Hey Liberals, Get The Panic Out Of Your System

One of the things I love most about liberals is their passion. Passion motivates and gets you to fight for what’s right, often against better funded and organized opposition.

One of the things I hate the most about liberals is their passion. Passion makes the lows often lower than they need to be and a sense of angst overwhelms common sense and reason.

Romney won the first debate. Good for him. President Obama should have performed better. He made a bad move. Guess what? The world isn’t going to end. Debates do matter, and I would have certainly preferred the candidate I support to have done a better job, but the liberal drama over a single missed opportunity angers me even more.

What is with you guys? Why must you take every momentary setback as if it is the end of the world? Get a grip. If good debate performances were the single factor in an election, we’d be dealing with President Kerry or a second President Clinton now.

I’m not saying you have to go into the conservative-style defensive crouch or denial of reality, where you see your party screw up in Iraq or New Orleans and insistent that everything is fine. But this is one battle in a wider war — a war that the Obama campaign is still winning, despite the incoming “Romney Rebound” round of stories the media was already dying to write — in some cases, not even bothering to wait for the debate to even be over.

I’m not a blind follower, but I like Obama’s track record here. He may lose a battle or two (everyone forgets the early 2008 cycle debates and the Clinton primary victories and the post-convention McCain bounce) but he’s done pretty well at winning the war.

Even in temporary defeat, I don’t get the compulsion to garment rend, but go ahead and do it if you must. Get it out of your system. And then grow up and move on.

 

  • Zython

    Not one of you guys since Thursday night has documented what lies Romney told and explained them in any detail as to how they were lies and how those alleged lies might’ve effected either Obama to the negative or Romney to the positive.

    I already did. If you’re going to complain about Romney being outed as a liar, it’s best that you not lie yourself. Here’s three, since you’re too incompetent to read them yourself.

    1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”.
    Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

    2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.”
    A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amounts to $5 trillion over the decade.

    3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.”
    If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

    Not to mention the countless lies he’s told on the campaign trail.

    • Plunket

      Those are disagreements about plans. Those aren’t lies. And I asked you to explain how Obama was so shocked and thrown off by those lies that it excuses his horrific debate performance, since that’s the excuse you’re providing. Because it’s a debate, Zython. Debates are set up so that if you disagree, or you think something is a lie, or fictitious, you call that person out on it. Obama is the President of the United States and someone who possesses arguably somewhat extraordinary 0fintelligence. If he sits there stone-faced and looks down and then smirks and provides no effective counter to points made that he disagrees with or considers lies, then he has that opportunity to do so there in the debate. And it is an opportunity, because if he does it, he scores points and likely wins the debate. But he didn’t. And so now you following the talking points strategy of calling them lies and excusing Obama’s sleep-walking on these alleged lies sounds like little more than whining after the butt-kicking…..which is exactly what you’re doing.

      • Zython

        Those are disagreements about plans. Those aren’t lies.

        I don’t think you quite understand what a “lie” is. A “disagreement about plans” would be something along the lines of “Romney says his plan will improve the economy. I, on the other hand, say it won’t because of X, Y, and Z”. However, when Romney flat-out claims that, say, his plan won’t have $5 trillion in tax cuts when, in fact, it will; that is a lie. Once you start going into quantitative terms, you start seeing the lies pour out.

        And it is an opportunity, because if he does it, he scores points and likely wins the debate.

        There may have been a time when that was true, but our media and many of our politicians have decided for whatever reason that calling out lies is “uncivil” or “mean” or whatever. You, and much of the media, would have called Obama uncivil and angry had he called out Romney’s lies.

      • oi ly

        “If he sits there stone-faced and looks down and then smirks and provides no effective counter to points made that he disagrees with or considers lies, then he has that opportunity to do so there in the debate. And it is an opportunity, because if he does it, he scores points and likely wins the debate.”

        Just because he did not do what he should’ve done, doesn’t mean Romney wasn’t lying.

        • Justanotherrighty

          But it does mean that Obama did not, or could not , counter with his version of the truth. Plunket has inferred – correctly, I believe – that he would have if he could have, but he couldn’t, so he didn’t.

  • Plunket

    I’m not being cocky and I never have been with this election, as it’s never easy for any challenger of an incumbent president. But having said that, seriously, please tell me you’re not comparing Obama to the Pats, Wilbur.

    • Wilbur

      I’m not being cocky.

      Well you do seem to go giddy at every pro-Romney swing in a poll, even if it’s an outlier.

      Obama = Pats? Well, maybe not, but then comparing Romney to the ‘Stains is a bit of an insult to the ‘Stains.

      Romney after this debate is like the Browns a couple years ago when Derek Anderson took some kind of superman pill and everybody thought ‘wow, we’ve found our qback of the future!” Then the pill wore off.

  • Wilbur

    Obama “lied” too, then, Wilbur

    Thanks for the comical link to the comically illiterate gop.com. Your incoherent source’s more coherent main source, factcheck.org, despite it’s almost morbid penchant for always casting the same amount of pox on both houses, concludes not that both “lied” equally, but that “Romney sometimes came off as a serial exaggerator.” Nothing like selective quotation for the truth-challenged.

    As for how it affected (sic) Obama, who gives a screw? I never blamed his performance on the altitude or anything else. Maybe he ate a bad burrito and had real bad gas. Main thing is that the facts were on his side and if you think anything else is more important than that then you don’t care about facts — but we knew that already about you, didn’t we, Dennis?

    Don’t get cocky and join Frank in the Romney 300 electron-volt club, Dennis. Remember that last regular season the Patriots were annihilated by the Cleveland f*uckin Browns. Doesn’t mean the Browns were ever going to smell the Super Bowl.

  • Plunket

    Obama “lied” too, then, Wilbur. Repeatedly. You don’t see the Romney camp being whiny little bitches about it. The first blame was on Jim Lehrer. Then it was the altitude. Then it was John Kerry. Then Obama was being too nice because he didn’t want to appear less than presidential. Finally you guys decided to go with the lie defense, but none of you guys will say how it affected Obama, why he didn’t just counter them right then and there, or why any of Obama’s untruths were any less egregious.

    That’s why the strategy isn’t working and that’s why you’re seeing those internals in that Pew poll showing the public seeing Romney as the clear winner for a whole of things that go a long way toward determining how they’ll vote in a few weeks.

    You know what, why doesn’t someone from the Obama side conduct a poll that would show people were swayed or influenced or turned off by Romney’s untruths far more than Obama’s. That would be interesting.

  • Wilbur

    Forgot about the one link rule, so my original comment is in moderation. Here it is with the links reduced to one:

    Not one of you guys since Thursday night has documented what lies Romney told

    I don’t know whether anyone in this thread has documented them, but that’s not to say that they haven’t <a href="Not one of you guys since Thursday night has documented what lies Romney told

    I don’t know whether anyone in this thread has documented them, but that’s not to say that they haven’t been well documented

    Sorry, the lie strategy is one of panic.

    Sorry, no. Saying Mitt Romney lied, repeatedly, is not a ‘strategy’ it is the truth (yes, Dennis, there really is a substantial difference between those two terms.

    And panic? That’s what happened all over the wingnutsphere when the jobs numbers came out.

    Sorry, the lie strategy is one of panic.

    Sorry, no. Saying Mitt Romney lied, repeatedly, is not a ‘strategy’ it is the truth (yes, Dennis, there really is a substantial difference between those two terms.

    And panic? That’s what happened all over the wingnutsphere when the jobs numbers came out.

    • Wilbur

      oops, bit of a cut-and-past screwup there.

  • Plunket

    db, I didn’t do what you did. If you confused Farris and me you could’ve posted what Farris said and asked if I agreed, instead you double down on the stupidity and said what the hell, we’re all the same anyway.

    I didn’t confuse Wilbur with Oily. Oily hasn’t posted here all day. It’s you that’s confused. And when I explained to Wilbur the reason I felt he was making a point, I posted what he said that led me to that conclusion. When I asked you to do that, you flat-out refused.

  • db

    Dennis,

    I’ve tried to be nice; but you’ve got a lot of goram gall to be calling me the stupidest persons on earth for doing something that you’re doing at the exact same time. I confused you & Farris & I’m making shite up. You confuse oi (I think) & Wilbur and you go into an explanation of how you really didn’t confuse them. You are a legend in your own mind.

    It comes off as obnoxious.

  • Plunket

    DO NOT PANIC LIBERALS. I REPEAT, DO NOT PANIC!!!!

    Pew: Romney 49, Obama 45

    • Wilbur

      Thanks, I won’t panic.

  • Wilbur

    The real question here is Just who ARE these 20%-ers?

    Those who care about the truth more than they care about style?

    Actually, well more than 20% care about the truth, but many have just internalized the operating definition of “winning” these “debates” as scoring style points. So if asked they’ll say Romney “won” the debate, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’d vote for Romney over a three-legged dog in a million years. Obama’s continuing lead in most polls demonstrates that pretty well.

    • db

      Wil,

      What’s more interesting is how Dennis publishes these comments like they have some sort of relelvance. As you point out “Who won the debate?” is a much different question than “Who do you plan to vote for?” Dennis implies that “winning” the debate will equate to people seeing the error of their ways & immediately jumping on the Romney bandwagon.

      Dennis,

      I’m not voting for Romney because of what he stands for (at least this week). Debating skills have nothing to do with it.

    • Plunket

      “Romney made me fail because he confused me” is pretty lame, Wilbur. I suspect you know that already, though.

      Ask yourself if in 2 years or 6 years, whichever the case may be when Obama writes his third memoir, if he blames that historically bad debate on his having been taken aback by Romney’s ‘lies’ or pivots for the reason he did so poorly.

      • db

        Dennis,

        Am I confused; or was it just last week you were dismissing the polls showing WMR behind? Or is it just amazing how much better the polls have gotten since you & Fox exposed the “Liberal Pollster Conspiracy”?

        • Plunket

          Am I confused; or was it just last week you were dismissing the polls showing WMR behind?

          If I did, you should be able to go back and find it. When you do, copy and paste it back here please, and we can discuss it. And if you don’t find it, which I can tell you right now you won’t, then be man enough to apologize for just making that up, because you’ve been doing that a lot lately.

          • db

            What? You want me to be a “Copypasta”?

            Are you telling me it was Farris who exposed the “Liberal Pollster Conspiracy”? 5 or 6 articles from Oliver each with threads of upwards of 100 comments+? No thank you. I have other things to do with my time.

            More fun though is how you turn my “am I confused” into “making (stuff) up”. I’ve said before that I can’t really find anything distinguishing your posts from Farris’. If the post degenerates into mindless name calling it is often Frank’s but beyond that he fits in as well.

            Wil,

            “I said nothing about Obama’s performance, much less speculated about the reasons for it”. I was wondering about that as well. Apparently Dennis can’t tell us apart either. Which is funny because he just go so bent out of shape when I confused him with another. Pot meet Kettle?

          • Plunket

            db, I’m telling you I didn’t say what you claimed I said. I’ve tried to be polite and not call you a liar, but you in fact did lie, and you’ve been doing it a lot lately.

            More fun though is how you turn my “am I confused” into “making (stuff) up”. I’ve said before that I can’t really find anything distinguishing your posts from Farris’. If the post degenerates into mindless name calling it is often Frank’s but beyond that he fits in as well.

            OMG. Read that a couple more times, db.

            Just because someone else says something, me, or Save or Frank, or Sean Hannity, or the f’ing man in the moon, and you can’t distinguish between the 5 of us, then yeah, I would have to say you are BOTH confused and making stuff up when you assign something to me that you think someone else said. Because you can go back and determine that on your own.

            Or I guess in your case, you can ask someone else to do that for you.

            db, you are quite possibly one of the stupidest persons on the entire internet.

      • Wilbur

        Who are you talking to and calling Wilbur, Dennis? I said nothing about Obama’s performance, much less speculated about the reasons for it.

        • Plunket

          Wilbur, when I asked just who these 20%ers who think Obama won that debate, you responded with this: “Those who care about the truth more than they care about style?

          Actually, well more than 20% care about the truth, but many have just internalized the operating definition of “winning” these “debates” as scoring style points.”

          So I took that to mean you were blaming Obama’s performance on a claim of Romney not caring about the truth throwing Obama off on his style points.

          • Wilbur

            I was not blaming Obama’s performance at all. Since you have demonstrated numerous times in the past that you view truth as being nothing but persuasion, I’m not surprised that you don’t understand that, and that you aren’t ashamed to be a Romney supported after his disgraceful lie fest the other night.

          • Plunket

            Wilbur, that debate was a disaster for Obama. The $100mm Obama spent lying about Romney as a guy who wants to bankrupt your business and send it over to China, fire you and kill your wife with cancer, end health insurance, Medicare and Social Security, and take all that combined money and put in his secret Grand Cayman bank account, all just got wiped away in the span of 90 minutes by a vastly superior debate performance from someone who showed both competence and a strong desire for the job.

            Not one of you guys since Thursday night has documented what lies Romney told and explained them in any detail as to how they were lies and how those alleged lies might’ve effected either Obama to the negative or Romney to the positive. Instead you just say he lied, and you keep repeating it over and over. That is so weak it’s unbelievable.

          • Plunket

            Wilbur, from that same Pew poll:

            Romney now ties Obama in being regarded as a strong leader and runs virtually even with the president in willingness to work with leaders of the other party. And by a 47% to 40% margin, voters pick Romney as the candidate who has new ideas…

            Romney has made progress on the issues. He and Obama now run about even on dealing with health care, Medicare, foreign policy and taxes. Obama led on most of these issues by significant margins in September. Romney also holds a significant 49% to 41% advantage on improving the job situation, despite the fact that most of the interviewing was conducted after the October jobs report, which showed the unemployment rate falling below 8%…

            By a 37% to 24% margin, more swing voters say Romney would improve the job situation. Swing voters favor Romney on the deficit by a two-to-one (41% vs. 20%) margin.

            You can’t lie your way into convincing that many people that you’re the more effective leader in one debate.

            You can’t lie your way into convincing that many people that you’re the candidate who has new ideas, as opposed to the guy already in office.

            You can’t lie your way into convincing that many people that you’re the candidate more capable of improving the job situation.

            Sorry, the lie strategy is one of panic. And it’s not helping you.

  • Plunket

    Gallup: Romney’s 52 Point Margin of Victory In Debate Is Largest Gallup Has Ever Measured

    n Oct. 4-5 Gallup poll finds roughly two in three Americans reporting that they watched the Oct. 3 debate, similar to what Gallup measured for each of the three 2008 presidential debates. Those who viewed the debate overwhelmingly believe Romney did a better job than Obama, 72% to 20%. Republicans were nearly unanimous in judging Romney the winner. But even Democrats rated Romney as doing a better job than Obama, 49% to 39%.

    Across all of the various debate-reaction polls Gallup has conducted, Romney’s 52-point win is the largest Gallup has measured. The prior largest margin was 42 points for Bill Clinton over George H.W. Bush in the 1992 town hall debate.

    Romney’s debate performance is also notable from the standpoint that U.S. debate watchers judged Obama the winner of all three 2008 debates with John McCain.

    The real question here is Just who ARE these 20%-ers?

    • Zython

      And suddenly, Romney’s back to square one.

  • Plunket

    Pulitzer-winning ‘Friday Night Lights’ author Buzz Bissinger:

    Why I’m Voting for Mitt Romney
    After the president’s debate performance in Denver, this lifelong Democrat has made a difficult decision: he’s given up on Barack Obama. Even if his own wife doesn’t approve.

    I have never seen a performance worse than Obama’s, distracted, his head dipped into the podium as if avoiding the smell of something rotten, acting above the very idea that a debate does provide a pivotal referendum on his first term as it has for all incumbent presidents, whipsawed by the legion of usual advisers telling him to play defense when his own intuition should have told him that he needed to go on the offensive as Romney slapped him around. But there was more than the entitlement of entitlement. He struck me as burnt out, tired of selling his message although he has always been terrible at selling his message when it veers from idealism into the practical…….

    I don’t see Obama spending much time running the country, unless you count his recent appearance on The View, where he was far more animated and charming than during the debate….

    Four years ago, all Obama had to do was speak and everyone swooned. That was four years ago. It is now four years later. He is no longer the chosen one. He is just too cool for school in a country desperate for the infectiousness of rejuvenation.

    Romney has it.

    Our president no longer does.

    • db

      Gee Dennis,

      I can select clips from your quoted article too.

      “I am moving more to the center or even tweaking right, or at least not tied to any ideology. Those making more than $250,000 should pay more taxes, and that does include me.”

      Are you citing the article for the proposition that one gets more Conservative as one gets older? I see it more that the liberal victories we fought & bled for in our youth, no longer seem so liberal. But I’ll grant that I’m just looking at the other side of the coin.

      I laughed out loud when Bissinger wrote about President Obama’s “sense of Entitlement”. I beleive it was only a week or so ago on one of the sister-blogs on the Daily Banter that laid out both Gov. & Mrs. Romney’s sense of entitlement. I’ll send you there rather than rehash those points.

      Equally I see amy number of “paid for” ads; some even on this site, on “Why I’m Voting for Romney”. When I see that these are paid for by “Americans For Tax Fairness”; I question the bona-fides of their alleged Democrats.

      But more to the point; you publish this as if you expect me to wail & gnash my teeth. I did not even rend my garments. What’s your point? That some Democrats are disappointed in President Obama? That’s supposed to be news? You expect any of us here to take the other side of that argument? I can answer that some “life-long Republicans” (Chris Christie) are not supporting Romney. What’s the point? Who cares?

      Stick with the Infield Fly Rule. That goes for both you & Bissinger.

  • Plunket

    Another one gets away.

    Redskins in that last quarter looked like Barack Obama in a debate.

    • db

      Sorry Dennis,

      Didn’t see either one so am not really qualified to comment.

      Apparently the first paragraph of my comment from Saturday morning got lost. In it I pointed out that Marco, el, oi, Zython, Oliver, Christopher, DA, & I (with apologies to any unmentioned) have many areas of agreement & some of disagreement. A week or so ago I proved much more suspicious of the world than Christopher. You see the group of us as some sort of monolith.

      When in actuality you, Farris, & Frank write almost interchangeably & frequently use the sound bite arguments of Fox or RW blog sources.

  • db

    Dennis,

    Bob Herbert retired from the NY Times in 2011. You think the story significant? There are several (many?) web sites written be those much further “left” than Oliver. Some have turned off to President Obama? No surprise there. WMR isn’t “right” enough for some & If I cared to prove the point I’d go & find you a web site or 3. But no, I wasn’t familiar with Mr. Herbert before you quoted him.

    Who is the Richmond team afilliated with? Havent lived there for years. (It shows).

    But WE AGREE!!!! The Infield Fly Rule applied and failing to make the catch after waiving off the outfielder doesn’t matter. Batter is out. Runners can tag & advance at their own risk. Mark this day Guys. Dennis & I agree on something!

