The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:15 PM EDT

- MattyScornD
- Posts: 8416
- First: 11/29/2010
- Last: 5/20/2013
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one
In short: Obama sukks, but Romney sukks more.
If the economy really is #1, Romney is a distant #2, or so says the consistently right-of-center Economist.
If Mitt can't convince stuck-up british financial editors, then what chance does he have with the rest of the globe's economic bright lights...?
Cue the usual right-wing bluster about liberal Brits, commie rags and other american troglodytisms...
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:21 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to MattyScornD's comment:
Yeah empty chair could finish the job and lead us to total ruin and bankruptcy if given 4 more years.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:25 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:26 PM EDT
After Obama loses the election, the celebrity President can either become Barack Kardassian full time and appear on talk shows, or go to Europe and be worshipped by the socialists over there. The Nobel Peace Prize recipient did kill many many more innocent civilians with unmanned drones than the war criminal George Bush, but hey, all is forgiven among leftists.. There must be some extra Nobel Prizes for Obama, which hadnt yet been given out to lefty loons like Enron consultant Paul Krugman...
Close, but no cigar...one more term, and Obama would have had the US with the same tanked private sector economic growth and monstrous deficits as over the pond...
The Europeans are altogether much smarter than Americans, wouldnt you say, old chap?
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:30 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:41 PM EDT

- slomag
- Posts: 3605
- First: 8/31/2009
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:44 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:50 PM EDT
In response to MattyScornD's comment:
In short: Obama sukks, but Romney sukks more.
Stan Marsh said it first.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:52 PM EDT
In response to BetheKoolaid's comment:
After Obama loses the election, the celebrity President can either become Barack Kardassian full time and appear on talk shows, or go to Europe and be worshipped by the socialists over there. The Nobel Peace Prize recipient did kill many many more innocent civilians with unmanned drones than the war criminal George Bush, but hey, all is forgiven among leftists.. There must be some extra Nobel Prizes for Obama, which hadnt yet been given out to lefty loons like Enron consultant Paul Krugman...
Close, but no cigar...one more term, and Obama would have had the US with the same tanked private sector economic growth and monstrous deficits as over the pond...
The Europeans are altogether much smarter than Americans, wouldnt you say, old chap?
Ahhhh I see I see. The brits are in on the nefarious plot to destroy America. Putin, why he endorsed Obama because they're both communist. But The Economist? Well they're smarter and they are endorsing Obama because they want him to win, America to vanish, and then Britain can once more rule the high seas.
You so clever!
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:53 PM EDT

- slomag
- Posts: 3605
- First: 8/31/2009
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:58 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
BS.
The big compromise is Catholic hospital employees are provided free contraception from their insurers and who pays for it?
It's against the tenets of the church.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 5:59 PM EDT
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
The Church has to provide contraception to the their employees? Who said?
I thought priests and nuns were celibate. Why would they need contraception?
So bascially the church has failed to convince people to have sex only to have a baby and now wants help from the Federal Government to impose it's beliefs on their congregation.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:00 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
And what this is all about is lack of respect from this scum in the Whitehouse.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:01 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
The Church has to provide contraception to the their employees? Who said?
I thought priests and nuns were celibate. Why would they need contraception?
So bascially the church has failed to convince people to have sex only to have a baby and now wants help from the Federal Government to impose it's beliefs on their congregation.
Dopey.
Employees of Catholic hospitals.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:01 PM EDT
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
And what this is all about is lack of respect from this scum in the Whitehouse.
You're an azz.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:02 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
The Church has to provide contraception to the their employees? Who said?
I thought priests and nuns were celibate. Why would they need contraception?
So bascially the church has failed to convince people to have sex only to have a baby and now wants help from the Federal Government to impose it's beliefs on their congregation.
Your scum cult leader the one who to voted to kill babies if they survived an abortion.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:03 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
The baby killer in chief.
Obama In '03: Voted No On Banning Late Term Abortions ...
www.realclearpolitics.com/.../obama_in_03_voted_no_on_banning_l...
Cached You +1'd this publicly.
Undo
Aug 22, 2012 – State Sen. Barack Obama tells Illinois Channel that he voted no on banning late term abortions (November 6, 2003).
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:03 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
What the hell does he know about religion?
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:04 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
And what this is all about is lack of respect from this scum in the Whitehouse.
You're an azz.
You put this scum in power.
And he's going down next Tuesday.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:05 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
Kathleen Sebelius what a piece of human crud.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:05 PM EDT

- slomag
- Posts: 3605
- First: 8/31/2009
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
BS.
The big compromise is Catholic hospital employees are provided free contraception from their insurers and who pays for it?
It's against the tenets of the church.
Well, if they're endorsing candidates, the law says they're not really churches at all.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:08 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to DirtyWaterLover's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
And what this is all about is lack of respect from this scum in the Whitehouse.
You're an azz.
Oh I forgot who I'm dealing with here.
Killing a 20 something campaign worker, at least walking away from her submerged body clinging to life in a car to go sleep off a drunk before reporting that Mary Jo was down there.
That's ok with you apparently.
He was your guy.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:09 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
In response to slomag's comment:
In response to ThatWasMe's comment:
You know, that violates the conditions of their tax-exempt status.
Forcing them to provide contraception to their employees violates their tenets.
It's war baby and payback time is next tuesday.
Church employees are exempt from contraception regulations
BS.
The big compromise is Catholic hospital employees are provided free contraception from their insurers and who pays for it?
It's against the tenets of the church.
Well, if they're endorsing candidates, the law says they're not really churches at all.
Go to hell you pagan.
And take your baby killer cult leader with you.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:11 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
I guess if fat teddy can kill a 20 year old, it's ok to kill an infant who survives an abortion.
The democrats have lost their soul.
Re: The Economist Endorses Obama...Again.
posted at 11/1/2012 6:13 PM EDT

- ThatWasMe
- Posts: 5492
- First: 5/29/2008
- Last: 5/20/2013
I can't wait until next Tuesday there is going to be a rolling thunder across this country.