What the 2012 election taught us

What the 2012 election taught us

There are 10313 comments on the The Washington Post story from Nov 6, 2012, titled What the 2012 election taught us. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9028 Feb 27, 2013
Stoneman wrote:
<quoted text>I'll slow it down for you.

Gubbermint is corrupt. Gubbermint is inefficient. Gubbermint is not accountable for its failures and crimes, as evidenced by the number of politicians being reelected in spite of their repeated abuses.

So why do you lefties want more gubbermint? Why do you want them to run health care, provide your retirement, pay YEARS of unemployment? I know the answer, let's see if you'll admit it.

If I don't like an Evil Corporation, I don't have to buy their stuff. If they stop making a profit, they eventually go away. They can't come to my house and take my money.

If I don't like what the gubbermint is doing, TOO FREAKIN' BAD. You parasites vote for more taxes (on other people, like me), then have your goons go out and collect. And whatever they can't get by shaking down Evil Rich People, they simply print more.
Till the money runs out!!!! Then... Hello Greece!

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9029 Feb 27, 2013
Obama tells Homeland Security to release poor criminal illegals out into the American streets!!!

He orders Homeland Security to blame the "Bush signed" sequester as excuse!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9030 Feb 27, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Another Liberal fixated on math!!!
What is going here, a college math course?
Nope, just fixated on facts, none of which have been disproved. It appears that there are some here who suffer from a mental deficiency where they can't prove their case, and think casting aspersions at the sources cited by others actually constitutes an argument. I wouldn't call them conservative or liberal, I would merely call them not to bright.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9031 Feb 28, 2013
lides wrote:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/swee t/2011/03/ten_giant_us_compani es_avoidin.html
#1 should cover your BS.
Feel free to actually finds some facts to support your BS.
Will the Exxon Mobil 2009 annual report do? It works for me.

Sales based taxes:$25,936,000,000.
Other taxes and duties:$34,819,000,000.
Income taxes:$15,199,000,000.
http://thomson.mobular.net/thomson/7/3095/422...

If not for the existence of BS, there would be no lides.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9032 Feb 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears that there are some here who suffer from a mental deficiency
Just you, and in a big way!

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#9033 Feb 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
You've yet to refute the information. If it is so inaccurate, it should be simple to refute. the fact that you don't tends to indicate you have no data in support of your position.
Thanks, every time you respond without responding you weaken your credibility.
Don't like the source, disprove it. Declaring it to be "left" merely illustrates your own bias.
You've yet to provide something other than a left wing blog to support your argument. I'm sure, with all the propaganda party line bullshit coming out of the White House about subsidies to oil companies, you can come up with a definition of these subsidies. How about using Obama as a source? He supposedly knows what's going on in government. Or, how about using Pelosi, or Reid, or any other Democrat in Congress that will actually write the bill to eliminate these "subsidies" that don't actually exist? How about using something from them as a source? Or, how about something from the Department of Energy? Or, how about something from the Department of Commerce?
Or, how about something from the actual source, you know, the people that actually count the money and cut the goddam check? What numbers does the Department of Treasury give?

The bottom line is, you don't have anything from any reputable source, you don't have anything.

So, we're back at what subsidies are you talking about? What does the Treasury Department say about the amount of checks the send to oil companies? Or, any source in government? How much money did the government pay Exxon, for example?
So far, you haven't answered this question.

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#9034 Feb 28, 2013
We left off yesterday with the fact that the oil companies realize $0.07 profit for every gallon of gas sold, and the government takes $0.46 in taxes for every gallon of gas sold.

And, nobody has been able to identify any of the so-called "subsidies" to oil companies.

And, there is no cuts to government spending with the so-called "sequester". Government spending actually increases either way, with or without the so-called "sequester". The only point of discussion is whether to increase the debt by 7 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, or by 8.5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
This means there is no plan in existence to pay for government.

Additionally, because of the non-existent cuts in government spending, Obama has to release criminal illegal aliens back into the general population, while at the same time he has the money to buy drones to spy on the American people and buy a billion rounds of ammunition for the DHS, BATF and FBI.

So, what's wrong with our government?

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9035 Feb 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Right now, you are merely proving that you aren't the brightest person on the thread.
Corporations are corrupt and often commit crimes, including bribing politicians in order to influence policy. My point, specifically had to do with corporate tax avoidance, and clueless individuals, such as your self, seem utterly ill-equipped to refute the link I have provided. Way to prove yourself ineffective. Now, run along and play, the adults are having a conversation.
Can you list the company's, the amounts paid and to who to?

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9036 Feb 28, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
Obama tells Homeland Security to release poor criminal illegals out into the American streets!!!
He orders Homeland Security to blame the "Bush signed" sequester as excuse!
Obama gives GOP leaders a "meeting" -- for 7 minutes... Must have had a tee time.

Since: Nov 11

Westerville, OH

#9037 Feb 28, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Obama gives GOP leaders a "meeting" -- for 7 minutes... Must have had a tee time.
LOL!
conservative crapola

Kutztown, PA

#9038 Feb 28, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>
gopeepee still stunned at their insignificance.

Why the shock?

Since: Oct 08

Alpharetta, GA

#9039 Feb 28, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked: are you still downloading child pornography or did the police take away your computer?
are you still sniffing little girls bicycle seats, or have you learned your lesson?

