President Obama

jeffpg said:

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so true...

Click to expand...

+1.

sestoppelman said:

It is true, but the joke is still funny. Imagine we (some voters) were dumb enough to elect this ass-clown twice!!

Click to expand...

It is funny in a bittersweet way.

The problem with most American voters is that they don't want real leadership that tells them they have to work for a living, not get home loans for which they don't qualify and do without other government perks that are driving America into bankruptcy. A real leader would petrify this type of American.

Obama, like others, buys votes with other's money.

Just my opinion.

Would I be completely ostracized here if I said that I might have voted for Obama the first time and would vote for Hillary? If so, then I didn't and won't .

To be honest, I have to agree with Dan Cooper of Cooper Arms about the republican party. They have swung too far to the conservative religious right and are dangerously close to fascists.

Since Obama did not work out the way most people (including me) wanted him to, the best bet would be a libertarian like Ron Paul.

I may be the only one who feels this way here, but it seems to me that the republican party has become to obsessed with controlling people's lives, especially under the guise of religious doctrine. We need a libertarian president who will stress personal independence from the government AND personal freedoms without government interference.

We need someone on the Dem side to run against Hildebeest to draw down the $$$$$ in her war chest. Then the playing field might be a little more even. Hope warren and Joe Biden run against her.

CAustin said:

We need someone on the Dem side to run against Hildebeest to draw down the $$$$$ in her war chest. Then the playing field might be a little more even. Hope warren and Joe Biden run against her.

Click to expand...

Elizabeth Warren of "you didn't build that" will give Hillary a run for her money. Biden is there for comic relief

Barry Obama - by his actions - is a Communist.

Like Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Putin, etc., his actions indicate that he hates the USA and longs to see her on her knees.

Our Democratic Party is today more accurately described as: The American Socialist Party of Wealthy Corruption.

Our Republican Party is today more accurately described as: The American Liberal Party of Wealthy Corruption.

Not sure what the answer or remedy might be but, there is our diagnosis of the cancers we have become slowly and steadily laced with these days.

It is our own fault for allowing ourselves to become too distracted by concerning ourselves with all the Hollywood channels, sterilized News channels and Sports Channels foolishness on the boob tube, instead of paying attention to what our corrupt Government is doing to us, a little at a time (both parties), drip by drip, like arsenic leaking into a water tank.

But don't get me started, heh heh.

Saul, No we wont ostracize you, but I for one could not disagree more with your assessment on essentially every point. The demtard party is all about CONTROL! Just look at each party's platform and compare. The Repubs, not perfect by any means are much more about FREEDOM and personal responsibility. As to the Loosertarian party? Show me where they have accomplished anything other than taking votes away from the better candidate, or having ever won more than about 5 percent of any vote anywhere. No. Voting for third parties is simply put, masturbatory. It feels good and leaves nothing but a mess! Vote for Republicans next election unless you really like whats happening under Obama and what will only get worse under Billary or that Loon Warren! Good grief man, grow up!

Velo Dog said:

Barry Obama - by his actions - is a Communist.

Like Lenin, Stalin, Castro and Putin, etc., his actions indicate that he hates the USA and longs to see her on her knees.

Our Democratic Party is today more accurately described as: The American Socialist Party of Wealthy Corruption.

Our Republican Party is today more accurately described as: The American Liberal Party of Wealthy Corruption.

Not sure what the answer or remedy might be but, there is our diagnosis of the cancers we have become slowly and steadily laced with these days.

It is our own fault for allowing ourselves to become too distracted by concerning ourselves with all the Hollywood channels, sterilized News channels and Sports Channels foolishness on the boob tube, instead of paying attention to what our corrupt Government is doing to us, a little at a time (both parties), drip by drip, like arsenic leaking into a water tank.

But don't get me started, heh heh.

Click to expand...

Barry is a Marxist like his parents (Marxist students at U Hawaii). The apple never falls far from the tree

lcq said:

Barry is a Marxist like his parents (Marxist students at U Hawaii). The apple never falls far from the tree

Click to expand...

+1 with you Lcq.

It never ceases to amaze me that any working class American cannot be bothered to connect those simple dots.

Another fact that amazes me to no end is that, anyone who owns a firearm for any reason, hunting or otherwise and/or hunting tackle of any sort (archery, fur traps, speargun, etc.) would vote for the political party that continually battles to make hunting, self defense and target shooting not tenuous, if not completely unlawful.

Perhaps Joe and Jane Average are too busy worrying over their favorite sports "hero" or Hollywood celebrity, to
even notice that there are dots in front of them, IE: that Barry was born and raised in a Communist family and as you so well put it "the apple never falls far from the tree".

Crooked and corrupt as the Republican party is (and it is) they at least are not battling to disarm us (yet) and they do not generally speaking frown on hunting.

Fast forward to now where Barry and his ilk are stealing the Tax Payers blind, in order to reward the couch potatoes and hostile foreign invaders for loyal votes.

In all fairness though, I feel strongly that all politicians, small medium and large, are corrupt, not unique to any particular party lines.

Politicians generally are very disinterested in the USA, except that is a fat pig in their arrogant/greedy minds, to be slaughtered and gobbled up.

Again, I do not pretend to know the cure but I surely do recognize the disease.

Velo Dog said:

+1 with you Lcq.

It never ceases to amaze me that any working class American cannot be bothered to connect those simple dots.

Another fact that amazes me to no end is that, anyone who owns a firearm for any reason, hunting or otherwise and/or hunting tackle of any sort (archery, fur traps, speargun, etc.) would vote for the political party that continually battles to make hunting, self defense and target shooting not tenuous, if not completely unlawful.

Perhaps Joe and Jane Average are too busy worrying over their favorite sports "hero" or Hollywood celebrity, to
even notice that there are dots in front of them, IE: that Barry was born and raised in a Communist family and as you so well put it "the apple never falls far from the tree".

Crooked and corrupt as the Republican party is (and it is) they at least are not battling to disarm us (yet) and they do not generally speaking frown on hunting.

Fast forward to now where Barry and his ilk are stealing the Tax Payers blind, in order to reward the couch potatoes and hostile foreign invaders for loyal votes.

In all fairness though, I feel strongly that all politicians, small medium and large, are corrupt, not unique to any particular party lines.

Politicians generally are very disinterested in the USA, except that is a fat pig in their arrogant/greedy minds, to be slaughtered and gobbled up.

Again, I do not pretend to know the cure but I surely do recognize the disease.

Click to expand...

Recognizing the disease is the first step in curing it. Barry is very dangerous because of his utter contempt for democracy and the Constitution. If he can't get his way through the democratic process he uses Executive Order to bypass Congress and the Senate. Scary stuff.

And anybody that thinks Billary or the lunatic Warren wont do the same thing are completely delusional. Even liberal law professor Jonathan Turley who voted for Obama says publicly that Obama is turning the Constitution on its head and is the president Nixon wanted to be! And we need more of that?! I don't think so. Vote Republican.

sestoppelman said:

And anybody that thinks Billary or the lunatic Warren wont do the same thing are completely delusional. Even liberal law professor Jonathan Turley who voted for Obama says publicly that Obama is turning the Constitution on its head and is the president Nixon wanted to be! And we need more of that?! I don't think so. Vote Republican.

Click to expand...

In reality the US only have two parties to vote for. We Canucks have three major, and two minor. A Conservative centrist party, the rest left, further left, pinko and commie

Obama is the symptom not the problem. Machiavelli understood it 300 years ago, Nehru screwed India by exploiting it, The EU is collapsing because of it, Putin is using it by subverting the Ukraine with promises of a strong government directed economy, China uses it to control itself and soon Africa.

Interestingly, Karl Marx was right. Marx actually wrote about it but saw religion as that succor that kept people enslaved. The modern "opium for the masses" is our government legislated society. We will vote to protect our ability to work as little as possible and maintain our dependence on large amounts of credit. We can do this because we have government to give us healthcare, pensions, generous welfare and we have time to watch Survivor on the PVR.

I always thought that the philosophical difference between the USA and Canada was in the role government played in society. In Canada since the 1970's politics has been dominated by the belief that government is inherently a good force on the market, health care etc. while entrepreneurs and doctors are inherently bad, greedy people.

This year we in Ontario voted back this blindingly corrupt Liberal government because of a fear that the conservatives would cut purse strings thereby dooming us all to economic oblivion. My view of the USA is that politics is going the same direction now - that is the belief we need government to ensure our economic predictability. People view the uncertainty in a free society as a bad thing rather than a forum for opportunity. There is a hubris that we can "get it right" with the correct piece of government legislation. Sadly, like all socialist ideology, it sacrifices spontaneous innovation for predictability. And, I believe it robs us of what it is to be human - being inventive and inquisitive out of necessity. lcq says it all in his signature line.

