Obama is a divider who stirs fear and resentment to win votes

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,973
Reaction score
2,156


I am sincerely of the opinion that this president requires a vacation to the Middle East. By removing himself from the White House and venturing out to visit his friends in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan , Afghanistan, Yemen and Libya with his golf bag in hand, it may promote the Congress to work on the problems that are dividing us at home if they ever return from their own breaks and vacations.​
Click to expand...
​
 
Obama is a divider who stirs fear and resentment to win votes
Click to expand...



But we already knew he was a politician... Is this not the definition thereof, nowadays?
 
redrumloa said:
Click to expand...

Not that an 82 year old can't be sharp as a tack but this one may never have been that sharp. Dr. Berkowitz says:
This president has failed to establish a consistent example of honor and respect for our true allies in the Middle East [...]
Click to expand...

And considering he's a Berkowitz and given the list of the "other" Middle Eastern countries he just rattled off it's pretty clear that the doctors main concern is NOT the USA where he lives and which has treated him well, but another country entirely. When Americans vote for a president, which country do they want him to have as first priority?
 
And all this time I thought Red was an isolationist in terms of foreign policy. Guess not.
 
Glaucus said:
Perhaps, but do you think Romney would be? All indicators suggest he's itching to be the one to sign the orders to bomb Iran.
Click to expand...

I am not voting for either of the bums.
 
I'm younger than some here, and probably older than some. My real first political learnings were in the late 70s and early 80s. It's appeared that all Presidential candidates are dividers. The popular vote is nearly evenly divided. Reagan in the 80s beat Carter by about 10% of the popular vote (51/41). That's about as 'united' as we've seen the Country until the Obama election of (53/45). So as big a 'divider' as Obama his, he is actually had the biggest 'united' vote - meaning greatest % of population voted for him. (Now he had the most people vote for him too. But because population size is growing it's hard to compare 1 election against another by headcount. IMO)

Interesting enough where we're sitting right now Obama appears to be more a divider. But, we're talking a couple precentage point slip.

I guess my question is this. Do we consider the bigger 'uniter' the spread between the popular vote? In this case Reagan would be the big Uniter with Obama the #2. OR Do we condier the bigger 'uniter' a direct look at the more popular vote? In this case Obama is the #1 with Reagan as the #2. Either way it's really a fight for 'uniter' between those two guys with Clinton probably joining in a bit.

Anyhow this 'Obama is a divider' call is in reality not there. In actuality the state of the people is fairly divided. Heck, look at the Whyzzat microcosm. There clearly are a difference in positions and it seems the head count on each side is virtually tied. (Though we all agree the Gov is in some ways partially f*cked!)
 
When was there last a US president who did not fit this description?
 
redrumloa said:
I am not voting for either of the bums.
Click to expand...
That's fine but you seem to be attacking only one of them. You say you want Obama out but what realistic alternatives are there? Your man Ron Paul is out (unless he runs as an independent and it doesn't seem likely). So if you convince people to not vote for Obama, who will they end up voting for?
 
Glaucus said:
That's fine but you seem to be attacking only one of them. You say you want Obama out but what realistic alternatives are there? Your man Ron Paul is out (unless he runs as an independent and it doesn't seem likely). So if you convince people to not vote for Obama, who will they end up voting for?
Click to expand...

I'm only attacking one of them? Hardly, though only one of them is in office. As for who to vote for, pick a third party candidate, any third party candidate. I'm hoping the Libertarians run someone strong. If enough people stop that "I'm not throwing away my vote" nonsense, maybe we will have a real third or 4th party one day.
 
My Northern Friends say.

OZaO1.jpg
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
There ARE other parties, you know. There is also NOT voting and spoiling your ballot.
Click to expand...
I know, but my point was that he puts a lot of effort into basing only Obama. He claims he bashes Romney as well, and perhaps he does, but he's started countless threads about Obama and I can't find a single one about Romney, but then again, I'm not gonna spend too much time looking for it either.... So I could be wrong.
 
redrumloa said:
I'm only attacking one of them? Hardly.....
Click to expand...

Indeed - you've posted thread after thread of hyperbolic and usually silly outrage aimed at Romney, on an almost daily basis.

Aherm.
 
Glaucus said:
I know, but my point was that he puts a lot of effort into basing only Obama. He claims he bashes Romney as well, and perhaps he does, but he's started countless threads about Obama and I can't find a single one about Romney, but then again, I'm not gonna spend too much time looking for it either.... So I could be wrong.
Click to expand...

I think you'll probably be correct in that regard.
The only person who *really* thinks Jim bashes Romney on here is Jim.
 
redrumloa said:
As for who to vote for, pick a third party candidate, any third party candidate. I'm hoping the Libertarians run someone strong. If enough people stop that "I'm not throwing away my vote" nonsense, maybe we will have a real third or 4th party one day.
Click to expand...

Amen... Even if it never reaches enough votes to gain an effective 3rd or 4th party... Eventually it should gain enough votes to make the first two wake the F*** up and at least pretend to care about the commoners.
 
Minnesota has played with 3rd parties. We had Jesse Ventura (no party). Jesse was some good, some bad. The difficulty was neither party wanted to negoiate with him. Made his job all that more difficult. Jesse was a flash in the pan there's probably other media personalities that might win on their own accord but do we really want them as 'leaders'? We also had the Green Party win enough votes to get equal funding from the government for running. Though they were never Govenor. They were a few members in the State Legislator. Mostly similar to the Democratic Party in the end they didn't do too much exciting.

IMO until we break the Business funding of politicans we'll never get the Gov back. One Ammendment to all States should be that Businesses do not have the same rights as persons.
 
Robert said:
I think you'll probably be correct in that regard.
The only person who *really* thinks Jim bashes Romney on here is Jim.
Click to expand...

Typical democrat response. You sure you are not registered to vote in the USA? You read only what you want to read. Reality is not as important as how you want to FEEL about something. Pretty sad really. I lost 5 whole minutes of my life finding the links below.

http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/why-romneys-success-reads-as-out-of-touch.16233/#post-47771

http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/dammy-you-are-wrong.16673/

http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/drink-less-work-more-richest-woman-tells-the-poor.19256/#post-54602

http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/watching-the-rnc.19215/page-3#post-54380

http://www.whyzzat.com/threads/watching-the-rnc.19215/page-3#post-54392
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top