Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?

[rareboy]

With ‘Dreams From My Real Father,’ Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ck-bottom.html

After four years of invective, four years during which the right has called President Obama a traitor, a communist, a fraud, an affirmative-action case, a terrorist-sympathizer and a tyrant, its shrillest voices have been reduced to the most primal insult of all. They are calling Obama’s mother a whore.

Oh American conservatives.

Is this what you think will endear you to the swing voters?

Calling the president's mother a whore?

Now we are all aware that Andrew Jackson's wife took a lot of shit during a fiercely fought election campaign...but to tackle someone's mom?

Really?

Is there no decency left in the US political arena?

[White Eagle]

Do you smell Rove as "at least one high-level Republican"?
That sick bastard is gonna go straight to Hell!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[chance1]

Interesting question .... Let me get back to u

A more interesting question is:

Has the US economy and hopes and dreams of Americans hit rock bottom

Given that the "leader" of this economic calamity is likely to be "rewarded" with a new 4 year firm contract ...

I'd say NO - we have more room to fall

More debt to incur
More jobs to lose
More taxes to raise
More people leaving the workforce

I'd say rock bottom is a bit away

[chrisrobin]

With ‘Dreams From My Real Father,’ Have Obama Haters Hit Rock Bottom?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ck-bottom.html





Oh American conservatives.

Is this what you think will endear you to the swing voters?

Calling the president's mother a whore?

Now we are all aware that Andrew Jackson's wife took a lot of shit during a fiercely fought election campaign...but to tackle someone's mom?

Really?

Is there no decency left in the US political arena?

No. And they'll never quit. The righties gave FDR holy hell his second term too.

[Sausy]

I'm no Obama fan anymore but like the birther stuff it's just asinine. Fanbois may say Obama can do no wrong but there is no justification for critics to go off the deep end and make up something that would cause even
conspiracy theorists to throw up their hands in disgust.

[CowboyBob]

Every time you think the right wing has hit rock bottom, there's a whole new level of hate and bile they spew. the tea party is the KKK without the sheets.

Republican hatred of the President of the United States is worse than al-Qaeda's hatred of the President. Both groups are out to destroy America.

[JayHawk]

This is desperate and a key indication of a party that has no real argument. Kind of like when posters simply default to a pro view of Obama means there is no criticism or that Obama is their Messiah. Just a sign of an empty head.

[bike10]

The GOP has patent and trademark on dirty tricks since the days of Tricky Dick Nixon.

[frankfrank]

Every time you think the right wing has hit rock bottom, there's a whole new level of hate and bile they spew. the tea party is the KKK without the sheets.

Republican hatred of the President of the United States is worse than al-Qaeda's hatred of the President. Both groups are out to destroy America.

I'm convinced that the Republican Party HATES THE UNITED STATES more than does al-Qaeda or, perhaps, ant
y other political group on Earth.

I think that General Alfie was right a few years ago. North Korea is so much like the kind of government the Republicans would love to have us under. COMPLETE opposites, of course (e.g. the Republicans would be running an uber-evangelical theocracy), but the two extremes MEET in back of the circle. I'm all for sending the Republican Party to North Korea.

[archive]

Interesting question .... Let me get back to u

A more interesting question is:

Has the US economy and hopes and dreams of Americans hit rock bottom

Given that the "leader" of this economic calamity is likely to be "rewarded" with a new 4 year firm contract ...

I'd say NO - we have more room to fall

More debt to incur
More jobs to lose
More taxes to raise
More people leaving the workforce

I'd say rock bottom is a bit away

You're not very good on the smoke screen. Please try again.

[rareboy]

Interesting question to dodge.... Let me get back to u

A more interesting question is:

Has the US economy and hopes and dreams of Americans hit rock bottom

Given that the "leader" of this economic calamity is likely to be "rewarded" with a new 4 year firm contract ...

I'd say NO - we have more room to fall

More debt to incur
More jobs to lose
More taxes to raise
More people leaving the workforce

I'd say rock bottom is a bit away

But of course, I recognize that this is all irrelevant to this thread and only a weak attempt to derail the OP'sthread.

There. Fixed it for you.

As for the rest of the post, please refer to the Posting Guidleines for CE&P.

If you want a thread on Obama's performance with respect to the economy, make one. It is really easy.

[chance1]

There. Fixed it for you.

As for the rest of the post, please refer to the Posting Guidleines for CE&P.

If you want a thread on Obama's performance with respect to the economy, make one. It is really easy.

Thanks pops

Will try to do better next time

The truth hurts ....

But not to worry cuz when the US is deeper in the ditch you'll be comfy cozy in your Banff log cabin

[CowboyBob]

There. Fixed it for you.

As for the rest of the post, please refer to the Posting Guidleines for CE&P.

If you want a thread on Obama's performance with respect to the economy, make one. It is really easy.

Thanks for that.

This started out as a thread about Obama haters hitting rock bottom linking to an article describing the vile antics of a group sending around a video calling the President every name in the book, even calling his mother a whore. Instead of condemning it the Obama haters here try to twist the thread whining about the President not cleaning up Bush's mess fast enough.

Yes, they've hit rock bottom.

[Telstra]

Dinesh D'Souza is really a RAT !!!

[Telstra]

.
D'Souza NEVER met Obama once and he claimed to know Obama's dreams and thoughts.
Its funny how people like him studied the bible and claimed to know what god want.

[chance1]

D'Souza is a major douchebag... surprised one source hasn't defended him on this forum because of his background. He can't even back up his statements. And nobody paid attention to that bullsh*t fictional movie he made.

he was on Bill Maher couple weeks back - Bill really went after him - DSouza was there to plug his book (course)

usually Bill treats guests pretty well even those he is not in sync politically with

here not so much

http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/01/di...blimated-rage/

[chance1]

^ well at least u didn't claim maher is "too conservative"

Terrific show

[spooger]

Every time you think the right wing has hit rock bottom, there's a whole new level of hate and bile they spew. the tea party is the KKK without the sheets.

Republican hatred of the President of the United States is worse than al-Qaeda's hatred of the President. Both groups are out to destroy America.

and i would be willing to say that dems' hatred of The President of the United States, George W. Bush, was just as strong as what you describe ...

ill will, vitriol and investive flys from all sides when either side starts slinging the feces ...

no shortage of it from dems or repubs ... just look in CE&P if you want to see pointless invective

[JayHawk]

I agree Spooger the vitriol was over the top four years ago as well. That doesn't excuse this behavior in any way. Just makes the majority of outspoken voices of each party repulsive.

[spooger]

The democrats during the Bush administration did have issues of substance against the Bush administration. The republicans have nothing of substance this time around. The republicans failed to address the economy and middle east, therefore must attack Obama on superficial issues.

of course!

to the haters, hate is always justified

just listen here in CE&P ... libs spew hate just as well as repubs ...

george w bush, dick cheny, john mccain, sarah palin, mit romney ....

NOT THAT I CARE ONE BIT for most in this list (check my posts ... you won't find admiration for dems OR repubs) , but we ARE talking about HATE, now aren't we

point that finger of hate at someone else, and there are 4 pointing back at yourself, if you'll pardon a cliche'

[FuryOfFirestorm]

and i would be willing to say that dems' hatred of The President of the United States, George W. Bush, was just as strong as what you describe ...

ill will, vitriol and investive flys from all sides when either side starts slinging the feces ...

no shortage of it from dems or repubs ... just look in CE&P if you want to see pointless invective

I can't speak for other people, but while I disagreed with how Bush II ran things, I never wished him death or harm. Nor did I refer to any of his family as "whores". To dislike or disagree with someone is one thing, but hatred and personal attacks are too far, no matter which side you're on.

[chance1]

I agree Spooger the vitriol was over the top four years ago as well. That doesn't excuse this behavior in any way. Just makes the majority of outspoken voices of each party repulsive.

I can't speak for other people, but while I disagreed with how Bush II ran things, I never wished him death or harm. Nor did I refer to any of his family as "whores". To dislike or disagree with someone is one thing, but hatred and personal attacks are too far, no matter which side you're on.

agree with both

the fringes of both parties unfortunately speak the loudest and/or get the most coverage from media types who love to stir the pot

as for the race card being played by the usual suspects ............. it's lame x 10 and reflects an overall mindset that looks to portray legitimate criticism of the President and his policies as something racial - people with eyes/ears/brain waves don't react well to that characterization - to his credit I don't recall the Pres. or his primary handlers playing that card

[bw92116]

Character assassination is a major chapter of the Republican playbook. They use it continuously, even when there is no campaign going on. But they ramp it up dramatically during a campaign. They operate entirely on perception, instead of substance. Their strategy is to throw anything they can think of at the screen, in hopes that something will stick. So they will make up stuff and throw it out there, just to see if it sticks. If not, then they really haven't lost anything. They just try something else. Sooner or later, something they throw will capture the public's imagination, even if only for a week. Family members or associates, even associates from long ago, are targets as well. Nothing is off-limits to them. Anything that they can say to make even a tiny dent in someone's reputation is good, in their minds. They are also skilled at buzzwords and hot-button phrases and at labeling people. It's all about perception, and reality has nothing to do with their campaigns. And they have been doing this for my entire lifetime... I don't know about before that. And as a result of this, campaigns have become all about perception and not facts or reality.

