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.

jackson

Lexington, KY

#10449 May 7, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Not even close barefoot2626 the AnalOriface and if anybody is following Topix posters here its you for sure by taking the extra time to change your aliases to get that one more flag that not one person in the universe cares about.
Wipe your chin, Barefool.
Barefoot is merely here to argue -- there is no substance behind his postings. Frankly, it's not worth the effort to reply -- you only feed into his mania.
I stopped contributing to his discourse. I have better things to do. I suggest we all stop contributing to his insanity, but then you might enjoy it. That's fine -- I don't.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10450 May 7, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
Barefoot is merely here to argue -- there is no substance behind his postings. Frankly, it's not worth the effort to reply -- you only feed into his mania.
I stopped contributing to his discourse. I have better things to do. I suggest we all stop contributing to his insanity, but then you might enjoy it. That's fine -- I don't.
I agree there is no substance behind barefoot2626 post which has been proven over & over again.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10451 May 7, 2013
jackson wrote:
<quoted text>
Barefoot is merely here to argue --.
And that's why you are here, you dumbfq.

That is why everyone is here- unless you are trying to drum up your side business of pleasuring men out at the I5 interchange.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10452 May 7, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I agree there is no substance behind barefoot2626 post which has been proven over & over again.
Funny how you can copy so much of my posts because you cannot even come up with your own content, AnalOriface.

You- and your other aliases- are here to argue with everyone else who is here.

You can pretend otherwise but I can hold you up as the m/f c/s liar you are- hold up for ridicule.

Wipe your chin, dear.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10454 May 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how you can copy so much of my posts because you cannot even come up with your own content, AnalOriface.
You- and your other aliases- are here to argue with everyone else who is here.
You can pretend otherwise but I can hold you up as the m/f c/s liar you are- hold up for ridicule.
Wipe your chin, dear.
how dumb are you barefoot2626 the AnalOriface since Anals must be what you are into but the fact is there is never nothing to copy from post that have a facts besides just another spammer cluttering topix with post that contains your gay vulgar talk.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10455 May 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like you are going to have to study harder if you want to pass the English as a Second Language class, Taco.
I see you edit the quoted text again and wonder why you lost all credibility.
Lars Vilks

United States

#10456 May 7, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Looks like you are going to have to study harder if you want to pass the English as a Second Language class, Taco.
I love reading your comments. I can't believe someone as stupid as you is on here arguing. You've never made a point.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10457 May 8, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>how dumb are you
bEST OF LUCK ON COMING UP WITH SOMETHING ORIGINAL TO SAY, aNALoRIFACE.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10458 May 8, 2013
Lars Vilks wrote:
<quoted text>
I love reading your comments. I can't believe someone as stupid as you is on here arguing.
Oh, Topix lowered the bar when you came in, Shug.
Lars Vilks

United States

#10459 May 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, Topix lowered the bar when you came in, Shug.
Topix $hit the bed when you came in, Princess.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#10460 May 8, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
bEST OF LUCK ON COMING UP WITH SOMETHING ORIGINAL TO SAY, aNALoRIFACE.
you should take up your own advice barefoot2626 the aNALoRIFACE.

Since: Nov 11

United States

#10462 May 10, 2013
Explosion in West Texas fertilizer considers intentional.

Liberals already say it was not a Muslim but maybe a Tee Partier!!!

See? Liberals do not learn!!!!

Since: Nov 11

United States

#10463 May 10, 2013
Liberals in full gear to attack kidnapped women in Cleveland and defend "minority" "illegals" who held them!!!!

Also, black dude who helped them to escape to be destroyed by Liberal Media.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10464 May 10, 2013
martinezjosei wrote:
Explosion in West Texas fertilizer considers intentional.
Part of your 30 lies a day quota, Jose?

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10465 May 13, 2013
Al Qaeda planned the attack in Benghazi in the spring of 2012.
Security was deliberately reduced in the summer of 2012.
Special Forces were ordered to not interfere with the Al Qaeda plan during the attack.
The White House lied for two weeks trying to cover up the Al Qaeda attack on the United States.
Letís connect some dots:
It should be obvious the intent of the attack was not to kill Stevens, but to kidnap him. Al Qaeda had explosives and RPGs. If the intent was to kill Stevens, they would have just blown away the door to the room Stevens had barricaded himself in and killed him. Instead, they tried to smoke him out of the room. Stevens died of smoke inhalation.
If the attempt to kidnap Stevens had been successful, all the news stories would have been concentrated on where Stevens was, what his condition was, and the exchange of the terrorist blind sheik for Stevens. The lie the White House spewed for two weeks would have been lost in the noise.
Al Qaeda planned to kidnap Stevens. The White House was supposed to reduce security around Stevens, obstruct any assistance to Stevens, then lie to mislead the American people away from Al Qaeda.
You can group all Suni muslim terrorists into one group: Wahhabists. The Muslim Brotherhood is Wahhabist. Al Qaeda is Wahhabist. The Muslim Brotherhood has a permanent presence in the White House.
The White House conspired with Al Qaeda to kidnap an American ambassador, then exchange him for the terrorist blind sheik that the Muslim Brotherhood has demanded be released and returned to Egypt.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10467 May 13, 2013
[QUOTE who="DBWriter"
Security was deliberately reduced in the summer of 2012.
[/QUOTE]

The Republicans cut funding $300 million.

Funny how you keep forgetting to mention...

“Constitutionalis t”

Since: Dec 10

Spring, TX

#10468 May 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Republicans cut funding $300 million.
Funny how you keep forgetting to mention...
Thanks for reminding us of the party line excuse.
We don't need a platoon of Marines guarding the embassy in Helsinki. The security for Stevens was deliberately reduced. There could have been a hundred embassies in countries that pose no threat that could have been reduced. To reduce the security in Libya was a deliberate choice.
It was part of the plan for Stevens' security to be reduced.

Since: Nov 11

Marengo, OH

#10469 May 13, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
[QUOTE who="DBWriter"
Security was deliberately reduced in the summer of 2012.
"

The Republicans cut funding $300 million.

Funny how you keep forgetting to mention...
Your excuse shows you LOST the argument!

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10471 May 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for reminding us of the party line excuse.
Thanks for reminding us that the GOP cut the security budget $300 million and now the GOP party line cries about a lapse in in security.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#10472 May 13, 2013
DBWriter wrote:
The security for Stevens was deliberately reduced. There could have been a hundred embassies in countries that pose no threat
And no matter what embassy that was attacked, the GOP would have insisted that they did not mean cut security for that embassy.

Putting aside: the embassy wasn't attacked.

Love that GOP hindsight.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
brazy braizen - timeline 2018 ** big mike 15 min Q DESTINY 1997 6
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 17 min Choicerocks 341,618
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 26 min KENTUCKY CATHOLIC 81,277
Too $hort, Too Short - Blow the Whistle [New CD... 47 min Q DESTINY 1997 1
Tha Hall of Game [PA] by E-40 (Rap) (CD, Oct-19... 52 min Q DESTINY 1997 1
O.T. Genasis - Coke N Butter Promotional CD Alb... 55 min Q DESTINY 1997 1
News The Evangelical Fight to Win Back California 1 hr Solarman 1
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 hr VetnorsGate 1,763,012
News President Donald Trump has demanded answers abo... 5 hr fish and poi 412
News Trump's land of delusion 5 hr Say What 43