We must vote Obama out of office..

People are morons.. no sense of context and humor... both presidents said it and meant it in the same way..

Obama said some people want him to go around congress and enact laws on his own, but that's not our a democracy works..

Bush was saying a dictatorship would be easier.. both said the same thing in different ways.. and anyone who takes it seriously simply isn't very bright.

Originally posted by hdutton
It is posts like this one which helps me understand what it is really like to be an American.

I would like to think all of those who reply, reguardless of their party, will fight their way to the polls in November and demand their right to vote be respected.

I would also like for everyone to keep in mind something which Churchill once said.

" People generally get the government they deserve."

Churchill was correct.

However, if someone is convinced to their core that their vote doesn't count. Why should they waste their time voting? Because if their theory is true, they will get whoever "TPTB" want and voting is hopeless.

reply to post by Evanzsayz


The dead horse gets beaten again.

Voting is NOT going to do ANYTHING. You're playing a game rigged for you to LOSE. When will the populace understand this very SIMPLE fact? --I don't know--

reply to post by grandmakdw


So you are voting based off fear, propaganda and ignorance of what you are voting FOR.

The only thing you are passionate about is right wing propaganda...in your mind you truly believe you are voting out a dictator. At least you are honest about your delusions and admit speaking logically to you will do no good.


Enjoy your ignorance in casting your vote for someone you don't support. Good job

reply to post by miniatus


It doesn't matter a hill of beans what Bush said or did at this point.

He is retired, dropped out of sight. NOT the President nor is he running for President.

Any discussion of Bush at this point just looks like excuses and whining on the part of Obama and his supporters.

If Obama were running against Bush then it would be relevant, but living in the past is no way to move "forward", it is just being whimpy and whiny and has become old and tiresome.

The economy belongs to Obama.

He said he was going to change things, but by your own admission he did not. He and his family keep on living like Louis the 14th and Marie Antoinette and passing money through stimulus to cronies and the mega rich who donate to his cause. He said he was going to be transparent, but won't explain his social security number belonging to a dead man before him. Nor will he disclose what happened with Fast and Furious, so much for HIS promises.

The economy now belongs to HIM and whining about Bush is acting childish.
Transparency now belongs to HIM!
He promised a ton of things that would be better by now when he ran the first time, all of those things are now worse - even Obamacare "we have to pass it to find out what is in it - Pelosi said" that meant even Obama didn't know what was in it. How completely and utterly irresponsible.

reply to post by grandmakdw

If Obama were running against Bush then it would be relevant, but living in the past is no way to move "forward", it is just being whimpy and whiny and has become old and tiresome.

Romney is advocating all Bush style policies.

You would know that if you actually knew what Romney stood for...but you don't because you are just blinded by hate and have absolutely no idea what you are voting for.

So yes...Bush is relevant...we have an exact example of what Romney would do in office.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by grandmakdw

 

If Obama were running against Bush then it would be relevant, but living in the past is no way to move "forward", it is just being whimpy and whiny and has become old and tiresome.

Romney is advocating all Bush style policies.

You would know that if you actually knew what Romney stood for...but you don't because you are just blinded by hate and have absolutely no idea what you are voting for.

So yes...Bush is relevant...we have an exact example of what Romney would do in office.

And that my friend is far left thinking which is blinded by hate of Romney and Republicans and Conservatives - you watch to much MSNBC or CNN

Im not sure about Romney for a Govenor he seems to lack the Experience of running the show , I would expect him to bring his Leadership abilities to this election , I havent seen it yet. It was funny how he got booed when he mentioned "Obamacare" at the NAACP though.

Originally posted by masputoquetu
Im not sure about Romney for a Govenor he seems to lack the Experience of running the show , I would expect him to bring his Leadership abilities to this election , I havent seen it yet. It was funny how he got booed when he mentioned "Obamacare" at the NAACP though.

Of course he was booed at the NAACP, I'm certain he even expected it. He went despite knowing that he would be treated badly because he was not a Democrat, The NAACP is a wing of the Democratic party and have been at the beck and call of Democrats for many many years.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


And what Bush policies did Obama change?

I don't see any change.

reply to post by grandmakdw

And that my friend is far left thinking which is blinded by hate of Romney and Republicans and Conservatives - you watch to much MSNBC or CNN

I'm casting my vote FOR Obama...not against Romney. I don't hate Romney, I disagree with most of his policies. Unlike you...who has already stated many times that you are just voting against Obama because of your hate...I actually know what each stands for and have decided which one better matches my beliefs. I doubt you even know Romney's position on any issue.

Nice try though...just continue in your ignorance and vote for someone you don't support.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


It is perfectly legitimate to try and get rid of a corrupt government or government official, or one you think is doing great harm to your country. I don't think the French were rioting for anyone when Louis and Marie were deposed.
I don't think the Americans when they overthrew the rule of King George were saying, oh, we want George Washington instead.