So, they will ask us "why hunt when all is provided for at the grocery store?"

Marx or Obama very little difference! Friend of Bill Ayers and all lazy people who suck the life blood from working Americans! My dad and all the WW2 vets must be turning over in the grave asking what was it all for?

CAustin said:

Marx or Obama very little difference! Friend of Bill Ayers and all lazy people who suck the life blood from working Americans! My dad and all the WW2 vets must be turning over in the grave asking what was it all for?

Click to expand...

amen to that. My father wwii grandfather wwi are turning in their graves at what is happening to both our countries

You said it ICQ. Perhaps my sons generation will get sick of it all and change things but I'm not betting on it!

Pheroze said:

Obama is the symptom not the problem. Machiavelli understood it 300 years ago, Nehru screwed India by exploiting it, The EU is collapsing because of it, Putin is using it by subverting the Ukraine with promises of a strong government directed economy, China uses it to control itself and soon Africa.

Interestingly, Karl Marx was right. Marx actually wrote about it but saw religion as that succor that kept people enslaved. The modern "opium for the masses" is our government legislated society. We will vote to protect our ability to work as little as possible and maintain our dependence on large amounts of credit. We can do this because we have government to give us healthcare, pensions, generous welfare and we have time to watch Survivor on the PVR.

I always thought that the philosophical difference between the USA and Canada was in the role government played in society. In Canada since the 1970's politics has been dominated by the belief that government is inherently a good force on the market, health care etc. while entrepreneurs and doctors are inherently bad, greedy people.

This year we in Ontario voted back this blindingly corrupt Liberal government because of a fear that the conservatives would cut purse strings thereby dooming us all to economic oblivion. My view of the USA is that politics is going the same direction now - that is the belief we need government to ensure our economic predictability. People view the uncertainty in a free society as a bad thing rather than a forum for opportunity. There is a hubris that we can "get it right" with the correct piece of government legislation. Sadly, like all socialist ideology, it sacrifices spontaneous innovation for predictability. And, I believe it robs us of what it is to be human - being inventive and inquisitive out of necessity. lcq says it all in his signature line.

So, they will ask us "why hunt when all is provided for at the grocery store?"

Click to expand...

Well put Pheroze, well put.

WARNING: the following post contains my political views on the discussion at hand, presented in a confusing rant. My ramblings are sure to be inflammatory and difficult to understand at best. In this post, I will summarize what I find wrong with the American political system, my opinion of the constitution, my answers to America's decisions, and my review of recent presidential candidates. One thing is for sure: this is bound to start some good discussions. You have been warned, so read at your own risk.

The major flaw with how American politics function is the democrats and the republicans. There is so much animosity between the two parties, that every politician is afraid of being ostracized by their party for having differing views from the party base, that they go lockstep with the rest of their party and nothing ever gets done. Problems in America are grey, not red and blue.

I believe that too many people view the constitution (bill of rights) as the only things the government can do. These people have clearly forgotten about the preamble. I do not want to write out the whole preamble, but that concisely explains the mission the founding fathers set for the government. The rest of the constitution is only to give boundaries to how the government goes about meeting the conditions of the preamble.

The first set of American problems I will tackle come from the social side. My major problem with the Republican Party is that they claim to stand for freedom for all and little government involvement (the phrase "I disagree with what you do, but I will defend your right to do it" comes to mind) yet instantly rejects this idea under the guise of religious views. I am of course talking about gay marriage and contraception. If the Republican Party really stood for freedom for all and little government involvement in people's lives, then they would support the right of gays to get married, even if they disagree with gay marriage because it is not the government's place to encroach on personal freedoms. The same view can be applied to gun control and hunting. Too many liberals go on and on about how the government shouldn't try to control people through religious views, yet try to control gun owners and hunters by impressing their own personal views on others and violate their personal rights. It is a two way street for both parties.

When it comes to social discussions, especially about gun control and immigration, many people are going to try to bring up other countries as examples to support their view. Many people say that England has strict gun control and low crime rate. I say look at South Africa. People say look at the strict immigration policy of Germany and how it helps their country. I say look at the level of government control in major industries that allow this system to work.

Now lets talk about American fiscal problems (my wheelhouse). Instead of trying to explain the faults in each political party's fiscal plans, I will say my ideas and let you contrast them. Lets start with taxes. People want smooth highways and fast government employees, but don't want to pay for it. The money that runs all public services does not come from no where. More tax revenue means that the government (if properly managed) can work more efficiently and provide better services. Otherwise, you can shovel your own roads and hand deliver your own mail. I am not for tax breaks for either the rich or the poor. I think we should start with an equal tax for all tax brackets. Then, give a tax break to the lower class for a period of time. Next, give a tax break to the middle class as well. Finally, give a tax break to the upper class. This way, taxes will be incrementally lowered to an agreeable level without a major drought in tax revenue. If my plan works as well in reality as it does in theory, then the lower classes will have an opportunity for financial growth while also letting the government time to adjust to steadily less tax funds.

When it comes to welfare, I am for the Clinton-era "work for welfare" program that George Bush got rid of. I am all for helping people on the bottom who need it, but not unlimited handouts. There is nothing wrong with giving the unfortunate a helping hand getting on solid footing, but endlessly supporting them is just ridiculous. The republicans act like all poor people are subhuman leeches on society, while the democrats act like the poor are children who are unable to take care of themselves. The poor are neither of these things. They are people just like the rest of us. This means that the majority of them are good and hard working (not leeches) but also many will take the path of least resistance and rely on government support instead of taking care of themselves (even if they can do so).

When it comes to government spending, I am actually for heavy government spending if it supports the growth of the nation. The whole point of the government is to help the nation thrive by meeting the goals of the preamble. This can only be accomplished by spending money so that the government can carry out plans to help the country. Just look at all of the good that FDR did through high government spending when it is done right.

When it comes to fiscal problems as a whole, the biggest problem that i have to grapple with, and I think is a bigger problem for the republicans, is that deciding to do what is right vs what is the best course of action. One example for this is when Florida tried to drug test people on welfare. They found that less than 2% of welfare recipients were on drugs, and the tests themselves cost more than just giving welfare to that 2%. While it seems like it would be right for us to try to test for drug addicts in the welfare program, it is just not efficient and logical.

When it comes to democrats saying that we need to give tax breaks and increase welfare for the poor and increase taxes on the upper class, my first reaction is to immediately oppose this idea. One of my favorite expressions for this discussion is that "people get rich be knowing how to make money and also keep it". I make a living knowing how to manage businesses and finances, and my hard work and knowledge should not also fund people who do not do the same hard work as me. I choose to work in such a difficult field because I want to make more money, and it is not fair that someone should profit off of my hard work and knowledge (without paying for my consultation first). While saying that, I also understand that the American economy does better as a whole if the lower class is contributing to the economy through spending money, which they can only do if they have a disposable income. This means, in the end, giving tax breaks and welfare to the lower class and compensating for the decrease in tax revenue by increasing taxes on the upper class. It may not be right, but it is a necessary evil.

Now, I will talk about the recent presidents and candidates and what I think their flaws and strengths are. I will start with Bill Clinton. He is the closest America has ever gotten to actually working Reaganomics. If you actually look at Clinton's economic and foreign policies, he is far more conservatives fiscally than George Bush ever was. The problem with Clinton came from his gun control ideas. He nearly ruined the country (and any favor he won with me) through his gun control bill.

Moving on to Bush, I think he was a pretty bad president, but nowhere near the monster that liberals make him out to be. It is obvious that the Iraq war and the deregulation of the banking system were the leading causes for the economic downturn. At least he did not renew the Clinton gun bill. I do not think that Bush was intentionally to ruin America (as many liberals want you to believe) but I do think that he suffers from what I like to call "daddy whorebucks syndrome" whihc is a name I use to describe the CEOs I regularly deal with who inherit massive corporations, but do not have the knowledge to run such corporations.

Before we talk about Obama, lets talk about John McCain. I used to be a huge fan of John McCain but I did not vote for him. The reason why my view of him changed so dramatically is because I think he sold out. John McCain used to be the only republican who spoke his mind and did what he though was right. Even if I did not agree with all of his views, I respected his strength and commitment to doing what he thinks, and would make a great president. During the campaign, however, McCain sold out his views in favor of adopting the views of the Republican Party base.

Romney falls victim to the point I made earlier about doing what is right/best for me, and doing what is best for the whole country. If he had become president, I would be making more money and paying less in taxes, at least short term. The problem is, the lower and middle classes would have suffered and hurt the economy in the long term. Romney also would have bowed to the conservative religious right and enacted restrictive laws on personal freedoms.

