Mitt the twit is in the sh1t for homophobic fit

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Actually - a good part of his own party do regret he came out and said what he said.

See here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/same-sex-marriage-how-will-it-play-politically/2012/05/09/gIQAm9hCEU_story.html?hpid=z1

I can form my own opinions thanks. Conservatives were always going to hold their noses and vote for Romney, so they haven't budged. Black evangelicals will stick with Obama as much as they did last time around. All this statement does is take attention off the economy for a while, so mission accomplished.

Logical Fallacy

Deleted User wrote: »

He isn't homophobic, if he was homophobic he wouldn't have touched a suspected gay let alone pin him down.

Mitt is not homophobic, he is gay.

Remember, it's far gayer for a bloke to be a hairdresser than to have a **** haircut.

Pace2008

Republican conservative attempts to enforce conformity, shock horror.

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

I can form my own opinions thanks.

Clearly.
Pity in this case, it was very wrong.
Sorry if your feelings was hurt for me pointing that out and backing it up with evidence.

Deleted User wrote: »

Conservatives were always going to hold their noses and vote for Romney, so they haven't budged. Black evangelicals will stick with Obama as much as they did last time around. All this statement does is take attention off the economy for a while, so mission accomplished.

Mitts problem with gays was and always is going to be a reoccurring factor.

The fact that during Obama's time already the economy has increased in betterment - only the PR spinners and the blind will say different - says that if the topic at any time is about the economy, then already Obama has the upper hand in a lot of related cases.

RichieC

Deleted User wrote: »

I can form my own opinions thanks. Conservatives were always going to hold their noses and vote for Romney, so they haven't budged. Black evangelicals will stick with Obama as much as they did last time around. All this statement does is take attention off the economy for a while, so mission accomplished.

I love how some people try to make it out like gay rights isnt an important enough issue for the PotUS to address..

lets look at it this way. 1 out of every 25 Americans is Gay. that's a lot of people having their human rights denied.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Clearly.
Pity in this case, it was very wrong.
Sorry if your feelings was hurt for me pointing that out and backing it up with evidence.

What facts are in that piece you posted? There's a couple of opinions but I will bet (you can decide the stake) that Obama's proportion of votes among blacks will remain above 90%. They're the only evangelicals who would have been voting for him in the first place.

Mitts problem with gays was and always is going to be a reoccurring factor.

The fact that during Obama's time already the economy has increased in betterment - only the PR spinners and the blind will say different - says that if the topic at any time is about the economy, then already Obama has the upper hand in a lot of related cases.

Unemployment is where it was when he came in and the deficit continues to grow. It's not all a bed of roses. People are often just happy to hear what they want to hear.

RichieC

RichieC wrote: »

I love how some people try to make it out like gay rights isnt an important enough issue for the PotUS to address..

lets look at it this way. 1 out of every 25 Americans is Gay. that's a lot of people having their human rights denied.

Where in the name of **** did you get the idea that I'm saying it's not important. It's the "OMG he's amazing!" reaction to something that wasn't the brave move that elements of the media are trying to portray it as that I'm challenging.

RichieC

Deleted User wrote: »

Unemployment is where it was when he came in and the deficit continues to grow. It's not all a bed of roses. People are often just happy to hear what they want to hear.

They have an effective unemployment of 8.6% (4% and 6% is considered nominal). besides, the President is not a dictator and has little or no effect on the unemployment numbers. contrary to popular opinion.

Pedant

RON PAUL 2012!!!

RichieC

RichieC wrote: »

They have an effective unemployment of 8.6% (4% and 6% is considered nominal).

Where it was when he came in. Or are you arguing something else?

besides, the President is not a dictator and has little or no effect on the unemployment numbers. contrary to popular opinion.

Unfortunately popular opinion plays a bit of a role in elections.

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

What facts are in that piece you posted? There's a couple of opinions but I will bet (you can decide the stake) that Obama's proportion of votes among blacks will remain above 90%. They're the only evangelicals who would have been voting for him in the first place.

If you bothered to stay aware of hourly USA news and discussion shows from the states, its been stated many a time in the last 24 hours alone that the Democratic party has been uneasy about Obama latest highlight topic.
There is a couple of opinions all right in the article but they are ones that tell of larger opinion within the party. You might have missed that? I wonder why?

Deleted User wrote: »

Unemployment is where it was when he came in and the deficit continues to grow.

Actually if you were aware of the real true facts, unemployment dropped in numbers.
As you can see in this very graph: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
You seem to be wrong on your facts - again!!!

If we apply the general principle of the Bartels' income mode of establishing records of facts and figures, its generally accepted ...and I quote:

...economists have noted that financial crises like the one Obama inherited often produce long periods of slow growth.

LINK

Deleted User wrote: »

Unemployment is where it was when he came in and the deficit continues to grow. It's not all a bed of roses. People are often just happy to hear what they want to hear.

Most would agree that Obama should not be held responsible for economic growth during his first few months in office.

LINK

Since then, the numbers have risen faster in rate than any previous Republican nutters in Oval office.
They have up'ed and down'ed again like a rollercoaster but generally its easily accepted that things have greatly improved.

Given then that the Republicans now for the last two years have been consistently hampering any efforts by the Democrats to bring in good policies and doing good, its amazing and further good for Obama that he has managed to override them in a lot of cases and to his credit (and party) see through some serious changes.

The American public, at least the ones that don't fall for the daft Republican blocking antics in the Senate and elsewhere, WILL remember their actions too when it comes down to voting day.

The simple fact is that the USA economy while not perfect (far from it), has grown much better in stability alone the last few years under Obama and co, then at any time under the previous Republican war starters.
...and thats accept fact by many economists. A fool would say different though.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

If you bothered to stay aware of hourly USA news and discussion shows from the states, its been stated many a time in the last 24 hours alone that the Democratic party has been uneasy about Obama latest highlight topic.
There is a couple of opinions all right in the article but they are ones that tell of larger opinion within the party. You might have missed that? I wonder why?

It's them making it seem a bigger deal than it is.

Actually if you were aware of the real true facts, unemployment dropped in numbers.
As you can see in this very graph: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
You seem to be wrong on your facts - again!!!

Do you read anything you put up a link to? When he came in it was just below 8%, now it's just above 8%. "Facts" indeed.:rolleyes:

If we apply the general principle of the Bartels' income mode of establishing records of facts an figures, its generally accepted ...and I quote:


LINK



LINK

Given then that the Republicans now for the last two years have been consistently hampering any efforts by the Democrats to bring in good policies and doing good, its amazing and further good for Obama that he has managed to override them in a lot of cases and to his credit (and party) see through some serious changes.

The American public, at least the ones that don't fall for the daft Republican blocking antics in the Senate and elsewhere, WILL remember their actions too when it comes down to voting day.

Those who are stupid enough to vote Republican in the first place will still do so. Obama would have to come out as a Black Panther to lose the election. There's a large part of the electorate who don't look beyond their sitting room to form opinions. Obviously any right-thinking voter will be voting for Obama unless they have deep philosophical differences with him. With a lot of people their voting choice comes from perception rather than reality and there's a sizable chunk of the electorate who it would be prudent for Obama to distract from the perception being created in some areas of the media.

Pedant

There is still another republican left in the race, unlike what the media seem to be conveying.

That is the libertarian, Ron Paul!

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you read anything you put up a link to? When he came in it was just below 8%, now it's just above 8%. "Facts" indeed.:rolleyes:

Did you even bother to look at the graph showing the drop?

Unreal!
Stay happy in actually not knowing the actual real recorded FULL facts.

Given the post and the general acceptance that from a year on after trying to sort out the mess he inherited, the numbers then dropped dramatically.
It took him a year to turn things around but when he did finally, they started to drop - and it showed.
But don't let reality come in the way of your fantasy.
After a year of trying to turn the previous mess around, the numbers constantly despite a few smaller blips, not generally but wholeheartedly, dropped downwards.

laoch na mona

proof he is a dick

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Did you even bother to look at the graph showing the drop?

Unreal!
Stay happy in actually not knowing the actual real recorded FULL facts.

Given the post and the general acceptance that from a year on after trying to sort out the mess he inherited, the numbers then dropped dramatically.
But don't let reality come in the way of your fantasy.
After a year of trying to turn the previous mess around, the numbers constantly despite a few smaller blips, not generally but wholeheartedly, dropped downwards.

Jesus titty-****ing Christ are you serious? I said unemployment is where it was when he came in and you tried to argue it was lower and you can't admit you're wrong, you have to argue against something I never ****ing said.
For people who want to hear "unemployment is higher than when Obama took power" that's what they'll hear and it happens to be true. Those who want to hear about the mess he inherited and how unemployment's been coming down will hear that. Those who want to hear that gas prices are more than double what they were when he took office will hear that, etc.

But please, continue arguing about statistics that I made no reference to. :rolleyes:

Biggins

O' and Buttonftw...

You might wan to take a look at USA exports too since January 2009 to present day: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports

Yea, Obama was bad for America! Is that what your espousing?

Dudess

Phoenix Park wrote: »

Title a rip-off of the Pole in a Hole thread :pac:

I like it though. Both reminiscent of "A toast to the host who can boast the most roast!"

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus titty-****ing Christ are you serious? I said unemployment is where it was when he came in and you tried to argue it was lower and you can't admit you're wrong, you have to argue against something I never ****ing said.
For people who want to hear "unemployment is higher than when Obama took power" that's what they'll hear and it happens to be true. Those who want to hear about the mess he inherited and how unemployment's been coming down will hear that. Those who want to hear that gas prices are more than double what they were when he took office will hear that, etc.

But please, continue arguing about statistics that I made no reference to. :rolleyes:

I did NOT say/argue that it was lower.
I said the unemployment rate dropped.
AGAIN, after a year of sorting out the mess from the previous republican bunch, he then consistently turned things around and the rate then dropped when he got to grips with the mess.
He didn't do it over night and a fool would only hold the inherited mess against him for the first year.

The fact that exports have now rocketed beyond all expectational hope, is a clear indication that the USA is finally starting to be on firm footing.
(And thats good for us hopefully!)

Corkfeen

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus titty-****ing Christ are you serious? I said unemployment is where it was when he came in and you tried to argue it was lower and you can't admit you're wrong, you have to argue against something I never ****ing said.
For people who want to hear "unemployment is higher than when Obama took power" that's what they'll hear and it happens to be true. Those who want to hear about the mess he inherited and how unemployment's been coming down will hear that. Those who want to hear that gas prices are more than double what they were when he took office will hear that, etc.

But please, continue arguing about statistics that I made no reference to. :rolleyes:

To be fair, by November it looks like the employment figures should have reached early 2009 levels. He was stuck with a massive mess of an economy which was inevitably going to take years to create any form of employment in.

Biggins

Back on main topic, I cannot see Mitt winning as President.
There is just too much against him, coming from various angles.

Obama won't have it easy at all - but unless he make a major cock-up or says something really offensive or some unknown lurid past might emerge, the election is his to lose.

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

O' and Buttonftw...

You might wan to take a look at USA exports too since January 2009 to present day: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports

Yea, Obama was bad for America! Is that what your espousing?

Most people don't give two ****s about what happens to products, they care about getting paid, and less are getting paid than when Obama was voted in.

Biggins wrote: »

I did NOT say/argue that it was lower.
I said the unemployment rate dropped.

No?

Deleted User wrote:

Unemployment is where it was when he came in and the deficit continues to grow.

Biggins wrote:

Actually if you were aware of the real true facts, unemployment dropped in numbers.

You're either wrong or arguing against something I didn't say.

AGAIN, after a year of sorting out the mess from the previous republican bunch, he then consistently turned things around and the rate then dropped when he got to grips with the mess.
He didn't do it over night and a fool would only hold the inherited mess against him for the first year.

The fact that exports have now rocketed beyond all expectational hope, is a clear indication that the USA is finally starting to be on firm footing.
(And thats good for us hopefully!)

If I used your method of underling or italicising or bolding or CAPITALISING or a combination of one or more of them you might get my point.
I really don't think you bothered to read my posts because I said "Obviously any right-thinking voter will be voting for Obama unless they have deep philosophical differences with him." and yet you're asking if I'm claiming that Obama has been bad for America.

Biggins

Staying on main topic and about asking about things...

Deleted User wrote: »

Most people don't give two ****s about what happens to products, they care about getting paid, and less are getting paid than when Obama was voted in.

I would espouse that they do care.
Fact is that exports have rocketed.
If I was a worker in a factory or in its office, I would care a great deal about how the sales of my employers business is doing, very much so.
After all, those sales numbers decided if I have a job in a week or a month!

The general public I find do care about how businesses are doing generally.
It has a further effect on consumer confidence, loans, interest rates, and many other aspects of general life - and while the public don't know the inner details often, they know it generally does have a knock on effect. Thus many do keep an eye on such things.

To repeat, the election is Obama's to lose.

Mitt is an out of date, out of touch fool.
I seriously can't see him win unless he pulls a rabbit out of a hat - or a lot of them!
(And it won't be a gay one!)

Biggins

Biggins wrote: »

Staying on main topic and about asking about things...


