Signs accumulate that liberals are embarrassed by Obama - The tides have turned

Wow...is abovetopsecret really this entrenched in republican/democrat establishment politics???

damn...weird...wouldn't have expected it here...

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

...and I definitely won't let that one go when such an obvious comparison screams to be made on the double standards this cycle has been defined by. I'd look at a High School student real hard and sideways if they said 57 states. For a man who'd been a state senator, a U.S. Senator (Didn't the dummy know how many Senators there were? 2 for each state even! Odd how that works out eh?) and then running to lead the United States, such a mistake and display of crappy thinking ability was alarming. It seems to have indicated more...but that's all speculation. The statements made aren't...and I'll take Romney's screw up to a statistic over a President who apparently JUST LEARNED how many States he was about to lead.

After all... We don't ever allow these guys mistakes or bad days right? They are to be held to everything, every time... Cool! As long as we hit both directions to the men involved in this race.

Well, you can't blame Obama for not knowing how many Senators there were. After all, it was obvious he forgot he'd been elected to that particular office. It was more important for him to campaign for President the entire time. Seriously, I'm angry about that. I checked his voting record in the Senate before voting for President. The man didn't do the first freaking job he was elected for! What galls me is that this was ignored by the media and those who voted for him. It's shameful.

It's even more shameful that people were taken in by his crappy empty rhetoric. It was word for word from the 'assume the electorate is stupid' handbook. Well, the electorate must be mouth breathers, by and large. I should have expected it considering Bush was elected twice. And, dear Lord, some people still believe this man! Even when he takes them for fools by increasing surveillance of Americans, sending more troops, not closing Gitmo, INSISTING on having indefinite detention. We've got Rachel Maddow taking apart Obama's own words and Carl Levin on C-Span showing us the truth of that one- and then he goes so far as to appeal a federal judge's ruling that attempted to put a stop to his little pet NDAA detention thing.

If anyone is a democrat who complained about Bush- you're the epitome of derp if you're not seeing Obama as Bush's kindred spirit. He's worse than Bush Jr. and I didn't think that was even possible!

Romney's no better. Seriously- for a site that's all about conspiracies- is it too much to ask that some of you move beyond the obvious farce that is the two party system in the US?

Originally posted by neo96

Trickle down economics is how the rich get super rich, and the middle class turns into an amalgamation of lower class

Trickle up economics which started in 1935 has worked out so well hasn't it?

There are more poor people than ever 4 more years 4 more years of the same failed social engineering.

Trickle down is working just fine in China, you know that place those American business go because of the hostile environment here.

Not a student of history are you? Up until the early eighties trickle up worked fine then that failure Reagan got into office a forced trickle down economics on America and everything went to hell. Things started looking up when Clinton got into office but sadly yet another Republican failure Bush got into office and threw everything that Clinton built up away.

Yes trickle down is working fine in China where people are used as slaves. And you did know that China is a socialist nation right?

I saw a vigorous line of argument on the previous page. Something along the lines of:

Except that you neglected to mention Romney's rabid support of a war in Iran.

I'm having a hard time seeing why Romney's position is "rabid" compared to:

October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president: "Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."

November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."

December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."

January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

www.theatlantic.com... There are many more similar quotes in the article.

I don't see how that is different from Romney's position, so, if Romney's position is rabid . . .

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by VaterOrlaag

 

How many us soldiers and ambassadors have died under Romney-zero

What about the current war monger in cheif?

Libya American serviceman, and an ambassador killed in action
Uganda-Koby
Afghanistan 2000 American soldiers,
Yemen
Pakistan
Somalia.
Then of course we have the current murder of over 50,000 Mexican nationals

Yeah seems someone "forgot" quite of bit of murder and mayhem undre the current regime.

But hey don't let that get in the way of bashing ole Mittens heaven forbid.

Romney is evil!.

When was Romney president? It's kind of stupid to ask a question of when someone did something when they were never in the position to do it. You also can't blame all the servicemen that have died in the wars on him. Just the ones that died while he was in office. So your 2000 dead is just BS.

Originally posted by charles1952
I saw a vigorous line of argument on the previous page. Something along the lines of:

Except that you neglected to mention Romney's rabid support of a war in Iran.

I'm having a hard time seeing why Romney's position is "rabid" compared to:

October 13,2011, press conference after meeting with South Korean president: "Now, we don't take any options off the table in terms of how we operate with Iran."

November 14, 2011, press conference: "So what I did was to speak with President Medvedev, as well as President Hu, and all three of us entirely agree on the objective, which is making sure that Iran does not weaponize nuclear power and that we don't trigger a nuclear arms race in the region. That's in the interests of all of us... I have said repeatedly and I will say it today, we are not taking any options off the table, because it's my firm belief that an Iran with a nuclear weapon would pose a security threat not only to the region but also to the United States."

December 8, 2011, press conference: (In response to question about pressuring Iran): "No options off the table means I'm considering all options."

January 24, 2012, State of the Union address: "Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal."

September 25, 2012, speech to the United Nations General Assembly: "Make no mistake: A nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained...the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."

www.theatlantic.com... There are many more similar quotes in the article.

I don't see how that is different from Romney's position, so, if Romney's position is rabid . . .

You are right Obama is leaning towards war with Iran but it will be on Obama's terms. With Romney it will be on Israels terms why else do you think Israel has given him millions.

reply to post by buster2010

When was Romney president? It's kind of stupid to ask a question of when someone did something when they were never in the position to do it.

Kind of like when liberals tell us how the country will be when Romney is POTUS next year?

You also can't blame all the servicemen that have died in the wars on him. Just the ones that died while he was in office. So your 2000 dead is just BS.

Obama was elected to stop 2 wars…..instead he started 2 more. Explain that!

reply to post by seabag

Obama was elected to stop 2 wars…..instead he started 2 more. Explain that!

Which two wars did Obama start?

I don't believe people are still discussing the imaginary decline of the Obama campaign.

reply to post by buster2010


Really?

Really?

(CNSNews.com) - Of the 1,912 U.S. military personnel who have died in the now nearly 11-year-long war in Afghanistan, 1,343 have died since President Barack Obama was inaugurated on Jan. 20, 2009.

cnsnews.com...

70% of U.S. Military Fatalities in 11-Year Afghan War Have Occurred on Obama's Watch

Your right not all 2000 just 70% of them

reply to post by buster2010

Dear buster2010,

You know that I can get confused just watching a leaf fall, may I explain my confusion with your reply?

You are right Obama is leaning towards war with Iran but it will be on Obama's terms.

When war starts, the first shots are fired, it's hard for me to imagine that it will be on anybody's terms. Doesn't it become a "Let's win this quick, and get out of here" situation?

With Romney it will be on Israels terms

Does that mean that Israel gets the first shot? I really didn't expect it to be any other way. I'm getting the impression from both candidates, that if Iran actually gets a bomb, it's time for military action.

why else do you think Israel has given him millions.

And this confuses me as well. Jews have been voting Democrat for a long time, and as far as money goes:

Jews are very well represented among donors, particularly on the Democratic side. Ron Kampeas, writing at The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, notes that “estimates over the years have reckoned that Jewish donors provide between one-third and two-thirds of the party’s money.” Similarly, David Freedlander wrote in the New York Observer that “According to some estimates, nearly 60 percent of the money raised by the Democratic National Committee is donated by Jews, and any drop in support for the president’s re-election could endanger the campaign’s ambitious goal of $1 billion.” Steven Windmueller at The New York Jewish Week claims that “Jewish donors have generated as much as 45 cents of every dollar raised by Democrats and provide a growing base of support for Republican candidates.”

www.gatherthejews.com...

See why you've got me confused?

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by buster2010

Not a student of history are you?

Uh lived in the 80s saw first hand the Reagan years gas 89 cents a gallon,my savings account paid 6%, and money markets paid at 5%.

The Reagan years Good Times.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by buster2010

 

When was Romney president? It's kind of stupid to ask a question of when someone did something when they were never in the position to do it.

Kind of like when liberals tell us how the country will be when Romney is POTUS next year?

You also can't blame all the servicemen that have died in the wars on him. Just the ones that died while he was in office. So your 2000 dead is just BS.

Obama was elected to stop 2 wars…..instead he started 2 more. Explain that!

Out of Iraq and drawing down Afghanistan.

I love that you deny the militaristic instinct of the GOP and conservative America, that would
be like me pretending that liberals are against food stamps.

The amount of distortion you guys present is awe inspiring.

Whatever the case, when Obama leaves office America will be in better employment shape than when he
received it and all of your distortions cannot change the fact that he came in, stemmed the bleeding,
reversed the crisis and then some.

I'd rather have a handful of truth on my side, than a truckload of manure.

Originally posted by beezzer
I'll save a victory dance until after the debates concerning foreign policy.

I see Obama's ship sinking though.

Gas prices increasing, foreign policy a disaster, etc.

I'm thinking that's no "sinking ship," but a ship headed for "open waters." As I see it, this guy wants OUT.

Hahahaha, chill out. Wait till Nov 6th. Obama is still quite ahead in the odds, 538 does a good job of the stats.

However, I didn't come to post this. I came to post the fact that Obama and democrats in general are far from liberal. They're the conservatives of yesteryear (check: Republican Party Platform of 1972 www.presidency.ucsb.edu...). The Republicans have gone off the charts into some bizarre realm of believing their own rhetoric and it's catching up with them. There aren't any true liberals in this race.

reply to post by campanionator

I always thought we wound down Iraq, because the withdrawal date negotiated by President Bush had been reached and Iraq wanted us out. Obama gets no credit for that.

Afghanistan? I would really like Obama to face the 82nd and tell them exactly why they're still getting killed there, when he's announced they're leaving in the near future. If they don't need to be there based on the date, and not the conditions on the ground, get them out of that hell now.

reply to post by HostileApostle

Which two wars did Obama start?

I don't believe people are still discussing the imaginary decline of the Obama campaign.

Come on, man!!

He authorized drone strikes in Pakistan murdering thousands of men, women and children, expanded the war in Afghanistan murdering thousands more, bombed Libya, bombed Yemen, and initiated a covert war in Somalia.

Do you even know what’s going on? (Rhetorical question)

Originally posted by TheJourney
Wow...is abovetopsecret really this entrenched in republican/democrat establishment politics???

damn...weird...wouldn't have expected it here...

It just makes for an interesting chitchat ...and by the way, TOO left or TOO right is obsolescent.

Peoples view of what "tickle down economics" means is businesses and people that get rich are supposed to donate that cash to poorer people. No that's their cash. The trickle down is an effect that wealth invested can OFFER the poor a job so they might no longer be poor. Wealth means the opportunity to build or make a product or service others will need to be hired to execute.

Trickle down is availability to OFFER an opportunity to pull yourself up with a job or a better job than what you currently have.

If the corporate or the wealthy have no disposable cash their assets go into hibernation and your out of a job, no trickling down of OPPORTUNITY to help yourself.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by HostileApostle

 

Which two wars did Obama start?

I don't believe people are still discussing the imaginary decline of the Obama campaign.

Come on, man!!

He authorized drone strikes in Pakistan murdering thousands of men, women and children, expanded the war in Afghanistan murdering thousands more, bombed Libya, bombed Yemen, and initiated a covert war in Somalia.

Do you even know what’s going on? (Rhetorical question)

Yet the GOP and conservative America say he is weak on terrorism and foreign policy

and this is exactly another case where y'all are completely full of sh!t

Should he coddle the terrorists or what?

You guys have the intellectual fortitude of pudding

When all else fails just blame Bush and the Jews. That's what everybody else does on here it seems. Sigh! Moving on now.