Originally Posted by Guest

Some posters refuse to do any research so they try and dredge up old informationan that is JUST NOT FACTUAL.

For example, saying President Obama voted "PRESENT" for his complete voting record in Illinois.

"Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate."

And we should believe your statistics...why?

Originally Posted by Guest

And we should believe your statistics...why?

It is not true that he only voted present while in Illinois. This from the NY Times in 2007 may help you believe that..

"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It specifies the number of time, but also questions his votes on certain issues and the WHY he voted how he did.

Most imortant to me would be not only that hypocritical part of his life, but many others....his attendance in the US Senate was the very worst.

BUT, he was elected President twice and is President now. Folks should have payed attention during the election of 2008 and 2012.

He was a shrewd politician with not much in the way of scruples, but was AND IS a very shrewd politiian. He does know how to play the game and in my opinion, that has served to harm our country.

Any debate on the Illinois voting record, however is not relevant any longer.

Link in the last post did not work....a bit of the article...

"In 1999, Barack Obama was faced with a difficult vote in the Illinois legislature — to support a bill that would let some juveniles be tried as adults, a position that risked drawing fire from African-Americans, or to oppose it, possibly undermining his image as a tough-on-crime moderate.

n the end, Mr. Obama chose neither to vote for nor against the bill. He voted “present,” effectively sidestepping the issue, an option he invoked nearly 130 times as a state senator.

Sometimes the “present’ votes were in line with instructions from Democratic leaders or because he objected to provisions in bills that he might otherwise support. At other times, Mr. Obama voted present on questions that had overwhelming bipartisan support. In at least a few cases, the issue was politically sensitive.

The record has become an issue on the presidential campaign trail, as Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, his chief rival for the Democratic nomination, has seized on the present votes he cast on a series of anti-abortion bills to portray Mr. Obama as a “talker” rather than a “doer.”

Although a present vote is not unusual in Illinois, Mr. Obama’s use of it is being raised as he tries to distinguish himself as a leader who will take on the tough issues, even if it means telling people the “hard truths” they do not want to hear.

Originally Posted by Guest

Some posters refuse to do any research so they try and dredge up old informationan that is JUST NOT FACTUAL.

For example, saying President Obama voted "PRESENT" for his complete voting record in Illinois.

"Here are the facts: According to reports by both The New York Times and the Associated Press, Obama voted "present" 129 times as a state senator. The AP reported that Obama said the votes represented a small portion — a little more than 3 percent — of the "roughly 4,000" votes he cast as a member of the state Senate."

And then there are posters who purposely ignore Obama on HIS "high horse", lecturing and scolding Christians for atrocities a thousand years ago, instead of UNIFYING our nation in resolving to eradicate the medieval, torturous ISIS butchers!

He insults and denigrates modern-day Christians, the largest constituency this nation has to defend us from these butchers.

In an interview last night David Axelrod said that he believed the President knew what he said at the prayer breakfast would be provocative. Well I guess that pretty much sums it up - he just doesn't give a dam.

Originally Posted by Guest

He was born in Kenya and has father was a jihadist Muslim. No legitimate birth certificut was ever proven to be shown.

Originally Posted by Guest

His goal is to bring this country to it's knees where he believes we belong. Not sure he will be happy till we are under Sharia law.

Originally Posted by Guest

That's the goal, consumating the Alinsky and Cloward-Piven strategies.

Overload it with debt and BEGGARS who vote, and promise them the world. Crush it, then come to the rescue. And they then eat out of his hand.

The narcissist's ultimate dream.

Originally Posted by Guest

He not only refuses to accept reality, and certainly had no qualifications for this office, he was very carefully handled and groomed when "serving" in the Illinois state senate. Rather than being involved, he is the only Illinois senator whose voting record shows he never took a stand on anything. His complete record consists of only voting "present" on every vote for which he was there. Very convenient when he was promoted via a slick presentation of a well-written speech at the Democratic convention. He is at best totally incompetent and at worse, a very dangerous puppet.

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

Originally Posted by Guest

In an interview last night David Axelrod said that he believed the President knew what he said at the prayer breakfast would be provocative. Well I guess that pretty much sums it up - he just doesn't give a dam.

According to today's Daily Sun Op-ed, 46% of people agree with the president compared to 41% who disagreed. This was according to a recent Rasmussen poll.

Originally Posted by Guest

And we should believe your statistics...why?

Probably because the poster (not me) proved you wrong.

Please show us proof of your statement. Should be easy for you.

Originally Posted by Guest

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

I think it had more to do with this type of post - where name calling and put-downs ensued. I think opinions about the topic in discussion are allowed, even if some don't agree with or like them.

Originally Posted by Guest

I think it had more to do with this type of post - where name calling and put-downs ensued. I think opinions about the topic in discussion are allowed, even if some don't agree with or like them.

Exactly. Unfortunately, the kind that make these posts obviously are unable to understand issues.

Now,they are correct in some arenas....lots of folks have theories which have been debunked. They do not have to refer to them again....

These folks, like this poster, got hold of this thing and apply it to everything that is said in politics. The reason, I have to suppose, is they are unable to understand what is happening in the world, cannot communicate for sure and thus this kind of posting on her is all they can do.

Just skip these kind of posts...they are talking among themselves.

Originally Posted by Guest

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

And name calling is so erudite and un-5th-grade.

Originally Posted by Guest

In an interview last night David Axelrod said that he believed the President knew what he said at the prayer breakfast would be provocative. Well I guess that pretty much sums it up - he just doesn't give a dam.

I've often thought that the president said things to be purposefully provocative. I don't think it's because he doesn't give a damn. I think he does it because a lot of his biggest critics get all foamy mouthed denouncing him, making themselves look rather idiotic.

Originally Posted by Guest

I've often thought that the president said things to be purposefully provocative. I don't think it's because he doesn't give a damn. I think he does it because a lot of his biggest critics get all foamy mouthed denouncing him, making themselves look rather idiotic.

That is one way of looking at it.

I think he learned early in his tenure as POTUS that he really did not have the authority as a King to do as he pleases.
Once his legal training allowed him to figure the way, he the embarked upon the mode of not being bi-partisan (but say he is) and not working through the congress (but say they won't act so it is their fault) thus leaving him to take executive action or what ever else his dodge and weave method allows. As a lawyer he knows just how far the thin ice goes and uses, abuses or hides behind the letter of the law.

He is an egotist of major caliber. When something is done that is viewed as good he is the first to take a bow and very quick to claim credit with the "I/me" speeches.

Anything with the least bit of controversy is presented either by Josh or the media as "...the WH said or states or claims, etc...".

And if there is a very serious event there is either no comment or involvement by him at all. Or he comes out weeks later after he has time to evaluate a position that maintains his agenda.

I personally could care less except for the fact that very little is said or done that represents the will of the people. In fact too many times he does the exact opposite portraying that long ago sought position of the King.

That is how I see what and how he operates.

Originally Posted by Guest

I've often thought that the president said things to be purposefully provocative. I don't think it's because he doesn't give a damn. I think he does it because a lot of his biggest critics get all foamy mouthed denouncing him, making themselves look rather idiotic.

If what you say is correct...

When a President of the United States is saying things to simply be provocative and stir his critics, and preaches to everyone, I do not think the listeners look idiotic !

Originally Posted by Guest

Now it is clear why no names are allowed. It is surely in order to protect intellectual midgets, conspiracy theorists, birthers et al to be protected from self-exposure. Makes one ashamed to be of the same species.

Originally Posted by Guest

And name calling is so erudite and un-5th-grade.

Sorry, I forgot to mention science deniers.