I see Obama as a wasted opportunity and crushing disappointment who did not do nearly as much damage as republicans make it sound like he did. Obama promised to reinvent America and help the lower and middle classes grow. He failed terribly on these promises. Luckily, Obama has not trashed the economy anymore than it already was (actually improved it) and he has not enacted and gun laws (he received a F- grade from the Brady association). He has also deported a higher percentage of illegal immigrants than any other president. He is no where near as good as every democrat seems to worship him as, but is also not the devil incarnate that the republicans say he is.

When it comes to future presidential candidates, the democrats that come to mind are Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. I have actually always been a fan of Joe Biden because he is the democratic counterpart to the old version (not age but politics) of John McCain. There is also a benefit of having a politician with as much experience and seniority as Biden, which was clearly demonstrated in his debate with Paul Ryan. I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat because of the Reaganomics that the Clintons preach and her impressive job as the Secretary of State (don't mention benghazi because I will not get into that discussion with you). My only problem with Hillary is the fear that she would push for stricter gun control and maybe even ban hunting. If she said in her campaign that she would want either one of these things, I could not vote for her. And I know that someone will say that Obama campaigned on stricter gun control and did nothing, but Hillary actually has the balls and will to follow through with her promises. The only possible republican candidate that I considered is Chris Christie, but his recent scandal has caused my support for him to waver. He is probably the only politician who actually stands for my political views. While I am not yet completely sold on Christie, he is probably the person I will vote for in the next election.

Well I applaud you if you actually read my ridiculously long post and were able to make it out alive. I think it will start some good discussions here and I want to hear what your opinions on my views are. This is what makes America the best country on earth. We can share opposing political views without fear of negative repercussions.

Well OK, I read it. Most of it is pure pablum taken right out of the libtard playbook. You have been drinking the kool aid for too long! Biden for Pres???!!?!? The guy is a bumbling idiot!! ("Iraq is going to be one of this (OBAMA) administrations biggest successes!) How's that working out?! Hillary??!!? Really?!?!? And her qualifications for pres are what exactly??? That she was married to Bill? That she is a woman? What else? She's an insane liar? Now were talking! Want more of the same do you?? Tax the rich?? Really?? Poor people don't sign paychecks! Blame Bush for the housing disaster? Try the Demtard Congress that fought him and kept him from reigning in Freddie and Fannie. Bill Clinton a good steward? History may prove he was not as bad as we thought, but for one reason and one reason only. A Republican Congress to keep his sorry liberal ass in check!! As to the so called religious right? I am basically agnostic on religion but recognize that most Americans are Christian of one sort or another and I have no problem with them or the basic biblical teachings. There is no constitutional guarantee for gays to marry. Whats next, marry your dog, a fence post with a hole in it? Your car? Where does it stop? Other than SCOTUS ruling it was OK, abortion is not a constitutional right, it was created in court, and therefore subject to change. Some, probably most would say abortion is murder. I don't quite feel that strongly about it, but most on the right feel its OK in some circumstances, but should not be used as a form of birth control, that's too much and I would agree that there should be some limit as to the timing. But all this is a stupid discussion. No one in govt today has by themselves the power to overturn Roe V Wade, and there is no war on women by the right, and Obama is doing a pretty good job of stacking the various courts to ensure a long healthy life of all his libtard ideas and executive orders. And don't give us the BS about how Bush and Reagan did more exec orders than Obama. Yes, its true, its also not the freaking point! Its what kind of orders he does, not how many. I voted for John McCain because he was not Obama but he would not have been my first choice either. I also voted for Romney for the same reason. Remember shortly before the election when Obama said to "take revenge" on those who disagree with him? Remember that? Remember what Romney said after that? Do ya? He said "how about for love of country?" When he said that I just knew Obama was going to get his ass kicked at the ballot box. Alas I was wrong, the libtards now outnumber the rest of us. Until now that is. A poll a couple of days ago asked people who would they vote for TODAY if given the chance. Romney won by landslide. Perhaps some people are finally waking up. Not you I guess. I found a very few things to agree with when you started out, but you lost me quickly. You then are a liberal and liberals and liberal ideas are destroying America. I shall not waste any more time on this thread trying to change your mind as it is clearly soaked in liberal dogma and Kool aid and beyond reach of sanity. Good day.

