Jump to content

2012 U.S. Elections - President Obama Re-elected


Range_This11

Presidential Election  

78 members have voted

  1. 1. Which Candidate Will You Vote For?

    • Mitt Romney
      8
    • Barack Obama
      55
    • Other (For all you Ron Paulers)
      15


Recommended Posts

I think the President deserves to be impeached for his handling of Benghazi. Now there is proof that they knew of the attack while it was in progress, they had the resources to substantially fight back less than 2 hours away, but for hours they did nothing allowing 4 people to be killed.

 

Not to mention the administration covered it up and lied for 2 weeks about some video on youtube.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ck-sources-say/

http://www.washingto...nghazi-scandal/

http://www.weeklysta...dal_654410.html

http://www.theblaze....itics-benghazi/

 

I agree... but Bush would've done the same, and Romeny WILL do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the President deserves to be impeached for his handling of Benghazi. Now there is proof that they knew of the attack while it was in progress, they had the resources to substantially fight back less than 2 hours away, but for hours they did nothing allowing 4 people to be killed.

 

Not to mention the administration covered it up and lied for 2 weeks about some video on youtube.

 

http://www.foxnews.c...ck-sources-say/

http://www.washingto...nghazi-scandal/

http://www.weeklysta...dal_654410.html

http://www.theblaze....itics-benghazi/

 

I agree... but Bush would've done the same, and Romeny WILL do the same.

 

Care to back that ridiculous statement up?

sig2-3.jpg

 

Three months banishment to 9gag is something i would never wish upon anybody, not even my worst enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Sources on the ground"... "sources familiar with... "sources said".

 

Doesn't exactly weigh up against a "fact" test does it?

I'll trust the unnamed sources whose accounts make sense over the version from the administration that we now know has LIED ABOUT THIS FOR TWO WEEKS.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you ever considered that just maybe the state department knows more about what happened than you do?

That's why its so infuriating that they lied.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They lie to you all the time. As part of their work, information comes to light which would be damaging if it were released into the public. Please don't argue against this, it's a very well accepted day-to-day reality, and a necessity so they can continue doing their work effectively.

 

What I'm really astounded by, is that you placed more trust in the input of those who ran to the papers under the guise of anonymity (assuming these people are even true/exist at all), rather than those who follow proper whistle-blowing procedures when they discover serious misconduct. That cannot be a healthy relationship between the state and media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This wasn't some special ops mission to assassinate some foreign diplomat. The administration lied about this for political reasons.

 

Anyhow, the whole point of the media is to provide a means for whistle blowers. They're apart of our constitutional checks and balances via the 1st amendment. But you're also ignoring the people that testified under oath before Congress, which changed the administration's story:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/as-congressional-hearings-open-the-benghazi-narrative-changes-again/

 

 

What we're learning right now is there are emails that show the administration knew about the attack in real time. We also know that the attacks took place over many hours, and that while the attack was going on Ansar al-Shariah claimed responsibility for it via social networking, but also because their logos were on the trucks used to conduct the attack.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/emails-white-house-informed-within-two-hours-of-benghazi-attack-that-radical-islamic-group-claimed-responsibility/

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Bush lied to the American people for 2 weeks following the attack. Oh, and his administration was watching the hijacking live for 5 hours before the planes crashed into the WTC, right?

 

:roll:

  • Like 1

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A2nCm.jpg 100%

 

Went to a Rally on Saturday 8-)

Level 99 Skills 28/28 200M exp Skills 6/28
Going for 200M All Skills. [qfc]48-49-837-63099395[/qfc]

@Matt258RS Twitch: Matt258RS

 

Whatpulse
My Youtube user name: birdman258 200MCook ProfitCook 200mPrayer MakinWines MyF2pSkillers

 

On 12/23/2011 at 4:39 PM, 'Jebrim' said:

But don't even begin to think that I think I'm better than you all simply because I've done 7.6k+ hours of Agility or because I have tens of thousands of fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Bush lied to the American people for 2 weeks following the attack. Oh, and his administration was watching the hijacking live for 5 hours before the planes crashed into the WTC, right?

 

:roll:

 

Weapons of Mass Destruction, yeah he wasn't wrong about them being in Iraq he lied about it to go to war.

 

Im just saying its not about Bush or Obama being liars to advance their foreign policy its about EVERY modern president doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought.

 

We elect our leaders to represent our interests and make choices on our behalf. The theory behind it would seem to be that we chose our leader, but once they are our leader, then they are in charge. They don't report to the voters until next election season.

 

So if a president lies to make something happen, to drum up support for something they feel needs to be done, is that actually wrong? It's a given that they are not going to have the same information that the public does, and the public will never have all the information because making certain information public is incredibly dangerous (there are things you don't want other nations to know). So if they are in a position where they feel something is the right thing to do, but cant make the information that would cause people to support that action public, then you end up in a situation where for your elected leader to do what they believe is best, they would have to lie to generate the support they need (because even if they don't directly report to the voters instant to instant, it is a very bad thing to be have a country doing something that the country doesn't want to do).

 

And of course there are going to be actual scandals, where there is self interest, or just trying to save face, or whatever. Maybe your president just really hated a country and wanted to burn it to the ground, maybe they had actual reason to believe it was something that really did need to happen.

 

 

My point, if I have one, is that whether or not your leader lies to the population is not nearly as important as why they lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, lets be honest. Republicans hate when Democrat presidents lie, but defend Republican presidents whey they lie. Democrats hate when Republican presidents lie, but defend Democrat presidents when they lie. The anit-Bush hate was just liberal reaction to not having a Democrat in the White House, and this anti-Obama hate is just conservative reaction to not having a Republican in the White House. Bill Clinton impeached for lying? No, impeached for having bad conservative values. [rant] So forgive me if I don't give a damn why you think X President is bad, because I doubt you don't see it as a party issue. [/rant]*

 

Regan-loving, pro-life, anti-socialist hates Obama? Gee, I wonder why.

"The cry of the poor is not always just, but if you never hear it you'll never know what justice is."

siggy3s.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjuring himself. Not just lying, but lying under oath, which is a felony.

 

If Obama's administration would call a spade a spade, Libya would be a non issue.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Bush lied to the American people for 2 weeks following the attack. Oh, and his administration was watching the hijacking live for 5 hours before the planes crashed into the WTC, right?

 

:roll:

 

Weapons of Mass Destruction, yeah he wasn't wrong about them being in Iraq he lied about it to go to war.

 

Im just saying its not about Bush or Obama being liars to advance their foreign policy its about EVERY modern president doing so.

 

How is lying about Libya advancing foreign policy?

sig2-3.jpg

 

Three months banishment to 9gag is something i would never wish upon anybody, not even my worst enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Gary Johnson to hopefully help him and the libertarian party get the 5% they need for federal funding and such, considering there are no real differences between Obama and Romney on the issues that matter to me (NDAA, the role of our military, long term solutions on cutting the debt that actually work, the patriot act, making it legal to do what we want to with our own bodies, etc)

Travis_D.png       k_Lw.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion all of them will say they will do things just to get your votes. Doesnt mean they'll actually do it, obama has done extraordinary well with what he got given when he took power.

Even if a new guy takes power he wont make it better over night

xxamzyxx.png

 

952a0f472b.png

 

 

xxamzyxx.png

 

xxamzyxx.png

 

xxamzyxx.png

 

xxamzyxx.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm voting for Gary Johnson to hopefully help him and the libertarian party get the 5% they need for federal funding and such, considering there are no real differences between Obama and Romney on the issues that matter to me (NDAA, the role of our military, long term solutions on cutting the debt that actually work, the patriot act, making it legal to do what we want to with our own bodies, etc)

My problem with Gary Johnson is he first ran as a Republican, and when that didn't work out he started running as a Libertarian.

 

So which is he, a Republican or Libertarian? And then ads for him tick me off. "You need a third choice..." Out of Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, Thaddeus McCotter, Buddy Roemer, and you, Gary Johnson, Americans picked Mitt Romney. How many more choices do we need?

 

And if you can't get any significant support from the Republican party in the primary, why would they support you in the general election?

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion all of them will say they will do things just to get your votes. Doesnt mean they'll actually do it, obama has done extraordinary well with what he got given when he took power.

Even if a new guy takes power he wont make it better over night

It was an incredibly historical moment when Obama got elected, and on that basis alone he will go into the books as a very notable President. If we're being more cynical though... what exactly has Obama achieved? Even his greatest 'victory' in the reforms he made to healthcare ended up being very watered down to what was originally intended, and incredibly diluted to what is seen elsewhere in the developed world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion all of them will say they will do things just to get your votes. Doesnt mean they'll actually do it, obama has done extraordinary well with what he got given when he took power.

Even if a new guy takes power he wont make it better over night

 

Oh lawd here goes blaming Bush again.

sig2-3.jpg

 

Three months banishment to 9gag is something i would never wish upon anybody, not even my worst enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion all of them will say they will do things just to get your votes. Doesnt mean they'll actually do it, obama has done extraordinary well with what he got given when he took power.

Even if a new guy takes power he wont make it better over night

 

Oh lawd here goes blaming Bush again.

But it's still a completely valid point, I don't see what the problem is.

In my opinion all of them will say they will do things just to get your votes. Doesnt mean they'll actually do it, obama has done extraordinary well with what he got given when he took power.

Even if a new guy takes power he wont make it better over night

It was an incredibly historical moment when Obama got elected, and on that basis alone he will go into the books as a very notable President. If we're being more cynical though... what exactly has Obama achieved? Even his greatest 'victory' in the reforms he made to healthcare ended up being very watered down to what was originally intended, and incredibly diluted to what is seen elsewhere in the developed world.

http://whattheheckha...adonesofar.com/

 

 

 

 

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21565623-america-could-do-better-barack-obama-sadly-mitt-romney-does-not-fit-bill-which-one?fsrc=scn/rd_ec/which_one_

Also, The Economist has endorsed Barack Obama for President.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.