# Furry election 2012.



## I Am That Is (Sep 6, 2012)

Ok guys, I'm suprized this hasn't been done, but I thought it would be interesting to have our own mini rlcrtion here. Basically vote, then if you want, post why below!

Obama 2012 anybody?


----------



## moonchylde (Sep 6, 2012)

This is going to end in tears. Just sayin'.


----------



## I Am That Is (Sep 6, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> This is going to end in tears. Just sayin'.



Doesnt everything involving polotics and political leaders result in that anyway?


----------



## Heliophobic (Sep 6, 2012)

I lack the knowledge of politics, but am smart enough not to blindly support any party.

C:

That's supposed to be a smiley face. An extra smiley face.


----------



## Percy (Sep 6, 2012)

I care for neither.


----------



## I Am That Is (Sep 6, 2012)

You know I _did _put a poll up top right?


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 6, 2012)

why aren't I on the poll?

Fix it now.


----------



## Percy (Sep 6, 2012)

Gibby said:


> why aren't I on the poll?
> 
> Fix it now.



"amrica pls"
Gibby 2012


----------



## Artillery Spam (Sep 6, 2012)

Gibby said:


> why aren't I on the poll?
> 
> Fix it now.



You can be my competition.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 6, 2012)

Pinkie Pie 2012


----------



## Artillery Spam (Sep 6, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Pinkie Pie 2012



Already ironing out my assassination plans as we speak. :v


----------



## Bliss (Sep 6, 2012)

RuPaul 2012.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Sep 6, 2012)

Why can't we vote for FAF members instead? I like that one...Gibby or Art...tough decision.

Well I can't vote yet unless I get their opinions on the important issues. Candidates what are your positions on necromancy?


----------



## Echo Wolf (Sep 6, 2012)

There both bad but I'm going to have to go with Mitt Romney. On a somewhat related note I'm a registered Republican against my will; you see you need to choose one side of Satan's ass to vote in the primaries here in Maryland. I don't fully agree with either party though but I'm somewhere in the right field so he's looking like my choice considering Ron Paul doesn't have a chance in hell, although I do disagree with him also about some major things too...


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 6, 2012)

*sees a few votes for Romney and shakes his head*


----------



## burakki (Sep 6, 2012)

I really really wanna say something, since i pay attention to politics almost every minute of every day. But Im just gonna keep my politics and furries seperate... unless a prominent politician turns out to be a furry themselves....


----------



## Percy (Sep 6, 2012)

burakki said:


> But Im just gonna keep my politics and furries seperate... unless a prominent politician turns out to be a furry themselves....


I'd laugh my ass off if I heard that.


----------



## Artillery Spam (Sep 6, 2012)

Butterflygoddess16 said:


> Why can't we vote for FAF members instead? I like that one...Gibby or Art...tough decision.
> 
> Well I can't vote yet unless I get their opinions on the important issues. Candidates what are your positions on necromancy?



Free bodies for everyone!


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 6, 2012)

I would be shocked if Romney got many votes here.  Most young people align themselves with views of democrats for better or worse.  

I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet.  I'd be happy if BOTH parties decided they'd be willing to work together more often.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Sep 6, 2012)

Artillery Spam said:


> Free bodies for everyone!



I do like freedom...and bodies. Senator Gibby, your response?



BouncyOtter said:


> I would be shocked if Romney got many votes here.  Most young people align themselves with views of democrats for better or worse.
> 
> I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet.  *I'd be happy if BOTH parties decided they'd be willing to work together more often*.



Dreams to dream sadly...


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 6, 2012)

Butterflygoddess16 said:


> Dreams to dream sadly...



Let me have my fantasies. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 6, 2012)

I'm still going to vote for obma, cause the better of the two options.


----------



## Unsilenced (Sep 6, 2012)

Vermin Supreme.


----------



## Zoomzoom90 (Sep 6, 2012)

I don't like either of them...(Neutral party for the win ) But if I had to vote, I would say Obama.


----------



## moonchylde (Sep 6, 2012)

I joined the Voter Apathy Party. It's... OK. I guess.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 6, 2012)

Unsilenced said:


> Vermin Supreme.


I like how you think.


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 6, 2012)

election year in a nutshell


----------



## Percy (Sep 6, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> election year in a nutshell


The election is between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.


----------



## Kaiser (Sep 6, 2012)

I cant vote, I'm not even from US


----------



## Rheumatism (Sep 6, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> election year in a nutshell



"Blow um up, put your hand inside, get ready to have the time of your life!"   That can so be taken out of context.


----------



## Campion1 (Sep 6, 2012)

Spongebob Squarepants 2012

100% serious.


----------



## Conker (Sep 6, 2012)

I could never vote for a Mormon. Ever. Going with Obama.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 6, 2012)

Deathwing 2012

Change you can Bereave in!


----------



## Ricky (Sep 6, 2012)

I like how Romney runs his mouth all the time.

He amuses me, so I'm voting for him.

Also; ROMNEY 2012. _ Let's tell the Palestinians what we *REALLY *Think!!!

_


Conker said:


> I could never vote for a Mormon. Ever. Going with Obama.



Vote Obama if you are racist against Mormons.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 6, 2012)

I'm writing my penis in or the black guy. Presidential elections don't matter in Texas.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I like how Romney runs his mouth all the time.
> 
> He amuses me, so I'm voting for him.


[yt]FDwwAaVmnf4[/yt]


----------



## Ricky (Sep 6, 2012)

Was that racist?

I'm missing something here...


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 6, 2012)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I'm writing my penis in or the black guy. Presidential elections don't matter in Texas.


Wait you live in Texas?  Which part?

Also yeah I know the feeling Shanwang.  At least the courts struck down the texas chamber's proposed zoning for the election.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Was that racist?


It was embarrassing of a great magnitude.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 6, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> It was embarrassing of a great magnitude.



I think it's Obama playing the race card.

That has to be the whitest song by any black group ever written...


----------



## Bliss (Sep 6, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I think it's Obama playing the race card.


What has he to do with it?


----------



## Ricky (Sep 6, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> What has he to do with it?



Well, looking that up it seems that clip took place a few years ago.

So, I guess nothing in this context.

Still, Mitt is a troll and Obama thinks he is racist.


----------



## Dreaming (Sep 6, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> *sees a few votes for Romney and shakes his head*



6, 6 votes. 

I cannot vote in the US I'm stuck with my silly European socialist parties instead.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 7, 2012)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Presidential elections don't matter in Texas.



Last election was "relatively" close in Texas.  I'd be really surprised if it was that close again in this coming election though.


----------



## RayO_ElGatubelo (Sep 7, 2012)

Dreaming said:


> 6, 6 votes.
> 
> I cannot vote in the US I'm stuck with my silly European socialist parties instead.



Can we have your silly European socialist parties, Dreaming? We could really use some in here. At least then we'd have decent healthcare and education!


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 7, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Wait you live in Texas?  Which part?
> 
> Also yeah I know the feeling Shanwang.  At least the courts struck down the texas chamber's proposed zoning for the election.



Austin.

What's aggravating about the gerrymandering of districts isn't so much felt in the national and statewide elections. It's that idiots like these guys can consistently win elections with HIGH margins, because the drawn districts are still valid for the upcoming election:

[yt]dorCLFVpzyo[/yt] [yt]WFx-hvoGN90[/yt] 

And Lamar Smith, Mike McCaul, Sheila Jackson Lee.

Public corruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Sessions

False religious claims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Culberson along with Mike McCaul and Ted Poe.

AND ALL THESE FUCKERS ARE CONSIDERED SAFE. With more representatives slated to have open slots.



BouncyOtter said:


> Last election was "relatively" close in Texas.  I'd be really surprised if it was that close again in this coming election though.



Demographic data suggests that with the expanding Hispanic and Latino population the likelyhood of Texas going purple may not be too far off. At which point our legislature will promptly divide the state's electoral points into congressional districts giving any Republican candidate a safe, 49 electoral votes. Pardon the cynicism.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 7, 2012)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Austin.
> 
> What's aggravating about the gerrymandering of districts isn't so much felt in the national and statewide elections. It's that idiots like these guys can consistently win elections with HIGH margins, because the drawn districts are still valid for the upcoming election:
> 
> ...


Shit.  I live like an hour and a half away.  I almost went to college in austin too.  Hell I almost made it to brony fan fair this weekend.


Also eeyup.  Sad thing is nobody believes Texas gerrymanders the elections to such a degree.  We need for the federal government to bitchslap the texas government and tell them no they can't get away with it.  If you ask me the only way the situation could be corrected is if the general election became a direct election instead of a electoral college.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 7, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> I joined the Voter Apathy Party. It's... OK. I guess.



I'm going to join the Procrastinate Party... next week.


----------



## Ames (Sep 7, 2012)

Ralph Nader 2012


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 7, 2012)

After all of the digging I have done, all of the listening to both parties' arguments I personally feel neither one of them is good for the United States.

To that end, I suppose I won't vote for the same person twice. If they're both going to give me a headache, might at as well put in for a different voice to have to hear blathering constantly.

Edit: That being said, at least if Obama wins I will get to hear Rush Limbaugh's head explode.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

Well, i'll be writing in Ron Paul. He's the only one that's put forth any real ideas and common sense, at least in my eyes.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 7, 2012)

Obama.  He has principles that he tends to stick to and which I tend to agree are good principles.  Romney has principles too, although he appears to have a harder time sticking to them, and they're not aligned with mine nearly as much.  Plus if Obama gets elected we have a much higher chance of seeing fairer tax laws (ending of the Bush tax cuts, lowering on middle and lower class taxes and raising upper class taxes), as opposed to Romney's apparent plan to lower taxes on everybody and still reduce the deficit somehow.  Since I don't know how he actually intends to do that (and something tells me he doesn't either), that sounds like the far more dangerous option.  Plus I'm not rich so Obama's tax cuts will only benefit me, and I believe the idea is much more in line with Adam Smith's capitalism, rather than Reagan's capitalism which doesn't appear to do what it's supposed to.
Also, Obama seems to be a much better foreign policy president.  Keeps his head about him and isn't quick to lay down the hand of judgment (like Romney's Palestine gaff while he was in Israel) and piss people off.  He also apparently is doing his best to stay out of the pockets of his wealthy donors, while Romney is swimming in the pockets of his.

