Conservative Whining makes me happy

Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2012 03:52 pm
Herman Cain didn't go very far due to a media that wanted to tear him down for an affair we never got to the bottom of. We never did hear what the final result was. He dropped from the race and the msm was done with him. No follow up or anything. Amazing how they protect those they like and let the rest get boiled alive.
0 Replies
Reply Sat 3 Nov, 2012 07:59 pm
snood wrote:

I posted this in the Romney 2012 thread, but it fits well right here...

Did anyone else notice...?

After the first debate, ther might have been a very few people trying to say Obama didn't do so badly, or trying to make excuses for him, but by and large Democrats fessed up and agreed that Obama was horrible and Romney clearly won the debate.

In fact, some were so angry and disappointed with Obama that it seemed as though they were going to give up on him, just on the strength of that one collosal ass whupping he got.

But after this second debate - which by clear consensus of all but the most delusional Obama won - where are the republicans giving Obama his due, or admitting Romney got his clock cleaned?

It's not suprising for them to be so craven and hypocritical; in fact its very consistent. But damn.

I believe the generall commentary fom all quarters, Republicans included, was that President Obama did much better in the second (and third) debates than he did in the first. So the premise of your post is false to start with.

I don't believe there was general agreement in the media or among most people that Obama "cleaned Romney's clock" in the second debate. You may be faulting others for failure to buy into your own illusions here. Obama did far better than in the first debate, to be sure, and he aggressively defended his own positions, sometimes a little too loudly and aggressively for the taste of some. He came across to me as thin-skinned,arrogant and a bid self-absorbed. His loud denials with respect to Bengazi may have left a bad taste in the minds of many who can easily see the duplicity in his overstretched denials. Still he at least held his own in the second debate, and I can readily understand why his supporters might conclude that he outdid his opponent in that debate.

I think you are in effect denying the rather obvious fact that there are many valid reasons why reasoning, people, concerned about our failure to come to grips with the unsustainable entitlement and public pension programs we have; and a fast growing public debt already well into the danger zone, already amply explored by Greece and other European countries, would find fault with an administration that simply ignores them and piles on even more debt and entitlements on borrowed money. At to that a President who appears to prefer finding fault with his political opposition than exercising the leadership required to work with the opposition, and who failed to even attempt to keep a large number of his basic campaign promises . There are many more as well.

Your persistent insistence that opposition to Obama is necessarily the result of racism on the part of others ignores salient facts about their political beliefs and positions. You are prejudging their motives and intent in defiance of obvious facts and without any means or really knowing the truth of what you persistently spew out on this subject. That is the essence of stupid prejudice.
0 Replies

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/25/2024 at 07:45:24