President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[FinnFreak]

WTF is this YouTube stuff being heavily pushed into the European media about Mormons..?!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6udew9axmdM


Why into Europe..? - Any guesses..?


John -

[Behshad]

By Margaret Carlson

It took a tragedy to bring them together, but there they were: President Barack Obama and Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey, arm in arm, complete with bro-to-bro handclasp and shoulder pat a week before the election.

Christie blows almost as hard every day as Sandy blew this week. Yet on Tuesday he stopped long enough to tell ABC News that the president, the same man he derided just a few weeks ago as needing a clue, was "outstanding" and that he had formed a great "partnership" with him.

Sponsor


Christie didn't have to be so grateful or admiring. New Jersey is getting a lot of federal aid, but it's not getting anything it's not entitled to. Christie got his state money for recovery efforts that include infrastructure projects, temporary housing, low-cost loans to cover uninsured property loss and assistance to individuals and businesses.

Now Obama knows the feeling of having the Big Guy at your side. For all his bluster, Christie is a comforting presence. During the Republican presidential primaries, Mitt Romney had his best debate performance on the day that Christie endorsed him and then sat in the audience to watch his candidate.

This buddy movie is a campaign ad no amount of money could buy. Christie is treating Obama not as a failed leader but like a commander in chief. And because their partnership is not political, it has had a huge effect on the politics of the moment: a Republican governor rising above partisanship to give credit to a Democratic president, who is locked in a difficult campaign against the man the governor supports.

The timing for Obama couldn't be better. To make the trip to New Jersey, the president had to give up an appearance with another Big Guy, Bill Clinton, in Florida and Iowa. This non-campaign stop more than made up for it. Wearing a FEMA windbreaker, coming to the scene of a catastrophe rather than campaigning, and doing so with a Republican governor (after all, Obama could have gone to see the devastation in New York with Governor Andrew Cuomo): All of it shows the difference between an incumbent and a candidate.

On Tuesday Christie was asked by Fox News if he'd also be giving Romney a tour of the storm-struck areas. "I have no idea, nor am I the least bit concerned or interested," he said. "If you think right now I give a damn about presidential politics, then you don't know me."

In September many political observers opined that Romney lost the election on the day his dismissive remarks about "the 47 percent" were made public. If Obama wins this election, we may look back at this hug in Brigantine, New Jersey, and say this was the moment that sealed it for him. Obama and Christie made the politics of the presidential campaign look small, and reminded us that politicians care about something more than who's ahead in Ohio.

[Behshad]

Sushi, when all your " facts" are from the MEDIA, it's not the admin that is misleading you, it's the media !

I've heard this stuff coming straight from the mouth of the source, Obama himself, along with Gore and various Obama Administration. The media is showing it, but they aren't the ones that I've seen and heard saying it.

Read the first article on this page

[The Sushi Hunter]

WTF is this YouTube stuff being heavily pushed into the European media about Mormons..?!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6udew9axmdM

Why into Europe..? - Any guesses..?

John -

Good Question. Do you think there is a political agenda behind it? From what I understand, Romney is Mormon. I know in the company where I am employed, we have tons of Britts and other Europeans working here who are citizens of the US now and are registered to vote in America and who are on skype daily with relatives back in the UK and various European countries and a lot of what they talk about all day long is American politics. Could it be that the European media is discussing this so that Europeans will contact relatives in the US who are registered to vote and persuade them into vote a specific way? One thing for sure, these employees who are doing this in the company where I work are all hard core dems.

[FinnFreak]

WTF is this YouTube stuff being heavily pushed into the European media about Mormons..?!?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6udew9axmdM

Why into Europe..? - Any guesses..?

John -

Good Question. Do you think there is a political agenda behind it? From what I understand, Romney is Mormon. I know in the company where I am employed, we have tons of Britts and other Europeans working here who are citizens of the US now and are registered to vote in America and who are on skype daily with relatives back in the UK and various European countries and a lot of what they talk about all day long is American politics. Could it be that the European media is discussing this so that Europeans will contact relatives in the US who are registered to vote and persuade them into vote a specific way? One thing for sure, these employees who are doing this in the company where I work are all hard core dems.

