Friday, September 21, 2012

President Obama: Vote for Mitt Romney (2012 Presidential Election Over/)

Since one of the twomain candidates havs advised voters they should vote for the OTHER candidate, dos that mean the 2012 Presidential electino is now over?  It would appear so, now that Barack Obama has essentailly endorsed Mitt Romney for President.

Hacker Boy (again hacking into thid disgraceful blog in the interst of truth, justice and the American way, while no longer botghering to deny Skip's continued assertion that I am Piers Morgan, using the hacking skills I leaarned as a British emplyee of a Rupert Murdoch compnay):  "Skip, I can't even beieve how you keep getting worse: more dishoenst with every one of these ridiculous assertions.  You know that Presdient Obama has NOT endorsed Mitt Romney, or said that Mitt Romney should be President."

Skiep:  "I jsut love Hacker Boy, otherwise known as Piers Morgan.  I can always depend on him to take the bait, and give me the opportunity to pund home my pint.. Hacker Boy, what do you think about the following:": 

Presdietn Obama, in recent interview/statement, I hink to Univisioni, although I am not certain of that:  "The most important thing I have learned (as President) is that you can't change Washington from the inside.  You can only change Washington from the outside.'. 

Now, Hacker Boy, jsut how do construe that as anything but an ENDROSEMENT of Mitt Romney. At the very least, it is a statement that voters havve NO reason to vote for Barack Obama.  Obama has been insie Washington, as PRESIDENT, for almost 4 years now.  He is candidly telling everoyone that he has LEARNED that he CNNOT CHANGE WASHINGTON from the inside.  WHY, then, would anyone voe for him  First, Obama has admitted that he has GIVEN UP on being able to "change" Washington.  Second, Mitt Romney--more than Barack Obama was in 2008--is a person OUTSIDE WASHINGTON. Did not Barack Obma just TELL you voterersxs to vote fro Romney, because the only CHANCE to "change" Washington is for a person to come in from  the OUTSIDE.  Sure, Obama is probably telling you that Romney will be CORRUPTED  and/or FRUSTRATED once he is INSIDE Washignton, as Obama himself has been, but has not Obama just told voters that their only CHANCE to chaNge Washington is to bring a person like ROMNEY in form the outside, in the hihopes that he will be ablet o make changes BEFORE  he becomes a Washington "insider" unable to change things from the INSIDE? There is really no other logical interpretatin of what Obama said.  And Obama has actually given voters ANOTHER reason to vote for ROMNEY.  Since Obama is TELLING you voters that he canONLY "change Washignton" from the OUTSIDEE, why is he not telling voters to UT H:IM ON THE OUTSIDE, where he can do more GOOD than being on the "inside"/?  Hacker Boy, perhaps you can telll me just what is wrong with this reasoning?  Am I not correct that Presdient Obama has told voters to VOTTE FOR ROMNEY--at least if they want "chaNge" in Washngon (which Obama is clearly telling voters is a DESIRABLE tghing)? 

Hacker Boy:  "mumble, growl, mumble..  I can't believe he said that.  Okay, Skip, you  KNOW you are being dishonest here, and that Obama didd not really MEAN that.  ButI admit you can consture what he SAID that way.  I have to admit that Obama appears to be channeling his inner Sarh Palin here."

Skip:  "No, Hacer Boy, Sarah Palin NEVER said anything this STUPID.  I think Obama was channeling his inner Joe Biden.". 

By the way, it was always ABSURD for Obama to be talking aoubt "coming to WaShington to change things" in 2008.  I NEVER undersood how he got away with that.  Obama was ALWAYS--since 2004--partr of the Washington PROBLEM, and NOT part of teh "solution".  It is WRONG for Obama to talk about what he INHERITED.  He did NOT INHERTIT these problems.  He was part of CREATING these problems: PART of tghe "inside Washignonton" crowd in 2008.  Obama was elected to the Senate in 2004.  What did he DO, or even ADVOCATE, between 2004 and 2008 to "change Wasignton".  Obama himself, BEFORE he became President, is a prime example of what President Obama has "learned":  that politicians (like Obama) CANNOT "change Washington" from the "inside'.  Obama did NOT come to the Presidency from the "outside" (aS ROMNEY can claim to do).  Obama came to the Presidency from the INSIDE. In fact, DEOMOCRATS took CONTEROL of AlL of Congress in 2006.  The HYPOCRITGES of our media talk about how the GOP haS to be regarded asresponsible for some of the FAILURE now that the GOP has control of the House, bu DEMOCATS had CONTROL--including Obama in this MAJORITY--of BOTH HOUSES of Conggress starttng in January of 2006.  Bush pretty much went aalong with THEIR domestic policy What is this LIE about Obama and tghe Democrats "inheriting' the Bush economic collapse.  Obama and he Democarst were PART of the FAILURE of the last two Bush years, with their MAJORITY in Congress pretty much CONTROLLING domestic policy. 

Why is the GOP unable to pint out this FRAUD of the Democrats disclaiming "accountability" for the tie after Democrats TOOK CONTROL of Congress in January of 2007 (after 2006 elections). Indeeed, yu coul argue that DEMOCRATWS bear PRIME responsibility for the 2008 ecconomic collapse, since the only thing thatCHANGAED fro  the STRONG economy in 2006-2007 was that DEMOCRATS took conrol of Congeress.  How can the GOP LOSE this "debatte'?  It boggle s my mind. 

Now that Obama has said THIS, who can the GOP possibly NOW "lose' this argument on who has a better CHANCE to "chaNge" Washingon" from the OUTSIDE?  I don't know.  But I have confidence in the GOP "estalbishment'.  The problem is that they do not BELIEVE in conservative principles, which mmeas they just vcna't seem to DISAVOWW "Washington insiders'.  That is the REAL reason that the GOP just seems UNABLE to attakc Prsident Obama as a FALED Washington INSIDER partly responsible fo r the BUSH FAILURE (as weell as Obama's own faiure). 

No. I have not changed my miind about NOT supporting Romhey.  But look at how BAD Obama haS done the paat 10 days.  He has BUNGLED the reactin to the LIBYAN TERORIST ATTACK.  Indeed, as I have stated, Obama has done the WORST \thing I have EVER seen an American President do--probably the WORST thing an American President has EVER DONE:  Obama has LIED to the American people about the MURDRE of an American ambassador (for only the 6th time in American history), for POLITICAL RFEASONS.  As I have stated, this is NOT ACCEPTABLE, and DISQUALIFIES Obama from considerratin for Presdient of the United States.  Now Obama has said that HE has LEARNED that HE cannot change Washington from the "inside", because it can ONLY be changed from the "outside". 

How can ANYONE vote for a man like this, who has also ABAnDONED FREE SPPECH in his "balme Americans first" policy. My borhter think sRoney is running the worst CAMPAIGN for Presdient EVER, becasue Romney SHULD be ahead by 15%.  I agree on the campaing, although I DISREEGARD polls as a matter of principle and experiene.  President Carter, even on the FINAL WWEEKNED, was said BY THE MEDIA (based on their view of polls) to be in a TOOSS UP electin.  Regan won in wha amounts to a LANDSLIED (over an incumbent Prfesident).   Unelss the economy IMPROVES, which I don't see happening by electin day, I see this happening to Prfesident Obam--even as the media is in DENIAL relying on their "interpretation" of POLLS.  But think how MUCH Romney would win by if he were a GOOD candidate?  It boggles the mind. 

P.S.  No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesigh).  Does Romney really give YOU the impressin taht he wants to "change" Washington, except give us a better MANAGER?  Me neither.  That is why I stil can't support Romney, even though I agee wwith 3 of my brothers that our natin may not be able to SURVIE 4 more years of Obama.  Obama gave us "poliics as usual" from the FAR LEFT.  He has now essentially admitted that.  Romney will give us "politics as usual" as well, but NOT forom tgh "ar rihgt'.  Rather, I am convinced Romney will merely be "Obama-light", with LESS "conservativve" opposition.  But ANYONE who votes for Obama shuld do so ywith your eyes open:  you are voting to DESTROY the country, (as we have known it). By ABSTGAINING, am I voting to destory the country?  Maybe, but ONLY if yu believe that voting for Romney does nto represent the SAME type of vote.  3 of my brotghers say that Rmney at least gives us a CHANCE.  Obama, at least, seems to agree with those 3 brothers.

No comments: