Romney or Obama? Is there really any decision to be made?

1. 66

   maddotposted 10 years ago

   Romney or Obama? Is there really any decision to be made?

   replyreport
2. 85

   Bills Placeposted 10 years ago

   I'm not really into politics, but apparently Romney wants Big Bird dead...If Mr. Rogers was still around he would probably be saying "It's not such a good time for the neighborhood"...

   replyreport
   1. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think what he was saying was it's not worth borrowing money from china to fund big bird.  Since his character is quite popular and profitable, they can raise the money privately without asking taxpayers to borrow it from china.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      PBS is sponsored by American people and donations not money from China Landmark.  Apparently you dont watch it.

      replyreport
   3. 74

      pagesvoiceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      PBS funding by the government amounts to 100th of 1% of the budget. People who can't afford cable TV, the elderly and history buffs or even those of us looking for culture tune into PBS. Leave PBS alone!

      replyreport
   4. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A portion of there funding is from tax revenue, which is borrowed 60 cents on every dollar.  The largest foreign creditor of that borrowed revenue is China.  Since it is such a small insignificant amount they won't miss it. The govt cant afford it.

      replyreport
   5. 79

      Judah's Daughterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Would you rather not fund Big Bird (or Mr. Roger's Neighborhood) with Chinese dollars or not fund the Muslim Brotherhood?

      replyreport
   6. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think we should be funding either.  The role of Gov't is to fund those services which are essential and can't be done by the private sector.  neither of those qualify.

      replyreport
   7. 81

      Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Oh but I bet Mitt wouldnt get rid of Sister Wives because thats what mormon's do.

      replyreport
   8. 66

      LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      To my kowledge that show doesn't receive any funding from taxpayer dollars, but I could be wrong.

      replyreport
   9. 72

      Conservative Ladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      LandmerkWealth - these people just don't get it and I am not sure if they ever will. Hopefully there are more of us who understand what is happening to our Country under Obama and we can rally together and vote him out in November.

      replyreport
   10. 81

       Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Conservative Lady what is it that we are supposed to get.  That Mitt Romney is a biggot, a scoundral, sent all of his jobs over seas because he only had to pay some kid 10 cents a day.  That he has no appreciation for women and their rights.

       replyreport
   11. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Romney has not sent any jobs overseas, and even if he did that would be a result of our ridiculous cost of labor thanks to the gov't.  He has never made a bigoted comment or anything anti-women.  Try arguging policy and not personal attacks.

       replyreport
3. 59

   royalblkroseposted 10 years ago

   unfortunately, yes. but, due to years of voter apathy both choices are poor ones.
   Obama believes in redistribution of wealth w/o work,
   and Romney believes that 47% of the electorate are welfare bums... totally discounting the multi-million dollar corporations that want all the government handouts they can get, and still DON'T pay their taxes!

   replyreport
   1. 90

      Doc Snowposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "Obama believes in redistribution of wealth w/o work.."
      
      A myth.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Doc Snow knows that much of what the GOP propaganda machine cranks out to be believed by its loyal (but bamboozled) followers is MYTH.

      replyreport
4. 40

   ChristinSposted 10 years ago

   They both stink - but I'll take the candidate who will support women's rights and who does not discriminate and would not deny the gay community their civil rights.  So the lesser of two evils it is.  Romney is completely out of touch with working class and has no idea what it takes to make it in this economy - I don't trust him to develop a sense of empathy for the people he views with utter disdain.  He has never been among the working poor or middle class. He admits to being born with a silver spoon.  Obama is rich now, but he had humble beginnings, so at least he has had a taste of what it is like to be "one of us".
   
     I think we would see a faster, larger erosion of the middle class under any policies Romney would put in place - and unfortunately he hasn't shed any light on what those policies would be specifically.  Rather than focus on the big bird nonsense, he needs to say something substantive and stick to it. However, Romney's record is one of massive "flip flopping" to say the least.  He'll pander to whoever he has to for election and then what? You don't truly know where he stands and that's dangerous. 
   
   With Obama we know what we are getting.  My issue with him is that he signed the NDAA which effectively gives the government the right to detain "threats" indefinitely without due process.  My stomach turns voting for someone who could sign such a thing - but it turns worse thinking where the right extremists who have hijacked the republican party might take us.  Talk about a year of voting for the lesser of two evils... holy cow...

   replyreport
   1. 64

      SportsBetterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Two evils is two evils.  Either way they are both funded by the same corporations.  They are puppets.

      replyreport
   2. 40

      ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I completely agree SportsBetter - it's a sad state of affairs.

      replyreport
5. 66

   johnwindbellposted 10 years ago

   There is a third decision, thank Gary Johnson, so one doesn't have to vote for the lesser of two evils again ! .....and get an evil one anyway. And even if it would give the president a second term, at least he knows the (hemp) ropes about being president and doesn't have to be a newbie at it like the RINO Romney would be. And who wants another 'lier, war-monger, big spender, Bush-er' in there anyway.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you vote for an independent this year, you're throwing your vote away and giving the election to Romney--another Bush!  Please don't do it! Start a grassroots effort for a third party AFTER this election. It will take 4 years of work.

      replyreport
   2. 64

      SportsBetterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I don't think i'll be voting this year, but i think voting for Romney or Obama is wasting your vote.

      replyreport
   3. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      SportsBetter...If you DON'T vote, you are giving the election away, which is actually a type of passive vote. Accept responsibility.

      replyreport
   4. 60

      tinamariemillerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Jaye, I beg to differ. No matter who you vote for, if you are exercising you free right as a legal citizen to vote, no vote is a throw away.  It actually makes the election "fair" and supports our Constitution.

      replyreport
   5. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What I said was, if you DON'T vote, that is a passive form of voting. Since it is not actually voting FOR someone, the candidate who benefits from it may not be your preference after the election is over. Better to choose and vote.

      replyreport
   6. 73

      Lady Guinevereposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      JayeWisdom, YOU don't know that.  It might be the year that an Independent wins.

      replyreport
   7. 0

      Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Because of the primary system, where electoral votes are committed to certain candidates, a third party candidate cannot win if he has not won any electoral votes. If he got 1 million popular votes, I do not think he has any dedicated electoral votes

      replyreport
6. 74

   LaWandaDeniseposted 10 years ago

   Hell no!  And if you are black and you don't vote for THIS black man, then something is seriously wrong with you.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you're white and you don't vote for this biracial man, then something is seriously wrong with you.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      What does race have to do with it.  Why does it have to come down to that.  People vote for who they want not because of the color of their skin but because he will do the right thing.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      tinamariemillerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The presidency is not about black, white, yellow, or green...if you are voting based on color of skin then you should be looking closely at whether or not you fall within the "racist" category that the media labels people on the right in.

      replyreport
   4. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You're both right, of course.  I shouldn't have fallen into that trap based on someone else's comment, and race has nothing to do with my support of President Obama. Sharing the same race should not be a reason for voting. I am not racist in any form

      replyreport
7. 60

   S Leretsehposted 10 years ago

   America has to address the GROSS wage disparity between China and America. I don't think Romney or Obama are capable of doing that. Simple economics tells us that America will continue to loss jobs to China.  China= $130.00 a month wages; no pensions, no workers comp; no civil rights laws (lawsuits to worry about).
   
   If I had a labor intensive business, I would transfer ALL of it to China ... in heart beat.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So you would join the traitors among American business who are ruining the U.S. economy by sending jobs away.  You apparently don't consider it unethical to exploit poor Chinese workers to avoid paying decent compensation to U.S. workers.

      replyreport
   2. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I've read your profile, so it's easy to understand your true motivation (besides the traitorous action of exploiting poor Chinese workers to avoid paying U.S. workers a living wage.

      replyreport
   3. 60

      S Leretsehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      So Apple is a traitor? Almost all of their IPhones are made their...for $130 a month. I bet you own one.

      replyreport
   4. 90

      Doc Snowposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "Address it" how?  With protectionist measures that will hurt everyone's economy?
      
      In my view, the situation is slowly "addressing" itself; the rapid rise of middle classes in Asia and Latin America in recent years is a very good thing indeed.

      replyreport
   5. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No, S. Leretseh, I don't own any Apple product, and never will. YES, Apple is a traitor! My computer is a Dell, made in Texas.

      replyreport
   6. 60

      S Leretsehposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      "I don't own any Apple product, and never will"
      
      I love Apple!
      
      Jaye, you are a special person. I am not. What else can I say.
      PEACE
      
      Doc Snow, Asia middle class is the result of a US umbilical cord

      replyreport
   7. 88

      mattforteposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Just to start - average monthly earnings in China is $730. I won't even bother with the rest. Check your facts please.

      replyreport
   8. 74

      pagesvoiceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      As a U.S. patriot, an Army brat, the son of a dad buried in a veterans cemetery, someone who was drafted for Vietnam, I will tell you first hand, patriotism isn't off shoring U.S. jobs  or hiding $$ in offshore accounts. Some have lost their way.

      replyreport
   9. 0

      thegeckoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Your Dell might be assembled in Texas, but it's parts are most likely made all over the world =\

      replyreport
   10. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Buying a products with some foreign components is not the same as hiding money in offshore accounts to avoid state and federal taxes. We live in a Global economy. There will almost always be a foreign connection.

       replyreport
8. 72

   crazyhorsesghostposted 10 years ago

   No there really is no difference. Not if we are going to keep playing party politics as usual. I think we as Americans need to stop playing the political spin game. We need to throw out the Democrats and Republicans and put people in office with no special interests and with the problems of America at heart. I won't vote for either Romney or Obama. Both are out for themselves and their own special interests.

   replyreport
   1. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      If you don't vote you lose your right to complain.

      replyreport
9. 0

   gogogoposted 10 years ago

   Yes thete is a decision to be made.  If we want to see our country keep on going down around the world, then vote for Obamo
   If we want high un-employment to continue or even escalate then vote for Obamo
   If we want the deficit to keep going up so our grand-kids can pay for our stupidity
   then vote for Obamo
   If we wish to become another socialist state or even a communist state then vote for Obamo
   And if he gets in I will know what the American people really want their country to be

   replyreport
   1. 90

      JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      People who call the president  or the Democratic Party "socialist" or "communist" do not understand the true meaning of those terms. I suggest you do some research. All of your reasoning is wrong.

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I dont understand how you people think the president is responsible for unemployment.  Busnesses went under because owners made bad business decisions.  Its like gasoline it is a product who's price is decided by the seller.  OMG people seriously.

      replyreport
   3. 74

      pagesvoiceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Socialism is thrown around like garbage on a truck. The biggest socialistic program is the military. They are housed, paid, clothed, fed, receive free medical care and if they last long enough receive a federal pension. Labels stink!

      replyreport
   4. 40

      ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It's people who name call and make uneducated statements like this who vote unfortunately.  If you can't truly define socialism and communism and understand them - don't throw them around. good grief...

      replyreport
   5. 90

      Doc Snowposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      And was "Obamo" an error, or just snide?

      replyreport
   6. 81

      Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      We want our country to be free to choose abortion, being gay, womens rights, making people pay for healthcare so I dont to.  Not some billionare that lives as mormon who's beliefs is having multiple wives are okay.

      replyreport
   7. 83

      Becky Katzposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Author Cheryl, I believe that Obama is responsible for most of the unemployment. Most people with money to invest, which is where the jobs start, will not do so until he is out of office. Many lost their jobs within a month after he was elected.

      replyreport
   8. 0

      gogogoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Hi JayeWilson I kniw very well what a communist and a socialist is and if you wait a while and Obama gets back in si will yoyu

      replyreport
   9. 74

      pagesvoiceposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      A communist lives in a country where most likely Romney has a vested interest for cheap labor at the expense of U.S. jobs. I explained earlier what real socialism looks like and again, Romney wants to increase their budget. Hello...

      replyreport
10. 90

    JayeWisdomposted 10 years ago

    Not for me! My decision is President Obama. I will vote for the Obama/Biden ticket on November 6, for I'm convinced that if Romney and Ryan are elected by voters who fall for GOP propaganda (especially those in the 47% group for which Romney holds such contempt) based entirely on social "hot button" issues which have absolutely nothing to do with the Republican agenda (which is ONLY to protect the interests of the U.S. "upper class"--read:  super wealthy), those voters will sadly rue the day they placed that vote. They will be harming their own interests.  I only hope there are enough people left in this country who will thoroughly research the FACTS  before they vote.  However, having read the HP article by MyEsoterica about those political "followers" who don't let facts affect them, I am very concerned.

    replyreport
11. 81

    Author Cherylposted 10 years ago

    Romeny is Bipolar and as far as PBS goes it is not being funded by money borrowed from China. Funding for PBS programs comes from a variety of sources - member stations' dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, government agencies, foundations, corporations and private citizens.  Romney Started Romney care which is now Obama care when he was Govenor of Massachusetts.   I will never vote for a man who 1) is a mormon 2) has no care about women at all 3) Has changed his view over and over again and flip flopped on so many issues 4) Has no respect for anyone that isnt make billions of dollars 5) is Republican.  I will vote for Obama now as I did four years ago.  As Bill Clinton said at the Democrat convention not him nor any president that was elected after George Bush could clean up the mess Obama was handed in three and a half years.  Everyone want to complain about what the man has not done but no one has seen what he has done.  Romney and Ryan will totally with out a doubt destroy this country for anyone who is making middle class income or less so unless you are rich God help us all.  Here is Romneys flip flop video on you tube.  Just goes to show how much he goes back and forth on his beliefs.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQwrB1vu … ture=share

    replyreport
    1. 90

       JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       You are SO right!

       replyreport
    2. 72

       Conservative Ladyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Romney was not saying that China funds PBS he was stating that we are borrowing money from China to fund our Government and it's not worth it to continue to borrow from foriegn countries to pay for things that are not an absolute necessity.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       Larry Wallposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Cheryl, where is the proof that Romney is bipolar. I have never heard this. If he is it is a very serious situation. I have a bipolar member of my family. You would not want such a person as commander in chief. Do you have proof, or is this a rumor?

       replyreport
    4. 0

       thegeckoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I think she was jokingly referring to his constant flip flopping on issues

       replyreport
12. 90

    Doc Snowposted 10 years ago

    Not for me.  Mr. Romney made climate change a punchline, even as the Arctic sea ice hit a record low volume last month:  compared with 1979 levels, it is down 80%.  Yes, four-fifths of the way to zero!
    
    And the summer drought--typical of what climate models tell us to expect increasingly often--cost at least $20 billion in insured crop losses alone, and has already begun another spike in global food prices.  (Similar spiking in 2010 helped initiate the unrest in the Middle East leading to the Arab Spring, and the current Syrian civil war.)
    
    So Mr. Romney is totally unequipped to set rational policies for the medium- to long-term best interests of this nation.
    
    However, I also have serious questions about his ideas on taxation and the economy.  How *will* he pay for his tax rate cuts?  Analysts do not find enough potential savings in deductions and other simplifications to compensate, so if he has, he should tell us how.
    
    Why does he insist on expanding military spending when he claims that the deficit is the biggest threat to US security, and when President Obama has managed to extricate us from a couple of very expensive wars?  Sure, we need to keep US armed forces strong.  But how does imposing spending over and above Pentagon requests really further that goal?  We have a potential 'peace dividend'--can we really not afford to cash it?  (Judiciously, of course.)
    
    And how much will this affect government?  I understand that Republicans want a smaller government.  But there's 'smaller' and then there's 'eviscerated.'  Do we really want the latter?
    
    Moreover, the loss of government jobs--more than 700,000 of them, from park rangers to regulatory personnel to teachers--has been a major drag on the recovery, and a significant factor in keeping unemployment above 8% for so long.  Further belt-tightening may be expected to have a similar effect.  Just how much will be required under Mr. Romney's plan?
    
    Lastly, I must note a painful irony:  Mr. Romney, in his infamous "47%" remarks, decried those who supposedly identify themselves as victims and refuse to take responsibility for their own actions and well-being.  Yet he paints the entire country as a 'victim' of Mr. Obama's well-intentioned but misguided "trickle-down government" policies.  Apparently, all responsibility lies at Mr. Obama's door--the least effective Congress in many decades gets a free pass. 
    
    But then, perhaps a one-term Obama presidency really was "Job One", as Mr. McConnell said.

    replyreport
    1. 90

       JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       It is good to read a comment on one of these forums that is made on the basis of facts rather than emotion. Thank you for listing these reasons to avoid a Romney-Ryan debacle!

       replyreport
    2. 79

       Judah's Daughterposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       And what is a 'victim'?  It's someone who's been placed in an unwanted circumstance by no fault of their own and need to be rescued!  Are the 47% of the population on welfare willing participants then?

       replyreport
13. 74

    pagesvoiceposted 10 years ago

    If you believe a man should not control a woman's right to choose, you should most likely vote for President Obama. If you think women deserve equal pay, you should vote for Mr. Obama. If you think there should be no cap on medical expenses and that everyone is entitled to the exact same medical care and no one denied coverage because of a preexisting conditions you should vote for our current president. If you think banks, Wall Street, Oil and gas companies should have strict regulations and not weak ones, I would say Obama is your man. If you think Bush I & II and trickle down economics which drove us into a dire state of affairs is free enterprise, than perhaps Romney/Ryan who will strip your Social Security, Medicare and even Big Bird are your ticket of choice. In the United States, equality of all shouldn't be a privilege, but it should be a right.

    replyreport
    1. 90

       JayeWisdomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I do believe all your statements relating to why we should vote for President Obama, and I will do so.  Romney and Ryan do not believe in equality whatsoever!

       replyreport
    2. 81

       Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Exactly

       replyreport
14. 0

    thegeckoposted 10 years ago

    Sure there is! There's Gary Johnson and Jill Stein

    replyreport
15. 63

    Linda Cassiniposted 10 years ago

    Well I think Romney is going to have to wait about 12-15 more years to even consider running for re-election since he chose to side with the "younger" crowd and Sesame street..lol...Oh bird crap...lol

    replyreport
16. 81

    junksellerposted 10 years ago

    Romney is obviously not an option, but neither is Obama for me. I will not vote for anyone who blows up innocent people on a daily basis. Nor will I vote for someone who doesn't treat global warming as a primary concern.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Innocent people have been dieing since the first war.  Who started this war?  Oh but wait that was George W. Bush.  Who is trying to pull out the troops.  Barrack Obama.

       replyreport
    2. 81

       junksellerposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       The American voters started this war. I personally will NOT vote to continue it. My vote is for Jill Stein. Green economy. 25 million jobs, Medicare for all, end wars, stop foreclosures, financial and political reform, fair trade vs. free trade, etc.

       replyreport
17. 0

    Larry Wallposted 10 years ago

    There is a decision to make and it is a hard decision. Most presidential elections where an incumbent is involved are hard decisions. Every president inherits something from the prior president. It could be a budget surplus. It could be a deficit. It could be the capturing of a ship or it could be 9-11. The next President has his agenda in mind, but is then faced with dealing with what he or she inherited from the previous administration or previous Congress. So when an incumbent is running he has to defend whether or not he accomplished his goals but how he handled what he inherited. The challenger, is somewhat in the dark, because he may think he knows what is being left to him, but something could happen between the election and inauguration. Thus, there is a decision to be made--a difficult decision. The decision should be based not on party, ethnic background, religion or which one is more glib. The decision has to be made on reviewing the facts and each voter deciding, given the choices, what would be the best direction for the country. I do oppose voting for third party candidates who have not campaigned. If a third party candidate is so good, he should with a limited budget manage to get the mainstream air time and do more to promote his website. I find most third party candidates--at all levels of government, just want to be able to say they were a candidate for_____________ (pick your office.)
    
    I am not revealing how I vote, because I try to avoid showing bias in my comments. If everyone comments, some will say I am pro-Obama and others pro-Romney. I will not suggest what decision you should make. I only offer suggestions on what you should consider when making that decision.

    replyreport
18. 66

    LandmarkWealthposted 10 years ago

    I would find it incredibly hard to vote to relect a president who in the midst of a fiscal crisis could not pass one budget in 4 years (as he is legally obligated to do), even with a super majority of congress for the first two years of his presidency.  His last budget was so far off the wall he could not even get a single member of his own party to support it. The President is an example of what happens when you elect someone who is cool rather than qualified.  His first experience of running anything of any substance in his life was the amazingly the Presidency.  That was literally his first executive position, and it shows.  He can't even lead the members of his own party let alone work with the the other party on any form of compromise.  While Romney is not my ideal candidate in every way, nobody ever will be.  He is however someone who has an enormous amount of executive leadership experience both public and private.  Every major venture he has undertaken has been a success.
    Lastly, the presidents lack of understanding of the most basic of macroeconomic concepts is downright scary.  He is so far removed from what motivates small business owners like myself to take action, that if he doesn't get it yet, he never will.  Cap Ex in the corporate world is on stike and will remain that way as long as he is in charge.  And I certainly can't blame my fellow small business owners.  The corporate world both big and small would rather hoard cash at negative real interest rates then commit to anything while he is in charge.  We are now at an astonishing 2 trillion in cash on corporate balance sheets simply waiting out the Obama Presidency before they will deploy any of it. 
    I personally find it terrifying how many members of congress as well have no practical business experience and understand so little of how markets work.  I am starting to think that the President and all the members of congress should have to pass a test on economics and the impacts of both fiscal and monetary policy before they can run for office. They'd probably all think econometrics was a new band.

    replyreport
    1. 73

       fitmomposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I completely agree with you! The requirements for President need to be more stringent. I don't think any person is perfect. The current administration has done a terrible job with fiscal matters and it shows!

       replyreport
    2. 66

       LandmarkWealthposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Truthfully I am still dumbfounded that such an unqualified person with no experience of any substance became President.  It is astonishing how easily people are swayed by what is cool.

       replyreport
19. 73

    Lady Guinevereposted 10 years ago

    How can you be sure of who you are going to vote for if you do not hear all three candidate's platform? Just listen to Gary Johnson's stance: http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Gary Johnson has not even promoted himself.  Let's get real you might as well vote for Roseanne Barr who is also on the ballet

       replyreport
    2. 73

       Lady Guinevereposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Yes he has but the other two candidates and the faction governing who gets what time on TV has suppressed him.  OPEN YOUR EYES.

       replyreport
    3. 0

       gogogoposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I wish there was a third person, I have never heard of Gary Johbsdon he is not really serious

       replyreport
    4. 81

       Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Well I already voted and I dont care who you want in office.  No one is going to bring Romney in after all the crap he has talked. 47% dont count in his book, get rid of a perfectly good tv station, yada yada yada.  You will all see you are not enoug

       replyreport
    5. 66

       johnwindbellposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       I agree with you LadyG. Pay no mind, as if you would, to people telling you to get real. They are the ones who aren't sure themselves. They are the outgrowth of the two party  problem. Vote your heart, love.

       replyreport
20. 76

    lone77starposted 10 years ago

    Yes, of course there is a decision to be made.
    
    Don't vote for either Romney or Obama. Both are poison to America's future.
    
    They both stand for,
    * More War
    * More fiscal insanity
    * More tyranny (shredding of the Constitution).
    
    Case closed.
    
    I'm voting for the other major candidate -- the one not invited to the debates -- Gary Johnson.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FP69507fTKY
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZY-MZROgc4
    
    The other two Corporate Party puppets stand for the ruination of everything that America stands for. It's Germany of 80 years ago all over again.
    
    Here's both parties trashing the idea of voting and Roberts Rules of Order:
    
    RNC Scripted:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKaXqoC4DjE
    
    DNC Scripted:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmaE2Aez_XY
    
    Bye-bye democracy. Bye-bye republic. Hello tyranny...
    
    Unless we can get enough people to wake up to the ruination of America and the only candidate that can stop it.

    replyreport
21. 60

    darklandposted 10 years ago

    It seems a lot of people think, somehow, that a vote for Obama is a vote against big business.  Obama has done nothing but support big business through bail outs and looking the other way.  He bailed out Goldman for instance after the real estate crash and made no effort to prosecute those responsible for the fraud.  He seized control of Chrysler and bailed them out, greatly overstepping his bounds as president.  He has done nothing to keep the oil companies from gouging the American people by price fixing, which is illegal. 
    Obama care does show a contempt for small business but he is deeply in bed with big business and together they are screwing the American public. He didn't just inherit these problems he has consistently fostered and perpetuated them.

    replyreport
    1. 81

       Author Cherylposted 10 years agoin reply to this

       Obamacare was Romneycare first.  I hate when people blame something that was in fact Mitt Romneys idea to begin with.  Oil is a product of which the price is made from the seller.  Just like any other product sold.

       replyreport