Do you notice the strategy from the "volunteer" Obama supporters

[KevinWestern]

Again, you are NOT stating fact, just your misinformed opinion.

I've already proved you are dead wrong, so why continue?

You know why you do? Because that's what libs do. When their arguments are blown away by the facts, they just double down and keep on blathering the same thing, as if their arguments haven't been defeated.

No matter how you try to claim you don't mind tax cuts, IT'S OBVIOUS YOU DO, and your points about that are WRONG and have already been PROVED WRONG.

NEXT!

"Next"? What a cop-out response! How about instead, you put your money where your mouth is and please explain why these two statements are not factual:

1.) Democrats taking control of the Senate in 2007 was not the reason our country went into recession (*note: housing bubble burst in 2006). The recession was decades in the making.

2.) The Bush tax cuts were ill timed because they were enacted directly prior to two very costly wars, and directly before a major economic downturn (one that would cost the gov’t a lot of money due to dishing out “safety net” dollars).

So you're saying these arguments have been "blown away by facts"? I’d like a full explanation. If you're going to insult someone, at least give them the courtesy of explaining why you're insulting them, and directly refuting their points instead of given a blanket & cowardly "You're Wrong Lib".
.
.
.

 

[rightwinger]

So I'm also waiting for the Obama campaign ads that support his accomplishments during his three and 1/2 years as POTUS. 2 of which included a Democrat house and senate. Could someone please post a link or video of that ad??

They produced a 20 minute video showing Obamas accomplishments. Narrated by Tom Hanks. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube

You mean this one? [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aR1ekUSfyU]Barack Obama, The Road We Really Traveled - YouTube[/ame]

The popups in the video come from legit sources and prove every thing in the video is a complete lie!

LOL

Such simplistic propaganda from the right. But then again, you have to consider the audience they appeal to

 

[Neotrotsky]

Papa Obama supports will only get worse
if anything major happens to hurt his reelection chances
even more

 

[bripat9643]

They produced a 20 minute video showing Obamas accomplishments. Narrated by Tom Hanks. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube

Yeah, I'm still laughing!

 

[Clementine]

It's hit Mitt. He's weird, he's going to bring us back to Reagan (HURRAH!), BLAH BLAH BLAH.

NOTICE what they aren't doing and CAN'T DO?

They can't give us reasons to vote for Obama.

When all one side has is desperate attacks, flinging mud desperately, hoping something will stick, and they can't give you any positives for their guy, you see a side that knows they are probably going to lose.

All we need now is Obama to give a malaise speech!

I noticed. I'm not hearing about how things have changed for the better because Obama has had three years in office. We're hearing it's not enough time even though he promised it would be for certain things. He re-defined "jump start" when he claimed the stimulus would jump start the economy. Before, jump start indicated something that would happen quick.

His latest is attacking Romney by claiming that he would not have given the okay to go after bin Laden. We've been at that for years now and I don't believe for a second that Romney would have hesitated, like Obama did. According to some reports, Obama took an abnormally long time to decide whether the SEALS should proceed. He was plucked from the golf course when things started to happen and we see him in his golf shirt in the staged photo op.

Romney stated that getting bin Laden does not mean the war on terror is over. By indicating that killing Osama bin Laden wasn't the ultimate mission, Obama took that to mean that maybe Romney wouldn't have gone after him. Insane. What doesn't make sense is pretending that bin Laden was the sole source of terror attacks and that we can declare victory in the war on terror. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and a host of other radicals still remain and are getting stronger by the day, partly thanks to Obama's decision to treat the MB as a legitimate government and to send a gross amount of money their way.

While Obama and Holder condemn Sheriff Joe for not cooperating with their bullshit investigation ( retaliation for Sheriff Joe's cold case posse discovering Obama's birth certificate is indeed a manufactured copy), Holder and Obama continue to avoid any cooperation with Fast and Furious, the Solyndra scandal and Obama has refused to have the good old fashioned press conferences where the tough questions can be asked.

Obama has insulted the Supreme Court on several occassions and seems defiant when it comes to making legislation that goes agains the constitution.

Sorry for the rant, but when a person tries to defend this guy, what have they got other than feeble attempts at attacking the opposition? They can't defend billions of tax dollars disappearing into thin air when these green companies went bankrupt months after being given this money. They can't defend selling guns to drug cartels who killed our own agents. So, they opt to pick on Mitt for wanting to take the family dog with them and letting the dog ride on top of the car, which the dog probably liked.

It's pretty sad when nothing but attacks come in lieu of explanations for the many scandals surrounding the administration. Obama cannot run on his record, but Mitt will. I think that why Obama is on the defensive. It could get ugly if Mitt chooses to focus on the bad economy, record foreclosures, high unemployment, bankrupt green energy companies (one of which named the California Democrats as their creditor), murdered border agents and unkept campaign promises from last time.

Mitt isn't the perfect candidate, as far as I'm concerned, but to me, he is the lesser of two evils.

 

[J.E.D]

It's hit Mitt. He's weird, he's going to bring us back to Reagan (HURRAH!), BLAH BLAH BLAH.

NOTICE what they aren't doing and CAN'T DO?

They can't give us reasons to vote for Obama.

When all one side has is desperate attacks, flinging mud desperately, hoping something will stick, and they can't give you any positives for their guy, you see a side that knows they are probably going to lose.

All we need now is Obama to give a malaise speech!

Meanwhile, Mitt his busy trying pretend he didn't say a bunch of whacky shit to appease the far-right base, attack Obama for things that Mitt himself has done, and take credit for things that Obama has done -- like saving GM. Yeah, politics, it's a crazy game.

 

[rightwinger]

They produced a 20 minute video showing Obamas accomplishments. Narrated by Tom Hanks. I'm sure you can find it on YouTube

Yeah, I'm still laughing!

And I'll still be laughing when Obama starts his second term

 

[KevinWestern]

It's hit Mitt. He's weird, he's going to bring us back to Reagan (HURRAH!), BLAH BLAH BLAH.

NOTICE what they aren't doing and CAN'T DO?

They can't give us reasons to vote for Obama.

When all one side has is desperate attacks, flinging mud desperately, hoping something will stick, and they can't give you any positives for their guy, you see a side that knows they are probably going to lose.

All we need now is Obama to give a malaise speech!

I noticed. I'm not hearing about how things have changed for the better because Obama has had three years in office. We're hearing it's not enough time even though he promised it would be for certain things. He re-defined "jump start" when he claimed the stimulus would jump start the economy. Before, jump start indicated something that would happen quick.

His latest is attacking Romney by claiming that he would not have given the okay to go after bin Laden. We've been at that for years now and I don't believe for a second that Romney would have hesitated, like Obama did. According to some reports, Obama took an abnormally long time to decide whether the SEALS should proceed. He was plucked from the golf course when things started to happen and we see him in his golf shirt in the staged photo op.

Romney stated that getting bin Laden does not mean the war on terror is over. By indicating that killing Osama bin Laden wasn't the ultimate mission, Obama took that to mean that maybe Romney wouldn't have gone after him. Insane. What doesn't make sense is pretending that bin Laden was the sole source of terror attacks and that we can declare victory in the war on terror. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and a host of other radicals still remain and are getting stronger by the day, partly thanks to Obama's decision to treat the MB as a legitimate government and to send a gross amount of money their way.

While Obama and Holder condemn Sheriff Joe for not cooperating with their bullshit investigation ( retaliation for Sheriff Joe's cold case posse discovering Obama's birth certificate is indeed a manufactured copy), Holder and Obama continue to avoid any cooperation with Fast and Furious, the Solyndra scandal and Obama has refused to have the good old fashioned press conferences where the tough questions can be asked.

Obama has insulted the Supreme Court on several occassions and seems defiant when it comes to making legislation that goes agains the constitution.

Sorry for the rant, but when a person tries to defend this guy, what have they got other than feeble attempts at attacking the opposition? They can't defend billions of tax dollars disappearing into thin air when these green companies went bankrupt months after being given this money. They can't defend selling guns to drug cartels who killed our own agents. So, they opt to pick on Mitt for wanting to take the family dog with them and letting the dog ride on top of the car, which the dog probably liked.

It's pretty sad when nothing but attacks come in lieu of explanations for the many scandals surrounding the administration. Obama cannot run on his record, but Mitt will. I think that why Obama is on the defensive. It could get ugly if Mitt chooses to focus on the bad economy, record foreclosures, high unemployment, bankrupt green energy companies (one of which named the California Democrats as their creditor), murdered border agents and unkept campaign promises from last time.

Mitt isn't the perfect candidate, as far as I'm concerned, but to me, he is the lesser of two evils.

Why in a country with about 350,000,000 people are we "settling" for the lesser of two evils when it comes to picking our President?

