President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Behshad]

Once he was turned down, he went to Donald Trump

[The Sushi Hunter]

A married president who finger bangs and get his cock sucked by the same intern while in the Whitehouse and Obama with his drug use past. Fuck, the dems have some pretty outstanding role models.

The nut stain on the blue dress is the only reason Buttplug Clinton fessed up to what he did. Wonder when the crack pipe with Obama's prints on it is going to turn up.

[Behshad]

A married president who finger bangs and get his cock sucked by the same intern while in the Whitehouse and Obama with his drug use past. Fuck, the dems have some pretty outstanding role models.

The nut stain on the blue dress is the only reason Buttplug Clinton fessed up to what he did. Too bad the crack pipe with Obama's prints on it hasn't been found.....yet.

You poor bastard !

[The Sushi Hunter]

Not poor bastard me. I've not lost my moral values.

[Behshad]

Not poor bastard me. I've not lost my moral values.

You think someone smokin pot in their college years = losing moral values ?
What about all those happy endings you got at the massage parlors ?

[Behshad]

Poll: Decisive win for Obama in final debate
President Obama scored a clear two-to-one victory against Mitt Romney during the final presidential debate Monday night, according to a CBS News instant poll of uncommitted voters.
Immediately after it wrapped, 53 percent of the more than 500 voters polled gave the foreign policy-themed debate to Mr. Obama; 23 percent said Romney won, and 24 percent felt the debate was a tie. Uncommitted voters in similar polls gave the first debate to Romney by a large margin, but said Mr. Obama edged the GOP nominee in the second debate.

Both candidates enjoyed a bump regarding whom the voters trust to handle international crisis. Before the debate, 46 percent said they would trust Romney, and 58 percent said they would trust the president. Those numbers spiked to 49 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

Overwhelmingly, the same group of voters said President Obama would do a better job than Romney on terrorism and national security, 64 percent to 36 percent. But they were evenly split, 50-50, on which candidate would better handle China.

The "uncommitted voters" polled are voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who say they could still change their minds.
This CBS News poll was conducted online using GfK's web-enabled KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 521 uncommitted voters who have agreed to watch the debate. Uncommitted voters are those who don't yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds.

GfK's KnowledgePanel participants are initially chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection.

This is a scientifically representative poll of uncommitted voters' reaction to the presidential debate. The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 4percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Not poor bastard me. I've not lost my moral values.

You think someone smokin pot in their college years = losing moral values ?
What about all those happy endings you got at the massage parlors ?

Never been to a massage parlor. Matter of fact, I don't let anyone even just hug me except for my wife.

[Behshad]

Not poor bastard me. I've not lost my moral values.

You think someone smokin pot in their college years = losing moral values ?
What about all those happy endings you got at the massage parlors ?

Never been to a massage parlor. Matter of fact, I don't let anyone even just hug me except for my wife.

No comment !

[The Sushi Hunter]

Poll: Decisive win for Obama in final debate
President Obama scored a clear two-to-one victory against Mitt Romney during the final presidential debate Monday night, according to a CBS News instant poll of uncommitted voters.
Immediately after it wrapped, 53 percent of the more than 500 voters polled gave the foreign policy-themed debate to Mr. Obama; 23 percent said Romney won, and 24 percent felt the debate was a tie. Uncommitted voters in similar polls gave the first debate to Romney by a large margin, but said Mr. Obama edged the GOP nominee in the second debate.

Both candidates enjoyed a bump regarding whom the voters trust to handle international crisis. Before the debate, 46 percent said they would trust Romney, and 58 percent said they would trust the president. Those numbers spiked to 49 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

Overwhelmingly, the same group of voters said President Obama would do a better job than Romney on terrorism and national security, 64 percent to 36 percent. But they were evenly split, 50-50, on which candidate would better handle China.

The "uncommitted voters" polled are voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who say they could still change their minds.
This CBS News poll was conducted online using GfK's web-enabled KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 521 uncommitted voters who have agreed to watch the debate. Uncommitted voters are those who don't yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds.

GfK's KnowledgePanel participants are initially chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection.

This is a scientifically representative poll of uncommitted voters' reaction to the presidential debate. The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 4percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

The only flaw in Romney's performance last night in my opinion is about the number of US vessels and to me anyways, it seemed that Romney even seemed to acknowledge that he was incorrect about it when Obama responded. The fact is, we don’t need as many resources today as we did even just 25 years ago because of the boom in technology. Instead of having a fleet of vessels and aircraft patrolling the entire Western Pacific coast of California like we did have, they now have sophisticated satellite systems that can do that instead for a fraction of the cost and man hours. This is the primary reason why both NAS Alameda and NAS Moffett Field in the Bay Area have been shut down. Without those two bases, Treasure Island was no longer needed as well. We have new technology that requires much less resources to accomplish the same objective. In other areas of the world we have drones that now take the place of manned aircraft patrols which eliminates the need for greater numbers of aircraft carriers.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Not poor bastard me. I've not lost my moral values.

You think someone smokin pot in their college years = losing moral values ?
What about all those happy endings you got at the massage parlors ?

Never been to a massage parlor. Matter of fact, I don't let anyone even just hug me except for my wife.

No comment !

That's the primary common ground I share with my wife which just so happens to be Japanese.

[The Sushi Hunter]

UNINSTALLING OBAMA.....……………. █████████████▒▒▒ 90% complete.


approximately 14 days left for complete uninstall.

That's funny, but only if it happens in 14 days from now. Uninstalling BOzo is like trying to uninstall Norton, better off just shitcanning the entire hard drive and starting all over with a brand new fresh one.

[Memorex]

I've only heard three fact checks so far and all of them have Obama as false. I think ti was the bankruptcy for GM comments - Romney did say he would support government backing. Another was the status of forces agreement. Why Obama went there is beyond me. He's just absolutely wrong on that. I forget what the other one was. I'm sure there will be some Mitt falsehoods in there too.

.

So if Romney truly supported a government backed bankruptcy for GM , then he supports what Obama actually did. Yet saying Obama did the wrong thing !

Wanted the BK without all the stimulus money we lost. I can prop any company up with billions of dollars of borrowed money. That's no trick and the initial part was Bush.

I work in the Bankruptcy industry, so I know that they should have filed like everyone else and they would have come out of it just fine and saved us a lot of money.

If you work in the bankruptcy industry, you should know that it wouldnt have worked "like everyone else", without FUNDS. There were no funds. And Romney said clearly LAST NIGHT that he would support the BK , WITH GOVERNMENT BACKED FUNDS!

I have worked on the largest bankruptcies ever filed. I've worked on hundreds of Chapter 11's. Never once - not a single time - did any of them involve government funds. Believe me - there is money out there for this without having to get it from the government.

But let's say for instance that there was no other money. It still should have been up to a BK judge to determine what was done. Especially when public funds are involved.

How would Romney's GOVERNMENT BACKED FUNDS be any different than what Obama did ?


And if you had the money and were an investor, would you have taken the risk to let GM borrow the money from you ?
And most of those companies that you said you worked with and filed for bankruptcy, how many of them filed for bankruptcy and closed their doors ?

A lot of things happened with GM outside of the court, meaning you could favor one creditor or group above another. It also cost us a bundle. Under BK, the may have secured private funding, even if a portion of it was government backed. In a bankruptcy, ever decision is weighted by the court such that other creditors are taken into account.

A very small percentage of the companies I deal with go under. I deal in Chapter 11's. Sometimes they go under or they go under years later. The reason my business is so slow right now is that no one is spending money on restructuring. They are either holding tight or going into Chapter 7.

[DavidWT]

Uh oh... did Romney lose Lindsey Lohan's support?!

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... ng-romney/

Lindsay Lohan is no poster girl for stability, and it looks like her penchant for wild swings in her personal and professional lives is mirrored in her political passions as well.

During Monday night's Presidential debate, Lohan retweeted a pro-Obama message on the popular social network Twitter:

RT @BarackObama: RT if you're #ProudOfObama as our commander in chief.

Which is all fine and dandy, except that about two weeks ago, she threw her support to GOP candidate Mitt Romney.

"I think unemployment is very important for now, so as of now I think (my vote) is Mitt Romney," Lohan told FOX411 and a group of reporters at a launch party for a ginseng drink.

Maybe she realized that, because she unpublished her tweet moments later.

In September, the troubled actress went as far as to tweet the President requesting he "cut taxes for those who need it: middle-class families, small businesses" as well as "those that are listed on Forbes as 'millionaires'."

Four years ago, Lohan referred to Obama's Presidential victory as "amazing."

Tomorrow ... who knows?



