The Goat Pen

You're the one cheering for low job creation, but it's one area you're consistent in, low standards.....



Vols celebrate huge Vandy win!!!

Job growth was better than expected but still WEAK. Unemployment at 8.3% (was 7.8% when he took office). National Debt is at it's highest level in our HISTORY. Economic Growth was at 1.5% and consumer spending is still WEAK AS HELL.

Go ahead on run on the economy Obama. Please. Pretty please.

When you can’t make your case on your own merits, and the attack ads aren’t working, and you diss every business person in the world w/your own words, I guess it’s time to call in Slick “depends on what is is” Willie. Desperate times I tells ya.

"We’ve now gone 42 consecutive months with the unemployment rate above eight percent."



Yep, 163K jobs made the stock market jump....just keep believing that. More likely, the realization that Romney's chances of winning are getting stronger and stronger is what's driving the market.

Toemeesleather wrote:
Yep, 163K jobs made the stock market jump....just keep believing that. More likely, the realization that Romney's chances of winning are getting stronger and stronger is what's driving the market.

Holy shit - toe actually called Romney by name.

that must have been.. difficult heh

Pew Research 6/26/2012

Electoral Vote - Obama 296.8 vs Romney 241.2

Chance of Winning - Obama 76.6% vs Romney 23.4%

Popular Vote - Obama 50.0% vs Romney 48.6%

June 1992 Poll:

•The June 1992 polling projected the nation’s first independent president, Ross Perot. At 39%, Perot easily topped Bush (31%) and Bill Clinton at 25%. Less than five months later, the order was reversed: Clinton won with 43%, Bush (37%) was ousted and Perot finished last with 19%, failing to win a single electoral vote. However, Perot maintained his support to a greater degree than most independent candidates do down the stretch.

Musta missed the Perot Presidency...

They've come a long way polling-wise since '92.

phones and computers too... and the Sony Walkman!

From Wikipedia: A detailed analysis of voting demographics revealed that Perot's support drew heavily from across the political spectrum, with 20% of his votes coming from self-described liberals, 27% from self-described conservatives, and 53% coming from self-described moderates. Economically, however, the majority of Perot voters (57%) were middle class, earning between $15,000 and $49,000 annually, with the bulk of the remainder drawing from the upper middle class (29% earning more than $50,000 annually).[36] Exit polls also showed that Ross Perot drew 38% of his vote from Bush, and 38% of his vote from Clinton, while the rest of his voters would have stayed home had he not been on the ballot.[

I am pro-gay marriage. Marriage fosters long-term relationships and discourages promiscuity (no, really - it does!). It also makes power of attorney and inheritance issues easier. If homos want to get married, I think they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

I also support what the owner of Chik-fil-a said. He is an American, he was asked his opinion, and he gave it. If you don't like what he said, state your counter-point. If you feel he is evil incarnate and you want to boycott his restaurant, fine. Do so, and may the Force be with you. The city governments; however, who have taken what what a private citizen said and are preventing him from building a new restaurant because they disagree should be sued and/or the mayors removed from office.

Oh, and I support any church's right to refuse to marry anyone their imaginary, bearded, god(s) say can't get married which would leave the gays to get married by a JotP or some liberal "pretend" churches (like Evangelical Lutherans, Mennonites, and Unitarians).

What is so odd about the Chick-Fil-A backlash AA...is the fact that what he said pretty much mirrored what then candidate Barry H Obama said in 2008 on the campaign trail...and libs didn't say a peep. They are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

As a Libertarian I don't think the government should hold anybody back from doing what is a legal act. Sodomy laws are outdated and should be abolished. What anyone does in the privacy of their home is their business. Now as far as them wanted a state blessed marriage...that is a state rights issues...not a federal issue. If a state passes a gay marriage statute then fine. But what I find disturbing is that gay couples for the most part could care less about ANYONE "blessing" their union with a piece of paper...this is all about what benefits they can share/get from their employers. Period. Most won't say that but its true. Just be honest about it.

Wiz,

I don't think it's as much about benefits as you do. That is some of it, sure, just like it is with some hetero couples, but many companies are already granting bennies to "life partners" - but whatever the reason, I think they should be able to get married.

As far as what Obama said, he is a pol. They only lie when they open their mouths.

ANYONE "blessing" their union with a piece of paper...this is all about what benefits they can share/get from their employers. Period.

Disagree. If it were about benefits, then they would support civil unions (which is what the President and Hillary Clinton supported when they were running). I think it's more about acceptance otherwise the distinction wouldn't matter to them.

I personally think the states should be out of the marriage business totally and make it civil unions for everyone. If someone wants to put a religious significance on it, let them do so. But officially, the term for the state is civil union. I also think states should mandate pre-nups before every marriage.

I'm not a hater, you are. I'm soooo much smarter than you, cause I'm enlightened, I care, I'm a democrat....But now I don't have a job, when someone is hired to replace me, Obammer can claim another job created....

3 MORE MONTHZZZZ11!!!





The new face of the Obammer campaign.

You look mad

Vante regrets the unfortunate events that transpired yesterday in Tucson between our former CFO/Treasurer Adam Smith and an employee at Chick-fil-A. Effective immediately, Mr. Smith is no longer an employee of our company.

The actions of Mr. Smith do not reflect our corporate values in any manner. Vante is an equal opportunity company with a diverse workforce, which holds diverse opinions. We respect the right of our employees and all Americans to hold and express their personal opinions, however, we also expect our company officers to behave in a manner commensurate with their position and in a respectful fashion that conveys these values of civility with others.

We hope that the general population does not hold Mr. Smith’s actions against Vante and its employees.



Can you say poetic justice?

LMBOMA!

The battle over gay marriage is basically all about a word.

If you draw up a list of all the benefits conferred by the state on those who are married, then nearly all of the benefits on that list can equally conferred on civil unions. There is very little difference, pragmatically, between civil unions and marriage.

So when you take away the pragmatic arguments, there is one reason and one reason only that gays want to be married vs. civilly united: the want the WORD marriage applied to them. There is something about that word that a lot of gay people desperately DEMAND that everybody else apply to them. It seems to me to be a big exercise in the gay lobby's need for validation.

Their problem is, the word "marriage" has never, in thousands of years of existence, in any significant culture, ever applied to homosexual couples. The gay lobby is trying to give a radically new meaning to an ancient term whose meaning is very firmly established. Furthermore, the term "marriage" has extremely powerful religious overtones for that big part of the population that is religious. When you say "marriage," you are triggering a deeply primordial image in the minds of a couple of billion Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. That image is associated with a lot of things, nearly all considered to be profoundly holy.

In short, I see no reason to change the meaning of the word "marriage" merely to enhance the self-esteem of 2-5% of the population. The gay lobby should spend a lot less time and energy seeking linguistic validation from everybody else.

I personally think the states should be out of the marriage business totally and make it civil unions for everyone. If someone wants to put a religious significance on it, let them do so. But officially, the term for the state is civil union.

I totally agree. But I doubt the gay lobby would. They want the word, and will not rest until they get it. If for no other reason than to stick it to the religious crowd.