Community | January 14, 2012 | 110 comments

29 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote For Obama in 2012

source: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/o70in/libertarian_to_my_liberal_friends_can_you_pl...

Image
PetEr_Alan_ColE
1. Opposed gay marriage in 2009 and reaffirmed his position in 2010. When he finally flipped on his position in 2011 he stated that he was still "grappling" with his personal views on gay marriage.

2. Signed the NDAA - an indefinite detention bill - into law.

3. Placed Sanctions on Iran that will likely lead to war.

4. Increased the TSA’s budget and allowed the scope of their authority to increase

5. Gave Blackwater a quarter of a billion dollars.

6. Approved of a more draconian Patriot Act.

7. Assassinated three American Citizens 1 2 3.

8. Continued the Drug War. Including pushing for a fiver year mandated sentence for Charles C. Lynch the owner of a licensed medical marijuana dispensary.

9. Wins right to deny habeas review from detainees.

10. Protected Bush officials from charges relating to torture.

11. Waged war on Libya without congressional approval.

12. Waives health care coverage for employees of 29 companies including McDonald's.

13. Deports record number of immigrants.

14. Continued and escalated a covert, drone war in Yemen.

15. Takes the hardest stance in American history against government whistle blowers.

16. Escalated the proxy war in Somalia.

17. Pushes harder for warrantless wire taps than Bush did.

18. Escalated the CIA drone war in Pakistan.

19. And what about the Children?

20. Promises more transparent government denies more FOIA request than Bush.

21. Gives BP and other big oil companies exemption from EPA laws.

22. Will maintain a presence in Iraq even after "ending" war.

23. Sharply escalated the war in Afghanistan.

24. Secretly made deal to kill health care public option while secretly meeting with health care executives and provided an exemption for abortion.

25. Secretly deployed US special forces to 75 countries.

26. Sold $30 billion of weapons to the dictatorship in Saudi Arabia.

27. Signed an agreement for 7 military bases in Colombia

28. Appoints multiple lobbyist while signing an executive order limiting this practice. This included lobbyist from Goldman Sachs , Raytheon and Monsanto.

29. Continued Bush's rendition program.

Link with Sources:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/o70in/libertarian_to_my_liberal_friend...

http://www.freakingnews.com/King-Barack-Obama-Pictures-68196.asp
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Politics,   Election 2012
  2. tags:
    Obama,  2012,  Vote,  Obama Derangement Syndrome,  1 more
  3.     
    |

110 comments // 29 Reasons Why You Shouldn't Vote For Obama in 2012

  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  

    • I like this post, although I feel it could have been condensed down to one reason not to vote for him, which is ultimately the clause and explanation of all the other reasons.

      1) he's a plutocrat.

    • 4 months ago
  • mrtraffic
  • CreditFigaro
  • coolplanet
  • jpvt
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • BKsaysAction
  • Saladin
    • +1
      Saladin  

    • Hey, they stole that picture from Medieval 2 : Total War. I like that game.

      Honestly, I don't know what else to do. He's been worse than Clinton and is partially destroying the credibility of left ideologies. But there isn't really any alternative, at least not right now.

      I'd vote for Kucinich or Sanders in a heartbeat. Hell, I'd even vote Nader if I thought he was going to win.

      This country is such a corrupt nightmare that I doubt it will even matter who we elect. And if the Eurozone collapses or if our financial system has any more "surprises" for us, then it really won't matter at all who we choose.

      I think Warren Buffet might be right, we essentially just need millionaires and billionaires to save the country. Because politics is beyond broken at this point. Citizens United has totally changed the game, or at least solidified its uglier aspects.

      I think we might end up like Russia or India or China. Just a corrupt, evil, right-wing hellhole that never really accomplishes anything and just can't function because of how bad the political atmosphere and inequality are.

    • 4 months ago
  • noxidereus
    • -1
      noxidereus  

    • I cannot and will not vote for Obama again. No one from either of the 2 elite parties deserves our votes, but sadly they will get the votes of the ignorant and the deceived (most of the population) as usual.

    • 4 months ago
  • AreOh
    • -1
      AreOh  

    • This entire post just sounds like a spoiled tantrum. It kind of disgusts me that there are people that are so caviler with the fate of the nation. As if we haven't been trying to claw our way out of one of the worst depressions we've seen in a very long time.

      Look, I fully support new ideas. But if we are not going to vote or Obama, then what is the plan? The idea of 'anyone else' is quite frankly suicide. We've seen what the GOP plan to do if they ever regain control of the government, so that's not credible. Paul policy's will socially set us back 50 years so that's not an option. So what else do you have? Anything?

