Good read on why Obama will lose in 2012:
Take the time to read it Obama Fans

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-will-lose-in-2012-2011-4

This is just a few points within the article:

President Obama has several key flaws which have doomed his presidency.
1. His leadership style is one of consensus and compromise. This works OK in a caretaker setting in which there are no crises and no demands for bold changes of course. Unfortunately, this era is defined by structural crises, and a leadership based on gaining consensus and compromise is basically a rudderless one in this environment.
2. He does not understand economics or finance, nor is he secure about making decisions on financial topics. As a result he deferred to the "experts," who just happened to be Wall Street cronies and insiders who easily swayed the President with their hobgoblin stories of financial meltdown and ruin if we didn't "save the banking sector from losses."
3. His grasp of history is poor. The same can be said of most presidents, but Obama failed to grasp the historic opportunity to set a new sustainable course for the nation's banking and financial sectors, and thus for its economy. He opted instead to save and protect the corrupt and embezzlement-based banking sector from losses, and he continues to do so with "extend and pretend" policies.
In a similar fashion, he has allowed the National Security State and the Global Empire to expand without any limitations.
4. He has no visible core beliefs beyond a vague sense that the Federal government and its extension, the American Empire, are forces for good. His policies can be boiled down to: support and expand the Savior State and its many fiefdoms, support and expand the Global Empire and National Security State, and allow the banking system and its Power Elites to set the agenda and control the oversight agencies and institutions.
His signature accomplishment, the "Obama-care reform" of the nation's sickcare system, simply extends the power of existing cartels and fiefdoms and delivers an ever-larger slice of the national income to their coffers. In its basic parameters, the "reform" could easily have been supported and passed by socially liberal Republican presidents such as Richard Nixon. There is nothing remotely progressive or radical about "pooling" insurance cartels and wet-paper-bag bureaucratic tests of "the most effective treatments."
These are simply technocratic layers added to a bloated, corrupt, venal and destructive system that already costs twice as much as those of our advanced-economy competitors.
In addition to these flaws, he has made fatal policy errors which doom the economy to implosion by November 2012. All of his administration's policies can be distilled down to these three points:
1. The banking sector is the most important foundation of the economy. The Central State and its proxy, the Federal Reserve, pumped some $14 trillion (by some measures, $23 trillion) in cash, credit, guarantees and backstops into the banking sector and its cloaked twin, the Shadow banking System.
Meanwhile, little to nothing was done for the cash-strapped consumer or citizenry. Why?
2. The "problem" is lack of credit and "confidence." If the State and Fed flood the banking system with credit and "restore confidence" by goosing the stock market, then people will start borrowing and spending again, and everything will be "fixed."
This presumes demand is strong, and all that's needed is credit for people to satisfy their thirst for more goods and services.
Meanwhile, back in reality, people realized they didn't need a third car, fourth TV, 17th "cute blouse," 23rd pair of shoes, etc., and now that their home is worth less than their mortgage (or their remaining equity is minimal), they can't really afford the luxury travel, boats, etc. they enjoyed when they thought their house would keep rising in value forever and tapping that rising equity was painless.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-will-lose-in-2012-2011-4#ixzz1Q07xe8Rc

Manhattan Buckeye;809520 wrote:Heck, I would bet everything I own that I got a higher LSAT than he did

Manhattan Buckeye;809520 wrote: Obama wasn't qualified
Heck, I would bet everything I own that I got a higher LSAT than he did - he was simply unqualified to be POTUS. His administration has led to nothing else but more spending, more deficits, and no hope and negative change (pun intended).

Did you attend Harvard Law?

Were you President of the Harvard Law Review?

So what you are saying is that you are more qualified to be POTUS?

Who is this Republican Field is anymore qualified than President Obama?

2kool4skool;810425 wrote:

What's so funny about pointing out that Obama is academically mediocre? Not everyone bought into the BS that he's some mega-smart guy. Because he isn't. The man is/was all media hype - unfortunately enough people in '08 bought it to the point we made him POTUS - a position he isn't qualified for. And we're all suffering for it, and may for another 5 1/2 years.

