Quick Poll: Who will you vote for in the Presidential election? (Green: bankruptcy, food)

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Hey, if you're okay with a wasted vote that will have no impact whatsoever on the state of the nation, go for it. That's certainly your right.

And this idea that both parties are exactly the same is probably the biggest lie out there. There are similarities, but you could say that about mainstream and 3rd party candidates as well. That does make them the same. There are pretty glaring differences, especially with economic and social policies. Tell me they're the same when we have a Supreme Court justice retiring.

My vote is not wasted. And yes both parties are the same. You're free to continue to vote for the status quo. I'll vote for the person who truly has the best interest of ALL Americans, and isn't looking to continue to expand government, as well as pander to the elitists and the faceless mega-corporations that both candidates are guilty of doing. Not to mention continuing to involve us in conflicts all over the world.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

LOL...I've been waiting for someone naive enough to say these things. Thanks, jb.



Iraq: No. No. No. Oh, and one more thing: No.
Afghanistan: No. No. And finally: No.

Um, your Iraq links support what I said. One is antiwar.com... really objective! The other says that Obama wanted to leave a few thousand troops in Iraq in "non-combative roles". Doesn't that imply that the war is more or less over? We also have thousands of troops in Europe, but pretty sure WWII is over. Your final link even states that troops are exiting the nation in the freaking title. All of this proves that the Iraq war, if not over already, is drawing to a close.

Same story for your Afghanistan links. You say no, but all your links support that both fronts of war are ending. Really, I appreciate all your support.


Well then! Rah! Rah! U-S-A!

Yeah, I'm kind of under the view that having the world's worst terrorist dead is a great thing. Sorry you disagree.

Once again: No. No. No. Oh, wait. One more thing: No.

To "make a comeback" would imply pretty strongly that their strength was significantly reduced. Also, none of those articles suggest that they will be a strong force, only that it's a possibility. Once again, you say no but that's not what you're proving.

Someone needs to tell that to Obama:

See here. Here. And here.

It's called prevention. They do not have it, although they are certainly trying. Thanks again!

Or I could vote for neither. But we've been over this enough.

There is no possible way you could stand for peace and vote for Obama. No honest, rational person could possibly reconcile such a serious contradiction.

I don't stand for peace, I stand for reasonable foreign-policy. Am I in love with everything Obama's done? Of course not. But there isn't a candidate out there that I would agree with 100%. You pick the candidate you believe would be the best leader... and for me personally, one that actually has a chance to win, so that leaves out 3rd party candidates.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by no1brownsfan

My vote is not wasted. And yes both parties are the same. You're free to continue to vote for the status quo. I'll vote for the person who truly has the best interest of ALL Americans, and isn't looking to continue to expand government, as well as pander to the elitists and the faceless mega-corporations that both candidates are guilty of doing. Not to mention continuing to involve us in conflicts all over the world.

Hey, that all sounds great... so why does it make sense to vote for someone that will never win and so those things won't happen anyway?

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Hey, that all sounds great... so why does it make sense to vote for someone that will never win and so those things won't happen anyway?

Why does it make sense to continue to vote for either of the 2 empty suits and continued failed policies? You do know what the definition of insanity is don't you?

[bjimmy24]

To be fair, there is a 100% chance that either Romney or Obama become president in this election. This is just the truth. I am in favor of seeing a strong 3rd or 4th party in play, but honestly, I don't see any of their candidates as credible. Sorry, that's just my honest opinion.

[no1brownsfan]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

To be fair, there is a 100% chance that either Romney or Obama become president in this election. This is just the truth. I am in favor of seeing a strong 3rd or 4th party in play, but honestly, I don't see any of their candidates as credible. Sorry, that's just my honest opinion.

And are you truly happy with either choice provided? How is someone like Johnson not credible?

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by no1brownsfan

And are you truly happy with either choice provided? How is someone like Johnson not credible?

For one, I disagree with most Libertarian ideas. He also doesn't have a chance. Now, I do realize 3rd party candidates are in a kinda Catch-22 situation, and it's not really fair. But in this election right now in 2012, that's how it is. I found myself in agreement with Jill Stein on a lot, but I also don't really find her all that credible.

[Townes Van Zandt]

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

One is antiwar.com... really objective!

It's the sort of website that most Obama supporters would have visited...that is, until it started criticizing dems as well as r's.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

The other says that Obama wanted to leave a few thousand troops in Iraq in "non-combative roles". Doesn't that imply that the war is more or less over?

No. Occupation is occupation. Face it, Obama wanted to keep troops stationed past Bush's withdrawal date. I don't know about you, but I set my standards a little higher than "if it's good enough for dubya..."

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

We also have thousands of troops in Europe, but pretty sure WWII is over.

What does that even mean? That isn't even an argument. Just because it's been done in the past doesn't make it worthy of repetition! What a, dare I say, reactionary thing to say! (gasp!)

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Same story for your Afghanistan links. You say no, but all your links support that both fronts of war are ending. Really, I appreciate all your support.

I'm challenging the very premise of Obama's foreign policy. The idea that "might makes right" is a safe or effective foreign policy is absolutely absurd. Obama has very closely followed the foreign policy of Bush! If you don't see a problem with that, I don't know what to tell you.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

Yeah, I'm kind of under the view that having the world's worst terrorist dead is a great thing. Sorry you disagree.

If you honestly believe that killing Bin Laden this late in the game accomplished anything for "national security" you're desperately kidding yourself. It riled up the pro-'murrica sentiment. That's it.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

To "make a comeback" would imply pretty strongly that their strength was significantly reduced. Also, none of those articles suggest that they will be a strong force, only that it's a possibility. Once again, you say no but that's not what you're proving.

Once again, this is a critique of Obama's premise. The idea that nation building abroad can somehow "make the world safe for democracy" is a joke.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

They do not have it, although they are certainly trying. Thanks again!

And if they are...? Israel has hundreds of them. Iran is surrounded by countries that have them. Is it so crazy to suggest that it *might* be in their interest to obtain one?

Do you even understand why they hate us? The United States is a target of terrorism precisely because people like you(and Obama) think the United States has the moral responsibility to involve ourselves in the business of countries like Iran. Jeebus, you sound like you're straight out of the American Enterprise Institute.

Originally Posted by jbcmh81

I don't stand for peace, I stand for reasonable foreign-policy. Am I in love with everything Obama's done? Of course not. But there isn't a candidate out there that I would agree with 100%.

Wow...the parallels between this statement and what conservatives were saying in 2004 is uncanny.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by no1brownsfan

Why does it make sense to continue to vote for either of the 2 empty suits and continued failed policies? You do know what the definition of insanity is don't you?

I really don't think the president has failed, so I guess that's where we differ.

[jbcmh81]

Originally Posted by ksu sucks

It's the sort of website that most Obama supporters would have visited...that is, until it started criticizing dems as well as r's.

I think what you mean to say is *some* democrats may have visited it. I certainly wouldn't have. Then again, I'm liberal and supporting the democrats this election, but I'm registered as an independent.

No. Occupation is occupation. Face it, Obama wanted to keep troops stationed past Bush's withdrawal date. I don't know about you, but I set my standards a little higher than "if it's good enough for dubya..."

So then do you think the US is occupying Germany right now? And you've also moved the goalposts from "war" to "occupation".

What does that even mean? That isn't even an argument. Just because it's been done in the past doesn't make it worthy of repetition! What a, dare I say, reactionary thing to say! (gasp!)

It means that it's a pretty standard practice after a war. That doesn't mean the war is still going on. You don't spend hundreds of billions of dollars fighting a war and then not have any monitoring force left behind once the fighting is over.

I'm challenging the very premise of Obama's foreign policy. The idea that "might makes right" is a safe or effective foreign policy is absolutely absurd. Obama has very closely followed the foreign policy of Bush! If you don't see a problem with that, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't see how that's Obama's policy at all, actually. Last I checked, Obama didn't enact full-scale invasions of nations.

If you honestly believe that killing Bin Laden this late in the game accomplished anything for "national security" you're desperately kidding yourself. It riled up the pro-'murrica sentiment. That's it.

You're out of it. So having the most famous terrorist alive and directing attacks is good for national security? Even if you don't think it did make the world and the US safer, killing the mastermind of the murder of 3,000 people is a good thing. I can't believe that you're suggesting Obama did the wrong thing here. Incredible.

Once again, this is a critique of Obama's premise. The idea that nation building abroad can somehow "make the world safe for democracy" is a joke.

What nation did Obama invade? Where is Obama "nation building"?

And if they are...? Israel has hundreds of them. Iran is surrounded by countries that have them. Is it so crazy to suggest that it *might* be in their interest to obtain one?

Of course it's in their interest to get one. But they have not and it's certainly not in the interest of anyone else that they do. You think Obama doesn't get that?

Do you even understand why they hate us? The United States is a target of terrorism precisely because people like you(and Obama) think the United States has the moral responsibility to involve ourselves in the business of countries like Iran. Jeebus, you sound like you're straight out of the American Enterprise Institute.

Wow...the parallels between this statement and what conservatives were saying in 2004 is uncanny.

So you think it's cool if Iran has nukes. Ok.