• Register
  • TOS
  • Privacy
  • @NeoGAF

Mortrialus
Banned
(01-30-2012, 04:50 AM)
Mortrialus's Avatar

Originally Posted by ToxicAdam

How will we survive? Oh woe is us.

The same way other threads in community do: With the number of regular posters cut by 90%.
A27_StarWolf
Banned
(01-30-2012, 05:06 AM)
A27_StarWolf's Avatar

Originally Posted by ivedoneyourmom

I think what might be best with this new approach is if sports were brought to the dungeon as well. Then we could potentially increase participation. This slow transition to move communities to community that has been going on for the past half year is innefective because we are still keeping some of the larger communities in Off Topic. I think that the implementation of this transition is causing it to not behave as intended. Instead of it making the Community tab more popular, it is choking the communities sent to it.

Let's get sports and TV series to join us.

Poligaf seems far more logical now that it is over here.

So if Romney gets Florida does he have it in the bag?
Jackson50
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:21 AM)
Jackson50's Avatar

Originally Posted by A27_StarWolf

Poligaf seems far more logical now that it is over here.

So if Romney gets Florida does he have it in the bag?

If he wins Florida, it merely hastens his inevitable victory. He's had it in the bag for a while.

Originally Posted by Bulbo Urethral Baggins

After all the analyses, a smoking gun was finally found in Romney's tax return.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/bu...ance.html?_r=1

He paid more than he should have.
Arrest that man!

A President Romney would probably enter office knowing more about loopholes in the tax code than any of his predecessors, and could, if he so chose, be an effective advocate for reform. Whether or not Mr. Romney wins, the disclosure of his tax returns provides the rest of us with an insight into just how dysfunctional the system has become.

Don't hold your breath.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:22 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar
I just got through listening to FZ GPS from Davos this week. One of the panelists tried to claim that the Arab Spring was a vindication of neoconservative policy in Iraq, and that Iraq was the domino that set it off.

Seriously.
Diablos
(01-30-2012, 05:25 AM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Oblivion

Dance, puppets! Dance!

Once the primary is over Romney (if he wins) will be working very hard to close that gap. And he will have a moderate amount of success at the very least.

My stomach is turning at the thought that Newt will lose the nomination. Romney scares me in the GE. I think Newt has another chance, though.
Last edited by Diablos; 01-30-2012 at 05:29 AM.
KingK
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:29 AM)
KingK's Avatar
I keep forgetting to check this thread since it moved here.

Unfortunately there's not a whole lot to catch up on. This thread seems so dead compared to how it used to be :(
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:33 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

Once the primary is over Romney (if he wins) will be working very hard to close that gap. And he will have a moderate amount of success at the very least.

My stomach is turning at the thought that Newt will lose the nomination. Romney scares me in the GE. I think Newt has another chance, though.

Why does Romney scare you in the GE? He's not good at campaigning. His negatives are up with independents. The economy is chugging, albeit slowly. All of these things break in Obama's favor. How do you justify being more concerned about Romney now than you were six months ago?
Jackson50
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:37 AM)
Jackson50's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

I just got through listening to FZ GPS from Davos this week. One of the panelists tried to claim that the Arab Spring was a vindication of neoconservative policy in Iraq, and that Iraq was the domino that set it off.

Seriously.

Yeah. This sentiment has permeated the neoconservative establishment. Walt refuted a similarly risible argument by Elliot Abrams last week.
Kad5
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:37 AM)
Kad5's Avatar
My friend sent me this:


"Since everyone seems to be so in favor of people paying their "fair share," here's a nice little analogy of our tax system:
Imagine that everyone in this country was asked to bring food to a bake sale. The top 1% (who earned 20% of the money) would provide 38% of the baked goods. The government would host the bake sale. Then after all the profits were collected and counted at the end of the day, the wealthiest 1% would get about 1% of the profit. To recap: They earned 20% of the money, brought 38% of the goods, and received 1% of the payout.

