Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

If the election happened today.Follow

#1 Sep 15 2012 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
http://news.yahoo.com/elections/polls/

Looks like Obama would win. Is it even possible for Mitt to win if Obama wins Ohio? I mean sure the math says it is, but realistically speaking if Obama seals Ohio in the next couple weeks. Thats pretty much checkmate ya?
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#2 Sep 15 2012 at 10:25 AM Rating: Excellent
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,564 posts
#3 Sep 15 2012 at 10:28 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
In before liberal conspiracy oversample etc etc.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#4 Sep 15 2012 at 10:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If Romney lost Ohio, he would have to win every red state on this map plus Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa and then Nevada or Colorado. The realistic chance of Romney losing Ohio and yet winning all those states is about nil.

Obama could lose Florida, Ohio and Virginia off that map and win the election but it seems unlikely that he'd do so and still hold WI, IA, CO & NV.

Obviously any number of things could change. Right now, any sane person would rather have Obama's numbers than Romney's.

Edited, Sep 15th 2012 11:29am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5 Sep 15 2012 at 10:35 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,305 posts
Regarding the "omg liberal bias in polls" and Dem oversampling...

Political election surveys are still conducted via land line. (Most folks are smart enough to keep their cell phone numbers out of telephone books.) Who still has land lines? In these day and age, the older you are, the more likely you are to have a copper telephone line. The older you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican.

The statistics from surveys have to correct for this likely natural oversampling of Republicans. They do this by adjusting for age usually.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#6 Sep 15 2012 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,950 posts
With some chagrin, I like the Relative voter worth algorithm, which puts a Ohio voter worth 9.3 votes per person, and a new yorker valued at <0.1 votes per person.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#7gbaji, Posted: Sep 17 2012 at 3:28 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) There's no such thing as "sealing Ohio in the next couple weeks" though. Also, while not a hard and fast rule, incumbents usually run ahead on the election map (or should), simply because they are a more known entity. Another way to think of it is that if a state is a tossup, it'll likely go against the incumbent. He *should* win if his record is such that people want to keep him. If it's even close to a tie, that's bad news for the incumbent. He's had 4 years to win those voters. If he hasn't, they'll likely go with a challenger.
#8 Sep 17 2012 at 5:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
As noted, Obama could lose the there largest states on that map and still win the election.

But, no, you're right. A projected Obama outcome of 337-202 is right where Romney wants him.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#10 Sep 17 2012 at 6:54 AM Rating: Decent
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Ramussen has Romney up 5.

That cnn, the ny times, and real clear politics has it so close is not good news for obama. Most americans can see the economies sh*t and will vote accordingly.


Economy isn't exactly an easy thing to fix, and when the other party refuses to play ball regardless of how good an idea is, purely because its not one they came up with, its not any easier. Its not like an attempt wasn't made, and its not like it would be any better if obama hadn't won in 08. Blame partisanship and corruption instead, at least that makes sense.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#11 Sep 17 2012 at 8:20 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Ramussen has Romney up 5.

If by "5" you meant "2".

Quote:
That cnn, the ny times, and real clear politics has it so close is not good news for obama. Most americans can see the economies sh*t and will vote accordingly.

RCP has the average as Obama +3. More troubling is that it's 48.5 to 45.5. Undecided could break 2:1 for Romney and Obama would win. It would take a 3:1 split to theoretically tie it (realistically, some would go for 3rd party candidates, not vote for president, etc). Obama is running some of his best percentage numbers since April.

Things can obviously change (major gaffe, disastrous debate, China declares war on us) but the race has been quite stable for the last few months. Anyone who wants to say it's a positive sign that their candidate has been behind since last October (exempting two day tie Romney got from his convention bump) is deluding themselves.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Sep 17 2012 at 8:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
What's troubling for democrats is he's doing his best polling and still tied with Romney.

Aside from not being tied, that's an amazingly salient point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Sep 17 2012 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
Jophiel wrote:
If Romney lost Ohio, he would have to win every red state on this map plus Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa and then Nevada or Colorado. The realistic chance of Romney losing Ohio and yet winning all those states is about nil.


While I'm never fond of the idea of my vote not counting for much, I have to say, it feels good not to live in any of those places. I'm not sure enduring the onslaught on advertisements would be worth it.

My sympathies to the undecided voters in those states. Smiley: frown
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#15 Sep 17 2012 at 9:29 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
My sympathies to the undecided voters in those states. Smiley: frown


Well if they'd just go ahead and decide already...
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#16 Sep 17 2012 at 9:31 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
What's troubling for democrats is he's doing his best polling and still tied with Romney. Romney is looking like he's going to get ohio, wisc, nc, va, and fl.



