My Thoughts...Exactly

Gipper

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
6,106
Location
Somewhere Nice
"The fact that a mere seven years after being attacked by Muslims, we elected a guy who spent his early years in Islamic schools in Indonesia; his most formative years being raised in Hawaii by white socialists and tutored by a black communist; and his adulthood, attending a black racist church in Chicago, while hanging around with unrepentant radical terrorists, strongly suggests that America should have had its head examined." --columnist Burt Prelutsky

So, if you voted for BO, you need to seek the services of a mental health professional unless you can admit that you made a mistake.
 
Werbung:
I think a proctologist would be the first stop. No one will be able to understand the admission without a procedure to remove the cranium from the anal orafice.:rolleyes:

Get ready for the "really mature" and "attempts to be funny" remarks from liboonland. The only question is who will be first?

Any bets?
 
I think a proctologist would be the first stop. No one will be able to understand the admission without a procedure to remove the cranium from the anal orafice.:rolleyes:

Get ready for the "really mature" and "attempts to be funny" remarks from liboonland. The only question is who will be first?

Any bets?

The usual suspects...

But, we knew BO was unqualified to be POTUS before he won the Commie Party's nomination. How is it some Americans knew this well in advance and others not only missed it, but voted for him?

Could be the fault of the lib media. They have dumbed down millions of Americans.
 
The usual suspects...

But, we knew BO was unqualified to be POTUS before he won the Commie Party's nomination. How is it some Americans knew this well in advance and others not only missed it, but voted for him?

Could be the fault of the lib media. They have dumbed down millions of Americans.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/even_republicans_rejected_info_about_obamas_past.html

...What would you do if you knew that the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past?

That is the question I was faced with in 2008. I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine, and longstanding. []

I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer....
 
If you voted for BO to prove you weren't a racist, you're gonna have to vote for someone else next time to prove you're not stupid.

I knew I wasn't a racist and that is why I voted based on the character of the person (and other factors) rather than the color of his skin.

But of those 96% of blacks that voted for obama...it strains the limits of incredulity to imagine that quite a lot of them did not vote based on the color of his skin.
 
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/even_republicans_rejected_info_about_obamas_past.html

...What would you do if you knew that the top Democrat running for president was lying about his past?

That is the question I was faced with in 2008. I had met the young Barack Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, and I knew that his commitment to socialism was deep, genuine, and longstanding. []

I had been a leader of the Marxist students at Occidental College myself, starting in 1976 when I founded the precursor of the Democrat Socialist Alliance on campus. The young Obama I knew was a Marxist socialist who would have been quite comfortable with Communist party members like his Hawaii mentor Frank Marshall Davis, retired domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers, or active socialist politicians like Illinois State Senator Alice Palmer....

Thanks for posting that article. I have been investigating BO's pasted for years and missed it. Makes me wonder what else is out there that the media has done a good job of hiding.

It is the medias fault that an avowed socialist made it to the WH. Of course, the media likes avowed socialists.

From the article you posted:
Nevertheless, I think there is something broken in our media and campaign system. I do not think most independents or conservatives understand, or fully appreciate, the tremendous advantages the left derives from having the mainstream media serve as the fully paid, completely sympathetic, Dan Rather-level opposition research team of the Democratic Party. It is a system that methodically ignores damaging information about flawed candidates like Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Anthony Weiner, while elevating minor errors among Republicans to the status of Watergate investigations.
 
It is a system that methodically ignores damaging information about flawed candidates like Sen. John Edwards and Rep. Anthony Weiner, while elevating minor errors among Republicans to the status of Watergate investigations.

Do you mean like taking Bachman's statement that a woman told her that a vaccine caused retardation and then making it seem like it was Bachman who said it rather than the woman. Like glossing over the part where bachman said:

“ people have to draw their own conclusions.”

Here is the exchange in context:

“There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine... This is the very real concern and people have to draw their own conclusions.”

Did Bachman say something else at a different time? If so then show us that. But the only news story I read presented that exchange and then drew the conclusion that it was Bachman who said the vaccine caused retardation.


IN another article I read today the headline was something like this?

"Who would let people without insurance die?"

Then the whole story talks about how Paul said a person without insurance lived in a great country because he could make his own choices and experience the rewards or pitfalls of those choices (paraphrased). The audience cheered. The author implied that Paul would cheer the persons death. But the author also included the statement by Paul that when he was a doctor he never turned anyone away.

Clearly Paul is in favor of providing care to people Pro Bono as most doctors do. But the author in his headline and in his implications tries to paint Paul as one who would cheer the deaths.

What about that list of banned books from Palin that included books that were not written at the time of the alleged list?

The list could go on.
 
Do you mean like taking Bachman's statement that a woman told her that a vaccine caused retardation and then making it seem like it was Bachman who said it rather than the woman. Like glossing over the part where bachman said:

“ people have to draw their own conclusions.”

Here is the exchange in context:

“There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine... This is the very real concern and people have to draw their own conclusions.”

Did Bachman say something else at a different time? If so then show us that. But the only news story I read presented that exchange and then drew the conclusion that it was Bachman who said the vaccine caused retardation.


IN another article I read today the headline was something like this?

"Who would let people without insurance die?"

Then the whole story talks about how Paul said a person without insurance lived in a great country because he could make his own choices and experience the rewards or pitfalls of those choices (paraphrased). The audience cheered. The author implied that Paul would cheer the persons death. But the author also included the statement by Paul that when he was a doctor he never turned anyone away.

Clearly Paul is in favor of providing care to people Pro Bono as most doctors do. But the author in his headline and in his implications tries to paint Paul as one who would cheer the deaths.

What about that list of banned books from Palin that included books that were not written at the time of the alleged list?

The list could go on.

The distortions and lies by the old lib media are very damaging. Sadly, many Americans still believe the old lib media.

I saw a poll today that claimed 45% of Americans want Congress to pass BO's stupid jobs plan. If true, that means 45% of Americans are uninformed and can be easily persuaded by BO and the lib media.

If BO were an R, his approval rate would be below 20% because the media would be dumping on him 24/7 as they should...as they did with W.

We all know the only reason BO won the Commie Party nomination and ultimately the WH, was because the media failed to do it's job of vetting him. And, they failed to do their job on purpose.
 
One and done....and we can only hope the Death of Liberalism is the one wonderful consequence of the disaster that is Obama's presidency.

VDH has it right...

"Suddenly, liberal op-ed writers are trashing ... Barack Obama as a one-term president ('one and done'). Centrist Democrats up for re-election in 2012 openly worry about inviting a kindred president into their districts, lest the supposed new pariah lose them votes. ... [W]hat Obama's supporters are mad about is that the public is boiling over chronic 9 percent unemployment, a comatose housing market, escalating food and fuel prices, near nonexistent economic growth, a gyrating stock market, record deficits, $16 trillion in aggregate debt, and a historic credit downgrading. And voters are not just mad, but blaming these hard times on the liberal Obama agenda of more regulations, more federal spending, more borrowing, more talk of taxes, and more 'stimulus' programs. ... Voters may or may not like Obama, but they surely do not like what he is still trying to do." --historian Victor Davis Hanson
 
Werbung:
But of those 96% of blacks that voted for obama...it strains the limits of incredulity to imagine that quite a lot of them did not vote based on the color of his skin.

Why would you say that? Because the majority of them never bothered to vote before in their lives?

As long as there are people who blame everyone else for whatever failure they brought on themselves, there will be liberalism. As long as there are people who scream about the status quo, but complain about a challenge to it (tea party and whatever comes after it) there will be liberalism. As long as there are people who vote who refuse to admit or see the failure of their ideology (California again) because they would rather go down with the ship, and take everyone else with them, there will be liberalism.

You can tell them right away. They're the first ones to sing-song "Jesus was the first liberal" while assuming anyone who is a Christian, takes the Bible literally, and that all that do are Republican, or conservative. HOWEVER, the Baptists down south, a boatload of whom I would suggest are most definitely NOT conservative, are entitled to whatever they want, along with those who come here illegally because they deserve a better life, something that tax paying non liberal citizens don't deserve and should give to others. As long as there are people who scream about corporate rule but invest in those companies to add to their OWN wealth, there will be liberals.

As long as there are those who scream "popular vote" (majority rule by it's real name) but cry foul if a little special interest group doesn't get special consideration....There will be liberals.
 
Back
Top