It's one thing to believe that the economy functions better when there is a more equal distribution of wealth. It's entirely another to insist that the 1% isn't paying their fair share. Oh and remember, half of the people didn't bring any baked goods. They did, however, receive 50% of the earnings of the sale."

How should I respond to this exactly?
Diablos
(01-30-2012, 05:41 AM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

Why does Romney scare you in the GE? He's not good at campaigning. His negatives are up with independents. The economy is chugging, albeit slowly. All of these things break in Obama's favor. How do you justify being more concerned about Romney now than you were six months ago?

His negatives could sink his candidacy into the abyss, and only then would he rival Newt in losing the GE. It's the starting point of GOP Candidate x, y, or z vs. Obama in the eyes of voters that worries me more than nuanced poll findings. Newt will not win young people, independent female voters, and minorities. Period.

Fact is, Romney is pretty evenly split with Obama across the board. A poll today showing that Independents stand with the President in Florida doesn't really indicate a damn thing. Romney seems to have the establishment on his side, even if reluctantly. He makes about $57,000 a day; he's made of money. He will sink everything he can get away with into this election.
Last edited by Diablos; 01-30-2012 at 05:45 AM.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:46 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jackson50

Yeah. This sentiment has permeated the neoconservative establishment. Walt refuted a similarly risible argument by Elliot Abrams last week.

I still giggle/vomit at the idea that Paul Wolfowitz would show his face at a GOP debate and not immediately be stoned.

Originally Posted by Kad5

My friend sent me this:
[...bullshit]
How should I respond to this exactly?

It's a pretty bad analogy, and I think it's also just wrong on a lot of the facts, so you should mostly just dismiss it as incoherent. I suppose one way to respond is that the wealthy didn't bring whatever goods they brought to the bake sale themselves. Really, though, the analogy is just noise and you can dismiss it as such.

Originally Posted by Diablos

His negatives could sink into the abyss, and only then would he rival Newt in losing the GE. It's the starting point as to how the public sees GOPers up against Obama that worries me more than nuanced poll findings. Newt will not win independent female voters and minorities. Period.

Fact is, Romney is pretty evenly split with Obama across the board. A poll today showing that Independents stand with the President in Florida doesn't really indicate a damn thing. Romney seems to have the establishment on his side, even if reluctantly. He makes about $57,000 a day; he's made of money. He will sink everything he can get away with into this election.

With the caveat that matchup polls are not particularly meaningful at this point, this really is not a fact. It doesn't come close to being correspondent with reality.
Diablos
(01-30-2012, 05:50 AM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

With the caveat that matchup polls are not particularly meaningful at this point, this really is not a fact. It doesn't come close to being correspondent with reality.

They aren't, but it's basically common sense at this point that Newt Gingrich would have a much harder time winning in the GE. He's clearly unelectable to anyone who is not a highly ideological conservative! I was just hoping uber conservative GOPers would throw away their chances this year. Looks like that won't happen unless Newt can pull a win out of his ass right after Florida.

Romney will be a formidable guy to go up against in the GE. Obama's camp knows it. Of all the idiots that trolled the stage during the GOP debates, the one guy that would have done so great in the GE... actually manged to keep his cool and let the other candidates eat each other alive. He was such a long shot, and yet, here he is.
Last edited by Diablos; 01-30-2012 at 05:52 AM.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:53 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

They aren't, but it's basically common sense at this point that Newt Gingrich would have a much harder time winning in the GE. He's clearly unelectable to anyone who is not a highly ideological conservative! I was just hoping uber conservative GOPers would throw away their chances this year. Looks like that won't happen unless Newt can pull a win out of his ass right after Florida.

Romney will be a formidable guy to go up against in the GE. Obama's camp knows it. Of all the idiots that trolled the stage during the GOP debates, the one guy that would have done so great in the GE... actually manged to keep his cool and let the other candidates eat each other alive.

My point is that he is looking less and less formidable. Your reactions are not commensurate with that reality.
Kad5
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:53 AM)
Kad5's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane


It's a pretty bad analogy, and I think it's also just wrong on a lot of the facts, so you should mostly just dismiss it as incoherent. I suppose one way to respond is that the wealthy didn't bring whatever goods they brought to the bake sale themselves. Really, though, the analogy is just noise and you can dismiss it as such.

"Haha my bad. Correction: the 1% then paid a delivery company to deliver the goods to the bake sale."

That was his response....
Oblivion
Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
(01-30-2012, 05:54 AM)

Originally Posted by Kad5

My friend sent me this:


"Since everyone seems to be so in favor of people paying their "fair share," here's a nice little analogy of our tax system:
Imagine that everyone in this country was asked to bring food to a bake sale. The top 1% (who earned 20% of the money) would provide 38% of the baked goods. The government would host the bake sale. Then after all the profits were collected and counted at the end of the day, the wealthiest 1% would get about 1% of the profit. To recap: They earned 20% of the money, brought 38% of the goods, and received 1% of the payout.

It's one thing to believe that the economy functions better when there is a more equal distribution of wealth. It's entirely another to insist that the 1% isn't paying their fair share. Oh and remember, half of the people didn't bring any baked goods. They did, however, receive 50% of the earnings of the sale."

How should I respond to this exactly?

Wait, why are the 1% only receiving 1% of the payout?
Diablos
(01-30-2012, 05:55 AM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

My point is the he is looking less and less formidable. Your reactions are not commensurate with that reality.

Looking less and less formidable... in Jan/Feb. Not a big deal. Romney will have the rest of the year to convince voters on the fence why they should give him a chance. He has the money to do that to his heart's content. Pro-business Republican donors are going to be shacking up with Romney's SuperPAC all night long, all year long. It's going to be fucking insane. We will have never seen anything like this before. He's the face of corporate greed.
Last edited by Diablos; 01-30-2012 at 05:58 AM.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:56 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar

Originally Posted by Kad5

"Haha my bad. Correction: the 1% then paid a delivery company to deliver the goods to the bake sale."

That was his response....

"entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity"

I really do not understand what point he's trying to make. Nor is it clear that I (or you) should want to.

Originally Posted by Diablos

Looking less and less formidable... in Jan/Feb. Not a big deal. Romney will have the rest of the year to convince voters on the fence why they should give him a chance. He has the money to do that to his heart's content. Pro-business Republican donors are going to be shacking up with Romney's SuperPAC all night long, all year long. It's going to be fucking insane.

I don't think Obama is at much peril of being outspent. Why do you think independents are suddenly going to warm to Romney when he's been on the decline with them so far?
Last edited by Invisible_Insane; 01-30-2012 at 05:58 AM.
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:58 AM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

Looking less and less formidable... in Jan/Feb. Not a big deal. Romney will have the rest of the year to convince voters on the fence why they should give him a chance. He has the money to do that to his heart's content. Pro-business Republican donors are going to be shacking up with Romney's SuperPAC all night long, all year long. It's going to be fucking insane.

Why are you so worried? Obama has 1 billion dollars...
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 06:00 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar

Originally Posted by AlteredBeast

Why are you so worried? Obama has 1 billion dollars...

You may be off by an order of magnitude.

Actually, you should just link to that in the OP, it has basically all the information needed for for the rest of the year.

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/calendar
Diablos
(01-30-2012, 06:01 AM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by AlteredBeast

Why are you so worried? Obama has 1 billion dollars...

Because Romney is rich, has pro-business Republicanism on his side (a force to be recknoned with in politics, love or hate it), the GOP lie and distortion machine out in full effect, and moderates in what could be key states like PA and MI really helping him gain momentum.

His name alone will work wonders for him in MI. Here in PA, I honestly think for the first time since the Reagan/Bush days every county in the state save Philly/suburban Philly will go red, which should be able to push Mitt over the top here. Usually Allegheny country, Harrisburg area, and Philly always go for Democrats and keeps the state in the blue column. But that could change with Romney, even if the EV's here don't get gerrymandered. People here in western PA hold Mittens in really high regard. Even Democrats. He's pretty popular.

And that 66-67 million dollar surge Obama has on Romney can easily be erased if he gets the nomination. Watch Romney's war chest soar.
Last edited by Diablos; 01-30-2012 at 06:07 AM.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 06:06 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar
Last time anyone bothered to look, Obama was a modest favorite over Romney in PA.

Do you care to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of your position that Romney is running away with independents or will do so merely because he has lots of money to spend? Obama has lots of money too.
Last edited by Invisible_Insane; 01-30-2012 at 08:32 PM.
Diablos
(01-30-2012, 06:15 AM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

Last time anyone bothered to look, Obama was a modest favorite over Romney in PA.

Do you care to provide any evidence whatsoever in support of your position that Romney is running away with independents or will do so merely because he has lots of money to spend? Obama has lots of money too.

I'm not saying he's running away with Independents, but of all the GOPers in the field he's the one who is most likely to -- at least in places where Democrats are normally just fine -- i.e. west coast, northeast, certain places in the midwest like Michigan. His starting point this early on, before most Americans even give a damn about what's happening, is 50/50. Newt's starting point is a good 10+ points behind. The gap between Obama and Romney can't get any tighter, and it's still very early. It's great that the economy is holding its ground and not declining, but it needs to be more rapid for people to really notice. Obama will need more than that to defeat Romney. Like Reagan, he could convince people it is getting better. But Romney is no Mondale.

People will no doubt associate Romney with his father in MI, who was held in pretty high regard. Will it hand him a win? No, but combined with a strong moderate vote it certainly won't hurt anything, and will help keep him really competitive in the state.

As far as how I feel about him in PA, I've lived here long enough to know that western PA is pretty purple and favors moderates over anything else. If they perceive Mitt as such, he will do great in this part of the state, better than any GOPer since Reagan/H.W. Bush.
Last edited by Diablos; 01-30-2012 at 06:19 AM.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 06:18 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

I'm not saying he's running away with Independents, but of all the GOPers in the field he's the one who is most likely to -- at least in places where Democrats are normally just fine -- i.e. west coast, northeast, certain places in the midwest like Michigan. His starting point this early on, before most Americans even give a damn about what's happening, is 50/50. Newt's starting point is a good 10+ points behind. The gap between Obama and Romney can't get any tighter, and it's still very early.

People will no doubt associate Romney with his father in MI, who was held in pretty high regard. Will it hand him a win? No, but combined with a strong moderate vote it certainly won't hurt anything, and will help keep him really competitive in the state.

As far as how I feel about him in PA, I've lived here long enough to know that western PA is pretty purple and favors moderates over anything else. If they perceive Mitt as such, he will do great in this part of the state, better than any GOPer since Reagan/H.W. Bush.

I'm going to assume you didn't click on the link in my previous post, where you would have seen that Obama is an even bigger favorite over Romney in Michigan than he is in Pennsylvania?
Diablos
(01-30-2012, 06:21 AM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

I'm going to assume you didn't click on the link in my previous post, where you would have seen that Obama is an even bigger favorite over Romney in Michigan than he is in Pennsylvania?

All I am getting are GOP primary results, sir.

And I believe you, totally, but the campaigning hasn't even started yet outside of the primary. The whole dynamic will change when Obama and Romney are going up against each other.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 06:23 AM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar
That's my bad: this is the link I meant to post.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...toral-map.html
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 06:25 AM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

All I am getting are GOP primary results, sir.

And I believe you, totally, but the campaigning hasn't even started yet outside of the primary. The whole dynamic will change when Obama and Romney are going up against each other.

I believe in the American public and their ability to realize that Obama has done a pretty good job. Romney will really have to make a strong case for him being a better choice than Obama.
Diablos
(01-30-2012, 06:30 AM)
Diablos's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

That's my bad: this is the link I meant to post.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/m...toral-map.html

-9 in PA since 2008? Only a 1 point lead? Ouch. He carried PA by over 7 points in 2008...

