Obama or Romney?

[Ryanisking]

Romney not even debatable Obama is socialist

[Hittanryan]

So it's not that Obama hasn't done anything, it's that he's continued or even expanded Bush's policies. How is that a good thing for liberals and leftists? It's bad when Bush does it but good when Obama does it? That's total nonsense.

Sure, Bush was all about regulating Wall Street, reforming health care, bringing honest accounting back and putting the cost of his wars on the budget, all about getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, all about tracking down Osama, all about repairing the damage he did to our relations with other countries, especially our allies. Hey, just a carbon copy, Obama is.

What have the Republicans done, especially since 2011, except name post offices and vote "no" on everything?

Downgrade our credit rating? I guess that's closely related to the latter though...

Romney not even debatable Obama is socialist

What a fucking joke.

[Vyvansia]

So it's not that Obama hasn't done anything, it's that he's continued or even expanded Bush's policies. How is that a good thing for liberals and leftists? It's bad when Bush does it but good when Obama does it? That's total nonsense.

Sure, Bush was all about regulating Wall Street, reforming health care, bringing honest accounting back and putting the cost of his wars on the budget, all about getting us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, all about tracking down Osama, all about repairing the damage he did to our relations with other countries, especially our allies. Hey, just a carbon copy, Obama is.

What have the Republicans done, especially since 2011, except name post offices and vote "no" on everything?

Cherry-picking. You went out of your way to pick the policies that weren't Bush's, but I obviously wasn't talking about those.

Besides, the things you're talking about are things that the President has little or no control over. They're all handled by Congress.

And the bin Laden thing. Democrats love to harp on that, but do you seriously think Obama had a choice in that? If he had said "no" to the operation it would've been politically disastrous for him if and when that was leaked. It was a no-brainer. Add to that the fact that Bush had nothing to do with looking for bin Laden except to give it the green light, which again is a no-brainer.

Anyway, what do the Republicans have to do with it? They haven't had the White House or Congress for years. You can't keep blaming someone for screwing things up if you have more power than they do.

So the more conservative party votes "no" on more spending. What a shocker. How dare they follow their principles.

[Vyvansia]

Romney not even debatable Obama is socialist

No he isn't. He just isn't.

[Progenitoria]

Romney not even debatable Obama is socialist

We survived Bush. You will survive Obama.

[Wamitoria]

And the bin Laden thing. Democrats love to harp on that, but do you seriously think Obama had a choice in that? If he had said "no" to the operation it would've been politically disastrous for him if and when that was leaked. Add to that the fact that Bush had nothing to do with looking for bin Laden except to give it the green light, which again is a no-brainer.

It was most certainly not a no-brainer. He could have lobbed 5 or 6 missiles into the compound courtesy of a drone. Many of his advisers told him to go that route.

Anyway, what do the Republicans have to do with it? They haven't had the White House or Congress for years. You can't keep blaming someone for screwing things up if you have more power than they do.

Dude, the economy almost went neutron star in '08. And one side has prevented quite a bit from getting done.

[Hittanryan]

Cherry-picking. You went out of your way to pick the policies that weren't Bush's, but I obviously wasn't talking about those.

Besides, the things you're talking about are things that the President has little or no control over. They're all handled by Congress.

"I can't argue against it so I'm going to move the goalposts." Right.

And the bin Laden thing. Democrats love to harp on that, but do you seriously think Obama had a choice in that? If he had said "no" to the operation it would've been politically disastrous for him if and when that was leaked. It was a no-brainer. Add to that the fact that Bush had nothing to do with looking for bin Laden except to give it the green light, which again is a no-brainer.

Please, if Bush had actually caught bin Laden instead of letting him get away, Republicans would've been shitting stars and stripes for years. Now that a Democrat has proved just how incompetent they are on national security they're just being bitter. Obama could have gone with a missile strike, and opted for a high-risk high-reward operation. It was his call.

Anyway, what do the Republicans have to do with it? They haven't had the White House or Congress for years. You can't keep blaming someone for screwing things up if you have more power than they do.

How about when the opposition party obstructs every last bit of legislation, even after compromising?

