Romney defines me as "lower class"

[AZGrizFan]

Yup, and you cheered him on the whole way.

And I'd cheer him on today. He's 10x the president Carter Jr. will ever be.

[Grizalltheway]

Pffffft.

[Ivytalk]

Romney has stepped in it for three weeks. BHO has stepped in it for four years.

[BlueHen86]

Romney is increasingly stepping on his own sack with some of his comments. Get ready for 4 more years.....

Yup.

He's as bad as Biden. The difference is that Biden os only the VP and Obama can shut him up every now and then. There is nobody around who can shut Romney up.

Romney needs a teleprompter.

[UNI88]

Yup, and you cheered him on the whole way.

And I'd cheer him on today. He's 10x the president Carter Jr. will ever be.

10x the president? I realize that most would disagree but I'd rate them pretty equal.

Knowing what I know now if Obama ran against Bush and I absolutely had to choose, I would probably vote for Obama. While I'm not a fan of Obamacare, Bush also had his moments with entitlement spending. Their foreign policy isn't that different. Neither is anything close to a fiscal conservative (they both spend money like drunken sailors) but Obama gets the nod for not trying to dictate what happens in bedrooms.

[Wedgebuster]

And I'd cheer him on today. He's 10x the president Carter Jr. will ever be.

10x the president? I realize that most would disagree but I'd rate them pretty equal.

Knowing what I know now if Obama ran against Bush and I absolutely had to choose, I would probably vote for Obama. While I'm not a fan of Obamacare, Bush also had his moments with entitlement spending. Their foreign policy isn't that different. Neither is anything close to a fiscal conservative (they both spend money like drunken sailors) but Obama gets the nod for not trying to dictate what happens in bedrooms.

Shit, you might make it out of Iowa after all...

[AZGrizFan]

And I'd cheer him on today. He's 10x the president Carter Jr. will ever be.

10x the president? I realize that most would disagree but I'd rate them pretty equal.

Knowing what I know now if Obama ran against Bush and I absolutely had to choose, I would probably vote for Obama. While I'm not a fan of Obamacare, Bush also had his moments with entitlement spending. Their foreign policy isn't that different. Neither is anything close to a fiscal conservative (they both spend money like drunken sailors) but Obama gets the nod for not trying to dictate what happens in bedrooms.

Yes, because SO MUCH of Bush's "bedroom" philsophy made it into national policy, didn't it?

I'd vote for Bush for the simple fact that he doesn't go around constantly apologizing for some perceived U.S. "sins"....when there aren't any to be apologize for. Obama is REAL good at that.

[JohnStOnge]

According to the article at http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 3358.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, he defined "middle class" as an income of "$200,000 to $250,000 and less." Underline added for emphasis.

What he was obviously doing was defining the upper end of the "middle class" range as being at $200,000 to $250,000 per year. I personally would set the upper end of the range lower than that. But he wasn't saying that if a household makes less than $200,000 per year it's not in the "middle class."

[kalm]

Here's some stats that show that 88.5% of those who pay no taxes are households who make less than $30K/year. It's basically the working poor. This amounts to poor people having babies they shouldn't, buying homes they shouldn't and crappy wages at the bottom. All conk caused problems.



http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/ ... ne-graphic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[89Hen]

This amounts to poor people having babies they shouldn't, buying homes they shouldn't and crappy wages at the bottom. All conk caused problems.

[89Hen]

According to the article at http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... 3358.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, he defined "middle class" as an income of "$200,000 to $250,000 and less." Underline added for emphasis.

What he was obviously doing was defining the upper end of the "middle class" range as being at $200,000 to $250,000 per year. I personally would set the upper end of the range lower than that. But he wasn't saying that if a household makes less than $200,000 per year it's not in the "middle class."

I already pointed that out, including the fact that Obama defines it the exact same way, but the Obamabots don't care. They only see and hear what they want.

[UNI88]

Here's some stats that show that 88.5% of those who pay no taxes are households who make less than $30K/year. It's basically the working poor. This amounts to poor people having babies they shouldn't, buying homes they shouldn't and crappy wages at the bottom. All conk caused problems.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/ ... ne-graphic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1) Did conks force people to copulate? Some conks might be from the dark ages when it comes to birth control but they're not responsible if people choose to have more children than they can afford.
2) Conks and Donks were both on board the "everyone should be a homeowner" express and the real estate market has been paying for it ever since. Barney Frank and Franklin Raines are as much to blame for that mess as any Conk.
3) Not every job should pay a living wage. There are jobs like McDonalds, grocery store baggers, etc. that aren't valuable enough to pay a living wage which are perfect for teenagers and people trying to get their foot in the labor market. Do I think CEO's make too much money? Yes. But low-end jobs that don't pay well can be good for individuals and the economy.

