Post: #1

Quote:In an interview with Rolling Stone, conducted by celebrated presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, Obama labelled Romney a "bullshitter" – and rather than backing away from the comment, a senior Obama campaign adviser said it raised "trust" issues with Romney's candidacy.

Brinkley's interview recorded a conversation between Obama and Eric Bates, the executive editor of Rolling Stone. Bates told Obama that his six-year-old daughter had a message for the president: "Tell him: you can do it." Obama replied with a grin:

Quote:You know, kids have good instincts. They look at the other guy and say, 'Well, that's a bullshitter, I can tell'.

Asked to explain Obama's remark, spokesman Dan Pfeiffer told reporters that he hadn't seen the article, but went on to say: "Trust is a very important part of the election. The president is someone who says what he means and does what he says, and Governor Romney's answers in the debates on domestic issues and foreign policy raise real questions about that."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-news-...sfeed=true

I'd read that Obama has nothing but disrespect and contempt for Romney (quite different than his respect for John McCain as a long-time senator and war hero) because he regards him as a bloodless shapeshifter who will say anything to get elected. But this is taking things to a completely different level.

Post: #2

The lower Obama acts and more name calling he does, the more scared he is of losing the election. I can taste his fear.

Post: #3

(10-25-2012 02:39 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  The lower Obama acts and more name calling he does, the more scared he is of losing the election. I can taste his fear.

But Obama is not losing the election. he is pretty close to a lock.

Post: #4

(10-25-2012 02:44 PM)jammer Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 02:39 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  The lower Obama acts and more name calling he does, the more scared he is of losing the election. I can taste his fear.

But Obama is not losing the election. he is pretty close to a lock.

Yeah...at this point, it's looking pretty good for the president:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...e-stopped/

Post: #5

If there was 1 more debate with a month to go romney would have been able to swing people. Just running out of time.

Post: #6

I see no tangible difference between the two. It's a one party system that loves warfare and welfare.

Post: #7

As an outside observer I don't see a difference between the 2 at all. Obama has started a war and violated numerous countries laws by drone attacks. Seems without a doubt Romney would attack Iran if elected. Both are chickenhawks. Obamacare is modelled off of Romneycare. At one time Romney was for abortion and the POTUS is as well. I mean where do their actions differ from one another ? Rhetoric is one thing, but their actions dictate they are the same

Post: #8

is that story getting much attention in the US or is it only drudge who's going on about it?

Post: #9

If Obama goes right, people go left on him. He cant do anything right for some folks. They knock him for being "too nice" and then when he comes out swinging and knocking heads clean off in the last two debates, they claim he's pressing and being too aggressive. When he calls Romney a bullshitter (which he is), Obama is now "out of line and taking it too far".

Obama came out playing it safe and not-to-lose in the first debate but ended up giving off the impression that he was flat and uninspired. This supposedly "undecided voter" coworker of mine knocks him the next day and says that he looked weak. Romney comes out with the same strategy of playing it safe in the third debate since he seemingly feels that he is somehow the favorite now (despite getting his ass handed to him in the previous debate), and that same hypocritical "undecided voter" coworker of mine praises him for it and says that the approach he took was a smart move.

Some folks just hate Obama no matter what he does. Im all for him tho. Obama will win this election.

Post: #10

If you abstain from voting you are supporting Romney.

Post: #11

It's good to see signs of Obama finally sacking up. If he's to silence all these beta charges, he needs to stop this calm-and-collected thing (which, of course, he does to avoid the angry-black-man charge) and start spitting more acid. He's a natural shit-talker, as he shows when he starts clowning on dudes.

You better believe, if I were running for president, I'd be calling dudes liars and cocksuckers and pussies and throw off the gloves in debates. I would lambast and abuse the other guy with my rhetoric. Then again, people are afraid of a guy like that in the US.

In other countries, they re-elect them by massive margins.

[attachment=8411]

Post: #12

Hugo Chavez is a corrupt shitbag who is destroying his country's ecnomy with his massive nationalization schemes. Figures the left would idolize a dictator like that. Prez4life.

Post: #13

(10-25-2012 03:52 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  Hugo Chavez is a corrupt shitbag who is destroying his country's ecnomy with his massive nationalization schemes. Figures the left would idolize a dictator like that. Prez4life.

That's why he keeps winning legitimate elections that are cleaner, fairer, and more verifiable than US elections.

Our system--where corporations own everything and everyone in the government--is far more corrupt. Especially because we live under the illusion that it's the paragon of "freedom."

Venezuela was a money-concentrated-in-a-few-hands shithole before Chavez came around--basically an extreme version of the way the US is going. Ain't nothing wrong with spreading the wealth a bit for the betterment of society as a whole (no one, for example, benefits from a bunch of sick-ass people in the street). You can't impose your North American, right-wing celebration of plutocracy on South American, post-colonial realities.

All of the anti-Chavez propaganda originates from these powerful and vocal former oligarchs, who remain rich, but whose cash flow slowed down slightly. US elites, meanwhile, are becoming increasing anxious of the growing ascendancy of South American republics. I love how presidents in this country call Chavez a dictator, when he was more legitimately elected than they were--with bigger mandates and margins.

Stop repeating the shaky-or-no-evidence anti-Chavez propaganda. You're doing the bidding of elites who are pissed their 500-year golden age is coming to an end.

Post: #14

Tuthmosis are you trolling??? lulz

Post: #15

(10-25-2012 04:14 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 03:52 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  Hugo Chavez is a corrupt shitbag who is destroying his country's ecnomy with his massive nationalization schemes. Figures the left would idolize a dictator like that. Prez4life.

That's why he keeps winning legitimate elections that are cleaner, fairer, and more verifiable than US elections.

Our system--where corporations own everything and everyone in the government--is far more corrupt. Especially because we live under the illusion that it's the paragon of "freedom."

Venezuela was a money-concentrated-in-a-few-hands shithole before Chavez came around--basically an extreme version of the way the US is going. Ain't nothing wrong with spreading the wealth a bit for the betterment of society as a whole (no one, for example, benefits from a bunch of sick-ass people in the street). You can't impose your North American, right-wing celebration of plutocracy on South American, post-colonial realities.

All of the anti-Chavez propaganda originates from these powerful and vocal former oligarchs, who remain rich, but whose cash flow slowed down slightly. US elites, meanwhile, are becoming increasing anxious of the growing ascendancy of South American republics. I love how presidents in this country call Chavez a dictator, when he was more legitimately elected than they were--with bigger mandates and margins.

Stop repeating the shaky-or-no-evidence anti-Chavez propaganda. You're doing the bidding of elites who are pissed their 500-year golden age is coming to an end.

Venezuela under Chavez is hardly the picture of a well-run state. Inflation is high, crime is soaring, its recovery is lagging other countries in the region, shortages are common, the gap between the rich and the poor remains wide, and corruption is rampant in the government.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/inter...index.html

Post: #16

People keep voting for chavez because he has them hooked on socialism now. Without there pittance of an allowance they would starve to death because no business owner wants to work there. That is why they keep voting for him, he has them hooked on welfare.

Just like those 50 million americans on food stamps.

Post: #17

(10-25-2012 05:28 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  People keep voting for chavez because he has them hooked on socialism now. Without there pittance of an allowance they would starve to death because no business owner wants to work there. That is why they keep voting for him, he has them hooked on welfare.

Just like those 50 million americans on food stamps.

Actually, poor people in America don't vote all that much:

Quote:"Poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...ally-dont/

Your right-wing talking points are no good here.

Post: #18

(10-25-2012 04:14 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 03:52 PM)Scarlet_Terror Wrote:  Hugo Chavez is a corrupt shitbag who is destroying his country's ecnomy with his massive nationalization schemes. Figures the left would idolize a dictator like that. Prez4life.

That's why he keeps winning legitimate elections that are cleaner, fairer, and more verifiable than US elections.

Our system--where corporations own everything and everyone in the government--is far more corrupt. Especially because we live under the illusion that it's the paragon of "freedom."

Venezuela was a money-concentrated-in-a-few-hands shithole before Chavez came around--basically an extreme version of the way the US is going. Ain't nothing wrong with spreading the wealth a bit for the betterment of society as a whole (no one, for example, benefits from a bunch of sick-ass people in the street). You can't impose your North American, right-wing celebration of plutocracy on South American, post-colonial realities.

All of the anti-Chavez propaganda originates from these powerful and vocal former oligarchs, who remain rich, but whose cash flow slowed down slightly. US elites, meanwhile, are becoming increasing anxious of the growing ascendancy of South American republics. I love how presidents in this country call Chavez a dictator, when he was more legitimately elected than they were--with bigger mandates and margins.

Stop repeating the shaky-or-no-evidence anti-Chavez propaganda. You're doing the bidding of elites who are pissed their 500-year golden age is coming to an end.

So true.

Americans hate anybody draped in red and from what I have learned Ex-pacts whom flee from countries like Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, Libya have zero credibility. All these Ex-pacts are based from Silver spoon families whom we're Oligarchs in their old land and raped and pillage of the backs of their fellow Countrymen.

Canadian-Libyans on there BMWs and Mercedes screaming for NATO airstrikes which end-up killing tens of thousands and plunging Libya into nothing more then a failed state. They run back to their mansion only happy the man that ran them out (Gadaffi) is dead in the ground. Where are they know trying to raise money to help out their failed country? Hypocrites.

Venezuela was a corrupt dump before Chavez and though I don't agree 100% with Chavez and though I do think he is to far left on his policies he is better then what was before him.

The people we call dictators (Chavez, or Gadaffi) actually have more limited powers or we're elected more cleanly then USA Leaders. Its Bloody ironic. We call Chavez a dictator when he is voted in more fair and free elections than our own, we call Assad a tyrant when the majority of Libyans have voted in twice on reforms, we called Gadaffi a Dictator when he had no super-ceding powers, only one vote in a Congress of almost 1,000 people. With the whole Country able to vote out anything they did not like.

It does not help that we fund and support are supposed Dictators opposition. In Venezuela, and Russia America helped fund and create opposition movements that most likely we're quite small or never even existed because come election time they get trumped in the polls each and every time (Google the National Endowment for Democracy which was a CIA front created by Reagan so he could funnel money to throw elections in Countries the USA did not like). The NED help fuel the Coup-attempt in Venezuela a few years back... who's really the tyrant?

Its the illusion and spin of choice. The West casts these leaders in dark light when in reality they have more democratic freedoms then we do. Most leaders don't have the executive power that Obama does. Nor do they have a single-pole Media, nor do they have top oligarchs whom literally control the election process from start to finish.

Its classic tactics to make others look worse to give the impression your doing better.

WE ARE IN THE SHACKLE AND CHAINS.

Venezuelans though living modest lives have a smile on their face they get cash and food. though I don't agree with it they are fucking happy. How many Americas are truly happy with their lives?

Chavez has made his people to dependent on him that is what I don't like. And the business scenario is somewhat iffy but I am all for State Industries to enrich its own people. This is a view far from socialism it is a view of being a realistic and rational mind. Why should I get a Multi-national to short-change me when I can develop and sell the shit myself and reap all the profits for my country.

Post: #19

More from Obama:

Quote:Have you ever read Ayn Rand?
Sure.

What do you think Paul Ryan's obsession with her work would mean if he were vice president?
Well, you'd have to ask Paul Ryan what that means to him. Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a "you're on your own" society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party.

Of course, that's not the Republican tradition. I made this point in the first debate. You look at Abraham Lincoln: He very much believed in self-sufficiency and self-reliance. He embodied it – that you work hard and you make it, that your efforts should take you as far as your dreams can take you. But he also understood that there's some things we do better together. That we make investments in our infrastructure and railroads and canals and land-grant colleges and the National Academy of Sciences, because that provides us all with an opportunity to fulfill our potential, and we'll all be better off as a consequence. He also had a sense of deep, profound empathy, a sense of the intrinsic worth of every individual, which led him to his opposition to slavery and ultimately to signing the Emancipation Proclamation. That view of life – as one in which we're all connected, as opposed to all isolated and looking out only for ourselves – that's a view that has made America great and allowed us to stitch together a sense of national identity out of all these different immigrant groups who have come here in waves throughout our history.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/new...print=true


So to recap: Romney's a "bullshitter" and Paul Ryan is a narrow-minded, emotionally stunted 17-year old. The gloves are off for real.

Would have been nice to see this Obama at the first debate. Oh well, better late than never.

Post: #20

*shrug* Even if I didn't like Obama, I'd still vote for him as a lesser evil. There are almost no ideas in the Romney campaign that I don't find just plain awful and unlikely to improve USA (and its people).

Fortunate that I am not an USA citizen so I can't vote :b

Post: #21

(10-25-2012 05:28 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  People keep voting for chavez because he has them hooked on socialism now.

   

Post: #22

(10-25-2012 03:25 PM)vinman Wrote:  I see no tangible difference between the two. It's a one party system that loves warfare and welfare.

yep. both support endless wars, drone attacks that kill mostly innocent people and school chidren, the drug war, the increasing militirization of our police, less civil rights . . .

Post: #23

(10-25-2012 05:46 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(10-25-2012 05:28 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  People keep voting for chavez because he has them hooked on socialism now. Without there pittance of an allowance they would starve to death because no business owner wants to work there. That is why they keep voting for him, he has them hooked on welfare.

Just like those 50 million americans on food stamps.

Actually, poor people in America don't vote all that much:

Quote:"Poor people actually don’t vote that often. According to a CNN exit poll in 2008, those making less than $15,000 a year made up 13 percent of the population but just 6 percent of voters, while those making more than $200,000 a year made up just 3.8 percent of the population but fully 6 percent of voters."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra...ally-dont/

Your right-wing talking points are no good here.

Correct me if I am wrong but your opinion poll from CNN seems to back up my claim. The dirt poor and the slightly poor overwhelmingly voted for Obama. That was 18% of eligible voters. Hmmm and how many is 50 million out of 300 Million ?

So take your liberal bleeding heart to Hugo, I am sure you he will welcome you with open arms and some food stamps.

Post: #24

(10-25-2012 02:48 PM)dragnet Wrote:  Yeah...at this point, it's looking pretty good for the president:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...e-stopped/

Based on battleground state polling, I think most analysts, including Nate Silver, are actually underestimating Obama's chances. He's a mortal lock. Statistical backup here:

http://delicioustacos.com/2012/10/24/why...e-polling/

Post: #25

Oh and one more thing. The 50 million on food stamps has only been since Obama came to office. I'm not saying he caused it, but what I am saying is there wasn't 50 million people on food stamps in 2008.

http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/upl...nthly2.jpg

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/food-stamp...double-may