T1B

He was both those things before and still people voted for him, and that was back when he was the least qualified guy in recent history to win a major party's nomination. Now that's he's been on the job four years, and all he has to do is beat Thurston Howell III?

It's a no-brainer for those same voters.

Van wrote:The problem here is what I stated before: What if some disaster hits our economy between now and the election?

Other than the ongoing disaster? There is no way in hell that Odowngrade should win against anybody given that everything he has done has compounded our present economic disaster. He probably won't lose though because the media will paper over his categorical failures and suck on his balls hard enough to give themselves Slurpee headaches.

I disagree Van.

Obama got elected by a rather small margin because of a huge backlash against Bush and by a lot of young voters who bought into that hope and change bullshit, not to mention the economy had already started tanking.

I don't believe a lot of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 will even bother to head to the polls this year while conversely, those who stayed home then will turn out in 2012 to voice their anger that nothing meaningful changed on his watch and if anything, it got worse.

Of course, still a lot can happen in the next 7-8 months and I could be way wrong, but I think you made a bad bet.

Van wrote:All I said was that he met Diego's two criteria: 1. Doesn't pander to the religious far right. 2. Doesn't come off as part of the country club crowd. Among the Republican candidates Ron Paul is clearly the only one about whom those things can be said.

Oh, and I added that he's unelectable, a telling point you conveniently skipped. Once again, though, there you are, spinning off into another nonsensical argument by attempting to put words in my mouth.

You know, Nick, for a reasonably bright guy, you really, truly suck at debate.

\What makes you think I'm "debating" you or any of these hacks on any subject? You and they are but sounding boards, blank billboards to fill in as I see fit. And you will dutifully read every sentence I post, and make no mistake, my words will work on you during your tedious days. Now if you believe, for example, that your mewling default responses on the subject of U.S. military incompetence somehow reflect well on your ability to marshal an argument, you're fooling yourself and no one else. And as for the totally fake GOP race, it's a bit unusual to see the whole charade just mailed in. Of course I refer to the fact of this being the cheapest race to date. Why? Because they know perfectly well that the powers that be have all signed off on a routine second term for Barry. He's a perfect foil for the right-wing hacks, while in fact doing their bidding. And of course for the frustrated Demos who feel betrayed by Mr. Smooth, it's "Barry Or Else." Or what? Carry on, and however slowly...

Wakey Wake :wink:

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:The problem here is what I stated before: What if some disaster hits our economy between now and the election?

Other than the ongoing disaster? There is no way in hell that Odowngrade should win against anybody given that everything he has done has compounded our present economic disaster. He probably won't lose though because the media will paper over his categorical failures and suck on his balls hard enough to give themselves Slurpee headaches.

Absolutely. That's all I'm saying. He doesn't deserve it, but the media and his party's incredible money machine will ensure that he wins again, especially in the face of such bland competition.

Wags, those same voters will again be left with the choice of Obama vs Someone They Truly Don't Want. If McCain was unappealing despite being such a folksy "nice guy" and a sympathetic figure owing to his former POW status, how do you think they'll respond to Mitt Romney?

Christ, all I have to do is take one look at any of his family pictures including his automaton Boys From Brazil brood of khakis-sportin' Ned Flanders zombies and I get the heebie-jeebies. Add that to his donning of a plaid shirt and saying "Y'all" to southern voters in one of the most hurl-worthy episodes of shamless pandering we'll ever witness? Then, add those things to the fact that he can't even cobble together a decent bit of enthusiasm within his own party?

Plus he's a scary Mormom named Mitt?

Obama's voters would vote for mvscal before they'll vote for that showy dinner garnish.

Van wrote:showy dinner garnish.

Well Van, you see what you see in Romney. But I don't see you as a typical voter. Besides, not many get "excited" about politics or the candidate until after the conventions.

As for Romney, while he may be a panderer, I see a successful businessman rather than a community organizer and know who I'd rather have as CEO of a $14 trillion economy and looking after my 401k.

mvscal wrote:Odowngrade

such a waste

War Wagon wrote:I see a successful businessman...

if that is important then why did you vote for Dubya?

Bizzarofelice wrote:

War Wagon wrote:I see a successful businessman...

if that is important then why did you vote for Dubya?

That's going to leave a mark.

So the party that prides itself on how it panders to the thumping crowd is going to nominate a money-changer.

Ponderous.

Bizzarofelice wrote:if that is important then why did you vote for Dubya?

I trusted him more than Gore or Kerry, same reason I voted for McCain and every republican candidate since 1980.

War Wagon wrote:Well Van, you see what you see in Romney. But I don't see you as a typical life form voter.

As for Romney, while he may be a panderer, I see a successful businessman rather than a community organizer and know who I'd rather have as CEO of a $14 trillion economy and looking after my 401k.

Agreed. Not that it will matter.

Van wrote:Not that it will matter.

It matters.

It also matters that you made some stupid bet with brad who, shit troll or not, may cost T1B one of its better posters.

If it were up to me, I'd call that stupid fucking bet null and void.

Van wrote:If Romney wins, I will never post here again—and by "here" I mean T1B as a whole, not just this main board

Radio doesn't count.

Wags, no bet offers, but realistically, what are the chances you give Romney of beating Obama? 50%? 25%?

I'd say that even though the popular vote will end up in the 53% Obama to 47% Romney range, the actual odds of Romney winning are somewhere in the 20% range. The only way he wins is if something so catastrophic happens in the coming months that not even the media will be able to spin it Obama's way. When Obama was sending us straight into the toilet with his mind-blowing spending, his shameful Apology Tour and unemployment rising to 984%, do you recall how tepid the media was in their excoriations of the guy? Had that been W in charge they would've been burning him in effigy...only because they aren't allowed to burn him in fact.

Obama nearly has a free pass. Where he's concerned, the media is more than willing to paint everything in the most flattering terms possible. If it hasn't happened already, which it clearly hasn't, it's going to be very tough now to bury him.

Felix wrote:

Terry in Crapchester wrote:

Van wrote:I'm offering you a chance to punt me from this board with a victory in November by your plastic milquetoast hero.

I want in on this action myself.

So what do you say, brad? You have a two-for-one in place right now.

count me in.....

here's your chance to rid this board of three "liberal nutjob wacko"s...

what? I missed this earlier. I miss a lot of things, apparently

Like potentially missing out on 4-8 years of you dorks whining about Romney.

Hell. NO.

In case nobody has noticed, this isn't exactly the yahoo chat room and I'll be darned if I sit back and watch some long time posters roll over this easily.

Wags, have you actually read any of bradhusker's posts? His cloying Elvis rants? His laughable Nebraska threats and mewling backpedals? His racist rants wherein he rips "liberal whackos" for being racist while calling them "hook-nosed Jews" and the like? His horribly executed homages to General Peters?

The Admins here don't seem willing to shitcan this guy for obvious spamming, so desperate measures are called for. He befouls everything he touches. He needs to go.

Van wrote:Wags, no bet offers, but realistically, what are the chances you give Romney of beating Obama? 50%? 25%?

At this point, 50% is a reasonable wager.

Obama nearly has a free pass. Where he's concerned, the media is more than willing to paint everything in the most flattering terms possible.

You give way too much power to the media, but last I checked, Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity only get 1 vote each.

War Wagon wrote:Well Van, you see what you see in Romney. But I don't see you as a typical voter. Besides, not many get "excited" about politics or the candidate until after the conventions.

As for Romney, while he may be a panderer, I see a successful businessman rather than a community organizer and know who I'd rather have as CEO of a $14 trillion economy and looking after my 401k.

Isnt it funny how liberals, being the dumb weird fucks that they are, trust a 40 something community organizer/street peddler/rabble rouser with a 15 trillion economy, knowing full well that he never had a real job his entire life, NEVER had any executive or leadership qualities, and, from what I can tell, grew up hating our founding fathers, and loving a creep like Saul Alinsky.

Enter Mitt Romney. A man who has been successful at every job he's ever undertaken. A man who loves the founding fathers and the republic they put forth. A proven leader and executive, a man with a thousand times the work ethic of Mr Obama. SHOULD I REPEAT THAT? Sure Obama went to Harvard, thats impressive, BUT, that and a cup of coffee dont mean much to me. Bill Ayers and Berbadine Dohrn are educated arrogant elite silver pony-tailed dirty smelly hippies? SO WHAT?

