Presidential Candidates .. Who Do You Like?

This post was vague like most things you say. Well this needs this and that needs that but that one is ok and that one is too much. You're not really saying much at all. Plus (and I'm not usually a grammar nazi) but that was painful to read.

One thing I've been interested in lately is why the people that dislike Obama actually dislike him. I've asked several people lately (friends, around the office, etc.) why they actually dislike them and it seems very few if any give even a decent or coherent answer as to why they dislike him or why they think he's bad for the country. I'm sure there are quite a few people here that dislike him, so can you tell me why beyond the "oh well he's this or he's that"

I actually had one person tell me that other countries are mad at us because of him and when asked which and why, it was like a struggle to answer and ultimately just ended the convo as it was doing more harm than good lol.

So for those of you that dislike Obama, do you actually know why you dislike him?

It's perception of the economy. Hard economic times generally means bad rating for the president, as well as difficulty getting reelected, regardless if it's his fault or not. People may struggle to find a reason for why they dislike him because they can't necessarily accurately place blame of the financial crisis on him.

My sister was on the fence about who to vote for until she read that exact same article. After she read it, she made up her mind to vote for Ron Paul.

The general idea is bringing responsibility back to the people, not the government. No warfare unless it's declared by Congress and is deemed necessary.

Less regulation, leave the choices to the people - if they want to buy milk from a man in the alleyway, let them, if they get sick, it's their own fault. Now that we have the internet, it should be easy to talk with people to find a company that's reputable. Leave it up to the people to decide which business stays or goes.

Just like the GM scandals a couple of decades ago where they'd intentionally build crappy vehicles to break within a certain time frame just so people would buy cars more frequently. People caught on and started buying Honda and Toyota like crazy. Yet the government helps to keep GM afloat? No way, let them sink if people won't buy from them. Sure, they might be building better cars these days, but if their name is tarnished why should you trust them now? But now, taxpayers(the entire country) are footing the bill for them.

Heck, just look at the street. You see so many early 90's Hondas and Toyatos still out there, but how many vehicles other than Jeep Cherokees lasted that long from the American market?

He's got my vote if he gets the nomination.

Meanwhile Obama lost it with his crack down in CA.


20 Billion on air conditioning?! That just blew my mind a little.

my 92 Accord was built in the US, but I need to swap the engine out of it. (technically it is a US market car, semantics...)

learn how to read and you'd understand it just fine...

nobody in mainstream politics has my vote due to the fact that none of them have learned from history, I agree with some of Paul's ideas but others are just too crazy

on second thought: out of that link I can only get behind two of those ideas, the rest are asinine...

It's not semantics. The Japanese company has a set of standards that it applies to its products regardless of where it is made. The American company also their own set of standards, which were of lesser quality to the Japanese company's. You can't fault people for choosing a higher quality vehicle - one that doesn't break in 3-5 years.

And now we're stuck having to pay for GM and Ford's planned obsolescence.

Ford Thunderbirds built between 1988-1992 last way beyond 200,000 miles. That's the only American car I have ever bought. Only had to replace a transmission once, never any engines or anything else major.

no it is semantics:

you said American market, I don't own a JDM car, simple.

otherwise I agree with you.


car had 280k miles on it and every major repair was driver inflicted, drove the car for 6~months with a warped head, blew the starter, they took the engine apart said it's warped bad. (leaking antifreeze) so I decided to replace the engine instead of having it rebuilt, still need to drop it in though...

Which ones?

This in particular Jet... "fat needs trimmed and other sections need to be bigger and taxes need raised, while some sections need cut, but nobody in the government is pushing for this, nor are the people with power (money)." That right there is basically a bunch of fragments, that, in the end don't say much of anything other than something needs to be done lol.

I do know how to read and that is exactly why it was painful to read what you had written.

that the ADA is stupid and should have never passed, and drugs/hookers.

but I don't think it should be a state thing: federal legalization and regulltion (and taxes, they need to increase revenue, no?)

no, and it's vague because the issues are very broad and I don't have the time nor patience nor really the scope to list them all.

Obviously you don't have great reading comprehension or you would have realized this...

So reading comprehension is based off knowing that the author of said statement does not have the time, patience or scope to post something that is repeating the obvious in a vague fashion?

Interesting...

Of course the issues are broad as the federal gov't pretty much has its hands in everything. I guess my question is what was the point of putting a fragmented thought out there that wasn't really saying much of anything?

Again it's not fragmented, so drop it.

I don't like the idea of the Controlled Substance Act in general, but for practicality reasons I would think state regulation would make the most sense.

If a certain state doesn't want to do it, they don't have. They're not forced too. Whereas if it's federal, everyone has to do it.

But I'm also one who thinks that most things should be regulated by states and counties. The federal government should be more concerned about global affairs and the military and less about people's daily lives.

I live in a county where porn is illegal and a "state" (Commonwealth of Virginia...) that I'm sure has some equally stupid policies. (can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment).

So I'm a tad bias.

Nah, too close to uncle sam. I always figured you could treat it like alcohol and dole out licenses and sell it at bars and the like.

Even with making stuff like this legal I still think there should be a few regulations put in place. Also, you can put a "sin tax" on it like Alcohol and cigarettes to generate some revenue.

Feds are also supposed to be there to handle state gov't corruption and issues with jursdiction and such as well.

So move. Eventually if the county's/state's policies are driving away too many people, they'll change or be screwed. It's along the lines of how the free market should work, but with rules/laws/etc. instead.

yeah, move if you don't like it's a flawed philosophy just as the free market is a flawed philosophy...

neither are very practical

kind of like the people who say if you don't like the US to leave, it's stupid...

Free market is flawed?!!!!!!11one

Communist!

I don't really have a strong opinion one way or the other on Obama. I think he did a better job than Bush. I think it's possible to do better still. He's for sure not the worst president we've ever had! I think that the reason (some) people don't like him is that he didn't follow through with all his promises he made while running for president. It was foolish and naive of people to believe every single thing he said back then, he'd have had to be superman to follow through on every promise.

I know some people who unfortunately dislike him because they still think he's not a real American (the whole stupid birth certificate thing.) I got a chain text message from someone who I certainly no longer count as a pal when he was elected that said something along the lines of "There's black people in the white house, let's all meet there with nooses and shotguns." It wasn't exactly that, but it was close, a threat against the president and his family just for their skin color, which is horrendous beyond belief. I was flabbergasted and furious, to say the least.

Then there's my family. They dislike Obama because they are terrified of their health care plans changing. They are terrified of change, period. They are homophobic for the most part and are therefore insulted that Obama did away with don't ask don't tell. They are blindly republican so there's never going to be a democratic president that they'll like regardless. They blame him completely 100% for the economy mess. I have an aunt on facebook who regularly complains about how hard it is for her to scrape by and sarcastically thanks Obama for it. (She's also in the tea party. ._.) They believe every dumb little thing about questioning Obama's birth, so they are scandalized that he was allowed to run in the first place. (In other words, they watch way too much biased TV.) They saw a picture of him somewhere wearing some Middle Eastern clothing and got all pissed that he'd rather be Middle Eastern than American. (Lol? I wear bandannas in my hair sometimes. It totally means I'd rather be a gangster than a wife. >.> /sarcasm off) And they've accused him of actually being a terrorist. These are just my folks, I'm not sure what the rest of the world is thinking. You just gotta /facepalm and move on sometimes!

I still prefer it with regulation more than socialism, however ours needs regulated differently than it is now.

Also hoping the mix-up is just a funny jab and not an error on your part.

(despite what my mother and most of America thinks communism =/= socialism, visa-verse.