Will Obama get another term?

http://www.mmamania.com/2011/6/13/2222185/ufc-quick-quote-chuck-norris-calls-for-political-jiu-jitsu-to-stop

Quote :

"The art of Jiu-Jitsu is to use an opponent's weight and strength to
your advantage. I believe this is what the conservatives must do in the
coming 2012 presidential election. Obama's 'weight and strength' is
that by next year he will have a surplus of $1 billion in campaign money
and the mainstream media supporting him. He also has ACORN (or whatever
they call themselves now) and other community organizers rallying the
liberal troops to make sure he gets re-elected. Add to that his
slick-willy youth charm and pseudo-charisma with which he has bamboozled
a large part of the American public, who neither follow politics nor
understand how he has unraveled the very fabrics of our republic. And
tailor that with Obama's unique ability to make one believe he means
what he says from a teleprompter, and you have a formidable foe. But as Rickson Gracie,
retired mixed martial artist, an eighth-degree black and red belt in
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, and a member of the renowned martial arts family –
the Gracie family, once said, 'If size mattered, the elephant would be
the king of the jungle.' How true that is. But it's also true that the
elephant here (Obama), despite the shape of the economy, is still
leading every single Republican presidential candidate by double-digit
margins. A brand new Reuters/Ipsos poll reveals that Obama is even
'ahead of his closest Republican rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt
Romney, by 13 percentage points – 51 percent to 38 percent.' To be
effective, the conservative organizations, independents, libertarians,
Republicans, tea partiers, and other grass-root groups across our
country must make the people aware that it is time we unite as one voice
and, if you will, one Jiu-Jitsu force. And that includes the Republican
candidates running for president. If they don't, we will proceed
through the presidential primary with politics as usual and get
swallowed up in the partisan muck and mire."

Farmer1906 wrote:

LA wrote:

Compared to our last President in terms of true intelligence, but in general, I mean smart sure, but we'll see how much so in the long run.

You sure about that?

Bush went to Yale and got his MBA from Harvard. He started a few fairly successful businesses and later was part owner of the Texas Rangers.

cough cough succesful businesses, you mean insider stock trading?

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm#insider

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1522891

On June 22nd 1990 Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harkens stock for $848,560. It turns out Harken's second quarter losses were 23 million dollars. It was at this point that the SEC decided to investigate Bush for insider trading. However Bush declined to hand over any documents citing Attorney Client privilege. August 21st 1991 the SEC decided not to charge Bush with insider trading.

It turns out that the Chairman of the SEC, Richard Breedon, was a former lawyer from James Baker's law firm Baker-Botts, and had been nominated by Bush's Father, the President at the time, to the post as head of the SEC. (124) James Baker was Bush's father's Secretary of State. Furthermore the SEC's general counsel, James Doty also belonged to James Baker's lawfirm. Doty later recused himself. Doty also represented Bush when he tried to buy the Texas Rangers Baseball team. Bush's lawyer Robert Jordan was law partners with Doty and Breedon in the Baker-Botts lawfirm. Bush later appointed him to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

http://www.oocities.org/s011023/Arbusto_Harken_BCCI.html

succesful business man? realize we had a surplus, its not surprising that our economy went into the shitter when we got a person with nothing but shady dealings in the white house. Somehow he and Cheney made millions while the country went into the shitter. Hhhmmm where have I seen this happen before? Oh thats right he already did it in the 80s

1. President George W. Bush did indeed have material non-public knowledge of adverse financial conditions at Harken Energy Co. prior to the sale of his Harken stock and therefore violated 15 U.S.C. § 78u-1 , insider trading of securities based upon material non-public information.

2. The Securities and Exchange Commission was indeed aware of Bush�s insider trading violation and chose to stand down.

3. While serving on the Board of Directors at Harken Energy Company, George W. Bush�s performance, motives and ethics were no different than those of the corporate executives and officers of Enron, Worldcom or any other national corporation being criticized by Bush for doing what he did.

4. The Aloha Petroleum sale was an act of fraud and Bush was in a position to know it and prevent it.

5. George W. Bush sought business dealings with people strongly connected to and involved with BCCI, the empire of fraud and crime


http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/bush_harken.html

Farmer1906 wrote:

LA wrote:

Compared to our last President in terms of true intelligence, but in general, I mean smart sure, but we'll see how much so in the long run.

You sure about that?

Bush went to Yale and got his MBA from Harvard. He started a few fairly successful businesses and later was part owner of the Texas Rangers.