I would espouse that they do care.
Fact is that exports have rocketed.
If I was a worker in a factory or in its office, I would care a great deal about how the sales of my employers business is doing, very much so.
After all, those sales numbers decided if I have a job in a week or a month!

To repeat, the election is Obama's to lose.

Mitt is an out of date, out of touch fool.
I seriously can't see him win unless he pulls a rabbit out of a hat - or a lot of them!

Still won't admit you were wrong or arguing against something I didn't say, good to know.

If you're working in a factory you won't care where the products end up, whether it's America or elsewhere. While exports are a key economic indicator it doesn't have the same it doesn't have the same power as unemployment figures, double-digit percentage increases in national debt or the doubling of gas prices.
Shows how poor a candidate Romney is really.

Biggins

Deleted User wrote: »

Still won't admit you were wrong or arguing against something I didn't say, good to know.

He said/she said crap will just annoy both of us and get nowhere.
If I say your all right and I'm wrong, hopefully we can move on...

Deleted User wrote: »

If you're working in a factory you won't care where the products end up, whether it's America or elsewhere.

Nor would I generally.
I would just care that they are selling and that includes export sales.

Deleted User wrote: »

While exports are a key economic indicator it doesn't have the same it doesn't have the same power as unemployment figures...

Debatable but not worth falling out over.

Deleted User wrote: »

Shows how poor a candidate Romney is really.

No argument there.

c_man

Really love these threads with all the Obama love. Ye were all anti-Bush a few years ago right? Ha.

aligator_am

c_man wrote: »

Really love these threads with all the Obama love. Ye were all anti-Bush a few years ago right? Ha.

I'll admit that Obama inherited a basket case economy, unfortunately for him, he swore a hole in a pot that he'd fix it quick sharp...

I really do find it astonishing that Bush ran on a platform of "no nation building" holy horsing jaysus, could he have been more wrong?

I follow the news on Ron Paul as I find him an interesting dude, this whole malarky with delegates too me really puzzles me.

Basically, it seems that a potential presidential nominee can win the popular vote by a massive margin, however, the people who actually count (the delegates) can vote completely against that, so what in the flying fook was the point in having the first election???

Biggins

c_man wrote: »

Really love these threads with all the Obama love. Ye were all anti-Bush a few years ago right? Ha.

You mean the previous Republican(s) before Democrat Obama?

Yea, a lot of us were - who could blame us!

Giselle

He never apologised for assaulting the guy. He even claimed he had no memory of the incident.

He said he was sorry 'if anyone was offended'. A non event of an apology, not even the equivalent of a 'my bad'.

If he can successfully evade taking responsibility for a hate crime he committed, he's going to make a stellar president.

Biggins

Giselle wrote: »

...If he can successfully evade taking responsibility for a hate crime he committed, he's going to make a stellar president.

Sounds like previous typical Republican presidents - and look where that got the world, not just America then!

RichieC

Deleted User wrote: »

Where it was when he came in. Or are you arguing something else?

Unfortunately popular opinion plays a bit of a role in elections.

An election Obama will win handily.

And do your own research. I'm not here to make political statements for scum like the republican party.

Eoin

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah it was really brave of Obama to say something that pretty much his entire support agrees with anyway.

He actually has some quite conservative supporters (e.g. the christian black and hispanic communities) who don't support gay marriage, so it wasn't that obvious for him to come out and say it.

A few pundits out there were pretty sure that he would continue to be quite vague until after the election.

AgileMyth

Hmm so he pinned a man down gave him a haircut?

All sounds a bit gay to be honest.

Eoin

Eoin wrote: »

He actually has some quite conservative supporters (e.g. the christian black and hispanic communities) who don't support gay marriage, so it wasn't that obvious for him to come out and say it.

A few pundits out there were pretty sure that he would continue to be quite vague until after the election.

Guarantee he won't go below 90% of the black vote and the Republican's constant anti-aliens targetting will keep the Hispanic vote for him. He risked nothing.

AngeGal

Deleted User wrote: »

Guarantee he won't go below 90% of the black vote and the Republican's constant anti-aliens targetting will keep the Hispanic vote for him. He risked nothing.

By the same logic, he was guaranteed to get pretty much the entire gay vote anyway so he didn't have much to gain. Recent opinion polls still have the gay marriage issue at about 50-50, elections aren't won by the left or the right, the battle is for the centre. I don't think it was a huge risk but it was certainly a risk.

Wompa1

This should be in unpopular opinions.