You'd think our pool would be big enough to at least generate 2 half-decent guys (or gals) that people can be moderately excited about.

But no, instead we're "settling" for whatever we can get, like we're down to the last two kids in the schoolyard to pick for your kickball team.

Man, are we all a bunch of morons or what?

 

[rdean]

Would you rather have millions of people giving small donations, like the Democrats do?

Or a few billionaires giving huge donations like the Republicans do?

I would rather have the government dedicated to helping the largest number of Americans, not the Americans with the largest bank account, like the Republicans want.

No billionaires give to Obama?

Big-money donors find their way to Obama’s reelection campaign - The Washington Post

Such a huge fail rdean!

No thank you. Another idiot moron who refuses to read their own damn link.

From your link: The president has so far collected fewer big donors than Romney, instead putting the emphasis on small-dollar contributors.

What is it with you guys anyway? Do you understand how foolish you look when you post a link you think backs you up simply because of the title? Do you know what "bundled" money is? It's when a lot of small donations are "bundled" together and then presented as a single donation.

You learn the kind of stuff from school. You know. That place with books and teachers? The place where "snobs" go?

 

[rdean]

It's hit Mitt. He's weird, he's going to bring us back to Reagan (HURRAH!), BLAH BLAH BLAH.

NOTICE what they aren't doing and CAN'T DO?

They can't give us reasons to vote for Obama.

When all one side has is desperate attacks, flinging mud desperately, hoping something will stick, and they can't give you any positives for their guy, you see a side that knows they are probably going to lose.

All we need now is Obama to give a malaise speech!

I noticed. I'm not hearing about how things have changed for the better because Obama has had three years in office. We're hearing it's not enough time even though he promised it would be for certain things. He re-defined "jump start" when he claimed the stimulus would jump start the economy. Before, jump start indicated something that would happen quick.

His latest is attacking Romney by claiming that he would not have given the okay to go after bin Laden. We've been at that for years now and I don't believe for a second that Romney would have hesitated, like Obama did. According to some reports, Obama took an abnormally long time to decide whether the SEALS should proceed. He was plucked from the golf course when things started to happen and we see him in his golf shirt in the staged photo op.

Romney stated that getting bin Laden does not mean the war on terror is over. By indicating that killing Osama bin Laden wasn't the ultimate mission, Obama took that to mean that maybe Romney wouldn't have gone after him. Insane. What doesn't make sense is pretending that bin Laden was the sole source of terror attacks and that we can declare victory in the war on terror. Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and a host of other radicals still remain and are getting stronger by the day, partly thanks to Obama's decision to treat the MB as a legitimate government and to send a gross amount of money their way.

While Obama and Holder condemn Sheriff Joe for not cooperating with their bullshit investigation ( retaliation for Sheriff Joe's cold case posse discovering Obama's birth certificate is indeed a manufactured copy), Holder and Obama continue to avoid any cooperation with Fast and Furious, the Solyndra scandal and Obama has refused to have the good old fashioned press conferences where the tough questions can be asked.

Obama has insulted the Supreme Court on several occassions and seems defiant when it comes to making legislation that goes agains the constitution.

Sorry for the rant, but when a person tries to defend this guy, what have they got other than feeble attempts at attacking the opposition? They can't defend billions of tax dollars disappearing into thin air when these green companies went bankrupt months after being given this money. They can't defend selling guns to drug cartels who killed our own agents. So, they opt to pick on Mitt for wanting to take the family dog with them and letting the dog ride on top of the car, which the dog probably liked.

It's pretty sad when nothing but attacks come in lieu of explanations for the many scandals surrounding the administration. Obama cannot run on his record, but Mitt will. I think that why Obama is on the defensive. It could get ugly if Mitt chooses to focus on the bad economy, record foreclosures, high unemployment, bankrupt green energy companies (one of which named the California Democrats as their creditor), murdered border agents and unkept campaign promises from last time.

Mitt isn't the perfect candidate, as far as I'm concerned, but to me, he is the lesser of two evils.

Why in a country with about 350,000,000 people are we "settling" for the lesser of two evils when it comes to picking our President?

You'd think our pool would be big enough to at least generate 2 half-decent guys (or gals) that people can be moderately excited about.

But no, instead we're "settling" for whatever we can get, like we're down to the last two kids in the schoolyard to pick for your kickball team.

Man, are we all a bunch of morons or what?

Decent? Obama has been a great president. The Republicans have treacherous. How do we know? They've told us.