[stikymess]

Wasn't Mccain part of the "intelligent Republican party"?

Living in Arizona, I'm so sick of McCain and Kyl.

[crustyme]

In what world is Ron Paul a neocon? Your ignorance of relatively simple political terms continues to astound me. And those factual flubs aren't even flubs. #1 is true and the author displays his/her economic ignorance. #2 ok, maybe he's wrong. But really, he said there were 16,000 IRS agents instead of 3,000? OMG the horror, what a liar. #3 the author doesn't go into any analysis. Ron Paul was speculating on future events anyway, so he can't be wrong yet. #4 the author proves that Ron Paul was right.

And if that's the worst that Ron Paul has said in his career, then I'm okay with that.

Obama promised to bring troops home and shutdown Gitmo and end the Libya war in two days and cut the deficit in half and restore the economy and a whole slew of other lies.



Nice economic forecasting Obama.

142 campaign promises kept according to this:



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-kept/?page=3



but he's a liar who doesn't keep his campaign promises. what a neo-dope you are.

[chantrain]

Wasn't Mccain part of the "intelligent Republican party"?

Yes he was but then the right wing crazies forced him to pick Sarah Palin and his candidacy was dead in the water after that.

McCain wanted to pick Lieberman for his VP. I don't think a McCain/Lieberman ticket would have beaten Obama anyway, Obama was just a historic candidate with too much hype on his side.

but a McCain/Lieberman ticket would at least have been respectable

[Nats' Fan]

Yes he was but then the right wing crazies forced him to pick Sarah Palin and his candidacy was dead in the water after that.

He created "the monster".

[crustyme]

[Iced]

142 campaign promises kept according to this:



http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...e-kept/?page=3



but he's a liar who doesn't keep his campaign promises. what a neo-dope you are.

Of course he's kept his promises on a bunch of minor subjects, but on the subjects that matter, he's been a failure. Wars - liar. Gitmo - liar. Economy - liar. Libya - liar. Deficit - liar. Stimulus - liar. Et cetera.

[Iced]

Where's that graph from? It's not even labeled properly and I doubt the sincerity of those numbers seeing as how unemployment has risen by about 1.5% since Obama entered office.

[chantrain]

People like to bash Bush and Obama for their stimulus injections but the fact is that they did what was necessary to save our economic system. If you want to reduce the deficit then the best places to start would be to let the Bush Tax cuts expire and to end both of our wars A.S.A.P.

The problem is that there is no political support to do either of those things. If Obama proposes to open a window in a stuffy room, you got every Republican in the country stamping their foot and saying no.

the Republicans have made a calculated political decision to obstruct, they deemed it necessary for the upcoming election.

[crustyme]

Of course he's kept his promises on a bunch of minor subjects, but on the subjects that matter, he's been a failure. Wars - liar. Gitmo - liar. Economy - liar. Libya - liar. Deficit - liar. Stimulus - liar. Et cetera.

pulled all combat troops out of iraq - mission accomplished
send more troops to afghanistan - mission accomplished

so how did he lie? do you even know what he promised? looks like you're the liar.

gitmo is more important than killing bin laden, reversing stem cell ban or repealing don't ask don't tell?



the others you just made up.

[stikymess]

Ask people and businesses to conserve electricity

Give a speech at a major Islamic forum in the first 100 days of his administration

Expand the Senior Corps volunteer program

Encourage water-conservation efforts in the West

Remove more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires

Add another Space Shuttle flight

Some of the *cough* promises, not sure what to do either re-elect him or give him some boy scout badges.

[crustyme]

Where's that graph from? It's not even labeled properly and I doubt the sincerity of those numbers seeing as how unemployment has risen by about 1.5% since Obama entered office.

bureau of labor statistics.

yeah, it's all obama's fault that the economy collapsed a full year before he entered office. all his fault 4 million jobs were lost 2007-8. all his fault americans lost $19 trillion in personal wealth 2007-march 2009.

[sunzal]

I used to feel the same way, that him winning the nomination is impossible, but now I'm much more optimistic.

In a CNN poll released this morning, Ron Paul was third among potential GOP nominees with 14%. Romney was in first with 23% and Rick Perry was second with 18%. Not too much of a deficit to overcome.

Paul is polling well against Obama as well. In a Harris poll: Paul was running 50/50 against Obama. In a Rasmussen poll, Obama had 41% and Paul had 37%.

I don't think it's likely he will win the GOP nomination and defeat Obama, but I definitely think it's a possibility.

