or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread. - Page 22

post #841 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Just like Romney a liar also.
 

 

Nice name calling.  Now, show me an example of Romney lying.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

I do not think he will lose the election. He has good backing from Bill Clinton who people still favor as being a great president when he was in office.

 

He does not have good backing from Bill Clinton, nor is it certain it would matter that much if he did.  Do you even follow politics at all?   

 

Oh, and explain:  What was "great" about Bill Clinton?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #842 of 886

Read my other post to you.I sure do follow politics and read about it every day.Clinton when he was president the economy was good and people were working.He did a lot for foreign trade and provided good relations in the Middle East and with our friends in Israel.
 

post #843 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Read my other post to you.I sure do follow politics and read about it every day.Clinton when he was president the economy was good and people were working.He did a lot for foreign trade and provided good relations in the Middle East and with our friends in Israel.
 

 

Whether you read about it or not, you clearly lack basic comprehension and reasoning skills.  As for Clinton, yes...the economy was "good" the latter part of the 1990s.  But what did he DO to create it?  You'll have a tough time with that one, because the economy didn't improve due to Clinton's actions.  The economy took off because of the natural business cycle/natural recovery and the dot-com boom.  As for the ME:  Clinton was the one who passed up taking bin Laden in 1996.  Clinton was the one that launched cruise missiles which accidentally hit hospitals.  Clinton was the one who refused to send adequate manpower and equipment into Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down incident) due to the political considerations.  Clinton responded to the 1993 WTC bombing with law enforcement rather than military tactics.  Clinton did not respond to the USS Cole bombing.  Clinton failed to get a peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.  

 

And yet with all that, Clinton was infinitely better than Barack Obama.  That ought to tell you something.

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #844 of 886
Thread Starter 

What if Obama were White?

 

Quote:

For nearly four years, criticisms of Obama’s policies, lack of business experience and Marxist proclivities have been labeled as racists attacking him because he’s black. And, of course, he has done nothing to defuse those ridiculous allegations. But let’s flip these allegations over for a moment.

 

If a white man with no business experience of any kind, on any level, were elected president and his economic plan increased government spending, increased government intrusion into private business and increased taxes on the so-called rich – what would criticism of him be because he is white? If this same white president employed failed Keynesian economic strategies, which resulted in his increasing our total national debt more than the first 41 presidents combined, in less than three years of his first term in office – would criticism of him be because he is white? If this hypothetical white president were driving us off an economic cliff from which economists say there is no return, would criticism of him be because he is white?

 

If, in less than his first full term, this hypothetical white president, increased food-stamp spending 100 percent – would calling him “the food-stamp president” be because he is white or because he is a dismal failure? If the increase in defense spending and transportation spending accelerated 11 percent each in his first three years, if Medicaid spending increased 27 percent in his first three years, and if food-stamp spending increased to $110 billion in his three first years would calling him “the food-stamp president” be because he is white? If food-stamp recipients increased by more than 14 million people in his first three years, raising the total number of recipients to more than 46 million, would disapproval of his economic policies be because he is white?

 

If this hypothetical white president’s white wife took lavish vacations, went on over-the-top spending sprees and behaved in ways that were categorically inappropriate – would criticism of her be because she is white? If millions of jobs were lost under this white president, if millions of people became unemployed under him, would criticizing him be unfair because he is white? If the true unemployment number under her white husband was above 10 percent for 40 straight months, would criticism be unfair because he is white?

 

If the white hypothetical FLOTUS spent $50,000 in one afternoon at one of the most exclusive, exotic lingerie shops in the world and spent $15,000 a day to use the same makeup man Oprah Winfrey uses – would condemnation of her be because she is white? If this hypothetical white FLOTUS falsified travel documents, fraudulently listing her daughters as “senior advisers” so that American taxpayers (millions of whom are unemployed) would be responsible for footing the bill for them – would criticism of her be because she is white?

