Thoughts about Obama

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
141

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The way I see it, it’s 2004 all over again. Just a choice between two people neither of which seem good. So it’s not about how great Obama is. It’s about how much worse the other candidate is from the incumbent and vice versa.

The roles have changed though. This time, the republican is the one who’s awkward and doesn’t connect with people. It was Kerry last time.[/quote]

Great points, Fletch.

I think that there is something “wrong”? when a large number of those who Vote don’t end up voting “for” somebody but “against” another.

I think that the 2012 Presidential Election will be a great example of what I feel is a terrible trend.

Mufasa[/quote]

If you were to go back in political history you will find that this is always the way it’s been. By the time the election rolls around so much damage has been done to each candidate that they are basically damaged goods.

For example, if I told you that a man was running for President who was fairly middle of the road had been super successful in business a double graduate of both Harvard law and business, was a former Governor and also was responsible for saving the Olympics you’d be all over that candidate claiming that he was the kind of guy we need to lead the nation. But after Rick Santorum and the Obama political machine got done with him you’d think Mitt Romney was a some stumble bum with an IQ of 15. But in reality he’s a great candidate with more qualifications to become President than any man in recent history. And far, far more qualified than the two year Senator (and community organizer) Obama before he rose to the office.

In short, we all drink in what we see and hear on a daily basis and no one, not even Saint Obama gets out of it without being tarnished.

It’s always been that way and it will continue to be that way in a free society!

[/quote]

Man…I just wish it wasn’t that way, Zeb.

I have to admit that I haven’t voted STRONGLY “for” someone since Ross Perot. (Don’t laugh and don’t hate!)

Mufasa

142

[quote]andy.steven wrote:
who thinks with everything thats gone on and surround him that
he’s a good president? hell no
he’s even american born? maybe but doubt it. think proving it pre election should be mandated!
even a leader? hell no
socialist? hell yes
[/quote]

I am sorry , I think Obama is a better President than Bush and a better President than Romney could ever be . Obama will not win this election Romney will lose it

143

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

The way things are now, it’s pretty clear that prior to going for people’s votes, politicians need donations. Temporally politicians need to appease corporations before they can even have the money needed to campaign, and win the vote of the people. This means that for virtually all politicians, when weighing the priority between the vote of the people, and the want’s of the corporations, the corporations come first. Unless you have billions to blow, corporations necessarily come first. [/quote]

He is the thing, the people that are being “ignored” are, in part, to blame. They purchase things from the corps…

People like to complain about Wal-Mart, as they stand in line to buy cheap shit.

Vote with your $ just as much as your voice.

[/quote]

It’s not about people being ignored, but the fact that people take a back seat to corporations. If it were so easy to avoid contributing money to unwanted corporations, explain to me how you avoid contributing to say a particular electric company who is the only game in town supplying your power? As a conservative you might not like the idea that say Edison donates money to Obama, but what are you gonna do? Move?

There are plenty of examples of this where people would really have to spend a ton of money, or really inconvenience themselves and go out of their way to avoid giving money to corporations they didn’t want to support.

Heck, there are plenty of people both D and R that couldn’t afford to not support certain corps… That’s just reality. I don’t think it’s always so simple as to just not support certain corporations.

It’s also the reason we have very poor politicians like John Kerry and Mitt Romney. Without money, and without charisma these guys are both losers in terms of being politicians.

Probably not the sort of answer or explanation you expected… Hopefully you could get past the party lines and see this problem for what it is, it goes beyond party lines, the best politicians and problem solvers aren’t making it, the best fundraisers are.

144

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The way I see it, it’s 2004 all over again. Just a choice between two people neither of which seem good. So it’s not about how great Obama is. It’s about how much worse the other candidate is from the incumbent and vice versa.

The roles have changed though. This time, the republican is the one who’s awkward and doesn’t connect with people. It was Kerry last time.[/quote]

Great points, Fletch.

I think that there is something “wrong”? when a large number of those who Vote don’t end up voting “for” somebody but “against” another.

I think that the 2012 Presidential Election will be a great example of what I feel is a terrible trend.

Mufasa[/quote]

If you were to go back in political history you will find that this is always the way it’s been. By the time the election rolls around so much damage has been done to each candidate that they are basically damaged goods.

For example, if I told you that a man was running for President who was fairly middle of the road had been super successful in business a double graduate of both Harvard law and business, was a former Governor and also was responsible for saving the Olympics you’d be all over that candidate claiming that he was the kind of guy we need to lead the nation. But after Rick Santorum and the Obama political machine got done with him you’d think Mitt Romney was a some stumble bum with an IQ of 15. But in reality he’s a great candidate with more qualifications to become President than any man in recent history. And far, far more qualified than the two year Senator (and community organizer) Obama before he rose to the office.

