This is topic THIS is how you beat him!! in forum Member forum at The New Huntmastersbbs!.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://www.huntmastersbbs.com/cgi-bin/cgi-ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002961

---

Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on December 01, 2011, 07:15 PM:
 
Interesting material:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-froomkin/suskinds-confidence-men-r_b_1123660.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl4%7Csec3_lnk2%7C117047

The economy is in the shitter. People look to the President to lead us, to fix it, rightly or wrongly, they expect him to lead us out of this.

Not this President. He does not have a clue...he asks his staff what he should do. Read: he is a puppet of his staff. And in some cases, his staff IGNORES his instructions!!

THIS is how you beat him!!! You paint him as clueless in a time of national crisis. He DOESN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO!!!!! His staff is running the country, not Obama!!! And he is so weak and ineffective and powerless that his own staff ignore his orders!!

Whoever the Republican candidate is, they need to pound him, mercilessly, on this, day after day after day. You have to hang this economy on him, on his not knowing how to lead us out of this mess, on his relying on a staff that is of and beholden to Wall Street, who is part of the problem instead of part of the answer. This economy is the albatross you hang around his neck. He won election because he made wholesale grand promises and had no record to defend. Now you nail his ass to the barn door for not fulfilling his promises and for gross ineptitude on the economy. What Obama has done has made things worse, mainly because his staff are Wall Street insiders and are protecting Wall Street. You tell people if they really want change, if they want to clean house and try something different, then they need to make a change at the top. Or...if they are satisfied with the way things are going, keep the current occupant.

Perception will drive this election, but only if the Republican candidate crafts it and shapes it.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 01, 2011, 07:45 PM:
 
If we had someone other than that Idiot McCain running against him in the first place, we wouldn't be contemplating who might be the best candidate to oppose him next year. Being the incumbent makes it a lot more difficult, but I really think we have a couple prospects and I really think they have a fair chance at beating his ass.

My dream team would be Christy/Rubio. But, I really think Gingrich could debate Obama just as well as Limbagh....with one arm tied behind his back. Attack his damned record! He is a ditherer, can't make a decision to save his life.

If you have an erection lasting over four hours, call your doctor, okay?

gh....lb

edit: oh, you said election! Never mind.

[ December 01, 2011, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on December 01, 2011, 09:36 PM:
 
I ain't calling my doctor about an erection lasting over 4 hours unless she's a woman, and a hot one at that. Sheeeit, X-Men be damned, I'd consider myself a real live superhero if I could keep Wee Willie standing tall for 4 hours!!

Kinda reminds me of the sign by the hot tub at the Holiday Inn in Great Falls that says not to use it for more than 15 minutes cuz you might get a heat stroke. I thought to myself, "Damn! I'm from Florida, bitches!!! We the king of high humidity in hellish heat!!" I sat in that mo'fo for an hour , and it felt good !!!!

[ December 01, 2011, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: DEL GUE ]
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 01, 2011, 11:14 PM:
 
I've noticed that you L.E. guys speak better mofo ghetto speak than the inmates.

Myself, I can't take five minutes in a hot tub if the temperature is above 102°.

gh....lb
 

---

Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on December 02, 2011, 05:15 AM:
 
The book was an interesting read. Nothing really new in it, that I hadn't heard or read before, but having it all neatly weaved together into a single narrative made it more interesting.

The smartest guy in the room he may well be, but if a souless grifter of a money grubbing old whore like Gingrich is the best we can do, we should all just bend over and kiss our asses goodbye right now...

- DAA
 

---

Posted by JD (Member # 768) on December 02, 2011, 09:03 AM:
 
Well then........bend over and start kissin'
 

---

Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on December 02, 2011, 10:38 AM:
 
Yup. Looks bleak. From here. There's nobody even close to "front runner" status that I'd feel good about voting for. Let alone feel comfortable giving the keys to the kingdom to.

Newt can get deals done, at least. I'll give him that. And that is something Obama desperately wishes he could do. And that Newt's flip flopping over the years makes Romney look stalwart I can forgive. He's a politician after all, telling the lies that seem best at the time is what they do for a living. All of them. But it's the reasons he's flip flopped so often and egregiously that gives me pause. Whereas Romney changes his tune to whatever he thinks might get him elected, Newt changes his to whatever will make him (personally) the most money.

Worst of all though, and LB alluded to this earlier, going the other way. Newt has one HELLUVA record to pick at. One HELLUVA. Choose any important issue, choose either side of that issue - you can find Newt "on the record", somewhere, supporting that side. And the other side too! Hell, Newt was "for" an individual mandate on health care way before Romney even knew what that was...

I'm not making any predictions on the general. Given the economy anything with a pulse SHOULD be able to beat Obama (should...). But the dems have to be just about jizzing themselves over the prospects of Newt getting the nomination. I would be, if I was them. In a time when "throw the bastards out" gets a lot of traction, running against the oldest, greasiest, dirtiest bastard of the bunch seems like the best they could hope for.

Way too much politics out of me. No more for at least six months .

- DAA
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 02, 2011, 12:28 PM:
 
Look, I agree with the above and we may as well kiss our ass goodbye, but I promise, any of them are a far better choice than Obama and stranger things have happened.

I still can't figure out why Santorum doesn't generate a little interest? He has the family values, clean record and appears to have acceptable positions on just about everything. The media doesn't want to talk to him, he can't get a word in edgewise.

Cain should get out of the way. Too many Honey's coming out of the woodwork, the guy is a Romeo about like Clinton, but he's not a liberal so they don't overlook his peccadilloes. And, the liberal media doesn't understand the grossly apparent bias? I am old enough to remember when the MEDIA had ethics and moral character. Now, they don't even have shame!

Bachmann? Again, the press is making her out to be a Bimbo, but AGAIN, it's ABO: Anything But Obama, and I am positive that she could do a better job of running the country.

And, Ron Paul should get the hell out of the way. He could never get elected so all he is doing is sucking the air out of the room. We get it; We're broke!

Romney is with the "Outfit" as Dave likes to call them. There is just too much negativity surrounding the Mormon religion that I can't see him winning the general election?

[ December 02, 2011, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on December 02, 2011, 01:57 PM:
 

quote:

---

There is just too much negativity surrounding the Mormon religion that I can't see him winning the general election?

---

I think he'd do "okay" in the general. Moderates and independents care a lot less about his association with the outfit than the conservative base does. It's the primaries, where he has to win the base, where his religion is really killing him. Still, you might be right, the scarlet M around his neck might sink him in a general too.

Just look at Iowa and New Hampshire. In both states, polls show almost all likely primary voters saying "religion doesn't matter". But... Also, in both states, those same polls show about half of those exact same people saying "mormons aren't christians". In Iowa, evangelicals have always been active and strong in the machine. Well, Romney is in like 4th place in Iowa. In NH, evangelicals don't have nearly the grip, Romney has a commanding lead (I noted this morning that even there Newt has pulled within a tenspot though...).

Start getting down south and it gets much worse. And more openly so. It's kind of an unspoken deal up north. But down south, I'm half expecting to see some KKK rallies for Newt, if Romney is still deemed a "threat". Hell, look at how Newt is slaughtering him in Florida.

Anyway, I said no more politics and I meant it. So, no more, I swear. But, I really do believe it's the primaries where the evangelicals have the most power, that Romney's association with the outfit is really hurting him. It's the real reason, in my opinion, that Newt is making news all the sudden. There are just an awful lot of "christian conservatives" that absolutely can NOT bring themselves to vote for a mormon.

In a lot of ways, this race is starting to resemble the '72 democrats. Going in, Nixon looked weak as a kitten. The dems were salivating over their chance to run against him. Big Ed was the obvious nominee. Then McGovern comes seemingly from nowhere, WITHOUT the support of the "Big Machine", the Daley, Meany, LBJ old guard that put all their chips behind Muskie first, then when he tanked they backed Hubert Humphrey (the closest historical parallel to Gingrich I can think of, by the way...). In other words, McGovern was a strong front runner, but labor didn't trust him and the party base wanted ANYBODY BUT him to get the nomination. So... Humphrey and McGovern slugged it out in a bloody primary that wasn't fully settled until the actual convention. Hell, if The Governor hadn't got his ass shot, he'd have been a player in that convention. McGovern emerged with the nomination, but without a consensus backing from the party, and also - exhausted from the bloody primary campaign. His first couple choices for VP declined, because he wasn't the party man, he taps Eagleton, that turns out to be a disaster and he never gets back on track.

Meanwhile, Nixon sat back and did virtually nothing. Even with the Watergate scandal fully unfolding in the midst of the campaign, he put one of the worst beatings on McGovern of all time.

And it just shouldn't have happened. Nixon was RIPE for the picking going in. Just like Obama is now.

I really hope Obama doesn't benefit the same way, from the obvious disconnect between the Republican base and it's more moderate members. But unless something happens soon to derail Gingrich, which seems unlikely - one advantage to being an old whore is there isn't any new dirt to be found - then it's probably going to be a long, bloody, expensive, exhausting road to the nomination. And whichever emerges, isn't likely to have a real strong consensus of support among his own party.

Dunno... Like I said earlier, given the way things are, anything with a pulse SHOULD beat Obama. And I am NOT making any predictions here. But, I'm gravely concerned by what I think I'm seeing. And, just plain not very optimistic for the future, given the apparent choices even if Obama does get beat...

Okay, that's really IT, I swear .

- DAA
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 02, 2011, 02:35 PM:
 
You keep protesting, Dave. But, you seem to have a fair handle on the situation. Too bad you don't want to express your opinions.

But, really. Is Gingrich really that tainted? As I said above, Clinton managed to dodge the bullet(s) at every turn and they never laid a glove on him. Until too late.

Which is the current problem. I think Republicans don't know how to run a campaign. Like the Democrats, get as low down and dirty as is humanly possible. Lie, distort, blame, obfuscate, (did I mention LIE?) Jump all over the gd media. They (Media) are worthless whores and it's about time they (Republicans) made a big stink about it. So far it's been a little bit of whining, and nobody pays the slightest bit of attention....yeah, yeah the big bad media isn't fair to candidate X, what else is new? It's the gd pattern, that's the completely unfair part.

The so called; "Fourth Estate" has much to answer for.

gh....lb

[ December 02, 2011, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by JD (Member # 768) on December 02, 2011, 02:59 PM:
 

quote:

---

one advantage to being an old whore is there isn't any new dirt to be found

---

LOL.......No joke....less than a half hour ago I uttered nearly those exact words in a conversation about Newt.

Honestly, I'm still shocked that he may very well get the nomination, I figured he was history, as far as being a money grubbing whore....well hell, they all are so as I look at the choices given me.....well....I gotta go with Newt. I think he truly believes in this country and lets be honest, most of us are more concerned with money than we admit so what the hell, let the whore show us how to be profitable while he dismantles the agencies that choke us small businessmen to death, I'm trying to be positive here.
 

---

Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on December 02, 2011, 07:07 PM:
 
I'm going to be honest with you...it disturbs me that some Republicans won't vote for a Republican candidate because of religious intolerance. I suppose we should find out which sect Newt belongs to...Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, whatever, and make sure he isn't a Catholic or something else. When JFK ran for office there was some concern because he was a Catholic. Was he going to answer to the American people, or the Pope? This is crazy!! The litmus test should be, is the candidate qualified, meaning is he or she capable of doing the job, and do they love their country.

I'm not saying I'm particularly for Romney or Gingrich or whoever, but it just dumbfounds me that a person's religion can render them ineligible to be the president. Maybe we should enact a Constitutional amendment that the President of the United States can only be a practicing member of a list of Officially acceptable sects, and that if he/she belongs to any other religion or sect they are ineligible. Personally, I'd stipulate that if you aren't a Lutheran, you can't be prez.

It's ironic that a candidate seeking to oppose the nation's first black president might be found unacceptable because of religious discrimination and intolerance. I've been a Republican for 36 years, since I turned 18 and first registerd to vote. But there are times when I am not very proud of my party, and now is one of them. Sometimes I'm tempted to turn independent.
 

---

Posted by JD (Member # 768) on December 02, 2011, 10:51 PM:
 
Hold on now Del, lets pretend for a minute that the current asshole was honest with the American people when he ran for office and told us up front and openly that he was raised in a strict Muslim home and shared those beliefs......What if it was a Muslim republican.......would you still stand by those convictions?

I believe I have the right to discriminate against anyone I darn well please for any reason I choose.

[ December 02, 2011, 10:52 PM: Message edited by: JD ]
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 02, 2011, 11:15 PM:
 
Besides, what I am hearing is that it's southern Baptists, for the most part that are screwing up their nose at Romney's religion, calling it a cult, a secret cult, at that and definitely not recognizably Christian.

On the other hand, besides the words Jesus Christ in their name, I do not see a lot of similarity between Mormons and any other Christian denomination? Just being honest.