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 ... z2A9WMgUhX

[conversationpc]

A lot of things happened with GM outside of the court, meaning you could favor one creditor or group above another. It also cost us a bundle. Under BK, the may have secured private funding, even if a portion of it was government backed. In a bankruptcy, ever decision is weighted by the court such that other creditors are taken into account.

A very small percentage of the companies I deal with go under. I deal in Chapter 11's. Sometimes they go under or they go under years later. The reason my business is so slow right now is that no one is spending money on restructuring. They are either holding tight or going into Chapter 7.

The problem with the government involvement in their bankruptcy, as I understand it, is that Obama placed his cronies in the auto union at the head of the line as far as receiving compensation and giving the shaft to stock owners. That's the layman's version anyway. Not sure how accurate that is.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Senior Romney aides confirm to Carl Cameron that they are planning to run a 30-minute infomercial in key battleground states— Joy Lin (@JoyLinFN) October 23, 2012

How much is that going to cost?

[The Sushi Hunter]

Senior Romney aides confirm to Carl Cameron that they are planning to run a 30-minute infomercial in key battleground states— Joy Lin (@JoyLinFN) October 23, 2012

How much is that going to cost?

RNC has 80+ Million in the bank, they want to win, so they might as well spend most of it.

80+ Mill? That's a whole lotta sushi. But it doesn't really matter how much they spend. Just ask Meg Whitman. She spent well over 100 Mill and still didn't win. I could have used some of that.

[Behshad]

A lot of things happened with GM outside of the court, meaning you could favor one creditor or group above another. It also cost us a bundle. Under BK, the may have secured private funding, even if a portion of it was government backed. In a bankruptcy, ever decision is weighted by the court such that other creditors are taken into account.

A very small percentage of the companies I deal with go under. I deal in Chapter 11's. Sometimes they go under or they go under years later. The reason my business is so slow right now is that no one is spending money on restructuring. They are either holding tight or going into Chapter 7.

The problem with the government involvement in their bankruptcy, as I understand it, is that Obama placed his cronies in the auto union at the head of the line as far as receiving compensation and giving the shaft to stock owners. That's the layman's version anyway. Not sure how accurate that is.

Exactly right on Dave. Obama and Geithner took away the pensions of some 20,000 Ohio Delphi non-union workers while boosting the retirements of the union workers. Here's a story about it from today> Mitt is talking about this during his Ohio Rallies and Axelrod doesn't like it. Libs never like the truth getting out there.


http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/23/axelr ... i-scandal/

Still with your BS?
They took away the pensions of 20000 people but saved the pensions of 200000 of GM workers. Of course you would have rathere seen ALL of them go down together. Without the government controlled BK that they actually did ( yes thank to Bush and Obama) it did save the pension for 200k of GM workers.
Those 20000 non-union workers would have lost their pension regardless. So which one is better ? 20000 losing their pension or 220000 ?

[Monker]

It's really not that big of a deal. Obama had the opening's and he took them, as he should. For either camp, it was checkmate time and Obama got 'em good. Don't speak as if you're the head spokesman for all Independent's in just the way he handles himself against a fierce competitor because I betchya there's thousands of Independent's that WANTED to see that from the President.

I never said I was the spokes person for anyone or anything...I spoke from my take. Fierce competitor? Sounded like a middle school boy in a childish cut down. It was not relevant, it was stupid, it had nothing to do with facts or how he planned on fixing things. All I heard was dur dur we have ships that go under water. We don't ride horses any more.. We don't use bayonets...which in reality being an ex military wife I know is not true. It was a childish cut that had nothing to do with anything except him being a complete jerk.

It was a point to get across to people who were actually listening that Romney is simply throwing money at a problem, instead of talking to the military and asking what they need. It was Romney who made the comparison of today's military to that of 100yrs ago. THAT is what people should be doing a "What the fuck is that about?" Not the fact that Obama put in context and made Romney look like a fool - which he is for saying such a thing.

[Monker]

I guess I missed a statement during the debate or something because on Facebook, and I see it here as well, the Republican followers are complaining that Obama said we don't use bayonets and they post pictures of soldiers with them on the ends of their rifles. What I heard and the context I heard it in was that Romney said we don't have as many aircraft carriers, and Obama's response was that we don't have as many bayonets, either. His argument being that because of military technology, we don't need as many. I never heard him say we don't use bayonets.

I will say that I think Obama was thinking of the sheathed bayonet a soldier used to carry at his side and wasn't thinking of the rifle mounted one.

EXACTLY...but people thrive on hearing what they WANT to hear, rather then what was actually said and the point that person was trying to make.

