Free Republic

What's done is done. I wasn't pleased about it... but at the same time, it's important to not let the media play us for fools with this "Obama is surging with independents because of Sandy" nonsense. If the country is really to the point where people will overlook four disastrous years, and vote for a president mostly because he visited a state for an hour and shook somebody's hand... then the country is lost. But I highly doubt that.

Spot on!

1 - There was no need to be effusive.

2 - Niceties are fine - but high praise has to be earned. This is the equivalent of Bush and his “Brownie” comment giving credit not only before the job is done but evidently just before the disaster of a response is exposed.

Was bouncing through the C-Span video again and at the 41:36 mark you get a full view of the crowd. That ain't 24,000. Note that the overall seating area is fairly narrow, easily twice as deep as it is wide. Clearly the attempt was to create the perception that with a photo narrowly centered the crowd could look like the slice of a 24,000 piece pie.

And again I will say it is worth checking out the video to see the palpable anger from Obama. Not the image of a winner.

The joint rally drew more than 24,000 people to an outdoor arena on a chilly November night.

Well let's be fair here. If you go the link you will see a photo of the enormous crowd...wait a second...well golly-gee...there actually isn't any photo.

If this were truly 24,000 there surely there would be photos to prove it. Gave it a good strong Google search and found a video and a single still photo. The photo is small, the video inconclusive as to the crowd size. Of the momentary glimpse of the crowd coupled with the crowd volume I would be generous and say maybe 10,000 at the most.

If this were truly a Romney-esque-sized crowd you know the net would be peppered with photos and videos to push the appearance of an energized constituency. Not seeing it and no reason to belief it.

And if you can manage to get through the video of the rally you surely would agree that this is not a campaign/candidate that is projecting calm assurance and confidence but instead a man with bubbling anger bouncing around just under the surface. His speech, his body language, his facial expressions and his tenor show a desperate man who surely knows his fate.

“Officials watched the grainy footage from the drone.”

That conflicts with the Jake Tapper report today that said no drone footage was viewed live by the WH and others. As to this article: this is literally a simple list of "conservative claims" and the "facts" used to refute are straight-out Obama and Co. talking points. I do agree that it is curious that NPR would be putting out such a lengthy story even as biased as it is. I guess we will know sooner than later since this is simply moving it to the front burner again.

What kind of brains then do liberals who become conservative or vice-versa have?

Bang! Boom! Pow! You hit the nail on the proverbial obvious head. How else can you explain a biological family having different political persuasions?

Political beliefs are the result of one's STATE-OF-MIND! The traditional route of political metamorphosis is to go from the Democrat ledger to the Republican one.

No one chastises a child for seeing the way the world can be cruel and wishing that "something should be done." Compassion is a vital part of a civilized society. Eventually though, including many on this board, after years of not only hearing "what should be done" via school, family members, Dem politicians, there is that tipping point where one reviews all the solutions that have been put into action and realizing that not only is the original problem worse but the solution has introduced new problems to "fix." Not to mention the complete perversion of the golden standard of equal rights vs. the lead standard of equal results. You can't award a group right (gender, race, ethnicity, income, etc.) without taking away someone's corresponding individual right. Once a Democrat has that realization they are are off to the conservative races.

The bottom line is to believe this study is to ignore the sane and perfectly healthy conversion of millions of former Donkeys into Elephants.

PS: I speak out of experience.

Kindly breakdown “all indications” if you would.

Spare me your Chicken Little-concern routine.

Tip for the future: breakdown the issues at hand regarding Michigan Prop 2 and 3.

What this goofball (and his brethren) seem to not understand is that there is a world of difference between forced community vs. voluntary community. Obviously the basic responsibility of governments big and small is to ensure the safety of the public in times of disaster BUT it can never replace the common decency of the public at large to look out for each other irregardless of political affiliation, income level or social standing.

...offered the 50 attendees free pizza, then took them to an early voting center in Columbus.

The Dem stooge knows fully well that it is one thing to have a pep rally where you give out free pizza to jazz people to vote vs. handing out free pizza AND actually driving them to the polls in the same stroke.

I was simply expressing my fears and frustration watching BOR, once again, pandering to obama so please save your troll comments for someone else.

The question is really what level of influence does O'Reilly have on the electorate, not to mention rationale conservatives? Once you figure out that miniscule stat then you'll realize the silliness of posting a vanity of how concerned you are that O'Reilly is doing his intellectually-dishonest schtick to perpetuate his claim that he is an objective centrist.

I’m getting a bad feeling.

The only "bad feeling" I'm getting is how you have convinced yourself that somehow Obama action/lack of action could feasibly be hung on Romney somehow.

Romney was smart to not duke it out over Libya in the third debate and the polls show it. Obama has done what any liar would do during the debates and be comfortable in blatantly lieing in front of sixty million ("There will be no sequestration") and then immediately after the debate his team's "clarification" gets a fraction of that coverage, leaving the original statement during the debate as the one remembered by the viewing audience.

Romney knows that the slow leak of info through congressional efforts needs to run it's side course. Romney can't jump to conclusions without direct access to primary information and would be setting himself up for the hungry pro-Dem media.

In the end it would seem to me that you are playing, consciously or not, the role of a concern troll that is, based in reality, anything but simply concerned.

“Cut $2.50 for each $1 in revenue increases”

Logic would dictate that instead of off-setting cuts vs. taxes in their 2.5./1 ratio is to just reduce the proportion of the cuts to $1.50 and forget the matching $1 tax increases.

If this can be verified for tonight's debate, it will be fireworks going off underneath Obama. BUT I'll bet that the Obama camp will just deny, deny, deny, and try to use it as a trap for Romney.

How would one verify such a thing in time for the debate? My Spidey sense says this may be an attempt at getting Romney to accuse Obama in prime time of an unverified story so as to accuse Romney of "shooting first and asking questions later." That would explain this story (or shades of it in regards to reports of a "deal" with Iran) being put out by the NYT and other liberal mouth pieces.

“On Wednesday in Davenport, Iowa, President Obama will kick off a two day, around the clock campaign blitz across six battleground states.”

Two days? Whoopdeedo. Will he be at fundraisers for the other fourteen? Seriously, looking at the comments on Politico, the very first one says simply, “Walking the walk.” Please!

While I don’t have any concrete evidence, I am willing to bet that Romney will be on a two-week “sprint” leading up to Nov. 6. So let’s keep count of how many events Romney does vs Obama. Also see who is more efficient in their geographical planning.

Simple question for NAACP, ACLU etc.: Would they support conservative US election monitors in Germany, France, Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan...? Of course not. That would be voter suppression. Lol.

“But they didn’t say she started it. Very unprofessional of her, but that’s normal.”

I watched the clip again a little bit ago and you can not see who starts the first wave of applause (at least I didn’t.) But as Romney - who had been erupted by Crowley - began to retort Crowley’s assertion you hear a clear attempt by someone to initiate another round of applause (a couple people briefly join in) and then an overhead camera is switched to for a couple seconds and you see M. Obama clearly clapping essentially by herself.

SO if you go back and repeat the clip at that point where Romney begins to speak and isolate the loudest clap in your mind, when that camera switches to above M. Obama it is clear, acoustically, that she started the brief and quickly fleeting round of clapping.

Conclusion: M. Obama purposely attempted to disrupt Romney, provably so in Romney’s retort to Crowley. Goes to prove that having money doesn’t mean one has class.

As I posted on a similar thread:

1 - Per debate rules Crowley was not to interject herself into the conversation since the candidates were addressing members of the public. (hmmm)

2 - Crowley actually asked the question that started the exchange vs. a member of the audience. (hmmm)

3 - Crowley had a piece of paper that she waved as she “corrected” Romney and Obama asked Crowley to “read the transcript” even before she indicated that it was indeed a copy of Obama’s Sep. 12 speech. (hmmm)

4 - Crowley clearly took Obama’s cue when he deigned that he would gladly talk more foreign affairs BUT...and Crowley ended the segment. (hmmm)

5 - The audience was prompted to applause by someone. M. Obama may have started it (that would be doubly scandalous) but we know for a fact now via a CNN reporter herself that she did applaud. (hmmm)

All-in-all it was clearly an activist act by Crowley that probably was not a whispered conspiracy between her and Obama but simply an obvious leg up in the form of a softball to allow Obama to spout his “outrage” and, when the opportunity arose, to counter Romney.

This is not 2008. More and more people are seeing the obvious pro-Dem bias in the media in general and pick up on the cues a lot easier. It has become more instinctual. Even if you were a pro-Obama person you would have be self-delusional to not see a level of favoritism in that particular exchange.

The fact that Crowley essentially rescinded her interjection and agreed that Romney was right will be very useful in the next debate on Oct. 22. This debate, format-wise, is the same as the first but is strictly foreign policy. If the Obama camp really thinks that this stunt by Crowley has put them in a better position for a 90-minute debate on foreign policy (and the last time the candidate will be seen together) they are gravely mistaken. This became the most memorable moment of the night and still, as an issue, is not only completely unresolved but has only added more fuel to the fire.

1 - Per debate rules Crowley was not to interject herself into the conversation since the candidates were addressing members of the public. (hmmm)

2 - Crowley actually asked the question that started the exchange vs. a member of the audience. (hmmm)

3 - Crowley had a piece of paper that she waved as she “corrected” Romney and Obama asked Crowley to “read the transcript” even before she indicated that it was indeed a copy of Obama’s Sep. 12 speech. (hmmm)

4 - Crowley clearly took Obama’s cue when he deigned that he would gladly talk more foreign affairs BUT...and Crowley ended the segment. (hmmm)

5 - The audience was prompted to applause by someone. M. Obama may have started it (that would be doubly scandalous) but we know for a fact now via a CNN reporter herself that she did applaud. (hmmm)

All-in-all it was clearly an activist act by Crowley that probably was not a whispered conspiracy between her and Obama but simply an obvious leg up in the form of a softball to allow Obama to spout his “outrage” and, when the opportunity arose, to counter Romney.

This is not 2008. More and more people are seeing the obvious pro-Dem bias in the media in general and pick up on the cues a lot easier. It has become more instinctual. Even if you were a pro-Obama person you would have be self-delusional to not see a level of favoritism in that particular exchange.

The fact that Crowley essentially rescinded her interjection and agreed that Romney was right will be very useful in the next debate on Oct. 22. This debate, format-wise, is the same as the first but is strictly foreign policy. If the Obama camp really thinks that this stunt by Crowley has put them in a better position for a 90-minute debate on foreign policy (and the last time the candidate will be seen together) they are gravely mistaken. This became the most memorable moment of the night and still, as an issue, is not only completely unresolved but has only added more fuel to the fire.