Supporters of Obama in 2008: Have you changed? - Page 4




 
--
Supporters of Obama in 2008: Have you changed?
 
August 16th, 2011  
namvet
 
 
Supporters of Obama in 2008: Have you changed?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Nope don't think you do have it...

Mmarsh as he says is an American working in France now here is the really nifty thing and I will type really slowly...
In the UserCP it asks you to:
Country
The country you're living in


Which is what determines the flag fluttering to the left of the page.

Now my guess is that because he is living in France and the form specifically asks you to enter the country you are living in chances are he has put France into that field.

Just a crazy thought I know but that would be my guess.

Now care to explain to me what this has to do with the over all discussion?
Quote:
The country you're living in.........Which is what determines the flag fluttering to the left of the page.
tell ya what. lets let him expain it. since you can't.
August 16th, 2011  
A Can of Man
 
 
Actually I think he did.
August 16th, 2011  
namvet
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Can of Man
Actually I think he did.
I was gonna say something. forget it
--
Supporters of Obama in 2008: Have you changed?
August 17th, 2011  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by namvet
tell ya what. lets let him expain it. since you can't.
Actually MontyB just did, and 100% accurately. YOU are the one who doesn't seem to get it.

The flag refers to COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN, not CITIZENSHIP. Which is why I entered FRANCE, because although I am an American actually live in France. Its a tough concept.

So lets recap: You turned a good conversation into a personal attack (1) still managed to get it wrong (2), and then demonstrated that you are in fact a really nasty jerk incapable of having a rationale political discussion to everyone here (3). Your rep here just went 0-3.

So you say you are done with me? I concur. You are done.
August 17th, 2011  
Padre
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
And sure enough, it didn't take Rick Perry very long to say something truly stupid...

From Today: Making an implied threat against Ben Bernanke


"If this guy prints more money between now and the election, I don't know what y'all would do to him in Iowa -- but we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas," Perry told supporters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,3311431.story

Seriously as if Bernanke was printing money all on his own...This has been the policy ever since Ronald Reagan onward. Reading the headlines, The Republicans are apparently furious with him, apparently Rick forgot that it was the GOP were the ones who nominated Bernanke. (Oops!).

And seriously making implied threats/incitement against a Public Official is pretty unprofessional, whether you like the man or not. That type of behavior is not what we expect from the POTUS.

Another shoot-from-the-hip motormouth wannabee cowboy. 1 Day in the race and hes already put his foot in his mouth, thats got to be a record... Remember what I said about him being a Bush clone, an idiot and a jerk to boot. Its exactly the types of rude, stupid, and reckless comments that haunted Bush time, after time, after time...Its Deja'vu.

You see, Padre. The GOP nominates a person like this: THEY WILL LOSE. I promise you that. It worked with Bush because he hid under the Compassionate conservative misnomer, but it wont work twice espicially because Perry makes no attempt to hid the fact how crazy his view are.

I have an axe to grind with Obama, but Obama compared to this looks like Abe Lincoln.
I'm not so sure Mmarsh. Unless all the Bush jnr interviews and press conferences I've seen were just him on a bad day(s) he came across as an imbicile. Some of his policies were good but he was inarticulate and intellectually limited. His political success was mostly attributable to several politically brilliant people around him (you may not agree with their politics and ethics, but Rove, etc, were politically cunning and savy). The Perry I saw was fairly eloquent and articulate (if you can overcome the bias of associating dumbness or simpleness with Southern drawl) and had a broad grasp of the issues he was questioned on without notes or tele-promtor. I concede he wasn't questioned on foreign affairs in the interview I saw. I think Republicans will go for him once he gets going. I don't know if he has big money behind him like Bush. I think he'll go for a northerner for VP nominee to balance the ticket and unite the party - maybe Romney who I think will lose by a narrow margin. I think Romney will be the Geo. H. W. Bush of the 2012 GOP race.
I take your point on Perry's record in Texas on some issues and (perceived) extremism on the religious front. These may prove a handicap but every candidate has a few handicaps.
The Jerimiah Wright factor was used against Obama but not to great effect and I think average Americans will ignore anything that isn't relevant to who will have the best job creation policies. Perry hammered this home effectively and I notice Pres. Obama is on the same message on his bus tour (Perry and Obama must have the results of the same focus groups).
I still say Perry is the one to watch - love or hate him.
In the last year Obama's popularity (see allclearpolitics) has had two bounces (1) the shooting of the congresswoman (which seemed to give Obama an indirect, by default sympathy vote) and (2) the shooting of Bin Laden. Take away these two bounces and Pres. Obama's populaity returns to low 40's (currently on 39 a/cíng to Gallop). I think he's gone, and Perry should be able to repeat Bush jnrs electoral vote in 2000 if not 2004 (popular vote might go to Obama). Blame Bush / GOP for deficits and 9% unemployment if you want, but enough Independents are going to punish Obama or not turn out for him twice, that will get Perry over the line. I might change my mind on him as the campaign unfolds but he was very impressive in the one interview I saw and he's gone the credentials many Americans want now and in 2012 - an Executive who creates jobs in an economic environment that makes doing so almost impossible. I think Americans will be impressed by this and forgive or overlook the short-comings you have mentioned.
August 17th, 2011  
namvet
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Actually MontyB just did, and 100% accurately. YOU are the one who doesn't seem to get it.

The flag refers to COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN, not CITIZENSHIP. Which is why I entered FRANCE, because although I am an American actually live in France. Its a tough concept.

So lets recap: You turned a good conversation into a personal attack (1) still managed to get it wrong (2), and then demonstrated that you are in fact a really nasty jerk incapable of having a rationale political discussion to everyone here (3). Your rep here just went 0-3.

So you say you are done with me? I concur. You are done.
your edited post:

Quote:
Actually MontyB just did, and 100% accurately. YOU are the one who doesn't seem to get it.

The flag refers to COUNTRY YOU LIVE IN, not CITIZENSHIP.

Yes I'm American, but I LIVE live abroad. Not only did you open your mouth without checking your facts, you have also demonstrated yourself to be a really nasty person and all because you failed to make a convicing argument.

In one idiot statement you went 0-2.

You say you are done with me? Thats Fine, and I agree. There is no reason for you to be here anymore...
"trust but verify" your on ignore
August 17th, 2011  
mmarsh
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by namvet
your edited post:



"trust but verify" your on ignore

Damn, there goes my day. I'm crushed.


Only people with weak arguments isolate themselves from opposing viewpoints. I would suggest putting the whole community on ignore that way you wont need to listen to anyone but yourself.
August 17th, 2011  
mmarsh
 
 
Padre and others.

Jon Stewert criticizing the Media treatment of Ron Paul (Funny).

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EY5Ofcxjs0"]John Stewart Bashes the Media Over Ron Paul - YouTube[/ame]
August 17th, 2011  
George
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Just a question, how many of y'all actually voted for Obama in 2008 (As asked in the subject). I'm guessing none of you.

And again; look what the GOP choice is for 2012. Its a pretty sorry lineup.

If Obama wins reelection (which I think he will) it will because the GOP let him win.

Todays Daily Beast "GOP STILL HAS NO CHANCE".

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...rust-belt.html

The author is saying the only chance the GOP is a Catholic conservative from outside the rustbelt (sort of like what I saying about Christie). The only two that come close is Santorum and McCotter both of which are at the absolute bottom of the rankings.

Given how rightwing a democrat Obama is, I think the GOP is deliberately throwing in the towel for 2012. The GOP has got alot of what they wanted under Obama and because the economic situation is so bad its actually better for them to be the party NOT in power.

The real fight will be in the House, because there is a real chance now the GOP will lose it. And giving the Democrats an absolute majority is the LAST thing they want. I think this will be the GOP objective, not the White House.
Unfortunate that no Reagans are out there, but none of them could be worse than the community organizer. Where you are in France you might not realize his rehtoric is to the right of his agenda, actions, appointments, ect. Fools a lot of folks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
No offense intended to Namvet here, just using you as an example..

But you see theres another reason why I likely wont vote for a Republican, this obsession with Obama bordering derangement thats been going on even BEFORE he was elected into office.

The fact is most Republicans never gave Obama a fair chance, they decided to oppose him completely even before he took office. Sorry, you can't say otherwise.

I am tired of the the GOP response of always finding a way to blame Obama everytime there is a criticism about a Republican. Stop worrying about Obama, start cleaning up your own house.
You don't need to remind us you don't like Obama; we get it.

Always remember: The reason why Obama was elected was because the GOP f**ked up so badly.


The "We Hate the President" platform will not work, it didn't work for Kerry in 2004 it wont work for you either. I suggest you not make the same mistake.

What I want to know is what the GOP plans to do differently thats A) different from what Obama has done, and B) different from what every single Republican has done for the past 40 years.

"A" should be easy, so and pay attention to "B". Because if "B" is to cut tax for Billionaires at the expense of the Middle class (as has been the GOP since Reagan) -again, you've lost my vote.

And once again, this is where the GOP falls flat, because they spend every calorie of their energy blaming Obama (some of which is unjustified) and not much telling America what they plan to do.

9.1% unemployment how do you fix that?
$14T Deficit how do you fix that?
Paying off the debt -How
What social reforms do they plan on introducing?
etc...
It's been going on since before he was elected because our side read & reported on comments he made in his books. "Blaming Obama" He's over 1/2 way through the Term & still blaming Bush or Republicans, his Party had total controll of Congress. They could have passed ANYTHING if all Dems voted for it & couldn't pull off much, other than moving health care closer to Govt controll. Reps should focus on A. plans for the future, but also B. How Obama hasn't helped the situation despite doubleing the debt. Deficit/debt The professional politicians still don't seem to realize that spending money that is 40% borrowed when you're the biggest debtor in the world can't continue. Only the TEA Party is pointing out the Emporor has no clothes, & thier call for fiscal responcibility is getting them labeled as extreamists. Absolutly nuts to say those spreading the word that we're heading tword the cliff is unwarranted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Namvet

You forgot 10 Years as a State Congress of one of the largest States in the union PLUS the 5 he spent as a US Senator.

And lets look at the rightwing right now; Bachmann, Palin, Cain, McCotter, Santorum all have equally light resumes. Are you going to label the inexperianced charge at them, because they are no more experienced than he was in 2008.

The GOP President has never submitted balanced a budget once...ever. The two balanced Budgets submitted were under Democrats. The GOP needs to start practicing what they preach. Let the GOP balance a budget once and then maybe we will listen.


And if Obama wins reelection, you can blame your friends in the GOP for giving us such a terrible alterantive. Go ahead and run Bachmann or Perry, I promise you will lose every state except for Iowa and Kansas. Running one of the nutters is precisely what Obama wants.

And your attempt to shift everything bad to Obama is indigenous and doesn't make me feel like voting Republican. The very first thing the GOP needs to do to win my vote is to move away from the disastrous policies that caused the financial mess to begin with. So far only Ron Paul has made such a comment and he has a snowflakes chance in hell of winning. The others are GOP status quo. I am NOT going to vote for a continuation of the Bush Administration. That's simply not going to happen.

Are you familiar on what impeachment is? Its a criminal charge like a felony. Just because you dislike and disagree with Obama doesn't mean you can impeach him. So forget about impeachment, that will never happen.

And do you know what happens if you do impeach him? Joe Biden becomes President, and that probably means you can kiss goodbye to 2016 as well.
Obama was in the US Senate 1 1/2 yrs when he announced he was running. Palin had more executive expierience than Obama. Nixon had a balanced budget one year. Clinton's 1st 2 years mirror Obama's. Clinton announced 200 billion$ deficits as far as the eye can see, "His" balanced budgets were something Newt dragged him kicking & screaming into, it wasn't voluntary. He did adopt that & welfare reform once he realized the people wanted it. The 1st thing Obama did was repeal the Clinton welfare reforms. "indeginous"??? "Impeachment: Have to agree, at this time there's no evidence of crimes, unless something pops on the "Fast & Furious" scandal that's brewing. Impeachment for High crimes & Misdemeanors....hmmm Clinton cought lying under Oath, yet the "Consience of the Senate" couldn't bring himself to vote yes even though Clinton by that point in the proceedings had passed into the safe zone. Biden through 2016...Biden has been rejected by Democrats in 3 Primaries, why would the general public vote for him?
August 17th, 2011  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by George
It's been going on since before he was elected because our side read & reported on comments he made in his books. "Blaming Obama" He's over 1/2 way through the Term & still blaming Bush or Republicans, his Party had total controll of Congress. They could have passed ANYTHING if all Dems voted for it & couldn't pull off much, other than moving health care closer to Govt controll. Reps should focus on A. plans for the future, but also B. How Obama hasn't helped the situation despite doubleing the debt. Deficit/debt The professional politicians still don't seem to realize that spending money that is 40% borrowed when you're the biggest debtor in the world can't continue. Only the TEA Party is pointing out the Emporor has no clothes, & thier call for fiscal responcibility is getting them labeled as extreamists. Absolutly nuts to say those spreading the word that we're heading tword the cliff is unwarranted.
I would suggest that the Tea Party goes further than just point out that the "Emperor has no clothes" because most people I talk to see them more as the political wing of the KKK than a voice of reason now I admit that these people are not Tea Party supporters but they are both Democrats and Republicans, the Tea Party's problems are based on the fact that they are seen as to far from the mainstream to get the moderate vote and it is that section of the electorate that wins elections.

I personally think this was the problem with the McCain/Palin campaign as well, I recall 5.56 saying something about how Palin was galvanising the base support and that may well have been true but it was the far right base she was uniting and they were never going to vote for Obama anyway however her drive to do this alienated the moderates and left, in my opinion having Palin as McCains running mate did more to elect Obama than the Democrats did.

Much like Chess winning elections is about controlling the centre not the extremes.

Oh and I found this which I think explains it well...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/op...WT.mc_ev=click
 


Similar Topics
Top GOP lawmakers press Obama on detention policy (AP)
Bush tells Obama on bin Laden: "Good call" (Reuters)
How do you rate Obama as a president?
Michelle: Barak's home Country is Kenya
Giuliani Leads Hillary in Possible 2008 Presidential Duel