thenumberone : Well think of it this way. If you were President of the United States and someone in your office who works for you says...
 
"An Asteroid the size of Texas, is going to colide with the Earth in about 10 years from now, we have no way of destroying/re-project it away from the Earth, but our most intellegent scientists are working on a solution. Nobody besides You, the person telling you, and Government Scientists who discovered the Asteroid are the only ones who know about the Asteroid, but it won't be long before someone in the media or private scientists find out about the Asteroid. You have two options...
 
1. Tell the American people that the Asteriod will collide with the Earth and risk the whole country, maybe even the whole world to decend into Anarchy and massive riots.

-or-

2. Not tell anyone about the Asteroid and risk being labeled a lair and deceviing the world for not telling everyone that the world might end when you tried to prevent Anarchy and massive riots.


I expect a detailed rebuttal from you my good sir.

obvisouly i vote obama i dont like romney he has bad intentions and is thinking for himself and because hes raising middle and lower class peoples taxes and lowering the rich's thats just dumb so i vote obama.

Oldschool41 :
And you shall have one sir.
First, thats a far end analogy, things like secret government spending and blatantly denying things you did say and did do, are inexcusable.

But the analogy at hand is really much like the oil issue. Keep quite, carry on, and we're doomed.
The best hope there would be international co-operation, every nation pulling its best and brightest, and pulling there resources to divert it.
And with ten years notice thered be a fair few options.
The most obvious one to me would be sequential missile strikes to gradualy slow then push away the asteroid. Equal and oposite forces and all that.
Keeping quite would be like trying to secretly fight a war, youre not fully utilising your potential.

thenumberone : I thank you for the answer sir and agree that some secret government spending and denying is inexcusable. I guess it would depend on the issue of what was kept secret and why it was kept secret from us. Bill Clinton getting a BJ was not a good secret to keep from the public, nor was Richard Nixon's White House Tapes regarding the Watergate Incident. But was it a good secret to keep information about how we were abusing terrorists in Gitmo worth keeping secret. Even though they are terrorists, they are people (really evil/heartless people, but people non the less).

Oldschool41 : you mean guantanamo? Or am i just confused here. Obama actualy promised to close that, im not entirely sure why he never.
While it is full of scum everyone has the same legal rights, and what goes on there is ilegal. Holding without trial for years too. Who knows how many inocent people could be in there.
A favourite method of interogation is to send suspects to pakistan and afghanistan where there are no qualms about torture. They generaly force a confesion and the politicians can act like they just saved democracy, as oposed to having just taken a dump on it.

thenumberone : You asked rbaranishyn if deception is a good way to run a government. That's what I have been talking about with Obama. I hear lies every time he opens his mouth. I just can't understand those who like what he's done. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but that's what I believe. And the taxes on oil companies should stay about the same. But there are so many regulations, it's hard to even start a business. And finally, moving on to the debt, he said he would cut it in half. He doubled it. He called Bush (who I do not like, because he spent too much also) unpatriotic, because of the debt then. But Obama on his own, has racked up as much debt as the first 41 or 42 combined!

thenumberone : Your correct I was talking about guantanamo (I just shorten it to Gitmo because I couldn't spell it).

patar4097 : A politician lying...where have I heard that before. By the way I'm studying to be a politican and the first thing you learn is how to lie becuase if you can't lie or at least distort the truth then your not cut out to be a politican. So its not just Obama or Bush that is a liar most people in the politics lie.



Edit: I'm going to stop post on this thread as I'm starting to sandwhich a bit.

thenumberone : Yes he was one heck of a liar i'll give you that but the economy and state of the country is what we were talking about...unless i missed a past post i tend to skip over posts when i'm reading sometimes lol.

I must start by stating that I am from the UK. If it was possible I would have loved to see Ron Paul as president as I think his non-interventionist policies make perfect sense. I am worried about Romney's foreign policy ideas and especially his comments about Russia. On the whole although he is far from perfect I would have to vouch for Obama. I think he is getting there with the economy but it still going to take a very long time. Things don't heal that quickly. Where Mitt Romney would take the economy, I really don't know.

I will not be voting for any of the people mentioned in this poll, but still be voting.

I will use a write-in vote and casting the phrase "None of the Above" or simple "None" as I do not like either candidate, but wish for my voice to be heard (even if it is unlikely, at least I am trying to do something instead of lazily not voting). I take this action from what I heard some states used to have ballots to show disapproval for all candidates. (http://www.noneoftheabove-tn.org/)

I have come to the conclusion that if you are able to vote, and yet choose not to exercise that ability, then you really do not have any right to criticize the next president in office... because what did you do to hinder the president's rise to power? For those that cannot or were unable to vote, they at least can say they wanted to vote against said president. Heck, even those that voted for the guy can say their candidate has failed them or lied to them at least. One who chooses not to vote did not make an effort to provide change, even if they believe it would not have mattered. How can anything they say about a president they do not like really be taken seriously; sounds more like they just do not care.

I find Romney to be a fool and Obama to be a puppet to his administration, which is why I am choosing to vote none of the above. Gun to the head, though, I probably WOULD choose Obama over Romney, as a lesser of two evils, but I do not like the idea of choosing a president out of the process of elimination. Even if what I am doing is what people view as "throwing away my vote," I find myself feeling better about the ridiculousness that is the now two-party system.

Not really trying to tell people this is what they should do, but just a path I choose, and give light there is always another option.

darthyoda : Although the United States has always been in debt (the only time we were debt free was when Andrew Jackson was president...but then we ended up getting a recession turned depression).

I think romney should be president because obama was president for a long time and their should be a new president plus romney will make a great president if he wins.






Image upload: 1024x768 totaling 62 KB's.

nextbestthing88 : I choose obama because he is awesome

I will be watching on MSNBC.

So... just to further demonstrate the kind of person Romney is.

He read some online blog that claimed Chrysler was going to move Jeep production to China. He made a statement at a rally in Ohio (home of the Jeep plant) about it. Chrysler corrected him, stating it was not true, they had no intention of doing so. His response? Make a tv and radio ad making the SAME claim and saying it was Obama's fault. Workers at the Jeep plants called in worried that they wouldn't have their jobs anymore... how is this good leadership? Lying, expressly lying to the public to try and get votes, sowing fear, and continuing to do so after being called out for lying?

All politicians lie, but I have never in my life seen the likes of this.

Elara :
Wow.
This election is like im watching the film, the campaign, all over again

Oh... and his "disaster relief" event that he held... which he swore wasn't a campaign event despite showing his campaign videos and giving his campaign speeches... where he collected canned goods for the Red Cross (who says on their website that they don't take those donations). Yeah, it came out today that his aids went out to area stores like Wal-mart and Target and spent $5,000 on buying some of those goods the night before and giving them to people to hand to Romney for the photo-op if they didn't bring stuff on their own.

If he had held his scheduled campaign event and admitted it was a campaign event, that would have been fine. Callous, but fine. If he had held an honest fundraising event or blood drive for the Red Cross, that would have been fine and even admirable. But to have a campaign event, try to pass it off as a storm relief drive, and then have your aids buy a bunch of the stuff being donated so that you'd look good in a photo?!

And then let us not forget that during the Republican primary Romney firmly stated that he was in favor of moving FEMA to state control... or better yet privatizing it. Now he is stating that FEMA should remain a federal thing that will always receive full funding... 48 hours after a major natural disaster.

OR that during the event he compared cleaning up the damage to picking up a heavily littered football field back in high school after a big game. REALLY?! A hurricane second only to Katrina in scale of damage and you compare it to litter on a field?!

These are some major character flaws that cannot and should not be ignored by voters.