Why I am voting for Obama again

[Papageorgio]

We have a group of embittered, older white folks realizing, finally, a fact of life.

Things always change.

Their way of life for many of them is coming to an end.

So be it, they can't change it, but they can whine about it. And why not? They will soon be gone.

And so will you, not seeing the point here, other than you are bitter and you are going to die.

 

[Avatar4321]

anyone notice most elected Democrats call us a Democracy?

why do you think that is

Because for the past 100 years progressives have been trying to change our form of government away from a Republic. It's easier to overthrow a Democracy than it is a Republic.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, you'd rather vote for Obama and live in a socialist centrally planned state where government is the answer to everything.
See Communism and Socialism under the heading of FAILED SYSTEMS.

What is it with these right-wing bleaters who have no clue what "socialism" means?

Spoon, no one is stopping you from sending all your cash to your local oligarch. Just stop demanding that I do the same. If you want to be a loyal lapdog and live off table scraps, so be it. I'm sure your master tosses you only the finest table scraps, and in return you yip when you're told to yip. Try to understand that free men won't live like you.

Now me, I'm a capitalist, the direct opposite of a Republican. I believe what Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson believed. And according to the modern GOP, those men were socialists. As was Ronald Reagan. I used to be Republican. My positions haven't changed, yet I've magically become a "liberal".

No self respecting capitalist would ever support central planning. You do and that makes you a non -capitalist.
I send my cash to no one. No one from your mysterious oligarchy comes knocking for their dowery either. This notion of the wealthy making collections is a figment of your radically charged imagination.
I am the worst nightmare for your assumptions. Go for it.

 

[Navy1960]

.

Funny, you won't give Obama the blame but are more then happy to give it to Bush and transpose that onto Romney. I would say that regardless of what you think Romney is saying now look at what he DID in Mass. and the Olympics and if you like that you'll probably like what he will do as president. MAYBE Romney will be a rehash of Bush but I doubt it seriously what we know is that Obama will be a rehash of Obama without the fear of reelection. Of course, as he said, that will then give him more flexibility with the Russians when he does not have to worry about what you or I think.

No the conversation turned to Mitt Romney so I as addressing his qualifications for the job and it'an I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney has changed positions on just about every stance since his time as Gov. of Mass. and has surrounded himself with former members of President Bush's staff so thats a pretty good indication of how he will govern as President. Take that along with his clear indication to support the same economic positions that the former President supported and there is not much daylight there. As for the current President this does not excuse his responsibilty for the economic condition the nation is since his time in Office nor have I ever said otherwise. One can look at Mitt Romeny's time as Gov. all they wish and be hopeful that his more moderate positions that he held then and often times even positions to the left of some more radical Democrats are not the ones he holds now. So while I do believe that at his core Mitt Romney himself is more moderate than those around him , it remains to be seen how he will govern given his stances lately and those he surrounds himself with to help do that job. Now as for the President, I see him as a well meaning man but having said that in my humble opinion lacks the leadership skills to do the nations business and make tough choices needed to right this nations ship. I see this same issue with Mitt Romney as well, so again not much has changed.

 

[Katzndogz]

Why is Douglas Band, aide to Hillary Clinton not voting for obama, but voting for Romney? Why is Douglas Band asking democrats to vote for Romney?

In order for democrats to restore the leadership they had under Clinton, which was their last successful leadership, obama has to lose this time.
Report: Bill Clinton aide voting Romney - Tim Mak - POLITICO.com

 

[Avatar4321]

WHY I AM VOTING FOR OBAMA AGAIN: I think the reason that most Obama supporters continue to support him has to do with their basic political philosophies. The democratic party and the republican party have vastly different views on a host of major issues: foreign affairs, women's rights, environmental protection, global warming, energy policy, family planning, gay rights, gun control, social justice, tax policy, and on and on. It is not necessarily that any of us are THRILLED with the performance of Obama in his first term, but that doesn't change the fact that we are vehemently opposed to most- if not all - of the GOP's positions on that long list of issues. Obama shares the political philosophy of democrats, and if we reelect him, he may not be successful in moving all or most or even hardly any of those issues down a path that democrats would approve, but electing Romney will CERTAINLY stop any movement on those issues in the direction that democrats want to see them advance, and, instead, move those issues down the path that the GOP wants them to advance.

It is nothing more or less than the standard clash of political philosophies that ought not to come as a surprise to anyone. If one has a vision for the future of our country, one will vote for the party that will attempt to move the country along a path that more closely resembles that vision.

You oppose liberty, fiscal sanity, and basic human rights?

 

[Avatar4321]

... it doesn't really matter what level of success Obama has had... .

LOL! You are exactly the kind of fool obama dreams about.

The problem is Obama has been extreme successful with his policies. The problem is the policies he advocates make our nation worse.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

.

Funny, you won't give Obama the blame but are more then happy to give it to Bush and transpose that onto Romney. I would say that regardless of what you think Romney is saying now look at what he DID in Mass. and the Olympics and if you like that you'll probably like what he will do as president. MAYBE Romney will be a rehash of Bush but I doubt it seriously what we know is that Obama will be a rehash of Obama without the fear of reelection. Of course, as he said, that will then give him more flexibility with the Russians when he does not have to worry about what you or I think.

No the conversation turned to Mitt Romney so I as addressing his qualifications for the job and it'an I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney has changed positions on just about every stance since his time as Gov. of Mass. and has surrounded himself with former members of President Bush's staff so thats a pretty good indication of how he will govern as President. Take that along with his clear indication to support the same economic positions that the former President supported and there is not much daylight there. As for the current President this does not excuse his responsibilty for the economic condition the nation is since his time in Office nor have I ever said otherwise. One can look at Mitt Romeny's time as Gov. all they wish and be hopeful that his more moderate positions that he held then and often times even positions to the left of some more radical Democrats are not the ones he holds now. So while I do believe that at his core Mitt Romney himself is more moderate than those around him , it remains to be seen how he will govern given his stances lately and those he surrounds himself with to help do that job. Now as for the President, I see him as a well meaning man but having said that in my humble opinion lacks the leadership skills to do the nations business and make tough choices needed to right this nations ship. I see this same issue with Mitt Romney as well, so again not much has changed.

I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney has changed positions on just about every stance since his time as Gov. of Mass.

OK, could it be possible since Massachusetts is a more liberal state that Romney did what the state wanted him to do? Now he's moving in the direction of what the country would want him to do. Yes that's flip flopping but I do find it justifiable.

 

[expatriate]

fyi. I am a retired naval officer with 25 years in uniform...

"Retired Naval Officer"

Code words for "Couldn't Make 0-5"

really? wanna bet? I'll send you a pdf file of my retired ID card and we'll bet.... something fun...like, say $10,000???? and if I made O-5, you pay it to me, and if I didn't, I'll pay it to you.

How does that work for ya?

or are you all sack and no nuts?

 

[expatriate]

You oppose liberty, fiscal sanity, and basic human rights?

I oppose none of those things. I do, however, oppose the majority of the platform of the GOP.

 

[Katzndogz]

You oppose liberty, fiscal sanity, and basic human rights?

I oppose none of those things. I do, however, oppose the majority of the platform of the GOP.

That's the entire decision on this election. Not who you like the best, or who is the cutest, or who has the nicest background or the most favorable tax returns. Unlike past elections where both parties intended the same goals, but differed only on how to get there, this election is for the very direction of the nation.

 

[Warrior102]

really? wanna bet? I'll send you a pdf file of my retired ID card and we'll bet.... something fun...like, say $10,000???? and if I made O-5, you pay it to me, and if I didn't, I'll pay it to you.

How does that work for ya?

or are you all sack and no nuts?

Sorry asswipe, I don't take wagers from Food Stamp recipients.

Go fuck yourself, assbag.

 

[Navy1960]

Funny, you won't give Obama the blame but are more then happy to give it to Bush and transpose that onto Romney. I would say that regardless of what you think Romney is saying now look at what he DID in Mass. and the Olympics and if you like that you'll probably like what he will do as president. MAYBE Romney will be a rehash of Bush but I doubt it seriously what we know is that Obama will be a rehash of Obama without the fear of reelection. Of course, as he said, that will then give him more flexibility with the Russians when he does not have to worry about what you or I think.

No the conversation turned to Mitt Romney so I as addressing his qualifications for the job and it'an I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney has changed positions on just about every stance since his time as Gov. of Mass. and has surrounded himself with former members of President Bush's staff so thats a pretty good indication of how he will govern as President. Take that along with his clear indication to support the same economic positions that the former President supported and there is not much daylight there. As for the current President this does not excuse his responsibilty for the economic condition the nation is since his time in Office nor have I ever said otherwise. One can look at Mitt Romeny's time as Gov. all they wish and be hopeful that his more moderate positions that he held then and often times even positions to the left of some more radical Democrats are not the ones he holds now. So while I do believe that at his core Mitt Romney himself is more moderate than those around him , it remains to be seen how he will govern given his stances lately and those he surrounds himself with to help do that job. Now as for the President, I see him as a well meaning man but having said that in my humble opinion lacks the leadership skills to do the nations business and make tough choices needed to right this nations ship. I see this same issue with Mitt Romney as well, so again not much has changed.

I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney has changed positions on just about every stance since his time as Gov. of Mass.

OK, could it be possible since Massachusetts is a more liberal state that Romney did what the state wanted him to do? Now he's moving in the direction of what the country would want him to do. Yes that's flip flopping but I do find it justifiable.

If that were the case then that is an indication of a man who adjusts his positions based on what he is running for rather than stating those of his own. Forgive me , but in my humble opinion thats not leadership, thats someone in a perpetual state of running for office. While it's true a person can and should be able grow in their beliefs over time , the fact that Mass. is a liberal state and the nation as a whole is a Center Right to Moderate nation should have no bearing on his beliefs at all.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No the conversation turned to Mitt Romney so I as addressing his qualifications for the job and it'an I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney has changed positions on just about every stance since his time as Gov. of Mass. and has surrounded himself with former members of President Bush's staff so thats a pretty good indication of how he will govern as President. Take that along with his clear indication to support the same economic positions that the former President supported and there is not much daylight there. As for the current President this does not excuse his responsibilty for the economic condition the nation is since his time in Office nor have I ever said otherwise. One can look at Mitt Romeny's time as Gov. all they wish and be hopeful that his more moderate positions that he held then and often times even positions to the left of some more radical Democrats are not the ones he holds now. So while I do believe that at his core Mitt Romney himself is more moderate than those around him , it remains to be seen how he will govern given his stances lately and those he surrounds himself with to help do that job. Now as for the President, I see him as a well meaning man but having said that in my humble opinion lacks the leadership skills to do the nations business and make tough choices needed to right this nations ship. I see this same issue with Mitt Romney as well, so again not much has changed.

I was simply pointing out that Mitt Romney has changed positions on just about every stance since his time as Gov. of Mass.

OK, could it be possible since Massachusetts is a more liberal state that Romney did what the state wanted him to do? Now he's moving in the direction of what the country would want him to do. Yes that's flip flopping but I do find it justifiable.

If that were the case then that is an indication of a man who adjusts his positions based on what he is running for rather than stating those of his own. Forgive me , but in my humble opinion thats not leadership, thats someone in a perpetual state of running for office. While it's true a person can and should be able grow in their beliefs over time , the fact that Mass. is a liberal state and the nation as a whole is a Center Right to Moderate nation should have no bearing on his beliefs at all.

Sure right got it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

No, I do not believe that it is the job of Government to do things for me or give me things. I do believe in a strong Government for a strong, functional society. Things like infrastructure, education, help for those in need-the poor, elderly, disabled, children, etc. basic services like fire, police, the military, etc. And yes, I believe healthcare is a right not a privledge. These things I don't believe should be privatized.

Hmm. Ok...What about education? The federal government in 2009 spent $40 billion or 10% of the total spent on public education. What else would you like to do?
Infrastructure...What about it? The federal government spends roughly $87 billion on transportation and water infrastructure( 2009) budget. This represents roughly 10% of the total federal budget for that year. That accounts for about 25% of the total including state and local expenditures. CBO | Public Spending on Transportation and Water Infrastructure
So what is it you wish the federal government to do?
Define "strong functional society"....See you and I differ in that government should not be involved in social engineering. Society( what ever that is) will function whether government exists or not. See history on the the earliest European settlers. There was no government only a command hierarchy aboard the ships that carried the settlers.
Right now the federal government spends almost 50% of the total budget on help for the poor, the needy, elderly, disabled children and of course the old "can we increase the budget for "et cetera"....What more do you want? Social spending as it stands is no longer sustainable. Not in the current form. There are far too many people gaming the system and there are far too many federal employees costing us taxpayers billions each year.
You can "believe" all you like. Does not make it true.
What do you mean when you state "health care is a right"?....In which part of the US or any State Constitution does is state "health care is a right"?
Why do you trust government which has ZERO incentive to control costs and perform tasks within budget, efficiently and on time more than you do the private sector which MUST work within a budget, perform better and more efficiently and complete it's task with the highest quality and complete the task on time?...

I'm one of those Federal Employees you are talking about. I answered your health care is a right in my last post. If you think the infrastructure is o.k. in this country, you are dead wrong. More money spent on fixing roads, bridges, etc. will create jobs and help the economy. We most definitely DO need a Government to survive. And please, the poor are suffering greatly and so is the middle class. All you have to do is open your eyes and look.