BTW I quoted you "correctly" since I'm at the office, pleased?

"Did you attend Harvard Law?"

No, but I was accepted (made the correct decision of not assuming all of the debt), but more importantly I worked far more years in REAL practice than your buddy Barry did, who has sailed his whole life with enablers telling him how great he is. The man can't read a balance sheet, it doesn't matter if he went to Harvard or Cooley, he's had everything handed to him and hasn't performed anything. As I posted before, he's the exact definition of an "empty suit."

Yea....I'm sure you were accepted

Nice you avoided my other questions

Yeah, I was. Didn't even think it was a big deal since I didn't get any schollie meaning as a poor "typical white person" (in your savior's words) it was a better decision to go elsewhere and not have the debt.

But enough about me, I'm not POTUS, Obama is and he's unqualified. Even Bachmann at this point is more qualified than he is/was. Barack Obama has never done anything other than make good speeches with his teleprompter and fool millions of Americans. For the love of criminy are you this blind to the state of the country now?

Manhattan Buckeye;810527 wrote:Yeah, I was. Didn't even think it was a big deal since I didn't get any schollie meaning as a poor "typical white person" (in your savior's words) it was a better decision to go elsewhere and not have the debt.

But enough about me, I'm not POTUS, Obama is and he's unqualified. Even Bachmann at this point is more qualified than he is/was. Barack Obama has never done anything other than make good speeches with his teleprompter and fool millions of Americans. For the love of criminy are you this blind to the state of the country now?

Rhetorical question, right? I can't imagine that you'd even have to ask.

Manhattan Buckeye;810527 wrote:Yeah, I was. Didn't even think it was a big deal since I didn't get any schollie meaning as a poor "typical white person" (in your savior's words) it was a better decision to go elsewhere and not have the debt.
...?

Manhattan...now that you reside over seas do you have a defined voting district??

Yes, still pay taxes as an ex-pat, our voting district is our last domicile, which is Richmond, VA. We still owe taxes in the state, and vote in that precinct which is the 3rd district of Virginia. It is a huge Democrat heavy district so votes one way or the other are meaningless (I think Obama won by a 75-25% margin and Rep. Scott is untouchable even if he's clueless).

Manhattan Buckeye;810527 wrote: But enough about me, I'm not POTUS, Obama is and he's unqualified. Even Bachmann at this point is more qualified than he is/was. Barack Obama has never done anything other than make good speeches with his teleprompter and fool millions of Americans. For the love of criminy are you this blind to the state of the country now?

+1

I will never understand the big deal about him using teleprompters.

I Wear Pants;810801 wrote:I will never understand the big deal about him using teleprompters.

The big deal is that he an "empty suit", pull him away from his comfort zone and he's ineffective. He's shown no ability to speak and think on his feet (despite his being a HARVARD law grad), he's simply a man on the deep end of a bad situation.

But speeches aren't supposed to be improv.

It'd be a valid criticism for an interview or something like that but not for a speech.

I think there is enough criticism with the administration, the shine is off this turd. In hindsight we have the benefit of seeing our failures, but the "beer summit" should have been the first indication that Obama is not quite ready for primetime.

Manhattan Buckeye;810527 wrote:Yeah, I was. Didn't even think it was a big deal since I didn't get any schollie meaning as a poor "typical white person" (in your savior's words) it was a better decision to go elsewhere and not have the debt.

But enough about me, I'm not POTUS, Obama is and he's unqualified. Even Bachmann at this point is more qualified than he is/was. Barack Obama has never done anything other than make good speeches with his teleprompter and fool millions of Americans. For the love of criminy are you this blind to the state of the country now?

You have now lost the right to talk here ever again

The question is whether a different turd is better though.