Comparing the military of 100yrs to today is what is laughable.

[artist4perry]

Hey ginger

When you watch a debate with biased eyes you see things differently.
The President wasn't rude. He was to the point. He was factual and he made sure this time around Romney doesn't tippy toe around issues and uses his " I never said that" crap that he always ativks to when he flip flopps.
Showing your viewers that you have more knowledge about foreign policy isn't rude. It just brings it to people's attention that Romney really doesn't know much about foreign policies. Well except about shipping jobs or criticizing the queen of England

You have already made up your mind about your candidate. This debate was simply for those who are still undecided and what most of them saw at the debate was the president telling us about how he handles foreign issues and Romney saying " yea I'd do the same." ... " Yea I agree with Mr president "....
The president wasn't rude. He took the command and showed that he is the leader of this country.
Now Romney looked cool and calm to FF , but the way he was stuttering and sweating , I'd say he wasn't really that cool & calm.
Of course they would agree on most issues when it comes to foreign policies and although it was overall more of an " I agree with president" show than an actual debate , Obama had the edge cause he was focused and he wasn't napping like he did during the first debate. He did what he had to do and it angers you that he did that well.

Difference is Beshad I don't fawn over either candidate. Both have flaws and things I don't care for...when you guys describe Obama it is as if the Christ Child has arrived again. He was quite rude. To talk to someone in a condescending tone and to speak of their knowledge as if they were too stupid to know we use things like air craft carriers...common knowledge to most adults .... was bad form and childish for the most powerful position in the nation. It was un Presidential, and uncalled for.

[The Sushi Hunter]

I don't recall Romney comparing to 100 years ago. I do recall however that it was only a few years or even one decade comparison. Romney did say "x" amount of ships then and "x" amount of ships now. On the other hand, it was Obama who mentioned "horses" and I'm pretty sure America hasn't had horses part of the military arsonal for at least 100 years now.

[Monker]

Obama kept talking about wanting to build bridges and roads. Isn't that what a good portion of the stimulus money was supposed to cover? Where did all that money go? Oh, that's right, I forgot. It went to companies like Solyndra, A123, Fisker and all the other failed companies that are in bed with Obama. Or perhaps we can talk about 14,000 vacant or nearly vacant buildings owned by the federal government that cost taxpayers some $190 million a year to maintain.

BTW, why the hell does he keep bringing up Tesla motors? They are NOT a failed company, as far as I know...and are on the cutting edge of future electric cars. Why are they even on the list?

[Monker]

Looks like Romney supporters share the same mentality as their savior: WEAK.

This is hilarious considering the fervent practical worship that some Obama supporters seem to engage in and especially looking back at the Obama speech in 2008 when he said, referencing his election, that this was the moment the "rise of the oceans began to slow". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto

Did you not post the video of the busty blonde chick acting like she wanted an orgy with Romney and Ryan?

There is absolute lusty hero worship with no substance on the Republican side of the fence.

[artist4perry]

It's really not that big of a deal. Obama had the opening's and he took them, as he should. For either camp, it was checkmate time and Obama got 'em good. Don't speak as if you're the head spokesman for all Independent's in just the way he handles himself against a fierce competitor because I betchya there's thousands of Independent's that WANTED to see that from the President.

I never said I was the spokes person for anyone or anything...I spoke from my take. Fierce competitor? Sounded like a middle school boy in a childish cut down. It was not relevant, it was stupid, it had nothing to do with facts or how he planned on fixing things. All I heard was dur dur we have ships that go under water. We don't ride horses any more.. We don't use bayonets...which in reality being an ex military wife I know is not true. It was a childish cut that had nothing to do with anything except him being a complete jerk.

It was a point to get across to people who were actually listening that Romney is simply throwing money at a problem, instead of talking to the military and asking what they need. It was Romney who made the comparison of today's military to that of 100yrs ago. THAT is what people should be doing a "What the fuck is that about?" Not the fact that Obama put in context and made Romney look like a fool - which he is for saying such a thing.

When you cut the military to the bone and we get attacked again...which is inevitable if we bury our heads in the sand and weaken our defenses...where will we be? History repeating itself. Do we ever learn.

[Monker]

Yahoo debate poll: Romney 53 percent, Obama 47 percent. 402,615 votes cast.

Oh, what happened to your Gallup fixation.

Guess they no longer agree with you.

