Comments on: Obama’s Surrender Monkey Moment? http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/ Sun, 27 May 2012 09:11:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: I'mFedUp http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1177010 I'mFedUp Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:25:40 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1177010 Skanky Malanky...His supporters ARE crazy! Skanky Malanky…His supporters ARE crazy!

]]> By: skinny malinky http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1177007 skinny malinky Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:23:44 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1177007 I never thought Obama was a messiah. The whole "Obama supporters think he's the messiah" thing was a hyperbole used by those opposed to Obama to try and make his supporters look crazy, and also to try to raise expectations for Obama to an unreachable level. And then, when he shows himself not to be a messiah, you make it sound like his supporters must be so upset to learn he's not a deity. You're making up your own reality, then acting like the rest of us live in it. I never thought Obama was a messiah. The whole “Obama supporters think he’s the messiah” thing was a hyperbole used by those opposed to Obama to try and make his supporters look crazy, and also to try to raise expectations for Obama to an unreachable level. And then, when he shows himself not to be a messiah, you make it sound like his supporters must be so upset to learn he’s not a deity. You’re making up your own reality, then acting like the rest of us live in it.

]]> By: KintheNorthwest http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176562 KintheNorthwest Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:24:16 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176562 Obama probably lost the key to his Teleprompter Obama probably lost the key to his Teleprompter

]]> By: Hope Change and Unicorns http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176557 Hope Change and Unicorns Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:20:51 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176557 "Obama declines comment on US hostage crisis off Somalia" http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWBT01101720090409 What in the hell is going on? “Obama declines comment on US hostage crisis off Somalia”

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWBT01101720090409

What in the hell is going on?

]]> By: WhatNow http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176257 WhatNow Thu, 09 Apr 2009 07:43:24 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176257 'Nough said, it's a NYTimes Poll. That's really credible. ‘Nough said, it’s a NYTimes Poll. That’s really credible.

]]> By: viking http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176203 viking Thu, 09 Apr 2009 06:10:46 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176203 You GO TeakwoodKite! You GO TeakwoodKite!

]]> By: TeakwoodKite http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176194 TeakwoodKite Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:52:13 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176194 Mr. Johnson. Here is what I do not get. This coast line.. and 250 miles out to sea are the "motherships" that launch these pirate skiffs and transports assasins. The same transportation model was used to attack India. Are you telling me that the Navy can't set a screen /pick for boats that are more than just fishing boats? Seriously? Now it is a big ocean but with the recent collision in the straits of Hormuz, it would appear they can't keep from bumping into each other. How many carrier groups are stationed of Iran now? Brother can you spare some intergrated airborne radar platforms? Mr. Johnson. Here is what I do not get.

This coast line.. and 250 miles out to sea are the “motherships” that launch these pirate skiffs and transports assasins. The same transportation model was used to attack India. Are you telling me that the Navy can’t set a screen /pick for boats that are more than just fishing boats? Seriously? Now it is a big ocean but with the recent collision in the straits of Hormuz, it would appear they can’t keep from bumping into each other.

How many carrier groups are stationed of Iran now? Brother can you spare some intergrated airborne radar platforms?

]]> By: Senneth http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176189 Senneth Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:46:17 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176189 Bravo, C.S. I will never be ashamed to be an American. I am very angry so many people drank the kool-aid and literally became "Moonies" for That One. But our great nation will survive. Bravo, C.S. I will never be ashamed to be an American. I am very angry so many people drank the kool-aid and literally became “Moonies” for That One. But our great nation will survive.

]]> By: I'mFedUp http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176179 I'mFedUp Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:40:13 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176179 Why don't we do this...You morons who keep barking about Bush...Keep it up. I will come back in 30 years and listen to your BS crap all over again. For the people who love America, can we vote out the trash regardless of party? I have finally figured out the AGENDA of the hard left nuts here...it's okay if Congress and the White House are all hard left, but it's just these particular nuts that aren't blowing people's skirts up. In other words, according to the nuts here, no GOP person should ever show up again. Nice try. The reason America works, when it DOES, is BALANCE. Why don’t we do this…You morons who keep barking about Bush…Keep it up. I will come back in 30 years and listen to your BS crap all over again. For the people who love America, can we vote out the trash regardless of party? I have finally figured out the AGENDA of the hard left nuts here…it’s okay if Congress and the White House are all hard left, but it’s just these particular nuts that aren’t blowing people’s skirts up. In other words, according to the nuts here, no GOP person should ever show up again. Nice try. The reason America works, when it DOES, is BALANCE.

]]> By: TeakwoodKite http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176163 TeakwoodKite Thu, 09 Apr 2009 05:20:09 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176163 Hey wait a fine second! I am NOT Ashamed to be an American, ever! I am ashamed that BO isn't. Hey wait a fine second!

I am NOT Ashamed to be an American, ever!
I am ashamed that BO isn’t.

]]> By: I'mFedUp http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176105 I'mFedUp Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:07:52 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176105 JS...awesome. JS…awesome.

]]> By: tminu http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176104 tminu Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:07:02 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176104 They had to show all of THEIR documents to join the damn military! Obama's obfuscations do not fly in the ranks. Their duty will be not to CIC but to their closest higher ups and their fellow soldiers. He has lied to them so many times. They had to show all of THEIR documents to join the damn military!

Obama’s obfuscations do not fly in the ranks. Their duty will be not to CIC but to their closest higher ups and their fellow soldiers.
He has lied to them so many times.

]]> By: tminu http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176096 tminu Thu, 09 Apr 2009 04:02:13 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176096 66% of all voters voted in 2008 52% voted for Obama so only 34.7% of all voters voted for the fraud This means the vast majority of voters DID NOT vote for the illegal usurper 66% of all voters voted in 2008
52% voted for Obama

so only 34.7% of all voters voted for the fraud

This means the vast majority of voters DID NOT vote for the illegal usurper

]]> By: politicalidentitycrisis http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176065 politicalidentitycrisis Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:33:49 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176065 Gee Peggy Sue, that kind of sounds like how Obama wants to redistribute the wealth. Pirate Obama it is! Gee Peggy Sue, that kind of sounds like how Obama wants to redistribute the wealth.

Pirate Obama it is!

]]> By: JozefAL http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/20515/obamas-surrender-monkey-moment/#comment-1176039 JozefAL Thu, 09 Apr 2009 03:11:37 +0000 http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/?p=20515#comment-1176039 You're wrong about the "usually 10%" part. There haven't been that many cases since WWII where a third party or even ALL third parties combined have scored more than 5% of the total. "They don't tell you how many voted for a 3rd party anymore." Well, the simple fact is "they" rarely did except in 1992 when Ross Perot won some 19 million votes and in 1996 when Perot won about 8 million votes. (Nader's vote in 2000, amounting to a little more than 2% of the total vote was only mentioned because of the overall controversy.) It's very easy to look up the votes for any Presidential election online and find how the votes went. Looking at Wikipedia, here's the percentage breakdown since 1948: 1948: D-49.6; R-45.1; Dixiecrat-2.4; Prog-2.4; Soc-0.3; Prohibition-0.2; Others- <0.1 (Only the first three received electoral votes--in order, 303, 189, 39--even though the Progressives received a similar vote to the Dixiecrats.) 1952: R-55.2; D-44.3; Others-0.5 (The other parties combined for less than 320,000 votes, with the Progressives alone comprising 44% of that vote.) 1956: R-57.4; D-42.0; StRts-0.2; UnpD-0.3; Others-0.2 (UnpD refers to slates of "Unpledged Democrats" in several Southern States. They could technically be added with the D count but they didn't support the Party's official candidate.) 1960: D-49.7; R-49.6; UnpD-0.4; Others-0.4 (This is actually harder since voters in Alabama and Georgia didn't actually vote for a President, but rather electors and the states' "total votes" for each party usually represent the largest number won by any of the various electors. The UnpD, again, could be included with the regular D.) 1964: D-61.0; R-38.5; UnpD-0.3; Others-0.3 1968: R-43.4; D-42.7; AmInd-13.5; Others-0.4 1972: R-60.7; D-37.5; AmInd-1.4; Others-0.4 1976: D-50.1; R-48.0; Others-1.9 (This year, there were 5 candidates who received between 0.1% and 0.9%.) 1980: R-50.7; D-41.0; Anderson/Ind-6.6; Lib-1.1; Others-0.6 1984: R-58.8; D-40.6; Lib-0.25; Others-0.35 1988: R-53.4; D-45.6; Lib-0.5; Others-0.5 1992: D-43.0; R-37.4; Perot/Ind-18.9; Lib-0.3; Others-0.4 1996: D-49.2; R-40.7; Reform-8.4; Grn-0.7; Lib-0.5; Others-0.5 2000: R-47.87; D-48.38; Grn-2.74; Reform-0.43; Lib-0.36; Others-0.22 2004: R-50.7; D-48.3; Nader/Ind-0.4; Lib-0.3; Others-0.3 2008: D-52.9; R-45.7; Nader/Ind-0.6; Lib-0.4; Others-0.4 Overall, since 1948, there've only been 5 elections where 3rd parties have won more than 5% of the total vote (in 2000, the combined total for 3rd parties amounted to less than 4%) and in only 3 of those elections did 3rd parties pull in a combined total of more than 10% (with only 1968 and 1992 having a single 3rd party candidate pull in more than 10% on his own)and in those three instances, a single candidate accounted for more than 80% of all 3rd party votes (additionally, in 1980, one candidate was responsible for nearly 80% of all 3rd party votes). You’re wrong about the “usually 10%” part. There haven’t been that many cases since WWII where a third party or even ALL third parties combined have scored more than 5% of the total.
“They don’t tell you how many voted for a 3rd party anymore.” Well, the simple fact is “they” rarely did except in 1992 when Ross Perot won some 19 million votes and in 1996 when Perot won about 8 million votes. (Nader’s vote in 2000, amounting to a little more than 2% of the total vote was only mentioned because of the overall controversy.) It’s very easy to look up the votes for any Presidential election online and find how the votes went.
Looking at Wikipedia, here’s the percentage breakdown since 1948:
1948: D-49.6; R-45.1; Dixiecrat-2.4; Prog-2.4; Soc-0.3; Prohibition-0.2; Others- <0.1 (Only the first three received electoral votes–in order, 303, 189, 39–even though the Progressives received a similar vote to the Dixiecrats.)
1952: R-55.2; D-44.3; Others-0.5 (The other parties combined for less than 320,000 votes, with the Progressives alone comprising 44% of that vote.)
1956: R-57.4; D-42.0; StRts-0.2; UnpD-0.3; Others-0.2 (UnpD refers to slates of “Unpledged Democrats” in several Southern States. They could technically be added with the D count but they didn’t support the Party’s official candidate.)
1960: D-49.7; R-49.6; UnpD-0.4; Others-0.4 (This is actually harder since voters in Alabama and Georgia didn’t actually vote for a President, but rather electors and the states’ “total votes” for each party usually represent the largest number won by any of the various electors. The UnpD, again, could be included with the regular D.)
1964: D-61.0; R-38.5; UnpD-0.3; Others-0.3
1968: R-43.4; D-42.7; AmInd-13.5; Others-0.4
1972: R-60.7; D-37.5; AmInd-1.4; Others-0.4
1976: D-50.1; R-48.0; Others-1.9 (This year, there were 5 candidates who received between 0.1% and 0.9%.)
1980: R-50.7; D-41.0; Anderson/Ind-6.6; Lib-1.1; Others-0.6
1984: R-58.8; D-40.6; Lib-0.25; Others-0.35
1988: R-53.4; D-45.6; Lib-0.5; Others-0.5
1992: D-43.0; R-37.4; Perot/Ind-18.9; Lib-0.3; Others-0.4
1996: D-49.2; R-40.7; Reform-8.4; Grn-0.7; Lib-0.5; Others-0.5
2000: R-47.87; D-48.38; Grn-2.74; Reform-0.43; Lib-0.36; Others-0.22
2004: R-50.7; D-48.3; Nader/Ind-0.4; Lib-0.3; Others-0.3
2008: D-52.9; R-45.7; Nader/Ind-0.6; Lib-0.4; Others-0.4
Overall, since 1948, there’ve only been 5 elections where 3rd parties have won more than 5% of the total vote (in 2000, the combined total for 3rd parties amounted to less than 4%) and in only 3 of those elections did 3rd parties pull in a combined total of more than 10% (with only 1968 and 1992 having a single 3rd party candidate pull in more than 10% on his own)and in those three instances, a single candidate accounted for more than 80% of all 3rd party votes (additionally, in 1980, one candidate was responsible for nearly 80% of all 3rd party votes).

]]>