Garrison Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Because I vote based on quality of President like when I interview people for a job and want to find out their job-related qualities, whether they look good or are a smooth talker is irrelevant. In fact, hiring someone to do a job based on their ability to be a smooth talker, or by how much swag they have, tends to have bad results. Oh look, there's Obama to prove that point. This is why terrible Presidents like Bush and Obama get elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrison Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I would never compare Bush to Obama. While Obama hasn't done anything exceptional, he hasn't done anything bad or stupid like Bush. Obama is the safe pick in this election. I feel like Romney will just lie and become the next Bush and invade other countries supposedly peacekeeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I'm interested in hearing some of this "smooth talk" that got Dubya elected... From where I was sitting, he was about as "smooth" as a waffle iron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 I would never compare Bush to Obama. While Obama hasn't done anything exceptional, he hasn't done anything done or stupid like Bush. Obama is the safe pick in this election. I feel like Romney will just lie and become the next Bush and invade other countries supposedly peacekeeping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 You prefer someone who inspires people based on empty promises and mostly lies? Hate to break it to you but Obama is a liar too. The fact that Sharpshooter needs to go down the road of counting lies shows how accepted liars are as Presidents. This was a President who, as a Senator, put his weight behind limiting the Executive Branch's scope of authority, especially in cases like AT&T-NSA, but when the prospect of him becoming President became a reality, he sided with Bush and suddenly that excessive authority was a great idea. This was a guy who promised to help balance the budget but added $6 trillion to the deficit in 4 years. This was a guy that had a mandate coupled with his party's overwhelming victory in 2008 to show what "change" he was going to make, and of course, predictably changed nothing. It's hilarious thinking that Obama vs. Romney is anything more than liar vs. liar. Whoever tells the most lies is left for those who politically took sides and feel they must defend their choice, they're both liars, and the US is worse off with either of them. 2000 -- Gore (a mistake I'll admit to) 2004 -- Badnarik 2008 -- Nader 2012 -- Ron Paul or Gary Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wtpasc Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Definitely Obama. If the guy wasn't being blocked at every turn by the opposition party that wants nothing more than for him to fail personally, he would have accomplished much more by this point. The fact that the health care bill is regularly called "Obamacare" when it is nothing like the plan he wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johngould21 Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 The US has been in shambles since the GW era, yet all you hear from Republicans is, "what about my taxes?" IF Obama hadn't stepped in and given the banks, auto industry, manufacturing industry money, imagine where they would be today? Far worse than they are now. Yet we still see these leeches at the trough, getting back to their pre-'08 salaries and bonuses, yet they barely passed any of that dough onto the average consumer in the shape of mortages or loans to help them get out and get some of those jobs that the stimulus money was suppose to do. Obama has been hi-jacked by the Republicans, and although not as perfect as I would have hoped for, imagine the mess the US would be in, if McCain/Palin were in charge. Think about it for a minute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoreanHockeyFan Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 It's not polite to stare at mentally retarded people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Do you really think Nader or Johnson could do anything differently? Do you think that if a 3rd party candidate somehow got elected, all of Congress and the Senate would bow down to him and actually allow him to be effective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 While not as smooth as Obama, he was highly effective at marketing, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted August 31, 2012 Author Share Posted August 31, 2012 Did I expect a third party candidate to be a King and return the US to a ruling monarchy? Obviously not, if that's what your caricature implies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrawfull Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Well, the Democrat party is obstructing Obama too so it's not just the Republicans. I guess he doesn't deserve another 4 years afterall. A budget resolution based on President Obama’s 2013 budget failed to get any votes in the Senate on Wednesday. In a 99-0 vote, all of the senators present rejected the president’s blueprint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaimito Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 New word has just entered. Eastwooding http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2012/08/the_whole_world_is_eastwooding.php http://usnews.nbcnew...t-buzz#comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 You prefer someone who inspires people based on empty promises and mostly lies? Hate to break it to you but Obama is a liar too. The fact that Sharpshooter needs to go down the road of counting lies shows how accepted liars are as Presidents. This was a President who, as a Senator, put his weight behind limiting the Executive Branch's scope of authority, especially in cases like AT&T-NSA, but when the prospect of him becoming President became a reality, he sided with Bush and suddenly that excessive authority was a great idea. This was a guy who promised to help balance the budget but added $6 trillion to the deficit in 4 years. This was a guy that had a mandate coupled with his party's overwhelming victory in 2008 to show what "change" he was going to make, and of course, predictably changed nothing. It's hilarious thinking that Obama vs. Romney is anything more than liar vs. liar. Whoever tells the most lies is left for those who politically took sides and feel they must defend their choice, they're both liars, and the US is worse off with either of them. 2000 -- Gore (a mistake I'll admit to) 2004 -- Badnarik 2008 -- Nader 2012 -- Ron Paul or Gary Johnson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Why would you vote Paul/Johnson when it's clear you know nothing about economics? Honestly, where in your brain do you feel it wise for you to make this judgement? You're going to assume that an MD has an answer to the USA's economic problems? I can tell you his economic platform is awful. However, unlike you, I can articulate why. Just admit you don't have a clue, are a fanboy, and really have no substance to offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I hope you can comprehend the flogging you're about to get over your own idiocy.. "MD" has served in Congress on these committees: Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology International Monetary Policy and Trade House Banking Committee One of those he chaired for a number of years, you don't think someone heading federal Congressional committees on budget and finances is in a prime position to make decisions on finances? Your MD comment proves you have no clue about the guy you're railing against whatsoever. Please remove yourself from this discussion so you don't look any more stupid -- if your brain can fathom how stupid you just looked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Are you for real...? Honeslty, the fact that people like you are allowed to vote scares me. Explain to me why Dr. Paul's economic platform is right for America. I can tell you right now that I am more qualified than he is in this matter, MD or not. Nevertheless, tell me why. And unlike before, when I shoot your BS, pie-in-the-sky ideas down, be a champ and respond opposed to hiding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckClown Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I've already explained why Ron Paul's economics are far more sound than both Romney and Obama, be a champ and use the search function, after your last dumb post you lost the privilege of getting your questions answered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaBestPlaceOnEarth Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Jeez, could there be a worse matchup for the Canucks fanbase than Chicago vs Boston? It's just so terrible. Personally I don't think it really makes a difference who's president down there, that's not where their problems are coming from. You switch out the black cog for a white one, the machine will still run the same because the problems are in a whole other area, you've misdiagnosed the issue if you're thinking it makes a difference who's president when it comes to the problems facing America. They're deep structural problems, and both parties and all their guys and their ways of doing things are part of that, they are not the solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 I have a serious (and probably stupid) question about those saying they're voting for Paul. Is that even an option? I didn't think he was running as an independent. I know Johnson is, but other than him I thought the only two choices were basically Obama & Romney. I'm not trying to be ironic or make a point in asking this, I actually don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.