Obama

Howlin

I know people dont like obama for a range of different reasons, can you tell me if you hate him why you hate him and how many of his campain promises did he break?

Manic Moran

I don't hate him, I just disagree with a number of his policies. And the amount of time it's taking him to do anything about Libya is just embarrassing.

NTM

Memnoch

Down with Gaddaffi, free Libya!

Meanwhile our friendly islamic dictators in Baharin and Saudi Arabia should be encouraged to carry on business as usual. Because unlike Libiya, the people there don't want democracy or freedom.

Eliot Rosewater

During the campaign a lot of people said that Obama couldn't succeed with all the hope and change he was promising. But I think, in Ireland at least, people drastically overestimated that which he could achieve. I attribute this to a lack of knowledge of how the US system of government works. If Obama were Taoseach of Ireland he could do whatever he wanted, whereas the US President is obviously constrained by Congress and a greater separation of powers. I don't think Irish people generally realise this.

Overheal

He's going to Ireland you know, to trace his routes back to the O'Bamas

how many of his campain promises did he break?

Lots. Like closing Guantanamo, or making broadband availability a right to all Americans (a joke of a promise, but he still made it).

Memnoch

I'm just as pissed about Guantanamo as everyone else.

But what do we think a right wing president would have done? The failure to close GUantanamo lies not with Obama but with the republican party and media organisations that made it untenable.

Same thing with the health care bill, which had to be watered down and compromised on for the same reasons.

This seems to be the motto of the republican party. To fight against human rights, be it detention without charge or torture and to stand up for the interests of the wealthy and big business at every juncture, be it the insurance companies or the earners in the highest tax brackets.

It shocks me that the average republican voter can't see that. But I suppose once its only Muslims whose rights are being stripped away, they don't really care.

Amerika

I don’t hate him, but I don’t trust him. I disagree with most of his policies, and feel he is weak and unqualified for the job as president. What I do hate is how the majority of the media has turned a blind eye and given him a free pass on his roll, duty and decisions as president of the United States.

He does give fine speeches, is a great campaigner, and I feel he would make an excellent college professor though.

And easier question might be what campaign promises has he kept?

metrovelvet

I remember in sixth grade it was time for class president elections. One girl made a speech which included a promise to implement 'ice cream breaks.' That was the clincher. She became class president in a landslide. Of course there were no ice cream breaks.

Obama always reminded me of her.

I like him as a philosopher or academic.

Denerick

I hate the way conservatives exaggerate his achievements and politics as if he represents one of the horsemen of the apocolpyse. I hate the way liberals whine that he has abandoned his principles and his campaign pledges.

The fact is this; Obama is a small c conservative President. In everything that he has done he has been moderate, thoughtful and not prone to populism. He has been the adult to the Republican parties adolescent.

I'm confident that the history books will record him as one of the greater Presidents. Like Jimmy Carter before him - A good and wise man doing a bastard's job.

Overheal

Denerick wrote: »

I'm confident that the history books will record him as one of the greater Presidents. Like Jimmy Carr before him - A good and wise man doing a bastard's job.

....

Memnoch

metrovelvet wrote: »

I remember in sixth grade it was time for class president elections. One girl made a speech which included a promise to implement 'ice cream breaks.' That was the clincher. She became class president in a landslide. Of course there were no ice cream breaks.

Obama always reminded me of her.

I like him as a philosopher or academic.

I'm curious, what specifically would you have liked him to do differently?

Denerick

Overheal wrote: »

....

Freudian slip. Jimmy Carr is an excellent comedian. Jimmy Carter was an excellent man and also a decent President. His weakness was that he refused to debase himself by slithering in the Washington beltway slime.

metrovelvet

Denerick wrote: »

Freudian slip. Jimmy Carr is an excellent comedian. Jimmy Carter was an excellent man and also a decent President. His weakness was that he refused to debase himself by slithering in the Washington beltway slime.

I have a feeling that up the road history will look kindly on him.

I also think history will also think twice about Nixon.

metrovelvet

Memnoch wrote: »

I'm curious, what specifically would you have liked him to do differently?

Look, as soon as I hear mumblings about socialised healthcare in America I start thinking about the ice cream break president we had.

Americans are consumers. We like choice. We like to be demanding. We have senses of entitlements with our doctors and shrinks. We like to be able to call their answering service at 4 am because our back is acting up or we shat too many times that day. We like cable tv and birthing rooms in the labour ward. We like to demand the nurse use a butterfly needle when taking blood samples. We like to go straight to the consultant without the gatekeeper GP. We like to be able to ride motorcycles without the government saying they are a health risk and if you want public insurance stop riding them.