Wouldn't individual state polling be more important, considering your president is not decided by popular vote? I mean a national poll is more or less useless as a decisive indicator as to who will win the election or not. Regardless who is leading and who isn't.

From the looks of state polls Obama is very far out front, considering he only needs a handful more electoral votes to tie up the election. Based on state poling the map is looking pretty blue, and I think that is a much stronger indicator of who will win.

http://electoral-vote.com/

According to that site Obama is polling higher in all but 2 swing states. A pretty healthy position to be in going into the debates, events which are arguably Obama's strong suit, at least much more than Romney.

(granted some of the states have not been updated since late August.)

Also of those states you listed only 1 looks like Romney will win it today, NC. The rest are leaning Obama at the moment so I don't see how it looks like Romney will win any of them.


Edited, Sep 17th 2012 11:33am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#17 Sep 17 2012 at 9:37 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
on a related note, the chart showing % of Americans who think Romney will win is pretty funny. It dropped to **** after yet another foreign policy gaffe. Guess Americans don't like politicians who try and score points on the backs of dead ambassadors.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#18 Sep 17 2012 at 9:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,950 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
If Romney lost Ohio, he would have to win every red state on this map plus Florida, Virginia, Wisconsin, Iowa and then Nevada or Colorado. The realistic chance of Romney losing Ohio and yet winning all those states is about nil.


While I'm never fond of the idea of my vote not counting for much, I have to say, it feels good not to live in any of those places. I'm not sure enduring the onslaught on advertisements would be worth it.

My sympathies to the undecided voters in those states. Smiley: frown


Whelp, that's what happens when there is a valuation mismatch. IIRC Ohio votes are worth ~$40 to organizations, but closer to $0 by undecideds.
____________________________
"India black magic anal sex zionist blow job terrorism child rape bicycle"
Just as Planned.
#19 Sep 17 2012 at 1:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Liberal Media!!!
Erick Erickson at RedState wrote:
If The Election Were Held Today Barack Obama Would Win

Contra **** Morris, Mitt Romney is not winning this election. At least Mitt Romney is not winning the election right now. Conservatives are obsessing over every poll, the turn out models used, and the media bias that is on ful display. Yes, some of the polling models seem screwy, though we all forget the pollsters apply a secret sauce known only to them on top. Yes, reporters are fully beclowning themselves to get their god-king re-elected. But while we may be focused there, the fact is the Romney campaign isn’t functioning well. Lucky for you and me the election is not today. But something needs to happen in Boston and I am less and less hopeful anything will happen.
[...]
There is time for Mitt Romney to close the deal. But he can’t close the deal with a schizophrenic campaign message. If he’s afraid of being more unliked than he already is, he might as well let Paul Ryan be the lead. Because the status quo for Team Romney is not working. That is just a fact and we might as well accept it instead of screaming at everything else trying not to make eye contact with that fact.


Edited, Sep 17th 2012 2:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Sep 17 2012 at 3:50 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Wouldn't individual state polling be more important, considering your president is not decided by popular vote? I mean a national poll is more or less useless as a decisive indicator as to who will win the election or not. Regardless who is leading and who isn't.


Correct.

Quote:
From the looks of state polls Obama is very far out front, considering he only needs a handful more electoral votes to tie up the election. Based on state poling the map is looking pretty blue, and I think that is a much stronger indicator of who will win.

http://electoral-vote.com/

According to that site Obama is polling higher in all but 2 swing states. A pretty healthy position to be in going into the debates, events which are arguably Obama's strong suit, at least much more than Romney.


But you have to look at the historical trend. Obama's lead has steadily shrunk over the last 6 months. States he had a firm lead in are now "barely dem" on that map. Another thing to look at is that there's only 2 states in the "barely gop" group (one of which was leaning obama 6 months ago btw). There are a whole mess that are "barely dem". Which means that Obama is losing ground in those states and will have to defend them, while Romney has firm hold of his states and can go on the offense (frankly, has been really).


Quote:
Also of those states you listed only 1 looks like Romney will win it today, NC. The rest are leaning Obama at the moment so I don't see how it looks like Romney will win any of them.


Key phrase being "at the moment". Again, you have to look at the direction things are trending. This election will be about Romney eating away at Obama's hold on those states, and Obama having to try to play defense to keep them. It will likely be very tight. Much more tight than is suggested by the polling right now.

You also have to make a distinction between polling of registered voters and "likely voters". Romney tends to do better with the latter (which does not bode well for Obama). Also, there's a significant possibility that even that is skewed. One of the problems Obama has is that the excitement for his campaign this time around isn't nearly as great as it was last time. But the polling assumes he'll get a similar turnout among voters. His lead in many states (especially the battleground states) is likely not anywhere close to as much as polling indicates.


By all means though, assume he's a guaranteed win. Hell. You guys don't even need to vote! ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Sep 17 2012 at 3:55 PM Rating: Good
****
7,806 posts
Obama was in my city today, telling voters to go out and vote early. Polling does seem to indicate that Obama has lost ground in Ohio. So he apparently wants people to vote early before he loses the state.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#22 Sep 17 2012 at 4:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kastigir wrote:
Obama was in my city today, telling voters to go out and vote early. Polling does seem to indicate that Obama has lost ground in Ohio. So he apparently wants people to vote early before he loses the state.

Obama was telling people to vote early in 2008 as well. Basically, you just want people to lock their votes in ASAP rather than trust in everyone turning out come election day.

Anyway, here's the aggregate over time for Ohio.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23 Sep 17 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
I flew over Ohio today and I can't see a reason why anyone would care about it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#24 Sep 17 2012 at 5:28 PM Rating: Decent
Keeper of the Shroud
*****
13,062 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I flew over Ohio today and I can't see a reason why anyone would care about it.


Ohio only matters for few months every four years. Let them enjoy it.
#25 Sep 17 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I flew over Ohio today and I can't see a reason why anyone would care about it.

Not at all related, but I met a lovely Canadian couple last night at a show Flea & I were at. They had driven 14 hours to attend. Very friendly folk; hope you're all (mostly?) like that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Sep 17 2012 at 5:48 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,681 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I flew over Ohio today and I can't see a reason why anyone would care about it.

Not at all related, but I met a lovely Canadian couple last night at a show Flea & I were at. They had driven 14 hours to attend. Very friendly folk; hope you're all (mostly?) like that.
Sure, most are. Definitely not all though.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#27 Sep 17 2012 at 7:02 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,297 posts

You also have to make a distinction between polling of registered voters and "likely voters". Romney tends to do better with the latter (which does not bode well for Obama). Also, there's a significant possibility that even that is skewed. One of the problems Obama has is that the excitement for his campaign this time around isn't nearly as great as it was last time. But the polling assumes he'll get a similar turnout among voters. His lead in many states (especially the battleground states) is likely not anywhere close to as much as polling indicates.


Pretty much all wrong, save the part about Romney having a higher percentage with his likely voters. The idea that any polling firm is using 2008 turnout numbers to model Obama's share of the vote is absurd and shows a shockingly shallow idea of how modern polling works.

Let me guess, you "assume" it's the case, right?

Romney is suffocating and running out of time. He needs, for lack of a better term, a "game changer. He has a lot of money, but also a lot of places where he's going to have to spend it.

It still boggles the mind that you idiots put this stiff forward and are going to lose an election with 8.5% unemployment while US embassies burn. Amazing.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Sep 17 2012 at 8:27 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,550 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

You also have to make a distinction between polling of registered voters and "likely voters". Romney tends to do better with the latter (which does not bode well for Obama). Also, there's a significant possibility that even that is skewed. One of the problems Obama has is that the excitement for his campaign this time around isn't nearly as great as it was last time. But the polling assumes he'll get a similar turnout among voters. His lead in many states (especially the battleground states) is likely not anywhere close to as much as polling indicates.


Pretty much all wrong, save the part about Romney having a higher percentage with his likely voters.


All likely voters, not just his. As in, any poll in which likely voters are polled results in about a 2-3 point better result for Romney. But since not all polls use likely voters (actually most in the RCP lineup do not), it skews the entire result.

Quote:
The idea that any polling firm is using 2008 turnout numbers to model Obama's share of the vote is absurd and shows a shockingly shallow idea of how modern polling works.


Huh? Didn't we just have a thread about this like a month or so ago where it was pointed out that a number of polls were oversampling (over weighting actually IIRC) Dem leaning people in their polls and their justification was precisely because of the voter turnout ratio from the 2008 election? Where the **** have you been? Hell. This was a big news story because just about everyone was scratching their heads trying to figure out how half of the polls were showing Obama up by like 8-12 points when it was pretty well impossible for that to be true.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Sep 17 2012 at 9:36 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
I flew over Ohio today and I can't see a reason why anyone would care about it.

I spent a good deal of time in Ohio in my youth and there isn't much to care about from the ground, either. Still yet to go to the R&R HoF...
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#30 Sep 18 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
Didn't we just have a thread about this like a month or so ago where it was pointed out that a number of polls were oversampling
It's the default "point" you go to whenever someone mentions positive polling results for anything Democratic.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#31 Sep 18 2012 at 9:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But since not all polls use likely voters (actually most in the RCP lineup do not), it skews the entire result.

You know, not that I take you seriously anyway when you talk about polling, but this shit just makes it too easy. Did you even bother to look at RCP before making this statement? I sure hope not because the RCP national average right now [ Screen shot since the page will change ] consists of eleven polls, nine of which use a Likely Voter screen. Gallup uses registered voters until closer to election day but has a very large sample size which helps mitigate the variance. The other poll is a IBD/CSM poll.

