I don't think even the most ardent liberal Obama supporter could possibly be happy with the way things developed last night during the debate. Mitt Romney looked more presidential, was better prepared, and had an air of confidence that put Obama on the defensive from the beginning.
As a Romney supporter I felt like I was watching the Bama - LSU National Championship game. Romney Rolled like the Tide! "It was a mauling, folks, a mauling".
I agree that RMoney looked better than ever last night, but I didn't see it as a mauling.
I was actually impressed with Romney and disappointed with Obama, but I think much of that had to do with my personal expectations, but I think a lot of people had similar expectations.
I'm hoping the President was just holding back a little for the next two. You know, he didn't want to pull out all his weapons in the warm-up round. Also, I am really not looking forward to the Ryan/Biden debate...it could get ugly .
1.) I don't feel as good as I probably should about having Medlen start Friday. He's been untouchable lately. My only concern is that his win streak HAS to end here sooner or later... and I pray that it isn't on Friday. Regardless, we have who want going and Hudson ready to start Game 1 of the NLDS if we make it there.
2.) We have to score early, IMO. I don't like our shot playing from behind in the 7th inning or anything like that. We've definitely got the bullpen to close should we take a lead late into the game.
3.) I really don't like the ONE play-in game. I think it should be a 3-game series, but obviously understand that's just not feasible in the playoff schedule. I guess if you don't want to be one and done then you should win the division and not even have to deal with it. I like that premise.
4.) I really hate the Cardinals.
1) I agree. I am also nervous, but I wouldn't trust anyone else in our rotation with the ball in a one game playoff right now.
2)Agree 100%
3)It does suck because so much can sway a single game in baseball. But I would have killed for it last season, since we would have been the second team.
Friday just isn't in the cards (you see what I did there?) for me, but fingers crossed they win because I'd do anything to get to either ATL or DC for a NLDS game...
Would they play the Nats in the NLDS? I thought you would only meet a division opponent in the NLCS. But who knows with all the changes this year.
If they do make it to the NLDS, then their only home games will be Sunday and Monday of next week, then they go on the road for the last 3. However, they could potentially be in Cinncy. So really all three places (ATL, DC, and Cinncy) are about the same distance from us.
Either way, I would love to go to a NLDS game, but I probably cant since I'm going Friday. I just couldnt pass up the chance since I havent seen Chipper play all year. However, I would def be in for a NLCS game in ATL, DC, or Cinncy if they make it that far.
They do on occasion sell slices of pizza for right around that price but they only have it a couple games a year its pizza plus pizza. Too steep for my wallet but alot of folks love it.
Ummm...no we don't. The ONLY pizza we sell is half of a medium pizza, which is 4 slices, for $5.00. Also we sell it at every game, not just occasionally. Sometimes we run out around the 4th quarter, but always start of selling pizza.
Like I said early over the past 5 years, we have not sold pizza by the slice at all, much less for $3.50. Trust me on this, I know because I give people the pizza and take their money for it.
Yes, if I have to go by myself I am going. Right now I have a friend going with me, but he wont know for sure if he can get off work until tomorrow afternoon.
But if you can swing it then you should totes go with me.
Lesser of two evils. Im voting for Romneys economic plan over Obamas handouts, I think both are wrong but one is far worse. One makes us pissed, one makes us weak.
Because, no one ever took advantage of the welfare system before Obama took office. There have always been handouts under both republican and democratic presidents and if you think anything will change under RMoney, you are fooling yourself. Romney will continue with the same spending habits, just like GWB did, except he will also be cutting taxes on the rich which will only push us further in debt.
did not say it was sound logic this is just my opinion and you do not have to agree with it. i do not care if you do or not actually. you have the right to say what you want and i have the right to choose not to care what you say about my comments.
running thru a banner does not mean you support what the banner says or professes. some may say running thru it is a way of saying i am against this so i will run thru it and knock it down.
Yeah, that's sound logic.
I say teams start putting "We Suck!" or "We're going to Lose!" on their banners then run through screaming "I do not agree with this message!"
This thread proves exactly that the media CAN determine the outcome of an election. Way too many listen to media talking points to influence their thinking instead of looking at facts and where a candidate stands on certain issues.
The average American voter is not educated very well on the candidates or the issues. To put it frankly, the average American voter is ignorant. Examples: "I'm not voting for Obama because he is a muslim." Or "I'm voting for Obama because he will pay for my gas." Yes, people actually said that.
I had an aunt who tried to influence me to vote for John Kerry in 2004 because she claimed that if Bush was re-elected that there would be a draft and I would be going to fight. If she wasn't my aunt I would have smacked her.
The 47% comment is also something that has been blown way out of proportion by the media, yet people like you BigBlueAlum fall for it...Hook, Line and Sinker. As UVA pointed out, Romney's words were poorly worded but his reasoning was clearly taken out of context. You are basically saying that somehow, someway, that if Romney gets elected that he is going to get a file on each person that makes up that 47% and do everything in his power to make their lives a living hell while he gives preferential treatment to those who do vote for him. See how ignorant that sounds? Exactly!
Im glad you know exactly how I come to my conclusions about politics. The truth is that I am intelligent enough to analyze the facts and come to my own conclusions. The fact is that Rmoney said that the 47% of people that do not pay income tax believe they are entitles victims and that he shouldn't worry about them because they will never take personal responsibility. There is no reason to believe that he was referring to the 42% (UVAO's number) of people that will vote democrat no matter what. Dont believe me here is his exact quote:
"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
As to the last part of your statement, you are putting words into my mouth. All I did was take exactly what Willard said and explain what I think it means. I never said he was going to specifically work to make hell for the people that don't vote for him (Although that has been said by conservatives about Obama), he said that his job is not to worry about the people that don't pay income tax, because they will never take personal responsibility. Just like Deuces Nana.
I will tell you what is coward is a guy who want stand behind his team through the thick and thin, you richlands guys are the same. If you guys were in a slump like my Falcons, you guys would jump ship. You are front of the pack type of fans and not true fans. Like my signature states I'M A FALCON WIN OR LOSE!
We all know you're are a Falcon if they lose...that is well proven, but their is no evidence to suggest that you are a Falcon if they win...since they never do.
I think what Gov. Romney was implying is that those people who are content sponging of the tax payers and the government aren't likely to vote for him anyway so why spend time trying to convince them. It was a poor choice of words no doubt but he points out a very real truth. If you give people money and they don't have to work for it then they make little effort to find work.
Btw, the latest "damning sound bite" came from our VP yesterday when he said that the middle class has been buried for the last 4 years. Indeed it has been Joe, and that was on your watch along with your boss. Time to go a different direction!
Except, a good portion of that 47% are people that tend to actually vote for RMoney. Only about 7% of that 47% do not work at all, the rest are people working, but not making enough to pay income taxes (but still pay payroll taxes) and the elderly. Not to mention the fact that the percentage of non-income tax payers that come from conservative states is much higher than the percentage in liberal states.
Romney's soundbyte was actually closer to truth than you, or many on the left side of the aisle, want to believe. The first half of Romney's statement was, and I paraphrase, "47% of people are going to vote for Obama, no matter what". Rasmussen polling data, the most accurate in the United States, shows that 43% of Americans have made up their minds to vote for Romney, and 42% of Americans have made up their minds to vote for Obama, leaving 15% open to influence. So, in reality, Romney was on the correct line of reasoning, but was 5% off. BURN THE SOULLESS REPUBLICAN AT THE STAKE!!!
See, this is where you an I see it differently. When Willard referenced the 47% of people that are going to vote for Obama, I think he was referring to the 47% of people that do not pay income taxes in America, which is a correct figure, and not the 42% that have already made up their mind.
Another funny little quirk I find about many on the left is that they will take a two-part quote like what Romney made, in which one part is solid truth and the other is solid falsehood, and attack the CORRECT part of the quote.
Ok, so now stating an incorrect "fact" is considered "solid truth". The last time I checked fudging a number by over 10% is not a "solid truth", assuming he was in fact referring to the people that have already made up their mind..which he clearly wasn't, since he goes on to clearly state who he is talking about (HINT: Its those people that don't pay income taxes)
That's...unbelievable. And I would expect better from you.
Barack Hussein Obama. The left raised a GIGANTIC stank in '08 about a few pundits (Limbaugh and Hannity, mostly) who made sure to use his middle name every time the words "Barack" and "Obama" sprang forth. We can't use his middle name, oh no, that's just not fair. Immediately after that, the left did everything short of murdering Sarah Palin to destroy her credibility. Fair is fair for the true blue Democrats, eh?
I watch Fox News, just as I watch other news outlets with equivalent biases, such as CNN, NBC, and CBS.
Willard "Mittens" RMoney
I would rather my first name be Hussein than Willard.
bucfan64, the GOP is for the company and not the workers, thats their nature. They adhere to the "trickle down" philosophy of economics which is not effective at actually trickling down(espicially not when greed is rampant at the top).
But...but...you just said in the other thread that RMoney's economic plan was why you are voting for him. Why would you base your vote on an economic plan that is not effective?
Does he want to make sure the working class have jobs, are self relient and able to provide for themselves?
Or does he want to house those who choose not to work, provide medical care for those same people, and make the working class dependent on the government?
there is a big difference in the two
Im all for help form those in need and taxing the wealthy to invest in the future of this country but I am against handouts for those who choose not to work. That, combined with my belief that Romney has a better economic plan is why im not going to vote for Obama
The problem is that everyone that uses government assistance doesn't simply "choose not to work". There are many people that take advantage of the system, but there are more that legitimately need the assistance. I just hope none of you all are ever in a position where you need a little help, because then you will be accused of being lazy and "choosing not to work".
Besides, how can you say RMoney has a better economic plan, when he himself refuses to talk about the details of the "big cuts" that he plans to make? I guess we should just wait until we elect him to see what he has planned.
Are the slices of pizza still $3.50 at Ernie Hicks?
To my knowledge, we have never sold pizza by the slice. I know for sure that we haven't in the last 5 years. We sell half of a medium (4 slices) Pizza Plus Pizza for $5.
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Presidential Debate
in Political Discussion
Posted
Typical republican...taking a quote out of context. ;)