Do you ever pause to question your own narrative and reasoning? You who labels millions of people in a few keystrokes as victims and un-informed has the blindness to then bang this out later in the thread: "we have the most devisive president in history, pitting groups of people one against another".

You really think your opinions and approach to this discussion are productive and enlightened?

Yes, yes, I could have guessed your economic theory--what I am asking is this: name a scenario that would be acceptable economic improvement. Make a reasonable metric, and let's see how he does. And if he meets it--you willing to say he did a good job, he was the right choice, and perhaps your theories need re-examination? Don't damn him with an impossible goal--but where would you like to see us in four years?

I get a strong sense that it is ideology over actuality with you--but I don't want to be guilty of the same assumption-making I have seen in you.

Maybe he is a victim?

Disagree with me=uninformed.

I am going to try that at work today and then later at home with my wife. Oh wait, no I won't, cuz I'm not an ass.

Sonofoski;841999298 said:

---

Some people vote based on fear and not reality.

---

Let me introduce you to the GOP base.

blungld;841999428 said:

---

Disagree with me=uninformed.

I am going to try that at work today and then later at home with my wife. Oh wait, no I won't, cuz I'm not an ass.

---

It's too bad you couldn't respond to anything I said and instead give me a smart ass answer. It's typical.

If the OP made this prediction a year ago, I may say it was simply a bold prediction.
But the OP made this prediction on Election Day, when all facts pointed to the contrary. With that, I conclude the OP is impervious to reality. Thus, all things he say cannot be taken seriously.

LethalFang;841999448 said:

---

If the OP made this prediction a year ago, I may say it was simply a bold prediction.
But the OP made this prediction on Election Day, when all facts pointed to the contrary. With that, I conclude the OP is impervious to reality. Thus, all things he say cannot be taken seriously.

---

This...

If you think that I'm the one looking like an ass in this thread...I don't know what to say. You sound like a lost cause.

Done.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."

-Thomas Paine

Sonofoski;841998283 said:

---

It's going to be Romney in a landslide.

---

.. just imo, you gotta walk away from this poisonous topic.

All of us have been touched by the crazy stick from time to time, this fool mos def included, even my incomparable better half has been there.

If only for the sake of Oski, puh-lease, let the foolishness go bye-bye.

unrelated link:


#big sigh goes here

Sonofoski;841999257 said:

---

The Sandra Fluke controversy happened after George Stepanlopous asked the question, not before. Are we talking about what could actually happen if a Republican got in the White House or some stupid comment made by a candidate? I'm talking about legislation, real things not some women asking for free contraception.

The Republican Party never talked about taking away any woman's rights with new laws.

---

Okay, even if I grant you your dubious assertion that it's all the liberal media's fault for starting to ask these questions, so what? The conservative pundits and/or politicians still screwed themselves over with their insane responses. Stephanopoulus did not FORCE Rush Limbaugh to call Sandra Fluke a "slut" for having the temerity to suggest that contraception should be given out freely on college campuses, nor did they FORCE Romney to give a weak-sauce response like "It's not the language I would have used." The media did not FORCE Todd Akin to say that the female body has ways to "shut down" pregnancy if it's not "legitimate rape," nor did they force the House Republicans to put a man like this on the Science Committee.

But go ahead and keep on believing that Romney lost the female vote by a wide margin because it was all the media's fault for drumming up a story, and not because Republicans kept making whack-job statements about issues related to women's health. If this is what conservatives really believe, then we can count on them losing national elections regularly for years to come.

Sonofoski;841999142 said:

---

It looks like the uniformed of this country continue to be uniformed about what is really going on. They must be really looking forward to $20 trilliion in debt, four more years of $1 trilliion budget deficits, 8% unemployment, four more years of nothing getting done because we have the most devisive president in history, pitting groups of people one against another. Bi-partisianship to this president is Republicans giving in.

Every child under 18 in this country now owes over $200K in debt, a debt that is growing every day.

The country can survive four more years of Obama but can the country survive four more years of those who vote for him.

And the young women out there, just continue to vote with what's below your waist rather than what's between your ears.

---

Obamacare covers "butthurt" :p

Sonofoski;841999234 said:

---

It was originally brought up by George Stepanoplos in the Republican debate. He asked Romney about contraception and Romney was dumbfounded that he even asked it because no one in the Republican Party was even talking about it; to the Republican's it was always the economy.

---

this isn't even close to true. there's a requirement in obamacare that insurance companies need to cover contraception. catholic hospitals made a big stink -- or people on their behalf -- because they thought it was wrong to pay for insurance which paid for something they were morally opposed to. so the GOP saw a wedge issue and made a big deal about it, so much so that when Romney was asked in a prez debate about abortion he started talking about the rights of religious-owned businesses. it's all a big joke because only a tiny minority of religious people are actually against contraception. it's also ridiculous because your employee is going to use contraception whether you like it or not, and you can either pay for their contraception through their paycheck, or through an insurance premium.

but anyway, no this isn't on stephanapolous. sheesh.

Sonofoski;841999257 said:

---

The Sandra Fluke controversy happened after George Stepanlopous asked the question, not before. Are we talking about what could actually happen if a Republican got in the White House or some stupid comment made by a candidate? I'm talking about legislation, real things not some women asking for free contraception.

---

the sandra fluke thing happened because the House had hearings about the whole contraception mandate and the GOP didn't want her to speak (I forget why). she eventually did and limbaugh called her a slut for three days. all of this happened because of the GOP fought hard against the contraception mandate. nothing to do with a debate question.

Sonofoski;841999257 said:

---

The Republican Party never talked about taking away any woman's rights with new laws.

---

right, they seized on the fact that that a core constituency was upset that the government was making them pay for contraceptives, even if it was several steps removed. any way they could demonize Obamacare, they have. they were never going to try to get rid of contraception, but any time you make it more difficult to get -- like, by removing insurance coverage -- you end up having an impact.

BearyWhite;841999953 said:

---

the sandra fluke thing happened because the House had hearings about the whole contraception mandate and the GOP didn't want her to speak (I forget why).

---

Because they wanted only religious leaders to speak (and given the makeup of the panel they convened, apparently also only male leaders).