It's Not Over

Discussion in 'Election Forums' started by Wehrwolfen, Oct 31, 2012.

  1. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    It's Not Over​



    By William L. Gensert
    October 31, 2012

    Does anyone believe that when Barack Obama loses on November 6, he will go quietly?

    This election is shaping up to be a landslide loss for the president, and by the ever-present look of desperation on his face, he knows it. The nation should be preparing for how he might react when it happens -- there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered god.

    In 2008, Americans wholeheartedly bought the Obama dream. It's never easy to let go of a dream, but today, people have let go of Obama the dream -- and on November 6, they will let go of Obama the man.

    The debates served two purposes -- namely, showing the world that Mitt Romney was not the evil mastermind Obama and his crew had spent hundreds of millions of dollars portraying him to be while erasing the myth of Obama as invincible and inevitable.

    For a man who is supposedly brilliant, it was devastating to see him perform like an uninformed moron in Denver. It can be said that he was unprepared, but whose fault was that? Preparation was too much of a "drag," and he wanted to see the Hoover Dam -- a particular draw for him, since it has always been a dream of Barack the god to build an Obama Dam while Americans forced to live in the economy he has built scream "God damn Obama."

    The last two debates showed that the president did not understand what was going on. He thought he needed to be more aggressive, but all America saw was a rude and obnoxious man, with a dismal record of governance and no plan for the future. It used to be said that he is likable, but his condescension and constant belittling of Mitt Romney dispelled that notion.

    He spent millions of dollars and much of the past year trying to define Mitt Romney and was outraged when his carefully concocted caricature didn't show up. Most people saw a man who was reasonable and presidential. A nation shell-shocked by four years of failed leadership saw the next president of the United States.

    Barack thought he was a guaranteed victor in his re-election campaign. He thought the aura of his presence would so cow Romney into submission that when all was said and done, he would have the governor promising to vote for him as well.

    Since his election, however, Obama has always been destined to lose -- America simply does not want what he is selling. But after his performance in the debates, many who had been inclined to perhaps give him a second chance took another look and didn't like what they saw: a nasty, petulant, thin-skinned man, uninformed and without a plan to move forward -- and all this on top of his disastrous record.

    Yet he will not go away. In the best-case scenario, on November 7, Obama begins his march toward 2016. His entire life has been an exercise in running for president. Yet, paradoxically, when he attained the exalted position he so coveted, he acted as if it was a burden, and that we Americans did not deserve him -- in the end, only playing at being president while thoroughly enjoying the plane, the parties, and the perks.

    He may never have been more than a part-time president, but to expect him to give up the job easily or gracefully is to fall prey to wishful thinking.

    His monstrous ego will not allow any other course of action but to fight.

    But, after his loss in two weeks, he will be forever destroyed as a viable option, at least electorally -- the cloak of invincibility and transcendent brilliance having succumbed to the reality of the man. He will become a mere mortal -- the veneer of likability stripped away by the truth of his pettiness and anger.

    In short, he will never again be able to win the presidency at the ballot box.

    [excerpt]


    Read more:
    Articles: It's Not Over
     
  2. AceRothstein
    Offline

    AceRothstein Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2012
    Messages:
    5,369
    Thanks Received:
    877
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,533
    LOL, I stopped reading when the author said it is looking to be a landslide loss for Obama.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. mamooth
    Offline

    mamooth Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2012
    Messages:
    13,664
    Thanks Received:
    2,445
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana
    Ratings:
    +6,627
    Given Obama is on path to an easy win, what is the author babbling about?

    Oh, it's that projection thing again. They're not going to admit that they lost fair and square. They're going to declare that the dirty liberals stole the election, and that the results are invalid and they don't accept them.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    Dat be funny chit man.
     
  5. Warrior102
    Offline

    Warrior102 Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    Messages:
    16,554
    Thanks Received:
    4,019
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +4,029
    Where? In France?
     
  6. jwoodie
    Offline

    jwoodie Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2012
    Messages:
    8,756
    Thanks Received:
    1,287
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,904
    I am more concerned about the reaction to an Obama loss in the short term. In addition to widespread civil disturbances, Obama appointees are likely to sabotage existing computer programs and equipment to hide their misdeeds and hamper the new administration. This happened when Clinton left office, only this time it will be on a vastly larger scale.
     
  7. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    I hear a village in Kenya wants its idiot back.
     
  8. Moonglow
    Online

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    81,600
    Thanks Received:
    8,001
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +29,380


    congrats on a thought that does not include nasty name calling, there may be hope for you yet.

    Administration changes do have the destruction of hard drives, from the white house down to the govenors. mansions.
     
  9. Moonglow
    Online

    Moonglow Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    81,600
    Thanks Received:
    8,001
    Trophy Points:
    2,070
    Location:
    sw mizzouri
    Ratings:
    +29,380
    Is it the same one you call home?
     
  10. Wehrwolfen
    Offline

    Wehrwolfen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    2,752
    Thanks Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +339
    The mysterious media Benghazi bugout​



    By JONAH GOLDBERG
    The mysterious media Benghazi bugout - NYPOST.com
    October 30, 2012

    [snip]
    One could go on and on. In September 2004, former CBS titan Dan Rather gambled his entire career on a story about Bush’s service in the National Guard. His instincts were so powerful, he didn’t thoroughly check the documents he relied on, which were forgeries.

    Oh, there have been conservative feeding frenzies: about Barack Obama’s pastor, John Kerry’s embellishments of his war record, etc. But the mainstream media usually tasks itself with debunking and dispelling such “hysteria.”

    Last week, Fox News correspondent Jennifer Griffin reported that sources on the ground in Libya say they pleaded for support during the attack on the Benghazi consulate that led to the deaths of four Americans. They were allegedly told twice to “stand down.” Worse, there are suggestions that significant military resources were available to counterattack, but requests for help were denied.

    If true, the White House’s concerted effort to blame the attack on a video crumbles, as do several other fraudulent claims. Yet, last Friday, the president boasted, “The minute I found out what was happening” in Benghazi, he ordered that everything possible be done to protect our personnel. That’s either untrue, or he’s being disobeyed on grave matters.
    Yet Fox News is alone in treating the story like it’s a big deal. During the less significant Valerie Plame scandal, reporters camped out on the front lawns of Karl Rove and other Bush White House staff. Did Obama confiscate those journalists’ sleeping bags?

    Of the five news shows last Sunday, only “Fox News Sunday” treated this as a major story. On the other four, the issue came up only when Republicans mentioned it. “Meet the Press” host David Gregory shushed a guest who tried to bring up the subject, saying, “Let’s get to Libya a little bit later.” He never did, but he saved plenty of time to dive deep into the question of what Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s comments on abortion and rape mean for the Romney campaign.

    I’m willing to believe that journalists like Gregory are sincere in their desire to play it straight. But among those who don’t share his instincts, it’s hard to distinguish between conspiracy and groupthink. Indeed, it’s hard to think why one should even bother trying to make that distinction at all.
     

Share This Page