On Criticizing the President

[Rinata]

As it stands right now, Obama has lost 2/3 of the Independents that voted for him in 2008. Independents as a group are the ones that swing elections.

I know things can change in a heartbeat, but as of now it appears that Perry is the one to beat. However, I keep hearing pundits say that he can never win the general election. I don't know him really well, but I tend to agree. Do you think he can?? I'm asking you because you have been one of the more reasonable conservatives on this board. At least towards me. Thanks.

I think we haven't had any harsh words ( or much anyways) so I want to chime in.

I think Perry can when in the general election against Obama.
Obama only has taxes in his favor but jobs are in the shitter.
Perry wins on both counts.

The real contest is between Perry and Romney.
"Career politician" against "private sector experience"
Romney has Romneycare around his neck.
And how can "keep the federal government out of my state" Perry justify running for the highest position in the federal government???

Thank you!!! You made some very valid points as far as the GOP nominee. But what about the general?? Do you really think either of them can beat Obama??

I appreciate your civility.

 

[Rinata]

I am asking you too show proof where I lied

Here's your question one more time



You claim I lie now you need to produce something showing I lied. If you don't you just proved I was correct in saying you never produce facts just your opinion.

You're a pain in the ass. I stated that I deal in facts, not emotions. What kind of proof do you want that will show I do?? As if you would say, "Oh, yes. I see that you do deal in facts, not emotions".

You just want to say, "I asked you a question and you won't answer it". You're such a little punk.

When was the last time you cited your source for some of the outrageous statements you make??? Never, that I recall. Don't blame me.

Stop calling me name's you big meanie.

Still waiting on your facts to show I lie

Hope you're not hanging till then!!!

 

[Immanuel]

I know things can change in a heartbeat, but as of now it appears that Perry is the one to beat. However, I keep hearing pundits say that he can never win the general election. I don't know him really well, but I tend to agree. Do you think he can?? I'm asking you because you have been one of the more reasonable conservatives on this board. At least towards me. Thanks.

I think we haven't had any harsh words ( or much anyways) so I want to chime in.

I think Perry can when in the general election against Obama.
Obama only has taxes in his favor but jobs are in the shitter.
Perry wins on both counts.

The real contest is between Perry and Romney.
"Career politician" against "private sector experience"
Romney has Romneycare around his neck.
And how can "keep the federal government out of my state" Perry justify running for the highest position in the federal government???

Thank you!!! You made some very valid points as far as the GOP nominee. But what about the general?? Do you really think either of them can beat Obama??

I appreciate your civility.

If I may interject, I think the race is wide open. I think it is possible that either side may win in 2012. President Obama will have major hurdles to over come with the economy and I think that is going to be the major issue of the campaign. If the Republicans could offer someone with a viable plan, I think it would be a landslide for the Republicans. On the other hand, I don't see "cut taxes on the rich" as a viable plan. The Republicans will have to over come the idea that what they offer is just going to be Bush III.

All in all, I think the winner will be the side that does the best at presenting themselves as the lesser of two evils once again and America will lose once again no matter which party wins.

Immie

 

[hortysir]

I know things can change in a heartbeat, but as of now it appears that Perry is the one to beat. However, I keep hearing pundits say that he can never win the general election. I don't know him really well, but I tend to agree. Do you think he can?? I'm asking you because you have been one of the more reasonable conservatives on this board. At least towards me. Thanks.

I think we haven't had any harsh words ( or much anyways) so I want to chime in.

I think Perry can when in the general election against Obama.
Obama only has taxes in his favor but jobs are in the shitter.
Perry wins on both counts.

The real contest is between Perry and Romney.
"Career politician" against "private sector experience"
Romney has Romneycare around his neck.
And how can "keep the federal government out of my state" Perry justify running for the highest position in the federal government???

Thank you!!! You made some very valid points as far as the GOP nominee. But what about the general?? Do you really think either of them can beat Obama??

I appreciate your civility.

Now, as far as Romney????
*flips coin*
If Mitt gets the GOP nod, I see Paul going Indy and pulling alot of votes away from him and Obama wins.

Right now I just don't see anybody else being a factor in the primary OR general besides these 3.

Tune in tonight


I'll watch later VIA youtube or something because Big Brother is on tonight

 

[Foxfyre]

Personally, if the election was held today, I think anybody the GOP puts up would beat Obama. I think there is enough frustration, anger, resentment of 'being had', and genuine concern over the direction Obama has been taking us to pull more than enough votes from the left and right to elect almost anybody else.

But the election is 14 months away. That's plenty of time to dig up a major scandal on the GOP nominee--the Dems seem to be more forgiving of scandals on their side--and that could chill enough GOP votes to give Obama the edge. The economy could get worse which is good for the GOP UNLESS the media was able to convince people that the GOP did that on purpose. And they will try.

And the economy could get better, too, and whether or not he had anything to do with it, Obama would get credit for that and that could change the whole picture.

In other words it is way too premature to predict an outcome in the 2012 election.

 

[boedicca]

Indeed. The election is 14 months away, so things can change dramatically. Here are a few of the big differences, however, between 2008 and 2012:

1. Obama is now a known entity with a real record of poor economic performance.
2. Bush is not a lame duck president, meaning no incumbent running.
3. The infamous 8% peak unemployment level if the Stimulus passed will haunt Obama.
4. The economy is not going to recover sufficiently over the next few months to reverse the current pessimism felt by the majority of Americans.
5. Obama will not face the inept McCain campaign.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Stop blaming games, you little jerk. I always show proof of what I say. Why don't you show me where I didn't and you DID. I'd hate to be hanging until you do. Little weasel.

I am asking you too show proof where I lied

Here's your question one more time

Don't you ever get tired of lying

You claim I lie now you need to produce something showing I lied. If you don't you just proved I was correct in saying you never produce facts just your opinion.

You're a pain in the ass. I stated that I deal in facts, not emotions. What kind of proof do you want that will show I do?? As if you would say, "Oh, yes. I see that you do deal in facts, not emotions".

You just want to say, "I asked you a question and you won't answer it". You're such a little punk.

When was the last time you cited your source for some of the outrageous statements you make??? Never, that I recall. Don't blame me.

bigrebnc asked you to prove he is a liar. Your responded by calling him a "pain in the ass" and "a little punk"....Then you have the gall to state you deal in facts.
The only fact here is you are adept at calling names and little else.

 

[NGSamson]

Indeed. The election is 14 months away, so things can change dramatically. Here are a few of the big differences, however, between 2008 and 2012:

1. Obama is now a known entity with a real record of poor economic performance.
2. Bush is not a lame duck president, meaning no incumbent running.
3. The infamous 8% peak unemployment level if the Stimulus passed will haunt Obama.
4. The economy is not going to recover sufficiently over the next few months to reverse the current pessimism felt by the majority of Americans.
5. Obama will not face the inept McCain campaign.

McCain was a door mat. This is not the case with Perry.

 

[Foxfyre]

Indeed. The election is 14 months away, so things can change dramatically. Here are a few of the big differences, however, between 2008 and 2012:

1. Obama is now a known entity with a real record of poor economic performance.
2. Bush is not a lame duck president, meaning no incumbent running.
3. The infamous 8% peak unemployment level if the Stimulus passed will haunt Obama.
4. The economy is not going to recover sufficiently over the next few months to reverse the current pessimism felt by the majority of Americans.
5. Obama will not face the inept McCain campaign.

1. But Obama still has a fairly strong base who can find enough 'villains' to blame so that they can continue to believe that he is the Annointed One, the One we have been waiting for, the shining Hope and Change agent for the world. I honestly believe that if Obama was shown to be a bigamist, ax murderer, and international terrorist, this group would find a way to excuse and defend him. Then there is a sizable group who didn't vote for Obama the first time and sure as hell won't vote for him in the next election. That leaves a middle core of 'undecideds' who may be unhappy with Obama now but who have traditionally been pretty fickle in which way they ultimately go.

Bush did not have much of a die hard base in the months leading up to the 2008 election.

2. The passage of time has not blunted the President's assertion that he inherited this mess. Even as the the years pass, he continues to blame the previous administration and the 'obstructionist' Republicans now. And many who hated Bush and dislike Republicans are more than willing to shove intellectual honesty aside and dutifully parrot those talking points.

3. If Obama is sufficiently successful to spend billions/trillions more to bring down the unemployment rate down, however temporary, just before election day, the media will make that look really significant.

4. When you've got almost nowhere to go but up, almost any improvement will look wonderful. At least Obama and his loyal media will do their damndest to make it look wonderful.

5. Since we don't have a front runner in the GOP yet, no telling what kind of campaigner we are likely to get. Romney blew it big time in 2008. Would he make the same mistakes again? Perry has never lost an election, so he probably does know how to put together and manage a great campaign. Most of the others are unknowns, but GOP candidates too often suck at campaigning at a national level so I have my fingers crossed.

 

[Rinata]

I am asking you too show proof where I lied

Here's your question one more time



You claim I lie now you need to produce something showing I lied. If you don't you just proved I was correct in saying you never produce facts just your opinion.

You're a pain in the ass. I stated that I deal in facts, not emotions. What kind of proof do you want that will show I do?? As if you would say, "Oh, yes. I see that you do deal in facts, not emotions".

You just want to say, "I asked you a question and you won't answer it". You're such a little punk.

When was the last time you cited your source for some of the outrageous statements you make??? Never, that I recall. Don't blame me.

bigrebnc asked you to prove he is a liar. Your responded by calling him a "pain in the ass" and "a little punk"....Then you have the gall to state you deal in facts.
The only fact here is you are adept at calling names and little else.

I don't think you followed our little saga from the beginning. If I were him, I would find posts I did that provided some insight and were informative. Did you see him do that?? Hell, no!!! Because he can't. I stand by everything I said.