So the more conservative party votes "no" on more spending. What a shocker. How dare they follow their principles.

Their principles have repeatedly created deficits. Republicans in practice are just as big spenders as Democrats, the name of the game is "borrow and spend."

[Mavorpen]

And the bin Laden thing. Democrats love to harp on that, but do you seriously think Obama had a choice in that? If he had said "no" to the operation it would've been politically disastrous for him if and when that was leaked. It was a no-brainer. Add to that the fact that Bush had nothing to do with looking for bin Laden except to give it the green light, which again is a no-brainer.

LOL! Considering Mitt would have said no, that says a lot about the competence of the Republican Party since it's such an obvious "no-brainer."

Anyway, what do the Republicans have to do with it? They haven't had the White House or Congress for years. You can't keep blaming someone for screwing things up if you have more power than they do.

The economy tanked in '08 more than anything, so Republicans have plenty to do with it. Plus, Democrats have been cock blocked from implementing policies that will help us. News Flash: Republicans don't want ANY jobs to be created under Obama, because they want the presidency back. It's simple.

So the more conservative party votes "no" on more spending. What a shocker. How dare they follow their principles.

A principle that is shit and doesn't fix economies.

[Vyvansia]

Besides, the things you're talking about are things that the President has little or no control over. They're all handled by Congress.

"I can't argue against it so I'm going to move the goalposts." Right.

Straw man much? How have I moved the goalposts? I said Obama has continued or expanding Bush's policies. For that to be true it isn't necessary for all of Obama's policies to be the same as Bush's. That's a ridiculous standard.

Please, if Bush had actually caught bin Laden instead of letting him get away, Republicans would've been shitting stars and stripes for years. Now that a Democrat has proved just how incompetent they are on national security they're just being bitter. Obama could have gone with a missile strike, and opted for a high-risk high-reward operation. It was his call.

The missile strike probably wouldn't have worked, but it's irrelevant to my point anyway. The no-brainer I'm talking about is the choice of whether or not to go after bin Laden in the first place. the choice you're talking about is only a matter of tactics.

How about when the opposition party obstructs every last bit of legislation, even after compromising?

That just isn't true. The Republicans have voted against legislation that increases spending. The fact that most of Democratic party-authored legislation increases spending isn't the fault of Republicans.

Compromise? Are you kidding? After Democrats gained majorities in the House and Senate they basically gave Republicans the middle finger because they thought they didn't need them.

Their principles have repeatedly created deficits. Republicans in practice are just as big spenders as Democrats, the name of the game is "borrow and spend."

Based on what evidence?

[Ashmoria]

Interesting so MittWitt is praising Clinton?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

its so weird that he is pretending that there is some kind of feud between bill and barack.

[Ruridova]

Obama, due to his stance on homosexuality and the first amendment, his stance on gun control, the fact that he ended two wars and finally got the military to kill bin Laden, the fact that I agree with economic regulation, and the fact that Mitt Romney flip-flops so blatantly and is amazingly good at gaffes.

[Vyvansia]

LOL! Considering Mitt would have said no, that says a lot about the competence of the Republican Party since it's such an obvious "no-brainer."

Evidence?

The economy tanked in '08 more than anything, so Republicans have plenty to do with it.

Except it was the Democrats who had majorities in both houses at the time. Even assuming the premise that government can fix an economy, it was up to the Democrats to do so because while the White House may submit a budget it's always approved by Congress before it goes into effect.

Plus, Democrats have been cock blocked from implementing policies that will help us. News Flash: Republicans don't want ANY jobs to be created under Obama, because they want the presidency back. It's simple.

Or we could apply Occam's Razor, which rules out the conspiracy theories and the ridiculous claims that the Republicans would rather see the country burn than let the Democrats have it and assumes instead that the Republicans simply don't agree with the Democrats on what the best approach is.

A principle that is shit and doesn't fix economies.

Evidence?

[Wikkiwallana]

A typical teenage boy? A typical teenage boy does not post pictures of themselves sticking up their middle fingers.

Who are you and what planet are you from?

[Ruridova]

A typical teenage boy? A typical teenage boy does not post pictures of themselves sticking up their middle fingers.

You obviously don't know much about teenage males.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yeah. Lots. Don't shoot me.

I think I might be seeing the problem, you hang out with squares.

Lots? Do you? Your friends?

Let's see...I have about 600 friends on Facebook, and know most of them generally well. Out of all of them, maybe 5 or 6 would post that kind of stuff. The people I know and hang out with are good people. Meaning most of them have some dignity and self-respect that they wouldn't be posting that kind of stuff on the internet.

If you've heard of southern class, that's what I'm talking about.

"That kind of thing"? It's the bird, not a sex tape.

[Dustistan]

99% of Americans will be better off under a Democrat-led government. What I don't understand, therefore, is why 99% of people don't reject the GOP outright.

[Ashmoria]

99% of Americans will be better off under a Democrat-led government. What I don't understand, therefore, is why 99% of people don't reject the GOP outright.

their ministers tell them that jesus wants them to vote republican.

[Mavorpen]

Evidence?

Romney himself said he wouldn't go into Pakistan even if Bin Laden was there.

Except it was the Democrats who had majorities in both houses at the time. Even assuming the premise that government can fix an economy, it was up to the Democrats to do so because while the White House may submit a budget it's always approved by Congress before it goes into effect.

What does this have anything to do with what I said?

Or we could apply Occam's Razor, which rules out the conspiracy theories and the ridiculous claims that the Republicans would rather see the country burn than let the Democrats have it and assumes instead that the Republicans simply don't agree with the Democrats on what the best approach is.

LOL! Have you been paying attention? Obama compromised the fuck out of everything. He ALWAYS met them in the middle and sometimes on their side. Even when he agreed with them, they would turn around and say, "NOPE!" Seriously, they don't want him to succeed. It's not a conspiracy theory, it's something any intelligent person has realized.

Also, I don't think you know what Occam's Razor is.

Evidence?

Romney tried it in his state. It failed. Europe tried it, it failed.

[The Rich Port]

99% of Americans will be better off under a Democrat-led government. What I don't understand, therefore, is why 99% of people don't reject the GOP outright.

Impartiality is a virtue... But a virtue that seems pointless, especially when nobody expects or wants the other guy (the Republican) to be impartial.

[Mavorpen]

That just isn't true. The Republicans have voted against legislation that increases spending. The fact that most of Democratic party-authored legislation increases spending isn't the fault of Republicans.

It's the Republican's fault they are against policies that HELP economies.

Based on what evidence?

Here you go.

[Wikkiwallana]

You can only facepalm without offering further explanation if you're a Russian expat.

It's an unwritten rule.

I thought he just held the copyright on it.

[Greater Americania]

I could vote for Obama. Or I could vote for Romney. But at the end of the day, I'd just be voting for the exact same crap. It doesn't really matter who wins the next election. The course of the country will still be on the exact same path. Both parties are bought out by the same special interest groups.

[Mavorpen]

I could vote for Obama. Or I could vote for Romney. But at the end of the day, I'd just be voting for the exact same crap. It doesn't really matter who wins the next election. The course of the country will still be on the exact same path. Both parties are bought out by the same special interest groups.

Vote for the Socialist Party then.

[Wikkiwallana]

And somehow they are okay with him getting murdered? How can that be okay? How can any non sociopath be alright with it?

And what exactly does this have to do with Romney anyway? Because Obama commented on it? What did Romney say about this btw?

Does anyone know what Romney's stance is on murdering teens in the streets because they look suspicious?

If this is a political issue then it's important that Romney gives his opinion too right?

Martin wasn't murdered. He was shot because he was bashing someone's skull into a sidewalk. When you show intent to do bodily harm and especially intent to do potentially fatal harm (inflicting severe head trauma in this case) and someone kills you, that's not murder. It's self-defense.

Look at the evidence. Don't let your emotions rule you.

Is it still self-defense if the reason you are in a physical confrontation is that you chased the other person down without any provocation, while wielding a weapon? Because it seems like that would mean the other person, the unarmed person who had to run away from you was the one defending themself.

[Wikkiwallana]

Romney not even debatable Obama is socialist

That's funny. You're funny.