We've got mormons here as well. In fact, we have a local temple in our town too. I know a few later saints...

I phreaking HATE religion being drawn into elections... why not go into freemasons etc. ..?

* THIS is garbage news *

IMHO


John -



PS - I still support Obama. Maybe because he DOESN'T overdo the religious aspect.

[The Sushi Hunter]

PS - I still support Obama. Maybe because he DOESN'T overdo the religious aspect.

So far, I've not heard Romney going into discussions about his religion. If anything, referencing your previous post, it sounds like the UK is doing it. Question is why are they discussing Romney's religious background? It must matter to them and they must have some type of political agenda for doing it.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Good Question. Do you think there is a political agenda behind it? From what I understand, Romney is Mormon. I know in the company where I am employed, we have tons of Britts and other Europeans working here who are citizens of the US now and are registered to vote in America and who are on skype daily with relatives back in the UK and various European countries and a lot of what they talk about all day long is American politics. Could it be that the European media is discussing this so that Europeans will contact relatives in the US who are registered to vote and persuade them into vote a specific way? One thing for sure, these employees who are doing this in the company where I work are all hard core dems.

No I doubt it, I split my time between both the US and the UK (I'm American, wife's British,work for a company that operates both sides of the Atlantic). The British press is doing mild cheer leading for Obama but it is not that intense. In fact there seems to be little debate about European or UK issues dominating the UK news at the moment, its all about some TV legend who turned out to be a paedifile, and racist football players, and a few other things.

To be sure what is considered right of center /conservative in the UK equates to the left/ democratic party in the US, and folks are conditioned to think in a leftward leaning manner by their schools and media and politicians - any Brits who have moved to the US - this is where the Brits you work with who are die hard Democrats get it - they've had their world view imposed on them. (this by the way is nothing against the Brits, they are great people )

This is by the way why I go ape shit at Americans who just toe their party line whether it be D or R without thinking - because one someone else does your thinking for you you become a sheep.

[Behshad]

Iowa: Romney 49%, Obama 48% !

[slucero]

Right-wing hysteria over Benghazi feeds upon itself

Fox New anchors, right-wing websites and talk-radio hosts around the country are ginning up a wave of mass hysteria about the decision by the Obama administration not to attempt a military rescue of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya. (Glenn Beck is even telling listeners that the treason is more widespread, and that Stevens was acting as a gunrunner for al Qaida in Libya and Syria. I kid you not.)

Obama’s crime is said to be so heinous that mere impeachment for refusing to intervene would be insufficient. If you Google the words “Benghazi” and “traitor,” you get some 518,000 hits, almost all of which cast President Obama as that traitor. The criticism extends as well to the mainstream media, which as my email informs me, is being accused of covering up a scandal of such dimensions that it would supposedly dwarf Watergate.

But I have a question.

According to NBC News, Mitt Romney hasn’t mentioned Libya in his campaign appearances around the country since Oct. 12, which is more than two weeks ago. Now why do you think that is?

Option one: Mitt has joined the mainstream media as part of the pro-Obama conspiracy of silence to protect the president.

Option two. Romney’s military and foreign affairs advisers have told him that not even a minimally responsible case can be made that Obama should have intervened militarily at Benghazi, and that Romney would deeply embarrass himself by suggesting such a step.

Let’s be clear: There is no indication — none — that U.S military officials advised the president or anyone in the administration that a rescue operation was possible, and that the administration ignored that offer. The evidence is entirely to the contrary.

As Defense Secretary Leon Panetta explained, “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

That would be Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are men of training and experience; they know where our military assets are located; they know their capabilities, and they know the difficulties involved in inserting and extracting an armed force into an uncertain situation in another country.

It is of course frustrating and heartbreaking to learn that CIA officers stationed near the Benghazi consulate had asked three times for military assistance and that those requests had been denied. But that is real life. This is not a Hollywood movie.

The most provocative piece of that report is the claim that a Special Forces team stationed at an air base in Signonella, Italy, two hours from Benghazi, was ready to intervene but orders were never given. But here’s how such mass hysteria gets fed by partial information, in both senses of the word “partial”. As it turned out, the Special Forces team in question was not based in Sigonella but had to be assembled and transported there from elsewhere in Europe.

“U.S. officials say (the team) did not arrive in Sicily until after the attack was over,” CBS reports. “Even if the team had been ready in time, confusion about what was happening on the ground in Benghazi — and State Department concerns about violating Libyan sovereignty — made a military rescue mission impractical, the officials say.”

Arguing against mass and willful hysteria using facts, logic and expert professional opinion is a losing battle, of course. It doesn’t matter that our top military people believed a rescue effort would be impractical and would probably end in the loss of even more American lives. What matters is that talk-show hosts and others can stir up millions of Americans raised on Rambo movies to believe that their leaders could have helped to rescue a well-respected U.S. diplomat and his team, but simply decided it wasn’t worth the effort. Because the president is a traitor.

That makes no sense. It is such a ridiculous notion that in most eras it would never even be broached in public debate. But this is an era in which many are predisposed to believe the most ridiculous things if it justifies their hatred of Obama, and a time in which when emotions are heightened by a hard-fought presidential campaign. So nonsense reigns.

another shill piece written by Jay Brookman... http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2 ... on-itself/

...and Jay forgot to mention Option 3:

Option 3: Remember Iran-Contra. Blowback is a bitch. Should Romney win there is a high likelihood that he should he win, as President he will have knowledge of, and have to make decisions on covert activity in Libya (and elsewhere)

Bookman is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University with degrees in journalism and...... history.

Wow.

Its ironic that Jay has a degree in history, yet has totally forgotten the Iran-Contra affair.. that incident where the Reagan administration was covering up the secret sale of arms to Iran, after Congress had banned the very thing.

And now we have the Benghazi attack and coverup... and Jay is postulating that is nonsense, yet (as journalist) he doesn't source any of the comments from those who actually could talk, like Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer.

Almost as if Iran-Contra never happened.... or wait... it did... and resulted in fourteen Reagan administration officials being indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger (yo Leon.. shitting your pants yet?). Eleven convictions resulted, but all convictions were vacated on appeal or Presidential pardon.

What the country found out with Iran-Contra was that "where there's smoke, there's usually a fire"...

But it could never happen. Right.

[Behshad]

Right-wing hysteria over Benghazi feeds upon itself

Fox New anchors, right-wing websites and talk-radio hosts around the country are ginning up a wave of mass hysteria about the decision by the Obama administration not to attempt a military rescue of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya. (Glenn Beck is even telling listeners that the treason is more widespread, and that Stevens was acting as a gunrunner for al Qaida in Libya and Syria. I kid you not.)

Obama’s crime is said to be so heinous that mere impeachment for refusing to intervene would be insufficient. If you Google the words “Benghazi” and “traitor,” you get some 518,000 hits, almost all of which cast President Obama as that traitor. The criticism extends as well to the mainstream media, which as my email informs me, is being accused of covering up a scandal of such dimensions that it would supposedly dwarf Watergate.

But I have a question.

According to NBC News, Mitt Romney hasn’t mentioned Libya in his campaign appearances around the country since Oct. 12, which is more than two weeks ago. Now why do you think that is?

Option one: Mitt has joined the mainstream media as part of the pro-Obama conspiracy of silence to protect the president.

Option two. Romney’s military and foreign affairs advisers have told him that not even a minimally responsible case can be made that Obama should have intervened militarily at Benghazi, and that Romney would deeply embarrass himself by suggesting such a step.

Let’s be clear: There is no indication — none — that U.S military officials advised the president or anyone in the administration that a rescue operation was possible, and that the administration ignored that offer. The evidence is entirely to the contrary.

As Defense Secretary Leon Panetta explained, “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

That would be Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are men of training and experience; they know where our military assets are located; they know their capabilities, and they know the difficulties involved in inserting and extracting an armed force into an uncertain situation in another country.

It is of course frustrating and heartbreaking to learn that CIA officers stationed near the Benghazi consulate had asked three times for military assistance and that those requests had been denied. But that is real life. This is not a Hollywood movie.

The most provocative piece of that report is the claim that a Special Forces team stationed at an air base in Signonella, Italy, two hours from Benghazi, was ready to intervene but orders were never given. But here’s how such mass hysteria gets fed by partial information, in both senses of the word “partial”. As it turned out, the Special Forces team in question was not based in Sigonella but had to be assembled and transported there from elsewhere in Europe.

“U.S. officials say (the team) did not arrive in Sicily until after the attack was over,” CBS reports. “Even if the team had been ready in time, confusion about what was happening on the ground in Benghazi — and State Department concerns about violating Libyan sovereignty — made a military rescue mission impractical, the officials say.”

Arguing against mass and willful hysteria using facts, logic and expert professional opinion is a losing battle, of course. It doesn’t matter that our top military people believed a rescue effort would be impractical and would probably end in the loss of even more American lives. What matters is that talk-show hosts and others can stir up millions of Americans raised on Rambo movies to believe that their leaders could have helped to rescue a well-respected U.S. diplomat and his team, but simply decided it wasn’t worth the effort. Because the president is a traitor.

That makes no sense. It is such a ridiculous notion that in most eras it would never even be broached in public debate. But this is an era in which many are predisposed to believe the most ridiculous things if it justifies their hatred of Obama, and a time in which when emotions are heightened by a hard-fought presidential campaign. So nonsense reigns.

another shill piece written by Jay Brookman... http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2 ... on-itself/

...and Jay forgot to mention Option 3:


Option 3: Remember Iran-Contra. Should Romney win there is a high likelihood that he should he win, as President he will have knowledge of, and have to make decisions on covert activity in Libya (and elsewhere)


Bookman is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University with a degree in history.

Wow.

Its ironic that Jay has a degree in history, yet has totally forgotten the Iran-Contra affair.. that incident where the Reagan administration was covering up the secret sale of arms to Iran, after Congress had banned the very thing.

And now we have the Benghazi attack and coverup... and Jay is postulating that is nonsense, yet (as journalist) he doesn't source any of the comments from those who actually could talk, like Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffe ...

Almost as if Iran-Contra never happened.... or wait... it did... and resulted in fourteen Reagan administration officials being indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, but all convictions were vacated on appeal or Presidential pardon.

What the country found out with Iran-Contra was that "where there's smoke, there's usually a fire"...

But it could never happen. Right.

Yes there is an option 3 , based on "ifs " and "should he win" . So that option could only come to play November 7th, IF Romney wins.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

another shill piece written by Jay Brookman... http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2 ... on-itself/

...and Jay forgot to mention Option 3:


Option 3: Remember Iran-Contra. Should Romney win there is a high likelihood that he should he win, as President he will have knowledge of, and have to make decisions on covert activity in Libya (and elsewhere)


Bookman is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University with a degree in history.

Wow.

Its ironic that Jay has a degree in history, yet has totally forgotten the Iran-Contra affair.. that incident where the Reagan administration was covering up the secret sale of arms to Iran, after Congress had banned the very thing.

And now we have the Benghazi attack and coverup... and Jay is postulating that is nonsense, yet (as journalist) he doesn't source any of the comments from those who actually could talk, like Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffe ...

Almost as if Iran-Contra never happened.... or wait... it did... and resulted in fourteen Reagan administration officials being indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, but all convictions were vacated on appeal or Presidential pardon.

What the country found out with Iran-Contra was that "where there's smoke, there's usually a fire"...

But it could never happen. Right.

DING DING DING..Winner Winner , Chicken dinner. It is option 3. And remember Obama's and Romney's foreign policy is made out of the same Wilsonian/(now called neoconservative) internationalist activism.
Romney might well have been a bit more responsible about defending the consolate with proper forces in the first place, but you are right , John Bolton and the folks that will run his foreign policy were happy with the thrust of Obama's foreign policy and want to be sure that Romney gets involved in the same covert shennigans.

[slucero]

another shill piece written by Jay Brookman... http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2 ... on-itself/

...and Jay forgot to mention Option 3:


Option 3: Remember Iran-Contra. Should Romney win there is a high likelihood that he should he win, as President he will have knowledge of, and have to make decisions on covert activity in Libya (and elsewhere)


Bookman is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University with a degree in history.

Wow.

Its ironic that Jay has a degree in history, yet has totally forgotten the Iran-Contra affair.. that incident where the Reagan administration was covering up the secret sale of arms to Iran, after Congress had banned the very thing.

And now we have the Benghazi attack and coverup... and Jay is postulating that is nonsense, yet (as journalist) he doesn't source any of the comments from those who actually could talk, like Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffe ...

Almost as if Iran-Contra never happened.... or wait... it did... and resulted in fourteen Reagan administration officials being indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, but all convictions were vacated on appeal or Presidential pardon.

What the country found out with Iran-Contra was that "where there's smoke, there's usually a fire"...

But it could never happen. Right.

Yes there is an option 3 , based on "ifs " and "should he win" . So that option could only come to play November 7th, IF Romney wins.

Occam's Razor.

Option 3 is in play now... the evidence is Romneys silence on the topic right now.. using your campaign logic.. Romney should be climbing all over Obama about this.. yet he isn't.



When the Benghazi massacre becomes our modern day Iran-Contra affair.. you are gonna look like the buffoon you are.

[Behshad]

Right-wing hysteria over Benghazi feeds upon itself

Fox New anchors, right-wing websites and talk-radio hosts around the country are ginning up a wave of mass hysteria about the decision by the Obama administration not to attempt a military rescue of Ambassador Chris Stevens in Libya. (Glenn Beck is even telling listeners that the treason is more widespread, and that Stevens was acting as a gunrunner for al Qaida in Libya and Syria. I kid you not.)

Obama’s crime is said to be so heinous that mere impeachment for refusing to intervene would be insufficient. If you Google the words “Benghazi” and “traitor,” you get some 518,000 hits, almost all of which cast President Obama as that traitor. The criticism extends as well to the mainstream media, which as my email informs me, is being accused of covering up a scandal of such dimensions that it would supposedly dwarf Watergate.

But I have a question.

According to NBC News, Mitt Romney hasn’t mentioned Libya in his campaign appearances around the country since Oct. 12, which is more than two weeks ago. Now why do you think that is?

Option one: Mitt has joined the mainstream media as part of the pro-Obama conspiracy of silence to protect the president.

Option two. Romney’s military and foreign affairs advisers have told him that not even a minimally responsible case can be made that Obama should have intervened militarily at Benghazi, and that Romney would deeply embarrass himself by suggesting such a step.

Let’s be clear: There is no indication — none — that U.S military officials advised the president or anyone in the administration that a rescue operation was possible, and that the administration ignored that offer. The evidence is entirely to the contrary.

As Defense Secretary Leon Panetta explained, “(The) basic principle is that you don’t deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having some real-time information about what’s taking place. And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.”

That would be Gen. Carter Ham, the head of U.S. Africa Command, and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are men of training and experience; they know where our military assets are located; they know their capabilities, and they know the difficulties involved in inserting and extracting an armed force into an uncertain situation in another country.

It is of course frustrating and heartbreaking to learn that CIA officers stationed near the Benghazi consulate had asked three times for military assistance and that those requests had been denied. But that is real life. This is not a Hollywood movie.

The most provocative piece of that report is the claim that a Special Forces team stationed at an air base in Signonella, Italy, two hours from Benghazi, was ready to intervene but orders were never given. But here’s how such mass hysteria gets fed by partial information, in both senses of the word “partial”. As it turned out, the Special Forces team in question was not based in Sigonella but had to be assembled and transported there from elsewhere in Europe.

“U.S. officials say (the team) did not arrive in Sicily until after the attack was over,” CBS reports. “Even if the team had been ready in time, confusion about what was happening on the ground in Benghazi — and State Department concerns about violating Libyan sovereignty — made a military rescue mission impractical, the officials say.”

Arguing against mass and willful hysteria using facts, logic and expert professional opinion is a losing battle, of course. It doesn’t matter that our top military people believed a rescue effort would be impractical and would probably end in the loss of even more American lives. What matters is that talk-show hosts and others can stir up millions of Americans raised on Rambo movies to believe that their leaders could have helped to rescue a well-respected U.S. diplomat and his team, but simply decided it wasn’t worth the effort. Because the president is a traitor.

That makes no sense. It is such a ridiculous notion that in most eras it would never even be broached in public debate. But this is an era in which many are predisposed to believe the most ridiculous things if it justifies their hatred of Obama, and a time in which when emotions are heightened by a hard-fought presidential campaign. So nonsense reigns.

another shill piece written by Jay Brookman... http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2 ... on-itself/

...and Jay forgot to mention Option 3:


Option 3: Remember Iran-Contra. Should Romney win there is a high likelihood that he should he win, as President he will have knowledge of, and have to make decisions on covert activity in Libya (and elsewhere)


Bookman is a graduate of Pennsylvania State University with a degree in history.

Wow.

Its ironic that Jay has a degree in history, yet has totally forgotten the Iran-Contra affair.. that incident where the Reagan administration was covering up the secret sale of arms to Iran, after Congress had banned the very thing.

And now we have the Benghazi attack and coverup... and Jay is postulating that is nonsense, yet (as journalist) he doesn't source any of the comments from those who actually could talk, like Army Lt. Col. Tony Shaffe ...

Almost as if Iran-Contra never happened.... or wait... it did... and resulted in fourteen Reagan administration officials being indicted, including then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger. Eleven convictions resulted, but all convictions were vacated on appeal or Presidential pardon.

What the country found out with Iran-Contra was that "where there's smoke, there's usually a fire"...

But it could never happen. Right.

Yes there is an option 3 , based on "ifs " and "should he win" . So that option could only come to play November 7th, IF Romney wins.

Option 3 is in play now... it's why Romney is mute on the topic...

When the Benghazi massacre become our modern day Iran-Contra affair.. you are gonna look like the buffoon you are.

When and If !
And if not, you're gonna remain the dickbag you are Shall we engage in a mustache bet too ?

[slucero]

Maybe we should revisit how GM records revenue...

[Behshad]

[slucero]

yup. .. figured you'd avoid that GM thing...

[Behshad]

Bloomberg endorsed Obama

[Behshad]

yup. .. figured you'd avoid that GM thing...

Lets revisit it. Since it seems like that is the only thing that you got on me. Go on, why not add it to your signature and lets debate

[slucero]

yup. .. figured you'd avoid that GM thing...

Lets revisit it. Since it seems like that is the only thing that you got on me. Go on, why not add it to your signature and lets debate

nah, no need.. nothings changed so you'd just lose again.

But nice of you to finally admit you were wrong.

[Behshad]

yup. .. figured you'd avoid that GM thing...

Lets revisit it. Since it seems like that is the only thing that you got on me. Go on, why not add it to your signature and lets debate

nah, no need.. nothings changed so you'd just lose again.

But nice of you to finally admit you were wrong.

Well you're the one who wanted to revisit it, as if anything had changed. Yep glad I made your day Of course you're never wrong and if you were, you would never admit to it, dickbag

[The Sushi Hunter]

From the image posted:

President Obama worked closely with both Democrats and Republicans…..

