Smart liberals wouldn't waste their time. nm - VTMT

Smart liberals wound't waste their time, ain't that the truth! - anon

Thatt's a very good and interesting question. One we should all think about - The Sarge

President Obama - gets his intelligence briefings

"Keep telling yourself that darlin" - Jack Sparrow

Uhh. I think that is scary, just shows again he - thinks he is THE ONE AND ONLY.nm

AQ sure got a boost last week from the haters, huh? - Video aid and the comfort of

nope - sm

You might have a valid point - Fanatical Hypocrite

You do so with the grace and tact of a rabid animal, but you have a point nonetheless.  Why someone as clearly educated, articulate and concise needs to resort to such a petty accusation as treason is interesting.  I miss the days of old (perhaps they only exist in my own delusion) where politicians and the common people of either party could discuss matters with their indoor voices and not resort to accusations of treason, fascism or socialism.  Can't we just stick to the childish insults and racial slurs of our parent's elections?  

I do believe that Obama skipping intelligence briefings and other important meetings (if indeed he is not receiving the information any other way) is a mistake.  While people can use the excuse that he is concentrating on a very contested election, which all politicians do now, that is, as it always is, a hollow excuse.  The office of the presidency should come before the election, but how can one be in the office of the presidency without running for election?  It's a personal failure on Obama's part and a systemic failure of the country.  

I also agree, there are no smart liberals.  Or smart conservatives.  Sadly, the entire human race (myself included here) are a bunch of ignorant savages.  Americans have chosen to revel in that, while Europe has chosen to pretend that they're better.  

Smart conservatives and smart liberals for instance would be able to sway others through civil discourse, or reach a compromise, or if no such compromise can be reached, an agreement to keep out of the other person's business without resorting to petty and vague accusations of treason.  

Obama regularly inspires me with his words and regularly disappoints me with his actions.  Romney disappoints me every time he opens his mouth and continues to disappoint me when I look at his actions.  I still believe that Obama is the best choice, despite disagreements on policy.  I have never really liked any president all that much, probably because they aren't me, so they do things differently than I would.  An unavoidable moral quagmire since I am not now, nor ever will be, president.  

Speaking of policy, you talk of his foreign policy.  Please, can you tell me what his foreign policy is?  I haven't figured out what we're doing in the world.  My understanding of our foreign policy is:  Shoot everything -> fix everything -> train the previous enemy to fight -> kill those enemies because now they know how to fight.  If Obama has somehow altered the decades old status quo, it would be helpful for you to cite how.  

I thoroughly believe that Romney's foreign policy will be more of the same and his domestic policy is drastically flawed in my opinion.  Like all of Romney's proposals, they involve doing everything for everyone.  Just like the last guy and the guy before throughout history.  

So, will I be committing treason this year when I vote for Obama again.  Under the law, no.  Even as a metaphor, not really.  So, while one could argue that as freedom of speech and the act of voting are the very heart and soul of this country and that declaring another person's lawful vote to be treason is in fact a form of treason, I would never do such a thing.  Because that would be a base and vulgar accusation to fling about like the proverbial feline remains. 

*** wow *** - brava