Presidential Election: 2012

[Famine]

I'm not only adressing you Famine, seems like everyone here is on the same bandwagon that Obama is "as bad" a candidate as Romney (which i don't agree with like you probably noticed).

And those people will also not vote for Romney in preference to Obama - so the question remains who you were addressing, really.

Pointing out Obama's obvious flaws, lies, economic ineptitude and warmongering isn't an endorsement of Romney. It's dismantling the bizarre, romantic notion that, somehow, Obama is better than Romney or Bush.

The only way you can possibly think Obama is not only not the same as Bush was or Romney may be but better is if you're somehow unaware of the facts that Obama started more wars instead of stopping the ones already underway (as he promised to do), failed to close down Guantanamo Bay where people (including US citizens) were held without trial (as he promised to do), doubled the US deficit and unemployment instead of halving it (as he promised to do) and introduced a compulsory insurance-based healthcare system (health tax) to make the already-broken system even more broken (and worse, and more expensive) instead of either fixing it (as he promised to do) or implementing his unconstitutional socialised healthcare system.

Or if, being aware of these facts, you ignore them.


Obama and Romney are currently vying to see which of them can be Commander-in-Chief for a conflict in Iran. That's about it.

F-corse it's a noble tought voting for the party that you think fits your style the best, which in this case (US elections) means the candidate that won't make it; like the greens for example, hey.. i used to do the same when i voted in Belgium (altough luckily we have multiple parties that have a shot at being in office, and we are not restricted to one or the other).

But there's a big difference between Belgian elections, (and most european ones) and the US presidential one, and that is that sadly US foreign policy can trigger wars on a world stage if a idiot is in control:

[...]

So it's a case of storing your personal preferences in the fridge, and voting so that the one party you don't want to see in control, doesn't get there, as it can have very serious consequences.

To make a romantic comparison; if Hitler and Kennedy would be both running for president, you would vote for Kennedy to stop Hitler no?

A vote is a validation. If you vote for anyone but the party/individual who best fits your opinions, you validate their stance - every vote for someone you don't agree with is a validation of opinions you think are wrong. Enough votes and it becomes a mandate for them to do things you think are wrong.

Why on Earth does it make sense to you to endorse the opinions - and future acts - of someone you don't agree with?

Every vote for either Obama or Romney is a validation of what they think and, probably for one of them, a mandate for what they do in the next 4 years. Everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 is responsible for the deaths of US citizens - one of them a 16 year old boy - without any trial, because they endorsed Obama and gave him a mandate to piss on the Constitution.

For me; the republicans and Romney are a serious danger to world stability, so if i were an american i would put my vote on Obama, just to prevent that from happening. In my view i think you guys have it wrong that Obama would just as easily attack, or support a attack on Iran.

As long as I’m president of the United States, Iran will not get a nuclear weapon.

But then we know he lies easily to get votes, so you may be right.

 

[Joey D]

Every vote for either Obama or Romney is a validation of what they think and, probably for one of them, a mandate for what they do in the next 4 years. Everyone who voted for Obama in 2008 is responsible for the deaths of US citizens - one of them a 16 year old boy - without any trial, because they endorsed Obama and gave him a mandate to piss on the Constitution.

I really fail to see how every voter for Obama is responsible for death of US citizens. I mean using that logic anyone who voted for Bush is responsible for every soldier who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention all the civilian deaths in the Middle East since 2000. All that sounds fairly ridiculous to me.

Obama shares responsibility with other people in the government and military for deaths, the voters can't control what the president does after they are elected. If the people could control it we probably would have never went back to war with Iraq.

 

[mister dog]

And those people will also not vote for Romney in preference to Obama - so the question remains who you were addressing, really.

Pointing out Obama's obvious flaws, lies, economic ineptitude and warmongering isn't an endorsement of Romney. It's dismantling the bizarre, romantic notion that, somehow, Obama is better than Romney or Bush.

The only way you can possibly think Obama is not only not the same as Bush was or Romney may be but better is if you're somehow unaware of the facts that Obama started more wars instead of stopping the ones already underway (as he promised to do), failed to close down Guantanamo Bay where people (including US citizens) were held without trial (as he promised to do), doubled the US deficit and unemployment instead of halving it (as he promised to do) and introduced a compulsory insurance-based healthcare system (health tax) to make the already-broken system even more broken (and worse, and more expensive) instead of either fixing it (as he promised to do) or implementing his unconstitutional socialised healthcare system.

Or if, being aware of these facts, you ignore them.

Ok then, please proof that the above things you are stating are facts, because i seriously think they are not.

The only thing i know that is true is that Guantanamo is not closed yet, for the unemployment and deficit doubling i think that's not (i only recently read a article that unemployment figures in the US are dropping, and in general the US economy isn't doing bad at all), starting more wars? which ones as i haven't heard of them? The only warfronts i know of, are the ones the republicans started before that...

 

[Famine]

Ok then, please proof that the above things you are stating are facts, because i seriously think they are not.

And you talk about other country's news outlets brainwashing them?

Last time you tried the "Obama is different" tack, I responded with the numbers you seek.

I really fail to see how every voter for Obama is responsible for death of US citizens. I mean using that logic anyone who voted for Bush is responsible for every soldier who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention all the civilian deaths in the Middle East since 2000. All that sounds fairly ridiculous to me.

You don't think that your right to vote comes with the responsibility of the consequences of your voting?

 

[Joey D]

You don't think that your right to vote comes with the responsibility of the consequences of your voting?

To a degree it does, however I don't ever remember Obama campaigning on the basis if he's elected he'd kill US citizens.

And as I've said, your logic pretty much pins murder and death on the entire American voting public. Just about every US politician has been involved in something that results in the death of other people.

 

[Famine]

To a degree it does, however I don't ever remember Obama campaigning on the basis if he's elected he'd kill US citizens.

It's not about what they campaign for - though we've now established that he campaigns on a platform of lies - but what they do. If you voted for him, you endorsed him and validated his actions as US President.

That said, I agree to an extent. The fact he's still there after what he's done is a bit more damning than the fact very many people fell for it in the first place, but anyone who votes for Obama this time round does so knowing what he's done. That'll be a vote for Screw the Bill of Rights.

And as I've said, your logic pretty much pins murder and death on the entire American voting public. Just about every US politician has been involved in something that results in the death of other people.

That's part of the responsibility of voting. And it applies not just to the US.

Furthermore, every vote ever cast into the two party system has been a validation of preserving that system. Everyone who's ever voted Pachyderm or Asinus is responsible for the current presentation of Obamney.


If more people knew what power - and what consequences - their vote had, the better democracy would be. We wouldn't have sentiment like "This guy's bad, so I'll vote for the most popular next guy to stop him getting in"...

 

[Zenith]

Ok then, please proof that the above things you are stating are facts, because i seriously think they are not.

 

[Joey D]

It's not about what they campaign for - though we've now established that he campaigns on a platform of lies - but what they do. If you voted for him, you endorsed him and validated his actions as US President.

That said, I agree to an extent. The fact he's still there after what he's done is a bit more damning than the fact very many people fell for it in the first place, but anyone who votes for Obama this time round does so knowing what he's done. That'll be a vote for Screw the Bill of Rights.

You could argue that an Obama voter for the 2012 election could be partial responsible for deaths, but not in 2008. Obama wasn't president yet, how could anyone possibly know what he would end up doing? As you've said campaigns are base on lies so whatever he said in 08 would be invalid.

If more people knew what power - and what consequences - their vote had, the better democracy would be. We wouldn't have sentiment like "This guy's bad, so I'll vote for the most popular next guy to stop him getting in"...

The US is conditioned to a two party system though, unless something major happens it will always be that way. I support third parties and I vote for them, but until they gain more ground my vote for them will be pretty useless. I'll still keep voting third party since there would never be a chance of them getting into the spotlight if everyone just stopped voting for them.

