Why I'm voting for Obama [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why I'm voting for Obama


Gundude
08-07-2012, 14:04
What the heck, let's give it a try:

I want smaller and less intrusive government. Neither of the two (realistic) presidential candidates, nor the parties they come from, are supportive of that goal. Therefore I can only vote based on what the consequences of a win or loss would bring. I've decided the consequences are better with an Obama win, for the following reasons:


Short Term:

Gridlock. I'm assuming Republicans will keep or gain seats in both House and Senate. The current crop of Republicans have done nothing to demonstrate that they would show any fiscal restraint with a Republican President. With that out the window, I don't need them pursuing Republican pet issues like "family values". What's that you say? Family values are good? I agree. It's still not their place to dictate what family values are and how they should be enforced. To them, it always comes down to banning something or declaring a "war" on something. No thanks. Gridlock will help ensure the most resistance to both Democrat and Republican pet issues.

Medium Term:

Obama will be out in four years. The Republicans will need to run a candidate who actually is for smaller, less intrusive government. If they can pull that off, he will most likely win, and we can get the real recover rolling. If Romney wins this time, he will either win a second term or be unseated by a Democrat after four years. That will mean at least eight years, much more likely twelve, before we get that candidate who is for smaller, less intrusive government. If the Republicans can't muster up a good candidate in four years, we're still no worse off than we'd be with Mitt or his Democrat replacement.

Long Term:

Bush opened the door for Obama. McCain assured his win. Romney will assure his second term. Obama wouldn't have had a hope in hell if it weren't for Republicans offering one abysmal candidate after another. We need a final nail in the coffin of any notion that we need a progressive, big-government guy representing us in order to steal those progressive, big-government votes from the Democrats. It'll never happen. Democrats have that market cornered, and they should keep it. Playing that game will result in endless progressive, big-government candidates from both parties. We've already gone too far down that road. It needs to end now.


I welcome any rational critique of my reasoning. I don't need "Obama is a poopie-head and deserves to lose" or "Obama will kill us all before the four years are out" arguments. Those were covered adequately in other threads.

Syclone538
08-07-2012, 14:22
Vote LP. If Obama gets 50%, Romney 40%, and Johnson 10%, the R's will put up a small gov candidate next time.

series1811
08-07-2012, 14:36
Why a liberal Democrat would vote for Obama. Like we care.

Flintlocker
08-07-2012, 14:43
Here's some food for thought:

The Democrats' Duty: Bring the GOP Back from Crazy

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/republican-party-0512

countrygun
08-07-2012, 14:44
Vote LP. If Obama gets 50%, Romney 40%, and Johnson 10%, the R's will put up a small gov candidate next time.


In 1972 George Wallace came close to that number as a Democrat "dark horse" and I didn't see it change the choices in the next election all that much.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 14:48
Vote LP. If Obama gets 50%, Romney 40%, and Johnson 10%, the R's will put up a small gov candidate next time.That's not out of the question. If I was sure Obama had Nevada I might, but it's still only leaning. I'd certainly encourage everybody in the "safe states" to do it, because an LP result larger than the margin of Romney's loss would definitely be a good thing. Gotta take care of the Romney loss first though.

Dexters
08-07-2012, 14:49
What the heck, let's give it a try:

I want smaller and less intrusive government. Neither of the two (realistic) presidential candidates, nor the parties they come from, are supportive of that goal. Therefore I can only vote based on what the consequences of a win or loss would bring. I've decided the consequences are better with an Obama win, for the following reasons:


Short Term:

Gridlock. I'm assuming Republicans will keep or gain seats in both House and Senate. The current crop of Republicans have done nothing to demonstrate that they would show any fiscal restraint with a Republican President. With that out the window, I don't need them pursuing Republican pet issues like "family values". What's that you say? Family values are good? I agree. It's still not their place to dictate what family values are and how they should be enforced. To them, it always comes down to banning something or declaring a "war" on something. No thanks. Gridlock will help ensure the most resistance to both Democrat and Republican pet issues.

Medium Term:

Obama will be out in four years. The Republicans will need to run a candidate who actually is for smaller, less intrusive government. If they can pull that off, he will most likely win, and we can get the real recover rolling. If Romney wins this time, he will either win a second term or be unseated by a Democrat after four years. That will mean at least eight years, much more likely twelve, before we get that candidate who is for smaller, less intrusive government. If the Republicans can't muster up a good candidate in four years, we're still no worse off than we'd be with Mitt or his Democrat replacement.

Long Term:

Bush opened the door for Obama. McCain assured his win. Romney will assure his second term. Obama wouldn't have had a hope in hell if it weren't for Republicans offering one abysmal candidate after another. We need a final nail in the coffin of any notion that we need a progressive, big-government guy representing us in order to steal those progressive, big-government votes from the Democrats. It'll never happen. Democrats have that market cornered, and they should keep it. Playing that game will result in endless progressive, big-government candidates from both parties. We've already gone too far down that road. It needs to end now.


I welcome any rational critique of my reasoning. I don't need "Obama is a poopie-head and deserves to lose" or "Obama will kill us all before the four years are out" arguments. Those were covered adequately in other threads.

What is stunning about your post is that you don't know the basics of the powers of the president and the congress.

The president can only sign or veto a law - he can not put a law up for a vote in the congress.

The congress wrights and votes on the laws and and can overturn the veto with enough votes. So, if the Republicans have a majority and enough votes to overturn a veto - the president doesn't mean much.

Where the next president will have a large influence is in appointing 3-4 supreme court justices & foreign affairs. If you were going to make a case for Obama it would be in that area.

Summing up, your post doesn't make much sense.

CitizenOfDreams
08-07-2012, 14:52
Reminds me a piece of Soviet era toilet poetry...

"Справа молот, слева серп
Это наш Советский герб.
Хочешь жни, а хочешь куй,
Все равно получишь х..."

"The hammer on the right, the sickle on the left,
This is the Soviet Coat of Arms.
You can harvest crops or you can forge iron,
You will get screwed either way."

chuckz28
08-07-2012, 14:52
If you really feel that way why don't you either stay home or vote third party. I fail to see how voting for the side you disagree with will make them weaker. If you don't trust what the GOP has done now, you won't trust them in 4 years. In fact if the GOP loses now, what is to stop them from moving even further left instead of further right like you hope they will? Your plan isn't the GOP's plan and makes too many assumptions. In the mean time everyone else will have to face the consequences of another 4 years with no guarantee what will happen the next election cycle. Sounds to me like an absurdity of Micheal Phelps saying, ill lose this race so I can win the next one.

jakebrake
08-07-2012, 14:53
and here i just thought it was because your a liberal posing as a conservative, that voted for him last time because he was "cool"....how silly of me.

BuzznRose
08-07-2012, 14:53
Where the next president will have a large influence is in appointing 3-4 supreme court justices & foreign affairs. If you were going to make a case for Obama it would be in that area.


+ 1000! This is the biggest issue of all. Look at the Obamacare decision. Not saying Romney will appoint hard line conservatives, but BHO surely will not appoint gun friendly judges!


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Flying-Dutchman
08-07-2012, 14:56
Why I'm voting for Obama

I've decided the consequences are better with an Obama win, for the following reasons:

Self-injury is considered to be a maladaptive behavior.