Now, I don't think a Romney presidency would be a disaster by any stretch of the imagination.  I'm sure he'd do a competent enough job, at least along his party lines.  If he lets his VP candidate have some control, we might be seeing some rather interesting budget experiments take place, but aside from that I doubt we'd be seeing much in the way of, say, wars popping up all over, warrantless infringements of privacy, internment without due process, and all of the other shit we saw during Bush Jr.'s reign of terror.  So I wouldn't cry if he got elected or anything.  But he just doesn't seem to have thought out all that hard what he wants to accomplish, and he seems to make a lot more gut reaction decisions about things than I'm comfortable with in a leader.  Plus I still don't think the Republicans would balance the budget like they keep claiming.  I think we'd see more of the same class division they always tend to promote, and that doesn't do much good for anybody.

Third party candidates... I don't know.  No media outlet gives them any coverage, ever, so it's really hard to know who they are and what they're about.  All I know is that the Libertarian party candidate climbed Mount Everest and did a few other equally badass things.  But that's certainly not enough for me to want to vote for him.  I really wish some of those guys had a fair shot, too.  No one really likes the two-party system, I don't think.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Sep 7, 2012)

Not a big fan of Obama anymore but I HATE all of the republicans so it's an obvious choice :V


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

People dont have to vote for any of the 2 parties, there's always third party and you can write in candidates. They need to make the Libertarian party an "official" party so we have more choose from and people will start to take it seriously. The media wont cover anyone other than republican or democrat. I think mostly because the government controls the media, they dont want someone like Ron Paul getting any more attention than he already has. He speaks to much truth about how things really are instead of sugar coating everything. People might start listening to reason instead of having to make a choice between one of two crappy candidates, both preaching the same garbage and never being able to deliver. But that's just my opinion, others might not feel the same but maybe we need some REAL change. Things can't and shouldn't stay the same forever.


----------



## LizardKing (Sep 7, 2012)

Can't I vote for me?


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

LizardKing said:


> Can't I vote for me?


You sure can, you can write yourself in if you like. Now, no offense but it would be better for the vote count if you didnt do something like that but you have all the right in the world to vote for who ever you like. Hell write in batman for what its worth but it wont be worth much when that vote doesnt go towards a real candidate.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> Well, i'll be writing in Ron Paul. He's the only one that's put forth any real ideas and common sense, at least in my eyes.



So, basically you are voting for Obama :roll:

Also, didn't Ron Paul want to bring back the gold standard?

Didn't we try that before and realize THERE ISN'T ENOUGH GOLD?


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

Ricky said:


> So, basically you are voting for Obama :roll:
> 
> Also, didn't Ron Paul want to bring back the gold standard?
> 
> Didn't we try that before and realize THERE ISN'T ENOUGH GOLD?



I am not voting for Obama, if he wins then he wins but i will still have made my choice for who i think is best suited for the presidency. I like neither Obama nor Romney so i will be unhappy regardless of which one of those two wins. Ron Paul does want to bring back the gold standard and there would be enough gold, but only if the federal reserve would stop printing money with nothing to back it up with then the gold standard will work. As they keep printing money it devalues our dollar, hurting our countries credit rating. In the end other countries wont want to use our dollar. And yes they did try to bring it back. It was JFK who wanted to get rid of the federal reserve and bring back the gold standard, he was in the process of doing so but then he was assassinated before he could finalize his work and Lyndon Johnson took over the presidency, he did not pursue JFK's idea. I wonder why? Maybe because the feds and big bank would have killed him too. But it can work, we just have to make it work. Unless there really is no more gold in fort knox, which is quite possible as our government may have already paid off other countries for certain things, wasting our money, as usual.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> People dont have to vote for any of the 2 parties, there's always third party and you can write in candidates.



Yeah, if you want to throw your vote away :V
It can be even worse than not voting at all, it can be considered giving your vote to the other side. If Romney ends up winning because too many Democrats voted for third party candidates, and I had also voted for a third party candidate, I could never forgive myself, because I basically would've helped elect Romney. Nader supporters basically elected Bush.

Yeah I wish the system could work with more than 2 parties but unless we start an alternative voting system and third parties get a lot bigger, third parties are just going to do more harm than good.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 7, 2012)

Even my Libertarian friends think Ron Paul is batshit.  He is a great speaker, I'll give him that, but my problem with him is how much of an ideologue he is.  He can sure explain very well what theoretically would happen if he were president; that doesn't mean that's what would actually happen.  He just strikes me as the kind of guy who gets into office, things start to go wrong almost immediately, and he either panics or refuses to admit that he could make a mistake and brings the whole country down with him.
Totally subjective conjecture, I know, but hey... that's all you really have to go on in most elections anyway, unless you have the time to sit down and read and analyze each candidate's economic plan/tax plan/foreign policy/and so on.  I just prefer a candidate who's flexible under stress, and someone who argues that vehemently for exactly one ideology doesn't strike me as someone who would be very flexible on anything, which is a complete hazard in a job like the presidency.  I want to seriously meet the guy who would be able to perfectly plan out how to fix the entire country and have it work on the first shot.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 7, 2012)

Obama. Lies way less than Romney. Doesn't hate women and gays. Doesn't support big business near as much/believe in trickle down economics.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

Well we will just have to agree to disagree about the Libertarian movement and Ron Paul. I dont see the country moving in any better direction. Not in the last 20 years or more. There has to be some real change somewhere. Sometime. Before the problems get to big to fix. But maybe they already are.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> I am not voting for Obama, if he wins then he wins but i will still have made my choice for who i think is best suited for the presidency.



You're either voting for Obama or Romney.  There isn't a third choice; voting for Ron Paul just takes votes away from Romney from people who might have otherwise voted for him.



> Ron Paul does want to bring back the gold standard and there would be enough gold, but only if the federal reserve would stop printing money with nothing to back it up with then the gold standard will work.



No, there really won't.  If we go to the gold standard everyone will want gold, not just the US since so many other currencies are pinned to ours. The current 1600/oz (or whatever) will not hold; it will get a lot greater and there won't be enough money and we will go back into a huge recession.

Not only that, but where does that leave countries that don't have a lot of gold?

And we still have plenty of gold in the US along with China and many other countries.

Also, what the hell is up with the title of this thread?  Neither Obama or Romney (or even Ron Paul) is a fucking furry.

You people :roll:


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> People dont have to vote for any of the 2 parties, there's always third party and you can write in candidates. They need to make the Libertarian party an "official" party so we have more choose from and people will start to take it seriously.


How could anybody take a bunch of wingnuts who want Romney's much-vaunted "job creator" exploiters to not only massively influence government, but actually _be _the government seriously?

Even if you supported one of the sane third parties, it would actually be detrimental to America. Remember, it were third-party splitters among the national electorate who gave Bush the majority...

You can only choose between humaneness and neo-fascism this November. Make the fucking right choice.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

Ricky said:


> You're either voting for Obama or Romney.  There isn't a third choice; voting for Ron Paul just takes votes away from Romney from people who might have otherwise voted for him.


No i'm not, there is whatever choice i choose. You're making it sound as though Romney is the only one running. Its my choice whether anyone likes it or not. I dont like Obama or Romney so it'll be no different to me if either one of them gets it. The state of the country will probably turn out no different if Obama, Romney, Paul or joe blow down the street gets it. The president doesnt run this country. Its congress, big banks, the feds, big pharma, big business; they run this country. The president in this country is nothing more than a figure head, he holds some power but not as much as some would think. But the right kind of president can stir that shit up and make the right kind of waves. If he doesnt get himself assassinated by the feds for not "falling in line". He can bring enough attention to the problems so that the people make the change, the government cant do it. If enough people write in someone and beats the rest of the votes then it still does matter. It matters even if the write in doesn't win. If i don't vote at all then that's when it doesnt matter.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> Well we will just have to agree to disagree about the Libertarian movement and Ron Paul. I dont see the country moving in any better direction. Not in the last 20 years or more. There has to be some real change somewhere. Sometime. Before the problems get to big to fix. But maybe they already are.


Yeah, okay.  I mostly just mean that there's an equally compelling theory from people like Paul Krugman that's basically the polar opposite of what Ron Paul wants to try.  Economics isn't an exact science.  In the end, it comes down to one thing: do you trust the government more, or do you trust big business more.  I tend to trust the government more simply because there's no profit margin involved.  I guess that's why I vote Democrat.
It would be nice if people would actually debate this stuff, though.  I haven't seen a real debate in a long time.  "Debate" today seems more like two people standing in front of an audience reading off a series of note cards they prepared beforehand.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> Yeah, okay.  I mostly just mean that there's an equally compelling theory from people like Paul Krugman that's basically the polar opposite of what Ron Paul wants to try.  Economics isn't an exact science.  In the end, it comes down to one thing: do you trust the government more, or do you trust big business more.  I tend to trust the government more simply because there's no profit margin involved.  I guess that's why I vote Democrat.
> It would be nice if people would actually debate this stuff, though.  I haven't seen a real debate in a long time.  "Debate" today seems more like two people standing in front of an audience reading off a series of note cards they prepared beforehand.


I understand what you're saying. And no, you're right economics is not an exact science. I dont trust the government or big business. But i have to make a choice at some point. I would love to see a real debate. I dont think ive seen a real debate in my lifetime. Its all one big pretty pageant. Who can smile the biggest? Who can make the most possitive remarks to sound the nicest? uuugh makes me sick


----------



## cobalt-blue (Sep 7, 2012)

Big Business = I don't buy your products if I don't want to. Except where Big Government is going to force me to (Health Care).  Big Government =  Irrespective of who is in charge, it more taxes, fees and reaching in my pocket for more of my money.  Either way were fucked.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> No i'm not, there is whatever choice i choose. You're making it sound as though Romney is the only one running.



