2012 USA Presidential Election - Who's The "Best" Choice?

rokka wrote:

I have seen Obamas bloopers. I think that most American or people in the world would agree on Obama as an intellectual person with examine from university’s teaching at university for several years. I think that Obamas education an iq can compare with Sarah Palin every day of the week.
My opinion is that Sarah palling is a joke compared to Barack Obama as knowledge is concern. Given a test of question to does two persons about the world politics and issues I bet my money on Obama.
Who would you bet on?

Intellectual? Obama? Yes, he tries very hard to *sound* elite & intellectual, & many of the pseudo elite seem attracted to that. But since you make your assumption about 'most American or people in the world', i think most americans are getting it. He's a talking head who makes a good show. He is not that bright, & makes way too many mistakes, both in leadership & policy. His elitism is very clear, for those who need a messiah figure to look up to, but that is not the kind of leader i want in the us. He is not a principled person, but pushes his agenda through in secret late night meetings with secret sweet deals for those who go along. He is dividing the country more fanning the flames of class warfare, & basically spends more time campaigning & raising money for his next election attempt than he does governing. He masqueraded as a moderate to get elected, but the masquerade is over & we see him for what he is: A socialist, tax & spend liberal with a socialist agenda.

Who made the target picture of Hayworth and Bush? Ill guess it was not Joe Biden Josef Lieberman or Al gore. Never the less I condemn pictures like that especially if the come from somebody who wants the office. And remember the case with Gabriel Gifford’s. Stuff like this is outrages in my world.

But Sarah Palin must have made her posters herself? Late at night at the kitchen table with pens & markers? The point is that the outrage by the far left over these 'targets' is hypocritical. They are routinely used by left wing politicians.. just without the outrage.

I think that it was the first person who was a vice president candidate to use that kind of graphics. I might be wrong on that one but I don’t think so.

Perhaps she was the first republican conservative woman from alaska who had been a governor. Way too much was made of this, imo, especially since it became clear that lots of other politicians from other parties also used the 'target' motif. We have sports teams that talk about going to war, etc.. it's lame but that's what some people do.

I did not say that I have been watching American politics for 30 years. I said that I have been following politics for 30 years. This as a member in a Liberal Swedish party. That’s a difference and I think that you can agree that I probably know little more about American politics than most of you do about European politics.

Better not try to 'one up' jager on who knows more about something. He might be able to debate you in swedish, for all you know! People might disagree with his positions, but he defends them very well, with plenty of sources. He is obviously very well versed in politics, & claiming intellectual superiority or seniority only makes you sound smug. Fire up your debating points, defend them logically & be ready for a battle if you engage him. But perhaps i misunderstand your point.. language differences & all..

I was interested in hearing your view as a European.. & i appreciate your input.. it has been very enlightening.

I've got to give this quote.. from the first part of the american declaration of independence, published ~ 1776..

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

This is such a cool quote.. i've not read anything that is so to the point, & boils down govt to such a nutshell. Don't be put off by the 'Creator' reference.. you can substitute 'evolved' if you want. The point is in what the govt is for. It is to secure our right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness. This is America in a sentence. This is the grand experiment. This is the definition of America. Our govt does not tell us what to do, we tell it. We are not afraid of our govt, they are (and should be) afraid of us. We do not answer to them, they answer to us. We do not look to them to take care of us, give us rights, or make us happy. They are to protect & secure our rights that we already own.. our liberty.. & our pursuit of happiness. This is what millions of immigrants have come for (lots of swedes, too!) over the years.. the promise of freedom.

Many americans, myself included, have come to the conclusion that the current direction of america is away from this basic tenet of our political belief. The govt is trying to take our rights, & redistribute them as privileges they can control. Beware! We did not take oppression well then, & we won't now. It is our basic right to 'alter & abolish' any form of govt that becomes destructive of these basic govt. responsibilities. This is not treasonous talk.. this is american talk. We value our freedom & do not take it lightly. Our ancestors fought & died to preserve it, & we will do the same for our children.

ok.. rant over. did you hear 'oh beautiful for spacious skies' playing softly in the background? or the translucent flag waving in the breeze behind all the text?

Dancamp wrote:

Without hating the religious aspect I can say that I have problems with politicians using religion in their speaches. It shows that they call to the feelings of people instead of their intelligence.

When we see what's happening across the world in the name of religion, it's not very comforting when a politician whatever party he runs for uses religion to get votes. And when religious reprentatives have easier access to politicians in place, it is usuall not good news for citizens that are from another religion or not religious at all.

Ok, i'll bite on this one, too.. Politicians calling to the feelings of people? Only religious ones do this?

There was a time when Lenin was in power that many atrocities were done in the name of atheism... the state religion. Yes, power mad oppressors use religion to manipulate people. Most of the early pilgrims & pioneers came to america for religious freedom.. to escape from those power mad religious oppressors.. It was a novel idea in govts.

I get a little tired of 'religion' being used as a slur. Everyone is religious. An atheist has beliefs that affect their views & actions. Even an agnostic is only confessing ignorance. Many secularists are just as dogmatic & intolerant of other's views as any fundamentalist. If you have a problem with a specific doctrine in a specific religion, fine. Make your criticisms. But to make a wholesale dismissal of all 'religious' people seems intolerant & discriminatory. Where is your liberal open mindedness? Perhaps you had a bad experience with an obnoxious religious person. Who hasn't? I've been discriminated against because i wasn't hispanic. I don't think all hispanics are racists, though. I've had obnoxious mormons, jehovah's witnesses, evangelicals, & scores of other weird cults hit on me from time to time. I thought everyone has had that to some extent.. at least in most free countries.

Everyone is religious.. they have a world view or belief system that guides their life. Try to be a little more tolerant.

Political leaders have lobbyists, friends, counselors, lawyers, educators, former leaders, other world leaders, & handicapped kids come to their homes & offices. How do 'religious representatives' have more than that? Obama can go to church wherever he wants, & take whatever he wants from any preacher or community activist, or revolutionary.

I know some countries have state mandated religions in the govt. Only certain priests or imams or whatever can speak or pray before the assembly. Some even forbid leaving the state religion or changing to an unapproved one. If this is what the people want, who am i to criticize it? But i don't want to live there (or probably even visit). No, i'm spoiled. I live in a country where religious views are varied & diverse, & where the majority of the population is very tolerant to those views. I realize most of the world is not this way, & i am a bit saddened by that, but not much i can do about it. It is up to the people who live in the country to decide how they want their govt to be... might be some sacrifices for this.. liberty is not cheap.

But c'mon, people! Lay off the constant whining about 'religion' or the 'religious'. That covers too many people, is unspecific, & is bigoted. If someone says or does something stupid, point it out. If it is a christian or a hindu or an atheist, call them on it & have fun at their expense. But isn't calling all muslims 'terrorists' an unfair & discriminatory statement? So is saying all christians want to change the govt to a theocracy. Who came up with that? I've never heard of any christian politician advocate that, publicly or privately.

Sorry, Dan, if i addressed points you weren't even making.. just some of my 'pet 'peeves'.

Quote :

I resubmit that your view of her is a slanted one presented by the left wing media. Your criticisms (and accompanying illustrations) are common fodder in the far left spin tanks. It is character assassination, plain & simple. Now that bachman is taking her place as the right wing female spokesperson, she is getting the same treatment from the same people.

I am very sure that many republikans a specially I Mcanes campaing can not be called leftwingers and would agre that Palin is a disaster. Nuf said about this woman.

Quote :

Intellectual? Obama? Yes, he tries very hard to *sound* elite & intellectual, & many of the pseudo elite seem attracted to that. But since you make your assumption about 'most American or people in the world', i think most americans are getting it. He's a talking head who makes a good show. He is not that bright, & makes way too many mistakes, both in leadership & policy. His elitism is very clear, for those who need a messiah figure to look up to, but that is not the kind of leader i want in the us. He is not a principled person, but pushes his agenda through in secret late night meetings with secret sweet deals for those who go along. He is dividing the country more fanning the flames of class warfare, & basically spends more time campaigning & raising money for his next election attempt than he does governing. He masqueraded as a moderate to get elected, but the masquerade is over & we see him for what he is: A socialist, tax & spend liberal with a socialist agenda.

I have no problem with your view of Obama. Maybe somebody could claim that its rightwing propaganda. I gave you my view.

Quote :

But Sarah Palin must have made her posters herself? Late at night at the kitchen table with pens & markers? The point is that the outrage by the far left over these 'targets' is hypocritical. They are routinely used by left wing politicians.. just without the outrage.

I would very much be disturbed by the fact that Gifford was shot. The debate klimat with targeting people is far away from the respect that I hav for people with another view of things. Therefore I have no problems with condemning pictures of Bush being targeted. And that is also why I try hard not to apply double standards.

Quote :

Better not try to 'one up' jager on who knows more about something. He might be able to debate you in swedish, for all you know! People might disagree with his positions, but he defends them very well, with plenty of sources. He is obviously very well versed in politics, & claiming intellectual superiority or seniority only makes you sound smug. Fire up your debating points, defend them logically & be ready for a battle if you engage him. But perhaps i misunderstand your point.. language differences & all..

I try to pic up facts views from Jäger Rydnseek and others. I find that educating and at the same time develop my English. Jäger sure defends his position very well. What I am not used to is that many hard words is often said in debates with him. I don’t like that because I come from a tradition where left and right have a tradition of mutual understanding. I like a laid back style like a conversation as we have right know. I would very much like to debate with Jäger Rydnseek and others In Swedish or Finnish.

Quote :

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Quote :

ok.. rant over. did you hear 'oh beautiful for spacious skies' playing softly in the background? or the translucent flag waving in the breeze behind all the text?

I like philosophic text with values that are beautiful. I can sense a feeling of proudness for you values and I have visited the cradle of USA I Philadelphia..

Quote :

I was interested in hearing your view as a European.. & i appreciate your input.. it has been very enlightening.

Thank you sir ! My pleasure.

Why is making "religion" a part of the equation any more or less realistic than making gun control part of the equation?

Sure - everybody has some kind of ideology or thought process about life, the universe, and things bigger than ourselves.

However - most people don't wear that shit on their sleeves and make a public issue or statement about it whenever they can.


When politicians talk about the "conversations they've had with god" , and bible interpretations that effect how they propose to govern or legislate, that makes a huge difference with many of us.

Religion is OBVIOUSLY a huge deal considering both the left (and especially) the right make quite an effort to pander to that group of people.


This isn't so much about what church the potential candidate might go to, it's about if the candidate preaches, and weaves religion into their politics and uses a specific tone of thought when preaching it out in public.

It's about how they "use" their religion within the political context.

The entire gay rights issue is completely and totally defined and argued, by one side, from a strictly religious point of view.

Pro-Choice versus Pro-life is another "religious" debate.

Evolution, science, and creationism in a public school setting is again a religious debate.

And when many of these candidates are buddy-buddy with guys like Pat Robertson - I find that very frightening.


A quote about and from Palin:

Quote :

Sarah Palin was on the O’Reilly Factor last night talking about the National Day of Prayer, but she went a bit further than her usual party line of calling America a Christian nation.

“I think we should keep this clean, keep it simple, go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant,” she said. “They’re quite clear that we would create law based on the God of the Bible and the 10 commandments, it’s pretty simple.”

