The Man of Steal

[Zircon]

[McPhallus]

How long will it take a certain individual to claim this is somehow racist.

[b_dubb]

again ... the subtlety ... always classy

[Zircon]

again ... the subtlety ... always classy

Yes, Obama has done a rather weak job at hiding who and what he really is. Subtle? Really? I guess I must be Captain America to get The Man of Steal to bare his true colors? An epic film is in order ... "2016 Part II"

[BobGrau]

How long will it take a certain individual to claim this is somehow racist.

It is racist... against Kryptonians.

[Zircon]

It is racist... against Kryptonians.

He ain't Krytonian ... he be Xenonian !!! Get your planetary symbols right man !!!

[Ruteger]

Zircon - great post. Hussein is a Manchurian Candidate. Should the American People vote him another 4 years, let their suffering be worthy of a song! Unfortunately, sane-minded individuals like yourself and myself will have to bear the brunt also.

[MV/Liberace!]

Zircon - great post. Hussein is a Manchurian Candidate. Should the American People vote him another 4 years, let their suffering be worthy of a song! Unfortunately, sane-minded individuals like yourself and myself will have to bear the brunt also.

i think you guys had better prepare yourselves for an obama win.  romney is such a weak candidate in so many ways.  i've already resigned myself to the fact that obama will be the president for another term.  doing so early will lessen the pain.

[PB the Deplorable]

i think you guys had better prepare yourselves for an obama win.  romney is such a weak candidate in so many ways.  i've already resigned myself to the fact that obama will be the president for another term.  doing so early will lessen the pain.

I've prepared myself in every election since 1984 that I wasn't going to get someone I liked, or that would even talk as if they were going to take the country in the direction it needed to go.  So no problem there.

There are 2 truisms at work here.  One is you can't beat somebody with nobody - and Romney is doing everything he can think of to show that he's a nobody.  Obama is also a nobody - but he didn't have to beat a sitting President last time, and this time he's at least the incumbent.

The second is that no incumbent this incompetent and just plain wrong on economic issues and foreign policy issues can win.  (See Jimmy Carter.  Hell, for that matter, see George Bush I, who did everything he could for 4 years to show he wasn't Reagan and ended up letting a brief recession we were actually out of on election day beat him).


So we have to wait and see.  A few more things I'd point out is that Obama is not leading 50-something % to 40-something %, he's reported to be leading 40-something % to 40-something %.  That means that the voters that know him and plan to vote for him are under 50%.  Historically when a sitting President is under 50% this late, those undecideds have tended to break for the challenger.

Second is the way the polls are skewed.  All polls are skewed.  The pollsters can only collect results from people actually at home answering the phone.  Certain groups are overrepresented in this - older retired folks, bored housewives, people on welfare or unemployment, people that work nights, others.  The pollsters know this and try to 'adjust' their results by giving additional weight to those groups they think were underrepresented in the actual collected results they got.  To do that they look back to earlier elections to see the actual historical turnout of various groups.  For example, in the 2008 election African Americans and students turned out in greater numbers than ever before.  Pollsters looking back to that are going to overweight these groups if their turnout is not as great this time around - which seems like a pretty good bet. 

A third item is the Phony Media.  These shills are a wholly owned subsidiary of the D Party, and are going to do everything they can to help Obama.  This includes trying to convince people that an Obama win is inevitable and therefore try to convince the easily led undecideds to vote with the 'winners', or to discourage people into just staying home because Romney is a losing cause.  Or that there is no harm in throwing their vote away on some third party.

We haven't even had the debates yet.  I'm thinking a guy used to interacting with smart experienced people in boardrooms may have an advantage over a guy that can't even talk without letting his mask slip to reveal his true self unless he has a teleprompter.

Bottom line - Romney may lose, Obama may win, but it's by no means assured.  Don't believe anything you hear from the D'crat media machine.

[Zircon]

P*B, you’re two “truisms” are on the mark concerning Obama. However, Romney keeps getting this lame description largely because he is not being reported on properly. He is being described as being far more lack-luster in his message and rallies than he really is.

And the observation of his less than 50% approval is of major importance as no president has ever been reelected with less than 50% approval. The “middle class” is reported to be a breaking a +14 for Romney. When a close race is underway, undecided voters do tent to break for the challenger.

Second is the way the polls are skewed.  All polls are skewed.  The pollsters can only collect results from people actually at home answering the phone.  Certain groups are overrepresented in this - older retired folks, bored housewives, people on welfare or unemployment, people that work nights, others.  The pollsters know this and try to 'adjust' their results by giving additional weight to those groups they think were underrepresented in the actual collected results they got.  To do that they look back to earlier elections to see the actual historical turnout of various groups.  For example, in the 2008 election African Americans and students turned out in greater numbers than ever before.  Pollsters looking back to that are going to overweight these groups if their turnout is not as great this time around - which seems like a pretty good bet.

Brilliant description.

A third item is the Phony Media.  These shills are a wholly owned subsidiary of the D Party, and are going to do everything they can to help Obama.  This includes trying to convince people that an Obama win is inevitable and therefore try to convince the easily led undecideds to vote with the 'winners', or to discourage people into just staying home because Romney is a losing cause.  Or that there is no harm in throwing their vote away on some third party.

We haven't even had the debates yet.  I'm thinking a guy used to interacting with smart experienced people in boardrooms may have an advantage over a guy that can't even talk without letting his mask slip to reveal his true self unless he has a teleprompter.

Bottom line - Romney may lose, Obama may win, but it's by no means assured.  Don't believe anything you hear from the D'crat media machine.

Biting but wholly accurate. An excellent post P*B. I think you said you worked or are currently working in the media itself.

[MV/Liberace!]

The second is that no incumbent this incompetent and just plain wrong on economic issues and foreign policy issues can win.

obama's economic policies largely reflect his philosophies which were articulated during the campaign, and people voted for him anyway.  i'd like to think you're correct in the statement above, but i just don't see it.


i think if the republican party had supported ron paul, he could have easily defeated obama and the republicans would have been assured the white house.  all it required was a bit of risk taking, but they were such a collection of pussies that they had to rally behind the empty suit establishment shill.  the result?  4 more years.  i think paul was the only candidate who could have easily defeated obama.  i know some of you will disagree with that because you can't stand ron paul or libertarians for this or that reason, and that's fine... but nothing is going to get better without bold, unusual ideas and someone to implement them.  romney is neither bold nor unusual.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Biting but wholly accurate. An excellent post P*B...

I'm not sure any of that is especially biting, it's who Obama has chosen to be in life - Obama has hidden his past to the point we know who very few of his associates were (and nearly nothing about his activities).  Let's see, there are Frank Davis, Valerie Jarrett, and David Axelrod - all either known Commies or at the very least Red Diaper Babies, his closest friends and confidants seem to have been Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohrn - homegrown 1960s radical terrorists, 20 years in the church of the Rev Jeremiah Wright - Black Liberation Theologist and hater of America and Israel.  Rising through the ranks of the incredibly corrupt Chicago political machine.  I was just pointing that Obama gets off point and lets us know who he is every once in awhile.

Add all that to his Moslem upbringing, and who knows what all else he's hiding, and we have a very radical Marxist that disagrees with just about everything that made America great, and who is either incapable of recognizing the reality and threat of the Jihadi's such as the Moslem Brotherhood - or worse, does recognize it and is knowingly helping it along.  Everything he has said and done screams this out to those who will watch and listen. 

A few weeks ago he was talking about hard working Americans 'not building that', and that 'the private sector is doing just fine it's the government that's hurting'.  This week he's blaming a 3 month old video that no one ever heard of for 'spontaneously' causing riots and the murder of our ambassador, that it is some big coincidence it just happened to occur on the 9/11 anniversary, and that it wasn't at all related to jihadi terrorism.

Before that it was the Alinsky tactic of zeroing in on the target (Romney), and showering him with lies - felon, murderer, tax cheat, job exporter, vulture capitalist, and worst of all - he's 'rich'.

...  I think you said you worked or are currently working in the media itself.

Nope, just an interest in the world around me and a long time observer of how these ideas and events have been reported by our friends in the media, and the tactics they use. 

[PB the Deplorable]

obama's economic policies largely reflect his philosophies which were articulated during the campaign, and people voted for him anyway...

