Rick Perry would be a perfect candidate if "executioner" were still a political office. That is all.

agreed Rick Perry is not a good candidate

but he is better than Obama

As i said earlier Obama is a cancer that must be dealt with before its too late

I would like Obama more if he weren't a muslim.

I dont really care that much on religious beliefs it is just his policy of socialism that will destroy this country like it destroyed the Soviet Union

To add on a little bit to what Obi said, I sway slightly toward the Democrat side (I don't give a fuck what Texas thinks because he's trying to look at me from his eyes rather than mine) and I have favored Republican candidates for different offices just as often as I favor Democrats. I will favor whoever I think is best, and right now, I don't think Romney is best. I think Obama has been very much hit-or-miss in some of his policy, showing a bit of erratic thinking in the Osama bin Laden raid, but I think it sniffed out Pakistan as a bit different than we'd originally viewed their central government. That raid took guts, to say the least, and while it wasn't necessarily pretty, it got the job done and has allowed us to take out a bunch more terrorists since then.

I think Romney is the most "sane" of the GOP candidates. Rick Perry, as I said, is terrible. Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, and all the others were just pathetic. Romney has some good things about him and I agree that he is a lot more similar to Obama than he tries to put off.

Fortress, Republicans and Democrats are supposed to believe certain things, and you're right, I am a person that goes by the rebellious notion that Martin Luther used to lead Europe out of a terrible thing called corruption in its government: I can think for myself. It's not that I won't listen to you, it's that I don't feel compelled to agree with everything you say simply because you might identify yourself the same way I do. I don't identify as Democrat or Republican nor do I have to do so.

If you want me to identify myself, I can't. In some areas, I agree with the GOP spot on, though I think they are closed-minded and won't change their stance even if the rest of the world wanted them to do so. I agree with the Obama administration in some areas and I disagree with them in others. I think the healthcare arrangement was a great thing that was very necessary and it makes me laugh that Romney is the first to shoot it down after he essentially came up with the idea years back. When I think about it, the only difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is that Romney wouldn't cover abortion. That's really about it.

I have reasons for being pro-Israel. .אני אזרח בישראל למשל .. If you don't know what that means, then don't try to argue with me over it.

If I haven't made my point, I don't know what will. I'm not going to conform just because the rest of you have. It doesn't mean I'm a bad person. It doesn't mean I'm a pessimist that I think America is in the worst political state it has ever been in these past few decades since Reagan. Yes, it's partly Reagan's fault. It's partly Clinton's fault, Bush's fault, and Obama's fault too. It's partly Romney's fault. It's partly McCain's fault. It's partly Sarah Palin's fault for making this country a reality TV session in Siberian Russia. You get the idea.

So that is that. I am not on one side. You can go fuck yourself if you want to tell me I'm a Republican or a Democrat because it doesn't fucking matter one fucking bit. Yes, I like to say fuck. Just because the GOP is trying to stop vaginas from fucking and I'm still supportive of it for reasons beyond my own enjoyment doesn't mean I'm a Democrat. Is that awkward enough? Good. I'll leave it at that.

@ Texas: All I know about your beliefs so far is that you dislike Obama. Is there a substantial reason for this? Or is there a Republican you'd like to defend?

And, well said Rascal. he is indeed an Athiest Muslim Socialsit in the poket of Wall Street

pocket*

yep Bo sox is republican you are extremely ignorant on the Healthcare bill qute obviously. Maby when you and your children start having to pay for what Obama has done you will understnad

and yes snackattack Herman Cain was the by far best candidate Republican or otherwise

Maby he will understnad... soemday...

who?

But why was he a good candidate? Why are his policies effective? How is he qualified?

His 6-6-6 plan was lightyears better than Obamacare

or any Obama ministrated plan

At the end of the day, Americans suffer from what really is the one-party system of Waahington. Most of the differences between the two parties are superficial. I will admit I am generalizing, but the majorities of both parties support the drug war, military-industrial complex, overseas empires and foreign intervention,

you mean 9-9-9...

as well as corporate welfare, violations of civil liberties, expansion of government (remember medicare part d?), and bank bailouts. Sorry for the separate posts, accidentally posted early with the first one.

but thats all foreign things that we agree on and most of the internal things are what we disagree on plus many democrats did not support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan which was ridicules

and the bank bailouts wil come back to haunt us and Republicans do not support expansion of government

Herman Cain is obviously a great businessman. That has almost nothing to do with being a good, or even not-bad, president.

9-9-9 was one of the dumbest ideas I've heard in a long time. How can anybody be stupid enough to create a national sales tax without abolishing the income tax? Eventually income and business taxes won't be 9% any more, and then you're stuck with a sales tax on top of that!

I'm all for something radical like a flat tax or a national sales tax, but only for one of them. 9-9-9 would just add a new tax, and one that (with the existing income tax system) would hit the poor very hard. It's lunacy.

I'm really not sure if you are trolling or not. The Republican administration of GW Bush expanded government spending massively. There were very large deficits in the Bush years. And many Republicans now are not really talking significant measures to stop the growth of government, especially in the senate. And the policies of Obama in the foreign arena are identical to Bush.

Paulite

"the policies of Obama in the foreign arena are identical to Bush."

Not really. The Russian reset was nothing but a repudiation of Bush policy. Bush would never have behaved as Obama did during the 2009 election in Iran. Bush policy would have strove like nothing you've ever seen before to keep a residual force in Iraq. "Leading from behind" would never have escaped the lips of any Bush administration official, and Gaddafi would probably have had his houses all blown up on the first day of the intervention. I could go on.

None of the above is a value judgement on what Obama has done, but merely shows how it's wrong to say Obama's foreign policy is identical to Bush's. There are certainly surprising similarities (expansion of drone use, keeping GITMO open), and not so surprising ones (the bin Laden raid, ham-fisted dealings with Europe), but there are important and real differences.

Alright - I'll pipe in...

Republican and Democrat are clubs to join and don't have anything do to with economic or social policies. I wont join either due to the clear hypocrisy. While I don't agree with Ron Paul on all items at least he's consistent, and I think he'd stay consistent in office (a statement of my impression of him, not an endorsement).

So far I can't find anyone else that both likes Bush and likes Obama. I think being president is a very tough job especially during emergency situations like 9/11 or the financial crisis, and they both inherited some crap situations to get us through and have done a solid job.

I think Anarchy, Capitalism, Communism. Corporatism, Fascism, Socialism, Laissez-faire, and Protectionism are not clubs to join, but tools for a smart leader to use in certain situations to get certain results. For example, socialist policies are fine for services we all need (police, fire, water, internet, etc.). In addition the government should stay out of our private lives including our sex lives, recreational activities and our religious practices. I am also a war hawk and am pro-death both on a situational basis and a huge proponent of the right to bear arms. I'm a huge fan of the U.S.A military in all forms and will go so far as to say that I'm proud we can kick so much ass when needed.

I also think The United States of America is the greatest country in the world (I've been to quite a few for short periods of time and talked to local people). I think this is a combination of the general respect for personal liberty and that the U.S.A is an environment of chaos and opportunity where the rags to riches story is not just possible it happens everyday in varying degrees.

Just my opinion.

The Russian reset was superficial. Dealings with the Russians are at the same state they were during the Bush administration. I believe there have even been threats by the Obama administration to restart the missile grid in Europe. The restart was a small difference and a natural diplomatic move from a new administration. The Qaddafi charge is completely unfounded, and sanctions and a road towards war with Iran have continued. Obama tried to keep a residual force and troops in Iraq but the Iraqi administration would not allow that to happen. The fundamental philosophy of the two administrations is the same.

The reset was a cornerstone of Obama's foreign policy. It was all about changing the American actions which the Obama administration thought provoked the Russian attack on Georgia and Russia's general unhelpfulness on the world stage. I suggest you look into this more, since no one thinks it was a small difference. Ineffective, maybe, but not small. Just because the policy has failed and things are going back to the way they were doesn't mean the reset wasn't an Obama policy that was far different from Bush's (which also failed).

I don't know why the Gaddafi charge would be unfounded. When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003 one of the first targets was Saddam personally since they wanted to kill him and decapitate the regime. Since the Libyan intervention was all about regime change too if the Obama policy were identical then Gaddafi would have been targeted right away. And don't even try and tell me the actions there were sincerely humanitarian. Worse things have actually happened in Syria and we have done nothing, while there was only the threat of a massacre in Benghazi and that was enough "justification" to go into Libya.

I wasn't talking about sanctions and the steady pressure for conflict with Iran, I was talking about the Obama administration's actions during the huge protests in Iran in 2009. Bush would NEVER have acted the way Obama did in not fully supporting the Green Movement. Perhaps Obama was right, but his foreign policy there was undoubtably not identical to what the Bush one would be.

As for the Iraq force, if he had kept the Bush policy he would have done much more to try and keep a force there. Or at the very least talk about it. Instead he sent Biden there even though he had no credibility with Iraqis after his crack about how the country should be split in three. Again, this may have been the best policy and since Obama was elected as a man explicitly opposed to the Iraq War he almost certainly had the support of the American people on the subject, but it's a far cry from being identical with the Bush adminstration's policy.

If the fundamental philosophy of both administrations is the same then the fundamental philosophy of all administrations is the same. There might be something to that, but it's quite different than the point you were making originally.