The Difference Between Obama and Romney ?

[strickj]

There you go making inferences again. Just because Sharia Law might have Muslim origins, doesn't mean you can accuse someone as being racist or speaking of someone's religion. Currently there is a strong current of support for Sharia Law that is happening world wide, and is even creeping into our national, state and local laws or interpretation of laws based on Sharia Law. Just because I prefer our system of Constitutional over Sharia Law does not make me a racist or that I'm implying anything about one's religion.

You really need to get a grip on yourself, and quit making accusations of racism or accusing people of speaking about one's religion when there is no basis for such accusations. Again, you're really trying too hard reading between the lines of people's opinions.

Um, yeah. Here's the thing. I am reading the actual lines you wrote.

In a thread concerning the differences between Obama and Romney, you responded with Obama's race and supposed religion. What do you expect for people to think when you respond that way?

In the 5 years that I have been a member of this board, I have never, not once, played the race card. Never. So there is no grip to be had with me here. I am only referencing the words in which you wrote.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

However Romney came to embrace or sign into law Romneycare, He did so acting as governor. He admits that and has stated repeatedly that he will act to repeal Ovamacare. I take that to mean he will sign a bill that repeals that, or he will EO to the same effect by exempting all the 57states that Obamacare probably covered. The number of states is a joke. Hope y'all don't mind.

As far as the AWB goes, he can't do anything about an AWB from Congress. I seriously doubt that would be forthcoming, especially from the House. It really doesn't matter to me what he signed as a governor of a very liberal state and you can call him a panderer

all you want. If you wish to declare your "rightness", have at it, strickj. Doesn't matter to me. I can live with my vote and thoughts just fine and I expect you can, too. Fair enough?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited July 31, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[strickj]

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams:

On Day One, Mitt Romney will issue an executive order that will allow states to opt out Obamacare’s onerous requirements. He will then work to completely repeal Obamacare and replace it with real reform that strengthens the health-care system and gives states the flexibility to develop the right solutions for the challenges they face.

I'm not entirely sure what his plans are here.

Will he use Romney Care or have something else written up? If the latter, has he stated what the differences will be?

Not trying to continue the debate with that question. I honestly do not know.

[RobertNashville]

Um, yeah. Here's the thing. I am reading the actual lines you wrote.

In a thread concerning the differences between Obama and Romney, you responded with Obama's race and supposed religion. What do you expect for people to think when you respond that way?

In the 5 years that I have been a member of this board, I have never, not once, played the race card. Never.

Perhaps not in the five years prior but you played the race card at least twice in this thread, including the post I'm quoting here.

You have, multiple times accused ThePunisher of being motivated by race and that IS playing the race card...it's the perfect definition of playing the race card.

ThePunisher has NOT referenced race as a motivation even once in this thread.

Edited July 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

I'm not entirely sure what his plans are here.

Will he use Romney Care or have something else written up? If the latter, has he stated what the differences will be?

Not trying to continue the debate with that question. I honestly do not know.

Well, I think it means that after his inauguration, Romney's plans are to issue an executive order that will allow states to opt out Obamacare.

Then I think his plans are to work to repeal Obamacare and replace it with legislation that addresses the problems we have with how health care insurance is currently obtained/delivered in the U.S.

Taking into account Romney's capitalists underpinnings (as opposed to Obama's Marxists/socialist underpinnings), I suspect Romney will seek to address the problems we have with health care insurance in a way that allows the free market to work rather than turning our health care system into a socialist, single payer system. He might well revive some of the proposals Republicans offered in 2008/2009 that Pelosi/Reid completely ignored when they rushed through Obamacare (the bill they had to pass before before they could know what's in it).

Edited July 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[plank white]

Romney is a great guy and has obviously changed his mind about everything he has ever done or said in politics .

from this day fourth everything he has done or said in the past is erased because the GOP chose him and thats it.

since the GOP chose him then we must vote for him because they said he changed.

Obama must be voted out because he hates America , He spits upon you while you sleep.

Obama wants your guns, Romney doesnt anymore.

Obamacare has to go , Romney said he will fix it!

Romney is a Mans Man , he creates businesses from thin air and makes more money than you can haul in a truck

Romney is The man. Obama is the Devil

But , Pretty much everything Romney and Obama have done on the issues is exactly the same how can you trust one over the other ?

Never mind that I said he changed quit being a sheeple !

[RobertNashville]

Romney is a great guy and has obviously changed his mind about everything he has ever done or said in politics .

from this day fourth everything he has done or said in the past is erased because the GOP chose him and thats it.

since the GOP chose him then we must vote for him because they said he changed.

Obama must be voted out because he hates America , He spits upon you while you sleep.

Obama wants your guns, Romney doesnt anymore.

Obamacare has to go , Romney said he will fix it!

Romney is a Mans Man , he creates businesses from thin air and makes more money than you can haul in a truck

Romney is The man. Obama is the Devil

Posting exaggerations of what has been said or simply making things up out of whole cloth is a significant indicator that you have no legitimate desire to have a rational, intelligent discussion of the differences between Romney and Obama and having no true desire for real discussion is precisely why these threads degenerate into what this one has degenerated into.

I have specific and I believe legitimate reasons for why I have decided to and will be voting for Romney and why, flaws and all, I see Romney as thousands of percent a better (different) choice than Obama. My reasons are based on experience with and observation of Obama, his record so far as President and educating myself about his past (his family, his associations, his teachers, etc) but you and many others have made it pretty clear that taking the time and making the effort to explain those reasons would be a wast of that time and effort.

Ultimately, whether you do or don't agree with my conclusions about Romney and Obama is immaterial. However, insulting those, like me, who have decided to support Romney by ascribing to us dribble such as you posted above should at least be frowned upon...it also begs the question of what it is you hope to accomplish by insulting people.

[plank white]

Posting exaggerations of what has been said or simply making things up out of whole cloth is a significant indicator that you have no legitimate desire to have a rational, intelligent discussion of the differences between Romney and Obama and having no true desire for real discussion is precisely why these threads degenerate into what this one has degenerated into.

I have specific and I believe legitimate reasons for why I have decided to and will be voting for Romney and why, flaws and all, I see Romney as thousands of percent a better (different) choice than Obama. My reasons are based on experience with and observation of Obama, his record so far as President and educating myself about his past (his family, his associations, his teachers, etc) but you and many others have made it pretty clear that taking the time and making the effort to explain those reasons would be a wast of that time and effort.

Ultimately, whether you do or don't agree with my conclusions about Romney and Obama is immaterial. However, insulting those, like me, who have decided to support Romney by ascribing to us dribble such as you posted above should at least be frowned upon...it also begs the question of what it is you hope to accomplish by insulting people.

I didnt insult you .I have noticed you on the other hand trolling the forums insulting any and every Ron Paul supporter you come across with names like paulbot Etc. and anybody who doesnt see Romney as a "Good Guy " Looking out for americans , sheeple you called out strickj insinuating that he was being a racist because he said "Are there any actual differences between them on paper?

Or are the only differences based on opinion, likeability and race? "

Instead of answering the question with anything other than he is a business man or pure opinion

Even though alot of people see those as the only "Fact based differences between the two" he never said he cared one way or the other what color the guy is .

Then if anyone disagrees with you further after being "Insulted" by your advanced knowledge of how "Romney will Majically not be the same guy he has always been , You run through and click your little -1 buttons , Then you go make a post in a different thread about how people need to lay off using the -rep buttons because of a disagreement.,

either way it goes in your eyes Im a sheeple because I dont see a difference between the two other than one is a business man and the other isnt . according to some .

And in my eyes people like you are the reason we have such a great choice to choose from this election .

Edited July 31, 2012 by plank white

[daddyo]

Posting exaggerations of what has been said or simply making things up out of whole cloth is a significant indicator that you have no legitimate desire to have a rational, intelligent discussion of the differences between Romney and Obama and having no true desire for real discussion is precisely why these threads degenerate into what this one has degenerated into.

I have specific and I believe legitimate reasons for why I have decided to and will be voting for Romney and why, flaws and all, I see Romney as thousands of percent a better (different) choice than Obama. My reasons are based on experience with and observation of Obama, his record so far as President and educating myself about his past (his family, his associations, his teachers, etc) but you and many others have made it pretty clear that taking the time and making the effort to explain those reasons would be a wast of that time and effort.

Ultimately, whether you do or don't agree with my conclusions about Romney and Obama is immaterial. However, insulting those, like me, who have decided to support Romney by ascribing to us dribble such as you posted above should at least be frowned upon...it also begs the question of what it is you hope to accomplish by insulting people.

Robert, with all due respect - if the measure of insulting someone is poking fun at or ridiculing their opinions, you are just as guilty as anyone here. Maybe not in this thread, but most certainly in others.

Edited July 31, 2012 by DaddyO

[Links2k]

Robert, with all due respect - if the measure of insulting someone is poking fun at or ridiculing their opinions, you are just as guilty as anyone here. Maybe not in this thread, but most certainly in others.

I can't speak for Robert, but maybe he is turning over a new leaf. I'll give him he benefit of the doubt. I worked in a prison when I was a kid. I've seen lots of heathens that have changed their ways. His tone is much better than others lately which at least makes you want to read what he has to say.

[RobertNashville]

I didnt insult you .I have noticed you on the other hand trolling the forums insulting any and every Ron Paul supporter you come across with names like paulbot Etc. and anybody who doesnt see Romney as a "Good Guy " Looking out for americans , sheeple you called out strickj insinuating that he was being a racist because he said "Are there any actual differences between them on paper?

Or are the only differences based on opinion, likeability and race? "

Even though to alot of people see those as the only "Fact based differences between the two" he never said he cared one way or the other what color the guy is .

Then if anyone disagrees with you further after being "Insulted" by your advanced knowledge of how "Romney will Majically not be the same guy he has always been , You run through and click your little -1 buttons , Then you go make a post in a different thread about how people need to lay off using the -rep buttons because of a disagreement.,

either way it goes in your eyes Im a sheeple because I dont see a difference between the two other than one is a business man and the other isnt . according to some .

And in my eyes people like you are the reason we have such a great choice to choose from this election .

Yes, I've called some, not all, Paul supporters "Paulbots" because there are many Paul supporters who act as if they've been programmed to support him no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them...they act robotic.

Have I said other things that people took as insulting? I'm sure I have but that does not mean it was intentional.

Have I used the +1/-1 functions? Yes I have. Have I used them when I probably shouldn't have? I"m sure I have. Have people done the same to me? I"m sure they have. However, I at least try to use them to express not agreement or disagreement with a post but whether or not the post is useful and/or at least seems like a attempt was made to add something to the discussion...many posts don't do that or even attempt to do that.

As to strickj...I never called him a racist...or even hinted in that direction and I know nothing about him other than his posts here. I said and I say that he has used what is commonly called the "race card" in suggesting/insinuating/outright stating that ThePunisher was a racist...that ThePunisher was basing his opinion of Obama based on Obama's race. If you think that is calling strickj a "racist" you are wrong; the two things are very different from each other.

Edited July 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[plank white]

I still think the question is legitimate

"Are there any actual differences between them on paper?

Or are the only differences based on opinion, likeability and race? "

sounds like a fair question to all who feverishly back Romney

6.8 AR ,Mentioned Romney being a successfull business man and how with our econmey like it is that would be a great thing to have in office.

So he is the only person who saw strickj's question for what it was "A QUESTION" and actually answered it others accused him of playing the race card including you and Maybe Punisher athough he never said punisher was a Racist he pointed out that he was being accused of playing a Race card when others werent so, if by "YOUR" definition the above quote is "Playing a race card" then others are aswell . However your defintion of playing the race card is way off . he asked a simple question then outlined the perameters by saying "Other Than" Opinion , likeability and race . which means your not aloud to use those responces when replying to the question , and instead of answering him "You" accused him of playing the Race card"

Edited July 31, 2012 by plank white

[JAB]

Yes, I've called some, not all, Paul supporters "Paulbots" because there are many Paul supporters who act as if they've been programmed to support him no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them...they act robotic.

By that token, I'd say that there are quite a few - perhaps not 'Romneybots', per se, but more like 'Republibots' running around. Those folks are likely more or less equalled in number by 'Demobots', too. In other words, they act as if they've been programmed to support a candidate - any candidate - who is 'the guy' for their, particular party and argue that their candidate is 'much better' than 'the other guy' no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them. As you say, they act robotic.

In my opinion, furiously insisting that there are really great differences between two anti-gun politicians who have both strongly supported goverment-run healthcare sounds pretty danged robotic. Insisting that an anti-gun politician only acted like an anti-gun politician because he held one executive office (governor) and not another (president) sounds like programming, to me, as does insisting that a politician only supported government-run healthcare because he was governor and not president - especially when the only support one has for that belief is simply because the anti-gun, government run healthcare supporting politician said so, himself, when there is no other evidence to support the idea that he isn't simply lying to get elected (no politician ever did that, huh?) I'm not pointing to anyone, in particular, but that is honestly how I feel. Maybe there are minor differences but, in the end, I think that getting so worked up over insisting that Romney is a clearly superior choice for president over Obama (or vice versa) has more to do with party affiliation than fact.

That is what folks who get angry at those of us who really don't see any marked difference cannot and will not understand. We have heard and seen all the arguments as to why Romney is 'better' but we have nothing but his word (again, the word of a politician - which generally equates to 'professional liar) and the opinions of many who so desperately want - perhaps even need - to believe him. Thing is, if you don't simply accept the word of a politician/professional liar and the opinions of folks who would probably support him even if he had horns, a pointy tail and carried a pitchfork as long as he swore that he wasn't going to behave like he has in the past then there is really no other evidence to support the idea that Romney isn't simply another anti-gun politician who supports government run healthcare, just like the guy who is currently in office. See, it isn't that we 'like' Obama - I, for one, place him just about on the level of pond scum. It is simply that Romney hasn't given us any reason to believe that there are enough differences between him and Obama to warrant getting all excited about.

Edited July 31, 2012 by JAB

[plank white]

By that token, I'd say that there are quite a few - perhaps not 'Romneybots', per se, but more like 'Republibots' running around. Those folks are likely more or less equalled in number by 'Demobots', too. In other words, they act as if they've been programmed to support a candidate - any candidate - who is 'the guy' for their, particular party and argue that their candidate is 'much better' than 'the other guy' no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them. As you say, they act robotic.

In my opinion, furiously insisting that there are really great differences between two anti-gun politicians who have both strongly supported goverment-run healthcare sounds pretty danged robotic. Insisting that an anti-gun politician only acted like an anti-gun politician because he was governor and not president sounds like programming, to me, as does insisting that a politician only supported government-run healthcare because he was governor and not president - especially when the only support one has for that belief is simply because the anti-gun, government run healthcare supporting politician said so, himself, when there is no other evidence to support the idea that he isn't simply lying to get elected (no politician ever did that, huh?0 I'm not pointing to anyone, in particular, but that is honestly how I feel. Maybe there are minor differences but, in the end, I think that getting so worked up over insisting that Romney is a greatly superior choice for president over Obama (or vice versa) has more to do with party affiliation than fact.

I hear ya man . Now like StrikJ said the begining of the thread Prepare to be Shunned .

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Dunno if Romney is different or would be better. On the other hand, being an excellent administrator is only an advantage if the administrator agrees with yer goals. If he can excellently administer NDAA, new wars, romney care and gun bans, that that ain't so good. If somebody wants to take away my freedoms, I want an incompetent fool with no experience or talent at administration so hopefully he will fail or at least take a long time to git er done.

[daddyo]

Dunno if Romney is different or would be better. On the other hand, being an excellent administrator is only an advantage if the administrator agrees with yer goals. If he can excellently administer NDAA, new wars, romney care and gun bans, that that ain't so good. If somebody wants to take away my freedoms, I want an incompetent fool with no experience or talent at administration so hopefully he will fail or at least take a long time to git er done.

[RobertNashville]

By that token, I'd say that there are quite a few - perhaps not 'Romneybots', per se, but more like 'Republibots' running around. Those folks are likely more or less equalled in number by 'Demobots', too. In other words, they act as if they've been programmed to support a candidate - any candidate - who is 'the guy' for their, particular party and argue that their candidate is 'much better' than 'the other guy' no matter what facts or issues or reality is presented to them. As you say, they act robotic.

In my opinion, furiously insisting that there are really great differences between two anti-gun politicians who have both strongly supported goverment-run healthcare sounds pretty danged robotic. Insisting that an anti-gun politician only acted like an anti-gun politician because he held one executive office (governor) and not another (president) sounds like programming, to me, as does insisting that a politician only supported government-run healthcare because he was governor and not president - especially when the only support one has for that belief is simply because the anti-gun, government run healthcare supporting politician said so, himself, when there is no other evidence to support the idea that he isn't simply lying to get elected (no politician ever did that, huh?) I'm not pointing to anyone, in particular, but that is honestly how I feel. Maybe there are minor differences but, in the end, I think that getting so worked up over insisting that Romney is a clearly superior choice for president over Obama (or vice versa) has more to do with party affiliation than fact.

That is what folks who get angry at those of us who really don't see any marked difference cannot and will not understand. We have heard and seen all the arguments as to why Romney is 'better' but we have nothing but his word (again, the word of a politician - which generally equates to 'professional liar) and the opinions of many who so desperately want - perhaps even need - to believe him. Thing is, if you don't simply accept the word of a politician/professional liar and the opinions of folks who would probably support him even if he had horns, a pointy tail and carried a pitchfork as long as he swore that he wasn't going to behave like he has in the past then there is really no other evidence to support the idea that Romney isn't simply another anti-gun politician who supports government run healthcare, just like the guy who is currently in office. See, it isn't that we 'like' Obama - I, for one, place him just about on the level of pond scum. It is simply that Romney hasn't given us any reason to believe that there are enough differences between him and Obama to warrant getting all excited about.

As I said earlier, I have specific and I believe legitimate reasons for why I have decided to and will be voting for Romney and why, flaws and all, I see Romney as thousands of percent a better choice than Obama (or, for that matter, than Ron Paul or any other third-party/write-in type candidate). My reasons are based on examining Romney's record/what is publicly known about him compared to experience with and observation of Obama including his record as President and his past (his family, his associations, his teachers, etc). In this and in other threads I've offered some of my reasons which are almost always summarily dismissed making it apparent that taking the time and making the effort to state and explain those reasons is a wast.

When there is an absence of desire for legitimate discussion; flaming and name calling and questions about the motivations of people, from both sides, tend happen and there are dozens of threads like this one where that is exactly what has happened.

[plank white]

As I said earlier, I have specific and I believe legitimate reasons for why I have decided to and will be voting for Romney and why, flaws and all, I see Romney as thousands of percent a better choice than Obama (or, for that matter, than Ron Paul or any other third-party/write-in type candidate). My reasons are based on examining Romney's record/what is publicly known about him compared to experience with and observation of Obama including his record as President and his past (his family, his associations, his teachers, etc). In this and in other threads I've offered some of my reasons which are almost always summarily dismissed making it apparent that taking the time and making the effort to state and explain those reasons is a wast.

When there is an absence of desire for legitimate discussion; flaming and name calling and questions about the motivations of people, from both sides, tend happen and there are dozens of threads like this one where that is exactly what has happened.

There is no absence for legitimate discussion , with legitimate facts

Calling people programmed robots or paulbots or sheeple because they provide facts and reasons as to why they

support a certain canidate is absurd most people who support paul have had to do there own research on the man inorder to form the basis for that support the media definatly hasnt programmed us into supporting Paul thats absurd . If anything the Media has programmed many other into not supporting Paul."or other third party candidates"

you have specific reasons why you support romney yet refuse to provide any based on examining Romneys Record which you say you did . Romney would be a horrible choice for Potus and No different than Obama other than minor things . "They are in or have been agreement on all the big issues" can you simply provide the info in which is publicly known about him . That proves his views are different than Obama ? And can you find anything in his Record That backs that up , or does everything he says contradict something he has actually done "IE Gun control " "Health Care" etc. If all you have is opinions thats fine but dont argue them against facts, then start calling people names and trying to discredit the individual based on what "Said individual is putting forth" If you disagree find facts and provide them on why you disagree. Opinions are great " But everybody" has one Youtube and google is just a click away go dig up facts about your candidate and provide them its not hard to stay Civil.

Edited July 31, 2012 by plank white

[daddyo]

Is there an echo in here????

[plank white]

Is there an echo in here????

Nope.. I dont know what your talking about

[RobertNashville]

...If all you have is opinions thats fine but dont argue them against facts, then start calling people names and trying to discredit the individual based on what "Said individual is putting forth" If you disagree find facts and provide them on why you disagree. Opinions are great " But everybody" has one Youtube and google is just a click away go dig up facts about your candidate and provide them its not hard to stay Civil.

I have more and have presented more than opinion in this and many other almost identical threads but it has routinely been dismissed or ignored leaving me with no reason to think that this or any of these threads seek actual discussion or that they care at all about "facts" at all (even "facts" from unassailable sources as Youtube and Google).

Rather, the way these threads usually go is that a video (often from a biased or at least a questionable source) is posted not to engender discussion but as a subtle (and sometimes overt) attempt to promote Ron Paul and proselytize the wayward and lost souls who haven't been won over to Paul.

This is all somewhat moot anyway because ultimately, I suspect that most of the Paul supporters, when they walk into the voting booth this November, are going to vote for Romney because they see how truly dangerous Obama is and they won't vote for Paul and risk an Obama reelection. Of course, there are those who will vote for Paul no matter what but I don't believe there are enough who will do that to make a difference one way or the other.

Edited July 31, 2012 by RobertNashville

[strickj]

I have more and have presented more than opinion in this and many other almost identical threads but it has routinely been dismissed or ignored leaving me with no reason to think that this or any of these threads seek actual discussion or that they care at all about "facts" at all (even "facts" from such unassailable sources as Youtube and Google! ).

Seriously?

Your response to me after I posted a link:

I'm sure that linking to the Huffington Post as if it was a legitimate source for facts was just a joke.

Hypocrite much?

Now that's said, please link to a post where you have been personally criticized for providing links.

Thanks.

[Dolomite`s Breezy]

And thats why religion and politics should not be discussed .. it always ends up the same.

[MacGyver]

So, I'm sitting in the Cleveland airport with an hour or so to kill, so I'll jump into this fray with my thoughts. Someone reported the thread, and as I was reading through it with my moderator's glasses on, I had some additional thoughts from my perspective. Before anyone accuses me of being "impartial" as a moderator, I'm jumping in here as a member. Feel free to debate my thoughts and opinions. That said, we have a code of conduct for a reason. If you've resorted to name calling, you either need to get a better position or better rhetoric.

From my perspective, there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between Romney and Obama. There are a few, and I think those few may prove to be important, but there aren't many, and even those may prove to be insignificant.

I think most of the problem we find ourselves in has to do with the fact that both the GOP and the DNC don't really give a hoot about their bases. If you are a diehard democrat, or a diehard republican your party doesn't care about you. At all. They are both going for that 3-5% of the electorate that calls themselves "independents", and telling them whatever they want to hear. Think about it. If you're going to vote "Anybody but Obama" anyway, what need does the GOP have to reach out to you. They'll do just enough to keep you from staying home on election day and put someone as vanilla and "moderate" as possible out there to try to reach out to the independents. Same for the DNC. Most liberals are never going to jump ship and vote for a republican candidate. So, it doesn't matter that Obama abandoned them on environmenntal issues or gun control or taxes or whatever. They're going to try an tell the independents whatever they want to hear (with an interesting strategic play this time by Obama with young hispanics and gays.)

Look at this chart from politicalcompass.org. You can go take the test for yourself and see for yourself how you rank with your candidate of choice. The survey could probably phrase a few questions better, but it's a fair swag. It's interesting to compare the main field, though:

So, if you're a diehard republican or democrat, your party has already sold you out. To which I say, good. Let's move on.

Next. The "race card". If you think race doesn't play an issue here, you've not spent much time with the issue. I think it's important and being used in at least three ways. FIrst, on your drive into work in the morning, spend some time listening to your local (or maybe not so local) urban talk radio station. Race is an issue with urban radio voices essentially saying, "vote for Obama because he's one of us." Listen to Tom Joyner or Bev Smith. Listen to Al Sharpton for that matter.

Race is also certainly an issue, unfortunately amongst the population of non-blacks who really are racist or are simply predjudiced against a black candidate. Say whatever you want in public, but what really matters is what you do in the election booth when the curtain is closed. I hope this group is not that big and continues to shrink every day. But I've been to those places. Racism still exists. I'll pay $100 to anyone who finds me one person who has a rebel flag on their truck and also pulled the lever for Obama in 2008 and will go on this forum to admit it.

As much as real racism continues to be an issue, I think they may roughly be canceled out by the white urban voters under the age of 45 who feel that they need to somehow make amends for historical wrongs by voting for the black guy now. This is the third way race plays in. I had these conversations in 2008, and I'm hearing them now. They're relevant.

All three of these racially motivated perspectives suck in my opinion. I can't change any of them on any global level, but I can recognize them and talk about them on a personal level.

Let's talk about the marxist/socialist/muslim/communist/America hater piece. I have no doubt that Obama has a different vision of America, but I think you're underselling your adversary to say he hates America. And, after 8 years with George Bush, the American public gave them a chance to take a swing at their vision. I expect come November, a lot of the public with have some buyers' remorse with "Hope and Change". He may in fact have some socialist tendencies. Being wrapped up in two wars in the midst of a recession/depression sure hasn't given him a big chance to implement much of his vision. And really, we got the basis for TARP under Bush. We got the first part of the automotive bailout under Bush. Both parties are working for different interests, and none of them are necessarily in your best interest.

There was a comment above to the effect of "He may not be a muslim, but he prefers Sharia law to the constitution." I'm not going to comment more on this than just to say, seriously? Think about this. What possible sense does this make? Put what you think are his objectives on the table, and then ask how this furthers them. From my perspective, it doesn't unless you secretly think he's a muslim and just don't want to express it in this thread.

Barack Obama doesn't look a whole lot different from Bush in a lot of his policies. Ask him about Guantanamo Bay, extrajudicial renditions, drone strikes or the use of executive orders for that matter, and you'll find that he looks a lot like George Bush. In fact in each of the above cases, he's expanded President Bush's policies. When Robert Byrd sent you a letter about your abuse of the constitution, you're not different. Explain that to the base.

So put all this together and what does it matter? I am an "Anybody but Obama" voter because I do think there are some issues that matter. As has been discussed here previously, the next president may be in the position to appoint up to four Supreme Court justices. If Barack Obama is making those nominations, they'll be so far to the left that Elana Kagan won't be able to see them with a pair of binoculars. I don't hold out much hope for Romney's nominations other than they'll be more conservative than Obama's. We may well get a bunch of Stephen Breyers as opposed to Clarence Thomas's. Again, this is all to appeal to the "independents" and to his "legacy".

Romney does have some business experience under his belt. I discount most of that on the personal level because he started somewhere between third base and home plate, but do give him some credit for being able to assemble good teams and to reach a consensus. That and a $1.50 will get you a small cup of coffee, so I don't know that it really matters much in the grand scheme of things.

So, from my perspective, there's not a heck of a lot of difference here. If you're a diehard conservative, you're doing yourself an injustice by pretending that this guy really aligns with your principles. Likewise, if you're a diehard liberal, it probably galls you a little bit that this guy is really somewhere to the right of Nixon. Don't grab your ankles and pretend to like it. Make your voice heard. I think this is why the Tea Party and the Ron Paul folks are so disturbing to the establishment. They're not playing along.

Gotta board a flight. Have fun discussing this.

Edited July 31, 2012 by MacGyver

[RobertNashville]

Seriously?

Your response to me after I posted a link:

I'm sure that linking to the Huffington Post as if it was a legitimate source for facts was just a joke.

Hypocrite much?

Before we go on, perhaps we should quote the entire post you take such offense to...

I love your link references. If you really believe what Huffpo puts up, good luck with that, like the other one.

I'm sure that linking to the Huffington Post as if it was a legitimate source for facts was just a joke.

My "response" to your link was not exactly a response and wasn't even directed to you; it was was directed to 6.8 AR as a reply to his comment and was offered as a joke; it was a joke at your expense but a joke nevertheless.

I thought it was clear that it was a joke but since I apparently offended you then I apologize.

...Now that's said, please link to a post where you have been personally criticized for providing links.

I've definitely been personally criticized and even personally attacked for opinions I've expressed...however, I really don't recall being personally criticized for posting a link. I suspect hat if I went back and looked I could find an example or two where that has happened but I don't see much point in looking...I mean; what if I found 100 examples where I've been "personally criticized" for a link I had posted...what would that prove???

Not long ago I received a negative iTrader rating from someone I had never traded with because of something I said about the Martin/Zimmerman case...does that make any difference?

It seems odd to me that you would feel so "personally criticized" by me when I wasn't replying to you in the first place....it also seems odd that you would wait almost a whole day to bring it up...even more odd that you would reference a post in a different thread to make your point.

I wonder; do you feel as "personally criticized" by 6.8 AR?

Edited August 1, 2012 by RobertNashville