 

[Famine]

You could argue that an Obama voter for the 2012 election could be partial responsible for deaths, but not in 2008. Obama wasn't president yet, how could anyone possibly know what he would end up doing?

Isn't that exactly the campaign anti-Romney supporters are using though? "Romney will do this, so vote against him by voting Obama"...

The US is conditioned to a two party system though, unless something major happens it will always be that way.

It's because every vote cast into it validates it, because people have no idea of the consequences of their voting.

I support third parties and I vote for them, but until they gain more ground my vote for them will be pretty useless. I'll still keep voting third party since there would never be a chance of them getting into the spotlight if everyone just stopped voting for them.

Well, you should vote for them if their stance on issues most closely matches yours. If your stance on most issues closely matches Obamney, you should vote for Obamney.

You'd be wrong, mind

 

[Joey D]

Isn't that exactly the campaign anti-Romney supporters are using though? "Romney will do this, so vote against him by voting Obama"...

But how does that relate to someone who voted for Obama in 2008? It still doesn't make those voters responsible for deaths. They had no idea what Obama would actually do, they only knew what he promised he'd do.

And supporters for any politician uses the same line about why for X because Y will do Z.

Well, you should vote for them if their stance on issues most closely matches yours. If your stance on most issues closely matches Obamney, you should vote for Obamney.

You'd be wrong, mind

After all the research I've done I find my views are liberal libertarian, which match up with the Green Party for the most part. If I thought the Democrats or Republican had good ideas I'd probably vote for them, but as far as I can tell both parties are pretty similar.

 

[Danoff]

I think to an extent you're both right on the voter responsibility thing. How could voters possibly know that Obama wasn't going to close guantanamo when he campaigned on the very notion that he WOULD close guantanamo...

...well, the answer to that is that politicians always make campaign promises they won't keep. The answer is not "they had no possible way of knowing", they've had decades of republicans and democrats lying to get into office. Drinking the "Hope and Change" Kool-Aid was a poor choice, and some responsibility should be accepted.

How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on... shame on me? Fool me twice... can't get fooled again?

Perhaps it's "Fool me 100 times, shame on you..."

That being said, 2008 voters most certainly did not endorse Obama to continue guantanamo (or Iraq, or Afghanistan), rather the exact opposite. So their responsibility ends with "you should have known better" on those issues. In 2012, the stakes are raised further since Obama has a track record of violating human rights, continuing war, and is vocally supporting new wars.

Ok that being said I have to backtrack again, because contrary to popular opinion, war is sometimes the answer. I don't necessarily consider anyone who votes to put someone in office to go to war a mass murderer. Some wars are justified. But you have to take responsibility for that determination when you vote.

 

[FoolKiller]

Ok then, please proof that the above things you are stating are facts, because i seriously think they are not.

The only thing i know that is true is that Guantanamo is not closed yet, for the unemployment and deficit doubling i think that's not (i only recently read a article that unemployment figures in the US are dropping, and in general the US economy isn't doing bad at all), starting more wars? which ones as i haven't heard of them? The only warfronts i know of, are the ones the republicans started before that...

Ignoring the fact that we ready discussed Libya, Yemen, and Pakistsn in the last few days?

Let me help you out some.

Pakistan, in April, officially requested the US end drone strikes and apologize for killing Pakistani border guards in one such attack.
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-04/13/c_122970615.htm

Here is video of Obama adviser Robert Gibbs being questioned regarding the killing of a 16-year-old US citizen. Note that he never denies it. He points out that the boys father was a terrorist suspect, then realizing the collateral damage excuse doesn't work in reference to underage US citizens, puts the blame on the boy's father for living with him.


It should be noted that if I point out that parenting has a lot to do with many issues in the US I'm accused of being an insensitive ass.

