| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Click "Favorite" here for Barack Obama-->
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Click here for Mitt Romney -->
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Click here for Ron Paul-->
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Click here for Green Party-->
Write in: Maximus Decimus Meridius
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Click here for Libertarian Party-->
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Click here for "other" -->
Thank you.
While I like the alleged Republican platform of small government, individual responsibility and personal liberty their actions do not meet their words.
It seems like i don't have a viable choice for small government. If I vote republican I'm voting for
A huge military (which is part of the government)
The use of said military and the death of our soldiers in order to seize the assets of foreign people.
Government subsidized oil, gas, coal, and defense corporations
Government bailouts of corporations playing roulette with the economy.
Lower taxes, but only for the rich. The rest of us still have to pay income tax and social security tax.
An intrusive government without regulations on spying
A crack down on the freedom to assemble.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Voting is for ninnies!!
We don't need another president, we need a revolution.
Vive le Galt!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I like the alleged Republican platform of small government, individual responsibility and personal liberty their actions do not meet their words.
It seems like i don't have a viable choice for small government. If I vote republican I'm voting for
A huge military (which is part of the government)
The use of said military and the death of our soldiers in order to seize the assets of foreign people.
Government subsidized oil, gas, coal, and defense corporations
Government bailouts of corporations playing roulette with the economy.
Lower taxes, but only for the rich. The rest of us still have to pay income tax and social security tax.
An intrusive government without regulations on spying
A crack down on the freedom to assemble.
Funny, seems like the current resident of 1600 Penn. Ave has done much of the above too.
Guess you have no one to vote for.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
An intrusive government without regulations on spyingThis one in particular I think has the support of both political parties. My biggest disappointment in the current president was that he extended the so-called Patriot Act.
Some of what he signed into law recently makes the Patriot Act seem benign.
Funny, seems like the current resident of 1600 Penn. Ave has done much of the above too.
Guess you have no one to vote for.
I can vote for the person I think is going to do it less, and that happens to be Obama. The patriot act was largely curtailed through the courts, He's been trying to close Gitmo, we're out of Iraq, and he's our best hope of both getting out of Afghanistan and not getting into another large war elsewhere.
Obama has helped to topple regimes the smart way: Our green their red. We'll help people who want freedom. You get more bang for your buck sending in a truckload of arms, lawyers, and PR people and a few CIA spooks than you do invading a country with 100,000 troops.
Ron Paul vs Obama would be an actual choice. Do we want government out of our lives and fly or fail on our own or do we trust the government's intentions to be the big brother thats there for us in our time of need and not the big brother that pokes us with sticks.
Mitt Romney is not that choice. He will give us a big government. A big government that will help the rich get richer without helping the poor. More subsidies and "tax breaks" for megacorporations, fewer regulations for wall street and the banks that brought our financial system to the brink of collapse.
A government that's unapologetic about invading places on the flimsiest of pretenses because they can make corporations more money.
Its a government with all of the drawbacks of a big government with none of the benefits. There's simply no reason at all to vote for him.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He has been trying to close Gitmo? Um, he can close it with one stroke of the pen, no effort required. If you think he's "trying", you're naive, sorry.
And, um, Obama is the one that signed the NDAA and H.R. 347 into law, sent hsi Justice Department out to help mayors across the country squash the OWS movement protests, assassinated U.S. citizens without due process, increased the war in Afghanistan to something it never was before, and in the process allowed more U.S. soldiers to be killed than all the years before he entered office combined. He set up a fake anti-polio campaign in Pakistan to gather intelligence on Osama, which a lot of international organizations blame on the spike in polio cases there.
I have no idea who you're talking about, homie, but the guy you describe isn't in the White House right now.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wrote a big long post about Obama and the Democrats and American imperialism, but, whatever, I've said it all before.
Obama sucks.
He has been trying to close Gitmo? Um, he can close it with one stroke of the pen, no effort required. If you think he's "trying", you're naive, sorry.
Not putting up with the baseless insults.
|
He has been trying to close Gitmo? Um, he can close it with one stroke of the pen, no effort required. If you think he's "trying", you're naive, sorry.Not putting up with the baseless insults.
Good answer!
.
Anyway, I'm voting for milquetoast Mitts - I figure he's the more fiscally conservative out of the two Democrats running for office.
Plus he has better hair.
I'm still mystified why so many people went for this whacked out isolationist homophobe.
Because Isolationism is saner than invading places with everyone's money so a select few can profit immensely.
Because while he might be a homophobe, he wants to put homosexual and heterosexual marriage on the same footing. (Any citation for him being a homophobe? And I mean something other than ANY old person is going to be)
In short, if the current system is sanity then scour the looney bins for something else to try.