[Jack Springer]

This is funny.

Read some of the crap people say about Romney on CEP -- not exactly nice stuff.

Going back --- so much crap said about Bush.

Give me a break -- you guys are so funny.

[chance1]

Character assassination is a major chapter of the Republican playbook. They use it continuously, even when there is no campaign going on. But they ramp it up dramatically during a campaign. They operate entirely on perception, instead of substance. Their strategy is to throw anything they can think of at the screen, in hopes that something will stick. So they will make up stuff and throw it out there, just to see if it sticks. If not, then they really haven't lost anything. They just try something else. Sooner or later, something they throw will capture the public's imagination, even if only for a week. Family members or associates, even associates from long ago, are targets as well. Nothing is off-limits to them. Anything that they can say to make even a tiny dent in someone's reputation is good, in their minds. They are also skilled at buzzwords and hot-button phrases and at labeling people. It's all about perception, and reality has nothing to do with their campaigns. And they have been doing this for my entire lifetime... I don't know about before that. And as a result of this, campaigns have become all about perception and not facts or reality.

seriously? what campaign are you watching this year

Obama's entire campaign is ANTI ROMNEY
he's a rich plutocrat
he flip flops
he's anti women
he's only for the rich
etc.

ALL of their stuff is ANTI-ROMNEY

why? cause talking about their record is not such a good story

it's like your entire post is ................ a george costanza OPPOSITE moment

sure there's a small section of america that hates obama - and perhaps some of it is racially motivated

but as a party focus? it's just a wet dream for over progressive supporters

"HOW COULD YOU NOT LIKE OBAMA ???? YOU MUST BE A HATER/RACIST, ETC."

did you check out the post debate narrative by the Obama campaign?

as usual they took no responsibility for the President's listless and losing performance - his closing remarks BTW were BRUTAL

instead it's Mitt is a LIAR

so please try to keep up with what's really going on really being said and written

[Seasoned]

There's a difference when allowing and taking advantage of Obama hatred within one's campaign and calling Romney a liar. During the primaries didn't Gingrich call Romney a liar and say that Romney would say anything to get elected? There's a real danger in electing Romney. There's the possibility of waking up to a different Romney on a daily basis. Personally I like calm. It's been a relief these past 4 years.

[chance1]

There's a difference when allowing and taking advantage of Obama hatred within one's campaign and calling Romney a liar. During the primaries didn't Gingrich call Romney a liar and say that Romney would say anything to get elected? There's a real danger in electing Romney. There's the possibility of waking up to a different Romney on a daily basis. Personally I like calm. It's been a relief these past 4 years.

and in 2008 Bill Clinton told the world that Obama "played the race card on Hillary" so your "Newt said" is sorta ....... whatever

There's no DANGER in electing Romney just as there was no danger in electing Obama

not sure what u mean about "calm" - my guess is you're working or well off - I don't think the 20+% of the population that are un/under/stopped looking for employment ...... would agree with you about the "calm" or "relief"

and the "different romney" is just a progressive and now democrat talking point - it's happy horseshit - michael nutter was on candy crowley today (cnn) and he was a talking point zombie about "lies"

it's sad that Pres. Obama and his band of merry zombies can't talk to accomplishments only to Mitt's flaws/evil/lies etc.

guess what - the 67 million people who WITNESSED the first debate know better

for months Pres. Obama and his crack staff dedicated to re-electing the listless one ....... have produced ads and done talk shows speaking to the evilness of Mittens

67 million people now know better

it's very powerful to experience something vs. hearing it

much more powerful

and much more REAL

and now the lies will actually be regarded as LIES

Team Obama only has ONE note in their sad song

and it's sour and cranky and now it's been exposed

[Rolyo85]

I find it disgraceful and a travesty for a gay man to equate the "hate" coming from people on JUB toward Republicans to the hatred they have for everyone "not them".

Hatred is never good. But it is at least a bit justified when the one you hate wants to limit your rights and kick you into a closet of denial and self-repressing. When somebody wants to HARM you, you're allowed to feel enmity. Doesn't matter that it's not direct physical harm, it's harm all the same.

