If Romney gets in which country will America start a war with next?

[dingus]

....As for dingles, how has Obama done anything to improve the situation for the common person?. All I can see he's done is raise the unemployment rate, given stimulus money to his campaign contributors, put totally useless people in positions of power and given the bankers a free ride, not to mention that he's saddled my grand-kids with debt that they most likely be able to pay off in their lifetime. Oh yeah, and he's made friends with the Arab world, just like he promised he would do before the election

keep on trotting out the inane talking points, it makes you sound like a wacko tea-bagger. do you think that because i am anti Romney, then i must be pro Obama? the only thing i've said about Obama is that he's a status quo politician, and i dont see either him or Mitt the Twit doing anything for the common person. he's carried forward most of the Bush Administration policies. as for the points you've listed above, yeah, he's carried all of those forward from the Bush Administration as well.

its the idiot masses, toeing the party line that have allowed us to get into this mess. you need to aim much higher than thinking that your party being better than the other party is good enough. both the Republican and Democratic parties are pathetic and despicable. together they have effectively sacrificed the common good solely for the sake of beating the other side. neither is deserving of your respect or support.

[markw]

HERE ya go. Learn something.

It's called the lesser of two evils. Ever heard of that?

I'm not exacly pro Romney, but after the way Obama made things so much worse in his short time in office and seeing his appointments, I sure want him out before he can do even more damage and instill more of his America weakening agenda.

Now, if someone better came along, I'd be open to suggestion but to keep this loser in simply because of his charisma, color,r party affiliation, or whatever is simply stupid. It's too bad the MSM considered to assassinate Ron Paul.

Oh, you might want to take in 2016 Obama's America. It brings up some interesting points.

[GMichael]

So, I guess a group hug is out of the question then?

[RGA]

I've never really understood Anti-Americanism. It seems to imply that Feanor and I guess me hate Americans. Seriously?

It's like saying I hate Chinese people because I don't like their government. But I have no ill will to the people because they are ruled by regime.

Mark raises fair points - one that the U.S. does do a lot of good around the world. People may argue that it comes at a price etc - but it DOES come. Everyone is quick to jump on the negatives and slow to pay a compliment.

I've said before that I felt that democrats were better suited to a world stage in the "perception" department. Not necessarily reality but certainly for travelers abroad. In Asia which is financial U.S. hotbed and ally Americans would be spit on (literally) just for walking down the street (Under the Bush regime).

I lived in Seoul and knew many members of the U.S. military and U.S. teachers working and living in South Korea. (This is an ally and a big ally of the U.S.) U.S. foreign policy and Bush basically turned friends into enemies. Some Korean friends truly believe that the U.S. fuels the north south conflict to be able to keep their presence in South Korea and close to China - not to mention giving Americans jobs in the army/navy/airforce.

The stupid thing about this spitting or anti-americanism was that without exception the Americans were all wonderful, friendly, hospitable, open and downright "nice" people (hell I dated an American Girl there for 6 months). The two worst people I've ever met in all my years worked at my school there and they were Canadian. In fact the other 4 Canadians were uptight rejects as well. The only three people I liked were Americans and me (you gotta like yourself since you have to live with you for a long time).

I think the issue is not anti-amricanism - I think the term should be "Anti-Republicansim" and even that term is unfair since The republicans of yesteryear was a completely different animal than what the party has become.

I think everyone has to be "critical" of the people in charge. I absolutely HATE the group that is running my province and I HATE the people running the country. If an American said he hated our PM and our leaders I would not view that as an Anit-Canadian comment but an Anti-government comment.

Plenty of Americans HATE our medical systems - but that's just it - they criticize the Canadian Health Plan and taxes and military but I don't view that as Anti-Canadian - that's anti-program and anti-policy.

There were thousands and thousands of Americans throughout history who have stood up to fight the U.S government policy or State level policy from slavery to the Vietnam War. These Americans were not Anti-American - they were anti-policy. They stood up and said no more.

Take Abortion - a touchy subject - currently legal. It is not Anti-American to say the law sucks and I want legal abortion to end. I am pro-choice but there are plenty of very strong arguments well reasoned for Pro-Life. It's not anti-American to fight a law you see as wrong.

The unfortunate thing for the U.S. is that they are essentially the big boy on the ball field. It's like when you choose your line-up and you see the big kid you want him to bat clean-up. The U.S. has HUGE influence on a world stage and thus other countries and their policy and their people are greatly affected. Indeed, Americans abroad may get spit on or not (or worse) based on who is elected.

Certainly, Americans have to vote their own self interest and not vote based on what some guy in South Korea or Germany or Japan think.

If you really believe that Romney is honest, true to his word, cares about the middle class and poor, and wants to line American's pockets not just the rich then he may be your man.

The bottom line is most Americans living abroad IMO are worldly. If they're not doing missionary work - they tend to be lefties. Even in the U.S. Military which surprised me I confess.

The governments don't really drastically change policy so at the end of the day what is the "real" argument?


Personally I think it has absolutely nothing to do with employment rates - 6% or 11% - really who cares - it only matters to the people in those percents. If you are one of the 6% you are mad - if you're in the 11% you are mad. If you're not you don't much care other than it's a talking point in an argument.


What it's really about is domestic conservative policy and the bible versus the liberal sex crazed lefty world they;'re afraid to support.

Left wing voters tend to be in the following camp:

Pro Gay Marriage or at least would not oppose it.
Pro Stem Cell Research
Pro-Choice
Talk first and shoot only if absolutely necessary
Soft on soft drugs - Marijuana
What you do or who you do in your home (assuming legal age and consent) is fine by us.
Free speech - against government or religion
Evidence and trials - detention with evidence and no torture.
Evolution is fact and they accept it as such.
It's true that people kill people not guns but people can kill a lot more people with automatic guns. A hunting rifle to go hunting - seems reasonable - Uzies do not.
Separation of church and state. Ccurrently 7 U.S States BAN anyone who is Atheist from holding Public Office.
Anti-death penalty
Medical for all (not profiting on the suffering of others).
Global Warming is real
No Racial Profiling
Your a girl who is trapped in a man's body and wants the operation we're sympathetic to your plight we won't lynch you.
You want to be gay in the Army or on a football team we could care less.



Basically the above list is pretty much what a lefty or democrat believes in. There will be exceptions with some of them but not many. So why does everyone blather on about the economy - the president barely makes a blip on that. It's the domestic stuff where I suspect the votes in any country truly come from.

Seriously, can any person of religious right wing conviction POSSIBLY EVER vote for the left and the above list? Seriously. It's not that the Mormon poster is voting Romney because he's a Mormon - he said that because it was a polite way to say - there is no way I am voting for a pro-choice, Gay is OK party.

It's just not going to ever happen. I don't care if Obama kills another Bin Laden and reduces the employment rate to absolute 0 and eliminates all disease and cures the common cold - he's fine with Gay Marriage and Pro Choice and that's the end of the discussion. You WILL NOT get a righty vote no matter what the hell else you do.

This is the reason none of the right wing voters even acknowledge what a horrific mess Bush left Obama or that Obama could not undue some of the later Bush policies.

But it's the list above that gets the votes - nothing to do with money.

[Hyfi]

We have billboards here all over the place that say "Obama supports Gay Marriage and Abortion. Do you?"

So I guess the Romney billboard would say "Romney is prejudiced, anti-Gay, and against women's rights. Are you?"

If people actually vote for a President with Gay Marriage and Abortion as the deciding factor, the country is in bigger trouble than you think.

As far as "Am I better off now than 4 years ago?"

Yes I am. The market has stabilized and come back and I am now making back my losses and also gains in my investments. My job is pretty secure. I am not sure what the Romney camp is talking about when they say all Americans are worse off then 4 years ago.

[JohnMichael]

We have billboards here all over the place that say "Obama supports Gay Marriage and Abortion. Do you?"

So I guess the Romney billboard would say "Romney is prejudiced, anti-Gay, and against women's rights. Are you?"

If people actually vote for a President with Gay Marriage and Abortion as the deciding factor, the country is in bigger trouble than you think.

As far as "Am I better off now than 4 years ago?"

Yes I am. The market has stabilized and come back and I am now making back my losses and also gains in my investments. My job is pretty secure. I am not sure what the Romney camp is talking about when they say all Americans are worse off then 4 years ago.

I agree!

[Feanor]

I've never really understood Anti-Americanism. It seems to imply that Feanor and I guess me hate Americans. Seriously?
...

Seriously enough, it seems.

It's easier for some blind nationalist in the USA to dismiss criticism of their government's policies as hatred of, ungratitude towards, or jealousy of Americans than to defend these policies -- to others or themselves -- with facts and logic. When truth is painful so many of us prefer delusion.

Blind nationalism is by no means restricted to the USA. We see some of that in the current China - Japan dispute, although I think some of is orchestrated by their governments, especially in China's case.

Blind religionism, of course, is behind many problems in the Middle East, etc.. IMHO, there has never a more totally specious issue than religion, although it's often just a red-herring issue by local politicians.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

HERE ya go. Learn something.

It's called the lesser of two evils. Ever heard of that?

I'm not exacly pro Romney, but after the way Obama made things so much worse in his short time in office and seeing his appointments, I sure want him out before he can do even more damage and instill more of his America weakening agenda.

Now, if someone better came along, I'd be open to suggestion but to keep this loser in simply because of his charisma, color,r party affiliation, or whatever is simply stupid. It's too bad the MSM considered to assassinate Ron Paul.

Oh, you might want to take in 2016 Obama's America. It brings up some interesting points.

Mark, I would like to remind you of something. When Obama took office we were losing 800,000 jobs per month, and the economy was in free fall. Obama did not make things much worse, he stemmed losses, and actually added more jobs than all of the Republican President's in the last 4 decades. The problem here is we have added jobs, but not enough to bring us back to where we were before he took office. That is not the President's fault, that is the fault of a do more with less corporate mentality. Look at the stock market, and corporate profits. If we are going to turn this around, then there needs to be a system wide restructuring of how we do business. Currently you have corporations sitting on huge piles of cash, and you have the wealth gap still widening. This is a result of policy decisions mad over a long period of time. Anyone who tells you they can fix long term structural problems in four years, they are lying through their teeth. Romney's plans(what little that has been revealed) will add to the budget deficit, and will do nothing to create jobs for middle class Americans. As long as the middle class stay weak and shrinking, the longer this country will be in financial doldrums. You cannot keep giving tax cuts to people like me, I DON'T NEED IT!!

Look at this graph on job creation since Obama has been in office.

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High

That line is going up, not down. It is just not going up fast enough for most, especially for those unemployed.

Don't know why you brought up color, a persons color does not pay bills. It does not create jobs, and I think it is insulting to think ANYONE would vote for somebody based on their color. I voted for Obama because of his policies, proposals and idea's. I still think he is on the right road with his policies, but believe he needs more time to finish what he started. I don't care who is in office right now, they cannot undo the damage that has been done in such a short time. That is not realistic at all.

One major structural issue is this idea that American workers are no longer qualified to do the jobs employers want. That is a bald face lie. The reality is they think we get paid too much, so they look to foreign worker via the H1-B program, and our politicians continue to allow this to happen. We have seen wages job drastically in the last decade, but really rapidly in the last 4 years.

The biggest problem we have is the poor and middle class keep sending rich folks to represent them in Washington DC. When they get there, they vote their own self interest instead of ours. We also have FAR FAR too much money in politics, and that is driving the decision making process. Romney thinks the middle class is those who make $200-250,000 dollars, and that is how skewed his perspective is being rich all of your life. How can he possibly understand what it means to struggle to put food on the table? He refuses to release his tax records IN FULL(what is he hiding), and refuses to provide any detail on how he we get this country back on its feet(they won't elect me he says). How can I trust him? He didn't exactly set Massachusetts on fire in the job creation category, so how do you know his plans will actually work..

You cannot just blame Obama for every bad thing happening in this country. The problem is FAR bigger than Obama, and far more complex as well. But one thing you are right about, our choices are the lesser of two evils.

[JohnMichael]

Mark, I would like to remind you of something. When Obama took office we were losing 800,000 jobs per month, and the economy was in free fall. Obama did not make things much worse, he stemmed losses, and actually added more jobs than all of the Republican President's in the last 4 decades. The problem here is we have added jobs, but not enough to bring us back to where we were before he took office. That is not the President's fault, that is the fault of a do more with less corporate mentality. Look at the stock market, and corporate profits. If we are going to turn this around, then there needs to be a system wide restructuring of how we do business. Currently you have corporations sitting on huge piles of cash, and you have the wealth gap still widening. This is a result of policy decisions mad over a long period of time. Anyone who tells you they can fix long term structural problems in four years, they are lying through their teeth. Romney's plans(what little that has been revealed) will add to the budget deficit, and will do nothing to create jobs for middle class Americans. As long as the middle class stay weak and shrinking, the longer this country will be in financial doldrums. You cannot keep giving tax cuts to people like me, I DON'T NEED IT!!

Look at this graph on job creation since Obama has been in office.

U.S. Job Creation Nears Four-Year High

That line is going up, not down. It is just not going up fast enough for most, especially for those unemployed.

Don't know why you brought up color, a persons color does not pay bills. It does not create jobs, and I think it is insulting to think ANYONE would vote for somebody based on their color. I voted for Obama because of his policies, proposals and idea's. I still think he is on the right road with his policies, but believe he needs more time to finish what he started. I don't care who is in office right now, they cannot undo the damage that has been done in such a short time. That is not realistic at all.

One major structural issue is this idea that American workers are no longer qualified to do the jobs employers want. That is a bald face lie. The reality is they think we get paid too much, so they look to foreign worker via the H1-B program, and our politicians continue to allow this to happen. We have seen wages job drastically in the last decade, but really rapidly in the last 4 years.

The biggest problem we have is the poor and middle class keep sending rich folks to represent them in Washington DC. When they get there, they vote their own self interest instead of ours. We also have FAR FAR too much money in politics, and that is driving the decision making process. Romney thinks the middle class is those who make $200-250,000 dollars, and that is how skewed his perspective is being rich all of your life. How can he possibly understand what it means to struggle to put food on the table? He refuses to release his tax records IN FULL(what is he hiding), and refuses to provide any detail on how he we get this country back on its feet(they won't elect me he says). How can I trust him? He didn't exactly set Massachusetts on fire in the job creation category, so how do you know his plans will actually work..

You cannot just blame Obama for every bad thing happening in this country. The problem is FAR bigger than Obama, and far more complex as well. But one thing you are right about, our choices are the lesser of two evils.

A very good post and I agree.

[markw]

And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.

Unemployment is up, The Auto manufacturers were given to the unions while the secured bondholders that kept them alive for the previous years were laid down on the floor anon their stomachs and brutally taken, the big bankers got their bonus', Various (not just Solyndra) green companies (who, coincidentally, were also Obama's bundlers) were given billions of dollars between them and then went bankrupt, Holder and Napolitano have opened the floodgates to illegals and Holder want to prosecute the states who want to do for themselves for doing what the federal government is constitutionally obligated to do but refuses, has put us under martial law, instituted indefinite detention yet complained about Bush's patriot act, and the only jobs being created involve asking "Do you want fries with that", twice as many Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama's 3 1/2 years than under Bush's seven, and, from this last week, we can see how much the "real" theocratic countries countries love us.

Yeah, I think we're due for a change. We had hope but that got us nowhere.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.

Unemployment is up, The Auto manufacturers were given to the unions while the secured bondholders that kept them alive for the previous years were laid down on the floor anon their stomachs and brutally taken, the big bankers got their bonus', Various (not just Solyndra) green companies (who, coincidentally, were also Obama's bundlers) were given billions of dollars between them and then went bankrupt, Holder and Napolitano have opened the floodgates to illegals and Holder want to prosecute the states who want to do for themselves for doing what the federal government is constitutionally obligated to do but refuses, has put us under martial law, instituted indefinite detention yet complained about Bush's patriot act, and the only jobs being created involve asking "Do you want fries with that", twice as many Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama's 3 1/2 years than under Bush's seven, and, from this last week, we can see how much the "real" theocratic countries countries love us.

Yeah, I think we're due for a change. We had hope but that got us nowhere.

A very typical Republican response. In the face of facts, they cover their ears and go nah, nah, nah, nah.

All of this is not about jobs, it is about your own moral compass and majoring in minors.

[dingus]

HERE ya go. Learn something.

It's called the lesser of two evils. Ever heard of that?

thats rich. you come off like a complete ignoramus unable to think for yourself, spouting the spoon-fed talking points as if they have any substance, and i need to learn something? you need to learn some basics civics and find out what the duties of holding public office entail.

if you want to see improvement in our domestic and foreign affairs and in the social and econ-political arenas, then picking from the lesser of the evils is not good enough, especially when choosing candidates from the same old sources. the system is rigged and neither the Republican nor Democratic party represent any substantive change.

