Barack Obama Implies Re-Election Victory

Mar 26, 2012 Full story: TheStreet.com 1,470

At a meeting in Seoul, microphones picked up Obama's comment to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have "more flexibility" after the 2012 election to handle contentious policies such as missile defense , according to ABC News .

Full Story
Evidence

Santa Fe, NM

#1374 May 10, 2012
Cricket 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!!!
Pro-Romney super PAC maintains speed

During March, the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC raised $8.7 million and spent $12.7 million, according to its required monthly fundraising report with the Federal Election Commission. Some of its biggest givers were a Koch brother, investor Charles Schwab, tycoon Harold Simmons, and the hotel-running Marriott brothers.
of a deep level of corruption - these are the scoundrels you want making policy?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1375 May 10, 2012
omfg wrote:
<quoted text>I never brought it up but you consistently do.
You brought up then and you brought it up now.

Don't dish it out if you don't like it flung back into your sticky face.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1376 May 10, 2012
Can you really say this is the road to election?

1996:“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages” was an answer included on a signed questionnaire to a Chicago gay community newspaper when Mr. Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. In 2011, a White House aide said someone else filled it out.

2004: As a U.S. Senate candidate, Mr. Obama tells Chicago public television “marriage is between a man and a woman.” In the same interview, Mr. Obama said he wanted to ensure gays and lesbians have “the rights of citizenship” but noted,“I don’t think marriage is a civil right.”

2008: Mr. Obama, running for president, again says marriage should be limited to unions between a man and a woman.“For me as a Christian, it’s also a sacred union… God’s in the mix,” he says in an interview with the Rev. Rick Warren, a leading evangelical minister.

2010: After signing the repeal of a ban on gays openly serving in the military, Mr. Obama tells reporters that “my feelings are constantly evolving” on gay marriage.

2011:“I’m still working on it,” Mr. Obama tells ABC News when asked if he would change his mind on gay marriage before the 2012 election.

2012:“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Mr. Obama tells an interviewer for ABC.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/09/time...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1377 May 10, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Can you really say this is the road to election?
Obama elected in 2008.

It was in all the papers.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1378 May 10, 2012
[QUOTE who="Brian_G"
2012:“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Mr. Obama tells an interviewer for ABC.[/QUOTE]

Gosh... was he trying to keep it a secret?
racer42

Oakland, CA

#1379 May 10, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gosh... was he trying to keep it a secret?
It should really make your day when Obama comes out in favor of bestiality. How's your neighbors chihuahua doing?
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#1380 May 10, 2012
WARNING ------ LIVE BY knowing what rules ARE.

This world cannot rapidly BE evaporated (gone) by doing against FUNDAMENTAL AND ground rules (logical rules like your premises belonging to you) of this universe by using RADICAL revolution of every kind.
This planet knows how to breathe and breed from the basic human nature to make lives work for humankind, before the names of such creed as Karl Marx and STALIN WERE ever known.
They both had advocated that this universe should be operated by the principle of REVOLUTION, to point to any forms of unsuitable activities whether obscene, improper, ingenuine, unconventional, and so forth, could be put into actualization or be accommodated, and so they had generated the Commnunism, and prompted others nowadays to take proceedings based on furthering the radical revolution ideas, to suffice to extend any forms of revolution of any programs like the homosexual marriage and so forth such alike activities, from which the whole world can be displaced by malfunctions of human conduct, to outcome marraige with pets or under-age minors as professors without having to go through the university first, and so on.
The world is too large as population expands. There are too many languages and varieties of forms of cultures and activities which may not be acceptable to many people, as many like Muslims, etc., refuse and tend not to get acquainted to each other.
They do not live by the conduct of rules, such as Muslims, Islams and others as well.
As many of these people are seeking their paradise in people's grounds by intrusion to uprise tension, obstruct, disturb and demolish traditional people's activities and lifestyles through radicalism of queer people's beliefs and sympathy.
There are too many differences among people on the planet already.
There are rules to live -- people's economies are not doing well, and by having new comers invited by those doing revolution from their not-any-borders ideas, this would upload the high burden of unaffordable resource, medical, educational and society functional systems and cause many harms to traditional people.
Let this generation live as they have built for themselves for well-deserving.
There must not be allowed for any radical revolutionists to conflict all walks of life and have others to take away from this generation of what they have.
The world has wars and people cannot resolve many differences including bounudaries.
Cultures and activities which cannot be molded and integrated in this soicety should inhabit upon their own grounds and are not invited.
By way of rules, people have every right to reject and deter such people of any false nature, including those wanting radicalism revolution to turn the proper and normal societies into chaos and destruction.
HATE is not the right word to call--just as you do whoever you like and do not want to be with to reject AS YOU CALL your HATE , people have the rights to eject and deter others from their soveriegn premises.
You can not run your own views by imposing on others to take while you can defect and run to their grounds and be rejected and rid of too, but you cannot run righteous people's lives for such violations by calling hate to hate yourselves , which is the hate of your own, for you do not like any of your beloved - youselves.
Righteous people have ownership in their entitled inherent rights, which is the given business for them to do while others must comply by the rules of not doing any breaching but complying.
Righteous people stand on their own and build themselves as they don't ask anything from you, gays, Muslims, Arabs, and others, and you are to lose out because you are not allowed to take people's having to give to those by calling radical revolution.
Do not be idealistic - There is not any such one world on this planet.
There is not any such ideal in this world based on negative radicals' and destructive revolutionists' thinking.
racer42

Oakland, CA

#1382 May 10, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
How are your tonsils doing?
Really taking a bruising, even after years of practice, I bet those boys in your Oakland bath house are in a good mood.
Lame, repetitive, boring. Just like you, Aunt Jemima.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1384 May 10, 2012
JBH wrote:
WARNING ------
Spam, total spam.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1387 May 10, 2012
Why didn't Obama announce his feelings about same sex marriage before the North Carolina vote? My guess, he didn't want to lose. He did nothing except give lip service, nothing signed, nothing done. Marriage is a state's right, big surprise to nobody.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1388 May 10, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Why didn't Obama announce his feelings about same sex marriage before the North Carolina vote?
He didn't make up his mind until after it was over, dullard.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1389 May 10, 2012
[QUOTE who="Brian_G" My guess,[/QUOTE]

ah... your guess.

Worth about the same as the toilet paper that has been dropped into the portapotty.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1390 May 10, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Marriage is a state's right, big surprise to nobody.
State's rights do not supersede Constitution rights.

Too bad you didn't stick it all the way through high school, eh?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1391 May 10, 2012
There is no gender equality or marriage equality right in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment was to help ex-slaves, not to change the definition of marriage for everyone.

Obama has been positioning himself for some time, sending out Joe to test the water, make an appointment with a sympathetic reporter. He doesn't even have the guts for a press conference.

He knew before the North Carolina vote, he stopped enforcing and defending DOMA last year.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/09/politics/ob...

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#1392 May 10, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Why didn't Obama announce his feelings about same sex marriage before the North Carolina vote? My guess, he didn't want to lose. He did nothing except give lip service, nothing signed, nothing done. Marriage is a state's right, big surprise to nobody.
While it may be true that marriage is a state's right, what happens if you marry your partner in one state and then move to another state that doesn't recognize gay marriages?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1393 May 10, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
There is no gender equality or marriage equality right in the Constitution.
Oh, ringworm nutjob, there *is* equality in the **US* Constitution, and it doesn't matter if it means between man and woman or man and man or woman and woman anymore than it means equality among people driving cars down a freeway- cars and freeways, either one of them being in the US constitution.

I know you have a limited cranial capacity and cannot understand the flowing nature of the US constitution but there is a reason why it has lasted some 240 years: what is not specifically mentioned there is up to the SCOTUS for interpretation, and SCOTUS can decide whether or not there is *INTENT* among the FF for things not specifically mentioned there.

What little will come of this "recognition" (by Obama) of people who understand that there is equality in marriage will be: he isn't forcing his opinion down the throat of the individual states where Mittens is: Mittens coming out already and saying he favors changing the US Constitution to restrict this equality among US citizens.

I do love it when Mittens- already with a minority support from a minority party- steps in it and loses even more votes.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1394 May 10, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
While it may be true that marriage is a state's right, what happens if you marry your partner in one state and then move to another state that doesn't recognize gay marriages?
And of course Commie Romney wants to take away the states' right to decide this matter for themselves and force all states to restrict this right to (apparent) heterosexuals wanting to be married.

Putting aside that it would not have a snowballs chance of passing, not unlike his campaign for POTUS.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#1395 May 10, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Obama has been positioning himself for some time, sending out Joe to test the water, make an appointment with a sympathetic reporter. He doesn't even have the guts for a press conference.
Tell us: when did Commie Romney schedule a press conference for this?

Because he was asked point blank after his speech(es) for a comment and he insists he didn't want to address it and I still haven't heard him schedule a press conference on it.

I would suggest Commie Romney knows if he is asked about it, he will be reminded that he has already said he wants to change the US constitution to take away that right from the individual states to decide.
Tony

Broken Arrow, OK

#1396 May 10, 2012
Obama is confident and knows he will be re-elected no doubt.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1397 May 10, 2012
barefoot2626 wrote:
And of course Commie Romney wants to take away the states' right to decide this matter for themselves and force all states to restrict this right to (apparent) heterosexuals wanting to be married.
Putting aside that it would not have a snowballs chance of passing, not unlike his campaign for POTUS.
Romney only wants to stop the Federal government from recognizing same sex marriage; states have the right to do as they please. It doesn't take a great constitutional scholar like President Obama to tell us that fact.

Obama did nothing, in the name of state's rights. He signed nothing, there is no change to marriage; I hope you're happy.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Mitt Romney seeks to revive campaign as critici... (Sep '12) 14 hr Lawrence Wolf 220
Parties assess variables looking at 2016 map Sat barefoot2626 35
Who is the worst president since WWII ? Sat Here Is One 1,118
Can the GOP shatter the 'Obama coalition' in 2016? Sat Dee Dee Dee 1
An Ar AppealTHANK You for Your Help! We Made it Dec 26 cuninglingwist 1
Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush lead GOP 2016 field Dec 24 Billy Ringo 39
Romney Has Zero Percent Support From African Am... (Aug '12) Dec 24 Swedenforever 838
More from around the web