 

When this essayist harshly and continually criticized President George W. Bush for his spending, for his determined efforts to have amnesty for illegal aliens, for his Medicare Prescription Program, for No Child Left Behind and for his “highway bill” – to mention just a few – was it because he was white? When we threatened to withdraw our support of him if he did not curb his spending, was it because he was white?

I could go on and on, but I’m sure you get my point. Everything Obama has been criticized for, I would criticize a white president for, and so would practically every other journalist who felt about these issues as I do. And my record shows, it wouldn’t matter if the president were Democrat, Republican, white, chartreuse, male, female or a frog – so why would it matter if they are black?

 

The truth is that it doesn’t matter to most people, nor should it matter to the rest. Race is simply the tool used to bludgeon the opposition into silence. Specific to that point, if we are racists for legitimately criticizing the Obamas, what are the very same people who called Condoleezza Rice racial epithets but never criticized her work? Just what should they be called? What do you call those who viciously malign Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with every conceivable racial epithet known, not because of his judicial decisions, but because he dares to be a black conservative?

The failure is clear. The policies and actions that lead to that failure are clear. The only way they aren't clear is if you hold President Obama to a lower standard, which is racist, or if you are attempting to stop all criticism by screaming racism.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #845 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What if Obama were White?

 

The failure is clear. The policies and actions that lead to that failure are clear. The only way they aren't clear is if you hold President Obama to a lower standard, which is racist, or if you are attempting to stop all criticism by screaming racism.

 

I'd be more concerned about the national debt, 15 trillion. That's accruing the same amount of national debt in the history of the US in just about five years. US national debt is nothing more than junk bond status. With peak oil (yes, I couldn't resist), the US will survive because of immense innovation still unseen in many countries, but it will not be pretty as China overtakes, and Canada and Australia become comparatively more stable G20 nations compared to the US due to continued energy and resource exploitation.

 

It does sadden me because I have great liking of the USA but this is the point in time for the US just like for the UK in the 1960s. 

 

A peak is reached, that is likely never to be seen again, when compared to the rest of the world.

post #846 of 886
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

What if Obama were White?

 

The failure is clear. The policies and actions that lead to that failure are clear. The only way they aren't clear is if you hold President Obama to a lower standard, which is racist, or if you are attempting to stop all criticism by screaming racism.

 

I'd be more concerned about the national debt, 15 trillion. That's accruing the same amount of national debt in the history of the US in just about five years. US national debt is nothing more than junk bond status. With peak oil (yes, I couldn't resist), the US will survive because of immense innovation still unseen in many countries, but it will not be pretty as China overtakes, and Canada and Australia become comparatively more stable G20 nations compared to the US due to continued energy and resource exploitation.

 

It does sadden me because I have great liking of the USA but this is the point in time for the US just like for the UK in the 1960s. 

 

A peak is reached, that is likely never to be seen again, when compared to the rest of the world.


You'd be more concerned with the national debt but what you fail to take away from the article is that expressing the very concern the way you just did is being labeled as a RACIST action.

 

You compared him to the other 41 presidents and they were white. You compared his actions to the U.K. in the 1960's and they were white.

 

See, what you are doing is very, very racist! Don't you feel ashamed!!

 

Obviously you should sense that is tongue in cheek but the sad fact is that this is what is passing for political discourse on the left side of the aisle here in the U.S. There is no discussion. There is only claims that you are ignorant, and -ist practicing an -ism, and no responsibility or obligation to perform.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #847 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post


You'd be more concerned with the national debt but what you fail to take away from the article is that expressing the very concern the way you just did is being labeled as a RACIST action.

 

You compared him to the other 41 presidents and they were white. You compared his actions to the U.K. in the 1960's and they were white.

 

See, what you are doing is very, very racist! Don't you feel ashamed!!

 

Obviously you should sense that is tongue in cheek but the sad fact is that this is what is passing for political discourse on the left side of the aisle here in the U.S. There is no discussion. There is only claims that you are ignorant, and -ist practicing an -ism, and no responsibility or obligation to perform.