In short, we all drink in what we see and hear on a daily basis and no one, not even Saint Obama gets out of it without being tarnished.

It’s always been that way and it will continue to be that way in a free society!

[/quote]

Man…I just wish it wasn’t that way, Zeb.

I have to admit that I haven’t voted STRONGLY “for” someone since Ross Perot. (Don’t laugh and don’t hate!)

Mufasa[/quote]

If Perot had not first backed out of the race (in 1992) and then jumped back in he would have beaten both Bush and Clinton.

Also, I believe that this country is ripe for a third party candidate. The only reason that we’ve only had one serious contender over so many decades has to do with money. It took a billionaire like Perot to give a serious challenge.

145

[quote]Severiano wrote:

It’s also the reason we have very poor politicians like John Kerry and Mitt Romney. Without money, and without charisma these guys are both losers in terms of being politicians. [/quote]

Of course but Obama is a powerhouse of a candidate. After all he was a community organizer and militant and a sitting Senator for (only) two years before he ran for President.

Now contrast that with Mitt Romney’s record.

-Donated his entire inheritance to his alma mater.

  • Both Law and Business degree from Harvard.

-Saved the Olympics

-Governor of Mass.

-Enormously successful in business

-Happily married with children for 43 years.

Yeah…that Romney is a real loser.

With every post you prove yourself to be part of the radical left.

And one more clue for you, corporations are made up of people. Millions of people who rely on them for a living.

Also, still waiting for your post touting the many Obama achievements.

146

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

It’s also the reason we have very poor politicians like John Kerry and Mitt Romney. Without money, and without charisma these guys are both losers in terms of being politicians. [/quote]

Of course but Obama is a powerhouse of a candidate. After all he was a community organizer and militant and a sitting Senator for (only) two years before he ran for President.

Now contrast that with Mitt Romney’s record.

-Donated his entire inheritance to his alma mater.

  • Both Law and Business degree from Harvard.

-Saved the Olympics

-Governor of Mass.

-Enormously successful in business

-Happily married with children for 43 years.

Yeah…that Romney is a real loser.

With every post you prove yourself to be part of the radical left.

And one more clue for you, corporations are made up of people. Millions of people who rely on them for a living.

Also, still waiting for your post touting the many Obama achievements. [/quote]

Ooh, conspiracy. I’m a radical leftist now :slight_smile:

I don’t have a problem with corporations, I have a problem with people taking a back seat to them.

Anyhow, you and Romney should hook up, go for a long walk on the beach and have some long homophobic discussions with one another.

Cheers!

147

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The way I see it, it’s 2004 all over again. Just a choice between two people neither of which seem good. So it’s not about how great Obama is. It’s about how much worse the other candidate is from the incumbent and vice versa.

The roles have changed though. This time, the republican is the one who’s awkward and doesn’t connect with people. It was Kerry last time.[/quote]

Great points, Fletch.

I think that there is something “wrong”? when a large number of those who Vote don’t end up voting “for” somebody but “against” another.

I think that the 2012 Presidential Election will be a great example of what I feel is a terrible trend.

Mufasa[/quote]

If you were to go back in political history you will find that this is always the way it’s been. By the time the election rolls around so much damage has been done to each candidate that they are basically damaged goods.

For example, if I told you that a man was running for President who was fairly middle of the road had been super successful in business a double graduate of both Harvard law and business, was a former Governor and also was responsible for saving the Olympics you’d be all over that candidate claiming that he was the kind of guy we need to lead the nation. But after Rick Santorum and the Obama political machine got done with him you’d think Mitt Romney was a some stumble bum with an IQ of 15. But in reality he’s a great candidate with more qualifications to become President than any man in recent history. And far, far more qualified than the two year Senator (and community organizer) Obama before he rose to the office.

In short, we all drink in what we see and hear on a daily basis and no one, not even Saint Obama gets out of it without being tarnished.

It’s always been that way and it will continue to be that way in a free society!

[/quote]

Man…I just wish it wasn’t that way, Zeb.

I have to admit that I haven’t voted STRONGLY “for” someone since Ross Perot. (Don’t laugh and don’t hate!)

Mufasa[/quote]

Just keep voting for a 3rd party, with enough people it will start a trend to where its not a complete waste of a vote one of these years.

148

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Ooh, conspiracy. I’m a radical leftist now :slight_smile:

I don’t have a problem with corporations, I have a problem with people taking a back seat to them.

Anyhow, you and Romney should hook up, go for a long walk on the beach and have some long homophobic discussions with one another.

Cheers! [/quote]

I guess this is the resounding sound of crickets to this —>“still waiting for your post touting the many Obama achievements.”

