LAST EDITED ON Oct-01-11 AT 11:38PM (MST)[p]>So Obama has had a lackluster
>presidency, can't argue with that,
>I will argue about his
>intelligence. what you're too stupid
>grasp is the subject of
>this thread is the low
>standards republicans have for their
>candidates. that standard is the
>reason Obama is president today.
>Bush was dumb and left
>a trail of political destruction,
>you follow that with a
>dull old man and a
>dimwit bimbo. Obama was
>the best choice, don't forget
>god wasn't on the ballot,
>just Obama and McCain.
So everyone loves a winner that was the best choice but actually ended up being the poorest choice for a President for not getting the best advisors to help get the country out of the mess we are in. Yes we all know according to all you Obama supporters on here that Bush got us in all of our current problems; but how have they improved the situation? So which is it: Obama got crappy advisors, or is he not competent to run this nation? So did he get fooled, somehow I don't think so.
>
>So here we are at the
>next attempt and what have
>you learned? Bachmann, Palin, Perry,
>? Romney isn't much
>more than a pale faced
>Obama with special underwear but
>he's your best offering and
>the only one with a
>chance. if you lose again
>will it be the "
>gay voters " as you
>call anyone with more smarts
>than you or will it
>be yours for offering up
>nothing but losers?
Maybe the Republicans are trying the new approach to put a total idiot in seeing as how Obama hasn't shown much promise to doing anything, they may use the Geico mantra of "So easy Obama could do it". However that would be an oximoron, since Obama hasn't really showed that he can do anything, so how would he know it if was easy or not.
WVBOWAK