When you hate someone because they have a different colored skin, or different sexuality, or different faith, that hatred is not justified. It is pathetic, ugly and repulsive. And I will not accept the two being equated with each other. This is not a "you do it too" thing.

[Rolyo85]

Actually polls have been showing a huge gain for Romney since the debate, but he is still in the lower 20% chance of winning.

What bothers me is that the 67 million people clearly DON'T know better if they could change their mind based on the fact that the douchebag can lie with a firm conviction and sarcastic smirk. If THAT'S the quality we look for in a president, then 67 million people are morons.

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

A bump following the debate shouldn't surprise any of us. Whether or not the bump recedes or holds is another matter entirely. I'm less concerned about the national polling than I am about the races in OH, VA, and FL. We shall see after a week or so where we actually are.

[Kulindahr]

I've long wondered when Dinesh D'Souza was going to stop wading in the sewers and just dive into the treatment tank. He's finally done it.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

seriously? what campaign are you watching this year

Obama's entire campaign is ANTI ROMNEY
he's a rich plutocrat
he flip flops
he's anti women
he's only for the rich
etc.

ALL of their stuff is ANTI-ROMNEY

why? cause talking about their record is not such a good story

it's like your entire post is ................ a george costanza OPPOSITE moment

sure there's a small section of america that hates obama - and perhaps some of it is racially motivated

but as a party focus? it's just a wet dream for over progressive supporters

"HOW COULD YOU NOT LIKE OBAMA ???? YOU MUST BE A HATER/RACIST, ETC."

did you check out the post debate narrative by the Obama campaign?

as usual they took no responsibility for the President's listless and losing performance - his closing remarks BTW were BRUTAL

instead it's Mitt is a LIAR

so please try to keep up with what's really going on really being said and written

Well, I mean, to be fair...
he's a rich plutocrat check
he flip flops double check
he's anti women check (I mean, women seem to think so based on the immense polling gap, unless they are just dumber than men on average...)
he's only for the rich sorta check (He's may not be only for the rich, but he is certainly not in favor of helping the poor directly... he just hopes they are magically lifted up by the job creators )

And, if you don't like the personal attacks, I would suggest you pass on the following to Romney: actually stand for ANYTHING on the actual issues... then we can attack your positions and not your person... but, if you refuse to stand for anything and, worse, even turn your back on the very few positions you do hold... what do you expect? In this case, all we can do is point out you have no real ideas and rightfully call you a liar (which gets old eventually) and infer what your positions are based on who you are, how you made your livelihood and what you have said in private around your peers...

[Benvolio]

Dream on. It is silly to think that a failed President like Obama can be reelected. Think Carter. There is the University of Colorado computer prediction.http://www.colorado.edu/news/release...win-university

[Jack Springer]

ReadyWithReadyWit - What I think Chance is asking you -- what is Obama's vision for the USA in the next four years. You responded pretty much the same as the Obama Campaign has been doing - criticizing Romney.

Let's here what you have to say about the next four years with Obama at the helm.

Well, I mean, to be fair...
he's a rich plutocrat check
he flip flops double check
he's anti women check (I mean, women seem to think so based on the immense polling gap, unless they are just dumber than men on average...)
he's only for the rich sorta check (He's may not be only for the rich, but he is certainly not in favor of helping the poor directly... he just hopes they are magically lifted up by the job creators )

And, if you don't like the personal attacks, I would suggest you pass on the following to Romney: actually stand for ANYTHING on the actual issues... then we can attack your positions and not your person... but, if you refuse to stand for anything and, worse, even turn your back on the very few positions you do hold... what do you expect? In this case, all we can do is point out you have no real ideas and rightfully call you a liar (which gets old eventually) and infer what your positions are based on who you are, how you made your livelihood and what you have said in private around your peers...

[Rolyo85]

Sure, let's see that. Right after we see your interpretation of the 4 Romney years. I even posted a topic for your convenience. I'm sure you can find it.

[Kulindahr]

ReadyWithReadyWit - What I think Chance is asking you -- what is Obama's vision for the USA in the next four years. You responded pretty much the same as the Obama Campaign has been doing - criticizing Romney.

The Obama campaign does that because four years of an Obama with no plan at all would be far better than four years of Romney, which by the few things he has told us would result in an unemployment rate of over 15% and a national debt a stone's throw from $25 trillion.

[Kulindahr]

Nate Silver and several other models show that Obama is going to win. How on earth will Romney get 330 electoral votes? That's just not going to happen. That model is wrong.