 

Yeah I get what you're saying. Any racist thing is just a stupid distraction that is wasting people's time and energy from all sides of the political spectrum. 

 

I don't think the left should be wasting time with this as well, "we" (in my case centre-left, I guess) should be looking at issues not defending Obama endlessly.

 

Of course minority communities and women's issues are important but they have to be framed within the greater issues of social justice, etc. 

 

I mean, to me, if you are white it doesn't mean you don't equally deserve social justice. 

 

In this case the common thing everyone wants regardless of race is to have a job, to not lose whatever job they have to China, to not go broke going to the doctor and to not see their electricity bill double every few years.

 

It the left continues to fail to engage the common values shared with the centre-right or even the centre, then they will continue to face an uphill battle.


Edited by nvidia2008 - 6/12/12 at 9:49am
post #848 of 886

Don't talk George Bush Jr never really tried to pursue OBL and gave up on him .That was not his first priority he said.
 

post #849 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Don't talk George Bush Jr never really tried to pursue OBL and gave up on him .That was not his first priority he said.
 

 

1.  He did pursue him.  He did not "give up" on him. 

 

2.  He did essentially say it wasn't his first priority.  It's debatable whether or not he should have had a different policy.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #850 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

 

1.  He did pursue him.  He did not "give up" on him. 

 

2.  He did essentially say it wasn't his first priority.  It's debatable whether or not he should have had a different policy.  

 

The administration didn't want to upset the Saudi elite, pre- and post- 9/11.

 

What country has caused the US the most trouble? Arguably Saudi. What country is the most important to the US? Saudi.

 

There's the answer, in a nutshell.

post #851 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008 View Post

 

The administration didn't want to upset the Saudi elite, pre- and post- 9/11.

 

What country has caused the US the most trouble? Arguably Saudi. What country is the most important to the US? Saudi.

 

There's the answer, in a nutshell.

 

I don't think so, though it's possible.  I think we were simply more focused on AQ itself.  Bin laden wasn't really running AQ for most of the decade, anyway.  This policy was perceived badly, in part, because Bush didn't communicate well.  He came off as nonchalant about him, which wasn't helpful.  The policy itself was probably right.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #852 of 886
I personally hate national debt. Taxes are supposed to be for paying for the functions of government which, as the word suggests, is governing: i.e. maintaing law and order. Not running 50 million social programs. Charity is the job of charitable institutions, and is separate function from governing. 
 
And when they run so many of these programs, that they build up such a debt, that some people's taxes for their whole life is going to pay interest! Not even reduce the debt, just pay interest! What a waste.
post #853 of 886

Romney was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War.Were was he when he bragged so much about serving his country. I will tell you in France to be with his girl friend and not caring one iota about all the men and women being killed there to defend our country and his.He lied through his teeth than. This man is a real joke regarding foreign policies.
 

post #854 of 886
Thread Starter 

The real stakes of the next election and what can change that might make a guy like Ron Paul much more electable in the future.

 

Quote:
Since Thomas replaced Marshall 21 years ago, no appointee has altered the court’s balance: Four liberals replaced liberals and two conservatives replaced conservatives. Today, however, two conservatives (Scalia and Kennedy) and two liberals (Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer) are in their 70s. So if Obama wins he may be able to create a liberal majority; if Romney wins he may be able to secure a conservative majority for a generation.
 
And, Bolick hopes, a conservative majority might rectify the court’s still-reverberating mistake in the 1873 Slaughterhouse cases. It then took a cramped view of the 14th Amendment’s protection of Americans’ “privileges or immunities,” saying these did not include private property rights, freedom of contract and freedom from arbitrary government interference with the right to engage in enterprise. This led in the 1930s to the court formally declaring economic rights to be inferior to “fundamental” rights. This begot pernicious judicial restraint — tolerance of capricious government abridgements of economic liberty.

 

Think about those judicial appointments when you think about the lesser of two evils.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #855 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

The real stakes of the next election and what can change that might make a guy like Ron Paul much more electable in the future.


Think about those judicial appointments when you think about the lesser of two evils.

The fact that the SCOTUS has so much power is proof the system is broken. We're fighting over who gets to wield the ever growing might and power of government to force everyone to do what they want. Neither major party intends to relinquish this power, they only differ (at least rhetorically) on how they want to use it.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #856 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Romney was a draft dodger during the Vietnam War.Were was he when he bragged so much about serving his country. I will tell you in France to be with his girl friend and not caring one iota about all the men and women being killed there to defend our country and his.He lied through his teeth than. This man is a real joke regarding foreign policies.
 

 

He became a Mormon Missionary.  Are you fucking kidding me?  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #857 of 886

Another cop out why did not enter the military. Stop making excuses for Romney why did he go to France than during the Viet Nam war?Romney makes more excuses than anyone I heard. He could have been a chaplain in the military also and gone into the war also.
 

post #858 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

Another cop out why did not enter the military. Stop making excuses for Romney why did he go to France than during the Viet Nam war?Romney makes more excuses than anyone I heard. He could have been a chaplain in the military also and gone into the war also.
 

 

A cop out?  Becoming a missionary is a COP OUT?  lol.gif  You're a real piece of work  And please...show me one example of Romney "making excuses."  Just one.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #859 of 886

This man is like a piece of meat with no taste at all. He is whimsical about everything he says and does. He has no real economic plan of his own only maybe Paul Ryan plan. His foreign policy is nil where does he stand on the Middle East, Russia, China, Syria,? As far as being a missionary I am not condemning him on that only his attitude by not enlisting in the service when his country needed him.Maybe hill pick a better VP than he will be a president.He has no stance on the immigration issue which Obama passed really not making his decision what he would do if he becomes president.
 

post #860 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

This man is like a piece of meat with no taste at all. He is whimsical about everything he says and does. He has no real economic plan of his own only maybe Paul Ryan plan. His foreign policy is nil where does he stand on the Middle East, Russia, China, Syria,? As far as being a missionary I am not condemning him on that only his attitude by not enlisting in the service when his country needed him.Maybe hill pick a better VP than he will be a president.He has no stance on the immigration issue which Obama passed really not making his decision what he would do if he becomes president.
 

How did he go from being a "draft dodger" to "not enlisting". If they needed him they could just draft him. When did Obama enlist?

post #861 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

This man is like a piece of meat with no taste at all. He is whimsical about everything he says and does. He has no real economic plan of his own only maybe Paul Ryan plan. His foreign policy is nil where does he stand on the Middle East, Russia, China, Syria,? As far as being a missionary I am not condemning him on that only his attitude by not enlisting in the service when his country needed him.Maybe hill pick a better VP than he will be a president.He has no stance on the immigration issue which Obama passed really not making his decision what he would do if he becomes president.
 

 

You clearly aren't paying attention.  Romney has taken strong stances, especially as of late.  He has a detailed plan on many issues.  Go to his website...you can see them all laid out there.  Your comments on military service are pathetic.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #862 of 886

and on a lighter note...

 

If there were super-PAC's on Game of thrones they might advertise like this:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/06/game-of-thrones-attack-ads

 

lol.gif

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #863 of 886

Hi SDW and Trumpy! lol.gif1wink.gif

 

 

" Dead Man Walking " = Trumptman Talking.

 

Nuff said!1wink.gif

 

Gentlemen it's been a pleasure.1smile.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #864 of 886

The Obama was reelected thread.


Edited by Bergermeister - 11/6/12 at 8:52pm

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #865 of 886
Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

Obama is a one-term president. He will not be reelected...Does anyone seriously believe Obama will be reelected? See if you can defend that claim without claiming -isms or exhibiting any mental illness.

 

Thanks for your insightful contributions.

post #866 of 886

I guess you are the one mentally disturbed now.
 

post #867 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by marvfox View Post

This man is like a piece of meat with no taste at all. He is whimsical about everything he says and does. He has no real economic plan of his own only maybe Paul Ryan plan. His foreign policy is nil where does he stand on the Middle East, Russia, China, Syria,? As far as being a missionary I am not condemning him on that only his attitude by not enlisting in the service when his country needed him.Maybe hill pick a better VP than he will be a president.He has no stance on the immigration issue which Obama passed really not making his decision what he would do if he becomes president.
 

 

You clearly aren't paying attention.  Romney has taken strong stances, especially as of late.  He has a detailed plan on many issues.  Go to his website...you can see them all laid out there.  Your comments on military service are pathetic.  

And the fact that he changed these to suit the situation is why he'll never be sitting in the Oval office. Inspite of all your statistics and all your historical accounts and those special ( the only right ones lol.gif ) polls I was right and you were wrong. Why? Because you don't seem to get the mood of the country and what it wants. The party of " No " had better start paying attention.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #868 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And the fact that he changed these to suit the situation is why he'll never be sitting in the Oval office. Inspite of all your statistics and all your historical accounts and those special ( the only right ones lol.gif ) polls I was right and you were wrong. Why? Because you don't seem to get the mood of the country and what it wants. The party of " No " had better start paying attention.

 

Did you predict turnout correctly?  Because that's why the result is what it is.  It has nothing to do with you someone knowing "the mood of the country."  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #869 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And the fact that he changed these to suit the situation is why he'll never be sitting in the Oval office. In spite of all your statistics and all your historical accounts and those special ( the only right ones lol.gif ) polls I was right and you were wrong. Why? Because you don't seem to get the mood of the country and what it wants. The party of " No " had better start paying attention.

 

Did you predict turnout correctly?  Because that's why the result is what it is.  It has nothing to do with you someone knowing "the mood of the country."  

Actually I did. I did say it would be close and much like 2000 where it was a matter of electoral votes. That's why I urged people to vote because apathy might have let Romney win.

 

Here's a quote :

 

Quote:

I'm sorry but there's no easy involved here. The GOP have become desperate to win. Their choice will say anything to win. Mr. Romney and his scary choice for VP are about as transparent as a sheet of glass. Say what you want about Obama but these guys are just slime. There's no way they should dirty the Oval office with their presence. Romney reminds me of a used car salesman and Ryan is just a self serving moron that doesn't care who he steps on to get his way. That's it in a nutshell.That said however I still don't think they'll win.

 

Liberals, Democrats, and independents you need to get out and vote. So you're disappointed in Obama's performance and you want to display your disappointment by abstaining. If these two were to get into office you'll really be complaining about the awful things they do for years to come. But you'd better look in the mirror when you do because you'll have only yourself to blame if you didn't vote. Get out and vote these guys back under the rock they came out from. They're a desperate choice by the GOP and we don't need desperate choices right now. We need one that works and if you look at things they are on an upper trend. They won't be if Romney and CO. get in there. They'll be like they were when we slid into this mess.


 

 

 

 

However my dear SDW there's no way you can spin this. You were so sure ( and you know there are multiple quotes from you on this so please don't bother to deny ) and you were wrong. Bottom line. It was the mood of the country. Otherwise it wouldn't have so been close. The GOP can't simply pander to the Tea party,  the extreme right, the religious right,  and ignore the rest of the country anymore. If they continue to do that it's at their peril. If they want groups like the Latino vote then they'll have to earn it.


Edited by jimmac - 11/7/12 at 11:20am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #870 of 886

I cannot express, how glad I am that Romney lost. Romney and the republicans, we dodged a very dangerous bullet. 

Now let's see if they will present some actual candidates next time, with an actual plan for our country or if they remain in their "we're all crazy and have to appeal to everybody who is not informed, or superrich". 

 

But for now, we dodged that lethal bullet. 

post #871 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by hwjunkie View Post

I cannot express, how glad I am that Romney lost. Romney and the republicans, we dodged a very dangerous bullet. 

Now let's see if they will present some actual candidates next time, with an actual plan for our country or if they remain in their "we're all crazy and have to appeal to everybody who is not informed, or superrich". 

 

But for now, we dodged that lethal bullet. 

 

Wow, someone is being dramatic.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #872 of 886

Lets not let this fine thread go beneath the waters and out of our memories just yet!

 

I think it important to remember how sure about the nature of things some here were.1biggrin.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #873 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Lets not let this fine thread go beneath the waters and out of our memories just yet!

 

I think it important to remember how sure about the nature of things some here were.1biggrin.gif

 

If you keep it going until 2016 he can claim that he was correct.

post #874 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

If you keep it going until 2016 he can claim that he was correct.

 

 

That made my Monday.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #875 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Lets not let this fine thread go beneath the waters and out of our memories just yet!

 

I think it important to remember how sure about the nature of things some here were.1biggrin.gif

 

If you keep it going until 2016 he can claim that he was correct.

Not if Hillary runs.1wink.gif

 

Ps. And you know she will.1biggrin.gif

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #876 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Lets not let this fine thread go beneath the waters and out of our memories just yet!

 

I think it important to remember how sure about the nature of things some here were.1biggrin.gif

 

If you keep it going until 2016 he can claim that he was correct.

Not if Hillary runs.1wink.gif

 

Ps. And you know she will.1biggrin.gif

 

No - he will still be correct that President Obama will not be re-elected.  At the current rate of change of posture of the GOP, I agree that doesn't imply what he originally meant though.

post #877 of 886

I actually think there is a slight possibility Obama could be reelected - or will be in office more than 4 years.

 

All the government has to do is declare some kind of emergency that "necessitates" the postponement of the election or allows Obama to run for a third term, and the majority of the people would roll over and let it happen.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #878 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

I actually think there is a slight possibility Obama could be reelected - or will be in office more than 4 years.

 

All the government has to do is declare some kind of emergency that "necessitates" the postponement of the election or allows Obama to run for a third term, and the majority of the people would roll over and let it happen.

 

Do you see any evidence or indication that (1) there is a reasonable chance this might happen, and (b) that the majority of the people would "roll over", whatever that means? What does that mean by the way - is that a snide reference to the majority exercising their free will and constitutional rights and electing someone you disapprove of?

 

It seems to me that this just another fantasy-driven assertion of future malfeasance by Obama - a bit like the latest crop of "Obama Prophecies" emails about visions of him shooting bald eagles etc. that are polluting inboxes. But I guess if you run out of traction on claims about his past then there's not much left to do other than make shit up about the future. It has the advantage that it can't be disproved immediately and you can always hope that by the time it hasn't happened that everyone will have forgotten how silly it was.

post #879 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

I guess if you run out of traction on claims about his past then there's not much left to do other than make shit up about the future.
Let me introduce you to the Libertarians, whose entire being is defined by distorting the past and making shit up about the future.
post #880 of 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Lets not let this fine thread go beneath the waters and out of our memories just yet!

 

I think it important to remember how sure about the nature of things some here were.1biggrin.gif

 

If you keep it going until 2016 he can claim that he was correct.

Not if Hillary runs.1wink.gif

 

Ps. And you know she will.1biggrin.gif

 

No - he will still be correct that President Obama will not be re-elected.  At the current rate of change of posture of the GOP, I agree that doesn't imply what he originally meant though.

lol.gif Yes I hoped to catch this before someone noticed! It was late and I got the idea that if he waits long enough Obama won't be reelected. 1biggrin.gif Also I'm sure it probably eats him up that we might have another 4 years ( at least ) of Democratic rule.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Dead Man Walking: The President Obama won't be reelected thread.