Seriously, do not strategize this too much as it will backfire.

Just this time vote for the best viable candidate (Romney), otherwise there may not be a next time.

DOC44
08-07-2012, 14:58
Which Way Did He Go George? - YouTube

Doc44

BenjiEDF
08-07-2012, 14:58
After reading the post it sounds like you want to vote for the guy in my sig... Vote for who you believe in, don't just jump on the bandwagon.

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy."
- Carrol Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

Well I say VOTE for the rascals! :wavey:

countrygun
08-07-2012, 15:10
Besides the SCOTUS appointments I can see a Very good reason to get Obama out that I don't think anyone has mentioned. Everyone has been discussing what will happen or could be done. I have another view.

I this world even America has limited control over what CAN happen. There are too many unknown possibilities and I would rather have Romney at the helm than Obama, just that simple.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 15:11
Here's some food for thought:

The Democrats' Duty: Bring the GOP Back from Crazy

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/republican-party-0512Interesting read. I agree with some parts. Disagree with others. I'm sure nobody disagrees that the Republicans are their own worst enemy at this point.

I (obviously) strongly disagree that Romney is the one "real" candidate amid a gaggle of circus clowns, and the only reason he sounds schizophrenic is because he has to try to accommodate all the wildly opposing wingnuttery around him. He is part of the problem. He is one of the clowns, although a particularly bland one.

All it would take is somebody with small-government principles who doesn't sound bat**** crazy every time he/she opens his/her mouth. Small-government principles can be sold to the masses. But it'll take a skilled politician, not a circus clown, and the problem is that most skilled politicians have succumbed to the "dark side," realizing they have far more to gain personally by expanding government.

Fwdftw
08-07-2012, 15:12
Tagged for reading later

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Jerry
08-07-2012, 15:28
Tell the truth. The reason you're voting for The Obominations is you really want to see the country tank. Right? That is the only thing that will happen if The Obomination is reelected. Any vote for Barry does nothing but give him... well... another vote. A vote for anyone other than Romney assures The Obiminations reelection. This is not the election to be playing "I'll show them" because all that will be shown is just how far down the crapper this country can go. Anyone that can't see that.... well... I've already posted what they are. :brickwall:

I argued with MORONS (to no avail) before the last elections. Some were just plain racists that wanted a Black man to be president others just wanted to MAKE A POINT. I said they were crazy/MORONS if they could not see making a point wasn't worth the damage that would be done. Did they listen. NO!. Did the Republicans get the point? Evidently not! Now the MORONS want to reelect The Obomination to try to make the same point? YEP! They want to keep doing that which has proven not to work to make a point that is not being made (recognized). If that isn't MORONIC someone please explain to me what it is because I just can't put another label on it. :dunno:

Gundude
08-07-2012, 15:31
The congress wrights and votes on the laws and and can overturn the veto with enough votes. So, if the Republicans have a majority and enough votes to overturn a veto - the president doesn't mean much.Yeah, I know how it works. I'm not too worried about their ability to override vetoes. Let's see 'em get a simple majority in the Senate first.

Where the next president will have a large influence is in appointing 3-4 supreme court justices & foreign affairs. If you were going to make a case for Obama it would be in that area.Obama isn't going to appoint 3-4 more supreme court justices in 4 years. The two he already appointed are a done deal. Looking to the future, Romney's going to have twice the opportunity to appoint judges as Obama will (unless he only serves one term, in which case it's he and his Democrat successor who have the opportunity), and that doesn't fill me with much hope, given Romney's fondness for big government.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 15:46
Let's see here, we are probably headed to some tough times our choices are,

Romney, did a good job running Bain, straightened out a mess at the Olympics, tolerable Governor.


Obama, "Community organizer" coordinating what???, Justice dept. under him does not investgate New Black Panthers for intimidation at polling places, covers up Fast and Furious, orders law not enforced against OWS protestors, his Justice dept goes after Arizona for enforcing laws concerning immigration and everything else they can think of.


A vote for Obama, from anyone with an IQ higher than room-temperature, is a vote to tank the Country at the next opportunity.

Ruble Noon
08-07-2012, 15:50
Reminds me a piece of Soviet era toilet poetry...

"Справа молот, слева серп
Это наш Советский герб.
Хочешь жни, а хочешь куй,
Все равно получишь х..."

"The hammer on the right, the sickle on the left,
This is the Soviet Coat of Arms.
You can harvest crops or you can forge iron,
You will get screwed either way."

This.

Skyhook
08-07-2012, 15:50
Gundude gonna vote dem/socialist/Marxist? :yawn:



I'm shocked...no, really, shocked.. :yawn:

Dexters
08-07-2012, 15:51
Yeah, I know how it works. I'm not too worried about their ability to override vetoes. Let's see 'em get a simple majority in the Senate first.

Obama isn't going to appoint 3-4 more supreme court justices in 4 years. The two he already appointed are a done deal. Looking to the future, Romney's going to have twice the opportunity to appoint judges as Obama will (unless he only serves one term, in which case it's he and his Democrat successor who have the opportunity), and that doesn't fill me with much hope, given Romney's fondness for big government.

You really are clueless 4 are in their 70s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/us/presidential-election-could-reshape-an-aging-supreme-court.html

Gundude
08-07-2012, 15:54
Tell the truth. The reason you're voting for The Obominations is you really want to see the country tank. Right?Why ignore my original reasoning and fabricate your own? If that was why I was doing it I would have said so.

This is not the election to be playing "I'll show them" because all that will be shown is just how far down the crapper this country can go. Anyone that can't see that.... well... I've already posted what they are. :brickwall:
This is the election to show that we want a small-government Republican candidate, as is the next one, and the next one after that. If we don't demonstrate that every election, we'll never get one. If you don't care about that, and just want Republican no matter what flavor they are, I can see why you're upset. But I don't care about Republican. I want smaller government. Our next president will be the antithesis of what I want, that is for certain, because of our two party system. I'm looking past that. I think a Romney loss may give me a better candidate in four years. I know a Romney win definitely won't. So my choice is obvious.

brickboy240
08-07-2012, 15:58
There is one of these types EVERY election cycle. You can count on it like the sun coming up in the morning.

The guy that says "well...since the GOP candidate is not conservative enough...I am voting Obama because it does not matter, ad nauseum"

You must be "that guy."

That is ok...somebody has to fill this role.

-brickboy240

Gundude
08-07-2012, 16:05
There is one of these types EVERY election cycle. You can count on it like the sun coming up in the morning.

The guy that says "well...since the GOP candidate is not conservative enough...I am voting Obama because it does not matter, ad nauseum"

You must be "that guy."

That is ok...somebody has to fill this role.

-brickboy240And what do you say in response to "that guy"?

Gundude
08-07-2012, 16:13
You really are clueless 4 are in their 70s.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/us/presidential-election-could-reshape-an-aging-supreme-court.htmlSo? Which ones will be retiring in the next 4 years?

Angry Fist
08-07-2012, 16:14
It must suck to be you.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 16:19
Self-injury is considered to be a maladaptive behavior.

Seriously, do not strategize this too much as it will backfire.

Just this time vote for the best viable candidate (Romney), otherwise there may not be a next time.
So your advice is "Don't think, just vote Romney"?

Little Joe
08-07-2012, 16:28
Why I won't vote for Obama or any other Democrat because...

They are the party of:

Abortion - Barbaric slaughter of the unborn
Gay Agenda
Want to undermine the 2nd Amendment
Multiculturalism instead of one America
Class warfare
Race warfare
Gender warfare
Government control and dependence
Welfare as a way of life
Handcuffing our energy resources
Political correctness

I can't get behind any of that.

JFrame
08-07-2012, 16:30
So? Which ones will be retiring in the next 4 years?


For one, Justice Kennedy expressed a couple of years ago his intention of staying on the court through Obama's first term -- presumably to deny Obama a leftist swing vote.

I just pulled up a couple of links regarding this -- but it was widely discussed at the time Justice Kennedy made his feelings known.

http://www.bermanpost.com/2010/07/justice-kennedy-says-he-is-staying-on.html

http://www.jillstanek.com/the-courts/thanks-obama-really-kennedy-to.html


.

Jerry
08-07-2012, 16:30
Why ignore my original reasoning and fabricate your own? If that was why I was doing it I would have said so.

This is the election to show that we want a small-government Republican candidate, as is the next one, and the next one after that. If we don't demonstrate that every election, we'll never get one. If you don't care about that, and just want Republican no matter what flavor they are, I can see why you're upset. But I don't care about Republican. I want smaller government. Our next president will be the antithesis of what I want, that is for certain, because of our two party system. I'm looking past that. I think a Romney loss may give me a better candidate in four years. I know a Romney win definitely won't. So my choice is obvious.

Your reading comprehension is about as good as your reasoning. FAIL! :okie:

meshmdz
08-07-2012, 16:31
staying at home and not voting is horrible advice. you should ALWAYS vote. if you hate the candidates, vote for yourself. here are 200+ reasons i am voting for President Obama.

-Extended child tax credits and marriage-penalty fixes
-Created an Advanced Manufacturing Fund to invest in peer-reviewed manufacturing processes
-Required economic justification for tax changes
-Implemented “Women Owned Business” contracting program
-Changed standards for determining broadband access
-Established a credit card bill of rights
-Expanded loan programs for small businesses
-Extended the Bush tax cuts for lower incomes
-Extended the 2007 Alternative MinimumTax patch
-Closed the “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug plan
-Expanded the Senior Corps volunteer program
-Required insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions
-Gave tax credits to those who need help to pay health premiums
-Required large employers to contribute to a national health plan
-Required children to have health insurance coverage
-Expanded eligibility for Medicaid
-Expanded eligibility for State Children’s Health Insurance Fund (SCHIP)
-Required health plans to disclose how much of the premium goes to patient care
-Established an independent health institute to provide accurate and objective information
-In non-competitive markets, forced insurers to pay out a reasonable share of their premiums for patient care
-Eliminated the higher subsidies to Medicare Advantage plans
-Expanded funding to train primary care providers and public health practitioners
-Increased funding to expand community based prevention programs
-Reinstated executive order to hire an additional 100,000 federal employees with disabilities within five years.
-Increased the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals
-Expanded the Veterans Administration’s number of “centers of excellence” in specialty care
-Appointed a special adviser to the president on violence against women
-Fully funded the Violence Against Women Act
-Directed military leaders to end war in Iraq
-Began removing combat brigades from Iraq
-Created a military families advisory board
-Ended the abuse of supplemental budgets for war
-Made U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on anti-terror efforts
-Opened “America Houses” in Islamic cities around the globe
-Allocated Homeland Security funding according to risk
-Created a real National Infrastructure Protection Plan
-Increased funding for local emergency planning
-Extended monitoring and verification provisions of the START I Treaty
-Appointed a White House Coordinator for Nuclear Security
-Initiated a grant and training program for law enforcement to deter cyber crime
-Improved relations with Turkey, and its relations with Iraqi Kurds
-Launched an international Add Value to Agriculture Initiative (AVTA)
-Created a rapid response fund for emerging democracies
-Granted Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send money to Cuba
-Restored funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne/JAG) program
-Established an Energy Partnership for the Americas
-Expanded the Nurse-Family Partnership to all low-income, first-time mothers
-Required new hires to sign a form affirming their hiring was not due to political -affiliation or contributions.
-Provided affordable, high-quality child care
-Recruited math and science degree graduates to the teaching profession
-Reduced subsidies to private student lenders and protect student borrowers
-Encouraged water-conservation efforts in the West
-Increased funding for national parks and forests
-Increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
-Encouraged farmers to use more renewable energy and be more energy efficient
-Expanded Pell grants for low-income students
-Pursued a wildfire management plan
-Removed more brush, small trees and vegetation that fuel wildfires
-Expanded access to places to hunt and fish
-Pushed for enactment of Matthew Shepard Act, which expands hate crime law to -include sexual orientation and other factors
-Repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy
-Restored funding to the EEOC and the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs
-Reformed mandatory minimum sentences
-Created a White House Office on Urban Policy
-Fully funded the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
-Established program to convert manufacturing centers into clean technology leaders
-Established ‘Promise Neighborhoods’ for areas of concentrated poverty
-Worked toward deploying a global climate change research and monitoring system
-Funded a major expansion of AmeriCorps
-Created a Social Investment Fund Network
-Bolstered the military’s ability to speak differentlanguages
-Appointed the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer
-Provided grants to early-career researchers
-Worked to overturn Ledbetter vs. Goodyear
-Created a national declassification center
-Appointed an American Indian policy adviser
-Created new financial regulations
-Increased funding for land-grant colleges
-Banned lobbyist gifts to executive employees
-Signed a “universal” health care bill
-Created new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud
-Required 10 percent renewable energy by 2012
-Released oil from Strategic Petroleum Reserve
-Raised fuel economy standards
-Invested in all types of alternative energy
-Enacted tax credit for consumers for plug-in hybrid cars
-Asked people and businesses to conserve electricity
-Required more energy-efficient appliances
-Created a ‘Green Vet Initiative’ to promote environmental jobs for veterans
-Created job training programs for clean technologies
-Required states to provide incentives for utilities to reduce energy consumption
-Supported high-speed rail
-Supported airline service in small towns
-Invested in public transportation
-Equalized tax breaks for driving and public transit
-Considered “smart growth” in transportation funding
-Shared environmental technology with other countries
-Doubled federal spending for research on clean fuels
-Provided grants to encourage energy-efficient building codes
-Increased funding for the Environmental Protection Agency
-Raised the small business investment expensing limit to $250,000 through the end of 2009
-Extended unemployment insurance benefits and
temporarily suspend taxes on these benefits
-Supported network neutrality on the Internet
-Reversed restrictions on stem cell research
-Made the decision to take out UBL (the biggest decision any President has made in 70 years)
-Doubled funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, a program that encourages manufacturing efficiency
-Included environmental and labor standards in trade agreements
-Created an international tax haven watch list
-Made permanent the Research & Development tax credit
-Required automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans
-Required automatic enrollment in IRA plans
-Created a consumer-friendly credit card rating system
-Created a $60 billion bank to fund roads and bridges
-Required full disclosure of company pension investments to employees
-Provided easy-to-understand comparisons of the Medicare prescription drug plans
-Invested in electronic health information systems
-Phased in requirements for health information technology
-Required that health plans utilize disease management programs
-Required providers to report measures of health care costs and quality
-Held hospitals and health plans accountable for disparities in care
-Implemented and funded proven health intervention programs
-Prevented drug companies from blocking generic drugs
-Allowed Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices
Worked with schools to create more healthful environments for children
Improved recruitment of public health workers
Mandated insurance coverage of autism treatment
Fully funded the Combating Autism Act and Federal Autism Research Initiatives
Doubled federal funding for cancer research
Increased participation in cancer-related clinical trials
Fully funded the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Set a national goal to provide re-screening for all 2-year-olds for developmental disorders
Commissioned a study on students with disabilities and their transition to jobs or higher education
Set goals and timetables for implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act
Created a best practices list for private businesses in accommodating workers with disabilities
Launched educational initiative for employers on tax benefits of hiring employees with disabilities
Reduced the threshhold for the Family and Medical Leave Act from companies with 50 employees to companies with 25 employees
Provided a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave
Required employers to provide seven paid sick days per year
Streamlined the Social Security disability approval process
Expanded Veterans Centers in rural areas
Established standards of care for traumatic brain injury treatment
Made the Veterans Administration a national leader in health reform
Reduced the Veterans Benefits Administration claims backlog
Instituted electronic record-keeping for the Veterans Benefits Administration
Expanded housing vouchers program for homeless veterans
Launched a supportive services-housing program for veterans to prevent homelessness
Expanded the Family Medical Leave Act to include leave for domestic violence or sexual assault
Fully funded debt cancellation for heavily indebted poor countries
Created a fund for international small and medium enterprises (SME)
Launched robust diplomatic effort with Iraq and its neighbors
Provided $30 billion over 10 years to Israel
Limited Guard and Reserve deployments to one year for every six years
Ended the “Stop-Loss” program of forcing troops to stay in service beyond their expected commitments
Fully and properly equipped troops
Created a Civilian Assistance Corps that would organize private sector professionals to help in times of need
Included humanitarian international missions in long-term budgeting
Reviewed weapons programs
Modernized ships and invested more in small vessels
Set standards for when the government should hire defense contractors
Restored the government’s ability to manage contracts by rebuilding our contract officer corps
Created a system of incentives and penalties for defense contracts
Establish a Global Education Fund
Strengthened the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) aimed at stopping spread of weapons of mass destruction
Organized successful Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in 2010
Expanded federal bioforensics program for tracking biological weapons
Developed a comprehensive cyber security and response strategy
Mandated standards for securing personal data
Required companies to disclose personal information data breaches
Worked to persuade the European Union to end credit guarantees to Iran
Seek to negotiate a political agreement on Cyprus
Restructured and streamlined USAID
Increased the size of the foreign service
Urged China to stop manipulation of its currency value
Pressed China to end its support for regimes in Sudan, Burma, Iran and Zimbabwe
Created a public “Contracts and Influence” database
Required Cabinet officials to host Internet town hall meetings
Conducted regulatory agency business in public
Promoted more pre-school education
Expanded Early Head Start and Head Start
Reformed No Child Left Behind
Doubled funding for Federal Charter School Program and require more accountability
Addressed the dropout crisis by giving schools incentives for more dropout prevention
Created Teacher Residency Programs that will send teachers to high-need schools
Expanded teacher mentoring programs and provide incentives for more planning time
Promoted innovative ways to reward good teachers
Simplified the application process for financial aid
Increased the number of high school students taking college-level courses
Created incentives for tree planting and promote carbon sequestration
Improved water quality
Regulated pollution from major livestock operations
Strengthened federal environmental justice programs
Increased funding for organic and sustainable agriculture
Partnered with landowners to conserve private lands
Created a community college partnership program
Increased funding for progams that conserve lands and habitat for select species such as the Osceola turkey
Supported wetlands protection
Promoted economic development in Mexico
Supported repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)
Vigorously pursued hate crimes and civil rights abuses
Signed the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act into law
Supported regional innovation clusters
Helped low-income areas get phone and Internet service
Created a Homeowner Obligation Made Explicit (HOME) score for mortgage comparisons
Increased the supply of affordable housing throughout metropolitan regions
Invested in transitional jobs and career pathway programs
Fully funded the COPS program
Improved emergency response plans
Capped interest rates on payday loans and improve disclosure
Expanded public/private partnerships between schools and arts organizations
Improved climate change data records
Supported improved weather prediction program
Offered prizes for advances in consumer technology
Encouraged contests and programs to interest students in science
Increased research opportunities for college students
Strengthened the levees in New Orleans
Directed revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling to increased coastal hurricane protection
Shook loose federal money for rebuilding the Gulf Coast

