Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UTHave you seen the results of the
latest Gallup Poll? Kinda like the ocean tide going out for Obama, and coming
in for Romney.As I said earlier, he who laughs last always laughs
To be a card carrying republican today do you have to believe that everyone is
conspiring against you?If your ideas are better why can't you
just present them and trust the American people to make the right decision, or
do you think the American people are to dumb to see through all the injustices
being done to every republican candidate, and will do the right thing and vote R
Sorry -- One DN commentor "Rifleman", refers to one
"oddsmaker", about one article, from one network --
[FoxNews].Does not a reality make....
@RiflemanWhen you say Las Vegas oddsmakers, you actually mean ONE
Las Vegas Oddsmaker - Wayne Allyn Root who has a column on the Fox News website.
He is also a former Libertarian Vice Presidentail candidate. Please refer to him as an oddsmaker, not oddsmakerS.
"Presidents have almost no effect on energy prices"That
statement is dead wrong. Presidents do all kinds of things that influence energy
prices, from their energy policy to foreign policy. To say otherwise is simply
Rifleman, Too funny. You really do crack me up.I get it now. Your
guy, Mr Root, is a politician/oddsmaker who wrote an article for Fox News in
which he AGAIN predicted that Romney would win. That's what you meant by
"doubling down".And as far as Las Vegas goes? Make that ONE
oddsmaker. And we have no idea if he is putting any money on it.Bottom line. In Vegas, Obama is the huge favorite.But, nice
attempt to mislead. As usual.
Re: JoeBlow Far East USA, SCYou must have, for what ever reason,
chosen to ignore the article by Las Vegas oddsmaker Wayne Allyn Root. He has a
history of correctly calling winners back to the 2004 elections almost to the
exact percentage point.He who laughs last always laughs best.
November 6th will tell the tale.
"While you are rolling your eyes Google "las vegas oddsmakers
presidential race". Nuff said."I did exactly that in
formulating my previous post.Here is what you find (if the mod lets
this thru)Bet ON Win$1000 Obama
Get back $1384 (initial $1000 + winnings of $384)$1000 Romney Get
back $3000 (initial $1000 + winnings of $2000)Proves the EXACT
OPPOSITE of your claim Rifleman. And I am quite confident that you
will disappear on this issue now that you have been called on it.
Re: LDS Liberal Farmington, UTWhile you are rolling your eyes Google
"las vegas oddsmakers presidential race". Nuff said.
RiflemanSalt Lake City, UtahThere is a reason why the
oddsmakers in Las Vegas are doubling down on Romney.8:17 a.m. Oct.
17, 2012================ While we're on the topic
of "FACTCHECKS" Rifleman...[rolling my eyes, in absolute
unbelief at what I've just read...]
I just read the same fact check article on the Tribune's website. Deseret
News has OMITTED large segments of that article and has, in fact, seriously
altered the facts in doing so.Please, if you want FACTS and not a
version slanted in favor of their chosen candidate, go to the Tribune's
website and find this same article. Read the entire article and not only this
one. Compare them and see what your conclusion is.I'm more
than just a little dismayed by the Deseret News actions here.
Uh, Rifleman. Are you a betting man? Have you been watching the odds in Vegas
on the election.The odds currently (as of right now) STRONGLY favor
Obama. If you are so confident that Romney will win, place your bet and take
your chances. "There is a reason why the oddsmakers in Las
Vegas are doubling down on Romney." = not supported by the facts
The damage was done during the first presidential race. Until then the
presidency was Obama's to lose. Now the roles have been reversed, and
Obama's dishonesty regarding the terrorist attack on our Consulate in
Benghazi, Libya may well have been the icing on the cake.There is a
reason why the oddsmakers in Las Vegas are doubling down on Romney.
I watched Fox news this morning. The subject of the debate and fact
checking was a hot topic. When they talked about exchange about the
Libya attack and what was said in the Rose GardenSteve Doocy was classic
Fox.Doocy said "Obama called it "No act of Terror". He
said "NO act of Terror""Of course he was referring to
the statement "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this
nation"Gotta love Fox. I had a good laugh. Fair and balanced.
Too funny already blaming the moderator, the fact checker, and the liberally
biased Deseret News?Worf you post those everyday and everyday they
are answered and everyday you ignore the facts much like the apologist above
think if mitt said it it's true. Mitt looked and acted completely lost when
confronted on Libya. He contradicted himself from what espoused during the
conference. Mit had his moments, when he described being a pastor
and caring he seemed sincere, I'll give him that.This was a
great debate as far as debates go.
Some unanswered questions from the debate:* how did Mexican cartels
obtain thousands of American guns?* we have pipelines long enough to
circle the globe. Where is it, and was it built in the past three and half
years?* did Obama pay the same percentage of income tax as the middle
class?* where is the increase of American oil drilling which Obama spoke
about?* how can a weak economy bring the price of gas down?* why
wasn't the deficit cut in half, and unemployment cut to 5.2 percent?Obama had a bigger bark, but gave no answers.
I am amazed that the fact checker picked on saying "unemployed", versus
"unemployed and underemployed" issue instead of the oil production on
federal lands and the president claiming he acknowledged the terrorist attack on
Sept. 12.The barrage of liberal complaints that the DN is
conservative biased should skip this article or they might realize how ludicrous
their claims are.
It's interesting that they didn't fact check the blatant lie and false
moderator "fact check" on Libya, or the reduced number of drilling
permits on Federal lands.
CNN's Candy Crawley had to have one of the most biased, terrible moderator
performances in Presidential Debate History. She repeatedly cut Romney off
preventing him from responding to Obama's attacks, and on the Lybia attack,
she jumped in to "rescue" Obama which goes totally against what a fair
and unbiased moderator should do. She took an advocacy position as opposed to
moderator. Yes, Obama was aggressive, and snarky, and full of spin and tired
old rhetoric about "millionaires and billionaires" (omitting that he,
himself, is a multi-millionaire). But I expected him to be that way. My low
expectations of him were not disappointed. But Crawley, was an absolute,
unmitigated disaster. She ought to be utterly embarassed. No fair-minded
observer could think she did a good or fair job. So many of the questions that
she herself selected were all tailored to fit into the Obama Campaign's
manufactured narrative of the Republican "War on Women," a key
demograpic, with questions on contraceptives, abortion, wages. Crawley was
doing her best to help her guy, Obama. So transparent it is not even open to
Wow, the fact checkers really cherry picked what facts to look up. Why
won't they simply say, that Romney was right. We gave GM money, then they
went bankrupt. See the CNN article "GM bankruptcy: End of an era" from
June 2, 2009. GM did in fact file for bankruptcy, Obama said that with the
bailout that it would not have to go that route. Since filing bankruptcy, GM
has shipped more jobs outside the US.Why is it that the AP fact
checkers miss the big things that matter, and nit pick the little things that
they can easily cover up for Obama? Isn't the press supposed to be free of
bias? Articles like this only show the AP's bias for Obama.