Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Give Obama a Break! He Isn't All That Bad.

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by repeatoffender
It's plain and simple here really, if you vote for Romney you are voting for war with Iran.
By not voting your choosing to stick your heads in the sand and ignore the bigger picture, your all waffling on with hypocracy after hypocracy its making me sick.




Oh please. You're the hypocrite. You're fine with war as long as it's Obama waging it. Show me some of your threads about Obama's drone strikes or the fact Gitmo is still open. I'll wait.




posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:12 AM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


I actually think Romney and Obama are both quite impressive in terms of "Aura."

I'm in the deep minority of having respect for both candidates, and feel that either would make a serviceable POTUS, though neither party represents my ideology very well.

I voted for Obama in '08 and plan doing so again, but I consider voting Romney on the daily and am somewhat tempted. Either way, my state and county are firmly Dem.

And jw, who is your favorite batman villain?



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Is this a threat?

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


I actually think Romney and Obama are both quite impressive in terms of "Aura."

I'm in the deep minority of having respect for both candidates, and feel that either would make a serviceable POTUS, though neither party represents my ideology very well.

I voted for Obama in '08 and plan doing so again, but I consider voting Romney on the daily and am somewhat tempted. Either way, my state and county are firmly Dem.

And jw, who is your favorite batman villain?






posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:22 AM
link   
reply to post by RELDDIR
 


I'd like to be a threat to the two party stranglehold. Both sides are severely flawed in my view.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by PvtHudson

Originally posted by repeatoffender
It's plain and simple here really, if you vote for Romney you are voting for war with Iran.
By not voting your choosing to stick your heads in the sand and ignore the bigger picture, your all waffling on with hypocracy after hypocracy its making me sick.




Oh please. You're the hypocrite. You're fine with war as long as it's Obama waging it. Show me some of your threads about Obama's drone strikes or the fact Gitmo is still open. I'll wait.


If Israel goes to war with Iran "Gitmo" and drone strikes will be the least of your worries mate, the simple fact that if Romney is the POTUSA the entire islamic population of the world know's that he fully supports and is endorsed by Israel. and by default America is Israels alli, Iran will call for a Jihad against Israel and the USA and the west on a massive scale.
If Romney takes us down this road mate, its going to mean more than IED's and AK-47's. and mashing keys on a keyboard in some who knows more about what debate.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I stopped reading the OP the second the author called Obama's Executive Orders, "Bills". None of those are Bills, they are dictatorial acts of tyranny that sidestep Congressional authority to enact laws. The Executive Branch does not possess lawmaiking athority. The Executive Branch's only authority over laws is to sign them or veto them.

I get that foreigners support Brack Obama... because he does more for foreign governments than he does his own!



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by daaskapital

Both may be puppets, but Romney was a businessman, one with links to many companies, and one who is wealthy beyond imagination. Yes, Obama has conducted the things you have stated, but seriously, Romney won't be any better. Hell, Obama has stood up against Israel. I'll tell you, if Romney was leading the USA right now, we would already be at war...




Fedgov is at war.

They are carrying out terrorist operations against Iran and Syria after back-to-back terrorist actions in Libya and numerous other nations. And that's not all. They are at war with our (US) citizens too -- harassing our citizens, molesting our citizens, murdering our citizens.

But, you were right that Romney will be no better. Just another fng sock puppet.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Obama isn't bad.

The tiny country of Palau voted to be set free long ago and America as a good watcher was giving her $20 million free every year. They were supposed to get their last free check from America in September of 2009. The tiny country of Palau then told Obama they wanted $200 million or they were siding with China.

Well Obama is such a nice guy he gave Palau $250 million and Free money until 2043 I believe is, may be 2034 I get those two mixed up.

Anyways a tiny country of 12,000 people blackmailed Obama into giving them money or they were siding with our enemy. And this was right after America built that super highway and bridges for Palau to connect alllll their islands.

Obama isn't bad.....in fact he was very generous to some people who don't really like you and just wanted millions of your money. They licked him good.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Pervius
 


That behavior has been going on in this country for a very long time. We buy our friends, if we quit giving them money they do something we don't like till we give them more money. This is foolish, these are fairweather friends, the only kind of friends many politicians are used to having.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:23 PM
link   
In my opinion...

Obama is a Rhodes scholar as is Bill Clinton. To become a Rhodes you have to swear allegiance to Cecil Rhodes's far left ideology. In return the Rhodes foundation supplies money and influence to forward one's career.

Bill Clinton is an intelligent man but not necessarily a good man and certainly not a faithful husband... which in my opinion shows his true character. Clinton was successful in his second term only because he moved to the center politically.

Barack Obama is neither smart, intelligent or educated, though he has had many opportunities to an wonderful education, he wasted his time boozing, doping and partying. The only reason he received a degree, if in fact he did, (Which I doubt) is the influence from the Rhodes foundation.

He has demonstrated his lack of education many times in the fact he cannot string two thoughts together without a teleprompter. Miss-pronouncing words that certainly any educated man would not. If the teleprompter quits working he quits talking, except for gibberish. He is a shill for those far left Marxist activists, demonstrated by the company he keeps, the books he has read and the ideology he preaches.

There are some who say he will not leave office without a fight, ie. declare martial law, suspend the election, bring in foreign troops, etc. I don't know, I certainly hope not...but, I wouldn't put it past him.

He keeps blaming Bush for his problems, when In fact Bush was only the fall guy for polices started by Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and reinforced by Bill Clinton. Banks and financial institution were coerced by several arm twisting methods to make house loans no banker in his right mind would ever make. Methods were used like bundling prime loans with sub-prime loans to make the sub-prime loans appear to be insured by the prime loans. When the inevitable happened-defaults stacking up because of variable rate loans-It brought the whole system down. They pushed the paper out as far as it would go until the buyer evaporated. Many banks failed because they became insolvent overnight and banks that didn't go under struggled mightily and loans needed by businesses to operate dried up.

Right now, financiers are afraid to finance start-ups because of the threat of Obama seizing cash as a tax emergency--he can do that because it's in the Constitution and perfectly legal- not that being not legal would stop him.

The Bush administration sensed there was big trouble coming and went to the Chairman of the house financial committee(Barney Frank) and Chris Dodd--Chairman of the Senate Banking committee, only to be reassured everything was hunky-dory, when in fact it was not.

The bush administration did this several times and were denied the truth each time. Truthfully, is was probably too late to stop it, but Bush could have tried.

Interestingly, General Motors (owned mostly by the government) is selling cars with sub-prime loans right now, when the majority of those loans fail, and they will because the people that are sub-prime buyers can't afford repairs when the car goes out of warranty. Once again, the rest of us will suffer the consequences.

Good Luck To All, jimmymc



edit on 8-9-2012 by elfrog because: sig
edit on 8-9-2012 by elfrog because: forgot Signature



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Yeah, I'm looking at the best of the two choices we had. I suppose if we had a better option it would be better yet. I am not so hot on Romney and his sidekick. Hows that Johnson guy anyway?

Sadly, between Obama and Romney (or Obama v. McCain), I have a very hard time figuring out if any would be better than the others - aside from their rhetoric, I can't find much difference (despite multiple requests, no one has yet to provide me with three significant and fundamental differences between the policies of Romney and Obama - despite what they say, they both love big government, big spending, centralized control in Washington, an aggressive foreign policy and massive military budget, and on and on...).

As to Gary Johnson, I generally like him. He's a lot more on track with what I expect from someone in that position, but he's got some policy views far enough off of what I can justify that I'm still weighing if I'd be able to support him in good conscience or not. He's definitely near the top of my list of options, though, and I'll be giving him a good look - he's not at all afraid to use his veto power appropriately and will take steps he views as necessary to get budgets back on track. He has an excellent business and gubernatorial record.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by MetalGear1
 


Please, learn to paragraph and capslock off.

Anyway, after reading the vast amount of posts supporting R-money, I hope he DOES get elected.

Let the economy crash, Iran be attacked and WW4 (I count the cold war) started. No more assistance to the elderly, sick and infirm. No assistance to the vulnerable such as social security and WIC assistance for poor pregnant mothers. All money goes for war AND to the wealthy for more of Reagan's elitist scam of "trickle down economics". The US is at the edge of the precipice and just needs that slight GOP shove. That is what you want. That is what you clamor for. You want it so bad, then let the world burn, you guys deserve it.

At their core, both parties are limbs of the same elite operation, dont get me wrong. There IS one difference between the methods employed, though. Just like stabbing a pig to death, the butcher will do it much quicker and violently with his right hand rather than his left (opposite if left-handed). He will still kill the pig with his left hand, albeit not as quickly or decisively, granting the pig extra minutes of agonizing life. In both cases, the agenda is complete, the pig is dead and its carcass consumed.

Let me explain this a bit further. Obama is not a socialist or marxist or whatever as some mindless imbeciles state. He is as much of an unrestrained capitalist (corporatist, fascist) as R-money, but follows the D path of slow implementation of the elite agenda. The slow, agonizing death. Republicans just rush the whole thing through at once with no anesthesia. The desolation is immediate and vastly more cruel, the violent death.

Democrats vote for those extra minutes of bloodchoked breath.

Republicans vote to be disemboweled mercilessly.

Voters furiously debate each other on the methods yet vote for the same oblivion.

Stupid pigs.

edit on 8-9-2012 by Snoopy1978 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


If you don't know what Obama is doing then you are the lazy one...go to the white-house website and congress and do some research...it's not like it is secret and it isn't hard to understand.

Because you are right...he is not the lazy type at all...he's been busting his chops actually doing some of the things he said he would and the other things he's giving every effort he can to getting done, but he is resisted and fought against and just plain dissed by the people whose plans he's threatening by doing what he can to be an advocate of the people.

I think his biggest failing with all you guys is that he is NOT fond of tooting his own horn and he has no desire to make good shows so he can look good and be admired and liked. He is serious and smart and one day is going to be remembered as one of the greatest Presidents we've ever had....the one who took it back and gave it back to those to whom it rightfully belongs....

And we better wise up and take hold of what is ours as WE THE PEOPLE because if we lose it again...there won't be anyone else to come along and rescue us again.

So get ready.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by elfrog
In my opinion...

Barack Obama is neither smart, intelligent or educated, though he has had many opportunities to an wonderful education, he wasted his time boozing, doping and partying. The only reason he received a degree, if in fact he did, (Which I doubt) is the influence from the Rhodes foundation.

He has demonstrated his lack of education many times in the fact he cannot string two thoughts together without a teleprompter. Miss-pronouncing words that certainly any educated man would not. If the teleprompter quits working he quits talking, except for gibberish. He is a shill for those far left Marxist activists, demonstrated by the company he keeps, the books he has read and the ideology he preaches.

There are some who say he will not leave office without a fight, ie. declare martial law, suspend the election, bring in foreign troops, etc. I don't know, I certainly hope not...but, I wouldn't put it past him.

He keeps blaming Bush for his problems, Right now, financiers are afraid to finance start-ups because of the threat of Obama seizing cash as a tax emergency--he can do that because it's in the Constitution and perfectly legal- not that being not legal would stop him.

The Bush administration sensed there was big trouble coming and went to the Chairman of the house financial committee(Barney Frank) and Chris Dodd--Chairman of the Senate Banking committee, only to be reassured everything was hunky-dory, when in fact it was not.

The bush administration did this several times and were denied the truth each time. Truthfully, is was probably too late to stop it, but Bush could have tried.



Many of the educated would presumed that the perfect candidate to run the nation would be someone who had run a corporation of million dollars in revenue as the best choice.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

Running a biz enterprise and Administrating to a nation are ENTIRELY different issues with many different aspects.

A biz enterprise operates upon authoritarian rule - the rule of one, with the fullest authority to hire and fire, and those at the top are richly rewarded obscenely, regardless if failure or success. As such it breeds a culture of excessive greed, ambitions and cronyism.

Administrating to a nation is based upon democracy - rule by concensus of many with qualified opinions, using logic and reason to compel citizens using their own free will to achieve national objectives for common survival. It will take a morally upright person and motivator to run the nation, than one from authoritarian biz background.

In biz, leaders can afford to hire and fire accordingly, supposedly based upon performances, and the fired can still have a chance to find re-employment elsewhere, for biz enterprises are about market compettition, with many other companies ready to hire the provened capable human.

In nation administration, can a leader fire a citizen for perceived low performance? Where will this citizen, who contributed as well as his forefathers, be exiled to? Isn't this regression of civilisation back to jungle laws?

There is more, but due to space and bandwidth, it will do for others to get my point. Never presume that biz CEOs will make better leaders. THey are only who they are by being authoritarians, with absolute disregard or lip service to the democratic processes.

Nations are not corporations, for more are at stake than just mere profits for the few as biz entreprises are



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by PvtHudson
 


So do you know WHY Gitmo is still open?

No speculation, please..tell us some basic facts with an objective source...and then fill us in on what's really going on at Gitmo.

I'll be waiting to hear what you find out. We all need to know why it STILL isn't closed after almost 4 years.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   
Obama inherited a #ty encomy, but guess what.

He EXTENDED the Patriot Act.
He signed NDAA.
Singed SOPA.
Singed NDRP.
And he killed an american citizen in Yemen.

Yeah what an upsatnding individual, give him the nobel peace prize! Oh wait.

The things I listed above ARE HIS DOING.

Jesus Christ talk about "deny ignorance."



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 07:59 PM
link   


It was forced upon us, much like your NDAA...we had no choice. Going by your logic, the people of Australia and the USA are sheep, we both accepted similar laws...you's gave up your rights, as did we.
reply to post by daaskapital
 


We didn't give up our rights, they were taken from us. But we still have the most important right of all, the right to bear arms. And I can guarantee that one's not going away without a fight, literally.

Free men own guns, slaves don't.

I never thought I'd live to see a president worse than George W. Bush, but then along came Obama. Maybe if you lived here in the good ol' USSA you'd understand just how dangerous this president is. At least when Bush was in office everyone could see right through his bullsh**, but with Barack, he's got everyone believing his bullsh** is chocolate ice cream, and god forbid you tell them otherwise, then you're a racist.



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 

weather romney or obama, were still fkd.
ron paul was the only candidate that i would have ever voted for. i wont even bother listening to that video you posted of mr. obama the garbage bag, he's an eloquent parrot, means naught to me.
when he talks about NOT going to war, auditing the FED, talks about the recession we've been in for a couple of years now from unlimited spending on things that only benefit a few, then, meibe ill listen to him till then, no thank you.
talk about the united states of AMNESIA.
what is he going to promise this time?
edit on 8-9-2012 by OUTofSTEPwithTHEworld because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by daaskapital
 


If he had spent as much time actually fighting for our country and its people rather than signing unprecedented executive orders against us for the past 4 years I might believe you. If he went against all protocol to sign these executive orders, spent more time int eh white house and less time on the golf course, spent less of the American tax dollars running around and taking thousands of people in his entourage, bowed less to other cultures and countries and stood tall carrying a big stick, did what he promised he would do instead of the opposite, I might agree with you.

I could go on but you get the point. I am glad you will not be voting, and that said many of the 'polls' probably have people from other countries adding their opinions.






top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join