President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

General Intelligent Discussion & One Thread About That Buttknuckle

Moderator: Andrew

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:29 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:
Monker wrote:
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Huff Post story no less.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mog ... lp00000592


It's not a "Huff Post story". It's a blogger, dumbass. And, the person who wrote it an idiot.

Hey shit for brains, read Huffington Post.com, or have someone read it to you.


Why don't you go and find out what Huffington Post. com is. They use bloggers to add content. This BLOG was not written by huffingtonpost.com

Besides, the entire content of the blog post was crap. He asserts that tonight's debate was designed by the DNC to not get viewers. That is just pure stupidity. The debate is on prime time network TV. It's not on FOX Business, or some other non-network cable/satellite channel. It was also on PRIME TIME.

The post also compared ratings and the number of viewers. The Democrats have less viewers because the Republican's have so much drama going on. People watch just to hear the crap Trump will say. It's for entertainment, not for information.

But, the real killer to this bloggers opinion is the next Republican debate is on a Saturday night on CBS. I guess the RNC doesn't want anybody to watch.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:44 pm

Monker wrote: He asserts that tonight's debate was designed by the DNC to not get viewers. That is just pure stupidity.


I don't even have to read the blog to know this is 100% accurate. At this same period in the 2008 race, the Democratic Candidates had participated in multiple debates. Compare that to now, where we have had a grand spanking total of 2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a Hillary puppet and has coordinated the debate schedule to protect Hillary's fragile veneer of inevitability. The truth is, Hillary's national negatives are higher than George W. Bush running for re-election in 2004 and mathematically, she cannot win.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Nov 15, 2015 2:54 pm

Monker wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Sanders and O'Malley ran a train on Hillary's lying ass tonight. And then she pulled a Gulliani and said she takes unlimited $$$ from Wall St. because of 9-11. What a shameless dyke.


Good luck with that.


Did she or did she not play the "9-11" card when asked about her coffers being lined by Wall Street? Even the moderator brought it up. Not to mention she completely lied when she said her campaign is funded by mostly small donors. Bernie and O'Malley threw her around like a rag doll tonight. Good luck to you if you truly think Hillary stands a Klondike bar's chance in hell of getting elected in this country.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:43 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:
The_Noble_Cause wrote:Sanders and O'Malley ran a train on Hillary's lying ass tonight. And then she pulled a Gulliani and said she takes unlimited $$$ from Wall St. because of 9-11. What a shameless dyke.


Good luck with that.


Did she or did she not play the "9-11" card when asked about her coffers being lined by Wall Street? Even the moderator brought it up. Not to mention she completely lied when she said her campaign is funded by mostly small donors. Bernie and O'Malley threw her around like a rag doll tonight. Good luck to you if you truly think Hillary stands a Klondike bar's chance in hell of getting elected in this country.


She did not bring up 9/11 in answer to any question, but in rebuttal to the answer Sanders gave that she felt was attacking her integrity. The moderator brought it up but not with her own question or directly after Clinton'a answer, but by repeating a Twitter question.

I don't recall her saying her campaign was mostly funded by small doners...I might have missed that. What I saw was her saying that her small donations were 60% women.

Clinton was definitely not thrown about like you are saying. That seems like your bias showing through. Not even FOX is saying Clinton was routed, as you are saying. In fact, they sum it up much like I did...O'Malley hit a home run, Clinton hit a double, and Sanders probably didn't even get on base. I could agree with that.

I don't "think" Clinton has a chance of winning, I know she does. The latest polls, as I have shown KC, show her beating every top Republican candidate, and at least 30pts ahead of Sanders. The facts PROVE she not just has a chance, but a pretty good chance of being the next President.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:50 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote: He asserts that tonight's debate was designed by the DNC to not get viewers. That is just pure stupidity.


I don't even have to read the blog to know this is 100% accurate. At this same period in the 2008 race, the Democratic Candidates had participated in multiple debates. Compare that to now, where we have had a grand spanking total of 2. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a Hillary puppet and has coordinated the debate schedule to protect Hillary's fragile veneer of inevitability. The truth is, Hillary's national negatives are higher than George W. Bush running for re-election in 2004 and mathematically, she cannot win.


Dude, you don't put something on prime-time network TV with the intention of it not being seen. That's just ridiculous. Seriously, ask the RNC - they are doing the EXACT SAME THING.

As for the number of debates. In 2008 there were so many debates that it was being mocked.

W. is a perfect case to point to. If he can be reelected, ANYBODY can be elected President. The polls show her winning...so do that match. The only Republican that would be a challenge is Rubio, but since the Republican party is hell bent on committing political suicide, I doubt he'll be nominated. If Rubio is nominated, I'd seriously consider voting for him.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:38 pm

Monker wrote:Dude, you don't put something on prime-time network TV with the intention of it not being seen.


Saturday night is typically known as a graveyard slot for TV programming. In fact, many times when a show gets cancelled (or is about to) networks move it to Saturday nights. It is also not unusual for government to publicly release information on Saturday. Why? Again, so it can fly under the radar of the American people and the press.

Monker wrote:That's just ridiculous. Seriously, ask the RNC - they are doing the EXACT SAME THING.


This is a lie. RNC has 11 debates scheduled compared to six with the Democrats. It was also released that Hillary was pushing for there to only be FOUR debates. So you are just misinformed or a Jew hating, anti-Bernie Hillary sycophant. Pretty obvious what the answer is.

Monker wrote:As for the number of debates. In 2008 there were so many debates that it was being mocked.


Is that why the Republican debates are setting ratings records? Less debates is never a good thing.

Monker wrote:W. is a perfect case to point to. If he can be reelected, ANYBODY can be elected President.

Umm, Bush's 2004 victory all came down to Ohio. That is not how you win a general. And the Michael Bay Benghazi movie will certainly do her no favors.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Sun Nov 15, 2015 11:44 pm

Monker wrote:She did not bring up 9/11 in answer to any question, but in rebuttal to the answer Sanders gave that she felt was attacking her integrity. The moderator brought it up but not with her own question or directly after Clinton'a answer, but by repeating a Twitter question.


Her integrity? Give me a break. At least this time she didn't say she "walked down to Nasdaq and gave them a good talking to" or whatever. What a fucking scream!

Monker wrote:I don't recall her saying her campaign was mostly funded by small doners...I might have missed that. What I saw was her saying that her small donations were 60% women.


Both of these moments have gone viral. You are just out of touch. Keep watching the big three networks. They have no influence.

Monker wrote:Not even FOX is saying Clinton was routed, as you are saying.


Uh, why would they? Murdoch is on record saying he would support Jeb or Hillary. And Hillary is pretty much the Jeb of the Democratic Party.

Image
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:24 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:She did not bring up 9/11 in answer to any question, but in rebuttal to the answer Sanders gave that she felt was attacking her integrity. The moderator brought it up but not with her own question or directly after Clinton'a answer, but by repeating a Twitter question.


Her integrity? Give me a break. At least this time she didn't say she "walked down to Nasdaq and gave them a good talking to" or whatever. What a fucking scream!


Whatever. The fact is that Sanders attacked her which gave her the chance to respond. YOU WERE WRONG when you said it was in response to a question - it wasn't.

Monker wrote:I don't recall her saying her campaign was mostly funded by small doners...I might have missed that. What I saw was her saying that her small donations were 60% women.


Both of these moments have gone viral. You are just out of touch. Keep watching the big three networks. They have no influence.


No, I watched the debate. I didn't go online to see what bits went viral after it was over.

Also, these were not two moments as you say above, but all in one statement:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc9ldTKX6No

I have my doubts that you even watched the debate but are only commenting on what you saw in the after debate spin.

Monker wrote:Not even FOX is saying Clinton was routed, as you are saying.


Uh, why would they? Murdoch is on record saying he would support Jeb or Hillary. And Hillary is pretty much the Jeb of the Democratic Party.


Murdoch isn't Bret Baier having an after debate discussion with several pundits and one of them saying exactly what I quoted.

Murdoch may control what his employees say but I doubt he has much, if any, control over what the others say.

The truth is most of what I heard was that Clinton had these couple things you mentioned that would go against her, but it was nothing that is going to destroy her 20-30pt lead over Sanders. Sanders had his own problems. His intro sucked and he fudged several answers giving O'Malley chances to come in and look like the better candidate. O'Malley had no 'gaffes' and came out ahead of both of them. That's the unbiased truth.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Mon Nov 16, 2015 9:50 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:Dude, you don't put something on prime-time network TV with the intention of it not being seen.


Saturday night is typically known as a graveyard slot for TV programming. In fact, many times when a show gets cancelled (or is about to) networks move it to Saturday nights. It is also not unusual for government to publicly release information on Saturday. Why? Again, so it can fly under the radar of the American people and the press.


We are not talking about moving some weekly show. We are talking about scheduling a debate. Regardless of the day it is on, having it on prime time network TV is NOT an effort to hide it from viewers. Putting it on C-SPAN or FOX Business, or something like that is a lot more 'hidden' then prime time CBS.

And, BTW, Sunday night, going against football, would be a lot worse. So would Monday night. So, again, if the idea was to limit the audience, they could have picked a better night.

Monker wrote:That's just ridiculous. Seriously, ask the RNC - they are doing the EXACT SAME THING.


This is a lie.


It absolutely is NOT a lie. The next Republican debate is scheduled for prime time, on a Saturday night, on CBS...EXACTLY THE SAME as this past weekend. So, the RNC doesn't want anybody to watch either - according to you.

RNC has 11 debates scheduled compared to six with the Democrats. It was also released that Hillary was pushing for there to only be FOUR debates. So you are just misinformed or a Jew hating, anti-Bernie Hillary sycophant. Pretty obvious what the answer is.


11 is FAR too many debates for the Democrats. You are right that four would be too few...but six it tolerable.