[UNI88]

10x the president? I realize that most would disagree but I'd rate them pretty equal.

Knowing what I know now if Obama ran against Bush and I absolutely had to choose, I would probably vote for Obama. While I'm not a fan of Obamacare, Bush also had his moments with entitlement spending. Their foreign policy isn't that different. Neither is anything close to a fiscal conservative (they both spend money like drunken sailors) but Obama gets the nod for not trying to dictate what happens in bedrooms.

****, you might make it out of Iowa after all...

Thanks Wedgie, but I've already made it out of Iowa to the Hellenic Republic of Illinois so I'm experiencing first hand the charlie foxtrot that is unopposed Donk government (high unemployment, worst credit rating in the US, education going down the tubes, etc.). No matter who wins (and the smart bet is on Obama), I just want the opposition party to control one house of Congress so that the government can't pass anything that really fucks things up. Gridlock is good!

And saying that I would choose Obama over Bush is kind of like saying that I would choose horse sh!t over cow sh!t, it's still sh!t in the end.

[kalm]

Here's some stats that show that 88.5% of those who pay no taxes are households who make less than $30K/year. It's basically the working poor. This amounts to poor people having babies they shouldn't, buying homes they shouldn't and crappy wages at the bottom. All conk caused problems.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/09/ ... ne-graphic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1) Did conks force people to copulate? Some conks might be from the dark ages when it comes to birth control but they're not responsible if people choose to have more children than they can afford.
2) Conks and Donks were both on board the "everyone should be a homeowner" express and the real estate market has been paying for it ever since. Barney Frank and Franklin Raines are as much to blame for that mess as any Conk.
3) Not every job should pay a living wage. There are jobs like McDonalds, grocery store baggers, etc. that aren't valuable enough to pay a living wage which are perfect for teenagers and people trying to get their foot in the labor market. Do I think CEO's make too much money? Yes. But low-end jobs that don't pay well can be good for individuals and the economy.

Just trying to ruffle some feathers.

[UNI88]

10x the president? I realize that most would disagree but I'd rate them pretty equal.

Knowing what I know now if Obama ran against Bush and I absolutely had to choose, I would probably vote for Obama. While I'm not a fan of Obamacare, Bush also had his moments with entitlement spending. Their foreign policy isn't that different. Neither is anything close to a fiscal conservative (they both spend money like drunken sailors) but Obama gets the nod for not trying to dictate what happens in bedrooms.

Yes, because SO MUCH of Bush's "bedroom" philsophy made it into national policy, didn't it?

I'd vote for Bush for the simple fact that he doesn't go around constantly apologizing for some perceived U.S. "sins"....when there aren't any to be apologize for. Obama is REAL good at that.

I don't think that Obama has done as much apologizing as Republicans would have us believe. There has been some but it hasn't been the all-out surrender that the conk spin-doctors would have me believe. Yes he has been more collaborative and more surgical in his approach to foreign policy dilemmas especially those involving military action but I actually like that. The less "in the forefront" and heavy-handed we are in our leadership, the less of a target we are for terrorists and others in the long-run and the less American men and women we put in harms way. Bush was a cowboy riding into town with the herd looking for a drink or 20 and ready to pull out his gun at any perceived slight. Obama's approach is far from perfect but I like it better.

[Grizalltheway]

Yes, because SO MUCH of Bush's "bedroom" philsophy made it into national policy, didn't it?

I'd vote for Bush for the simple fact that he doesn't go around constantly apologizing for some perceived U.S. "sins"....when there aren't any to be apologize for. Obama is REAL good at that.

I don't think that Obama has done as much apologizing as Republicans would have us believe. There has been some but it hasn't been the all-out surrender that the conk spin-doctors would have me believe. Yes he has been more collaborative and more surgical in his approach to foreign policy dilemmas especially those involving military action but I actually like that. The less "in the forefront" and heavy-handed we are in our leadership, the less of a target we are for terrorists and others in the long-run and the less American men and women we put in harms way. Bush was a cowboy riding into town with the herd looking for a drink or 20 and ready to pull out his gun at any perceived slight. Obama's approach is far from perfect but I like it better.

A certain conk had some smart things to say about the subject.


Teddy would bitch-slap modern day neoconks.

[kalm]

I don't think that Obama has done as much apologizing as Republicans would have us believe. There has been some but it hasn't been the all-out surrender that the conk spin-doctors would have me believe. Yes he has been more collaborative and more surgical in his approach to foreign policy dilemmas especially those involving military action but I actually like that. The less "in the forefront" and heavy-handed we are in our leadership, the less of a target we are for terrorists and others in the long-run and the less American men and women we put in harms way. Bush was a cowboy riding into town with the herd looking for a drink or 20 and ready to pull out his gun at any perceived slight. Obama's approach is far from perfect but I like it better.

A certain conk had some smart things to say about the subject.


Teddy would bitch-slap modern day neoconks.

Kind of a Wedgie from yesteryear.

[Chizzang]

We do not have a Federal Tax revenue problem...
No matter how you define who's paying and who's not and who's feelings are hurt
Our Federal Government is taking in more than enough Tax funds to run this country

We do NOT have a Revenue problem

[AZGrizFan]

This amounts to poor people having babies they shouldn't, buying homes they shouldn't and crappy wages at the bottom. All conk caused problems.

I laughed at that too.

[AZGrizFan]

Yes, because SO MUCH of Bush's "bedroom" philsophy made it into national policy, didn't it?

I'd vote for Bush for the simple fact that he doesn't go around constantly apologizing for some perceived U.S. "sins"....when there aren't any to be apologize for. Obama is REAL good at that.

I don't think that Obama has done as much apologizing as Republicans would have us believe. There has been some but it hasn't been the all-out surrender that the conk spin-doctors would have me believe. Yes he has been more collaborative and more surgical in his approach to foreign policy dilemmas especially those involving military action but I actually like that. The less "in the forefront" and heavy-handed we are in our leadership, the less of a target we are for terrorists and others in the long-run and the less American men and women we put in harms way. Bush was a cowboy riding into town with the herd looking for a drink or 20 and ready to pull out his gun at any perceived slight. Obama's approach is far from perfect but I like it better.

Really? A week ago our Secretary of State publicly apologized for a fucking MOVIE that our government had NOTHING TO DO WITH that "allegedly" caused the "spontanous" violence in the Middle East that just coincidentally happened to fall on the anniversary of 9/11.

[Grizalltheway]

I don't think that Obama has done as much apologizing as Republicans would have us believe. There has been some but it hasn't been the all-out surrender that the conk spin-doctors would have me believe. Yes he has been more collaborative and more surgical in his approach to foreign policy dilemmas especially those involving military action but I actually like that. The less "in the forefront" and heavy-handed we are in our leadership, the less of a target we are for terrorists and others in the long-run and the less American men and women we put in harms way. Bush was a cowboy riding into town with the herd looking for a drink or 20 and ready to pull out his gun at any perceived slight. Obama's approach is far from perfect but I like it better.

Really? A week ago our Secretary of State publicly apologized for a fucking MOVIE that our government had NOTHING TO DO WITH that "allegedly" caused the "spontanous" violence in the Middle East that just coincidentally happened to fall on the anniversary of 9/11.

All she did was state that the video doesn't reflect our ideals of religious freedom and tolerance of all faiths. You're just a paranoid conk who hears what he wants to hear.

[AZGrizFan]

Really? A week ago our Secretary of State publicly apologized for a fucking MOVIE that our government had NOTHING TO DO WITH that "allegedly" caused the "spontanous" violence in the Middle East that just coincidentally happened to fall on the anniversary of 9/11.

All she did was state that the video doesn't reflect our ideals of religious freedom and tolerance of all faiths. You're just a paranoid conk who hears what he wants to hear.

Speaking at the State Department, Clinton said the U.S. had "nothing to do" with the making of the film.


"We have the greatest respect for people of faith. This video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose, to denigrate a great religion and to promote rage."

Interesting coming from the party that didn't even want a mention of God in their party platform.

Also interesting that you don't deny the "spontanous" violence claims by the idiot savant currently occupying the White House.

Also interesting that in a country where freedom of speech is so allegedly valued that she'd not understand that.

[Grizalltheway]

Interesting that you left out the part where she said there was no justification for the violence, whatsoever. So what do you think she should have said about it? "I lol'd and it was spot on"?

[AZGrizFan]

Interesting that you left out the part where she said there was no justification for the violence, whatsoever. So what do you think she should have said about it? "I lol'd and it was spot on"?

Well, she really had no business talking about the film at all. It's a smokescreen to cover the administration's ass for failing to heed intelligence warnings that there were attacks planned on the anniversary. But carry on with your blind faith....

[Chizzang]

In order to keep his hate alive he needs to cherry pick sections of the response...
Taking the entire response in context leaves nothing to "hang on to hate" with


How should I feel about this FOX News please tell me
Oh How should I defend this please tell me MSNBC


we're basically idiot puppets with a hand shoved up our asses moving our mouths