Would you vote for a second round of the failed G.W. Bush policies if not then you vote OBAMA?

I already Did vote for Obama

And NO I do NOT want another Bush era .

Research and learn. Obama is a cruel hoax, not our benefactor. The plans the leaders of this world have for Americans is total enslavement or anhalation.

Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name "Forward!" or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)."

"The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications," the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism.

"At the time Bush took office the economy had grown at a 1.1% annualized rate over the previous three quarters to March 31 of the first year of Bush presidency [67] (see Early 2000s recession). Bush had his tax cut plan approved by Congress in June.

Overall real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%. Between 2001 and 2005, GDP growth was clocked at 2.8%. The number of jobs created grew by 6.5% on average. The growth in average salaries was 1.2%. Growth in consumer spending was 72% faster than growth in income. Investment in residential real-estate soared, growing 26% faster than average.[12][66]

A March 2006 report by the United States Congress Joint Economic Committee showed that the U.S. economy outperformed its peer group of large developed economies from 2001 to 2005. (The other economies are Canada, the European Union, and Japan.) The U.S. led in real GDP growth, investment, industrial production, employment, labor productivity, and price stability.[68]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_th...

... do you mean THESE POLICIES, compared with your messiah's ones?

I keep hearing from others that Obama has the same policies as GW. Strange. And BTW, GW brought us 6 years of unprecedented economic growth until the libs got elected to Congress mid-term in his second term.

funny since obama continued so many bush policies, even kept his chairman of the federal reserve dumas

FORWARD - RIGHT OUT THE DOOR

Yes, I refuse to vote for Republicans. But why does that imply Obama as the only alternative?

Allow me a long-winded explanation: Politicians don't just respond to special interests, they also respond to their party and their own beliefs, as well as public opinion. But the same corporations will donate to both sides, to make sure they are taken care of by all politicians.

I heard that Obama's and Romney's total campaign spending (including independent PACs) are over $1 billion each.

Those billions indicate, among other things, how beholden Obama and Romney are to special interests and powerful campaign contributors. Both candidates are just as indebted to them, so how do I avoid electing someone who has been corrupted by that quasi-bribery?

As an example of the harm created by special interest influence, the banking deregulation and other policies that led to our current economic hardships resulted mainly from lobbying of both Democrats and Republicans by corporations involved in finance and housing. And I suspect that our decisions about if (and for how long) we wage wars are influenced by defense contractors. I'm sure there are many more possible examples.

Public discussion about campaign finance usually has the unspoken assumption that voters won't consider a candidate who does not have tons of advertising and endorsements. That does not have to be true, especially because voters can use Google to easily learn about all the available candidates, and give them equal consideration. Granted, this requires people without Internet-connected devices to go find a way to access the Web. It also requires people to figure out what to type into the Google search box (something like "Presidential candidates"?), and how to dig through the results. My opinion is that it's reasonable to demand that effort of anyone who will bother to vote; people who can't be bothered to look at the full range of choices should not vote.

We don't have to wait for anyone to fix the campaign finance system. We can consider candidates without special interests backing them. And we can refuse to vote for any candidate who accepts that kind of backing. That takes the power from the source of the money, bypassing the need for reform (and the lobbyists who would stop that reform because their jobs would be threatened).

For me, the most frustrating aspect of this is how easily voters could defeat the legalized corruption of campaign finance, if voters acted collectively across party lines. Voters can look at less publicized candidates. Voters can reject immediately any candidate who takes any form of influence buying. Voters can support candidates who publicly warn that they will give no beneficial treatment to donors of PACs that independently advertise on their behalf. By doing those things, voters could render that influence money powerless.

Most voters would not vote for a candidate who had been convicted of bribery while in public office. It wouldn't matter how "electable" he/she is or what his/her policy positions are. So why vote for any candidate who accepts legal bribes in the form of special interest money?

It's satisfying to deny consent to the existing system by voting that way, and that's a bonus reason to do this.

My voting strategy requires choosing neither Democrats nor Republicans. Other parties' candidates still appear on ballots. It does not matter which candidate, because that candidate will not win the election this time around. It's OK to vote for a goofball or weirdo. I would rather vote for a random minor party candidate I don't believe in than give consent to my abuse by voting for a bought candidate.

If more people start voting for those minor party weirdos you see on ballots, then sensible independent candidates will notice that and try running in various elections; actually, I've read plenty of discussion in the news about that happening this year, because voters are so dissatisfied with the usual class of candidates. We can vote for those people. As a nice bonus, this will pressure the two main political parties to adapt to voter preferences more than big campaign donors would like.

That third party strategy has a risk of splitting the liberal vote between two candidates (as happened with Ralph Nader in 2000) or the conservative vote between two candidates (as happened with Ross Perot in 1992). The best outsider candidate would be a non-weird centrist who can steal votes equally from both parties; if that centrist belonged to a party, the party would have to refuse all special interest money.

What you dems have so quickly, and convenient, forgotten about is that dems controlled congress and have made most of the mistakes.

MONSANTO.....