OBAMA Easy win!
put money on it!
 SBR Top-Rated Sportsbooks |
Best Sportsbooks List
|
|
| |||||
| #1 FanDuel | SBR rating 4.8/5 | Review | #6 BetRivers | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review | #2 Caesars | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #7 Fanatics | SBR rating 4.1/5 | Review |
| #3 DraftKings | SBR rating 4.7/5 | Review | #8 Betway | SBR rating 3.8/5 | Review | ||
| #4 BetMGM | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #9 Borgata | SBR rating 3.5/5 | Review | ||
| #5 bet365 | SBR rating 4.6/5 | Review | #10 ClutchBet | SBR rating 2.9/5 | Review | ||
View Poll Results: Cast your vote for President of the USA
- Voters
- 440. You may not vote on this poll
-
10-30-12 03:15 AM #386
-
10-30-12 08:01 AM #387
Obama
Last Trade : 61.8 DOWN 0.3
Cant close the deal.
-
10-30-12 08:48 AM #388
Odds haven't budged either way in the last 4 days. Just plodding along. Status quo favors Obama because he is ahead.
Originally Posted by SBR_John
-
10-30-12 10:05 AM #389
Hi d2bets - You could post videos from all of Jesus' disciples that Romney and his fellow Mormons believe are still walking the Earth 2000+ years later saying that Obama was a lock to win this election. All 13 of them that are somehow still cruising around could be wearing Obama shirts and telling John to sell his Intrade shares. And my stubborn as a mule boss still wouldn't concede. A little part of me wants to kick him in the shin for being so bloody pig-headed but on the other hand at least he's sticking by the guy he wants to win. Can't fault him for that. Originally Posted by d2bets
Points Awarded:
Fishhead gave shari91 1 SBR Point(s) for this post.
Nomination(s):This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: dontknowhowtobet
-
10-30-12 11:22 AM #390
I do believe there are other options. Not voting on this poll.
-
10-30-12 11:37 AM #391
Can I ask why Virginia is not as important as Ohio?
Virginia worth 13 and Ohio 18 ...
If Obama wins Virginia and loses Ohio he would still have excellent chances to be re-elected.
-
10-30-12 01:45 PM #392
Canada's not too far lol. I think at least you'd live a little longer. Originally Posted by FreeFall
-
10-30-12 08:34 PM #393
Originally Posted by DwightShrute
No Chip, Dwight doesn't have a clue how legislation gets passed because he's a fuk'in idiot just like that slack jaw fuk'in hillbilly Mitch McConnell! This is exactly the main point I'm getting to about the republican party. Doesn't matter what the president does or how good the new legislation is and the fact that it benefits everybody, even dumb fuks like Dwight, you're still going to get this same ignorant argument. Originally Posted by CallMeChip
The good thing is, the sense-able and decent Americans who are willing to help and make compromises, outnumber the idiots who believe supporting rich assholes is the only solution. There's something to be said about blind ignorance and the republicans are the epitome of it! From their formulation of the tea party all the way down to the racist, anti-Semitic, anti-women comments made by several members of the GOP. This party has never changed and it never will.
The only sure thing is, they are old fuk's with bad ideas for our country and their time here is limited. They care not about the future, the well being of the planet or our children that have to grow up in it after these rich assholes are gone. All they care about is money and how much more their greedy asses can make, without having the mindset or common sense to give something back. The one thing those greedy bastards can't buy is time, the equalizer of all men, and by the ever changing face of America, the old fuk GOP will soon be a thing of the past.Last edited by mikejamm; 10-30-12 at 09:08 PM.
Nomination(s):This post was nominated 3 times . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: PittsburghPlayer, TC Woods, and RogueScholar
-
10-31-12 01:20 AM #394
-
10-31-12 08:59 AM #395
Originally Posted by mikejamm
You are an idiot for saying that, even more so if you believe it. I hope for you sake with an opinion like that you are still in your first year of college because it sure sounds like it.
Do you even know how many people in this country don't pay taxes? Yea, they definitely are all about making compromises.
Unions are full of your precious liberals. If they are so willing to make compromises show me a union group that voted down their pay and benefits. How about the USPS? Instead of cutting their pay/benefits they just closed branches and took a $5 billion dollar loan from you and I. How very kind of them.
Of course, if you ask Rkelly that was the republicans fault...Last edited by brooks85; 10-31-12 at 09:12 AM.
-
10-31-12 09:25 AM #396
Originally Posted by shari91
Hi Shari - could honor the ultimatum set by the very guy you are supporting? Especially considering not a single person can argue he has made it even slightly better, definitely no where near "fixed."
"In an interview with Matt Lauer in the beginning of his presidency, Barack Obama said he should only serve one term if he could not fix the economy."
For some reason youtube video won't upload but I'm sure you have seen it. Nevermind, there we go.Last edited by brooks85; 10-31-12 at 09:30 AM.
-
10-31-12 09:32 AM #397
Don't know why you keep calling me out, but here goes.
A union worker calling union workers liberals? Are you then liberal?
