Signs accumulate that liberals are embarrassed by Obama - The tides have turned

Originally posted by elrem48

Originally posted by beezzer
I'll save a victory dance until after the debates concerning foreign policy.

I see Obama's ship sinking though.

Gas prices increasing, foreign policy a disaster, etc.

I'm thinking that's no "sinking ship," but a ship headed for "open waters." As I see it, this guy wants OUT.

Obama may very well "want out".

People in some circle say that 4 more years will cost him dearly in royalties and TV appearances.

As much as 10x the money he would get from 4 more years in Washington.

When out of the White House, he would not be subject to the criticisms that he hates so much.

His arrogance would pay off better on the media circuit.

I wonder what they will name the mini-series ?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by campanionator

 

I always thought we wound down Iraq, because the withdrawal date negotiated by President Bush had been reached and Iraq wanted us out. Obama gets no credit for that.

Afghanistan? I would really like Obama to face the 82nd and tell them exactly why they're still getting killed there, when he's announced they're leaving in the near future. If they don't need to be there based on the date, and not the conditions on the ground, get them out of that hell now.

Dear Charles,

...did you strip away every ounce of context you possibly could???

Removed by staff

Mitt Romney - he can ban the whole thing!

reply to post by campanionator

Yet the GOP and conservative America say he is weak on terrorism and foreign policy.and this is exactly another case where y'all are completely full of sh!t

Well, you become a weak POTUS on foreign policy and terrorism when you begin your presidency apologizing to the world for the actions of the US, when you tell the world how great Islam is while Islamists continue to kill innocent people across the globe, and when you say America should give terrorists constitutional protection and a day in US court, etc.

Should he coddle the terrorists or what?

I don’t know….should we? I’d just as soon put a friggen’ bullet in their head. I’m in favor of waterboarding….is Obama?

You guys have the intellectual fortitude of pudding

Based on what; your lack of understanding of the issues?

Come back with a substantive rebuttal…

Let the script play out. All Presidential elections have been "Honey Booooo Booo" for a while now. Come on now, you really think this whole thing has not been played out already?? I mean look at Obama in the so called Debates, look at Romney in this so called Debate.

Hide your Head in the Sand!!!! We are screwed no matter what.

reply to post by seabag

He authorized drone strikes in Pakistan murdering thousands of men, women and children, expanded the war in Afghanistan murdering thousands more, bombed Libya, bombed Yemen, and initiated a covert war in Somalia.

None of those are "wars".

Not every military action is a "war". Words mean things, Obama did not start two more "wars".


Stop trying to fear monger, trying to suggest Romney is the more peaceful option is laughable.

reply to post by campanionator

Dear campanionator,

I very well may have stripped away context, and sometimes context is crucial. I just took the first paragraph you provided and responded to it. But here are the next two:

I love that you deny the militaristic instinct of the GOP and conservative America, that would be like me pretending that liberals are against food stamps.

The amount of distortion you guys present is awe inspiring.

I hate war. Probably not as much as combat vets do, but then my unit was never sent to Vietnam. I do believe that there are a few things worse than war. I believe that under the right circumstances, war can be justified. (See Augustine of Hippo, Thomas Aquinas, Cicero, and others.)

I can't speak for conservative America or the GOP, but I have no desire for war, I can't imagine anyone wants war. Those who are calling for it have, I pray, made the rational decision that circumstances require it. Neither of the candidates think they have to take the country to war right now, nor do I think the parties do either. (I'm not counting war, or covert operations, as war in this post.)

The rest of your post dealt with unemployment, a new subject. I disagree that Obama has made a significant improvement in the economy or employment, but that's a different discussion than war.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by HostileApostle

None of those are "wars".

Not every military action is a "war". Words mean things, Obama did not start two more "wars".

So thousands of civilian deaths in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia are insignificant since “those aren’t wars” by your definition?

Tell that to the thousands who mourn their dead as a result of Obama’s orders.

BTW, isn’t it funny how murder doesn’t matter when Obama is to blame?

Stop trying to fear monger, trying to suggest Romney is the more peaceful option is laughable.

Stop putting words in my mouth. How about you quote me then respond so people know WTF you’re talking about?

reply to post by seabag


I wish we could just declare Romney the new President. But I fear it's not going to be that easy.

Obama is raising more money and you can bet that Obama will sharpen his fangs for the townhall & foreign policy debates. And the Dems lie & lie & lie -- they have NO shame.

I lost all respect for the Liberal mainstream media during the 2008 presidential race -- they're blatantly biased & dishonest.

Reid & Pelosi are nauseatingly corrupt & dishonest, as is Obama.

I really believe the Democratic Party has been infiltrated and taken over by pernicious elements of the Far Left since the 1970's. This is NOT the same party of FDR, Truman, and JFK.

I see Obama as someone who wants to destroy the US. I find it difficult to respect anyone politically clueless enough to actually support Obama. To me, an Obama supporter is a traitor.

The danger is NOT over, not by a long shot.

The thought of people actually giving Obama another four years (to finish the job of destroying the US) by either voting for Obama or by refusing to vote for Romney (the only one who can defeat Obama) -- makes me want to hurl.

Originally posted by JiggyPotamus
I'm so sick of people focusing on crap like this, instead of really worrying about the issues. The president is pretty well reigned in by congress, and that is where the vast majority of important decisions get made. I know a lot of liberals, and I would say this is just propaganda, because from what I hear, they are not sick of Obama. But the morons claim that Obama is a liar, while planning on voting for Romney despite the fact that he is a notorious liar, with documentation and videos to prove it. He only lied 9 times during the debate, but that isn't important. What is important is to attack Obama right?

This is what will happen if Romney wins. Things will get worse, and all the republicans will blame Obama. But what happens when Obama tries to blame Bush for some of our problems now? The republicans aren't having that. Hypocrites. Obama has done more constructive things, or attempted to, than Bush ever did. So why in the world would we want republicans in office again, because they are just going to run the economy even further into the ground.

Trickle down economics is how the rich get super rich, and the middle class turns into an amalgamation of lower class. THAT is republican ideology. That, and outdated beliefs and ideas. It is no coincidence that the majority of racists, per polls/surveys conducted, have republican leanings. I have also seen it in my own family, and others who I have heard discuss politics. It is sickening.

Is that why after every democrat leaves office the country is in pieces? Bush got through so many things its unbelievable, and this country was STILL standing strong with a decent economy. Life was great, but now that Obama is in the house, everything only collapsed. Not a SINGLE good thing came out of his entire term. But this isn't the place to argue politics. Good post though, I hope its accurate and Obama isn't voted in. Romney is a far better choice.

reply to post by AuranVector

I wish we could just declare Romney the new President. But I fear it's not going to be that easy.

Obama is raising more money and you can bet that Obama will sharpen his fangs for the townhall & foreign policy debates. And the Dems lie & lie & lie -- they have NO shame.

I know it’s not over yet….and you’re right about the lies.

I lost all respect for the Liberal mainstream media during the 2008 presidential race -- they're blatantly biased & dishonest.

Reid & Pelosi are nauseatingly corrupt & dishonest, as is Obama.

I really believe the Democratic Party has been infiltrated and taken over by pernicious elements of the Far Left since the 1970's. This is NOT the same party of FDR, Truman, and JFK.

Neither party is the same…they’ve both been infiltrated….and Romney isn’t “THE” answer, he’s a temporary patch to buy us 4 years (hopefully). I know this, and trust me Romney was not my 1st choice. HOWEVER…..OBAMA remains my LAST choice.

I see Obama as someone who wants to destroy the US. I find it difficult to respect anyone politically clueless enough to actually support Obama. To me, an Obama supporter is a traitor.

The danger is NOT over, not by a long shot.

Two peas in a pod…you and me.

The thought of people actually giving Obama another four years (to finish the job of destroying the US) by either voting for Obama or by refusing to vote for Romney (the only one who can defeat Obama) -- makes me want to hurl.

Well….I can’t disagree with that either. It is what it is. We just have to keep pushing the truth out there.

reply to post by seabag

I don’t know….should we? I’d just as soon put a friggen’ bullet in their head. I’m in favor of waterboarding….is Obama?

So correct me here if I am wrong arent they defending the Bush doctrine there?

Believe so.

Stop trying to fear monger, trying to suggest Romney is the more peaceful option is laughable.

We sure know that Obama has not been the more peaceful option, and did exactly squat to get that "Nobel Peace Prize".

Is there a real difference between Bush Doctrine and Obama/Clinton Doctrine?? Do you now see the problem here??

The set up is right in front of you so called smart people of ATS...Clinton '16 Trust me on this one.

reply to post by neo96

So correct me here if I am wrong arent they defending the Bush doctrine there?

Believe so.

Obviously that’s not the topic at hand but….

I’m stating my opinion. I was answering campanionator question: “Should Obama coddle terrorists?”

I call my opinion “SEABAG DOCTRINE.” If you want to call it Bush Doctrine that’s fine!

reply to post by neo96
So, Obama got his because of Bushes actions?? LOL....exactly. Just like the Economy. The connection is down right a "Conspiracy".

reply to post by seabag
Maybe looking beyond the Terror would help you out a little.

reply to post by neo96

We sure know that Obama has not been the more peaceful option, and did exactly squat to get that "Nobel Peace Prize".

I heard Romney was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize also…

I read that on The Onion so I don’t know if it’s true. I wouldn’t be surprised if The Onion nominated Obama for his: it’s just as ridiculous.

reply to post by hoochymama


HUH??

Double Post...