And, if it came down to it, I would hold my nose and vote, just like I did with McCain, and it would not be because he is a Mormon. It would be because he is for and against every issue on the planet, but he still beats Obama by a long shot.

gh....lb

edit: BUT HEY! LOVE THE MAGIC UNDERWEAR!

[ December 02, 2011, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Leonard ]
 

---

Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on December 03, 2011, 09:18 AM:
 

quote:

---

On the other hand, besides the words Jesus Christ in their name, I do not see a lot of similarity between Mormons and any other Christian denomination?

---

I must be drinking stupid juice this week, talking both politics and religion on the internet .

I've always found this baffling though. I guess because I was raised Mormon and never thought of it as anything but very, very Christian.

I really don't know that much about any other religions. But it always seemed to me like they all subscribe to the same book and other than the differences in delivery and dogma, all espouse essentially identical messages. In all the many conversations I've had with people on this subject over the years, I've never heard anything substantive, at all, from any other Christians that indicated in any meaningful way that what I was taught as a Mormon was anything but Christian. I mean, yeah, the Mormons have their own unique take on the second coming, their own book and make claims other denominations see as crazy and all that, but, where the rubber meets the road - faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as their personal savior, it all sounds the same to me? If that isn't the acid test for being a Christian, what is?

The only other kind of service I've ever attended though, is black Southern Baptist. I've attended about half a dozen of those services. Last one less than a year ago. The delivery and the setting was dramatically, incredibly different than a Mormon service, but the message, to me, was virtually identical?

As a devout atheist, this is all purely academic and clinical to me. But it has and probably always will completely baffle me.

- DAA
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 03, 2011, 11:32 AM:
 
Well, I don't really know, as a matter of fact? Yes, they seem to believe in the son of god and most of what the other Christian denominations espouse.

What seems very different is the ritual washing and the afore mentioned garments, (magic underwear) the aprons, the off limits temple, the food stockpiles, the polygamy, (cheap shot) the famous massacre, (cheap shot) and a lot of hard line discipline, missionary obligations, racism and chauvinistic attitudes towards women.

To an outsider, much of this stuff seems pretty far out and I can understand why some people, (not I) consider the religion a cult.

What I do notice is that Mormons seem very mainstream and traditional. You don't see Mormon children with piercings and tats or even a criminal record. I always chat with my CPA, who is a Mormon and he is a likable guy, done me many favors. He has put his kids through medical school, married to a Korean he met while on mission and his kids are beautiful Eurasians. I consider him a friend, but I do discuss some odd Mormon stuff, when I think of it and he is always open and forthcoming.

In other words, Mormons are decent citizens, straight shooters, law abiding and generally well off because of the imposed discipline and conformity. They are always clean cut and attractive people; like Dave, a good looking guy. They ARE, (or can be) a bit standoffish, clannish, but that applies to a lot of people.

In other words, I would vote for a Mormon way before a Buddhist or muslim. They are very mainstream in appearance and very American, they just can't seem to shake that image of being different?

And, if you cannot find a Jewish CPA, a Mormon will do nicely. They know money in a way that is beyond my ability to comprehend.

And, Dave, my friend, don't worry about it, you are doing fine.
(BTW, as anyone can see, Dave is a guy that seems to have his shit together, better than most)

gh....lb
 

---

Posted by JD (Member # 768) on December 03, 2011, 11:35 AM:
 
Good post Dave.....I know one thing.....obama sucks!!!

2 days ago I was catching master angler wipers in 42 degree water 40-50 feet deep.....today the lakes are icing up and we are in a blizzard so politicians be damned!! I'm going duck hunting followed by a day of calling!! When I get back I'll sort out all the worlds problems.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 03, 2011, 11:41 AM:
 
Okay, we will be here when you get back, eager for solutions.

gh....lb
 

---

Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on December 03, 2011, 11:50 AM:
 
JD, I guess the question then becomes, does being a Muslim automatically and inherently make you a bad person in and of itself. Not talking about Obama, here, just Muslims in general. Is there no such thing as a good Muslim, an honest Muslim? And is it impossible for a person to be a Muslim and still love America.
 

---

Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on December 03, 2011, 12:29 PM:
 

quote:

---

2 days ago I was catching master angler wipers in 42 degree water 40-50 feet deep.....today the lakes are icing up and we are in a blizzard so politicians be damned!!

---

Amen to that! Two weeks ago I was swimming with sharks and barracuda in 75 degree water.

Day before yesterday the wind did what is looking like over $10K worth of damage to my house. It snowed a little bit last night and the cold wind has been sucking ass all morning while I've been putting the parts of my fence I could find back together.

