Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
So why EXACTLY was Obama preceived to be..; presidental material????
Topic Started: Feb 6 2010, 01:20 PM (2,161 Views)
kbp

Here is a copy of that Buchanan "war card" article.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

kbp
Feb 6 2010, 02:54 PM
I did not mean to blame Bush, it was just what happened under his watch that the public saw.
So how many of you guys would let your second wife spend you into a hole because every time you asked her to stop...she fired back that you your first wife was a spender too?

I have never understand this defense. So what about Bush? Then we can't afford EITHER of you.

Edited by Joan Foster, Feb 6 2010, 03:17 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
I believe Bush was tainted because of a successful media campaign to effectively assassinate him (as in character assassination).

He was successfully caricatured.

The same reason the parody shows don't do Obama.

Hey, but Bush wasn't on the ballot. The conservatives had it right (opposing spending) - and Owebama was the furthest thing out there from a conservative.

.
Edited by Mason, Feb 6 2010, 03:16 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Joan Foster
Feb 6 2010, 03:06 PM
kbp
Feb 6 2010, 02:54 PM
I did not mean to blame Bush, it was just what happened under his watch that the public saw.
So how many of you guys would let your second wife spend you into a hole because every time you asked her to stop...she fired back that you your first wife was a spender too?

I never understand this defense. So what about Bush? Then we can't afford EITHER of you.

It was not a defense. I heard it as a complaint associated to the Republicans and their candidate. At that time I did not have a record of O's spending habits to show that he would be worse than McCain.



I did not know you were so well acquainted with both my wife and ex that you'd know they both have spending problems, or should I say I had and still have problems to fund! :bump:
Edited by kbp, Feb 6 2010, 03:18 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

kbp
Feb 6 2010, 03:17 PM
Joan Foster
Feb 6 2010, 03:06 PM
kbp
Feb 6 2010, 02:54 PM
I did not mean to blame Bush, it was just what happened under his watch that the public saw.
So how many of you guys would let your second wife spend you into a hole because every time you asked her to stop...she fired back that you your first wife was a spender too?

I never understand this defense. So what about Bush? Then we can't afford EITHER of you.

It was not a defense. I heard it as a complaint associated to the Republicans and their candidate. I did not have a record of O's spending habits to show that he would be worse than McCain at that time.



I did not know you were so well acquainted with both my wife and ex that you'd know they both have spending problems, or should I say I had and still have problems to fund! :bump:
You are right. We had no record of much of anything about Obama.

This was a move similar to the search for a virgin bride for Prince Charles. That didn't turn out too well either.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

"... virgin bride for Prince Charles"

News to me if she wasn't! But I see how O wasn't exactly the "virgin" he was painted to be.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Personally, I think some give the average voter too much credit.

Obama's greatness overcame all. He was this once-in-a-lifetime leader and that was far sexier than how he voted on bill 2908d Cloture motion.

.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

kbp
Feb 6 2010, 03:23 PM
"... virgin bride for Prince Charles"

News to me if she wasn't! But I see how O wasn't exactly the "virgin" he was painted to be.
No, I think she was.

But that "clean slate" did not necessarily equate to a successful union. Obama's "clean slate" isn't working out too well for Our Union either.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Texas Mom

Truth Detector
Feb 6 2010, 02:20 PM
I have maintained that had Obama been a white candidate he probably would not have won the election. His race played a large role in swaying voters. He positioned himself as a "post racial" candidate (nothing further from the truth), a fresh face who wanted to change the game in Washington (again nothing further from the truth), he made huge promises he knew he could not keep (lowering taxes for the middle-class, bringing troops home from Iraq, closing Gitmo, creating jobs, taking on Wall Street), all popular ideas especially with the left. He had a huge turn out of black voters who will again come out in 2012. This is the constituency he needs to maintain - those who vote but do not pay taxes. Increasingly, that number is getting larger by design.

He was successful of setting up a strawman every time someone challenged him, it became an issue of race. Therefore, the conservative press were reluctant to go after him. Sean Hannity was about the only media person willing to take the hit.
0bama HAD NO QUALIFICATIONS! He was simply electable. He's a "brand," a "product," to assuage racial guilt while pretending that he's more than he is. Additionally, other than the brief respite after 9/11, the liberals and media "elite" (as they think of themselves) hated Bush with a passion and could not believe that he won the first election and were even more appalled that he could beat Kerry.

Hubris is the one consistent theme I see among the far Left. They simply CANNOT stand disagreement with their "beliefs"- and their beliefs become "facts" in their narrative. I honestly believe that the far Left has a debilitating fear that there are things beyond their control- whether it's Mother Nature, Father Time, or a HIgher Power (whom I choose to call God). With 0bama, the Left could mobilize the victim class with greater ease than usual. Think how Juan Williams keeps turning himself into a pretzel to find something good in 0bama's policies. Sad, really, but terrible for the country.

Take a look at this WaPo article. It may add to the discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Mason
Feb 6 2010, 03:31 PM
Personally, I think some give the average voter too much credit.

Obama's greatness overcame all. He was this once-in-a-lifetime leader and that was far sexier than how he voted on bill 2908d Cloture motion.

.

I had no luck looking up what that was, and I'm certain i did not hear any pointing it out in the election, if anyone did.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Texas Mom
Feb 6 2010, 03:34 PM
Truth Detector
Feb 6 2010, 02:20 PM
I have maintained that had Obama been a white candidate he probably would not have won the election. His race played a large role in swaying voters. He positioned himself as a "post racial" candidate (nothing further from the truth), a fresh face who wanted to change the game in Washington (again nothing further from the truth), he made huge promises he knew he could not keep (lowering taxes for the middle-class, bringing troops home from Iraq, closing Gitmo, creating jobs, taking on Wall Street), all popular ideas especially with the left. He had a huge turn out of black voters who will again come out in 2012. This is the constituency he needs to maintain - those who vote but do not pay taxes. Increasingly, that number is getting larger by design.

He was successful of setting up a strawman every time someone challenged him, it became an issue of race. Therefore, the conservative press were reluctant to go after him. Sean Hannity was about the only media person willing to take the hit.
0bama HAD NO QUALIFICATIONS! He was simply electable. He's a "brand," a "product," to assuage racial guilt while pretending that he's more than he is. Additionally, other than the brief respite after 9/11, the liberals and media "elite" (as they think of themselves) hated Bush with a passion and could not believe that he won the first election and were even more appalled that he could beat Kerry.

Hubris is the one consistent theme I see among the far Left. They simply CANNOT stand disagreement with their "beliefs"- and their beliefs become "facts" in their narrative. I honestly believe that the far Left has a debilitating fear that there are things beyond their control- whether it's Mother Nature, Father Time, or a HIgher Power (whom I choose to call God). With 0bama, the Left could mobilize the victim class with greater ease than usual. Think how Juan Williams keeps turning himself into a pretzel to find something good in 0bama's policies. Sad, really, but terrible for the country.

Take a look at this WaPo article. It may add to the discussion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/04/AR2010020403698.html
No comment on Virgins?


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
retiredLEO
Member Avatar

Does anyone remember this from Don Imus, Nov 10, 2009? This is what the MSM, thinks of Obama, no need to produce any documentation.

Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably - he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.

Imus: That’s not what I asked you. I asked you what his IQ was.

Historian Michael Beschloss: You know that I don’t know and I’d have to find someone with more expertise …

Imus: You don’t know.

Historian Michael Beschloss: What do YOU think it is?

Imus: I don’t know. Well mine is 164. I don’t know what that means but it’s a little higher than normal I guess.

Historian Michael Beschloss: Well it’s way beyond genius which does not surprise me.

Imus: It surpprised a lot of people when we took it.

Historian Michael Beschloss: Well it doesn’t surprise me.

Video was removed. Wonder why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Okay, here's an Obama Senate Vote:

12/21/05 Vote 363:

This bill cut nearly $40 billion over five years from the federal budget by imposing substantial changes on welfare, child support and student lending programs. The Washington Post reported that this bill represented "the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of
entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans."

Decided largely by party line in both the House and the Senate, the bill attempted to slow what Republicans called the runaway growth of entitlement programs. But Democrats objected that women on welfare would face longer hours of work, Medicaid recipients would face higher co-payments and deductibles, and more affluent seniors would find it more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-backed nursing care.

The bill exposed some division within the Republican Party. The House passed the original by a vote of 212 to 206 at around 6:07 a.m. on Dec. 19, 2005, after what a Washington Post story called "a grueling night of last-minute negotiations," which was made necessary by some moderate Republicans who worried the bill might be harmful to the poor. The bill then moved to the Senate where, on Dec. 22, Vice President Dick Cheney had to cast a tie-breaking vote to secure its passage. Senate Democrats won some minor changes, forcing the House to vote on the new version on Feb. 1, 2006. It passed 216 to 214. The president signed the bill into law on Feb. 8, 2006.

Obama voted against it.



.
Edited by Mason, Feb 6 2010, 03:45 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

"No comment on Virgins?"

That did throw me off as I tried (inaccurately) to tie it in

...with so many taxpayers getting screwed now there was too many wrong choices for me to go with!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Mason
Feb 6 2010, 03:39 PM
Okay, here's an Obama Senate Vote:

12/21/05 Vote 363:

This bill cut nearly $40 billion over five years from the federal budget by imposing substantial changes on welfare, child support and student lending programs. The Washington Post reported that this bill represented "the first effort in nearly a decade to try to slow the growth of entitlement programs, one that will be felt by millions of Americans."

Decided largely by party line in both the House and the Senate, the bill attempted to slow what Republicans called the runaway growth of entitlement programs. But Democrats objected that women on welfare would face longer hours of work, Medicaid recipients would face higher co-payments and deductibles, and more affluent seniors would find it more difficult to qualify for Medicaid-backed nursing care.

The bill exposed some division within the Republican Party. The House passed the original by a vote of 212 to 206 at around 6:07 a.m. on Dec. 19, 2005, after what a Washington Post story called "a grueling night of last-minute negotiations," which was made necessary by some moderate Republicans who worried the bill might be harmful to the poor. The bill then moved to the Senate where, on Dec. 22, Vice President Dick Cheney had to cast a tie-breaking vote to secure its passage. Senate Democrats won some minor changes, forcing the House to vote on the new version on Feb. 1, 2006. It passed 216 to 214. The president signed the bill into law on Feb. 8, 2006.

Obama voted against it.



.
I have to admit I did not search his record, but I also did not see it pushed by those you'd expect that from.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply