[hiker]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

It is called the War of Northern Aggression

We call it the late unpleasantness, ya dammed carpetbagger!

[Jetzz]

Romney, even if I won't like it.

[Section 336]

Sorry MURDR but you are being really naive. Any substantial vote for for Paul is basically giving Obama the election. Paul has a 0% chance of getting even 1 electoral vote let alone winning. (See Ross Perot and the effect it had on G. H. W. Bush).

I would not vote for Paul because basically I think he is a crackpot self indulgent loon, that is willing to sell the country down the tubes by still campaigning.

30 years from now Obama will be viewed as the worst president in 100 years and one of the worst in history.

So in essence - I will vote for Romney, I am not excited about it, I have voted in every election since 1980 and Romney is by far the first candidate I am voting for that I really do not like. I would have preferred almost every other GOP running over him. But the bottom line is, it is him or Obama- so I will vote for the only candidate that has a shot at beating Obama.


This election is really about if the GOP can get control over the Senate, that is the only way anything significant will get done. GOP will keep the house and if the Democrats keep the Senate it will be the same crap regardless of who wins the WH.

[hiker]

Originally Posted by Section 336

Sorry MURDR but you are being really naive. Any substantial vote for for Paul is basically giving Obama the election. Paul has a 0% chance of getting even 1 electoral vote let alone winning. (See Ross Perot and the effect it had on G. H. W. Bush).

I would not vote for Paul because basically I think he is a crackpot self indulgent loon, that is willing to sell the country down the tubes by still campaigning.

30 years from now Obama will be viewed as the worst president in 100 years and one of the worst in history.

So in essence - I will vote for Romney, I am not excited about it, I have voted in every election since 1980 and Romney is by far the first candidate I am voting for that I really do not like. I would have preferred almost every other GOP running over him. But the bottom line is, it is him or Obama- so I will vote for the only candidate that has a shot at beating Obama.


This election is really about if the GOP can get control over the Senate, that is the only way anything significant will get done. GOP will keep the house and if the Democrats keep the Senate it will be the same crap regardless of who wins the WH.

I was quite the opposite, looking at all the other GOP candidates as bible thumpers or charlatans with no chance of turning around our economic situation. Romney looked all along to be the perfect man for our time: a self-made man who got here by being the absolute best in this country at turning around failing businesses. I honestly have no idea why anyone could strongly object to that, no matter what ideology you follow.

Obama is less of a manager than he is an arrogant college professor at some liberal arts school. Its still confounds me how so many people voted for that type of person in these times of economic despair, but I know it was a repudiation of the Republicans at the time. I doubt we would be that much better off today with McCain, I guess in hindsight, it was going to happen anyway. At least with Romney, there's hope of turning things around.

[srqman1]

Originally Posted by Section 336

Sorry MURDR but you are being really naive. Any substantial vote for for Paul is basically giving Obama the election. Paul has a 0% chance of getting even 1 electoral vote let alone winning. (See Ross Perot and the effect it had on G. H. W. Bush).

I would not vote for Paul because basically I think he is a crackpot self indulgent loon, that is willing to sell the country down the tubes by still campaigning.

30 years from now Obama will be viewed as the worst president in 100 years and one of the worst in history.

So in essence - I will vote for Romney, I am not excited about it, I have voted in every election since 1980 and Romney is by far the first candidate I am voting for that I really do not like. I would have preferred almost every other GOP running over him. But the bottom line is, it is him or Obama- so I will vote for the only candidate that has a shot at beating Obama.


This election is really about if the GOP can get control over the Senate, that is the only way anything significant will get done. GOP will keep the house and if the Democrats keep the Senate it will be the same crap regardless of who wins the WH.

Uh, no. There is literally ZERO difference between Obama and Romney. Zero. They are both funded and heavily influenced by Wall Street and make decisions solely to appease the less than 1% of powerful special interests.

Voting for Paul won't mean anything electorally, but it does send the system a message that a movement is brewing amongst the younger generation, and that eventually we will take back the establishment.

[typeOnegative13NY]

Originally Posted by Section 336

Sorry MURDR but you are being really naive. Any substantial vote for for Paul is basically giving Obama the election. Paul has a 0% chance of getting even 1 electoral vote let alone winning. (See Ross Perot and the effect it had on G. H. W. Bush).

I would not vote for Paul because basically I think he is a crackpot self indulgent loon, that is willing to sell the country down the tubes by still campaigning.

30 years from now Obama will be viewed as the worst president in 100 years and one of the worst in history.
So in essence - I will vote for Romney, I am not excited about it, I have voted in every election since 1980 and Romney is by far the first candidate I am voting for that I really do not like. I would have preferred almost every other GOP running over him. But the bottom line is, it is him or Obama- so I will vote for the only candidate that has a shot at beating Obama.


This election is really about if the GOP can get control over the Senate, that is the only way anything significant will get done. GOP will keep the house and if the Democrats keep the Senate it will be the same crap regardless of who wins the WH.

Really? Are there still more than 3 people saying this after what Bush did to this country? I think you have the 2 confused. It will be the Bush legacy that should go down as the worst in history. Shame on Republicans to not acknowledge that Bush walked out as this country clinged to a string on the edge,and then have that mindset against the guy who was left the broom and dust pan.

