In case you missed it, the liberal Pew Research Center published a poll showing Governor Mitt Romney taking a 4% lead over President Barack Obama. Combine that with ties in Rasmussen and Gallup's tracking polls on Monday, Obama's lead dropping to 1% in the Politico Battleground Poll, you've got a full on panic from the Left.
Do you remember when the Drive-By Media and liberal pundits were ridiculing those of us who questioned such polls as...oh, I don't know...Pew Research Center's September poll sample which had a +10% Democrat sample. Then, when the same Pew Research Center publishes a poll with a +5% Republican sample. Now, given the climate in this country, what's more likely, do you think? A +10% Democrat turnout or a +5% Republican turnout? (2004, for example, saw a +4% Republican turnout, and Republican engagement is at least as strong this election as 2004.)
(Dramatized Liberal) POLLS ARE COOKED! (All of a sudden!) HOW DARE THEY! No, don't remember how we trumpeted Pew's accuracy. That's not important! It's like Rasmussen now! (No, don't pay attention that Rasmussen and Pew were tied for most accurate polls in 2008.) It's not fair! Wah wah wah!
Friends, you who read Biblical Conservatism every day know I've been telling you for months upon months that Romney was going to win and these polls with oversampled Democrats were just hiding reality. Now, after Governor Romney went and hit a home run in the first debate, Pew can't hide the reality. So now, we're seeing the real electorate being predicted. And Obama's lead has disappeared. Now Romney is winning.
And now, the Left is in a pure panic. They don't know what to do with themselves! They're talking about Big Bird. That's what they're reduced to, friends. That and saying Governor Romney lied in the debate. That's what they are reduced to doing.
We are about to win, gang. Get ready for it. WE'RE GONNA WIN!
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
23 comments:
All posts will be reviewed subject to the Rules for Commenting. Any post that does not abide by these rules will not be posted, entirely at the discretion of the blog editor.
Commenters who repeatedly violate these rules will be permanently banned from commenting, and thus none of their comments, regardless of content, will be posted.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
To the individual who posted a comment on this page recently:
ReplyDeleteYour comments are not being published. It is not because you disagree with me, because I have no problem with open and honest debate. Rather, they were deleted because you chose to engage in personal insults rather than debating ideas.
Once again, since I'm pretty sure you're the same person whose comments I recently deleted for similar infractions, here is a reminder of Biblical Conservatism's Rules for Commenting.
Deletehttp://biblicalconservatism.blogspot.com/p/notes-about-blogrules-for-comments.html
Romney did lie quite extensively in the debate, though. You can look at factcheck.org or politifact to see that his lies far out numbered Obama, who mostly just told 1 side of the story or exaggerated. Flat out lied like Romney? Nope.
ReplyDeleteMy dear friend, that is not what Politifact and FactCheck.org said. You've selectively read this page because it fits your liberal worldview and what the CNNs and MSNBCs have told you. Actually, Romney was rated in Politifact as telling the truth in the debate mostly. Go read it again. FactCheck.org did not publish any straight up who lied or told the truth page. At least not in the 2 days immediately after the debate.
ReplyDeleteThe whole "Romney lied" is just one of many excuses for Obama's horrible debate performance. When Obama flat out lied about Romney's tax plan, Romney had no problem calling him out on it. The "brilliant" Obama however couldn't because...uhhh...the altitude?
How did Obama lie about Romney's tax plan? Romney has made no indication, at all, which loopholes and deductions he plans to cut. None. Zero.
DeleteHe did flat out state numerous times that he wanted to cut the rate 20% across the board.
Where to begin? 1 - He lied when he said that it was a "$5 Trillion tax cut." He lied when he repeated that lie. Here's a big one from an Obama campaign press release:
Delete"In fact, Harvard economist Martin Feldstein and Princeton economist Harvey Rosen both concede that paying for Romney’s tax cuts would require large tax increases on families making between $100,000 and $200,000."
Quote Harvey Rosen:
"I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. ***The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.***" (Emphasis added)
By the way here's my source.
Deletehttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html
So in other words.. right wingers are claiming a right-wing policy will work! Amazing!
DeleteNow.. back to reality... you can read any single independent analysis out there, and they all conclude the same thing: Romney plans to enact a $5 trillion dollar tax cut while claiming he will "close loopholes" to avoid revenue loss, without specifying a single loophole. That makes perfect sense... say something wihtout saying anything at all.
"Romney has run as a conservative since day 1. "
While in the primary, he ran as a conservative. Now, he's running as a moderate. Funding education, increasing medicare spending, increasing science budgets, backing away from his stance on abortion... you name the issue, he's going moderate on it.
"As far as there not being tax loopholes for shipping jobs overseas, says PolitiFact:"
Politifact agrees with Obama here (they flat out state Obama is truthful): there are loopholes companies can exploit when moving jobs overseas.
Romney, however, straw-manned Obama and stated "there's no tax breaks for moving jobs overseas" -- that's not what Obama said. True, Romney's statement is correct and true, Obama's statement is correct. That's why Romney is dishonest: it's a strawman argument.
Seriously, do you even read the articles you post, or do you just find the parts you agree with and then ignore everything else?
"So in other words.. right wingers are claiming a right-wing policy will work! Amazing!
DeleteNow.. back to reality... you can read any single independent analysis out there, and they all conclude the same thing: Romney plans to enact a $5 trillion dollar tax cut while claiming he will "close loopholes" to avoid revenue loss, without specifying a single loophole. That makes perfect sense... say something wihtout saying anything at all."
Again, not true. Your definition of "independent analysis" is "liberal." A Princeton Economist says it will be revenue neutral. "Nope, doesn't matter...he's conservative or something!"
"While in the primary, he ran as a conservative. Now, he's running as a moderate. Funding education, increasing medicare spending, increasing science budgets, backing away from his stance on abortion... you name the issue, he's going moderate on it."
Where is he running as a moderate? Please show me. Back your arguments. You are throwing up points and making up facts like Obama. Show me sources. As of right now I have nothing but your word.
"Romney, however, straw-manned Obama and stated "there's no tax breaks for moving jobs overseas" -- that's not what Obama said. True, Romney's statement is correct and true, Obama's statement is correct. That's why Romney is dishonest: it's a strawman argument."
So apparently "loophole" = "legal tax deduction that has always existed for business expenses." Got it.
Furthermore, it's clear that you don't know what a Straw Man Argument is, especially since you're accusing Romney of using a Straw Man as a defense. Straw Man arguments are, by their very nature, affirmative statements not defensive statements.
One more thing: Since you keep bringing up "ROMNEY LIED!" as your excuse for Obama. Please explain to me what "The attack in Libya was due to a video!" was? Or how about "Unemployment drops .4% on the strength of 100k jobs!" Please, tell me how those are truth.
Delete""Nope, doesn't matter...he's conservative or something!"
DeleteHe is indeed a conservative, though. You can just look at his bio.
"Where is he running as a moderate? Please show me. Back your arguments. "
1) He wants to fund education
2) He wants to put $700 billion back into medicare (his exact words)
3) He wants to regulate the market and says a free-market can't exist without regulation (a free-market has no regulation at all), thus, he is not for a free-market
4) He wants to stop insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions and doesn't want to allow insurance companies to drop people from coverage when they get sick
5) He is now pro-choice.
"The attack in Libya was due to a video!"
That's not what they said. They said that was their initial assessment based on the evidence they had. Now that they have more evidence, they can correctly assess the problem.
"Unemployment drops .4% on the strength of 100k jobs!"
1) The President does not run the BLS. The BLS is used by congress as much as it is anyone else.
2) The 130k jobs you are dismissing are just existing businesses increasing hiring. Again, that is for existing businesses hiring. That does not include new businesses starting and people becoming self-employed. The release clearly breaks down these numbers.
It's just so funny that Republicans want the economy to tank so bad, that when any sign of good comes out, it's treated as a conspiracy theory. Obama can't win; first they ask for his long-form birth certificate, then they ask for long-form pay stubs. It's amazing. You don't like the fact that situation is improving, so you deny that it's improving and claim that he lied.
Did you even look at the numbers and read the BLS stats, or are you just regurgitating what a few uneducated pundits are saying?
"He is indeed a conservative, though. You can just look at his bio."
DeleteSo basically, "do my research for me." No. Give a source.
"1) He wants to fund education."
Straw man argument. Conservatives are not opposed to education.
"2) He wants to put $700 billion back into medicare (his exact words)."
