TBD

hutch wrote:

azaghal1981 wrote:
Yeah, he's further to the right than Romney and Ryan on a bunch of issues. No thanks. I want a solid liberal candidate. And from a personal standpoint, my voting libertarian would basically be my voting against certain laws and benefits that help to keep me a contributing member of society.

You're crazy.. If you had even been voting in 2000, with this rationale you'd have voted for for Nader. How did that work out for you? You enjoyed the wars? The creation of a conservative majority on the Court?

Obviously who you vote for is irrelevant unless you live in Virginia anyways so I think you're giving this a bit too much thought!

I voted Nader last election.  I don't agree with your rationale.  If all of the Gore supporters had voted for Nadar we would have been better off.  Gore didn't win his home state.  If he had he would have been president.  You should vote who you think the best candidate not who you think will win.  That is how we have Obama and GW as back to back presidents.  Two presidents who will have bankrupted the country and who care nothing about the working man. 

I still haven't decided whom I am voting for but it won't be Obama or Romney.  I did one of those online issues thing and it told me which candidate to vote for and Romney and Obama were the lowest two candidates in issues in common with me.  Both at 60 percent.  They are both the status quo. If you are happy with the way the country is currently being run then by all means vote for one of them. 

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:

azaghal1981 wrote:
Yeah, he's further to the right than Romney and Ryan on a bunch of issues. No thanks. I want a solid liberal candidate. And from a personal standpoint, my voting libertarian would basically be my voting against certain laws and benefits that help to keep me a contributing member of society.

You're crazy.. If you had even been voting in 2000, with this rationale you'd have voted for for Nader. How did that work out for you? You enjoyed the wars? The creation of a conservative majority on the Court?

Obviously who you vote for is irrelevant unless you live in Virginia anyways so I think you're giving this a bit too much thought!

I voted Nader last election.  I don't agree with your rationale.  If all of the Gore supporters had voted for Nadar we would have been better off.  Gore didn't win his home state.  If he had he would have been president.  You should vote who you think the best candidate not who you think will win.  That is how we have Obama and GW as back to back presidents.  Two presidents who will have bankrupted the country and who care nothing about the working man. 

I still haven't decided whom I am voting for but it won't be Obama or Romney.  I did one of those online issues thing and it told me which candidate to vote for and Romney and Obama were the lowest two candidates in issues in common with me.  Both at 60 percent.  They are both the status quo. If you are happy with the way the country is currently being run then by all means vote for one of them. 

Listen to me and listen good cause I'm only going to write this down one time. To me George W. Bush is the worst American president in history and wasn't even initially elected by the people (more like appointed by an activist Republican Supreme Court that decided to STOP A STATE from counting the votes of its residents in an unprecedented decision). George W. Bush got us involved in two useless wars, spent us into bankruptcy, is at least partly responsible for 9-11 happening, and to cap it all off presided over the country going into the great recession. There is a reason he is in hiding and won't even come out for the Republican Convention.

I don't believe most of the what happened in the 2000-2008 period would have happened had Al Gore been elected president in 2000 (and in a way I still think he WAS elected).

It is of course inarguable that Al Gore ran a bad campaign. But George W Bush's "election" was a tragedy. They're still bringing back the body bags…and the blood is on his hands.

I can't tell anyone else what to do but I think I - myself- have to be a realistic voter.. does that mean never voting for a third party option? No. I have voted for the third party option in a case where I think my vote actually did have an impact even though the candidate lost. Voting for Nader had zero positive impact and in fact a lot of negative impact as Bush did way more against Nader's "agenda" than Gore would have done. In an ideal world we'd all vote for the candidate we like most but politics is not the ideal world..its the real world.