WHY should a left wing institution like Harvard with its america hating professors impress anyone with half a brain?

When Van makes fun of a man of Mitt Romney's calibur, I must seriously question his state of mind.
Whats next Van? You gonna make fun of a REAL MAN like Mel Gibson? Gibson makes some of the greatest movies ever made, like BRAVEHEART, and you, a sleezeball in pajamas is gonna try to bring down another TITAN??

Point being, you LOVE censorship VAN. You wont admit as such, BUT, deep down you want me silenced forever. If I was just a useless filthy troll, I wouldnt matter one bit. BUT, in my threads, I have hit you hard, hit you in places you dont want to talk about, deep down in your privates, I have severely damaged you with my sharp and insightful takes. Your very manhood has been assaulted, and your only remedy is to have me bannished forever.

FINE, but remember, censoring me will not put an end to your fears. When I am gone, another clear thinking insightful Reagan conservative will take my place. Its a no-win situation Van.

Van wrote:Wags, have you actually read any of bradhusker's posts?

I have, but generally pass over them like an m2 post.

The Admins here don't seem willing to shitcan this guy for obvious spamming, so desperate measures are called for. He befouls everything he touches. He needs to go.

The admins realize this isn't a Yahoo chat room as well. Rack them for the restraint.

I can't believe you would let brad get under your skin so much. As Truman would say, change the fucking channel.

Van wrote:Wags, have you actually read any of bradhusker's posts? His cloying Elvis rants? His laughable Nebraska threats and mewling backpedals? His racist rants wherein he rips "liberal whackos" for being racist while calling them "hook-nosed Jews" and the like? His horribly executed homages to General Peters?

The Admins here don't seem willing to shitcan this guy for obvious spamming, so desperate measures are called for. He befouls everything he touches. He needs to go.

Van, when I talk about the greatness of Elvis Presley, its no wonder it makes you squirm like a worm.
When I watch Martin Bashir on msnbc spew hate and lies, and put forth Julian Epstein, a gay jew liberal, as an expert? I watch msnbc put forth far left liberals who spew hate and lies every single day, I call it like it factually is.
Msnbc is putting up a gay jew like Julian Epstein as some kind of expert? And Dana Milbank?? And Jonathon Turley, a creepy weird far left professor? msnbc puts them on nightly as experts who we should trust? Turley once said on Olberman's show that arrest warrants would be issued for Dick Cheney and George Bush for war crimes. And this is mainstream?

Im a troll? Van, how can I be the troll here, when I have more wisdom and insight in a drop of my sperm, then you could ever dream of having?
You just have knowledge envy, when others display more knowledge than you, you feel inferior, and that makes you mad, and as a result, you want them banned for life.
I imagine that during your school years in the shower, you saw bigger cocks than yours, and at that point, you became aware that yours didnt measure up, so you began to suck the biggest cocks you came across.
Thats filthy by the way.

ok, ban him... no need to wait for November.

War Wagon wrote:

Van wrote:Wags, no bet offers, but realistically, what are the chances you give Romney of beating Obama? 50%? 25%?

At this point, 50% is a reasonable wager.

Seriously? You consider this thing a total dead heat? It's purely a coin toss as to who will win?

What polls are you reading?

Obama nearly has a free pass. Where he's concerned, the media is more than willing to paint everything in the most flattering terms possible.

You give way too much power to the media, but last I checked, Keith Olbermann and Sean Hannity only get 1 vote each.

It's not their votes that matter, it's their ability to get millions of lunkheaded sheep to vote accordingly. Last I checked, Oprah still only had one vote. How many semi-retarded fans of hers do you think she brought into Obama's camp?

Money buys ads. Ads buy voters. Obama buried Hillary in the primaries with his ridiculously bloated warchest, then he did the same to McCain in the general election. The same thing is going to happen this time, and now he only needs to beat Herman Munster.

War Wagon wrote:

Bizzarofelice wrote:if that is important then why did you vote for Dubya?

I trusted him more than Gore or Kerry

HA! Your judgement is suspect.

Van wrote:You consider this thing a total dead heat?

I do.

Obama is the Jimmy Carter of incumbent presidents who lost to a Hollywood actor in a landslide. You think Romney is improbable? How the fuck improbable was Reagan?

Presidential elections are cyclical and as Ann Coulter might say, voters give power to Democrats once every generation or so, only to quickly realize why they voted them out the last time.

Have you forgotten the virtual GOP sweep of elections in 2010 so quickly? Like your hungus bet with brad, that's not so wise.

War Wagon wrote:
Obama is the Jimmy Carter of incumbent presidents

loaded statement. you need to stop paying attention to the losers who fill your stupid head with such nonsense. think for yourself.

bace, the next time I ask you for advice on whom to vote for will be the first time, as will the next time I look for you to provide historical insight on American political history.

Wags, that sweep in 2010 is but a distant memory. Now the media is trumpeting the "economic recovery" at every turn, and we aren't even close to the election yet. Once we hit fall, we will be inundated with political ads trumpeting the "steady progress" we're making, and "do we really want to return to the days of George Bush? Obama got us out of that mess, just like he got us out of Iraq! Woohoo!

"Oh...and your alternative is...that guy."

The bet doesn't matter much. Not very long ago I went two years without posting here. If I have to bail, then so be it. I don't think I'd even want to see this place if Romney wins and bradhusker is running rampant, just shitting all over himself and flinging it willy nilly.

War Wagon wrote:American political history.

maybe you know more about political history. and I know more about American history.

the only person you may know more than is Jess the Waterhead Rookie.

Van wrote: The bet doesn't matter much. Not very long ago I went two years without posting here. If I have to bail, then so be it.

matters to me.

I don't know what that was about, but don't want to see it happen again.

War Wagon wrote:Obama is the Jimmy Carter of incumbent presidents who lost to a Hollywood actor in a landslide.

Carter didn't lose to an actor. He lost to a two term governor and union president.

Van wrote:Obama buried Hillary in the primaries with his ridiculously bloated warchest, then he did the same to McCain in the general election.

Uh, McStain didn't lose because he was outspent. He lost because he ran one of the worst campaigns in American history.

Money isn't going to be an issue especially if Shitt Romney wins the nomination.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Obama is the Jimmy Carter of incumbent presidents who lost to a Hollywood actor in a landslide.

Carter didn't lose to an actor. He lost to a two term governor and union president.

True, but using Vans' preponderance of "media" logic that he's so fond of, Carter lost to a "Bedtime for Bonzo" clown. In a landslide.

Romney was also a Governor and Vans' protestations and regrettable hungus bets aside, it's not too absurd he gets over.

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Obama is the Jimmy Carter of incumbent presidents who lost to a Hollywood actor in a landslide.

Carter didn't lose to an actor.

You've seen Reagan's movies, too?

War Wagon wrote: Romney was also a Governor

NO!!! NO!!! ROMNEY WAS A BUSINESSMAN!! FORGET EVERYTHING HE DID IN MASSACHUSETTS POLITICAL OFFICE!!!!!


Sincerely,
The Romney Campaign

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:Obama buried Hillary in the primaries with his ridiculously bloated warchest, then he did the same to McCain in the general election.

Uh, McStain didn't lose because he was outspent. He lost because he ran one of the worst campaigns in American history.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Obama massively outspent McCain, the same as he did Hillary.

Money isn't going to be an issue especially if Shitt Romney wins the nomination.

Obama is still going to outspend him. Romney isn't going to go broke trying to win this thing.

War Wagon wrote:

mvscal wrote:

War Wagon wrote:Obama is the Jimmy Carter of incumbent presidents who lost to a Hollywood actor in a landslide.

Carter didn't lose to an actor. He lost to a two term governor and union president.

True, but using Vans' preponderance of "media" logic that he's so fond of, Carter lost to a "Bedtime for Bonzo" clown. In a landslide.

No, according to the media at the time, a wildly incompetent incumbent lost to an even more wildly popular and charismatic "leader."

Unless more Shit Happens, Romney also won't have Reagan's benefit of running against an incumbent mired in a messy hostage crises with Iran.

Not to mention Romney ain't 1/32th the speaker Reagan was.