Everyone was warned that he was a Marxist and a sympathizer of radical Islam, and we were scorned and called racists.  Now you are telling me he put that out there during the campaign for all to see?  From where I'm sitting, he's still hiding it and denying it.

There are always going to be something near 40% that will vote for the Ds regardless, and about the same for the Rs.   That's why 60% is considered a landslide.  The people that decide the elections are the others, mostly people that don't pay attention, don't really care, aren't interested.  For sure there are some true moderates that carefully weigh everything, think about who they think the 'best person' is and vote accordingly, but really - damn few.  And even those 'moderates' don't actually believe in anything much, or they wouldn't be 'moderates' in the first place.

Obama won that election on meaningless terms like 'Hope', 'Change', 'Bringing us all together', 'Rebuilding America'.   That's all crap because it invites everyone to project their own notions of what those terms mean onto the speaker, and then vote for that.  The candidate plays to each audience and tells them exactly what they want to hear, having the effect of reinforcing those projections.  When these demigods win elections that way, they later spell out more clearly what it was they 'meant' for everyone to hear, and then claim that's what people voted for. 

His actual economic policies have been to bailout a few big companies (and, specifically, unions and big donors), to hand out tons of money to Wall Street (again donors), ram this Obamacare bill down our throats, and try to bankrupt the country with $6 Trillion in additional debt.  Please don't tell me he articulated all that beforehand and that's what people voted for.  Don't tell me he was told us he was going to dump Israel, push over Arab regimes, and deliver them to the Brotherhood.  He didn't. 

Now I'm sure people can find all kinds of quotes from 2008 where he told various groups of radical supporters this stuff, but it certainly wasn't put out there for general consumption - just the opposite.

... i think if the republican party had supported ron paul, he could have easily defeated obama and the republicans would have been assured the white house.  all it required was a bit of risk taking, but they were such a collection of pussies that they had to rally behind the empty suit establishment shill.  the result?  4 more years.  i think paul was the only candidate who could have easily defeated obama.  i know some of you will disagree with that because you can't stand ron paul or libertarians for this or that reason, and that's fine... but nothing is going to get better without bold, unusual ideas and someone to implement them.  romney is neither bold nor unusual.

I consider myself some mix of Libertarian and Conservative, but I'm really whatever the Founding Fathers were.  I like a lot of what Ron Paul has to say.  I think he would have been a disaster because of the things I disagree with.  If he were to be elected, how would anything get done? - he would have no fellow members of his Libertarian Party to work with or steer bills through.  The Conservative Rs would have worked with him but that's all.  The problem with the Libertarians - other than lack of any party infastructure - is the inability to prioritize - they think getting rid of zoning laws, legalizing prostitution, and selling the National Parks is just as important as National Security and tax reform.

Job One is getting rid of Obama and his radicalism, voting for Ron Paul in Nov is not helping that.

[Ruteger]

Hussein doesn't frighten me - I fear the American Public. If they are willing to give this man another 4 years after witnessing the last 4 years - then we are doomed. America is finished. No going back. This is the Fall of the Roman Empire. The Shining City on a Hill - it's Light extinguished.


I keep hoping and praying that November 2010 mid-elections were not a fluke. I still have hope the American People will do the right thing.


God help our Great Nation.

[Zircon]

Interesting that you mention the "American Public" Ruteger. There is an old saying that is something along the lines of ... you have freedom when the government fears the people, and you have tyranny when the people fear the government. I think the American public is afraid of the government and the government is afraid of the people at this time. Strange days.

I don't know if the GOP would be a shoe-in with Ron Paul as the nominee/candidate. While the left would have welcomed his "Get Out of the Middle East" (I would as well), the right wouldn't. The left is viewed as "anti-Israel" and "pro-Arab" regardless of their rhetoric. Getting rid of several federal agencies ... couldn't agree more (I'm with him there). Slashing the defense budget (with less overseas commitments and a growing trend towards push-button warfare ... well, why not?). Also, energy independence (Absolutely for this !!!). Our dependency is what has made us a slave to the Middle East.

BUT he is too radical for the comfort zone of politicians and a big chunk of the people. His "immediate" changes happen too quickly. I can't imagine a plan that would make a quick transition effectively as the associations are more intertwined than a bowl with 10,000 pounds of spaghetti noodles in it. How to clean that up. That is a serious drawback to electing basically a "populist" be he right or not in his convictions.

