Obama loses in 2014!

[parmenio]

In 2010 America was fed up with obama's spending. Thus, the people spoke and the Tea Party movement in a landslide victory gained control of the House.

Fast forward 2012. A weak Presidential candidate, a weak platform to engage minorities, corrupt elections in vital areas of the country, and, "voter burnout" contributed to four more years of obama.

It is apparent that most Americans are more than ever frustrated by this corrupt and inept White House. They play with our lives only to keep them in power and force down our throats a socialist

agenda. But, this is where the marxists will fail again. In two years (2014) 33 of the 100 Senate seats will be up for grabs. 20 of those seats belong to Democrats. 11 of the 13 Republican seats belong to

conservatives who will most likely be reelected. The other two are moderates and stand a good chance of losing to conservatives. Only 10 Democrat seats will likely remain in Democrats hands with the

exception of Virginia and Massachusetts. The rest are up for grabs! I see another ground swell by the Tea Party. Enough is enough. As someone who follows politics closely and the growing

disenchatment against this administration for its spending, taxes, regulations, government control of health care, not to mention control of what we eat and drink as well as dictates to our morals, I see

another ground swell by the Tea Party..., I see and predict a landslide takeover of both Houses by the Republicans. Obama will become lame duck and the Republicans will have control! IMHO

[BobCoss]

I hope you are right about this but I think that the Republicans need to get off of some of their platform that keep a lot of women & minorities from voting for them & truly commit to less government & spending.

[dontlop]

i think another credit downgrade on obamas watch will do it ...

all ya got to do is type in red blue map 2012 .. and click onthe county map.. not national .. but "county"

you will see how red america is ...and why we control the house .. i see that map growing more and more red ..

they gave obama a chance to prove its bushs fault he cant fix the economy .. and if it proves to be to much for onbama to handle .. and he starts his campaign of executive orders .. pushing things through .. legislating from the oval office .. yes i would say the democrats are done..

he himself doesnt care .. hes retiring ..he doesnt care about democrat or republican .. he cares about the socialist republic of the united states .. that in my opinion is his goal . we will see

hes already merging corporatism with government with obama care which is fascism in my opinion

you cant force citizens simply because they are alive .. to buy goods or services from corporations or the govt. by athoritarian policies .. dictators end up like kadaffi eventually. or like saddam

[jeepguy]

hahhahaha pretty good ,,, i wonder if the 2 term deal was in your above plan ?

Edited December 2, 2012 by jeepguy

[dontlop]

in my world

right after obamas speech in december 2009 ..

where he said

"i will not rest till every american that wanted a job , had a job "

in my world i would of fired obama 3 days later when he arrived in hawahi on vacation

he would not of made it into his second year

[parmenio]

in my world

right after obamas speech in december 2009 ..

where he said

"i will not rest till every american that wanted a job , had a job "

in my world i would of fired obama 3 days later when he arrived in hawahi on vacation

he would not of made it into his second year

obama has lied to the American people SEVERAL times! All he wants is to grow government and and create socialism in a society that lives a different life style. He will fall one way or another. HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!

[willy1der]

This may be of interest. We just change the rules as we go.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-insurance-premiums-states/2012/12/01/id/466088?s=al&promo_code=10F29-1

[dontlop]

This may be of interest. We just change the rules as we go.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-insurance-premiums-states/2012/12/01/id/466088?s=al&promo_code=10F29-1

so now obama wants 3.5% more tax on top of all taxes .. just on one indudtry ,, the health care insurance industry .. not the health care industry ,, but the insurers .. .. and they say the costs will be added to insurance premiums ..

kinda like taxing the "rich" more .. like they wont be adding the extra costs onto consumers .. ..

obama raises taxes by taxing the industrys we all use .. then they pass those taxes to us .. and obama just says ,, he didnt raise taxes on us .. he raised them on the "rich"

those democrats who voted for him are not intelligent at all

[parmenio]

so now obama wants 3.5% more tax on top of all taxes .. just on one indudtry ,, the health care insurance industry .. not the health care industry ,, but the insurers .. .. and they say the costs will be added to insurance premiums ..

kinda like taxing the "rich" more .. like they wont be adding the extra costs onto consumers .. ..

obama raises taxes by taxing the industrys we all use .. then they pass those taxes to us .. and obama just says ,, he didnt raise taxes on us .. he raised them on the "rich"

those democrats who voted for him are not intelligent at all

...in fact the 'man in the street interviews' show they have NO clue on what they were voting for and why! Sad, REAL sad! It's the "give me..., give me" cult that the rest of us are feeding.

Again, I am NOT including those who are in REAL need of help!

[tigerstripes]

In 2010 America was fed up with obama's spending. Thus, the people spoke and the Tea Party movement in a landslide victory gained control of the House.

Fast forward 2012. A weak Presidential candidate, a weak platform to engage minorities, corrupt elections in vital areas of the country, and, "voter burnout" contributed to four more years of obama.

Weak Presidential Candidate - Probably. But was he the best they had to offer? If so, what does that say about the GOP?

Weak platform to engage minorities - I would say NO platform to engage minorities.

Corrupt elections - Sigh............evidence???????

Voter Burnout - Not sure about that. Less people voted in 2012 compared to 2008, so maybe burnout played a part. Maybe people just couldn't bring themselves to vote for either candidate. A lot of people on the left aren't happy with Obama, and there would have been a lot of people on the right who didn't like the direction that the Tea Party were taking the GOP. Aikin and Mourdock being two examples.

It is apparent that most Americans are more than ever frustrated by this corrupt and inept White House. They play with our lives only to keep them in power and force down our throats a socialist agenda. But, this is where the marxists will fail again.

Which is it?????

In two years (2014) 33 of the 100 Senate seats will be up for grabs. 20 of those seats belong to Democrats. 11 of the 13 Republican seats belong to

conservatives who will most likely be reelected. The other two are moderates and stand a good chance of losing to conservatives. Only 10 Democrat seats will likely remain in Democrats hands with the

exception of Virginia and Massachusetts. The rest are up for grabs! I see another ground swell by the Tea Party. Enough is enough. As someone who follows politics closely and the growing

disenchatment against this administration for its spending, taxes, regulations, government control of health care, not to mention control of what we eat and drink as well as dictates to our morals, I see

another ground swell by the Tea Party..., I see and predict a landslide takeover of both Houses by the Republicans. Obama will become lame duck and the Republicans will have control! IMHO

Maybe you're right, but if the 2012 results are an indication, I think the Tea Party may need to review if they are to improve in 2014.

Again, the results of Aikin and Mourdock would indicate that even in states where they would be expected to have the most support, some bat spit crazy ideas and beliefs that they have make them totally un-electable.

[dontlop]

its really not the kids fault ..

a long time ago women decided to get married and have kids ..after that they tried to sieze control over the man of the house as equals . a battle ensued ... a divorce was filed and they took what they could from the marriage .. and decided they would be single parents .... we see the results of single parenthood ..its not good

the kids werent smart enough to take on the loans they signed ..now they arent smart enough to get a job start a business to pay back their loans .. so they want to suck up like they did with mommy .. and have someone else pay there bills ..when that doesnt work i guess they will want a divorce . from capitolism and they will remarry socialism.. they will re divorce socialism after their debts are paid off by someone else ..

i surly dont think they have what it takes to pay back their debts .. typical demmocrats ..gimmee gimmee gimmee ..

with no father figure in most of the ignorants lives as they grew up .. they didnt witness the brute strength of manhood .. only womanhood.. so now they look for robinhood to solve their problems

face it they are ignorant and staying that way .. find your friends and dont associate with those lazy minded fools.. i personally have family members that are not welcome in my home .. we know who they are . send them packing.

its the only way they will learn to stand on their own two feet

[SnowGlobe7]

What does Obama think is "rich"?

