General Politics Thread

[Sub-stance1]

Not sure, I can't really comment on Clinton's speech as I have yet to watch it. But if Obama wanted to do something, why not just do it, instead of giving people a choice, then just doing what he wanted anyway. It gives off a strange vibe about choices. Thats what I thought, and yes, I do have a lot of democratic friends, and we were talking about it.

Very true, both sides will vote for their respective candidate. Independents have seen what Obama did before though, and I think that might hurt him in the polls. Also Obama backing the gays will hurt his black vote. Don't get me wrong, there will still be a massive turnout, but the fact that Black Baptist ministers were advising blacks in their parishes to not vote for Obama or Romney is going to hurt Obama's overall vote.

Independents in most swing states are actually leaning towards Obama right now and and the black vote is 94% for Obama to 0% for Romney. Around the same as it was in 2008. It was about 95% to 4% vs Mccain. You call that hurting. He also has a huge lead among Hispanics . Like i said before, this election won't be about religion nor gays. The republican party continues to have issues with minorities and that is hurting them. Their rhetoric doesn't match their voting record and that is the main reason why.

[MATRIX 2]

I'm not a democrat so i don't really care who preaches about what. I care about facts and the issues in this election. If you wanna waste time on silly stuff like that, then go right ahead.



Yea most republicans are fine with Ryan but not independents. We are the one's that they have to convince and he can't fool people like me. I know his record and it doesn't match his rhetoric. And Biden , who is a experienced debater, is probably gonna wipe the floor with him. And you are wrong about the polls. The only polls that matter right now is the swing states and they have Obama either tied or slightly ahead. This is bad news for Romney because he has less roads to 270 than Obama.




Dude , Clinton still has a overall positive rating and your kidding yourself if you think it won't matter. The speech was really great. Even my girlfriend, who is a die hard conservative, said it was much better than anything last week.




And that is one of the main problems with some people in your party. Sure as hell not the same party it used to be.



yea, my friend you really don't know much about politics if you think she is done. She didn't run in 2008 to be SOS. But you know what, it does show that the party is united by Obama choosing her. Now, why do you think Romney went outside that box for his VP? Its because the party isn't united and there is still bad blood between them. They just settled. Why do you think people like Paul doesn't support him yet. He isn't a real conservative. Anyone can see that. Romney isn't leading the party. The party is leading him.


it really doesn't matter. Once again, this election isn't about the middle east. Its not a big enough issue to effect the election. The US will always support Israel. This has been made clear numerous times. That is just another political fear tactic used to get votes.




I find it hard to believe that you support republicans/conservatives and stay away from Fox. You have to be a die hard republican if you can't see or admit that they clearly have some issues. Where is Bush in this election? Can you answer that?

You care about facts, yet you seem to ignore a pretty big fuck up by the DNC chair, ok.

Biden, wipe the floor with anyone in a debate? Are you serious? If he is such a good debater/speaker, why does he have so many unprovoked gaffes?

Where did I say Clinton' speech does not matter? But to completely believe any politicians speech at a political convention as fact is quite foolish.

And that is one of the main problems with some people in your party. Sure as hell not the same party it used to be.

Hmm, my party, which would be? I'm a libertarian by ideology. I voted for RP in my primary. Currently my registration says Democrat.

A swing and a miss there. An its true neither party is what it used to be.

Sorry but only a fool could stand up for giving people unfair advantages they did not earn on the playing field. It is essentially a form of discrimination. He didn't earn his admission to Stanford based on his SAT score. And I'm sure being a student at Stanford helped him get into Harvard for law school. Which is likely to have been a significant help to him achieving the position he holds today as mayor.

Hillary ran in 2008 to win the nomination of her party as their candidate for president, so she could then run for the presidency against the R candidate. She lost to obama, end of story. She likely accepted here current position because she likely believed she could accomplish certain things while she was SOS. But tell me if she didn't plant to end her political career, why would she not elect to be SOS should obama win a 2nd term? Makes no sense at all.

And even if there was a decent reason for doing so, she will be 68 in 2016. Which is ancient considering the trend for president in the past ~20 years or so. I think she would be more interested in working with Bill in his foundation and being a grandmother to her grandchildren by then. While the clintons have been a significant factor in politics for the last 30 years or so, they know when their time is up and they need to move on.

