

.Pelosi and Barry predicted no greater than 8% unemployment

No, they didn't EVER. Bushs' unemployment was 7.8% at the time and losing 700,000 jobs a month. wrong on both counts

if we allowed them to rape our treasury for a TRILLION stimulus (DNC/Union payback), dollars.

Wrong. Lots of cons that railed against the stimulus had their hand out for it . 40% of it was tax cuts . Bush inherited 4.2% unemployment. He passed off 7.8% unemployment a 3.6% increase.Unemployment increased only 2.4% and is now 1.2% of when he took office after the 9% GDP loss The job hemorrhaging reversed as a result of the stimulus and we were crawling out of the hole Bush dug ; according to the hardly liberal American Enterprise institute;

In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009.
http://www.aei.org/outlook/100928

We are not in recession now despite the republiks best efforts to put us there as the only goall is to attack the president country be damned, to which you field the lamest candidates since 1940

Your side has been peddling that fuzzy Media (tax exempt) Matters math for 2.25 years. It hasn't persuaded anyone to believe that the world would have ended within 6 months, if Mr. Obama and the democrat crew hadn't intervened to save us from President (4.8% unemployment ave) Bush.

Are YOU better off today than you were $4 TRILLION DOLLARS ago?

Thank you

NC

Nothing fuzzy about it, so easy to verify even a caveman can understand it. AEI is hardly media matters. in fact we are outperforming your boy georges average 58,000 jobs a month. I don't know why republicans try to talk with authority on job creation, they are so poor at it.

I don't know why republicans try to talk with authority on job creation, they are so poor at it.

Simple answer. We understand the Federal Union component.

Retuning federal union employees returning to work after screwing their countrymen, so they can have more wine and cheese in there tax paid pension package.

Yes....fuzzy math.

Do you just copy this same comment over and over on seeds?

It demonstrates true creativity /SARC

I suggest that you teabaggers go ahead and start that revolution you keep talking about.

A little advice though...get some practice before you take on the entire Federal Government.

Here's what you do: gather up all your guns and armaments and ammo, and call up the FBI.

Challenge them to a duel. After you deal with the FBI, you'll have the experience to take on the rest of the government.

Trust me...this will work for you.

Comment # 8

http://newbroom.newsvine.com/_news/2011/11/02/8593753-feds-four-members-of-georgia-fringe-militia-group-plotted-biological-attack-on-citizens-government-officials?commentId=59544615#c59544615

Jim...I think you are right. He says the same thing over and over. The same silly, 'just you wait and see' dribble. Hey Creeping...kindly point out your reasoning for supporting your 'dream' conclusion of BO being re-elected...I will wait. The polls prove you wrong, his failures will haunt that likelihood and his soon to be public embarrassment and potential impeachment hearings will undoubtedly get in the way...so, what say you...Just how are you so certain that we will have another 4 years of "Hope and Change" (/sarc) I am truly interested in your reasoning.

Teabaggers and republicans have no real interest in America or Democracy or fiscal responsibility or the budget. They have no plan for the future of America.

Their admitted goal is to get rid of President Obama.

That's it.

If the welfare of the country gets in the way of that goal, then so be it.

America now knows this, and will make teabaggers and republicans pay for this in 2012.

Count on it.

That wasn't very useful either. Oh well, I tried to get an answer. Apparently the only thing we can 'count on', is your inability to answer a simple question.

Have a nice day....

OK - here's 20 from the below source which lists at least 80 more.

Below is a list of 100 Accomplishments of President Barack Obama as posted via Status Updates on the "Accomplishments of President Barack Obama" Facebook Page. To be alerted of further accomplishments, please become a fan (http://www.facebook.com/obamaaccomplishments)!

Since coming into office on January 21, 2009, President Barack Obama has:

1. Signed an Executive Order on government contracting to fight waste and abuse:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/economy_in_government_contracting

2. Signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, restoring basic protections against pay discrimination for women and other workers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtKAKlurRAY

3. Renewed dialogue with NATO and other allies and partners on strategic issues:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/09/04/04/Afghanistan-and-NATO

4. Announced a plan to responsibly end the war in Iraq:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/washington/28troops.html

5. Provided funding to families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/pentagon-will-help-families

6. Ended media blackout on war casualties and the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7986203.stm

7. Signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

8. Launched Recovery.gov to track spending from the Recovery Act, an unprecedented step to provide transparency and accountability through technology:
http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

9. Announced the "Making Home Affordable" home refinancing plan:
http://www.makinghomeaffordable.gov

10. Launched a $15 billion plan to boost lending to small businesses:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-to-small-business-owners

11. Invested heavily in education both as a way to provide jobs now and lay the foundation for long-term prosperity:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/education

12. Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America's Veterans:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/veterans

13. Signed an Executive Order establishing the White House Office of Urban Affairs:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070201410.html

14. Limited lobbyist's access to the White House:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/obama-outlines-lobbying-restrictions

15. Issued an Presidential Memorandum to restore scientific integrity in government decision-making:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Memorandum-for-the-Heads-of-Executive-Departments-and-Agencies-3-9-09

16. Answered questions at the first online town hall from the White House that were submitted and voted on transparently by the public at WhiteHouse.gov:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h2uzQs2_XBgeHotRBvNhY7DR572g

17. Established a central portal for Americans to find service opportunities:
http://www.serve.gov

18. Launched Business.gov – enabling conversation and online collaboration between small business owners, government representatives and industry experts in discussion forums relevant to starting and managing a business:
http://www.business.gov

19. Appointed the first ever Federal Chief Information Officer to provide management and oversight over federal IT spending:
http://www.cio.gov

20. Signed the Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act on February 4, 2009, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured:
http://themiddleclass.org/bill/children039s-health-insurance-program-reauthorization-act-2009

Good luck Runner. There is not much to see in Mr. O's list of 1. Initiated items, much less 2. Succeeded items. I would have suggested Health Care reform, but as we all know, he didn't write that abysmal monstrosity, and it certainly has not been successful. In fact, I just read where fully 1/2 of the proposed deadlines on Obama Care have been missed or completely ignored. Yeah, that one definitely should not be on the list.

Great question

Thank you for that correction Runner.

Democratic is a Verb....NOT a Noun. LOL

So true Runner...so very true. LOL

The anti Americanism of the right wing wing has been exposed and diagnosed as a cancer on America

Explain. This should be rich.

2016 will be the only chance he will get.

Creepin - I would ask you to explain and support that nonsence, but we have learned that you simply troll, and never follow up with anything resembling an 'answer or a factual argument."

Thanks anyway, for the drive bye, 'poor attempt at a deflection' lol

The above statement, in no way at all, doesn't seem to imply what the title of this seed claims. That's sad and so lame. How can people see a dream and mistake it for reality? Beats me!

Did you bother to read anything on this subject?

How about a direct quote...

“I’m for him too, as far as Republicans go. Because at least he eats with a knife and fork, as opposed to the other people in that field. No, seriously, if somebody’s going to beat Obama, I want it to be Rick Perry… I mean, I want it to be Mitt Romney.”

and the title is a direct quote ... watch the video pay attention at 3:03

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/while-ridiculing-cain-bill-maher-admits-i-think-mitt-romney-could-totally-beat-obama/

Link checked and yes, he kind of said it almost inaudibly in the middle of noises and other talkings in an overexagerated optimism in response to former NY Gov. D. Paterson who feels otherwise.

It is true that Romney or even others can indeed defeat Obama just like Bush managed to defeat Al Gore through fraud and dishonesty in 2000. Otherwise, It's a vain dream. However defeating Obama by mean of fraud and vile tactics will cost them more than they would be willing to pay. Beware!

Now, to the meaning of the 'correctly attributed quote'. What is our smarmy Bill up too?

Truth be told.....

Thanks for "kind of" admitting you were wrong.... Being Maher... all be it, off the cuff, and a bit hard to hear...in fact say those words that the title says he did, as well the other quotes attributed to him...

Sadly you then turn to both spilt milk (2000 election) and accusations of cheating in spite of no proof...

Although the Democrat helper groups such as ACORN .... Have a long and well documented record of Voter registration fraud.... which so many on the left seem to have forgotten about... Or excuse or some must even approve of... For them to have done it so widely spread for such a long time.. While receiving Federal Tax Dollars to do it!

Thanks for "kind of" admitting you were wrong

Wrong in what sense? I only admit that he indeed said it in a very inaudible way which doesn't erase the fact I mentioned earlier that people " see a dream and mistake it for reality". I have the impression that if it was possible for people to read other people's minds, they wouldn't have waited until people speak to accuse them of things they did not express. The fact that Bill Maher said it doesn't make it a reality waiting to happen. And if it should happen, I give you the only reason it would through Bush vs Gore 2000 election based on fraud. Now if you need proof of it, you're the only one who does. Why? simple, truth denial.

if it was possible for people to read other people's minds, they wouldn't have waited until people speak to accuse them of things they did not express.

Truth be told - I present to you the hyperbolic liberal orgasm over Mr. Herman Cain, who's mind has evidently been read by the entire progressive media establishment, even before a single shred of factual evidence has been exposed, presented much less proven. IN FACT, the well paid accuser, who only Wednesday was more than willing to vomit her 'story' to any tabloid that would pay for it, suddenly, upon learning that she was given permission to 'talk' the Restaurant Assn...suddenly and mysterialy decided that she DIDN'T WISH TO GO PUBLIC. How very curious, wouldn't you say?

The point....well, it's just to glaring to bother with.

next?

NativeCon

What you didn't know that its OK for the Progressives to use "unnamed source" as evidence against a Conservative...

But, Like in the case of ACORN "unnamed source" is just a way to railroad those nice people ....

You really should learn the rules here on the vine!

The left wingers have been in charge and done the damage, dumb ass.

Reported as inflammatory and violation of CoH.

Johnnie Bee Goode

Member Since: 11/2011Last Seen: 11/05/2011

Johnnie Bee Goode has not filled out a bio yet.

Hmm - I am betting re-reg but which one???

Could it be Balls? balllssonaliberalsasss? Remember that douchebag?