  • Justanotherrighty

    “How in heaven’s name could Obama let him get away with that?”
    My guess is that it was well into the debate, and Obama was feeling the ass whipping he was receiving, and had run out of lies, rhetoric and b.s.
    What I really came here to say was that it seems as Obama not only found his Lex Luthor, but he also found his kryptonite, heavy chains and a pool.
    For the next debate, he’s practicing a new song, but not one by Al Green. No, this one was made famous by Burl Ives:
    Osama’s dead!
    He got shot in the head!
    Singing polly – waddle doodle all the day !

    • Zython

      My guess is that it was well into the debate, and Obama was feeling the ass whipping he was receiving, and had run out of lies, rhetoric and b.s.

      Frank, for you to claim something is a lie, you have to first demonstrate that it’s not true. I’ve done this on numerous occasions in regards to Romney (I even linked 27 in the debate alone), but it wasn’t good enough for you. It seems that you have some other reason to believe that Obama’s a liar that’s not related to anything he’s actually said or done.

    • Zython

      Yeah, that’s what I fucking thought.

      • Justanotherrighty

        Zython, you’re no longer fucking worth a reply…

  • oi ly

    “One of the more remarkable things about the debate was Mitt Romney’s absolute contempt for anything resembling facts, truth or reality. Deliberate deception was the bedrock foundation of his strategy. He wouldn’t even come clean on the tax cuts that are a cornerstone of his campaign. And yet it was Romney who had the chutzpah to look Obama in the eye and assert: “Mr. President, you’re entitled to your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts.”

    Agreed.

    “How in heaven’s name could Obama let him get away with that?”

    Agreed.

  • Plunket

    How disgusting….

    People are just as disgusted as they make up their minds to be, Oily.

    Personally I’d like to hear some of those kinds of stories about Obama if there are any.

    • Zython

      I’ll keep that in mind the next time you do you faux outrage routine.

      • Plunket

        No More Excuses
        -Bob Herbert
        New York Times
        Oct. 6, 2012

        It’s time to stop making excuses for Barack Obama. With so much at stake in this election, his performance at the debate on Wednesday night was indefensible.

        Ever since he was elected, there have been reasons offered, either publicly or privately, for why Obama has been unable to fully engage some of the nation’s most important challenges. Despite the rampant increase in poverty in the worst downturn since the Depression, Obama supporters whispered that he couldn’t do more for the poor and couldn’t speak out more forcefully on their behalf because that would not be politically advantageous. So nearly all of his economic initiatives had to be couched in language that referred to the middle class, even though the poor were being hurt far worse. LBJ could launch a war on poverty but not Barack Obama.

        Black Americans have been disproportionately clobbered by the Great Recession and its aftermath, losing both income and wealth at staggering rates. Much of the black community is enduring a full-blown economic depression. But Obama and his advisers have been unwilling to address this catastrophe openly and forcefully out of fear that the president would be perceived as too black by prejudiced white voters, thus losing their support.

        There is always some excuse, some reason for not bringing all of the president’s energy and resources to the fight…..

        The president let his people down. And if he’s capable of doing that in an election that is clearly so important, it means he’s capable of doing it again if he wins a second term.

        Whoa.

        It’s okay, Bob. He tried. You tried. It’s okay to make a change.

        • db

          Gee Dennis,

          You quote an article condemning President Obama for not doing those things you are opposed to.

          Richmond’s AAA ball team is an Atlanta affiliate, right? So there’s some excuse for being muddled & confused (especially about the infield fly rule) but this is hard for me to understand. Do you now repudiate your prior positions & say President Obama SHOULD have done more for the poor? Or do you repudiate the quote you posted where the author condemns President Obama for not doing more for the poor.

          I really can’t see how you can say, “both”.

          • Plunket

            db, I can never understand what points you’re trying to make.

            The answer to your first question is ‘no’, the Braves’ AAA affiliate is in Gwinnett County, GA. Has been since 2009. The IFR is a judgment call and the wrong umpire made it, but it looks like it was the right call at the time. The beer bottles and debris thrown on the field were inexcusable. I wish Ted Turner and Jimmy Carter in attendance could’ve done something to stop that embarrassing display of ignorance.

            I have no idea what you claim were my prior positions were on Obama’s help for the poor. I posted a column by a far-left liberal journalist from the New York Times who it appears Obama has lost, and who thinks it was inexcusable for Obama to have let down those on the left, and I think that is significant. It is time for you guys to stop making excuses for this president, for you to realize that this emperor has no clothes, that he’s not Superman, or the savior, and that what Herbert finished his column with is poignant, that Obama’s phone-it-in style and his lack of preparation for that debate was telling not only for his lack of leadership these past couple of years, but a pretty good indication for how he’ll continue to blow things off these next few years if elected.

            Do you know who Bob Herbert is, db?

          • oi ly

            You idiots designated him the Savior and Messiah and then criticize him for not being either. You fokes are stoopid.

          • Plunket

            No, Oily, sorry, that’s just not true. It was your side that sold him as being messianic, The One, a savior and a Superman. He himself did it, as did his advisors, his adoring media enablers and his over-enthusiastic fans. We criticized both him and you then for doing it and told you then the emperor had no clothes. Now many on your side are finally coming around to that fact, but it’s been reluctantly, just as it took you about as long to finally realize what a scumbag John Edwards was as we were telling you all along.

  • oi ly

    At a rally in St. Petersburg., Romney recalled the time he spent with a young teenager dying of leukemia, returning to a story the boy’s parents had related from the stage of the Republican National Convention. “I’ve seen the character of a young man like David, who wasn’t emotional or crying. He had his eyes wide open,” Romney said Friday night. “There’s a saying: Clear eyes, full heart, can’t lose. David couldn’t lose. I loved that young man.”

    How disgusting, still exploiting the tragic and early death of a young boy and his heart broken family. Unbelievable.

  • oi ly

    “The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the data were worked out the same way as always, with no interference. And Welch later conceded that he had no evidence of a conspiracy.”

    Wonder if Hannity will also walk it back on Monday.

  • db

    Dennis,

    Phlunk again, “Conservatives didn’t whine half as much as you guys are these last two days.” Palin’s been whining for the past 4 years about the “gotcha question” of what newspapers do you read.

    I do know something about the, “Goog, goog, googly eyes”. But “Googling” has been a waste of time just about every time I’ve tried it. I keep getting offers to meet single women from the Ukraine. Besides DA & the others keep me posted on what I really need to know.

    DA, 6-3 Final. Congrats.

    • db

      DA,

      Sorry, I stand corrected, enjoy the sun, surf, & $4.50/gal. gas. Are you then an Oakland A’s fan?

    • Plunket

      Besides DA & the others keep me posted on what I really need to know.

      Of course they do, db.

      Of course they do.

      Nothing more. And nothing less.

      The way it should be for you.

      Droid.

      • db

        2
        You, Farris, & Frank seem to post almost identically and in most cases I can’t tell who wrote what without looking at the signature block. Can you recall one time when you three disagreed with each other?

        No, I don’t have a Droid. I have an i-Phone.

  • db

    DA, I thought the times were listed in Eastern. Thus you, in St. Louis, have an hour on the Easterners. If you comment from the Philippines they’re what 12 hours ahead? Switzerland is 7 or 8 ahead. If all times were local, the hours would be all over. I think the computer logs in all comments with the Eastern time of arrival.

    DA stands for Dark Avenger. I’m not aware how he got the name, nor why he gave it up. Not my business.

    • oi ly

      I have read his post; excellent work. Always to the point, unlike muddy waters aka Dennis.

  • Plunket

    Should be ‘do yourself a favor’. You had me laughing too hard.

  • db

    DA now lives above the fold & comments under the name Frank Cuffman. He is extremely good at research & has so abused Dennis with facts that Dennis refers to him as “Copypasta”.

    • oi ly

      Thanks.

    • Plunket

      Hahahahahahaha.

      db, I know you don’t know how to Google, but do yourself and look up the word ‘research’ if you have a dictionary close at hand.

      Also too, the words ‘extremely’, ‘good’ and ‘facts’.

      A lot of work for you but well worth the effort.

      Hahahaa. OMG, I can’t stop laughing. Priceless.

    • oi ly

      db –

      What does above the fold mean?

      • db

        Above the fold, slang for the comments through Facebook rather than the Banter media comment access. Below the fold is us down here. Dennis plays both ways.

        • oi ly

          I see. I don’t facebook, never have, never will.

  • db

    DA,

    I’ve noticed that Dennis has you on Eastern Time (up at 4:30) when you’re on Central time in St. Louis. Another little something he misses.

    Congratulations on the Ballgame. 6-3 in the 8th.

    • oi ly

      I gotta ask, who is DA and where is he?

  • Plunket

    Cheat Sheet for the Romney/Obama debate.

    I will admit, when I first saw this superficially insipidly stupid report ‘accusing’ Mitt Romney of being able to fit everything he needed to gut Barack Obama like a fish in Wednesday’s debate on a single sheet of paper (a so-called “cheat sheet”), my first thought was Wow. That’s incredibly insulting… to Barack Obama; surely you’d need at least an eight-page chapbook. But, once I saw this… well. Guess it maybe wasn’t a handkerchief* after all?”

    1. Wait for Obama to say X”.

    2. Smile

    3. Kick his ass

    4. Patiently wait for him to stop stammering in reply

    5. Repeat Step 2

    6. Repeat Step 3

    7. Politely tell the moderator that you’re not done.

    8. Repeat Step 2

    9. Repeat Step 3

    10. Repeat Step 1

    • Zython

      I think you have a few typeos there. Lemme fix that.

      1. Wait for Obama to say X”.
      2. Smile
      3. Lie
      4. Talk over the President
      5. GOTO 2
      6. GOTO 3
      7. Tell the moderator to learn his place
      8. GOTO 2
      9. GOTO 3
      10. GOTO 1

      You’re welcome

      • Plunket

        I’m not sure what’s more insulting to the President, blaming his god-awful performance with dubious claims that Romney lied that he let go because he didn’t have his teleprompter or something, or by blaming it on the completely whacky claim that Romney brought in a handkerchief with notes printed on them, which he used to wipe his nose with later.

        First it was the Obama ad telling people that Romney will give your wife cancer.

        Now it’s ‘Romney’s hanky will make the president look really, really stupid.’

        • oi ly

          Your concern for the Pres is cute. Too bad you never came to his defense during the 5 year racist rants by your fellow inmates.

          • Plunket

            Oily, Obama did a Sarah Palin. Actually worse than both her Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric interviews combined. Conservatives didn’t whine half as much as you guys are these last two days.

            Just shut up and take it like men. You guys treat him like a rock star and his entourage shields him from the press and he went soft, took a couple punches he wasn’t expecting, and he wilted. It happens. So why makes excuses for him now?

            Oliver tells you not to panic, and what do you do? You f’ing go into panic mode.

          • oi ly

            What are you blabbering about, Dennis? Where’s the panic here? Business as usual ’round here.

          • Plunket

            Hanky-gate is desperation, Oily.

            Pure, unadulterated, panicked desperation.

          • oi ly

            Or pure fun.

        • Zython

          dubious claims that Romney lied

          I already gave a list of his lies during the debate. You’re a big boy, you can find it on your own.

    • db

      You forgot, “Threaten to fire Moderator.”

  • db

    Dennis,

    You’re switching the issue, subtly as always, but we still see it.

    We assert the the Bush Tax Cuts increased the deficit.
    You re-post a Post article which says the cuts didn’t cause the financial crisis.
    (It is an argument for a later time whether the Washington Post has been falling all over it self trying not to be “LIBERAL MEDIA” that it’s actually fairly rightist)

    You may think, “ufb how stupid you are sometimes.”.

    Stupid enough to catch your sleight of hand tricks.

    It’s not the same thing.

  • oi ly

    Just listening to Hannity and he’s standing on his head spitting nickels trying to convince the useful idiots that the unemployment rate is higher than it is. Oh, and he agrees with truther Welch! Good God.

  • oi ly

    There’s you truther, Dennis –

    “For former General Electric chief executive Jack Welch, a Mitt Romney supporter, the drop below the 8 per cent barrier showed how Mr. Obama’s campaign operatives “will do anything” to win the Nov. 6 presidential election.

    “Unbelievable jobs numbers…these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers,” Mr. Welch, 76, tweeted after the Labor Department reported Friday that the jobless rate dropped last month to its lowest level since January, 2009.”

    • Plunket

      What point are you making there, Oily?

      Your crib note theory is as loony as the day is long, especially when there is photo evidence of him using a handkerchief. And you’re nuttier than the Kossack who was just asking the question. His asking the question was all you needed to be convinced. That’s why idiots at Daily Kos headline stupid shit in the form of a question, because there are always bigger idiots like you who are gullible enough to take their deceptive implication to be 100% true.

      The unemployment numbers were bad enough on their own without Jack Welch having to say there’s a conspiracy, unless you think a huge ramp-up in part-time workers is something to brag about. Even still, both sides are prone to think there’s manipulation with this number when there’s a lowering of the actual rate just before a presidential election. Nothing new there. Again, the consensus was for a slight uptick to 8.2% with a non-farm payroll number that came in right on the screws of expectations, so an unemployment rate 4 tenths of a percent lower than expectations when the NFP number was right as predicted is just naturally going to raise eyebrows. And besides, wasn’t that you the last two years asking “Where are the jobs, Republicans”? Or was that your sidekick, el?

      Is your point that you may be crazy, but Jack Welch is crazy too? Was that it?

      • oi ly

        Where is the proof, Dennis? You haven’t proved anything by linking to an article quoting anonymous sources as their evidence. What a joke.

        Oh, and I guess you’re calling Hannity crazy too, then, ’cause he agrees with Welch’s conspiracy theory. Nice, you’re on a roll. First you admit that Bush was a disaster before he left office and now you’re calling Hannity crazy too! Tomorrow you’ll have to finally call Limbaugh a looney as well.

        • Plunket

          Where is your proof, whack-job conspiracy truther? Again, Oily, even the nutty Kossack isn’t saying it’s true like you are.

          I didn’t say Welch was crazy and I didn’t admit Bush was a disaster before he left office- see my post above the first time you made that falsehood and just try to refute it with anything half-way resembling an intelligent response. And why do you think blatantly lying is an effective way to argue when you’re losing the argument?

          Please, Oily, find one other loon here that agrees with you that Romney pulled out crib notes at that debate and that’s why Obama sucked ass. C’mon, seriously, I want to have it on record.

          Just one.

          • oi ly

            You’re sweating, Dennis.

          • Plunket

            First you admit that Bush was a disaster before he left office -Oily the Hanky Truther

            WaPo Fact Check

            Obama’s claim that the Bush tax cuts led to the economic crisis ….. Three Pinoccio’s

            It is time for the Obama campaign to retire this talking point, no matter how much it seems to resonate with voters. The financial crisis of 2008 stemmed from a variety of complex factors, in particular the bubble in housing prices and the rise of exotic financial instruments. Deregulation was certainly an important factor, but as the government commission concluded, the blame for that lies across administrations, not just in the last Republican one.

            In any case, the Bush tax cuts belong at the bottom of the list — if at all. Moreover, it is rather strange for the campaign to cite as its source an article that, according to the author, does not support this assertion.

            We nearly made this Four Pinocchios but ultimately decided that citing deregulation in conjunction with tax cuts kept this line out of the “whopper” category. Still, in his effort to portray Romney as an echo of Bush, the president really stretches the limits here.

          • oi ly

            Show me where I said I believe it?

          • Plunket

            Show me where I admitted Bush Bush was a disaster. You’re a putz, Oily.

          • oi ly

            “And do you forget just four years ago and the giddiness at this blog when the stock market was having down 300, 400 and 500 point days just before the election?”

            Is that how you describe a booming economy … just before the election?

    • Zython

      It’s also possible that conservatives just don’t understand how numbers work.

      • Plunket

        That chart looks worse than the one Obama put out with his projection of where we’d be without the stimulus, Zython.

        • Zython

          Case and point: Dennis believes that 9.4 > 9.1 > 9.4.

          Have you ever tried NOT being stupid?

          • Plunket

            In June of 2010, the unemployment rate was 9.4%. And in December the rate was at 9.4%.

            The numbers aren’t wrong, the graph was…….. but so what? What does that prove besides you being once again late to the conversation and completely clueless. That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, Zython.

            Dope.

            Go get an early start on the dorm kegger tonight.

          • Zython

            What does that prove

            It, and your defense of it, proves that conservatives don’t understand how numbers work, which ties in with Jack Welch’s conspiracy theories about the unemployment rate.

            That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, Zython.

            Your failure to understand does not constitute irrelevance.

            Go get an early start on the dorm kegger tonight.

            I don’t drink. Maybe you should try that sometime. Maybe you might understand what’s happening around you.

      • db

        Zython,

        You’ve added another to the “Fake Fox Facts” file.

        Fox knows how it works, they just cheat.

  • oi ly

    “But the Romney campaign told Whispers Friday that Romney was only pulling out a handkerchief.”

    What did you want him to say? He’ll never admit it.

    • Plunket

      It’s too bad for you, Oily, that it just so happens that his claim of pulling out a handkerchief is consistent with the very clear evidence that he used a handkerchief. Idiot.

      Why don’t you nutcases just say he had a radio attached to his backside and an electronic wire to his ear and Karl Rove was feeding him answers?

      It’s the only way you can explain why this happened to Obama Wednesday night.

  • Plunket

    US News: No, Mitt Romney Did Not Bring Cheat Notes to the Debate

  • oi ly

    He would have written his thoughts on hands but, given past Republican history, he knew he was gonna be watch, so he decided to use paper instead. Still he got caught.

    • Plunket

      Still he got caught.

      Oily just cannot come to grips with the fact Obama had the worst debate performance of any incumbent president in the last 50 years. Of course, “it was because Romney brought a handkerchief to the debate.”

    • oi ly

      “A forensic video analyst, who did not wish to be named because of pending state and federal cases he’s working on, says he also believes the white object was just a handkerchief.”

      Another anonymous source!! Until proven otherwise, he was holding cheat notes.

  • oi ly

    Oh, and Beck said yesterday that Obama despised Romney even before the debate started and even more so after the debate because Obama lost and also because Romney’s white. He said that.

  • M2

    No wingnut complaints about our 7.8 unemployment rate?

    • oi ly

      You’d think the economist Farris would be the first …

      • enlightened liberal

        Hey, give them a break, Rush just came on an hour ago.

        • Plunket

          Listen to liberal enlightenment, he had to wait 24 hours after the disaster debate before he could even post here again, then it was like “Oh, oh, Romney lied, yeah, that’s it, that’s why Obama sucked, lalala” that had been faxed out to all the liberal blogs that morning.

        • oi ly

          Last night on Red Eye Radio, one of the buffoons was anticipating the unemployment rate to be over 8%. He also said that even 7.9% wouldn’t be good enough. It’s like they’re cheering for the country to fail. Just like Rush was hoping Obama to fail and the one term President tea party fokes. They are a sad and destructive lot.

          • Plunket

            The Bloomberg consensus was for the actual rate to tick up to 8.2% on a non-farm payroll of 115k jobs (it came in essentially right on top of that- 114k). So whoever said that was repeating consensus among economists surveyed who follow that number, Oily. And 7.9% isn’t good enough. Obama admits that. He says that on every unemployment number. Would you say “It’s like he’s cheering for the country to fail”?

            And do you forget just four years ago and the giddiness at this blog when the stock market was having down 300, 400 and 500 point days just before the election? A sad and destructive lot then?

          • oi ly

            Didn’t hear me cheering back then; I was terrified like most normal people. But it’s nice of you to admit what a major economic disaster (fuck up) Bush’s swan song was.

          • oi ly

            There’s you truther, Dennis –

            “For former General Electric chief executive Jack Welch, a Mitt Romney supporter, the drop below the 8 per cent barrier showed how Mr. Obama’s campaign operatives “will do anything” to win the Nov. 6 presidential election.

            “Unbelievable jobs numbers…these Chicago guys will do anything…can’t debate so change numbers,” Mr. Welch, 76, tweeted after the Labor Department reported Friday that the jobless rate dropped last month to its lowest level since January, 2009.”

          • Plunket

            Didn’t hear me cheering back then; I was terrified like most normal people. But it’s nice of you to admit what a major economic disaster (fuck up) Bush’s swan song was.

            That’s because there was no one posting as Oily back then, Oily.

            You could sit here all day and all night and the rest of the weekend with Google and you still couldn’t make an accurate case for just how Bush caused those drops in the DOW on those days in late summer and early fall of 2008.

            Not that you would even try. Or even start.

            WaPo: Obama’s claim that the Bush tax cuts led to the economic crisis Three Pinnochio’s

    • Plunket

      No wingnuts post here, Marco.

      If you thought it couldn’t get any goofier or weaker than the Goracle blaming Obama’s horrible debate on the Denver altitude, behold the Kossacks latest craziness…

      Did Mitt use crib notes for the debate?

      Whenever a liberal blog asks a question in their headline, the answer is always ‘No’.

      • M2

        “No wingnuts post here, Marco.”

        He who posts from Big Government needs some self-reflection. And I agree with you on liberal blogs. I just read on with the headline “Are Republicans capable of telling the truth?”

        No, no, no.

        • Plunket

          Seriously, it’s a scummier tactic than beginning a lie with the word “So”. Make up a bullshit conspiracy and pose it as a question. Then in the body say “I’m not saying it’s definitely true, I’m just asking the question.” Why can’t those nutcases there just admit that their Superman Savior did worse than anyone in a presidential debate since Carter v. Reagan in 1980? Is that so hard?

          • oi ly

            Many here have expressed disappointment with Obama’s debate performance. What’s your fucking problem?

          • oi ly

            “Then in the body say “I’m not saying it’s definitely true, I’m just asking the question.” ”

            Sound familiar, Birther?

          • Plunket

            Does that make it acceptable to you then, Truther conspiracy nut, or do you just enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth?

          • oi ly

            “… or do you just enjoy talking out of both sides of your mouth?”

            Back at you. I’d love to see your raging defense of Obama’s American citizenship or his Christianity over on the blaze or any other nutty Birther inspired blogs.

            That would be priceless.

          • M2

            Yeah, I’d love to sit here and read your rants about what the lefties won’t admit to as soon as those “surveyor” sights Palin map, Breitbart tapes and “alleged” Rush Limbaugh racism posts leave my memory.

          • db

            Some say Romney lied through his teeth.

            Just askin.

          • Plunket

            Some say Romney lied through his teeth.

            Just askin.

            You could half-way intelligently say you were ‘just askin’ had you asked a question, even had you asked a stupid question, but guess what, db…. YOU DIDN’T ASK A QUESTION!

            OMG, it is just ufb how stupid you are sometimes.

            And here I was thinking it was all an act just because you were too lazy to learn how to google stuff .

          • Plunket

            Yeah, I’d love to sit here and read your rants about what the lefties won’t admit to as soon as those “surveyor” sights Palin map, Breitbart tapes and “alleged” Rush Limbaugh racism posts leave my memory.

            No correlation between the surveyor sights and Jared Lee Loughner has ever been found, Marco. No correlation between Sarah Palin and Loughner, either. No correlation between anything Republican and the shootings. Despite all the reactionary idiocy spewed here, none of you found any correlation whatsoever.

            No evidence Breitbart edited the tapes. And posting a list from MMfA is a very, very, very weak and cowardly way of proving a point.

          • M2

            Nope, no wingnutiness there.

            Hilarious. Do you even buy your own bullshit anymore?

  • db

    Guys,

    Off topic but I need your assistance.

    As I remember it about a year ago President Obama made a deal with the Congressional Republicans, they would allow the debt ceiling to rise (& not force the country to default on its’ debt) & President Obama agrees to automatic across-the-board spending cuts if a budget plan couldn’t be compromised. Right?

    So this morning right after the radio 5:00 national news; I head an ad by (Karl Roves?) Crossroads GPS attacking President Obama for (maybe?) cutting defense spending that will threaten the economy.

    Have I wandered into Bizarro World? Or is Karl Rove attacking the President for compromising with the Republicans and giving the Republicans some of what they wanted?

    • enlightened liberal

      Bizarro World? That’s SOP for Republicans. Campaign for something, then when it happens and there is a negative result, blame it on the other guy.

      I for one am for draconian cuts in the military. However, there is a jobs impact of this in the private and public sector. Republicans whined about the deficit but when the chickens come home to roost, they really aren’t serious about any cuts. They also won’t raise taxes. The President needs to get on TV and say “You don’t want any taxes raised and you don’t want any programs cut. How the f— do you suggest that the deficit comes down?”

      • db

        There’s always killing Big Bird.

        The military budget hasn’t been about defense for a while. It’s a jobs bill now. Certainly there’s some savings to be had, but we do have to ask whether getting (Lord Willing) unneeded military equipment is better than losing the jobs. For me, I’ve always been a big fan of repairing roads, bridges, infrastructure, & schools for stimulus employment.

        I’m not sure your expletive works, but comparing Republican plans to reality is a good idea.

        My hoped for line from the President is, “Oh. You shook the Etch-a-Sketch again. You’re not that Mitt Romney anymore? You’re now in favor of….”

  • enlightened liberal

    It wasn’t a great performance by the President, but it is difficult to go toe to toe on policy with someone who just gets on stage and lies. He completely made up new programs seemingly on the fly. What was interesting was that he claimed these programs were exactly like the President’s- so why vote for Romney?

    There will be a lot of fodder for ads of course- hope the President calls him out on his lies next time. Biden will undoubtedly call Ryan on his.

    • oi ly

      “He completely made up new programs seemingly on the fly. What was interesting was that he claimed these programs were exactly like the President’s- so why vote for Romney?”

      This is true. Let’s see if the “new” Romney infuriates the Tea Party fokes.

      • enlightened liberal

        Why would it? The Teabagger’s only creed is to get the ni—clang! out of the White House. They also know Romney is a liar. So any lie in the service of their cause is ok.

        • oi ly

          Exactly.

  • SaveFarris

    I’ve never wanted the President to listen to Oliver more.

    Don’t change a thing, guys! You were perfect!!!

  • Plunket

    Should’ve been ‘Boy in the bubble syndrome’.

    • db

      Thank you fro the correction Dennis. I didn’t understand your reference, but since Marco had compared you to Jerry Sandusky, I was getting worried.

  • M2

    See, you embolden a wngnut when you don’t knock out the Mitt in the first round. We can’t wait for the final minutes of the third (debate) for the KO here.

    • Plunket

      I don’t get the strategy this morning of trying to blame Jim Lehrer, Marco. The netroots went crazy the day after the 2008 Democratic primary debate with George Stephanopolous, enraged that he brought up Bill Ayers. And they act as if Romney would’ve been blindsided by Obama if he had only brought up the 47%. You guys think that’s your ace in the hole for the next full month. So the boy in the boy syndrome that you guys use to enable such a lousy performance last night by Obama, the same thing that brings down the Lindsay Lohans, the Bertney’s, the Amanda Bynes, you guys want to go right back into that mode. The reason Romney was so sharp last night and on his game, and he would’ve been even more if Obama would’ve gone after him like Chris Matthews and the MSNBC crowd wanted him to, too, was that the Peggy Noonan’s, Joe Scarborough’s, Bill Kristol’s and many others on the right have been so tough on him. Not so with you guys, and now you want to right back there, like you’re in his entourage.

      So now you got the VP debate to hopefully stop the bleeding. Joe Biden. The middle class has been buried the last four years. Buried.

      Ponder that for a moment.

      • oi ly

        “The middle class has been buried the last four years. Buried. You guys think that’s your ace in the hole for the next full month.”

      • M2

        It was a lousy performance by the President and the only bright spot in the entire Romney campaign. Enjoy, but please Dennis – the President lost the debate last night. He did. Himself.

        Till next time.

        • M2

          Also, Jennifer Granholm was pretty much on the money calling this one.

        • Plunket

          Disagree, Marco. Someone who loses a debate with a very lackluster performance, he/she usually does it because the opponent has exceeded expectations as far as strategy and preparedness, and that sets him back on his heels. It’s not usually one or the other, one guy won or one guy lost, but a combination of the two. If you’re saying Obama beat himself, I would have to disagree. If you follow golf and watched the Ryder Cup at Medinah this past weekend, Ian Poulter went crazy the last few holes on the Saturday afternoon matches when the Europeans were way down, and he sank long putts out of his ass. It was a huge momentum changer, when all before that the Americans had been in a zone that day and the prior day and had taken a commanding lead in the matches. On Sunday the Europeans pulled off the greatest come-back ever in Ryder Cup history. You could say the Americans lost it, or you could say the Europeans won it, but the fact of the matter is both things happened, and they happened because of that huge change in momentum at the end of the Saturday rounds. Something caused Obama to choke last night, and it wasn’t the altitude or Jim Lehrer or a brain fart or Obama forgetting to talk about the 47% or Bain Capital- a lot of it happened because Romney was prepared, sharp, focused and determined to attack him on his weak spots and it threw him off his game. Romney far, far exceeded even Obama’s expectations, along with most of the country’s, and Obama’s performance suffered because of it. Without a strong performance by Romney, Obama would’ve done just fine.

          • oi ly

            He lied through his teeth, Dennis. He lied.

          • Plunket

            Instead of waiting for the DNC talking point and bravely repeating it here once you’ve fully digested it, Oily, why don’t you explain how Romney lied and why, if, as Marco says, Obama lost it, those lies of Romney you allege made Obama suck balls as badly as he did. Otherwise you sound like you’re whining.

            This is Superman. Who has no Lex Luthor, remember?

          • M2

            We can disagree all day, unlike every other day, but no one thinks Obama was on his A game last night. Mitt did well, but when you’re ahead in the polls for the office you already hold, it’s your debate to lose and lose he did.

            Don’t worry. the 47% is back.

            And ha, wonkette has me nailed.

            http://wonkette.com/485946/dry-your-eyes-wonkers-here-is-your-precious-fightin-president

            When we fight, we win. Last night there was no fight.

          • oi ly

            Entrapment! There’s a lot of political gold in them there lies.

          • Plunket

            Yeah, Oily, Obama meant to blow chunks on stage in the biggest debate of his life so that the next afternoon he could be all bad-ass and stuff and Monday-morning-quarterback Romney on their policy disagreements.

            Keep channeling Charles Blow.

          • oi ly

            No, I agree. However, political gain can be extracted, even from a loss. I’m not worried. It’s not over, not even by a long shot. Don’t count your chunks, Dennis.

          • Zython

            why don’t you explain how Romney lied

            I can’t look into Obama’s psyche, but I can certainly explain this one.

            But hey, I’m sure he was just “mistaken” or that his lies were “true enough”.

          • Plunket

            Funny, I don’t see you explaining anything.

            As is always the case with you, unprepared and detached.

            Kinda like Obama’s debate performance.

            The day after the big debate he’s got the speechwriters and the teleprompter. You’ve got Google and C+P keys.

          • Zython

            Ok, you see how the word “explain” in my post is in red? That’s because it’s a link. it will take you to another web page where you can read all about Romney’s lies during the debate.

            You’ve got Google and C+P keys.

            Yes, how DARE I actually look for evidence for my claims. I should probably just make shit up like you and Romney, right?

            Now apologize for being stupid.

  • Plunket

    Pre- Wednesday Oliver: “C’mon guys, this isn’t over…. yet. Anything can happen. Don’t get cocky.”

    Wedndesday: “Ok, Obama is Superman, only he doesn’t have a Lex Luthor.”

    Post- Wednesday Oliver: “C’mon Guys, THIS ISN’T OVER YET!!!. Anything can happen!!! Don’t Panic!”.

  • M2

    HA! i love the passion VS passion contrast. Hilarious.

    BUT…

    I can’t relax when Mitt co. wants to drop their agenda on us all. I’d rather panic now and guffaw at my ridiculousness later.