Socialised health care would seriously piss off Americans even outside of the taxes they would have to pay for it. Socialised healthcare has a whole different philosophy.

When I heard what he said about Iraq, I also thought about the ice cream president we had. I just thought 'yeah whatever'. I'll believe it when I see it.

And dont get me started on corporate welfare.

What surprised me most about Obamas victory was that he was a smoker. Dont laugh but I cant believe that CA where they have smoking police voted him in.

Memnoch

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look, as soon as I hear mumblings about socialised healthcare in America I start thinking about the ice cream break president we had.

Americans are consumers. We like choice. We like to be demanding. We have senses of entitlements with our doctors and shrinks. We like to be able to call their answering service at 4 am because our back is acting up or we shat too many times that day. We like cable tv and birthing rooms in the labour ward. We like to demand the nurse use a butterfly needle when taking blood samples. We like to go straight to the consultant without the gatekeeper GP. We like to be able to ride motorcycles without the government saying they are a health risk and if you want public insurance stop riding them.

Socialised health care would seriously piss off Americans even outside of the taxes they would have to pay for it. Socialised healthcare has a whole different philosophy.

So this is an issue of philosophical difference then. The question is a very basic one, do you believe that everyone should be able to get decent health care regardless of their circumstances. Do you believe that a family shouldn't have to lose everything they've worked their entire life honestly and dilligently for, like their house just because one member had the misfortune of getting cancer. If you believe that then you have to try and think of how you're going to try and address that, and if you don't believe it then you have a basic philosophical difference with how Obama thinks. I don't see though what it has to do with him not fullfilling his campaign promise on this issue, which is what we are really debating about, the change or lack thereof that Obama has delivered.

And that was the question I asked you, what would you do differently?

When I heard what he said about Iraq, I also thought about the ice cream president we had. I just thought 'yeah whatever'. I'll believe it when I see it.

So what has he done in Iraq that you are unhappy with, how has he broken or not fulfilled his campaign promise and what do you think he should have done differently.

And dont get me started on corporate welfare.

Same as above.

I don't know if your post was trying to be funny, but you seem to have missed the essence of the question I was asking you. I'm not looking to see what you thought of Obama's campaign promises etc. when he made them. I'm asking you what you think of his policy after 2+ years in office, where he has not lived up to his promises and what you think he should be doing/have done differently.

Overheal

Straw Poll: not taking into consideration the oppossition candidate, how many of you would give your vote to him in 2012?

Right now I can't see me doing that. That doesn't mean I'd give it to a Republican either.

metrovelvet

Overheal wrote: »

Straw Poll: not taking into consideration the oppossition candidate, how many of you would give your vote to him in 2012?

Right now I can't see me doing that. That doesn't mean I'd give it to a Republican either.

Im still suprised he won the primaries, not because of race but because of class. A lot of America doesnt like the northeastern establishment or the corruption of Chicago politics.

At the same time, I always like it when I am surprised. At the same time I have an ambivalence with American optimism. I love it because it engenders the spirit of attempt. But at the same time, it was what got america hooked on 'change', the magic word. Because yes we needed change, but I never was convinced by what exact change was being promised. Im a devil in the detail girl, and I never heard enough detail to buy into the whole thing. But my state always votes democrat anyway, so I dont get too bothered by the presidential elections.

Jimmy Garlic

8 years almost to the day after the invasion of Iraq the US and its bum buddies are embarking on another military adventure and listing bogus reasons for doing so (as if they care about Libyans). The more things "change" the more they stay the same.

Spacedog

-Made net neutrality a fighting point with republicans, who otherwise wouldn't care about it either way.
-Appointed former RIAA and MPAA lawyers as judges.
-Bailed on closing gitmo.
-Still troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
-Done nothing to earn his pre-emptive Nobel Peace prize
-Continuing to oversee the decline of western civilisation by promoting a culture of short term profiteering, as opposed to long term competitive advantage in the global economy.

I don't hate him though, probably done the least damage of any of the American presidents to date.

metrovelvet

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

8 years almost to the day after the invasion of Iraq the US and its bum buddies are embarking on another military adventure and listing bogus reasons for doing so (as if they care about Libyans). The more things "change" the more they stay the same.

Honestly after all the flack for Iraq and Afghanistan I doubt we will intervene anywhere ever again. Kosovo was the the last time before the latest war.

But the French have hopped to it.

http://edition.cnn.com/

Think Saarkozy will be called a war criminal?

Howlin

Overheal wrote: »

Straw Poll: not taking into consideration the oppossition candidate, how many of you would give your vote to him in 2012?

Right now I can't see me doing that. That doesn't mean I'd give it to a Republican either.

Im not able to vote in the american election but if i was able I wouldnt vote for him


Also techanicaly america isnt at war in iraq, (as far as i no) congress hasnt declared war there so it isnt techanicaly a war

Jimmy Garlic

metrovelvet wrote: »

Honestly after all the flack for Iraq and Afghanistan I doubt we will intervene anywhere ever again. Kosovo was the the last time before the latest war.

But the French have hopped to it.

http://edition.cnn.com/

Think Saarkozy will be called a war criminal?

The French record of war crimes in North Africa and Africa in general is absolutely despicable, they should stay well clear of it. I can't see Sarkos new military adventure in Libya going down well with the French public, they are not as gullible as Americans or Brits.

Denerick

@Jimmy Garlic,

... Seriously man. I don't know exactly what it is that I so dislike about the anti war and far left movements in general... the naivity, perhaps. The Iraq war was a disaster, and fought on flawed premises, but Libya will not be an Iraq, the circumstances are very different.

I suppose you would have been staunchly opposed to international intervention in Rwanda in the mid 90s? Liberal interventionism still has a place.

metrovelvet

I think it passed the UN by only ten votes, including tiny countries like Portugal and Nigeria.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/159346/obamas-women-pushed-war-against-libya

Centaur

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look, as soon as I hear mumblings about socialised healthcare in America I start thinking about the ice cream break president we had.

Americans are consumers. We like choice. We like to be demanding. We have senses of entitlements with our doctors and shrinks. We like to be able to call their answering service at 4 am because our back is acting up or we shat too many times that day. We like cable tv and birthing rooms in the labour ward. We like to demand the nurse use a butterfly needle when taking blood samples. We like to go straight to the consultant without the gatekeeper GP. We like to be able to ride motorcycles without the government saying they are a health risk and if you want public insurance stop riding them.

Socialised health care would seriously piss off Americans even outside of the taxes they would have to pay for it. Socialised healthcare has a whole different philosophy.

When I heard what he said about Iraq, I also thought about the ice cream president we had. I just thought 'yeah whatever'. I'll believe it when I see it.

And dont get me started on corporate welfare.

What surprised me most about Obamas victory was that he was a smoker. Dont laugh but I cant believe that CA where they have smoking police voted him in.

It always annoys me when someone presumes to speak for an entire nation. I know Americans who don't share those ideas about what they are.

Eliot Rosewater

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think it passed the UN by only ten votes, including tiny countries like Portugal and Nigeria.

The vote was taken in the UN Security Council, which has a membership of 15 countries: 10 voted yes; 5 abstained.

MrMatisse

I think he needs more solid concrete accomplishments which he can point too.

RichieC

LINK

Overheal

RichieC wrote: »

LINK

"Issued executive order to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay"

I think it needs updating...

He did pass the CARD Act though, which was pretty sound. I don't think it will go down as his legacy though.

Einhard

Manic Moran wrote: »

I don't hate him, I just disagree with a number of his policies. And the amount of time it's taking him to do anything about Libya is just embarrassing.

NTM

Can I ask what you think he should have done regarding Libya? For understandable reasons, he wanted to avoid the impression that America was leading the campaign for intervention.

Overheal wrote: »

Straw Poll: not taking into consideration the oppossition candidate, how many of you would give your vote to him in 2012?

Right now I can't see me doing that. That doesn't mean I'd give it to a Republican either.

Why won't you be voting for him?

MrMatisse wrote: »

I think he needs more solid concrete accomplishments which he can point too.

I really don't understand this sentiment. Obama has probably had one of the most legislatively productive half terms of any president since Johnson. His Health Care Bill may not have pleased everyone, but it was still the most revolutionary piece of social legislation since the Great Society. When I see people on the extremes of both parties howling with outrage over a reform, I generally tend to think it must be a good thing.

He also managed to get the most stringent set of financial reforms in decades passed, again in the teeth of trenchant GOP opposition.

He signed off on the New Start disarmament treaty with Russia.

He played a part in the repeal of Clinton's "Don't Ask/Don't Tell" policy regarding gays in the military.

In Iraq, military operations have wound down considerably, and most US troops have departed, without a significant upsurge in violence.

He's also considerably boosted America's image and reputation in the world, a factor I think is often overlooked when judging a president's tenure.

People can argue whether most of the above issues are good or bad (or A communist scheme to destry America!), but I don't think anyone can really argue that they don't count as achievements.

Overheal

Einhard wrote: »

Why won't you be voting for him?

If I had to vote tomorrow I would abstain because so far he hasn't done half of the things he said he would do and a lot of those things are things that made me vote for him in the first place. He's keeping Gitmo open, renewed the patriot act, made a balls of his healthcare reform, etc. I'll give him credit, McCain would not have done the troop withdrawal from Iraq, and Healthcare would still be in as bad a shape as it used to be but as for the rest I've just been surprised left and right at some of the quizzical choices he seems to make. Basically, I don't much trust him at this point, not enough to put my faith and vote in him.

I'm not saying I have a conviction about it that I will carry by the time election day comes around late next year, but he will have to show to me that he's worth the vote. I'll be doing the same of Republican and Libertarian candidates.

I really don't understand this sentiment. Obama has probably had one of the most legislatively productive half terms of any president since Johnson. His Health Care Bill may not have pleased everyone, but it was still the most revolutionary piece of social legislation since the Great Society. When I see people on the extremes of both parties howling with outrage over a reform, I generally tend to think it must be a good thing.

Well thats what he was going for. One big horse pill bill that people could point to like a monument. What I wish he would have done from a more practical standpoint and done smaller pieces of legislation. As it stands he now has very good things, like the removal of PEC disqualifications tied in with things like Single Payer Mandate. And SPM is going to jeopardize PEC if it's not careful.

He did it. Half of it. And he took 6+ months doing it.

Denerick

Overheal wrote: »

If I had to vote tomorrow I would abstain because so far he hasn't done half of the things he said he would do and a lot of those things are things that made me vote for him in the first place. He's keeping Gitmo open, renewed the patriot act, made a balls of his healthcare reform, etc. I'll give him credit, McCain would not have done the troop withdrawal from Iraq, and Healthcare would still be in as bad a shape as it used to be but as for the rest I've just been surprised left and right at some of the quizzical choices he seems to make. Basically, I don't much trust him at this point, not enough to put my faith and vote in him.

You'll vote for him. American liberals need to understand what side their bread is buttered on. Do you really want some reactionary, redneck, gay bashing philistine representative of the tea party in power. Do your duty and vote the American way - for the least egregious bastard.

Memnoch

Overheal - I understand where you're coming from on the health care bill.

But at least Obama tried. And if it wasn't for the republican stubborn opposition and total unwillingness to take part in any compromise the health care bill would have been a lot better.

To blame or punish Obama for the opposition's attitude doesn't make sense to me. If anything it should make it all the more clear that this is what voting for republicans achieves.

Lay the blame where it belongs and don't be misled by their political manouvering. Because this is exactly what they wanted to achieve. To make it look like Obama is not delivering.

Denerick

Memnoch wrote: »

Overheal - I understand where you're coming from on the health care bill.

But at least Obama tried. And if it wasn't for the republican stubborn opposition and total unwillingness to take part in any compromise the health care bill would have been a lot better.

To blame or punish Obama for the opposition's attitude doesn't make sense to me. If anything it should make it all the more clear that this is what voting for republicans achieves.

Lay the blame where it belongs and don't be misled by their political manouvering. Because this is exactly what they wanted to achieve. To make it look like Obama is not delivering.

Fully agree. I've followed US politics since the late 1990s but it seems to me that the current batch of right wing crazies are much worse than previous generations. Probably because the President can play basketball and dance really well (I'm sure its nothing to do with his race, no sir)

metrovelvet

Memnoch wrote: »

Overheal - I understand where you're coming from on the health care bill.

But at least Obama tried. And if it wasn't for the republican stubborn opposition and total unwillingness to take part in any compromise the health care bill would have been a lot better.

To blame or punish Obama for the opposition's attitude doesn't make sense to me. If anything it should make it all the more clear that this is what voting for republicans achieves.

Lay the blame where it belongs and don't be misled by their political manouvering. Because this is exactly what they wanted to achieve. To make it look like Obama is not delivering.

Well, realistically politics isn't about trying. It's about delivering.

Memnoch

I blame Fox news.

It's gone beyond simply being a mouth piece for the right. With it's inflammatory rhethoric it's making the whole situation increasingly extreme.

Just load up ANY any article that mentions Obama on their website and see the comments.

By constantly declaring their extremism as some kind of neo-moderate stance they've normalised their style of tabloid mud slinging no only in the eyes of their followers, i.e. the republican base but also the people that represent them.

Click on the comments on the following article to get a flavour of what I'm taking about:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/20/filmmaker-michael-moore-rips-president-obama-libya/?test=faces

If this is how the republican base feels and thinks, how can we expect anything BUT reactionary and uncompromising ideology from their representatives?

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/03/20/filmmaker-michael-moore-rips-president-obama-libya/?test=faces

Some choice comments:

This fat tub of lard needs to be deported to Afghanistan so that the Taliban can cut his head off with a butter knife.

Perhaps Moore can also help to get Obamonkey impeached and imprisoned.

I can understand why the mainstream media covers anything and everything that this embarrassment to humanity called Michael Moore says, but why do we have to see it on Fox News???

Certainly Fox news comprehends the ridiculously egotistical arrogance in his every word and action.

Certainly Fox news realizes that he doesn't contribute to either side of the "fair and balanced" equation, simply because he appears to be so unbalanced himself.

And those are just from the last hour or so.

Memnoch

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, realistically politics isn't about trying. It's about delivering.

Nice try.

There are limits to what can be realistically expected of someone legislatively speaking in a democracy.

As long as the person in power is making the right decisions and his thinking behind those decisions is sound that's all you can really ask.

If the republicans are blocking or refusing to cooperate in the national interest then it is the duty of the electorate to vote them out.

Also I notice how you dodged my previous question. Don't be expecting me to respond to your points in future if you aren't responding to mine.

metrovelvet

You dont have to respond to me if you dont want to. You are well within your rights not to.

Its a bizarre coincidence that the only people I know who watch Fox news are Irish people. I learn more about Foxnews from these boards than I do anywhere else.

Michaelie

Obama is a great person! And very courageous! It is necessary to beat Arabs that to all of us the rest was better!

SharpshooterTom

Memnoch wrote: »

But at least Obama tried. And if it wasn't for the republican stubborn opposition and total unwillingness to take part in any compromise the health care bill would have been a lot better.

The Republicans didn't cause the bill to fail, the democrats did.

Remember the Democrats had huge majorities in both houses between 08'-10'. Even a supermajority in the senate for the first year. They didn't need Republicans, they were a minority, pratically a rump party.

The healthcare bill was so badly watered down just so enough democrats could vote on it. :rolleyes:

And even then after it had been so badly watered down 34 house democrats still voted against it.:D His opposition effectively therefore was in his own party rather than the other lot who do nothing.

Denerick

Gnobe wrote: »

The Republicans didn't cause the bill to fail, the democrats did.

Remember the Democrats had huge majorities in both houses between 08'-10'. Even a supermajority in the senate for the first year. They didn't need Republicans, they were a minority, pratically a rump party.

The healthcare bill was so badly watered down just so enough democrats could vote on it. :rolleyes:

And even then after it had been so badly watered down 34 house democrats still voted against it.:D His opposition effectively therefore was in his own party rather than the other lot who do nothing.

What about when Brown was elected in Massachussets? The Republicans won their 41-59 majority. Really democratic.

True, there are some conservative democrats who didn't like the bill and wanted it watered down. Thats politics, thats compromise. But eventually he just paniced and wanted to pass something.

Memnoch

metrovelvet wrote: »

You dont have to respond to me if you dont want to. You are well within your rights not to.

Its a bizarre coincidence that the only people I know who watch Fox news are Irish people. I learn more about Foxnews from these boards than I do anywhere else.

It must be all those Irish people posting on the foxnews website then. All 2000+ comments on the Michael Moore must be from boardsies.

RandomnoobIII

Overheal

Denerick wrote: »

You'll vote for him. American liberals need to understand what side their bread is buttered on. Do you really want some reactionary, redneck, gay bashing philistine representative of the tea party in power. Do your duty and vote the American way - for the least egregious bastard.

Charmingly facetious, but I am not one to give my vote to person A because I dislike person B. What if I were to have confidence in none of the displayed candidates? What if I was woefully misinformed? Who am I to cast a ballot on the head of the State Education Board when I don't know anything about that election from it's knee to it's elbow?

Memnoch wrote: »

Overheal - I understand where you're coming from on the health care bill.

But at least Obama tried. And if it wasn't for the republican stubborn opposition and total unwillingness to take part in any compromise the health care bill would have been a lot better.

To blame or punish Obama for the opposition's attitude doesn't make sense to me. If anything it should make it all the more clear that this is what voting for republicans achieves.

Lay the blame where it belongs and don't be misled by their political manouvering. Because this is exactly what they wanted to achieve. To make it look like Obama is not delivering.

Gnobe wrote: »

The Republicans didn't cause the bill to fail, the democrats did.

Remember the Democrats had huge majorities in both houses between 08'-10'. Even a supermajority in the senate for the first year. They didn't need Republicans, they were a minority, pratically a rump party.

The healthcare bill was so badly watered down just so enough democrats could vote on it.

And even then after it had been so badly watered down 34 house democrats still voted against it. His opposition effectively therefore was in his own party rather than the other lot who do nothing.

The fact is there was compromise to be found from both parties but many times neither party is willing to go there. In many ways both parties are guilty of not compromising.

Thats why I'm surprised they went with the horse pill bill, rather than passing smaller pieces of legislation that they could get more delegates to agree upon.

Memnoch

If he had passed smaller pieces of legislation, I'm sure just as many people (though perhaps different ones) would be saying that he failed to deliver on his promise and didn't even try and that it was little more than a token gesture.

And if he didn't do it then, then who? And When?

Overheal

So what if he looked like he failed? He's failed on a number of things, like his promise to close Gitmo, and his executive order to close Gitmo, and his deadline to close Gitmo.

Manic Moran

Can I ask what you think he should have done regarding Libya?

Take a position and own it. If that position were one of neutrality, then fine. Shut up, say nothing, and do nothing. But once he decided to get involved and throw his lot in with the rebels, what, three weeks ago now? Shades of Hungary 1956 or Iraq 1991. "Rise up, free the yoke of oppression! But fecked if I'm going to do anything to help you, you're on your own".

Overheal wrote: »

I'll give him credit, McCain would not have done the troop withdrawal from Iraq

Where did he say that? He just said that he wouldn't have made it a time-based issue, and even Obama, once he got into office, realised that his pre-election timeline for Iraq wasn't going to work.

If the republicans are blocking or refusing to cooperate in the national interest then it is the duty of the electorate to vote them out.

Maybe I am mis-recalling here, but did not the reverse happen, and a bunch of Democrats ended up being voted out? Largest swing since the 1950s, or something like that, no?

not taking into consideration the oppossition candidate

There is one?

The Republicans haven't, to my knowledge, seriously put forward a potential opponent with the calibre of at least a trained monkey. And the kicker is, I think a trained monkey could actually beat Obama right now.

NTM

Overheal

Where did he say that? He just said that he wouldn't have made it a time-based issue, and even Obama, once he got into office, realised that his pre-election timeline for Iraq wasn't going to work.

McCain said in an interview he'd rather we were there for a hundred years if that's what it took

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

aside from that though I must say clips like these made me seriously doubt the man's integrity. after vieweing which I could in no way consider him trustworthy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

Denerick

Overheal wrote: »

Charmingly facetious, but I am not one to give my vote to person A because I dislike person B. What if I were to have confidence in none of the displayed candidates? What if I was woefully misinformed? Who am I to cast a ballot on the head of the State Education Board when I don't know anything about that election from it's knee to it's elbow?

The state education board is irrelevant. The commander in chief of the western world is not. People throw this argument about, but can anyone of conscience really argue that it was good that Al Gore didn't win in 2000 because he didn't completely share their principals? Would you rather see a hardcore Republican to a watered down democrat? politics is about compromise and the best of a bad bunch. Personally I'd vote for Obama because I think he is a man of great character and intelligence trying to negotiate his way through impossible circumstances.

Are you telling me that if the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin, you'll vote for some irrelevant third party guy because Obama broke a few promises?

Overheal

frankly I cant say anything about the 2000 election. I neither followed it or was capable of voting in it. A similar story for the 2004 election.

Are you telling me that if the Republicans nominate Sarah Palin, you'll vote for some irrelevant third party guy because Obama broke a few promises?

They could put forward a chimp but if I wanted a 3rd party candidate, like ron paul or something to be the next president, yes I would vote for him despite the perceived issue with the 2 party system. It only remains a 2 party system so long as people continue to vote in that manner. I say why not vote for who you actually want in office and not just for who you think will end up in office?

Manic Moran

McCain said in an interview he'd rather we were there for a hundred years if that's what it took

As I said, he wouldn't make it a time-based issue. The situation in Iraq had gotten to the point that a draw-down was feasible. Nothing McCain said would have precluded such a draw-down.

NTM