Saul said:

WARNING: the following post contains my political views on the discussion at hand, presented in a confusing rant. My ramblings are sure to be inflammatory and difficult to understand at best. In this post, I will summarize what I find wrong with the American political system, my opinion of the constitution, my answers to America's decisions, and my review of recent presidential candidates. One thing is for sure: this is bound to start some good discussions. You have been warned, so read at your own risk.

The major flaw with how American politics function is the democrats and the republicans. There is so much animosity between the two parties, that every politician is afraid of being ostracized by their party for having differing views from the party base, that they go lockstep with the rest of their party and nothing ever gets done. Problems in America are grey, not red and blue.

I believe that too many people view the constitution (bill of rights) as the only things the government can do. These people have clearly forgotten about the preamble. I do not want to write out the whole preamble, but that concisely explains the mission the founding fathers set for the government. The rest of the constitution is only to give boundaries to how the government goes about meeting the conditions of the preamble.

The first set of American problems I will tackle come from the social side. My major problem with the Republican Party is that they claim to stand for freedom for all and little government involvement (the phrase "I disagree with what you do, but I will defend your right to do it" comes to mind) yet instantly rejects this idea under the guise of religious views. I am of course talking about gay marriage and contraception. If the Republican Party really stood for freedom for all and little government involvement in people's lives, then they would support the right of gays to get married, even if they disagree with gay marriage because it is not the government's place to encroach on personal freedoms. The same view can be applied to gun control and hunting. Too many liberals go on and on about how the government shouldn't try to control people through religious views, yet try to control gun owners and hunters by impressing their own personal views on others and violate their personal rights. It is a two way street for both parties.

When it comes to social discussions, especially about gun control and immigration, many people are going to try to bring up other countries as examples to support their view. Many people say that England has strict gun control and low crime rate. I say look at South Africa. People say look at the strict immigration policy of Germany and how it helps their country. I say look at the level of government control in major industries that allow this system to work.

Now lets talk about American fiscal problems (my wheelhouse). Instead of trying to explain the faults in each political party's fiscal plans, I will say my ideas and let you contrast them. Lets start with taxes. People want smooth highways and fast government employees, but don't want to pay for it. The money that runs all public services does not come from no where. More tax revenue means that the government (if properly managed) can work more efficiently and provide better services. Otherwise, you can shovel your own roads and hand deliver your own mail. I am not for tax breaks for either the rich or the poor. I think we should start with an equal tax for all tax brackets. Then, give a tax break to the lower class for a period of time. Next, give a tax break to the middle class as well. Finally, give a tax break to the upper class. This way, taxes will be incrementally lowered to an agreeable level without a major drought in tax revenue. If my plan works as well in reality as it does in theory, then the lower classes will have an opportunity for financial growth while also letting the government time to adjust to steadily less tax funds.

When it comes to welfare, I am for the Clinton-era "work for welfare" program that George Bush got rid of. I am all for helping people on the bottom who need it, but not unlimited handouts. There is nothing wrong with giving the unfortunate a helping hand getting on solid footing, but endlessly supporting them is just ridiculous. The republicans act like all poor people are subhuman leeches on society, while the democrats act like the poor are children who are unable to take care of themselves. The poor are neither of these things. They are people just like the rest of us. This means that the majority of them are good and hard working (not leeches) but also many will take the path of least resistance and rely on government support instead of taking care of themselves (even if they can do so).

When it comes to government spending, I am actually for heavy government spending if it supports the growth of the nation. The whole point of the government is to help the nation thrive by meeting the goals of the preamble. This can only be accomplished by spending money so that the government can carry out plans to help the country. Just look at all of the good that FDR did through high government spending when it is done right.

When it comes to fiscal problems as a whole, the biggest problem that i have to grapple with, and I think is a bigger problem for the republicans, is that deciding to do what is right vs what is the best course of action. One example for this is when Florida tried to drug test people on welfare. They found that less than 2% of welfare recipients were on drugs, and the tests themselves cost more than just giving welfare to that 2%. While it seems like it would be right for us to try to test for drug addicts in the welfare program, it is just not efficient and logical.

When it comes to democrats saying that we need to give tax breaks and increase welfare for the poor and increase taxes on the upper class, my first reaction is to immediately oppose this idea. One of my favorite expressions for this discussion is that "people get rich be knowing how to make money and also keep it". I make a living knowing how to manage businesses and finances, and my hard work and knowledge should not also fund people who do not do the same hard work as me. I choose to work in such a difficult field because I want to make more money, and it is not fair that someone should profit off of my hard work and knowledge (without paying for my consultation first). While saying that, I also understand that the American economy does better as a whole if the lower class is contributing to the economy through spending money, which they can only do if they have a disposable income. This means, in the end, giving tax breaks and welfare to the lower class and compensating for the decrease in tax revenue by increasing taxes on the upper class. It may not be right, but it is a necessary evil.

Now, I will talk about the recent presidents and candidates and what I think their flaws and strengths are. I will start with Bill Clinton. He is the closest America has ever gotten to actually working Reaganomics. If you actually look at Clinton's economic and foreign policies, he is far more conservatives fiscally than George Bush ever was. The problem with Clinton came from his gun control ideas. He nearly ruined the country (and any favor he won with me) through his gun control bill.

Moving on to Bush, I think he was a pretty bad president, but nowhere near the monster that liberals make him out to be. It is obvious that the Iraq war and the deregulation of the banking system were the leading causes for the economic downturn. At least he did not renew the Clinton gun bill. I do not think that Bush was intentionally to ruin America (as many liberals want you to believe) but I do think that he suffers from what I like to call "daddy whorebucks syndrome" whihc is a name I use to describe the CEOs I regularly deal with who inherit massive corporations, but do not have the knowledge to run such corporations.

Before we talk about Obama, lets talk about John McCain. I used to be a huge fan of John McCain but I did not vote for him. The reason why my view of him changed so dramatically is because I think he sold out. John McCain used to be the only republican who spoke his mind and did what he though was right. Even if I did not agree with all of his views, I respected his strength and commitment to doing what he thinks, and would make a great president. During the campaign, however, McCain sold out his views in favor of adopting the views of the Republican Party base.

Romney falls victim to the point I made earlier about doing what is right/best for me, and doing what is best for the whole country. If he had become president, I would be making more money and paying less in taxes, at least short term. The problem is, the lower and middle classes would have suffered and hurt the economy in the long term. Romney also would have bowed to the conservative religious right and enacted restrictive laws on personal freedoms.

I see Obama as a wasted opportunity and crushing disappointment who did not do nearly as much damage as republicans make it sound like he did. Obama promised to reinvent America and help the lower and middle classes grow. He failed terribly on these promises. Luckily, Obama has not trashed the economy anymore than it already was (actually improved it) and he has not enacted and gun laws (he received a F- grade from the Brady association). He has also deported a higher percentage of illegal immigrants than any other president. He is no where near as good as every democrat seems to worship him as, but is also not the devil incarnate that the republicans say he is.

When it comes to future presidential candidates, the democrats that come to mind are Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. I have actually always been a fan of Joe Biden because he is the democratic counterpart to the old version (not age but politics) of John McCain. There is also a benefit of having a politician with as much experience and seniority as Biden, which was clearly demonstrated in his debate with Paul Ryan. I would vote for Hillary in a heartbeat because of the Reaganomics that the Clintons preach and her impressive job as the Secretary of State (don't mention benghazi because I will not get into that discussion with you). My only problem with Hillary is the fear that she would push for stricter gun control and maybe even ban hunting. If she said in her campaign that she would want either one of these things, I could not vote for her. And I know that someone will say that Obama campaigned on stricter gun control and did nothing, but Hillary actually has the balls and will to follow through with her promises. The only possible republican candidate that I considered is Chris Christie, but his recent scandal has caused my support for him to waver. He is probably the only politician who actually stands for my political views. While I am not yet completely sold on Christie, he is probably the person I will vote for in the next election.

Well I applaud you if you actually read my ridiculously long post and were able to make it out alive. I think it will start some good discussions here and I want to hear what your opinions on my views are. This is what makes America the best country on earth. We can share opposing political views without fear of negative repercussions.

Click to expand...

Hello Saul,

I did read your above manifesto of your personal political philosophy, every word of it.

And, I'm sure that you are a good open minded person and therefore interested in reading other people's opinions so, please do read this very short book: The KinderGarden of Eden (written by Evan Sayet).

It is my response to your posted personal political philosophy.

It sells on Amazon for about $9. to $12., depending on which specific supplier you choose to buy it from.

I will wait for your response on it.

Cheerio,
Velo Dog.