MichFan

It means maybe you might try to think differently about what that chart tells you, other than what your original intention was. Hahaha, give me a little slack here -- sparkling wine, beer and olive oil. I knew some smarta$$ was going to go there. And we import nearly 2/3 of the gas we use from outside the US. But we could become self-reliant if the govt would allow it.

Let's talk about today. We're two years past "The Summer of Recovery". We were guaranteed to be under 6% unemployment at this point. Your guy owns this. No one who knows anything about the economy and isn't blinded by partisanship is pretending these numbers are anything but weak. How can there be a bump already when Obama's speech was last night? Rasmussen is at 46. I'll go with LV poll over AV. Not concerned about Mich, Wisc and Penn. They would just be icing on the cake.

Interesting, we are allowed to meet 100% of US demand through domestic production for everything on that chart but one.

We'll see come Tuesday. I haven't seen anything in the polls that is significantly outside of what has been going on for the past week. The jobs data today really screws things up, however -- so much for independent variables...

But that's not the case, and you really didn't address the real numbers... I agree that too much is being made of the fallen angels comment, I don't think for a moment Biden meant anything but the greatest respect for the military Looking at the TV ratings from last night, I don't think Obam's speech could have produced any significant bump in the polls.

I don't know how even a non-partisan spins the job report as being "pretty good" :huh: .

Well I can tell you they were much more responsive to Michelle, Bill and Joe. This one was as close to a stinker as I've seen from Obama.

Come on man, this is a sports board. You'll talk play-by-play through a Sabres game to attack/defend Miller, Ruff, etc... The best you can do with this speech is reply with that?

So you think this is one of Obama's better speeches? At officially 10:49pm he just woke up and started talking at raised tone with his fake accent. He's also repeating lines from Clinton and Biden. It's bordering on cliche at this point.

Obama looks off his game, tired and uninspired so far. The demigoguery in this speech is beyond the pale. Oh how the mighty have fallen.

Talk about sheep (DNC) .... what is this Ewe Essay they mentioned a couple of times tonight?

PhD's need that extra bit of guidance ;-)

What a weak and boring night so far. Eva Longoria? Tony was smart to get some and move on, shudder at the thought of listening to that all day. Charlie Crist? I hugged Barack and I liked it ... then those mean Republicans kicked me out. So much for the rockin convention from the first two days. Edit: then we get Kerry (big line -- bin Laden is dead -- get's tepid applause and no chants of "USA"), Biden and Biden. Talk about setting up a contrast for Obama's speech. Heck, Bob Dole would be inspirational following that lineup.

Yet you voted for a man named Barack Hussein? And voted twice for Billy Blythe? And would gladly vote for Hillary Rodham? Such a hypocrite! :-)

The NY Times would beg to differ: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/us/politics/02cong.html Funny how the lefties complain about anger and hatred on the right, when they are the ones constantly throwing insults (in spite of their ignorance).

The only thing he has is resistance to Obama as president. If Romney wins, he'll become irrelevant. If Obama wins, his brand of obstructionism will quickly become tired. Dipsticks like this latched onto the tea party movement, pretended to "lead" it, took it to the extreme and fooled enough politicians in the process.

Another one from the "objective" AP: http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20120906/US.CVN.Democrats.Fact.Check/?cid=hero_media Something tells me these fact checks will stick, whereas Ryan's "'lies" were all proven true.

Unfortunately it really is a waste of time trying to get these people to produce facts. In their world, opinion is fact enough. It's also a waste of time to produce facts (e.g., 57+2+1=60) because, in their world, opinion trumps data and memories are more important than historical record. Added to that is an inability to objectively read and comprehend the written word because, in their world, their opinion of what you said is more important than what you actually said. You're not going to change anyone's mind around here on even the most basic facts, the best you can hope for is preparing yourself for the off-the-wall stuff you'll hear during such conversations in the real world.

Wow, that Warren speech was the stinker of both conventions so far. Good thing for the Dems that Clinton is next.

But my point is that by securing the Cornhusker kickback, which would have benefitted voters in his state, he actually lost the support of his state because they were fed up with the tactics employed to buy votes in Obamacare. I merely insisted that the Dems had a supermajority of 60 in their caucus and proved that to be true. I haven't been caught up in the "pass all they want" stuff, my statement was that they were the most empowered party in recent history and that also is true.

Seriously, just admit you erred and get on with it. I'm not trying to rub this in your face, you were just pretty aggressive toward me in insisting I was wrong. It's ironic how people around here who don't get basic facts correct resort to telling me I don't know how government works.

Okay, now you're really embarrassing yourself. Because the link you cited matches exactly what I said, yet you're so invested in being right that you didn't even take time to comprehend it. Read the section that says: "Note: Senator Arlen Specter was reelected in 2004 as a Republican, and became a Democrat on April 30, 2009. Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut was reelected in 2006 as an independent candidate, and became an Independent Democrat. Senator Bernard Sanders of Vermont was elected in 2006 as an Independent." I guess it's my Republican math again .... somehow 57 + 2 Independents + 1 Specter defection = 60 Senators caucusing with the Dems.

That would be the left fringe of the party, both parties have their fringes that cause trouble like this. I don't believe that a significant majority of people who vote Dem feel this way. It's good fodder for the 6pm news and will be forgotten by the time Clinton takes the stage tonight.

Ben Nelson would beg to differ with you...

Let me put it in outline form to help you out: 1) The Dems were empowered to lead like no party has been in recent times 2) Rather than providing straight forward reforms and solutions they put on their bibs and started pigging out 3) It was a disgusting display and Americans took notice Pork is only found in point 2, and is only half of this talking point.