Voters say Obama is extreme, lacks plan for future

[Mac1958]

.

Contemporary American political dictionary:

Extreme

ex-treme {ek-streem} adj

1. Dares to disagree with me.


.

 

[logical4u]

Voters say Obama is extreme, lacks plan for future...

...but at least he's not Romney!

How many times do I here this from libs: "I don't like him"
"Why"
"I don't know, I just don't"
So you will vote for a know criminal/liar/fraud/thief over someone you just don't like?
"Yes"

months later, same person: "I don't know why the country is such bad shape. I don't know why corruption is rampant."
DUH!

 

[Old Rocks]

Voters say Obama is extreme, lacks plan for future...

...but at least he's not Romney!

How many times do I here this from libs: "I don't like him"
"Why"
"I don't know, I just don't"
So you will vote for a know criminal/liar/fraud/thief over someone you just don't like?
"Yes"

months later, same person: "I don't know why the country is such bad shape. I don't know why corruption is rampant."
DUH!

The nation is in recovery from 8 years of the GOP idiocy. Compared to where we were the last time you fellows had the power, things are looking up. We are not losing 750,000 jobs a month, and the nation is not facing an economic collapse. As for your other unproven accusations, typical wingnut hyperbole.

 

[logical4u]

I think your sources are reaching. Extreme is not a word most people would use for Obama at all, ignoring the goofballs who would say anything about obama. If you want to complain about obama in a way that might reach people outside of republicanland a better criticism would be that he is too moderate and has allowed republicans to undermine a lot of what he wanted to do.

About the only place I now Obama has been extremely different is in his recent agreement that gay rights are important. The only thing that is extreme about it is no president has done it before, but it falls in the general view of the country.

Perhaps you could tell us some of obama's extreme viewpoints.

I don't think he is extreme. I think he is Bernie Madoff on steroids. If someone is telling you they can make something happen that is too good to be true .....

 

[RDD_1210]

Voters say Obama is extreme, lacks plan for future...

...but at least he's not Romney!

How many times do I here this from libs: "I don't like him"
"Why"
"I don't know, I just don't"
So you will vote for a know criminal/liar/fraud/thief over someone you just don't like?
"Yes"

months later, same person: "I don't know why the country is such bad shape. I don't know why corruption is rampant."
DUH!

You've heard that 0 times.

You know how I know...you'll NEVER link to a single instance where you have heard this.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I would not call him an extremist. His views are typical liberal views.
Where he IS different is how he views himself. He is a clear narcissist.
And in his self-centering world, he honestly believes that his views are superior to generally everyone else - and therefore he is not susceptible to general rules like for instance the governments checks and balances system. He believes he has both a moral and intellectual high ground that supersedes the normal course of things.
The last President who was a narcissist was Nixon. Who very much believed that he had every right to circumvent rules and regulations that, because of his superiority, should not have to follow...but did not respect the authority of others. Sound familiar?

 

[logical4u]

...but at least he's not Romney!

How many times do I here this from libs: "I don't like him"
"Why"
"I don't know, I just don't"
So you will vote for a know criminal/liar/fraud/thief over someone you just don't like?
"Yes"

months later, same person: "I don't know why the country is such bad shape. I don't know why corruption is rampant."
DUH!

You've heard that 0 times.

You know how I know...you'll NEVER link to a single instance where you have heard this.

Personal conversations have no links.
And I cannot tell you how many times that I have heard this from libs that vote for corruption again, and again, and again. One woman told me that she wanted a politician that could look her in the eye and lie about what the USA was doing overseas, so she did not have to deal with it (she was voting for Clinton).

You tell me my conversations do not exist. Yet when I ask you libs to demonstrate where communism/liberalism/socialism/islam actually works, I get pie in the sky answers.

So please, once again, I will ask, just when has "re-distributing" wealth worked as a way to sustain a nation? We are going on 70 years of this philosophy, and we still have: poor, problems with education, a shrinking middle class. Trillions and trillions of dollars have been spent on these "socialist" programs, and the only thing that has changed is the amount of money has increased exponentially for these programs. It is not working. It is bankrupting the nation. It is corrupting the political system (who controls the money/who gets the benefits: friends and relatives).

But by all means, vote for the fraud in the white house, again, it seems that libs luv corruption, and can not get enough.

 

[konradv]

I would not call him an extremist. His views are typical liberal views.
Where he IS different is how he views himself. He is a clear narcissist.
And in his self-centering world, he honestly believes that his views are superior to generally everyone else - and therefore he is not susceptible to general rules like for instance the governments checks and balances system. He believes he has both a moral and intellectual high ground that supersedes the normal course of things.
The last President who was a narcissist was Nixon. Who very much believed that he had every right to circumvent rules and regulations that, because of his superiority, should not have to follow...but did not respect the authority of others. Sound familiar?

To run for president in the first place you have to have a healthy dose of narcissism. I don't see him as any more so than say..., "The Decider".

 

[SniperFire]

links in article at site
people are Waking up

SNIP:


July 5, 2012
1 Comment

Extreme? That's what likely voters say of President Obama's views, according to a new poll.




Paul Bedard

Washington Secrets
The Washington Examiner
E@SecretsBedard


In the broadening fight for voters in the political middle road, a fast-growing number of Americans consider President Obama's views as extreme, especially men, Christians and older voters, according to a new Rasmussen Reports poll. A majority view Mitt Romney as mainstream.
47% Consider Obama

Those who view Obama as an extremist has surged seven points since May, a potentially troubling political turn as both he and Romney begin reaching out to independent voters. For his part, only 31 percent of likely voters polled June 29-30 saw Romney as extreme, virtually unchanged from a month ago, said Rasmussen.

For two months, those who view Obama as extreme has increased, reaching 47 percent in the latest poll. Just 43 percent consider the president in the mainstream.

Likely impacting the poll was the recent Supreme Court decision endorsing Obamacare and the associated debate over taxes as well as the president's backing of gay marriage and decision to stop deporting the children of illegal immigrants.

the rest here
Voters say Obama is extreme, lacks plan for future | WashingtonExaminer.com

Odd this is almost the same result as a Rasmussen Poll in 2010

48% Say Obama

And we saw how that shellacking turned out.

 

[RDD_1210]

How many times do I here this from libs: "I don't like him"
"Why"
"I don't know, I just don't"
So you will vote for a know criminal/liar/fraud/thief over someone you just don't like?
"Yes"

months later, same person: "I don't know why the country is such bad shape. I don't know why corruption is rampant."
DUH!

You've heard that 0 times.

You know how I know...you'll NEVER link to a single instance where you have heard this.

Personal conversations have no links.
And I cannot tell you how many times that I have heard this from libs that vote for corruption again, and again, and again. One woman told me that she wanted a politician that could look her in the eye and lie about what the USA was doing overseas, so she did not have to deal with it (she was voting for Clinton).

Like I said, you have no proof. Oh, you've had conversations. Got it, lol.

You tell me my conversations do not exist. Yet when I ask you libs to demonstrate where communism/liberalism/socialism/islam actually works, I get pie in the sky answers.

Why would I care to defend any of those? None of that has to do with our country. That's just the ridiculous position that you've created that doesn't actually exist.

I can do that too.....

Try and defend how Nazism and rape are good ideas and what a country should be based on. You cons are all the same, you can never defend what you believe in.

So please, once again, I will ask, just when has "re-distributing" wealth worked as a way to sustain a nation? We are going on 70 years of this philosophy, and we still have: poor, problems with education, a shrinking middle class. Trillions and trillions of dollars have been spent on these "socialist" programs, and the only thing that has changed is the amount of money has increased exponentially for these programs. It is not working. It is bankrupting the nation. It is corrupting the political system (who controls the money/who gets the benefits: friends and relatives).

But by all means, vote for the fraud in the white house, again, it seems that libs luv corruption, and can not get enough.

You're right, redistribution of wealth is a bad idea. Hence why we need to stop coddling the richest in our society and ensuring that they get richer while the middle class becomes poorer.

 

[MuadDib]

The only thing extreme about Obama's policies is the extreme lengths republicans will go to destroy them.

 

[logical4u]

You've heard that 0 times.

You know how I know...you'll NEVER link to a single instance where you have heard this.

Personal conversations have no links.
And I cannot tell you how many times that I have heard this from libs that vote for corruption again, and again, and again. One woman told me that she wanted a politician that could look her in the eye and lie about what the USA was doing overseas, so she did not have to deal with it (she was voting for Clinton).

Like I said, you have no proof. Oh, you've had conversations. Got it, lol.

You tell me my conversations do not exist. Yet when I ask you libs to demonstrate where communism/liberalism/socialism/islam actually works, I get pie in the sky answers.

Why would I care to defend any of those? None of that has to do with our country. That's just the ridiculous position that you've created that doesn't actually exist.

I can do that too.....

Try and defend how Nazism and rape are good ideas and what a country should be based on. You cons are all the same, you can never defend what you believe in.

So please, once again, I will ask, just when has "re-distributing" wealth worked as a way to sustain a nation? We are going on 70 years of this philosophy, and we still have: poor, problems with education, a shrinking middle class. Trillions and trillions of dollars have been spent on these "socialist" programs, and the only thing that has changed is the amount of money has increased exponentially for these programs. It is not working. It is bankrupting the nation. It is corrupting the political system (who controls the money/who gets the benefits: friends and relatives).

But by all means, vote for the fraud in the white house, again, it seems that libs luv corruption, and can not get enough.

You're right, redistribution of wealth is a bad idea. Hence why we need to stop coddling the richest in our society and ensuring that they get richer while the middle class becomes poorer.

My mistake, I thought you could read, comprehend, and actually think.

 

[RDD_1210]

Personal conversations have no links.
And I cannot tell you how many times that I have heard this from libs that vote for corruption again, and again, and again. One woman told me that she wanted a politician that could look her in the eye and lie about what the USA was doing overseas, so she did not have to deal with it (she was voting for Clinton).

Like I said, you have no proof. Oh, you've had conversations. Got it, lol.



Why would I care to defend any of those? None of that has to do with our country. That's just the ridiculous position that you've created that doesn't actually exist.

I can do that too.....

Try and defend how Nazism and rape are good ideas and what a country should be based on. You cons are all the same, you can never defend what you believe in.

So please, once again, I will ask, just when has "re-distributing" wealth worked as a way to sustain a nation? We are going on 70 years of this philosophy, and we still have: poor, problems with education, a shrinking middle class. Trillions and trillions of dollars have been spent on these "socialist" programs, and the only thing that has changed is the amount of money has increased exponentially for these programs. It is not working. It is bankrupting the nation. It is corrupting the political system (who controls the money/who gets the benefits: friends and relatives).

But by all means, vote for the fraud in the white house, again, it seems that libs luv corruption, and can not get enough.

You're right, redistribution of wealth is a bad idea. Hence why we need to stop coddling the richest in our society and ensuring that they get richer while the middle class becomes poorer.

My mistake, I thought you could read, comprehend, and actually think.

Solid response. No, really it was.