Agree or disagree with Stark, that is one of the most valid points in this entire thread.Stark wrote: Furthermore, the idea that Romney is the "rich, out-of-touch candidate" and Obama isn't is just laughable.
lolwut? If there was a "kill Osama Bin Laden" button why wouldn't Clinton or Bush have pushed it? This is just inane. Obama made the call to make the move despite mixed opinions of his advisors, and it turned out to be the right one. He didn't pull the trigger, but he certainly deserves leadership credit.SamuraiMegas wrote:what was it Clinton's administration that set up the the plans? Obama just had to push a button.
I fail to see how Obama isn't supporting Israel? He and Bibi might not have the strongest President-PM relationship of all time, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find evidence that his administration isn't supporting Israel just as much if not more than any previous admin.He isn't supporting Isreal like he should either and i dislike that.
False. From an article earlier this year:Plus the fact that he took what 33-35 vacations in his entire time elected? Bush took around two vacations the entire time.
You mean the healthcare reform that most voters, when polled about individual components, quite like? When it gets labeled as "Obamacare" and politicized polls suggest that people are pretty split on it, but when you start polling about the specifics - no dropped coverage for pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on parent's healthcare into mid 20s, coverage for all kids, etc. - those components are wildly popular.Stay in the White House and do something other than come up wit terrible health care please and thank you.
Ahahha you only think Bush took two vacations? Bush took 77 trips to his ranch during his presidency, that's not even counting his trips to Camp David. Either way it's irrelevant, because both him and Obama (and every other president who takes a vacation) were on call and in touch during their retreat.SamuraiMegas wrote:I dislike both canidates, but Obama is bad for America. It also annoys me that people are voting for him due to the fact that he killed Osama Bin Laden (iknow a few people doing that) when what was it Clinton's administration that set up the the plans? Obama just had to push a button. He isn't supporting Isreal like he should either and i dislike that. Plus the fact that he took what 33-35 vacations in his entire time elected? Bush took around two vacations the entire time. Stay in the White House and do something other than come up wit terrible health care please and thank you.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy that does too much to essentialize both candidates. How about voting based on the merits of their ideas or their record instead of these caricatured archetypes that the media might want to present to you?Luke wrote:
To me it boils down to whose hands is our economy is better left in; A seasoned business man, or an articulate academic.
dsheinem wrote: There are plenty of reasons to dislike or vote against Obama, but you haven't found them.
A smart man realizes that both men have their strengths and weaknesses and are worthy of the office. Blind devotion to either canidate is pointless in regards to our political system.puke_face wrote:dsheinem wrote: There are plenty of reasons to dislike or vote against Obama, but you haven't found them.
Agreed. While the president has veto power, he cannot raise of lower taxes by fiat. Likewise, the president cannot spend taxpayer's money without congressional authorization. Accordingly, while the president and his party can set forth a legislative agenda, he must go through congress to enact it. The Republican party, which has held the House of Representatives (i.e., the chamber that originates any bill relating to taxing or spending), has shown through the completely manufactured debt ceiling crisis that they place politics well above the economic well-being of this country, and they should not be rewarded with the presidency. Moreover, the Republican party's basic economic policies (i.e., less taxes + less regulations = growth) hold a lot of popular appeal, but vastly oversimplify the steps necessary to improve our nation's economy.dsheinem wrote:That's a bit of a false dichotomy that does too much to essentialize both candidates. How about voting based on the merits of their ideas or their record instead of these caricatured archetypes that the media might want to present to you?Luke wrote:
To me it boils down to whose hands is our economy is better left in; A seasoned business man, or an articulate academic.
Also, the executive branch almost always has much more sway and immediate impact on social issues and foreign affairs than they do on economics, so I wouldn't base your vote entirely on the economy...
This is a good point regardless of your political affiliation. (I support Barack Obama for president, but I do not think that Mitt Romney's election would herald the end of civilization.) It is important that each of you independently research each candidates platform, the platforms of their respective paries, and the limits of their power if elected to the presidency.Stark wrote:A smart man realizes that both men have their strengths and weaknesses and are worthy of the office. Blind devotion to either canidate is pointless in regards to our political system.
