Voting for Obama in this election is a terrorist attack against the US
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
Voting for Obama in this election is a terrorist attack against the US
You're as dumb as a box of horse ****!
@MMarciano,
LOL, you must be the offspring of an Obama voter.
@Rockhead,
Quote:I think that is how the taliban got started...
Simple: The talibang is just a bunch of guys like Bork Obunga who had less luck convincing anybody that they were natural born US citizens.
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:When they work so hard to suppress votes,...
You left out an adjective, fool: should read:
When they work so hard to suppress
ILLEGAL votes...
@gungasnake,
There are no "illegal" votes when people show up to vote. Who's the "fool" here? You still haven't heard about all the states that tried to pass government issued picture ID's to vote?
It's obvious, the courts are much smarter than you!
I wish one of the undecided voters had asked Obama
how he has distinguished himself from Jimmy Carter.
@H2O MAN,
This thing with the libtards being unable to figure out women sort of reminds me of the scene in Thunderball in which Bond describes one of the fatcat's skeet guns as a "women's gun".....
"You must be some sort of an expert on firearms" says the fatcat and Bond replies something like
Quote:Not really, but I AM a sort of an expert on women...
Think any of the tards here could profit from watching Connery/Bond films??
Quote:He was surprised by her response to Mitt Romney. “He’s a grown-up. He’s someone who is reliable,” he told me she said. “People will feel safe if he is in charge.”
That's the feeling people had about Ike.
It's becoming clear that Obama will not get
any bounce after 'winning' the 2nd debate.
Romney's numbers continue to surge.
@cicerone imposter,
Romney 47.1 Obama 47.0
Improving slightly for Obama. We will see after monday if it changes back, it just seems to change from day over the smallest things.
@revelette,
This post from Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight blog might give some insight on that:
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/oct-15-distracted-by-polling-noise/
Basically, he discusses that there's a difference between national and state polls.
@DrewDad,
I'm just wondering how many votes those numbers really represent? I'm sure even small percentages represent thousands, but how many thousands?
If you wish to take solace in the crumbling rat hole Campaign Obama found before Debate #2 to try and blunt the onslaught they expected re Benghazi (you know, the one absolutely no one brought up before the debate) and you contend Obama identified the attack as an act of terrorists on 9/12, then even you have to ask, why the hell did he wait two weeks before so identifying it again, all the while saying "we don't know," and strongly suggesting, if not stating, that it was part of a spontaneous reaction to the anti-Islam video?
Why did he have Jay Carney take that line for so long?
Why did he send Ambassador Rice to 5 Sunday shows to very explicitly say it was a spontaneous reaction to the video.
Now we have the release today of State Department cables that show the Embassy and the Ambassador himself had been pleading for additional security for months before 9/11, and warning of "discriminate" attacks by Islamist extremists,and specifically not spontaneous mob violence.
And President Obama had the disgraceful nerve during the second debate to sternly declare that no one care more for the safety of American diplomats than him.
I will grant that he, almost assuredly, didn't personally reject the requests for
additional security, but how many diplomatic postings could have been more dangerous in the last 12 months than Libya? Surely Obama had to know that, and if he really cared so much for the safety his Diplomatic Corps, how hard would have been to affirmatively inquire of the security in the half dozen or dozen most dangerous places in the world? Would the State Department have failed to tell him of the requests for beefed up security in Libya? Hard to imagine they would have.
The reality is that for the benefit of his Pacific Pivot foreign policy strategy, and, most importantly, for his re-election campaign, the narrative had to be:
We got binLaden and al-Qaida is on the run (the latter having been conspicuously removed from his stump speeches the day after Debate 2), that "Leading From Behind" in Libya was plenty smart since the nation was stable and we didn't need extra-ordinary security measures to protect our people.
The reality, as we know now, is that the two former Seals who died in Benghazi, were NOT part of the consulate security staff, and attempted to come to the rescue of their overwhelmed fellow Americans and, tragically paid the ultimate price for their heroism. The Admin has either promoted or allowed the notion that they were part of the security staff to cover up it's own failing.
As a result, the narrative includes the notion that the two Seals failed in their charge, when the reality is that they voluntarily and bravely entered a fray that they had to know probably would lead to their deaths.
This act of self-less bravery is completely lost in the country's perception of the incident because of the outrageous and disgraceful efforts of this Admin to protect the president's re-election bid through deliberate obfuscation and outright lying.
Obviously, I have never been a fan of President Obama and his Admin., but even I wouldn't have predicted he could be this callous, this despicable.
It's stunning.
@Finn dAbuzz,
How many threads are you going to post your bullshit on?
Considering how big a Bush supporter you were/are, it takes a lot of balls for you to denounce 'obfuscation/lying.' You don't actually give a **** about that at all, do you? You protected it for years.
Cycloptichorn
@Cycloptichorn,
Cyclo = The Amazing Kreskin
He knows what you are thinking!
@Finn dAbuzz,
Cyclo is melting down right before
our eyes and it's pretty damn funny
@H2O MAN,
Indeed.
He is experiencing a Republican Victory induced fugue state.
Elsewhere he's gibbering about "fee-fees"