Football tomorrow, but the wind blew my dish off the roof. And the cocksuckers (Dish) want a hundred bucks to come put a new one up. And can't get here for till next week anyway. I've got the old one taped back together, Gorilla tape is awesome stuff, and I "think" I can set it back up there and get the wires hooked back up. Should get me football tomorrow at least, until it blows off again anyway.

No calling for me for at least a couple weeks while I sort out all this wind damage.

So, yeah, screw 'em all!

- DAA
 

---

Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on December 03, 2011, 01:03 PM:
 
"So, yeah, screw 'em all!'

Kinda looks like Herman's already done that...
 

---

Posted by Kokopelli (Member # 633) on December 03, 2011, 02:44 PM:
 
Yeah, Cain does the polygamy thing better than Mitt & the press runs him off of the stage.
It just ain't right.
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 03, 2011, 02:51 PM:
 
Del, interesting question about muslims, in general.

I'm just as closed minded and prejudiced as any Red Blooded American. The off the cuff answer is to give muslims the benefit of the doubt. However, according to a lot of comment regarding those of that faith, they seem to have very radical ideas about other people of other religions.

Things like kill the infidel. Period. Then, there is this little detail about sharia law, stoning a victim of rape as an adulterer, death penalty for homosexuality, lots of pretty severe penalties, chopping off hands and feet and heads, etc.

There are (we are told) many devout muslims that are not radicalized. But, why don't they condemn the actions of the radicals? Completely mute on the subject of bombing innocent civilians and they quietly accept the martyr money from Saudi Arabia. Also, they seem completely unresponsive to reasonable solutions to anything involving the situation in the middle east.

While the American attitude is accommodation and tolerance for all religions and such, in Saudi Arabia, you cannot build a church. Why we go out of our way so that we don't offend the little darlings, (which is easy to do) they seem to make a lot of demands and for me, it seems a one way street, we give up the Christmas traditions because they offend muslims.

This country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles, but recently, you would think the founding fathers were atheists? The separation of church and state was never meant to completely exclude Christianity from every government institution and every facet of our social life. This recent BS about "holiday Trees" is but one example. Muslims have no right to be offended by a Christmas tree outside City Hall. I think this PC bullshit is getting out of hand. It is not US that need to conform, but the muslims that need to mind their own business and give up being offended by everything American. If they don't like it here, get the hell out.

The short answer is, I am beginning to think muslims should be profiled and watched carefully. They have done nothing to show me that they are trying to be upstanding citizens.

gh....lb
 

---

Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on December 03, 2011, 03:26 PM:
 
I agree on the profiling of young Muslim males. It wasn't 88 year old blond Jewish women that attacked us, or little children, or old men.

As for the radical Muslim tenets, I don't think anybody is talking about establishing sharia law in the U.S.

The question is, should an intelligent Muslim, born in this country and someone who loves it, and who is otherwise qualified to hold the office, be excluded, either overtly or otherwise, just because of their religion?

Is it impossible to be a Muslim and love America, or be a good citizen?

But JD has a point, too. We are free not to like a candidate because of what they say, their accent, their hairstyle, whatever. That's our right, and it applies not just to candidates, but to anybody. I'm not saying we don't possess that right. I guess what I'm wondering is, on a philosophical and/or moral basis, should the way one worships God, in whatever manifestation that is, preclude us from considering, or being willing to vote for someone.

Sometimes I'm not sure myself how I feel about some of these things, but they trouble me.
 

---

Posted by DAA (Member # 11) on December 03, 2011, 04:19 PM:
 
Don't leave Newt out of the screw 'em all All Stars. He's had quite the distinguished career as an ass bandit. I forget now, how many women aside from his wife he was banging at the same time he was impeaching Clinton for a blow job, but I remember thinking at the time he made Slick look like an amateur.

- DAA
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 03, 2011, 05:27 PM:
 
Yeah, okay. we slice and dice our candidates so thoroughly the friggin' Democrats can read the road map blindfolded. I'm kinda of the opinion that Reagan was right when he said, Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans.

But, wait a minute! Glaring inconsistencies have never bothered Democrats. They seem to have no shame about hidden finances, condos in Jamaica, sweetheart deals for "Friends of Angelo" huge discounts on Chicago homes courtesy of convicted felons and on and on. If Newt has been poking a few constituents, and no innocents step forward; maybe we need to wait a bit and nominate Jesus Christ at the Second Coming?

After all, Slick Willy seems to be doing extremely well since leaving office. No shame or hint of scandal has slowed him down and he's rolling in dough while the Iron Lady ignores him.

Come on we ain't gonna find a Saint to nominate so let's stop looking. It doesn't seem to matter, at least if you are talking about Liberals and other radicals?

gh....lb
 

---

Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on December 03, 2011, 05:33 PM:
 
So does that make Newt better, in that he covered it better when he was doing it? Do we want our politicians to be as pure as Caesar's wife which, given their line of work, would seem to be asking the impossible, or do we just want them to be discreet with their indiscretions?

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely? Should we be asking how can the nation trust him if his own wife can't, or couldn't?? Is there such a thing as forgiveness and redemption? Should we hold our public servants to a standard higher than we ourselves can maintain? If we only accept 'perfect' candidates, are we condemning ourselves to an empty office? Is the crucible of media and opposition scrutiny such that even a moral, exceptional candidate simply wouldn't want to subject himself and his family to it? If there are no perfect people, why do we expect to find or have a perfect candidate?

[ December 03, 2011, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: DEL GUE ]
 

---

Posted by Leonard (Member # 2) on December 03, 2011, 06:26 PM:
 
Apparently, Obama has found the perfect solution. Remove ALL information before starting a campaign. Block all attempts to get personal information about college papers, travel visas, even birth certificates. This guy did his homework.

gh....lb
 

---

Posted by DEL GUE (Member # 1526) on December 03, 2011, 07:56 PM:
 
Maybe, but he can't remove, can't block the last 3 years. That may pose an impediment to him.
 

---

Posted by Rich (Member # 112) on December 04, 2011, 06:39 AM:
 
"Apparently, Obama has found the perfect solution. Remove ALL information before starting a campaign. Block all attempts to get personal information about college papers, travel visas, even birth certificates. This guy did his homework."
--------------------------------------
Nah, he is mainly just the right color. He gets a pass on absolutely everything. There has been no official investigation of this guy on anything. My sister who was living in Hawaii at the time Obama was born told me that the medical facility in which he claims to have been born had not even been BUILT yet. What he more than likely has is a FORGED birth certificate
 

---

Posted by Aznative (Member # 506) on December 04, 2011, 07:02 AM:
 
"But, wait a minute! Glaring inconsistencies have never bothered Democrats. They seem to have no shame about hidden finances, condos in Jamaica, sweetheart deals for "Friends of Angelo" huge discounts on Chicago homes courtesy of convicted felons and on and on. If Newt has been poking a few constituents, and no innocents step forward; maybe we need to wait a bit and nominate Jesus Christ at the Second Coming?"

The Dems can get away with inconsistencies because the liberal media lets them. But if a conservative has the slightest hint of a scandal or an old skeleton in the closet look out. They are on it like flies on S#!^>. The problem is the American public lets them get away with it. The only exception I've ever seen where a newsman didn't get away with lying is Dan Rather when he broke the Air National Guard story on Bush.

During the 2008 election, Obama's Muslim roots didn't really come out. Instead we saw Rev Jeremiah Wright screaming "God Damn America". Maybe it was the association with radical Wright's that camouflaged Obama Islam roots.

I realize right now we are comparing Republicans against each other so the bar is being set higher but when it gets into the general I doubt Romney's Mormon roots will be an issue especially when Obama was affiliated with the United Church of Christ. I would much prefer someone who comes from a patriotic family oriented religion than a crazed radical hater like Wright. Opps, I forgot, Obama didn't listen just like slick didn't inhale. The way a liberals can simply give explain away a problem like these two did really blows me away. Of course that goes full circle right back to the media.

I believe any of the Republicans would do a better job than BHO, even Huntsman and Ron Paul. Hell even my dog would do a better job that BHO. My picks in order are Newt, Romney, Santorum, and Bachman. Santorum would be higher if I felt he had a better chance of winning against BO which needs to be our biggest priority. If dumbass wins again, I’m thinking about moving. Any suggestions?
 

---

Posted by Cdog911 (Member # 7) on December 04, 2011, 11:27 AM:
 

quote:

---

The problem is the American public lets them get away with it.

---

quote:

---

I have to wonder why Christy and Rubio are willing to stand by and let this asshole Obama fuck us over for another four years? We desperately need fresh meat.

---

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.0