Next, the Washington Post recently reported on the kill list, or matrix, as the administration calls it. This was secret but the information was leaked months ago. At that time, both Republicans and Democrsts got upset, but not about the kill list itself, but that it was leaked. The information leak was the scandal, not the US president unconstitutionally ordering assassinations, possibly even violating international law. But one group supporting these assassinations is different than another group isn't it? I wonder if Bush would have been given such a pass.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...8b3-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_story.html?hpid=z4

Fortunately, not all in Congress accept a kill matrix. Here is Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich speaking out about the news in the above article. Think about this, he is speaking out against the policy of his party's presidential candidate in an election year. Does that sound like the kind of thing you do for an honest and peaceful president?
[Youtube]Wps9Ei-uGLo[/media]

 

[mister dog]

Ignoring the fact that we ready discussed Libya, Yemen, and Pakistsn in the last few days?

So that means the US started wars there?

The Libya intervention was during the arabic revolution there, to get rid of Khadaffi, with support of the UN and other european countries...
They should do the same in Syria i think, why not boggles my mind.

Yemen and Pakistan hold many known affiliates of Al Qaeda, so if you want to get at them you need to do drone attacks, as the local "security forces" wouldn' be of much help. Be glad that he does, cause if he wouldn't there would be more possibilities of bombs going of on US soil, and i don't think you want that...

Neither of these "examples" show that the US "started new wars".

Also to be honest that example of the "kill list" and the 16 year old american citizen that vicious tyrant Obama ordered excecuted, consist of people that were targeted because they were in the Al Qaeda/ taliban crew or at least affiliated with it.
This is clearly a example of "trying to find a stick, just so we can hit the dog".


If you want to raise examples of actions that violate Geneva conventions, maybe you should look at what is happening in Palestine, or what happened in all those years under Bush, you will find that the instances that happened (or still happen) there, are 10.000 times greater than this "most wanted terrorist" list you raise here.
Compared to that this example of "Obama's human rights violations" is quite pathetic really...

How would you combat terrorist groups then in Yemen or Pakistan? I'd really like to hear that now.

 

[Danoff]

Neither of these "examples" show that the US "started new wars".

You're kinda looking for a checkbox to tick aren't you? War is usually a little more fuzzy than that. I actually prefer for us to declare war than doing what we did in Libya, which is risk everything for no upside to us (not that there is no upside at all).

Also to be honest that example of the "kill list" and the 16 year old american citizen that vicious tyrant Obama ordered excecuted, consist of people that were targeted because they were in the Al Qaeda/ taliban crew or at least affiliated with it.

We do have rights in this country, or at least we're supposed to. This is a big deal to Americans because our government is not supposed to be able to do certain things to us.

This is clearly a example of "trying to find a stick, just so we can hit the dog".

Absolutely not. These are real issues, if you think this is just poking for the sake of poking, you're not paying attention.

 

[Zenith]

So that means the US started wars there?

The Libya intervention was during the arabic revolution there, to get rid of Khadaffi, with support of the UN and other european countries...
They should do the same in Syria i think, why not boggles my mind.

Yemen and Pakistan hold many known affiliates of Al Qaeda, so if you want to get at them you need to do drone attacks, as the local "security forces" wouldn' be of much help. Be glad that he does, cause if he wouldn't there would be more possibilities of bombs going of on US soil, and i don't think you want that...

Neither of these "examples" show that the US "started new wars".

We're discussing Obama's hypocrisy, not your hilarious idea that we should drone strike every nation that might have people in it that might maybe bomb the US someday maybe.

Obama promised he would lead the US out of the Middle East and into an era of peace. Are drone strikes an act of peace to you?

If we helicoptered soldiers into your neighborhood to shoot people would you call that peace?

Also to be honest that example of the "kill list" and the 16 year old american citizen that vicious tyrant Obama ordered excecuted, consist of people that were targeted because they were in the Al Qaeda/ taliban crew or at least affiliated with it.
This is clearly a example of "trying to find a stick, just so we can hit the dog".

You seem to be ignorant to something we call The Bill of Rights...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

If you want to raise examples of actions that violate Geneva conventions, maybe you should look at what is happening in Palestine, or what happened in all those years under Bush, you will find that the instances that happened (or still happen) there, are 10.000 times greater than this "most wanted terrorist" list you raise here.
Compared to that this example of "Obama's human rights violations" is quite pathetic really...

Palestine is completely irrelevant. Bush is also irrelevant. He's not running for office. Bush violated human rights when he passed the Patriot Act that allowed the government to spy on its citizens without permission. Obama renewed that violation and made it so the government can kill it's citizens without permission or trial.

So I guess spying and killing is pathetic compared to just spying.

How would you combat terrorist groups then in Yemen or Pakistan? I'd really like to hear that now.

The "Well why don't you do any better?" argument is a great way of letting everyone know that you know you've lost.

 

[Joel]

Do you not understand the precedent it sets to order the execution of American citizens?

 

[Famine]

Yemen and Pakistan hold many known affiliates of Al Qaeda, so if you want to get at them you need to do drone attacks, as the local "security forces" wouldn' be of much help. Be glad that he does, cause if he wouldn't there would be more possibilities of bombs going of on US soil, and i don't think you want that...

You seem to have left this one unanswered:

Would you be so quick to support unilateral military action against an FBI "ten most wanted" target in your home town without your country's knowledge or consent? What if it Pakistan carrying out unilateral military action against one of Pakistan's most wanted in your home town without your country's knowledge or consent? You certainly don't seem to support the US taking unilateral military action against one of its ten most wanted in Iraq eleven years ago...

The CIA drops a predator missile on a house at the end of your street, without the Spanish government's knowledge or consent - because they think Spanish security forces wouldn't be of much help - to take out someone they want to kill who you've never heard of.

I presume they have your support (so long as there's a Democrat in the White House)?

 

[mister dog]

If we helicoptered soldiers into your neighborhood to shoot people would you call that peace?

Depends if me and my friends would be planning bomb attacks now, wouldn't it? Then one might say we sought the consequences...

Palestine is completely irrelevant.

Nice one 👍

The "Well why don't you do any better?" argument is a great way of letting everyone know that you know you've lost.

No, actually my question was how would you do it? So?... How would you handle the situation if you were in Obama's shoes?

Do you not understand the precedent it sets to order the execution of American citizens?

If a precedent would be set, by the killing of this young boy with a US passport, who hanged around with people on the FBI most wanted list, and got killed with them, you really think that Obama would happily start abusing this, and he doesn't care about human life? I personally don't.

But that's just how i see the man.

You seem to have left this one unanswered:



The CIA drops a predator missile on a house at the end of your street, without the Spanish government's knowledge or consent - because they think Spanish security forces wouldn't be of much help - to take out someone they want to kill who you've never heard of.

I presume they have your support (so long as there's a Democrat in the White House)?

There's a big difference, because if it were known that a known terrorist lived at the corner of calle santa paula, the spanish police would have long gotten him themselves.

Or in the case that America would know about it first, it would know it would have a competent allie with the Spanish Security forces to let the situation be handled by us.

That is actually what would happen. In the case of Pakistan, there are so many Al Qaeda sympathisants in the paki security forces, if they would have informed them beforehand, and notified the local security forces before, Bin Laden would have been long gone...

My point is you can't compare the 2 at all. The situation on the ground is that altough Pakistan officialy is a US allie, in reality their army and their security forces are infiltrated a huge amount by the taliban or by al qaeda affiliates and sympathisants.

 

[Zenith]

Coyly skirting around the half dozen questions that completely dismantle your argument. Cute.

 

[FoolKiller]

So that means the US started wars there?

By that logic the US had no wars between World War II and our invasion of Iraq. Everything else was just a police action by legal definition and by your argument here. That includes Afghanistan, since it was not the nation we were attacking.

Yemen and Pakistan hold many known affiliates of Al Qaeda, so if you want to get at them you need to do drone attacks, as the local "security forces" wouldn' be of much help. Be glad that he does, cause if he wouldn't there would be more possibilities of bombs going of on US soil, and i don't think you want that...

This is the argument for what Bush did! Why do you accept it under Obama but not Bush? Is it OK to violate laws, national sovereignty, and rights to kill hundreds of innocents in order to kill some guys you consider terrorists?

Also to be honest that example of the "kill list" and the 16 year old american citizen that vicious tyrant Obama ordered excecuted, consist of people that were targeted because they were in the Al Qaeda/ taliban crew or at least affiliated with it.

He was a legal minor. He had no choice. Would you kill a teenager because his father is a murderer? They have no evidence and no excuse for this death. They can't justify the action itself, and they haven't even tried to justify or acknowledged the constitutional violation. He violated the very document he took an oath to uphold when he took office. His job has one ultimate goal, and he has failed to do that. Why should he get a second go?

This is clearly a example of "trying to find a stick, just so we can hit the dog".

If by stick you mean constitutionally guaranteed rights of all American citizens, then yes. But I find my liberty to be extremely important.

If you want to raise examples of actions that violate Geneva conventions, maybe you should look at what is happening in Palestine, or what happened in all those years under Bush, you will find that the instances that happened (or still happen) there, are 10.000 times greater than this "most wanted terrorist" list you raise here.

Are they in this election? No. Stay on topic. You wanted examples of what we claim Obama did and when you get it you go, "BUT BUSH!!!" But I can connect the two. Obama is extending and continuing what Bush did, after he promised to reverse it.

Compared to that this example of "Obama's human rights violations" is quite pathetic really...

Murder is pathetic?

How would you combat terrorist groups then in Yemen or Pakistan? I'd really like to hear that now.

Seriously? "I'd like to see you do better." Ugh.

I'll humor you. If I definitely felt it was necessary I would try doing it legally. If US citizens were involved I wouldn't just blow up the whole building.

I know terrorists like to blow up buildings they target, hoping to kill everyone inside. They consider all collateral casualties as associated with the system they are attacking. That is why I would never do that. I will never use the same logic as terrorists to justify my actions.

EDIT:

My point is you can't compare the 2 at all. The situation on the ground is that altough Pakistan officialy is a US allie, in reality their army and their security forces are infiltrated a huge amount by the taliban or by al qaeda affiliates and sympathisants.

Wait, that was the justification Bush used for Afghanistan. Why do you keep stealing their ideas?

 

[Famine]

There's a big difference, because if it were known that a known terrorist lived at the corner of calle santa paula, the spanish police would have long gotten him themselves.

Really? I've been to Spain. I have no confidence in the Spanish police. I guess I can just blow up your street now if there's someone I'm after?

Or in the case that America would know about it first, it would know it would have a competent allie with the Spanish Security forces to let the situation be handled by us.

That is actually what would happen. In the case of Pakistan, there are so many Al Qaeda sympathisants in the paki security forces, if they would have informed them beforehand, and notified the local security forces before, Bin Laden would have been long gone...

I'm sure there's no ETA sympathisers in the Spanish security forces...

My point is you can't compare the 2 at all. The situation on the ground is that altough Pakistan officialy is a US allie, in reality their army and their security forces are infiltrated a huge amount by the taliban or by al qaeda affiliates and sympathisants.

You do realise you're arguing for any nation to take military action within the sovereign borders of any other nation at any time, right?

Rather begs the question why you're fine for Obama to do it, but not Bush - or Romney...

If a precedent would be set, by the killing of this young boy with a US passport, who hanged around with people on the FBI most wanted list, and got killed with them

You might want to refresh your information.

Anwar al-Aulaqi, the first US citizen to be killed by drone strike by his nation without ever going on trial (September 2011), was born in New Mexico. His al-Qaeda ties are only alleged and were never proven, in part due to the fact he never had a court case heard against him before he was executed. He may have merely been an imam - albeit a firebrand one.