Obama is attending a campaign fundraiser in George Clooneys house tonight in LA. It costs 40k a plate to attend. There was uproar when Clinton made a couple of appearances on tv, same with former Governer of Minnesota Jesse Ventura. For some reason Obama gets a pass. I do get to vote in the election and would still vote for Obama but the more and more of this crap he does the more it makes me inclined to just not vote at all. I don't like or trust Romney either.

The only real bad thing that this story about him does in my eyes is yet again highlight gay kids being bullied. Every bullying news story here for the last while has played the gay card....if you put so much focus on bullying because of sexuality it's like ignoring the other kids getting bullied. Somebody stated 1 in 25 Americans are gay. I bet more than that get bullied in schools. I honestly doubt many kids get bullied because of their sexuality. I got crap for being America, being short, liking wrestling etc. The bullying is wrong message should be all bullying without focus on any orientation, race, religion etc.

In terms of his presidency. It has been a disappointment. He didn't make good on many of his campaign promises, he has spent much of his first few years trying to increase his own celebrity and pandering to other nations. I think the Clinton Administration has a lot to answer for on the whole economic downturn in America and Bush is an easy target. The wars cost a fortune but they also generate some money which doesn't justify them at all...Bush's subsidies to banks may have been crucial, he also invested the most of any president in history towards Aids research. Mind you I wouldn't be voting for him again if he was running either.

I really hope Obama will let loose more if he gets a second term since he'll have his pay cheque guaranteed for another few years..but I doubt his sincerity on anything. Him coming out saying his views on gay marriage have changed is an empty statement but it will get him youth voters, gay voters and most minority votes. He's playing politics knowing he won't be able to change a damn thing

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

This should be in unpopular opinions.

Obama is attending a campaign fundraiser in George Clooneys house tonight in LA. It costs 40k a plate to attend. There was uproar when Clinton made a couple of appearances on tv, same with former Governer of Minnesota Jesse Ventura. For some reason Obama gets a pass. I do get to vote in the election and would still vote for Obama but the more and more of this crap he does the more it makes me inclined to just not vote at all. I don't like or trust Romney either.

The only real bad thing that this story about him does in my eyes is yet again highlight gay kids being bullied. Every bullying news story here for the last while has played the gay card....if you put so much focus on bullying because of sexuality it's like ignoring the other kids getting bullied. Somebody stated 1 in 25 Americans are gay. I bet more than that get bullied in schools. I honestly doubt many kids get bullied because of their sexuality. I got crap for being America, being short, liking wrestling etc. The bullying is wrong message should be all bullying without focus on any orientation, race, religion etc.

In terms of his presidency. It has been a disappointment. He didn't make good on many of his campaign promises, he has spent much of his first few years trying to increase his own celebrity and pandering to other nations. I think the Clinton Administration has a lot to answer for on the whole economic downturn in America and Bush is an easy target. The wars cost a fortune but they also generate some money which doesn't justify them at all...Bush's subsidies to banks may have been crucial, he also invested the most of any president in history towards Aids research. Mind you I wouldn't be voting for him again if he was running either.

I really hope Obama will let loose more if he gets a second term since he'll have his pay cheque guaranteed for another few years..but I doubt his sincerity on anything. Him coming out saying his views on gay marriage have changed is an empty statement but it will get him youth voters, gay voters and most minority votes. He's playing politics knowing he won't be able to change a damn thing

To be fair, your have many valid points which could be debated over.

In defence of Obama, I would says that he no more trying to increase his celeb status than any other before him, including once golden boy Kennedy.
Show me a politician that doesn't try courting various aspects of the media and people that are popular in it at any one time and we might be looking at a person that might not get elected again.
He was obviously not that busy with celebs to take care of a good few things.
While he still has A LOT more to do to be sure, at least as far as I can make out, despite many attempts of hampering him by the Republicans, he's made some progress in getting the States back on track.
...And after the mess of the two previous republicans had made, that sure is not easy.

If a Republican gets back in as like Mitt, god help America once again.

Wompa1

Biggins wrote: »

To be fair, your have many valid points which could be debated over.

In defence of Obama, I would says that he no more trying to increase his celeb status than any other before him, including once golden boy Kennedy.
Show me a politician that doesn't try courting various aspects of the media and people that are popular in it at any one time and we might be looking at a person that might not get elected again.
He was obviously not that busy with celebs to take care of a good few things.
While he still has A LOT more to do to be sure, at least as far as I can make out, despite many attempts of hampering him by the Republicans, he's made some progress in getting the States back on track.
...And after the mess of the two previous republicans had made, that sure is not easy.

If a Republican gets back in as like Mitt, god help America once again.

two previous Republicans??...Bush and Clinton?...Clinton should not get a free pass. I really like the guy but his regime should carry a lot of the blame. They dropped the ball in many ways

AskMyChocolate

Biggins wrote: »

Newsflash: "Student does something stupid."


I don't like Mitt Romney - but the American press digging up stuff he did as a student, maybe trying to effect his chances in Oval office?
Naaa... such antics would not make me vote away from him IF I did even consider him.

ALL students do stupid stuff. Me included.

That said, Romney is a out of date idiot.

What's with the "out of date" qualifying remark Biggins?:p:pac:

Biggins

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

What's with the "out of date" qualifying remark Biggins?:p:pac:

Mitts outlook and views belong to the dark ages of the past that were filled with ignorance in various real aspects of life.

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

two previous Republicans??...Bush and Clinton?...Clinton should not get a free pass. I really like the guy but his regime should carry a lot of the blame. They dropped the ball in many ways

Bush Senior and Junior.
What came in between (Clinton) I think was too busy in Oval office closet to keep his own eye on the ball.
(He had someone else keeping eyes on his apparently!)

Wompa1

Biggins wrote: »

Bush Senior and Junior.
What came in between (Clinton) I think was too busy in Oval office closet to keep his own eye on the ball.
(He had someone else keeping eyes on his apparently!)

Clinton had something neither of the Bush's got and not because of his actions either. He got the .com Boom. In my opinion it was completely squandered. Technology didn't regress so much but it slowed down hugely until about 5 years ago when it picked up again. Things could have been regulated a bit better with more incentives to keep jobs in America also..

Atlantis50

If we're looking back at what candidates did 45 years ago in school, then I guess this story about Obama bullying a girl in middleschool is OK:

http://thetalkofthetimes.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/obama-bullied-a-girl/

Biggins

Wompa1 wrote: »

Clinton had something neither of the Bush's got and not because of his actions either. He got the .com Boom. In my opinion it was completely squandered. Technology didn't regress so much but it slowed down hugely until about 5 years ago when it picked up again. Things could have been regulated a bit better with more incentives to keep jobs in America also..

No argument from me.
He dropped the ball in a lot of ways.
(...And no puns intended this time)

Biggins

Atlantis50 wrote: »

If we're looking back at what candidates did 45 years ago in school, then I guess this story about Obama bullying a girl in middleschool is OK:

http://thetalkofthetimes.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/obama-bullied-a-girl/

Thats one quality site! :pac:

Obama Eats Tiger Meat

Meaowwwww! :pac:

Atlantis50

Biggins wrote: »

Thats one quality site! :pac:

It's a story Obama tells in his autobiography, the exerpt which is on that website.

That would be the same autobiography where Obama also admits snorting coke, boozing etc.

Biggins

Atlantis50 wrote: »

It's a story Obama tells in his autobiography, the exerpt which is on that website.

That would be the same autobiography where Obama also admits snorting coke, boozing etc.

Shocking.
Obama had the nerve to tell the truth about something in his autobiography, publish it all to the world admitting what he did - and then someone sets up a site to guess what, expose Obama for what he says he did his his widely available book!

Wow! Obama must be having sleepless nights! :pac:

Eoin

Biggins wrote: »

Shocking.
Obama had the nerve to tell the truth about something in his autobiography, publish it all to the world admitting what he did - and then someone sets up a site to guess what, expose Obama for what he says he did his his widely available book!

Wow! Obama must be having sleepless nights! :pac:

You just wait for the fireworks when they expose that he's black.

Atlantis50

Biggins wrote: »

Shocking.
Obama had the nerve to tell the truth about something in his autobiography, publish it all to the world admitting what he did - and then someone sets up a site to guess what, expose Obama for what he says he did his his widely available book!

Wow! Obama must be having sleepless nights! :pac:

Ah, so you don't really care about Obama's past, just Mitt Romney's.

If you looked at the website I linked to, it is obvious based on other stories in the sidebar that it was not solely set up to 'expose Obama for what he say in his...book'.

Why do you support Obama by the way?

Pedant

How much did the US national debt rise since Obama was in office? Do you know, since November(ish) last the debt has risen from $14 trillion to $15 trillion alone. I don't think Romney will solve it, the US needs Ron Paul to cut cut cut.