That model relies on nothing but economic data and a comparison to the past. Thus it misses two big points:

1. People do not rely entirely on economic data.

2. This is not the past.

[Benvolio]

Romney only needs 270 electoral votes. Heres how, from Real Clear Politics Com Romney now has 181. FL 29, most recent 2 for R.
MO average R +5.2.
NC average R + .8
OH most recent tie, will go R
VA most recent O + .3. Will go R
Then one of the following IA 6, NV, NH, or CO (now O +.2)
I don't expect you to accept this but it does show that Romney is much closer than you think. He will get MO, and the other four are essentially tied.
I continue to predict a Romney landslide.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

ReadyWithReadyWit - What I think Chance is asking you -- what is Obama's vision for the USA in the next four years. You responded pretty much the same as the Obama Campaign has been doing - criticizing Romney.

Let's here what you have to say about the next four years with Obama at the helm.

Chance is more than capable of framing his own points/questions. However, for your benefit , here is what I think Obama offers for the next four years:

Continued steady, responsible, more equitable growth (admittedly, hopefully at a slightly faster rate) with the unemployment figure continuing to drop, the DOW continuing to rise, consumer confidence continuing to rise, the housing market continuing to bounce back, etc.... That is... a safe economic recovery to continue. I expect the election to create more certainty in the nation, the president to learn from his bargaining mistakes in the past, and likely actually move to the right (unfortunately, for many on this forum) on some of his economic compromising... as history shows presidents tend to move to the center in a second term. I think business will start to embrace Obamacare (they won't have a choice) once the uncertainty over its future is lifted and, if implemented correctly, the program will prove to be a success. I think changing direction (what direction that is btw... who knows) is risky with little actual upside potential and, based only on the shreds of a plan Romney now denounces, not politically feasible especially in the long run. Oh, and as a bonus, Obama will do so while creating a atmosphere conducive to opening dialogue about and extending gay rights...

As with every knee-jerk "I'm rubber, your glue" reaction by the Romney campaign... (you know... the... We're not out of touch... Obama is... We're not waging a war on women... Obama is.... etc...), this too is an entirely false equivalency instigated to muddy the water. What is Obama going to do to bridge the gap in the deficit? You know very damn well what he intends to do... he hasn't changed his position for political convenience. He is going to ask the rich/ big business to pay 3-4% more in taxes... when you maintain a semblance of reasonability and accept that revenues are a part of the balanced solution... you don't have to answer questions about filling a $4.8 trillion dollar void... it doesn't exist. Thus, the Obama administration wants to focus on demand/ small business-driven growth... you know those individuals that actually have to spend to survive and those businesses that actually have to reinvest capital into their businesses (instead of sitting on profits while the country crumbles around them)... and, because of this, 98% of small business would likely not even be subject to to the higher income tax rate.

And, to reiiterate my point, you can criticize Obama's record because he actually has one. If you want to know where he stands on the issues, look back at the last four years. All I'm asking is for Romney to suggest what he will do differently from Obama and, more importantly the failed administration before him. Is this really asking too much?

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Romney only needs 270 electoral votes. Heres how, from Real Clear Politics Com Romney now has 181. FL 29, most recent 2 for R.
MO average R +5.2.
NC average R + .8
OH most recent tie, will go R
VA most recent O + .3. Will go R
Then one of the following IA 6, NV, NH, or CO (now O +.2)
I don't expect you to accept this but it does show that Romney is much closer than you think. He will get MO, and the other four are essentially tied.
I continue to predict a Romney landslide.

I can't imagine why RealClearPolitics is still counting MO as a swing state. Romney has a comfortable 7 point lead and Obama has NEVER taken the lead there in any poll. I think it's safe to assume that MO's 10 electoral votes can be put in the Romney column.

That being said, all President Obama has to do is pick up NV, CO and IA (he has consistently led in all three, with more than a 5 point lead in IA and NV) and he gets to 272 electoral votes. Even if we give ALL of the "big money" swing states (OH, FL, VA, NC) to Romney (and OH still isn't very likely) Romney only gets to 266.

For anyone interested in playing, the CNN map allows you to choose scenarios to see how they play out with an interactive clickable model:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2012/eca...#?battleground

[Jack Springer]

^^^

The trouble with your argument is that the economy sucks. It's hard to spin the lie that things are getting better when the GNP is extremely low -- close to recession low. The reason the unemployment rate went down is that there are so many people with part time jobs now -- not full time jobs.

Yes, Obama does have a record and it sucks. It's time for change.

[ReadyWithReadyWit]

^^^

The trouble with your argument is that the economy sucks. It's hard to spin the lie that things are getting better when the GNP is extremely low -- close to recession low. The reason the unemployment rate went down is that there are so many people with part time jobs now -- not full time jobs.

Yes, Obama does have a record and it sucks. It's time for change.

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I don't have to "spin" the truth... and I realized going into my post that it was falling on deaf ears... noone is claiming the economy is great... but I challenge you to find me any respectable economist who would argue that things are not "getting better" compared to what they were when Obama took office... thinking otherwise is delusional. Likewise, I challenge you to explain to me what Mitt is offering that is different from the Bush administration and that tackles the the enormity (as in trillions of dollars) of the budget problem the right is so concerned about. And, just for the record, you do think the Bush administation's economic policy was a disaster, right?

I showed you mine... now it's your turn, big boy...

[Jack Springer]

^^^
Yeah, and the USA just experienced it's biggest hiring month in 30 years!

Who would would buy that crap?

[Benvolio]

But the guys at BLS are making big contributions to Obama, proving that they want to help him.

[Kulindahr]

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I don't have to "spin" the truth... and I realized going into my post that it was falling on deaf ears... noone is claiming the economy is great... but I challenge you to find me any respectable economist who would argue that things are not "getting better" compared to what they were when Obama took office... thinking otherwise is delusional. Likewise, I challenge you to explain to me what Mitt is offering that is different from the Bush administration and that tackles the the enormity (as in trillions of dollars) of the budget problem the right is so concerned about. And, just for the record, you do think the Bush administation's economic policy was a disaster, right?

I showed you mine... now it's your turn, big boy...

I think that what's in Obama's favor is that while things may not be improving for everyone, everyone knows someone for whom they are getting better. That tells people things are looking up, however slowly.

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

But the guys at BLS are making big contributions to Obama, proving that they want to help him.

So wait, are you attempting to deny the rights of an individual to contribute to a political campaign (all of $2,000 by the way) at the same time you want to defend major corporations spending unlimited funds to buy elections? Since a guy donates to the guy who isn't your candidate, he's automatically lying?

One shred, just one single SHRED of proof is all anyone is asking for to back up these outrageous claims from the right.

JUST

ONE

SINGLE

SHRED

anyone? anyone?

I'll wait.....

[Benvolio]

You realy mean that you want evidence from a Democrat source saying that the Democrat figures are bogus. You will brush aside any other evidence as being from a forbidden source. The BLS donations prove that they are biased and have that motive to to help Obama.

[Kulindahr]

This is priceless:

Posted by Benvolio:

But the guys at BLS are making big contributions to Obama, proving that they want to help him.

Which, he says, means they can't be trusted.

So, Ben, you just proved to us, by your own reasoning, that we shouldn't believe a single word you say: you post supporting Romney, which means you want to help him, which means nothing you say about him can be trusted.

Bravo.

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

You realy mean that you want evidence from a Democrat source saying that the Democrat figures are bogus. You will brush aside any other evidence as being from a forbidden source.

You know what ben? Just this once and in the spirit of fair play, I'm happy to take ANY source, any source at all of your choosing that helps make this case. How's that?

The ONLY condition is that the source lists ACTUAL EVIDENCE that those numbers were cooked to help the president. I'm not talking about innuendo or "a gut feeling" or any of the other crap that's being put out there in the form of a whispering campaign, but an actual morsel of evidence or proof to back up this otherwise outrageous claim.

How's that? Completely your choice and the ball is in your court.

The logical problem of your assertion reminds me of an algebra exercise. Let's say we know that a + b = c. In this case, "a" represents the fact that certain members of BLS made individual contributions to Obama's campaign and let's say "b" represents something like a demonstrable irregularity in the math of the numbers or a cloud of doubt is cast over the numbers by something measurable. "C" would then represent the outcome that the numbers should not be trusted and that the BLS members cooked them to help the president. What you're doing is starting with "a" and assuming that "c" is the only possible outcome.

We know that isn't true.

It doesn't work in algebra and it doesn't work in life.

I'm sure everyone here will be anxiously awaiting the proof of your claim and, remember, ANY source is good so long as it contains evidence.

[Benvolio]

The figures themselves are internally inconsistent and don't make sense.http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...mployment-drop
This combined with the strong motive of Hussein's underlings to help him are strong circumstantial evidence that the figures are phoney.