Ty Webb;810893 wrote:You have now lost the right to talk here ever again

What did I do? Take pictures of myself shaking Urban Meyer's hand looking like a cabbage patch kid with a stupid half-grin on my face?

Manhattan Buckeye;810630 wrote:Yes, still pay taxes as an ex-pat, our voting district is our last domicile, which is Richmond, VA. We still owe taxes in the state, and vote in that precinct which is the 3rd district of Virginia. It is a huge Democrat heavy district so votes one way or the other are meaningless (I think Obama won by a 75-25% margin and Rep. Scott is untouchable even if he's clueless).

Got it. Thanks for educating me. Although it might be meaningless I hope you vote anyway.

I Wear Pants;810895 wrote:The question is whether a different turd is better though.

If I take a bite out of something and it taste like shit...I don't care what the other option is, I'm not taking another bite out of the one I know taste like shit.

I Wear Pants;810801 wrote:I will never understand the big deal about him using teleprompters.

Certainly in giving grandiose speeches, a teleprompter is a requirement. No doubt about that.

But to use one in a classroom in front of children? To use one virtually everywhere he goes? If he truly believed and understood what he says with written words, then he should be able to talk to the press, to those that disagree with him, and to children about his core beliefs. He can't do it without stammering, using uh uh uh ummm well uh, and sounding incoherent at times. He relies on teleprompters because he can't articulate his core beliefs...as Manhattan suggests, he's an empty suit.

For a 180 degree contrast, watch Chris Christie answer questions in a press conference or from his town hall meetings. He is direct, often blunt, looks the people in the eye, expresses himself in a truthful manner, and talks about his positions like he's known them since he was in kindergarten. He could give a speech without a teleprompter and people would easily understand what he is saying. Reagan could speak from his heart as well...remember he didn't have the luxury of teleprompters-on-parade and he often spoke from hand-written notes and improvised because he had great conviction for what he felt and thought. These traits make great leaders...confident, positive, knowing the subject inside and out (as well as knowing the other side's viewpoint), and being able to influence people genuinely.

I do like Christie a lot in that regard.

The big deal (about teleprompters) is this: we were told over and over and over again what a great orator he was. The best speaker to hit the White House (in the media's eyes) perhaps since JFK (they won't acknowledge Reagan was a great orator as easily as JFK).

Fact is, he's a GOOD speaker who can whip up a friendly crowd in the same way a great pastor can motivate his flock. That doesn't mean he's a great speaker, because he definitely has shown us he's not. The teleprompter is a crutch and great orators don't need crutches like that.

All in all, we were sold a bill of goods on this guy, mostly by a media that fell in love with the IDEA of a black man winning the presidency in their lifetime. They didn't care if he was truly qualified, which was evidenced by the fact that he was the least media vetted president in history. They simply went out of their way to ignore his past and focused on other things -- like Palin's garbage.

Despite what, at this point, is a presidency that has been an abject failure on almost every front (sorry p-town, not enamored with his foreign policy, either), the media will continue to try and prop him up through his re-electin campaign. Hell, it's pretty much started with all the soft coverage he gets, and the constant fluff pieces on his wife and children (pieces we never saw in such numbers for any other president). Also, the media is picking out GOP contenders it thinks might be a threat and vetting them a bit tougher than some of the others; of course, that includes Palin, with whom they continue to be obsessed.

If the economy continues this struggle up to election day, I don't see him winning unless the GOP totally blows its process of picking a candidate (very possible). But at this point, I'd say Pawlenty, Romney or Perry would all have a decent shot at winning. But it's VERY early, as we know.

Manhattan Buckeye;810911 wrote:What did I do? Take pictures of myself shaking Urban Meyer's hand looking like a cabbage patch kid with a stupid half-grin on my face?

Saying Sarah Palin 2.0 is more qualified than President Obama to do anything

Ty Webb;811134 wrote:Saying Sarah Palin 2.0 is more qualified than President Obama to do anything

Palin held an executive position. She is/was more qualified.