This is Romney boilerplate language from the debates that the Dem’s are now incorporating into they’re dialog. If this election were a song, the Dem’s would be making music by sampling ideas from the Republicans.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Bloomberg endorsed Obama

I endorse Obama to go cordless bungi jumping.

[slucero]

yup. .. figured you'd avoid that GM thing...

Lets revisit it. Since it seems like that is the only thing that you got on me. Go on, why not add it to your signature and lets debate

nah, no need.. nothings changed so you'd just lose again.

But nice of you to finally admit you were wrong.

Well you're the one who wanted to revisit it, as if anything had changed. Yep glad I made your day Of course you're never wrong and if you were, you would never admit to it, dickbag

I said "maybe"...

and thanks for also admitting I'm never wrong... even though I'll admit right now that I was wrong when I said you'd never admit you were regarding GM.. which you just did....


To quote Gregory Peck.. yer "choppin' but no chips are flying"....
Got anything else?

[Behshad]

yup. .. figured you'd avoid that GM thing...

Lets revisit it. Since it seems like that is the only thing that you got on me. Go on, why not add it to your signature and lets debate

nah, no need.. nothings changed so you'd just lose again.

But nice of you to finally admit you were wrong.

Well you're the one who wanted to revisit it, as if anything had changed. Yep glad I made your day Of course you're never wrong and if you were, you would never admit to it, dickbag

I said "maybe"...

and thanks for also admitting I'm never wrong...

I'll admit right now that I was wrong when I said you'd never admit you were regarding GM.. which you just did....


Got anything else?

Yep I admitted you're never wrong.

[Behshad]

Bloomberg endorsed Obama

I endorse Obama to go cordless bungi jumping.

You should make an instructional video first and show us what you mean

[slucero]

yup. .. figured you'd avoid that GM thing...

Lets revisit it. Since it seems like that is the only thing that you got on me. Go on, why not add it to your signature and lets debate

nah, no need.. nothings changed so you'd just lose again.

But nice of you to finally admit you were wrong.

Well you're the one who wanted to revisit it, as if anything had changed. Yep glad I made your day Of course you're never wrong and if you were, you would never admit to it, dickbag

I said "maybe"...

and thanks for also admitting I'm never wrong...

I'll admit right now that I was wrong when I said you'd never admit you were regarding GM.. which you just did....


Got anything else?

Yep I also admitted you're never wrong.

fixed it for ya....

[Behshad]

Just filling in for Alan , sharing some of the latest Gallup news. He should be up no later than noon!

Nah, up by 7:30 as usual, Trailblazer blew the water pump last night, been working on that little distraction today.

so you have no cell phone and drive cheap GM junk ?

[The Sushi Hunter]

Bloomberg endorsed Obama

I endorse Obama to go cordless bungi jumping.

You should make an instructional video first and show us what you mean

It says exactly what it means. But you're right, Dems need a instruction for this. Would be called "Cordless Bungi Jumping for Democrat Dummies". You'll be the test mule for the book.

[Behshad]

Bloomberg endorsed Obama

I endorse Obama to go cordless bungi jumping.

You should make an instructional video first and show us what you mean

It says exactly what it means. But you're right, there should be an instruction for Dems called "Cordless Bungi Jumping for Dummies". You'll be the test mule for the book.

I will do the book, you do the instructional video . Deal ?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Romney didn't want to privatize FEMA, The only presidential candidate who seriously said this Ron Paul who pointed out that FEMA has mismanaged every past major disaster, added layers of bureaucracy and blown billions and billions of dollars misallocting funds - often ones that they have tried to get back when it has been determined that some of claims were fraudulent. Furthermore it has weakened the readiness of individual states and communities. (Ron Paul not Romney was right!)

"You know, when we had Katrina going into New Orleans, they needed ice. So FEMA ordered ice from the Northeast. They ordered 211 million pounds of ice. It traveled for two weeks and they finally ended up in Nebraska. And they never got it. That's a typical way of how FEMA works. -Ron Paul