[tigerstripes]

its really not the kids fault ..

a long time ago women decided to get married and have kids ..after that they tried to sieze control over the man of the house as equals .

Wow!!!!!!!!!

I wonder how the women on the forum are going to feel about that little gem?

What does Obama think is "rich"?

Well, the proposal is to extend the Bush tax cuts to everyone except those earning over $250,000.

And even those earning over $250,000 will still get the tax cut on the first $250,000 that they earn.

I'm not sure if that means that he thinks those earning over $250,000 are rich or not.

[parmenio]

Maybe you're right, but if the 2012 results are an indication, I think the Tea Party may need to review if they are to improve in 2014.

Again, the results of Aikin and Mourdock would indicate that even in states where they would be expected to have the most support, some bat spit crazy ideas and beliefs that they have make them totally un-electable.

Here again is a prime example, whether right or left, that these two were looking out for their best interest. An honest STATESMAN would have stepped aside and let someone else run for the good of the COUNTRY!

[dontlop]

theres only one solution .

you have to back up your own actions

you cant blaME OTHERS life is short .. do the best yu can .. but tell the truth

obama says he can fix all our problems ..just look at his camapign and debates 4 yearsago..............if he can...........he can ........if he cant he cant ........no problem .. step aside .... if you believe in this country dont lie/. either do it or get out

a true patriot will admit hes in over his head

a liar will continue his lies

[Rayzur]

Wow!!!!!!!!!

I wonder how the women on the forum are going to feel about that little gem?

I wondered as well. Honestly I was so taken aback, I reread it a few times. I wasn't exactly left speechless, as much as wtf.. really???? My first thought was ... maybe this is just being reductionistic so as to get to the point... but it was the foundation flow of the point... so then I thought, I wonder if he really believes this, or is just saying stuff to stir people ... okay, women, up and antoganize them into debate..... can't rule that one out yet (as an actual benefit of doubt, compliment to the alternative)... so then I went to, well unless the women are marrying each other and reproducing by way of parthenogensis, then the implication is that men don't want to get married, or want children or want neither... but are somehow forced?? ... and the purpose of the marriage is so that women can control men??? because... apparently that is a confirmed sport or goal... hell I don't know.. what is the purpose of that? At this point I am not sure if the woman is working in this scenario, as most households require two incomes to survive... so I have no idea what the equality battle is about.. is it equal pay, equal rights, equal.. what?? Not sure as I don't know that I have met any men who were tricked by their spouse into marriage and children and are subjected to control.

I did notice that there was an apparent decison (by both or just the controlling woman?) to thereafter be single parents... and find the rest of the story facinating in that it is the woman who apparently has to take the kids and remain responsbile for their rearing, as they have no strong male role modeling... Which leads me to question what happened to their father? Did he die? Or because he was somehow an unwilling "donor" does that mean he has likewise divorced his kids?? I'm not sure, but apparently the woman never re-marries, as there is no father figure, male presence, role modeling...

So I guess in conclusion I would agree its not the kid's fault if they are abandoned financially, emotionally, and physically by their father, indeed this would be a true loss of extremely valuable, necessary and even critical connection with their dad. .... It would be very disappointing that any parent would not move heaven and earth to be present for their children (I guess unless they have been divorced by their dad as well... but I can't tell if that's part of this storyline).

Children need their fathers as much as their mothers, and I hope every single dad out there, gets how truely critical and necessary is their participation in their child's lives (married or not to their mother). I can't imagine how much I would have missed in life were not for my incredibly loving and amazing dad... and I would hope no kid has live without knowing that...

Okay that was my take on it all....

Blessings to all ~~~

[tigerstripes]

I wondered as well. Honestly I was so taken aback, I reread it a few times. I wasn't exactly left speechless, as much as wtf.. really???? My first thought was ... maybe this is just being reductionistic so as to get to the point... but it was the foundation flow of the point... so then I thought, I wonder if he really believes this, or is just saying stuff to stir people ... okay, women, up and antoganize them into debate..... can't rule that one out yet (as an actual benefit of doubt, compliment to the alternative)... so then I went to, well unless the women are marrying each other and reproducing by way of parthenogensis, then the implication is that men don't want to get married, or want children or want neither... but are somehow forced?? ... and the purpose of the marriage is so that women can control men??? because... apparently that is a confirmed sport or goal... hell I don't know.. what is the purpose of that? At this point I am not sure if the woman is working in this scenario, as most households require two incomes to survive... so I have no idea what the equality battle is about.. is it equal pay, equal rights, equal.. what?? Not sure as I don't know that I have met any men who were tricked by their spouse into marriage and children and are subjected to control.

I did notice that there was an apparent decison (by both or just the controlling woman?) to thereafter be single parents... and find the rest of the story facinating in that it is the woman who apparently has to take the kids and remain responsbile for their rearing, as they have no strong male role modeling... Which leads me to question what happened to their father? Did he die? Or because he was somehow an unwilling "donor" does that mean he has likewise divorced his kids?? I'm not sure, but apparently the woman never re-marries, as there is no father figure, male presence, role modeling...

So I guess in conclusion I would agree its not the kid's fault if they are abandoned financially, emotionally, and physically by their father, indeed this would be a true loss of extremely valuable, necessary and even critical connection with their dad. .... It would be very disappointing that any parent would not move heaven and earth to be present for their children (I guess unless they have been divorced by their dad as well... but I can't tell if that's part of this storyline).

Children need their fathers as much as their mothers, and I hope every single dad out there, gets how truely critical and necessary is their participation in their child's lives (married or not to their mother). I can't imagine how much I would have missed in life were not for my incredibly loving and amazing dad... and I would hope no kid has live without knowing that...

Okay that was my take on it all....

Blessings to all ~~~

Great post Rayzur.

Edited December 3, 2012 by tigerstripes

[dontlop]

I wondered as well. Honestly I was so taken aback, I reread it a few times. I wasn't exactly left speechless, as much as wtf.. really???? My first thought was ... maybe this is just being reductionistic so as to get to the point... but it was the foundation flow of the point... so then I thought, I wonder if he really believes this, or is just saying stuff to stir people ... okay, women, up and antoganize them into debate..... can't rule that one out yet (as an actual benefit of doubt, compliment to the alternative)... so then I went to, well unless the women are marrying each other and reproducing by way of parthenogensis, then the implication is that men don't want to get married, or want children or want neither... but are somehow forced?? ... and the purpose of the marriage is so that women can control men??? because... apparently that is a confirmed sport or goal... hell I don't know.. what is the purpose of that? At this point I am not sure if the woman is working in this scenario, as most households require two incomes to survive... so I have no idea what the equality battle is about.. is it equal pay, equal rights, equal.. what?? Not sure as I don't know that I have met any men who were tricked by their spouse into marriage and children and are subjected to control.

I did notice that there was an apparent decison (by both or just the controlling woman?) to thereafter be single parents... and find the rest of the story facinating in that it is the woman who apparently has to take the kids and remain responsbile for their rearing, as they have no strong male role modeling... Which leads me to question what happened to their father? Did he die? Or because he was somehow an unwilling "donor" does that mean he has likewise divorced his kids?? I'm not sure, but apparently the woman never re-marries, as there is no father figure, male presence, role modeling...

So I guess in conclusion I would agree its not the kid's fault if they are abandoned financially, emotionally, and physically by their father, indeed this would be a true loss of extremely valuable, necessary and even critical connection with their dad. .... It would be very disappointing that any parent would not move heaven and earth to be present for their children (I guess unless they have been divorced by their dad as well... but I can't tell if that's part of this storyline).