Im rolling with Jay Bulworth

What we need is a real conservative in office; a constitutionalist. Bush was not a conservative, just a Republican. Thats the problem with the Republican party... too many fake conservatives. As for blaming Bush for the economy...anyone who places sole responsibility on Bush for the recession clearly does not know or understand all the contributing factors going back to Clinton and Janet Reno. So let me get this straight though....Statists will blame Bush's tax policies and the two wars for the economy (showing a clear misunderstanding or lack thereof of the housing bubble's contribution, the Community Reinvestment Act's contribution, etc), while Obama resigned the Bush tax cuts, is involved in the same two wars Bush got into, plus two more, yet when he does it, its the right thing to do and will pull us from the brink? All this while Obama's administration is pushing the individual mandate on Obamacare and fighting it out in court. The problem with the left is that they vote on things they think are the right thing to do at the moment, with no thought into the political consequences. If a court rules the individual mandate as constituational (essentially stating that the government has the power to force private citizens into private contracts with private companies under the penalities of law and that the government can force private citizens to buy certain goods in the name of effecting health care costs for the nation), then the precedent is set for the government to force people into anything, including forcing people to buy and eat certain foods, drinks, etc. This election is about freedom vs. statism.

jimbojones1950 wrote:

What we need is a real conservative in office; a constitutionalist. Bush was not a conservative, just a Republican. Thats the problem with the Republican party... too many fake conservatives. As for blaming Bush for the economy...anyone who places sole responsibility on Bush for the recession clearly does not know or understand all the contributing factors going back to Clinton and Janet Reno. So let me get this straight though....Statists will blame Bush's tax policies and the two wars for the economy (showing a clear misunderstanding or lack thereof of the housing bubble's contribution, the Community Reinvestment Act's contribution, etc), while Obama resigned the Bush tax cuts, is involved in the same two wars Bush got into, plus two more, yet when he does it, its the right thing to do and will pull us from the brink? All this while Obama's administration is pushing the individual mandate on Obamacare and fighting it out in court. The problem with the left is that they vote on things they think are the right thing to do at the moment, with no thought into the political consequences. If a court rules the individual mandate as constituational (essentially stating that the government has the power to force private citizens into private contracts with private companies under the penalities of law and that the government can force private citizens to buy certain goods in the name of effecting health care costs for the nation), then the precedent is set for the government to force people into anything, including forcing people to buy and eat certain foods, drinks, etc. This election is about freedom vs. statism.

so would you agree that Reagan wouldnt be a true conservative to you then n this era? Bail outs, raised taxes, pulled troops out after the barracks bombing.

????

Birdofthad wrote:

jimbojones1950 wrote:

What we need is a real conservative in office; a constitutionalist. Bush was not a conservative, just a Republican. Thats the problem with the Republican party... too many fake conservatives. As for blaming Bush for the economy...anyone who places sole responsibility on Bush for the recession clearly does not know or understand all the contributing factors going back to Clinton and Janet Reno. So let me get this straight though....Statists will blame Bush's tax policies and the two wars for the economy (showing a clear misunderstanding or lack thereof of the housing bubble's contribution, the Community Reinvestment Act's contribution, etc), while Obama resigned the Bush tax cuts, is involved in the same two wars Bush got into, plus two more, yet when he does it, its the right thing to do and will pull us from the brink? All this while Obama's administration is pushing the individual mandate on Obamacare and fighting it out in court. The problem with the left is that they vote on things they think are the right thing to do at the moment, with no thought into the political consequences. If a court rules the individual mandate as constituational (essentially stating that the government has the power to force private citizens into private contracts with private companies under the penalities of law and that the government can force private citizens to buy certain goods in the name of effecting health care costs for the nation), then the precedent is set for the government to force people into anything, including forcing people to buy and eat certain foods, drinks, etc. This election is about freedom vs. statism.

so would you agree that Reagan wouldnt be a true conservative to you then n this era? Bail outs, raised taxes, pulled troops out after the barracks bombing.

????

Your characterizations are a bit simplified and muddled. I do consider Reagan a conservative, but I'm not going to write a detailed explanation as to why (at work). Well, maybe I'll give you a mini explanation....The two bills passed in 1982 and 1984 didn't raise more revenue by hiking individual income tax rates. Instead they did it largely through making it tougher to evade taxes, and through "base broadening" -- that is, reducing various federal tax breaks and closing tax loopholes. For instance, more asset sales became taxable and tax-advantaged contributions and benefits under pension plans were further limited. He drastically reduced income tax rates from 70% in the highest bracket to 28%. Soon after taking office in 1981, Reagan signed into law one of the largest tax cuts in the postwar period. That legislation -- phased in over three years -- pushed through a 23% across-the-board cut of individual income tax rates. It also called for tax brackets, the standard deduction and personal exemptions to be adjusted for inflation starting in 1984. That would reduce "bracket creep" since the high inflation of the 1970s and early 1980s meant incomes rose very fast, pushing taxpayers into ever higher brackets even though the real value of their income hadn't changed. Among other reasons, Reagan was a conservative in my opinion and there are many more reasons to support that.

It should also be noted that with every tax increase, Reagan was promised by Congress (controlled by the Dems, both the House and Senate) that they would cut spending, but never did. He made deals that the Dems didn't actually follow through on. The same circumstances were involved in his granting of amnesty, which was supposed to be followed by wide support for securing the boarder, which was also a promise that was not followed through on by Congress. The political game is one of give and take and Im not blind enough to think that a President can get everything he wants without negotiating with Congress in other areas, especially when the other party controls Congress.

let me guess Iran-Contra was really all the Democrats fault also haha

Birdofthad wrote:

let me guess Iran-Contra was really all the Democrats fault also haha

Not sure what you are implying by the whole "let me guess" stuff. I was just explaining historical record in my last post. Secondly, I'm not defending Iran-Contra, nor did I assert a position that was even remotely indicative of that. I find it humorous that you tried to paint Reagan as a non-conservative (which by what I've read from you, should make him one of your heroes....however he isn't, bc you know he was a conservative and your recitation of tired statist montra is just a poor effort to cast conservatives as hypocrits, but I digress) and then come back with individual events during his presidency that you found to be mistakes. Not sure what your argument is. Is it that Reagan was a secret statist or that he was a bad president. Either way, its not exactly on point with the initial premise of this thread.

sorry im just pointing out that most morons that act like Reagan should be on Mt. Rushmore dont even have the brains to know his real politics, you do and I respect ya for that, but the average tea party member doesnt know Reagan and Obama have more in common than Reagan and Bush, other than the moronic Trickle down theory

sorry Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher's politics have proven to be a failed ideology, time to start taxing the richest 3 percent that controls 97 percent of our economy. Middle class has proven they arent "lazy" the last 25 years.

Birdofthad wrote:

sorry im just pointing out that most morons that act like Reagan should be on Mt. Rushmore dont even have the brains to know his real politics, you do and I respect ya for that, but the average tea party member doesnt know Reagan and Obama have more in common than Reagan and Bush, other than the moronic Trickle down theory

sorry Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher's politics have proven to be a failed ideology, time to start taxing the richest 3 percent that controls 97 percent of our economy. Middle class has proven they arent "lazy" the last 25 years.

I disagree with essentially every premise of your above post. No sense in getting into this though. Simply a matter of Statism vs. Liberty.

Cu Bua wrote:

obama wins with his new slogan" it begins with us"

what the fuck was the last 4 yrs the birth of the begining? or did it not really count?

LOL.

Birdofthad wrote:

sorry im just pointing out that most morons that act like Reagan should be on Mt. Rushmore dont even have the brains to know his real politics, you do and I respect ya for that, but the average tea party member doesnt know Reagan and Obama have more in common than Reagan and Bush, other than the moronic Trickle down theory

sorry Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher's politics have proven to be a failed ideology, time to start taxing the richest 3 percent that controls 97 percent of our economy. Middle class has proven they arent "lazy" the last 25 years.

And neither does your post.

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagans believed the middle class and lower class was lazy from welfare and new deal programs, they gave the richest people in america big tax breaks and upped the taxes and middle and lower class.


Been going on for the last 25 years whenever a republican gets in office what happens to the economy?

Reagan and Thatcher ran on the basis that progressives were a fail ideology, I say their conservative trickle down theory is a falied one, how is that confusing/?

Not confusing, just incorrect and void of any consideration of the majority party in Congress during presidencies you are referring to. Just a difference of opinion. No worries.

Birdofthad wrote:

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagans believed the middle class and lower class was lazy from welfare and new deal programs, they gave the richest people in america big tax breaks and upped the taxes and middle and lower class.


Been going on for the last 25 years whenever a republican gets in office what happens to the economy?

Reagan and Thatcher ran on the basis that progressives were a fail ideology, I say their conservative trickle down theory is a falied one, how is that confusing/?

bird one could argue that every socialist based program has proven to fail aswell.

Cu Bua wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagans believed the middle class and lower class was lazy from welfare and new deal programs, they gave the richest people in america big tax breaks and upped the taxes and middle and lower class.


Been going on for the last 25 years whenever a republican gets in office what happens to the economy?

Reagan and Thatcher ran on the basis that progressives were a fail ideology, I say their conservative trickle down theory is a falied one, how is that confusing/?

bird one could argue that every socialist based program has proven to fail aswell.

so massive building projects like building the Hoover Damn failed? Civil Rights Act failed? gotta disagree

welfare, social security,public schools.. cmon bird

Ron Paul is the answer we are looking for!

Cu Bua wrote:

welfare, social security,public schools.. cmon bird