as mentioned on the last page, I have a laundry list of reasons (will touch on only a few items here) why I cannot in good conscience vote Obama. Granted most of them are due to pressure from Wall ST., to the health/pharmie industry to defense contractors to AIPAC but a good president should be able to stand up to that pressure and keep promises that he made and squeeze his agenda through (Bush tax cuts for rich should have been repealed in 2010, the health care act should have a public option in it to name a couple).  Especially since he had a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the house! Other presidents have gotten their agendas through with a lot less. Also, there are the 180's he has made in office. The two most glaring are the fact that he has done little to close Gitmo and his failure to hold the Israeli government's feet to the fire with regard to illegal settlements. Instead, he gave that embarrassing abortion of a speech at the UN last September. And then there were the dickings over of great Americans who legitimately want  to change the US  for the better regardless of who is trying to stop them like Elizabeth Warren and Van Jones. I suppose he could grow a pair in term 2 (which I still have trouble not seeing him win) but I totally feel let down and a bit slighted after the first one.

Some burly perv with bad taste in dudes should stalk Todd Akin and jam a fist in his butt. All the way up to the elbow. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/08/19/159273876/missouri-gop-senate-candidates-remarks-on-rape-stir-controversy?ft=1&f=1001&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

azaghal1981 wrote:
as mentioned on the last page, I have a laundry list of reasons (will touch on only a few items here) why I cannot in good conscience vote Obama. Granted most of them are due to pressure from Wall ST., to the health/pharmie industry to defense contractors to AIPAC but a good president should be able to stand up to that pressure and keep promises that he made and squeeze his agenda through (Bush tax cuts for rich should have been repealed in 2010, the health care act should have a public option in it to name a couple).  Especially since he had a super majority in the Senate and a majority in the house! Other presidents have gotten their agendas through with a lot less. Also, there are the 180's he has made in office. The two most glaring are the fact that he has done little to close Gitmo and his failure to hold the Israeli government's feet to the fire with regard to illegal settlements. Instead, he gave that embarrassing abortion of a speech at the UN last September. And then there were the dickings over of great Americans who legitimately want  to change the US  for the better regardless of who is trying to stop them like Elizabeth Warren and Van Jones. I suppose he could grow a pair in term 2 (which I still have trouble not seeing him win) but I totally feel let down and a bit slighted after the first one.

you are living in fantasy land my boardie friend… he has done and said TOO MUCH with respect to Israel.. have you not noticed the huge shafting he's been taking on the issue??  its pretty clear that he's told Netanyahu what he thinks and its clear they don't like it which has led to ICY relations… so I think he's put himself on the line more than you give him credit for.. he can't make Israel do anything

I think part of the failure to get things done even controlling the House and Senate has been due to some procedural changes in the way the Senate handles its business… you need, I think, 60 votes and it was not possible to get 60 solid votes… in the old days with a majority you could do stuff but now they fillibuster everything.. i think he did get health care through with less than 60 at the end on some technicality/procedural thing I don't quite know.. or maybe I'm plain wrong on this and he just came in with the wrong approach wanting to build a concensus and work together too much…

He did get the 60 votes on health care because of what the bill was turned into. More specifically, no public option. Instead, he should have kept it in and gone LBJ on the Democrats that refused to fall in line. W/R/T Israel and settlements, he could say all he wants privately but public pressure is what matters. Would it really have been that crazy for  him to have threatened to cut that unnecessary $3 billion we give them each year for instance?

hutch wrote:

atomicfront wrote:

hutch wrote:

azaghal1981 wrote:
Yeah, he's further to the right than Romney and Ryan on a bunch of issues. No thanks. I want a solid liberal candidate. And from a personal standpoint, my voting libertarian would basically be my voting against certain laws and benefits that help to keep me a contributing member of society.

You're crazy.. If you had even been voting in 2000, with this rationale you'd have voted for for Nader. How did that work out for you? You enjoyed the wars? The creation of a conservative majority on the Court?

Obviously who you vote for is irrelevant unless you live in Virginia anyways so I think you're giving this a bit too much thought!