Straw Man 2. Conservatives are not opposed to medicare. We are trying to make it solvent.
"3) He wants to regulate the market and says a free-market can't exist without regulation (a free-market has no regulation at all), thus, he is not for a free-market."
Straw man 3. Some regulation is not the same thing as being anti-free market. And no conservative in the modern day has called for zero regulation.
"4) He wants to stop insurance companies from rejecting people with pre-existing conditions and doesn't want to allow insurance companies to drop people from coverage when they get sick."
One, insurance companies were never allowed to drop currently insured customers once they get sick. Ever. Two, Romney approved of the pre-existing condition rule in the primaries. I do not, because that's not what INSURANCE is. Insurance is something you buy IN CASE you get sick. If you can just wait to buy it until you're sick, then there is officially no point of HAVING insurance. It's really quite simple and obvious, my friend.
"5) He is now pro-choice."
And now you're simply making stuff up. Bravo.
"That's not what they said. They said that was their initial assessment based on the evidence they had. Now that they have more evidence, they can correctly assess the problem."
Uhuh.That's why there are reports that we knew an attack was coming before it happened, right? Serious question: Are you in fact Jay Carney?
"1) The President does not run the BLS. The BLS is used by congress as much as it is anyone else."
The BLS contains multiple Obama bundlers and donations. Even if the BLS is completely to blame for these trumped up numbers, it is dishonest for Obama to refer to them as sign of a recovery.
"2) The 130k jobs you are dismissing are just existing businesses increasing hiring. Again, that is for existing businesses hiring. That does not include new businesses starting and people becoming self-employed. The release clearly breaks down these numbers."
Wow. Just wow. You are drinking a jug of the Drive-By Media kool-aid. I don't even know where to begin.
"It's just so funny that Republicans want the economy to tank so bad, that when any sign of good comes out, it's treated as a conspiracy theory. Obama can't win; first they ask for his long-form birth certificate, then they ask for long-form pay stubs. It's amazing. You don't like the fact that situation is improving, so you deny that it's improving and claim that he lied."
One, your entire premise that "Republicans want the economy to tank" is false. Completely and entirely. It's a false narrative based on the idea that "Obama's plans would've worked if the GOP hadn't stopped him!" (Don't pay attention to the fact that Obama had 2 full years with control of Congress and the GOP couldn't stop them from doing one single thing.) It is a false narrative.
Two, the situation IS NOT IMPROVING. It is legitimately sad that you think 130k jobs, which is a number that doesn't even keep up with population growth, counts as improvement.
Did you even look at the numbers and read the BLS stats, or are you just regurgitating what a few uneducated pundits are saying?
Is this a joke? Honestly, have you even read what they wrote? Romney lied about being a moderate in that debate. He lied about Obama "cutting medicare funding" (isn't that something a conservative would want -- cutting entitlement programs) and Romney lied when he strawmaned Obama about businesses exploiting tax loopholes for shipping jobs overseas (which is true).
ReplyDeleteRomney ran as a tea-partier during the primaries and is now running as a moderate for the general election.
Do you remember when Romney during the 2007/8 primaries said, like all the other "businessmen" GOP candidates, that there was no recession and everything was fine? Do you remember that?
Romney has run as a conservative since day 1. Frankly, I was one of the people who doubted his conservative credentials. I've publicly stated on this blog I was wrong. This "Romney lied about being a moderate" is just sophistry.
ReplyDeleteAs far as there not being tax loopholes for shipping jobs overseas, says PolitiFact:
"There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether it’s from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions.
""There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad," said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. "It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense."
Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, went even further.
"A company would be arguably negligent if they did not claim the deductions," Harvey said. "In addition, the current tax law would allow a tax deduction for the costs of shutting down a U.S. operation."
So basically, the only "loophole" is the deduction for a business expense of moving. And if a business isn't in the United States, they aren't subject to U.S. Taxes. That's as basic as possible.
Your entire point is based on a "technically true" statement that Obama turned into a straw man argument.
"Do you remember when Romney during the 2007/8 primaries said, like all the other "businessmen" GOP candidates, that there was no recession and everything was fine? Do you remember that?"
Do you have a source? A link? Something? Because barring that, I could say "Remember in 2002 when Barack Obama said he wants to give every American a free coupon for a Big Mac at McDonalds" and I could claim that as an argument. Give a source, then I'll respond.
