Obama

[mickmcart]

It amazes how the media can still support a president who has almost single-handedly train-wrecked out economy. I know we all have our opinions and views, but this guy is not done yet. Are the liberals so desperate to hold the office that they are willing to sacrifice this very country?

Seriously, my liberal friends, stop and take a good hard look at what your about to lose. If our economy collapses so will all the social programs you love.

I'm as conservative as they come, so you might not like my opinions, but please, just look at what this man is doing.

[Devereaux]

You don't know the half of it.

?Where are the "girlfriends". ?Doesn't it strike you as strange that NO ONE has come forth as having known 0b in college. Or at Columbia. He isn't in the yearbook. NO ONE in the school knows him. Not a single professor has come forth to say that he was in their class. Here's a guy with "oratory" skills - yet no one in school has any clue or remembrance of him.

?Where did he go to high school. ?Does anyone THERE remember him.

Man's a ghost.

[xmunckx]

If that is correct I have to say it is very very strange.   
Media bias aside how is that story not being reported somewhere?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[Chemsoldier]

If that is correct I have to say it is very very strange.   
Media bias aside how is that story not being reported somewhere?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Media bias is very real...but red meat is red meat for the reporter.  If this was a slam dunk I imagine reporters would hit on it.

[mickmcart]

Yeah, it is quite amazing what they don't know about him. Any other President or candidate you hear every bit of their past. The way I figure, his past must be so horribly damaging they none of them dare touch it.

All the gloves will be off if he gets a second term. He knows he needs to get rid of the second amendment if he truly wants this country to be a third world wasteland. By the way, hows your Chinese? Aye Ya!

[Uninformed Opinion]

Not claiming to be an Obama fan, but it amazes me how all off a sudden 10 years of watching the economy fall on it's ass is all his fault and Bush never get's brought into the picture. On one hand you have a guy that gave us the the worst police state we have ever seen, wipped out a budget surplus and put us trillions of dollars into the hole, as well as sticking us with TWO wars making sure we will stay in that hole for many years to come. On the other, we have a guy that wants to give away health care. I havev a real hard time seeing Obama as the bad guy after the retarded monkey he replaced.

[jmstevens2]

Manchurian candidate anyone?

[skas]

UO, I won't attempt to defend Bush in any way shape or form, but Mr. Obama hasn't exactly made much effort to reverse what Bush did. POTUS also continues to increase the national debt, at an increased rate.
Obama needs to work towards getting rid of the PATRIOT act, close Gitmo, bring or troops home, not send more soldiers into other fights that aren't ours, quit tying business' hands, post bills on whitehouse.gov, and take responsibility and then maybe he'll be closer to doing half of what he said he would. His own party is beginning to turn on him, and with good reason.

[Uninformed Opinion]

As far as reversing what bush did, Obama has been a disappointment. He never should have given in and extended the Bush tax cuts. While the man is a diplomat to the core, he is also spineless. as for Gitmo, he has dropped the ball on closing it, but again, who opened it in the first place. As far as business's go, I'm no economic major, so I won't form to much of an opinion one way or the other, but if it involves putting the screws to the banks and lenders that trashed the country, then the more screws put to those people the better. Clap those assholes down so tight they can't scratch their nose without filling out 3 different forms. They have PROVEN they can not be trusted to conduct business in a safe or ethical manor, so I shed no tears for them and there so called woes.

[jmstevens2]

Reversing Bush is not the issue, he has done more damage in 2 years than Bush did in 8!!

[mickmcart]

I can understand the Bush bashing, after all, he did set us up for the fall. Obamacare is just the nail in the coffin. My biggest regret is actually voting for Bush twice. I should have voted my heart and picked the third party candidate. At least I would have had a clear concience. But it's not the past I'm worried about now, it's the future. I know most of the people reading this will cast their vote conservatively, but we must be careful that we're not sticking in another neo-con rino who won't give straight answers. Democrats are not even asked questions, so they are not even worth mentioning.

[Devereaux]

Voting for a 3rd party candidate is never useful. In our system we only have 2 parties, not the parlimentary system of proportional representation of Europe. So you get to vote for a candidate in a primary, and then decide whether to give your vote to one of the two in the election. I came very close to not voting for anyone in the last presidential election, and only decided to vote for McCain (holding my nose) while actually in the voing booth - based solely on the fact that there would be Supreme Court judges to appoint, and we needed conservatives.

We can argue over the small points of Bush (?you would have preferred Gore or Kerry) et al, but the simple truth is that this nation has been on a stealth course towards fascism since the original fascist, Wilson. FDR was a clear fascist, and so have been numerous others in their wake. I use the term fascist not in its pejorative format, but rather in its historical one. Fascists were basically national socialists, and we have been fed a steady diet of fascist ideas and policies over the many intervening years. It has insidiously woven itself into our social thinking, so that now we consider things like Social Security the essense of what a government should "do" for us. Health Care has likewise snuck in there, often referred to as a "right". ?How did we walk away from the simple idea that rights are things we exercise, states or conditions, rather than things we purchase. It is no step from the "right" of health care to the "right" of having a cell phone or Cadillac - or home, as we recently noted and saw trash our economic system.

Greedy "Wall Street" didn't trash out economy - government regulation did. None of what happened would have happened if the government hadn't interfered in the normal process of loaning money. Once they did that, then they found that the toxic product that they created would kill off the local banks, so we got the FM's. THEY ran out of "money" so to put that trash out there, the stealth mortgage vehicle was created. Had banks been allowed to simply act intelligently - as they well knew how - we would never have had "affordable housing" which was the downfall of all.

It should be noteworthy that while in the US since 1840 or so up through some time in the 1900's there has been a regular cycle of bank failures about every 20 years (eventually leading to the FDIC creation), in Canada, in the same time frame, there were - NONE. ?The difference between the two, you ask. Canada had no bank regulations - NONE - during that period, while we were fraught with them. It is much of a historical misconception that governmental "regulation" is "necessary" for "safety". Whenever one hears a government official speaking of "safety", one should hold onto one's wallet and run for your life.

When the Patriot Act was first proposed, I have to admit that I thought it reasonable, as a measure to combat an enemy. It has morphed into a monster that needs to be simply dumped. Warrantless searches, arrests, etc, are simply wrong. As Ron Paul (and I am NOT a Ron Paul fan!) says, you shouldn't be taking one's liberty to "save" one's liberty.

As for Gitmo, personally I could care less whether they keep it open or close it. I would tend to lean towards keeping it open. I would have no heartburn with military tribunals trying them, but I see little evidence of any of them being untainted. This especially with the history of what has happened with many of those we "released". We're not talking Americans, we're talking foreigners, captured on a battlefield fighting against us. I just don't much care what happens to them. I am far more upset with the TSA, which abuses each American that walks through an airport, with no purpose or reason. Last I looked, the 4th Amendment was still in force.

[jmstevens2]

I can understand the Bush bashing, after all, he did set us up for the fall. Obamacare is just the nail in the coffin. My biggest regret is actually voting for Bush twice. I should have voted my heart and picked the third party candidate. At least I would have had a clear concience. But it's not the past I'm worried about now, it's the future. I know most of the people reading this will cast their vote conservatively, but we must be careful that we're not sticking in another neo-con rino who won't give straight answers. Democrats are not even asked questions, so they are not even worth mentioning.

Actually the housing bubble was a Clinton creation. Bush just never stopped it. None of them are without blame.

[Chemsoldier]

Voting for a 3rd party candidate is never useful.

Never is an awfully broad term Dev.

Also, seeing as you almost didnt vote is there a fundamental difference between not voting and voting for a third party?  I doubt your third party vote will decide anything or push someone over the top.

[Devereaux]

 Well, it may be broad, but it is accurate. A third party anyone is a lame duck right from the start. He has no support mechanism, no group to lead, and BOTH sides will be sniping at him at every opportunity.

You note that I ALMOST didn't vote last time. Almost only counts in horse races, horse shoes, hand grenades, and nuclear warfare. In point of fact, my common sense got to me in the end, and I voted for a candidate I really had no like for whatsoever. But no matter what a jerk he was/is, he would have been a better choice than what we got. This coming election it is just POSSIBLE that Romney will be the candidate running against 0b. MUCH as I dislike that turkey, I will vote for him over 0b. It is no contest. Notice that the election results were not all that much separated between McCain and 0b. AND I suspect there were quite a few who simply did what I thought about.

As for pushing someone over the top, Clinton won BOTH his elections with less than 50% of the vote - all because of a third party candidate. Had Perot NOT been in the election, Clinton would not have won - probably either election.

[mickmcart]

These are some very good points and I don't blame you for voting the way you did. But I decided a while ago to vote for the person who would be best for the job. I know they'll probably never win, but, if my concience is bothering me, I can't go against it. If the ReDublicans do choose Romney, how can I support another NeoCon who supports the slower erosion of our rights? The difference between R's and D's nowadays is the speed in which they throw out the Constitution. I have three issues that any candidate must back support before they get my vote: 1. Stopping Roe/Wade 2. Protecting 2nd Amendment and 3. Recognition of Sodomy as a sin. There probably won't be any more of these candidates soon so I'll probably be ending my voting booth visits eventually.

[Devereaux]

These are some very good points and I don't blame you for voting the way you did. But I decided a while ago to vote for the person who would be best for the job. I know they'll probably never win, but, if my concience is bothering me, I can't go against it. If the ReDublicans do choose Romney, how can I support another NeoCon who supports the slower erosion of our rights? The difference between R's and D's nowadays is the speed in which they throw out the Constitution. I have three issues that any candidate must back support before they get my vote: 1. Stopping Roe/Wade 2. Protecting 2nd Amendment and 3. Recognition of Sodomy as a sin. There probably won't be any more of these candidates soon so I'll probably be ending my voting booth visits eventually.

You cannot. To stop voting is to abrogate YOUR rights. Might as well lay down and die.

I do not have a problem with your list of issues. But please note that RvW has been with us ever since it was badly decided, never mind the theology. It was, and is, simply bad law. So was the Dred Scott case, yet it, too, stood for quite a while, until finally overturned. If you simply quit, then the BG's have won.

The Tea Party has brought a sea change in the whole atmosphere of political discussion. There is little doubt that prior to its injection into the political scene, both parties were basically a reflection of the same philosophy. That is no longer true. Classical republicans, or stick-in-the-muds much like HW and his wife Barbara, simply had a view that socialism was OK, but not so much as advocated by the left. NOW there is serious debate about the benefit and appropriateness of the WHOLE agenda. People are beginning to actually look at what has been done, what it implies, and how things may have to change. Wilson was elected in 16 I believe. Ever since there has been a constant and slow erosion of liberty, limited government, the idea of freedom, and the concept of rule of law. You cannot change that overnight. You cannot remove those evil perspectives with one election. You cannot change the mind of the nation with the snap of your fingers.

There is a clear difference between principle and application. As they say, never watch the making of sausage. We will never come to the point where EVERYONE will think the same. I would just be happy to see the large majority recognize the stupidity of allowing the government and some unelected bureaucrat to be making ANY decisions about their life. I don't want polluted air, but the EPA has gone beyond stuck on stupid. Indeed, the Left's whole idea that we "should be governed by an 'enlightened' few" is basically untenable - there is no "enlightened few" whose judgement is better than the collective judgement of 300 million people. Warren Buffet may have made exhorbitant amounts of money but Warren Buffet is playing with a rigged system - in his favour. The playing field needs to be returned to its previous level.

The ONLY way short of war to achieve the goals that you espouse is to get involved in the system. You cannot sit back and just pretend that you are moral by not participating. That is the height of immorality - you have identified clear objectives and now you are basically obligated to DO something about achieving them. ?Think the Tea Party would have had ANY success had they simply said, as you are, that none of the candidates are acceptable -- so I'm not going to vote.

This is OUR country. We need to be as involved in IT as we are in our FAMILIES. Both belong to us, and both have a huge impact in how we live. Voting is pretty minimal. Political discussion is critical because ideas get promulgated via discussion. Active support of a candidate - going to their office and volunteering to stuff envelopes, work the phones, put up posters, etc will help get the candidates that you want elected. THEN you might expect some difference. In my district, I was represented by Melissa Bean, an idiotic democrat. We replaced her with Joe Walsh. HIS voting record has been SPOT ON! He even voted against Boehner's last "compromise". I perfectly understand his stance, and agree with all the principles that he states. Perhaps the last deal was necessary - the practical politician observers all tell me that, but I still wonder. BUT I clearly see that the discussion has been radically changed - hopefully forever. That's the only way you are going to actually see the fulfillment of your goals. Short of picking up arms - a really scary idea!

[Uninformed Opinion]

Well, it may be broad, but it is accurate. A third party anyone is a lame duck right from the start. He has no support mechanism, no group to lead, and BOTH sides will be sniping at him at every opportunity.

You note that I ALMOST didn't vote last time. Almost only counts in horse races, horse shoes, hand grenades, and nuclear warfare. In point of fact, my common sense got to me in the end, and I voted for a candidate I really had no like for whatsoever. But no matter what a jerk he was/is, he would have been a better choice than what we got. This coming election it is just POSSIBLE that Romney will be the candidate running against 0b. MUCH as I dislike that turkey, I will vote for him over 0b. It is no contest. Notice that the election results were not all that much separated between McCain and 0b. AND I suspect there were quite a few who simply did what I thought about.

As for pushing someone over the top, Clinton won BOTH his elections with less than 50% of the vote - all because of a third party candidate. Had Perot NOT been in the election, Clinton would not have won - probably either election.

Third party candidates are pretty much screwed in the current system, but saying not to vote for them because they have no chance is also picking up your ball and going home. The only way the system is going to get overhauled is if people start being consistent in not voting for someone just because of party lines, and start actually voting who they think will do the damn job. This has to start at a lower level then just putting in a third party president though. We have to start at the state level, and start cut the support base of both current parties. However, voting a third party candidate for top offices is something that should also be done. Yes, it splits the vote, and it will lead to candidates you don't like at times, but the stronger the showing third party candidates have, the more likely they are to keep running, and the more likely they are to get voted for.

[CR Williams]

The failure I see with 3rd parties and their candidates is that they've all been starting at the top and not the bottom. A viable 3rd party, I think, has to be built starting at the city and county level and progressing upwards. Once they have one or two states at least, there can then be consideration of fielding a national candidate. I'm not sure of any other way. This requires a long-term view, maybe very long-term. But it's the most viable and 'doable' method I can come up with.

[Trailboss]

Like it or not, we are currently a 2 party system, voting a 3rd party in the primary helps Democrats choose the republican candidate in the states with open primaries, voting for a third party in the general election only ensures that there will be a democrat president.
The Democrats stick together....

I'm certainly not Bush fan, but to say that he was even close to as bad as Obama is a pretty ignorant statement...Obama's spokesperson said before he was sworn in;

Jarret told Brokaw that "given the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/11/10/obama-spokesman-says-obama-ready-rule-day-1#ixzz1Yzg6zrUD

Our presidents use to view themselves as servants to the people that elected them to office...not this guy.


Suzanna Gratia Hupp said it well;

How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

You can also turn the quote around;

How a politician views you as an individual… as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of, tells you how he stands the second amendment.


I would say that quote applies to the citizen as well as the politician.

The fault isn't with the people that get elected, it's with the people that really have no business pulling a lever.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/mm1KOBMg1Y8&rel=0" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/mm1KOBMg1Y8&rel=0</a>