ACF 2012 Presidential Election Poll

[JickyJuly]

They are ill informed and essentially voting against themselves which IS stupid.

So for example, Stacey Dash who voted for Obama last time and is now voting for Romney is ill informed and stupid? Please explain.

I don't know who Stacey Dash is, but yes it is stupid for ANYONE with a vagina to vote for the Romney/Ryan regime. I'm not saying that Obama and his team are a treat for women, but of the 2 choices the Democrats' candidate is a substantially better choice when it comes to the rights of women. We live in a country where 50% of citizens are equipped with a twat, and yet we've never had a female president. Women are grossly underrepresented throughout our government. It's undeniable that women are NOT using their full potential when it comes to voting and speaking out.

Either way, if questioning the intelligence of some voters is grounds for reprimand and a timeout, I think we all know I won't be going alone. Wanna hold hands and skip over to the corner together, Boce? :lol:

 

[Nordling]

And yeah, I think anyone of any class, ethnicity or gender who votes for someone who belongs to a party which is ACTIVELY and BLATANTLY attempting to suppress THEIR vote is STUPID.

 

[Jupiter551]

Actually, contrary to Boce's earlier post Eva didn't tweet it anyway, she retweeted it. I would have too.

 

[Bocefish]

Either way, if questioning the intelligence of some voters is grounds for reprimand and a timeout, I think we all know I won't be going alone. Wanna hold hands and skip over to the corner together, Boce? :lol:

:lol: Right behind ya...

 

[AmberCutie]

They are ill informed and essentially voting against themselves which IS stupid.

So for example, Stacey Dash who voted for Obama last time and is now voting for Romney is ill informed and stupid? Please explain.

I don't know who Stacey Dash is, but yes it is stupid for ANYONE with a vagina to vote for the Romney/Ryan regime. I'm not saying that Obama and his team are a treat for women, but of the 2 choices the Democrats' candidate is a substantially better choice when it comes to the rights of women. We live in a country where 50% of citizens are equipped with a twat, and yet we've never had a female president. Women are grossly underrepresented throughout our government. It's undeniable that women are NOT using their full potential when it comes to voting and speaking out.

Either way, if questioning the intelligence of some voters is grounds for reprimand and a timeout, I think we all know I won't be going alone. Wanna hold hands and skip over to the corner together, Boce? :lol:

An unfortunate truth is that there ARE women out there who support repressing women's rights as far as outlawing abortion and denying access to Planned Parenthood type services and birth control.

 

[LadyLuna]

An unfortunate truth is that there ARE women out there who support repressing women's rights as far as outlawing abortion and denying access to Planned Parenthood type services and birth control.

I was also going to point this out, having been one of them in my early teens. Thank goodness I got straightened out before I was ever able to cast a vote!

To be honest, I don't mind people who say "I think abortions are wrong". I just hate it when they decide that means it should be illegal. Kinda like how I feel about sex, drugs, porn, guns...

I recently saw a picture that pointed out that the "tea party" people don't like how government is getting bigger. Weren't they the same Republicans who want the government to interfere in our private lives with all these "You shall not ___" where half of those are things that really only hurt the person doing it? Shoot, I don't even really agree with the seatbelt laws. If a person goes through a window and dies, that's their own fault for not wearing a seatbelt.

When it comes to business, Republicans want the government to stay out, but when it comes to people the Republicans want the government to be huge. Democrats are the opposite. This is why I think it's a poor choice of words to call Republicans conservative, and Democrats liberal. Conservative and Liberal are supposed to describe how much government you want- conservative meaning very little and liberal meaning a lot more.

Personally, I think business do need some checks from the government, and people need some checks from the government. It used to be, that in order to get a patent, you had to prove you had something that is new and useful, and you had to show how it will work. Now, all you have to do is present something that doesn't already have a patent, without even bothering to figure out how to make it, and you can get the patent. That's just... bullshit.

 

[Bocefish]

When it comes to business, Republicans want the government to stay out, but when it comes to people the Republicans want the government to be huge.

I'm at a loss understanding how Republicans want the government to be huge when it comes to people? Please explain your reasoning for that statement.

 

[Just Me]

When it comes to business, Republicans want the government to stay out, but when it comes to people the Republicans want the government to be huge.

I'm at a loss understanding how Republicans want the government to be huge when it comes to people? Please explain your reasoning for that statement.

You really do not understand what she is saying there? Or are you just being obtuse?

Republicans are for less government, which is code for less welfare, less medical coverage or anything they deem as a handout to the leeches on their society. When it comes to personal freedoms and rights that they do not agree with, usually sex or things they think are against god and country they have no problems adding as many new laws and regulations as they can get away with.

 

[BetsyBooty]

When it comes to business, Republicans want the government to stay out, but when it comes to people the Republicans want the government to be huge.

I'm at a loss understanding how Republicans want the government to be huge when it comes to people? Please explain your reasoning for that statement.

:roll: That question must be a tad insincere. She of course refers to Republicans favoring government interference on social issues like abortion, gay rights...AND PORN: http://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbre ... mney-porn/

 

[LadyLuna]

When it comes to business, Republicans want the government to stay out, but when it comes to people the Republicans want the government to be huge.

I'm at a loss understanding how Republicans want the government to be huge when it comes to people? Please explain your reasoning for that statement.

The answer is in my post itself...

To be honest, I don't mind people who say "I think abortions are wrong". I just hate it when they decide that means it should be illegal. Kinda like how I feel about sex, drugs, porn, guns...

Though I will admit, it might not be obvious, so I point it out.

Though, if I recall correctly, Republicans are against "gun control" while Democrats are for it? Or Did I get confused again?

 

[Just Me]

Another non-issue? Congressional hearings are always called for non-issues, Americans died due to this non-issue of Obama's failed policies. Obama didn't want to call it a terrorist attack because it would blow his BS claim that "Al-Queda is on it's heels."

I will remind you of the PMRC congressional hearings and if you like I will remind you of hundreds more about non-issues. It is only an issue to the right wing ideologue's like yourself and the republican controlled congress, who has already stated their entire goal was to make Obama a one term president.

Obama is the first president to overstate things? I seem to recall Dubya on an aircraft carrier stating "mission accomplished". His father stating "read my lips, no new taxes". You really think Al-Qaeda is anything like its former self? You are deluding yourself. If you are going to blame the President for anything that happens, where were you when 9-11 happened? Did you call out Bush in the same way? Or how about the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression? Did you call Bush out on that too? :roll:

The Republicans' star witness, Eric Nordstrom, who had been the top U.S. diplomatic security official in Libya until June, complained that he had asked the State Department for extra security but failed to receive it. Lamb said she had indeed turned down Nordstrom's request for additional security. “Personally I would not support it. We had been training local Libyans for a year. [...] With due respect, [the U.S. team was] in Tripoli they were not in Benghazi, it would not have made any difference in Benghazi.” The U.S. embassy is in Tripoli, Libya's capital.

As Marcy Wheeler pointed out, Nordstrom himself admitted that the vigor of the attack was unexpected:

Let me say a word about the evening of September 11th. The ferocity and intensity of the attack was nothing that we had seen in Libya, or that I had seen in my time in the Diplomatic Security Service. Having an extra foot of wall, or an extra-half dozen guards or agents would not have enabled us to respond to that kind of assault. I’m concerned that this attack will signal a new security-reality, just as the 1984 Beirut attack did for the Marines; the 1998 East Africa bombings did for the State Department, and 9/11 for the whole country. It is critical that we balance the risk-mitigation with the needs of our diplomats to do their job, in dangerous and uncertain places. The answer cannot be to operate from a bunker.

Link to his prepared statement

 

[Jupiter551]

:roll: That question must be a tad insincere.

idiotic yes, insincere...not necessarily.

 

[Just Me]

It's no surprise I think Obama is the worst President in our history, while others think he's the best. Discussions will get heated from time to time, but there's nobody forcing you to click on it or read about them.

How can you think he is the worst President in our history after 8 years of George W. Bush? I don't even think that Dubya was the worst in our history and he was president during 9-11 and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. By your logic he should be blamed for both of those. If you are being honest then you are not familiar with the most basic history of our Presidents. What's different about Obama over all the other democratic presidents you could have chosen as being the worst?

 

[Bocefish]

When it comes to business, Republicans want the government to stay out, but when it comes to people the Republicans want the government to be huge.

I'm at a loss understanding how Republicans want the government to be huge when it comes to people? Please explain your reasoning for that statement.

The answer is in my post itself...