Children need their fathers as much as their mothers, and I hope every single dad out there, gets how truely critical and necessary is their participation in their child's lives (married or not to their mother). I can't imagine how much I would have missed in life were not for my incredibly loving and amazing dad... and I would hope no kid has live without knowing that...

Okay that was my take on it all....

Blessings to all ~~~

lame

Great post Rayzur.

lame

[tigerstripes]

lame

lame

Perhaps you would like to explain your comments then??????

[jg1]

I hope you are right about this but I think that the Republicans need to get off of some of their platform that keep a lot of women & minorities from voting for them & truly commit to less government & spending.

What part of the Republican platform is keeping a lot of women & minorities from voting. Not sure what you mean.

[dontlop]

im with jg1 ...

some people dont have a clue, ya cant explain your life away to these ignorant people ... they need tore down .. then rebuilt from the top down... right now they are missing a few nuts and bolts .. a few parts are missing .. they must of done alot of drugs .. and drank way to much alcohol.. or maybe they were born and raised ignorantly , their parents got together by alcohol.. some drunkin episode .. and ....POOF!!!! another ignorant person to care for all their life.. and the democrats think thats my responsibility.. to care for lazy minded ignorant ,jacka butts.

[tigerstripes]

I hope you are right about this but I think that the Republicans need to get off of some of their platform that keep a lot of women & minorities from voting for them & truly commit to less government & spending.

What part of the Republican platform is keeping a lot of women & minorities from voting. Not sure what you mean.

I think that what BobCoss is saying is that there are aspects of the GOP platform that women and minorities don't like and therefore they don't vote for the GOP.

If you would like an example of how Republican policies are keeping people from voting - see Rick Scott in Florida reducing early voting days.

[jonjon]

im with jg1 ...

some people dont have a clue, ya cant explain your life away to these ignorant people ... they need tore down .. then rebuilt from the top down... right now they are missing a few nuts and bolts .. a few parts are missing .. they must of done alot of drugs .. and drank way to much alcohol.. or maybe they were born and raised ignorantly , their parents got together by alcohol.. some drunkin episode .. and ....POOF!!!! another ignorant person to care for all their life.. and the democrats think thats my responsibility.. to care for lazy minded ignorant ,jacka butts.

:twothumbs:/>

[r65]

im with jg1 ...

some people dont have a clue, ya cant explain your life away to these ignorant people ... they need tore down .. then rebuilt from the top down... right now they are missing a few nuts and bolts .. a few parts are missing .. they must of done alot of drugs .. and drank way to much alcohol.. or maybe they were born and raised ignorantly , their parents got together by alcohol.. some drunkin episode .. and ....POOF!!!! another ignorant person to care for all their life.. and the democrats think thats my responsibility.. to care for lazy minded ignorant ,jacka butts.

Actually, I doubt Democrats think about you at all. You see, anyone who doesn't know the difference between "must of" and the proper "must have" deserves no consideration beyond doing 4th grade again. And that is just one of today's exposures. Please refrain from judging another's mental shortcomings. The mirror works wonders. Some of you people are just so easy to laugh at but, alas, must be claimed as fellow countrymen. Sigh...

[parmenio]

"Maybe you're right, but if the 2012 results are an indication, I think the Tea Party may need to review if they are to improve in 2014."

REVIEW THEY MUST! BUT, THAT DOES"T MEAN WE ARE WRONG IN OUR IDEOLOGY VS THE MARXISTS. CONSERVATIVISM WILL COME ROARING BACK IN 2014 !

["Again, the results of Aikin and Mourdock would indicate that even in states where they would be expected to have the most support, some bat spit crazy ideas and beliefs that they have make them totally un-electable".[/color]

PERHAPS, BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE STEPPED ASIDE FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. THESE TWO PROVED TO BE SELF SERVING.

I say keep your eyes peeled! There will be more bad times than good times in the next two years. But, the American people are going to wake up! They are beginning to GET IT!

Edited December 4, 2012 by parmenio