      I get you don't like Obama. Some of the reasons displayed are legitimate and some are bullshit. But presenting an idea without a plausible alternative is no better than any random conservative calling for B.Ob's head. It is just as ignorant and short sighted.

      A lot of people need to grow up and face the reality of our situation in America instead of presenting ridiculous scenarios that will end up being bad for ALL of us.

    • 4 months ago
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • AreOh
    • +1
      AreOh  
    • PetEr_Alan_ColE:

      Your response is precisely my point. You focus on one sentence rather than looking at the entire consequence of what you are proposing. Why? Because all you seem to care about is trashing a candidate as opposed to realistically considering how much worse things could be if we start from zero again. That kind of myopic view is what is the problem with most Americans today. And that myopic perspective is they very thing that is killing us.
      As I said before, we all know Obama's administration has serious problems. We definitely agree on this. But this idea of let's just vote for someone else is suicide when you look at our current alternatives. It's just not realistic and quite frankly just lazy and short sighted.

      I will gladly support any idea that will move us, as a nation, forward. But until I see a candidate that can do that, any other option will just take us backwards. And we cannot afford that right now. We simply can't.

      And furthermore no matter what candidate you vote for, it's going to the same if you expect them to cure all of our ills. This is OUR county. When WE decide to get off our asses instead playing electoral ping pong and then complaining when we get the same results, then we'll change.

      Politicians are not the problem. We are.

    • 4 months ago
  • Buddha2112
    • -1
      Buddha2112  
    • AreOh:

      Have you ever stopped to think that what you perceive as forward has actually been backward?

      If Obama's administration has serious problems... How can you, in your right mind, support him? Anything else is just suicide? When ZERO is a fresh start, why would that be bad?

      It's not because we expect any one candidate to cure our 'ills' its that we want a president that allows us to cure our own ills. A war-mongering dictator for more than last 12 years, is NOT the answer. To continue as such is really being lazy... What, real change means you have to WORK, means you have a chance to do things FOR YOURSELF and have a REAL voice. This isn't about trashing a candidate, this is about being HONEST about what he's continued to do to our country, our people, and the world on behalf of US.

    • 4 months ago
  • AreOh
    • 0
      AreOh  
    • Buddha2112:

      You are again presenting a narrow view. Give me a credible alternative that people can do right now in lieu of re-electing Obama that will not send us back to the dark ages. Give me a scenario.

      I can support it because the alternatives are suicide. We narrowly avoided complete economic meltdown, elected a very near criminal and obstructive Congress and now are watching the carnival that is the GOP nomination race, BUT you think putting someone new in office from the current crop is a sane move? Sorry, that's just dangerously naive to the current reality of the country.

      And with all due respect, if this was an honest conversation we would be talking about Obama's ENTIRE record and not just a list that supports what we want to believe. This post is the exact opposite of an honest conversation. If you want to talk about the problems of his administration, I'm game. I'm all about having honest discussions. But this post is not that. It's selective reasoning stripping away the context of our current situation. No, I won't support such a obviously prejudiced perspective.

      People that are really about progressive society look at both the good and bad, not just the stuff agrees with their current disposition. As we've seen in the last 10 years, a lot of our problems are self-inflicted. Scapegoating one part of the problem is not being honest at all. It's applying a simplistic view to the complex issue of nation building. And at this point in the game, we need to be better than that.

    • 4 months ago
  • CalgarC
  • deane
  • JohnA
  • BCDel89
    • +2
      BCDel89  
    • deane:

      If you agree that he sucks and you don't think there is a good alternative then DON'T vote people need to stop voting for the lesser of 2 evils and need to start doing what they think is right.

    • 4 months ago
  • AreOh
    • 0
      AreOh  
    • BCDel89:

      Doing what they think is right is precisely how the Tea Party came to power. I think this standpoint needs a little more critical thought and not armchair posturing.

    • 4 months ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • +3
      Varex_Sythe  

    • "29. Continued Bush's rendition program."

      Unless I am mistaken, the whole concept of rendition was originally Clinton's program; however, what Bush did with rendition and what Clinton had in mind were fairly different. Clinton had the idea to use rendition to arrest people who were reasonably suspected or proven to be terrorists. Bush pulled anyone who was suspected be that suspicion reasonable or not.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • JohnA:

      Either you did not really read what I wrote, or you do not understand what I wrote. Rendition, under Clinton, was originally a reasonable program that pulled people who were already known terrorists or were reasonably suspected to be terrorists. The Bush administration took that and decided to expand it to cover anyone who might be suspected of a terrorist period, especially if those suspicions were not reasonable.

      What happened was akin to a person writing a paper only to have it revised at a later point by a different person. The paper is still the work of the original person, but the final copy that is put into print can be a very different beast depending on who revised it. So technically it was Clinton's rendition program, but it was still changed greatly by the Bush administration.

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
  • JRBarilla
  • Vierotchka
  • misfit20
    • +5
      misfit20  
    • Vierotchka:

      Sorry sweetie, but a lot of those are bunk ass reasons to vote for him, it is a list of promises he kept. One of them says "No permanent bases in Iraq" yeah... we will see if he keeps that promise, its a little too early to say he kept his promise on that one.

      And he kept his promise to "Send two additional brigades to Afghanistan" How is that a reason to vote for him??

      Might want to try to find a better list, just sayin'

    • 4 months ago
  • Vierotchka
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • Varex_Sythe
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
    • +5
      PetEr_Alan_ColE  
    • Varex_Sythe:

      Wow, I don't care what the body count is. A person who murderers once or a million times is still a murderer. That is just a horrible way to support a person, uh but he didn't kill as many as the other guy. Maybe that should be his campaign slogan in 2012.

      I am so disgusted. I need to take a break from the internet. Peace!

    • 4 months ago
  • Varex_Sythe
  • Vierotchka
  • jubal
  • JohnA
  • Vierotchka
    • -3
      Vierotchka  
    • JohnA:

      Actually, I have indeed talked with Libyans. They are very happy with their revolution, and the US played only a secondary role as a member of NATO. The French did most of the work.

    • 4 months ago
  • BCDel89
  • BCDel89
  • Crauly_Fingers
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • Vierotchka
  • Buddha2112
  • Buddha2112
  • JohnA
  • Vierotchka
  • Vierotchka
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Crauly_Fingers:

      $1 million on mosquito nets for Africa... Wow. If that is something to brag about then I guess I should be bragging that I put a penny in the pennies for (insert random ailment for random people) because with the amount of money that Bush was managing, $1 million is less of a percentage of the United States budget than a penny is for my budget.

      What about the stuff that matters? How about the billions, wait, that's not right... How about the trillions he spent on an illegal war and occupation in Iraq? You want to know why that $1 million doesn't fall under the stuff that matters? First, because $1 million is not even a drop in the bucket. Second, because it is a token show of charity. It is akin to trying to making a plea that Charles Manson is a decent human being by saying he took a sick, stray kitten to the vet because the vet was between where he and the kitten were and where he was going anyways. "Sure he killed those families brutally, but he made a minimal effort to save a kitten."

    • 4 months ago
  • Varex_Sythe
    • -1
      Varex_Sythe  
    • PetEr_Alan_ColE:

      I'm still waiting to see if you can name one president from the last 50 years who has not participated in the murder of foreign citizens, and I can see that you have responded to other people, but not to me. Either you have no answer or you are avoiding the topic because it leaves an acrid taste in your mouth.

      Just FYI, the direction I was going with this has to do with how we elect people and whom it is that we elect.

      If you want to have someone in office who is not going to do these kinds of things, then we need to revamp the election process, primarily the debates so we can see more than just the democratic candidate and the republican candidate. We also need to remove corporate ability to buy off our politicians through "donations." Pull that off, and the odds of crap like this will more likely be replaced by politicians actually doing what is in the best interest of the people who voted them into office.

    • 4 months ago
  • Crauly_Fingers
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Crauly_Fingers:

      Well, given that this is a written medium, and a lot of people seem to think that their tone is conveyed over their written words thus having a hidden meaning, I'll take my inability to read and comprehend with a grain of salt. Given that, I will respond under the assumption that you are defending your own words and no one else's. My comments about how Bush spent $1 million on mosquito nets in Africa still stands, though my analogy with Chucky was not the best... but I tend to not be that good at analogies.

      Anyhow, back to the proverbial offensive. I think it is interesting that rather than defend your own argument with examples of how much good those mosquito nets have done, or with other examples of good deeds done either by, or under, the Bush administration, you choose to attack my ability to gather information. Do not misunderstand me, I completely understand the purpose of pointing out what appears to be someone else's reasoning flaws, or cause for reasoning flaws, in an argument. However, unless one backs up their claim with a very precise example of why an individuals reasoning is flawed, the claim can look like little more than a callous insult with no real merit.

