Election 2012

[vvvvvvv]

So in a sense, we can call Obama/Reagan, China/Japan, war on terror/the cold war and the gridlock of today/the gridlock of the 80s.

Which is a very fair comparison.

 

[kd5rjz]

I was in the military on the ground day two of Katrina. I wouldn't call what happened down there "turning" on Americans.

I was a civilian, and I would call what happened treasonous.

 

[jsl_pt]

I was in the military on the ground day two of Katrina. I wouldn't call what happened down there "turning" on Americans.

I would call it just that. Unconstitutional!

 

[HackerF15E]

Kind of difficult when most people's only news sources are talk radio and TV. Watching those sources is like watching a pissing contest between the left and the right on who can be the most dishonest with their audience.

More importantly, many Americans have a passive approach to their knowledge -- they want to be spoon-fed their information, and many times, desire to be spoon-fed what they should think about it. In this vein, yes, the mainstream news outlet content isn't enough to have an informed opinion on many subjects. It's NOT the media's "job" to provide that, it is up to each individual to learn for themselves, and that requires a little bit of effort.

 

[roachjuice]

i wish more people would have taken Ross Perot more serious back in the day. he knew this stuff was gonna happen. yet all people could do is make fun of him about his signs and his accent and his ears.

 

[Rabbitcreekok]

your fears are not realistic. You believe the blue helmits of the UN can invade the US and forcibly take our guns? The mighty UN couldnt invade Libya without our help. The UN is nothing without us.

I just don't agree with you. By the way, do you have one of those large rolls of waffle tin foil?

 

[Lurker66]

i wish more people would have taken Ross Perot more serious back in the day. he knew this stuff was gonna happen. yet all people could do is make fun of him about his signs and his accent and his ears.

i sooo agree. A good 3rd party candidate, with sound business sense is what we need.

 

[redmax51]

Personally, I don't want an "average Joe" who knows what it's like to be you or I running the country. I think it would be asinine, ignorant, and foolish for folks to think that would be a necessary qualification to be President.

I want someone in the Oval Office who has proven that they can be successful at executive leadership, be that in the business world, the political world, or the military world.

I don't care that their income might be orders of magnitude higher than mine, or that they might not know exactly what my personal strife feels like because of their economic position in life.

I want them to be able to handle the extremely complex nature of being our country's leader, and be skilled at the many different facets of leadership and management that such a position requires. An "average Joe" knows enough about his little slice of the world to take care of that relatively simple problem, but has absolutely no idea how to deal with, or adapt to, all the other complex pieces of the puzzle like macroeconomics, international diplomacy, domestic policy in a free society, or military strategy -- things that people could study at high academic levels for a lifetime and still only scratch the surface of. Average Joe knows just enough to drive the train to the wreck on those topics, but that's about it.

I don't care what Romney or Obama (or insert candidate name here) make now, or made in the past...unless it's an indicator that their knowledge, wisdom, and experience will make them excellent leaders of our country. Personal wealth, in and of itself, just isn't a single factor, or even an indicator of other factors, of excellence in those areas.

^^^I agree.

 

[redmax51]

Choosing between these two is like choosing which steaming plate you want to eat:

Horse$#!t

or

Bull$#!t



I don't like my selection of choices at all.

I support gun rights, and I am anti-abortion. BUT, right now, if we don't get our finances in order, where will we be in 5 years? 10? 20? You can only go so long spending more than you make; sooner or later you have to pay the piper. Or he takes away your kids. I'd like to see more gun rights, and no abortion; but we could also be worse off: no gun rights and forced abortions. At this time, our first priority should be to get economy back on it's feet. And to get the annual deficit eliminated.

I still don't know who I will vote for. Obamacare vs Romneycare? Really, how much different are they? It kinda comes down to R vs D. My concern is that if we get Romney in, many R's will not pay as much attention to what's going on. "Hey, we got an R in office, how bad can he be?"

PS, not bringing up those points as something to discuss in this thread, just a couple hot topics among many people.

I don't know Nikat, why don't you read the 2000+ pages in o-care, compare it and get back to us ? That gives me a headache thinking about it.LOL

 

[redmax51]

what is "right"? Right is subjective. Goverenment and politics was, is and always will be about comprimising. Unless you want to live in a totalitarian system.

What i find most interesting about your statement is the fact that you say you "will not support most liberal left leaning policy". Your statement implies that there are some "left leaning" policies that you do or would support. THEREFORE we can find comprimise.

I don't live in absolute blanket statements.I don't know all their policies.Odds are there are small things I might agree with although I can't think of any currently being discussed.Hence the term "most".You find that interesting ? wow

Right is only subjective to weak minded people.