[artist4perry]

I guess I missed a statement during the debate or something because on Facebook, and I see it here as well, the Republican followers are complaining that Obama said we don't use bayonets and they post pictures of soldiers with them on the ends of their rifles. What I heard and the context I heard it in was that Romney said we don't have as many aircraft carriers, and Obama's response was that we don't have as many bayonets, either. His argument being that because of military technology, we don't need as many. I never heard him say we don't use bayonets.

I will say that I think Obama was thinking of the sheathed bayonet a soldier used to carry at his side and wasn't thinking of the rifle mounted one.

EXACTLY...but people thrive on hearing what they WANT to hear, rather then what was actually said and the point that person was trying to make.

Comparing the military of 100yrs to today is what is laughable.

This is why I think for the most part these discussions are futile...that is on both sides of the coin and you guys are no exception. I don't care for either candidate that much...I did not get my candidate chosen so I am stuck with choosing who I feel will do the least damage. Sad really...but worship either the Democrats or Republicans?....Please...politicians are a dime a dozen and talk out of both sides of their mouths.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Obama kept talking about wanting to build bridges and roads. Isn't that what a good portion of the stimulus money was supposed to cover? Where did all that money go? Oh, that's right, I forgot. It went to companies like Solyndra, A123, Fisker and all the other failed companies that are in bed with Obama. Or perhaps we can talk about 14,000 vacant or nearly vacant buildings owned by the federal government that cost taxpayers some $190 million a year to maintain.

BTW, why the hell does he keep bringing up Tesla motors? They are NOT a failed company, as far as I know...and are on the cutting edge of future electric cars. Why are they even on the list?

During last night's debate, that's the first time I heard Tesla motors come up in any of these debates, unless I'm missing something here.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Looks like Romney supporters share the same mentality as their savior: WEAK.

This is hilarious considering the fervent practical worship that some Obama supporters seem to engage in and especially looking back at the Obama speech in 2008 when he said, referencing his election, that this was the moment the "rise of the oceans began to slow". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2pZSvq9bto

Did you not post the video of the busty blonde chick acting like she wanted an orgy with Romney and Ryan?

There is absolute lusty hero worship with no substance on the Republican side of the fence.

I've not watched the video. Does she have a nice camel toe?

[Monker]

I've only heard three fact checks so far and all of them have Obama as false. I think ti was the bankruptcy for GM comments - Romney did say he would support government backing. Another was the status of forces agreement. Why Obama went there is beyond me. He's just absolutely wrong on that. I forget what the other one was. I'm sure there will be some Mitt falsehoods in there too.

.

So if Romney truly supported a government backed bankruptcy for GM , then he supports what Obama actually did. Yet saying Obama did the wrong thing !

Wanted the BK without all the stimulus money we lost. I can prop any company up with billions of dollars of borrowed money. That's no trick and the initial part was Bush.

I work in the Bankruptcy industry, so I know that they should have filed like everyone else and they would have come out of it just fine and saved us a lot of money.

If you work in the bankruptcy industry, you should know that it wouldnt have worked "like everyone else", without FUNDS. There were no funds. And Romney said clearly LAST NIGHT that he would support the BK , WITH GOVERNMENT BACKED FUNDS!

I have worked on the largest bankruptcies ever filed. I've worked on hundreds of Chapter 11's. Never once - not a single time - did any of them involve government funds. Believe me - there is money out there for this without having to get it from the government.

But let's say for instance that there was no other money. It still should have been up to a BK judge to determine what was done. Especially when public funds are involved.

The problem is, we've seen this before.

When Chrysler went to the edge of bankruptcy in the late 70's, the ONLY thing that saved it was government backed loans, which congress passed, Carter signed, and Reagan allowed to continue. The loans were paid off in only a few years.

So, considering that it worked in the past, why would we NOT do it again?

And, considering banks were so tight on credit there were questions on if they would even loan to business so they could make payroll, and other expenses...how can you possibly know for certain that public funds would be made available to finance the bailout of an entire industry?

[The Sushi Hunter]

I don't recall Romney comparing to 100 years ago. I do recall however that it was only a few years or even one decade comparison. Romney did say "x" amount of ships then and "x" amount of ships now. On the other hand, it was Obama who mentioned "horses" and I'm pretty sure America hasn't had horses part of the military arsonal for at least 100 years now.

Dude, we are using horse patrols in Afghanistan as we speak.

Holy shit! Multi purpose equipment. Transportation plus rations if one gets hit.