149

[quote]Severiano wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

It’s also the reason we have very poor politicians like John Kerry and Mitt Romney. Without money, and without charisma these guys are both losers in terms of being politicians. [/quote]

Of course but Obama is a powerhouse of a candidate. After all he was a community organizer and militant and a sitting Senator for (only) two years before he ran for President.

Now contrast that with Mitt Romney’s record.

-Donated his entire inheritance to his alma mater.

  • Both Law and Business degree from Harvard.

-Saved the Olympics

-Governor of Mass.

-Enormously successful in business

-Happily married with children for 43 years.

Yeah…that Romney is a real loser.

With every post you prove yourself to be part of the radical left.

And one more clue for you, corporations are made up of people. Millions of people who rely on them for a living.

Also, still waiting for your post touting the many Obama achievements. [/quote]

Ooh, conspiracy. I’m a radical leftist now :)[/quote]

You did question the legitimacy of corporations did you not?

People are who make up corporations as they employ millions and millions of people. How could that escape you?

[quote]Anyhow, you and Romney should hook up, go for a long walk on the beach and have some long homophobic discussions with one another.
Cheers! [/quote]

I’d have to go a long, long way before I approach the adoration that you and your leftist brothers in the media have heaped on Obama. Maybe you and Chris Matthews will take that chill up your leg to a whole new level if Obama wins a second term.

Cheers back at you lefty!

150

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
The way I see it, it’s 2004 all over again. Just a choice between two people neither of which seem good. So it’s not about how great Obama is. It’s about how much worse the other candidate is from the incumbent and vice versa.

The roles have changed though. This time, the republican is the one who’s awkward and doesn’t connect with people. It was Kerry last time.[/quote]

Great points, Fletch.

I think that there is something “wrong”? when a large number of those who Vote don’t end up voting “for” somebody but “against” another.

I think that the 2012 Presidential Election will be a great example of what I feel is a terrible trend.

Mufasa[/quote]

If you were to go back in political history you will find that this is always the way it’s been. By the time the election rolls around so much damage has been done to each candidate that they are basically damaged goods.

For example, if I told you that a man was running for President who was fairly middle of the road had been super successful in business a double graduate of both Harvard law and business, was a former Governor and also was responsible for saving the Olympics you’d be all over that candidate claiming that he was the kind of guy we need to lead the nation. But after Rick Santorum and the Obama political machine got done with him you’d think Mitt Romney was a some stumble bum with an IQ of 15. But in reality he’s a great candidate with more qualifications to become President than any man in recent history. And far, far more qualified than the two year Senator (and community organizer) Obama before he rose to the office.

In short, we all drink in what we see and hear on a daily basis and no one, not even Saint Obama gets out of it without being tarnished.

It’s always been that way and it will continue to be that way in a free society!

[/quote]

Man…I just wish it wasn’t that way, Zeb.

I have to admit that I haven’t voted STRONGLY “for” someone since Ross Perot. (Don’t laugh and don’t hate!)

Mufasa[/quote]

Just keep voting for a 3rd party, with enough people it will start a trend to where its not a complete waste of a vote one of these years.[/quote]

Yes, take the advice of sufiandy and you will get four more years of Obama. Oh wait…that’s what sufiandy wants. Very clever man and they said you were dumb…

151

The People’s Republic of New York will always be blue so I suppose I could vote for anyone I wanted. But I’m still voting for Romney.

152

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
The People’s Republic of New York will always be blue so I suppose I could vote for anyone I wanted. But I’m still voting for Romney.[/quote]

I really wish they would just do popular vote or at least split the electoral votes in the state according to the proportion voting for each party. I bet voter turnout would increase a lot.

153

[quote]storey420 wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
Ooh, conspiracy. I’m a radical leftist now :slight_smile:

I don’t have a problem with corporations, I have a problem with people taking a back seat to them.

Anyhow, you and Romney should hook up, go for a long walk on the beach and have some long homophobic discussions with one another.

Cheers! [/quote]

I guess this is the resounding sound of crickets to this —>“still waiting for your post touting the many Obama achievements.” [/quote]

Since when am I supposed to tout Obama achievements? Romney is enough of a bag of rocks that I don’t feel I have much of a choice, which is part of the problem I thought we could agree about.

What did Obama do? Well I can’t think of a whole lot of things he did that were very important to me personally, one thing he did was eliminate Bin Laden.

The other thing he did that I thought took some balls because I really had already crucified him over it, was the auto company bailouts. It was the right move, a lot of people criticized him about it on both sides, he took the gamble and he gets credit for his foresight.

I like the idea for equal pay for women, I grew up in a single parent household and understand Obama would like equal pay for women, but achieving such isn’t as easy as simply wanting it.

Took me a loong time to warm up to the idea of gays in the military, openly gay. At the end of the day, if they are willing to put their lives on the line (One gay has more balls than Romney’s entire family line), and I don’t have to see public displays of affection, I really don’t care. When I was in, we were quite homophobic. We had various depictions of Clinton and Gore allowing gays in, we were worried about open showers, and having to deal with awkward situations… Then come to find out there are proportionately more gays in my beloved USMC than in any other branch… Kind of makes me wonder how many were in the closet. The sort that didn’t go out and have a good time on deployment?

I remember sort of having this position for a while, then I saw some footage of a Marine who had returned all hugged up on another man, legs wrapped around him and everything, and it bugged the shit out of me. When I tried to make sense of it, I thought maybe I had a problem with the public display of affection, but then I realized I had no problem watching straight people’s affections, I realized I still have a problem with it when I’m being just perfectly honest with myself. Not that I’m homophobic, but that I’m grossed out and that’s okay! The thing is I still want equal rights for everyone.

I don’t feel much relation to either guy. But I feel far more distant from Romney than I do Obama, even though I realize they are more similar to one another than I am to either.

I think this is the realization I have had, hope you can make sense and tie this into why I have a problem with corporate personhood, and who ends up representing us…

Military background and all, I cant’ really stand Romney. Can’t stand that his family line along with himself have gone out of their way to avoid service, then turn around and act like they have a huge amount of respect for the vets and the Military. I understand Obama has cut funds, and I have friends who are in limbo because they are having trouble completing certain elements of training due to lack of funding (in the Army). But having been in the Marines under Clinton and Bush Jr. Having lived in condemned buildings, run down Vietnam era squad bays, I know what it’s like having to be in limbo for schools and training since we tended to be last on the list, last priority, and last in line in the Marines. When I was in we were getting Air Force and Navy leftovers, from flack jackets and rifles to the very few amenities that usually come with modern rooms and or apartment buildings.

Like I said, I’m not here to tout Obama, I don’t think either guy is really exciting or some sort of great leader. Both are exceedingly great fundraisers.

154

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
I really wish they would just do popular vote or at least split the electoral votes in the state according to the proportion voting for each party. I bet voter turnout would increase a lot. [/quote]

To defend the electoral college system, they do this so that a candidate must have broad appeal throughout the entire country. Otherwise, a candidate would spend heavily in a large state attempting to gain say 70% of the vote ignoring smaller states. Theoretically this could be done by a democrat hitting each coast and a few other heavily populated states.

155

[quote]Severiano wrote:

Like I said, I’m not here to tout Obama, I don’t think either guy is really exciting or some sort of great leader. Both are exceedingly great fundraisers.
[/quote]

But somehow no matter how difficult it will you’ll drag yourself kicking and screaming to the voting booth on election day and force your hand to the Obama lever close your eyes and pull.

Ha ha…PUUUULEEEEEZE!

156

just to clear this up… OBAMA didnt kill bin laden the navy seals did! he should get no credit for this… he may or may not have given the ok to do so BUT i know this, he didnt pull a trigger. Either way he knew that would be a good publicity stunt, and uses it to his advantage as if he was a hero in the situation… as anyone knows any jackass can sit back and take credit when they are far away because they “gave” the order.

157

[quote]andy.steven wrote:
just to clear this up… OBAMA didnt kill bin laden the navy seals did! he should get no credit for this… he may or may not have given the ok to do so BUT i know this, he didnt pull a trigger. Either way he knew that would be a good publicity stunt, and uses it to his advantage as if he was a hero in the situation… as anyone knows any jackass can sit back and take credit when they are far away because they “gave” the order. [/quote]

You have to admit he handled the aftermath of the situation well by doing the at sea burial according to Muslim tradition and also preventing a shrine to him being placed.

158

ya that part was ok… if he is who made that decision! he probably just went along with it and used it to gain political ground, in his eyes anyways. plus either being muslim or atleast having been raised around muslims he knows what is or isnt muslim tradition

159

[quote]andy.steven wrote:
ya that part was ok… if he is who made that decision! he probably just went along with it and used it to gain political ground, in his eyes anyways. plus either being muslim or atleast having been raised around muslims he knows what is or isnt muslim tradition[/quote]

Having good advisors who can come up with good solutions is just as important as the president being able to decide them. Heck, Reagan wasn’t the most intelligent president ever but he surrounded himself by very intelligent advisors hence his success as a president.

160

This should fire some of you up

And this should have some of you foaming at the mouth. (I will say, the speculation about shit she can’t know and clearly doesn’t understand makes the chick who wrote this a crazy bitch, spinning the situation to fit her agenda.)