Gundude
08-07-2012, 16:33
If you really feel that way why don't you either stay home or vote third party. I fail to see how voting for the side you disagree with will make them weaker. If you don't trust what the GOP has done now, you won't trust them in 4 years. In fact if the GOP loses now, what is to stop them from moving even further left instead of further right like you hope they will? Your plan isn't the GOP's plan and makes too many assumptions. In the mean time everyone else will have to face the consequences of another 4 years with no guarantee what will happen the next election cycle. Sounds to me like an absurdity of Micheal Phelps saying, ill lose this race so I can win the next one.This race is already lost. Barring some miraculous unpredicted event, either Obama or Romney wil be the next President. Maybe Republicans will offer somebody good in 4 years, maybe they won't. But the chance is there, and there are good reasons to think it could happen. On the other hand, with a Romney win, it's a certainty that for the next eight to twelve years, our government will be led by a big-government progressive, because that's what Romney is, and if he only has four years, that's what his Democrat successor will be.

I could stay home, but I actually want Romney to lose. If I want a certain outcome, I should do what I can to help achieve that outcome.

Of course there's no guarantee the Republican candidate in four years will be a good one. But in the worst case we'll have a big government progressive in charge for the next eight to twelve years. That's no worse than the certain case if Romney wins.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 16:39
staying at home and not voting is horrible advice. you should ALWAYS vote. if you hate the candidates, vote for yourself. here are 200+ reasons i am voting for President Obama.

-


Leave the DU boilerplate on DU.

Troll

Gundude
08-07-2012, 16:39
Why I won't vote for Obama or any other Democrat because...

They are the party of:

Abortion - Barbaric slaughter of the unborn
Gay Agenda
Want to undermine the 2nd Amendment
Multiculturalism instead of one America
Class warfare
Race warfare
Gender warfare
Government control and dependence
Welfare as a way of life
Handcuffing our energy resources
Political correctness

I can't get behind any of that.I used to think I could never vote for somebody I didn't like or respect and whose platform I despised. I'd more than likely have sat this one out.

GTPI taught me to be more pragmatic. It's a two party system. One of them's gonna win. Use your vote to achieve the end you want, even if the person you're voting for repulses you.

So now I'm voting for Obama.

See? Who said nobody at GTPI has ever been swayed into altering their voting habits?

Gundude
08-07-2012, 16:42
Your reading comprehension is about as good as your reasoning. FAIL! :okie:Any time you want to address the specifics of my original reasoning, you're welcome. You have so far done your best to avoid them.

JFrame
08-07-2012, 16:44
GTPI taught me to be more pragmatic. It's a two party system. One of them's gonna win. Use your vote to achieve the end you want, even if the person you're voting for repulses you.

So now I'm voting for Obama.

See? Who said nobody at GTPI has ever been swayed into altering their voting habits?


Does anybody remotely believe these comments? :dunno:


.

pugman
08-07-2012, 16:48
+ 1000! This is the biggest issue of all. Look at the Obamacare decision. Not saying Romney will appoint hard line conservatives, but BHO surely will not appoint gun friendly judges!

Using the O.P's reverse psychology non-gun friendly judges may just be the last straw to mobilize the United States Militia (which by the way you and I are both part of)

BTW, politicians don't really care who you vote for...because either way the elected party will screw over the country and give in just enough to keep the other side's pockets full.

Republicans raped the country for 8 years...now its the Dem's turn.

I still think both sides gather in some sea side resort, have a huge party with hookers and blow (which you and I pay for) and play a game of checkers to see who gets to screw us this time around. If a party wins two times in a row, said party needs to play the third time blindfolded.

McCain was the blindfolded lamb.

I sincerely don't think Republicans want to win...if they did they would play into what I read over and over and over again.

Find some fairly clean (since they all have skeletons) conservative candidate and run them.

Politics in Washington is now a game of musical chairs...at some point the fed will fail. I know, I'm doom and gloom but if anyone can point out any reason other than its own selfish preservation why it won't...I'm all ears.

The question is what fool will be in the chair last.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 16:48
Does anybody remotely believe these comments? :dunno:


.


The implied part about him being on GT? Sure. The rest of it? Not one little bit.

Kingarthurhk
08-07-2012, 16:50
And what do you say in response to "that guy"?

Stop the masochism?:dunno:

Gundude
08-07-2012, 16:59
Does anybody remotely believe these comments? :dunno:


.
Funny, you were here the whole time. You saw the transition with your own eyes. Why is it so hard for you to believe somebody can frequent a political forum for reasons other than to blindly mock anybody who thinks differently, without adding anything of value?

JFrame
08-07-2012, 17:04
Funny, you were here the whole time. You saw the transition with your own eyes. Why is it so hard for you to believe somebody can frequent a political forum for reasons other than to blindly mock anybody who thinks differently, without adding anything of value?


It's funny -- you are voicing much of the philosophical positions of people on this forum like Ruble Noon and barbedwiresmile -- but you don't sound like either of them. There is something distinctly insincere and contrived in your tone and presentation. I believe it has pretty much been there from your earliest appearance, but I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Bottom line is you don't exude the honor or integrity of those two I mentioned.


.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 17:10
BTW, politicians don't really care who you vote for...because either way the elected party will screw over the country and give in just enough to keep the other side's pockets full.This is true for as long as they can get away with it. Who lets them get away with it? The people do. Why? Because apparently "the stakes are too high" to make the unequivocal demand that a party stick to its platform. Strange how the stakes are always too high.

The people can't demand anything, because they repeatedly demonstrate that there is no "or else..." attached to their demand. They will vote the same way whether their party screws them over or not. They have rendered themselves powerless, all the while patting themselves on the back for being loyal partisans.

HexHead
08-07-2012, 17:13
Where the next president will have a large influence is in appointing 3-4 supreme court justices & foreign affairs. If you were going to make a case for Obama it would be in that area.

Summing up, your post doesn't make much sense.

Actually, your post makes even less sense. How are you figuring 0bama would have the opportunity to replace 3-4 justices? Do you really think any of the conservative justices would retire while he's in office? Put down the crack pipe.

Bren
08-07-2012, 17:17
Why a liberal Democrat would vote for Obama. Like we care.

About the size of it. There are plenty of Glock talkers voting for Obama and he doesn't surprise me any more than his ridiculous reasoning.

Why would I even think, for a secnd, that half the regulars from GNG wouldn't be up early on election day to vote for their hero.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 17:20
Funny, you were here the whole time. You saw the transition with your own eyes. Why is it so hard for you to believe somebody can frequent a political forum for reasons other than to blindly mock anybody who thinks differently, without adding anything of value?


Probably a keen eye and a lot of experience and common sense. You know, being a Conservative.

HexHead
08-07-2012, 17:24
For one, Justice Kennedy expressed a couple of years ago his intention of staying on the court through Obama's first term -- presumably to deny Obama a leftist swing vote.



And Kennedy's the only one that could even remotely be considered a wild card. No way in hell Scalia or Thomas retires on his watch. Just pray they don't stroke out.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 17:31
About the size of it. There are plenty of Glock talkers voting for Obama and he doesn't surprise me any more than his ridiculous reasoning.The fact that I've been saying it for the past few months may have also tempered the surprise a little bit. I would love to hear what in particular you feel is ridiculous about the reasoning though. How long are you prepared to wait for a small-government candidate?

meshmdz
08-07-2012, 17:50
Funny, you were here the whole time. You saw the transition with your own eyes. Why is it so hard for you to believe somebody can frequent a political forum for reasons other than to blindly mock anybody who thinks differently, without adding anything of value?

its sad really. that you come somewhere, a political forum, and any opinion differing from "obama is a muslim" (when he's a born-again christian), "he's gonna take our guns" (when he hasn't), and "hes a socialist" (when he isn't) renders you an idiot.... even though the moron calling you out is a middle class white guy who probably doesnt have healthcare to begin with but somehow how convinced himself that Mittens will help him and cares about his situation. its unbelievable.

JFrame
08-07-2012, 17:52
its sad really. that you come somewhere, a political forum, and any opinion differing from "obama is a muslim" (when he's a born-again christian), "he's gonna take our guns" (when he hasn't), and "hes a socialist" (when he isn't) renders you an idiot.... even though the moron calling you out is a middle class white guy who probably doesnt have healthcare to begin with but somehow how convinced himself that Mittens will help him and cares about his situation. its unbelievable.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Haw -- you have us all nailed! :supergrin:

(With the help of a little projection, perhaps...? http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/standart/grin.gif )


.

barbedwiresmile
08-07-2012, 17:54
Regardless of the stated reasons, I am pleased to see another vote for Obama. A proto-fascist state, and it's resulting kleptocracy, can be dragged out for an agonizingly long period of time before it collapses under its own rate, and through its own most brazen abuses. Or it can overreach more quickly and implode. That's really the 'choice' we have in this election. Anyone arguing otherwise simply reveals their profound misunderstanding of economics, and its resulting state structures.

But well-meaning 'conservatives' will continue to root for their team, for their color jersey. Just as well-meaning social democrats will for theirs. So the subject is really rather moot as Obama has several core constituencies locked up. The demographic and economic math is against a republican win unless Obama really screws up something dramatic and obvious. Then again, the American voter has proven resilient in his masocism.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 17:55
its sad really. that you come somewhere, a political forum, and any opinion differing from "obama is a muslim" (when he's a born-again christian), "he's gonna take our guns" (when he hasn't), and "hes a socialist" (when he isn't) renders you an idiot.... even though the moron calling you out is a middle class white guy who probably doesnt have healthcare to begin with but somehow how convinced himself that Mittens will help him and cares about his situation. its unbelievable.

Is that a racist stereotyping liberal bigot I hear?

JFrame
08-07-2012, 17:58
Is that a racist stereotyping liberal bigot I hear?


C'mon, now -- leftists don't think like that...You know, they're into diversity and open-mindedness and being non-judgmental and gooder stuff like that... http://www.kolobok.us/smiles/icq/mocking.gif


.

427
08-07-2012, 18:05
We already know why your voting for Obama. Paul lost and now you're an Obama supporter out of spite, regardless of what you now say.

Remember these posts from you and your other buddies?

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=18802976&postcount=7

427
08-07-2012, 18:10
Regardless of the stated reasons, I am pleased to see another vote for Obama. A proto-fascist state, and it's resulting kleptocracy, can be dragged out for an agonizingly long period of time before it collapses under its own rate, and through its own most brazen abuses. Or it can overreach more quickly and implode. That's really the 'choice' we have in this election. Anyone arguing otherwise simply reveals their profound misunderstanding of economics, and its resulting state structures.

But well-meaning 'conservatives' will continue to root for their team, for their color jersey. Just as well-meaning social democrats will for theirs. So the subject is really rather moot as Obama has several core constituencies locked up. The demographic and economic math is against a republican win unless Obama really screws up something dramatic and obvious. Then again, the American voter has proven resilient in his masocism.

Yet another former rabid Paul turning to Obama. Punishment for his candidate's loss. Who'd have thought?

427
08-07-2012, 18:14
Any time you want to address the specifics of my original reasoning, you're welcome. You have so far done your best to avoid them.

Your original reasoning was quite clear when it was obvious Paul wasn't going to get the nomination.

Jerry
08-07-2012, 18:18
Any time you want to address the specifics of my original reasoning, you're welcome. You have so far done your best to avoid them.

:laughabove:

In the last few days, in multiple posts, in multiple threads I've addressed that numerous times. Why should I repeat it when everyone else has already gotten it. Repetition is useless, as I've already proven, when trying to show someone the error of his ways when he keeps trying makeup "legitimate" reasons (there is no legitimate reason) to vote for The Omomination. :yawn:

Gundude
08-07-2012, 18:20
It's funny -- you are voicing much of the philosophical positions of people on this forum like Ruble Noon and barbedwiresmile -- but you don't sound like either of them. There is something distinctly insincere and contrived in your tone and presentation. I believe it has pretty much been there from your earliest appearance, but I generally try to give people the benefit of the doubt. Bottom line is you don't exude the honor or integrity of those two I mentioned.


.I admit I don't take politics as seriously as many other members do, including the two folks you specifically mentioned, and my lack of that same degree of concern may come across in my posts as flip or dishonorable, but the reasoning in my opening post of this thread is based entirely on cold logic, and nothing else.

Take my "Medium Term" point, for example, about how long it will take for us to have a chance at a small-government candidate if Romney wins. It is either logically sound or it isn't. If it isn't, I'd like to hear why. How will we possibly get a small-government candidate in less than eight years, and probably twelve, if Romney wins? It doesn't really matter if it was me or one of the more "honorable" members who presents the logic. It's either sound or it isn't.

So which is it?

427
08-07-2012, 18:22
staying at home and not voting is horrible advice. you should ALWAYS vote. if you hate the candidates, vote for yourself. here are 200+ reasons i am voting for President Obama.



Most of those "reasons" are the Feds spending money we don't have.

We simply cannot sustain spending, trillion dollar + deficits. The .gov is not going to spend us into prosperity, while at the same time racking up more and more debt. The .gov isn't going to tax us into prosperity, either.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 18:23
I admit I don't take politics as seriously as many other members do,





sure do post in PI a lot if you don't

another liberal contradiction?

porschedog
08-07-2012, 18:27
Sorry to be so blunt, but anyone who votes for obummer is an idiot
This guy is bad news cubed.

chuckz28
08-07-2012, 18:28
I used to think I could never vote for somebody I didn't like or respect and whose platform I despised. I'd more than likely have sat this one out.

GTPI taught me to be more pragmatic. It's a two party system. One of them's gonna win. Use your vote to achieve the end you want, even if the person you're voting for repulses you.

So now I'm voting for Obama.

See? Who said nobody at GTPI has ever been swayed into altering their voting habits?

This makes no sense. You are saying you don't like either candidate that either way you are voting for a "big government progressive" so why vote for one over the other? You've got to make pushes with each election.

Using a boat logic, intentionally swaying the boat further in one direction with the hope for a larger swing in the other is bad logic. This isn't a boat. Take what little gains you can when you can and keep pushing. Romney is a little gain. Don't tell the guy whipping you to keep doing it, hoping someone else will say to that guy "Stop whipping him." let the other guy grab the whip and whip you with less powerful and less frequent lashes or take the whip from both of them and vote third party. It is people with your attitude that keep it a two party system.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 18:30
Yet another former rabid Paul turning to Obama. Punishment for his candidate's loss. Who'd have thought?Yet another.

As unsurprising to you as it all is, eventually, the "yet anothers" will add up to be a big problem for Romney, wouldn't you say?

Gundude
08-07-2012, 18:32
sure do post in PI a lot if you don't

another liberal contradiction?An average of 1.27 posts a day. What's your average? (Let me help you out: 23.04)

It's all relative, isn't it?

countrygun
08-07-2012, 18:33
An average of 1.27 posts a day. What's your average?

It's all relative, isn't it?


I don't fib about not taking politics seriously

of course TRUTH is "all relative" to liberals

Berto
08-07-2012, 18:34
In 20 years, we will all be flying around in little egg shaped crafts like the Jetsons.


Brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbbrrrr...........

That's why I'll vote for Obama, I have it all figgered out.

pugman
08-07-2012, 18:38
This is true for as long as they can get away with it. Who lets them get away with it? The people do. Why? Because apparently "the stakes are too high" to make the unequivocal demand that a party stick to its platform. Strange how the stakes are always too high.

The people can't demand anything, because they repeatedly demonstrate that there is no "or else..." attached to their demand. They will vote the same way whether their party screws them over or not. They have rendered themselves powerless, all the while patting themselves on the back for being loyal partisans.

They will continue to get away with it until the House of Representatives is burning....and even then they will try to maintain some sort of order.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 18:40
This makes no sense. You are saying you don't like either candidate that either way you are voting for a "big government progressive" so why vote for one over the other? You've got to make pushes with each election.

Using a boat logic, intentionally swaying the boat further in one direction with the hope for a larger swing in the other is bad logic. This isn't a boat. Take what little gains you can when you can and keep pushing. Romney is a little gain. Don't tell the guy whipping you to keep doing it, hoping someone else will say to that guy "Stop whipping him." let the other guy grab the whip and whip you with less powerful and less frequent lashes or take the whip from both of them and vote third party. It is people with your attitude that keep it a two party system.Using the boat analogy, if you're desperately trying to get to land, and you know that in one direction land is at least two hundred, but maybe even three hundred miles away, and you have reason to believe land in the other direction may be only one hundred miles away, but is at most as far away as the land in the other direction, which way would you go?

countrygun
08-07-2012, 18:42
Using the boat analogy, if you're desperately trying to get to land, and you know that in one direction land is at least two hundred, but maybe even three hundred miles away, and you have reason to believe land in the other direction may be only one hundred miles away, but is at most as far away as the land in the other direction, which way would you go?

The opposite way Obama wanted to steer the boat.


silly question

Flying-Dutchman
08-07-2012, 18:45
So your advice is "Don't think, just vote Romney"?
I am a practical libertarian and Obama has ratcheted up government control so I am voting for Romney.

What is Obama’s plan for the next 4 years? More of the same will be a disaster and his untold plans will be even worse.

Vote for Obama with pride if you like him but do not vote for Obama as a protest.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 18:46
The opposite way Obama wanted to steer the boat.


silly questionSadly, nobody on board is willing to steer it in that direction. Next time bring the right people with you. :tongueout:

427
08-07-2012, 18:47
Yet another.

As unsurprising to you as it all is, eventually, the "yet anothers" will add up to be a big problem for Romney, wouldn't you say?

It's becoming clearer and clearer what the real motivation for supporting Obama really is among rabid Paul supporters, especially you. You made your reasons for support of Obama clear months ago, so don't lie and try to make up new reasons, now.


Note - I voted for Paul in my state's primary.

The Machinist
08-07-2012, 18:48
We simply cannot sustain spending, trillion dollar + deficits.
Yet you intend to vote for a guy who will do just this. And before you get all upset - no, I'm not voting for Obama.

chuckz28
08-07-2012, 18:51
Using the boat analogy, if you're desperately trying to get to land, and you know that in one direction land is at least two hundred, but maybe even three hundred miles away, and you have reason to believe land in the other direction may be only one hundred miles away, but is at most as far away as the land in the other direction, which way would you go?

I don't think you realize how much further the boat can go.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 18:51
Yet you intend to vote for a guy who will do just this. And before you get all upset - no, I'm not voting for Obama.


No, you want to get Obama in office and be able to say afterward "Look at me, I picked up a turd by the clean end"

Gundude
08-07-2012, 18:57
I don't fib about not taking politics seriously

of course TRUTH is "all relative" to liberals

What kind of truth is there is in misrepresenting what other people say?


I said "I admit I don't take politics as seriously as many other members do"

To put it another way: "Relative to many other members, I don't take politics as seriously."



Is it possible for you to admit in this one instance you're barking up the wrong tree?

countrygun
08-07-2012, 19:05
As long as the word "Relatively" is in the lexicon, liberals will have a place to hide and declare victory I suppose.


By the way, have they ever decided on what the definition of the word "is", is?

Gundude
08-07-2012, 19:06
You made your reasons for support of Obama clear months ago, so don't lie and try to make up new reasons, now.So hold on, everybody's vote, and the reasons for those votes, need to be set in stone several months in advance, never to be revisited? Or just mine?

Tell me, what's logically unsound about my reasons, as they stand? How long are you willing to wait for a small-government candidate?

GAFinch
08-07-2012, 19:08
If welfare expansion via executive order continues for 2-4 more years, Democrats will achieve a permanent voting majority. If you're hoping that a socialist state will lead to a new revolution, be aware that revolutions rarely end with a more conservative society. Of course, if the new society ends up more liberal in fiscal, social, and foreign areas, at least you'll achieve two-thirds of the libertarian platform.

427
08-07-2012, 19:10
Yet you intend to vote for a guy who will do just this. And before you get all upset - no, I'm not voting for Obama.

I want Obama voted out of office.

BTW how do you know what mittens will do when he's in office? Do you think he'll act as Obama? Somehow I seriously doubt that.

We already know what Obama's plans are, he's been telling us for years.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 19:12
Is it possible for you to admit in this one instance you're barking up the wrong tree?

As long as the word "Relatively" is in the lexicon, liberals will have a place to hide and declare victory I suppose.


By the way, have they ever decided on what the definition of the word "is", is?

I guess that's an obvious an answer as can be.

Would you like to start talking about your "relatives" now?

Uncles, aunts? You're drowning here. Think of something quick, man.

jakebrake
08-07-2012, 19:14
Yet another.

As unsurprising to you as it all is, eventually, the "yet anothers" will add up to be a big problem for Romney, wouldn't you say?

it does explain why i turned on the paulbots, doesn't it?

just a bunch of fake little posers.

427
08-07-2012, 19:17
So hold on, everybody's vote, and the reasons for those votes, need to be set in stone several months in advance, never to be revisited? Or just mine?

Tell me, what's logically unsound about my reasons, as they stand? How long are you willing to wait for a small-government candidate?

We've already been down this road. Who are you trying to fool? Everything is logically unsound about your reasons, I don't buy anything you say.

I want Obama voted out of office and I'm not stupid enough to believe that 4 more years of him is a good thing.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 19:19
I guess that's an obvious an answer as can be.

Would you like to start talking about your "relatives" now?

Uncles, aunts? You're drowning here. Think of something quick, man.


Oh,but i fear your rapier-like wit has cut me to the quick.

or

"Frankly sir, you're beginning to bore the **** out of me"

I can't decide which:dunno:

Gundude
08-07-2012, 19:20
I want Obama voted out of office.

BTW how do you know what mittens will do when he's in office? Do you think he'll act as Obama? Somehow I seriously doubt that.

We already know what Obama's plans are, he's been telling us for years.His past performance in office is a good indication of what he'll do, just as Obama's was a good indication of what he'd do.

He won't do the same things as Obama (except for amnesty, raise the debt ceiling a few more times, bail out a few corporations, maybe some foreign countries, kiss Saudi ass, start a war or two... OK, he'll do a lot of the same things as Obama), but he'll still be moving in the direction opposite of small government. Difference is his shelf life is double that of Obama's, and he'll have a congress that will back him up instead of fight him.

beforeobamabans
08-07-2012, 19:23
I voted for Paul in the primary because he was the only candidate with a radical enough economic agenda to really stop this country from going over the cliff. Since he and his ideas (real smaller government) have been soundly rejected by the American sheeple, I will no longer vote for the country's best interests at my own sacrifice but instead will vote to suck as much out of the system for myself as I can before it collapses. FYPM.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 19:24
We've already been down this road. Who are you trying to fool? Everything is logically unsound about your reasons, I don't buy anything you say.

I want Obama voted out of office and I'm not stupid enough to believe that 4 more years of him is a good thing.
Is 8 years of Romney a good thing? Is 4 years of Romney followed by 4 to 8 of another Democrat a good thing?

When do you expect Republicans will feel benevolent enough to grace us with a candidate who represents the Republican platform?

Jerry
08-07-2012, 19:38
I'll bet the MORONS don't get it.

"Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon"

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."

Perhaps I should stop using the word MORONS and substitute FOOLS.

Gundude
08-07-2012, 19:41
I voted for Paul in the primary because he was the only candidate with a radical enough economic agenda to really stop this country from going over the cliff. Since he and his ideas (real smaller government) have been soundly rejected by the American sheeple, I will no longer vote for the country's best interests at my own sacrifice but instead will vote to suck as much out of the system for myself as I can before it collapses. FYPM.Yet Another...

I wonder how many more there are out there. Well, three months isn't so long to wait anymore. That kinda time flies by before you know it.

Ruble Noon
08-07-2012, 19:42
Is 8 years of Romney a good thing? Is 4 years of Romney followed by 4 to 8 of another Democrat a good thing?

When do you expect Republicans will feel benevolent enough to grace us with a candidate who represents the Republican platform?

