Obama doesn't deserve reelection

[opinterph]

Seems some text was removed from one of my posts to you. I was making a dramatic point but in no way meant any kind of threat or anything. I was being sarcastic which I thought was clear. Sorry if it was not clear.

I understood the remark to be metaphorical, but also recognize that other readers may not. Sarcasm doesn’t always translate well online – even when accompanied with the appropriate smiley.

Code of Conduct:

9. Please do not harass, threaten, stalk, spam, or otherwise abuse other users.

 

[Knucklehead]

What are you on about? He didn't understand the parallels between Obama and Carter, so they were explained to him. You were not a part of that interaction.

The only parallels between Carter and Obama are the ones made up by right wing hacks.But, it's fun when people who weren't even alive when Carter was President try and school an adult who was.

Second, if you post it in a forum, it's fair game to comment on.If you get butthurt if people comment on it,maybe you should send it via pm.

 

[JB3]

The only parallels between Carter and Obama are the ones made up by right wing hacks.But, it's fun when people who weren't even alive when Carter was President try and school an adult who was.

When the adult's version of history is so far out of line of what actually happened, then they need a schooling.

They're actually quite similar; both had an interesting and different approach to foreign policy that was refreshing compared to their predecessor, but both absolutely miserably failed at domestic policy.

 

[JB3]

Before reading any further, I'm going to say OF COURSE they are done for down syndrome. If I was a woman and got pregnant and had an amnio and learned it had down syndrome, I would abort without a second thought. Women are under no obligation to have and raise children with such severe mental disabilities.

That's disgusting. You should absolutely be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that.

 

[JB3]

Abortion is not shameful...and you should never suggest that it is...if the person does not have the mental/financial ability to provide for any child...it simply spares such a child/person from coming into a bad quality of life....

Or they could do the humane and sane thing and give the child up for adoption. Do you know how many couples out there are desperate for children but are unable to conceive?

 

[JB3]

The principle is rather fascist. The problem with eugenics is in drawing the line, and if it's up to anybody then surely everyone is a target.

The way I see it is this; if the only thing 'wrong' with the child is Down's syndrome, then there is absolutely no reason to abort the fetus. I've worked with many, many children and adults that have down's syndrome, and every single one was special and unique in their own way just like any other person. These people should not be deprived life because of some decision arbitrarily based on a genetic defect that the parents are responsible for because of their own genetics.

The only reason I could see an abortion being acceptable for a baby with down's syndrome is if there are other complications that would result in the death of the child when it is born. (and only if it could be proven with complete certainty)

 

[JB3]

Yes...but the majority of people feel more shameful and an emotional connection by allowing adoption...furthermore, if you look at the connotation of the foster/abortion system you will understand that in atleast 60% of the time...abortion is more likely to spare a child from a bad quality of life.

Bullshit. We're talking about human life here. You're not doing the righteous thing by aborting a child that could make a couple's family complete. You aren't doing the righteous thing by somehow divining the future of the fetus and deciding that its better off dead. Your entire thought process is as misguided as it is misinformed.

 

[BeMused]

Haven't read the thread. Just stopping by to say that these polls are 100% meaningless. There were polls in the middle of Bush's 1st term in which only 36% said he deserved reelection and 42% said someone new should have a try. And we know what happened.

Polls are a snapshot in time, and right now the people's attitudes on Obama's reelection are completely irrelevant, since his reelection campaign is 3 years off.

This is simply an example of a bored pollster making waves because they can.

 

[JB3]

Fine...tell me who's going to take care of all these babies? WHO? and if no one adopts them? the foster system? seriously? If you are so busy thinking about human life...think about the fuc**ing life these kids will have...god damn.

So because they *might* have a tough life they should be aborted? If that logic held true, shit, the world population would be miniscule.

 

[NineOfClubs]

So because they *might* have a tough life they should be aborted? If that logic held true, shit, the world population would be miniscule.

Exactly. At that point kill the gays, the blind, anyone who's been paralyzed, the deaf, the aged, the feeble, the homeless, etc. etc..

But aren't we going a bit off topic here?

 

[NineOfClubs]

Opponents of abortion who are also homophobic would be faced with quite the quandary should a gene for homosexuality ever be discovered, and there is good reason to think that there is as a result of studies done on identical twins.

I've often pondered this.

When it's obvious that your newborn will be gay, will you keep him/her?

Or will "gay" just be considered another birth defect?

 

[Ambrocious]

I will have to say this. Above all...value liberty and truth. Although many will fall for deception and tragically cause their own selves to fall into a form of personal enslavement, we are not like them if we choose to see truth even if it does not fit into the "classical" box of truth as we have been programmed into.

As for Obama...I don't think he would be able to accomplish anything that he ever set out to accomplis simply because of who his masters are ABOVE him. He is not the ruler of the proud United States of America and anyone who would refuse to believe this should simply watch these documentaries.

TerrorStorm [Made In 2006]

ENDGAME: Blueprint For Global Enslavement [Made In 2007]

The Obama Deception [Made In March 2009]

Fall of the Republic [Made In October 2009]


The truth is out there but you must be willing to learn. If you stop learning and you refuse to evaluate the ever changing things of this world, you in turn stop growing. I simply ask you to look for the truth because the truth is there yet highly ignored. You are bigger and better than you can possibly imagine. Do not allow the lies to hold onto you and always seek liberty.

 

[Ambrocious]

Quick question. Are you on the payroll of the infowars sites? You seem to be marketing them.

I only value life of the sentient. I'd rather save the life of a pig than a one-month fetus.

Conversely, I don't think there is life without free expression. If you can't express yourself freely then there's no bedrock actually protecting your life. An oppressed group can be extinguished with no one to speak up for them. All of the most murderous regimes in recent history had impositions on free speech.He's trying to be fan of the month in the Alex Jones Fan Club.

Your both wrong but I appreciate your curious questions. I love truth and I hate lies. If I find something so very true, I will defend it and promote it. This is why I do this for Infowars.com and I am not getting paid (Wish I was dammit!) and I was never requested by Alex Jones to do this either.

I have seen these videos of his and I realize that they are true because I have seen what he has said and then I went out on my own to firstly DISPROVE IT. When I could not prove it wrong, I looked deeper for the first time; setting aside all what I knew and opening up to something that I didn't know. I used what I did know and then compared it to what I was researching and found my results to be quite fascinating.

All I ask you to do, you who doubt this is to watch those videos in full, Google search anything that you think is a lie and find out for your self's. You will come to either the same conclusion as I have if you are seeking the truth or you may wind up still looking. I urge all of you however to continue to seek the truth because mainstream media will always distort the truth; afraid that we cannot handle it. Look deeper and dare to find out more.

 

[Ambrocious]

That's cool. I wasn't accusing you I was just curious. I distrust the objectivity of those getting paid by a certain political organization. I respect your views and appreciate your willingness to express non mainstream views.

So who is you think is playing Obama's puppet strings? I personally think he became privy to a lot of real secrets and intelligence when he became president. He had to fit a mold that candidate Obama could never fit, so he changed quite dramatically, on many of his positions. I don't really think anyone "above" him is playing him. Please explain. Thanks.

Anyone who becomes the President is prone to be the holder of secrets abroad but Obama is not really the enemy here because of his puppet post. "The Obama Deception" shows that the same people who had control over George Bush still have control over Obama (Fall of the Republic goes a step further too) and all I have to say about no one believing that there is a power OVER Obama is that you are still looking and I applaud you strongly for doing so. You are smart and you are powerful and you have what it takes to find out anything out there. Just please continue forward with confidence and love and power and seek truth above all things.

I am not popular and I am very glad for this. If I was popular then I would hate it because then everything about ME would be public. Many things which are popular are very public and thus you then learn everything about that popular thing making it known inside and out.

alaskadude85: You have what it takes to learn the truth and I am confident that you can. Simply set aside everything you currently know and look into the depth of the unknown.
Thank you also for being respectful, I appreciate that greatly. Seek the truth always. You WILL find it. I am still finding out what is all true and what is NOT true to be honest with EVERYONE here right now. But when I run across something that IS true and I really know it to be true, I will share it as well.

Thank you all for efforts to persevere with me.

 

[NickCole]

Haven't read the thread. Just stopping by to say that these polls are 100% meaningless. There were polls in the middle of Bush's 1st term in which only 36% said he deserved reelection and 42% said someone new should have a try. And we know what happened.

Polls are a snapshot in time, and right now the people's attitudes on Obama's reelection are completely irrelevant, since his reelection campaign is 3 years off.

This is simply an example of a bored pollster making waves because they can.

Yes we do know what happened.

We know a bad President can be re-elected when his loyalists refuse to see the truth about him.



This poll isn't meaningless. What people think is not meaningless, and ObamaCo's response to this and what happened in MA is not meaningless. Like Obama's actions in his years before the Primaries and during the campaign, his response to this tells us something about him.

And what's his and his administration's response been? To attack Republicans and set about the country on a campaign to convince people his stimulus bill was successful when we know darn well it has not been.

Obama's the same con man he always was, blaming others for his failures, claiming other people's ideas as his own and bragging about achievements that aren't real.

What this poll says and the responses to it are meaningful.

 

[NickCole]

I'd hardly call the 31 states and 51% of the pop. who voted for Bush's second term his "loyalists".

States are not people and can't be "loyalists." I never suggested a state was a Bush loyalist or Obama loyalist.

And it is not true that 51% of the US population voted for Bush's second term.

Right now, according to a CNN poll, only 44% of those polled would vote to re-elect Obama. Unless Obama makes dramatic changes he is toast. I hope he turns it around.

As others have pointed out, it's three years to November 2012. The world moves very fast these days and a lot will happen between now and then. As a predictor of whether or not Obama will win re-election, this and all polls are meaningless. There are other things to learn from them.

 

[NickCole]

You must be fun at a party. LOL. Please. I never said "US population" what I said was pop. who voted Bush got 50.7% of the popular vote. This is a fact. As a collective a state can be considered loyal to a particular party or candidate.

Point being Obama is worse off now than Bush ever was in his first term. Therefore Obama really has to step it up. His "loyalists" will not perpetuate his presidency into a second term just as Bush's "loyalists" didn't make his second term. Moderates will make or break Obama's second term.

Do you think Obama can turn it around?

As with Bush, Obama will need his loyalists to win in 2012 and I doubt he'll lose them before then; that's just not the way those relationships work. I don't mean he --or Bush-- could win with ONLY their loyalists voting for them, but that harebrained lot is essential.

Can Obama turn it around? Of course, and he probably will. But if he does it'll be through campaign trickery, not legislative achievement. And although some fools think that's better than anyone else becoming President in 2012, they're wrong; while Obama's putting on a good show he's also doing significant damage to our nation. The human race has been around a long time and Barack Obama and his cheering crowd is by no means the first to play out this scenario. It doesn't end well.

 

[BeMused]

Yes we do know what happened.

We know a bad President can be re-elected when his loyalists refuse to see the truth about him.

Yes you could phrase it like that. You could also say that a bad president can be reelected when he has ruthless political strategists, and a bad opponent.

This poll isn't meaningless. What people think is not meaningless, and ObamaCo's response to this and what happened in MA is not meaningless. Like Obama's actions in his years before the Primaries and during the campaign, his response to this tells us something about him.

As far as the race three years from now is concerned, it IS meaningless.

I'm not talking about Obama's response to this, or his response to Senator Brown. I'm talking about people using polls like this as a predictor.

As a predictor this poll is 100% USELESS. The event it's polling is three years in the future. That's more than a lifetime in politics. It's just as stupid to say Obama's toast, and a terrible president as it was for Democrats to say "OMG we're gonna win forever" after the 2008 election.

And what's his and his administration's response been? To attack Republicans and set about the country on a campaign to convince people his stimulus bill was successful when we know darn well it has not been.

It wasn't? Then why are all those Republicans saying it was in their home districts when they give away those giant, job-creating checks that they voted against?

It wasn't large enough. It didn't focus enough on JOBS. But it certainly could have been if Congress wasn't so worried about appealing to ... Republicans!

Obama's the same con man he always was, blaming others for his failures, claiming other people's ideas as his own and bragging about achievements that aren't real.

What this poll says and the responses to it are meaningful.

*sigh* I'm never going to change your mind, so why bother trying?

 

[NickCole]

It wasn't? Then why are all those Republicans saying it was in their home districts when they give away those giant, job-creating checks that they voted against?

Oh I'd love to see "all those Republicans" saying Obama's stimulus bill has been a success. Go ahead, list them and their quotes.

It wasn't large enough. It didn't focus enough on JOBS. But it certainly could have been if Congress wasn't so worried about appealing to ... Republicans!

Didn't need any Republican votes to pass the stimulus bill, so if Obama's stimulus bill suffered because he wanted it to appeal to Republicans that's pathetic on so many levels.

 

[Semirhage666]

Or they could do the humane and sane thing and give the child up for adoption. Do you know how many couples out there are desperate for children but are unable to conceive?

And who the fuck is going to adopt a Down Syndrome baby? Realistically?