It's Obama and Romney.

You're making it sound like writing in a vote is going to make someone else besides the two stand a chance of winning the election :roll:


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> Ron Paul does want to bring back the gold standard and there would be enough gold, but only if the federal reserve would stop printing money with nothing to back it up with then the gold standard will work.



Yeeeeah sure Drew.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

Ricky said:


> It's Obama and Romney.
> 
> You're making it sound like writing in a vote is going to make someone else besides the two stand a chance of winning the election :roll:



It does not matter who will win, they'll both do an equally shitty job, i'm sure. What matters is that I exercise my right and vote. Whether who i want in office wins or not, I will still have made the effort. 
Oh and i believe you and I have a bottle of bourbon to drink.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Yeeeeah sure Drew.



Then what are we supposed to back our money with? Broken promises of paying off our debt? Its only going to last so long. How can the U.S.A. keep going like it has? I don't see it ending well, nor do i have the answers but that doesn't make me any less concerned.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> Then what are we supposed to back our money with? Broken promises of paying off our debt? Its only going to last so long. How can the U.S.A. keep going like it has? I don't see it ending well, nor do i have the answers but that doesn't make me any less concerned.



The gold standard is terrible in the modern era, and reintroducing would destroy our spending capabilities as well as the control over the money supply.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

well any idea on what they should use to back up our failing dollar? we are 16 trillion dollars in debt, none of our taxes goes to paying off any of it. It all goes to funding the military that have no business waring in other countries and paying social security which they wouldnt have to if they had just left that money alone instead of raping it like they're doing our future. There was plenty of money in social security but they just couldnt keep their dirty paws off it. We have problems of our own here. That money could do better good here. Why does our country, as well as others, have to police the world? i understand others need help but we are useing that excuse too much.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 7, 2012)

DrewlyYours said:


> well any idea on what they should use to back up our failing dollar? we are 16 trillion dollars in debt, none of our taxes goes to paying off any of it. It all goes to funding the military that have no business waring in other countries and paying social security which they wouldnt have to if they had just left that money alone instead of raping it like they're doing our future. There was plenty of money in social security but they just couldnt keep their dirty paws off it. We have problems of our own here. That money could do better good here. Why does our country, as well as others, have to police the world? i understand others need help but we are useing that excuse too much.



What is needed more is tax reform and controlling healthcare/military spending in a very delicate manner. Also, the US dollar right now has slowly been getting stronger. (dont even look at how bad the euro is doing right now).


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 7, 2012)

You know, the countries we're indebted to are probably quite happy we're in debt to them.  I mean, why do you think credit card companies strive so hard to get their own customers into debt?  It's called interest, and it's what credit card companies use to make money.  So as long as we're in debt to China, China makes tons of money off of the interest and we're both good.  It only becomes a problem when the interest payment is so high we can't do anything about it.
Plus, it's not like other countries aren't in debt to the US.  It's this whole huge complicated circle that I don't even claim to understand, but in short it means that the number $16 trillion is about as informative as a blank sticky note.


----------



## DrewlyYours (Sep 7, 2012)

I know its getting better, but its nothing like it used to be. And those in power are the ones to blame. How can they justify printing more money with nothing to back up its worth? I know the euro is no better, its a global problem not just a US dollar problem. Are they just going to have to liquidate all debt for all countries? How can any of it be paid back? And there is no way they will ever cut back on military spending, we just HAVE to have the best of the best and that means the most expensive.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 7, 2012)

I'm rather wondering, in the event that Obama wins will anything actually get done?

We are all aware that both parties are the equivalent of squabbling playground children, and if they cannot get their way they will see to it that the other gets nothing too. The Republicans have done a great job at this. Frankly I will not be surprised if they keep this up, in one way or another. Obama has not been too gracious to the ones funding his campaign, as I understand it, so I imagine Big Business might perhaps have some Big Business with him as well.


----------



## badlands (Sep 7, 2012)

im British so i don't get a say.

im just gong to sit back and watch the constant bitching between the 2 party's


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 7, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> I'm rather wondering, in the event that Obama wins will anything actually get done?
> 
> We are all aware that both parties are the equivalent of squabbling playground children, and if they cannot get their way they will see to it that the other gets nothing too. The Republicans have done a great job at this. Frankly I will not be surprised if they keep this up, in one way or another. Obama has not been too gracious to the ones funding his campaign, as I understand it, so I imagine Big Business might perhaps have some Big Business with him as well.



I'm guessing that will depend entirely on who ends up controlling Congress.  If we get a Republican senate majority and Obama wins, we'll be seeing a lot more of this pissing contest we've been seeing.  If Democrats maintain the majority and Romney gets elected, history dictates that they'll switch positions with the Republicans and use the same tactics to cause a stalemate on Romney.  So hopefully, whoever we choose, Americans have the foresight to match Congress and the presidency to the same party, even if it's only for two years.  Congress is practically a crapshoot now, though, what with their ~10% approval rating.  
However, there is a Supreme Court seat or two coming up for grabs pretty soon, meaning whoever gets elected will get to decide the fate of the Supreme Court for the next several decades.  So that's important and will impact a lot of things.


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Sep 7, 2012)

Where's the option for Bill Clinton?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 7, 2012)

Gr8fulFox said:


> Where's the option for Bill Clinton?


I would totally vote for Bill if he could run again, I just hope after Obama's second term that Hillary will run.


----------



## NerdyMunk (Sep 7, 2012)

If no one suprisingly turns up as new candidate, then it's Obama. I'm not supporting someone who believes the rich shouldn't be taxed.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 7, 2012)

NerdyMunk said:


> If no one suprisingly turns up as new candidate, then it's Obama. I'm not supporting someone who believes the rich shouldn't be taxed.



Fine, vote Democrat.

lol


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 7, 2012)

Speaking of Romney apparently he's getting blackmailed with his tax forms.  Anybody that pays the group that stole his pre 2010 $100000 gets the information.

*crosses fingers hoping someone buys it and puts it on the news*


----------



## Ricky (Sep 7, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Speaking of Romney apparently he's getting blackmailed with his tax forms.  Anybody that pays the group that stole his pre 2010 $100000 gets the information.
> 
> *crosses fingers hoping someone buys it and puts it on the news*



We must charge him with being clever with his taxes, up to the full extent of the law!!!


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 7, 2012)

Ricky said:


> We must charge him with being clever with his taxes, up to the full extent of the law!!!


I'm really hoping that his tax forms get released cause the amount of hilarity on the news that will result will be epic, espically since it's so darn close to the election too.

Everybody get their popcorn ready!


----------



## Venu.Shade (Sep 8, 2012)

i personally support Obama in all seriousness.

not only does he, and the first lady for that matter, support gay rights as human rights, but he doesn't let his political views be predetermined by his religion.
being the younger man that he is, he is also a bit more "in touch" with younger voters in a way, I mean, he had the bright idea of using cellphones and what-not during the last election.

but being younger means more honest mistakes. sure, he made a couple bad decisions, like putting too much trust in the heads of companies when he handed out bailouts. but he did mean well and he also saved a couple of big, major companies from going completely downhill, which couldve effected the entirety of the US economy.

oh. and did i mention it was his quick thinking and reaction time to information that KILLED OSAMA BIN LADEN. the head of a major terrorist group is dead because of this guy, and thats something our idiotic, past republican president G.W. Bush couldnt do in his 2 terms.

Its also because of Obama's ideas that I'm still covered under my father's health insurance (as long as I live with him) until i'm 27. I don't have optical or dental because i'm not a full time student, but at least if i need surgery or something major happens i'm covered.




that and republicans seem to get religion and politics mixed up too much... mostly with the term marriage and birth control. I, as a woman, would like to avoid having children, especially if me and my significant other are not in a financial situation to be capable of taking care of a child but we would still like a bit of intimacy. just sayin.


----------



## Kostvel (Sep 8, 2012)

I'm canadain so no candidates for me I guess. But I will vote for more maple syrup, pancakes, and bacon.


----------



## Gr8fulFox (Sep 8, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I would totally vote for Bill if he could run again, I just hope after Obama's second term that Hillary will run.



Eight years of peace & prosperity under his leadership. Sure, it was one of the biggest tax hikes in our nations history but goddammit, even with that we still had plenty of money to live comfortably and take a nice vacation every year.

But in all seriousness, I wish Giuliani would run again. I still can't believe he dropped out of the 2008 election because his mob ties became known. He was the damn mayor of New York City; of course he had connections to the mob!


----------



## Aetius (Sep 8, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Speaking of Romney apparently he's getting blackmailed with his tax forms.  Anybody that pays the group that stole his pre 2010 $100000 gets the information.
> 
> *crosses fingers hoping someone buys it and puts it on the news*



Lets see how fast the Secret Service gets to the people before they can release it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 8, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Lets see how fast the Secret Service gets to the people before they can release it.


What I want is for them to get the money from romney and then give out the information anyways.  That would be pretty hilarious actually.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 8, 2012)

DarknessFlame said:


> i personally support Obama in all seriousness.
> 
> not only does he, and the first lady for that matter, support gay rights as human rights,



Indeed, and this is good.

However it should also be pointed out that these two, or at the very least his wife, are also putting their hands where they do not belong in regards to the Restaurant Owners Association.

Someone in her position should not be making the statements she has been, that is incredibly tactless. Whether or not they are true, is another thing.


----------



## Calemeyr (Sep 8, 2012)

I vote for a restructuring of the legislature.
Really, it doesn't matter who wins or loses the presidency. Sure, they can influence stuff quite a bit, but they have no intrinsic legislative power. (Personally, I'm going for Obama, because he seems to be the candidate for Science). The president is the executor of policy. He can suggest to congress, but how our country changes its functions depends entirely on how the legislative branch behaves. Since politics have become more partisan, less is being done. I get annoyed when people see the president, whoever he is, as embodying the government. It's a lot more complicated than that. But in a culture that glorifies stupidity (i.e, the now-ending Jersey Shore), how could we blame them?

One last issue...This nation is not a gated community, closed off from the rest of the world, despite what many Americans believe. Actions far away can impact us here. If any progress is to be done, we have to work together on a grand scale.

(Also, mofo's better not be defunding my NASA, because who else is going to nudge asteroids away? Disney? :V)

So yeah...vote for a better congress, vote for better international connections, and most importantly, vote for science!


----------



## Llamapotamus (Sep 8, 2012)

I'm eagerly anticipating the presidential debates. I'll decide then...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 8, 2012)

badlands said:


> im British so i don't get a say.
> 
> im just gong to sit back and watch the constant bitching between the 2 party's



On the other hand, you should probably take a bit more interest as to who David Cameron will have to have that UK/US "special relationship" with


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 8, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> I'm rather wondering, in the event that Obama wins will anything actually get done?
> 
> We are all aware that both parties are the equivalent of squabbling playground children, and if they cannot get their way they will see to it that the other gets nothing too. The Republicans have done a great job at this. Frankly I will not be surprised if they keep this up, in one way or another. Obama has not been too gracious to the ones funding his campaign, as I understand it, so I imagine Big Business might perhaps have some Big Business with him as well.



It could possibly change his demeanor if he's elected again. One of the big knocks on Obama is the perception of him as a lame duck who hasn't really pushed his policy on Congress as much as he could, even when the Dems had a majority hold on Congress. Without the looming spector of a reelection effort, Obama would feasibly be focused solely on enacting his policies, which would be helped along given another Dem Majority in the legislature. 

Maybe it's just the amount of media attention I've been seeing on the subject, but as of late the GOP has been getting a lot of negative press lately either because of terrible comments on sensitive issues like rape or be it someone saying or doin something silly such as the Clint Eastwood debacle at the RNC or fusing out that Paul Ryan was blatantly lying about something as trivial as how many marathons he's run and what time he finished.  Plus you have o consider just how muh the GOP had tried to push for ANY of the other possible candidates to stand up to Romney yet it was quite obvious how every other candidate ha some big friggin skeletons in their closets or were just downright unlikeable.  Romney himself is not the candidate the GOP wante at all to be their nominee. Hell, some viewed him as too conservative for the conservative party in regards to his wealth and wall street connotations as the rich investment banker. Not to mention his clear obliviousness to the plight of people who aren't even remotely near his tax bracket. 

Ricky brought up the facetious statement of chargin him for being clever with how he got around paying taxes. He's right in that what Romney has allegedly done with his money is by no means illegal.  But there is a connotation that follows along with it that a man who has damn near everything and doesn't realistically have to work another day of his life and still be financially secure needs to find himself tax havens so he can horde more money into a possible Scrooge McDuck size money pit especially given the kind of financial issues this country is currently facing.  This is a man who is campaigning on a platform of America is great and he wasn't a to balance the budget and make us financially secure, yet he's  doing everything he can to avoid his American duty of paying his taxes at an appropriate rate for someone of his wealth.  He has this image of being a draft dodger and a tax doder whih is severely hurting his image when he is trying to play up how much he loves this country. Someone once said that the mark of a great leader is the person who wouldn't deman of someone anything he wouldn't be willing to do himself.  For a man who avoided having to go to war and is currently avoiding paying his taxes to then campaign on a platform that is open to war with Iran and demands that the lower class shouldn't be getting as many tax teaks as they do, Romney just doesn't come off as the sort of person anyone would reasonably want to goose outside of blind support of the GOP or in my father's case, always vote out the incumbent mentality (both of whih are ridiculous voting practices).


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 8, 2012)

Gr8fulFox said:
			
		

> Eight years of peace & prosperity under his leadership.


Except for, you know... that whole Bosnia thing.  But otherwise, sure.
I think it's amusing that after Michelle Obama's speech the other day, people are saying she should run for president next.  Yeah... no.  As much as I like Michelle, she doesn't strike me as the presidential type (and it sounds like she doesn't think she is either).  I'd vote for Hillary next time, though.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 8, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> Except for, you know... that whole Bosnia thing.  But otherwise, sure.
> I think it's amusing that after Michelle Obama's speech the other day, people are saying she should run for president next.  Yeah... no.  As much as I like Michelle, she doesn't strike me as the presidential type (and it sounds like she doesn't think she is either).  I'd vote for Hillary next time, though.



Jumping on this to say I wouldn't go for a Michelle Obama 2016 ticket either. I'm personally not sold on Hilary either.

Funny too that everyone here keeps talking up Clinton. Revisionist history I guess since people like to forget about the Bosnia issue, how he bombed an aspirin factory in I believe Iraq on Christmas, and was the beneficiary of the Dotcom Bubble before it burst, which he had no hand in.  Not to mention of course that the intelligence community under his administration is just as responsible for not taking the threat of Al-Qaeda seriously pre-9/11 as the Bush Administration.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Sep 8, 2012)

Well, yeah.  I think just considering what came after him, people tend to see the Clinton era in a rainbow spectrum.
That does remind me, though, of the one thing I really don't like about Obama, which is his rather liberal use of executive powers of execution, if you know what I mean.  I almost feel like because he had to combat the stereotype that Democrats are weak on national security (which became really strong after 9-11), he overshot.  Like, he signed that defense bill that basically gives the president the right to detain anybody on suspicion of being an enemy combatant, he ordered the first unmanned drone strike against a living target and ended up getting about four innocent people killed in the process, he hasn't shut down Guantanamo Bay, he ordered the first cyber attack against a foreign power, and so on and so forth.  Yes, that kind of unilateral gumption is what got bin Laden killed (although one could argue that the guy still had a right to a fair trial... though you won't hear too many people complaining that he didn't get it), but it's also a wee bit frightening.  You just sort of have to trust that he's got the country's best interests at heart, and for him I more or less do, but I can't say the same for any future presidents.  Sets a weird and dangerous precedent.
But, you know, I guess since we're in a never-ending 'war on terror', we can't vote on everything, right?


----------



## DaedolonX (Sep 9, 2012)

Most likely Romney, But I'll wait for after the debates to make my final decision.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 9, 2012)

Anybody seen _Escape from L.A._?

Yeah, that's about how Romney's presidency would look like.


----------



## Andy Dingo Wolf (Sep 9, 2012)

I vote anthro donkey party


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 9, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> Well, yeah.  I think just considering what came after him, people tend to see the Clinton era in a rainbow spectrum.
> That does remind me, though, of the one thing I really don't like about Obama, which is his rather liberal use of executive powers of execution, if you know what I mean.  I almost feel like because he had to combat the stereotype that Democrats are weak on national security (which became really strong after 9-11), he overshot.  Like, he signed that defense bill that basically gives the president the right to detain anybody on suspicion of being an enemy combatant, he ordered the first unmanned drone strike against a living target and ended up getting about four innocent people killed in the process, he hasn't shut down Guantanamo Bay, he ordered the first cyber attack against a foreign power, and so on and so forth.  Yes, that kind of unilateral gumption is what got bin Laden killed (although one could argue that the guy still had a right to a fair trial... though you won't hear too many people complaining that he didn't get it), but it's also a wee bit frightening.  You just sort of have to trust that he's got the country's best interests at heart, and for him I more or less do, but I can't say the same for any future presidents.  Sets a weird and dangerous precedent.
> But, you know, I guess since we're in a never-ending 'war on terror', we can't vote on everything, right?



Well also to be fair that kind of executive decision-making is something which has been going on for decades.  The drone strikes simply being the extension of the trend thanks to technological advances in warfare.  So I'd say the precedence for action is there, and the means would be made available simply due to technological evolution.

And yes, a big part of it is because we are in a constant state of "alert" given things like the War on Terror, War on Drugs, etc. which doesn't lend itself to a conclusion thus sustaining a certain expectation and acceptance of executive powers being used "for the greater good".  It just comes down to figuring out whether or not you believe in the a given candidate's platform of either minimalist calculating usage of those powers or the more aggressive approach.  Speaking strictly of course when it comes to the "Commander-in-Chief" standpoint.

And again, like you, I feel like Obama is more of the former while Romney, from what he's claimed, would be the latter, generally speaking.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Sep 9, 2012)

I would vote for a third party candidate but because everyone will bitch at me for not choosing their candidate and saying my vote is a "waste" I guess I would have to vote for obama.

But idk if I change my mind soon i might just vote for a third party candidate.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 9, 2012)

M. LeRenard said:


> Well, yeah.  I think just considering what came after him, people tend to see the Clinton era in a rainbow spectrum.


Actually, you can blame that attitude on, erm, unexpected quarters.


----------



## meh_is_all (Sep 9, 2012)

If I could vote I'd vote Obama because romneys against gay marriage and I don't see his plan for fixing the economy .


----------



## kaskae (Sep 9, 2012)

'bama.

My five year plan involves me moving back to Europe at the end of it, so what happens here happens.