Hey, it'll be different this time. :thumbsup:

:rofl:

series1811
08-07-2012, 19:50
And what do you say in response to "that guy"?

Do the country a favor. Don't vote at all.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 20:00
I'll bet the MORONS don't get it.

"Some people have the vocabulary to sum up things in a way that you can quickly understand them. This quote came from the Czech Republic. Someone over there has it figured out. It was translated into English from an article in the Prague newspaper Prager Zeitungon"

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president."

Perhaps I should stop using the word MORONS and substitute FOOLS.


It is sad that many Americans realize this and yet there are a pitiful few who make a loud noise, well beyond their actual effect, who scream their intentions to do what they can to re-elect him out of spite because they bet on a losing horse in the primary.

Worse yet are the ignorant and egotistical (or disengenuous) who claim they can bring about a great change by helping him drive the Country into the ground. They are apparently un aware (or hope they can find others unaware) that this Country has been through a lot. It has always managed to carry on, at least since the Civil War, without the kind of "crash" they claim to be able to foment. The truth is, we survive the "bumps" but they come with a cost that has to be paid later. The "system" and the Country WILL survive a "crash" and do what it must to continue. All these people are doing is raising the cost. they claim that trying to correct the course is prolonging it, I think that speeding to the crash will prolong the time of recovery and and raise the eventual cost.

chickenwing
08-07-2012, 20:10
Hey, it'll be different this time. :thumbsup:

:rofl:

:rofl: don't hold your breath.

The Machinist
08-07-2012, 20:20
No, you want to get Obama in office and be able to say afterward "Look at me, I picked up a turd by the clean end"
I think you're suffering from dementia, old man. What the hell are you talking about?

The Machinist
08-07-2012, 20:24
I want Obama voted out of office.

BTW how do you know what mittens will do when he's in office? Do you think he'll act as Obama? Somehow I seriously doubt that.

We already know what Obama's plans are, he's been telling us for years.
I think the New England liberal will govern like a New England liberal, just like he did in MA. All the while, our debt goes up, our dollar buys less, and the runaway train just picks up more speed.

427
08-07-2012, 20:26
Is 8 years of Romney a good thing? Is 4 years of Romney followed by 4 to 8 of another Democrat a good thing?

When do you expect Republicans will feel benevolent enough to grace us with a candidate who represents the Republican platform?

How do you know what's going to happen 8 years from now?

I'm not voting for anybody endorsed by the Communist Party.

If the Communist Party thinks Obama's philosophy is close enough to theirs to endorse him, and you and others are comfortable enough to cast your lot with them, have at it.

Communism is the very anthesis of what Paul is about. That's why Paul supporters turned Obama supporters have no credibility. None.

427
08-07-2012, 20:28
I think the New England liberal will govern like a New Engadget liberal, just like he did in MA. All the while, our debt goes up, our dollar buys less, and the runaway train just picks up more speed.

Maybe, maybe not, but I'll do what I can to help vote Obama out of office. Mittens is the best bet for doing that.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 20:29
I think you're suffering from dementia, old man. What the hell are you talking about?


Simple, you won't vote against Obama by voting for Romney so your vote won't help keep him out. So if he wins which you really hope, or Romney wins you can sit back for 4 more years an ***** while saying "it's not my fault, I didn't vote for him (whoever) my hands are clean"

427
08-07-2012, 20:30
Hey, it'll be different this time. :thumbsup:

:rofl:

Do you think 4 more years of Obama is a good thing?

GLOCK17DB9
08-07-2012, 20:32
Everyone has the right to their opinion but I hope we still have a country if Obama gets another term!

countrygun
08-07-2012, 20:33
I think the New England liberal will govern like a New Engadget liberal, just like he did in MA. All the while, our debt goes up, our dollar buys less, and the runaway train just picks up more speed.


Yes the fact that he actually completed his responsibility to voters and didn't just vote "present" 90% of the time. The fact that he has run a successful business, the fact that he organized an Olympic shambles into a success, should all be held against him, because Obama has such a much more successful record.

In your dreams

series1811
08-07-2012, 20:40
We've already been down this road. Who are you trying to fool? Everything is logically unsound about your reasons, I don't buy anything you say.

I want Obama voted out of office and I'm not stupid enough to believe that 4 more years of him is a good thing.

The turth squadders are a lot more interesting when they are not trying so hard to convert us. Once their eyes glaze over with visions of a social utopia, they just sound kind of spooky.

:supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 20:48
Does anybody remotely believe these comments? :dunno:


.

Nope. :cool:

The Machinist
08-07-2012, 21:11
Simple, you won't vote against Obama by voting for Romney so your vote won't help keep him out. So if he wins which you really hope, or Romney wins you can sit back for 4 more years an ***** while saying "it's not my fault, I didn't vote for him (whoever) my hands are clean"
My hands will be clean, and my conscience will be clear. While people like you pay lip service to conservative values and then vote for a big-government liberal, I'll be supporting liberty. I don't care how unpopular freedom gets in this declining culture. I'll never stop loving it, and I'll never vote for anyone who works against it.

countrygun
08-07-2012, 21:17
My hands will be clean, and my conscience will be clear. While people like you pay lip service to conservative values and then vote for a big-government liberal, I'll be supporting liberty. I don't care how unpopular freedom gets in this declining culture. I'll never stop loving it, and I'll never vote for anyone who works against it.

A poltical conscientious objector with a streak of self-righteousness.

Marvy:upeyes:

G29Reload
08-07-2012, 21:19
What an obvious troll.


Obama needs to be eliminated as soon as possible because he's a lawless, dangerous Marxist thug. He is in a category of his own.

Jerry
08-07-2012, 21:39
Yes the fact that he actually completed his responsibility to voters and didn't just vote "present" 90% of the time. The fact that he has run a successful business, the fact that he organized an Olympic shambles into a success, should all be held against him, because Obama has such a much more successful record.

In your dreams

But, but, but, if we vote for The Obomonation we'll show them Republicans they need to give us more conservative candidates... Like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. Oh wait, they did and The (most) People voted for Romney. But, but, but if we reelect The Obomintation the Republicans will get the message and give us a more conservative candidate. :faint:

countrygun
08-07-2012, 21:47
But, but, but, if we vote for The Obomonation we'll show them Republicans they need to give us more conservative candidates... Like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. Oh wait, they did and The (most) People voted for Romney. But, but, but if we reelect The Obomintation the Republicans will get the message and give us a more conservative candidate. :faint:


Oh those pesky voters, who needs them anyway?

IvanVic
08-08-2012, 05:44
But, but, but, if we vote for The Obomonation we'll show them Republicans they need to give us more conservative candidates... Like Ron Paul and Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain. Oh wait, they did and The (most) People voted for Romney. But, but, but if we reelect The Obomintation the Republicans will get the message and give us a more conservative candidate. :faint:

If anything, we need the transition from primary to general election to be more level. But I agree with you, Obama getting reelected isn't going to help anyone, including the conservative movement.

evlbruce
08-09-2012, 08:34
Gundude, I agree with most of your argument and will go one further: Based on what Mittens was actually saying in '09 I don't see how the country would be much different than it is today given a Romney presidency.

Where I disagree strongly is your choice of action; by voting for Obama you are endorsing his policy.