You answered your own idea. You did not answer MY questions. I asked you who will pay for your dream of universal healthcare. You evaded the question. I also asked how a system covering 315 million people could be administered. You evaded that question as well.
I never said the infrastructure was "ok"....In fact I gave a strong illustration of the problems not with funding but how the money is spent. You wrote "infrastructure"...What about it? Explain.
I neither stated not implied there should be no government. That is the typical liberal all or nothing straw man argument. We are passed that now. The public is demanding results. No more excuses.
"The poor are suffering"..Another generic blanket statement to please yourself.
We have spent trillions on social programs which came with the promise to end poverty. Social spending is HALF if the federal budget. How much more do you people think is needed? How about some accountability in the system? The rules need to be enforced, administrative costs must be lowered and those gaming the system need to be cut off.

Look, there is no hope for you. You are pot committed to Obama because number one he is a friend to public employment. Two you are a liberal.
Your very existence as a federal employee is predicated on an administration which has a goal of increasing not only the number of federal workers but their compensation as well.
Government needs to shrink. Not grow.
May I suggest you start your search in the private sector now because in 6 months with the right people in office, the cuts will begin.
Government is bloated and inefficient.
A public employee's worst nightmare is fiscal responsibility.

 

[thereisnospoon]

If you were a Naval Officer than you would know something about personal responsibility, and individual achievement... Why do support an ideology which recognizes neither?

I disagree completely with your partisan misrepresentation of liberal ideology. I guess that answers it.

Of course you do. Liberalism has been exposed for what it actually is. And your side hates that.
Your pat response is " you right wingers( negative connotation code for conservative) mis characterize liberals". No...We have your number.
It is amusing how liberals will at the first sign of challenge will run from the label of "liberal".

 

[expatriate]

really? wanna bet? I'll send you a pdf file of my retired ID card and we'll bet.... something fun...like, say $10,000???? and if I made O-5, you pay it to me, and if I didn't, I'll pay it to you.

How does that work for ya?

or are you all sack and no nuts?

Sorry asswipe, I don't take wagers from Food Stamp recipients.

Go fuck yourself, assbag.

talk is cheap.... you'd think if you were so fucking sure of yourself, you'd jump at the chance to make ten grand. Why wouldn't you? I am sure we can work out a way to verify the validity of my ID card for that sort of money. Where are you located in the states? I am coming back to my 40th reunion at USNA later this month, and then spending a week in NYC... if you're on the east coast, we could meet. I'll bring my checkbook... you bring yours.

I knew you were an empty bag of wind... one of those chickenhawks who claims to love the military but perfectly willing to insult veterans who don't share your political philosophy. What a joke... a sad pathetic joke.

 

[expatriate]

If you were a Naval Officer than you would know something about personal responsibility, and individual achievement... Why do support an ideology which recognizes neither?

I disagree completely with your partisan misrepresentation of liberal ideology. I guess that answers it.

Of course you do. Liberalism has been exposed for what it actually is. And your side hates that.
Your pat response is " you right wingers( negative connotation code for conservative) mis characterize liberals". No...We have your number.
It is amusing how liberals will at the first sign of challenge will run from the label of "liberal".

I am proud to be a liberal. and I completely embrace personal responsibility, and individual achievement.

I love the latest uproar about the "debt" and how republicans claim that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and that democrats are the only ones who borrow any money. But every time I ask a republican which republican president's administration ever LOWERED the national debt, they are strangely silent. You have NEVER lowered the debt in over a half a century but you want Americans to trust you this time...cuz even though you promised to lower it during Dubya term, but didn't... and his daddy's term, but didn't... and Ronnie's term, but didn't... and Tricky Dick's term, but didn't... you promise you'll be good this time. Fiscal responsibility my ass.

 

[Warrior102]

Where are you located in the states? I am coming back to my 40th reunion at USNA later this month, and then spending a week in NYC... if you're on the east coast, we could meet.

Trawl for anus some other place, nut sack.

Faggot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I disagree completely with your partisan misrepresentation of liberal ideology. I guess that answers it.

Of course you do. Liberalism has been exposed for what it actually is. And your side hates that.
Your pat response is " you right wingers( negative connotation code for conservative) mis characterize liberals". No...We have your number.
It is amusing how liberals will at the first sign of challenge will run from the label of "liberal".

I am proud to be a liberal. and I completely embrace personal responsibility, and individual achievement.

I love the latest uproar about the "debt" and how republicans claim that they are the party of fiscal responsibility and that democrats are the only ones who borrow any money. But every time I ask a republican which republican president's administration ever LOWERED the national debt, they are strangely silent. You have NEVER lowered the debt in over a half a century but you want Americans to trust you this time...cuz even though you promised to lower it during Dubya term, but didn't... and his daddy's term, but didn't... and Ronnie's term, but didn't... and Tricky Dick's term, but didn't... you promise you'll be good this time. Fiscal responsibility my ass.

I am proud to be a liberal. and I completely embrace personal responsibility, and individual achievement.

You're a confused liberal