Can BO win reelection?

[Pandora]

If Video of Cain came out ripping a womans shirt off at a meeting came out, they would blame the left cry its because he is black and his support would go up....they don't care...

This is exactly how I felt about obama and his followers!

Things seem to be changing and some of his followers dont follow anymore and some actually question things now but there was a time they didnt and I felt just like you feel now

 

[Gipper]

Every station I turned to reported Clinton's womanizing on a daily basis and the BS that went with it. It is reasonable to assume most stations did not cover it as often as FOX would have, but cover it they did. I still don't give a crap if he screwed every woman that said yes in the White House and I don't condemn Cain for being accused of sexual harrassment, it is a common enough charge that many execs have to face it at one time or another. Late breaking news---It was Perry who dropped the dime on him, what a pussy

Wrong.

BJ Bubba's outrageous skirt chasing was kept under raps by the Clinton machine and the lib media during his run for the presidency in 1992. Jennifer Flowers was known, but that was a consensual affair and was never an issue. The Paula Jones sexual harassment was the first the public heard about and it was not known until AFTER BJ Bubba got elected. The press reported VERY LITTLE about BJ's extensive horndog activity UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION...and then they claimed it was a personal issue and unrelated to his duties as a scumbag president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

A perfect example of the press helping BJ, was their failure to report the BJ Monica situation. NBC News had the story and buried it. It took the Drudge Report to report the story. Thank God for internet news sources, otherwise libs would be completely UNINFORMED.

But, history and libs do not know each other.

 

[dogtowner]

Wrong.

BJ Bubba's outrageous skirt chasing was kept under raps by the Clinton machine and the lib media during his run for the presidency in 1992. Jennifer Flowers was known, but that was a consensual affair and was never an issue. The Paula Jones sexual harassment was the first the public heard about and it was not known until AFTER BJ Bubba got elected. The press reported VERY LITTLE about BJ's extensive horndog activity UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION...and then they claimed it was a personal issue and unrelated to his duties as a scumbag president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

A perfect example of the press helping BJ, was their failure to report the BJ Monica situation. NBC News had the story and buried it. It took the Drudge Report to report the story. Thank God for internet news sources, otherwise libs would be completely UNINFORMED.

But, history and libs do not know each other.

Juanita Broaddrick too

 

[Gipper]

Juanita Broaddrick too

Yes. And, the majority of the American public did not know ANYTHING about her until late in BJ's SECOND TERM. She claimed she was viciously raped by BJ IN 1978!!!!

Of course, she did not want the publicity and was naturally afraid of the Clinton Machine so she tried to keep it quite. But, you can bet lib reporters would have been all over her if BJ were an R and the story would have come out before BJ ran for his FIRST TERM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

 

[dogtowner]

Yes. And, the majority of the American public did not know ANYTHING about her until late in BJ's SECOND TERM. She claimed she was viciously raped by BJ IN 1978!!!!

Of course, she did not want the publicity and was naturally afraid of the Clinton Machine so she tried to keep it quite. But, you can bet lib reporters would have been all over her if BJ were an R and the story would have come out before BJ ran for his FIRST TERM.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juanita_Broaddrick

true dat

 

[PLC1]

Once again you get much wrong, but there is some light of truth in your post...just a little.

Why did the voters NOT KNOW about BJ's womenizing? Any guesses? Yet, here we are debating some silly allegations about Cain BEFORE the primaries have BEGUN. BJ was womenizing for decades before he ran for president.

Umm... because he was protected by the "liberal media"?

That seems to be the stock answer to that sort of thing.

We can agree on JFK being a conservative now. That is one thing we can agree on. But, BJ being a piker to JFK's womenizing is meaningless. They were both womenizers and the lib press protected them. See the double standard....yet

If the "Lib press" protected them both, and if JFK was a conservative, how is that a double standard?

Claiming Reagan could NOT get the nomination TODAY by citing what he did as president, is completely nonsensical. How could he win the nomination today if voters get to evaluate his actions as PRESIDENT? You can only evaluate his record BEFORE he became president as a guide for winning the nomination TODAY. Does that make sense to you? Oh God!!!

Oh, I see. Since we didn't know that Reagan was going to sell arms to Iran and bail out the S and L industry before the election, he might have been elected.

In much the same way, we didn't know about Clinton's womanizing before the election, so votes wouldn't have been based on that character flaw either.

Personally, given a choice between a POTUS who was going to go skirt chasing, and one who was going to sell arms to the enemy, I'd have chosen the former.

And, yes we need another Reagan or JFK. But, sadly that just ain't going to happen.

On that, we can agree.

One party is communist and the other party is progressive today, which is why we are in so much trouble. If we had followed conservative policies rather than progressive policies, we would be in great shape.

On that, too, to a degree. The parties are not really that different, yet they don't seem to be able to work together. It seems to me that both of them are out for the good of their parties, not the good of the nation.

But, maybe I'm just being cynical.

 

[Gipper]

Umm... because he was protected by the "liberal media"?

That seems to be the stock answer to that sort of thing.



If the "Lib press" protected them both, and if JFK was a conservative, how is that a double standard?



Oh, I see. Since we didn't know that Reagan was going to sell arms to Iran and bail out the S and L industry before the election, he might have been elected.

In much the same way, we didn't know about Clinton's womanizing before the election, so votes wouldn't have been based on that character flaw either.

Personally, given a choice between a POTUS who was going to go skirt chasing, and one who was going to sell arms to the enemy, I'd have chosen the former.



On that, we can agree.



On that, too, to a degree. The parties are not really that different, yet they don't seem to be able to work together. It seems to me that both of them are out for the good of their parties, not the good of the nation.

But, maybe I'm just being cynical.

Debating you is like debating someone high on crack...or something.

JFK would be considered a conservative NOW. He was not in 1960. Get it? The press ALWAYS protects Dems now as they did back then.

And regarding Reagan, did you know he died some time ago and that his most excellent presidency ENDED in 1988??? So, when we discuss Reagan winning the nomination today, we are talking about a hypothetical. Do you get that? As a hypothetical, we must consider Reagan as he was BEFORE he was president... Do you understand that? Oh my....Lord help me please....

I am glad we can agree that both parties are similar. So then, why would you think the Rs are TOO conservative today to elect Reagan as their standard bearer? How can the Rs be TOO conservative when they are similar to the Communist Party aka Dem Party?

 

[PLC1]

Debating you is like debating someone high on crack...or something.

JFK would be considered a conservative NOW. He was not in 1960. Get it? The press ALWAYS protects Dems now as they did back then.

And regarding Reagan, did you know he died some time ago and that his most excellent presidency ENDED in 1988??? So, when we discuss Reagan winning the nomination today, we are talking about a hypothetical. Do you get that? As a hypothetical, we must consider Reagan as he was BEFORE he was president... Do you understand that? Oh my....Lord help me please....

I am glad we can agree that both parties are similar. So then, why would you think the Rs are TOO conservative today to elect Reagan as their standard bearer? How can the Rs be TOO conservative when they are similar to the Communist Party aka Dem Party?

Debating you is much like debating someone who either does not read my posts, or who filters it all through some sort of glasses that categorizes everything as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican.

Of course, I realize that Kennedy would be considered a conservative today, and that he was a Democrat. I also realize that the "Oh, we poor, poor Republicans get beat up on by the Democrat press" is just partisan silliness. Rs have their Fox, Ds have their MSNBC, the rest of us have our CNN, and our internet, and R does not necessarily mean C.

And, no, I didn't say that the Rs are too conservative to elect Reagan as their standard bearer today. What I did say was that they would elect the Reagan of legend,were there such a person living today who was foolish enough to want to try to govern this ungovernable nation, but they wouldn't elect the Reagan of reality, or someone like that living today who was foolish enough to want to try to govern this ungovernable nation.

It's pretty obvious that when you invoke the name of Reagan you're talking about the legendary Reagan, not the real one. I believe I said that already.

 

[Openmind]

Debating you is much like debating someone who either does not read my posts, or who filters it all through some sort of glasses that categorizes everything as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican.

Of course, I realize that Kennedy would be considered a conservative today, and that he was a Democrat. I also realize that the "Oh, we poor, poor Republicans get beat up on by the Democrat press" is just partisan silliness. Rs have their Fox, Ds have their MSNBC, the rest of us have our CNN, and our internet, and R does not necessarily mean C.

And, no, I didn't say that the Rs are too conservative to elect Reagan as their standard bearer today. What I did say was that they would elect the Reagan of legend,were there such a person living today who was foolish enough to want to try to govern this ungovernable nation, but they wouldn't elect the Reagan of reality, or someone like that living today who was foolish enough to want to try to govern this ungovernable nation.

It's pretty obvious that when you invoke the name of Reagan you're talking about the legendary Reagan, not the real one. I believe I said that already.

Wow! A post I can agree with enough to say: Thank you!

 

[Gipper]

Debating you is much like debating someone who either does not read my posts, or who filters it all through some sort of glasses that categorizes everything as liberal/Democrat or conservative/Republican.

Of course, I realize that Kennedy would be considered a conservative today, and that he was a Democrat. I also realize that the "Oh, we poor, poor Republicans get beat up on by the Democrat press" is just partisan silliness. Rs have their Fox, Ds have their MSNBC, the rest of us have our CNN, and our internet, and R does not necessarily mean C.

And, no, I didn't say that the Rs are too conservative to elect Reagan as their standard bearer today. What I did say was that they would elect the Reagan of legend,were there such a person living today who was foolish enough to want to try to govern this ungovernable nation, but they wouldn't elect the Reagan of reality, or someone like that living today who was foolish enough to want to try to govern this ungovernable nation.

It's pretty obvious that when you invoke the name of Reagan you're talking about the legendary Reagan, not the real one. I believe I said that already.

Round and round with your silliness.

Yeah the TV media is really balanced. Rs have Fox and Ds have MSLSD....but what about ALL the other TV media??? You conveniently ignore their leftist bias, which just proves once again you are a leftist.

And, if you think CNN is unbiased, think again...you leftist.

When I invoke Reagan, I invoke the real man. There is no need to invent a mythical man, but you and other lefties are intent on trying. He was one of our greatest presidents purely based on his record. So, please stop with your absurdities...I am laughing so hard my gut hurts.

 

[clarkatticus]

Boy, what selective memory. It is safe to say Clinton screwed everything available with the possible exception of Hillary, I think their relationship was (is) on a different plane. I don't care, and I believe the sexual harrassment suit was a ploy by a bad employee to get a payday, perhaps the same is true of Cain, I don't know.

 

[Gipper]

Boy, what selective memory. It is safe to say Clinton screwed everything available with the possible exception of Hillary, I think their relationship was (is) on a different plane. I don't care, and I believe the sexual harrassment suit was a ploy by a bad employee to get a payday, perhaps the same is true of Cain, I don't know.

Selective memory??? Please explain.

Yes BJ was a major horn dog and it is a fact that the press ignored his scummy activities. But, they never would have if he were an R. If Cain were a D, we would not hear a word about sexual harassment.

Ever heard of John Edwards? Just another perfect example of the double standard imposed by the press.

Do you see the double standard yet, or are you still blind?

 

[Dr.Who]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

As always only one gets close..Mitt...

Evry poll actuly against someone real, Obama wins outside of one...thats not good for your side given how bad the econ is, that your people can't even win in the polls right now..just think if things get better in a year...I know the Republicans will do what they can to make sure that never happens...

All your polls do support what you said. and the ones I read do support what I said.

I bet the explanation is not so simple.

 

[PLC1]

When I invoke Reagan, I invoke the real man. There is no need to invent a mythical man, but you and other lefties are intent on trying. He was one of our greatest presidents purely based on his record. So, please stop with your absurdities...I am laughing so hard my gut hurts.

But, you have invented a mythical Reagan. The real Reagan suborned the sale of arms to Iran. The mythical Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. The mythical Reagan was a fiscal conservative. The real Reagan presided over government growth and deficit spending. The mythical Reagan believed in letting the private sector take care of business. The real Reagan deregulated the S and Ls, then bailed them out with tax money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti Reagan. I voted for the guy back in '80, thinking he would cut back the size and power of the federal government. But, the right wing extremists have created a myth and elevated him to the status of a demi god.

If we could really have a mythical Reagan at the helm of the federal government, it would be a great thing, but the fact is, mythical and real are two different things. We still have to live in the real world.

 

[Gipper]

But, you have invented a mythical Reagan. The real Reagan suborned the sale of arms to Iran. The mythical Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. The mythical Reagan was a fiscal conservative. The real Reagan presided over government growth and deficit spending. The mythical Reagan believed in letting the private sector take care of business. The real Reagan deregulated the S and Ls, then bailed them out with tax money.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti Reagan. I voted for the guy back in '80, thinking he would cut back the size and power of the federal government. But, the right wing extremists have created a myth and elevated him to the status of a demi god.

If we could really have a mythical Reagan at the helm of the federal government, it would be a great thing, but the fact is, mythical and real are two different things. We still have to live in the real world.

Wrong. You have invented a mythical Reagan just like most liberals.

You mention a few things to condemn Reagan. He was president for 8 years and made thousand of decisions...nearly all correct.

You say he "suborned" arm sales to Iran. This is typical left wing tripe. He sold arms to Iran, which was under an arms embargo. Yes, you and other lefties make a big deal about this, but in the grand scheme of things it was a minor scandal.

Then you proclaim the typical left wing chant that Reagan did not bring down the USSR, when it is a historical fact he did.

Reagan did deficit spend, but nothing like most of the presidents that came after him. The economy grew much faster and overcame much of the spending because he limited the growth of your beloved government and reduced regulations on business. But, you do accept the left wing analysis of his spending completely. And like all good leftists, you conveniently forget that your beloved buddies the Liberals (Ds) had control of both houses. You do know that Congress sets the budget I hope??? This is why Clinton had nearly balanced budgets because the Rs limited spending. You seem to think Reagan should not have compromised with the libs, yet you demand the Rs compromise today.

He bailed out the S&Ls. It was a scandal. But, again it was minor.

Yes, I can agree Reagan did some things most conservatives do not agree with. Name ONE PRESIDENT who has not made mistakes or made decisions his base disagrees with?

You need to stop buying into the lies promoted by the left. Educate yourself on the issues rather than accept the conventional wisdom...which is always presented by leftists with their bias.