Reality Check for Obama Supporters

[thegreekdog]

I don't know what climbdown means.

I suspect, although this can't be proven, that the poll options are tongue-in-cheek and are meant for Obama supporters (I'm not an Obama supporter, so I did not respond to the poll). Frankly, I suspect the president (and most members of Congress) are looking to increase U.S. power in the Middle East through intervention. I suspect this because I have not heard the president or any members of Congress indicate that this is the reason; rather, I've had various things centered around "it's the right thing to do for the Syrian people" when a few hundred miles south, the people of the Sudan are suffering in worse ways.

And most of President Obama's supporters in the previous two elections (e.g. Frigidus) were ardently anti-war and anti-intervention in foreign conflicts. Those items largely influenced voting (especially in the 2008 presidential election). So, presumably (and again, I can't prove this because I'm not BBS), the question is whether the president's supporters are still as supportive or whether they are upset by the president's attempt to be Bush III (other than giving tax breaks and other benefits to big business).

I suppose, if he wanted to be consistent, BBS could form another poll asking whether the president's detractors (e.g. Night Strike and Phatscottty) are now supportive of the president in his quest for Middle East domination.

How do you feel knowing that your president is as aggressive as Bush 2.0?

You're American, your president is Obama. I feel like we've had a climbdown from the topic title, and the poll that heads every page, to a more rational discussion. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable in seeing that as so.

Like I wrote, I think he's being tongue-in-cheek with the climbup (?) of the poll question. I'm all for rational discussion!

[Symmetry]

I don't know what climbdown means.

I suspect, although this can't be proven, that the poll options are tongue-in-cheek and are meant for Obama supporters (I'm not an Obama supporter, so I did not respond to the poll). Frankly, I suspect the president (and most members of Congress) are looking to increase U.S. power in the Middle East through intervention. I suspect this because I have not heard the president or any members of Congress indicate that this is the reason; rather, I've had various things centered around "it's the right thing to do for the Syrian people" when a few hundred miles south, the people of the Sudan are suffering in worse ways.

And most of President Obama's supporters in the previous two elections (e.g. Frigidus) were ardently anti-war and anti-intervention in foreign conflicts. Those items largely influenced voting (especially in the 2008 presidential election). So, presumably (and again, I can't prove this because I'm not BBS), the question is whether the president's supporters are still as supportive or whether they are upset by the president's attempt to be Bush III (other than giving tax breaks and other benefits to big business).

I suppose, if he wanted to be consistent, BBS could form another poll asking whether the president's detractors (e.g. Night Strike and Phatscottty) are now supportive of the president in his quest for Middle East domination.

How do you feel knowing that your president is as aggressive as Bush 2.0?

You're American, your president is Obama. I feel like we've had a climbdown from the topic title, and the poll that heads every page, to a more rational discussion. I don't think that I'm being unreasonable in seeing that as so.

Like I wrote, I think he's being tongue-in-cheek with the climbup (?) of the poll question. I'm all for rational discussion!

Glad we're on the same page, even if it is one with a "climbup" poll and title.

[Phatscotty]

[Symmetry]

At least someone is on the page of the Title and OP still.

[Phatscotty]

I suppose, if he wanted to be consistent, BBS could form another poll asking whether the president's detractors (e.g. Night Strike and Phatscottty) are now supportive of the president in his quest for Middle East domination.

The guy with the Dennis Kucinich avatar says at least 1 of those 2 are self explanatory. In fact, your question doesn't even makes sense.

Why would I support Obama in his quest for Middle East domination? Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

[oVo]

Ha Ha! I get it. This is funny because the majority of Americans
now work at fast food outlets across the USA, right?

[Phatscotty]

Ha Ha! I get it. This is funny because the majority of Americans
now work at fast food outlets across the USA, right?

because the economy is so good....yuh

[Symmetry]

Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters. Neither would Ron Paul, given his newsletters. Would you have donated to Ron Paul if you'd seen the stuff he was promoting? How do you think he's changed?

[oVo]

We are not yet where we need to be.

[Phatscotty]

Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters.

Oh yeah? How many Ron Paul supporters do you know?

[Symmetry]

Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters.

How many do you know?

All of them, how many do you know?

Now we're off the ridiculous questions, what's your take on Ron Paul looking for support with his virulently racist and homophobic newsletters? Was he speaking to you? Or do you feel annoyed that he saw his base as lying among such folk?

[Phatscotty]

Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters.

How many do you know?

All of them, how many do you know?

hmm, all of them? Are there a lot of Ron Paul meet ups in London, mate? I've worked for Ron Paul (a few supporters there SYMM!), I've been to at least a dozen Ron Paul meet ups, a handful of Tea Party gatherings, and every caucus in my state since I have been able to vote.

I think you are completely full of shit

[Symmetry]

Is it because, as you understand it, that would jive with Ron Paul supporters???

I wouldn't put much past Ron Paul supporters.

How many do you know?

All of them, how many do you know?

hmm, all of them? Are there a lot of Ron Paul meet ups in London, mate?l

Sure, dude, and I meet them all. Every. Single. One. There are no Ron Paul supporters I haven't met.

Now, back to reality, and the questions you deleted as too uncomfortable to answer.

Now we're off the ridiculous questions, what's your take on Ron Paul looking for support with his virulently racist and homophobic newsletters? Was he speaking to you? Or do you feel annoyed that he saw his base as lying among such folk?

I'll add one more, what made it so difficult for you to answer the first time?

[Phatscotty]

I'll add one more, what made it so difficult for you to answer the first time?

The fact that you are lying, racebaiting, and trolling...and in general you don't have a clue what you are talking about, which means that you are a joke with zero credibility and I don't take you seriously at all.

It's not difficult to answer at all; it's just a waste of time. Because you already know what the answer is, because we have had this conversation a few times before, which means you are trolling and just trying to submit a deliberately provocative posting to an online message board with the aim of inciting an angry response.

You couldn't troll me before, why would you think you can troll me now? Get some new troll moves.