[Hobbes3259]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative13NY

Really? Are there still more than 3 people saying this after what Bush did to this country? I think you have the 2 confused. It will be the Bush legacy that should go down as the worst in history. Shame on Republicans to not acknowledge that Bush walked out as this country clinged to a string on the edge,and then have that mindset against the guy who was left the broom and dust pan.

Dude, I respect you, but if you don't take the time to understand the financial meltdown, and the role that CRIA, and FANNIE and FREDDIE played then you render your opinions on the subject unworthy.

The "blame Bush" thing is retarded with the post meltdown post mortems having been conducted.

I'm as partisan as they come no denying it.


But the MSM reporting had both Bush and McLame onto the F&F mess 3 years ahead of the meltdown.


Guess who staved that off. The Dems.


Those aren't opinions, those are facts, quoted by your reliable MSM news organizations, not Faux News.


I guess what I don't understand is why conservatives are always willing (and usually too quick) to find fault with their own, but you libs defend even the indefensible to the bitter end....

Why is that?

[Hobbes3259]

Originally Posted by MURDR

Not by much.

It's called cognitive dissonance, and Cappy suffers from it greatly.

[Hobbes3259]

Originally Posted by deathstar

You are equating target practice with full scale invasions with troops and tanks...

Oh, so you were cool with the destruction of Serbia, and killing the Danube river, just asking?

[Hobbes3259]

Originally Posted by Cappy

How many American troops are occupying Libya and Yemen right now?

I said that's a reach because it's really hard to say, "Obama started those wars."

Iraq was a full-scale invasion. Same with Afghanistan.

Libya and Yemen might be military actions, but I'd be hard pressed to call them wars.

This is not to say military action was right or just in either of those cases. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But it is disingenuous to say that Obama "started" these "wars."

Occupying


But you're not a lib....ummmm that only works if you're the unhinged Pat Buchanan.

Why can't you just wear the label proudly.

The only territory we've occupied, is the DMZ, but don't let facts get in the way of a good PMS type jag.

[Hobbes3259]

Originally Posted by Cappy

How many American troops are occupying Libya and Yemen right now?

I said that's a reach because it's really hard to say, "Obama started those wars."

Iraq was a full-scale invasion. Same with Afghanistan.

Libya and Yemen might be military actions, but I'd be hard pressed to call them wars.

This is not to say military action was right or just in either of those cases. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But it is disingenuous to say that Obama "started" these "wars."

So you were against Afghanistan...?

That puts you to the left of everyone not named Chomsky

[milo]

We should change the thread title to "Say Who You Are Voting For, Say Why, and then Get Your Head Blown Off For Saying Why."

[Biggs]

I'm a big believer in watching the debates and seeing how the candidates match up against each other head to head.

I don't really see the campaigns as even starting before the conventions.

[Hobbes3259]

Originally Posted by GreenMachine

It is called the War of Northern Aggression

one of my favorite phrases

[deathstar]

Originally Posted by Biggs

I'm a big believer in watching the debates and seeing how the candidates match up against each other head to head.

I don't really see the campaigns as even starting before the conventions.

That's 95% of the populace....

The various media put so much effort into giving a damn about polls/elections now when many people simply don't care at this time...

Guess they gotta fill the airwaves with something...

[deathstar]

Originally Posted by typeOnegative13NY

Really? Are there still more than 3 people saying this after what Bush did to this country? I think you have the 2 confused. It will be the Bush legacy that should go down as the worst in history. Shame on Republicans to not acknowledge that Bush walked out as this country clinged to a string on the edge,and then have that mindset against the guy who was left the broom and dust pan.

[reverseapachemaster]

Originally Posted by Hobbes3259

The only territory we've occupied, is the DMZ, but don't let facts get in the way of a good PMS type jag.

I guess that depends on how you define "occupied".

[reverseapachemaster]

Originally Posted by dcm1602

I dont care for politics or politicians in general, but saying Obama is pro-business is completely absurd.

This is listening to editorialization but hiding from facts.

One of Obama's first acts was to extend the largest welfare payment in history to the finance industry. Not the unions, not the poor, etc. Just big ass business. Obamacare is a massive win for the insurers. You can point to the auto bailouts as a pro-union move but the primary beneficiaries of that bailout was still the auto industry. The Obama administration loosened standards that allowed the BP oil spill to occur. His administration has made no serious effort to support the consumer protections passed by Congress, so it's effectively moot. The administration has not signed or executed any serious labor or employment legislation or executive instrument.

[Barcs]

Right now I'm leaning to not voting for the first time since I turned 18. I voted McKinney (Green party) last election. 3rd party has no chance, however, so it's pointless to even leave my house to go vote, and the mainstream candidates are bad vs worse. Another election with abysmal choices. at representative democracy. We clearly don't have that here. I'd vote for Ron Paul if he won the primary like he should have, but even the republican party is so ultra conservative they are afraid to let him reform the party for the better and they rigged votes on him, so fuck them.

Also here's a spoiler alert! Obama's winning. I'd bet the farm on it. The republicans will rig it and stack votes, but it still won't be enough to offset and let any republican back into office this soon after the debacle that was George W. It won't happen.

[reverseapachemaster]

Originally Posted by Barcs

Right now I'm leaning to not voting for the first time since I turned 18.

I live in Texas where there is no chance for anybody but a Republican to win the presidental electors, so I appreciate where you're coming from. However, there are often state/local elections where your vote may still make a difference.