His son, Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi was a sixteen year old boy from Denver, Colorado. He wasn't a boy who had a US passport, he was an American. He was killed in a separate drone strike in October 2011 - on his way to a barbecue, according to other family members.

Now please look up the Sixth Amendment to the US Constitution and find the part of it that allows the US to kill a kid from Denver.


Both al-Aulaqis were killed by CIA drone strikes in Yemen, a country with which the US is not only not at war but which is an ally in the "War on Terror", without their knowledge or consent. Pakistan has also expressed outrage at drone strikes on its territory, but this hasn't stopped the Obama administration tripling the rate of attacks.


Though this information may just all be the brainwashing from Fox News...

 

[Signal52]

You don't think that your right to vote comes with the responsibility of the consequences of your voting?

On some level. A vote is an indication of trust, and a representation of where one sides on social issues, but politicians are human beings which are unpredictable, and are rarely honest. People who get conned face unexpected consequences. I'd say that as a voter you are responsible for the things you know your candidate will do, and that they actually carry out. If the candidate veers far from what you expected, then it's not necessarily the voters' fault if they had no way of knowing that would happen.

 

[mister dog]

You guys are teaming up here

Really, i respect your opinions, but i stick to mine; which is that Obama really isn't a bad president at all, and deserves a second (heck even a third) term.
I find him an intelligent and well spoken man, who does not need to read everything of an autocue to be able to speak to the public.

I also think he's a man that's good at heart, honest and quite noble and means the best for everybody.

Also he has one of the most difficult jobs on the planet, as the public is watching his every move, ready to spit flames on him for every slip-up he makes (which you gentlemen confirm).

As such yes i endorse him and i hope that he gets re-elected.

We can keep on going back and forward with the arguments, but the unwritten rule of a forum is that basicly everyone goes into a discussion to try to prove that he/she is right, and no matter how many pages are written, in the end everyone sticks to his initial opinion.
Myself included, i still stand with everything i said so far.

But i like to leave it here with these final words: Obama for president!

 

[Danoff]

Classic opinions forum move...stick fingers in ears and run.

 

[Famine]

You guys are teaming up here

Really, i respect your opinions, but i stick to mine; which is that Obama really isn't a bad president at all, and deserves a second (heck even a third) term.
I find him an intelligent and well spoken man, who does not need to read everything of an autocue to be able to speak to the public.

He found it a bit tricky in the first debate without the script. He's just better at reading off the teleprompter than Bush was.

In fact he's the same president that Bush was, only with more human rights violations, more unconstitutional behaviour, considerably more economic woes and more lying about doing them.

If you don't think Obama's a bad president, you must be equally enamoured of Bush... right?

 

[Dennisch]

Obama for president!

QFLOCFATPTWTE. *





*Quoted for lack of chance for a third party to win the elections.

 

[Touring Mars]

Obama really isn't a bad president at all, and deserves a second (heck even a third) term.

Third term?? That isn't possible under the current system...

Gallup released a poll this week that shows overwhelming support for Obama outside the US (81% IIRC), although Romney is favoured in Pakistan (bizarre!) and China (?), so that's super for him. That said, Obama is overwhelmingly supported in non-US countries by people who mostly don't really know or care what he's actually done or is actually doing (but almost certainly will know what he "hopes" to do), and often cite the fact that he's a terrific chap instead on concentrating on his policies.

on his way to a barbecue, according to other family members.

Well, it kinda was a barbecue...

I'll get me coat.

 

[Danoff]

Well, it kinda was a barbecue...

rare form sir.

 

[mister dog]

Classic opinions forum move...stick fingers in ears and run.

I made my point and i stick by it; don't feel like going through discussing 20 more pages to repeat myself all the time.

I'll get me coat.

The fast show! 👍 (i know about the third term, i just said i wouldn't mind the exception on the rule if it was a third term for Obama haha).

 

[Joel]

Fantastic. Obama can do the same stuff as Bush because he's well spoken and seems like a nice guy 👍