To be honest, I don't mind people who say "I think abortions are wrong". I just hate it when they decide that means it should be illegal. Kinda like how I feel about sex, drugs, porn, guns...

Though I will admit, it might not be obvious, so I point it out.

Though, if I recall correctly, Republicans are against "gun control" while Democrats are for it? Or Did I get confused again?

Both sides of the aisle are for reasonable gun control measures. There are reasonable laws in place right now. As Obama said in the last debate, it's the cheap, illegal handguns that are the primary inner city problem. More laws won't change that.

Abortions won't be illegal until the SCOTUS has a reason to revisit the issue. I don't see that happening as the world is progressing and an experienced Supreme Court nominee would likely not change it. That's just my opinion, but I never imagined Obamacare would be considered Constitutional either, so my opinion doesn't really matter much.

 

[Bocefish]

It's no surprise I think Obama is the worst President in our history, while others think he's the best. Discussions will get heated from time to time, but there's nobody forcing you to click on it or read about them.

How can you think he is the worst President in our history after 8 years of George W. Bush? I don't even think that Dubya was the worst in our history and he was president during 9-11 and the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. By your logic he should be blamed for both of those. If you are being honest then you are not familiar with the most basic history of our Presidents. What's different about Obama over all the other democratic presidents you could have chosen as being the worst?

Yes, worst in history was my bad. I'm far from a history buff. In fact, history was my worst subject and I pretty much despised it. However, the way Obama wants to fundamentally change America with redistribution is not the way.

 

[HiGirlsRHot]

When it comes to business, Republicans want the government to stay out, but when it comes to people the Republicans want the government to be huge.

I'm at a loss understanding how Republicans want the government to be huge when it comes to people? Please explain your reasoning for that statement.

The answer is in my post itself...

To be honest, I don't mind people who say "I think abortions are wrong". I just hate it when they decide that means it should be illegal. Kinda like how I feel about sex, drugs, porn, guns...

Though I will admit, it might not be obvious, so I point it out.

Though, if I recall correctly, Republicans are against "gun control" while Democrats are for it? Or Did I get confused again?

Both sides of the aisle are for reasonable gun control measures. There are reasonable laws in place right now. As Obama said in the last debate, it's the cheap, illegal handguns that are the primary inner city problem. More laws won't change that.

Abortions won't be illegal until the SCOTUS has a reason to revisit the issue. I don't see that happening as the world is progressing and an experienced Supreme Court nominee would likely not change it. That's just my opinion, but I never imagined Obamacare would be considered Constitutional either, so my opinion doesn't really matter much.

The important thing is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and criminals off the street. By and large America has done a pretty good job with that crime rates, in most place in the country are the lowest they've been in 30 years, on murder etc in NYC I think the lowest ever. Crime rates in the US are now lower than in many European countries and are lower than the UK, although murders in the US are still higher than most other places. But it isn't just gun murders that are higher, so are stabbing, and fatal beatings.
There will always be crazies who get there hands on guns and the strict guns laws in Denmark didn't prevent a mass killing over there.

The concern over abortion being suddenly illegal by a new Supreme court is also overblown. If Roe vs Wade was overturned tomorrow it would not make abortion illegal anywhere. All it would do is give state the right place restrictions on abortions. If you live in blue state it would make no difference at all to your access for abortion. Now woman in Red state might have to worry, but I think even there what most likely what you would see is rather than a blanket ban on abortions some restriction would apply. For instance no late term abortions, kids would have to get parental approval, woman would have to get mandatory counseling about alternatives to abortions etc.

 

[tubby556]

67% want to destroy the country even more. Very sad.

No offense man, but that's a pretty unfair way to judge people's rights to vote for who they please. If Romney wasn't trying to push in as many ultra-conservative agendas like his anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-immigration, anti-47% crap, his economic reform platform and supposed tax cuts (which, according to at least 6 studies don't add up) would probably walk it in.

Then, in four years I can guarantee he'll be the one up on the debate platform explaining why it wasn't feasible to grow the economy or reduce unemployment the way he promised in his election campaign. I can't believe people actually buy politicians election BS. They'll say anything to get elected and then do whatever they promised the industries and corporations who paid for their campaign.

The same way he was elected to fix MA's problems and succeeded in doing so. Obama had no executive experience entering his campaign for presidency and was a junior senator. Obama has no clue, Romney does and his record in that regard is better than Obama's.