CNN poll: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...nation-battle/
Harris poll: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/New...t/Default.aspx
Rasmussen poll: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publ...41_ron_paul_37

Paul always polls well- he did in 2008 also- but he really doesn't stand a chance on the national level....his fans are die hards- but once others start dropping off he'll get none of their votes......his numbers will stay in the teens even if there are only 3 candidates left....(oh, and Rasmussen is a biased polling service- their results last year were an average of 6 points off- twice as bad as any other one)

[sunzal]

Where's that graph from? It's not even labeled properly and I doubt the sincerity of those numbers seeing as how unemployment has risen by about 1.5% since Obama entered office.

Yeah- look at the graph and it's 100 percent consistent with what YOU just said- the first few months had huge losses and then it's been turned around....I can't believe you just complained about his graph- one I've seen many times and is absolutely consistent with the monthly numbers released by the Treasury- and it's your graph that doesn't have any citation- let me guess- the Heritage Foundation?

[Iced]

Yeah- look at the graph and it's 100 percent consistent with what YOU just said- the first few months had huge losses and then it's been turned around....I can't believe you just complained about his graph- one I've seen many times and is absolutely consistent with the monthly numbers released by the Treasury- and it's your graph that doesn't have any citation- let me guess- the Heritage Foundation?

I'm still waiting for an actual citation of the original chart. Your word isn't god.

And nope, not the Heritage Foundation, it was Obama's own economic advisors: http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
Page 4.

It's a bit of an infamous graph, I'm surprised you haven't seen it before.

[sunzal]

I'm still waiting for an actual citation of the original chart. Your word isn't god.

And nope, not the Heritage Foundation, it was Obama's own economic advisors: http://otrans.3cdn.net/45593e8ecbd339d074_l3m6bt1te.pdf
Page 4.

It's a bit of an infamous graph, I'm surprised you haven't seen it before.

Your putting actual numbers on a projection graph......Obvioulsy the projections were off- you can't go back and say they were right on only the part of the projection that supports your argument- obviously they were wrong on the projected rates- but you can't put the actual rates in there and act like they were done together.....the fact is you know exactly what you are doing and yet you insist on doing it anyway- you know you can manipulate simple graphs by taking different sets of numbers and fool 51% of the country into believing you....very sad

[sunzal]

and I didn't post the real graph- I'm not gonna go digging around for the citation....but I'm impressed that you had yours on hand....

[Iced]

Your putting actual numbers on a projection graph......Obvioulsy the projections were off- you can't go back and say they were right on only the part of the projection that supports your argument- obviously they were wrong on the projected rates- but you can't put the actual rates in there and act like they were done together.....the fact is you know exactly what you are doing and yet you insist on doing it anyway- you know you can manipulate simple graphs by taking different sets of numbers and fool 51% of the country into believing you....very sad

What are you talking about? The first two sentences of what you said was completely coherent but then I completely lost you. The point of putting the actual numbers on a graph with the original projected numbers is to show how terribly off Obama's projections were.

[sunzal]

Yes....projections were off.....but that's all it says....it doesn't say that we would have been better off without the stimulus package....all you can compare is what happened and what he said would happen with the package....but you included the projection without the stimulus, which is not relevant to his projection because there WAS a stimulus....you can't prove a negative, we have no idea what would have happened if their was no stimulus, so that part is simply misleading to the viewer....you can either say the projection of how much the stimulus would help was wrong, which is provable, or you can make the theoretical argument that we would have been better off without the stimulus (which can't be proven), but you can't try to make both arguments from the facts on the graph...hence that line on the graph misleads.....

[Iced]

I didn't include the projection without the stimulus, that was done by Obama's economic advisers. All that was added on the graph I posted were the actual unemployment numbers. I don't see how superimposing the actual rate on top of projections are misleading. It just shows that the projections were wrong. I never made an argument, theoretical or otherwise, anyway. The only thing I did was post the graph.

And is your first language English or what? Because I have to read your posts multiple times before I can make some sense of it.

[sunzal]

I didn't include the projection without the stimulus, that was done by Obama's economic advisers. All that was added on the graph I posted were the actual unemployment numbers. I don't see how superimposing the actual rate on top of projections are misleading. It just shows that the projections were wrong. I never made an argument, theoretical or otherwise, anyway. The only thing I did was post the graph.

And is your first language English or what? Because I have to read your posts multiple times before I can make some sense of it.

Yeah, you didn't really need to point out that you need help making sense of my posts- you obviously aren't getting it- but it's really a pretty simple argument....not sure how many times you ended up reading it but evidentally it will take a few more....would love it if you coud respond again when you finally understand it....