
Could somebody tell me why the liberals still believe that they can beat the only sane candidates in this upcoming election, the republicans. Obama has failed the nation, though that would be no surprise to those that knew this going into the past election. He managed to seriously mess up our country, and then fail to admit his problem, instead pushing blame onto the American hero Bush. While Bush brought us into a war to save American lives and keep us from the dangers of terrorism, Obama brought us into an illegal war that helped Muslems and had nothing to do with the US.
Obama failed to help our economy, which his health care law and handouts to companies ravaged. Please, please tell me how liberals attempt to support this idiot. |
It's simple. If you don't like Obama you must be a racist. |
The latest polls:
Obama 49, Perry 40 Obama 48, Romney 43 If you don't think Obama can win, you may or may not be a racist, but you are certainly an idiot. |
Your own candidate, John McCain, is now the LOUDEST voice in support of overthrowing Khaddafi. Bush invaded the wrong country. i want that $3 trillion dollars back, and the thousands of soldiers we lost. |
Jibber jabber yargle bargle bleych!1! Can anyone else make out what this deranged person is trying to say, or did a cat run over someone's keyboard. Just looks like nonsense to me. |
I see absolutely nothing unclear about what OP wrote. I think it is all factually incorrect, but at least it is literate. He or she deserves a response: Your opinion is shared by many, but it is only an opinion, and many of us do not share it. Repeating it will not convince anybody, though, so it might be wise to bring some new information rather than engaging in what amounts to a playgrounder repeating "Is too!" |
Because as bad as Obama is, he's not nearly as bad as any of the Republicans. Romney's palatable, almost liberal, but we'll see how far right he has to run to get the nomination. He may pull a McCain and make himself undesirable for moderate voters. |
![]() |
I think there's an argument to be made that a Romney presidency might lead to more "liberal" outcomes than an Obama presidency, given that the primary legislative goal of the GOP at this point seems to be to ensure the failure of the country over the four years of Obama's presidency. Romney's history is as a centrist, possibly as "leftist" as Obama. And the GOP would have some incentive to actually deal with him. Of course, he could also move right once in office. |
OP, what policies are the current crop of GOP candidates proposing that weren't already tried under Bush?
Roll back Obamacare? Back to what it was 2001-08. Cut taxes? Bush already did that. Did it work out? Roll back financial reform? Back to what it was 2001-08. Cut spending? The only thing the GOP base really wants to cut is assistance to foreign and/or poor people. Remember this is the "get government out of my Medicare" crowd. As for foreign policy? I do hear a great deal about "abandoning Israel" but little substantial criticism. Are you mad that Obama's war ended with the dictator overthrown, less post-overthrow chaos, and all for 1/1000th the price of Bush's two wars and with zero casualties? |
Might want to have your meds checked. It's an early warning sign if what the drooling guy on the corner is shouting starts to make sense. |
Well, maybe not an idiot, but bad at math. It's a common Republican problem, evidenced by their belief that the budget can be balanced by spending cuts alone. |