----------



## Ty1337 (Sep 9, 2012)

Obama for 2012 President, and I'll tell you why

Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, and he was horrible, hes the reason Boston is so messed up, so to have him in such a powerful position such as President, would be bad for everybody.  As for his VP choice, Paul Ryan, the guy looks like he's in his mid to late 20s for crying out loud, we need someone older and more experienced to get this country back on its feet.  Also I've been hearing if Romney is elected, he is going to ban gay marriage in the whole United States, which would cause riots, and overall chaos.  Obama is quite possibly the best President we've had since Lincoln, he avenged the deaths of the people taken by the 9/11 terrorist attack and killed their leader, Bin Laden, and also, he did announce in the early days of being in office that he did have a plan to fix the economy, but that it wouldn't be quick to start so to speak, so he still needs a chance to fix this country


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 9, 2012)

Ty1337 said:


> Obama for 2012 President, and I'll tell you why
> 
> Romney was the governor of Massachusetts, and he was horrible, hes the reason Boston is so messed up, so to have him in such a powerful position such as President, would be bad for everybody.  As for his VP choice, Paul Ryan, the guy looks like he's in his mid to late 20s for crying out loud, we need someone older and more experienced to get this country back on its feet.  Also I've been hearing if Romney is elected, he is going to ban gay marriage in the whole United States, which would cause riots, and overall chaos.  Obama is quite possibly the best President we've had since Lincoln, he avenged the deaths of the people taken by the 9/11 terrorist attack and killed their leader, Bin Laden, and also, he did announce in the early days of being in office that he did have a plan to fix the economy, but that it wouldn't be quick to start so to speak, so he still needs a chance to fix this country



Let's not get too lofty on the praise here.  Best since Lincoln?  C'mon now, you sound like a terrible sports commentator trying to compare Prince Fielder to Babe Ruth.  Last I saw Obama never dealt with anything close to a Civil War. 

Also with the Bin Laden thing, speaking for the people of the tri-state area, Bin Laden's death is nothing more than a moral victory and a good campaign storyline. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the people who died were avenged given that we are still feeling the legacy of 9/11 even today of fear and at times lame security standards.


----------



## Ty1337 (Sep 9, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Let's not get too lofty on the praise here.  Best since Lincoln?  C'mon now, you sound like a terrible sports commentator trying to compare Prince Fielder to Babe Ruth.  Last I saw Obama never dealt with anything close to a Civil War.
> 
> Also with the Bin Laden thing, speaking for the people of the tri-state area, Bin Laden's death is nothing more than a moral victory and a good campaign storyline. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the people who died were avenged given that we are still feeling the legacy of 9/11 even today of fear and at times lame security standards.




True, I'll admit you got me there


----------



## Conker (Sep 9, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Anybody seen _Escape from L.A._?
> 
> Yeah, that's about how Romney's presidency would look like.


The first one was better


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 9, 2012)

Dr. Ron Paul 2012. As far as I'm concern, I stand for consistency and principles.

Obama and Romney are the same person without a real different.


----------



## SpiralHorn (Sep 9, 2012)

Obama, because... um... I like his ties? 

Yeah I don't really see the point in worrying about who gets elected. It's not like the President has any actual say in anything.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Sep 9, 2012)

Something tells me that the Furry fandom is not quite representative of the nation as a whole. I thought at the start of the year the election would be in sports terms, a "blowout". Now, it looks like it's going to be close and bitter and the winner will take all.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 10, 2012)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Dr. Ron Paul 2012. As far as I'm concern, I stand for consistency and principles.



Principles are one thing, but if those principles don't actually work in the real world... I'm not sure of the benefit.

Like the principle of light-handed financial regulations that got the world into the goddamn Great Recession in the first place


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 10, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> Something tells me that the Furry fandom is not quite representative of the nation as a whole.



Of course not, it's mostly young people who tend to be more liberal.  I'm actually surprised Romney has as many "votes" as he does in this poll.


----------



## amtrack88 (Sep 10, 2012)

This poll has too few options.

Voting for Gary Johnson. I reside in California, a democratic stronghold where my vote really don't matter, so I might as well vote for someone I actually want in office rather than the Republican candidate that will never win this state.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 10, 2012)

Obama. Looking at the filth that supports Romney, their political and personal views.....I could never support that.


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 11, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Principles are one thing, but if those principles don't actually work in the real world... I'm not sure of the benefit.
> 
> Like the principle of light-handed financial regulations that got the world into the goddamn Great Recession in the first place


Principle of sound money without it's value fluctuating like the fiat bill. 

The Recession is getting worst without some radical change, I hate this bs loaded slow-burn so called "_change_" we are getting now.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 11, 2012)

PenningtontheSkunk said:


> Principle of sound money without it's value fluctuating like the fiat bill.
> 
> The Recession is getting worst without some radical change, I hate this bs loaded slow-burn so called "_change_" we are getting now.


Well, change takes time when you are speaking in worldly terms. There's a lot to be changed in America, that is for certain.

Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people that do not have loads of time.


----------



## Lei-Lani (Sep 11, 2012)

I know people all over the country are trying to make it seem like the polls are "close", but the GOP might as well just hand in the gauntlet because it's going to be the most one-sided win in ages.  Makes McCain/Obama 2008 seem like Dewey/Truman 1948.

The only hope the GOP has is that 100 million eligible voters decide not to vote.

But then, that's how this bastard party wins, right?  By suppressing the right to vote in this country.

And we call them "Americans" WHY again?


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 11, 2012)

Lei-Lani said:


> But then, that's how this bastard party wins, right?  By suppressing the right to vote in this country.


Exactly.

The best hope of the GOP is that their anti-democratic Voter ID laws disenfranchise so and so many million voters.



PenningtontheSkunk said:


> I hate this bs loaded slow-burn so called "_change_" we are getting now.


It's only slow-burn because the right wing do everything in their power to stonewall Obama and make the US ungovernable.

"We will stall all endeavors of them filthy libruls till we've bullied ourselves in charge again, no matter whether this country fucking implodes in the meantime!"


----------



## Zamobafood (Sep 11, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Also with the Bin Laden thing, speaking for the people of the tri-state area, Bin Laden's death is nothing more than a moral victory and a good campaign storyline. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the people who died were avenged given that we are still feeling the legacy of 9/11 even today of fear and at times lame security standards.



Exactly! And the mission for Bin Laden was months if not years in the planning. A president doesn't move into office and speed up an intelligence and military operation. 

I support Romney for the simple fact he isn't Obama. The last 4 years have not solved anything. Unemployment is still high. Gas prices are still high. Our nation's debt is skyrocketing out of control. Can Romney do a better job? I hope so. He is a businessman. Obama has solid ideas (a few) but is failing in the execution. 

I propose another option. None of the above! Kick every politician out and replace them all..... with more politicians.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 11, 2012)

Zamobafood said:


> I support Romney for the simple fact he isn't Obama. The last 4 years have not solved anything. Unemployment is still high. Gas prices are still high. Our nation's debt is skyrocketing out of control. Can Romney do a better job? I hope so. He is a businessman. Obama has solid ideas (a few) but is failing in the execution.
> 
> I propose another option. None of the above! Kick every politician out and replace them all..... with more politicians.



As clinton said man, noone could have repaired the damage done by BUSH in just 4 years. The president has nothing to do with gas prices, btw. As for the debt, we are getting it under control slowly.  Who added 14 trillion? Bush. Who added 4? Obama.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> As clinton said man, noone could have repaired the damage done by BUSH in just 4 years. The president has nothing to do with gas prices, btw. As for the debt, we are getting it under control slowly.  Who added 14 trillion? Bush. Who added 4? Obama.


Bush was the second worst president OF ALL TIME.


----------



## ZerX (Sep 11, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqLvBUSJucg
Bush was awesome. best politician/comedian ever


----------



## PenningtontheSkunk (Sep 11, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Well, change takes time when you are speaking in worldly terms. There's a lot to be changed in America, that is for certain.
> 
> Unfortunately, there are also a lot of people that do not have loads of time.


True

Speaking of the rich...they seem to have all the time in the world.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Sep 11, 2012)

I can't vote yet but in my opinion, the R is going to have a victory unless the Obama Mania Media successfully digs something up that would ruin the chances for Mitt because of character assassination (because that is all the Democrats have left).


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> I can't vote yet but in my opinion, the R is going to have a victory unless the Obama Mania Media successfully digs something up that would ruin the chances for Mitt because of character assassination (because that is all the Democrats have left).


You mean like Romney's pre 2010 tax records?  Like how a group of hackers are willing to give it out to anyone that pays them enough money?  Like how hustler magazine is willing to pay anyone $1000000 to dig up politically crippling information on Romney?  Like a tax record?


----------



## thoughtmaster (Sep 11, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> You mean like Romney's pre 2010 tax records?  Like how a group of hackers are willing to give it out to anyone that pays them enough money?  Like how hustler magazine is willing to pay anyone $1000000 to dig up politically crippling information on Romney?  Like a tax record?


Could you please show me the documentation proving what you are saying?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 11, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> Could you please show me the documentation proving what you are saying?


http://mashable.com/2012/09/05/hacker-ransom-romney-tax-returns/
It's unlikely, but it's possible.
If it's true and the tax returns are released to the public then holy fuck is Romney done for.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Sep 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> http://mashable.com/2012/09/05/hacker-ransom-romney-tax-returns/
> It's unlikely, but it's possible.
> If it's true and the tax returns are released to the public then holy fuck is Romney done for.


Key word IF. You can go on "what ifs" as long as you wish to but please vote on what has been confirmed, not what is speculated.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 12, 2012)

I would laugh so hard if it turned out that Romney was hiding his records because it turned out that he was ashamed he wasn't as rich and successful as everyone assumed he was or something instead of because he's so super rich and avoiding paying taxes.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> http://mashable.com/2012/09/05/hacker-ransom-romney-tax-returns/
> It's unlikely, but it's possible.
> If it's true and the tax returns are released to the public then holy fuck is Romney done for.



Please fucking release it...just do it.  I don't know why Republicans think he pays his taxes...


----------



## thoughtmaster (Sep 12, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Please fucking release it...just do it.  I don't know why Republicans think he pays his taxes...


Why do you think he doesn't?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> Why do you think he doesn't?


I don't think it's not that people don't think he doesn't pay taxes so much as people think he was cheating the system.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> http://mashable.com/2012/09/05/hacker-ransom-romney-tax-returns/
> It's unlikely, but it's possible.
> If it's true and the tax returns are released to the public then holy fuck is Romney done for.



The fact they wanted the payment in Bitcoins is more proof than any of its ridiculousness. They might as well have asked for payment in Ron Paul solid gold bars and people would take it just as seriously. Well, a lot more seriously since gold actually has a value, and Bitcoins fluctuate wildly in value because they have no record of how many Bitcoins are circulating, making it the most unstable currency since Zimbabwe.

From what I've been seeing, though, Obama has been polling with a ~4% lead, and has a lead in EVs. That could change with Florida, but only if Florida flips R, and currently he has a fairly nice lead according to most pollsters. My state is definitely going R, if it weren't a two-party only FPTP state, I would vote third party. But since I have only a choice between the two of them, I'm going to put in a completely worthless vote to Obama, as the Republican social policies leave me unable to support them or their candidates. Alternatively I may not bother because, as mentioned, my vote is literally worthless save for national popularity poll dong-waving, and it means going out of my way to find the voting place.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Sep 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I don't think it's not that people don't think he doesn't pay taxes so much as people think he was cheating the system.


Why is it that they have come to think that?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> Why is it that they have come to think that?


Distrust of politicians?  Distrust of those in the financial sector?  There's a million reasons you can think of.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> Why do you think he doesn't?



What cannonfodder said


----------



## thoughtmaster (Sep 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Distrust of politicians?  Distrust of those in the financial sector?  There's a million reasons you can think of.


So, it is only because he is a politician and a businessman you believe he is cheating on his taxes, not because of any hard evidence proving it?


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> So, it is only because he is a politician and a businessman you believe he is cheating on his taxes, not because of any hard evidence proving it?



That...and the fact that he's purposefully not released his tax stuff...and avoids the issue at all cost.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> So, it is only because he is a politician and a businessman you believe he is cheating on his taxes, not because of any hard evidence proving it?


It's not just because he's *A* businessman, but rather the type of business he was in and the business decisions he's made in the past. It's also simply because he's refusing to release them when pretty much everyone else does and why would he go through the negative media of him hiding his papers unless the real ones were worse? It's not like it's something special that no one ever asks a politician about, it's something that's very standard for presidential candidates.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> So, it is only because he is a politician and a businessman you believe he is cheating on his taxes, not because of any hard evidence proving it?


You misunderstand, there's countless reasons why people distrust romney.  He's like the perfect anti-politician who can't quell any theories into him as a person and can't connect with voters.


----------



## kaskae (Sep 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> http://mashable.com/2012/09/05/hacker-ransom-romney-tax-returns/
> It's unlikely, but it's possible.
> If it's true and the tax returns are released to the public then holy fuck is Romney done for.



I've never heard of "Bitcoins" before reading this article. It's a whole mess of stuff that I can't wait to see unfold...


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 12, 2012)

I won't believe Mitt Romney is eligible for the presidency until I see his birth certificate. I find it hard to believe that the son of a Mexican father really has America's best interests at heart.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 12, 2012)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I won't believe Mitt Romney is eligible for the presidency until I see his birth certificate. I find it hard to believe that the son of a Mexican father really has America's best interests at heart.



The wiki of Mitt Romney's father says that the guy was born to AMERICANS living in Mexico...so.....his father isn't mexican, not really.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 12, 2012)

Zamobafood said:


> Can Romney do a better job? I hope so. He is a businessman.



Er, how exactly does running a business make you more qualified to lead a democratic government?

Businesses are answerable only to their stockholders and their customers - stockholders and customers are seldom the same people.
Governments are answerable to all the country's citizens.

Businesses don't have to worry about diplomacy with other countries or defence arrangements - because that's what _governments _do.

The primary motivation for businesses is profit. The primary motivation for government is service to the public good.

Business executives typically run their companies in an autocratic fashion (like Steve Jobs) with an established hierarchy, where loyal subordinates will ask "how high?" when told to jump.
Government leaders don't have anything like the same dominance - they have to communicate and negotiate for common goals and outcomes with a good chunk of "board members" who are openly hostile to anything they try to do. Imagine if Steve Jobs had to deal with just under 50% of the Apple corporate board consisting of Microsoft board members and 2% were Open Source Software geeks 

Businesses can sell bits of themselves off to raise cash, in particular poorly-performing units.
Governments can't exactly sell off poor parts of Georgia or Louisiana to China, even if Louisiana was originally bought off the French  

Besides, given the Great Recession that Wall Street and other business types have bequeathed the world, why the hell would we trust Wall Street type businessmen running a government when they successfully screwed over the world economy?

http://www.salon.com/2012/03/05/greed_isnt_good_for_the_government/


			
				Salon.com said:
			
		

> After the collapse of Enron, the accounting industry scandals, the disastrous effects of Halliburton CEO Dick Cheneyâ€™s vice presidency, and the Wall Street implosion, youâ€™d think weâ€™d be moving in the other direction â€” youâ€™d think weâ€™d be more wary about putting businesspeople in government, and more focused on valuing those with public sector experience. But, instead, the era of polarized politics has created a bizarre psychology in which America now sees the public servant as a Public Enemy, and the corporate executive as the government savior.
> 
> Until we recognize the paradox in that thinking, we should expect the same horrifying results from the public sector that weâ€™ve lately seen in the private sector.



Not to mention that the last President with an MBA was George W. Bush - and look how well _that_ turned out.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 12, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> The wiki of Mitt Romney's father says that the guy was born to AMERICANS living in Mexico...so.....his father isn't mexican, not really.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney



I'm fairly sure it was a joke over the whole Obama birth certificate issue anyways. Which even after he produced it, the same people screamed for him to release a long-form birth certificate. _I_ don't even have a long-form birth certificate.


----------



## jorinda (Sep 12, 2012)

I'm not a ctitzen of the US.
I kinda dislike Romney. But since I can't vote anyway, I haven't collected enough information to decide for a candidate.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 12, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> I'm fairly sure it was a joke over the whole Obama birth certificate issue anyways. Which even after he produced it, the same people screamed for him to release a long-form birth certificate. _I_ don't even have a long-form birth certificate.



Yeah I thought that might be the case, but he sounded kinda serious, at least to me


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> I'm fairly sure it was a joke over the whole Obama birth certificate issue anyways. Which even after he produced it, the same people screamed for him to release a long-form birth certificate. _I_ don't even have a long-form birth certificate.


[YT]2bqEn8AXzJ4[/YT]


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 12, 2012)

It is my opinion that the above video is yet another reason why Obama is not a proper president for the United States of America. It is an amusing idea and a fair joke, but unfortunately inappropriate and juvenile for one of his position. There is a time and place for humor, and I feel that the presidency is not one of them.

Imagine the outrage if Clinton, before the claims were proven, had done something similar.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 12, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> It is my opinion that the above video is yet another reason why Obama is not a proper president for the United States of America. It is an amusing idea and a fair joke, but unfortunately inappropriate and juvenile for one of his position. There is a time and place for humor, and I feel that the presidency is not one of them.



At least Obama is intelligent and has a proper grasp of the English language.


----------



## kaskae (Sep 12, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Imagine the outrage if Clinton, before the claims were proven, had done something similar.



Apples to oranges. Obama had already released his birth certificate, and it had become overly dramatized by the birther movement that it was falsified even when it was proven that he was a legitimate candidate for president. The Clinton scandal was a much more serious matter, and of course it would have met negative reception.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2012)

kaskae said:


> Apples to oranges. Obama had already released his birth certificate, and it had become overly dramatized by the birther movement that it was falsified even when it was proven that he was a legitimate candidate for president. The Clinton scandal was a much more serious matter, and of course it would have met negative reception.


Yeah, pretty big difference.
Clinton cheated on his wife.
The only real defence birther's have for their claim that Obama can't be president is that Obama is african american and that somehow in birther's minds means he must have been born in kenya.


----------



## kaskae (Sep 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Yeah, pretty big difference.
> Clinton cheated on his wife.
> The only real defence birther's have for their claim that Obama can't be president is that Obama is african american and that somehow in birther's minds means he must have been born in kenya.



They would have been better off having him run a 250 just to find he was obviously American.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 12, 2012)

Well I was pretty nonplussed, but now I'm actually pissed off at Mitt Romney big time. Using the Libyan Consulate attacks to sling political mud has left me fuming all day, particularly since a friend of mine died in it. I was considering skipping voting, but not anymore. Smirkin' sonuvva... tempted to make a rant and rave topic on the subject, because, god, that self-serving smirk he had during that entire press interview, and the smile he had walking off stage...

RIP Sean, you made the best Eve Online stories.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 12, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Well I was pretty nonplussed, but now I'm actually pissed off at Mitt Romney big time. Using the Libyan Consulate attacks to sling political mud has left me fuming all day, particularly since a friend of mine died in it. I was considering skipping voting, but not anymore. Smirkin' sonuvva... tempted to make a rant and rave topic on the subject, because, god, that self-serving smirk he had during that entire press interview, and the smile he had walking off stage...
> 
> RIP Sean, you made the best Eve Online stories.



A friend of yours worked at the Libyan Consulate?  Note me and tell me about it *curious*


----------



## Conker (Sep 12, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> It is my opinion that the above video is yet another reason why Obama is not a proper president for the United States of America. It is an amusing idea and a fair joke, but unfortunately inappropriate and juvenile for one of his position. There is a time and place for humor, and I feel that the presidency is not one of them.
> 
> Imagine the outrage if Clinton, before the claims were proven, had done something similar.


At the worst he was stooping to the level of birther republicans. 

People relate to humor, and given the situation at that time, humor was all Obama could really turn to. If he got really serious and upset about the birth certificate thing, then he'd have just looked bad. Making a joke out of it winds up being the high ground that, bonus points, also makes the birther movement look extra silly. 

But if you don't want humor, Romney is a pretty good selection then. His idea of a joke is "Well, no one asked to see my birth certificate." Lawl, he's so white!


