Obama is a...

[PoliticsFan]

I'm going for Both A and B.

You guys?

[icono1]

I agree with A and B also.

[r0beph]

I went with B & C in heart.

How can you be A & B?

Communism (marxist) defines socialist as the interim step from captialism's shift to communism. so to infer he's both is not logical.

Socialism however can exist sans marx without inferring any communism(Marxist) view.

[heyjude]

Ohama is just an American who happens to be of African descent. He is not a socialist or communist. He is a liberal.

[USMC the Almighty]

He is a liberal.

so by definition he is Socialist...

[vyo476]

so by definition he is Socialist...

That's not completely fair. I'm a liberal but not a socialist.

[guesswhat]

I don't think Senator Obama is either a socialist or a communist, but I do think whoever owns the "2008 Election" myspace page sporting the senator's picture is probably a ham-fisted conservative storm trooper without much imagination.

[Sgt Schultz]

He's an American.

[USMC the Almighty]

That's not completely fair. I'm a liberal but not a socialist.

Do you believe in redistributing income?

[vyo476]

Do you believe in redistributing income?

To certain extent. Not complete redistribution, which is what socialism represents. There is middle ground there - the moderate view is of partial redistribution, the socialist view is of complete redistribution, and the conservative view is of no redistribution.

[Burning Giraffe]

Obama is a Social Democrat, much like the Labor Party in the UK. Marxist thinking mixed with FDR-type humanitarianism has influenced liberalism throughout the West. So, as a Liberal, Obama is influenced both by communism and socialism, but not to the extreme of having complete government take over of major industries.

[Justinian]

I voted B but now that I think of it, I'd go with A and B also. He's also freakish dog puke.

[Think for myself]

so by definition he is Socialist...

Definition of liberal below.
1.
a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
d. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.
2.
a. Tending to give freely; generous: a liberal benefactor.
b. Generous in amount; ample: a liberal serving of potatoes.
3. Not strict or literal; loose or approximate: a liberal translation.
4. Of, relating to, or based on the traditional arts and sciences of a college or university curriculum: a liberal education.

Can you please show me where it says Socialist? Maybe I'm a bit dense, but I did a search on the page and it's not there. Help me, please?

[Think for myself]

Obama is at least better than the retreads everyone else is trotting out. I say let's try something new.

[Kelly]

"Can you please show me where it says Socialist? Maybe I'm a bit dense, but I did a search on the page and it's not there. Help me, please?"
--AWESOME!!!

[Justinian]

Obama is at least better than the retreads everyone else is trotting out. I say let's try something new.

Politics is a science. It's foolish to try something just because its new. In fact most things that are tried simply because they havent are doomed to fail. Theres a reason why people didn't do them before. But we're so much smarter today, right? It'll work because we're so smart.

[Think for myself]

Politics is a science. It's foolish to try something just because its new. In fact most things that are tried simply because they havent are doomed to fail. Theres a reason why people didn't do them before. But we're so much smarter today, right? It'll work because we're so smart.

I am detecting a note of condescension there.

The prospect of having a life long career politician in office is nauseating. I fail to see a reference to a failure of this idea. I say try something new, as the status quo is not working. If you see him as lacking experience, I kindly ask you to vote for the other front runner in the primaries.

[Coyote]

Politics is a science. It's foolish to try something just because its new. In fact most things that are tried simply because they havent are doomed to fail. Theres a reason why people didn't do them before. But we're so much smarter today, right? It'll work because we're so smart.

Politics is far from being a science.

In order for something new to work - it has to be the right thing at the right time. Something that might not have worked 50 years ago, might work now.

[Rokerijdude11]

Obama is in trouble the Klan has it out for him.....if he gets anywhere close they will kill him they said so

[cruiser]

Obama is in trouble the Klan has it out for him.....if he gets anywhere close they will kill him they said so

Really? Wow, I haven\'t heard that. Is that posted on his website or something?

[Rokerijdude11]

Chicagos CBS News ran a report on it 3 days ago..i havent seen it surface online yet? but Channel 2 ran a stroy about Obama being a marked man

that the KKK has NO INTENTIONS of letting him in office. that is what some of theyre followers said on camera in disguise

[Kelly]

--F@ck the KKK! They're just a bunch of fat slob retard hics that can't pose us or Obama any threat anyway--except for putting on some stupid demonstration in some obscure small town. They would get mowed down by any local police force and/or branch of Black Panthers (who I detest just as much as the KKK) if they ever tried anything. They definitely ARE NOT smart enough to plan and successfully carry out any sort of assassination attempt.