In fact, if you eliminate the Gallup and IBD/CSM numbers you wind up with a higher margin for Obama of 3.11 rather than 3.0 and a higher voter share of 48.77 versus the 48.5 listed.

So, congratulations. You've totally schooled us and shown us that the lack of a LV screen in the RCP average is skewing the results... in completely the wrong direction. Smiley: schooled

Edited, Sep 18th 2012 10:54am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#32 Sep 18 2012 at 9:56 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
oh great you had to go and bring facts into this....thanks Joph.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#33 Sep 18 2012 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
oh great you had to go and bring facts into this....thanks Joph.

See sig.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#34 Sep 18 2012 at 10:43 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,297 posts

Huh? Didn't we just have a thread about this like a month or so ago where it was pointed out that a number of polls were oversampling (over weighting actually IIRC) Dem leaning people in their polls and their justification was precisely because of the voter turnout ratio from the 2008 election? Where the **** have you been? Hell. This was a big news story


Was it? I must have missed this "big story". Can you post a link to one of the articles discussing this "big story" where most polling firms admit they're oversampling Democratic voters based on 2008 turnout?

Thanks, I'd be really fascinated to see the polling organizations commenting about oversampling, I think that would provide some interesting context. You can do this surely? How hard can it be to find examples of this "big story"

Let me know, idiot.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#35 Sep 18 2012 at 10:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Was it? I must have missed this "big story". Can you post a link to one of the articles discussing this "big story" where most polling firms admit they're oversampling Democratic voters based on 2008 turnout?

Well, duh.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Sep 18 2012 at 11:22 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Um... This is still simply the sampling of those being polled. It does not tell us if that sample accurately reflects the nation as a whole, much less those who will be voting in the next election.


Gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Wouldn't individual state polling be more important, considering your president is not decided by popular vote? I mean a national poll is more or less useless as a decisive indicator as to who will win the election or not. Regardless who is leading and who isn't.


Correct.


Contradictions...no wonder you like Romney so much.




Edited, Sep 18th 2012 1:22pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#38 Sep 18 2012 at 11:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
I'm sure as **** not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.
By read do you mean made up?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Sep 18 2012 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
The only polls obama is leading are the ones where the dems are polling 10% more dems.

Look it up. I'm sure as **** not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.

Why the fuck do you bother to post if you're not gonna actually say anything, moron?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 Sep 18 2012 at 9:15 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
Debalic wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
The only polls obama is leading are the ones where the dems are polling 10% more dems.

Look it up. I'm sure as **** not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.

Why the fuck do you bother to post if you're not gonna actually say anything, moron?


anything.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#43 Sep 19 2012 at 6:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Go on keep making excuses and apologizing for Obama's lies and poor leadership.

kk Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Sep 19 2012 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Something something wmds something something democracy.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Sep 19 2012 at 8:23 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,921 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Debalic wrote:
crazylegz1975 wrote:
The only polls obama is leading are the ones where the dems are polling 10% more dems.

Look it up. I'm sure as **** not going to waste my time looking up something I read last month.

Why the fuck do you bother to post if you're not gonna actually say anything, moron?


I was just thinking the same about you.

I know call me some more names maybe it'll help hide the reality of your pathetic existence.

Hey, if you can't back up anything you say...

Besides, the "it's just *obvious*" is gbaji's bit. Are you really gonna fall back on that after so long?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#46 Sep 19 2012 at 8:30 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
crazylegz1975 wrote:
Obama promised to cut the deficit by half but apparently you Democrats don't consider this a lie. Go on keep making excuses and apologizing for Obama's lies and poor leadership.


Well considering he proposed a 4 trillion dollar cut package with 1.2 Trillion to take effect immediately that the GOP shot down, you can't say the guy didn't try. 1.2 Trillion in cuts would have taken the deficit down by almost half. (was stated to be around 700 Billion in the first year). But because the proposal targeted the Pentagon the GOP said no.


____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#47 Sep 19 2012 at 8:35 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,460 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Something something wmds something something democracy.


Terrorism...Terrorist...Al Qaeda.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** SHITTY BINARY ASS. ALL DAY LONG.

#48 Sep 19 2012 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
You all totally fail at duck duck goose. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#49 Sep 19 2012 at 8:54 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#50 Sep 19 2012 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,917 posts
Well, you don't have to ask with that one.

/fag hag swoon

(Where's Maverick?)
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#51 Sep 19 2012 at 9:43 AM Rating: Good
**
445 posts
Duck Maverick Goose doesn't seem like it would work quite as well for that game.
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
Thinking outside the box is fine, but the owner's manual is on the inside.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 34 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (34)