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 12, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Well I was pretty nonplussed, but now I'm actually pissed off at Mitt Romney big time. Using the Libyan Consulate attacks to sling political mud has left me fuming all day, particularly since a friend of mine died in it. I was considering skipping voting, but not anymore. Smirkin' sonuvva... tempted to make a rant and rave topic on the subject, because, god, that self-serving smirk he had during that entire press interview, and the smile he had walking off stage...
> 
> RIP Sean, you made the best Eve Online stories.


Okay.. that's pretty fucked up of romney.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 12, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> A friend of yours worked at the Libyan Consulate?  Note me and tell me about it *curious*


Welp hope those messages sent, I am not too good with forum PMing. The noobiest of noobs.

And to add a bit so this post isn't useless post-count-adding, here's the type of stuff Mitt Romney said last night.

"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi," Romney said. "It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."

I honestly wonder if he's just torpedoing himself.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 13, 2012)

Conker said:


> At the worst he was stooping to the level of birther republicans.
> 
> People relate to humor, and given the situation at that time, humor was all Obama could really turn to. If he got really serious and upset about the birth certificate thing, then he'd have just looked bad. Making a joke out of it winds up being the high ground that, bonus points, also makes the birther movement look extra silly.
> 
> But if you don't want humor, Romney is a pretty good selection then. His idea of a joke is "Well, no one asked to see my birth certificate." Lawl, he's so white!


It looks like you are the only one who actually noticed the point I am making.

Yes, it is stooping to petty behavior just like idiotic birther arguments.

I suppose this is really all just my opinion, I think he should have handled it stoically as all presidents should. I don't view intellectual rear-shaking as the "high-ground" in this instance. So no, I do not want inappropriate demonstrations by the president of the country.

I am going to have to look into the Libyan Consulate attacks myself to see what everyone's full words are before I draw judgement. I never like using misfortune as a platform, and I plan to investigate the suspicion.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 13, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> It is my opinion that the above video is yet another reason why Obama is not a proper president for the United States of America. It is an amusing idea and a fair joke, but unfortunately inappropriate and juvenile for one of his position. There is a time and place for humor, and I feel that the presidency is not one of them.



Firstly, the video was of the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, an event where (it appears) humour is perfectly acceptable.

Secondly, as others have pointed out, this was AFTER his birth certificate release, which nitwits like Donald Trump still refused to accept. I don't see a problem with Obama cracking a self-depreciating joke like that in such a forum (I love the comment about "the long-form version" of the 'birth' segment being available from Disney).

Thirdly, Obama's "birth video" joke was in FAR better taste than the joke Dubya did at one White House Correspondents Dinner, where (AFTER the Iraq invasion and the first part of the US occupation of Iraq) he pretended to look around the stage for "those darn weapons of mass destruction". Joking about the views some people have of your identity paperwork is far more tasteful than belittling the deaths of Iraqis in a war of US aggression that you undertook on very questionable evidence...


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 13, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Firstly, the video was of the 2011 White House Correspondents Dinner, an event where (it appears) humour is perfectly acceptable.
> 
> Secondly, as others have pointed out, this was AFTER his birth certificate release, which nitwits like Donald Trump still refused to accept. I don't see a problem with Obama cracking a self-depreciating joke like that in such a forum (I love the comment about "the long-form version" of the 'birth' segment being available from Disney).
> 
> Thirdly, Obama's "birth video" joke was in FAR better taste than the joke Dubya did at one White House Correspondents Dinner, where (AFTER the Iraq invasion and the first part of the US occupation of Iraq) he pretended to look around the stage for "those darn weapons of mass destruction". Joking about the views some people have of your identity paperwork is far more tasteful than belittling the deaths of Iraqis in a war of US aggression that you undertook on very questionable evidence...


I'm aware of how (seemingly) most people see it, but I have stated I do not agree with any president doing things like this. That's about all there is to it. Apologies if it does not make for exceptional discussion.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Sep 16, 2012)

The ugliness surrrounding this election is just a constant reminder of the flaws inherent in democracy, and to a larger extent, humankind. The problem is how representative our government is and the fact that, if we were to give an honest look at ourselves, how little we deserve to be represented. Would I want someone like myself representing our nation to the entire world, when I myself am such a petty grudge-bearer?


----------



## Conker (Sep 16, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> I suppose this is really all just my opinion, I think he should have handled it stoically as all presidents should. I don't view intellectual rear-shaking as the "high-ground" in this instance. So no, I do not want inappropriate demonstrations by the president of the country.


Stoicism has its moments, but it's hard to relate to. I appreciate a good joke, and the kind he made during that dinner sort of reminded me of some of the humor I stumble upon when on the internet. 

I hardly think that was inappropriate either.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Sep 17, 2012)

Conker said:


> Stoicism has its moments, but it's hard to relate to. I appreciate a good joke, and the kind he made during that dinner sort of reminded me of some of the humor I stumble upon when on the internet.
> 
> I hardly think that was inappropriate either.



But the question is- do you really think that we Americans deserve good representatives? What should a bunch of selfish and prideful people expect from their "representative" leaders?


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 17, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> But the question is- do you really think that we Americans deserve good representatives? What should a bunch of selfish and prideful people expect from their "representative" leaders?



What a slanderous, presumptuous remark. Do refrain from looking like a rather expressive propagator of ignorance and widespread labels in the future.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 17, 2012)

I will vote for Ron Paul or Satan.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 17, 2012)

I'd vote for Obama. I didn't before but damn Romney is just god-awful. Promising to pretty much undermine everything Obama has done, yeah no. Obama has allowed gay marriage to pass in DC. He allowed the repeal of DADT. The economy is still shit, yeah, but it's starting to build itself up. Can't really tell until the holiday season comes up to be honest.
The fact that Romney wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood, ban gay marriage outright, and treat the middle class and poor like dirt? No-fucking-thanks.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Sep 17, 2012)

Regardless of anything which occurs with the election, I'm still heavily of the opinion that Texas has the economic power to leave the United States and function as an independent state. I would prefer that the election has no impact on Texas, but, in this case, it's another catch-22 with two equally bad options, and no alternatives to stilll having to be some of the people funding the idiocy in Washington.


----------



## Armaetus (Sep 17, 2012)

I am surprised at all of the furries tossing their vote away by voting Romney..

*lolcigarskunklol*


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 17, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> What a slanderous, presumptuous remark. Do refrain from looking like a rather expressive propagator of ignorance and widespread labels in the future.



It's best just to ignore him.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 17, 2012)

Id like to have the option to marry the person I love... Obama 2012


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 17, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Id like to have the option to marry the person I love... Obama 2012



You have the right to be as miserable like the rest of the straight couples who have married. 
Can I come to your wedding?


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 17, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> You have the right to be as miserable like the rest of the straight couples who have married.
> Can I come to your wedding?



If I get to have one I dont really mind who comes so long as they are there to support and not hate.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 17, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> If I get to have one I dont really mind who comes so long as they are there to support and not hate.



You'll get a Blentec blender from me as a gift then. :V


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 17, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> You'll get a Blentec blender from me as a gift then. :V


Im sure it wont be the only one XD


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 17, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Im sure it wont be the only one XD



Mine will be better. :V


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 17, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Mine will be better. :V


X3 Well i will love it


----------



## Ranguvar (Sep 17, 2012)

Sorry America, but as a catholic, heterosexual white male living in Mississippi I am obligated to vote for Romney. I am apologizing in advance. I hope you understand.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 17, 2012)

Green_Knight said:


> Sorry America, but as a catholic, heterosexual white male living in Mississippi I am obligated to vote for Romney. I am apologizing in advance. I hope you understand.



you arent "obligated" to vote for anyone...


----------



## moonchylde (Sep 17, 2012)

In Mississippi, he kinda is... at least, if he doesn't want a cross burning in the front yard. :V


----------



## Hinalle K. (Sep 17, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> In Mississippi, he kinda is... at least, if he doesn't want a cross burning in the front yard. :V


Aren't votes secretive in the US?
I don't see how he's obligated to do it...


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 17, 2012)

there was this one point where everyone wanted to vote for kony for 2012

what ever happened to him?



Hinalle K. said:


> Aren't votes secretive in the US?
> I don't see how he's obligated to do it...



it's a subculture thing

kind of like how everyone in Texas voted for bush because he was Texan


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 17, 2012)

Ikrit said:


> there was this one point where everyone wanted to vote for kony for 2012
> 
> what ever happened to him?
> 
> ...


fix'd that, but yeah it would be like if Romney lost Massachussets.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 17, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> fix'd that, but yeah it would be like if Romney lost Massachussets.



http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-massachusetts-president-romney-vs-obama

Heh.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 17, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-massachusetts-president-romney-vs-obama
> 
> Heh.



Lets just hope it stays where its at.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 17, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-massachusetts-president-romney-vs-obama
> 
> Heh.


I know, I'm just pointing out how embaracing it's going to be regardless of how the election turns out for romney to lose the state he was governor for.
Politically losing your own state is a bitchslap to the face.


----------



## Llamapotamus (Sep 18, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2012-massachusetts-president-romney-vs-obama
> 
> Heh.



Massachusetts is one of the more liberal states. I'm surprised he became governor in the first place.


----------



## Hinalle K. (Sep 18, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I know, I'm just pointing out how embaracing it's going to be regardless of how the election turns out for romney to lose the state he was governor for.
> Politically losing your own state is a bitchslap to the face.


It sounds like he deserves it to me...


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2012)

And thus Romney learns the valuable lesson that just cause you're not on camera that doesn't mean you're not on camera.


----------



## moonchylde (Sep 18, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> And thus Romney learns the valuable lesson that just cause you're not on camera that doesn't mean you're not on camera.




