RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events whats pissing me off

that we should have had the election in the bag! but it took every loud mouthed racist religious paranoid ignorant bitch in the tea party to lose! romney could have had it on benghazi alone. but trump and his posse decideed to go back to candyland and break out the birther shit. romneys posse thought swinging to the fences would get him the party vote. but when it came time to talk the talk he had no clear plan as to what he wanted to do to improve the country!

the republican party's NUMBER ONE goal should not be "defeat the black guy"! it should be "our way improves the country better than the black guy"!

fucking pissants. i'm voting libertarian from now on. keep your old hate and immature tactics. i want solutions to rteal problems! not this popularity contest SHIT thats been foisted on us.

k. thats all.

No doubt. Obama is a president with no accomplishments, and a number of scandals (Benghazi, "fast and furious", Solyndra, the Black Panthers voter-intimidation case, a corruptly rammed-through Obamacare that an overwhelming majority of voters opposed and still do, war on the coal industry and fossil feuls, the Law of the Sea treaty, along with Cap-and-Trade, that undermine U.S. sovereignty) that all manifest corruption and a hidden agenda, with little real interest by Obama in the issues most Americans truly care about.



While some Tea party candidates lost, many Tea party candidates won.
Senator Cruz in Texas, for example.
While many moderate and RINO Republicans lost nationwide.

And I didn't see examples of "every loud mouthed racist religious paranoid ignorant bitch in the tea party" beyond Akin and Mourdoch, who --again-- were thoroughly disowned by the GOP, but were smeared by Democrats and the Pro-Obama media as being embraced and representative of Republicans as a whole, despite Republicans' not supporting these two candidates, at either the GOP leadership or grassroots levels.



While I, for one, agree with you, I saw polls that Benghazi was unimportant to most voters, only about 7% said it mattered to them.
As I said, if I were Romney, I would have tied it to issues that mattered to voters, saying Obama's detachment and incompetence in Benghazi manifests the same incompetence and detachment Obama has demonstrated in managing the economy and federal debt.



Love the Candyland reference.

This one I agree with you completely. Although separating the birth certificate portion of Obama's past from the more valid issues of his personal beliefs, Obama's adult-life radicalism is a more valid issue.
But in the Republican mainstream, the "birther" thing is disowned, even by hardline conservatives like Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly.

Obama's proven radical associations over the last 20 years (Frank Marshall Davis, Rev Wright, Derrick Bell, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, Jeff Jones, and extending into the marxist radicals in his administration, Anita Dunn, Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Ron Bloom, etc., are a valid issue of how Obama has warped priorities that have been a distraction and an elitist priority, that has backburnered the mismanaged economy most Americans regard as the highest priority.)



I'd still argue that Romney voiced a more lucid plan of what he would do for the economy than Obama did in the campaign, or in the previous 4 years.
Romney's major mistake was letting himself be defined by the Obama campaign's attack ads.

Romney should have taken his defined weakness as a successful businessman and turned it into a strength, proving his effective leadership, his exceptional character, and his generosity. As exemplified by this short message:


Especially when contrasted with Obama and Biden's remarkable lack of generosity, and their waste of taxpayer dollars.
There was some mention in the media and GOP message of Romney's generosity, and many accounts of his generosity and compassion to be cited...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmarotta...nd-generousity/
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawki...know/page/full/
... but it was inundated and buried under misrepresentative negative portrayals by Democrats and the liberal media.
There are/were abundant positive testimonials cited by the many people who have known and worked with Romney.
Romney could have defined himself and shattered the DNC's demonization portrayal of him, without even going negative.



Reminder: the Democrats' number one goal in 2004 and 2008 was defeating the Republican white guy. And they really offered few specifics beyond being Not-Bush and Not-McCain.

I agree that SOME of the anger calling for Obama's defeat used racial language that could be turned back against the GOP (and it was by Dems and the Obama Ministry of Truth liberal media).
The Donald Trump rhetoric, and some of the rhetoric of John Sununu and other was open to being interpreted that way.
That's one reason I didn't contribute more directly to campaigning for Romney. I was uncomfortable with the clumsiness of the message coming from the Romney campaign, that didn't make efforts to avoid these land mines.



