Industrial Deals Beauty Summer Reading STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc PCB for Musical Instruments Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Shop Book House Cleaning Paterson Paterson Paterson  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $129.99 Kindle Oasis Final Fantasy XIV Shop Now STEMClub17_gno
Customer Discussions > Politics forum

10 Reasons Not To Vote For Obama


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-150 of 283 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 3:15:58 PM PDT
A customer says:
President Romney will restore order & put America back to work, the folks get it.

Obama is flailing around looking for someone to blame ~ still blaming 'W' as if the past 4

years didn't count.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 3:51:05 PM PDT
A review of his book...

"Seriously!? This treatise smacks of ethnocentrism, racism, good old bud-ism and keep-em down ism. Mitt can't really think Obama is actually the source of our economic problems. Some may enjoy revisionist history, however, I do not. As you may recall, the party of Romney was in 'power' for many years prior to our present crisis. If the USA continues on the course proposed by Romney and cohorts we can expect to become much like third world countries: those that have everything and those who have nothing! The middle class is becoming obsolete as we speak. As a percentage, I paid 3 times what Mitt did in taxes in 2010 and I work 3 jobs! I am a nurse practitioner with a full time position and 2 part time jobs - just to make ends meet. I pay my student loans, a mortgage, etc. My daughter, the doctor, who now has multiple sclerosis, can't work now and can't get any 'government handouts' to help with expenses because she doesn't have a bunch of kids! All we did was "work hard and do everything right." Excuse me, Mitt, what were you saying? Can't hear your drivel...."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 4:00:08 PM PDT
Oh god. The crazy stalker is back.

Why don't you change your name back to teabaggerwoman and stop the creepy stalking of TS?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 4:01:18 PM PDT
Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 4:04:39 PM PDT
A customer says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 4:06:12 PM PDT
A customer says:
Screwed!: How Foreign Countries Are Ripping America Off and Plundering Our Economy-and How Our Leaders Help Them Do It

Posted on Apr 28, 2012, 4:06:29 PM PDT
Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 4:07:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 28, 2012, 4:09:05 PM PDT
A customer says:
e-guy ~ do you need more books to read?

Say it with me, President Romney, so refreshing.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 4:22:36 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Chaz the First says: "They can have it without having to go out and earn it. Very few of the blue blood actually have to work for a living. They can more than subsist even in their extravagant lifestyle just off the proceeds of that wealth"

Then I want a tax cut. I paid a lot of taxes to pay the president, who is in the top 1%, $400,000 salary plus millions in untaxed benefits. I thought he was working hard for that money--now I find out he is not doing anything to earn it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 4:57:24 PM PDT
dss says:
M. Daniel - do you not understand the meaning of the word "can" as in "they can have it without having to go out and earn it" as opposed to "they always do???"

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 6:58:48 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
dss says: "M. Daniel - do you not understand the meaning of the word "can" as in "they can have it without having to go out and earn it" as opposed to "they always do???"

Sure. But, most of them choose to do so. That is how they became wealthy in the first place---by working hard. Very few are "blue bloods" because half of those in the top 1% or top 20% are no longer in the top category within ten years.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 7:23:48 PM PDT
at least the repubs are putting out a budget. oh i forgot, the democratic senate hasnt passed a budget in over 1000 days. we are falling fast, something better be done soon.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 28, 2012, 7:29:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 28, 2012, 7:29:47 PM PDT
Truthseeker says:
eguy: "Why don't you change your name back to teabaggerwoman and stop the creepy stalking of TS?"

Tsk, tsk, eguy is frustrated - he thinks Obama owns the Presidency forever, just like he thinks that LieSeeker owns the handle TS. Wrong in both cases. Welcome to the real TruthSeeker and the real President Romney in a few months.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 2:03:17 PM PDT
bradleythomasofford says: "oh i forgot, the democratic senate hasnt passed a budget in over 1000 days."

Yo, dude, since you don't seem to know how this works, here is a short lesson.

The budget comes out of the House of Representatives.

The House is controlled by teabaggers and other republicans and they can't get their act together.

The republican budget you refer to is only a proposal - and a bad one at that.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 2:03:49 PM PDT
Wow, teabaggerwoman. You really need to seek help.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 2:45:01 PM PDT
since Romney, like all Mormons, is *required* to tithe to his church, it's not "charity" by definition. QED. :)

Seems to me at least all Christian churches have the same requirement. Albeit, the Mormon's actually make it more of a "requirement". (remain in good standing) They also "take care of their own". It is my understanding that they have No-one on Welfare etc. but it you need a "hand-out" you have to work for it if you can. You may get more than the job is worth, but you still have to do something if it is only sweep the steps!

I have no objection to removing "charitable" deduction from the tax code ---- but let's make sure that it isn't selectively applied to "some" charities. I truly believe that Romney and Obama would continue to contribute, and probably similarly. The tax code is what causes people to be *required* to document their contributions. Romney has either kept better records, or is able to give a larger percentage because he has more. I don't see the issue of charity. In fact, there are some that would like to deduct the part of their taxes that goes to welfare as charity ----- and of course maybe Congress???

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 2:57:56 PM PDT
> "Ron Paul would be another choice but I don't think he understands how complex things are."

Actually, there was a recent interview in which he actually said things are more complex than campaign speak allow. He is the only one I've heard admit that things are hard to change by yourself. For me he is the only one that has indicated that he understands how complex things are. Obama didn't before he was elected (Guantanamo) and Romney seems to be waffling on topics as much as Obama. Perhaps both understand that circumstances/situations create answers that you never thought you'd see as "reasonable". And no, I don't mean an election. History has show us that different and contradictory proposed solutions to a perceived problem can have the similar outcomes and often not the desired outcome of either solution.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 4:57:58 PM PDT
And why would we drill our own oil and sell it overseas too?

Economically it is more profitable for the oil companies to refine and sell to the highest bidder ---- that's not the US.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 5:02:02 PM PDT
the argument has always been that it has already been taxed. One of the flat tax proposals even talked about other goods only being taxed once, not through every phase of the distributor, to wholesaler, to retailer, to customer.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2012, 5:05:09 PM PDT
M. Daniel says:
Reed N.D. Dark says: "One of the flat tax proposals even talked about other goods only being taxed once, not through every phase of the distributor,:

Are you referring to the sales tax? The flat tax taxes income, not goods.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012, 4:13:39 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2012, 4:19:29 AM PDT
Intrepid says:
Reed - fellow poster Mende Mui actually stated what you attributed to me (though I happen to agree).

It's the solutions offered by candidates -to problems like the economy in 2008- that people examine. I also check OnTheIssues.Org for what they have said and how long ago they started thinking about it. In comparing the candidates in 2008, I did look at Hillary, Obama, Huckabee, Paul, McCain, and others. As a fellow MD, I wanted to find Ron Paul had solutions but the more I listened the more I was disappointed in what he offered (actually didn't offer) as solutions.

The amount of nuanced, reasoned statements from Obama on the big issues like saving the US economy, exceeded that of candidates like Huckabee by 4 to 1 and showed a better grasp of the issues and complexity. When Mende Mui (or I) says "Ron Paul would be another choice but I don't think he understands how complex things are", I think s/he means that Dr. Paul lacks understanding relative to Obama. I realize you want to gauge for yourself.

Please do with the following non partisan site:

http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/barack_obama.htm

Posted on Apr 30, 2012, 8:04:49 AM PDT
A customer says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012, 9:34:47 AM PDT
Granny ;-D says:
He not only DIDN'T fix the problems.. he and the DEMOCRAT MAJORITY's Actions ..

THEY marched the USA into TOTAL SOCIALISM territory and BANKRUPTCY.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 30, 2012, 10:28:50 AM PDT
Ataraxia says:
Are we talking about the 2008 recession- the greatest recession in the history of the US?

Posted on Apr 30, 2012, 10:29:10 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 30, 2012, 11:06:07 AM PDT
C. Andersen says:
No incumbent president has ever had an approval rating less than 50% six months before the election and won and second term. Remember the beating Bush 1 took from Clinton in 1992, Bush had a 60% approval rating the summer before the election. Obama's approval rating is about 46% and dropping.

Also, there has never been a candidate in a virtual dead heat with an incumbent president before the primary season was over! Romney is already there, in a virtual dead heat with weeks to spare!

Historically, this is likely to go down as the biggest presidential landslide victory in history!

It's true that the economy will play a big factor, but it's also true that American's want representatives that listen to their concerns, not dictators that try to change, transform, and tell American's what to do!

Obama threw it all away! He rode into office on a wave of enthusiasm for hope and change and never delivered on his promises. Instead, he resorted to his personal agenda, blaming others, catering to lobbyists, and protecting special interests. His heart was never in it when it came to listening to the needs of all American's.

He actually had both the House and Senate for the first two years of his presidency, certainly enough time and power to maintain the house and senate, and show American's he can lead and bring people together!

Unfortunately, he spent the first three years of his presidency blaming others and the last six months working on his re-election strategy which consists of diversions, distortions and distractions. I suppose Obama calls this his 3D image of the future, but I just don't get it even with 3D glasses!

He had it all, and let it all slip away! What a lost, it's almost like seeing a top rated football team, destine for the superbowl, getting caught up in their shoe laces during the first game of the playoffs. What a disaster!!!

How could his rock-star of a politician fall so fast in just 3-1/2 short (I know it seems longer) years?!
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Politics forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
4487 3 days ago
Boeing fires 200 people at factory where Trump boasted of jobs. 2 50 seconds ago
Healthcare in the Trump era 297 7 minutes ago
Pelosi - Helps or hurts the Democratic party? 43 11 minutes ago
Wow! Are Forum functions being restored? 32 14 minutes ago
Why do so many men and women cover themselves with tattoos nowadays? 152 26 minutes ago
23M people would lose health insurance. Who would they vote for in 2018? 52 30 minutes ago
Ford playing with fire and FICO being FAKO'd. 2 39 minutes ago
The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens. 53 40 minutes ago
2nd Amedment calls for WEAPONRY control. 179 52 minutes ago
Cops Trying to Kill a Dog, Kill Innocent Boy Who Tried to Save It Instead 3 1 hour ago
Gun deaths are the third leading cause of death for children in the US. 18 1 hour ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  49
Total posts:  283
Initial post:  Apr 23, 2012
Latest post:  May 3, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer