SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - White House releases Long Version of Obama Birth Certificate

Posted: Apr 29 2011 09:28 am

aeonic wrote:

Black Zarak wrote:

Ah that's awful...

The term "President Trump" scares me by the by.

Know what term frightens me? (Anything) Czar. Because, you know, we don't live in Imperialist Russia.

When I read this I am scared. Do some research, you would find out Czar's were implemented by Reagan. Sigh. As for showing his Birth Cert. this is bull, no other President was required to do so, and if you think that Bill and Hilary wouldn't have known this during the primary shows you know nothing about politics. The reason Obama will get reelected is right here in my back yard, old people. When they catch wind of the Republican party trying to fuck them over with vouchers instead of Medicare they are going to flip out and put Obama right back in office.

Czars, birth certificates, Muslim, socialist, elitist, communist, socialism. Just a long list of scare tactics that fool the middle class and poor into supporting the rich peoples candidates.

Posted: Apr 30 2011 01:21 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

Doddsino wrote:

The birth ceritificate thing is no different than Bush's military record. Both sides latching onto something that'll get attention despite having absolutely no validity to what the guy is doing now. It seems like every President we have now has some shadow over them that actually sidetracks what they should be doing; Obama's POB, Bush's military experience, Clinton's affairs, Cleveland's love child...oh wait.

Doddsino wrote:

The birth ceritificate thing is no different than Bush's military record. Both sides latching onto something that'll get attention despite having absolutely no validity to what the guy is doing now. It seems like every President we have now has some shadow over them that actually sidetracks what they should be doing; Obama's POB, Bush's military experience, Clinton's affairs, Cleveland's love child...oh wait.

However, I wonder if it would've been better to get this thing out of the way, or to play it up more. On one hand, you can let them play that card as long as they want, only to unleash it when the time comes and guarentee their failure. On the other hand, it'll seem shady you took so long to deliver, so they assume it's not valid.

Either way, I practically guarentee Obama wins in 2012. He'll do what Clinton did and play the moderate vote. There are no real Republicans that I see that can openly challenge his spot, despite his risky proposals.

Yeah, I see Obama winning in 2012. Not necessarily for the reasons you said though. I think the Republicans have peaked too soon. They have done a great job at stopping Obama from moving forward with things that he wanted to do that a lot of people seem not to like and have threatened to overturn healthcare (which Obama will absolutely fight tooth and nail), but they can't really show any results. "Look at all the stuff that didn't happen!" isn't a viable campaign.

Obama will find a way to shift momentum is his favor. Look at Massachusetts. Our governor, Deval Patrick, is a massive toolbag. A MASSIVE toolbag. In 2008 and 2009, his numbers were crap. There was talk that he was going to take an appointment from President Obama to save him the embarrassment of announcing that he wasn't going to seek reelection. But then, he did seek reelection. And somehow, he won. And then Massachusetts was plunged into four more years of unimaginable despair. But the point is, just because people feel one way about you now doesn't mean they'll feel the same come election time.
However, I wonder if it would've been better to get this thing out of the way, or to play it up more. On one hand, you can let them play that card as long as they want, only to unleash it when the time comes and guarentee their failure. On the other hand, it'll seem shady you took so long to deliver, so they assume it's not valid.

Either way, I practically guarentee Obama wins in 2012. He'll do what Clinton did and play the moderate vote. There are no real Republicans that I see that can openly challenge his spot, despite his risky proposals.

Yeah, I see Obama winning in 2012. Not necessarily for the reasons you said though. I think the Republicans have peaked too soon. They have done a great job at stopping Obama

Republican success in 2010 was the best thing that could happen to Obama.

Posted: Apr 30 2011 01:22 am

Ash Burton wrote:

aeonic wrote:

Black Zarak wrote:

Ah that's awful...

The term "President Trump" scares me by the by.

Know what term frightens me? (Anything) Czar. Because, you know, we don't live in Imperialist Russia.

When I read this I am scared. Do some research, you would find out Czar's were implemented by Reagan. Sigh. As for showing his Birth Cert. this is bull, no other President was required to do so, and if you think that Bill and Hilary wouldn't have known this during the primary shows you know nothing about politics. The reason Obama will get reelected is right here in my back yard, old people. When they catch wind of the Republican party trying to fuck them over with vouchers instead of Medicare they are going to flip out and put Obama right back in office.

Czars, birth certificates, Muslim, socialist, elitist, communist, socialism. Just a long list of scare tactics that fool the middle class and poor into supporting the rich peoples candidates.

Are you implying that Obama is not a rich people's candidate?

Posted: Apr 30 2011 03:53 am

aeonic wrote:

Black Zarak wrote:

Is this going to be Trumps's entire platform? Because he's STILL blabbing about it. "I'm so awesome because I proved something completely inconsequential, elect me!"

I really think a blowhard who's made a habit out of serially bankrupting multimillion dollar companies shouldn't be put in charge of anything, even if it's just a figurehead position.

That's surprising easy to agree with...

Posted: May 01 2011 05:35 pm

Izzy wrote:

Are you implying that Obama is not a rich people's candidate?

I would say big corporate interest would rather see a deregulating, non-taxing President in office, so yes. Please submit your counter-argument below.

Posted: May 01 2011 05:49 pm

Obama was successful in 2008 because he able to get people who normally wouldn't vote for the white folks that are invariably always on the big party tickets to go out there and vote for him. To get re-elected, he'll need to do it again. Can he do it? Possibly.

Right now, 50% of people at least somewhat approve of the president's performance and 49% disapprove. However, only 26% of people strongly approve of his performance, while 37% strongly disapprove.

Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Be aware that that page is not static, so those numbers change daily.

The president does well with moderates and independents, but his leftist base, which contains many of his key donors, is disillusioned with him. So politically, he's in a difficult position in that he needs to court his base for campaign money without losing centrist appeal. As an incumbent, he'll benefit from not having to make the grandiose public promises to the DNC base that he'd have to if he were in a primary.

Also, the Republicans have yet to offer up anyone interesting. It's the same old names that have failed in the past.

Joined: Oct 01 2009 Posts: 5316

Well to be fair Syd, Reagan was an old name from '76...and look what happened there. Although he had a better playing field than anyone does right now.

And after tonight, it's going to be hard for anyone to step up to the plate. I guarantee we'll hear minimal about Obamacare or other controversial goals until he's reelected.

Posted: May 02 2011 12:22 am

Ash Burton wrote:

Izzy wrote:

Are you implying that Obama is not a rich people's candidate?

I would say big corporate interest would rather see a deregulating, non-taxing President in office, so yes. Please submit your counter-argument below.

http://wichitaliberty.org/regulation/regulation-helps-big-business-not-free-enterprise/

I would say big business wouldn't want a government that actually acts as an overseer but keeps its hands off when everyone is following the rules. Instead we get to choose between the turd sandwich and the giant douche. Sure, you believe you have a choice, but what are you getting either way?
Bailing out GM, now that's helping the little guy...

Posted: May 02 2011 10:15 am

Bailing out GM actually saved a lot of jobs, as much as it was detested at the time.

General Motors, the company that received $50 billion from tax payers in the form of a “bail-out,” has recovered to the point where they are now giving checks in the amount of $4,000 or more, to 45,000 hourly American workers through profit sharing.

The New York Times reports;

I think if you or your family worked for GM it would be helping the little guy. And Lol at everyone following the rules. We tried just letting them do the right thing, and they fucked it up by collapsing our economy. Try again.

Posted: May 02 2011 12:13 pm

aeonic wrote:

Atma wrote:

Syd Lexia wrote:

He should have just released years ago and shut people up then. It's not like it has his dick on it or anything.

I mean, yes, it's completely pathetic and borderline racist that his birth certificate became such an issue. But they could have nipped this in the bud.

I think it worked out pretty good for him.

Trump is one of the front runners for the Rep. in the upcoming election, and this took some wind out of his sails.

But yeah, this whole thing is pretty damn crazy.

It doesn't matter anyway. The Tea Party is going to split the vote and Obama'll get his second four year term. Especially if they're running morons like Trump and Romney, it's obvious the 'mainstream' Republicans (eg the ones that don't call themselves Tea Party members) don't care, and I'm sure whatever kook the TP puts up gets enough crazy votes to keep things destabilized. I guess Nader's not running anymore, and that's why they need someone else.

1. I don't think we'll see a legitimate Tea Party candidate on the ballot. For the most part, I'm pretty sure they're smart enough to know better
2. Romney is in no way associated with the Tea Party, and I'm pretty sure he's not particularly endorsed by them either since he has done everything he possibly can to keep his distance from them.