Social Question

filmfann's avatar

Barack Obama or Bill Clinton?

Asked by filmfann (44448points) September 21st, 2012

If you could vote for either (yes, I know you couldn’t), which one would you vote for in this election?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

57 Answers

Hawaii_Jake's avatar

Barack Obama.

I believe he’s the man for the times.

bkcunningham's avatar

I’d vote for Slick Willy if I had to vote between the two. I always liked him and I really believe he was sincere and had the country’s best interest in mind.

Bill1939's avatar

Bill has the experience that Barack lacks, but four more years of the same is better (imho) than the alternative that the Republican Party is offering.

dabbler's avatar

I’m still unpleased with a handful of important things that happened on Bill’s watch: Glass-Steagall repeal, Commodities and Futures Modernization Act, NAFTA, WTO, ....
I haven’t been able to figure out why he put those through without a fight.

I don’t think Barack is beholden to the same task masters as Bill was, but it’s hard to tell.
he did let the Financial Industry off lightly when he rolled into office, and has not fundamentally changed their racket. Big Money may support Obama for the upcoming election at a price.

filmfann's avatar

There are several points we should consider:
Who has a better grasp of how to stabilize and grow the economy?
The answer is The Comeback Kid. Bubba knew just how to stroke the economy.

Who has more foreign policy credentials?
This is tough. Bill Clinton is very well respected overseas, but Obama instantly had a lot of love from other nations. I am giving the edge to Obama, if only because he has been utilizing both Bill and Hillary during his presidency.

Who worked better with the other party?
Funny as it sounds, Slick Willie got both sides to work together, even when Gingrich was trying to do everything he could to stop Bill. Hell, congress even impeached Clinton, and they got along with him better than Obama.

Clinton is probably smarter than Obama, but Obama is a man of this time, while Clinton’s day has passed.

In the final summation, I’m just glad Romney ain’t gonna win. I have to give the edge to Obama, but I would be happy either way, and how long has it been since you could say that?

mazingerz88's avatar

Bill. He not only can explain things well enough it inspires confidence but I also will bet he could do it while getting a blow-job.

gondwanalon's avatar

Bill Clinton was 10,000 times better U.S.A President than Barack Hussein Obama. Also Hillary would have been a much better present then than Obama. Even George W. Bush was a better president than Obama.

Qingu's avatar

Tough choice.

I think Obama is the better man. He’s probably not the better politician. But even so, Obama was able to accomplish more for progressive causes than Clinton ever did—health care reform, financial reform, equal rights for gays and women.

I’m not sure that Clinton would handle the financial crisis and recession (and GOP obstructionism) any better than Obama. And while everyone on the left pisses on Obama for “compromising” with the GOP, Clinton was far more accommodating to their insanity than Obama has been.

So I go with Obama.

@gondwanalon, strong words. Any chance you’ld be willing to back them up with reasons? I’m also curious why you neglected to mention Clinton’s middle name, Jefferson. You mentioned Obama’s.

JLeslie's avatar

@Qingu You don’t think Clinton helped pave the way for how to get health care reform done? That if he had been president again he would have been able to accomplish it this time?

Qingu's avatar

@JLeslie, I don’t know that he paved the way. He tried and he failed, and in some ways his attempt ossified Republican intransigence on the subject (Republicans had once widely supported health care reform). That said, I don’t want to assign Clinton blame for the GOP’s spiral into batshit sociopathy.

I don’t really know how to answer the question of whether Clinton would accomplish hcr if he had a third term… the hypothetical is impossible. I’m just comparing their records based on the opportunities and challenges they faced.

Clinton does deserve blame for turning over the reigns of the economy to the likes of Greenspan and rolling back several regulations that directly led to the financial crisis of 2008. Hindsight is 20/20, and in the 90’s everything was obviously working pretty well, so I cut him a lot of slack for that, but it still took place under his watch.

augustlan's avatar

Obama. I agree with both @Qingu and @Hawaii_Jake. He is the better human being, and the right man for this time.

ucme's avatar

Obama, Clinton’s a slut & Barack looks like a black Gollum, no brainer then.

filmfann's avatar

@ucme Let’s leave looks out of this.

dabbler's avatar

@filmfann Hilarious ! ...And really @gondwanalon G.W.Bush compared to both Clinton and Obama? A bowl of dog food as president would have been less harmful to our economy and global reputation than G.W. was.

gondwanalon's avatar

@Qingu I’m no big fan of who I affectionately refer to as “Bill” and perhaps his performance as U.S. President was a bit less that 10, 000 times better than our current U.S. President. Bill gets credit for a good economy and a more stable world and I really don’t care that he was impeached by the U.S. House of Representative and was supposedly disbarred from practicing law for perjury and goofing off in the White House.

Recently I heard a pod-cast from Peter Schiff saying that Obama’s previous stimulus efforts are exactly the wrong thing to do for our economy in the long run. Mr. Schiff has successfully predicted all of the Wall Street bubble crashes and also predicted back in 2009 when Obama first took office that his planned stimulus would not work. Mr. Schiff now predicts that the U.S.A. economy is heading for a very long depression with hyper-inflation if the government keeps doing stimulus after stimulus and doesn’t get out of the way of businesses. According to Mr. Schiff it is better for the economy to let businesses fail than to keep pumping them up with money (now being freshly printed via QE3). Obama has added over $5 trillion to the national debt in less than 4 years which yielded little help to the economy. I know that there are economic experts out there such as Paul Krugman that disagree with Peter Schiff and I would love to see a debate between these two. Any way, as I have said many times before, I think that Obama if leading the U.S.A. in the wrong direction. Peter Schiff obviously agrees.

Why did I write Barack Hussein Obama? Well for some reason I don’t see or hear his middle name mentioned much these days. It does have a nice ring to it, so why not?

@dabbler I agree that Bush did more harm than good. But Bush added less to the national debt in 8 years than Obama did in less than 4. Also Bush did a few good things like sending $Billions to Africa to help fight AIDS.

filmfann's avatar

@gondwanalon I don’t ever recall anyone reciting Obama’s full name without it being in a derogatory fashion.

ucme's avatar

@filmfann It’s a little known lie fact that Bush played the second monkey from the left in the scene where Chuck Heston was first taken captive in PotA.

Response moderated (Flame-Bait)
gondwanalon's avatar

@filmfann Is this a derogatory use of Barack Hussein Obama: MMM, MMM, MMM ?

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

My vote would go for President Obama. He is a visionary and leader who stepped into a mess. It takes more than four years to accomplish the goals that he has set. Plus, he still seems to be listening to the public opinion and taking it into consideration. He deserves a second term.

filmfann's avatar

@gondwanalon Good job! You found one! Bet you can’t find another.

cheebdragon's avatar

What’s the difference? They seem to be attached, kissing ass.

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

@cheebdragon Is that true? Can you cite some examples? I don’t follow politics as closely as I should, so your insight would be interesting.

Qingu's avatar

@gondwanalon, so you dislike Obama based on a single right-wing zealot’s analysis… involving fears of hyperinflation.

What incredible bullshit.

You’re talking about this genius who has been predicting hyperinfation around the corner since 2009. It’s been three years… where’s the hyperinlfation? Where’s the above-average inflation? I mean the real world’s evidence could not more totally disprove the ideological view that you are citing.

You’re about as rational as someone who dislikes Obama because he didn’t work to prevent the Mayan apocalypse of 2012. Any day now!

Also, do you honestly expect anyone to believe that you mentioned Obama’s middle name because you liked the sound of it? Why are you being so dishonest?

Qingu's avatar

Oh, and as far as Bush’s debt record vs. Obama’s, as far as I am concerned, Bush is responsible for the additional debt via massively depressed revenues and social net spending… you know, from the worst recession in a generation that happened on his watch.

If a mayor does jack shit while looters ransack city hall, you don’t get to blame the next mayor for having to spend money replacing all the damaged and stolen goods.

cheebdragon's avatar

@Pied_Pfeffer Watch a few minutes of the DNC.

gondwanalon's avatar

@Qingu The government has mastered the art of making bad economic news look like good economic news. This keep the public happy and politicians in office. The latest quantitative easing QE3 is designed to stimulate the economy which it will likely do in the short term. But there is no time limit on QE3 and of course there will likely be future similar efforts. You don’t have to be an economic expert to understand how printing mass amounts of money will eventually effect the value of the USD. When the government prints more it is actually a form of redistribution of wealth as it steals the value of our savings right out from under us. And we all know how much Obama loves to spread the wealth around.

You can call Peter Schiff any name that you like but he is still a brilliant economist. He didn’t say when the U.SA. will have hyperinflation or that it would happen suddenly or when have an economic collapse would occur but he did say that it is inevitable and also how to survive and profit from it in his book “Crash Proof 2.0”. To me it seems like the QE’s are acting as an insidious attack on the U.S.D. So I’m following some of his very helpful recommendations including converting dollar assets into assets that retain value.

If you want total honesty from me then here’s some: I think that it really doesn’t matter who is elected President because our economy and capitalism are doomed. It is far too gone for Romney to save it and Obama seems happy to let it die. Also I DO think that “Barrack Hussein Obama” does have a nice ring to it.

FYI: I was trying to understand what it is that I like Fluther so much. It is a place where we can go and actually say what is on our minds and have a rational discussion on topics like politics and religion. You better not try that on facebook. HA!

Qingu's avatar

@gondwanalon, but your theory has been tested and disproved. The Fed has tripled the monetary base and will do even more with QE3. If your economic worldview is correct, we should have runaway inflation. If Schiff’s predictions were correct then we should have runaway inflation.

We don’t have runaway inflation. Inflation has been between 2 and 4 percent—in other words, completely normal, no different than before the recession. (During the depths of the recession we had deflation). This is not government propaganda; you can look at it yourself.

The reason we do not have runaway inflation even with a tripled monetary base is because we are in a depression. This is standard macroeconomics; if there is no velocity of money (no spending) then a higher supply of money will not matter. In fact you need a higher supply of money to balance the lack of velocity or else you risk slipping into a recession again.

As for the nature of QE3, yes, there is no time limit, this is a feature not a bug; the point is to tie purchases to the unemployment rate while not giving investors the idea that the stimulus will immediately pull back once the economy improves (which would result in them pulling back investment once unemployment ticks down—counterproductive). This isn’t dark magic; it’s a variant of nominal gross domestic product targeting, and it went a long way towards helping Israel weather the recession better than almost any other country.

So I’ll say it again: you have taken the analysis of a single person, who belongs to a fringe cult of economists (the Austrian school, literally, functions as a cult; they eschew models and evidence), and cited one of his predictions which has been thoroughly disproved by current events — as evidence that Obama is a terrible president. Maybe you should consider the fact that you apparently know nothing about the subject before you base your disdain of Obama entirely on monetary policy (which, by the way, he doesn’t even have direct control over—the Fed is an independent agency!)

Qingu's avatar

By the way, here’s what Peter Schiff said about inflation in 2009

SCHIFF: You know, look, I know inflation is going to get worse in 2010. Whether it’s going to run out of control or it’s going to take until 2011 or 2012, but I know we’re going to have a major currency crisis coming soon. It’s going to dwarf the financial crisis and it’s going to send consumer prices absolutely ballistic, as well as interest rates and unemployment.

Runaway Zimbabwe-style inflation. Any day now.

Like I said: absolute bullshit, completely disproven. And the worst thing is that Ron Paul’s “Austrian-school” acolytes are too ignorant to even know how to judge these kinds of claims based on facts.

gondwanalon's avatar

@Qingu I really hope that you are correct and Peter Schiff is wrong (It is not my theory that devaluing the currency will cause inflation). Of course you are aware that many countries in the past have debased their curreny in various ways that caused inflation to various degrees, In some cases leaving their money worthless. At any rate, I really don’t completely trust Petter Schiff because he is a business man who is selling books and his own foreign stocks to make money not just to educate people. MR. Schiff is CEO and chief global strategist of Euro Pacific Capital Inc. which is all about making money. It is conceivable that the U.S. government can continue keep the wool over the eyes of the public (most people that I’ve talked to have no idea what QE3, or quantitative easing is) for the foreseeable future and prove Mr. Schiff’s forecast of the dollar’s collapse as wrong. If I and people like me make plans for the worst possible long term outcome of hyper-inflation that never happens then I have lost nothing. On the other hand, if Mr. Schiff’s economic forecast is correct then I will be in much better financial shape by preparing properly for the worst.

My wife and I are very frugal and have worked hard and invested wisely for the last 40 years (we are 61 years old now). No one would guess even close to how large our investments are. Through all the stock market bubble crashes we kept our cool and stayed the course of dollar cost averaging. By most middle class living standards we are in better than great financial shape. Nevertheless, I’m taking action to try to protect against hyper-inflation. One such action is to trade U.S. paper dollars for things that retain value. Another is to vote for Mitt Romney.

God bless Barack Hussein Obama and the United States of America!

Qingu's avatar

@gondwanalon, thank you for responding substantively. And in retrospect I think I was probably more of a jerk in my responses than I should have been.

Here is how I understand currency and inflation. It’s like blood pressure. High blood pressure can be a problem. But in some cases, you need to artificially elevate a patient’s blood pressure in order to keep him alive, so other systems don’t start shutting down due to lack of oxygen.

There is not a one-to-one correspondence between “printing money” and “runaway inflation.” There are circumstances where this has been the case—you mentioned Zimbabwe. But Zimbabwe was not in a liquidity-trap style recession, where the currency is actually at risk of _deflation. This is the situation we are in, and it’s very similar to what was going on during the Great Depression. And in fact the United States did eventually artificially increase the monetary base during the Great Depression—many experts agree this is a huge part of what got us out of the Great Depression. And in any case, the Fed has tools to fight inflation if it ever does become a problem (if, for example, the recovery starts happening in overdrive, unemployment shoots down, and costs shoot up—the Fed can put on the brakes by raising interest rates.)

So the question is, what situation are we in today? Is it like the Great Depression, a liquidity trap with a risk of deflation? Or is it a normal economy or something like the 70’s where runaway inflation or stagflation is the risk?

We’ve had three years to test this question and I think the answer is obvious. It’s not a matter of faith.

You can of course put your money in gold if you’re scared about the risks of inflation. But your faith in an economic philosophy that has been disproven by events just seems like a terrible way to choose who to vote for. Not least because Obama is not even responsible for the Fed’s policies! Bernake is independent; and he’s a Republican.

Here is what I’d like to hear from you. Do you have any evidence or reason to believe, besides the word of one Peter Schiff, that (1) hyperinflation is actually a risk in the near or mid-future because of current Fed policies? and (2) that Obama is actually to blame for the policies you are criticizing?

gondwanalon's avatar

@Qingu Sorry about taking so long to respond (If you are still following this). Life happened. HA!

I really like your analogy. I hope that it is accurate.

Of course I’m not an expert on economic issues. I would likely be better off reading books recommended by Jim Cramer and or Bob Brinker than Peter Schiff. At least I wouldn’t have the crap scared out of me. HA!

I see our economy, currency, inflation and possible hyperinflation in the following analogy. Picture that our economy is being protected by a colossal damn holding back a huge lake of currency. The damn has safety mechanisms in place that are there to ensure the integrity of the system. As long as the lake doesn’t exceed it’s breaking point all is well. Inflation is the the amount of water being released in the damns spillways at any time. The people in the town below the damn represent the U.S.A. and must adjust to the inflation being dealt to them. All seems well to the people even as the government prints more and more massive amounts of money as the lake gets bigger and bigger because only a trickle of inflation is being allowed to flow out of the damn. That is until the damn reaches it’s breaking point and the damn breaks yielding hyperinflation as the town (U.S.A.) quickly is wiped out.

I think that the damn will likely break no mater who is elected president. I have no idea when that might be. Maybe 10 years from now or 50? Tomorrow perhaps? Hyperinflation is a situation that none of us have experience but each of us would recognize it instantly as it wipes us out and bring us to our knees in a deep, dark and long depression. If one presidential candidate can possibly slow down the inevitable I think that it would be a good idea to vote for that candidate.

Qingu's avatar

That is the elementary school analogy of inflation. I tried to make it clear that there are other factors at play—you said you “like my analogy” but I guess it didn’t sink in?

I mean, do you understand that deflation is actually worse than inflation? The Great Depression was characterized by deflation. The 2008 financial crisis had a period of deflation. There are worse things that can happen to an economy than inflation.

By the way, why do you even think Romney would be a better inflation fighter than Obama? If the economy recovers (which Romney is promising will happen via magic if he is elected), more people will have jobs, more people will buy stuff, more people will move out of their parents’ basements, more people will drive, buy gas, buy cars, etc—so inflation will increase. Do you think the Fed, under Romney, will more effectively manage inflation in case of a recovery than the Fed under Obama? Why?

You’ve admitted you are “not an expert’ on economic issues. Maybe you should try to learn? By the way, Jim Cramer, Bob Brinker, and Peter Schiff are not economists. Maybe the problem here is that you are getting your economics education from people who know nothing about economics?

gondwanalon's avatar

FYI: I can like your analogy without agreeing with it.

You don’t really think that Jim Cramer, Bob Brinker, and Peter Schiff know nothing about economics. Because if you do then your are truly blind.

My analogy of inflation/hyperinflation was meant only to indicated how I view it in my mind. As such I thought that it wasn’t half bad. I don’t claim it to be accurate to real life.

So deflation can be worse than low levels of inflation. OK I understand that. But what if the damn breaks? HA!

Anyway, according to Mitt Romney, “We should be creating wealth, not printing dollars”.  Mitt Romney will utilize his business experience and skills to generate pro-growth policies that lead to robust job creation, higher take-home pay, and a solid economic recovery.

What is the most logical conclusion that can be reached by a reasonable person about the Federal Reserve’s announcement of QE3? It is further confirmation that President Obama’s policies have not worked and will likely just result in more economic failure in the future.

Aethelwine's avatar

Bill. I think he is one of our greatest presidents. Obama hasn’t impressed me as much.

Paradox25's avatar

Obama. I felt that Clinton was a good president and was dealt a bad economy himself. However, Obama was preceded by one of the worst presidents ever. I also didn’t care for Clinton’s tough antidrug stance, and I think that Obama is a bit more reasonable in that department. I was never a fan of either Hillary or Bill anyways.

Qingu's avatar

@gondwanalon, they’re all financial advisors. There is a huge, huge difference between giving (often bad) advice on how to manage your stocks and knowing about macroeconomics.

I’m also not impressed with your ability to parrot the party line about Romney’s accomplishments. Again, I’ll ask you for detailed reasons: what is it about Romney’s business experience that makes you think he’ll create jobs? He often outsourced or laid off jobs in his private equity experience. The whole point of private equity is to generate profit with heavily leveraged buyouts, not to create jobs.

Finally, the Fed’s job is to ensure unemployment and inflation remain low. Inflation is low. Unemployment is very high. So by “printing money,” the Fed is doing its damn job as far as I’m concerned. It would have been ideal if Obama’s policies “worked.” But you know what? Obama’s policies only went into effect in 2009. The Republicans have blocked every single one of his jobs plans since then. You know that, right? Obama is not the emperor; Congress controls domestic policy, and maybe you haven’t noticed but the GOP controls one house of Congress and has absolutely refused to do anything to stimulate the economy on the fiscal side since 2010.

gondwanalon's avatar

@Qingu Thank you for your insightful and revealing and illuminating answers.

Why not parrot other people who have said something more concisely than I. I am living proof that you can go through life on borrowed words. Whatever happens, there seems to be someone who has already expressed my reaction to the event much better than I could. So sometimes I quote someone else’s words. I have found that these “someones” have given voice to exactly how I feel, only much better and clearer than I. People like Peter Schiff, Dave Ramsey, Jim Cramer, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Aristotle, Homer, Socrates, Shakespeare, Mark Twain, the list is endless and even includes Mitt Romney, and Barack Obama. I quote them because they said so well what I was thinking. They described my experience, my personal truth in miraculously right words.

“To lodge all power in one party and keep it there is to insure bad government and the sure and gradual deterioration of the public morals”.
– Mark Twain’s Autobiography

Qingu's avatar

Along with dead philosophers who knew nothing of economies based on fiat currency,, you mentioned Bill Clinton. I’m just curious why you trust the word of three non-economist financial advisors more than Bill Clinton, who supports the policies in question. Not to mention actual economists.

Why do you have so much faith in the word of Peter Schiff and the guy who yells at cartoon money signs on CNBC? Why do you trust them more than actual economists? What made you decide to align your faith in this way?

gondwanalon's avatar

FYI: I have faith in absolutely nothing. Also I think that we can agree that we are going in circles here.

The dead philosophers knew a lot about life and human behavior. From my experience much of their observations are valid today. It is not a good idea to dismiss their words.

Bill Clinton is all about left leaning politics. It is no surprise that he supports Obama’s ideas.

Why do I trust brilliant people like Peter Schiff, Dave Ramsey, Jim Cramer and Rob Brinker over “actual economists”? I suppose you are referring to Mr. Nobel Prize Paul Krugman. Please! Do I have to spell it out? Anyway, the wisdom Bob Brinker (and the others to a lesser extent) has helped me make a lot of money for one thing and I know them well enough to get a good idea on whether or not that they support Obama ideas.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” -Bertrand Russell

Qingu's avatar

Ladies and gentlement, you heard it here first. Nobel prize winning economists know nothing about macroeconomics, as opposed to the “brilliant” guy who yells at cartoon money signs on TV.

Just ask @gondwanalon—he apparently made money by listening to the guy who yells at cartoon money on TV.

Any moron can make money if he has lots of money. That has nothing to do with macroeconomics. I’m sorry that you think it does.

Qingu's avatar

And here’s the thing about pretending that you “have faith in nothing” and quoting Russell.

You have faith in your three little financial gurus. I mean the way you talk about them makes it sound like you’re in a cult. The “brilliant” Jim Cramer indeed.

That’s not skepticism. You certainly haven’t engaged with their views, or looked at them critically. You don’t even really seem to understand what their views about the macroeconomy are in the first place, beyond “printing money is bad!” You have a grade school level understanding of inflation and you have no knowledge of the actual mechanics of the recession we are in. And when someone calls you on your lack of knowledge, you hunker down and repeat what your sacred scriptures have told you.

You don’t seem to realize that Bertrand Russel was actually talking about people like you.

gondwanalon's avatar

FYI: Your conclusions about me are totally wrong.

Your reasoning and ideas are important to me as they help to reinforce my conservative thoughts.

Well OK…. Paul Krugman = D-r-i-v-e-n b-y h-i-s l-i-b-e-r-a-l a-g-e-n-d-a

Thank you so much for your input.

cheebdragon's avatar

Don’t you just love how you can’t answer a political question without some jackass (not directed at anyone) asking you to explain and defend your opinion.

Qingu's avatar

@cheebdragon, you don’t think it’s important for people to be able to explain and defend their opinions?

cheebdragon's avatar

I don’t have a problem with explaining my opinions to people, but no one should have to defend an opinion.
Gondwanalon explained their view, but you insist they are wrong, as if attacking them for it is ever going to make them change their mind.

dabbler's avatar

“But Bush added less to the national debt in 8 years than Obama did in less than 4.”
It can appear that way if you disregard that a huge portion of the Obama debt was the cost of wars that Bush put “off budget” was put on the books when the adult got into office.

Qingu's avatar

I guess I think people should defend their opinions. If your opinion is indefensible, why do you believe it in the first place?

JLeslie's avatar

@cheebdragon Challenging why you have an opinion, I mean challenging yourself/ourselves is how we grow and learn and find the truth. People who just have opinions without any thought or research behind it, and believe it to be fact are for some of us part of the problem. Seeking information to support or disprove our ideas is how we become better as individuals and as a society. Don’t get me wrong, it is fine to have an opinion just based on feelings, gut feelings, or personal experience, not everything has to have been proven or researched, but I think it is important to differentiate between opinions based on a plethora of factual information, and opinions we hold because it just sounds right or based solely on our own personal experience.

dabbler's avatar

Back when the subway fare was a dollar folks would say about someone’s opinion, “That, and a dollar, will get you a ride on the subway,” indicating the value of the opinion. The only difference these days is the fare went up to $2.50.

Personally I don’t care if someone defends their opinion or not, unless they’re presenting it as something worth considering in a rational discussion.
Back that baby up with those facts and those facts will be worth considering. Without exposition of hard facts behind it, an opinion approximates, in both veracity and usefulness, the pattern a bug makes if it encounters your windshield at high speed. They can be entertaining but ultimately need to be wiped away to get a clear picture.

cheebdragon's avatar

Who is asking you to defend your political opinions? I understand your point of view, and like I said, I have no problem explaining why I feel a certain way, but why should i waste my time being attacked for it? Go join a republican forum and spend 1 month sharing your opinions, then come back to and we will have this conversation, because until you do that, you have no fucking clue how it really feels to defend your every single answer.

Qingu's avatar

I was actually a member of a conservative Christian forum for a number of years. So I do know what it’s like. It didn’t bother me, but I can understand how piling on is not a pleasant experience for most people. (The forum eventually disallowed me from promoting non-Christian ideas because they worried I was corrupting young members… which is, as it happens, the main reason I don’t go on conservative forums much anymore. I think you’ll find they’re way less tolerant, on an administrative level, of opposing viewpoints than Fluther is.)

MooCows's avatar

I would be happier with Donald Duck than Barrack Obama any day.
Any president that puts his golf game before the problems of the
US citizens is psycho in my book.

filmfann's avatar

@MooCows Obama has spent much less time on vacation than W. Source

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther