Obama General Discussion - Page 48 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-20-2010, 06:02 PM   #706
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluer White View Post
Like Guantanamo?


yes we had a slew of the ANSWER protesters outside the event going on about that and the Iraq War,
bringing up campaign promises verses his actions while in office, some of these lefties may not show up at the polls again, the question is, how large is this group of 'true believers'?
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 06:12 PM   #707
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
the question is, how large is this group of 'true believers'?
How are you defining "true believer"?

Those that believe politicians can do everything they say?

Or those that believe that was going to be easy?

Or those that believe Obama can do no wrong?

Or those that believe he was born in Kenya?
__________________

__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-20-2010, 06:19 PM   #708
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:44 PM
What I mean are all the more liberal supporters that are disappointed that Obama has not moved fast enough on closing GITMO, getting out of Iraq, truely reforming health care, ending DTDA, etc.


They say the 'true believers' (conservatives) caused Bush 1 to lose in 92 because they did not come out to the polls.
They believed he had not stayed true to threir core conservative values.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 06:22 PM   #709
Refugee
 
Bluer White's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,886
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
yes we had a slew of the ANSWER protesters outside the event going on about that and the Iraq War,
bringing up campaign promises verses his actions while in office, some of these lefties may not show up at the polls again, the question is, how large is this group of 'true believers'?
Don't know...but I bet the president's party will still hold the House and Senate after the November vote.
__________________
Bluer White is online now  
Old 04-20-2010, 06:27 PM   #710
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
What I mean are all the more liberal supporters that are disappointed that Obama has not moved fast enough on closing GITMO, getting out of Iraq, truely reforming health care, ending DTDA, etc.


They say the 'true believers' (conservatives) caused Bush 1 to lose in 92 because they did not come out to the polls.
They believed he had not stayed true to threir core conservative values.
Maybe I'm wrong but I think these people are the minority. And I mean on both sides.

Maybe not the younger newer voters, but I think the majority on any side know that politics is a messy game and campaign promises aren't real promises. Maybe I'm wrong and I'm just the cynical one.

I think there are going to be very few that just stay home and let Obama continue another term if the canidate is not "conservative" enough. And vice versa. It may be how people spin it, but I don't think they are the deciding factors.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-20-2010, 06:43 PM   #711
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 01:44 PM
Do you ever get the feeling that leaders of both sides often meet in some back room to smoke cigars, drink old scotch, and laugh at how easy we are to distract?
__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 06:50 PM   #712
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:44 PM
I agree, they are a small minority

are they 1% or less, not a lot of impact

are they 3-4%, that could turn some close elections

4-7 % has quite a bit of impact.

True believers went for Nader in 2000 and many believe they flipped the out come.

In the 435 House races, a small percent could flip quite a few seats.

I think W was pretty successful holding his 'true believers', and Obama had good support in 2008.

Bush 1 held then in 1988 against Dukakis, he lost them in 1992. Of course in 92 we had the complication of the Reform party and Perot.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 08:21 PM   #713
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
2861U2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: watching the Cubs
Posts: 4,255
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Speaking of the DADT heckling, Greg Gutfeld from Fox News had a funny piece on that today:

The Daily Gut

"I just wonder...couldn't this heckling be a precursor to violent extremism? And could this agitation toward our President, believed to be based on policy - actually be thinly veiled racism? I mean, the President actually said he agreed with this gay group. And yet they still heckled. Perhaps the members of Get Equal should look in the mirror, and ask themselves why they're so uncomfortable with a black man in the Oval Office."
__________________
2861U2 is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 08:35 PM   #714
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:44 PM
could be on to something

Obama is an African-American Christian, and that group is solidly against gay marriage.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-20-2010, 08:46 PM   #715
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2861U2 View Post
Speaking of the DADT heckling, Greg Gutfeld from Fox News had a funny piece on that today:

The Daily Gut

"I just wonder...couldn't this heckling be a precursor to violent extremism? And could this agitation toward our President, believed to be based on policy - actually be thinly veiled racism? I mean, the President actually said he agreed with this gay group. And yet they still heckled. Perhaps the members of Get Equal should look in the mirror, and ask themselves why they're so uncomfortable with a black man in the Oval Office."
Some hide behind humor to avoid the real racism that IS going on in the Tea Party.

It's ashamed that some have used the term too much and too loosely, for it gives you, INDY, and the like the ability to hide behind this type of response.

I agree it's been overused, which is ashame, for now it makes it impossible to address the real racism.

If I were Glenn Beck I would say this was all some long thought out conspiracy to trick us and avoid the conversation of real racism... but I'm not Glenn Beck, I just think your side lucked out due to some blanket throwing.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-21-2010, 04:31 PM   #716
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Does this mean Obama has the 60 votes to get Finance Regulation passed?


Grassley Joins Democrats in Approving Derivatives Bill -
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-21-2010, 05:04 PM   #717
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post
Do you ever get the feeling that leaders of both sides often meet in some back room to smoke cigars, drink old scotch, and laugh at how easy we are to distract?
Tip O'Neil and Reagan ?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-22-2010, 10:06 AM   #718
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,994
Local Time: 03:44 PM
Seriously? It must be the heat..


‘Birther’ bill heads to Senate after House approval

By Jim Small azcapitoltimes.com

Published: April 21, 2010 at 5:21 pm

Arizona would require presidential hopefuls to prove their citizenship to the state’s highest elections official if they hope to appear on ballots in the Grand Canyon State under a bill approved April 21 by the House of Representatives.

The bill, S1024, narrowly passed 31-29, receiving the minimum number of votes required for approval. It was amended to include the so-called “birther” language on April 19.

“Arizona is seen as a laughingstock around the nation,” said Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who voted against the bill. “I am ashamed that this is even a topic of discussion.”

Sinema also called it “ridiculous…offensive (and) disgusting” that Arizona lawmakers were taking up the matter.

Even the White House criticized the bill. “I can’t imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN on April 20.

But Rep. Judy Burges, a Republican from Skull Valley who sponsored the amendment and a bill with identical language, said the issue was an important one.

“This is one way to bring back integrity and transparency to the voting system,” she said. “Half of the people thinks everything is fine. The other half doesn’t…

“We are trying to solve a problem.”

Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican from Gilbert, said the founding fathers gave discretion to each state to determine how elections are conducted. Arizona already has a set of qualifications that each presidential hopeful must meet, and this legislation merely expands that, he said.

“I don’t think there’s anything particularly unusual, other than the timing appears to be (related) to the most recent president,” Biggs said.

The bill would require national political parties to provide an affidavit stating the candidate meets the age, residency and citizenship requirements. Along with that, the candidate would be required to attach the documents needed for verification by the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

If the secretary of state doesn’t believe a candidate meets qualifications for president, the candidate’s name could be withheld from the ballot.

Supporters of the bill said the bill was not aimed at President Barack Obama, but instead intended to defuse future debates about a presidential candidate’s qualifications. However, Obama would still be required to comply if he wants to be on the Arizona ballot in 2012 if the bill becomes law.

“If he decides to run in two years, then he should provide his information and he shouldn’t have a problem,” Burges said.

Four of the chamber’s 35 Republicans voted against the bill: Rich Crandall from Mesa, Russ Jones from Yuma, Vic Williams from Tucson and Adam Driggs from Phoenix. Crandall told Arizona Capitol Times the Federal Elections Commission already verifies the qualifications, so a state law would be redundant.

“We’re adding more and more responsibilities (for the secretary of state) with no funding – for something that somebody’s already doing,” he said.

The bill now returns to the Senate for a final vote. If approved there, it goes to Gov. Jan Brewer.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-22-2010, 08:06 PM   #719
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:44 PM
Quote:
Rep. Judy Burges, a Republican from Skull Valley
Skull Valley... I love this country.
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 04-22-2010, 08:11 PM   #720
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 12:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrsSpringsteen View Post
Seriously? It must be the heat..


‘Birther’ bill heads to Senate after House approval

By Jim Small azcapitoltimes.com

Published: April 21, 2010 at 5:21 pm

Arizona would require presidential hopefuls to prove their citizenship to the state’s highest elections official if they hope to appear on ballots in the Grand Canyon State under a bill approved April 21 by the House of Representatives.

The bill, S1024, narrowly passed 31-29, receiving the minimum number of votes required for approval. It was amended to include the so-called “birther” language on April 19.

Good.

Romney will have to produce his birth certificate from the Juniper Creek compound.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Democratic National Convention Thread MrsSpringsteen Free Your Mind 504 09-02-2008 03:37 PM
US 2008 Presidential Campaign/Debate Discussion Thread - Part III phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1001 01-30-2008 02:07 PM
MERGED--> NH predictions + Hillary's win + NH recount? 2861U2 Free Your Mind Archive 586 01-12-2008 01:50 PM
Official Campaign 2008 Hot Stove Thread Varitek Free Your Mind Archive 1003 09-23-2007 03:31 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com