51% Don't Want Second Term For President Obama

[First]

Thanks for proving my point. Any republican beats obama, it's at the bottom.

Which one? Yeah, that's what I thought. At the lowest point in his presidency (something that is only going to get better in the most likely scenario), not a single candidate can consistently beat him.

Better pay up that $500 next November.

 

[fskimospy]

doesn't look like the "invitees" showed up. More empty seats then attendees. Even the ecoKOOKS are distancing from "the obama".

What are you basing that on? Do you have any idea who was invited, when the picture was taken, etc? Of course you don't.

Look, you tried to post a really dishonest picture and you got busted. End of story.

 

[spidey07]

Which one? Yeah, that's what I thought. At the lowest point in his presidency (something that is only going to get better in the most likely scenario), not a single candidate can consistently beat him.

Better pay up that $500 next November.

And I'll point out the folks who want him out are way more motivated than the minority that wants him to have another term. That is why he will lose, that is why he cannot win. I mean it's still over a year away and republicans are counting down the day, looking forward to an election to rid a president like we haven't seen since Carter.

 

[First]

And I'll point out the folks who want him out are way more motivated than the minority that wants him to have another term. That is why he will lose, that is why he cannot win. I mean it's still over a year away and republicans are counting down the day, looking forward to an election to rid a president like we haven't seen since Carter.

lmao.

 

[zinfamous]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoo.htm

a picture is worth a thousand words.

lol.

this makes sense though--the right wants to eliminate education. You see the results right here, gentlemen.

 

[zinfamous]

doesn't look like the "invitees" showed up. More empty seats then attendees. Even the ecoKOOKS are distancing from "the obama".

You've got one thing right: Obama has been a disaster for the environment.

Fuck--you should be worshiping at his pillar, as he's been so friendly to your "I give a rat's dick about the planet" mentality.

 

[Ausm]

You've got one thing right: Obama has been a disaster for the environment.

Fuck--you should be worshiping at his pillar, as he's been so friendly to your "I give a rat's dick about the planet" mentality.

That's what strikes me funny about the Rabid Right Wingers in here they don't realize how far right Obama is...

 

[zinfamous]

That's what strikes me funny about the Rabid Right Wingers in here they don't realize how far right Obama is...

he also hates pot and has seriously ramped up the War on Drugs.

basically, the two things that IGBT loathes--the environment and "dopers."

I'm surprised he isn't campaigning for Obama, being the single-issue type voter that most of these people are.

 

[werepossum]

doesn't look like the "invitees" showed up. More empty seats then attendees. Even the ecoKOOKS are distancing from "the obama".

No no no, you've got it all wrong. Obama intentionally rented a huge arena and then invited very few people (all of whom happily showed up and forked out cash) for reasons that us non-Messiahs couldn't possibly understand. I suspect he's making a statement about Republican obstructionism or perhaps the evil of America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I've accepted that I'll never understand Him.

 

[fskimospy]

No no no, you've got it all wrong. Obama intentionally rented a huge arena and then invited very few people (all of whom happily showed up and forked out cash) for reasons that us non-Messiahs couldn't possibly understand. I suspect he's making a statement about Republican obstructionism or perhaps the evil of America for bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but I've accepted that I'll never understand Him.

He didn't rent a huge arena, he was speaking at a union hall and it was clearly an invitation only event to speak about union issues.

How could you possibly mistake the 2011 picture for a 'huge arena'? This is why you shouldn't pay attention to things you see coming from the Drudge Report.

 

[jstern01]

http://www.drudgereport.com/flashoo.htm

a picture is worth a thousand words.

Just so you are aware, that was an invitation only event. Every single individual paid upwards of $5000 or more to attend. It was not open to the public at large. Heck get the photo from John Morgan's home afterwards, it was probably no more than 20 people there.

 

[YoungGun21]

ProJo for all of 2011 and 2012: "Look at these polls and stats and numbers and percentages! Obama is guaranteed to lose!"

ProJo Dec 2012: "WHAT? Another term for Obama? This is IMPOSSIBLE!"

 

[werepossum]

He didn't rent a huge arena, he was speaking at a union hall and it was clearly an invitation only event to speak about union issues.

How could you possibly mistake the 2011 picture for a 'huge arena'? This is why you shouldn't pay attention to things you see coming from the Drudge Report.

Just so we're all clear - you actually think Obama's inability to fill a small arena rather than a large arena makes IGBT's point LESS valid?

'Cause I guarantee most people will think just the opposite - a small arena mostly empty indicates even less interest and support than a large arena mostly empty. This is even more stark considering that in 2008 it was Senator Obama whereas in 2011 it's President Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

Just so we're all clear - you actually think Obama's inability to fill a small arena rather than a large arena makes IGBT's point LESS valid?

