Obama's former law school professor: "He must not win in 2012"

[Soul Crusher]

Hey Tinkerbell, you got some questions in this thread to answer about your behavior.

If you opt to play stupid (probably not playing) and ask what questions, I will gladly quote them again for you.

Watch the clip idiot.   

[LurkerNoMore]

I am not wasting a second of my time on your bullshit.

Answer the questions you sociopath.

[Soul Crusher]

I am not wasting a second of my time on your bullshit.

Answer the questions you sociopath.

Answer what?   The professor said obama gave trillions to the wall street mafia while fucking everyone else.  WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT GRASP? 


Face it you gay stalking creep - your messiah has failed and only has a few clowns like yourself left to support him. 

[LurkerNoMore]

Hey Tinkerbell, you got some questions in this thread to answer about your behavior.

If you opt to play stupid (probably not playing) and ask what questions, I will gladly quote them again for you.

As predicted.

Answer what?     

Here you go.  I increased the size of it so you won't miss it this time.  Answer.  Then go back to your gay dreams and delusions.

he didn't say that at all

how is it possible for you to read text and then just imagine it said something that wasn't there

you do the same think with videos which I why I never waste my time watching videos that you post

maybe you missed this sentence in the article that you posted
.

no joke - you might actually have something seriously wrong in your brain

[Straw Man]

Answer what?   The professor said obama gave trillions to the wall street mafia while fucking everyone else.  WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT GRASP? 


Face it you gay stalking creep - your messiah has failed and only has a few clowns like yourself left to support him. 

TARP started under Bush

also you do understand that Ungers primary criticism is that Obama has not gone far enough in pushing liberal/progressive agenda

you do understand that......right?

[Soul Crusher]

TARP started under Bush

also you do understand that Ungers primary criticism is that Obama has not gone far enough in pushing liberal/progressive agenda

you do understand that......right?

Obama supported TARP, flew in to DC to support TARP and appointed its author as Treasury Secretary.   Yes, Geither, as Paulsons' right hand man, was the actual author of tarp. 


So spare us the bullshit - Obama voted for TARP and supported it just as much as anyone.   

[Straw Man]

Obama supported TARP, flew in to DC to support TARP and appointed its author as Treasury Secretary.   Yes, Geither, as Paulsons' right hand man, was the actual author of tarp. 


So spare us the bullshit - Obama voted for TARP and supported it just as much as anyone.   

and what about my questions regarding Unger

[Soul Crusher]

and what about my questions regarding Unger

A lot of what he said in the clip was very accurate.   Whatever the label you want to put on it, he was dead right about the failings of obama in the economy and the fact that obama has given away trillions of dollars to the wall street mob and fucked the rest of us w debt, chaos, food stamps, etc. 

[Straw Man]

A lot of what he said in the clip was very accurate.   Whatever the label you want to put on it, he was dead right about the failings of obama in the economy and the fact that obama has given away trillions of dollars to the wall street mob and fucked the rest of us w debt, chaos, food stamps, etc. 

yes or no is fine

here is the question again

also you do understand that Ungers primary criticism is that Obama has not gone far enough in pushing liberal/progressive agenda

you do understand that......right?

[Soul Crusher]

yes or no is fine

here is the question again

also you do understand that Ungers primary criticism is that Obama has not gone far enough in pushing liberal/progressive agenda

you do understand that......right?

Yes, but he is also arguing that obama is basically corrupt and simply either does not understand the problem, or does not care about solving any problems. 

i agree w the prof about moving to production based economy vs debt as well as consumption tax vs others.   

The fact is that Obama is killing off the democrat party like i sad a week or two ago, and this guy sees it since obamunism does not provide a basis for anything in the future whatsoever.     

[avxo]

wow, a guy who earns 280,000 a year supportes a republican.

What are you talking about? The guy is saying Obama must be defeated because he's not progressive enough.

holy shit, i am so shocked here.

It's easy to be shocked when you imagine that the text says something that shocks you. As opposed to, you know, actually reading it.

[Straw Man]

Yes, but he is also arguing that obama is basically corrupt and simply either does not understand the problem, or does not care about solving any problems. 

i agree w the prof about moving to production based economy vs debt as well as consumption tax vs others.   

The fact is that Obama is killing off the democrat party like i sad a week or two ago, and this guy sees it since obamunism does not provide a basis for anything in the future whatsoever.     

where did he say Obama was corrupt

See comments by AVXO

how many times do you need your nose rubbed in the actual words that were written

[Soul Crusher]

where did he say Obama was corrupt

See comments by AVXO

how many times do you need your nose rubbed in the actual words that were written

he said Obama gave away TRILLIONS to wall street moneyed interests while offering everyone else nothing but food stamps and rhetoric.   What does that tell you where his feelings are?   

[avxo]

he said Obama gave away TRILLIONS to wall street moneyed interests while offering everyone else nothing but food stamps and rhetoric.   What does that tell you where his feelings are?   

He's not saying Obama is corrupt: he's saying that Obama isn't as progressive as he thinks he should be, having catered to the rich people who don't need it while ignoring the poor people who do need it. Let me spell it out for you in case you aren't good at reading: he's saying Obama didn't "spread the wealth around" enough. And this is the guy you're quoting to argue that Obama should be defeated?

I really think you're paid by the Obama campaign 333386. You get paid to post the most ridiculous stories to make people stand up and defend Obama - even people who wouldn't otherwise do so - to get them to see him as someone subjected to a smear campaign. and put them into the mentality of defending Obama.

[Soul Crusher]

He's not saying Obama is corrupt: he's saying that Obama isn't as progressive as he thinks he should be, having catered to the rich people who don't need it while ignoring the poor people who do need it. Let me spell it out for you in case you aren't good at reading: he's saying Obama didn't "spread the wealth around" enough. And this is the guy you're quoting to argue that Obama should be defeated?

I really think you're paid by the Obama campaign 333386. You get paid to post the most ridiculous stories to make people stand up and defend Obama - even people who wouldn't otherwise do so - to get them to see him as someone subjected to a smear campaign. and put them into the mentality of defending Obama.

That is their problem not mine.  Obama is not being smeared, obama is being exposed for his disastrous record and those that voted for this disaster need to be reminded of it.   


Obama's record speaks for itself.   From his lies and smears of Hillary in the primary, his corrupting the caucuses in many states, his lies about hope and change to get elected, his fraudulent stim bill, his bailing out corrupt thugs on wall street, his appointment of radicals and freaks to all levels of the govt, his spitting on NYC w the KSM trial and backing the GZ mosque, his ramming through the worst possible health care bill imaginable, his pissing away billions on corrupt solar companies, his war on the church, his war on the economy, his war on coal, his war on states dealing with voter fraud, his war on the states dealing w immigration, his daily bashing business people, his pandering to gays, pandering to hispanics, pandering to fringe groups, he has been the worst president and has presided over the worst admn of my lifetime without even a close second.     



Those that voted for this may call it a smear, but the reality is that there is nothing to defend whatsoever in this fraudulent admn that more and more people are waking up to daily.   

[LurkerNoMore]

where did he say Obama was corrupt

See comments by AVXO

how many times do you need your nose rubbed in the actual words that were written

LMAO

He's not saying Obama is corrupt: he's saying that Obama isn't as progressive as he thinks he should be, having catered to the rich people who don't need it while ignoring the poor people who do need it. Let me spell it out for you in case you aren't good at reading: he's saying Obama didn't "spread the wealth around" enough. And this is the guy you're quoting to argue that Obama should be defeated?

I really think you're paid by the Obama campaign 333386. You get paid to post the most ridiculous stories to make people stand up and defend Obama - even people who wouldn't otherwise do so - to get them to see him as someone subjected to a smear campaign. and put them into the mentality of defending Obama.

Haha.  Don't waste your time.  The little retard has shown he can't read worth a damn and can't answer a simple question.  Guess they don't make "lawyers" like they used to.

[avxo]

That is their problem not mine.  Obama is not being smeared, obama is being exposed for his disastrous record and those that voted for this disaster need to be reminded of it.

What I don't understand is why would you, who aren't a "progressive" and don't want "social justice" as this guy defines those terms, use Obama's failure to be "progressive" and met out "social justice" (again, according to this guys' definition) as an argument for why Obama should be booted from the White House?

Obama's record speaks for itself.

Right. So there's no need to distort it or to use someone who wants policies to the left of Obama's as a supporting crutch.

From his lies and smears of Hillary in the primary, his corrupting the caucuses in many states, his lies about hope and change to get elected, his fraudulent stim bill, his bailing out corrupt thugs on wall street, his appointment of radicals and freaks to all levels of the govt, his spitting on NYC w the KSM trial and backing the GZ mosque, his ramming through the worst possible health care bill imaginable, his pissing away billions on corrupt solar companies, his war on the church, his war on the economy, his war on coal, his war on states dealing with voter fraud, his war on the states dealing w immigration, his daily bashing business people, his pandering to gays, pandering to hispanics, pandering to fringe groups, he has been the worst president and has presided over the worst admn of my lifetime without even a close second.

Right. But that's besides the point. Remember, this guy's problem with Obama isn't that he isn't a good President. His problem is that Obama didn't give enough handouts to poor but instead sided with the rich people. He's, essentially, accusing Obama of being a Republican (as he defines the term).

Perhaps both of you agree that Obama needs to be booted from the White House, but it's quite ridiculous for you to quote him as supporting your position, because you are diametrically opposed.

Those that voted for this may call it a smear, but the reality is that there is nothing to defend whatsoever in this fraudulent admn that more and more people are waking up to daily.

It's not an issue of smears or of people waking up. It's an issue of endorsing the argument of someone who wants policies that are farther to the left that Obama's as the reason why Obama should lose the election. You did this, nobody else.


On a sidenote, someone else mentioned you were a lawyer. Are you actually a lawyer, admitted to the Bar and all?

[Soul Crusher]

What I don't understand is why would you, who aren't a "progressive" and don't want "social justice" as this guy defines those terms, use Obama's failure to be "progressive" and met out "social justice" (again, according to this guys' definition) as an argument for why Obama should be booted from the White House?


Right. So there's no need to distort it or to use someone who wants policies to the left of Obama's as a supporting crutch.


Right. But that's besides the point. Remember, this guy's problem with Obama isn't that he isn't a good President. His problem is that Obama didn't give enough handouts to poor but instead sided with the rich people. He's, essentially, accusing Obama of being a Republican (as he defines the term).

Perhaps both of you agree that Obama needs to be booted from the White House, but it's quite ridiculous for you to quote him as supporting your position, because you are diametrically opposed.


It's not an issue of smears or of people waking up. It's an issue of endorsing the argument of someone who wants policies that are farther to the left that Obama's as the reason why Obama should lose the election. You did this, nobody else.


On a sidenote, someone else mentioned you were a lawyer. Are you actually a lawyer, admitted to the Bar and all?

Whether the guy is a progressive, a communist, a libertarian, a conservative, he made some interesting observations I agree with, some I don't. 

But I do agree with him that Obama is destroying the democrat party and that is why anyone who gives a damn in the demo party knows he has to go as well.

   

   

[avxo]

Whether the guy is a progressive, a communist, a libertarian, a conservative, he made some interesting observations I agree with, some I don't. 

That's a fair point. It just seems weird to use his position as a justification for why Obama must not win when the guy's position basically boils down to "Obama is a closet Republican!".

But I do agree with him that Obama is destroying the democrat party and that is why anyone who gives a damn in the demo party knows he has to go as well.

I don't think Obama is destroying the Democrats. Consider Pelosi, Rangel and Frank in the House, and Schumer and Reid in the Senate. Those guys are, at least in my estimation) far to the left of Obama. In fact, I'd almost call Obama a centrist if I was doing a point-by-point comparison with Pelosi, Rangel or Frank. And considering how clearly Obama is to the left, that's saying something.

[JBGRAY]

Well, I'm sure he will be pulling for Dennis Kucinich on the ticket, the destroyer of sandwich shops everywhere.

[Option D]

this is what i didnt understand from 2 years ago. I said i didnt like Obama because he wasnt as far to the left as he promised. And 3333... YOU KILLED ME FOR IT, almost like it wasnt a real reason not to like Obama. So what i dont understand now is when this professor (of the school you said he never attended) says the same thing, you agree with him. Is your hatred for Obama short circuiting your arguments to where they get all screwed up in you little brain?....Face it...with this one, you really wet the bed. As you say "i dont like obama because he is a socialist" but then you post someone saying "Obama isnt really a socialist so he needs to go", youre like "hell yeah this guy is right"...

Bro whats your deal... Take a break from getbig and your Obama hate for like an Hour. OR
PM fury or coach and ask him to back you up on this thread because youre drowning over here

[andreisdaman]

That obama is a fraud and a con man who lied his way to the presidency and has plundered the treasury in favor of criminals like corzine and the wall street mafia.   

uh huh....the FBI, the NSA, etc always let people lie their way to the presidency.......the candidates are vetted way in advance you dummy......they investigated up the ass to make sure of their identity and who they are and what they've done

[whork]

Answer what?   The professor said obama gave trillions to the wall street mafia while fucking everyone else.  WHAT PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT GRASP? 


Face it you gay stalking creep - your messiah has failed and only has a few clowns like yourself left to support him. 

You must feel like an idiot claiming Obama is a communist all this time, huh?

[whork]

He's not saying Obama is corrupt: he's saying that Obama isn't as progressive as he thinks he should be, having catered to the rich people who don't need it while ignoring the poor people who do need it. Let me spell it out for you in case you aren't good at reading: he's saying Obama didn't "spread the wealth around" enough. And this is the guy you're quoting to argue that Obama should be defeated?

I really think you're paid by the Obama campaign 333386. You get paid to post the most ridiculous stories to make people stand up and defend Obama - even people who wouldn't otherwise do so - to get them to see him as someone subjected to a smear campaign. and put them into the mentality of defending Obama.

Haha seriously someone should learn 333... to read and comprehend material. Massive owning right there
No wonder he is against learning, better health care etc he wants people to be as dumb and miserabel as him

[LurkerNoMore]

Well this thread didn't turn out the way it was expected.  It did however, turn out the way most typically do.  With a grand backfire and the little retard getting shit on while running in circles.