I'm not exacly pro Romney, ...

yeah, you exactly are pro Romney. supporting his election and a stated intention to vote for him, by definition makes you a proponent for him.

And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.

wake up! he's not the new guy! he's the same old guy that brought us to this point. why would you vote against your own self interest?

[markw]

A very typical Republican response. In the face of facts, they cover their ears and go nah, nah, nah, nah.

All of this is not about jobs, it is about your own moral compass and majoring in minors.

And might I respond that that's quite a typical liberal response?

That's all right. You've got yours. Screw those that don't.

FWIW, I think that the rich should pay proportinately more and capital gains should be taxed at the regular tax rate but ya can't have everything.

[markw]

thats rich. you come off like a complete ignoramus unable to think for yourself, spouting the spoon-fed talking points as if they have any substance, and i need to learn something? you need to learn some basics civics and find out what the duties of holding public office entail.

if you want to see improvement in our domestic and foreign affairs and in the social and econ-political arenas, then picking from the lesser of the evils is not good enough, especially when choosing candidates from the same old sources. the system is rigged and neither the Republican nor Democratic party represent any substantive change.


yeah, you exactly are pro Romney. supporting his election and a stated intention to vote for him, by definition makes you a proponent for him.


wake up! he's not the new guy! he's the same old guy that brought us to this point. why would you vote against your own self interest?

You're an idiot. Firemen don't go into a burning building and throw gasoline on itlike your idol did.

[dingus]

You're an idiot. Firemen don't go into a burning building and throw gasoline on itlike your idol did.

i've made it quite clear that i am no fan or supporter of Obama, yet you appear to be unable to understand this simple fact. along with all the other ridiculous responses you've dumped in this thread, your consistent hypocrisy and self contradicting statements, you have confirmed that you are not a rational person.

[markw]

I'm rational enough to know that if the car is headed for a cliff to turn the wheel, even if I'm not 100% sure where it's gonna go.

[Hyfi]

Don't know why you brought up color, a persons color does not pay bills. It does not create jobs, and I think it is insulting to think ANYONE would vote for somebody based on their color. I voted for Obama because of his policies, proposals and idea's. I still think he is on the right road with his policies, but believe he needs more time to finish what he started. I don't care who is in office right now, they cannot undo the damage that has been done in such a short time. That is not realistic at all.

I know this is going to come off as racist but I'm gonna say it anyway because I think it's true.

If you don't believe that the a large portion of the black population voted for Obama because he was black, you live under a rock.

It is absolutely no different than when they added Sarah Palin to the ticket to draw the female vote. The only problem with that move was she is an idiot and even most of the women in the US could see that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I know this is going to come off as racist but I'm gonna say it anyway because I think it's true.

If you don't believe that the a large portion of the black population voted for Obama because he was black, you live under a rock.

It is absolutely no different than when they added Sarah Palin to the ticket to draw the female vote. The only problem with that move was she is an idiot and even most of the women in the US could see that.

I don't think your comment was racist, it was ignorant and fact less. Can you show me some proof your statement is true?

I know a lot of black people, and I mean A LOT. The vote Democrat most certainly, but they don't vote a skin color or race. What you think is true may not be true at all. Unless you can show me some stat's or survey that say's your "truth" is true - then it is just "truth" that lies between your own ears.

Remember Herman Cain was black, and so is Clarence Thomas, do you see blacks flocking to them? Hell no!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And might I respond that that's quite a typical liberal response?

You can say anything you want, and usually do.

That's all right. You've got yours. Screw those that don't.

Remember those are your words. I would never say such a thing, and don't even believe in the narrow-minded way of thinking. Interesting it would come from you though.

FWIW, I think that the rich should pay proportinately more and capital gains should be taxed at the regular tax rate but ya can't have everything.

The way things are going, you never going to get this because rich people are in charge.

[Feanor]

I'm rational enough to know that if the car is headed for a cliff to turn the wheel, even if I'm not 100% sure where it's gonna go.

Let me ask a question: specifically which of Romney's policies will "turn the wheel" and why will they work better than Obama's?

I can understand that many people are disappointed with Obama, even most people in some degree. Heck, even I as ungrateful, jealous Canadian am rather disappointed with him. But the rational question isn't how badly Obama has done -- or even will do -- but will Romney do any better?

My expectation of your response is low given your previous comments. Please don't confirm my expectation by fatuously replying, Romney couldn't do any worse!, or words to that effect.

[Hyfi]

Remember Herman Cain was black

I don't have your survey and one was probably not taken.

Herman Cain is a corrupt moron, Obama is not. And, As far as I am concerned, Obama is not black, he is Half White.

[texlle]

Well, Herman Cain may serve as a bad example, but the combination of a black presidential nominee AND his democratic party affiliation may explain record minority voter turn out in 2008. I think this provides some merit to Hyfi's argument. Do I really need to reference a specific source here?

[Hyfi]

Well, Herman Cain may serve as a bad example, but the combination of a black presidential nominee AND his democratic party affiliation may explain record minority voter turn out in 2008. I think this provides some merit to Hyfi's argument. Do I really need to reference a specific source here?

Dissecting the 2008 Electorate: Most Diverse in U.S. History | Pew Hispanic Center

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us...cs/21vote.html

Passionate race drives a massive turnout - USATODAY.com

I guess I could go on and on with links so my statements were not ignorant nor fact-less and anyone who wants to say otherwise still lives under a rock in a dream world.

If both candidates were all white, you would have NEVER seen the record turnout among black voters.

[noddin0ff]

And, from the performance over the last four years, I'm ready to give the new guy a chance.

Unemployment is up,

No. Unemployment is down since sh*t hit the fan late 2008 due to the collapse. We should all be able to agree that Obama didn't cause the collapse (if we were reasonable).

LINK TO OBVIOUS GRAPH

has put us under martial law, instituted indefinite detention yet complained about Bush's patriot act

Obama extended key provisions of the Patriot Act. The 'putting' and 'instituting' were done prior. Obama didn't undo the existing practice of indefinite detention, but he didn't institute it either. And, according to Wiki there were 2 prior reauthorizations of the Patriot Act in 2005 and 2006. Hmmm... Both prior to 2008. huh.

"The USA PATRIOT Act was reauthorized by three bills. The first, the USA PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005, was passed by both houses of Congress in July 2005. This bill reauthorized provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act and the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004. It created new provisions relating to the death penalty for terrorists,[170] enhancing security at seaports,[171] new measures to combat the financing of terrorism,[172] new powers for the Secret Service,[173] anti-Methamphetamine initiatives[174] and a number of other miscellaneous provisions. The second reauthorization act, the USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006, amended the first and was passed in February 2006."

Obama did reauthorize in 2010 a temporary extension.

"On Saturday, February 27, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law legislation that would temporarily extend for one year, three controversial provisions of the Patriot Act that had been set to expire:[177] [178] [179]

Authorize court-approved roving wiretaps that permit surveillance on multiple phones.
Allow court-approved seizure of records and property in anti-terrorism operations.
Permit surveillance against a so-called lone wolf, a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group."

Hmmm. authorize court approved... You're going to damn that?

and the only jobs being created involve asking "Do you want fries with that"

The way the federal government creates jobs (if you'll first concede that the Fed is in fact a job creator, which is counter to right-wing dogma) is to spend money to get stuff done. Want jobs? spend money. Want spend money? accept that deficit is not the problem, and build infrastructure. Don't listen to Tea Party.

twice as many Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama's 3 1/2 years than under Bush's seven

Um. Bush launched an unnecessary war with Iraq and neglected Afghanistan. If Bush had focused on job 1, maybe we wouldn't have still been in Afghanistan and Bush would have been re-elected.

Quick Google for the record ~4800 military deaths in Iraq. 2021 in Afghanstan (with 1646 since 2008 inclusive). source IRAQ, AFGHANISTAN

Score: Bush 5175 ; Obama 1646
Who was sending our soldiers to die for just cause?

Yeah, I think we're due for a change. We had hope but that got us nowhere.

And apparently we have rhetoric taking us backward

[Hyfi]

Hey, another point for the question are we better of than 4 years ago.

In September of 08, the market crashed and I lost lots of money like everyone else.

Exactly who was the President in September of 2008?

Yeah, that's right, GW Bushwacker was the President and now 4 years after the current President inherited that mess, where is the market? At an all time high!

So why does the Romney camp keep asking that question and saying we are worse off now when his own party was the problem and cause of the whole reason people did become worse off as an effect of the Republicans? You would think that his Math Wiz running mate could do the 4 year math problem and realize the answer was Bush, not Obama being the president when we all became worse off.