PDA

View Full Version : NRA Claims 'Massive Obama Conspiracy'



Qtec
09-27-2011, 03:42 AM
... <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style='font-size: 23pt'>Not</span> to Ban Guns!!!!!!!!!!</span>


ie, there is a scary black man in the WH.

eg...'BUY MORE GUNS!!. OBAMA IS COMING!'




LOL What a nutjob.



Q....... link..believe it or not (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-ban-)

LWW
09-27-2011, 05:07 AM
It's a shame you are illiterate.

Qtec
09-27-2011, 05:15 AM
You claim to have a high IQ but your posts demonstrate otherwise, why is that?

Q

Gayle in MD
09-27-2011, 09:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You claim to have a high IQ but your posts demonstrate otherwise, why is that?

Q </div></div>

"He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool."

G.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In short, the Koch Bros increased their wealth by 30% in the last 2 years [ its a recession remember!!!]. At the same time they layed off 67,000 American workers.

</div></div>

LWW
09-27-2011, 11:01 AM
Snoopy has an excuse being a foreigner.

You don't.

LWW
09-27-2011, 11:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You claim to have a high IQ but your posts demonstrate otherwise, why is that?

Q </div></div>

Did you read the link within your own link to the "PROOF" they were using?

Of course you didn't.

If you had you wouldn't be looking like an idiot.

Again.

Qtec
09-29-2011, 03:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You claim to have a high IQ but your posts demonstrate otherwise, why is that?

Q </div></div>

Did you read the link within your own link to the "PROOF" they were using?

Of course you didn't.

If you had you wouldn't be looking like an idiot.

Again. </div></div>

Yes I did.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Six months after Jared Loughner fired a fusillade of shots into a crowd of people in Tucson, Ariz., <u>gun control advocates are asking why there has been <span style='font-size: 14pt'>no change</span> to the policies that let him buy and carry a semi-automatic weapon without a permit.</u>

Even the staunchest gun control activists <u>suppressed their disappointment</u> when President Obama <span style='font-size: 14pt'>skirted the issue</span> during his speech in Tucson four days after the shooting, which left six people dead and more than a dozen wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords </div></div>

ie OBAMA has done NOTHING on gun control.

Which brings us back to the paranoid statement from a gun nut.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> In the eyes of National Rifle Association (NRA) executive vice president Wayne LaPierre, <u>President Barack Obama's decision <span style='font-size: 14pt'>not to pursue gun control legislation</span></u> is a "massive conspiracy," and just another reason not to give him a second term.

"[The Obama campaign] will say gun owners -- they'll say they left them alone," LaPierre told an audience at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Friday. "In public, he'll remind us that <span style='font-size: 17pt'>he's put off calls from his party to renew the Clinton [assault weapons] ban, he hasn't pushed for new gun control laws.</span>.. The president will offer the Second Amendment lip service and hit the campaign trail saying he's actually been good for the Second Amendment."

"But it's a big fat stinking lie!" the NRA leader exclaimed. "It's all part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and destroy the Second Amendment in our country."

"Obama himself is no fool. So when he got elected, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>they concocted a scheme to stay away from the gun issue,</span><span style="color: #990000"> Of course nutjob provides no evidence apart from the fact that O has done nothing on gun control.</span> lull gun owners to sleep and play us for fools in 2012. Well, gun owners are not fools and we are not fooled," La Pierre declared. </div></div>

eg, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>The proof of the conspiracy is that he has no proof.</span>...and somehow you believe it.
Wanna buy a bridge?



Q

Soflasnapper
09-29-2011, 05:36 PM
So diabolical, that he ALMOST tricked the NRA.

But they are too clever to fall for that old trick, of planning the seizure of guns, and taking no steps to do a thing about guns for 34 months. They can see that sinister method for what it is-- A TRICK!!!

Probably just a brief respite from fascistic imposition of gun seizure, long enough to get the NOI armed up.

ugotda7
09-29-2011, 06:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">... <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style='font-size: 23pt'>Not</span> to Ban Guns!!!!!!!!!!</span>


ie, there is a scary black man in the WH.

eg...'BUY MORE GUNS!!. OBAMA IS COMING!'




LOL What a nutjob.



Q....... link..believe it or not (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/nra-claims-massive-obama-conspiracy-not-ban-)

</div></div>

That's because the president knows he can't attempt to do anything about gun control and get reelected. Unlike you, he doesn't seem to be as dumb as a box of rocks.

Here, let me educate you on why this continues to be an issue:

http://www.nraila.org/obama/

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia.17

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate “assault weapons,” but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen.18

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry.1

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban.15

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting.3

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition.9

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a complete ban on handgun ownership.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports local gun bans in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities.4

FACT: Barack Obama voted to uphold local gun bans and the criminal prosecution of people
who use firearms in self-defense.5

FACT: Barack Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.6

FACT: Barack Obama refused to sign a friend-of-the-court Brief in support of individual Second Amendment rights in the Heller case.

FACT: Barack Obama opposes Right to Carry laws.7

FACT: Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and “research.”8

FACT: Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America.9

FACT: Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them.10

FACT: Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military.11

FACT: Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines.12

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping.13

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.2

FACT: Barack Obama supports repeal of the Tiahrt Amendment, which prohibits information on gun traces collected by the BATFE from being used in reckless lawsuits against firearm dealers and manufacturers.14

FACT: Barack Obama supports one-gun-a-month handgun purchase restrictions.16

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on inexpensive handguns.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports a ban on the resale of police issued firearms, even if the money is going to police departments for replacement equipment.9

FACT: Barack Obama supports mandatory firearm training requirements for all gun owners and a ban on gun ownership for persons under the age of 21.9

Soflasnapper
09-29-2011, 07:35 PM
To be more accurate, almost all of these statements ought to be phrased in the past tense, as in, 'Obama support<u>ed</u>,' 'Obama oppos<u>ed</u>,' etc.

Unless there is on-going and current evidence that he now says he continues those positions and still supports the same actions. There may be some of these past actions and support that he continues to state as his current positions.

However, if there isn't any evidence that these continue to be his positions, why should we think them any more 'operative' that his prior support for single payer, for instance, or his past criticism of the individual mandate? (For the current events-challenged out there, both those prior positions of his, stated prior to winning the presidency, in some cases, WHILE CAMPAIGNING FOR IT, he abandoned, as was well noted by his critics on the left and the right.)

It's quite bizarre to imagine that his stated opposition to the four named SCOTUS justices is based on their belief in an individual right to bear arms, as if, except for THAT, he'd otherwise support them? (And as if that were any part of their confirmation hearings, when he voted no on confirming them. Obviously, as sly and careful as these men were in those hearings, had the question been asked, they would have ducked it entirely as 'a potential matter that might come before the court.' Not to mention that they both falsely bleated their firm support for the doctrine of stare decisis, which would imply that they'd support the prior decisions of the high court, which DENIED there was an individual right enshrined in the 2nd amendment-- this new ruling swept away the prior ruling precedents (which their claims would have meant they'd have opposed).

I agree that his PAST positions are reason to oppose him, if one is an NRA supporter. Even if they are not his CURRENT positions.

However, it must be said that IF these ARE his current positions, he's not very motivated to get these things done by using his presidential power. As you may not know, if you only receive information on 2nd amendment issues from the NRA, the sole action he's taken with regard to gun issues is to expand those rights.

ugotda7
09-29-2011, 09:44 PM
A leopard can't change its spots.

Gayle in MD
09-29-2011, 10:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">To be more accurate, almost all of these statements ought to be phrased in the past tense, as in, 'Obama support<u>ed</u>,' 'Obama oppos<u>ed</u>,' etc.

Unless there is on-going and current evidence that he now says he continues those positions and still supports the same actions. There may be some of these past actions and support that he continues to state as his current positions.

However, if there isn't any evidence that these continue to be his positions, why should we think them any more 'operative' that his prior support for single payer, for instance, or his past criticism of the individual mandate? (For the current events-challenged out there, both those prior positions of his, stated prior to winning the presidency, in some cases, WHILE CAMPAIGNING FOR IT, he abandoned, as was well noted by his critics on the left and the right.)

It's quite bizarre to imagine that his stated opposition to the four named SCOTUS justices is based on their belief in an individual right to bear arms, as if, except for THAT, he'd otherwise support them? (And as if that were any part of their confirmation hearings, when he voted no on confirming them. Obviously, as sly and careful as these men were in those hearings, had the question been asked, they would have ducked it entirely as 'a potential matter that might come before the court.' Not to mention that they both falsely bleated their firm support for the doctrine of stare decisis, which would imply that they'd support the prior decisions of the high court, which DENIED there was an individual right enshrined in the 2nd amendment-- this new ruling swept away the prior ruling precedents (which their claims would have meant they'd have opposed).

I agree that his PAST positions are reason to oppose him, if one is an NRA supporter. Even if they are not his CURRENT positions.

However, it must be said that IF these ARE his current positions, he's not very motivated to get these things done by using his presidential power. As you may not know, if you only receive information on 2nd amendment issues from the NRA, the sole action he's taken with regard to gun issues is to expand those rights.



</div></div>

It's so interesting how Ronald Reagan is their hero, yet he is actually the President who most supported Gun Regulations, when he fully supported The Brady Bill.

Note, how the right blames Liberals, yet it was their own teflon, dim witted clown, who actualy supported comprehensive Gun Controls.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

eg8r
09-30-2011, 09:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unless there is on-going and current evidence that he now says he continues those positions and still supports the same actions. There may be some of these past actions and support that he continues to state as his current positions.
</div></div>So if someone supports something "in the past" then they are no longer tied to that in the future until they state they still agree with their previous action? LOL, sorry but it doesn't work that way. There is a reason we keep a record of past votes.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 12:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Unless there is on-going and current evidence that he now says he continues those positions and still supports the same actions. There may be some of these past actions and support that he continues to state as his current positions.
</div></div>So if someone supports something "in the past" then they are no longer tied to that in the future until they state they still agree with their previous action? LOL, sorry but it doesn't work that way. There is a reason we keep a record of past votes.

eg8r </div></div>

LMAO!

Do you still believe that abstinence is the only safe form of birth control for your life?

Of course you don't!

Reasonable people understand the principle of "Under the conditions prevailing."

I see consistant failure by those on the right, to integrate that simple principle, into their thinking processes.

G.

eg8r
09-30-2011, 02:16 PM
Why are you mindlessly talking about abortion? Get on topic.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 02:23 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you mindlessly talking about abortion? Get on topic.

eg8r </div></div>

Why do you call others murderers, for doing the same thing that you have done, yourself?

That is the question!

G.

eg8r
09-30-2011, 02:30 PM
Get on topic.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 02:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Get on topic.
eg8r
</div></div>

You go off topic to call me a murderer, for supporting women's rights, and then you want to throw out a dig, telling ME to stay on topic, when you have thrown this BS about Murder, off topic, into hundreds of posts?

How many murders, Ed? How many fertilized, BABIES, have you and your wife, murdered?

G.

eg8r
09-30-2011, 02:57 PM
Let's see if we can follow your thick-headedness...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sofla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Unless there is on-going and current evidence that he now says he continues those positions and still supports the same actions. There may be some of these past actions and support that he continues to state as his current positions.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if someone supports something "in the past" then they are no longer tied to that in the future until they state they still agree with their previous action? LOL, sorry but it doesn't work that way. There is a reason we keep a record of past votes.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle's diarrhea of the brain</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LMAO!

Do you still believe that abstinence is the only safe form of birth control for your life?
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you mindlessly talking about abortion? Get on topic.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle still suffering the diarrhea</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you call others murderers, for doing the same thing that you have done, yourself?

That is the question!
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Get on topic.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: more gaylio diarrhea</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You go off topic to call me a murderer, for supporting women's rights, and then you want to throw out a dig, telling ME to stay on topic,</div></div>

So there you have it...Sofla and I talking about one subject and gayle off in left field talking about something unrelated and pissed off I am asking her to get on subject. Is she senile or just plain selfish?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
09-30-2011, 03:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let's see if we can follow your thick-headedness...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sofla</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
Unless there is on-going and current evidence that he now says he continues those positions and still supports the same actions. There may be some of these past actions and support that he continues to state as his current positions.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So if someone supports something "in the past" then they are no longer tied to that in the future until they state they still agree with their previous action? LOL, sorry but it doesn't work that way. There is a reason we keep a record of past votes.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle's diarrhea of the brain</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LMAO!

Do you still believe that abstinence is the only safe form of birth control for your life?
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you mindlessly talking about abortion? Get on topic.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: gayle still suffering the diarrhea</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you call others murderers, for doing the same thing that you have done, yourself?

That is the question!
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Get on topic.
</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: more gaylio diarrhea</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You go off topic to call me a murderer, for supporting women's rights, and then you want to throw out a dig, telling ME to stay on topic,</div></div>

So there you have it...Sofla and I talking about one subject and gayle off in left field talking about something unrelated and pissed off I am asking her to get on subject. Is she senile or just plain selfish?

eg8r </div></div>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>So here you have it.

The subject is sex education, and birth control, and here you are going totally off subject, into the MURDER ACCCUSATION!</span>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">#367042 - 26/09/11 05:07 PM Re: Told you so eg8r [Re: eg8r]
Gayle in MD Gayle in MD
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 20/02/02
Posts: 16419
Loc: Maryland Originally Posted By: eg8r Quote:And, your thesis is faulty, since indulging, with birth control, for a year, was just as successful in preventing pregnancy, as abstaining for the years previous to that time, hence, you just disproved your entire philosophy.
No you are quite wrong. I never said it could only be one or the other. What I am saying is that in both instances, once considerably longer, the method of choice was successful. There is no way you can argue that a person that practices abstinence has the absolute best chance of not getting pregnant. The problem is that you don't have the fortitude to teach you child not to have sex.

eg8r

LOL, I don't have any children, Ed. My daughter is a mother, a wonderful mother, who is raising her own child, with truth, honesty, dignity and realistic expectations.

The fact is that teaching Abstinence Only Sex Education, fails miserably to prevent unwanted teen pregnancies.

The facts are the facts...

Most people aren't going to wait until they are twenty three, to have sex!



Top Reply Quote Quick Reply Quick Quote Notify Email Post


#367158 - 27/09/11 02:29 PM Re: Told you so eg8r [Re: Gayle in MD]
eg8r eg8r
Carpal \'Tunnel


Registered: 18/02/02
Posts: 12847
Loc: Orlando, FL *** You are ignoring this user ***
Toggle the display of this post


<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Pretty sad. And in your household, if your forms of birth control didn't work you always had that fallback option of murdering the child.

eg8r </span>


</div></div>

If I may say so, Ed, You took that fallback option, yourself, of murdering the child, when they (your own birth control) didn't work!

The Birth Control Pill, does fertilize SOME eggs, hence, they are fetuses, at that point, and they are expelled.


MURDERED, according to you, since you insist that a fetus is a baby.

Now, get off my case, and stop being a total hypocrite.

You are just as much a murderer, as you accuse others of being, for aborting a fetus.

Hypocrite!

You also have a history, of changing the subject, just as much as anyone here, as these quotes above, prove.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Are you senile, or just a selfish hypocrite? </span>

G.

Soflasnapper
09-30-2011, 07:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A leopard can't change its spots. </div></div>

The 'spots' that Obama sports are a consistent ditching of much of what he's previously claimed strenuous support for.

Did he put on some sneakers and head out to the picket lines for union strikes, as he claimed he would? Has he strenuously or consistently called for the Card-Check program that unions favor, and which he supposedly entirely supports?

It's overly difficult to get into someone's head. It's far easier to see what they DO. (Easy to remember what they SAID, but remembering what they've been doing is the key factor.)

I don't claim to know he doesn't still feel exactly this way as he did before. I will claim he appears entirely unmotivated to make this a fighting issue for him.

Gayle in MD
10-01-2011, 12:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A leopard can't change its spots. </div></div>

The 'spots' that Obama sports are a consistent ditching of much of what he's previously claimed strenuous support for.

Did he put on some sneakers and head out to the picket lines for union strikes, as he claimed he would? Has he strenuously or consistently called for the Card-Check program that unions favor, and which he supposedly entirely supports?

It's overly difficult to get into someone's head. It's far easier to see what they DO. (Easy to remember what they SAID, but remembering what they've been doing is the key factor.)

I don't claim to know he doesn't still feel exactly this way as he did before. I will claim he appears entirely unmotivated to make this a fighting issue for him. </div></div>

Given he has faced unparalleled obstructionism at a time of national emergency, I think he's done pretty damn well.

He has had to pick his wars, against un-American obstructionists policies, which are been prosecuted by a bunch of unconscionable Republicans, who care ONLY about pndering to their corrupt, unAmerican corporate thieves, who have drained this country of jobs, revenues and resources, while Republicans have turned a deaf ear, and a blind eye, to every pressing problem, and all in the interest of destroying President Obama, and gaining money and power.

We must vote out as many Republicans as we can, and lower the boom on every Southern Democrat who fails to see, and work for clean energy jobs...and a healthier environment.
My 2 C.
G.

Soflasnapper
10-01-2011, 01:44 PM
I will buy 'guilty, but with an excuse.'

It's even a good excuse, at that.

However, don't forget the 'guilty' part.

The left has legitimate beefs with his policies, and even more justified complaint against his defenders that call such complaints racist in origin or nature.

Obama is but a politician, and one who responds to pressure. If the left does not apply their side's pressure, he only responds to the right wing pressure, and hence, drifts ever more rightward. Part of a strategy to push back against his right-ward drift DOES include pushing back at nonsense attacks from the right, surely. But that is far from enough.

ugotda7
10-01-2011, 01:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: ugotda7</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A leopard can't change its spots. </div></div>

The 'spots' that Obama sports are a consistent ditching of much of what he's previously claimed strenuous support for.

Did he put on some sneakers and head out to the picket lines for union strikes, as he claimed he would? Has he strenuously or consistently called for the Card-Check program that unions favor, and which he supposedly entirely supports?

It's overly difficult to get into someone's head. It's far easier to see what they DO. (Easy to remember what they SAID, but remembering what they've been doing is the key factor.)

I don't claim to know he doesn't still feel exactly this way as he did before. I will claim he appears entirely unmotivated to make this a fighting issue for him. </div></div>

Given he has faced unparalleled obstructionism at a time of national emergency, I think he's done pretty damn well.

He has had to pick his wars, against un-American obstructionists policies, which are been prosecuted by a bunch of unconscionable Republicans, who care ONLY about pndering to their corrupt, unAmerican corporate thieves, who have drained this country of jobs, revenues and resources, while Republicans have turned a deaf ear, and a blind eye, to every pressing problem, and all in the interest of destroying President Obama, and gaining money and power.

We must vote out as many Republicans as we can, and lower the boom on every Southern Democrat who fails to see, and work for clean energy jobs...and a healthier environment.
My 2 C.
G. </div></div>

National emergency? Are you freakin' kidding? Damn, you're stupid.

eg8r
10-01-2011, 10:47 PM
Hey nutjob, you quoted a completely unrelated thread. Get on topic.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
10-02-2011, 08:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I will buy 'guilty, but with an excuse.'

It's even a good excuse, at that.

However, don't forget the 'guilty' part.

The left has legitimate beefs with his policies, and even more justified complaint against his defenders that call such complaints racist in origin or nature.

Obama is but a politician, and one who responds to pressure. If the left does not apply their side's pressure, he only responds to the right wing pressure, and hence, drifts ever more rightward. Part of a strategy to push back against his right-ward drift DOES include pushing back at nonsense attacks from the right, surely. But that is far from enough. </div></div>

In my view the President has tried to engage the Republicans to be part of our solutions.

They have refused.

He has responded by doing what he thought he had to do in order to get some things under way, like the Health Care Bill, for example.

While in my view, it would be completely wrong to say that everything that has been obstructed, was obstructed due to racism, it would also be wrong to say that the President made a choice, to lean to the right, because that was his original policy goal.

I've been irritated myself, that he hasn't been more hard headed about fighting them tit for tat, in their obstruction, and in the interest of succeeding in his more Liberal, policy goals, but I also don't think we have ever seen this same kind of complete obstruction, at a critical time, to the degree that he has faced it, as President. I think his goal was to be a uniter, not a divider.

Given the obstinence we have witnessed by the current Repubican Party, and their stated goal, at the outset, to destroy his presidency, from the moment they lost, their main goal, being a political goal, rather than a committment to work together with the president and democrats, to get this country back on track, after they surely, contributed to the problems we face. I have to give him some credit, for atleast trying to work with them, at the outset.

I think he has realized now, that it's going to be balls to the wall, and they are not as reasonable as he once hoped they could be.

I still think he has done an incredible job, and managed to get a lot accomplished, given the dire circumstances and disastrous legacy he was handed, and the unprecedented obstruction he has faced, unprecedented because it has been consistant, in spite of the conditions prevailing.

G.

Soflasnapper
10-02-2011, 06:58 PM
I mainly agree with all of that.

However, Obama's 'brand' was to be post-partisan, to 'change the tone of Washington,' and that quixotic goal required him NOT to call out Republicans by name, label the obstructionists or call out their tactics, and THAT was the original error of governing.

As we discussed, Obama wouldn't even say more than '<u>Congress</u> is doing this or that,' when what he meant was 'Republicans in Congress.'