I think i support motokids view on religion and politics. Good and the bible are farie tails that I don’t need. But serious! 10 commitment in the year of 2011! 1 and 2 I don’t recognize one god, 2 I sometimes swear good In hell in Swedish. 3 I can have a holy day hmm maybe call it the WRR day. It is holy because that day when I ride my bike I feel damn god. 4. A little problem with this one. Both are dead and my father was sometimes a real ashole. But I miss him :) my mother was perfect and I miss her very much. 5 I will try very very hard not kill some one. But if somebody rapes my wife or hurt my kids ill guess a need to kill. 6 Adultery… Hmm damn god looking that neibourgs wife :) I’ll try not to because of respect to my wife that I love very much. But if she promises me I’ll go for it.
7. I will not steal. My economy is god. I can by most of the things that I need and want to have. If I get poor and hungry I probably would steal food to my kids so they would not starve.
8. I’ll try very hard to be honest. In Swedish we say a white lie. A lie that is not important or hurt someone. I guess a have a bunch of white lies.
9.10. My neibourgh has a very nice car. I would like to have it, but a would never steal it. I want to I want to….


I would not make it...

rokka wrote:

I have seen Obamas bloopers.

Okay - then why did you support your argument by posting a YouTube link of Palin "bloopers" - none of which were nearly as bad as the Obama ones, incidentally, or the fact he can't even get his oldest daughter's age right? I'm the first to agree anyone can make errors when speaking in public, but why did you choose that Palin link to support your case?

Quote :

I think that most American or people in the world would agree on Obama as an intellectual person with examine from university’s teaching at university for several years.

Thanks to a left wing media that will even say "I feel a thrill going down my leg when I hear him speak", no doubt. Would you care to argue that media treatment of the two is equally impartial?

What makes him a proven intellectual (assuming an intellectual generally makes a better leader) instead of a hollow image of one? Because he gives carefully crafted speeches with the assistance of a Teleprompter (and frequently sounds like a babbling idiot when his teleprompter fails him)? Perhaps you found a resource that gives their respective IQ scores - if so, could you provide a link to that? People bitch that they are tired of elitist, slick politicians and then they get a woman that sounds like somebody ordinary, and they bitch they're a dummy... go figger. Did you find a link which provided both of their university transcripts so we can compare how they did - I'd like that link as well, if you don't mind, because as far as I know Obama has gone to some lengths to protect release of his course grades.

They both have university degrees. And yet you style Palin as a "disaster" and "the worst ever". So what motivates your thinking? The endless media presentation of Palin's bloopers while ignoring those from The Smartest Guy In The Room, who doesn't even know his kid's age? Is it the fact that Palin's degree isn't in law which makes her "a disaster" for you?

I don't think I'm the only guy here who has had more than a few university professors who I don't think could organize a dog fight in an animal shelter. And I also don't think I'm the only guy here who has had more than a few university professors who are absolutely out of touch with reality. Some are obviously very gifted people. But if your measurement of who is well qualified and who is "a disaster" has to do with whether they are a university professor or not... well, what can I say. Elitism at it's finest - and with no basis whatsoever.

By the way... Bill Ayers is a tenured professor with more degrees than Obama and much more extensive teaching experience. Also very politically active, for decades before Obama ever was. Obviously an intellectual person, teaches at university, lots of degrees. Appears to be much better qualified to be in the Executive office than Palin given your criteria, yes?

Quote :

My opinion is that Sarah palling is a joke compared to Barack Obama as knowledge is concern. Given a test of question to does two persons about the world politics and issues I bet my money on Obama.

Yes, his foreign policy has been most impressive in its results, hasn't it?

The current major issue the US faces is economic. Palin ran a state - quite successfully, taking on both political parties AND the oil companies (if you hate them) while doing so. And has run and been in private business. Obama's economic experience is exactly zero. Which is perhaps a partial explanation for his performance during the first two years of his term. Between Palin and Obama, it is now more and more clear who's "a disaster" when it comes to economic issues.

Quote :

Who made the target picture of Hayworth and Bush? Ill guess it was not Joe Biden Josef Lieberman or Al gore.

I guess that's as good an excuse as you're likely to find. Those ads were made by the Democrat Party - and if you can point to where that party or those candidates denounced those ads, I would be impressed.

Quote :

And remember the case with Gabriel Gifford’s. Stuff like this is outrages in my world.

It's interesting you should say that while claiming you aren't influenced by left wing media spin. Particularly as an observer of politics.

It's obvious you remember the outcry that Gifford was shot as a result of Palin's ads and talk radio. What you don't remember (or don't care about) is that it has been determined that the shooter did not listen to talk radio, wasn't conservative, or a Tea Party member, or in any way political. He is mentally ill, not politically active, and apparently liked to to read Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto and various other socialist works - not exactly the kind of conservative literature Palin would endorse. There was absolutely no relationship whatsoever between Palin's ads or her politics and this man's criminal acts. Of course, once that was established, the left wing media didn't feel THAT was worth reporting - much less retracting their earlier attacks on Palin.

Which leaves us with you, continuing to associate Palin with Gifford's shooting, telling us it outrages you. What outrages me is people like you who continue to blame Palin for a crime she had absolutely no link with. And you use stuff like this as your basis for terming her "the worst ever" and "a disaster".

Now to move from what Palin didn't do to what Obama did do.

Obama got his political start with the support of two convicted, unapologetic terrorists who had bombed the Pentagon and caused deaths - Ayers and Dorin. If you watched that second video clip, you'll see that he lied about his involvement with them, said he barely knew them as a couple of people in his neighborhood. He had his political coming out at their house and hung out with them. He sat on a board with Ayers. Not only did he have a relationship with two convicted terrorists who had committed terrorist acts against his country and his government - he lied about knowing them and spending time with them.

Obama lied about his relationship with ACORN, the work he has done for them, the money he gave them as a candidate, and the part they played in his election campaigns. They have been under investigation for years, convicted numerous times on various things, including extensive voter registration fraud. But he said he just did a bit of work with them in conjunction with a government entity.

Obama has known Rezko for 17 years - a fixer in Chicago politics. Obama said he barely knew him. Yet he bought a house from Rezko for several hundred thousand dollars less than it's value, around the time that as senator he was writing letters in support of Rezko getting a real estate deal approved.

Obama went to Jeremiah White's church for decades. Called him his spiritual advisor and mentor. And claimed that (miraculously, apparently) he never heard any of the racist, anti-Semetic and anti-American comments that White regularly makes when speaking at that church. We're supposed to believe that? He only abandoned support for White once the political heat got to be too much.

Obama claimed his civil rights street cred by claiming his mother and father met on the Selma march - and he is the offspring of that. Except that's a blatant lie - Obama was born years before the Selma march, so his parents obviously didn't meet there.

On this, you are silent, despite posting that "If a left wing politician performed as bad I would post criticism against that person. No double standards thanks."

Frankly, I think character and trustworthyness has a lot more to do with leadership potential than being a university professor. Obama is a serial liar - there really is no other way to put it. And they aren't minor fibs - hanging out with convicted terrorists who have attacked your government and your country is a big deal in my mind. So what has Palin done even remotely close to this which makes her "the worst ever" and "a disaster" in your mind, while Obama gets a pass on his past record?

Quote :

That’s a difference and I think that you can agree that I probably know little more about American politics than most of you do about European politics.

What does that comparison have anything to do with what you're writing here? Frankly, who cares about the comparative knowledge of this group on European politics (which I'll happily discuss with you in another Off Topic thread any day). This topic concerns choices for the upcoming US election, not European elections. The issue is what you wrote on Palin while at the same time making claims of impartiality and being unaffected by left wing spin media.

You said you don't label people - but you're still attaching blame to Palin for Gifford's shooting.

You said you would go after a left wing politician who was as bad as Palin - but you gloss over both Obama's much worse bloopers and, much more importantly, his past actions which are well beyond anything Palin has even been accused of, much less actually found to have done.

Instead, it's "well, he's an intellectual and was a university professor as well". While she, apparently, remains "a disaster" and "the worst ever" in your mind.

You do indeed have a double standard. Probably because you are indeed influenced by left wing media and your knowledge of US politics isn't quite extensive as you think it to be. Whether or not you actually realize that seems to be the only question left.

The good news at this point in time is this:

No matter how much of a media-whore and a clown Palin might be, she's currently not in any office, nor is she running for any office.

So any debate on her credibility or asshattery is wasted space in this thread at this time.

Now, Michele Backmann on the other hand..............

Jäger wrote:

Nope, Palin isn't running. But she sure is useful in smoking out those with double standards and questionable morals.[/left]

You should be a comedian. You're funny as hell.

You spout more double-standards and hypocritical kool-aide infused politically biased horseshit than everybody else here combined.

The smoke trail you leave behind you should be blacking out most of the northern hemisphere.


But here's the thing - so far I've only seen (I think) about one name of any potential candidate who might be thought of as competition for Obama.

You see - he's in there. He will be for four more years unless some reasonable alternative choice is his opponent.

Throwing any clown up against him isn't going to knock him out of there.

So while you throw more bile and hatred than anyone else at this forum, you've still totally failed to provide an answer to what I'm looking for.


Who can dethrone Obama?

No matter how much you hate Obama, and WE ALL know that Jager hates him, that doesn't replace him.

The republicans are so weak right now they can't ante up anyone more appealing than the same tired bunch of people we always see.

Mitt Romney?????? Please.

There are some plain and simple realities happening that work in Obama's favor.

1) We are decreasing the numbers of military people in Iraq.
2) We are decreasing the numbers of military people in Afghanistan.
3) Bin Laden is dead.
4) Al quada is floundering and losing it's grip on fear


Those things alone mean a great deal to a great number of people.

Ignore it if you chose, but the mantra of "anybody can defeat Obama" is pretty much a reassurance that he'll be re-elected for a second term.

motokid wrote:

You should be a comedian. You're funny as hell.

Did I step on and offend your statist ideals and prejudices again MotoKid? Hurt your feelings once again? Dare to comment on what you weakly try to pass off as unbiased commentary?

Gee... too bad. Suck it up buttercup.

As to what you claim people think and believe... just remember, you are the one who was left in disbelief after discovering in your little poll that, yes, more people would vote for more of George Bush than would vote for more of Barack Obama. And I must say in passing it was nice of you to yourself provide the proof you really have no idea what people are thinking, whether you have convinced yourself you do or not.

Obama may work for you.

Maybe the fact he's a proven Serial Liar both before and after the election still makes him a reasonable choice for you. Kindred souls and all that stuff...

Maybe the fact there WERE NO "shovel ready jobs" to spend that trillion dollars on works for you, along with the fact all that porkulous money didn't do what he promised and unemployment is up works for you as well.

Maybe you can credit Obama with anything good that happens during his presidency, while anything that fails or anything bad is The Other Guy's Fault.

Maybe you're happy to have a President with an established record of hanging out with convicted terrorists, racists, and corrupt political fixers.

Maybe you prefer Presidents who are self admitted felons who were cokeheads, drinkers, and pot smokers over anyone who dares to openly profess their religion.

And maybe you're just so geographically close to Washington DC, the National Anus, that it has filled you with its product and made you what you are - you just can't help yourself.

But you aren't an impartial viewer of Obama as a choice - even if you really, actually believe you are. What you're really looking for are ways to attack anyone the Republicans might choose to put against him. Unless, of course, they come up with a RINO aligned with your statist views.

Can the Republicans lose the next election? Absolutely. Is Romney an ideal choice, or even anything resembling a conservative? Not hardly.

But yes, I'd even vote for an Obama sock puppet like you before I would ever vote for a contemptible Chicago thug like Obama. Even you couldn't be any worse than that Marxist, race baiting, serial liar who only knows the politics of divisiveness and hate. Hate the banks, hate "the rich", Latinos attack your enemies... hate, hate, hate. And an economic ignoramous as well as a serial liar.

Even you couldn't do worse. Hard to imagine in your case, but true.

Republicans are more tolerant?????
Can you be serious?

Maybe only more tolerant if you're an evangelical Christian.

Not if you're non-christian and WAY not if you're Muslim.

Who leads the fight against gay marriage? Not Democrats.
Who leads the fight against gays in the military? Not Democrats. Oh yeah - if was a democrat who has finally reversed that.

(Just to reiterate - I am not a democrat )

Who was leading the fight against a Muslim place of gathering in NY City near ground zero? Not the Dems.

But again - my biggest questions revolves around this premise and this premise only:

If the Reps, or any other party think that any old candidate can beat Obama, they are setting themselves up for a losing fight.

Any contending party needs to bring a very strong candidate. Not just "anybody" as Jager likes to say.

Anybody won't cut it. Christine O'Donnell won't beat Obama.

So the question is - WHO?

Who can beat Obama? Who's the best choice?

As if on cue, to once again restate my "theory" of needing more than "just anyone" to beat Obama,
this appears in the news today:

Quote :

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The campaign to re-elect President Barack Obama said on Wednesday it raised $86 million from April to June, exceeding its $60 million quarterly target and eclipsing Republican White House contenders.

Obama's 2012 campaign said it received donations from more than 552,000 people, with what it called "more grassroots support at this point in the process than any campaign in political history."

In keeping with Obama's 2008 winning strategy of tapping small donations, 98 percent of donations in the second quarter were $250 or less, with an average donation of around $69, campaign manager Jim Messina said in a video to supporters.

The figures confirm that Obama, a Democrat who raised a record $745 million in cash during 2008, has started the 2012 race as the cash leader despite worries about the U.S. economy and criticism from some fellow Democrats that he has tilted to the right in U.S. debt talks.

"They have smashed all records," said Chris Arterton, a political management professor at George Washington University. "I think it is quite dramatic."

Those who are typically the most vocal, tend to be the minority hoping to "shout" their beliefs loud enough to make a difference.

The "silent majority" concept often has a hint of reality with it.

The biggest mistake the anti-Obama crowd can make is to assume "anybody" is better than what we currently have now.

The numbers don't lie.

Alright. I get it.

I thought you wanted a reasonable debate, or were posting this to liven up the forums.. you posted about religion in this thread, & even though it was a bit off topic, i thoughtfully went through each of your points one at a time, quoting them, & offering thoughts & counter points. You brushed it off & seemed to miss my points completely. Earlier in this thread, i went through your list of questions, again answering each one thoughtfully, thinking that was what you wanted. But you did not answer any of my points, and seem to prefer name calling with jager.

I see you are not really wanting to have a point by point discussion, but are merely wishing to stir up controversy, & increase your post count. No problem.. i don't care what you do, i just misunderstood your motives & put way too much time into the discussion. My bad.

rydnseek wrote:

Alright. I get it.

I thought you wanted a reasonable debate, or were posting this to liven up the forums.. you posted about religion in this thread, & even though it was a bit off topic, i thoughtfully went through each of your points one at a time, quoting them, & offering thoughts & counter points. You brushed it off & seemed to miss my points completely. Earlier in this thread, i went through your list of questions, again answering each one thoughtfully, thinking that was what you wanted. But you did not answer any of my points, and seem to prefer name calling with jager.

I see you are not really wanting to have a point by point discussion, but are merely wishing to stir up controversy, & increase your post count. No problem.. i don't care what you do, i just misunderstood your motives & put way too much time into the discussion. My bad.

Boy - you sure take things personally don't you?

I don't post just to increase my post count.

You are free to discuss anything you chose.
I did not personally ask you to break down every sentence I post and comment on them.

Debate or discuss in any manner you desire, but you can't expect others to do what you want them to do.

We tend to agree on plenty of things. We disagree on a few things.

I don't see why you're feeling ignored, attacked, or in some way manipulated at all.

I got nothing against you in any way.

"... hate, hate, hate. And an economic ignoramous as well as a serial liar. Even you couldn't do worse. Hard to imagine in your case, but true."

It seems that President Obama has not cornered the market on hate.

motokid wrote:

rydnseek wrote:

Alright. I get it.

I thought you wanted a reasonable debate, or were posting this to liven up the forums.. you posted about religion in this thread, & even though it was a bit off topic, i thoughtfully went through each of your points one at a time, quoting them, & offering thoughts & counter points. You brushed it off & seemed to miss my points completely. Earlier in this thread, i went through your list of questions, again answering each one thoughtfully, thinking that was what you wanted. But you did not answer any of my points, and seem to prefer name calling with jager.

I see you are not really wanting to have a point by point discussion, but are merely wishing to stir up controversy, & increase your post count. No problem.. i don't care what you do, i just misunderstood your motives & put way too much time into the discussion. My bad.

Boy - you sure take things personally don't you?

I don't post just to increase my post count.

You are free to discuss anything you chose.
I did not personally ask you to break down every sentence I post and comment on them.

Debate or discuss in any manner you desire, but you can't expect others to do what you want them to do.

We tend to agree on plenty of things. We disagree on a few things.

I don't see why you're feeling ignored, attacked, or in some way manipulated at all.

I got nothing against you in any way.

no worries.. no offense taken, none given.

TBird1 wrote:

"... hate, hate, hate. And an economic ignoramous as well as a serial liar. Even you couldn't do worse. Hard to imagine in your case, but true."

It seems that President Obama has not cornered the market on hate.

Many of the threads in this section descend into name calling and trying to make your 'opponent' look stupid.
Guess what that accomplishes?

Jäger wrote:

motokid wrote:

You should be a comedian. You're funny as hell.

Did I step on and offend your statist ideals and prejudices again MotoKid? Hurt your feelings once again? Dare to comment on what you weakly try to pass off as unbiased commentary?

Gee... too bad. Suck it up buttercup.

As to what you claim people think and believe... just remember, you are the one who was left in disbelief after discovering in your little poll that, yes, more people would vote for more of George Bush than would vote for more of Barack Obama. And I must say in passing it was nice of you to yourself provide the proof you really have no idea what people are thinking, whether you have convinced yourself you do or not.

Obama may work for you.

Maybe the fact he's a proven Serial Liar both before and after the election still makes him a reasonable choice for you. Kindred souls and all that stuff...

Maybe the fact there WERE NO "shovel ready jobs" to spend that trillion dollars on works for you, along with the fact all that porkulous money didn't do what he promised and unemployment is up works for you as well.

Maybe you can credit Obama with anything good that happens during his presidency, while anything that fails or anything bad is The Other Guy's Fault.

Maybe you're happy to have a President with an established record of hanging out with convicted terrorists, racists, and corrupt political fixers.

Maybe you prefer Presidents who are self admitted felons who were cokeheads, drinkers, and pot smokers over anyone who dares to openly profess their religion.

And maybe you're just so geographically close to Washington DC, the National Anus, that it has filled you with its product and made you what you are - you just can't help yourself.

But you aren't an impartial viewer of Obama as a choice - even if you really, actually believe you are. What you're really looking for are ways to attack anyone the Republicans might choose to put against him. Unless, of course, they come up with a RINO aligned with your statist views.

Can the Republicans lose the next election? Absolutely. Is Romney an ideal choice, or even anything resembling a conservative? Not hardly.

But yes, I'd even vote for an Obama sock puppet like you before I would ever vote for a contemptible Chicago thug like Obama. Even you couldn't be any worse than that Marxist, race baiting, serial liar who only knows the politics of divisiveness and hate. Hate the banks, hate "the rich", Latinos attack your enemies... hate, hate, hate. And an economic ignoramous as well as a serial liar.

Even you couldn't do worse. Hard to imagine in your case, but true.

President B. Obama is YOUR Commander-in-Chief and you're talking about your boss. As a military man such insubordination would be grounds for a court martial or dishonorable discharge.... huh?

This is going to be funny.......

taoshum wrote:

President B. Obama is YOUR Commander-in-Chief and you're talking about your boss.......

Oh dear...I don't think I have enuf popcorn for this show guys. who's gonna run to the store and get another case?

What about the buddy-buddy relationship between Bush Sr. & Jr. and the Bin Laden family? Nice group of wholesome, apple-pie kinda people eh?