[Freethinker]

Do you believe in redistributing income?

The real question is Do you believe thieves should give restitution for the money they stole. To imply that the wealthiest people earned most of what they have incoming is misleading.

[Freethinker]

I'm going for Both A and B.

You guys?
He is a Democratic candidate in every sense big D and little d. And a more honorable man than any running.

[Justinian]

He is a Democratic candidate in every sense big D and little d. And a more honorable man than any running.

Are you perhaps black? I don't know where you get honorable from because he has practically no crendentials in any small amount at all what so ever to be president not to mention he's a freak.

[vyo476]

Are you perhaps black? I don't know where you get honorable from because he has practically no crendentials in any small amount at all what so ever to be president not to mention he's a freak.

He's a "freak"? How, exactly, is he a "freak"?

[top gun]

He's an American.

He's one hell of a good AMERICAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

[USMC the Almighty]

The real question is Do you believe thieves should give restitution for the money they stole. To imply that the wealthiest people earned most of what they have incoming is misleading.

If people actually stole money (i.e. thieves) then yes, but to imply that all wealthy people are thieves is dishonest.

And you never answered my question: do you support the even redistribution of income?

[FRYandBENDER]

The real question is Do you believe thieves should give restitution for the money they stole. To imply that the wealthiest people earned most of what they have incoming is misleading.

Yeah, how dare those people work hard, invest, and create jobs to other people? Besides, property rights are over rated. Why should people be allowed to keep the things (money/property) that they traded their time and work to aquire? Its not like there are those that work harder than others and make better decisions. Some people just have bad luck.

[top gun]

Yeah, how dare those people work hard, invest, and create jobs to other people? Besides, property rights are over rated. Why should people be allowed to keep the things (money/property) that they traded their time and work to aquire? Its not like there are those that work harder than others and make better decisions. Some people just have bad luck.

I don't think it's that at all. I think it's always been a matter of the more you have the more you can afford to give. It's really a lot like tything. I don't see anybody being drug down to the poverty level because of taxes. And least we forget that much of what taxes go to helps every single person at some point... not just the poor.

There was a time when people helped out their neighbors and their communities at the level required. If a road needed built... the community got together and built it. If someone was sick the doctor took care of it whether the family could pay or not. As time passed things changed and at the same time the country grew and spread out tremendously. Some critically important social programs had to be implemented.

Bottom line is it's just plain math. It is not unreasonable for a person making $60,000 per year to pay $6000 in taxes and the person making $30,000 per year to pay only $3000. They make twice a much. There's twice as much income to tax. There is nothing unfair about that and often the more you make the more tax shelters you actually learn to utilize. And if you earn at the poverty level or below you shouldn't have to pay taxes... you're already in poverty.:)

[ArmChair General]

Obama is a...

the magic negro

[Vlad]

Please refrain from spamming and try to stay on topic please.

House of Politics will enforce its rules more strictly.

[FRYandBENDER]

I don't think it's that at all. I think it's always been a matter of the more you have the more you can afford to give. It's really a lot like tything. I don't see anybody being drug down to the poverty level because of taxes. And least we forget that much of what taxes go to helps every single person at some point... not just the poor.

There was a time when people helped out their neighbors and their communities at the level required. If a road needed built... the community got together and built it. If someone was sick the doctor took care of it whether the family could pay or not. As time passed things changed and at the same time the country grew and spread out tremendously. Some critically important social programs had to be implemented.

Bottom line is it's just plain math. It is not unreasonable for a person making $60,000 per year to pay $6000 in taxes and the person making $30,000 per year to pay only $3000. They make twice a much. There's twice as much income to tax. There is nothing unfair about that and often the more you make the more tax shelters you actually learn to utilize. And if you earn at the poverty level or below you shouldn't have to pay taxes... you're already in poverty.:)

Well I'm not advocating that we shouldn't have any social programs. Certainly there are those who genuinely need help, either permanent due to illness or injury, or temporary due to a lay off or stint in the hospitol. That being said, I don't see why someone that studied hard, invested wisely, and worked their ass off should be responsible for the living conditions of someone that has birthed 3 babies out of wedlock before the age of 20, or waste their money on superfluous items like big screen tv's or 20" rims instead of saving/ investing, or has an addiction to drugs, or ...... the list goes on. When you are taking money from people that work hard and spend/save wisely and giving it to people tht are not responsible you are punishing that hard work and diminishing the incentive to succeed and keep our economy going.

[Rokerijdude11]

Income taxes are ILLEGAL

[Sgt Schultz]

Well I'm not advocating that we shouldn't have any social programs. Certainly there are those who genuinely need help, either permanent due to illness or injury, or temporary due to a lay off or stint in the hospitol. That being said, I don't see why someone that studied hard, invested wisely, and worked their ass off should be responsible for the living conditions of someone that has birthed 3 babies out of wedlock before the age of 20, or waste their money on superfluous items like big screen tv's or 20" rims instead of saving/ investing, or has an addiction to drugs, or ...... the list goes on. When you are taking money from people that work hard and spend/save wisely and giving it to people tht are not responsible you are punishing that hard work and diminishing the incentive to succeed and keep our economy going.

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying I have to ask what do we do to stop these things from happening? Unless we abandon the very freedoms and principles that make our country what it is I don't see how you can stop it. It's part of the price we pay for having freedoms and rights.

[FRYandBENDER]

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying I have to ask what do we do to stop these things from happening? Unless we abandon the very freedoms and principles that make our country what it is I don't see how you can stop it. It's part of the price we pay for having freedoms and rights.

I honestly don't know what we should do. My answer for most everything is personal responsibility, but with the way things are going I don't see people becoming more responsible. I definately wouldn't give up rights to "ensure" that people started acting more responsibly. I guess it is a catch 22. I definately wouldn't trade capitolism for anything else, but to me it seems to have had a detrimental effect on some of our values, like personal responsibility. When I see irresponsible lifestyles being marketed to people it upsets me quite a bit. It is not like the old days where we simply marketed and sold goods and services. I think that marketing has gone from "defining a target audience and addressing their needs and how -insert company- can fullfill them" to "creating a target audience and giving them a need that -insert company- can fullfill" at least to a certain extent. I've never really verbalized my thought process on this so bear with me. Take MTV. When I watch MTV I see shows that glorify sexual permiscuity ( highschool pregnancies), absurd materialism (bling, rims, etc.), vapid personalities and so on. These show are marketed towards people my own age, 25, but also towards teenagers. Since the marketing of these ideals has become so widespread I believe that children, and adults sadly, become enthralled with notions that sex is consequence free, it is wiser to waste money on "the new cell phone (even though you just bought one 6 months ago) or this brand of "whatever" than to save and invest. I think that the ideas of "keeping up with the Jones'" and "gotta do this to be cool" have subverted much more important principles like not starting a family until your financially capable and focusing your efforts as a parent towards making sure your child is prepared for the world instead of making sure that your daughter is dressed as slutty as the other girls so she will be popular. The reason we have these cultures in our society is because someone is making money on them. That is what I don't get about the whole "evil rich" argument. They are making money because we are buying their stupid ****. We perpetuate the existence of these lifestyles and ideals because we buy clothes that dress our children up like hookers, we buy music that objectifies women and glorifies violence/drug use, and we pay for, via the commercials we view, TV shows that do the same. I guess it comes back to personal responsibility. If we could pull our heads out of our asses and start supporting decent values again, maybe there wouldn't be as much nonsensical drivel to take our minds off of working hard, being proud that we work hard, education, and being responsible.

Sorry for the rant.

[USMC the Almighty]

Income taxes are ILLEGAL

How'd you arrive at this conclusion? Ever heard of the 16th Amendment?

[Sgt Schultz]

I honestly don't know what we should do. My answer for most everything is personal responsibility, but with the way things are going I don't see people becoming more responsible. I definately wouldn't give up rights to "ensure" that people started acting more responsibly. I guess it is a catch 22. I definately wouldn't trade capitolism for anything else, but to me it seems to have had a detrimental effect on some of our values, like personal responsibility. When I see irresponsible lifestyles being marketed to people it upsets me quite a bit. It is not like the old days where we simply marketed and sold goods and services. I think that marketing has gone from "defining a target audience and addressing their needs and how -insert company- can fullfill them" to "creating a target audience and giving them a need that -insert company- can fullfill" at least to a certain extent. I've never really verbalized my thought process on this so bear with me. Take MTV. When I watch MTV I see shows that glorify sexual permiscuity ( highschool pregnancies), absurd materialism (bling, rims, etc.), vapid personalities and so on. These show are marketed towards people my own age, 25, but also towards teenagers. Since the marketing of these ideals has become so widespread I believe that children, and adults sadly, become enthralled with notions that sex is consequence free, it is wiser to waste money on "the new cell phone (even though you just bought one 6 months ago) or this brand of "whatever" than to save and invest. I think that the ideas of "keeping up with the Jones'" and "gotta do this to be cool" have subverted much more important principles like not starting a family until your financially capable and focusing your efforts as a parent towards making sure your child is prepared for the world instead of making sure that your daughter is dressed as slutty as the other girls so she will be popular. The reason we have these cultures in our society is because someone is making money on them. That is what I don't get about the whole "evil rich" argument. They are making money because we are buying their stupid ****. We perpetuate the existence of these lifestyles and ideals because we buy clothes that dress our children up like hookers, we buy music that objectifies women and glorifies violence/drug use, and we pay for, via the commercials we view, TV shows that do the same. I guess it comes back to personal responsibility. If we could pull our heads out of our asses and start supporting decent values again, maybe there wouldn't be as much nonsensical drivel to take our minds off of working hard, being proud that we work hard, education, and being responsible.

Sorry for the rant.

Don't be sorry for your rant, and as I said I don't necessarily disagree with you. I totally agree with the idea of personal responsibility needing to be stressed. But capitalism and freedom comes with a price i.e. to have the good you have to put up with the bad. Even putting up with the bad is better than the alternative in my opinion.

[top gun]

Well I'm not advocating that we shouldn't have any social programs. Certainly there are those who genuinely need help, either permanent due to illness or injury, or temporary due to a lay off or stint in the hospitol. That being said, I don't see why someone that studied hard, invested wisely, and worked their ass off should be responsible for the living conditions of someone that has birthed 3 babies out of wedlock before the age of 20, or waste their money on superfluous items like big screen tv's or 20" rims instead of saving/ investing, or has an addiction to drugs, or ...... the list goes on. When you are taking money from people that work hard and spend/save wisely and giving it to people tht are not responsible you are punishing that hard work and diminishing the incentive to succeed and keep our economy going.

Well that's not an unreasonable position Fry... and by the way good to see you over here!:)

There is no doubt that all levels there are those who take advantage of our system. Whether it be exploiting welfare programs, frauding workers comp, or just plain cheating on your taxes it's all wrong.

I just think the big screen TV's or the big chrome rims tend to stand out a little more than someone who tries to write off a Porsche as an office expense because it has a phone in it... but I do get your point.

I will say this though because I've been there. Thirty years ago I was so poor that I couldn't even afford a car. I lived in an apartment complex that was so treacherous that the street I lived on was nicknamed Uzi Alley. I remember having to wait in the winter until the cars made ruts in the snow so I could drive my girlfriend on the back of my bike to the grocery store for food.

Back then I heard some of the same complaints you've made but they were more like... How can he afford that nice Harley? Do you know how much those things cost... I can't afford one and I've got a good job... it's just not right.

The truth of the matter is that's all I had. I lived in the ghetto. Didn't have the good job, the savings, or the credit to get out at that time. But I still wanted something special, something nice, something that I could say was just as good or better than anything anyone else had. For me that was my bike.

Now I'm 50 and pretty darn successful in property management. Own a nice home that's almost completely paid off, a decent amount of money in the bank and a brand new SUV in the garage that I bought "cash".

But I never forgot the feeling that Harley gave me when I lived on Uzi alley and only owned a few pieces of old broken down furniture, 3 shirts, 3 pair of jeans, a pair of boots and a old biker jacket. It didn't make be rich having that nice Harley... but it helped my self-esteem and to this day I still am glad that I had that bike at that time in my life.

Just food for thought... :)

[Cheshire Cat]

I don't think it's that at all. I think it's always been a matter of the more you have the more you can afford to give. It's really a lot like tything. I don't see anybody being drug down to the poverty level because of taxes. And least we forget that much of what taxes go to helps every single person at some point... not just the poor.

There was a time when people helped out their neighbors and their communities at the level required. If a road needed built... the community got together and built it. If someone was sick the doctor took care of it whether the family could pay or not. As time passed things changed and at the same time the country grew and spread out tremendously. Some critically important social programs had to be implemented.

Bottom line is it's just plain math. It is not unreasonable for a person making $60,000 per year to pay $6000 in taxes and the person making $30,000 per year to pay only $3000. They make twice a much. There's twice as much income to tax. There is nothing unfair about that and often the more you make the more tax shelters you actually learn to utilize. And if you earn at the poverty level or below you shouldn't have to pay taxes... you're already in poverty.:)
People can't afford to help their neighbors and their community anymore, because of taxes. Your example above is an example of a flat tax, in your scenario both incomes are paying 10%, that however is not the reality in existence today. I am middle income, and I pay 50% of my income to the government in one manner or another. Here is a partial list. Federal income tax, social security, medicare, state income tax, sales tax on virtually everything I purchase, property tax on my house, property tax on my vehicles, registration tax(fees) for my vehicles, mandatory annual inspections for my vehicles, I smoke and tobacco is taxed heavily, I drink and alcohol is taxed heavily, gasoline taxes, misc taxes on the phone service (between me and my daughters, that is 3 phones I am getting taxed on), there is a special tax on my internet service, there is more, but you get the point. When I did the math a few months ago, it really did come out to 50%. Don't you think that is an extreme tax rate for middle income? I certainly do.

[Sgt Schultz]

People can't afford to help their neighbors and their community anymore, because of taxes. Your example above is an example of a flat tax, in your scenario both incomes are paying 10%, that however is not the reality in existence today. I am middle income, and I pay 50% of my income to the government in one manner or another. Here is a partial list. Federal income tax, social security, medicare, state income tax, sales tax on virtually everything I purchase, property tax on my house, property tax on my vehicles, registration tax(fees) for my vehicles, mandatory annual inspections for my vehicles, I smoke and tobacco is taxed heavily, I drink and alcohol is taxed heavily, gasoline taxes, misc taxes on the phone service (between me and my daughters, that is 3 phones I am getting taxed on), there is a special tax on my internet service, there is more, but you get the point. When I did the math a few months ago, it really did come out to 50%. Don't you think that is an extreme tax rate for middle income? I certainly do.

I agree taxes are too high but I'm tired of using my tax dollars to subsidize professional sports teams to build new stadiums. I'm tired of giving tax breaks to Walmart, Home Depot and other large businesses to build a new store a few miles down the road because the tax breaks they used to build their current store is about to run out. I could go on and on if you catch my drift. My taxes wouldn't need to be so high if I wasn't subsidizing the rich and businesses so they don't have to pay their fair share.

[top gun]

People can't afford to help their neighbors and their community anymore, because of taxes. Your example above is an example of a flat tax, in your scenario both incomes are paying 10%, that however is not the reality in existence today. I am middle income, and I pay 50% of my income to the government in one manner or another. Here is a partial list. Federal income tax, social security, medicare, state income tax, sales tax on virtually everything I purchase, property tax on my house, property tax on my vehicles, registration tax(fees) for my vehicles, mandatory annual inspections for my vehicles, I smoke and tobacco is taxed heavily, I drink and alcohol is taxed heavily, gasoline taxes, misc taxes on the phone service (between me and my daughters, that is 3 phones I am getting taxed on), there is a special tax on my internet service, there is more, but you get the point. When I did the math a few months ago, it really did come out to 50%. Don't you think that is an extreme tax rate for middle income? I certainly do.

Well I think we both know that people aren't going to go out and build roads & Interstate Highways for free if taxes were just lower. I'm sure we really do agree on that.:)

On everything else you said I don't think that we are really in disagreement either. To be more clear on the 10% of taxes I wasn't using real percentages (I just used an easy math number 10%). I realize taxes are much more than 10%.

To reply to Fry I was just making the point that the actual amount of money paid in higher tax brackets is more... but it is for the most part proportional to the ratio "percentage of income wise" in lower brackets. Lower income having earned income credit etc. while higher incomes often having more tax shelters like property tax and mortgage interest deductions.