The "Founding Fathers" believed in a small, limited government and the sovereignty of the individual states of the union hence, the "United States" of "America". We need not be reminded that this idea is totally alien to either party these days and a third party would find it unworkable as well.

[Zircon]

P*B, you sure know to write - damn, you're spot on in your analysis. Very insightful. I've read a lot of your stuff as arrows are shot at you from multiple directions. Great Ninja work. I won't even try to comment on your response section-by-section. I couldn't add anything significant as we agree.

[PB the Deplorable]

Hussein doesn't frighten me - I fear the American Public. If they are willing to give this man another 4 years after witnessing the last 4 years - then we are doomed. America is finished. No going back. This is the Fall of the Roman Empire. The Shining City on a Hill - it's Light extinguished.


I keep hoping and praying that November 2010 mid-elections were not a fluke. I still have hope the American People will do the right thing.


God help our Great Nation.

You know when I knew it was over?  When Ronald Reagan couldn't fix the spending and entitlements in 8 years, and Bush I got elected and tried to show everyone he wasn't like Reagan instead of keeping the revolution going. 

So basically this is mostly about keeping afloat as long as possible.  But if the Tea Party (the Establishment Rs are obviously incapable of doing anything constructive) can demonstrate to a certain portion the Black, Asian, and Latin communities that they are actually Conservatives too, we can still turn this around.  Need to make the case and take it directly to them and not have the message filtered thru the Phony Media.  The Left has had a 50 year Long March through our institutions - the bureaucracy, schools, universities, the media, and it would take years to take them back, but it is doable

[Pragmier]

i think if the republican party had supported ron paul, he could have easily defeated obama and the republicans would have been assured the white house.  all it required was a bit of risk taking, but they were such a collection of pussies that they had to rally behind the empty suit establishment shill.  the result?  4 more years.  i think paul was the only candidate who could have easily defeated obama.  i know some of you will disagree with that because you can't stand ron paul or libertarians for this or that reason, and that's fine... but nothing is going to get better without bold, unusual ideas and someone to implement them.  romney is neither bold nor unusual.

agree 100%

[Ruteger]

If the USAToday/NYTimes polls show Hussein ahead by 50 points, that gives me even more reason and desire to vote on Nov 6. Romney may lose, but I will sleep well at night, knowing I honored the Founding Fathers with an informed and responsible vote.

I've prepared myself in every election since 1984 that I wasn't going to get someone I liked, or that would even talk as if they were going to take the country in the direction it needed to go.  So no problem there.

There are 2 truisms at work here.  One is you can't beat somebody with nobody - and Romney is doing everything he can think of to show that he's a nobody.  Obama is also a nobody - but he didn't have to beat a sitting President last time, and this time he's at least the incumbent.

The second is that no incumbent this incompetent and just plain wrong on economic issues and foreign policy issues can win.  (See Jimmy Carter.  Hell, for that matter, see George Bush I, who did everything he could for 4 years to show he wasn't Reagan and ended up letting a brief recession we were actually out of on election day beat him).


So we have to wait and see.  A few more things I'd point out is that Obama is not leading 50-something % to 40-something %, he's reported to be leading 40-something % to 40-something %.  That means that the voters that know him and plan to vote for him are under 50%.  Historically when a sitting President is under 50% this late, those undecideds have tended to break for the challenger.

Second is the way the polls are skewed.  All polls are skewed.  The pollsters can only collect results from people actually at home answering the phone.  Certain groups are overrepresented in this - older retired folks, bored housewives, people on welfare or unemployment, people that work nights, others.  The pollsters know this and try to 'adjust' their results by giving additional weight to those groups they think were underrepresented in the actual collected results they got.  To do that they look back to earlier elections to see the actual historical turnout of various groups.  For example, in the 2008 election African Americans and students turned out in greater numbers than ever before.  Pollsters looking back to that are going to overweight these groups if their turnout is not as great this time around - which seems like a pretty good bet. 