 

[saveliberty]

He doesn't have to Rinata. Most of us are here enough to know your MO.

 

[Rinata]

He doesn't have to Rinata. Most of us are here enough to know your MO.

Really?? Cool!!! I had no idea I was so popular!!!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're a pain in the ass. I stated that I deal in facts, not emotions. What kind of proof do you want that will show I do?? As if you would say, "Oh, yes. I see that you do deal in facts, not emotions".

You just want to say, "I asked you a question and you won't answer it". You're such a little punk.

When was the last time you cited your source for some of the outrageous statements you make??? Never, that I recall. Don't blame me.

bigrebnc asked you to prove he is a liar. Your responded by calling him a "pain in the ass" and "a little punk"....Then you have the gall to state you deal in facts.
The only fact here is you are adept at calling names and little else.

I don't think you followed our little saga from the beginning. If I were him, I would find posts I did that provided some insight and were informative. Did you see him do that?? Hell, no!!! Because he can't. I stand by everything I said.

Hedre's a post of your's with nothing but your emotion and no proof

You're a pain in the ass. I stated that I deal in facts, not emotions. What kind of proof do you want that will show I do?? As if you would say, "Oh, yes. I see that you do deal in facts, not emotions".

You just want to say, "I asked you a question and you won't answer it". You're such a little punk.

When was the last time you cited your source for some of the outrageous statements you make??? Never, that I recall. Don't blame me.

bigrebnc asked you to prove he is a liar. Your responded by calling him a "pain in the ass" and "a little punk"....Then you have the gall to state you deal in facts.
The only fact here is you are adept at calling names and little else.

I don't think you followed our little saga from the beginning. If I were him, I would find posts I did that provided some insight and were informative. Did you see him do that?? Hell, no!!! Because he can't. I stand by everything I said.

Still waiting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're a pain in the ass. I stated that I deal in facts, not emotions. What kind of proof do you want that will show I do?? As if you would say, "Oh, yes. I see that you do deal in facts, not emotions".

You just want to say, "I asked you a question and you won't answer it". You're such a little punk.

When was the last time you cited your source for some of the outrageous statements you make??? Never, that I recall. Don't blame me.

bigrebnc asked you to prove he is a liar. Your responded by calling him a "pain in the ass" and "a little punk"....Then you have the gall to state you deal in facts.
The only fact here is you are adept at calling names and little else.

I don't think you followed our little saga from the beginning. If I were him, I would find posts I did that provided some insight and were informative. Did you see him do that?? Hell, no!!! Because he can't. I stand by everything I said.

I am asking you too show proof where I lied

Here's your question one more time



You claim I lie now you need to produce something showing I lied. If you don't you just proved I was correct in saying you never produce facts just your opinion.

You're a pain in the ass. I stated that I deal in facts, not emotions. What kind of proof do you want that will show I do?? As if you would say, "Oh, yes. I see that you do deal in facts, not emotions".

You just want to say, "I asked you a question and you won't answer it". You're such a little punk.

When was the last time you cited your source for some of the outrageous statements you make??? Never, that I recall. Don't blame me.

bigrebnc asked you to prove he is a liar. Your responded by calling him a "pain in the ass" and "a little punk"....Then you have the gall to state you deal in facts.
The only fact here is you are adept at calling names and little else.

She is being truthful about one thing I am a pain in the ass to most liberals like her. And the reason I am is because I tell them the truth and it hurts.

 

[Stephanie]

I wasnt here, just wondering how many threads like this existed when Bush was president

I can't remember many. But if you wanted to SEE HATE, then the left on this board didn't let you down when it came to Bush. It could of burned your computer up..That's why I get a kick when I see these types of threads and the WHINING how people here don't criticize, they supposedly HATE the Obama. Most here now and especially the OBAMABOTS weren't here during the Bush administration

 

[saveliberty]

He doesn't have to Rinata. Most of us are here enough to know your MO.

Really?? Cool!!! I had no idea I was so popular!!!

If you equate popularity to comedicly ignorant posts, yes your nearing the popularity of truthmatters.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He doesn't have to Rinata. Most of us are here enough to know your MO.

Really?? Cool!!! I had no idea I was so popular!!!

If you equate popularity to comedicly ignorant posts, yes your nearing the popularity of truthmatters.

I think she passes truth matters

 

[Stephanie]

Really?? Cool!!! I had no idea I was so popular!!!

If you equate popularity to comedicly ignorant posts, yes your nearing the popularity of truthmatters.

I think she passes truth matters

She does for sniveling and tantrums..
She can also be a stalker..watch out..

 

[The T]

If you equate popularity to comedicly ignorant posts, yes your nearing the popularity of truthmatters.

I think she passes truth matters

She does for sniveling and tantrums..
She can also be a stalker..watch out..

Means she has no life?

 

[Stephanie]

I think she passes truth matters

She does for sniveling and tantrums..
She can also be a stalker..watch out..

Means she has no life?

Just some kind of obsession I think.