cowboysfan Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Obama's Idea Hmmm...So the RNC is reaching millions through the news media. What can I do to out match them. He goes to reddit for half hour and does his thing. Smart idea sirji except most of reddit are kids who cant vote or wont vote because of laziness.
Clarke Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 You're still in Libya? Keep up dude. It's Syria now! I'd be in the good company of AQ? That's your reply to criticism of ur president? WoW! You are completely deluded mate. Keep drinking that kool-aid.:giggle: Besides it's hilarious cos ur beloved American govt. is probably funding AQ now in Syria, much like they did long ago in Afghanistan. You say bombing civilian areas happened in the last century and a million dead is some made-up statistic? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/16/iraq.iraqtimeline You got comprehension problems kiddo ? Read again what i just wrote: "There's at least a light year between a US president funding militia to fight (e.g. Libya, Syria or elsewhere) and militia sponsored by other parties going on a rampage while the administration tries to correct their big goof ups by shedding their own blood & spending their own billions every year." Deaths by Invasion or Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq Estimated Iraqi civilian fatalities: 7,269 (Iraq Body Count) 3,200-4,300 (Project on Defense Alternatives study) If you're gonna call secterian violence in Iraq as murder by a US President, you're a dumb**** who would blame Osama's parents for giving birth to him. BTW do you support Osama too ? I'm just another Ron Paul supporter! Ignorance must be bliss in ur neck of the woods. And then you suggest others are on cool aid, good luck to your dumb bunch getting votes in Nov.
Clarke Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 So all the people that US killed in Afghanistan and Iraq were terrorists? Do you hold the US responsible for every death that happens in Afg/Iraq like the other clown does ? This guy holds Bush & Obama DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE, aka the modern day fuhrers. Read his words: "My predecessor killed a million. I tried to match it. Might in my next term!" Its like Shia-Sunni conflicts leading to deaths ~ US president killing people. In local terms, do we say rioting led to deaths in Assam ~ MMS & Gogoi killed Indians :wall:
punjabi_khota Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 except most of reddit are kids who cant vote or wont vote because of laziness. I am sure the 30 min he spent there is going to give him a better rate of return than spending 30 min at a fund raiser to get a million dollar, and run a 30 sec ad from those million dollars.
Desi Cartman Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 :facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm: continues to dig himself deeper in a hole. He already has the impression of celebrity President who is more comfortable on social media, reading off Teleprompters and receiving Nobel prize for having good intentions (and not actually doing it)...seems like he continues to feed the fire. These are the voters who voted for him last time, this doesnt affect people who are not online (duh !) so he is just reconnecting with his base from last year. BTW did you enjoy the lies form the blue eyed messiah ?
Lurker Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 These are the voters who voted for him last time, this doesnt affect people who are not online (duh !) so he is just reconnecting with his base from last year. BTW did you enjoy the lies form the blue eyed messiah ? Actually it is bit more than that. Michael Moore mentioned the other day how Obama had LOST all age brackets except the youth in 2008. Had it not been for the young he would have lost 2008. This time the young are obviously unethusiastic, many of them do not have a job, many of them are despondent, the idea of going to school is being questioned these days. I see Obama reaching out via Reddit as nothing but a publicity stunt. Get off your butt and do something for these young chaps so they come vote for you. How is appearing on Reddit to "connect" with youth any different with the election gimmicks that happens in India. Like Rs 1/kg rice in Delhi (you should know, you bought a quintal last time)
Clarke Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 I see Obama reaching out via Reddit as nothing but a publicity stunt. Get off your butt and do something for these young chaps so they come vote for you. How is appearing on Reddit to "connect" with youth any different with the election gimmicks that happens in India. Like Rs 1/kg rice in Delhi (you should know, you bought a quintal last time) With the craziest opposition & record filibusters, he barely manages to push some important legislation, for instance continuing college grants, allow youngsters to be accommodated on their parent's insurance and limit credit card usury that affects many youngsters. Maybe the young now need to determine what the other side would have preferred in each case and what route they shall take with their brilliant tax cuts among other policies. The current President will live the rest of his life comfortably even if he loses; can they afford to 'not get off their butt' in November ?
Desi Cartman Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Actually it is bit more than that. Michael Moore mentioned the other day how Obama had LOST all age brackets except the youth in 2008. Had it not been for the young he would have lost 2008. This time the young are obviously unethusiastic, many of them do not have a job, many of them are despondent, the idea of going to school is being questioned these days. I see Obama reaching out via Reddit as nothing but a publicity stunt. Get off your butt and do something for these young chaps so they come vote for you. How is appearing on Reddit to "connect" with youth any different with the election gimmicks that happens in India. Like Rs 1/kg rice in Delhi (you should know, you bought a quintal last time) IMO he wasnt even real obama, must be one his trusted people. As for he should be doing something, I dont think he has done enough but the problem is that republicans are scary. BTW this whole process is messed up, companies/people can donate as much as they want without even disclosing the amount, I think historically people who have gathered more money have gone on to win. So basically the real race is raising the money ? Secondly, a new president starts in Jan and faces elections 4 years later which is 48 months, out of which he takes over in Jan end which means its 45 months , take off another month for him to get started which leaves with 44 and we are assuming that he working full speed in a moth after taking over. In the election year they start raising money from Jan and actively from say March which means they are not working for the last 9-10 months leaving 35 months to fix the country lol. Oh and then the holidays they take . i remember seeing Bush more in the bush than in the white house rofl
maniac Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Actually it is bit more than that. Michael Moore mentioned the other day how Obama had LOST all age brackets except the youth in 2008. Had it not been for the young he would have lost 2008. This time the young are obviously unethusiastic, many of them do not have a job, many of them are despondent, the idea of going to school is being questioned these days. I see Obama reaching out via Reddit as nothing but a publicity stunt. Get off your butt and do something for these young chaps so they come vote for you. How is appearing on Reddit to "connect" with youth any different with the election gimmicks that happens in India. Like Rs 1/kg rice in Delhi (you should know, you bought a quintal last time) :hmmm: people still take him seriously
Swing_n_Speed Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Deaths by Invasion or Iraq: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq Estimated Iraqi civilian fatalities: 7,269 (Iraq Body Count) 3,200-4,300 (Project on Defense Alternatives study) If you're gonna call secterian violence in Iraq as murder by a US President, you're a dumb**** who would blame Osama's parents for giving birth to him. BTW do you support Osama too ? :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: And those are your final figures?Sighh I find it rather interesting that you choose to equate criticisms of US presidents with support of a terrorist. What is true is that both kill. One in the name or religion and the other in the name of freedom. Fact is both kill for ambition, greed and geo-politics. You may trivialize this debate by talking bout Osama. I see it as an attempt on your part to sidetrack this discussion. The point I'm making is that something must be implicitly wrong when all we ever hear from America is bombings, threats, staging coups etc etc. in the process creating widespread chaos and destruction. Anyways it's unfortunate that your too blind to really notice what is happening. I point this out primarily not to make a political point but because I find violence appalling. Cheers.
Lurker Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 BTW this whole process is messed up, companies/people can donate as much as they want without even disclosing the amount, I think historically people who have gathered more money have gone on to win. So basically the real race is raising the money ? Secondly, a new president starts in Jan and faces elections 4 years later which is 48 months, out of which he takes over in Jan end which means its 45 months , take off another month for him to get started which leaves with 44 and we are assuming that he working full speed in a moth after taking over. In the election year they start raising money from Jan and actively from say March which means they are not working for the last 9-10 months leaving 35 months to fix the country lol. True that. It is all about money, but then again that is what modern day United States has become. It is, for good or bad, about capitalism in its most extreme manner. Money has gone from being important to the most important thing. Why should politicians be any different?? Remember Michael Douglas's line from Wall Street - Greed is good! I wonder if it is still a line. Most people will accept that as an okay philosphy, some even making it the golden philosphy.
Lurker Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 :hmmm: people still take him seriously lol. Yeah. He makes good points too.
Clarke Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: And those are your final figures?Sighh I find it rather interesting that you choose to equate criticisms of US presidents with support of a terrorist. What is true is that both kill. One in the name or religion and the other in the name of freedom. Fact is both kill for ambition, greed and geo-politics. You may trivialize this debate by talking bout Osama. I see it as an attempt on your part to sidetrack this discussion. The point I'm making is that something must be implicitly wrong when all we ever hear from America is bombings, threats, staging coups etc etc. in the process creating widespread chaos and destruction. Anyways it's unfortunate that your too blind to really notice what is happening. I point this out primarily not to make a political point but because I find violence appalling. Cheers. Sunshine, I'm the one explaining the complexity of Iraq while you trivialize the discussion by lumping whatever happened 2003-2010 on the current/ex President. How about you not grossly over-simplify complex scenarios so that you can call anyone a mass murderer just because you do not agree with him. I don't ever recall defending dubya or the 2003 Invasion, and i never shall agree on the latter. Can you acknowledge that either President isn't in the same category as murderous dictators, which is precisely what you implied ?
Lurker Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 With the craziest opposition & record filibusters' date= he barely manages to push some important legislation, for instance continuing college grants, allow youngsters to be accommodated on their parent's insurance and limit credit card usury that affects many youngsters. Maybe the young now need to determine what the other side would have preferred in each case and what route they shall take with their brilliant tax cuts among other policies. The current President will live the rest of his life comfortably even if he loses; can they afford to 'not get off their butt' in November ? So just for argument sake Clarke, say Obama does lose in 2012. Would you be okay with Obama having won a very large popular vote, Senate majority and everything else in a matter of months, only because Republicans did not help him?
Clarke Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 So just for argument sake Clarke' date=' say Obama does[b'] lose in 2012. Would you be okay with Obama having won a very large popular vote, Senate majority and everything else in a matter of months, only because Republicans did not help him? Do you mean win ? That's what i'm assuming from the second sentence. Without question, yes. Particularly considering what the other party has done so far and proposes for the future. The other side's ideas of tax cuts, increased defense spending, lowering financial & environmental regulations and chopping social programs are sickening as a whole. They govern like drunks for 8 yrs and when the economy is crashing & unemployment rising at 800k per month, suddenly wake up about the debt of all things being the single most important problem. I'm sorry, i'll take the current President who supported rescuing of two auto giants and a number of financial behemoths, pushed for consumer protection & credit card legislation, tried fixing health care to introduce some sanity like every other developed country, got troops out of Iraq and brought wrath to terrorists in Af-Pak, increased deportations of illegals, came out in full support of homosexuals & women and offered the biggest compromise in terms of tax vs spending cuts ratio to lower the deficit. That's off the top of my head, i'm sure there's more worthwhile to his term.
Lurker Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Do you mean win ? That's what i'm assuming from the second sentence. Actually no, I misspoke/typed. I meant - Hypthetically speaking if Obama loses in 2012, would you be okay that he squandered the huge gains he had in 2008, with Senate majority and in popular votes by a wide margin...only to blame Republicans for cutting through it so effectively that he lost it all in 4 years?
Clarke Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 Actually no, I misspoke/typed. I meant - Hypthetically speaking if Obama loses in 2012 Then Americans deserve what they get in the next 4 yrs, but i deserve better than MMS & Sonia :P would you be okay that he squandered the huge gains he had in 2008, with Senate majority and in popular votes by a wide margin...only to blame Republicans for cutting through it so effectively that he lost it all in 4 years? About the highlighted part, i guess it depends on who you ask. In my opinion he did what he could and there's others who believe a seasoned politician like Hillary could have negotiated much better on key legislation. What were your expectations on reforms ? Everyone would love balancing the budget with 2% unemployment rate but given what he has had to go through from the GOP, what laws do you think he didn't shove down their throats and could have fought till the end ?
Lurker Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 About the highlighted part' date=' i guess it depends on who you ask. In my opinion he did what he could and there's others who believe a seasoned politician like Hillary could have negotiated much better on key legislation. [b']What were your expectations on reforms ? Everyone would love balancing the budget with 2% unemployment rate but given what he has had to go through from the GOP, what laws do you think he didn't shove down their throats and could have fought till the end ? Wall Street would have been fantastic. That is one area which has effectively eroded US, and International Economics actually, in past decade. To do the right things, read sending Goldmann Sachs of the world to jail, would have been good start.
Clarke Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 ^ Oh crap, you feel he didn't go further left on the issue and thus feel its almost justified for the country to thus elect Mr. Bain Capital of all people :haha: I mean Obama loses automatically means the latter, right ? It shall remain an either-or scenario no matter how upset any liberal can be over the current term.
Lurker Posted August 30, 2012 Posted August 30, 2012 ^ Oh crap' date=' [b']you feel he didn't go further left on the issue and thus feel its almost justified for the country to thus elect Mr. Bain Capital of all people :haha: I mean Obama loses automatically means the latter, right ? It shall remain an either-or scenario no matter how upset any liberal can be over the current term. Yeah it is amazing how almost all the argument these days in favor of Obama ends with - So you would elect Romney, you know how vile he is? Having TINA as the answer is not a good position to be in mate :winky:
Recommended Posts