I have already stated all my objections to the policies of Obama and the Democratic Party. Not wanting what they want for the country is a legitimate stand to take. Even thinking like the French and early Americans, anything but the King would be a vast improvement.

I dont think it matters who is "voted" in. I dont like Obama, I dont like Romney. These guys are figureheads IMO and hold little power... they are the ones who play the game and put their faces to it. I figure the only way to change the country is get rid of the ones who prop the prez up.. the real game players with no term limits. Get rid of every single person in the house, senate, congress, etc. Throw out the "czars", and all of that nonsense. Then retool it according the the wishes of the people with a real vote. Average Americans who arent bought and paid for to keep bloated govt entanglement well fed.

Yeah.. Im dreamiing again...

Originally posted by miniatus
Bush shot the deficit up to near record numbers in his term as president.. he enacted a ton of policies and programs that required spending.. he also initiated the wars we're still fighting to this day.. So yes BUSH has a huge part to do with our debt.. that's an inescapable fact.. let's not also forget that he took over after Clinton which had balanced the budget and actually gave us a SURPLUS .. so Bush went through the Surplus AND shot us up to extreme debt.. that's a serious accomplishment right there.. Obama took over with an already enormous debt as well as two wars to take over..

Obama's failing is that he didn't get rid of those programs, he's kept them going ..

You say he's the worst president we've ever had in our history, I just simply don't accept that.. Bush is up there as worst as far as I'm concerned.. I'm no Obama fan mind you.. I was planning to vote republican during the next election but since Romney is the republican candidate, I don't know what I'm going to do at this point.. I think Romney as a president would be a nightmare.

edit on 7/11/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/11/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

edit on 7/11/2012 by miniatus because: (no reason given)

Ahh.. But if we go by the Obama Supporter logic then Clinton inherited his good ballanced economy from the Policies set but Bush Sr. Right? And Bush Jr. who did not "get us into wars" inherited the garbage from the policies Clinton put in place. And now Obama is either dealing with in my opinion that same bad economy wrapped up with his poor policies and planning that have not gotten us out. So is it safe to say the next president is doomed because of Obamas bad economy?

When are we going to stop blaming the guys before and start owing up to things. Seriously?

reply to post by TheTardis

But if we go by the Obama Supporter logic then Clinton inherited his good ballanced economy from the Policies set but Bush Sr. Right?

Clinton didn't have a good balanced economy until the end of his 8 years.

Bush took that balanced economy and destroyed it in his 8 years.

Obama is taking Bush's destroyed economy and slowly getting it back to life.

Originally posted by karen61057
reply to post by Nite_wing

 

The child was a run away . Not lost. The child was an older teen ager.
That move was grandstanding and show offy and only went to the glorification of Romney. See what a great guy I am. If you have to toot your own horn.....

You are wrong. The girl had been drugged at a party. She was kept in a house because they were afraid to let her go. The reward saved her but that does not change the fact that he shut down Bain. Get it straight. Oh, I forgot, socialists change the facts to suit their arguement. Sorry.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by TheTardis

 

You might recall a couple of planes flown by terrorists plunging us into war.

Ummm...yeah....we went to war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

The propaganda and lies that you believe and state as fact is scary.

Seriously there guy. History lessons. Take some. Maybe you were not old enough to remember. But the countries we went into were harboring the taliban and were their strong hold. They did not give up said terrorists and refused to help us. The entire country wanted us to go after those guys. Had we not gone over there people would have been calling for Bush's head. If you werent still breast feeding at the time you might remember it. I remember it clearly. I love how everything you hear in the media is "propaganda and lies" but when it suits your needs your on here trying to throw it in our faces as fact. You cant have it both ways. Grow up.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Ummm...yeah....we went to war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11.

...and how many wars are we in now?

Originally posted by miniatus
People also blame Obama for high gas prices, forgetting that the highest gas prices we've had on average were under Bush's term.. they spiked up to over $4.10 a gallon ( average ) on his watch.. that average hasn't been hit again..

How quick we forget it was also down in the $2 range for a lot of his presidency as well. Again, the war in the middle east cause a lot of the gas price problems and in all actuality it still isnt near as bad as other countries. But the only thin I blame obama for in that area is not letting the pipeline from Canada to come through and the democrats in general for not letting us drill in Anwar. Oil speculators are what is killing gas prices. Dont put words in our mouths.

reply to post by grandmakdw



I have always thought of voting as a duty not a right.

I hope you will forgive my "fuzzy" math.

If there is a candidate which you do not want elected you have the duty to vote against them.

If you do not, your non-vote against them counts as 1/2 vote for them. Think of it this way;

Three people are going into the voting booths. One votes for the Republican, the second votes for the Democrate, the third does not vote for either in a particular office.

This actually counts as one and one half votes for each candidate; by not voting "for" either. If the third had voted either way it would have been two votes against the other candidate. If enough people do not vote, one candidate will win by default.

As I said, "I hope you will forgive my fuzzy math" but it works in my head.

I don' care you you vote for or against -- just go vote !

It is you duty !!