As for Romney, who would he pick if he didn't go "out of the box"? And Paul would likely not support any R candidate since most of his economic and domestic/foreign policy views conflict too much with mainstream republican views.

Supporting Israel is a very big concern. Especially considering how much it costs us:

http://ifamericansknew.org/stats/stauffer.html

And considering our economic situation, that is a very important detail. But, just chalk it up to a fear tactic.

I find it hard to believe that you support republicans/conservatives and stay away from Fox. You have to be a die hard republican if you can't see or admit that they clearly have some issues. Where is Bush in this election? Can you answer that?

Who said I support republicans/conservatives (nice generalization there, acting like they are all the same)? Do not confuse my lack of enthusiasm/support for Obama as the opposite for Romney.

And please show me where I have admitted that republicans don't have issues.

I also don't appreciate your snide insinuation about me lying about what news sources I do or do not watch. I don't subscribe to cable or satellite tv, which would make your point even less legitimate since it is nearly impossible to watch a cable news channel without doing so.

Where is Bush? Probably on one of his properties in Texas. Why was he not at the convention? Because he can't motivate his base and he has the whole Iraq War dragging him down.

[Vulgotha]

? We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan and last I checked we were lending support to other "Arab Spring" nations. Even if minimal this constitutes military involvement.


Won't contest your other points. But it's worth noting these are band aid fixes, not actual solutions. The underlying problem of our system has not been addressed whatsoever, and it is my firm belief that as long as these two parties remain the way they are with the power they enjoy nothing will really ever change.

[MATRIX 2]

Sure, this makes complete sense:

http://news.yahoo.com/u-nears-deal-1...030837695.html

U.S. nears deal for $1 billion in Egypt debt relief:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration is close to a deal with Egypt's new government for $1 billion in debt relief, a senior U.S. official said on Monday, as Washington seeks to help Cairo shore up its ailing economy in the aftermath of its pro-democracy uprising.

U.S. diplomats and negotiators for Egypt's new Islamist president Mohamed Mursi - who took office in June after the country's first free elections - were working to finalize an agreement, the official said.

Progress on the aid package, which had languished during Egypt's 18 months of political turmoil, appears to reflect a cautious easing of U.S. suspicions about Mursi and a desire to show economic goodwill to help keep the longstanding U.S.-Egyptian partnership from deteriorating further.

The United States was a close ally of Egypt under ousted autocratic President Hosni Mubarak and gives $1.3 billion in military aid a year to Egypt plus other assistance.

Obama ultimately called for Mubarak to step down as he faced mass protests in early 2011 but the U.S. president was criticized for taking too long to assert U.S. influence.

Washington, long wary of Islamists, shifted policy last year to open formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, the group behind Mursi's win. Mursi formally resigned from the group after his victory.

Analysts say that one way the United States could influence the direction of policy in Egypt, a nation at the heart of Washington's regional policy since a peace treaty was signed with Israel in 1979, would be through economic support as Cairo tries to stave off a balance of payments and budget crisis.

Obama first pledged economic help for Cairo last year. Obstacles remained to completing the debt relief deal - which is reported to involve a mix of debt payment waivers and complicated "debt swaps" - and it was not immediately clear when an agreement might be announced.

But even as the negotiations proceeded in Cairo, Washington has also signaled its backing for a $4.8 billion loan that Egypt is seeking from the International Monetary Fund and which it hopes to secure by the end of the year to bolster its stricken economy. IMF chief Christine Lagarde visited Cairo last month to discuss the matter.

Egypt's military-appointed interim government had been negotiating a $3.2 billion package before it handed power to Mursi on June 30. Mursi's government then increased the request.

Lagarde said the IMF would look at fiscal, monetary and structural issues, promising that the IMF would be a partner in "an Egyptian journey" of economic reform.

(Reporting By Matt Spetalnick; Editing by Todd Eastham and Eric Walsh)

[Sub-stance1]

You care about facts, yet you seem to ignore a pretty big fuck up by the DNC chair, ok.

Its a big fuck up to republicans/conservatives who are just reaching for straws. At the end of the day all the talk was about Clinton's speech which is more than you you can say for their convention. Faith isn't gonna change anyone's vote buddy.

Biden, wipe the floor with anyone in a debate? Are you serious? If he is such a good debater/speaker, why does he have so many unprovoked gaffes?

You obviously don't know Joe Biden because he was that way long before he became VP. He did the same when he was a Senator. Even with those gaffes he is still well liked and he straight to the point. He is well like in the party.

Where did I say Clinton' speech does not matter? But to completely believe any politicians speech at a political convention as fact is quite foolish.

It may be foolish to you but to some it will make a difference. For example, he threw out that that Republicans have owned the white house for more years but Democratic presidents have created more jobs. These are things that people want to hear.

Hmm, my party, which would be? I'm a libertarian by ideology. I voted for RP in my primary. Currently my registration says Democrat.

A swing and a miss there. An its true neither party is what it used to be.

You may be a libertarian but in name only. Lots of people are that way.

Sorry but only a fool could stand up for giving people unfair advantages they did not earn on the playing field. It is essentially a form of discrimination. He didn't earn his admission to Stanford based on his SAT score. And I'm sure being a student at Stanford helped him get into Harvard for law school. Which is likely to have been a significant help to him achieving the position he holds today as mayor.

And only a fool would judge someone who they don't even know. So stop acting like you know this guy and what he had to do to get to where he is.

Hillary ran in 2008 to win the nomination of her party as their candidate for president, so she could then run for the presidency against the R candidate. She lost to obama, end of story. She likely accepted here current position because she likely believed she could accomplish certain things while she was SOS. But tell me if she didn't plant to end her political career, why would she not elect to be SOS should obama win a 2nd term? Makes no sense at all.


And even if there was a decent reason for doing so, she will be 68 in 2016. Which is ancient considering the trend for president in the past ~20 years or so. I think she would be more interested in working with Bill in his foundation and being a grandmother to her grandchildren by then. While the clintons have been a significant factor in politics for the last 30 years or so, they know when their time is up and they need to move on.

lol... wait... You talk about her old age when you claim to support Paul who is pushing 80. Until she says "i will never run for president", then you can say she won't make a bid. Until then I still believe she will make a run. I can't see her turning down the opportunity to be the first female president of the U.S.

As for Romney, who would he pick if he didn't go "out of the box"? And Paul would likely not support any R candidate since most of his economic and domestic/foreign policy views conflict too much with mainstream republican views.

Oh, he could of made a better choice. Ron Paul never had a chance from the start. The tea party and the republicans made sure of that. He will never be president. You guys need to get over that one.

Supporting Israel is a very big concern. Especially considering how much it costs us:



And considering our economic situation, that is a very important detail. But, just chalk it up to a fear tactic.

Right, and Obama has given more support as any past president. The support of Israel is not a big issue in this election. It never has been. It more about the economy.

Who said I support republicans/conservatives (nice generalization there, acting like they are all the same)? Do not confuse my lack of enthusiasm/support for Obama as the opposite for Romney.

And please show me where I have admitted that republicans don't have issues.

I also don't appreciate your snide insinuation about me lying about what news sources I do or do not watch. I don't subscribe to cable or satellite tv, which would make your point even less legitimate since it is nearly impossible to watch a cable news channel without doing so.

I don't really care who you support or where you get your news. In your eyes you may not support Republicans but i will call it as I see it. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,....

Where is Bush? Probably on one of his properties in Texas. Why was he not at the convention? Because he can't motivate his base and he has the whole Iraq War dragging him down.

Exactly, which says a lot. And its not only the war, deep down the republicans know that a large percentage of Americans know he played a part in our debt as well as Obama. He left office with a very low approval rating. The republicans don't have a surrogate and it says a lot.

[MATRIX 2]

Its a big fuck up to republicans/conservatives who are just reaching for straws. At the end of the day all the talk was about Clinton's speech which is more than you you can say for their convention. Faith isn't gonna change anyone's vote buddy.



You obviously don't know Joe Biden because he was that way long before he became VP. He did the same when he was a Senator. Even with those gaffes he is still well liked and he straight to the point. He is well like in the party.


It may be foolish to you but to some it will make a difference. For example, he threw out that that Republicans have owned the white house for more years but Democratic presidents have created more jobs. These are things that people want to hear.




You may be a libertarian but in name only. Lots of people are that way.



And only a fool would judge someone who they don't even know. So stop acting like you know this guy and what he had to do to get to where he is.



lol... wait... You talk about her old age when you claim to support Paul who is pushing 80. Until she says "i will never run for president", then you can say she won't make a bid. Until then I still believe she will make a run. I can't see her turning down the opportunity to be the first female president of the U.S.






Oh, he could of made a better choice. Ron Paul never had a chance from the start. The tea party and the republicans made sure of that. He will never be president. You guys need to get over that one.





Right, and Obama has given more support as any past president. The support of Israel is not a big issue in this election. It never has been. It more about the economy.





I don't really care who you support or where you get your news. In your eyes you may not support Republicans but i will call it as I see it. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,....





Exactly, which says a lot. And its not only the war, deep down the republicans know that a large percentage of Americans know he played a part in our debt as well as Obama. He left office with a very low approval rating. The republicans don't have a surrogate and it says a lot.

Why is it so difficult for you to see that that video is not about putting god in the party platform but about how the will of the delegates was ignored. I couldn't care less about religion in general, but to deny that there is not a separation between church and state in the US is to ignore the truth. And no it has a lot of democrats/msm in a tiff. The first story I saw about it was on cnn.com.

Of course biden is well like. He is like the old grandpa/uncle in the family that does ridiculous things but is still cherished by the rest of the family. That doesn't mean he isn't a liability. And I'd love to see you tell me with a straight face that you have no concerns about him stepping in for Obama should something happen to him.

It may be foolish to you but to some it will make a difference. For example, he threw out that that Republicans have owned the white house for more years but Democratic presidents have created more jobs. These are things that people want to hear.

Which is why this country is screwed. People only listen to what they want to hear. They dismiss the truth if it doesn't line up with their beliefs/agenda. Emotion over facts and logic. You should watch the 2nd video I posted on this page. Considering the US is supposed to be the bastion of capitalism and free enterprise, the average democrat on the convention floor sure doesn't act like it. And people wonder why the US had trouble competing in the global market.

You may be a libertarian but in name only. Lots of people are that way.

O really? If you truly believe that you are a fool. My voting record proves it. I've voted for candidates from all parties and with various political ideologies. And furthermore, I don't just vote, I act as well on the local level. There is a promising senate candidate in my states this year who I will be vigorously campaigning for.

Unlike some who just talk, I act which is the next step from just voting a certain way or for a certain candidate.

And only a fool would judge someone who they don't even know. So stop acting like you know this guy and what he had to do to get to where he is.

The words came straight out of his mouth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/ma...pagewanted=all

It would be one thing if he acknowledged his advantage but stated that it does not make sense to have such policies in place anymore since it isn't conducive for an even playing field. But to want to continue such a system promoting an unfair advantage, that is pure stupidity.

lol... wait... You talk about her old age when you claim to support Paul who is pushing 80. Until she says "i will never run for president", then you can say she won't make a bid. Until then I still believe she will make a run. I can't see her turning down the opportunity to be the first female president of the U.S.

Paul happens to be one of the fittest 77 year olds alive, I'm sure his health is better than many of his younger peers in congress and US politics. He is also the loudest/strongest voice for the libertarian ideology, which makes him more valuable than the average politician.

Hillary had here chance in 2008. The message was pretty clear, the people would rather have a black male president (who was also less experienced) rather than a female president. (so much for Bill's efforts then)

And assuming Obama wins a 2nd term the likelihood of the winner in 2016 being a democrat is rather low. If you look at contemporary US political history, you will know that a single party maintaining control of the White House for more than 8 years is very slim. (last exception being the republicans from 80-92) And that's assuming a 2nd term for obama goes well.

Oh, he could of made a better choice. Ron Paul never had a chance from the start. The tea party and the republicans made sure of that. He will never be president. You guys need to get over that one.

Such as? And I got over RP's chances a long time ago, early in the primaries.

Right, and Obama has given more support as any past president. The support of Israel is not a big issue in this election. It never has been. It more about the economy.

Based off of that statement, I'm fairly certain you did not read the article I linked to. It clearly shows the financial cost of backing Israel. And it was published in 2003. We have 9 years to account for since then.

I don't really care who you support or where you get your news. In your eyes you may not support Republicans but i will call it as I see it. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck,....

And I call you as having a terrible sense of judgement. You have clearly demonstrated on this page alone that you did not comprehend my posts and furthermore were quick to assume certain things about what I wrote which gave no indication of which side of the issue I was on or for.

You call it like you see it? Why don't you take a look over my posting history regarding this thread over the past several months. I doubt you will come to the same conclusion if you are honest about your observations.

As for Bush jr., nearly all of his problems stemmed from the Iraq war. You take that away, and really he is just another average president.

[Sub-stance1]

Why is it so difficult for you to see that that video is not about putting god in the party platform but about how the will of the delegates was ignored. I couldn't care less about religion in general, but to deny that there is not a separation between church and state in the US is to ignore the truth. And no it has a lot of democrats/msm in a tiff. The first story I saw about it was on cnn.com.

Religion or not. Its still not as big of issue among delegates as you are making it out to be. Its not the focus of the majority.

Of course biden is well like. He is like the old grandpa/uncle in the family that does ridiculous things but is still cherished by the rest of the family. That doesn't mean he isn't a liability. And I'd love to see you tell me with a straight face that you have no concerns about him stepping in for Obama should something happen to him.

Biden isn't a liability. Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich is what you would call a liability. I have no concerns about Biden stepping in and doing the job. Overall, he is a solid VP. Besides, if we judge a person on gaffs alone Bush would of never been reelected.

Which is why this country is screwed. People only listen to what they want to hear. They dismiss the truth if it doesn't line up with their beliefs/agenda. Emotion over facts and logic. You should watch the 2nd video I posted on this page. Considering the US is supposed to be the bastion of capitalism and free enterprise, the average democrat on the convention floor sure doesn't act like it. And people wonder why the US had trouble competing in the global market.

This country isn't screwed. Yes, we are having some tough time now but we have dug our way out before and we will do it again. United States is still a great country to live in and if you doubt that then I really don't know what to say for you.
Emotion over facts and logics describe the republican party to a T. They seem to be the ones who are leaving out the facts and using fear to get votes.

O really? If you truly believe that you are a fool. My voting record proves it. I've voted for candidates from all parties and with various political ideologies. And furthermore, I don't just vote, I act as well on the local level. There is a promising senate candidate in my states this year who I will be vigorously campaigning for.

Unlike some who just talk, I act which is the next step from just voting a certain way or for a certain candidate.

Good for you. I just hope you aren't going around telling people the country is screwed or this promising candidate is off to a bad start.

The words came straight out of his mouth:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/ma...pagewanted=all

It would be one thing if he acknowledged his advantage but stated that it does not make sense to have such policies in place anymore since it isn't conducive for an even playing field. But to want to continue such a system promoting an unfair advantage, that is pure stupidity.

I really don't care how he got to where he is. Its not an issue for me.

Paul happens to be one of the fittest 77 year olds alive, I'm sure his health is better than many of his younger peers in congress and US politics. He is also the loudest/strongest voice for the libertarian ideology, which makes him more valuable than the average politician.

I don't care how fit he is. He doesn't have the following to be elected president. He can't reach across parties like Clinton can. I happen to like Paul but even I know that the republican party is his biggest obstacle and its one that he will never overcome to become president.

Hillary had here chance in 2008. The message was pretty clear, the people would rather have a black male president (who was also less experienced) rather than a female president. (so much for Bill's efforts then)

She did have her chance but I give her props for her effort and she showed class by accepting a role within the Obama administration. Either way, Clinton or Obama would of been more decent than what the republicans were offering. I can imagine clinton holding office before a person Like Palin. Now that is a scary thought...lol

And assuming Obama wins a 2nd term the likelihood of the winner in 2016 being a democrat is rather low. If you look at contemporary US political history, you will know that a single party maintaining control of the White House for more than 8 years is very slim. (last exception being the republicans from 80-92) And that's assuming a 2nd term for obama goes well.

I don't know for sure who is gonna win but it will be interesting to see who the republicans put up if Obama does win.

Such as? And I got over RP's chances a long time ago, early in the primaries.

So did I...

Based off of that statement, I'm fairly certain you did not read the article I linked to. It clearly shows the financial cost of backing Israel. And it was published in 2003. We have 9 years to account for since then.

It doesn't matter. The US will always support Israel. Its nothing new. Same goes for other nations we support. My thing is just don't use it for fear to get some votes.

And I call you as having a terrible sense of judgement. You have clearly demonstrated on this page alone that you did not comprehend my posts and furthermore were quick to assume certain things about what I wrote which gave no indication of which side of the issue I was on or for.

You call it like you see it? Why don't you take a look over my posting history regarding this thread over the past several months. I doubt you will come to the same conclusion if you are honest about your observations.

I don't need to look at posting history. Its not like it's gonna change my opinion. You have yours on this election and I have mine. I really don't care where you stand. I care about the issues that matter to me. Clinton took this nation to school last and whether you are Republican, Democrat, or whatever, he told it like it is and that's something that was missing from these conventions.

As for Bush jr., nearly all of his problems stemmed from the Iraq war. You take that away, and really he is just another average president.

That's an understatement....lol

[Sub-stance1]

delete dp..

[DayWalker]

POTUS drops mic, swags off stage right.

See you at the debates Mittens.

BAM.

[Sub-stance1]

POTUS drops mic, swags off stage right.

See you at the debates Mittens.

BAM.

ROFL.....That was a hell of a speech. He totally knocked it out of the park IMO.

[F34R]

Only if they could actually do what would benefit the country; while they all continuously say it in speeches... smh

[Sub-stance1]

Only if they could actually do what would benefit the country; while they all continuously say it in speeches... smh

Well the auto industry was saved, bin Laden is dead, health care bill was finally done, DADT is gone, and the fair pay act was passed. If you think all that is bad for the country then you should really hate what republicans did........which is absolutely nothing. They haven't done much but stand in the way of progress and tried to block all of those..... Now that is something people should be shaking their heads over.

[F34R]

Well the auto industry was saved, bin Laden is dead, health care bill was finally done, DADT is gone, and the fair pay act was passed. If you think all that is bad for the country then you should really hate what republicans did........which is absolutely nothing. They haven't done much but stand in the way of progress and tried to block all of those..... Now that is something people should be shaking their heads over.

I said "THEY". Who gives speeches?

[Vulgotha]

It's unlikely Obama will win.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/elec...ht-since-1980/

[Sub-stance1]

It's unlikely Obama will win.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/elec...ht-since-1980/

Of course a conservative website owned by Glenn beck would say that. It's still too early to tell.

[The Black Wolf]

When this election is over, will you guys be making a 2016 election thread? Just being curious.

[F34R]

When this election is over, will you guys be making a 2016 election thread? Just being curious.

That's like asking if anyone will talk about the PS4 after it comes out.

[MATRIX 2]

That's like asking if anyone will talk about the PS4 after it comes out.

Nah man, it will be outdated by then. Pfft, its all about the PS5.

[btbam]

Of course a conservative website owned by Glenn beck would say that. It's still too early to tell.

I agree. That story is pre DNC. Judging on the reaction Michelle, Clinton, and Obama had from their speeches i suspect he'll get a sizable uptick. I thought i think Romney has a legitimate shot at those toss-up states, its still too early to tell.

[DayWalker]

nope. this is my last campaign...

...although I might chime in every now and then.

[F34R]

I agree. That story is pre DNC. Judging on the reaction Michelle, Clinton, and Obama had from their speeches i suspect he'll get a sizable uptick. I thought i think Romney has a legitimate shot at those toss-up states, its still too early to tell.

reaction? What reaction? From who? All those people that were there? They were all going to clap, sing, stand, etc., give the same reaction you're talking about if the all sang "Chim Chim Cheree" on stage:

[btbam]

reaction? What reaction? From who? All those people that were there? They were all going to clap, sing, stand, etc., give the same reaction you're talking about if the all sang "Chim Chim Cheree" on stage:

The talking heads on the news networks have been generally positive. That's what i was indicating.

[F34R]

The talking heads on the news networks have been generally positive. That's what i was indicating.

That doesn't make much difference compared to the people that were there.

[weskurtz81]

Interesting fact check by the associated press on Obama's speech.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/polit....html#comments

Also, it's funny how his speeches today are so similar to what they were 4 years ago. No need to record new ones, just put up the old re-runs and save time and money!

[F34R]

Interesting fact check by the associated press on Obama's speech.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/polit....html#comments

Also, it's funny how his speeches today are so similar to what they were 4 years ago. No need to record new ones, just put up the old re-runs and save time and money!

It's like I said... speeches. smh They aren't ever as good as performances lol. Speeches are for votes. Office is for money and power.