Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Douchebag loses 60 seats and blames it on everything but his own misguided policies. Embarrassing news conference today.

Can't accept personal responsibility for anything. His own policy scheit don't stink. BARRY, YOU SUCK!!

Arrogant azzhole. Discuss.

Democrats are already trying to draw parallels between the elections of '94/'96 and '10/'12. In the 90s, Clinton survived a disastrous mid-term to handily win re-election two years later. This is why I believe Obama will not be re-elected.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was fundamentally a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about Obama. Even in the unlikely event that he tries to reinvent himself, his core constituencies will abandon him. Moderate Democrats and independents have little use for him already. They would view any attempt at centrist reinvention as too cynical.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was a pragmatist. Although Clinton was an idealist, he was never an ideologue. Obama has shown no sense of pragmatism, in part because has never had to.

Clinton, although quite happy with himself, never possessed the arrogance and hubris that Obama possesses. Clinton never believed as Obama seems to that anyone who opposes him is morally inferior. In this sense, Obama is much like Jimmy Carter. We all know what happened to him.

Clinton, unlike Obama, is a man of substance. Although I agreed with little of Clinton's politics, I never had any reason to doubt his intelligence, political judgment and perceptiveness. He always struck me as a profound thinker, even though his profound thoughts did not always lead him to the best conclusions. Obama is an empty suit. Once you separate him from his rhetoric, oratory, platitudes and teleprompters, you are left with nothing.

At the end of the day, Obama's political dogmatism, ineffectual leadership, poor executive skills, lack of substance and arrogance will lead him to defeat in 2012. Wave elections happen from time to time, but almost never to opposite effect in two consecutive elections. This election was as great a repudiation of Obama as could have been imagined. Recovery for a man of his nature and character will be nearly impossible.

CitadelGrad wrote:Democrats are already trying to draw parallels between the elections of '94/'96 and '10/'12. In the 90s, Clinton survived a disastrous mid-term to handily win re-election two years later. This is why I believe Obama will not be re-elected.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was fundamentally a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about Obama. Even in the unlikely event that he tries to reinvent himself, his core constituencies will abandon him. Moderate Democrats and independents have little use for him already. They would view any attempt at centrist reinvention as too cynical.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was a pragmatist. Although Clinton was an idealist, he was never an ideologue. Obama has shown no sense of pragmatism, in part because has never had to.

Clinton, although quite happy with himself, never possessed the arrogance and hubris that Obama possesses. Clinton never believed as Obama seems to that anyone who opposes him is morally inferior. In this sense, Obama is much like Jimmy Carter. We all know what happened to him.

Clinton, unlike Obama, is a man of substance. Although I agreed with little of Clinton's politics, I never had any reason to doubt his intelligence, political judgment and perceptiveness. He always struck me as a profound thinker, even though his profound thoughts did not always lead him to the best conclusions. Obama is an empty suit. Once you separate him from his rhetoric, oratory, platitudes and teleprompters, you are left with nothing.

At the end of the day, Obama's political dogmatism, ineffectual leadership, poor executive skills, lack of substance and arrogance will lead him to defeat in 2012. Wave elections happen from time to time, but almost never to opposite effect in two consecutive elections. This election was as great a repudiation of Obama as could have been imagined. Recovery for a man of his nature and character will be nearly impossible.

Yet neither he, nor Reid, nor Pelosi can see past their rhetoric to the truth.

CitadelGrad wrote:Democrats are already trying to draw parallels between the elections of '94/'96 and '10/'12. In the 90s, Clinton survived a disastrous mid-term to handily win re-election two years later. This is why I believe Obama will not be re-elected.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was fundamentally a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about Obama. Even in the unlikely event that he tries to reinvent himself, his core constituencies will abandon him. Moderate Democrats and independents have little use for him already. They would view any attempt at centrist reinvention as too cynical.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was a pragmatist. Although Clinton was an idealist, he was never an ideologue. Obama has shown no sense of pragmatism, in part because has never had to.

Clinton, although quite happy with himself, never possessed the arrogance and hubris that Obama possesses. Clinton never believed as Obama seems to that anyone who opposes him is morally inferior. In this sense, Obama is much like Jimmy Carter. We all know what happened to him.

Clinton, unlike Obama, is a man of substance. Although I agreed with little of Clinton's politics, I never had any reason to doubt his intelligence, political judgment and perceptiveness. He always struck me as a profound thinker, even though his profound thoughts did not always lead him to the best conclusions. Obama is an empty suit. Once you separate him from his rhetoric, oratory, platitudes and teleprompters, you are left with nothing.

At the end of the day, Obama's political dogmatism, ineffectual leadership, poor executive skills, lack of substance and arrogance will lead him to defeat in 2012. Wave elections happen from time to time, but almost never to opposite effect in two consecutive elections. This election was as great a repudiation of Obama as could have been imagined. Recovery for a man of his nature and character will be nearly impossible.

Bravo!

CitadelGrad wrote:Democrats are already trying to draw parallels between the elections of '94/'96 and '10/'12. In the 90s, Clinton survived a disastrous mid-term to handily win re-election two years later. This is why I believe Obama will not be re-elected.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was fundamentally a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about Obama. Even in the unlikely event that he tries to reinvent himself, his core constituencies will abandon him. Moderate Democrats and independents have little use for him already. They would view any attempt at centrist reinvention as too cynical.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was a pragmatist. Although Clinton was an idealist, he was never an ideologue. Obama has shown no sense of pragmatism, in part because has never had to.

Clinton, although quite happy with himself, never possessed the arrogance and hubris that Obama possesses. Clinton never believed as Obama seems to that anyone who opposes him is morally inferior. In this sense, Obama is much like Jimmy Carter. We all know what happened to him.

Clinton, unlike Obama, is a man of substance. Although I agreed with little of Clinton's politics, I never had any reason to doubt his intelligence, political judgment and perceptiveness. He always struck me as a profound thinker, even though his profound thoughts did not always lead him to the best conclusions. Obama is an empty suit. Once you separate him from his rhetoric, oratory, platitudes and teleprompters, you are left with nothing.

At the end of the day, Obama's political dogmatism, ineffectual leadership, poor executive skills, lack of substance and arrogance will lead him to defeat in 2012. Wave elections happen from time to time, but almost never to opposite effect in two consecutive elections. This election was as great a repudiation of Obama as could have been imagined. Recovery for a man of his nature and character will be nearly impossible.

Well said

CitadelGrad wrote:Democrats are already trying to draw parallels between the elections of '94/'96 and '10/'12. In the 90s, Clinton survived a disastrous mid-term to handily win re-election two years later. This is why I believe Obama will not be re-elected.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was fundamentally a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about Obama. Even in the unlikely event that he tries to reinvent himself, his core constituencies will abandon him. Moderate Democrats and independents have little use for him already. They would view any attempt at centrist reinvention as too cynical.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was a pragmatist. Although Clinton was an idealist, he was never an ideologue. Obama has shown no sense of pragmatism, in part because has never had to.

Clinton, although quite happy with himself, never possessed the arrogance and hubris that Obama possesses. Clinton never believed as Obama seems to that anyone who opposes him is morally inferior. In this sense, Obama is much like Jimmy Carter. We all know what happened to him.

Clinton, unlike Obama, is a man of substance. Although I agreed with little of Clinton's politics, I never had any reason to doubt his intelligence, political judgment and perceptiveness. He always struck me as a profound thinker, even though his profound thoughts did not always lead him to the best conclusions. Obama is an empty suit. Once you separate him from his rhetoric, oratory, platitudes and teleprompters, you are left with nothing.

At the end of the day, Obama's political dogmatism, ineffectual leadership, poor executive skills, lack of substance and arrogance will lead him to defeat in 2012. Wave elections happen from time to time, but almost never to opposite effect in two consecutive elections. This election was as great a repudiation of Obama as could have been imagined. Recovery for a man of his nature and character will be nearly impossible.

Tough to argue with much of what you say here although I will point out that Clinton didn't have to deal with the potential collapse of the world wide economy and he also tried to enact large scale health care reform - seeemingly the top two reasons some people believe Obama is not a centrist.

But if you consider that a good chunk of the stimulus package was tax cuts, and Obamacare does not include single payer, much less a public option you can only accuse Obama of rhetorically not being a centrist. As Glenn Greenwald points out in the linked article, Obama's policies including the "escalation in the war in Afghanistan, the massive increase in civilian-slaughtering drone attacks, the virtually wholesale embrace of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties architecture, the defense of Don't-Ask/Don't-Tell and DOMA, the multi-billion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, the failure to stem the tide of the foreclosure crisis" suggest a moderate democrat playing the corporate game.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Democrats are already trying to draw parallels between the elections of '94/'96 and '10/'12. In the 90s, Clinton survived a disastrous mid-term to handily win re-election two years later. This is why I believe Obama will not be re-elected.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was fundamentally a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about Obama. Even in the unlikely event that he tries to reinvent himself, his core constituencies will abandon him. Moderate Democrats and independents have little use for him already. They would view any attempt at centrist reinvention as too cynical.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was a pragmatist. Although Clinton was an idealist, he was never an ideologue. Obama has shown no sense of pragmatism, in part because has never had to.

Clinton, although quite happy with himself, never possessed the arrogance and hubris that Obama possesses. Clinton never believed as Obama seems to that anyone who opposes him is morally inferior. In this sense, Obama is much like Jimmy Carter. We all know what happened to him.

Clinton, unlike Obama, is a man of substance. Although I agreed with little of Clinton's politics, I never had any reason to doubt his intelligence, political judgment and perceptiveness. He always struck me as a profound thinker, even though his profound thoughts did not always lead him to the best conclusions. Obama is an empty suit. Once you separate him from his rhetoric, oratory, platitudes and teleprompters, you are left with nothing.

At the end of the day, Obama's political dogmatism, ineffectual leadership, poor executive skills, lack of substance and arrogance will lead him to defeat in 2012. Wave elections happen from time to time, but almost never to opposite effect in two consecutive elections. This election was as great a repudiation of Obama as could have been imagined. Recovery for a man of his nature and character will be nearly impossible.

Tough to argue with much of what you say here although I will point out that Clinton didn't have to deal with the potential collapse of the world wide economy and he also tried to enact large scale health care reform - seeemingly the top two reasons some people believe Obama is not a centrist.

But if you consider that a good chunk of the stimulus package was tax cuts, and Obamacare does not include single payer, much less a public option you can only accuse Obama of rhetorically not being a centrist. As Glenn Greenwald points out in the linked article, Obama's policies including the "escalation in the war in Afghanistan, the massive increase in civilian-slaughtering drone attacks, the virtually wholesale embrace of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties architecture, the defense of Don't-Ask/Don't-Tell and DOMA, the multi-billion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, the failure to stem the tide of the foreclosure crisis" suggest a moderate democrat playing the corporate game.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally I think that while Obama's goal was to be a transformative president, in actuality, his interest or the way he attempted it was simply to pass something. You don't simply let congress write these bills without major guidance or you have bills filled with junk which is what we got. Therefore a stimulus bill that didn't stimulate. and a health care bill that made the situation worse in many ways. Goes back to the empty suit argument.

While not a fan of government run health care, I have always thought that the middle ground between g'ment run health care and free market is the worst possible situation. We have been there for years and the health care bill just make it worse.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:
Tough to argue with much of what you say here although I will point out that Clinton didn't have to deal with the potential collapse of the world wide economy and he also tried to enact large scale health care reform - seeemingly the top two reasons some people believe Obama is not a centrist.

But if you consider that a good chunk of the stimulus package was tax cuts, and Obamacare does not include single payer, much less a public option you can only accuse Obama of rhetorically not being a centrist. As Glenn Greenwald points out in the linked article, Obama's policies including the "escalation in the war in Afghanistan, the massive increase in civilian-slaughtering drone attacks, the virtually wholesale embrace of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties architecture, the defense of Don't-Ask/Don't-Tell and DOMA, the multi-billion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, the failure to stem the tide of the foreclosure crisis" suggest a moderate democrat playing the corporate game.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Personally I think that while Obama's goal was to be a transformative president, in actuality, his interest or the way he attempted it was simply to pass something. You don't simply let congress write these bills without major guidance or you have bills filled with junk which is what we got. Therefore a stimulus bill that didn't stimulate. and a health care bill that made the situation worse in many ways. Goes back to the empty suit argument.

While not a fan of government run health care, I have always thought that the middle ground between g'ment run health care and free market is the worst possible situation. We have been there for years and the health care bill just make it worse.

I was in a sushi bar yesterday afternoon and they had the presser on a TV behind the chefs and they got a kick outta my hollering at the TV.

My take is that he is an absolutely unapologetic ideologue and his lapdog media will never call him out on it or label him as exactly what he is. He is so out of touch with the voting public that it would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

CitadelGrad's post pretty much tells it like it is...

Obama has admitted he's made mistakes and owned up to them.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Obama has admitted he's made mistakes and owned up to them.

On Tuesday, America admitted it made a mistake and corrected it.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Obama has admitted he's made mistakes and owned up to them.

Really? You got some examples?

Because it's obvious he STILL doesn't understand what happened Tuesday and why.
Neither does Reid. Neither does Pelosi.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:Democrats are already trying to draw parallels between the elections of '94/'96 and '10/'12. In the 90s, Clinton survived a disastrous mid-term to handily win re-election two years later. This is why I believe Obama will not be re-elected.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was fundamentally a center-left politician. There is nothing centrist about Obama. Even in the unlikely event that he tries to reinvent himself, his core constituencies will abandon him. Moderate Democrats and independents have little use for him already. They would view any attempt at centrist reinvention as too cynical.

Clinton, unlike Obama, was a pragmatist. Although Clinton was an idealist, he was never an ideologue. Obama has shown no sense of pragmatism, in part because has never had to.

Clinton, although quite happy with himself, never possessed the arrogance and hubris that Obama possesses. Clinton never believed as Obama seems to that anyone who opposes him is morally inferior. In this sense, Obama is much like Jimmy Carter. We all know what happened to him.

Clinton, unlike Obama, is a man of substance. Although I agreed with little of Clinton's politics, I never had any reason to doubt his intelligence, political judgment and perceptiveness. He always struck me as a profound thinker, even though his profound thoughts did not always lead him to the best conclusions. Obama is an empty suit. Once you separate him from his rhetoric, oratory, platitudes and teleprompters, you are left with nothing.

At the end of the day, Obama's political dogmatism, ineffectual leadership, poor executive skills, lack of substance and arrogance will lead him to defeat in 2012. Wave elections happen from time to time, but almost never to opposite effect in two consecutive elections. This election was as great a repudiation of Obama as could have been imagined. Recovery for a man of his nature and character will be nearly impossible.

Tough to argue with much of what you say here although I will point out that Clinton didn't have to deal with the potential collapse of the world wide economy and he also tried to enact large scale health care reform - seeemingly the top two reasons some people believe Obama is not a centrist.

But if you consider that a good chunk of the stimulus package was tax cuts, and Obamacare does not include single payer, much less a public option you can only accuse Obama of rhetorically not being a centrist. As Glenn Greenwald points out in the linked article, Obama's policies including the "escalation in the war in Afghanistan, the massive increase in civilian-slaughtering drone attacks, the virtually wholesale embrace of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties architecture, the defense of Don't-Ask/Don't-Tell and DOMA, the multi-billion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, the failure to stem the tide of the foreclosure crisis" suggest a moderate democrat playing the corporate game.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's nothing moderate about him but he has to play the corporate game. Wall Street put him where he is and he has to pay the piper. If he does get re-elected, that's when he'll have to pay them back in spades. That's what scares me.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
Tough to argue with much of what you say here although I will point out that Clinton didn't have to deal with the potential collapse of the world wide economy and he also tried to enact large scale health care reform - seeemingly the top two reasons some people believe Obama is not a centrist.

But if you consider that a good chunk of the stimulus package was tax cuts, and Obamacare does not include single payer, much less a public option you can only accuse Obama of rhetorically not being a centrist. As Glenn Greenwald points out in the linked article, Obama's policies including the "escalation in the war in Afghanistan, the massive increase in civilian-slaughtering drone attacks, the virtually wholesale embrace of the Bush/Cheney civil liberties architecture, the defense of Don't-Ask/Don't-Tell and DOMA, the multi-billion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, the failure to stem the tide of the foreclosure crisis" suggest a moderate democrat playing the corporate game.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

There's nothing moderate about him but he has to play the corporate game. Wall Street put him where he is and he has to pay the piper. If he does get re-elected, that's when he'll have to pay them back in spades. That's what scares me.

He's already paid them back in spades. But I'm curious as to which ways you think he's not a moderate.

AZGrizFan wrote:
Really? You got some examples?

Not going to be able to google things for you all day today (I have to work and pay for your unemployment check).

But, here you go:

President Barack Obama on Tuesday abruptly abandoned his nomination fight for Tom Daschle and a second major appointee who failed to pay all their taxes, telling NBC News: "I screwed up."

"I’ve got to own up to my mistake. Ultimately, it's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules — you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," Obama said on NBC’s "Nightly News with Brian Williams."

"I'm frustrated with myself, with our team. ... I'm here on television saying I screwed up," Obama said on NBC. He repeated virtually the same words in interviews with other TV anchors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Skjellyfetti wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Really? You got some examples?

Not going to be able to google things for you all day today (I have to work and pay for your unemployment check).

But, here you go:

President Barack Obama on Tuesday abruptly abandoned his nomination fight for Tom Daschle and a second major appointee who failed to pay all their taxes, telling NBC News: "I screwed up."

"I’ve got to own up to my mistake. Ultimately, it's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules — you know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," Obama said on NBC’s "Nightly News with Brian Williams."

"I'm frustrated with myself, with our team. ... I'm here on television saying I screwed up," Obama said on NBC. He repeated virtually the same words in interviews with other TV anchors.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28994296/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

a) I don't get an unemployment check. i had the audacity to get offered a severance package when I left, so I don't qualify.
b) We're talking about POLICY decisions. Try and keep up.

"Can't except responsibility for anything" seemed to be a little more than just POLICY decisions.

Skjellyfetti wrote:"Can't except responsibility for anything" seemed to be a little more than just POLICY decisions.

Nice edit. Followed up immediately by "his own policy sheit don't stink".

You think just maaaaaaaaybe he's referring to Barry's policies?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:"Can't except responsibility for anything" seemed to be a little more than just POLICY decisions.

Nice edit. Followed up immediately by "his own policy sheit don't stink".

You think just maaaaaaaaybe he's referring to Barry's policies?

Thanks, Z. That's exactly what I was referring to. Not a "failure to communicate" or any drivel like that.

kalm wrote:

CitadelGrad wrote:
There's nothing moderate about him but he has to play the corporate game. Wall Street put him where he is and he has to pay the piper. If he does get re-elected, that's when he'll have to pay them back in spades. That's what scares me.

He's already paid them back in spades. But I'm curious as to which ways you think he's not a moderate.

Well, if stating an intention to bankrupt the coal industry is moderate, then I guess he's a moderate.

CitadelGrad wrote:

kalm wrote:
He's already paid them back in spades. But I'm curious as to which ways you think he's not a moderate.

Well, if stating an intention to bankrupt the coal industry is moderate, then I guess he's a moderate.

If stating an intention to redistribute wealth is considered moderate, then he's a moderate.

Yep....he's a moderate...

If campaigning as the first post-partisan president then making gratuitous and often personal attacks on opponents make him a post-partisan moderate, then he's a post-partisan moderate.

If campaigning as the first post-racial president then telling Republicans to ride in the back makes him a post-racial moderate, then he's a post-racial moderate. If making race a factor in the decision to prosecute violation of federal law makes him a post-racial moderate, then he's a post-racial moderate.

Thank you for nothing!

native wrote:Thank you for nothing!

BRILLIANT!