SarasotaSabre

very curious .... what is your affinity towards Oliver Cromwell by having his visage as your avatar? very honest question; would you have the same snarky comment/opinion if the Black Panther was a neo-Nazi skinheard in full regalia? would you honestly dismiss it and look the other way, or even sarcastically joke about it, as you have done here ? I do give a crap about that....

I am callng a Romney win, 289 to 249. May not be decided until Thursday/Friday with Ohio being the logjam. Let the games begin !

Adding what kind of jobs? The "adding jobs" shtick is a tired canard. Unemployment stuck around 8% - with a REAL unemployment rate of 14.7% !! http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/10/11/obamas-real-unemployment-rate-is-14-7-and-a-recessions-on-the-way/ have you seen what it is for African Americans & Latinos? http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50798 Not the record I'd be trying to defend, but that's your opinion........ News flash DeLuca: No, the Black Panther incident was in 2008 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case And I'm stuck in the 60s?......try staying current

re: the bolded in red, you mistake me for having any such fear. The NAACP was there to make sure its minions were voting Obama (along racial lines to boot - wow, how "progressive"), not to sway Romney voters. I have no fear whatsoever Romney voters will switch their vote under any circumstance to ensure this disgrace of a President is gone Wednesday. as to the bolded blue, Mr. Non-Sequitur, your logic makes no sense. You are mixing the right to bear arms vs. the right to vote vs. "individual rights", whatever that means.... as to the bolded orange, I would ask why? do you want to see some violence/voter intimidation at the hands of some Black Panther thugs?

wow, now that's a stretch/spin......increase of 7.9% unemployment (with most admitting that % is low), or 171,000 new jobs due to a glut of unemployed re-entering the work force to get seasonal/temp work? Please give the blame W game a rest - it's 2012. Riddle me this - if Obama wins tomorrow, are you still going to blame W for 4 more years ?

where is the uproar when something like this happens? http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/265925-gop-senators-thousands-of-ballots-unlikely-to-reach-military-voters

Nice try DeLuca - I'd like to offer an educated opinion that the issue was not bottled water, despite your attempt to oversimplify it as such. I do see your emoticon so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.... Did you read the part about the NAACP refusing to turn their logo shirts inside out? Something tells me they very much wanted their affiliation to be seen as a point of influence - why else would they refuse to turn their shirts inside out? Oh yeah, it's about the bottled water..... :wallbash: The double standards of political correctness are so tiring & played in this country. I suppose it would be no problem if a pro-Romney group displayed the same behavior while in close proximity to a line of voters?

thanks for the link Sizzle - methinks nonsense like this is only going to get worse. Anything to get their guy re-elected.

I must be spending too much time on this board.... I had a dream that the election ended in a tie after widepread allegations of voter fraud. Al Sharpton was spotted sneaking donuts into voting booths in a Harlem precinct where voters were casting multiple ballots. Jesse Jackson was dressed up as a Black Panther with a baseball bat threatening "crackers" to not vote for Mitt. Chris Matthews had another thrill up his leg when MSNBC had a Truman/Dewey moment & incorrectly reported Ohio won by Obama. In a last ditch moment of insanity/inspiration, Axelrod shaved his 'stache and went with a mohawk. Harry Reid was caught receiving a huge bribe by the casino union. The Alabama work crews who were turned away in NJ as scabs came back with a fury and accosted Chris Christie, who, in a fit of pique, pulled an Arlen Specter and defected to the Dems. Nancy Pelosi had a complete meltdown, and, when Cali was called for the Dems, her face was cryogenically frozen into a perma-grin. At 4:06am the House convened and voted in Romney Under Article 2 of the Constitution, while the Senate voted in Uncle Joe, who then took his planned 3 day vacation to Colorado only to spontaneously combust after claiming he was in Delaware after being asked by a reporter Then I woke up ..... *** Just kidding, I made this whole thing up. Please pardon my attempted levity.

You raise a fair question but the article I linked cited "Florida State Law" as the reason behind the active service members being removed from the rolls. The article does not cite either the Republican State Legislature and/or the Governor in Florida specifically as the cause of this removal. Not to split hairs, but I do want to make this distinction. EDITED: In other words, the Florida State Law might have preceded the Republican State Legislature and/or the Governor's efforts.

In the interest of fairness, let's not forget this cuts both ways; I'm curious as to why no one on this Board has complained about servicemen/women being disenfranchised. I have read numerous accounts of military personnel being denied the right to vote over some BS technicality or never receiving ballots. Here is but one example - http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/280780/8/ProtectYourVote-Servicemembers-removed-from-voting-rolls Would like to see both sides of the aisle held accountable for such chicanery, and would hope this Board does not only mention one voting bloc being affected.

you are welcome, I appreciate that....

My honest answer is this: your assumption is incorrect, with all due respect, on multiple levels. First, I am coherent enough (I think...) to not base my vote Tuesday (or hopefully later today) on the basis solely of the Benghazi tragedy. Quite the contrary - nor am I "looking" for a coverup which could be damaging to the current President among many other parties in his Administration. I am with you in the sense that the longer the full story is either withheld or modified, the greater the chance the entire is used for political gain and/or other purposes. Call me crazy, but is it a coincidence that only one major network is continuing its investigation of and attention to Benghazi? Is it a coincidence that Sandy is on the front page and Benghazi is on the back (if at all ?) Second, there are several other very important factors (too lengthy to detail in this reply) why this President will not be getting my vote - but I can list them as follows: These factors revolve around foreign policy & how America's interests are projected and fostered (....Benghazi = abject & epic failure), domestic policy, energy policy, and economic policy (another abject & epic failure). Obama simply has no record of success/accomplishment to earn my vote. Here is a damning op-ed which I feel summarizes the Benghazi mess: http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/benghazi-blunder-obama-unworthy-commander-in-chief-176736441.html

Definitely not before next Tuesday .......

+ 1

Regarding the second (bolded) point, IMHO the typical description of "working in a bipartisan manner" almost always refers to the scenario of legislative activity. Something like Sandy (hopefully) transcends the appearance of partisanship, although it is common incumbent behavior to not be camera shy when there is a good photo-op to be had.....))

Kudos to you for the work you have done to assist with disaster mitigation organizations..... !

I agree 100% and I would like additional context/detail on this. It is not my intent to post some unfounded garbage on this matter, because that serves no purpose except perhaps to promote one's overtly partisan M.O., which is the last thing I want to do. I will do my best to find some credible links.

sounds like an indictment of typical government red tape & bureaucracy, and the fact that Obama is speaking out to minimize this government largesse is another example of the inherent flaws of big government. I heard on the radio yesterday that specific relief efforts were being impeded because the local private contractors has not produced the required permits to FEMA....unbelievable. (if I can source a link to back this up, I certainly will post it)

Just curious, why do you think Sandy may have evened things up in your estimation? Is it because whenever a natural disaster or catastrophe hits, the appearance of a commander in chief onsite favors that incumbent? The way I see it, the Fed's responsiveness to date is the expected role of a functioning government. Obama taking a helicopter tour is par for the course, nothing exemplary but nothing glaring to be criticized, either. I will say, however, that his challenge for everyone on "his team" to return all calls within 15 minutes must surely add insult to injury to those 4 families who lost sons in Benghazi. Likewise, the photo op of Obama in the situation room after Sandy looks patently derelict when factoring his conspicuous absence in that same situation post 9/11/12. A real leader does not pick & choose when to be front & center in times of crisis. This is the sad truth. And his malaprop of "we will leave no man behind" in the wake of Sandy? Try looking Charles Woods in the eye, Mr. President, and telling him those words.

Polls schmolls

No prob, I did not take it as directed at me.... Sorry, I goofed on my earlier upthread reply No prob, I did not take it as directed at me.... Not sure if the reason of establishing bonds through technology is a valid or quantitative reason why abortions are down. I think your argument is a possibility but I can't see it as a cause & effect. As to the bolded part, do you have links to these studies? I'd be interested to see what they reveal. As to the bolded question in red, there is not a universal fight to ban abortion across the board. For example, there are alot of people who feel that unrestricted, late-term, and/or taxpayer funded abortion is a clear moral dilemma, but do not seek to ban ALL abortion.

That makes perfect sense.

I disagree in that my view of my unborn child was not "socialized by technology" vis a vis that first ultrasound session. I had a preexisting appreciation & expectation for my daughter's viability due to my particular upbringing and belief system. As a result, when I read a description like yours, it comes across as pejorative and trivial even though that may not be your intent. It's the way your words read.