Is this the beginning of the end of The Fraud's regime?

M

miles

Guest
It doesn't look good. Less than four weeks before the election his numbers are way down. His foreign policy is a failure. An ambassador is murdered while the WH fumblefucks the aftermath and stupidly blames it on a You Tube video. He's ridiculed for his fake urban accent in a speech to a black audience. People see through the smoke and mirrors of the latest unemployment number scheme. His performance in the debate was disastrous and there is no reason to think he'll do better in the next two. The media is on his ass like stink on shit. The gig is up.

In a word, he's fucked.
 
It doesn't look good. Less than four weeks before the election his numbers are way down. His foreign policy is a failure. An ambassador is murdered while the WH fumblefucks the aftermath and stupidly blames it on a You Tube video. He's ridiculed for his fake urban accent in a speech to a black audience. People see through the smoke and mirrors of the latest unemployment number scheme. His performance in the debate was disastrous and there is no reason to think he'll do better in the next two. The media is on his ass like stink on shit. The gig is up.

In a word, he's fucked.

You're going on record predicting a Romney victory then?

You're also on record predicting a Bachmann, Newt, and Herman Cain victory. It could go either way still, but my bet is on you going 0-for-4 this election cycle.
 
You're also on record predicting a Bachmann, Newt, and Herman Cain victory. It could go either way still, but my bet is on you going 0-for-4 this election cycle.

Show me where I predicted that, liar. You are Throb, aren't you?
 
Never a response, just a question to lead the attack.



I think it is time to warm up the fat lady...
 
This is where merc screams "I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2007" fresh of of a good solid month of screaming that he wanted to see a decade (simple math for you Democrats puts that at 2002) of tax returns from Romney...
 
This is where merc screams "I DON'T CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2007" fresh of of a good solid month of screaming that he wanted to see a decade (simple math for you Democrats puts that at 2002) of tax returns from Romney...

AJ still thinks we need to look at Obama's distant past to see what he'll do as president.
 
His past explains his present predicament...




[voice=Jenn14] But Romney is a lying murderous felon! At least my guy is not a lying murderous felon! Do you like lying murderous felons??? [/voice]
 
His past explains his present predicament...




[voice=Jenn14] But Romney is a lying murderous felon! At least my guy is not a lying murderous felon! Do you like lying murderous felons??? [/voice]


You also think if Obama is going to be president his policies will reflect Black Liberation Theology. And that prediction might be accurate someday if we just wake up each morning and pretend the President doesn't have a track record you can look at and decide whether or not your position is accurate.

You also Obama steals social security numbers and someone else wrote his books. And you have proof, dammit!
 
I'll ask again, MercDownSouth - when did I say this?

"You're also on record predicting a Bachmann, Newt, and Herman Cain victory."

Fucking liar.
 
Bears repeating

Phony-in-Chief
Thomas Sowell, NRO
October 9, 2012

When President Barack Obama and others on the left are not busy admonishing the rest of us to be “civil” in our discussions of political issues, they are busy letting loose insults, accusations, and smears against those who dare to disagree with them.

Like so many people who have been beaten in a verbal encounter, and who can think of clever things to say the next day after it is all over, President Obama, after his clear loss in his debate with Mitt Romney, called Governor Romney a “phony.”

Innumerable facts, however, show that it is our commander-in-chief who is phony-in-chief. A classic example was his speech to a predominantly black audience at Hampton University on June 5, 2007. That date is important, as we shall see.

In his speech — delivered in a ghetto-style accent that Obama doesn’t use anywhere except when he is addressing a black audience — he charged the federal government with not showing the same concern for the people of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina hit as it had shown for the people of New York after the 9/11 attacks, or the people of Florida after Hurricane Andrew hit.

Departing from his prepared remarks, he mentioned the Stafford Act, which requires communities receiving federal disaster relief to contribute 10 percent as much as the federal government does.

Senator Obama, as he was then, pointed out that this requirement was waived in the case of New York and Florida because the people there were considered “part of the American family.” But the people in New Orleans — predominantly black — “they don’t care about as much,” according to Barack Obama.

If you want to know what community organizers do, this is it — rub people’s emotions raw to hype their resentments. And this was Barack Obama in his old community-organizer role, a role that should have warned those who thought that he was someone who would bring us together, when he was all too well practiced in the arts of polarizing us.

Why is the date of this speech important? Because less than two weeks earlier, on May 24, 2007, the United States Senate had in fact voted 80–14 to waive the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans, as it had waived that requirement for New York and Florida. More federal money was spent rebuilding New Orleans than was spent in New York after 9/11 and in Florida after hurricane Andrew, combined.

Truth is not a job requirement for a community organizer. Barack Obama cannot claim that he wasn’t present the day of that Senate vote, as he claimed he wasn’t there when Jeremiah Wright unleashed his obscene attacks on America from the pulpit of the church that Obama attended for 20 years.

Unlike Jeremiah Wright’s church, the U.S. Senate keeps a record of who was there on a given day. The Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, shows Senator Barack Obama present that day and voting on the bill that waived the Stafford Act requirement. Moreover, he was one of just 14 senators who voted against — repeat, against – the legislation which included the waiver.

When he gave that demagogic speech, in a feigned accent and style, it was world-class chutzpah and a rhetorical triumph. He truly deserves the title phony-in-chief.

If you know any true believers in Obama, show them the transcript of his June 5, 2007, speech at Hampton University (available from the Federal News Service) and then show them page S6823 of the Congressional Record for May 24, 2007, which lists how Senators voted on the waiver of the Stafford Act requirement for New Orleans.

Some people in the media have tried to dismiss this and other revelations of Barack Obama’s real character that have belatedly come to light as “old news.” But the truth is one thing that never wears out. The Pythagorean Theorem is 2,000 years old, but it can still tell you the distance from home plate to second base (127 ft.) without measuring it. And what happened five years ago can tell a lot about Barack Obama’s character — or lack of character.

Obama’s true believers may not want to know the truth. But there are millions of other people who have simply projected their desires for a post-racial America onto Barack Obama. These are the ones who need to be confronted with the truth, before they repeat the mistake they made when they voted four years ago.

And Mitt Romney is the liar.

;) ;)

Perhaps if he had not have left ten minutes into the speech, he would have heard Mitt list four losers that went under before he tried to post the "fact" from a blog that only 3 of 28 went under...

:eek:
 
Oh there he goes again.


An expert on what everyone else is thinking. That damned voice in his head fucks him every time...
 
I'll ask again, MercDownSouth - when did I say this?

"You're also on record predicting a Bachmann, Newt, and Herman Cain victory."

Fucking liar.

Didn't you pick them to win? Or were you just picking them as the best candidate when they were leading in the polls while secretly predicting them to lose? I forget.
 
Back
Top