Here's an exact quote from Robme in 2008
DeleteBartiromo: Governor Romney, here in Detroit, Michigan, alone, one in every 29 homes went into foreclosure in the first six months of the year. Whose job is it to fix this problem, the government or private enterprise?
Mitt Romney: It's everybody's job. It's inexcusable that Michigan is undergoing a one-state recession, that the rest of the country is growing and seeing low levels of unemployment, but Michigan is seeing ongoing high levels of unemployment, almost twice the national rate. Industry is shrinking here, jobs are going away.
Exact quote from where? Where did you obtain this? Show me your source. Giving a quote without a source is not an argument.
DeleteHowever, assuming this quote is from Romney, this isn't him saying "there's no recession." Also, without a date, your argument remains invalid. The collapse happened in August of 2008. If this is from February, again, false representation.
Wow, you really are desperate. I give you the name of the debate moderator, and the exact quote Romney stated and that *still* isn't enough for you?
DeleteWow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/us/politics/09debate-transcript.html?_r=0
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=75861
http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_GOP_Michigan.htm
I mean, you'll deny them, and you'll probably even deny the thousands of videos:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZZMPVaqu6I
Here's the entire video:
http://rncnyc2004.blogspot.com/2007/10/republican-debate-dearborn-michigan.html
There are thousands of these. Of course, you're going to deny it. It defeats your ideology.
Everything I've given you is sourced.
I mean really, you're just not getting it. You're a denialist: if there's any proof against your cause (believe me, there's a ton), you just deny it!
Ok, you've now sourced it FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. Really you are delusional. A SOURCE is not "you can go find it."
DeleteNow, to respond. This was stated in October of 2007. Time for a nice history lesson. In October of 2007, national Unemployment was at 4.4%. WE WERE NOT IN A RECESSION AT THAT POINT.
Now, and this is the last time I'm saying this: Your tactic of insulting people is not going to fly here. Secondly, and this is clearly outlined in the rules for comments, you post your source. Saying "I'm quoting Romney" is not good enough.
Directly from the "Rules for Comments"
"If you quote someone, source your quote. This can be done using either a link from a news article or a You Tube video."
You saying "Romney said it, now Google it, is not a source. To be frank, I have a job. I am working at that job. I can comment back periodically but I am ultimately at work during the day. It is up to you to give a source. Period.
Oh and my apologizes I did forget to link this. Here is my source on the October 2007 unemployment rate.
Deletehttp://www.businessinsider.com/recent-unemployment-rate-2009-11
Now, to respond. This was stated in October of 2007. Time for a nice history lesson. In October of 2007, national Unemployment was at 4.4%. WE WERE NOT IN A RECESSION AT THAT POINT.
DeleteYes, I know what the unemployment rate was. What conservatives fail to understand is that unemployment always lags, both in recovery and the onset of a recession. Most people were, at that point, expecting a recession - that's why the question was brought up in the first place! Of course, the Republicans cluelessly denied it.
So now your argument is "Romney didn't recognize that we were in a recession when we weren't in a recession."
DeletePS - Your entire argument is based on hindsight and rewriting of history. Not unusual from a liberal, of course, since you guys are the same ones who blame the Founders for not being politically correct.
"Exact quote from where? Where did you obtain this? Show me your source. Giving a quote without a source is not an argument."
ReplyDeleteThe source is him. You can google that if you'd like. It's really not that hard to find. He's done this numerous times. I'm not doing your homework for you.
And on top of that, I've listed all of Romney's ideological flipflops and you didn't even post it.
Good day.
"The source is him. You can google that if you'd like. It's really not that hard to find. He's done this numerous times. I'm not doing your homework for you."
ReplyDeleteYou've just admitted you have no source. Thank you for proving my point. This is YOUR point. I am not going to go search for your evidence.
That's not how debates work. Try going to court and telling the jury "There's a witness who corroborates my story. No I'm not going to call him to the stand. You go find him."
"And on top of that, I've listed all of Romney's ideological flipflops and you didn't even post it."
I did post it. I also responded. It's on another thread in this same post (sorry for the formatting). Your list was as devoid of sources.
"Good day."
Enjoy your cloistered circle of liberal logic, my friend.