Booster4324 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Let me ask you this Booster: Who would you vote for come '12. From your posts over the last year or so you no longer believe in the DNC liberal/progressive dogma. I'm curious as to who you would vote for if the election were this November.... I will log in a protest vote, someone that is independent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 I will log in a protest vote, someone that is independent. Of course you will, that way you have to defend nothing and can complain about everything while pretending their is some magical third way to hapiness. Cowardly. Go Obama in 2012! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Of course you will, that way you have to defend nothing and can complain about everything while pretending their is some magical third way to hapiness. Cowardly. Go Obama in 2012! Yeah Booster, suck it up and fall back in line. The party needs your vote. There is no I in DNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Yeah Booster, suck it up and fall back in line. The party needs your vote. There is no I in DNC. Thanks for handling that one for me. Those who are still part of the two party system are part of the problem, not part of the solution. Democrat, Republican, whatever, both parties suck as neither is that different from one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted June 12, 2011 Share Posted June 12, 2011 Hardly. I had no idea how either candidate would perform as president. Now that I've seen Barry inaction, I don't want to see him in office again. He had a year with full control to do something meaningful, and all he did was spend like crazy and focus on socialized medicine that most people don't want and which will only make things worse. And realistically, the only choices are a) vote for the Dem, b) vote for the Repub, or c) don't vote. Voting for a non-major party candidate is a waste of a vote since he/she will never win, and I'm not into making a symbolic gesture with so much at stake. So it's the lesser of two evils, or not voting at all, which is worse than voting, IMO. Same logic that got us Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 Hardly. I had no idea how either candidate would perform as president. Now that I've seen Barry inaction, I don't want to see him in office again. He had a year with full control to do something meaningful, and all he did was spend like crazy and focus on socialized medicine that most people don't want and which will only make things worse. why are you suprised? this is WHO HE IS. Somewhere in the "hope and change" mania of 2008 no one stopped to actually look at who the hell he is and what he stands for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 14, 2011 Share Posted June 14, 2011 why are you suprised? this is WHO HE IS. Somewhere in the "hope and change" mania of 2008 no one stopped to actually look at who the hell he is and what he stands for. Let me add that I had no idea that Minny would be stupid enough to elect Al Freakin' Franken (although after Jessie Ventura, I guess I shouldn't have been surprised) and that Specter would flip and give the Dems a super majority in the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 How about "not Obama". And why? Because "not Obama" is going to win in 2012 just like "not Bush" did in 2008. Hopefully this time around, whoever Not Obama is will actually be qualified for the position. Hey, we can always hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 How about "not Obama". And why? Because "not Obama" is going to win in 2012 just like "not Bush" did in 2008. Hopefully this time around, whoever Not Obama is will actually be qualified for the position. Hey, we can always hope. sure can it's all about "Hope and change" that our country is smart enough to decide for themselves (since the media clearly isn't objective) that it's in our best interest to vote him out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 How about "not Obama". And why? Because "not Obama" is going to win in 2012 just like "not Bush" did in 2008. Hopefully this time around, whoever Not Obama is will actually be qualified for the position. Hey, we can always hope. That's a dangerous strategy. Let us not forget the failure of "Not Bush" at the height of it's popularity when the powerhouse candidacy of Kerry/Edwards met it's disappointing fate leaving millions of morons to wallow in their grief. Let us also not forget the perfect storm required to get "Not Bush 2.0" elected. It took a massive media/celebrity pop culture movement of cool, the first black candidate (you're not racist, are you), a castrated Republican candidate, a Republican VP candidate who was only slightly more qualified than th Dem's Presidential candidate, and a financial crisis that just happened to hit around election time. Point being, it's not that great of a strategy, and if we wind up with another eunuch running against the Ring a ding kid we might wake up Wednesday morning wondering what happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 15, 2011 Share Posted June 15, 2011 (edited) That's a dangerous strategy. Let us not forget the failure of "Not Bush" at the height of it's popularity when the powerhouse candidacy of Kerry/Edwards met it's disappointing fate leaving millions of morons to wallow in their grief. Let us also not forget the perfect storm required to get "Not Bush 2.0" elected. It took a massive media/celebrity pop culture movement of cool, the first black candidate (you're not racist, are you), a castrated Republican candidate, a Republican VP candidate who was only slightly more qualified than th Dem's Presidential candidate, and a financial crisis that just happened to hit around election time. Point being, it's not that great of a strategy, and if we wind up with another eunuch running against the Ring a ding kid we might wake up Wednesday morning wondering what happened. Oh I certainly agree, and if I was one of the Karl Roves running this thing in the background I sure as hell would resist any attempt to make this the strategy. I merely think that this is what is likely to happen, regardless of all efforts on both sides. People aren't really going to buy in to any of the rhetoric...really, unless a "voted for it before I voted against it" thing comes along. But really, the polls show that people are either sick of or pissed at Obama. He hasn't been a centrist. He refuses to realize that his party is a minority in this country, with only 20% of our people actually believing what he does. He doesn't understand that you can't be "everybody's President" if you only represent and attend to 20% of the people. He refuses to realize that college professors don't know how to run businesses in a practical environment, never mind entire economies. I, and many other people I have met, even people on this board, could have done a better job advising him on the economy than they did. It sucks that we have to go through hell to finally prove, once and for all, that Keynesian economics sabotages, not stimulates, economies. Hopefully this is the very last time we allow college professors from Berkley to become economic saboteurs. These, 100% valid, indictments are so massive, in there scope, never mind their scale...that I think it's clear that Not Obama will work by default...and possibly in spite of any Republican designs. Edited June 15, 2011 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Why doesn't Steve Jobs get a Nobel for Economics? He took a company that was close to bankruptcy and made it into one of the strongest in the world. When has anybody who teaches in academia done that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted June 16, 2011 Share Posted June 16, 2011 Why doesn't Steve Jobs get a Nobel for Economics? He took a company that was close to bankruptcy and made it into one of the strongest in the world. When has anybody who teaches in academia done that? Probably for the following reasons: 1. Steve Jobs defines the word "giant douche". 2. Steve Jobs only had to come back and "save Apple" because he was forced out due to #1 and #4. 3. Steve Jobs refuses to admit mistakes and honestly believes he knows better than everybody about everything in IT. 4. Due to #3, Steve Jobs cannot learn from mistakes: see not allowing the Mac to be open to outside developers...and getting killed by PC because of it...and then, not letting the iPhone be open to outside developers...and about to get killed by Droid and Blackberry because of it. 5. The company never would have been in near bankruptcy had it not been for the blatant stupidity described in #4. 6. Steve Jobs will continue to insist that he was right all along about open architectures being bad and insisting that Apple maintain totalitarian, planned economy-type control(uh, only allowing developers to charge $14 per app is socialist price fixing)...right up until he dies...and then somebody once and for all makes Apple the viable competitor to PC it should have been all along....or Macs will simply go away. Ultimately, it was the loyalty of skilled workers companies cannot afford to lose, like engineers, architects, etc., that kept the Mac alive when every IT department in the world wanted them dead. Ever try networking a Mac in 1995? That's why. Steve Jobs got lucky that these skilled workers held their ground. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts