I support Obama because he believes in change, and I believe in change and we need that change in vision for our country, for our economy, for our Souls.
seriously, I dont' think that Obama's a communist.
Obama will breing the troops back from that phoney war over words and stop funneling our funds(which are in the billions) to the finance industry
I think that Universal Healthcare should be given at least a shot to see if it works.I don't pay attention to my gross pay as opposed to most folks because if I did I'd be miserable. On that note I wouldn't mind in the least to help the next man out on his medical bills even if it's government enforced. As much as these greedy Health Insurance companies are, I'd rather cut them out of the picture
8 years of democrat (Clinton) and we had some of the best years economically and socially
8 years of republican (bush) and we had some of the worst years economically and socially ever
Also, for I think 70 years, every time a republican took office he put us in a recession, whereas every time a democrat took office it was the opposite.
At this point I don't think it has anything to do with the candidates, it's the party.
Well that's not entirely true, the last democrat before Clinton was Jimmy Carter. Carter's administration had a god awful economy and skyrocketing fuel prices too - A month ago
Answerer
Perhaps. I heard this from news channels on tv, I think MSNBC. Using stock market terms, for 70 or so years our country was like a Bull Market, so even if it was doing poorly, it was still in the positive, not the negative, I think was the point. Maybe they were wrong, I'm certainly not going to argue it haha. - A month ago
The problem with your analysis is that it assumes the market starts fresh with each candidate, it doesn't. The Bull market under clinton actually started under Bush senior and was the brainchild of reaganomics as an answer to the whacked economic policies of Carter (btw, I think Obama is another Carter, well meaning but out of his league). All clinton did is not f*** with greenspan.
Neither party is very responsible with the money (remember contract with america?) and we forget that. - A month ago
Question Asker
On a side note, in all honesty, I'm more afraid of one party controlling both the legislative and executive branches than I am of either party controlling any one thing. - A month ago
We had one party with both and they did less than a split government. I think these guys need to learn how to fear unemployment more than fitting in with the party line. - A month ago
Question Asker
When one party controls the legislative and the executive you get things like the patriot act pushed through. I don't want either party having a free ride for their agenda. - A month ago
In this world, isn't it about the lesser of two evils? By voting for the impossible ideal you end up increasing the chances of a greater evil taking power, right? Though it all comes down to personal opinion, but for example, Ralph Nader very well might have cost Al Gore (among other things) the 2000 election. So while some expressed their dislike for Gore and Bush and voted for Nader, they in a way backfired their own cause. - A month ago
Answerer
No, it isn't. By accepting that you must vote for one of two undesirable alternatives, you forego your ability to create and support a party that does support your views (I am pro small government and anti social control). People forget that the republicans are a third party that came out of the Whig party (now defunct). I didn't like bush or gore and I didn't want either of them to win. You should vote for a candidate that supports you views, not the less of two evils, that just brings evil. - A month ago
We live in an imperfect world, it's pretty clear "good" can never be pure. By voting for the lesser of two evils, over time the next candidates are even less "evil". Entropy, in a way. The liberal way of thinking was first to support almost all major social changes in our world, and as time went on more and more took place. California is soon to vote on whether to permanently place gay marriage as law, prop 8, a vote that took place 10 years ago and failed miserably. Fairy tale candidates-- - A month ago
,though they may seem ideal, can't realistically ever be successful enough to win an election (at least not now). Those who vote for these 3rd party candidates are increasing the probability that a truly "evil" candidate will take office. Bush has destroyed the U.S., something I'm pretty sure Gore wouldn't have done. Sometimes voting or acting the way you want really won't make a difference in the world. In this context, it might actually make it worse. - A month ago
Answerer
Fraid I have to disagree. By abandoning our principles, we simply encourage politicians to think that if they concede a little on social issues, they can win us over. As a result, we have republicans that spend like drunk liberals and democrats debating the role religion should play in politics. The answer needs to be a solid "no". If we aren't willing to back up our position with decisive action, you can bet we will not be recognized. Wish it were different but it isn't. - A month ago
Question Asker
I have to agree, the biggest political problem in our country is this two party system. We desperately need a third or even a fourth major party with the same backing as the mainstream two. To say that one shouldn't vote outside of the democratic or republican candidates is the most undemocratic concept I've ever heard, even though I've heard it many times. Like Perot or not, it's a shame the Reform party didn't strengthen more, or the Libertarian party isn't stronger - - A month ago
Question Asker
But the problem there is that you'll find the rules governing political parties that are in place overwhelmingly favor the two major parties and severely limit the likelihood of any other party from becoming strong enough to compete, financially or otherwise. The only reason the Reform party did so well was because of the tremendous amount of money that Perot pumped into it - I seriously doubt we'll ever see someone put that kind of effort into a third party again, sadly. - A month ago
Answerer
The reason a third party isn't considered viable is the lie that a vote for a third is a waste of time. The republicans came out of nowhere and created a viable third pary when there was only 2 points of view. We can do it again anytime we have to the balls to say "I won't play this or that, I want something different". - A month ago
I can't vote yet, but I always like to be informed on the politics. I was reading the other day on this website where each candidate stands on...
View Answers
Would we use this worn-out phrase as an excuse for being the screaming Banshees from Hell? Would we use it as a ploy for sympathy and attention? Would we use it as a reason not to go with you to Poker...
"Why do I have breasts?" I asked my grandfather one day and he answered, "Because I have breasts too." He used to make me angry with this kind of elliptical answer to my never ending questions but...
Site Links
About GirlsAskGuys
GirlsAskGuys Widgets
Help Us Improve!
