You would need to ask Hillary Clinton or David Axelrod about who they call a terrorist and who they don't. It' all so confusing...first they SWORE UP AND DOWN it was a spontaneous reaction to the video - now they admit it was actually a terrorist attact to commorate the 9/11 anniversary. Now we learn that they knew that all along, and even had advance warning of the attack.
So the question is, who in their right mind leaves American civilians in an embassy unprotected when they know it's about to be attacked? It's GRUESOME and HEARTLESS.
As for Obama and Romney, if you can't see they are as different as night and day, then it's probably a good thing you don't vote.
I don't think you get it Dude. In the first case, what kind of leader would leave our embassies UNPROTECTED when they are anticipating a terrorist attack? Eh Dude? Where is all that compassion you credit Obama with?
Second, Obama and his staff repeatedly told the nation that this was NOT a terrorist attack, but rather a spontaneous reaction to a movie trailer.
Dude. Romney's campaign is squeaky clean compared to what the Dems are doing. They have been caught AGAIN AND AGAIN in lies but the Soros media sweeps them under the rug.
You'll get no respect from this wench on this point. It's total B.S.
Yep. I read a few articles on the methodology and what's going on behind the scenes. It makes sense to me. I've been wondering why Obama's poll numbers are so high when I can't find ANYONE locally who supports him. Time will tell, of course, but I think there's some truth to this.
Don't you know they will be the firs to scream "CHEATING" if Romney wins after all these polls.
What a bunch of malarky we have in this elecion. I don't think I'll ever trust a Dem again, which is sad because they USED to be a good party before the socialists took them over.
This is a breaking news alert that just came over the wire. It's "breaking" because they have not yet collected the full story - but expect to see MUCH more of this within the next day or so.
US officials knew Libya attack was terrorism within 24 hours, sources confirm
Published September 27, 2012
FoxNews.com
URGENT: U.S. intelligence officials knew from Day One that the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was a terrorist attack and suspected Al Qaeda-tied elements were involved, sources told Fox News -- though it took the administration a week to acknowledge it.
The account conflicts with claims on the Sunday after the attack by U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice that the administration believed the strike was a "spontaneous" event triggered by protests in Egypt over an anti-Islam film.
Sources said the administration internally labeled the attack terrorism from the first day to enable a certain type of policy response, and that officials were looking for one specific suspect.
In addition, sources confirm that FBI agents have not yet arrived in Benghazi in the aftermath of the attack.
I'm going to assume this it true because they would never run a story in this manner without being prepared to back it up. That being the case...just what are we supposed to think when an administration creates such a bald-faced lie?????
The mainstream media-commissioned polls have been far more skewed this election season than most in the past. Typically, many polls would be a little skewed to the Democrats during August and September (remember all those summer leads for Democrats that seemed to evaporate to Republican leads in October?) and then they would switch to surveying likely voters and tone down the skewing in time to report reasonably accurate results by some time in October. But it might be a tall challenge for these pollsters to clean up their act this year, given how far they've been skewed in their polls. For the sake of their credibility, I don't see how they can keep skewing as heavily as they have, yet I also don't see how they can change their ways too much too soon without risking the repudiation of their earlier polls during this election season.
The latest UnSkewed Average of polls at UnSkewedPolls.com shows Mitt Romney leading by 7.8 percent while the latest QStarNews Daily Tracking poll released today shows Romney leading over Obama by a 52 percent to 46 percent. Many of the polls commissioned by mainstream media outlets have been quite skewed, including the series of swing state polls released today by CBS/New York Times/Quinnipiac University. The question is will these pollsters keep skewing their polls to this degree, or perhaps a lesser degree, as we get closer to the election.
I suspect some of these pollsters, for the sake of their credibility, will adjust their methodology and begin reporting lesser skewed polls as the election becomes more near. Additionally, it wouldn't be a surprise if some of the polls are very balanced in their samples in order to produce more accurate results. But some of the polls are so far skewed, that bring them back down to earth would only illustrate how badly skewed the previous polls by those pollsters were, and lead many of us to conclude they knew their earlier polls were too skewed. No polling firm wants to repudiate the accuracy of their earlier polls this way, so expect them to spin the difference in results and try to convince us that their later polls showing Romney winning are because Romney has had a unprecedented surge in the polls due to his campaigning, and not because the polls were skewed in August and September and suddenly more accurate in October.
The major pollsters have never admitted this in the past, but yet it seems like every election I can remember, the Republican nominee was always way behind in the summer and somehow magically closed the gap by October. The conventional wisdom was that we should expect the race to get closer later in the election season and not to question whether earlier polls were skewed and later ones were correct for the sake of pollster credibility.
But this year many of the polls are far more skewed than they have been in the past. To the degree that they are that skewed, I”m not sure some of these pollsters can straighten up and fly right even if they want to. Either way, I'm watching them. And ready to expose them for cleaning up their act or still selling us the same skewed bill of goods. We'll see what happens.
Let your voice be heard, take the QStarNews Daily Tracking Poll, just a few quick questions, and the full QStarNews Poll with many interesting questions.
At the moment it's a moot point since we only have two candidates to choose from. Down the road? Sure I would consider...but right now I'm more concerned about what Obama will do with another four years and whether or not we would even HAVE another election after that.
As for having an astute, successful businessman over an inept Community Organizer, the choice is clear. Romney at least knows how to surround himself with smart people to delegate important facest of the job, whereas Obama only chose his idealogical friends and cronies who know nothing about the positions they are now sitting in.
Moreover, Romney is good at spotting waste and streamlining operations - something our vast federal government needs very badly.
Rumpy. Can you take three minutes and look at this video then tell me how similar it is to your health care? Just generally speaking. I'm curious how some of this works for you guys, if it does.
Have you studied Obama care by your self monte? It is aviable on line and it is easy to send questions a bout it to autorities by phone and by mail... how come you beleive his health care plan will mean "dead" for you ? Who told you this kind of stuff any way? How come it is easy for you beleiving this kind of propoganda?
Romney and his stupid pals claim a lot and "want" a lot but they Won,t do much of all their claims since doing their claims is in no way possible, since cutting taxes for the Rich is the one and only methode they keep falling in to by the one and only way forward ... less taxes for ther ich then no money enough for running the country or creating american jobs as they claim they will! ... and their guys are just waiting taking over in order of making lives of less fortuned americans furter difficult, and calling people names and creating distance and making fun of those who do not have money enough and blaming them for their life situation!
I've read it Dude. You bet I read it - AND I've confirmed a sampling of the excerpts found in this video by comparing it to the actual bill.
$16 trillion and climbing despite his promise to cut the debt in half.
No budget has been passed during his term.
A new entitlement passed that is now forecasted to cost more than $1.7 trillion during the next 10 years, plus new reports daily of the miscalculation of costs which double and sometimes triple initial projections. And we STILL don't know "What's in it."
46 million people are receiving food stamps.
More people living in poverty since 2008
An 8.2% decrease in the net worth of almost all Americans SINCE HE TOOK OFFICE.
No plan submitted to save Social Security or Medicare other than to gur Medicare to help pay for Obamacare - which is still woefully underfunded.
Handing Obamacare "exemptions" to 160 of his closest union buddies, congress, and various corporate buddies.
14 million people are projected to lose their employer-sponsored health care.
Gas prices are approaching $4 a gallon.
College tuition is up over 8 percent in 2011.
Foreign policy that has created a Middle East crisis and puts the United States at risk.
$26 billion IOU to taxpayers from General Motors, that will likely never be paid.
National Credit Rating downgraded for the first time in history, not once but TWICE
Freedom rating downgraded multiple points
Misery Index Higher
Complete misuse of stimulus funds (90 percent of Bush's stimulus funds have been repaid. Only 10 percent of Obama's - PLUS he did not use the funds for purposes outlined in the TARP bill).
Now it's your turn..... What has he done that's improved anything?
You really shouldn't be so astounded considering he has not only failed to improve ANYTHING since becoming president, but he has made a lot ot things much worse.
Don't you think after four years and countless tax payer dollars he could have created some improvement somewhere????? Every single segment of our population, and every program or financial segment, is worse off today than it was four years ago.
Just how long is this man expected to "coast" along blaming Bush?
Sorry Bluefish. There's probably a good thousand reasons why Obama has failed us as president, but none of them have anything to do with his skin color.
Yep. And that pretty much sums up where we are in this election. It's true that Romney is relatively unknown in terms of whether or not we are SURE he will be good for our country - but we absolutely KNOW at this point that Obama will be terrible for us. All anyone has to do is look at what's happened in the last four years.
Another term with Obama will be the end of America and it's freedoms we all enjoy
Why don't you ask Obama where the jobs are? Remember he was the one that said the stimulus would provide all those shovel ready jobs???? If you think this is the fault of Congress, first you have to remember that this Congress has not been in session for the duration of Obama's presidency. HIS congress got thrown our, remember? But since then the new congress has passed numerous JOBS bills, along with some 160 other bills that are not purposfully stalled on Harry Reid's SENATE desk. So maybe you should be pointing the finger at your own party and asking WHY is the SENATE sitting on all those jobs bills that were passed by congress?????
As for the middle class, I think you have already answered your own question. The Middle Class depends on JOBS...not low-paying and non-existent "shovel ready" jobs, but REAL jobs for professionals which is what Romney is promoting.
And as for Romney's taxes, you must have missed today's news...
"President Obama's campaign, with a good dose of help from the media, is pushing a claim that millionaire Mitt Romney is taxed at a "lower rate" than someone making $50,000 a year.
IRS, shows data, though that Romney's effective income tax rate -- that's what he pays as a percentage of his income once deductions and other benefits are factored in -- is actually far higher than what most Americans pay.
And it's certainly higher than what someone making $50,000 pays. "
Now that's just silly, Dadude. I'm sure you like thinking you can attribute this recession to something as simple as "trickle down economics," or the Bush Tax cuts (with both sides want to keep), but you are wrong. The fact is there were far more specific things which led to both collapses - and the Democratic party is every bit at much at fault IF NOT MORE for not preventing it.
Work with the facts, will ya?
The 2008 recession was caused by our irrational exuberance in the housing market (fueled by Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act), which led many people to buy houses they couldn't afford, because everyone thought housing prices could only go up.
"In 2006, the bubble burst as housing prices started to decline. This caught many homeowners off guard, who had taken loans with little money down. As they realized they would lose money by selling the house for less than their mortgage, they foreclosed. An escalating foreclosure rate panicked many banks and hedge funds, who had bought mortgage-backed securities on the secondary market and now realized they were facing huge losses.
By August 2007, banks became afraid to lend to each other because they didn't want these toxic loans as collateral. This led to the $700 billion bailout, and bankruptcies or government nationalization of Bear Stearns, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, IndyMac Bank, and Washington Mutual. By December 2008, employment was declining faster than in the 2001 recession.
The recession of 2001 was caused much more by the irrational exuberance in high tech than anything else.
"In 1999, there was a economic boom in computer and software sales caused by the Y2K scare. Many companies and individuals bought new computer systems to make sure their software was Y2K compliant. This meant that the operating code would be able to understand the difference between 2000 and 1900, since many fields within that code only had two spaces, not the four needed to fully differentiate the two dates. As a result, the stock price of many high tech companies started to increase. This led to a lot of investors' money going to any kind of high tech company, whether they were showing profits or not. The exuberance for dot.com companies became irrational.
It became apparent in January 2000 that computer orders were going to decline, since the shelf life of most computers is about two years, and companies had just bought all the equipment they would need. This led to a stock-market sell-off in March 2000. As stock prices declined, so did the value of the dot.com companies, and many went bankrupt.
I absolutely agree with you on this - and that is what is so absolutely frightening about Obama. The is NO POSSIBLE way his economic policies will survive the test of time
After Senator Obama won the 2008 Presidential election, he asked President Bush to request the second half of the TARP funds to be allocated to TARP. In making the request, he stated that the economy was still too frail and that it would be irresponsible to enter office without having all the tools he needed to address the problem.
Of the funds issued by President Bush, a vast majority went to the Capital Purchase Program and the Targeted Investment Program. A vast majority of that money has been repaid by the financial institutions that received them. The loan to GM was repaid, but some money from the GM bailout remains.
Of the funds issued by President Obama, almost none of them have been issued to the programs originally designed through TARP. Most of the funds issued by President Obama have gone to home ownership programs and the bailout of GM through stock purchases. As seem in the chart below, almost 90% of the funds issued by President Bush have been returned while less than 10% of the money issued by President Obama has been returned.
"Obama accuses Romney in a series of TV ads of being a “corporate raider” who “shipped jobs to China and Mexico,” asking if voters want to elect an “outsourcer in chief.” But some of the claims in the ads are untrue, and others are thinly supported.
But after reviewing numerous corporate filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, contemporary news accounts, company histories and press releases, and the evidence offered by both the Obama and Romney campaigns, we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital — shipped American jobs overseas.
FactCheck.org
In the meantime, there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that Democrat Harry Reid sent our stimulus dollars to China to support a huge wind farm in Nevada that his son, Rory, represents...
WhatUwish4 Forum Posts (7,986)
RE: Who is going to win the american presidential election in November? Obama or Romney?
You better go check what Clinton, Axelrod and Obama are now saying...