      Given that, would you like to try again?

    • 4 months ago
  • Crauly_Fingers
  • Varex_Sythe
    • 0
      Varex_Sythe  
    • Crauly_Fingers:

      Ok turbo, looking through Vierotchka's responses does not really help your current argument. Yes, I see your comment was not directed at me but instead was directed at Vierotchka, but it bears no relevance to any comments she made before your own.

      So I ask, was your comment,

      "Yeah, and Bush sent a $1 mil. in mosquito nets to Africa and he's still a dick.What about the stuff that matters,"

      meant to be sarcastic?

    • 4 months ago
  • JohnA
  • Johnny_Los_Angeles
  • noxidereus
  • scooter3282
    • +4
      scooter3282  

    • Until we stop allowing Big Brother to elect our puppet presidents for us, we are all fucked no matter who sits in the oval office and posts like these are pretty much moot points. The title of this story could just as easily well be "29 Reasons Why The Right Wing Should Vote for Obama in 2012." And should the GOP succeed in taking back the WH in 2012 the only thing that will be different will be there will be no firewall whatsoever between the neocon agenda to totally gut the safety nets that would keep the number of people living under bridges in the thousands than converting that number to millions. Given either one of those political scenarios the days of the American Empire are numbered. To parse it any more acutely is a waste of time.

    • 4 months ago
  • ampersand
    • +3
      ampersand  
    • scooter3282:

      You well deserve the icon you choose and you honor it so very well by your uncompromised voice here. Would that knowledge of our predicament alone would be enough to change it.
      It is a start though. Sometimes the power of truth can bring down a wall of lies. We should never give up speaking that truth no matter how lonely our voices are.

    • 4 months ago
  • scooter3282
    • +2
      scooter3282  
    • ampersand:

      Thanks for the kudos, ampersand. Coming from you they are highly regarded by me. The right to speak the truth is an inalienable right I will always cling to tightly, rest assured, as I know you will as well.

    • 4 months ago
  • JanforGore
    • +2
      JanforGore  

    • I have one reason to not vote for any of them... They are all bought and will tell you anything you want to hear to get the brass ring for themselves. It is time to Occupy voting booths this November and kick all of them out. Sick of them all and their egos. Just look at this campaign so far. Obama doesn't have a challenger (coincidentally?) so that deflects criticism from him ( I mean wouldn't want to have him work up a sweat or get his feelings hurt) to the infighting of Republicans who are all so damned phony in attacking Romney because they are all like him. It's a game, a farce, a circus maximus and once again Americans and the media fall for it by acting as if this is just another campaign and the Occupy movement is chopped liver.

      I've had it with the reporting, the infighting, the feces throwing and the prognostications as if this hasn't been planned already... the fakery, the egos, the spending of billions for bs "Super Pac" ads that do nothing but sling mud with those reporting on this thinking we are still living in the 50's while more sink deeper into poverty living in reality every day as our Earth is ignored. Truth is, Obama lied to us as well and has been a failure on many fronts. Did he have deliberate opposition? Sure, but so did Roosevelt (FDR) and look what he did under much worse circumstances. So I am also tired of the excuses. Politics in this country is a farce and this country is lost because of it. The sooner we realize that and look within ourselves to make the necessary changes to save this next generation the better off we will be. This "campaign" is not going to do it.

    • 4 months ago
  • KB723
  • maasanova
    • +2
      maasanova  

    • That's a pretty damning list.

      I would add that the Obama administration openly supported the destabilazation campaigns of the "Arab Spring" on the cynical grounds of promoting democracy, while essentially ignoring both the Tea Party and the Occupy protest movements.

    • 4 months ago
  • misfit20
  • MSII
  • BRAVATRAVELS
  • bailey78
    • +4
      bailey78  
    • BRAVATRAVELS:

      Why? They have a right to their opinion. Besides what has Obama done to help those in need? Well besides build brigdes in every country but this one. He has pushed for more war he has pushed to stay the course just as Bush did.

    • 4 months ago
  • misfit20
  • BRAVATRAVELS
    • -1
      BRAVATRAVELS  
    • bailey78:

      So What you are saying is that you rather vote for the people that put the country in the situation that it is in? Sorry my memory works very well... I will never vote Retug not even if is dress up with a libertarian candidate.. Obama 2012!!!

    • 4 months ago
  • BRAVATRAVELS
    • -1
      BRAVATRAVELS  
    • Image
    • misfit20:

      I only have one reason and it has a name

      http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php

      United States Constitution
      Adopted September 17, 1787

      Article VI Clause II
      This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

      Bush Opposes Kyoto Protocol
      Despite evidence of the need for action, the Bush administration has backed out of the Kyoto global warming agreement.
      In March, the Bush administration struck two heavy blows against international efforts to prevent global warming. Despite indisputable scientific evidence that global warming is real -- and the undeniable role of the United States in creating it -- the administration walked away from its responsibility to address this momentous threat. First, President Bush reneged on a campaign pledge to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from U.S. power plants. Soon after, his administration explicitly opposed the Kyoto Protocol, the international agreement setting country-by-country limits on emissions of greenhouse gases. Scientists, environmental groups and leaders from across the world were quick to condemn these twin decisions, which have put a cloud over the treaty's future.

      The Kyoto Protocol addresses rising concerns about rising temperatures, which are caused when greenhouse gases collect in the atmosphere and trap heat. There is no credible scientific debate over the existence of global warming, or the need to reduce emissions of these gases substantially if the world is to avoid such consequences as rising sea levels and dramatic shifts in the weather. More than 80 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol. But the treaty has not yet gone into effect, because not enough of these countries have ratified it. (The United States has signed, but not ratified, the agreement.)

      In November 2000, negotiators from around the world met in The Hague to hammer out the details of how the treaty would be implemented. They found a great deal of common ground (for instance, they essentially agreed on a system for evaluating compliance with the agreement), but in the end, several technical issues derailed the talks. The most contentious question was how to account for carbon absorption by soils, forests and other areas (known as carbon sinks). This absorption can offset carbon emissions, but negotiators disagreed over how much credit countries should receive for it. Some countries, including the United States, tried to use carbon absorption to justify large increases in their allowable carbon emissions; others, led by the European Union, resisted, fearing that those countries would then relax their efforts to decrease emissions. Although their positions eventually moved closer, negotiators could not reach agreement before the talks ended. A follow-up meeting in Ottawa, held in December, also failed to close the gaps.

      Still, despite their ultimate failure, the talks revealed progress in several broad areas. For instance, participants accepted the basic science of global warming -- a stark contrast to previous meetings, at which several negotiators expressed strong doubts. In another promising sign, industry opposition to the accord had clearly weakened. The business community, led by the oil, gas and automotive industries, has long fought limits on emissions. But recently, fissures have emerged in this once-unified opposition. Today, many businesses recognize global warming as a threat and realize that reducing emissions is in their economic interest. Several -- including such giants as BP-Amoco, IBM and Johnson & Johnson -- have voluntarily adopted emissions reductions stronger than those called for in the Kyoto Protocol.

      These and other developments could have set the stage for further progress. In fact, for a time, environmentalists saw signs that the Bush administration might take the climate issue seriously, noting not only President Bush's campaign promise to control pollution from power plants, but also the encouraging comments made by EPA chief Christie Whitman early in the year. But with its March announcements, the administration erased these hopes -- and seriously undermined U.S. credibility on climate issues.

      In renouncing the protocol, the president and members of his administration have used a number of seriously flawed arguments. Contrary to their claims, for instance, other industrialized countries do in fact support the protocol. As recently as early March, the G8, a group consisting of the world's eight largest industrialized nations, issued a declaration committing "to strive to reach agreement on outstanding political issues and to ensure in a cost-effective manner the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol." Nor is it true, as the administration asserts, that the protocol exempts developing countries from addressing global warming; in fact, all countries -- developing or industrialized -- are required to develop programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and to report on their progress.

      The administration has also said repeatedly that implementing the protocol or regulating carbon dioxide emissions from power plants would harm the U.S. economy -- but the administration has not conducted any analysis to substantiate these claims. In fact, two comprehensive government studies have shown that it is possible to reduce greenhouse pollution to levels called for in the Kyoto agreement without harming the economy. The only study that President Bush cited in announcing his reversal on CO2 reductions, a report by the Energy Information Administration, failed to consider the inexpensive reductions in greenhouse pollution that can be achieved through energy efficiency. The study also ignored the Kyoto Protocol's market mechanisms, which the United States has spent the last three years negotiating with other signatories.

      What's next for the protocol? Talks will still take place throughout 2001, with the next formal negotiations scheduled for November. Many foreign governments have condemned the U.S. position and are pressing the Bush administration to reconsider. In the meantime, U.S. environmentalists continue to urge the European Union, Japan and Russia to ratify the treaty without waiting for the United States. This would increase the pressure on the United States to ratify, and could allow the treaty to enter into force even without U.S. participation. Environmentalists will also continue to pressure the Bush administration to reverse its course, as ultimately the United States must not only participate but lead if the world is to succeed in stopping global warming.

