It's amusing, yet sad, to watch the President accuse his opponent of a felony without any proof or investigation. If Romney committed a felony by lying to the SEC, shouldn't Eric Holder be investigating him?
Why? I'm interested in the reasons people are choosing to vote for him. Is it a vote for him or a vote against the GOP?
I want Obama to be president. It'll give the Media less excuses once he fucks up the second term too. Besides Romney blows anyway.
Obama's second term will be delicious only to see the right-wing-tards froth themselves to near 1997-Clintonian era levels. I'm assuming the impeachment hearings are already planned.
60%, 44%, close enough. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ministration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Are you sure? I can't recall the last time a sitting President allowed a top official in their administration to accuse a rival candidate of having committed a felony, despite there being no investigation, no evidence or no indication of such act, failing to call for an official investigation, failing to write a letter to the proper authorities, etc.; then when called on it by the press, specically affirming the attack by the underling, thus making her statements completely owned by him. Sure, there are examples of politicians wallowing deep in the mud (but far less often than you seem be implying). But, we are talking a sitting President, not just wallowing DEEP in the mud, but frolicking in it. But, you say it happens all the time. Please remind me of several of those past instances. Thanks.
Chrisinpdx is in an extreme minority, though, just as Shooter used to be an extremist for this community's "right".
Hasn't happened. Not only did Obama refuse to downplay those very bold and inflammatory claims, but he also said that Romney should have to answer for them, and that as President, "The buck stops with you". Yes, he botched Truman's great line, but he wasn't on the 'Prompter, so it's just another gaffe from President BushDidIt.