The RNC probably made the right decision since there are 100 candidates. Hopefully, by the end they can cut it down to a reasonable number of candidates so they can at least all fit on stage at the same time.

Monker wrote:As for the number of debates. In 2008 there were so many debates that it was being mocked.


Is that why the Republican debates are setting ratings records? Less debates is never a good thing.


The first Democratic debate had the most viewers of any Democratic debate in history. So, their number of viewers is nothing to scoff at.

Again, so many people watch the Republican debate because they want to see Trump go all wacko. Their field is a circus so people are watching it to be entertained, not to become informed.

Monker wrote:W. is a perfect case to point to. If he can be reelected, ANYBODY can be elected President.


Umm, Bush's 2004 victory all came down to Ohio. That is not how you win a general. And the Michael Bay Benghazi movie will certainly do her no favors.


LOL. Yeah, you don't win a national election by winning the national election by winning Ohio. That's a lot of winning that W had over Kerry for it to not be a good way to win an election.

You don't win a national election by being completely negative towards the other party without promoting your own positive ideas. It also does not help when the "Swift Boat" type ads go unanswered for far too long. Kerry lost because not enough people wanted to vote against W...and Kerry wasn't catering enough to get people to vote FOR him.

The Republicans are now in the same swift boat, especially if Trump wins.

And, the improving economy will probably much more of a factor then a movie.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Mon Nov 16, 2015 12:09 pm

I knew it...it isn't ISIS who is doing all of these terrorist attacks. It always has to be aliens, or...almost always...Steve Perry, to blame for everything:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-ReGtWNs1I
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Mon Nov 16, 2015 1:04 pm

Monker wrote:Whatever. The fact is that Sanders attacked her which gave her the chance to respond. YOU WERE WRONG when you said it was in response to a question - it wasn't.


So, just to be clear – Hillary’s 9/11 Tourettes moment was in response to a comment instead of a response to a question. Glad you cleared that up. As if there is a dime’s worth of difference between the two. :roll: You are becoming quite the master of Clintonian doublespeak yourself. Next you’ll probably ask me to clarify what the meaning of “is” is. The more you try to spin for the Clinton dynasty, the more obvious it becomes that you secretly wish Bill was using your asshole as his personal humidor.

Monker wrote:Also, these were not two moments as you say above, but all in one statement.


No, actually, the moderator brought up the 9/11 statement on a separate occasion and asked Hillary to respond to a viewer's tweet about it. So it was 2 very separate instances. Both of which your Queen handled badly. Are you sure you were watching the debate? Or were you too busy trying to reenact the Lady Gaga drill bit dildo scene from American Horror Story?

Monker wrote:Murdoch isn't Bret Baier having an after debate discussion with several pundits and one of them saying exactly what I quoted. Murdoch may control what his employees say but I doubt he has much, if any, control over what the others say.


You are talking about the same network which tried to kick Ron Paul out of the New Hampshire debates in ‘08 and also obscured their own televised poll results showing Paul as the clear winner. Why would you presume Fox to be a credible organization? The corporate media has no time for non-corporate sell outs like Ron Paul and Bernie.

Monker wrote:It absolutely is NOT a lie. The next Republican debate is scheduled for prime time, on a Saturday night, on CBS...EXACTLY THE SAME as this past weekend.


Wrong again. The next GOP debate will be on CNN and on a Tuesday.
Also current RNC head, Reince Preibus, did not co-chair any of the GOP candidates previous races. Debbie Wasserman Shulz, DNC Chair, was Clinton’s co-chair in 2008. Can you say conflict of interest? Huuuge difference.

Monker wrote:Sanders had his own problems. His intro sucked and he fudged several answers giving O'Malley chances to come in and look like the better candidate.


I guess u preferred Hillary's Neocon intro complete with faux macho references to herself as Commander-In-Chief. The only thing missing was a camo pants suit and “Mission Accomplished” banner. This grizzled bitch ever meet a war or an outdated weapons system she didn’t like? Go fist yourself.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:11 pm

TNC,

You asked me in a very emphatic way, "Did she or did she not play the "9-11" card when asked about her coffers being lined by Wall Street?" The answer to your question was, "NO," so I felt obligated to inform you of the context of Clinton's statment. Yes, there IS a difference between the two, especially when you question is asked in such a demanding way. Perhaps next time you do this you will know what happened in the debate and ask your demanding question correctly.

I said, "I don't recall her saying her campaign was mostly funded by small doners...I might have missed that. What I saw was her saying that her small donations were 60% women." You QUOTED THE ABOVE and replied, "Both of those moments have gone viral." There was NO MENTION of the viewer follow up question. So, I had to correct you yet again by informing you that these were the same moment, not two separate moments and provided the YouTube link so you could see what were talking about.

Now, I regret to inform you that the moderator did not present the follow up question but one of the three on the journalist panel, or whatever they call it.

You obviously did not watch this debate. You keep throwing out soundbites that piss you off, but you obvioiusly do not know the context of what was said or why it was said.

You know what, at this point I don't care if you understand why I pointed out what FOX said about the debate. We'll see the affect this week when the polls come out.

Ok, so the next Republican debate is on CNN. Sorry I made that mistake. I guess when I watched the debate I saw too many commercials for the upcoming Republican debate on CBS and just assumed that was the next debate. It still does not diminish the fact that the Republicans are having a debate on CBS, on a Saturday, during prime time. So, if the Democrats are trying to limit viewers, so are the Republicans.

I really don't care about Wasserman...I do not see anything unfair or anything favoring Clinton in how these debates are being handled. It may be a conflict of interest, as you say, but I do not see any obvious signs that it affected anything.

Yes, I did prefer both Clinton's and O'Malley's opening remarks over Sanders. Sanders did not seem confortable at all giving them, the comments towards the situation with France seemed flat and not well thought out, and he rambled through much of the rest of it. Sanders simply did not have good opening remarks.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:00 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:
From the looks of their ratings, hardly anybody watched that debate. Most people don't have time for bullshit.


Yep. But according to Monker, the debate aired at prime time. Saturday night is also prime time for Ron Popeil Veg-O-Matic infomercials, test patterns, and Hogans Heroes reruns. :roll:
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:37 am

Monker wrote:TNC,
You asked me in a very emphatic way, "Did she or did she not play the "9-11" card when asked about her coffers being lined by Wall Street?" The answer to your question was, "NO," so I felt obligated to inform you of the context of Clinton's statment. Yes, there IS a difference between the two, especially when you question is asked in such a demanding way. Perhaps next time you do this you will know what happened in the debate and ask your demanding question correctly.


But she DID play the 9-11 card. Your clarification that Hillary was responding to what an opponent said, as opposed to answering a question, means NOTHING. Is it a comment? Is it a response? Who gives a tinker's fuck? Morning Joe this morning on MSNBC was saying that it was a pretty bad moment for her. The Washington Post has compiled reaction from pundits all over. Yes, it was bad. Deal with it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... reet-what/

Monker wrote:I said, "I don't recall her saying her campaign was mostly funded by small doners...I might have missed that. What I saw was her saying that her small donations were 60% women." You QUOTED THE ABOVE and replied, "Both of those moments have gone viral." There was NO MENTION of the viewer follow up question. So, I had to correct you yet again by informing you that these were the same moment, not two separate moments and provided the YouTube link so you could see what were talking about.


The 9/11 comment and the small donors comment were separate lies and both have been torn apart separately by pundits. Her comment (or is that a response?) was "Not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, and I’m very proud that for the first time, a majority of my donors are women, 60%"

This has been debunked as a lie. Again, no mention of this by you. You are far too busy playing grammar and semantic police.

Monker wrote:Now, I regret to inform you that the moderator did not present the follow up question but one of the three on the journalist panel, or whatever they call it.


Here we go again... :roll: Was it asked by a moderator? Was it asked by a journalist? Generally speaking, anyone who talks to candidates on-stage during the debate can be considered a moderator. The female anchor asked instead of Dickerson. I guess she was a journalist...does it matter? Nope. Can you be anymore desperate?

Monker wrote:You obviously did not watch this debate. You keep throwing out soundbites that piss you off, but you obvioiusly do not know the context of what was said or why it was said.


Trust me, I watched it. And my close friend was at a bar downtown where there was a Bernie rally and the place was at fire marshall capacity. Btw, clarifying that a female anchor is a journalist does not add additional context. Clarifying that Hillary made her 9/11 moment responding to Bernie does not add additional context. This is all subterfuge to avoid talking about your candidate's lies.

Monker wrote:You know what, at this point I don't care if you understand why I pointed out what FOX said about the debate. We'll see the affect this week when the polls come out.

Ok, so the next Republican debate is on CNN. Sorry I made that mistake. I guess when I watched the debate I saw too many commercials for the upcoming Republican debate on CBS and just assumed that was the next debate. It still does not diminish the fact that the Republicans are having a debate on CBS, on a Saturday, during prime time. So, if the Democrats are trying to limit viewers, so are the Republicans.

I really don't care about Wasserman...I do not see anything unfair or anything favoring Clinton in how these debates are being handled. It may be a conflict of interest, as you say, but I do not see any obvious signs that it affected anything.

Yes, I did prefer both Clinton's and O'Malley's opening remarks over Sanders. Sanders did not seem confortable at all giving them, the comments towards the situation with France seemed flat and not well thought out, and he rambled through much of the rest of it. Sanders simply did not have good opening remarks.


Blah, blah, blah, bullshit. The Clintons are everything I loathe about Democrats. They speak in the language of the working poor and middle class and then give us NAFTA or the Telecomm Act or Welfare Reform or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As Alan Greenspan said Bill was "the best Republican president we've had in a while." Shame on you for supporting these perverts and continuing the dissolution of the Democratic Party. Jim Webb and Bernie were/are the real deal. For shame!
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Memorex » Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:26 am

Fact Finder wrote:Wow, did lil berry just self identify as a Muslim? I believe he did....hmmmmm, I need to find a replay from that press conference in Turkey.

