would it be better to have no one as president

i was thinking people in positions are criticised for doing nothing. then i thought most do do something just the wrong thing.

say for example if obama did nothing there would be less troops in afghanistan and no health bill. so would it better if there was no president.

 

Obama is an especially bad example.

In his campaign, he promised to "radically reform the USA". The hoi polloi cheered as they presumed that meant "reform in a good way".

He's trying to reform it all right... into a Marxist/Socialist/Communistic state.

We Americans were "suckered-in" and now we're getting sucker punched!

 

The quickest way into the dumpster is indecision. A wrong decision is better than none, failing to do nothing after a series of wrong decisions is expotentially worse.

I also agree Obama is a poor example, he is a figurehead via inexperience and being run over by the frieght train of Congress.

 

Not exactly. It's just that people who vote tend to be impulsive blockheads.

 

People who vote have too much influence.

 

Obama won the densely populated, "low/non-income tax paying areas of the population."

 

Still can't quite get over having a black president, can you?

 

Yes, the intelligentsia were squarely behind the McCain/Palin ticket.

 

It is a tad awkward to have a Black man at the podium to wax eloquent what he is going to do for the white man.

 

i don't care if he is black. i just don't like the cost of afghanistan plus the health bill when us owes trillions already with a recession.

if a black man made a decision to not extend forces plus did not do the health bill i would say he was good. i prefer obama over the prospect of palin or another bush but not if he keeps this up.