The T
George S. Patton Party
T the house idiot?
Maybe because he/she is unaware that Reagan claimed to represent FDR values?
gawd, what a fool
*FUCK OFF*
Get it?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
T the house idiot?
Maybe because he/she is unaware that Reagan claimed to represent FDR values?
gawd, what a fool
President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama III will be reelected in 2012
The fastest horse.
Liberal Jews already have warned him about his pro-Palestinian stances.
After his speech today he took another step towards his defeat in 2012.
No, he did not change his name to Barack. That was his given name. His birth certificate reads, Barack Hussien Obama II. His father was Barrack Hussien Obama. According to the biography of his mother "A Singular Woman", he was given the nickname Barry at a young age. According to his older sister, he came home from college and announced he was going to use his given name Barack after a friend started calling him that and it caught on. I don't know where you got the III.How did Barry become Barak III? His grandfather was apparently some revolutionary African named Hussein Oingoboingo Obama so that name doesn't make "1. I think Barry changed his name to Barak so he wasn't even named after his father.
Which presidents are those exactly? With all due respect, how does one quantify exactly which of the aforementioned factors resulted in exactly how many votes? How are the motives of the electorate to be ascertained? The above statement simply cannot be proven true. The most logical assertion is actually the opposite of the above statement: generally speaking, presidents are re-elected because the individual and/or his policies are popular with the electorate. Consider the list, below, of those presidents who were re-elected in competitive elections* (with their opponents listed in parenthesis):Like so many presidents that are reelected not because of their popularity, their policies, or their successes but because the opponent doesn't have the experience and can't convince voters he or she could do better.
Flopper,I can't imagine a harder job than being president. I think most voters agree and tend to trust the guy in office because he has the experience in doing a very difficult job. As my grand dad always said about voting, at least we know what we got with the guy in office. Who knows what the next guy will do to us.
We may vote for a candidate because of their stand on the issues during their campaign. But once elected things change. Look at Bush and Obama. Soon after they took office events they had no control over totally changed their agenda.
I believe he's a Jr.President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama III will be reelected in 2012
The fastest horse.
I am a die-hard supporter of Israel. I listened to Obama's speech. I heard nothing of what you allude to.
Must suck being you...deaf dumb and full of wingnut bat shit
You don't think stiring up the muslims world into chaos and then stabbing Israel in the back is going to be bad news for Israel?
Stirring up the Muslim world? We're talking about the Palestinians and Israelis.
the stated position of the USA (Mitchell in the Peace talks) has been to propose the 1967 borders. Obama stated nothing new today on that point.
Wake up. Peace will entail both sides giving up something. Israel gave Egypt land for peace.
Looks like republicans will walk away in 2012 with their tea bags between their legs.Palin,Newt,Paul,Ricky or whatever clown,hypocrite or reality star runs,the neocons have no chance.
Sticking up for oil companys,corporate welfare and protecting the rich,killing medicare and lack of ability to fight the war on terror correctly and the ability to wage war against women all adds up another 4 years...unless Trump finds out Hawaii is not a part of the United States.
Looks like republicans will walk away in 2012 with their tea bags between their legs.Palin,Newt,Paul,Ricky or whatever clown,hypocrite or reality star runs,the neocons have no chance.
Sticking up for oil companys,corporate welfare and protecting the rich,killing medicare and lack of ability to fight the war on terror correctly and the ability to wage war against women all adds up another 4 years...unless Trump finds out Hawaii is not a part of the United States.
Let's work with your gross mischaracterizations as a starting point here. How is Obama the one who'll win in a landslide when Obama won't stick up for any company unless the federal government owns it? How when Obama's concept of welfare is to pay people to not look for a job rather than pay companies to create jobs? How when Obama's economic policies damage all Americans, not just the rich? How, when continuing Medicare as is will bankrupt the nation and ultimately result in a complete cessation of the program when working taxpayers have had enough of supporting people who don't pay for their own healthcare? How, when the extent to which Obama has fought the War on Terror correctly (a war he's stated does not exist) has been the same extent to which he's followed the policies of a Republican administration? How are Republicans "waging war" on women when Obama believes women should be killed at their mother's discretion so long as they remain in the womb and that underage women should receive medical advice, procedures and risk seriously endangering their mental, physical and emotional health without the guidance or consent of their parents? America may see a landslide in 2012, but it won't be the one you're predicting.Looks like republicans will walk away in 2012 with their tea bags between their legs.Palin,Newt,Paul,Ricky or whatever clown,hypocrite or reality star runs,the neocons have no chance.
Sticking up for oil companys,corporate welfare and protecting the rich,killing medicare and lack of ability to fight the war on terror correctly and the ability to wage war against women all adds up another 4 years...unless Trump finds out Hawaii is not a part of the United States.
I have no quantitative proof of what I said and don't know how you could find such proof. I was stating my opinion and should have said so. However, I do feel a number of presidents are reelected, not because of the their successes and popularity but rather because voters often prefer the known to the unknown, sometimes feeling they're choosing the lesser of two evils.Flopper,I can't imagine a harder job than being president. I think most voters agree and tend to trust the guy in office because he has the experience in doing a very difficult job. As my grand dad always said about voting, at least we know what we got with the guy in office. Who knows what the next guy will do to us.
We may vote for a candidate because of their stand on the issues during their campaign. But once elected things change. Look at Bush and Obama. Soon after they took office events they had no control over totally changed their agenda.
Please let me begin by stating that I enjoy your posts and this is in no way is an attempt to pick on you or single you out. It's merely inquiring about some of the points you've made in this thread. That said, your father seems to have been a subscriber to the theory that "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't." That's a valid point though my own position, as a voter, has always been to lean the other way and believe there's always someone else who can do the job as well if not better. ("When in doubt, vote 'em out.") I agree that the President of the United States carries an extremely demanding job requirement - look how much our presidents age while in office.
Could you elaborate somewhat on your second paragraph? While events are unpredictable and uncontrollable for any one man, no matter how powerful he and the nation he serves is, that does not mean his own actions - and the actions (policies) of his administration are beyond his control. Neither of the last two presidents "totally changed their agenda" in the least. Both, in fact, sought to fulfill campaign promises (though it appears Obama has broken considerably more than his predecessor, for good or ill.) Bush ran for president knowing he would inherit the Clinton recession; Obama in turn did the same knowing he would inherit a deeply wounded economy. Obama had the advantage over Bush of inheriting an offensive War on Terror; Bush and the nation were stunned by 9/11. Both men presided over substantial ecological disasters on their watch. Neither has wavered much from the core principles and goals of their respective administrations. To the extent that presidents must do some things to appease the electorate or to grease the wheels of Congress that they might choose to do differently if they were autocrats is a quite different thing than what you seem to be suggesting Surely you don't believe presidents are victims of circumstance, helplessly shaped by events rather than exercising the kind of leadership that shapes events themselves?
Liberal Jews already have warned him about his pro-Palestinian stances.
After his speech today he took another step towards his defeat in 2012.
I am a die-hard supporter of Israel. I listened to Obama's speech. I heard nothing of what you allude to.
Must suck being you...deaf dumb and full of wingnut bat shit
You don't think stiring up the muslims world into chaos and then stabbing Israel in the back is going to be bad news for Israel?
Moderator Edit: This quote was restored after you edited it in your post. Please refer to the rules on altering quotes. Short version: It is not allowed and can result in infraction points issued, or a outright ban. Thx.Obama did nothing more than state the painful truth. He is attempting nothing more than to get the negotiations back to an even table. The election of Netanyahu damned any peace efforts for decades.