Btw, that was the most insane presser by a POTUS I've ever witnessed. CNN and Fox both came out dumbfounded by berrys remarks. The dude has NO CLUE...NONE!


I have not contributed to this thread in many moons and I will not be pulled in again. But for this. I watched and I was truly, truly shocked. It was like watching a College Professor and not a President. I generally support much of his policy in regards to the drone strikes, special ops forces, not working to put it on the front page every day. But there are times you have to show your power and resolve and there was exactly zero of that. I actually felt ashamed. After such loss. Sometimes, the message has to be like this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/truman-leaflets/
User avatar
Memorex
Stereo LP
 
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:30 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Tue Nov 17, 2015 8:37 am

I found this guy's video concerning the latest attacks in France, Islam, the Syrian refugees etc. very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2iBZkODgxA
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:16 am

Fact Finder wrote:
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:VERY WELL PUT.
http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschl ... /page/full


Awesome sauce, my feelings exactly.

Conservatives can now make an even stronger case that we need to stop subsidizing these government-funded petri dishes of social pathologies and pinko bioweapons. The clown shows at Yale and UofM are a perfect, graphic demonstration of why we should slash their budgets, pare their loathsome, Dem-voting administrations to the bone, and force academia to change – and it goes without saying that the change will be into something other than the lefty conformity factories they are today.


Yeah, that' article is a grand idea. The Republicans should eliminate one more demographic from voting for them - college students. The front runner of your party has already alienated women and Hispanics, and blacks generally have given up on Republicans. So, yeah, make the election for the presidency even more impossible by alienating more voters. It's not the 1960's any longer where Nixon could win the white conservative vote and win the white house. The "silent majority" from back then is no longer a majority. The "silent majority" of today is the combination of the various minorities. Obama was reelected by minorities, not old white people like you. That's the new demographics of national elections. You can throw out angry articles, rant and call names, and point to elections from over 50yrs ago - but it isn't going to help you win anything. In fact, it will help the Democrats win.

If you want to get somewhere, then acknowledge, face and solve the issues...not try to squash them out of existence with anger...that doesn't solve anything.

Until Republicans start ignoring all of this CRAP, they will continue to lose national elections. As time goes on, they will lose more often by a wider margin. That's not a prediction, it's a fact. If you can not acknowledge that the white conservative vote is now out numbered by the combination of liberals and the various minorities, then you are not facing reality. If you can not acknowledge that the gap between white conservatives and everybody else is getting wider as time goes on, then you are not facing reality. If Republicans can not expand their base beyond white conservatives, then the party is sentencing itself to being a constant minority in national election. I guess they can scratch up some power in congress...but they will never do it nationally until they make some fundamental changes.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 9:57 am

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:TNC,
You asked me in a very emphatic way, "Did she or did she not play the "9-11" card when asked about her coffers being lined by Wall Street?" The answer to your question was, "NO," so I felt obligated to inform you of the context of Clinton's statment. Yes, there IS a difference between the two, especially when you question is asked in such a demanding way. Perhaps next time you do this you will know what happened in the debate and ask your demanding question correctly.


But she DID play the 9-11 card. Your clarification that Hillary was responding to what an opponent said, as opposed to answering a question, means NOTHING.


I already explained that it meant the difference between me answering, "Yes" or "No". So, yes, it did mean something.

Monker wrote:I said, "I don't recall her saying her campaign was mostly funded by small doners...I might have missed that. What I saw was her saying that her small donations were 60% women." You QUOTED THE ABOVE and replied, "Both of those moments have gone viral." There was NO MENTION of the viewer follow up question. So, I had to correct you yet again by informing you that these were the same moment, not two separate moments and provided the YouTube link so you could see what were talking about.


The 9/11 comment and the small donors comment were separate lies and both have been torn apart separately by pundits. Her comment (or is that a response?) was "Not only do I have hundreds of thousands of donors, most of them small, and I’m very proud that for the first time, a majority of my donors are women, 60%"

This has been debunked as a lie. Again, no mention of this by you. You are far too busy playing grammar and semantic police.


WTF? So, now you are flip-flopping on this and going back to your original assertion that it was two moments? My God, it was THE SAME SENTENCE. It was NOT two moments.

Monker wrote:Now, I regret to inform you that the moderator did not present the follow up question but one of the three on the journalist panel, or whatever they call it.


Here we go again... :roll: Was it asked by a moderator? Was it asked by a journalist? Generally speaking, anyone who talks to candidates on-stage during the debate can be considered a moderator. The female anchor asked instead of Dickerson. I guess she was a journalist...does it matter? Nope. Can you be anymore desperate?


That is NOT TRUE. In this case, there was a moderator and three people on a journalist panel who could ask question. Those three people did not have authority to moderate the debate. There is no "generally speaking" about it at all.

It has nothing to do with being "desperate"...if that were the case I would not have said O'Malley did so well. You simply don't seem to know anything about what you are talking about. You claim to have watched the debate, but WFT? There are so many errors in your posts that I don't think you know what you are talking about. I think you just picked up on a few bits to "prove" how bad Clinton is and everything else, including the context of those remarks, just vanished from your head. You are so fixated on insulting Clinton that nothing else matters.


Trust me, I watched it.


Then you must have watched it drunk or something considering how much of the details you obviously forgot.

Clarifying that Hillary made her 9/11 moment responding to Bernie does not add additional context. This is all subterfuge to avoid talking about your candidate's lies.


YES IT DOES MATTER. Again, you asked "Did she or did she not invoke 9/11 in response to a question..." Or, whatever, reread your own post for the exact quote. Taken IN THAT CONTEXT the answer to your question is "No, she did not answer any question by invoking 9/11." But, if I said that you be all "Did so! Did so!" So, I simply corrected you to put it in the correct context.

Blah, blah, blah, bullshit. The Clintons are everything I loathe about Democrats. They speak in the language of the working poor and middle class and then give us NAFTA or the Telecomm Act or Welfare Reform or the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. As Alan Greenspan said Bill was "the best Republican president we've had in a while." Shame on you for supporting these perverts and continuing the dissolution of the Democratic Party. Jim Webb and Bernie were/are the real deal. For shame!


All I am saying is she is going to win. Even on some of Sanders' issues, Clinton has a better handle on them. She is absolutely correct on Glass-Steagall. She did a bad job explaining it, but she's right. At this point, putting Glass-Steagall back into law would cause a financial crisis and probably a recession. At least she said what she said in Des Moines where a large portion of people would understand her. Sanders just isn't someone I see being President. Even O'Malley seemed more like a leader and somebody who had a broader understanding of the issues than Sanders and would be a better President. And, as I said before, Sanders' socialist ideas are way too expensive. Yes, we could increase taxes on the rich, and I think we should because W's tax cut did NOTHING to help the economy, but we shouldn't do that and then spend it right away on something else. Yes, we should rethink our military spending but Clinton is correct that we have to be smart about it because the Cold War may be over but those cold war attitudes still exist in the world, and so do the weapons.

What you need to understand is I am NOT a Democrat. I'm not a Democrat because I do NOT believe in this idea that government is the best solution for each and ever personal issue that citizens have. I feel government has a place and is NEEDED in certain ways but it is not the solution to everything. Just like war is not the solution to all our foreign policy issues...which is what most Republicans seem to believe. Almost every time, war makes things worse. The war in Iraq made things worse. The war in Libya made things worse. Arming Osama in the 80's ended up killing Americans. Arming Saddam in his fight against Iran ended up killing Americans. So, we should avoid it and stay out of it. But, in a case like ISIS, we should be able to stand WITH our allies and the region and deal with the issue so that not one country takes the brunt of the battle scars. If our allies are unwilling to help, or the region does not want us there, then we should stay out of it and save our time, money, and the blood of our children.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Boomchild » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:40 am

Image
"If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." George Washington
User avatar
Boomchild
Compact Disc
 
Posts: 7129
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 6:10 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:43 am

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:First the House, then the Senate, you said they didn't stand a chance


That is absolute and complete BULLSHIT. You are a liar. In NEITHER case did I ever say "they don't stand a chance". Prove me wrong you bullshit liar and find the post on ANY forum that exists on the internet and quote me saying it.

These kids were never going to vote Republican for years. Their properly brain washed. I wish they could see exactly how sad they look. Again you throw your OPINION like it's fact. It's tripe.


Why would anybody vote for a party that acts the way the author of this article did? The Republicans give them no reason to vote for them. So, since they don't you feel justified in throwing about insults? It seems to the Republicans are acting in exactly the same way they are accusing the college kids of acting.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 12:19 pm

And, KC, since you are such an lying idiot, this was what I said prior to the election 2yrs ago when Republicans took the senate...it's on page 708 of this thread:


conversationpc wrote:
My prediction...Republicans win back the Senate and stay in control of the House. However...Unless they replace the old farts still in control of the GOP, nothing substantial will be accomplished and we'll simply still be on the same course we're on now, just at a slightly slower pace.


Monker wrote:
I absolutely agree with you. They are using the legislative process itself to practice national politics...at the expense of doing the people's business.

The problem is, it worked. There is no reason the Republicans should stop. There is no reason the Democrats won't learn to start.

In fact, I'll even disagree about the "slightly slower pace". Congress has made itself irrelevant even now...it can't get any slower.



The truth is two years ago I didn't give a damn about who controlled congress...and I remember explicitely saying so several times.

And, conversationpc and I were 100% correct. You won AND NOTHING CHANGED. In fact, part of the reason Trump and Carson are winning is because Republicans are pissed that they own the congress and still can't get their agenda done, or completely stop Obama.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:02 pm

And, KC, you lying idiot, this is my prediction in 2010 when the Republicans took the House


RedWingFan wrote (in reply to SevenWishes):
Anyway. DavePC already handed you your ass on this issue. By the way I love your statement... "And on the issues that matter most to Americans, more people want Democrats in charge than the GOP"

Enjoy the ass beating of epic proportions next Tuesday, you clueless bastard. You should really pull your head out of Monkers ass and get a clue!

vie ... th#4498266


I wrote in reply:
What? Did you not even read the note that I wrote on this? I said that the Republicans will take the House...but not by the huge landslide of 100 seat swing that Newt, and others, are putting out as propaganda. I said they will gain seats in the Senate, but will not get a majority.

That's realistic...neither of you two seem to be able to do that. Maybe you should get your head out of each others ass.


This is on page 284 on this forum. I also said the same thing on page 282. And, of course, I was right about this, blah, blah, blah...>slap my own arrogant back for being so accurate in my predictions< Etc, add more gloating here ---> _____________.

So, KC, you are now officially a proven liar.

And, I have proven to have predicted those two elections correctly. Do you want me to go back to 2012 and see how I predicted the presidency? I bet you don't want to see that old post. How about 2008? Is it obvious that I have too much time to kill right now?

Clinton will win in 2016 because the Republicans are acting like idiots. That's my prediction....and has been since not too long after the 2014 election.
Last edited by Monker on Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 1:16 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:I really don't know who is a bigger stark raving idiot, monker or this clueless idiot. It could be a tie. either way, very sad indeed.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/16/o ... ign=buffer

And Monker, to be honest, I scan your posts and consider that a terrific waste of time. I have zero respect for you and consider you far worse then a blithering idiot.


I don't believe you. I think you read everything I post and consider me a genius. You've lied so much lately that I'm sure there are lies in the above quote, too.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:25 pm

Monker wrote:I already explained that it meant the difference between me answering, "Yes" or "No". So, yes, it did mean something.

It doesn't matter if the moderator raised the question or Bernie raised it or a drunkard in the audience shouted it out. Hillary played the 9/11 card to defend her Wall Street contributions. It was shameless. Nothing you say will change that.

And don’t look now, Monk, but it seems even the Clinton house organ, The NYTimes, has come out against her 9/11 gaffe.
Uh oh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opini ... .html?_r=0

Monker wrote:WTF? So, now you are flip-flopping on this and going back to your original assertion that it was two moments? My God, it was THE SAME SENTENCE. It was NOT two moments.


One sentence, two big lies. Plus, the 9/11 comment was brought up again as a viewer tweet during the debate. So, really, six of one and a half dozen of the other. And now Hillary is facing scrutiny for her claim about being turned away by the Marines. That fish yarn rang about as truthful as the Bosnia sniper story. The only time this woman doesn’t lie is when her lips are clamped around Huma Abedin’s clit.

Monker wrote:That is NOT TRUE. In this case, there was a moderator and three people on a journalist panel who could ask question. Those three people did not have authority to moderate the debate. There is no "generally speaking" about it at all.


Oh please. When somebody asks questions to a public person on a stage, it is not a stretch whatsoever to refer to that person as a moderator or a host. You must shit your pants every night when Pat Sajak refers to Vanna White as his co-host instead of "professional letter turner." Go get a fucking life.

Monker wrote:All I am saying is she is going to win.


If Hillary wins the nomination, the 2016 race will make the defeat of McGovern look like a close call.

Monker wrote:What you need to understand is I am NOT a Democrat. I'm not a Democrat because I do NOT believe in this idea that government is the best solution for each and ever personal issue that citizens have.


Sorry. No self-respecting independent would ever consider voting for Hillary. Hell, even most liberals can’t stand her.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Nov 17, 2015 3:25 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Hillarys donors
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/16/s ... ign=buffer


So much for "small donors", right? This woman is a total fraud.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:24 pm

K.C.Journey Fan wrote:
Monker wrote:
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:I really don't know who is a bigger stark raving idiot, monker or this clueless idiot. It could be a tie. either way, very sad indeed.

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/16/o ... ign=buffer

And Monker, to be honest, I scan your posts and consider that a terrific waste of time. I have zero respect for you and consider you far worse then a blithering idiot.


I don't believe you. I think you read everything I post and consider me a genius. You've lied so much lately that I'm sure there are lies in the above quote, too.


That came straight off the Iowa pasture.


And, you are still a liar and I proved it.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:45 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Monker wrote:I already explained that it meant the difference between me answering, "Yes" or "No". So, yes, it did mean something.

It doesn't matter if the moderator raised the question or Bernie raised it or a drunkard in the audience shouted it out. Hillary played the 9/11 card to defend her Wall Street contributions. It was shameless. Nothing you say will change that.


You are simply not reading my posts and you are injecting your own wacko meaning to them.

If you read the damn post that you quoted and replied to, and I requoted above, you would know that I'm NOT TRYING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

And don’t look now, Monk, but it seems even the Clinton house organ, The NYTimes, has come out against her 9/11 gaffe.
Uh oh.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/16/opini ... .html?_r=0


So...it doesn't mean much to me at all.