I voted third-party in 1992, 1996 and 2000, as a way of telling the Republicans I wanted a different agenda from the GOP. But all that succeeded in doing was electing Democrats, who pushed the country on an even worse and more perilous trajectory.
I can't believe you really think that does any good.
The problem with Republicans is they're willing to defy their party and be purist to the point of self-destruction of the GOP as a political force (just look at the last 2 months of Iggy's posts here).

Whereas Democrats will mindlessly vote Democrat no matter what. Because they understand that whatever lesser issues they disagree with the DNC on, their interests are still advanced more than by voting for independents who will never win. Conservatives need to see the same wisdom in voting GOP candidates.

Both McCain and Romney would be infinitely better than the Kenyan marxist radical.



While some arguable conservative "hate" exists on the fringes (Trump again, for example) that is not the mainstream of the GOP's rhetoric.
Romney/Ryan were far more civil, and (like McCain) put an incredible amount of legitimate fodder for attacking Obama off-limits.

Whereas, you seem to give a free pass to the incrediby vile attacks by the DNC on Romney (saying he caused a guy's wife to die by firing him, accusing Romney of being a tax cheat, etc.) Harry Reid and other DNC leadership joined in these attacks. As did the Obama-Newspeak media: Ed Schultz, Bill Maher, David Letterman, Jon Stewart, CNN and the other networks.

You join them in trying to paint the GOP as embracing "fundamentalist racist ignorant tea party hate" when in fact they rejected --and even denied funds-- to guys like Akin and Mourdoch.
Like I said before, Rick Santorum is the only other Republican I can think of espousing strongly fundamentalist gay/abortion focused rhetoric. And he was rejected by GOP voters at precisely the point he called for "overturning Roe vs. Wade").

No one in the GOP beyond a tiny fringe embraces this kind of rhetoric, and it's unfair to say that the GOP as a whole has done so.
Only liberals are fronting that notion.
It's just not true.

yeah you probably right. i was just pist off at the time. but you and i agree that the loudmouth poison from some of the shunned members get too much press as if the whole party is siding with their crazy antics.

we cloned a sheep. lets clone reagan

It bugs me that the liberal media gives a pass to the crazy remarks by Democrats (Joe Biden, anyone?) as one random unfortunate remark.

But time and again, any inappropriate words or action by any Republican is portrayed by the same liberal media to be representative of **all** Republicans. I first noticed it during the 2006 election, where the Democrats slimed all Republicans as a "culture of corruption" because of Mark Foley's morally questionable but not criminal or illegal actions, that many on the DNC side and liberal media knew about as well, many for more than a year, but held the GOP to a standard they didn't hold themselves to.
Quite the contrary, they held it in check as an "October surprise" and unveiled Mark Foley's flirtatious e-mails right before the election, after sitting on them for a year.
Liberal media/DNC collusion.

what about weiner? he was dnc and they burnt him. meybe cuz it was sort of funny cuz of the name. weiner. heh.

As I've pointed out repeatedly, while some level of coverage is given to Democrat scandals, disproportionately high coverage is given to Republican scandals.

As I pointed out with the Anthony Weiner scandal vs. the Herman Cain scandal, more than twice as much coverage was given to Herman Cain's scandal, despite that Cain's were never more than unproven allegations, whereas Weiner's guilt was proven beyond any doubt, with the most salacious pictures imaginable.


Likewise congressman Gerry Studds's free pass from the media, vs. the Mark Foley media coverage that lost the GOP both houses in the 2006 election.




Plus many other examples of liberal media bias outside of sex scandals:


The liberal media demonization of Ann Romney for wearing an expensive designer outfit, portraying her as an out-of-touch blueblood. Despite that Michelle Obama wore an outfit thatwas more than twice as expensive, and all the media could say was how chic and elegant Mrs. Obama looked.

Bush's golf time (an outrage) vs. Obama's golf time (no problem) that exceeded Bush's in just Obama's first year. Nary a peep from the media.

Bush's 40 million dollar 2005 re-inauguration ceremony (evil! Out of touch!!) vs. Obama's 160 million dollar jan 2009 inauguration ceremony (no media criticism, perfectly okay).

Plus plenty more examples.

The Democrats burned Weiner ( ) because, quite frankly ( ), they didn't like him (he was a total dick [ ]) and assumed he had a safe seat (in the NYC area).

Media coverage aside, I had one heck of a lot of fun with the Weiner scandal


The penis jokes are there in endless supply.

i only saw the dong in his underwear picture. was he slinging it full monty elsewhere?



but michelle is the first lady. she is supposed to be high class. ann coulter is a blog jockey for the gop. she is not as important at the first lady. its all fashion opinion any way. who gives a shit? thats not a scandal



i thought dubbers liked to go to the ranch. he golfs? but the prez is all about some golf. i don't think you can compare that. not a scandal.



yah. i wonder how much money obie spent on this re-inauguration? think it was as muich as the first media blitz in 09?


i think you got points about some of the foley scandals and shit. i dont know about herms except his triple 9 tax stance that backfired cuz no one took it srsly.

gunna ask where you watch yuour news? fox? cnn? msnbc and matthews and his frat boys are lefty like a muthafucka. cant stand that shit. but i dont like hannitys ass mouth on fox either. cnn is behind every one cuz theyre too worried about fashion shows and entertainment gossip.

Two things:

You just confused Ann Romney with Ann Coulter.

Michelle Obama as first lady is the wife of a public servant. her expensive gowns are presumably paid for by the taxpayers or donated by people trying to curry favor with the administration or gain publicity through the administration. Ann Romney as a private citizen is wearing gowns paid for by her own money. It's a pretty strange state of affairs and says a lot about our country's current twisted values when we are more upset about people spending private money then taxpayer money

damn. i did. sorry bro. its whiskey saturday



okay i see that. let me ask you: does michelle wear the same expensive sweep before she was in the house? isn't it tradition that first ladys are the american royalty queens like the presidents are the americann royalty kings? would you be as critical if it had been nancy reagan? sure she wore some bling in her day.

just sayin. its one thing to get down on media bias -which does exist!- and another to attack the first lady for that popping ass and looking like a dime. you say it was "presumably" paid for by the taxpayers. was it or not? i presume she brought that shit with her or someone gave it to her like you say. either way means no tax money was spent. whats the prob?

Well first off she's not the queen. She is still a citizen like the rest of us.

That aside your point about having the First Lady dressing well is well taken. in fact, I don't really have a problem with any First Lady dressing well. my point was that it seems odd to have no problem with the first lady dressing well but having a problem with somebody who isn't First Lady dressing well. doing so tends to indicate that there's a political bias at play.

Oh and back in the day Mrs Reagan in fact caught a lot of shit for her supposedly expensive gowns and for replacing the White House China. funny how it was horrible for her to do it but not Michelle, or Jackie Kennedy for that matter. That does seem also indicative of bias on the part of her critics

I fail to see why a prospective First Lady (Ann Romney) and an existing First Lady, should be held to different standards.

Particularly when Michelle Obama fronts to be closer in compassion and life experience to working middle-class americans, and slams the Romneys as compassionless and elitist, even as she wears fashions that that cost more than twice as much!

Not to mention her and husband Barack's expensive vacations on the taxpayer's dime, or otherwise hosing away of middle class tax dollars, on Solyndra, buying Senator votes for Obamacare, etc.

Breibart appeared on two guys' local radio program. According to Breitbart (while still alive) he confidentially showed them the Weiner penis photo on his cel phone. One of their crew zooomed in with a set camera and took this shot, and released it worldwide.

I'm not entirely sure Breitbart (while demonstrating anger and saying he'd never again appear on their show because of their unethically swiping and realeasing this photo) was really upset with them. Weiner slandered Breitbart for a week and discredited him until this photo was released, and it both redeeemed Breitbart as having told the truth all along, and humiliated Weiner beyond measure as the one who was lying. Plus, y'know, having his penis exposed all over the internet.

God bless the internet!
Only the audio released by a dissed cinematographer of a tantrum-throwing Christian Bale approaches this level of internet payback.

although i love the "dance remix version"
Classic!





Honestly, I never did. I like Herman Cain, I think he has potential, I enjoyed watching his temporary rise in the polls, and I do think he's capable. But like Jesse Jackson, Steve Forbes, and many other third-party candidates, private-sector experience is not enough. These guys need to prove themselves as mayors or governors before they can seriously make a run for president, and demonstrate their ability to rally legislatures and political factions to get things done.

Barack Obama hasn't passed that test either. He rammed through Stimulus and Omnibus only because he had overwhelming majorities, rammed through Obamaacare on a nation that oppesed it by 53% (increased to 56% popular opposition a year later) only by buying senate votes with taxpayer billion in Louisiana, Nebraska and Florida, and passed everything else by executive order, bypassing the Constitutional system.




From 1981 to August 2008 I religiously watched the PBS News Hour and Charlie Rose primarily.

But beginning in mid-2008 it became increasingly obvious that PBS, along with the other mainstream networks were selectively reporting the news, with omissions that favored Obama.

So for the first time, I started watching Fox to see what I was missing. For several months I would watch PBS News Hour from 6-7, and then Fox from 7-8, and it became infuriating to me what PBS was selectively omitting. As I said soemtime in 2009, I finally largely stopped watching PBS News Hour for a while when the Breitbart/ACORN exposure broke. Many people think this was a Fox News-pushed story, but it came from Breitbart, and Fox News was the only network to pick it up and report it!
Likewise (pretty much only Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity) only Fox gave any vetting whatsoever of Barack Obama's radical ties to marxism, Frank Marshall Davis, Rev Jeremiah Wright, Derrick Bell, William Ayers, and the radicals that fill Obama's administration.

I honestly watch Hannity more for his guests than for him. About 20% of the time he eloquently and respectfully presents the conservative viewpoint. I hate it when he abuses his position and cuts off liberal guests and doesn't give them equal time. I also hate when he rattles off slogans from Democrat commercials like "Republicans want dirtier air and dirtier water" (quoting Obama), "Throw grandma off a cliff", etc., but offering absolutely no information.

I refer to the "great American Panel" as the great American waste of time. Just uninformed celebrities mostly, and I don't like watching swimsuit models, actorss and football coaches for political opinion. His show was much more "fair and balanced" --and interesting, and better!-- When Alan Colmes was on the show.

I mostly watch CBS and ABC on their late-night news reports programs, and in between, sometimes I get tired of Fox and turn to CNN. Honestly, I found O'Reilly, Hannity, Neil Cavuto and others overly cocky at first, but they grew on me. I still find them offputting at times. I think "The Five" is garbage.
The best shows on Fox for me are the Weekend shows: Huckabee, Stossel, Fox News Watch, Journal editorial report, and during the weeek the 6-7 PM Fox Report. I still watch News Hour once or twice a week.
And I go to print media from whatever source (New York Times, Washington Post, AP, Daily Caller, Huffinton Post, whatever) usually based on reports I see covered on broadcast news.

Basically, I see the entire mainstream media with the exception of Fox as "rah rah, go Obama!" and it's hard to take them seriously. But I'm not blind to the biases of many on Fox either. "Analysis" on any opinion show I've come to see generally means talking out their ass about things they often haven't even fully researched. And that's as true on Fox as it is on CNN or MSNBC. "analysis" often means pundits taking partisan digs at the side they don't like.

I still feel that despite both sides having their biases, Fox News does a better job of giving fair coverage to both perspectives, despite being having conservative editorial opinion that is virtually absent from the other networks.

I see a great deal of selective omission of conservative-favoring facts on the mainstream/liberal networks. But if I watch CNN, I see things that aren't covered on Fox, and vice versa on Fox that aren't on any of the other networks.
I still have a sentimental attachment to PBS News Hour, Frontline, NOVA, Charlie Rose and American Experience. But by no hand but their own, my confidence in their objectivity is seriously diminished.

I used to watch Meet the Press, Face the Nation, and This week (the ABC, CBS and NBC sunday shows) but those have likewise become liberal circle-jerks. I especially used to love Meet the Press when Tim Russert was host (until 2008), but after he died suddenly all these programs devolved into Obama cheerleading sections, and I think began sliding in that partisan cheerleading direction from 2004-2008.

From 2008-2011, I found Glenn Beck (on both CNN and Fox) very informative,

Much less frequently, I periodically watch Hal Lindsey's weekly TBN program, and the News pertion of 700 Club, for Christian perspective of the news.

And (God help me) I occasionally watch MSNBC and CURRENT TV to see what the more rabid marxist progressives are up to. MSNBC is often just pure comedy gold. I watched one Raachel Maddow show where she was in complete denial that Social Security is going bankrupt. I actually find her tame, relative to Al Sharpton, Lawrence O'Donnell, and Ed Schultz. Schultz I find to be the most loathesome of the bunch. But interesting, to see just how petty and vindictive the Left can get.
On MSNBC, I best like the panel discussions on the morning Scarboro program (although Mika Brezinski annoys me, she's only on the air because of her Trilateral Commission father).

You'd better pray Rex doesn't start posting here again, WB

ya sure thas what i meant. but when it comes to world leaders the prez & first lady are the american royalty. just a way to describe it.



tru dat. i see you. but like i said, was michelle wearing stuff like that before she became the first lady? if she was, then she's just like ann romney and there's a bias. if not then you cant compare it cuz the first lady should always look better than an incumbent. if they just both incumbents being compared, then you have a point



yeah if jackie-o was replacing the china and michelle is wearing the same level bling nancy wore, then yeah there's a bias. course were talking 20 years difference in culture and fashion.



cuz one is the first lady and one is not. thats the difference man. if ann became first lady, people cant talk shit about her high fashion. same with michelle. if both were stepping out flashy before they were in the house, then both can be judged the same. other wise its not the same at all.



yeah meybe so. i woudnt buy that from michelle anyway cuz shes a rich attorney before she became first lady. both her and ann have the same rich living experience probably. but i still say the first lady can pimp out-whoever she is-however she wants cuz she represents the class of the usa. plus if its a donation, thats costing nobody nothing.



dont know about the vacation alll other presidents have taken before so i cant compare. you prob right. don't know about the prez buying votes either. that sounds like some conspiracy stuff.


oh and damn mna! you could have just said YES hes showing brain in other pics. i dont need to see this guys dong!

wait, did weiner say that was his cock? did he admit it? cuz they could have used anyones as you cant tell anything from that picture you pulled up pretty fast ...

where tha fuck is rex???

Assuming you meant "challenger" instead of "incumbent."

In any event, I am sorry, but that is one of the damned stupidest things I've read in my life.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a first lady looking nice. And if she happens to look better than the opposition, so be it. Jackie Kennedy obviously was a better looking woman than Pat Nixon or Margaret Goldwater, for example.

But the idea that she should, or must, look better than anyone else, including the wife of anyone who might challenge her husband, including (I assume) people who worked hard (or didn't) and have money to buy nicer clothes, is 100% contrary to our American democracy, contrary to the capitalist idea of being rewarded for your labor and contrary to why we fought a war not to have a damn king in the first place.

Your denials aside, you don't want a president. You want a ruler.

Lucky for you, I think you just got one.

yeah



no need to start bleeding g-man. i aint trying to insult you. what i meant was that i'm not gonna give any first lady shit about looking rich and you can not compare a sitting first lady and the lady who would like to be first lady. they aint the same. one is in the white house and one is trying to get into the white house. same it would be with michelle and laura bush. laura had every right to sparkle with diamonds while you can point to michelle and aim the same criticism at her for blinging out and being too upper class or detached to connect to the middle class.

like i said you show me where michelle was blinging it up at the same level as ann when o was running 2008 and thats a fair comparison. otherwise nah just invented gripe



okay wonder boy way to reach to the crazy fence. calm down if you cant discuss this like a man take it some where else. whats the prob? i aint lockstepping into the all-or-nothing crowd? make your point and then counter mine if you dont agree. its not like i'm arguing with you

bitch

Yeah, I'm being "all or nothing." That's why I wrote this:



I would respectfully submit that your saying a first lady has a right to look better than her husband's challenger is the "all or nothing" statement here.



Cunt.

Awwww...bsams and G-man are having another spat.

How cute.

i accept your apology and your admission of error



patriotic? proud of my country and the elected leadrs? proud of the tradition of the white house and the members of both parties serving there country? yes i am. thats why the president and first lady should always be the top class in appearance and stature. take pride in americans, bro.



whore

try again glacier

The penis photo?



There's nothing here I didn't post in the Weiner topic 18 months ago.
I was just having fun with it. Nothing I didn't deal with back then already.

Quote:



I assume you know this was G-man and not me, and that you were jokingly implying that he was mimmicking my more politically strident posting style.

I think we can all agree that Obama is not a king. That was clearly said with playful sarcasm.
But we can also agree that (or at least understand the opposition conservative view) that Obama is in multiple ways making an un-Constitutional power grab.

For example:
1) appointing Czars in his administration that have constitutionally undefined powers, and bypass congessional review before appointment, and therefore have no accountability in the system of checks and balances. and that many of these people ( the dismissed Van Jones, Mark Lloyd, Ron Bloom, etc.) openly praise Chairman Mao, Hugo Chaves, and other marxist/communist principles of "administering power from the barrel of a gun". That is not paranoid conspiracy speculation, that is precisely what they've said, while in office. On video, in their own words.
2) Obama using taxpayer dollars to buy votes to pass Obamacare, using taxpayer dollars against the will of the 53% of voters polled who opposed Obamacare at the time of its passing, and pleaded with their legislators not to pass it. But they did anyway. And a year later, that opposition polled had risen to 56%.
3) Obama circumnavigating the legislative system and passing multiple controversial measures into law by fiat of executive order without the consent of the governed or their elected legislators. Such as provisions about gay marriage, student loans, suspending offshore oil drilling, ordering the Catholic church to provide birth control to its female employees that the church clearly opposes, and granting amnesty to children of illegals.
4) suing the state of Arizona for passing new laws to patrol its own violated borders, that Obama's federal government refuses to defend.
5) treasonous supplication to the U.N. in a pending Law Of The Sea Treaty (appropriately, LOST) that imposes huge taxes paid by the U.S. to the U.N. on oil extracted in international waters, and recognizes U.N. authority for gun control worldwide, INCLUDING in the United States.
6) otherwise undermining U.S. sovereignty over to global authority, in our financial system, following a policy of wealth redistribution, along the lines of liberation theology.

I'm still amazed this radical jerk could be elected once, let alone re-elected.


Certainly, many on the Left who regarded George W. Bush as a king-like tyrant, and contemtuously called him "King George" are turning a blind eye to Obama extending many of the same perceived abuses (the Patriot Act, arresting the guy who made the islamic Youtube video and manufacturing a reason to put him in jail indefinitely, Obama's war in Libya where he never got congressional authorization to wage war).

If George W. Bush was a king, then Barack Hussein Obama is most definitely more evidently a king.

It's way beyond conspiracy. It was well covered, even in the liberal media. Sen Ben Nelson of Nebrastka, Sen Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, sen. Bill Nelson here in Florida, among others.


http://www.akdart.com/obama187.html#40

Why don't we give them crowns and nice military style uniforms too then, while we're at it? And I suppose since there's no way to stop someone from looking better than any given first lady, we should flat out regulate the dress of private citizens as well.

Personally, I'd rather be proud of my president and first lady because of how they handle their duties in office, not how well dressed they are while doing it.

there you go again. taken it to absurd levels cuz you cant defend your position. like i said bro the all-or-nothing crowd, population = you.



but that wasnt the subject of the thread. we were talking about fashions of first ladys and possible first ladys and that is wasnt comparable as we dont have all the facts. but you go ahead.