I voted Nader last election.  I don't agree with your rationale.  If all of the Gore supporters had voted for Nadar we would have been better off.  Gore didn't win his home state.  If he had he would have been president.  You should vote who you think the best candidate not who you think will win.  That is how we have Obama and GW as back to back presidents.  Two presidents who will have bankrupted the country and who care nothing about the working man. 

I still haven't decided whom I am voting for but it won't be Obama or Romney.  I did one of those online issues thing and it told me which candidate to vote for and Romney and Obama were the lowest two candidates in issues in common with me.  Both at 60 percent.  They are both the status quo. If you are happy with the way the country is currently being run then by all means vote for one of them. 

Listen to me and listen good cause I'm only going to write this down one time. To me George W. Bush is the worst American president in history and wasn't even initially elected by the people (more like appointed by an activist Republican Supreme Court that decided to STOP A STATE from counting the votes of its residents in an unprecedented decision). George W. Bush got us involved in two useless wars, spent us into bankruptcy, is at least partly responsible for 9-11 happening, and to cap it all off presided over the country going into the great recession. There is a reason he is in hiding and won't even come out for the Republican Convention.

I don't believe most of the what happened in the 2000-2008 period would have happened had Al Gore been elected president in 2000 (and in a way I still think he WAS elected).

It is of course inarguable that Al Gore ran a bad campaign. But George W Bush's "election" was a tragedy. They're still bringing back the body bags…and the blood is on his hands.

I can't tell anyone else what to do but I think I - myself- have to be a realistic voter.. does that mean never voting for a third party option? No. I have voted for the third party option in a case where I think my vote actually did have an impact even though the candidate lost. Voting for Nader had zero positive impact and in fact a lot of negative impact as Bush did way more against Nader's "agenda" than Gore would have done. In an ideal world we'd all vote for the candidate we like most but politics is not the ideal world..its the real world.

What happened when you woke up and started dealing with reality?

The election you cite was a well played political strategy by the Republicans.  The Democrats just got out played on that one (although I do think it was a tad on the less than honorable manner in which the game was played).  Although your description of what happened is more than slightly spun.

Anyway, if these wars were with no meaning or cause then why in the world has the savior Bammy not gotten us out of them in FOUR YEARS, especially when he and his libtard socialist left wing nut jobs had control of everything for the first two years?  Oh yeah, they were spending us out of debt by passing a health care law that most Americans do not want.  Please do not insult us by saying that whole piece of crap will save money.  We all know damn well that type of legislation ALWAYS runs up the debt.

Truth be told, I didn't think GWB was a very good president either.  I have a lot of respect for the man but he was just not the right man for the job.  I firmly believe that he got elected because so many people thought it would "be cool" to have another father and son president, just as I believe that Bammy got elected because so many thought it would "be cool" to elected a black guy.  Those of us who have any degree of knowledge have learned long ago that making a decision on which option would "be cool" almost always leads to a bad choice.

I do admire very much that you vote for who you think should win (I think that is what you are saying anyway).  If we all voted for who we REALLY wanted rather than who we think probably will end up winning, we might actually elected someone worth a crap.

I can understand why people would think it would be cool to have a black president, but people thought a father/son presidency would be cool? Really?

And what is their really to respect about GW Bush?

I think the voting on American Idol proves this statement to be spot fucking on!

RatBastard wrote:

I do admire very much that you vote for who you think should win (I think that is what you are saying anyway).  If we all voted for who we REALLY wanted rather than who we think probably will end up winning, we might actually elected someone worth a crap.

I've never voted negative (voting for one simply because you don't like the other) In 08 I left my Presidential ballot blank because I certainly didn't want McCain and was very suspicious of Obama…he came from nowhere. Neither one were worthy of my vote.

This time may be different. We just HAVE to get Obama and his left wing radical cabinet out, so I'll probably vote for Romney for that reason alone….then I'll go take a long hot shower.

I've hear word that you're not going to get the chance. Obama is going to declare himself dictator. There isn't going to be any election.

Frank wrote:
I've never voted negative (voting for one simply because you don't like the other) In 08 I left my Presidential ballot blank because I certainly didn't want McCain and was very suspicious of Obama…he came from nowhere. Neither one were worthy of my vote.

This time may be different. We just HAVE to get Obama and his left wing radical cabinet out, so I'll probably vote for Romney for that reason alone….then I'll go take a long hot shower.

Frank wrote:
I've never voted negative (voting for one simply because you don't like the other) In 08 I left my Presidential ballot blank because I certainly didn't want McCain and was very suspicious of Obama…he came from nowhere. Neither one were worthy of my vote.

This time may be different. We just HAVE to get Obama and his left wing radical cabinet out, so I'll probably vote for Romney for that reason alone….then I'll go take a long hot shower.

Again, if you don't live in Virginia don't worry about it man.

I find it interesting that Frank cites President Obama and his left wing radical cabinet while Azaghal talks about how President Obama is to the right of Romney on many issues. I think you're both wrong.

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:
I've never voted negative (voting for one simply because you don't like the other) In 08 I left my Presidential ballot blank because I certainly didn't want McCain and was very suspicious of Obama…he came from nowhere. Neither one were worthy of my vote.

This time may be different. We just HAVE to get Obama and his left wing radical cabinet out, so I'll probably vote for Romney for that reason alone….then I'll go take a long hot shower.

Again, if you don't live in Virginia don't worry about it man.

I find it interesting that Frank cites President Obama and his left wing radical cabinet while Azaghal talks about how President Obama is to the right of Romney on many issues. I think you're both wrong.

I never said Obama was to the right of Romney. I was referring to Gary Johnson in that post. Sorry if that was unclear.

so what is the difference between legitimate rape and forcible rape?

The last time i checked, Frank lives in Florida.

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:
I've never voted negative (voting for one simply because you don't like the other) In 08 I left my Presidential ballot blank because I certainly didn't want McCain and was very suspicious of Obama…he came from nowhere. Neither one were worthy of my vote.

This time may be different. We just HAVE to get Obama and his left wing radical cabinet out, so I'll probably vote for Romney for that reason alone….then I'll go take a long hot shower.

Again, if you don't live in Virginia don't worry about it man.

I find it interesting that Frank cites President Obama and his left wing radical cabinet while Azaghal talks about how President Obama is to the right of Romney on many issues. I think you're both wrong.

James wrote:
The last time i checked, Frank lives in Florida.

hutch wrote:

Frank wrote:
I've never voted negative (voting for one simply because you don't like the other) In 08 I left my Presidential ballot blank because I certainly didn't want McCain and was very suspicious of Obama…he came from nowhere. Neither one were worthy of my vote.

This time may be different. We just HAVE to get Obama and his left wing radical cabinet out, so I'll probably vote for Romney for that reason alone….then I'll go take a long hot shower.

Again, if you don't live in Virginia don't worry about it man.

I find it interesting that Frank cites President Obama and his left wing radical cabinet while Azaghal talks about how President Obama is to the right of Romney on many issues. I think you're both wrong.

oh good to know.. what's he doing on this board then? oh wait they don't have music in Florida

So what is the difference between the "legitimate rape" Republican Rep. Todd Akin referred to yesterday in a television interview, and "forcible rape" as included in a House Resolution he co-sponsored with Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan? I don't know.. where I'm from rape is rape. There is no good rape or bad rape. Call me old fashioned I guess…

Pretty sure he was implying that many women claim rape in order to get an abortion regularly.
I hope that we can all agree that he is a scumbag.

azaghal1981 wrote:
Pretty sure he was implying that many women claim rape in order to get an abortion regularly.
I hope that we can all agree that he is a scumbag.

cue the predictable "yes he was wrong to say that BUT Hussein Bammy the muslim America hater ate babies in Indonesia.."

best new name for a band

"legitimate rape"

It sounds like an Anal Cunt song title.