Monker wrote:WTF? So, now you are flip-flopping on this and going back to your original assertion that it was two moments? My God, it was THE SAME SENTENCE. It was NOT two moments.


One sentence, two big lies. Plus, the 9/11 comment was brought up again as a viewer tweet during the debate. [/quote]
[/quote]

Would you please quit posting shit and making YOUR OWN GAFFES? I'm not even going to comment on this one. You are just droning on and on about nonsense now.

Oh please. When somebody asks questions to a public person on a stage, it is not a stretch whatsoever to refer to that person as a moderator or a host. You must shit your pants every night when Pat Sajak refers to Vanna White as his co-host instead of "professional letter turner." Go get a fucking life.


That's Vanna's job title, I spose...You can argue about it all you want but it's not going to change the fact that those three were not the moderators. Who was the person who forced commercial breaks? Who was the person who said they were breaking the rules? THAT was the moderator. The other three had nothing to do with all of that. The were not moderators. They were not introduced as moderators. They were not acting as moderators. They didn't quack like moderators. They were not moderators.

Monker wrote:All I am saying is she is going to win.


If Hillary wins the nomination, the 2016 race will make the defeat of McGovern look like a close call.


If the Republicans were acting like a normal party, then you may have a point. But, they are not. They are acting a like a bunch of pissed-off, whiney, baby's. The are so angry at the establishment that they would rather nominate somebody who can't win the election than somebody who truly represents their party and can win the election. This is the angry group that nominated Christine O'Donnell...and because of that, they will lose the Presidency, just like Christine O'Donnell lost that senate seat in what should have been an easy win for the Republicans. Nominated Trump, Carson, or even Cruz...and it won't matter who the Democrats nominate - they will win. And, the longer Trump is at the top and talking shit, the more it hurts every other potential nominee because he is alienating so many voters from the Republican party.

Sorry. No self-respecting independent would ever consider voting for Hillary. Hell, even most liberals can’t stand her.


The polls prove you wrong...we'll see how much they change soon.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby Monker » Tue Nov 17, 2015 4:58 pm

The_Noble_Cause wrote:
K.C.Journey Fan wrote:Hillarys donors
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/16/s ... ign=buffer


So much for "small donors", right? This woman is a total fraud.


Yeah, that's how a liar like KC would make it look.

Here is the real data:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/dono ... =N00000019

Since this only counts contributions over $200, it is VERY possible she has more small donars than large. The same goes for the 60% women...according to this data, it's around 55% but, again, that doesn't include donation of < $200.

So, I definitely am not going to say that either of these isn't true...until somebody can list all donations for the campaign.

Regardless, it doesn't matter so much to me anyway.
Monker
MP3
 
Posts: 12648
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2002 12:40 pm

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Tue Nov 17, 2015 11:59 pm

Monker wrote:Yeah, that's how a liar like KC would make it look.

Here is the real data:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/dono ... =N00000019

Since this only counts contributions over $200, it is VERY possible she has more small donars than large. The same goes for the 60% women...according to this data, it's around 55% but, again, that doesn't include donation of < $200.

So, I definitely am not going to say that either of these isn't true...until somebody can list all donations for the campaign.


According to the AP, less than 20% of Hillary's donations are under $200

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candi ... =N00000019

Monker wrote:Regardless, it doesn't matter so much to me anyway.


Of course it doesn't. You are a bigger Clinton whore than Lanny Davis.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

Re: President Barack Obama - Term 2 Thread

Postby The_Noble_Cause » Wed Nov 18, 2015 12:07 am

Monker wrote:You are simply not reading my posts and you are injecting your own wacko meaning to them.

If you read the damn post that you quoted and replied to, and I requoted above, you would know that I'm NOT TRYING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.


Bottom line: Invoking 9/11 and the death of thousands is the refuge of a coward and she hid behind it. Deal with it.

Monker wrote:Would you please quit posting shit and making YOUR OWN GAFFES? I'm not even going to comment on this one. You are just droning on and on about nonsense now.


Bottom line: She lied about having "mostly small donors" and she played both the "gender card" and the 9/11 card. It was pathetic.

Monker wrote:That's Vanna's job title, I spose...You can argue about it all you want but it's not going to change the fact that those three were not the moderators.


Debate Moderator...Debate Host...Debate Anchor...Debate Personality...who cares? You obviously are trying to discuss everything EXCEPT Hillary.

Monker wrote:The are so angry at the establishment that they would rather nominate somebody who can't win the election than somebody who truly represents their party and can win the election.


As I've said before, Trump is against "free trade" like NAFTA and TPP and also supports traditional Democratic programs like Medicare. For these reasons, he is not your typical Repub and is uniquely poised to win support from labor-minded Dems and independents. I know because I'm one of them. #Trump 2016.
"I think we should all sue this women for depriving us of our God given right to go down with a clear mind, and good thoughts." - Stu, Consumate Pussy Eater
User avatar
The_Noble_Cause
Super Audio CD
 
Posts: 16055
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 9:14 am
Location: Lake Titicaca

PreviousNext

Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests