If people vote a 2nd time for Obama, are they as dumb as those that did the same with Bush?
 

So by 2004, Everyone knew there were no WMD's in Iraq and that the Bush Administration had lied to get the country to go to war that has now cost many american soldiers and 100's of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives not to mention Trillions of dollars in War Costs, etc. So as the conservative's call people foolish for voting for Obama for a second term, (especially considering he is trying to clean up a mess that Bush started) maybe they should look at how they handled their last 2nd term voting decisions....:2 cents:

I love how people try and blame Bush, Obama has done 10x's worse, and falls back on Bush as an excuss....

I love how people try to say Obama has done worse by random multipliers....

So a Pilot fucks up and kills the planes engines, The plane plummets toward the ground, a 1000 feet before impact, the co-pilot takes over to try and save the plane and it hits the ground. You're the type of person that blames the co-pilot, but not the pilot that started the problem. Got it. :1orglaugh

http://i.imgur.com/WRCp2.jpg

It's Sunday

But Obama was change that we could all believe in!

Shit with a political system where you can pick from two parties, you are shit out of luck.

Obama is moving closer and closer to going down as the worst president in U.S. history with the statistics to prove it.

Obama would have to start killing and eating babies, to even come CLOSE to the debacle that was the Bush/Cheney administration. :1orglaugh

it wouldn't matter who is president right now. the bailouts would of happened anyways and people would still be very unhappy because of the shitty economic situation we are in, in which no president or congress can really fix in a few years, if ever.

Face facts the President is nothing more than a bought and paid for corporate/banking whore.

There is no republican or democrat party just the same traitors to the American people.

*You can use this and replace the term 'American' for any nationality you wish as it is the same everywhere.

Hence the OWS movement.. :2 cents:

10x worse.... What statistics do you have that support that claim?

Really, the statistics to prove it, mind sharing those?

Obama was a protest vote/referendum against the failed policies of the Bush administration. If you really hate Obama, then guess who you should actually blame?

The GOP is so embarrassed by the failed Bush administration, that they are working 24/7 to try and salvage whatever is left of the Republican party, after Bush shit all over it.

I doubt any of the current Republican candidates will be dragging Bush or Cheney out on the campaign trail.

might as well go with palin and have few years of mega lolz

The GOP created an economic pressure cooker full of shit that was going to blow regardless of who was later in power.

Dimwits with the mindset that everything was fine prior to Obama taking office need to keep their mouth shut.

i voted for him last time... not 100% sure this upcoming election, it will obviously depend on who the republicans put up against him.

Obama vs Romney = Obama
Obama vs Paul = Paul
Obama vs Cain = ?

bush did create most of the problems that we are currently facing, solely due to the economic pressure that the wars have put on the country... but that is not to say that obama has not made his fair share of mistakes too.

MAYBE it would be a different story if he had a congress that was willing to work with him, but he doesnt. that is reality, and if a president is unable to get congress on his side, then he will not be effective.

blame the republicans, or blame the democrats, it does not matter who is to blame, the reality is that under obama the 2 parties can not work together, and therefor nothing will get done. based solely on that, it is time to replace him. NOTHING will ever get done if the republicans refuse to work with him, and they have already proven that they will not work with him. Instead of blaming the republicans for the behavior, replace him with someone that both parties can get behind.unfortunately that may have to be a republican. i just hope its not romney. if obama gets re-elected i fear that we are facing 4 years where the best case scenario is that country stays where it is, and worst case scenario it continues to erode, possibly to the point of no return

Depends on whether or not Obama steals the election the way Bush did...

:D

Not sure how to break it to you, but there are a lot more than two parties. :2 cents:

!
Obama is by far the worst president ever elected, he is a historic failure! :disgust

Not at all. The main difference between the two is, Bush got basically everything he wanted, whereas Obama has gotten almost nothing he wanted. And the shit he wanted, ended up getting screwed around in Congress and Senate so much, it didn't make any difference anyway, and just made things worst.

negatory

We would have already defaulted if Obama kept getting what he wanted. And while hes not as bad ad bush yet, he definitely doesn't need 8 years to surpass his stupidity and he's well on his way. Meanwhile, let's enjoy the left insult bush for his stupidity, and then blame Bush for Obama's stupidity. Shows you just how embarrassing the Democrats have been since 2008.

It's amusing that Obama's to blame for everything. He's been one of the least powerful and least aggressive presidents in awhile when it comes to getting anything done.

If the other side gives us someone like Perry, Bachman or Palin, they deserve to lose it again. Romney is just another Obama.

Let's focus instead on getting rid of some of the losers in Congress and we might have better luck.

Bush sucked. If you want to put some numbers on how bad he sucked, for 2008 5.8% unemployment and $430 billion deficit.
That sucks.

In 2011, Obama has 9.1% unemployment and a $1,300 billion deficit. By the numbers, Obama sucks roughly two to three times as much as Bush. That's impressive fail. Both parties chose REALLY bad candidates.

This time around, Perry or Romney might suck less, but neither looks great to me. I suspect Perry would get good results, but lower the standard of conduct more than Clinton did. He strikes me as a smart slimeball who governs, and switches parties, based on the polls. Yuck.

That makes the emergence of Herman Cain interesting. In some ways he's the opposite of career politicians like Perry. He's very straightforward, never sidestepping questions. Unlike Bush or Obama, Cain had actually done something and been successful at it. These things make him interesting.

So it really depends who he is running against. Once we know that, we can more accurately attempt to answer this question.

Unfortunately this seems to be coming true. A democrat who starts MORE wars? Yeah, nice try on the Iran bullshit. Are you gonna fight in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya AND Iran? Calm the fuck down. Bush had an excuse, he had an IQ of 60. He was a chimpanzee who was strategically shaved and stuffed in a suit. Cheney, if he hadn't been forced into politics, would have followed his dream to be a serial killer. Obama should know better, but it seems like in the end he paraphrases Thomas Edison to say Genius is 99% oration and 1% more oration.

A lot of people didn't vote for Bush, they voted against his opponent.

.

It does not matter if Obama gets elected or not because the Republicans suck the same cocks that Obama does. Sure they differ on smaller domestic issues such as late term abortions and capital punishment but not on what is going to really matter for our future.

Will America be dumb enough to fall for the fake Republican/Democrat paradigm again? of course they will. And the fact that people are so dumb makes just proves they really do need to be herded like cattle.

I don't think anyone is "falling" for anything. We all know that the system is corrupt, and that the politicians are part of the corruption.

The whole game has to change, but until it does, we get 3 options...

1) Vote Democrat
2) Vote Republican
3) Vote Independent, or Green Party, or Libertarian, or write in Mickey Mouse, or don't vote at all, etc.

In the end, 1 or 2 will win. Number 3 may be a protest vote, but in the end a protest vote does not register, and is on par with not voting at all.

Hundreds of million$ will be spent to sway the people to vote 1 or 2.

Money spent to sway voters to number 3, not so much.

So until everything changes we get to vote 1 or 2, or we get to throw our vote out the window.

But we are essentially going to probably get one other person to choose from. What if that other candidate is some maniac? I think many people vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils.

Vote out the incumbents.

That's cool, but if nothing else changes, you are just replacing one corrupt politician for another. Rinse and repeat.

As opposed to keeping the current corrupt ones in office?

They all suck.

I agree, but once you toss a new guy into the machine he'll just become another cog.

Let's pretend Joe Shmoe becomes president. No matter how well intentioned Joe may be, he still needs the congress and the house to support his ideas. He still needs to caucus with a party.

The whole system needs to be reworked, otherwise EVERYONE needs to be kicked out simultaneously, and replaced en masse.

It doesn`t have any meaning who wins the elections. All of candidates are pre-selected by Elite (mostly Bankers) which is the real ruler. American democracy has been stolen from people at least 100 years ago. That is why there are only two parties (it is much easier to control two than five or more).

Changes would be sooner happening in North Korea or Iran (people know who their enemy is) than in US where population is so dumb and brutally manipulated so most of them will never see their real enemy that sucks their blood for decades.

You have your elections show (and that is pretty much all), they have your ass.