► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Moonbats’

Wasserman Me Worry?

by Bunk Five Hawks X ( 142 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Humor, OOT, Open thread, Politics, Progressives at September 24th, 2012 - 11:00 pm

I don’t know what The Obama Hand Jive is all about considering that no matter how ambidextrous you are, few can write legible stuff on the backs of their hands. That by itself makes the whole thing a hoax from the start, but from what I’ve been told, these backhanded messages are supposed to illustrate why a person is going to vote for Obama in November.

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is going to vote for Obama because he pays her, and according to the message someone wrote on the back of her right hand, for “Our Kids.”  I don’t know about you, but I’ve never had sexual relations with that bag of dust with an overbite, so there’s no possibility that we’ve produced children. I mean, maybe I’d think about sticking it in her mouth, but no way would I, um, you know…

But then I looked at that excellent portrait of Ms. W-S and noticed that one of her eyes is a tad lower than the other. Not a big deal, nobody’s face is perfectly symmetrical, but I found it odd, especially since her doctored up Wiki photo doesn’t show it. It reminded me of something from my childhood.

You see it now? Alfreda E. Neuman-Shultz with a Sharpie tatt.

I understand that not everyone has the same eye for snarkage, so let’s make it easy for our slower friends at The Swamp.

Some things you can never un-see, but you already knew that. You also knew that it happens frequently on The Overnight Open Thread.

CNBC Poll: 75% Agree With Romney: Welfare-collecting parasites will never vote for him

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 105 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, Politics, Progressives at September 19th, 2012 - 6:30 pm

I’ll keep this short and to the point…

CNBC Poll: 75% Agree With Romney’s 47% Comments

And this surprises who? Why the hell would the leeches and/or parasites who make up way too many of our citizens vote for a man who says if you want those of us working Americans to support your worthless asses you should actually have to work?

Say pal, got any (hope and) change you can spare? Libs owe $15 million for their freakshow of sluts and nuts in Charlotte

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 17 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Cult of Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Elections 2012, government, Liberal Fascism, Marxism, Politics, Progressives, Socialism at September 11th, 2012 - 11:00 am

Hide your wallets! I hate to laugh at these pathetic lib losers. Well, okay, not really. These are dumocrats, after all. So I LOVE laughing at the morons!

Seems the party that runs up billions of dollars of deficits for us taxpayers without caring or having a clue as to how they’ll be paid back has now run up a tab of $15 million for that gathering of dopes (Biden, Obama, union delegates), mopes (the welfare collecting parasites), degenerates, and gropers (Bill Clinton), that were supposed to be the main speakers at their pathetic convention.

Democrats Said to End Convention $15 Million Short

Democrats ended their convention in Charlotte $5 million short of their budget even after being forced to draw down a $10 million line of credit from Duke Energy Corp. (DUK), according to a Democratic Party fundraiser.

That will leave a $15 million bill that eventually will have to be paid by President Barack Obama’s campaign or the Democratic National Committee, according to the fundraiser, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

The Charlotte Host Committee ended the convention with more than $5 million in immediate obligations and may require a direct cash infusion from the Obama campaign to pay vendors, said the fundraiser.

The $10 million line of credit to Duke Energy will need to be repaid next year, said a second person familiar with the matter, who also spoke on condition of anonymity. Duke Energy Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jim Rogers is co-chairman of the host committee.

Those debts could siphon off advertising money in the campaign’s final months, as Democrats face a cash disadvantage.

Bank Balances

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, the Republican National Committee and two allied super-political action committees reported a combined bank account balance of $169 million on July 31. That compared with $107 million for President Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the pro-Obama super-PAC Priorities USA Action, according to disclosures filed Aug. 20 with the Federal Election Commission.

“It is always easier to raise corporate dollars in advance of a convention because of the visibility and profile that corporate sponsorship can offer,” said Tony Corrado, a professor of government at Colby College in Waterville, Maine, who specializes in campaign finance. “After a convention, once the signs are down and the politicians have left, raising money is a much more difficult task.”

The host committee failed to reach its $36.7 million fundraising goal because the DNC banned direct cash contributions from corporations, which have traditionally underwritten presidential nominating conventions. Republicans didn’t have a similar prohibition for their convention last month in Tampa.
Dealing With Restrictions

“If they got within 5 million, considering that they used the line of credit, I think that’s awesome, given the restrictions they had to deal with, ” said Mike Dino, who served as executive director for the host committee in Denver, where Democrats held their nomination convention in 2008. “They should be relieved to be in that range.”

The Denver convention accepted direct corporate contributions and raised enough money to pay all its bills, though immediately after the convention, the committee had “in the range of 8 to 10 million dollars that was outstanding,” Dino said.

Tom Williams, a spokesman for Duke, referred questions to the host committee.

“All details relevant to the line of credit from Duke Energy will be disclosed in the FEC report,” Suzi Emmerling, a host committee spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

Let’s have a class in poll-taking 101, to explain why dems are polled more, or “oversampled”, than normal people (Republicans)

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 106 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Elections 2012, History, Media, Mitt Romney, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Republican Party at August 30th, 2012 - 11:30 am

A lot of us here have bitched and ranted about this, but I, myself, forgot to explain that there’s a reason this is done, and it’s not as nefarious as you would believe, kind of, wink, nod.

Voting trends used by polling companies for presidential elections are, for the most part, based upon the last presidential election, in this case, 2008. But by using the voter turnout data from 2008, which pollsters use, it assumes that everything has basically remained static, or unchanged, four years later.

In most elections this is usually true.

In 2008 though, Republican turnout declined by a little over 1% to 28.7% , while Democratic turnout increased by 2.6% from 28.7 percent in 2004 to 31.3% in 2008.

All of the increase in dumocrat voters can be explained by Obama’s appeal to many blacks and young people who had never voted before, and bought into his hope and change B.S., and the many independents who voted Republican in 2000 and 2004, but switched in 2008 because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan seemed unwinnable, and Obama promised he’d set a date to get us out, regardless of whether or not it was a good idea.

So, looking back at the election in 2008, and not taking into consideration the mess Obama and the dumocrats have caused our country since then, after promising to “fix” the mess, yes, the dumocrats should maybe be oversampled, but by about 3.5%, and even that is a stretch, considering the economy and unemployment rate.

But nowhere near 6-10%, which is what the polling companies usually do. By the way, most polls you hear or read about are paid for by left-leaning sources. Go figure…

Also, a lot of polling companies poll only registered votes, because it’s much cheaper than polling likely voters, but registered voters are always unreliable to actually show up and vote.

This why the reputable companies like Rasmussen Reports are much more reliable, because they only poll likely voters, because they’re much more likely and reliable to actually get off their asses and go out and vote.