Signs accumulate that liberals are embarrassed by Obama - The tides have turned

reply to post by SourGrapes


Hey, you think that war is righteous and you support Romney.

You won't have a choice if by some chance, hell freezes over and Romney wins.

You see, until people stop blindly worshiping the Military-Industrial Complex, our problems will never end. It doesn't begin and end with the leaders we elect. It begins at home and it is highly dependent on the "values" that we are raised with.

Those who value war, death and destruction will always kiss the boots of the soldiers.

Originally posted by VaterOrlaag

Just because you come from a military family, doesn't mean that what they do is correct, righteous, justified, etc.

What is correct is subjective and usually depends on which side you are on. We always choose our sides. I've chosen mine. I side with my country AND my military.

reply to post by SourGrapes


No, you side with Romney and the Military-Industrial Complex.

Not those who are fed up with these petty wars that accomplish nothing and cost us $$$$.

Originally posted by SourGrapes

Originally posted by campanionator

Then I hope you pay for the war with Iran and send your family

thanks!

I know you're hoping for bad to come to my family and that is unfortunate as I only hope for the best with yours. I also wish for health and prosperity for you and yours. I know we are a People and our prosperity and health is tied to one another, I'd rather go to bed without a bad conscience.

Ok, same to you, I think you are nice person, but I think you are mistaken in your judgements and
it pisses me off. I hope Romney does not win so you children do not have to go and fight for the
GOVERNMENT and POLITICIANS.

Bless you and yours

reply to post by VaterOrlaag



Why is it that Romney will be the one to send more soldiers to war? Obama has sent our soldiers to many more fights than Bush. Obama also changed the rules with our military, weapons wise. I'd rather have a President that will send my sons to war armed that have one that would send them without a means to defend themselves.

reply to post by SourGrapes


Goebbels said that when you repeat a lie often enough, pretty soon, people will start to believe it.

Show us where Obama has sent more troops than Bush, unless you're talking about Libya, etc.

And if that bothers you so much, then why even vote Romney? It's only going to get worse.

reply to post by SourGrapes


Afghanistan began in 2001 and is still ongoing. Iraq began in 2003 and ended in 2011. President Obama has been in office since January 20th 2009.

Are there any wars going on that I'm missing? Because the record indicates that he inherited two wars, one eight years old, the other six - and that one of those wars ended during his Presidency.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


What I don't understand is the willingness of people to vote for Romney when he obviously wants a war with Iran. Their fighting loved ones will not get a break there either.

There's just absolutely no logic there.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


First of all I said more 'fights', not necessarily more troops. Every fight that is added has the potential of many many many more troops.

Here's my thing: I would vote for Pelosi if she were running against Obama. Since I know that it would be her FIRST four year term. It's not so much that I'm in love with Romney's platform as I'm for the first four year best behavior thing. I want to clean house, the senate and the house. I only want to reward additional terms to those who have earned those additional terms. I could care less if that person is right/left, no matter. Let's keep putting in new people until we see an improvement in all things American (foreign policy, jobs, industry, etc).

Oh screw it - lets bomb Iran!

reply to post by SourGrapes


Well let me tell you something, voting Romney will not clear the house or the senate.

People have got to step back and realize that WE, THE PEOPLE are the problem! We vote for the same old corrupt, inane politicians. We get stuck with wars that some do not want.

You're letting your hatred of Obama cloud your judgment here.

Originally posted by HostileApostle
reply to post by seabag

 

1) What do you think he can legitimately do to salvage this campaign?

2) What do you think he’ll actually do to salvage his campaign.

Which campaign are you watching?

The one that is leading in national polls, leading in electoral college votes, leading in almost all swing states, and that just broke a fundraising record last month?

Or is there another Obama campaign I don't know about?

This is what I was wondering also. And good luck getting favorable odds in Vegas betting against Obama. He would need to sabotage the remainder of his own campaign for any chance at losing.