'Cause I guarantee most people will think just the opposite - a small arena mostly empty indicates even less interest and support than a large arena mostly empty. This is even more stark considering that in 2008 it was Senator Obama whereas in 2011 it's President Obama.

It's not an arena, it was an invitation only event, the picture there is too blurry to show if Obama is even speaking, there's no context as to what point in the event it is (it could be when people are just starting to fill in), etc, etc, etc. I mean seriously, how dumb would people have to be to swallow this shit?

It was a blatantly dishonest attempt to compare a huge pre-election campaign rally with an invitation only event at an undetermined time. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to easily see why that's an incredibly stupid comparison.

 

[werepossum]

It's not an arena, it was an invitation only event, the picture there is too blurry to show if Obama is even speaking, there's no context as to what point in the event it is (it could be when people are just starting to fill in), etc, etc, etc. I mean seriously, how dumb would people have to be to swallow this shit?

It was a blatantly dishonest attempt to compare a huge pre-election campaign rally with an invitation only event at an undetermined time. Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to easily see why that's an incredibly stupid comparison.

You DO realize that "arena" refers to any place where events take place, correct? You know that when someone says "within the political arena" they are not literally referring to a huge stadium with "the political arena" engraved on the front, right? That when a building is dubbed "arena" it is in reference to the building's function, not necessarily its size?

Your other point is well taken; I can't tell if Obama is speaking in either photo. Nonetheless, it's undeniable that support for Obama is way, way down, even if we can't say with certainty that these two photographs accurately depict that fall.

 

[fskimospy]

You DO realize that "arena" refers to any place where events take place, correct? You know that when someone says "within the political arena" they are not literally referring to a huge stadium with "the political arena" engraved on the front, right? That when a building is dubbed "arena" it is in reference to the building's function, not necessarily its size?

Your other point is well taken; I can't tell if Obama is speaking in either photo. Nonetheless, it's undeniable that support for Obama is way, way down, even if we can't say with certainty that these two photographs accurately depict that fall.

Arena is not used in that way. If Obama had an event at my house, no reasonable person would describe it as an arena.

Obama's support and enthusiasm from people are currently down a great deal from September of 2008, I absolutely agree. With that in mind however, there are two important things to consider. First is that enthusiasm for a candidate is basically always a lot lower in non-election years than it is a few weeks before an election. You don't see any president filling stadiums in odd numbered years. Second, no matter what the actual level of support for Obama is right now as compared to 2008, that picture was quite dishonest in what it was trying to do. You could make that same photo comparison with any president, regardless of their popularity.

 

[werepossum]

Arena is not used in that way. If Obama had an event at my house, no reasonable person would describe it as an arena.

Obama's support and enthusiasm from people are currently down a great deal from September of 2008, I absolutely agree. With that in mind however, there are two important things to consider. First is that enthusiasm for a candidate is basically always a lot lower in non-election years than it is a few weeks before an election. You don't see any president filling stadiums in odd numbered years. Second, no matter what the actual level of support for Obama is right now as compared to 2008, that picture was quite dishonest in what it was trying to do. You could make that same photo comparison with any president, regardless of their popularity.

I'll agree to your first point. For your second, if we can't tell if the photos are of roughly equivalent cases, then we can't tell. That also means you can't logically assume that the intent was dishonest. As far as we know, the situation (Obama speaking, Obama speaking in an hour, etc.) may be exactly the same. You are right to insist we don't know if the situations are analogous (other than the obvious lack of correlation with the election calender), but by that same token we don't know they aren't, either. You'd have to KNOW they aren't, AND that the difference is to intentionally deceive, to say with certainty that the picture is intentionally dishonest. Assuming that the speaker situation is roughly analogous, using that picture to point out the difference between Presidential popularity right now versus at its height would be perfectly legitimate, with the provision that some difference would be expected for any President.

 

[Carmen813]

Obama will get his ass handed to him in a debate, no teleprompter. Unelectable president is a failure and unelectable. Obama's so desperate now he's trying to put all the blame on congress when he had complete control of it for 2+ years.

I remember hearing this during the first election, and he did just fine. It was McCain who looked like a wandering goofball.

 

[zinfamous]

You DO realize that "arena" refers to any place where events take place, correct? You know that when someone says "within the political arena" they are not literally referring to a huge stadium with "the political arena" engraved on the front, right? That when a building is dubbed "arena" it is in reference to the building's function, not necessarily its size?

Your other point is well taken; I can't tell if Obama is speaking in either photo. Nonetheless, it's undeniable that support for Obama is way, way down, even if we can't say with certainty that these two photographs accurately depict that fall.

this display...it is pathetic.

lol