Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama's Radical Islamic Policies...


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#31 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:27 AM

It's just stupid. As you all love to remind people, he was not in office all that long, so building up a track record to compare to other politicians didn't really happen.

His service as President actually bears out that he's a pretty middle of the road guy and obviously listens to polls (but without the Clintonesque slavery to them) on a lot of issues.


So we're to put aside the fact a liberal publication, National Journal, sought to claim Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007. Got it. And we're also to put aside the fact that Barack Obama was the only senator to vote for a born alive abortion law while senator in Illinois. And the fact the dude came from Illinois is supposed to give him middle of the road credentials. LOL...please stfu with the middle of the road crap. He's appointed freaking open socialists in his administration, walked with New Black Panthers, and more than likely has a few marxists working for him as well.

He's no moderate. If Barack Obama is moderate, then Jesse Helms was a Teddy Roosevelt clone.

#32 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,322 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:28 AM

Returning to Bush era right wing arguments on the issues of the day, I like it

#33 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:30 AM

Returning to Bush era right wing arguments on the issues of the day, I like it


You haven't had your V8 this morning have you.

#34 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:31 AM

When a VP makes that much of a difference on the ticket...it means the P wasn't inspirational. That's why moderates usually get destroyed...and not re-elected/elected in the first place. George Bush I was still riding the Reagan wave and it crashed on top of him. People like to think Clinton was moderate, but that was only after Congress tempered his plans. He was very liberal his first two years. Dole was uninspiring.


inspirational? hahaha.


1. you continuing to say clinton was very liberal doesn't make it true.
2. GW and sarah palin DESTROYED john mccain. The timing of the nomination was a death sentence in and of itself but adding a SNL character as VP was the straw that broke the camels back.

In the two elections he was in, McCain was never given a fair shake by his own party. GW lied about McCain to win the nomination, shat all over the country for 8 years then McCain was thrown to the wolves. The pubs never had any intention of getting McCain into office, further evidence of how far the party has come from proper Goldwater Conservatism.

#35 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,322 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:45 AM

So we're to put aside the fact a liberal publication, National Journal, sought to claim Barack Obama was the most liberal senator in 2007. Got it. And we're also to put aside the fact that Barack Obama was the only senator to vote for a born alive abortion law while senator in Illinois. And the fact the dude came from Illinois is supposed to give him middle of the road credentials. LOL...please stfu with the middle of the road crap. He's appointed freaking open socialists in his administration, walked with New Black Panthers, and more than likely has a few marxists working for him as well.

He's no moderate. If Barack Obama is moderate, then Jesse Helms was a Teddy Roosevelt clone.


Can't wait for you to vote for Romney from Massachusetts. And the Black Panthers is always great to mention.

More than likely....ok. At least you are using the term "marxist", as "socialist" is getting really tedious to listen to. Oh wait you used both just to mix it up.

All you are doing is pointing out one vote, and made accusations for the rest. And who the hell cares if he appoints a "socialist" to something? He appointed an ambassador that tried to run against him as a Republican in this election, so that kind of cancels that out.

I understand it's important that you have something to cling to in order to convince yourself that Obama is some kind of evil person bent on forcing your daughter to have abortions but please keep it in your own odd head, it distracts from reality.

#36 Porn Shop Clerk

Porn Shop Clerk

    Honky

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,247 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:47 AM

but joe biden is a pretty cool guy huh

#37 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:54 AM

Can't wait for you to vote for Romney from Massachusetts. And the Black Panthers is always great to mention.

More than likely....ok. At least you are using the term "marxist", as "socialist" is getting really tedious to listen to. Oh wait you used both just to mix it up.

All you are doing is pointing out one vote, and made accusations for the rest. And who the hell cares if he appoints a "socialist" to something? He appointed an ambassador that tried to run against him as a Republican in this election, so that kind of cancels that out.

I understand it's important that you have something to cling to in order to convince yourself that Obama is some kind of evil person bent on forcing your daughter to have abortions but please keep it in your own odd head, it distracts from reality.


Huntsman worked for 4 administrations...so what. I never said Obama is evil....that he's just not moderate as you guys try to paint him as. Be proud of your liberalism...why do you try to hide it.

As for the "who cares if he appoints a socialist", wth are you talking about. We should all care. If that appointee makes regulatory changes LIKE Sebelius that circumvents the 1st amendment...we should care. If a douchebag on the NLRB tries to force a company to only open shop in non-right to work states...we should care. If someone goes to speak openly at a socialist worker's party event and convey their budgetary plans...we should care. If a sitting attorney general sits on his hands while guns are being run to criminals and turning a blind eye to voter intimidation...we should care. Appointees matter. Hell...we haven't even talked about the tax experts that have tax issues or the guys that have had to be let go/resign due to the fact their extreme liberal positions get exposed.

#38 Floppin

Floppin

    Smooches

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,662 posts
  • LocationShallotte, NC

Posted 21 February 2012 - 09:56 AM

G5 is still stuck in McCarthy witchhunt mode.

#39 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:17 AM

G5 is still stuck in McCarthy witchhunt mode.


The only witchhunts that have gone on in the past decade are people with conservative views. Liberals have had used up all their poor-me McCarthyesque nonsense whines.

#40 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,322 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:22 AM

Oh yeah now its the poor conservative white guy syndrome

#41 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,512 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:30 AM

Oh yeah now its the poor conservative white guy syndrome


You should make an SNL skit about that.

#42 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts
  • LocationMorehead City

Posted 21 February 2012 - 10:47 AM

McCain lost because any republican would have lost in '08 with the economy in the shape it was in after two republican terms. That's just the nature of American politics.

Obama, under normal circumstances, would never have beaten Hillary Clinton out for the nomination OR have won against the moderate McCain. He had the right message (change) during a time when people wanted change more than ever because the status quo was so bad. Obama was in just the right place at just the right time, as happens often with the Presidency. You run a moderate republican against Obama in 2000 or 2004 and Obama loses in a landslide.

But now he's in and the GOP has taken a HARD turn to the right fringe and in a system where moderates and independents essentially decide elections, that won't fly. Obama may have had a very liberal voting record; he may actually be very liberal personally - but he hasn't governed that way and that's what matters most when running against a Rick Santorum type republican who scares most moderates to death.

Has Obama governed as a conservative? Of course not. The people who say that are mostly liberals who are angry they voted for him expecting FDR and instead got Bill Clinton. Truth is Obama could have been MUCH more liberal than he has been and any common sense conservative knows this. He hasn't gone after guns, he didn't put any extreme new regulations on the banking industry (just some slight new regulations), punted on public option/single payer health care for a system that is a mirror of both RomneyCare AND the GOP plan from the early 90's. And he's actually been very hawkish on terrorism, hasn't closed Gitmo, continued many Bush policies on terror, and has basically adopted Seal Team 6 as his own personal assault force when he needs poo done right.

Truth is Obama hasn't been nearly as liberal as most conservatives say he's been. He also hasn't been as conservative as most liberals claim he's been. He's been a moderate democratic POTUS. That has disappointed some of his supporters but also has resulted in the right wingers being forced to make poo up to fire up the base. He's a muslim, he's a socialist, he wasn't born in the U.S., he takes orders from George Soros, etc.

Problem for the GOP is that the only ones who actually believe those things are the ones who were almost certainly going to vote against Obama anyway. Moderates and independents, who decide elections in this country, look at hard facts and the facts show Obama to be a moderate democrat who finally managed to get Bin Laden, has lowered taxes on the working class, the economy is improving, and has had to work with a GOP-controlled House that is determined to ensure he becomes a one-term POTUS.

And then when Rick Santorum comes out of nowhere as a potential nominee for the GOP they see an ultra-right-wing religious nut who wants to make drastic cuts to everything from medicare, social security, and food stamps to the department of education in the name of "small government" but then turns around and says he wants government to enforce his own right-wing religious views on every - whether they believe them or not.

And with Mitt Romney they see a guy who seemingly has no real political convictions and has been pandering to the far-right for 4 years now and yet still can't convince them he's really on their side. He promotes the fact that he's got business experience and yet as the economy improves he continues to attack Obama's economic policies and proposes a return to the very same policies that got us into this mess in the first place. And then turns around and says he doesn't give a poo about poor people because they have wellfare taking care of them - and then says he wants to cut that wellfare drastically.

So yeah, Obama is a lock for re-election for a lot of reasons. Especially if Santorum is the nominee. That map is going to turn blue in a lot of unexpected places on election night in that scenario. Maybe Romney makes a half-hearted run at victory if he wins out, but the larger issue is the GOP platform itself has gone so far to the right in recent years they have scared away a lot of independents who decide elections. These folks may not be thrilled with the democrats - or Obama - but when put up against Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney the choice has to seem pretty clear.

#43 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:01 AM

All the rights in the Constitution, which are individually based rights, according to our founders were not there for the individual’s gain, but the reason we established those rights was for the common good. The right to privacy is not the right to a common good. It’s a me-centered right, that obviously started in the sexual revolution with contraception and obviously quickly evolved to abortion, and now has found its way into the marriage debate. And all those acts that were self-giving acts, self-sacrificing acts, have been polluted by this right to privacy.





hahahah, what an asshole.

#44 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,322 posts

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:05 AM

FINALLY someone who can tell my wife what to do, Ima votin fer him

#45 Catalyst

Catalyst

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,107 posts
  • LocationMorehead City

Posted 21 February 2012 - 11:06 AM



hahahah, what an asshole.


Posted Image


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com