We're in agreement that taxes can create a hardship. As you watch my posts on taxes you see that I try to keep my position consistent. Things like Social Security & Medicare are as important as things get and should ALWAYS be funded. However I was totally on board when President Clinton implemented massive Welfare reform limiting time on the program & benefits, and I would only support a National Healthcare Program if it were proven to me that healthcare costs would stay the same or lower to the individual taxpayer. And of course I've tried to be extremely outspoken on the disastrous effect this monstrous, run away freight train spending to occupy Iraq is going to be to all American taxpayers.

So overall we're in agreement. It's really how we spend our money that's most important. If our leaders spend recklessly... we will pay the price in higher taxes.

[Cheshire Cat]

I agree taxes are too high but I'm tired of using my tax dollars to subsidize professional sports teams to build new stadiums. I'm tired of giving tax breaks to Walmart, Home Depot and other large businesses to build a new store a few miles down the road because the tax breaks they used to build their current store is about to run out. I could go on and on if you catch my drift. My taxes wouldn't need to be so high if I wasn't subsidizing the rich and businesses so they don't have to pay their fair share.
I wonder what you would consider a businesses "fair share" to be?
Now that I have asked that question, let me explain to you how businesses don't pay tax.
Businesses only collect taxes from the consumer, this is an economic fact. If the government were to raise taxes on business, there are only two possible outcomes of this action. One would be for the business to stop doing business, the other would be for them to raise prices to offset the tax. In other words they pass on that increased tax to the consumer. By raising taxes on a business, the government is only forcing the business to act as a tax collector for them. You and I ultimately pay that tax, unfortunately, that is the economic reality of taxing a business.

[vyo476]

It kinda makes you think, doesn't it? You know, that our ancestors fought the American Revolution to end unjust taxation. Was it "taxation without representation is a sin" or was it just "we don't want you taking our money"? At first, our Founding Fathers wanted to avoid taxes as much as possible. When it became obvious that they were a necessary evil they imposed a few. Over the years those few have grown and grown and now...here we are, carrying around pocket calculators and a short list of taxes and their percentages that's longer than the Declaration of Independence just to figure out if we're going to have enough money to buy two cans of soup rather than just one.

Maybe I've been listening to Truth-Bringer too much but I've grown to really dislike taxation in general. We need to shave the system down - go back to the essentials and then see what else would be useful to keep from there.

[Sgt Schultz]

I wonder what you would consider a businesses "fair share" to be?
Now that I have asked that question, let me explain to you how businesses don't pay tax.
Businesses only collect taxes from the consumer, this is an economic fact. If the government were to raise taxes on business, there are only two possible outcomes of this action. One would be for the business to stop doing business, the other would be for them to raise prices to offset the tax. In other words they pass on that increased tax to the consumer. By raising taxes on a business, the government is only forcing the business to act as a tax collector for them. You and I ultimately pay that tax, unfortunately, that is the economic reality of taxing a business.

I expect businesses to be taxed accordingly for police protection, fire protection, infrastructure support, etc. They shouldn't be treated any differently than any other citizen out there paying their taxes.

[Cheshire Cat]

Oh, and Obama is "The Magic Negro" according to the LA Times.

[FRYandBENDER]

Have any of you read up on the Fairtax? You can check it out here.

http://www.fairtax.org

Take a look and tell me what you think. I know I sure would like to get my whole paycheck.

[ChairmanMeow]

Screw Him!! Lets just go dig up Karl Marx!!!

[NO Obamanation]

He's an American.

He is an American who doesnt like America much at all. His wife seems to hate it almost as much as his pastor does.
a
and he is a socialist, who probably would wish to be communist if he thought one could get elected in the U.S.A. as one.

I was a young liberal kid when Reagan was president and i didnt like him much,
or the Bush that followed. I probably spoke out more against them than I have any president since.

I didnt vote for Clinton or like Clinton but I always defended him because he was our President and I was older and more mature then.

I really didnt like alot of Bush 2 but I didnt treat him like trash because he is after all our President.

but but but

If Obama gets it, I will use every chance I get to say horrible things about him, I will blast my cars with bumber stickers about him, and maybe your cars too! i WONT SIT QUIET WITH THIS MONSTER AS i HAVE FOR ALL THE OTHER LESS THAN STANDARD PRESIDENTS BEFORE HIM

he is the first person i have truly loathed

PS you need a face icon that has the green puke face :)