A simple search would show you unions all across the country have made concessions, your union might not have.
Sorry about your luck, I know you wanted less money and benefits.
-
10-31-12 09:38 AM #398
Originally Posted by rkelly110
and where did you find this information?
A simple search lol ...
I call you out because its amusing watching you try to cover your ass. Like when you blame the USPS struggles on the republicans lol
-
10-31-12 10:46 AM #399
morons like you give Originally Posted by mikejamm
liberalsAmericans a bad name.
-
10-31-12 11:18 AM #400
Come on brooks, he didn't give an ultimatum in that video. Originally Posted by brooks85
He said if he didn't "get it done" in 3 years it would be a one term Presidency for him - as he expected people would vote him out. If people took their emotions out of political discussions then maybe the conversation could be had as to why when you and other hard core Republicans believe he's accomplished jack is he still leading the polls and is going to win?
Has he accomplished more than you are willing to give him credit for? Are there things he couldn't accomplish because he was getting cokblocked every which way in the process? Or even more frightening for Republicans: Are there people out there that accept that maybe he didn't get done everything he had hoped and promised to yet but they would rather have him for another 4 years than ever entertain the thought of putting Romney in the White House? If the latter is the case then loyal party supporters should be asking why the f Romney was nominated in the first place.
-
10-31-12 11:54 AM #401
Hey union worker, STFU and take your mandatory break... Originally Posted by brooks85
-
10-31-12 01:57 PM #402
Sharpest post on the fukkin board. The fact that repubs refuse to be bipartisan on anything and everything in both senate and congress symbolises exactly y america cannot and will not move forward. Originally Posted by mikejamm
Erradicate special interests groups and MAYBE, just maybe bipartisanship will one day return because without bipartisan support from both sides we have nothing...
There is no "I" in team after all
-
10-31-12 02:33 PM #403
simply not true and sorry that you not only believe it but even post it as factual. Funny no mention of the first 2 years when Obama did whatever he wanted. No bipartisanship happened then. Selective memory at its finest. Obama is the one that won't work with the republicans and everyone knows it. That is why he is a terrible POTUS. Originally Posted by ACoochy
....There is no "I" in team after allLast edited by DwightShrute; 10-31-12 at 04:41 PM.
-
10-31-12 04:15 PM #404
Brooks you are saying that nothing has gotten "even slightly" better. By that do you mean the stock market gaining 5,000 points back? Is that not "even slightly" better? Forclosures on a decline and home sales rising since November of last year? Is that not "even slightly" better? Job creation on an incline every month for 11 months straight? Is that not "even slightly" better? Originally Posted by brooks85
The thing I don't admire from Republicans is the fact that they refuse to acknowledge "even slight" progress from anything resembling a Democrat resolution. Job creation up? Bullshit, it's a left wing poll. Home sales on the rise? Bullshit that's a typo. Stock Market gaining from 8,000 after the sub prime crisis to 13,000 currently. Bullshit!... I mean I can't explain how, I just know it's bullshit somehow... because it looks too good for the President...
You can think whatever you want and speculate wildly on what your party "could've done" if they won, but they didn't win, so it's a moot point. To speculate on what they "will do" if they win is strange seeing as how they haven't divulged to you any specifics of their actual proposals, so that's a moot point as well, since you are completely unaware of their intentions. To refuse acknowledgement that things are improving is not only stupid, it's the complete opposite of logical mathematical reasoning. Basically to say "nothing is improving even slightly" is like trying to convince someone the number one has a higher value than two. It just doesn't work, but keep trying maybe one day you'll get there................................... .(still waiting)................................ ..........Nomination(s):This post was nominated 1 time . To view the nominated thread please click here. People who nominated: mikejamm
-
10-31-12 05:17 PM #405
Originally Posted by DwightShrute
U really have no idea how politics works do you??
-
10-31-12 05:20 PM #406
more than you obviously. Another hell of a comeback btw. good job Originally Posted by ACoochy
U really have no idea how politics works do you??
-
10-31-12 05:49 PM #407
Ugh - dear smart voters. Obama didn't have 2 years of free reign with congress. Jesus, just turn on the tv in the last month?
Also, read up on (R) cloture/philibuster (heck, look up the numbers historically).
It'd be great if anti-Obama types actually figured these things out on their own, but to resort to spreading someone else's lie?
If you're going to toss your hat in the ring at least have a fact that's legit once in awhile.
-
10-31-12 05:58 PM #408
you must be joking. No other explanation Originally Posted by McBa1n
-
10-31-12 06:35 PM #409
These numbers are fraudulent.
I demand a recount.
The O supporters have non-Americans voting for him. Next thing you know, the dead will be voting for him too.
-
10-31-12 06:45 PM #410
Not really surprising. Forum is full of foreigners who like running America over, liberal college kids who have yet to get a job in the real world, and guys who beg for points so they can live off of SBR pizzas. Originally Posted by PhillyFlyers
-
10-31-12 06:49 PM #411
I think I fit at least one of those descriptions! Originally Posted by daneblazer
-
10-31-12 06:51 PM #412
I've seen you at the poker table. Brutal how much you bully everyone down here Originally Posted by BeerDog99
-
10-31-12 06:53 PM #413
brain-dead already are Originally Posted by PhillyFlyers
-
10-31-12 08:42 PM #414
Why do Republicans adamantly perpetuate the stereotype that Democrats are poor, minority, uneducated retards? I have plenty of Democrat friends and plenty of Republican friends, honest truth is they both even out on graduate degrees and salary. Doesn't make either better in any sense. The biggest difference between them is that the Republicans are a lot more religious.
Please stop thinking that Democrat means black or latino, and even worse, that all blacks and latinos are stupid and poor. That's complete ignorance and bigotry.
-
10-31-12 08:58 PM #415
Uneducated retards isn't accurate. There are plenty of intelligent Democrats out there. However a large percentage of people who make less than 15k to 20k a year vote democrat. Stereotypes usually derive from some sort of truth. Fat people like cake. Black people are good at basketball and can't swim. White people can't dance or jump. People with lower socioeconomic statuses/levels are perceived to be poor, uneducated...dumb. Same thing with Republicans. Not all R's are bible abiding crazies. And before anyone jumps to conclusions, I'm not a D or a R. I'm more of a moderate. Originally Posted by CallMeChip
Last edited by daneblazer; 10-31-12 at 09:09 PM.
-
10-31-12 09:03 PM #416
Thank you, see I like when people use moderate language and don't constantly encompass the whole of a group even if stereotypes exist for said group. Dwight referring to all those who vote for Obama as brain-dead is a very ignorant comment. There are very intelligent people on both sides and complete utter imbeciles as well. Originally Posted by daneblazer
-
10-31-12 09:57 PM #417
Lol dems controlled everythingg first 2 years, he couldn't even pass a budget with his own people. Let's not forget pelosi we have to pass the bill to find out whats in it bitch. How you blame repubs but not dems is amazing
Originally Posted by ACoochy
-
10-31-12 10:10 PM #418
Both sides have their stupidity the right has people who vote repub just based on religon but so does the left look how many athiests are dems. But a lot of voters for democrat because they see the govt wanting to tax the rich more and that sounds good to most of them but fail to see the consequences. We are going broke we have to shrink the govt drastically this is a fundamental problem with a lot of dems,they see the gop as war mongers are anti middle class but for some reason don't mind the welfare and food stamp spending, both sides uneducated but I think dems are worse
Originally Posted by CallMeChip
-
11-01-12 12:33 AM #419
Atheism isn't a religion, it's the absence of religious principles as most religious principles revolve around belief in a deity. Calling atheism a religion is a contradiction in terms, definitively. That's a whole other discussion though. I do not fault democrats for wanting the rich to pay more and I do not fault Republicans for wanting to stop welfare, but red states receive more federal government aide than blue, that's just a fact. The underlying problem here is the system which was instituted about 30 years ago, which not only allowed but encouraged massive gains in personal wealth at the expense of employment values, and more specifically the working and middle class. Profit over posterity is to blame. Originally Posted by KingJD31
That being said, you can't say Democrats are more uneducated than Republicans, because Republicans receive more federal aide, so your statement becomes a false negative.
IMHO, welfare and unemployment benefits need stricter regulations and a time-sensitive mandate.
Btw, taxing the rich more would have no consequences except that they would be buying a $4 million dollar mansion instead of a $5 million dollar mansion(exaggerated example obviously). Under tax code proposals those in excess of $1 million can easily afford the extra taxes, the only thing that would suffer any consequence would be a slight change to their affluent way of life. I however do not believe it is fair to think that just because someone is rich you should be able to tax them more, unfortunately a terrible system was put into place many years ago (far before George W. Bush, although he is still responsible for quite a lot as is Bill Clinton) that has been chiefly responsible for alienating the middle class through a monumental wealth divide, but it's not someone's fault that they have money they worked for, that's the American dream. The majority have amassed their wealth within the legal confines of the law, it's just unfortunate that those laws were part of flawed legislation from the start.
From an economic standpoint two things can happen. You can tax the wealthy a bit more/effectively remove a large number of their deductions. This would result in a sizable injection of funds to cut into the deficit in a short period of time. Or you can go the other way and continue to extend their tax cuts and try to provide more breaks to the private sector in hopes that it will stimulate job growth to steady the deficit over time. This would result in low to moderate injection of funds over a longer period of time.
Basically one is a quick fix that has a high chance of success in the short term and a moderate chance of success in the long. The other is a steady fix that has a moderate chance of success in the short term and a high chance of success in the long. Either decision could go either way although, that's the inconsistency of the economy. A steady long term fix works only if the underlying problems are remedied in the short term, and vice versa, so it's always a gamble any way you cut it.Last edited by CallMeChip; 11-01-12 at 12:40 AM.
-
11-01-12 12:57 AM #420
Dwight I don't play chess with pigeons. Originally Posted by DwightShrute
Good day
Reply With Quote