Just like all the other liberatrians perhaps who seem to think that corporate abuse of power will simply dissapear if we get rid of all the regulatory bodies whose mission is to keep it in check.
I'm a little unclear on his specifics, but Ron Paul's comments re corporations are to remove a lot of the special privileges and protections that they get from the government in order to curtail their power.
Frankly, letting them exist at all is a government power.
Ron Paul vs Obama would be an actual choice. Do we want government out of our lives and fly or fail on our own or do we trust the government's intentions to be the big brother thats there for us in our time of need and not the big brother that pokes us with sticks.
I'm still mystified why so many people went for this whacked out isolationist homophobe. Being a gadfly may have it's merits, but if you're not actually someone who actually offers a viable replacement, it gets no points with me.
Just like all the other liberatrians perhaps who seem to think that corporate abuse of power will simply dissapear if we get rid of all the regulatory bodies whose mission is to keep it in check.
What are you people smoking? And can I get some?
What I am smoking would be more readily available if Ron Paul were president. Which is one way of saying that, I think, a lot of people, if asked, are against the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He has been trying to close Gitmo? Um, he can close it with one stroke of the pen, no effort required. If you think he's "trying", you're naive, sorry.Not putting up with the baseless insults.
How is "naive" an insult in the face of your statement? Would you prefer mis or uninformed?
|
|
He has been trying to close Gitmo? Um, he can close it with one stroke of the pen, no effort required. If you think he's "trying", you're naive, sorry.
And, um, Obama is the one that signed the NDAA and H.R. 347 into law, sent hsi Justice Department out to help mayors across the country squash the OWS movement protests, assassinated U.S. citizens without due process, increased the war in Afghanistan to something it never was before, and in the process allowed more U.S. soldiers to be killed than all the years before he entered office combined. He set up a fake anti-polio campaign in Pakistan to gather intelligence on Osama, which a lot of international organizations blame on the spike in polio cases there.
I have no idea who you're talking about, homie, but the guy you describe isn't in the White House right now.
He can't close Gitmo because there is no one in either the Senate or House that will allow him to move the populace of Gitmo to their state. It's a case of NIMBY.
He rectified the mistake that Bush made by ignoring Afghanistan, you know, that place where Al Qaeda was based.
H.R. 347 is just an updating of a law that was based on 1971.
That U.S. citizen who was "assassinated" had renounced his american citizenship and was actively planning and supporting actions against the U.S. Sorry, but no sympathy from me. I'd have done the same thing.
Obama may not be the perfect president, but he's better than what the GOP has put forward.
Not that I'm going to vote for him. I have to find out what the law is for write in candidates.
He has an entire Federal prison system he can move them into. No need to ask anyone anything.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He has been trying to close Gitmo? Um, he can close it with one stroke of the pen, no effort required. If you think he's "trying", you're naive, sorry.
And, um, Obama is the one that signed the NDAA and H.R. 347 into law, sent hsi Justice Department out to help mayors across the country squash the OWS movement protests, assassinated U.S. citizens without due process, increased the war in Afghanistan to something it never was before, and in the process allowed more U.S. soldiers to be killed than all the years before he entered office combined. He set up a fake anti-polio campaign in Pakistan to gather intelligence on Osama, which a lot of international organizations blame on the spike in polio cases there.
I have no idea who you're talking about, homie, but the guy you describe isn't in the White House right now.
He can't close Gitmo because there is no one in either the Senate or House that will allow him to move the populace of Gitmo to their state. It's a case of NIMBY.
He rectified the mistake that Bush made by ignoring Afghanistan, you know, that place where Al Qaeda was based.
H.R. 347 is just an updating of a law that was based on 1971.
That U.S. citizen who was "assassinated" had renounced his american citizenship and was actively planning and supporting actions against the U.S. Sorry, but no sympathy from me. I'd have done the same thing.
Obama may not be the perfect president, but he's better than what the GOP has put forward.
Not that I'm going to vote for him. I have to find out what the law is for write in candidates.
Oh, yeah. Um. Al Qaida hadn't been in Afghanistan for a few years by the time Obama took office, and the situation was pretty much stable. All the military was doing is playing "whack-a-mole" whenever the Taliban would get frisky. Obama made the situation worse, and pretty much lost what little support we had from Pakistan.
That "update", as you call it, basically allows the government to deny anyone's right to protest. The new "update" opens up a can of worms I don't think people really understand.
And, you know, the guy's sixteen year old son hadn't renounced his citizenship. I guess he didn't look enough like he could be Obama's son to not get bombed while having dinner.
All I'm hearing from some on this thread is "It's ok to be exactly like Bush as long as you're a Democrat".
Locking thread. As we get closer to the voting season, this is a topic that's going to get more and more heated. I advise everyone to take a step back and think before hitting the "Submit" button.