 

[tubby556]

Oh, don't mind tubby. I think he's just one of those dudes who likes to come on here every once in a blue moon to post a smart-ass remark to get people all riled up...while he eats a big-ass tub of popcorn...lol.

I don't get as much time on here or MFC as I once did. Life changes things. Your opinion of me is based on falsehoods. If you were around when I joined MFC and this forum when it was created, you'd learn a little more and change your opinion. I also don't eat popcorn. I prefer grilled corn on the cob.

 

[Jupiter551]

The important thing is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and criminals off the street. By and large America has done a pretty good job with that crime rates, in most place in the country are the lowest they've been in 30 years, on murder etc in NYC I think the lowest ever. Crime rates in the US are now lower than in many European countries and are lower than the UK, although murders in the US are still higher than most other places. But it isn't just gun murders that are higher, so are stabbing, and fatal beatings.
There will always be crazies who get there hands on guns and the strict guns laws in Denmark didn't prevent a mass killing over there.

Crime figures are notoriously difficult to properly present - different states and countries count different things. Some count vandalism, some count petty theft, others don't for both political and just record-keeping reasons. It's virtually impossible to compare 1 to 1 national crime statistics in a country with as many states as the US (seriously, look at them sometime, not the conclusions the media talk about, but the raw data) and internationally - unless you want to look at VERY specific crimes - forget about it. Even then, stuff gets skewed, what is considered a crime in one place isn't caught or is considered legal in another (point in case, "justifiable homocide" - statistically a proportion of those are very likely would just be called murder in some places).

BTW I'm not aware of a Danish mass killing, but there was one in Norway. They have similar gun control policies to the US - no automatic weapons except for collectors. Funny thing though, you can kill plenty of people with say, an M14 set to semi-auto, or an FN FAL.

 

[tubby556]

An unfortunate truth is that there ARE women out there who support repressing women's rights as far as outlawing abortion and denying access to Planned Parenthood type services and birth control.

I don't want to deny either. If a woman wants an abortion or birth control, fine with me. But they have to pay for it, not the taxpayers. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for someone's choice. If it's your choice, you pay your bill.

 

[Jupiter551]

An unfortunate truth is that there ARE women out there who support repressing women's rights as far as outlawing abortion and denying access to Planned Parenthood type services and birth control.

I don't want to deny either. If a woman wants an abortion or birth control, fine with me. But they have to pay for it, not the taxpayers. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for someone's choice. If it's your choice, you pay your bill.

In that case the man (or men if it was a gangbang heh) should split the cost with her equally - good luck enforcing that though. That's not even what the question was about though, pro-life people aren't concerned with who pays, they want it ILLEGAL. I thought Roe v Wade was close, and contentious enough that if Romney/Ryan chose to appoint a couple of sympathetic judges (supreme court judges are presidentally appointed right?) it could be overturned. Maybe I'm incorrect on that.

 

[tubby556]

They have similar gun control policies to the US - no automatic weapons except for collectors. Funny thing though, you can kill plenty of people with say, an M14 set to semi-auto, or an FN FAL.

Fully automatic weapons have always been legal in the US. Since 1934, there have been restrictions on them. $200 transfer tax applies when the ownership of the weapon changes hands. There needs to be a form filed and signed by the CLEO (chief law enforcement officer; ie sheriff or chief of police) stating to their knowledge the applicant (buyer) is not prohibited from owning this weapon. This is archaic as it was made decades before the FBI's NICS system instant background system does the same thing. The ATF approves the transfer from the dealer to the buyer and then the buyer can take possession of the weapon. This entire process takes about 6-8 months currently. Since 1934 when this law was enacted, there have been only two cases of a machine gun being used in a crime by its lawful owner. Both were police officers. There have been no civilians who committed crimes with their machine guns. There are hundreds of thousands of these weapons in civilian hands, legally. The cost of a transferrable machine gun ranges from $4,000 to over $250,000. They are not used in crimes. Illegally converted guns that are owned by people that don't follow the law are very, very seldom used in crimes.

Firearms are pretty low on the list of causes of death in the US when you factor out suicide. Face it, those people wanted to die and a firearm was available. I'm not losing sleep over it or them. Yes I've had a family member commit suicide. Fuck him. He went out like a coward.

But the liberals always focus on objects instead of people. If it's a drunk driver, they focus on the driver, which is weird. They never blame the car, the alcohol, the brakes, the traffic light, etc. It's always the driver. Swap out the motor vehicle for a firearm and shit changes real quick. All of a sudden it's the gun's fault, because inanimate objects are responsible for the things their operators do.

Gun control doesn't reduce crime. Period. It's been proven and proven over and over again. Gun control is where liberals really fail. There is no liberty in gun control. Only control. You aren't fooling me.

 

[Nordling]

An unfortunate truth is that there ARE women out there who support repressing women's rights as far as outlawing abortion and denying access to Planned Parenthood type services and birth control.

I don't want to deny either. If a woman wants an abortion or birth control, fine with me. But they have to pay for it, not the taxpayers. Taxpayers shouldn't foot the bill for someone's choice. If it's your choice, you pay your bill.

Why is that? It's a medical procedure and should be given the same criteria as any other. It is NOT cosmetic surgery. Do you feel the same about abortion when it's to end pregnancy caused by rape or incest? The life of the mother? Not to mention that so called Obamacare does NOT fund abortions...does not pay for them...although I wish it did.

 

[tubby556]

In that case the man (or men if it was a gangbang heh) should split the cost with her equally - good luck enforcing that though. That's not even what the question was about though, pro-life people aren't concerned with who pays, they want it ILLEGAL.

I'm not in the pro life crowd. I'm in the pro choice crowd. I don't give a fuck who pays for it as long as it isn't the taxpayers at large, ie subsidized abortion/birth control. I don't care what the man's role is, it's the woman's choice. It's her body. If she wants to give birth, she pays for it. If she wants an abortion, she pays for it. If you want something, you pay for it. Period.

I thought Roe v Wade was close, and contentious enough that if Romney/Ryan chose to appoint a couple of sympathetic judges (supreme court judges are presidentally appointed right?) it could be overturned. Maybe I'm incorrect on that.

That may be the case and I'm also concerned about the extreme right. I don't think it will go that way. What America really needs is true moderation on the SC. Getting down to brass tacks, the ideals of the American republic (America is NOT a democracy) are getting lost. It's time to enforce the Constitution. We've gotten away from it in many ways.

 

[Nordling]

In that case the man (or men if it was a gangbang heh) should split the cost with her equally - good luck enforcing that though. That's not even what the question was about though, pro-life people aren't concerned with who pays, they want it ILLEGAL.

I'm not in the pro life crowd. I'm in the pro choice crowd. I don't give a fuck who pays for it as long as it isn't the taxpayers at large, ie subsidized abortion/birth control. I don't care what the man's role is, it's the woman's choice. It's her body. If she wants to give birth, she pays for it. If she wants an abortion, she pays for it. If you want something, you pay for it. Period.

I thought Roe v Wade was close, and contentious enough that if Romney/Ryan chose to appoint a couple of sympathetic judges (supreme court judges are presidentally appointed right?) it could be overturned. Maybe I'm incorrect on that.

That may be the case and I'm also concerned about the extreme right. I don't think it will go that way. What America really needs is true moderation on the SC. Getting down to brass tacks, the ideals of the American republic (America is NOT a democracy) are getting lost. It's time to enforce the Constitution. We've gotten away from it in many ways.

The extreme right is already in control of the Republican party. It's been a long process but the 2010 election capped it. The Supreme Court, since Citizens United has shown itself to be a pawn of the Teahadist Party.

 

[Jupiter551]

Gun control doesn't reduce crime. Period. It's been proven and proven over and over again. Gun control is where liberals really fail. There is no liberty in gun control. Only control. You aren't fooling me.

Heh, well something does, because the UK has more people than the state of wisconsin (crime central USA huh?) and less murders per year than wisconsin. Btw not just gun murders, ANY murders. Look it up. I'm not trying to fool you, I'm quite happy living in a society where murders aren't on the news every night.

HiGirlsRHot brought up gun control and referenced a massacre in "Denmark" (I assume he means Norway, a different country) and said their gun laws didn't prevent it. Their gun laws relating to the type of weapons used (semi-automatic military rifles) are practically the same - and there was a massacre, go figure.

 

[tubby556]

Why is that? It's a medical procedure and should be given the same criteria as any other. It is NOT cosmetic surgery.

It's an elective medical procedure. If you want something done to your body or anything in it, that's your business, your burden, and your cost.

Do you feel the same about abortion when it's to end pregnancy caused by rape or incest? The life of the mother? Not to mention that so called Obamacare does NOT fund abortions...does not pay for them...although I wish it did.

Again, as I aforementioned, if a woman wants an abortion or birth control, they must pay. It's their decision, not mine. I'm not making the choice for them as it is their body and their choice. It's also their bill if they choose to abort the pregnancy. I'm not paying for someone else's choice.

I'm electing to get a vasectomy. I have two kids and don't want any more, nor my wife. I'm choosing to get the procedure and I'm going to pay for it. Would I want anyone else to pay for it? No. It's my choice and my responsibility of making that choice is to pay whatever consequences of that choice.

If a woman gets raped and doesn't want to bear the child, abort it, pay for it, then buy a gun and get training on situational awareness. Crime can be prevented. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Don't be one. Some asshole tries to rape you, kill him and make fucking sure he's dead so he can't victimize some other woman in the same way he did you.

 

[Nordling]

Why is that? It's a medical procedure and should be given the same criteria as any other. It is NOT cosmetic surgery.

It's an elective medical procedure. If you want something done to your body or anything in it, that's your business, your burden, and your cost.

Do you feel the same about abortion when it's to end pregnancy caused by rape or incest? The life of the mother? Not to mention that so called Obamacare does NOT fund abortions...does not pay for them...although I wish it did.

Again, as I aforementioned, if a woman wants an abortion or birth control, they must pay. It's their decision, not mine. I'm not making the choice for them as it is their body and their choice. It's also their bill if they choose to abort the pregnancy. I'm not paying for someone else's choice.

I'm electing to get a vasectomy. I have two kids and don't want any more, nor my wife. I'm choosing to get the procedure and I'm going to pay for it. Would I want anyone else to pay for it? No. It's my choice and my responsibility of making that choice is to pay whatever consequences of that choice.

If a woman gets raped and doesn't want to bear the child, abort it, pay for it, then buy a gun and get training on situational awareness. Crime can be prevented. Criminals prefer unarmed victims. Don't be one. Some asshole tries to rape you, kill him and make fucking sure he's dead so he can't victimize some other woman in the same way he did you.

Okay. Just wanted to know who I was talking to. What about "the life of the mother?"

 

[tubby556]

Heh, well something does, because the UK has more people than the state of wisconsin (crime central USA huh?) and less murders per year than wisconsin. Btw not just gun murders, ANY murders. Look it up. I'm not trying to fool you, I'm quite happy living in a society where murders aren't on the news every night.

This coming from someone who lives in a country settled and founded by criminals. Crime rates went up significantly after your gun control laws went into effect. Violence went up, not with firearms, but with other weapons reported as knives, clubs, bats, and chains. The violence didn't decrease overall, it increased in other weapon categories.

HiGirlsRHot brought up gun control and referenced a massacre in "Denmark" (I assume he means Norway, a different country) and said their gun laws didn't prevent it. Their gun laws relating to the type of weapons used (semi-automatic military rifles) are practically the same - and there was a massacre, go figure.

Again, why are you liberals focusing on the inanimate object instead of the person that operated the weapon? If the weapon is responsible for the crime, why isn't it in prison instead of the person that used it to murder someone?

 

[tubby556]

Obama's accomplishments:

• First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
• First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
• First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States
• First President to violate the War Powers Act.
• First President to be held
in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico .
• First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
• First President to spend a trillion dollars on ‘shovel-ready‘ jobs when there was no such thing as ’shovel-ready’ jobs.
• First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
• First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
• First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S. , including those with criminal convictions.
• First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
• First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
• First President to terminate America ‘s ability to put a man in space.
• First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
• First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
• First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
• First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke-out on the reasons for their rate increases.
• First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
• First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
• First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
• First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
• First President to fire an inspector general of Ameri-Corps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
• First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
• First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
• First President to golf 103 separate times in his first three and a half years in office.
• First President to hide his medical, educational and travel records.
• First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
• First President to go on multiple global “apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.
• First President to go on 17 lavish vacations, including date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayer.
• First President to have 22 personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
• First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
• First President to repeat the Holy Qur’an & tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
• First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences”.
• Then, he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.
• First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states ( Mexico vs Arizona ).