... put a R by Obamas name. I mean the Republicans are trying to run Romney apparently, who's basically the same. Nothing will change, we'll just keep the status quo a goin! So why not just make Obama a Republican for 4 years. After that you all (democrats and republicans) can vote for Romney. Whoever gets more votes gets their letter (D or R) beside his name for the first four years and then the other side gets it there for the next four years. This way you all can keep this destruction of our nation going for a guaranteed 12 more years rather only 4, and that's still up in the air (well not really, but I like to pretend that people will actually think about what's happening and change it for once).
Yeah but I think my solution would really get things into over drive. Once the Rs and Ds realize they can just flip the letters around then we can really jump this nation right off the cliff! No more pretend opposition just more spending, more debt, and more war!
Or you can write in Paul, lol. He is the only option left, I just wish he had the "charm" that Obama has; so much wasted potential.
It's so great to see all you defeatest Republicans realizing reality- Romney can never take Obama- not when Obama's got a billion to get re-elected and he's not a kooky religous freak! LOL!
Well Romney will get rid of Obamacare...that's a huge difference. He won't push for more stimulus that's another one. There are lots of differences.
Yep and Obama will close Guantanamo and end torture! I mean do you honestly believe there's a difference between these people? The sooner the Republicans and Democrats realize there is no difference the sooner they can destroy the nation.
This is very naive. Romney even supports means testing SS and medicare. You are just another delusional cheerleader.
1) Cite for "billion" 2) We heard and saw about Obama's church attendance regularly, including plenty about his radical pastor 3) Romney would beat Obama 4) I think Paul can beat Obama as well 5) It's the height of ignorance to claim that Obama is any less religious than Romney or Paul - by comparison, in fact, he may be the "kooky religious freak". 6) It's shameful to call someone with non-violent religious beliefs names. It's bigotry, in fact.
Gotta disagree with 3 and 6. Romney may beat Obama but it's far from a lock. As for 6 would you not agree the Scientologists have some insane beliefs and what does them being violent or not have to do with how insane those beliefs are?
You can disagree with #3 all you want, but the numbers do not show Obama blowing out Romney; it's close - and I think would be closer if the same poll is taken with Romney the nominee. Because you can prove violence - and I'd hope we could all agree that violence for religious motivations (unless it was to secure religious freedom from persecuation) is indeed insanity. Conversely, you cannot prove - or disprove - articles of faith. Something that you cannot disprove cannot by definition be considered insane. You should be tolerant of them, period.
I'm tolerant of religion to the point that I think people should be able to beleive what they want but simply because I can't disprove something doesn't mean it's valid. You can't disprove that the Earth isn't powered by unicorns fighting an eternal war in the core of the planet, but you can say it's a stupid thing to believe. Same with scientology and mormonism. Oh course you can subject all of religion to the same standard, but those two really stick out as "how the hell can you take this stuff seriously." Still their right to believe, and I'll support that right to the end. Doesn't mean I have to think it's reasonable or respect them, just means I have to be willing to stand up and fight for their rights.