    • 4 months ago
  • bailey78
  • misfit20
    • -1
      misfit20  
    • BRAVATRAVELS:

      So we're talking about global warming now? I think there are more pressing issues at hand, like war with Iran (WWIII) and the fact that America is in a de facto state of martial law. Lets try to stop the humans from wiping themselves out, then we can talk about the weather.

    • 4 months ago
  • timelord999
  • bailey78
  • bailey78
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • Ambill94
    • +3
      Ambill94  

    • Any effort to play my side is better than your side at this juncture is pure fantasy and a waste of time...there is enough baggage on both sides to continue the current stalemate indefinitely...we need to vote for who we think will do the BEST job regardless of party...in fact forget parties, make them irrelevant...if we focus on candidates and vote out the ones we know have been part of the problem, retain those who have fought for solutions, and elect those who BEST demonstrate they will work for the best interests of the people...

      Obama has been a tremendous failure in many ways...and a huge disappointment to those of us who voted for him...but when I am in the voting both in November and the choice is between him and any of the current Repub aspirees, he will get my vote hands down...he is the BEST option, because the neo-con ideology is what is still controlling not only some Dems but the entire Repub party for the most part...

      Corp Oligarchy, fear mongering to sustain the world's largest and most dangerous collection of "intelligence" networks and militarized police agencies as well as the military industrial complex; all aimed at waging wars for global dominance and stifling domestic dissent...all the same crap that has been building since Reagan with Cheney and Rumsfeld, to where it is today...look at history, this is the same formula that has taken down the world's greatest empires...

      Fighting over which party is better etc is exactly the distraction game that most of the pols want to see the public playing...arguing whether Kucinich or Sanders would be better than Obama or others is a pure waste of breath; they're not running...if we don't keep our focus on taking back this country from the criminal1% and destroying the parties as we know them...we are deluding ourselves and will get exactly what we deserve...in spades...OCCUPY YOUR BRAINS!!!!

    • 4 months ago
  • fiberbundle
  • ithink
    • 0
      ithink  

    • Over 4500 soldiers killed in iraq compliments of the gop and bush administration on drummed up intel and more in afghastan and now they want to regain power and one of these guys running even wants that runt with a big head bolton to be secretary of state the guy who would immeiately push to invade iran and would spend his time creating problems all around the world and you are on here trying to get people to not vote for Obama.I am sure the republicans are happy to have you working for them.

    • 4 months ago
  • ROSERITA
    • +5
      ROSERITA  
    • ithink:

      There is no difference between a Rethug and a Dem President, its only different during election time when they try to divide us.. Once elected and sitting on the "throne" they all do what the "owners" of this Country tell them to do..

    • 4 months ago
  • bailey78
  • Swisher
  • Leen61
  • KB723
  • hammywill
  • ROSERITA
    • -1
      ROSERITA  
    • Swisher:

      Each party nominates there own, or there would be no way the nominee would get excepted.Right now the supreme court is more Rethug.. You will never ever see a one party Supreme court. its all bullshit.

    • 4 months ago
  • Swisher
    • -1
      Swisher  
    • ROSERITA:

      Oh contraire, my friend. I'm not looking for a one-party court, nor would I want one. A balanced court is ideal. Another Rethug appointed member and the balance is on the floor.

    • 4 months ago
  • misfit20
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • bailey78
  • Milieu
    • +1
      Milieu  

    • Sorry, for the 99% of us who aren't Republic Syndicate members(and) Reich, oops, I mean Rich, it makes no sense to vote anything but Democratic Party. To a starving person, half a loaf is better than none.

    • 4 months ago
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • MSII
  • Truthitswhatsfordinner
  • Johnny_Los_Angeles
  • artemis6
  • joeredford
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • joeredford
    • -2
      joeredford [removed]  
    • PetEr_Alan_ColE:

      Aren't we smug and self righteous in our extreme leftist Utopia world? Everything is so simple for you guys isn't it?
      Nothing is as black and white as you would like to have it. The world is all shades of gray, but extreme idealists don't want to hear about that , so keep your delusions and remain frustrated.

    • 4 months ago
  • PetEr_Alan_ColE
  • MSII
12
1 - 100 of 110
more from Community:
from the community

top videos