Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
He has no intention of courting the Black Vote, he got zero percent in not one but two polls. Sure those polls had a one to two percent margin of error but it follows a trend that he might be the first Republican to get less than two percent of the Black vote, something even George Wallace managed to get.Zaune wrote:I can't wait to see what happens when he starts trying to improve his standing with black voters.
Seriously how many times have we all seen something some one on the right has said that the left could use to Destroy them, and they usually totally ignore it.
WOODBRIDGE, Va.—President Barack Obama took another shot at Mitt Romney's suggestion that 47 percent of Americans have a "victim" mentality, casting his opponent as out of touch with the country.
"I don't believe we can get very far with leaders who write off half the nation as victims who will never take responsibility," Obama declared at a rally here.
The president also defended his suggestion before a Univision forum yesterday, in which he said he'd learned "you can't change Washington from the inside." Obama said that he meant the only real change comes from outside Washington—and mocked Romney for twisting his comments.
"My opponent got really excited. He stood up at a rally and proudly declared, 'I'll get the job done from the inside,'" Obama said. "What kind of inside job is he talking about? ... We don't want an inside job in Washington. We want change in Washington. ... That can't happen if you've written off half the country."
It was the second time in 24 hours that Obama took a shot at Romney's "47 percent" comment, which was captured in a secretly taped video of the Republican candidate speaking at a Florida fundraiser in May. The video, leaked to Mother Jones magazine, showed Romney saying that Obama's supporters—which he estimated to be about 47 percent of the country—view themselves as victims and are reliant on government handouts.
Romney has downplayed his comments, suggesting he was just talking about the political landscape of the race. During his appearance at the Univision forum, Romney insisted he was running to represent "100 percent of America."
But the GOP candidate's remarks have clearly given an opening to Obama, who wove in multiple references to the video throughout his appearance in Virginia, a hotly contested battleground state.
A Washington Post poll released earlier this week found Obama had significantly expanded his lead in the state, edging out Romney by 8 points—52 percent to 44 percent.
At least 11,000 people turned out to see the president here—spreading across the outfield of a minor-league baseball stadium. Echoing his speech at the Democratic National Convention, Obama repeatedly insisted he needed another term to accomplish the "change" he promised as a candidate in 2008.
"We've always said that change takes more than one term or even one president. It certainly takes more than one party," Obama said, insisting he would work with Republicans if they were willing.
Making yet another reference to Romney's "47 percent" remark, Obama acknowledged that half the country didn't vote for him four years ago—and that half the country might not support him again in November. But he explained he was not running "to create Democratic jobs or Republican jobs" but rather "American jobs," and that he wasn't running to improve circumstances in "blue states" versus "red states." Obama insisted he's running to represent all Americans—whether he wins someone's vote or not.
"I still believe we are not as divided as our politics suggest," Obama said. "I still believe we have more in common than the pundits tell us."
To his supporters, he added, "I still believe in you, and I'm asking you to keep believing in me."
I love how R-Money actively manipulated his taxes to pay his '13%' pledge. Of course, once the last vote is cast, he'll probably fire off an amendment to the IRS and get the full amount extra back.Flagg wrote:Well, Governor Blackface has finally released his 2011 taxes and a "summary" of his tax rates from 1990 to 2009. Classic Friday afternoon news dump.
Harry Reid press release wrote:Reid Statement On Governor Romney’s Tax Returns
September 21, 2012
Washington, D.C.—Nevada Senator Harry Reid issued the following statement after Mitt Romney released today one year worth of tax returns, showing he paid a lower tax rate than most middle class Americans:
"The information released today reveals that Mitt Romney manipulated one of the only two years of tax returns he's seen fit to show the American people – and then only to 'conform' with his public statements. That raises the question: what else in those returns has Romney manipulated? We already know Romney has money in tax havens in Switzerland, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. What we don't know is why he refuses to be straight with the American people about the choices he's made in his financial life. When will the American people see the returns he filed before he was running for president? Governor Romney is showing us what he does when the public is looking. The true test of his character would be to show what he did when everyone was not looking at his taxes.
"It's also galling to see the creative accounting Mitt Romney applied to his own tax returns only days after learning of his insulting comments that seniors, soldiers and hard-working parents don't pay enough taxes. Once again, we see Mitt Romney is out of touch with middle class families, who don't have the luxury of accounting wizards and foreign tax shelters. It's obvious he believes in two sets of rules: one for him, and one for the middle class. He says he wants to be president for only half the people but he acts like he only cares for the top two percent. Despite the fiscal cliff looming in just over three months, Mitt Romney refuses to explain the details of his tax policy. Will the policies he proposes benefit all Americans, or only multi-millionaires like him?"
In Iowa, Democrats have requested early voting ballots over Republicans by a ratio of six to one. Not a good sign for Romney...Dalton wrote:Early voting has started in a number of states. Given the current poll numbers, well...
Would you be so kind as to link to a source and any historic trend data?Eframepilot wrote:In Iowa, Democrats have requested early voting ballots over Republicans by a ratio of six to one. Not a good sign for Romney...Dalton wrote:Early voting has started in a number of states. Given the current poll numbers, well...
"How can Mitt Romney expect to treat with other nations when he struggles to unsterstand his own?"Dalton wrote:Hm. Mitt is making hay out of Obama referring to forthcoming issues in the Middle East as "bumps in the road" and that he will provide "real leadership". Somehow I doubt that this Pee-Wee Herman tactic will have any effectiveness given his past history of "I know you are but what am I" attacks.
I think the concept is called democracy...Max wrote:Why send an absentee ballot in for a person who has 0 chance of winning. I mean, it's effectively a non-vote and simply a waste of your time, no?
In addition, even without a change to the current system or rise of a new major party, a surge in support for a third party can have an effect on the current parties' policies. If the Greens get 8% of the vote, that tells the Democrats that they could gain ground by adopting green policies, or if the Libertarians get a large chunk, both parties could take from their platform.Spoonist wrote:I think the concept is called democracy...Max wrote:Why send an absentee ballot in for a person who has 0 chance of winning. I mean, it's effectively a non-vote and simply a waste of your time, no?
My response would be that if US ever wants to have anything else than a two party system then, yes, people need to vote on the candidate they prefer, not the lesser of two evils.
If this grows that would create a statistical base for a debate on changing the system to something better. Maybe a two-round system like the french to improve democracy and voter turnout.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
From my own point of view, there is no real difference between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney, save to which political special interest groups and lobbyists political favors will be owed. Both are bought and paid for, IMO, and both will continue deficit spending, continuing to run us off a cliff. So I don't care which of those two clowns win. In a perfect world, both would lose.Max wrote:Why send an absentee ballot in for a person who has 0 chance of winning. I mean, it's effectively a non-vote and simply a waste of your time, no?
And those are the only three policy points that matter.jegs2 wrote:To be certain, their talking points are different, but both of them would continue deficit spending, foreign interventionism, and the useless, failed, and expensive "war" on drugs. I'm just not enough of a sucker to swallow the talking points hook, line and sinker like so many.