1 point is really nothing. Well within the margin of error. If it's less than 4 points here, it's reason to worry. Philly/subruban Philly will deliver; if Pittsburgh/suburban Pittsburgh doesn't Obama could lose the state. Nothing else really matters, but Harrisburg's support wouldn't hurt. But that really, really sucks. I do question how accurate this poll is, because it puts OH, NC, and FL ahead of PA. That doesn't really make any sense because PA has always stayed in the blue column while the rest of the states have gone back and forth. If PA is only +1, it's baffling to me that OH is +3. OH and NC I think are a lost cause for Dems now, and PA for the first time since the 80's might actually be a legitimate swing state.


Originally Posted by AlteredBeast

I believe in the American public and their ability to realize that Obama has done a pretty good job. Romney will really have to make a strong case for him being a better choice than Obama.

I don't. It's the same American public that voted an at least somewhat functional Congress out and replaced it with the walking disaster that is the House GOP majority. This election is all about the economy.
Last edited by Diablos; 01-30-2012 at 06:43 AM.
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 07:18 AM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

-9 in PA since 2008? Only a 1 point lead? Ouch. He carried PA by over 7 points in 2008...

1 point is really nothing. Well within the margin of error. If it's less than 4 points here, it's reason to worry. Philly/subruban Philly will deliver; if Pittsburgh/suburban Pittsburgh doesn't Obama could lose the state. Nothing else really matters, but Harrisburg's support wouldn't hurt. But that really, really sucks. I do question how accurate this poll is, because it puts OH, NC, and FL ahead of PA. That doesn't really make any sense because PA has always stayed in the blue column while the rest of the states have gone back and forth. If PA is only +1, it's baffling to me that OH is +3. OH and NC I think are a lost cause for Dems now, and PA for the first time since the 80's might actually be a legitimate swing state.



I don't. It's the same American public that voted an at least somewhat functional Congress out and replaced it with the walking disaster that is the House GOP majority. This election is all about the economy.

A functional congress would have gotten stuff done, like a budget, real health care reform, campaign finance reform, filibuster reform, etc. Not saying they couldn't do anything, but having control of all branches of government and not getting crap done is hilarious. Voting them out was a referendum on them, frustration about the economy, and the lack of the hope and change that got them elected.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
(01-30-2012, 07:47 AM)

Originally Posted by Diablos

His negatives could sink his candidacy into the abyss, and only then would he rival Newt in losing the GE. It's the starting point of GOP Candidate x, y, or z vs. Obama in the eyes of voters that worries me more than nuanced poll findings. Newt will not win young people, independent female voters, and minorities. Period.

Fact is, Romney is pretty evenly split with Obama across the board. A poll today showing that Independents stand with the President in Florida doesn't really indicate a damn thing. Romney seems to have the establishment on his side, even if reluctantly. He makes about $57,000 a day; he's made of money. He will sink everything he can get away with into this election.

I disagree about the Florida poll. Romney right now is bombarding Florida with ads, yet he is down against Obama who hasn't been campaigning at all. I would say that is a pretty good sign. Things can change of course, but it makes me feel better.
Last edited by Particle Physicist; 01-30-2012 at 05:23 PM.
The Chosen One
Member
(01-30-2012, 07:51 AM)
The Chosen One's Avatar
I thought it was a joke...

...PoliGAF really did get banished to the community sub-forum? Wow...
Pie Lord
Member
(01-30-2012, 01:13 PM)
Pie Lord's Avatar

Originally Posted by Diablos

-9 in PA since 2008? Only a 1 point lead? Ouch. He carried PA by over 7 points in 2008...

1 point is really nothing. Well within the margin of error. If it's less than 4 points here, it's reason to worry. Philly/subruban Philly will deliver; if Pittsburgh/suburban Pittsburgh doesn't Obama could lose the state. Nothing else really matters, but Harrisburg's support wouldn't hurt. But that really, really sucks. I do question how accurate this poll is, because it puts OH, NC, and FL ahead of PA. That doesn't really make any sense because PA has always stayed in the blue column while the rest of the states have gone back and forth. If PA is only +1, it's baffling to me that OH is +3. OH and NC I think are a lost cause for Dems now, and PA for the first time since the 80's might actually be a legitimate swing state.



I don't. It's the same American public that voted an at least somewhat functional Congress out and replaced it with the walking disaster that is the House GOP majority. This election is all about the economy.

There is no way Obama is going to carry Harrisburg, or anywhere else in the mid state for that matter.
Last edited by Pie Lord; 01-30-2012 at 01:22 PM.
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 03:35 PM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar
Freddie Mac Betting Against Struggling Against Homeowners

Heard this on the radio this morning. Apparently Freddie Mac is stacking their mortgages in a way that is helping to prevent homeowners from refinancing at lower rates. Nice reform, really looking out for the common man stuck in high-interest loans!
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Benedict Arnold's 5th Cousin
(01-30-2012, 03:48 PM)
Bulbo Urethral Baggins's Avatar
Gallup poll - Romney leading Obama in swing states
Romney is up by 1% in swing States and tied nationally with Obama.
Looks like this is going to be a damn tight race.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...oll/52871890/1
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 04:03 PM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by Bulbo Urethral Baggins

Gallup poll - Romney leading Obama in swing states
Romney is up by 1% in swing States and tied nationally with Obama.
Looks like this is going to be a damn tight race.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...oll/52871890/1

Probably only until the Obama machine starts cranking out Mitt sausages.
Door2Dawn
Banned
(01-30-2012, 04:11 PM)
Door2Dawn's Avatar
We'll start seeing rimney getting more solid leads once he gets the nom
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 04:13 PM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by Door2Dawn

We'll start seeing rimney getting more solid leads once he gets the nom

Should be a good election. Still keeping tabs on the ridiculous posters who were saying that Obama was going to win by a wider margin than in 08. LOL
NeoUltima
Member
(01-30-2012, 04:28 PM)

Originally Posted by Kad5

My friend sent me this:


"Since everyone seems to be so in favor of people paying their "fair share," here's a nice little analogy of our tax system:
Imagine that everyone in this country was asked to bring food to a bake sale. The top 1% (who earned 20% of the money) would provide 38% of the baked goods. The government would host the bake sale. Then after all the profits were collected and counted at the end of the day, the wealthiest 1% would get about 1% of the profit. To recap: They earned 20% of the money, brought 38% of the goods, and received 1% of the payout.

It's one thing to believe that the economy functions better when there is a more equal distribution of wealth. It's entirely another to insist that the 1% isn't paying their fair share. Oh and remember, half of the people didn't bring any baked goods. They did, however, receive 50% of the earnings of the sale."

How should I respond to this exactly?

The top 1% does not account for 38% of GDP. Real life ain't no bake sale.
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 04:46 PM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by NeoUltima

The top 1% does not account for 38% of GDP. Real life ain't no bake sale.

None of the argument made any sense. It is best to forget it altogether. Those ignorant people who bring up stuff like that will avoid facts even if they held them down and forced themselves on people.
Invisible_Insane
Member
(01-30-2012, 04:50 PM)
Invisible_Insane's Avatar
Is Charlie Crist so widely disliked in Florida that associating him with Romney is supposed to be damaging? It looks that way from the ads I'm getting.
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 04:57 PM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar

Originally Posted by Invisible_Insane

Is Charlie Crist so widely disliked in Florida that associating him with Romney is supposed to be damaging? It looks that way from the ads I'm getting.

I think he was kind of average until he decided to go Independent to try and get elected. Once you screw over the party, the people screw you.
Sanky Panky
Banned
(01-30-2012, 05:02 PM)
Sanky Panky's Avatar
I guess I'll sub in this thread and cope with gaf bad decisions...
AlteredBeast
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:08 PM)
AlteredBeast's Avatar
Man, whatever will we all do. Imagine, having to go to the Community Forum to discuss politics!!!
ezekial45
I have assigned to you one day for each year its punishment will last.
(01-30-2012, 05:09 PM)
ezekial45's Avatar
It's a bit depressing having the poligaf thread in community. It just feels like a ghost town here.
Last edited by ezekial45; 01-30-2012 at 05:11 PM.
Jackson50
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:20 PM)
Jackson50's Avatar

Originally Posted by AlteredBeast

I think he was kind of average until he decided to go Independent to try and get elected. Once you screw over the party, the people screw you.

Yeah. Crist is loathed by staunch conservatives. Associating Romney with Crist is a ploy to portray Romney as a Massachusetts moderate/liberal.

Originally Posted by Bulbo Urethral Baggins

Gallup poll - Romney leading Obama in swing states
Romney is up by 1% in swing States and tied nationally with Obama.
Looks like this is going to be a damn tight race.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...oll/52871890/1

Although I likewise estimate a competitive race, a sample of 737 registered voters across 12 states this far from the election is not informative.
Rocket Scientist
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:21 PM)
Rocket Scientist's Avatar
Complaining about it is only going to make Evilore more annoyed...
Mortrialus
Banned
(01-30-2012, 05:22 PM)
Mortrialus's Avatar
Rick Santorum: Colleges diminishing faith.

Rick Santorum makes the claim that 62% of kids that enter college with a faith based conviction leave without it. I'm not sure on the validity of that claim, but awesome if true.

Mock if old.
Rocket Scientist
Member
(01-30-2012, 05:26 PM)
Rocket Scientist's Avatar

Originally Posted by Youtube

How dare universties have the nerve to teach people actual facts, it's just plain shameful.
dodgeysmith1

So Youtube actually has inteligent posts? Well I'll be damned.
Dax01
Prefers her Trek sans Abrams
(01-30-2012, 05:30 PM)
Dax01's Avatar

Originally Posted by Jackson50

Although I likewise estimate a competitive race, a sample of 737 registered voters across 12 states this far from the election is not informative.

That, and it doesn't matter who leads across all states. If Obama nabs every swing state but one, what does it matter if Romney is leading overall by one point?
Flying_Phoenix
Banned
(01-30-2012, 05:31 PM)
Flying_Phoenix's Avatar

Originally Posted by Mortrialus

Rick Santorum: Colleges diminishing faith.

Rick Santorum makes the claim that 62% of kids that enter college with a faith based conviction leave without it. I'm not sure on the validity of that claim, but awesome if true.

Mock if old.

It happened with me. Though I more so lost "my faith" due to message boards.

Originally Posted by Rocket Scientist

So Youtube actually has inteligent posts? Well I'll be damned.

No you misunderstood the context of that post, they weren't being sarcastic.
Mortrialus
Banned
(01-30-2012, 05:40 PM)
Mortrialus's Avatar

Originally Posted by Rocket Scientist

So Youtube actually has inteligent posts? Well I'll be damned.

Santorum isn't the only one to make an admission like this. In 2011 Josh McDowell, the author of Evidence that Demands a Verdict (More commonly known as Evidence that Demands a Refund), said that the internet is the biggest danger to Christianity.

“Now here is the problem,” said McDowell, “going all the way back, when Al Gore invented the Internet [he said jokingly], I made the statement off and on for 10-11 years that the abundance of knowledge, the abundance of information, will not lead to certainty; it will lead to pervasive skepticism. And, folks, that’s exactly what has happened. It’s like this. How do you really know, there is so much out there… This abundance [of information] has led to skepticism. And then the Internet has leveled the playing field [giving equal access to skeptics].”

http://www.christianpost.com/news/ap...istians-52382/

Heck, a lot of the best selling Christian books are about how to keep your kids christian through college.
Last edited by Mortrialus; 01-30-2012 at 05:47 PM.

Thread Tools