Why do you support Obama?

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I share the disappointments of the last few posters that Obama has not carried through anywhere near as much as I'd like to have seen. However, he has at least not actively worked to destroy the things I want our government to do, as the GOP candidates promise they will. So unless some really unforeseen development occurs, I will vote for him.

Not so much "lesser of two evils" as "better blah than evil".
Great bumper sticker, no?

"I'm curious: if you're planning on voting for Jimmy Carter rather than "Beelzeebub, The Lord of The Flies" in the coming election, could you explain your thinking? I'm planning on leaving the President field blank, and just casting a vote for the state and local races."

Not quite sure how to answer that. I did, in fact, vote for Carter for a second term, and would do so again, knowing about Reagan and the Contras and the sacking of the flight controllers (to name a few).

Perhaps "better blah than evil" is not the most exciting rationale for a vote, but it works for me. Art of the possible and all that.

If you can't hold your nose and vote for blah, it will be hypocritical to complain about evil when it gets in. My fundamental principle is that voting for blah does not mean I have to feel guilty when it turns out to be blah -- I just remind myself that patriotism takes many forms.

[Anonymous]

wait till the Iran shit hits the fan from Obama being precieved as weak in the middle east and pulling the us out of there. Reminds of the end days of Carter. http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/obama-extends-apology-tour-to-va-mosque-as-muslims-riot-kill-worldwide

[Anonymous]

increase instability in the middle east will be a threat for obama and can cause him to lose

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:wait till the Iran shit hits the fan from Obama being precieved as weak in the middle east and pulling the us out of there. Reminds of the end days of Carter. http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-spokane/obama-extends-apology-tour-to-va-mosque-as-muslims-riot-kill-worldwide

Reagan was so tough on Iran he gave them thousands of missiles. Total hardass!

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I share the disappointments of the last few posters that Obama has not carried through anywhere near as much as I'd like to have seen. However, he has at least not actively worked to destroy the things I want our government to do, as the GOP candidates promise they will. So unless some really unforeseen development occurs, I will vote for him.

Not so much "lesser of two evils" as "better blah than evil".
Great bumper sticker, no?

"I'm curious: if you're planning on voting for Jimmy Carter rather than "Beelzeebub, The Lord of The Flies" in the coming election, could you explain your thinking? I'm planning on leaving the President field blank, and just casting a vote for the state and local races."

Not quite sure how to answer that. I did, in fact, vote for Carter for a second term, and would do so again, knowing about Reagan and the Contras and the sacking of the flight controllers (to name a few).

Perhaps "better blah than evil" is not the most exciting rationale for a vote, but it works for me. Art of the possible and all that.

If you can't hold your nose and vote for blah, it will be hypocritical to complain about evil when it gets in. My fundamental principle is that voting for blah does not mean I have to feel guilty when it turns out to be blah -- I just remind myself that patriotism takes many forms.

Sorry, PP here. Just to clarify, I would likely vote for Carter (or Santorum for that matter) over Beelzeebub. I'm a gutless, namby-pamby lesser-of-two-evil type, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you seen who the GOP is proposing??

exactly ... I voted for Obama but give him no better than a C- for performance, maybe worse given some of his horrible choices on civil liberties, homeland security, etc. He's been taken to the cleaners in negotiations w/ the Repubs (I teach negotiation skills and would give him an "F" for trying to reason with crazy hostage takers who are willing to kill the hostage and will never compromise) ....

the only reason I support him is how completely batshit crazy, American Taliban-oriented, and offensive the Republican bunch of clowns and power tripping proto fascists are.

I'm not a left winger. I'm a moderate-liberal with some libertarian thrown in. I can't stand the Clintons but believe now that Hilllary C would have been a better President than Obama - I can't believe I'd ever think that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Government forced healthcare is not a great thing. Yes, it has helped many families. However, they are hurting as well. Do you really trust the government with your health. Big pharma is not your friend!

Can anyone explain the seeming equation of government healthcare with big pharma?

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I share the disappointments of the last few posters that Obama has not carried through anywhere near as much as I'd like to have seen. However, he has at least not actively worked to destroy the things I want our government to do, as the GOP candidates promise they will. So unless some really unforeseen development occurs, I will vote for him.

Not so much "lesser of two evils" as "better blah than evil".
Great bumper sticker, no?

"I'm curious: if you're planning on voting for Jimmy Carter rather than "Beelzeebub, The Lord of The Flies" in the coming election, could you explain your thinking? I'm planning on leaving the President field blank, and just casting a vote for the state and local races."

Not quite sure how to answer that. I did, in fact, vote for Carter for a second term, and would do so again, knowing about Reagan and the Contras and the sacking of the flight controllers (to name a few).

Perhaps "better blah than evil" is not the most exciting rationale for a vote, but it works for me. Art of the possible and all that.

If you can't hold your nose and vote for blah, it will be hypocritical to complain about evil when it gets in. My fundamental principle is that voting for blah does not mean I have to feel guilty when it turns out to be blah -- I just remind myself that patriotism takes many forms.

That statement basically disqualifies you from ever being listened to as a rational source of information.

[Anonymous]

Coming from a historically republican viewpoint, Obama's the best Republican president since H.W. Bush.

Today's Republicans are so far right, if they were any more right, they'd circle round and be the left.

I'd vote for Bloomberg, Powell, Jeb Bush, Christie, even Bob Dole over Obama. But I wouldn't vote for any of the current Republican candidates, they're f'n crazy mofos.

They've twisted the Constitution into such pretzels to fit their crap spewing that if they win over Obama, I'd see it as sign of the end of days.

[takoma]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:... I did, in fact, vote for Carter for a second term, and would do so again, ...

That statement basically disqualifies you from ever being listened to as a rational source of information.

Sorry I've lost your faith. Out of curiosity, I looked up the vote and saw that Carter got about 20% fewer votes than Reagan. That may be a landslide, but it shows that a goodly number of people thought Carter should be reelected. I think basing your assessment of rationality on that is on the closed-minded side.

Oddly enough, looking that up reminded me that John Anderson ran in that election, and also that it was my first election in DC. Given that my vote was essentially meaningless, I think I probably voted for Anderson. But that's just to set the record straight, not to defend preferring Carter over Reagan. Scalia is enough to justify that in my eyes.

I apologize for readjusting the size of my earlier quote -- didn't like the look of it.

BTW, are you the PP I was responding to? I wish you Anonymice did not look so much alike!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coming from a historically republican viewpoint, Obama's the best Republican president since H.W. Bush.

Today's Republicans are so far right, if they were any more right, they'd circle round and be the left.

I'd vote for Bloomberg, Powell, Jeb Bush, Christie, even Bob Dole over Obama. But I wouldn't vote for any of the current Republican candidates, they're f'n crazy mofos.

They've twisted the Constitution into such pretzels to fit their crap spewing that if they win over Obama, I'd see it as sign of the end of days.

1. No you wouldn't, because all of them would have contorted themselves towards the right to get the nomination. Romney was, once upon a time, just as "moderate" as all of them.

2. Even if I'd thought voting for Romney because Obama is so effin' ineffective, there's no way I'm handing the keys to the republic to crazy fucking Eric Cantor and the House GOP. Especially since the GOP may very well get a Senate majority this election, and might get 60+ in 2014. And several on the Supreme Court are OLD. Imagine who Romney, or <shudder> Santorum would appoint with a filibuster-proof Senate? Roberts would look like a new-dealer. Some things are too important to screw around with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Government forced healthcare is not a great thing. Yes, it has helped many families. However, they are hurting as well. Do you really trust the government with your health. Big pharma is not your friend!

Can anyone explain the seeming equation of government healthcare with big pharma?

Yes, and how should I feel more secure letting my big insurance company call the shots????!!!!

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He pay for mortgage and my gas.

Aside from the fact that it's a bit of an exaggeration of what she said in her excitement (that she'd be able to count on him to help if she had trouble), it's insulting to use Black Grammar when she spoke standard English. This kind of thing lends credence to the belief that anti-Obama sentiment is partly racial.

I agree. I'd never seen the video so I clicked play expecting to cringe at what the news chose to display. Instead, all I saw was an excited person whose words didn't explicitly state what she meant, but it was pretty easy to figure it out.

Perhaps racist Obama haters should find a more ignorant clip to trot out to prove their point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Because as a woman I value my right to vote and I'm pretty sure given the path the Republicans are headed it's only a matter of time before they start questioning whether that's legitimate.

You are idiot.

You are caveman. Where articles?

Ha! Love the response PP. I literally laughed out loud. "Where articles?". BWA HA HA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

takoma wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I share the disappointments of the last few posters that Obama has not carried through anywhere near as much as I'd like to have seen. However, he has at least not actively worked to destroy the things I want our government to do, as the GOP candidates promise they will. So unless some really unforeseen development occurs, I will vote for him.

Not so much "lesser of two evils" as "better blah than evil".
Great bumper sticker, no?

"I'm curious: if you're planning on voting for Jimmy Carter rather than "Beelzeebub, The Lord of The Flies" in the coming election, could you explain your thinking? I'm planning on leaving the President field blank, and just casting a vote for the state and local races."

Not quite sure how to answer that. I did, in fact, vote for Carter for a second term, and would do so again, knowing about Reagan and the Contras and the sacking of the flight controllers (to name a few).

Perhaps "better blah than evil" is not the most exciting rationale for a vote, but it works for me. Art of the possible and all that.

If you can't hold your nose and vote for blah, it will be hypocritical to complain about evil when it gets in. My fundamental principle is that voting for blah does not mean I have to feel guilty when it turns out to be blah -- I just remind myself that patriotism takes many forms.

That statement basically disqualifies you from ever being listened to as a rational source of information.

Let me guess. You were born in the mid-late 70s and named (or would name) your daughter Reagan.

You just "disqualified" a large portion of the US. And we can assume you are rational why...???