A third item is the Phony Media.  These shills are a wholly owned subsidiary of the D Party, and are going to do everything they can to help Obama.  This includes trying to convince people that an Obama win is inevitable and therefore try to convince the easily led undecideds to vote with the 'winners', or to discourage people into just staying home because Romney is a losing cause.  Or that there is no harm in throwing their vote away on some third party.

We haven't even had the debates yet.  I'm thinking a guy used to interacting with smart experienced people in boardrooms may have an advantage over a guy that can't even talk without letting his mask slip to reveal his true self unless he has a teleprompter.

Bottom line - Romney may lose, Obama may win, but it's by no means assured.  Don't believe anything you hear from the D'crat media machine.

[PB the Deplorable]

If the USAToday/NYTimes polls show Hussein ahead by 50 points, that gives me even more reason and desire to vote on Nov 6. Romney may lose, but I will sleep well at night, knowing I honored the Founding Fathers with an informed and responsible vote.

Dick Morris is right about things like campaign strategies, polls, and predictions more than most.  Over the years he has been very very good.  He's convinced Romney will win.  Here is yesterdays column.

I agree with what he says about Obama being under 50% and those undecides ultimately breaking for Romney - that is my experience reading polls over the years as well.  These people have seen Obama for 4 years, as we all have, and are not with him.   Add to that the media bias even in conducting polls.  And any Bradley effect there may be.

http://www.dickmorris.com/romney-pulls-ahead/

What will be really telling is which campaign starts to panic.  The internal polls conducted by each campaign are usually the most accurate - they are not made public, except sometimes bits are leaked for tactical reasons - and how campaigns behave or change behavior can be indicitive..

[MV/Liberace!]

Everyone was warned that he was a Marxist and a sympathizer of radical Islam, and we were scorned and called racists.  Now you are telling me he put that out there during the campaign for all to see?

His actual economic policies have been to bailout a few big companies (and, specifically, unions and big donors), to hand out tons of money to Wall Street (again donors), ram this Obamacare bill down our throats, and try to bankrupt the country with $6 Trillion in additional debt.  Please don't tell me he articulated all that beforehand and that's what people voted for.  Don't tell me he was told us he was going to dump Israel, push over Arab regimes, and deliver them to the Brotherhood.  He didn't.

perhaps obama didn't specifically articulate some of these ideas in a deliberate way and in the context of how you've chosen to frame this discussion, but:

1) in 2008 i couldn't turn on the tv or read a blog or peek at coastgab without hearing of obama's radical leftist associations of the past and his third world vision for america. 

2) he and hillary were practically stepping on one another to get in front of microphones and tell the american people about their desire to socialize our medical system. 

3) we had an entire weeks long national discussion about his shit-bag racist anti american preacher who helped steer his world view for 20 years. 

4) there were a billion websites echoing all of this. 

5) he wrote books in which these ideas, including his animosity toward white people, were articulated. 

6) he's a liberal democrat from chicago.  i could probably just eliminate all of the other bullet points and stop with this one.

7) during the campaign, he made statements about "spreading the wealth" and bankrupting the coal industry. 

8) in 2008, the head of the official communist party of the united states said, "The left can and should advance its own views and disagree with the Obama administration without being disagreeable. Its tone should be respectful. We are speaking to a friend."

9) i tend to think people are who they walk with.  his angry, america hating wife said barack's nomination marked the first time she was proud of her country.  really?  well then.  good for her.  oh, and by the way, this is a woman who was reported to be making over $300,000 per year at the time of his announced candidacy.  yeah, america really treated her horribly.  what an unlikable creature i find that woman to be.

this list could probably go on and on, but i don't have a lot of time these days.  my point is... any feigned shock at what obama has done as president seems to be exactly that: feigned.  don't tell me nobody saw this coming.  anyone who DIDN'T is either a: an idiot or b: was swept up in all of the hollow obama-mania or c: all of the above.  anyone who experienced even the most minute of exposure to mainstream media in 2008 would have been clued into the world view obama represents.

p.s. 
i'm not sure what you're talking about with this "dump israel" stuff.  as far as i know, we're still providing foreign aide to israel and they're still classified as an ally by our state department which assures them military assistance in the event of an attack.  if by "dumping israel" you're referring to the administration's reluctance to unilaterally attack iran, then count me in favor of dumping israel, too.  it seems obama and netanyahu don't get along well as men, but who really knows the reason why.  perhaps netanyahu is an insufferable cunt.  on the other hand, he might be a great guy and obama is the insufferable cunt.  maybe obama simply hates jews.  maybe he doesn't.  i just don't know.  i don't think a few missed meetings and snide comments from the president constitute a "dumping" of israel.  israel is, and will be, just fine.  and who in the hell is netanyahu to think he should be assured a meeting with the president of the united states any time he wants it?  if that's what he believes, then someone needs to remind him he's the prime minister of a q-tip sized piece of land in the middle east.

perhaps in terms of the specific fashion in which you've framed things here he didn't ver batim promise those things... but anyone who couldn't see it coming has been chewing lead based paint chips.

[MV/Liberace!]

Dick Morris is right about things like campaign strategies, polls, and predictions more than most.  Over the years he has been very very good.  He's convinced Romney will win.  Here is yesterdays column.

i also recall dick morris making me believe obama could lose back in 2008.  i've taken his assertions with a grain of salt since then.

[McPhallus]

i also recall dick morris making me believe obama could lose back in 2008.  i've taken his assertions with a grain of salt since then.

I used to think he was brilliant (still do at a certain level) until I heard the circumstances of his leaving the Clinton administration.  Geez.

[Ben Shockley]

Maybe some of you can explain something to me:

If you believe that Obama is committed to the destruction of this nation, and if you assume that he is aware that there is a highly-mobilized segment of the populace determined to stop him, why do you suppose he would wait until his second and last term in office to put the plan seriously in motion?   Doing that exposes him to a second chance of "the sheeple" waking up and electorally stopping him.

If you assume that part of Obama's agenda is the ending of constitutional limitations on presidential power and the installation of himself as absolute dictator of the U.S. --which, as best I can tell, is what you folks are expecting-- what is he waiting for?   If he's going to declare himself dictator after the election, why do you suppose that he doesn't just skip a step and do the self-coronation now?   Why didn't he do it in January 2009?

Overall, what I'm asking is: if you assume that Obama is committed to destroying, and is single-handedly able to destroy, constitutional government in the U.S., why do you also assume that he is fooling around with what is ultimately a bunch of wasted time called "electoral politics?"


EXTRA CREDIT
If your answer to the question of "what's he waiting for?" primarily has to do with "laying the groundwork," please detail for me exactly what groundwork has been laid.   In particular, detail what you perceive as infrastructure and mechanisms of material support that are likely to serve any "people's revolutionary army," "Obama brigades," or other potential/purported organs of armed coercive power that would be directly loyal to Obama and that would be necessary to facilitate and defend his takeover against resistance from military organs loyal to the existing Constitution.

[MV/Liberace!]

Maybe some of you can explain something to me:

If you believe that Obama is committed to the destruction of this nation, and if you assume that he is aware that there is a highly-mobilized segment of the populace determined to stop him, why do you suppose he would wait until his second and last term in office to put the plan seriously in motion?   Doing that exposes him to a second chance of "the sheeple" waking up and electorally stopping him.

If you assume that part of Obama's agenda is the ending of constitutional limitations on presidential power and the installation of himself as absolute dictator of the U.S. --which, as best I can tell, is what you folks are expecting-- what is he waiting for?   If he's going to declare himself dictator after the election, why do you suppose that he doesn't just skip a step and do the self-coronation now?   Why didn't he do it in January 2009?

Overall, what I'm asking is: if you assume that Obama is committed to destroying, and is single-handedly able to destroy, constitutional government in the U.S., why do you also assume that he is fooling around with what is ultimately a bunch of wasted time called "electoral politics?"


EXTRA CREDIT
If your answer to the question of "what's he waiting for?" primarily has to do with "laying the groundwork," please detail for me exactly what groundwork has been laid.   In particular, detail what you perceive as infrastructure and mechanisms of material support that are likely to serve any "people's revolutionary army," "Obama brigades," or other potential/purported organs of armed coercive power that would be directly loyal to Obama and that would be necessary to facilitate and defend his takeover against resistance from military organs loyal to the existing Constitution.

i'll pass on this writing assignment since i don't necessarily believe the things it assumes i believe.

[Ben Shockley]

i'll pass on this writing assignment since i don't necessarily believe the things it assumes i believe.

I sew garments of various sizes for as-is purchase; I expect and advise that only those people who the garments fit should wear them.

[MV/Liberace!]

I sew garments of various sizes for as-is purchase; I expect and advise that only those people who the garments fit should wear them.

i'll say this...


i do believe obama fundamentally hates the united states of america and believes it universally to be a source of negativity in the world, but that's nothing unusual since i've perceived this to be the case with leftists ever since i started paying attention to politics.  i think he views it as his charge to rectify the "harm" done to the world by this country, but i don't believe he intends to destroy the country.  i think his politics are a recipe for the destruction of a first world nation, but i'm not sure i see the malice and intent others see in him.  i think it's more incidental.  i just think he's wrong in what he believes and has to be stopped.  unfortunately, the supposed solution (romney) appears to approach governance with more of the same (incomprehensibly high debt, endless foreign military adventures, etc.), just wrapped in a package red state voters might be more likely to begrudgingly vote for.


we're fucked.

[MV/Liberace!]

oh, and i just hit a record for use of the term "i think" in one post.  awesome.

[Ben Shockley]

i'll say this...
i do believe obama fundamentally hates the united states of america...

And as you would expect, I just fundamentally disagree and think you (lots of you) are seeing boogey-men where none exist.

...incomprehensibly high debt, endless foreign military adventures, etc...

Something that puzzles me, and is the main reason why I sometimes seem so defensive of Obama around here --when, let me assure you, he is far from being my "perfect candidate"-- is why we never heard any (or certainly not "many") "conservatives" screaming when the Bush I administration was actually launching all these military adventures (a/k/a invasions and war crimes) and actually running up the debt.   No, Obama hasn't done enough to end or curb those things, but HE DIDN'T START THEM OR BALLOON THE MILITARY SPENDING.

Okay, we'll agree that those things are bad.   The thing that makes me and lots of other folks more than a tad suspicious about some "conservatives'" motives is how you only started screaming after the... Democrat (fooled ya there, didn't I?) got in the White House.
Makes us wonder how interested you really are in policy, or whether you just hate or at least get really nervous about having a... Democrat  (fooled ya again!) in charge..?

we're fucked.

I disagree with this too.   The country has been through worse.   Hell, if the biggest worry that some people have is merely the presence of a... Democrat  (fooled ya again!) as President, then we probably ain't even in really that bad of a shape!
Come on folks.   Get over it (the ones of you who need to) and let's just be good Americans.

[MV/Liberace!]

Something that puzzles me, and is the main reason why I sometimes seem so defensive of Obama around here --when, let me assure you, he is far from being my "perfect candidate"-- is why we never heard any (or certainly not "many") "conservatives" screaming when the Bush I administration was actually launching all these military adventures (a/k/a invasions and war crimes) and actually running up the debt.   No, Obama hasn't done enough to end or curb those things, but HE DIDN'T START THEM OR BALLOON THE MILITARY SPENDING.

point taken, but you're not speaking for me.  i held my nose tightly when voting for bush in 2004, and about a year into his second term i was so disgusted with him the mention of his name gave me a stomach ache.  yeah, the iraq war was a mistake.  oops.  and obama has done nothing but exacerbate the problems you mention here.

Okay, we'll agree that those things are bad.   The thing that makes me and lots of other folks more than a tad suspicious about some "conservatives'" motives is how you only started screaming after the... Democrat (fooled ya there, didn't I?) got in the White House.
Makes us wonder how interested you really are in policy, or whether you just hate or at least get really nervous about having a... Democrat  (fooled ya again!) in charge..?
I disagree with this too.   The country has been through worse.   Hell, if the biggest worry that some people have is merely the presence of a... Democrat  (fooled ya again!) as President, then we probably ain't even in really that bad of a shape!
Come on folks.   Get over it (the ones of you who need to) and let's just be good Americans.

i can't have an honest, open discussion of ideas with someone who predictably and consistently injects the president's racial extraction into the discussion as debate leverage.  by doing this, you are causing more harm to the future prospects of black presidential candidates than any klansman could.  it strikes me as a weak tactic which is why i won't bother addressing it.