So does anyone know what Youtube video sparked 9/11?

(10-09-2012 03:39 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:06 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It will kill a lot of people. 26,000 people without health insurance die prematurely every year, and that will continue if Romney repeals Obamacare. He's also going to launch a war with Iran and possibly Syria at the behest of his long time friend Bibi, his sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson and nutcase advisors incl John Bolton, which should kill a few hundred thousand if Iraq was any indication.

So yes, a lot of people will get hurt. This is not a ******* game. You people complain about Obama spending money on food stamps and PBS, but then call for $2 trillion in increased defense budgets and dozens more warships. Sounds Keynesian to me, or just naked hawkishness.

Their foreign policy in regards to the Middle East if pretty much the same, and you're just choosing in live in the altered reality you've constructed by refusing to accept that.

Quote:Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find a single substantive difference between what Romney is proposing as a candidate and Obama is actually doing as president. Consider, for example, Romney's discussion of Iran – an area in which he has claimed there are significant contrasts between his views and those of the president:

"I will put the leaders of Iran on notice that the United States and our friends and allies will prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons capability. I will not hesitate to impose new sanctions on Iran, and will tighten the sanctions we currently have. I will restore the permanent presence of aircraft carrier task forces in both the eastern Mediterranean and the Gulf the region – and work with Israel to increase our military assistance and coordination. For the sake of peace, we must make clear to Iran through actions – not just words – that their nuclear pursuit will not be tolerated."

I dare you to try and identify any difference between this policy and the policy currently being implemented by President Obama. Aside from perhaps a slightly more punitive approach to sanctions, and a more direct reference to the use of force in the last sentence, the two candidate's approaches are almost completely identical. Monday's entire speech from Romney was like this.

• On Libya, Romney says he will "support the Libyan people's efforts to forge a lasting government that represents all of them" – this is President Obama's strategy.

• On Egypt, Romney says, "I will use our influence – including clear conditions on our aid – to urge the new government to represent all Egyptians, to build democratic institutions, and to maintain its peace treaty with Israel". This is President Obama's current strategy in Egypt.

• On Afghanistan, Romney says, "I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders. And I will affirm that my duty is not to my political prospects, but to the security of the nation". Again, this is the same approach taken by President Obama.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...ign-policy

And from the right wingers at ThinkProgress:

Quote:Mitt Romney, who has had trouble differentiating his foreign policy agenda from President Obama’s, gave a speech at the Virginia Military Institute that was designed to draw a contrast between his position and the President’s. Despite some sharp rhetorical criticism, however, Romney failed to develop new policy ideas that were meaningfully distinguishable from current Administration policy.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/1...?mobile=nc

Obama will surely reward his war profiteering campaign donors just as richly as he has rewarded his Wall Street donors from 2008. The sooner you can accept that, the less disillusionment you will feel (if he is re-elected) when he does so.

They're not the same. Yes, Romney's foreign policy speech was moderate sounding and difficult to distinguish from Obama's policies (except for the "arm the rebels" comment I addressed earlier). That's because he knows the American public has no appetite for war. Bush ran on a "humble foreign policy" and look how that turned out. (And maybe he meant it at the time but his neocon advisors talked him out of it.)

Just look at the company Romney keeps.

-The same neocon advisors (Bolton, Cohen etc) who pushed Bush into Iraq and wanted to bomb Iran yesterday and are advising Romney now.





-Billionaire Sheldon Adelson, who wrote Romney a $10 million check and said he's willing to spend whatever it takes to get him elected. Like John Bolton, he's been itching for an Iran War since at least 2007:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/20...elson.html

Quote:In Connie Bruck’s extraordinary New Yorker profile of Adelson, she reported that as early as June 2007, Adelson was so ready for war with Iran that he separated the men from the boys on the basis of their willingness to strike Iran. At a conference in Prague sponsored by his own Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, he dismissed the son of the former shah because, he told one participant, “he doesn’t want to attack Iran.” He said he liked another Iranian dissident at the conference “because he says that if we attack, the Iranian people will be ecstatic.” He attributed his own lust for an attack to his love of Israel, adding that he didn’t care what happened in Iran.

-Neocon Israeli PM Netanyahu, whom Romney goes back decades with and whose advice he would not only seek but outright suggests he would give deference to:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/pol...wanted=all

Quote:The ties between Mr. Romney and Mr. Netanyahu stand out because there is little precedent for two politicians of their stature to have such a history together that predates their entry into government. And that history could well influence decision-making at a time when the United States may face crucial questions about whether to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities or support Israel in such an action.

Mr. Romney has suggested that he would not make any significant policy decisions about Israel without consulting Mr. Netanyahu — a level of deference that could raise eyebrows given Mr. Netanyahu’s polarizing reputation, even as it appeals to the neoconservatives and evangelical Christians who are fiercely protective of Israel.

In a telling exchange during a debate in December, Mr. Romney criticized Mr. Gingrich for making a disparaging remark about Palestinians, declaring: “Before I made a statement of that nature, I’d get on the phone to my friend Bibi Netanyahu and say: ‘Would it help if I say this? What would you like me to do?’ “

Martin S. Indyk, a United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration, said that whether intentional or not, Mr. Romney’s statement implied that he would “subcontract Middle East policy to Israel.”

“That, of course, would be inappropriate,” he added.

Mr. Netanyahu insists that he is neutral in the presidential election, but he has at best a fraught relationship with President Obama. For years, the prime minister has skillfully mobilized many Jewish groups and Congressional Republicans to pressure the Obama administration into taking a more confrontational approach against Iran.

“To the extent that their personal relationship would give Netanyahu entree to the Romney White House in a way that he doesn’t now have to the Obama White House,” Mr. Indyk said, “the prime minister would certainly consider that to be a significant advantage.”

As for the military industrial complex, they flush both sides of the aisle with cash. Any president is going to have to deal with pressure from them. What differentiates Obama and Romney is what I posted above, and I think it gives a pretty good indication of what a Romney vote is asking for.

(10-09-2012 04:29 PM)gdunn Wrote:  So does anyone know what Youtube video sparked 9/11?

The first time they hit it was '93. Pre-youtube.

I think Clinton blamed that one on Ken Starr, though. Maybe Rush Limbaugh

(10-09-2012 04:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:29 PM)gdunn Wrote:  So does anyone know what Youtube video sparked 9/11?

The first time they hit it was '93. Pre-youtube.

I think Clinton blamed that one on Ken Starr, though. Maybe Rush Limbaugh

The vast right wing conspiracy.

(10-09-2012 04:57 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:48 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:29 PM)gdunn Wrote:  So does anyone know what Youtube video sparked 9/11?

The first time they hit it was '93. Pre-youtube.

I think Clinton blamed that one on Ken Starr, though. Maybe Rush Limbaugh

The vast right wing conspiracy.

Well, wasn't it?

(10-09-2012 04:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What differentiates Obama and Romney is what I posted above, and I think it gives a pretty good indication of what a Romney vote is asking for.

So what about Obama's advisers?

Quote:"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/2...2720080422

Quote:Dennis Ross

Middle East envoy for both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross was one of the primary authors of Obama's aforementioned speech before AIPAC this summer. He cut his teeth working under famed neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon in the 1970s and worked closely with the Project for the New American Century. Ross has been a staunch supporter of Israel and has fanned the flames for a more hostile stance toward Iran. As the lead U.S. negotiator between Israel and numerous Arab nations under Clinton, Ross' team acted, in the words of one U.S. official who worked under him, as "Israel's lawyer."

"The 'no surprises' policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking," wrote U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller in 2005. "If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel." After the Clinton White House, Ross worked for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish pro-Israel think tank, and for FOX News, where he repeatedly pressed for war against Iraq.

Martin Indyk

Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Indyk spent years working for AIPAC and served as Clinton's ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, while also playing a major role in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran. In addition to his work for the U.S. government, he has worked for the Israeli government and with PNAC.

"Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner by appealing to the most hard-line, pro-Israel elements in this country," Ali Abunimah, founder of ElectronicInifada.net, recently told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, describing Indyk and Dennis Ross as "two of the most pro-Israel officials from the Clinton era, who are totally distrusted by Palestinians and others across the Middle East, because they're seen as lifelong advocates for Israeli positions."

Quote:Mark Lippert is a close personal friend of Obama's. He has worked for Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Democratic Policy Committee. He is a lieutenant in the Navy Reserve and spent a year in Iraq working intelligence for the Navy SEALs. "According to those who've worked closely with Lippert," Robert Dreyfuss recently wrote in The Nation, "he is a conservative, cautious centrist who often pulled Obama to the right on Iraq, Iran and the Middle East and who has been a consistent advocate for increased military spending. 'Even before Obama announced for the presidency, Lippert wanted Obama to be seen as tough on Iran,' says a lobbyist who's worked the Iran issue on Capitol Hill, 'He's clearly more hawkish than the senator.' "

This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House

Quote:In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options remain on the table”, the report declared: “We believe a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a military strike “would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”

Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior Democratic advisers “unanimously approved” the document, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for defense under Clinton.

Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September, which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an element of any true option”. While Ross examined the diplomatic options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements” that had to underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial bombardment of Iran.

Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled, “Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on the Iranian nuclear challenge”, drafted in June by a Washington Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of policy options”, including “preventative military action”. Ross was a taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/o...iran/4813/

Basically, the only difference between the two candidates' policy is that Obama is telling his anti-war voters what they want to hear, while Romney is telling his neo-con voters what they want to hear. That's it. If you want to choose Obama because of Romney and his advisers' bluster, go for it, but please stop pretending there's any difference between the two aside from the rhetoric.

(10-09-2012 01:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  God help us all if Romney and the corps win this election.

God will not help you Robert or your Marxist Democrat Friends.Remember they hate God.

It's sad because you probably believe that.

(10-09-2012 04:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 03:24 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 03:14 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:15 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Ever occur to you that his record is indefensible. He is reeling not from the debate but from lying to the American people about the circumstances surrounding the Ambassador's murder and the other 3 dead in Libya. HE GOT CAUGHT LYING, AGAIN. The American people expect better from the president.

He has overtaken Jimmy Carter as the worst president of modern times.

Clearly, the perpetual lying and flip-flopping Mitt meets your expectations.

And were you heavily sedated from...say...about January of 2001 through January of 2009?

Yeah, the Wall Street cronyism, decrease in civil liberties, etc. under W was pretty bad. Good thing Obushma changed continued/worsened all those things.

9/11 happened on W's watch, Obama didn't invent WMD, Obama didn't start the Iraq war...I could go on all day, but it's obvious you're in love with your boy W so it's not worth my time.

Clinton did not pull the trigger on Osama. And he had multiple opportunities to do that.

(10-09-2012 01:15 PM)BeliefBlazer Wrote:  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...-1171.html

Now that's a bounce. I could be wrong, but I think it's the first time he's had a lead in the RCP average. At least since he became the presumptive nominee.

Poll vastly under sampled Democrats..

(10-09-2012 05:24 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  It's sad because you probably believe that.

He goes/went to Liberty. You would be amazed what they believe. He likely believes what Akin and Broun have said.

(10-09-2012 02:09 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Actually, the reason Romney just took the lead in RCP is Gallup switched from tracking registered voters to likely voters today, so Romney's numbers haven't changed but rather Gallup changed the formula.

But still, this race is neck and neck now. These polls today are much worse than I expected, and it seems clear Obama needs to win one or maybe both of these last debates.

No. He sucks. People are beginning to understand it and are now afraid of what the next 4 years could bring. He has NO record to run on and there is nothing of substance to use as ammo to debate with other than the same thing he used to win with in 08. He is an empty suit.

Lets keep in mind how hard it is to lose as an standing POTUS. You have to really be bad to not win in a landslide.

(10-09-2012 01:29 PM)RobertN Wrote:  God help us all if Romney and the corps win this election.

As if the corporations are not running it now? Don't worry. Nothing is really going to change that much with Mittens. New puppet...same masters.

(10-09-2012 05:22 PM)BlazerFan11 Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 04:41 PM)Max Power Wrote:  What differentiates Obama and Romney is what I posted above, and I think it gives a pretty good indication of what a Romney vote is asking for.

So what about Obama's advisers?

Quote:"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel)," Clinton said in an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America."

"In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/04/2...2720080422

Quote:Dennis Ross

Middle East envoy for both George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, Ross was one of the primary authors of Obama's aforementioned speech before AIPAC this summer. He cut his teeth working under famed neoconservative Paul Wolfowitz at the Pentagon in the 1970s and worked closely with the Project for the New American Century. Ross has been a staunch supporter of Israel and has fanned the flames for a more hostile stance toward Iran. As the lead U.S. negotiator between Israel and numerous Arab nations under Clinton, Ross' team acted, in the words of one U.S. official who worked under him, as "Israel's lawyer."

"The 'no surprises' policy, under which we had to run everything by Israel first, stripped our policy of the independence and flexibility required for serious peacemaking," wrote U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller in 2005. "If we couldn't put proposals on the table without checking with the Israelis first, and refused to push back when they said no, how effective could our mediation be? Far too often, particularly when it came to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, our departure point was not what was needed to reach an agreement acceptable to both sides but what would pass with only one -- Israel." After the Clinton White House, Ross worked for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a hawkish pro-Israel think tank, and for FOX News, where he repeatedly pressed for war against Iraq.

Martin Indyk

Founder of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Indyk spent years working for AIPAC and served as Clinton's ambassador to Israel and Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, while also playing a major role in developing U.S. policy toward Iraq and Iran. In addition to his work for the U.S. government, he has worked for the Israeli government and with PNAC.

"Barack Obama has painted himself into a corner by appealing to the most hard-line, pro-Israel elements in this country," Ali Abunimah, founder of ElectronicInifada.net, recently told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, describing Indyk and Dennis Ross as "two of the most pro-Israel officials from the Clinton era, who are totally distrusted by Palestinians and others across the Middle East, because they're seen as lifelong advocates for Israeli positions."

Quote:Mark Lippert is a close personal friend of Obama's. He has worked for Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Democratic Policy Committee. He is a lieutenant in the Navy Reserve and spent a year in Iraq working intelligence for the Navy SEALs. "According to those who've worked closely with Lippert," Robert Dreyfuss recently wrote in The Nation, "he is a conservative, cautious centrist who often pulled Obama to the right on Iraq, Iran and the Middle East and who has been a consistent advocate for increased military spending. 'Even before Obama announced for the presidency, Lippert wanted Obama to be seen as tough on Iran,' says a lobbyist who's worked the Iran issue on Capitol Hill, 'He's clearly more hawkish than the senator.' "

This Is Change? 20 Hawks, Clintonites and Neocons to Watch for in Obama's White House

Quote:In language that closely parallels Bush’s insistence that “all options remain on the table”, the report declared: “We believe a military strike is a feasible option and must remain a last resort to retard Iran’s nuclear program.” Such a military strike “would have to target not only Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but also its conventional military infrastructure in order to suppress an Iranian response.”

Significantly, the report was drafted by Michael Rubin, from the neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute, which was heavily involved in promoting the 2003 invasion of Iraq. A number of Obama’s senior Democratic advisers “unanimously approved” the document, including Dennis Ross, former senator Charles Robb, who co-chaired the task force, and Ashton Carter, who served as assistant secretary for defense under Clinton.

Carter and Ross also participated in writing a report for the bipartisan Center for a New American Security, published in September, which concluded that military action against Iran had to be “an element of any true option”. While Ross examined the diplomatic options in detail, Carter laid out the “military elements” that had to underpin them, including a cost/benefit analysis of a US aerial bombardment of Iran.

Other senior Obama foreign policy and defense advisers have been closely involved in these discussions. A statement entitled, “Strengthening the Partnership: How to deepen US-Israel cooperation on the Iranian nuclear challenge”, drafted in June by a Washington Institute for Near East Policy task force, recommended the next administration hold discussions with Israel over “the entire range of policy options”, including “preventative military action”. Ross was a taskforce co-convener, and top Obama advisers Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Richard Clarke all put their names to the document.

http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/o...iran/4813/

Basically, the only difference between the two candidates' policy is that Obama is telling his anti-war voters what they want to hear, while Romney is telling his neo-con voters what they want to hear. That's it. If you want to choose Obama because of Romney and his advisers' bluster, go for it, but please stop pretending there's any difference between the two aside from the rhetoric.

Hillary called for attacking Iran if they attack Israel. That's an important qualifier. The guys surrounding Romney don't have any such patience.

What you're left with are a few low level officials who, as far as I've heard, haven't called for us to attack Iran, except as a "last resort." And even if they have, the past four years of no such attacks are evidence that Obama has resisted their efforts and influence. Ross in particular opposed Bush's policy against direct talks with Iran, and given that diplomatic stance I severely doubt you'll find anything about him calling for an attack now.

The bottom line is Mitt Romney's high profile 1. advisers, 2. megadonors and 3. friends want an Iran War. And he publicly says Obama's sanctions aren't strong enough and wants to put carriers in the gulf off Iran's coastline. And let's not forget we're talking about a man with no spine who has never stood up to any element of his party's base I can recall; who has never spoken out against any war and in fact protested FOR the Vietnam War as a student. In contrast, Obama has had the power to start one since 2009 and hasn't; has taken famous doveish stands in the past including speaking out against the Iraq War when that was launched; has shown willingness to stand up to Netanyahu; and from all indications and rumblings I hear, Obama does not want an Iran War. For example, see the below Foreign Policy magazine article from yesterday. Dan Senor (Bush neocon and now a close Romney advisor) went on Morning Joe a couple days ago and charged Obama had to be dragged into agreeing with the sanctions, and the author says people close to Obama "wonder about his commitment and that of the U.S. military to taking action against Iran."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/20...at_to_iran

Quote: In the hours before the speech was delivered, neoconservative Romney foreign-policy advisor Dan Senor suggested on MSNBC's Morning Joe that Obama effectively had to be dragged against his will toward tougher sanctions on Iran -- the same tough sanctions for which the administration is now regularly taking credit because they have started to work. Senor noted that both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and former Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg pushed back against bipartisan congressional support for the sanctions out of concern that they would have unintended negative consequences for the U.S. and global economies.

A centerpiece of the Romney campaign's argument that Obama has not been tough enough on Iran is that the president has not offered a credible military threat against the Iranians. Say what you will about the rest of Romney's remarks -- and broadly speaking, there was not much new in them except that for the first time, the Republican nominee has addressed foreign policy recently without tripping over one of his own misstatements -- but even some of the president's supporters have told me privately they wonder about his commitment and that of the U.S. military to taking action against Iran.

I'll give you that it's no guarantee we will avoid an Iran War with another Obama term, but the odds are much heavier under Romney. It might just be bluster, but after Iraq I'm taking neocons' bluster seriously.

(10-10-2012 03:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:09 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Actually, the reason Romney just took the lead in RCP is Gallup switched from tracking registered voters to likely voters today, so Romney's numbers haven't changed but rather Gallup changed the formula.

But still, this race is neck and neck now. These polls today are much worse than I expected, and it seems clear Obama needs to win one or maybe both of these last debates.

No. He sucks. People are beginning to understand it and are now afraid of what the next 4 years could bring. He has NO record to run on and there is nothing of substance to use as ammo to debate with other than the same thing he used to win with in 08. He is an empty suit.

Lets keep in mind how hard it is to lose as an standing POTUS. You have to really be bad to not win in a landslide.

He absolutely has a record to run on and has a long list of accomplishments which I've listed many times before. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

(10-10-2012 10:29 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He absolutely has a record to run on and has a long list of accomplishments which I've listed many times before. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Yes, you have. But he rarely if ever mentions it. Instead he talks about Big Bird. So obviously you think more of his "accomplishments" than he does, which is no shock since you worship the guy. But at least he's smart enough to know his "accomplishments" only impress butt boys like you.

Max Power Wrote:Hillary called for attacking Iran if they attack Israel. That's an important qualifier.

Actually, she said we would "totally obliterate" them, implying we would use WMDs that could kill millions, which is even worse than a ground war.

(10-10-2012 10:29 AM)Max Power Wrote:  He absolutely has a record to run on and has a long list of accomplishments which I've listed many times before. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Yeah we remember...killing brown people with drones, supporting Al Qaeda in Libya, enriching the richest people who own most of the DJIA stocks, creating a bunch of part time jobs, saying he's okay with the concept of gay marriage, etc.

(10-10-2012 10:29 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(10-10-2012 03:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(10-09-2012 02:09 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Actually, the reason Romney just took the lead in RCP is Gallup switched from tracking registered voters to likely voters today, so Romney's numbers haven't changed but rather Gallup changed the formula.

But still, this race is neck and neck now. These polls today are much worse than I expected, and it seems clear Obama needs to win one or maybe both of these last debates.

No. He sucks. People are beginning to understand it and are now afraid of what the next 4 years could bring. He has NO record to run on and there is nothing of substance to use as ammo to debate with other than the same thing he used to win with in 08. He is an empty suit.

Lets keep in mind how hard it is to lose as an standing POTUS. You have to really be bad to not win in a landslide.

He absolutely has a record to run on and has a long list of accomplishments which I've listed many times before. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they don't exist.

List of accomplishments.

WH Garden
WH Bee Hive
WH Brewery

COTUS also really improved his golf game in the first term, getting in about 105 rounds in between his 8 vacations each year and date nights in NYC with Mooshelle.

(10-09-2012 02:06 PM)Max Power Wrote:  It will kill a lot of people. 26,000 people without health insurance die prematurely every year, and that will continue if Romney repeals Obamacare. He's also going to launch a war with Iran and possibly Syria at the behest of his long time friend Bibi, his sugar daddy Sheldon Adelson and nutcase advisors incl John Bolton, which should kill a few hundred thousand if Iraq was any indication.

So yes, a lot of people will get hurt. This is not a ******* game. You people complain about Obama spending money on food stamps and PBS, but then call for $2 trillion in increased defense budgets and dozens more warships. Sounds Keynesian to me, or just naked hawkishness.

The Fear is strong with this one. Good, Good, Obama Master says use the Fear to reelect hope and change.