ETA: post-debate, here's the current Vegas odds:

Obama: -300
Romney: +240

That means you have to risk $300 to win $100 if you want to bet. on Obama, or if you take the much greater risk, based on all available data, you need to risk only $100 to win $240 on Romney.

The fact is, people remember all too recently what happened last time we had a Republican president. Skyrocketing debt to GDP, sudden trashing of Constitutional Rights, a major attack on the US homeland, skyrocketing unemployment and a twice-crashed stock market, delaying retirement for millions of baby boomers.

In the past 4 years, unemployment has leveled off, people's retirement accounts have doubled, and the debt to GDP ratio has leveled off (that's a fact, please don't argue it, the facts are easy to find.)

I'm no liberal, but with a gross annual income of around $150k, and a strong belief that the federal government should not trample on individual freedoms, I tend to vote Democrat most of the time (though given a viable libertarian candidate, I would vote that way) - that said, if I feel strongly that Obama would be the much better choice, I highly doubt "liberals" are losing their confidence in Obama. It sounds like just another neocon fantasy to me, drooling at the idea of getting Wolfowitz, Chertoff, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc., back into policy positions in D.C. One would have to assume those who want that are looking to go back to rocketing the debt to GDP, hoping for another attack on the homeland, and for a federal government who controls how people live their lives.

Some call those things "Conservative" - as someone born before a Bush was in the White House (first as VP), I consider that to be ANTI-Conservative.

Originally posted by SourGrapes
reply to post by VaterOrlaag

 

First of all I said more 'fights', not necessarily more troops. Every fight that is added has the potential of many many many more troops.

Here's my thing: I would vote for Pelosi if she were running against Obama. Since I know that it would be her FIRST four year term. It's not so much that I'm in love with Romney's platform as I'm for the first four year best behavior thing. I want to clean house, the senate and the house. I only want to reward additional terms to those who have earned those additional terms. I could care less if that person is right/left, no matter. Let's keep putting in new people until we see an improvement in all things American (foreign policy, jobs, industry, etc).

Things are improving

It is just that you are listening to the people who shout the loudest

here is real improvement

5 million new jobs since the crash started
Unemployment has dropped nearly 20% from it's high in 2009
American manufacturing is growing at it fastest pace in many decades (before the 80's)
Housing market is bouncing back
America has increased it's export to other countries 35%


those are just a few things.

You may be attracted to those who yell the loudest, but that does not mean they are right.

If I were a liberal I'd be embarrassed, too, since he isn't one of them. He's about as liberal as Mussolini.

/TOA

Military-Industrial Complex.

The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over”

military industrial complex that has been said how many times now?

Romney is a war monger how many times now?

Yeah Goebbels is right

Originally posted by campanionator
Oh screw it - lets bomb Iran!

edit on 7-10-2012 by campanionator because: (no reason given)

Operation Olympic Games look it up Iran has already been attacked several times by the current administration.

reply to post by neo96


Except that you neglected to mention Romney's rabid support of a war in Iran.

Tell me what voting Romney will do to change a thing because I'm prepared to sit back and laugh at every reason you list.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


How many us soldiers and ambassadors have died under Romney-zero

What about the current war monger in cheif?

Libya American serviceman, and an ambassador killed in action
Uganda-Koby
Afghanistan 2000 American soldiers,
Yemen
Pakistan
Somalia.
Then of course we have the current murder of over 50,000 Mexican nationals

Yeah seems someone "forgot" quite of bit of murder and mayhem undre the current regime.

But hey don't let that get in the way of bashing ole Mittens heaven forbid.

Romney is evil!.

reply to post by neo96


Blah blah blah.

You didn't answer my question. You just threw out more anti-Obama rhetoric.

One more time: WHAT WILL ROMNEY DO FOR US?

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


How about quoting anywhere in this thread anyone saying people should vote for anyone?

I don't tell people who to vote for just to vote, as if someone who needs to ask "why vote for Romney" already says everything about them.

Then figure in the "anti Obama rhetoric" clearly says that their mind is already made up.