The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

In the last 3 days Obama has continued to gain:

ELEC 307-231.

85% to win.

POP remains 50.6-48.3 Obama.

Single most likely outcome remains 330+ in ELEC at almost 20% with a 10% chance of an even larger margin of around 350+.

DarthMonk

The THN poll has Obama at a 62% chance of winning. haha

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =1&theater

tribeofjudah wrote:^^^^^^^^^^^
Darth....don't believe everything you see or hear about this race.

Many other pundits predict Romney winning....BY A LANDSLIDE.

We shall see next Tuesday.

As I said before: GOD will place into the White House......WHO HE DEEMS FIT for this time in history.

GOD!?!?

So you're saying that God was to blame for that f--kwit Bush getting in twice...!?!!??

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:So you're saying that God was to blame for that f--kwit Bush getting in twice...!?!!??

No, it was the Democrats fault. First they ran The Lunatic Gore. Then they ran a gag candidate. Haven't you heard the story?

The True story of how John Frenchie Kerry became the Democratic nominee:

- The kool-aid flowed freely that night in early January, 2004


- Too freely in fact. Yet the Democrats were celebrating because they knew any nominee would beat George W Bush bring the White House back to Democrats


- They debated long and late on the best nominee, when someone had an idea

- Instead of the best nominee, let's pick the worst! Let's pick the biggest buffoon!

- The American people did us wrong electing another. This country belongs to the Democratic party!

- We will repay the country for their injustice

- The kool-aid flowed

- But who to choose? For the Democratic party is richly bestowed with buffoons


- Reid, Boxer, Dodd, Pelosi, Byrd, Gore, Dean, Schummer, Feinstein, Sarbanes, Mikulski, the listing of Buffoons went on


- Then the crowd converged, clearly the biggest buffoons had to be Kennedy and Biden. Either would make an excellent Buffoon in Chief. Who to chose? But they joyously knew, they could not go wrong either way

- The kool-aid flowed


- Then from a smoke filled corner, a shadowy figure arose. And as he spoke his Boston accent broke through, the cloud cleared and the figure of John F Kerry appeared


- There was a great hush. A glass shattered. A woman screamed. A baby cried. And the crowd bowed, for here undeniably was the biggest buffoon of all



- With roars of laughter, the candidate was selected


- There were quiet fears and sweats over the ensuing days, weeks and months. Had they gone to far? Was the jest too great?


- But no, the Republicans had Bush, victory was assured

- But the kool-aid flowed. The rest is history

I think the kool-aid has gone to your head pal...

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

SouthLondonRedskin wrote:So you're saying that God was to blame for that f--kwit Bush getting in twice...!?!!??

- They debated long and late on the best nominee, when someone had an idea

- Instead of the best nominee, let's pick the worst! Let's pick the biggest buffoon!

Yeah - a homophobic Mormon named Mitt.

303 or 332 for Obama depending on Florida. I'll say he takes that too for 332 - 206 with a 51-48 edge in popular vote.

DarthMonk wrote:303 or 332 for Obama depending on Florida. I'll say he takes that too for 332 - 206 with a 51-48 edge in popular vote.

You're about to re-live the night John Francoise Kerry was elected President...

there is NOTHING wrong with being homophobic.

<-- voted no on 6

.. and obama can kiss my blippity blip blip blip for flip floppin his stance

langleyparkjoe wrote:there is NOTHING wrong with being homophobic.

<-- voted no on 6

Isn't it "gay" not to like two hot lesbians getting it on?

Cappster wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:there is NOTHING wrong with being homophobic.

<-- voted no on 6

Isn't it "gay" not to like two hot lesbians getting it on?

Gay means happy, not sure the relation here.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

Cappster wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:there is NOTHING wrong with being homophobic.

<-- voted no on 6

Isn't it "gay" not to like two hot lesbians getting it on?

Gay means happy, not sure the relation here.

The is no hope for you, my friend! haha

Cappster wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:

Cappster wrote:

langleyparkjoe wrote:there is NOTHING wrong with being homophobic.

<-- voted no on 6

Isn't it "gay" not to like two hot lesbians getting it on?

Gay means happy, not sure the relation here.

The is no hope for you, my friend! haha

you tried to slick me on that but I jooked left and right and went straight up the "gut"..like "men" are supposed to.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:303 or 332 for Obama depending on Florida. I'll say he takes that too for 332 - 206 with a 51-48 edge in popular vote.

You're about to re-live the night John Francoise Kerry was elected President...

That would be true if I thought Romney was gonna win. I never thought Kerry would win.

You think Romney's gonna win? Still haven't heard your take on that for real. Long thread. I could have missed your prediction/reasons. Your statement above is rather cryptic. I'll interpret it as a prediction for Romney. What makes you think he will win?

DarthMonk

DarthMonk wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

DarthMonk wrote:303 or 332 for Obama depending on Florida. I'll say he takes that too for 332 - 206 with a 51-48 edge in popular vote.

You're about to re-live the night John Francoise Kerry was elected President...

That would be true if I thought Romney was gonna win. I never thought Kerry would win.

You think Romney's gonna win? Still haven't heard your take on that for real. Long thread. I could have missed your prediction/reasons. Your statement above is rather cryptic. I'll interpret it as a prediction for Romney. What makes you think he will win?

DarthMonk

Yes, Romney will win. Obama has nothing to run on but anti-Republican talking points. The problem for him is the Republicans aren't in control, he is. After four years, Obama's not President, he's still a candidate. He isn't responsible for his own administration and even says about his own government he will get to the bottom of issues as if they are W's administration. When Hillary said she was responsible in Libya, he though that meant it wasn't him.

Obama supporters aren't excited, his opponents are. I just stood in line over an hour to vote. Democrats dominate early voting, Republicans do on election day. And Obama was down with Democrats in early voting and Republicans were up. Obama will win most of the blue, non toss up States, but Romney will win most of the toss ups. He could even win Michigan and Pennsylvania.

As for me, I hadn't voted for a Republican for POTUS since 1988. With Obama, I didn't blink, I voted Romney.

Regarding Romney's Plan (and I'm looking at the Middle Class POV here)- I read somewhere that Mitt will cut 20% taxes for EVERYONE.. can someone verify if this is true? The idea is that the extra money saved will be used for consumer spending, is that correct?

Please please please people, simple answers here. I'm not that smart as you guys.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:You're about to re-live the night John Francoise Kerry was elected President...

So, you're predicting electronic voting machine shenanigans in Ohio again?

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:You're about to re-live the night John Francoise Kerry was elected President...

So, you're predicting electronic voting machine shenanigans in Ohio again?

Yes, that's exactly what I meant deadskins. The Republicans will cheat again and the poor innocent naive democrats who just want to get along will be their victims. You really do have a way of cutting through things to the unvarnished truth. The problem with liberals is you're just too nice. And Republicans just keep using it against you.

langleyparkjoe wrote:Regarding Romney's Plan (and I'm looking at the Middle Class POV here)- I read somewhere that Mitt will cut 20% taxes for EVERYONE.. can someone verify if this is true? The idea is that the extra money saved will be used for consumer spending, is that correct?

Please please please people, simple answers here. I'm not that smart as you guys.

Spending is part of it, but it's not the biggest thing:

1) Rich hire more when taxes are lower because we get a better return on our investment.

2) We also spend less time making economic decisions to avoid taxes, which has the double benefit it means we spend more time making money, which provides jobs.

3) And all that provides more stability which means both investment and spending flow more freely. The fact is if you give anyone money and they don't know how they will replace it, rich or poor, they will spend less of it.

And you may not follow economics, but you're plenty smart, Langley. The thing with high taxes to accept the left's contention is you have to believe that taking money away from the people who provide jobs will not harm employment. And you have to believe people worried about their jobs will spend. There is no economic theory or historical data to support that, yet liberal lawyers endlessly assert it as fact anyway. The reason is their own employment is dependent on people believing their crap.

Thanks Kazo, that was simple enough for a brutha.

Thanks Kazo, that was simple enough for a brutha.

Now, for my Obama supporters.. what say you on my taxes (as in middle class)?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Rich hire more when taxes are lower because we get a better return on our investment.

So, you think you are rich?

KazooSkinsFan wrote:The thing with high taxes to accept the left's contention is you have to believe that taking money away from the people who provide jobs will not harm employment. And you have to believe people worried about their jobs will spend. There is no economic theory or historical data to support that, yet liberal lawyers endlessly assert it as fact anyway. The reason is their own employment is dependent on people believing their crap.

Yeah, you always make this straw man argument about the left being for higher taxes, when it's who the tax cuts/hikes are aimed at that is really the issue. You need a strong middle class to make the economy work, and trickle down economics has proved a failure every time.

Deadskins wrote:

KazooSkinsFan wrote:Rich hire more when taxes are lower because we get a better return on our investment.

So, you think you are rich?

Obama calls me one of "the wealthiest among us." Are you calling Obama a liar?