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9040 Feb 28, 2013
conservative crapola wrote:
<quoted text>
gopeepee still stunned at their insignificance.
Why the shock?
Woodward at war
Bob Woodward called a senior White House official last week to tell him that in a piece in that weekend’s Washington Post, he was going to question President Barack Obama’s account of how sequestration came about — and got a major-league brushback. The Obama aide “yelled at me for about a half-hour,” Woodward told us in an hourlong interview yesterday around the Georgetown dining room table where so many generations of Washington’s powerful have spilled their secrets.
Digging into one of his famous folders, Woodward said the tirade was followed by a page-long email from the aide, one of the four or five administration officials most closely involved in the fiscal negotiations with the Hill.“I apologize for raising my voice in our conversation today,” the official typed.“You’re focusing on a few specific trees that give a very wrong impression of the forest. But perhaps we will just not see eye to eye here.… I think you will regret staking out that claim.”
Woodward repeated the last sentence, making clear he saw it as a veiled threat.“‘You’ll regret.’ Come on,” he said.“I think if Obama himself saw the way they’re dealing with some of this, he would say,‘Whoa, we don’t tell any reporter ‘you’re going to regret challenging us.’”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/woodwar...

WMAL EXCLUSIVE: Woodward's Not Alone - Fmr. Clinton Aide Davis Says He Received White House Threat Also…..
conservative crapola

Kutztown, PA

#9041 Feb 28, 2013
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>
Ashley Judd 2014: How the Tea Party Could Propel Her Into the Senate

Liberal activists and donors are joining forces with Tea Party groups hoping to make McConnell vulnerable enough prior to the primaries that another candidate is able to take his seat.

hahahahahahahahahaha

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9042 Feb 28, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
You've yet to provide something other than a left wing blog to support your argument. I'm sure, with all the propaganda party line bullshit coming out of the White House about subsidies to oil companies, you can come up with a definition of these subsidies. How about using Obama as a source? He supposedly knows what's going on in government. Or, how about using Pelosi, or Reid, or any other Democrat in Congress that will actually write the bill to eliminate these "subsidies" that don't actually exist? How about using something from them as a source? Or, how about something from the Department of Energy? Or, how about something from the Department of Commerce?
Or, how about something from the actual source, you know, the people that actually count the money and cut the goddam check? What numbers does the Department of Treasury give?
The bottom line is, you don't have anything from any reputable source, you don't have anything.
So, we're back at what subsidies are you talking about? What does the Treasury Department say about the amount of checks the send to oil companies? Or, any source in government? How much money did the government pay Exxon, for example?
So far, you haven't answered this question.
Actually, it wasn't a blog, and it is only your assertion that it was left wing. The fat remains, I HAVE provided something, while you have provided NOTHING to support your assertion.

Congratulations, you appear to be utterly incompetent.

Did Bank of America, Exxon Mobile, Facebook, and numerous other corporations pay no federal taxes? Yes or no?

It appears that what the election taught me is that there are a number of clueless twits in this country to whom facts are irrelevant. You may count yourself among their numbers.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9043 Feb 28, 2013
au contraire wrote:
Can you list the company's, the amounts paid and to who to?
I could, but I have already provided links, and I am not in the habit of doing scut work for slackers.

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#9044 Feb 28, 2013
Wondering wrote:
Just you, and in a big way!
Aww the mental midget show up in defense of their fellows.

Hey Wonderbread, your tax assessment isn't specific. the topic is federal income taxes.
"– Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent.
– The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.
– The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States."
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/31/4...

Do learn a little reading comprehension, Wonderbread. I find it hysterical that you are stalking again. Just couldn't stay away, could you? Apparently you also haven't learned to read or support your argument with facts. No where have I said Exxon Mobile doesn't pay taxes, the topic has been Federal tax. A distinction which is apparently lost upon the clueless.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9045 Feb 28, 2013
inbred Genius wrote:
<quoted text>
are you still sniffing little girls bicycle seats, or have you learned your lesson?
Him and wooddick take turns sniffing each other's seats.......if you know what I mean.

au contraire

“Forever Is Promised To No One”

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#9047 Feb 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Aww the mental midget show up in defense of their fellows.
Hey Wonderbread, your tax assessment isn't specific. the topic is federal income taxes.
"– Exxon pays a lower tax rate than the average American. Between 2008-2010, Exxon Mobil registered an average 17.6 percent federal effective corporate tax rate, while the average American paid a higher rate of 20.4 percent.
– The company paid no taxes to the U.S. federal government in 2009, despite 45.2 billion record profits. It paid $15 billion in taxes, but none in federal income tax.
– The oil giant uses offshore subsidiaries in the Caribbean to avoid paying taxes in the United States."
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/01/31/4...
Do learn a little reading comprehension, Wonderbread. I find it hysterical that you are stalking again. Just couldn't stay away, could you? Apparently you also haven't learned to read or support your argument with facts. No where have I said Exxon Mobile doesn't pay taxes, the topic has been Federal tax. A distinction which is apparently lost upon the clueless.
Using a George Soros site to prove something is meaningless.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#9049 Feb 28, 2013
lides wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Wonderbread, your tax assessment isn't specific. the topic is federal income taxes.
That annual report isn't mine, it's Exxon Mobil's. It listed the income tax paid, I labeled it "income tax" so you would understand. No surprise that you still don't get it.

Show me a document from the SEC (they're all there) to prove the annual report was false. You should still to coloring books and alphabet blocks.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

2012 Presidential Election Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Bob53 1,550,561
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min CodeTalker 275,255
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 11 min libtards is dumb 241,716
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 8 hr WHAT 36,957
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... (Nov '16) 9 hr NotSoDivineMsM 8,719
News Obama's secret struggle to punish Russia for Pu... 10 hr Supremeliberal 93
News Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize for 'extraordinary... (Oct '09) 14 hr Abandoned mistress 243
More from around the web