Yeah, Obama is a whole lot better than bush, but Romney and santorum looks like a backwards step. One step forwards and 2 steps back.

Oh, and I just realised that I cited iTunes as the source in that last article. *facepalm* Damn synopsis' in my brain!

This can be reflected across most western democracies. By this I mean there is no longer any real boundary or fence between ruling and opposing parties.

Napolean's qoute (below) in many ways explains this.

"When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since the hand that gives is above the hand that takes. Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency".

Who owns the US Central Bank? Americans?

Which brings me to your edited bit. A bankers sole object is gain, they would sell their own country down the pan if it fills their pockets. History speaks clearly here.

Yes, I agree. Politicians are killing the west, directly and indirectly.

So for matters like school uniforms and gay rights the President may have a voice. On the economy, war etc., it the banks (and I mean the really powerful banks) that dictate. Afterall, aren't they the people the government seeks first in any financial dealings or situation.

In what way is Obama a whole lot better then Bush?

I mean, he's been MORE agressive on the war on terror... violating more countries soverinity more often then bush.

Kept in place all of the "abuses of freedom" people see, while stealthly adding a bit to them....

and kept on with the same ruinous economic policies... while deciding to implement an extremly costly healthcare plan that causes uncertantity and companies to keep cash on hand because nobody knows the compliance costs.

The only positive things I can think of that have happened during his administration were things that already followed the Bush Timetable (Iraq withdrawl) or things that he had nothing to do with.  (GoProud's removal of don't ask don't tell.... which he fought against.)

The Federal Reserve?  The US government owns the Federal Reserve, it's a government entity owned by a group of people chosen by congress.

Anyone who tells you otherwise is directly misleading you or doesn't understand what they hell they're talking about.

Banks don't have near any of the crazy conspiracy theory control you think they have.

Who would you rather them select?

Also just curious who you think would be the ideal candidate?

Which one, Theodore or Franklin?

Also depending on which Roosevelt you are referring to what about their time as president do you really like?

no problem. Not intentionally trying to trap you on something. I was just wondering what you liked about his presidency. If it was Franklin I think too often people talk about he positives but rarely on the major negatives of his presidency. Also that depends on your political views if you thought what he did was good or bad. Basically if you look into history he is one of the major players that began the "era of progressiveism" with his policies and the new deal.

As far as Bush. There is a lot I would agree with you that he did pretty poorly from my viewpoint. Do I think he was the worst president in historty like some of his critics will say? no, but he definately was not one of the good ones.

Now as far as Obama it all depends on your political views and what direction you want the country will go. Some say he is doing great, some say he is one of the worst presidents to ever hold the office, and some say he has good and bad.

I for one will say his view of government and the direction he has gone has been mostly bad and from my view hasn't done much good for the country at all. One factor to look at is the continuation of the nations deficits and debt. His refusal to try to get a balanced budget. That is his failure and is clear in his recent budget proposal. Nothing in his recent budget proposal shows that the country will eventually get to a balanced budget. Currently for every Dollar the U.S. government is spending roughly 40 cents of it is borrowed. That over time will keep putting huge increases in the nations debt. If nothing changes then its only a matter of time that the interest rate on our debt starts to climb as it becomes more evident that our federal government may not be able to sustain it.

Everyone can disagree about social issues, but as far as fiscally he is failing in a major way and instead of correcting the Bush failures in that regard he is accelerating them.

I am basically saying all that to say that I don't see a rosie picture of Obama that it seems other people are seeing. Are the current candidates on the other side the ultimate answer to the overall problems? I don't know and probably not the perfect answer, but one thing is for sure is that Obama is not trying to change course on the nations debt and therefore on that merit should not deserve to continue as president. He promised hope and change, but its evident it hasn't really happened when you just simply look at the facts and the numbers of what he has done.

Also Im not trying to get you thrown into a heated debate :). Just wanted to share with you my thoughts.

I just can't understand how the Republicans have so worthless candidates (outside of Ron Paul) ever since that McCain guy who also was laughably bad.

They totally lack charisma and the ability to be convincing. No aura of power. Mediocre intelligence and so conventional in their appearance.

On charisma alone Obama had his re-election secured as soon as he became President.

How could the Republican party not see this? Or maybe they aren't even trying, realising it was all over before it even began and perhaps they're already breeding a talented guy behind the scenes and preparing him for 2016 when they don't have Superman against them.

For what it's worth, hope he meant Theodore.

FDR was stealthy one of the worst presidents the country has ever had.

We're talking about a guy who jailed completely innocent people without trial, because they overheard that he was speicifically planning to do the exact opposite of what he was saying publically, by forcing the country into an unpopular foreign war.

It all worked out in the end, WW2 wise, but anyone with any real reasearch into his presidency would have to be one of those "The ends justify the means" type.

FDR more or less was a more extreme version of Bush.  It's just his war panned out.

People aren't into Obama as much as you suggest, otherwise he would have an approval rating of ~60-65%, instead of continually hanging ~40-45%.  And his re-election isn't as guaranteed as you suggest, either.