You know he stepped in it when conservative columnists are outraged. A few are even calling for him to step down as candidate... although those same people are calling for a Ryan/Rubio ticket, and if those jokers took the White House, I'm seriously going to look into real estate in Canada. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> You know he stepped in it when conservative columnists are outraged. A few are even calling for him to step down as candidate... although those same people are calling for a Ryan/Rubio ticket, and if those jokers took the White House, I'm seriously going to look into real estate in Canada. :V


I think the primary reason why they're outraged is because Romney's chances in both Ohio and Florida aren't looking that great and his poll numbers are slipping.  He's running out of steam even before the final sprint.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 18, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> In Mississippi, he kinda is... at least, if he doesn't want a cross burning in the front yard. :V



What is it with the south and the lowercase "t"? What'd it do to them? :V



CannonFodder said:


> I think the primary reason why they're outraged is because Romney's chances in both Ohio and Florida aren't looking that great and his poll numbers are slipping.  He's running out of steam even before the final sprint.



Time will tell with this election. Personally, Romney is the worst republican canitiate I've seen to Date. I would've preferred Herman Cain as one of the lesser evils. Mind you, I am not a republican, but this pony show has gone one long enough.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Time will tell with this election. Personally, Romney is the worst republican canitiate I've seen to Date. I would've preferred Herman Cain as one of the lesser evils. Mind you, I am not a republican, but this pony show has gone one long enough.


He should have tried to run out of the clock instead.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 18, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> He should have tried to run out of the clock instead.



Ha! I know, right? XD


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Ha! I know, right? XD


It's going to get even worse when the debates start.  If Romney is smart then he'll refuse to participate.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 18, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> It's going to get even worse when the debates start.  If Romney is smart then he'll refuse to participate.



I bet the debates are much better to watch when intoxicated. He'll participate, and he'll being up logical fallacies trying to belittle his opponent. Who knows?


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 18, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> I bet the debates are much better to watch when intoxicated. He'll participate, and he'll being up logical fallacies trying to belittle his opponent. Who knows?


I was thinking more along the lines of making s.n.a.f.u.'s while debating that may fly within his own party, but not with the rest of the voters.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 18, 2012)

Hinalle K. said:


> Aren't votes secretive in the US?
> I don't see how he's obligated to do it...


Oh you naive little one. Just because you have the legal right to not say who you voted for and because it isn't revealed to everyone doesn't mean that people don't pressure the hell out of you in order to find out who you voted for. Family members and neighbors, mainly. They'll ask who you voted for/will vote for and any hesitation means you're voting for the "other guy" and they will judge you for it in places like that. So the choices are either lie, vote for the popular person, or be ostracized and judged.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 18, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Oh you naive little one. Just because you have the legal right to not say who you voted for and because it isn't revealed to everyone doesn't mean that people don't pressure the hell out of you in order to find out who you voted for. Family members and neighbors, mainly. They'll ask who you voted for/will vote for and any hesitation means you're voting for the "other guy" and they will judge you for it in places like that. So the choices are either lie, vote for the popular person, or be ostracized and judged.


I dont get why people care. My entire family is conservative, they all know how I vote and they dont like it. I dont give a shit, they get to have their voice and I get to have mine as well. If I have to be judged or ostracized let them, im not going to lie about myself, my thoughts or what I do, Ive done that enough in my life.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 18, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> I dont get why people care. My entire family is conservative, they all know how I vote and they dont like it. I dont give a shit, they get to have their voice and I get to have mine as well. If I have to be judged or ostracized let them, im not going to lie about myself, my thoughts or what I do, Ive done that enough in my life.


It's just different priorities. You may care more about your personal values than keeping on good terms with your family, but that doesn't mean everyone doesn't care what other people think.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 19, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> What is it with the south and the lowercase "t"? What'd it do to them? :V
> 
> 
> 
> Time will tell with this election. Personally, Romney is the worst republican canitiate I've seen to Date. I would've preferred Herman Cain as one of the lesser evils. Mind you, I am not a republican, but this pony show has gone one long enough.



Herman Cain was sunk when he started answering reporters he didn't like with simply "Nine nine nine.". It brought to mind the episode where Lois runs for mayor in Family Guy and answers every question with "Nine eleven." When your main strategy is copying Family Guy, you miiiiiight be screwed. No matter how bad Romney is, I'm sure Herman Cain would've been worse. And despite that, I still think he had the best chance of winning the election. If he hadn't dismissed reporters with the 999 stuff but stuck to it, I could see it being a strong political meme to pushing him to winning. Plus they could put down accusations of racism by saying they've got a black guy on their side, despite voter ID laws and such scaring away minorities.

Which, off-topic, I have to note minorities have something like three times the amount of births caucasians do, so this strategy really isn't sustainable. Expect a rebranding of the GOP in our lifetime when Latinos become 30% of the voting block.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 19, 2012)

Voting for Gary Johnson, he seems like a bro.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 19, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Oh you naive little one. Just because you have the legal right to not say who you voted for and because it isn't revealed to everyone doesn't mean that people don't pressure the hell out of you in order to find out who you voted for. Family members and neighbors, mainly. They'll ask who you voted for/will vote for and any hesitation means you're voting for the "other guy" and they will judge you for it in places like that. So the choices are either lie, vote for the popular person, or be ostracized and judged.



Not to mention the whole business with US voter registration where you put in the name of the party you support. I mean, WTF is that doing on an electoral roll?!?!???


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 19, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Not to mention the whole business with US voter registration where you put in the name of the party you support. I mean, WTF is that doing on an electoral roll?!?!???


It's so that you can vote in the primaries for either party. That way you don't have a bunch of Republicans voting in the Democratic primary and voting for the guy that's the worst for that party in order to have an easier general election. Or vice versa.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

I will likely vote for Romney.

I dont like most of Ovama's policies and i remember the promises he was making 4 years ago to get america back to work, end the wars, cut the deficit in half (hahahaha that must have been made on april 1st), fix our schools, etc.  he only got elected because of seething bush hatred clouding all rational judgement and the media, who fell over themselves to fellatiate Obama in their reporting.

The arrogant, condescending attitudes of some of his supporters who shake their heads or yell and shout down anyone who doesn't support Obama also sway me a bit, its hard to cote for someone supported by such smug condescending douchebags who think they are smarter than everyone else for voting democrat. You have your choice I have mine.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 19, 2012)

Might wanna clarify in your first main paragraph who "his" is, Cod. I was thinking it referred to Romney and was very confused until I got to the "got elected" bit. 

And I'd say Obama got elected more on his speaking skills and his ability to convince people he was different than with Bush hatred. He beat John McCain and his terrible VP choice on his own in that race.



			
				Cod said:
			
		

> The arrogant, condescending attitudes of some of his supporters who  shake their heads or yell and shout down anyone who doesn't support  Obama also sway me a bit, its hard to cote for someone supported by such  smug condescending douchebags who think they are smarter than everyone  else for voting democrat. You have your choice I have mine.


If you replace Obama with Romney and democrat with Republican, this exact statement is still true. Each side has their share of arrogant, smug, condescending douchebags that think they're smarter than everyone else.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Might wanna clarify in your first main paragraph who "his" is, Cod. I was thinking it referred to Romney and was very confused until I got to the "got elected" bit.
> 
> And I'd say Obama got elected more on his speaking skills and his ability to convince people he was different than with Bush hatred. He beat John McCain and his terrible VP choice on his own in that race.
> 
> ...



IFixed. And to me in 2009 it seemed most were just voting against the republican because it was the same party bush was from. Many did vote for obama because or bush hatred. Yes, mcCain made a terrible vice presidential pick. Obama won by himself, but with a huge amount of help from bush hatred and the media. 

Either way I dont really think it will make a diffence, obama will fuck up america one way and romney will fuck it up another way.


----------



## Ikrit (Sep 19, 2012)

the only people who fucked up America are the people themselves


----------



## Aleu (Sep 19, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> IFixed. And to me in 2009 it seemed most were just voting against the republican because it was the same party bush was from. Many did vote for obama because or bush hatred. Yes, mcCain made a terrible vice presidential pick. Obama won by himself, but with a huge amount of help from bush hatred and the media.
> 
> Either way I dont really think it will make a diffence, obama will fuck up america one way and romney will fuck it up another way.


Uhm, it was 2008 for the election. Also it makes absolutely no sense for people to vote for Obama just because McCain was a republican as was Bush. Maybe it wasn't so much Bush hatred as much as it was the fact that they hated his policies and wanted them gone? Or that Palin was dumber than a sack of rocks who's only use was eye-candy for the older generation?

The unemployment rate has gone down. By a small margin, but it has. There are more and more places that are accepting new hires than before. Sure, some places have closed down such as Blockbuster or Borders and local places here. Though the first two can't really be blamed on the economy so much as the competition they have with other things that offer the same services. Internet, Netflix, e-books, Amazon. etc. Obama has fucked up, not denying that. I hate the healthcare bill. I firmly believe it is unconstitutional however I cannot deny that it's helping others in ways it was meant to. Also the whole business with the NDAA which I hadn't heard a thing about since so I'm on the fence of what all happened there. The debt's not gone either. What? You expected it to go away in four years? Seriously? You ever have a credit card before? We're 14 trillion in debt, 10 or so of it was left over from Bush from his 8 years if I remember right. So that's about 4 trillion that Obama has added, still not as much as Bush which shows that, yes, budgeting is happening. Even if there is a one-trillion difference between Bush and Obama during their first four years, it's still a difference. We're also being pulled out of the middle east and have been for a while. (2010 I think? Or was it 2011? I don't remember.)
So yeah, go on ahead and laugh about what he's not doing and put Romney in charge then you'll see things will get worse. Not better. If Romney does what he says he's going to do, the economy might as well go down the shitter and the debt will skyrocket again.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 19, 2012)

"Hey, the Democrats couldn't accomplish as many things as they promised because the Republicans did everything in their power to block them. Let's vote Republican, surely _they _know what's best for America!"


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 19, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> "Hey, the Democrats couldn't accomplish as many things as they promised because the Republicans did everything in their power to block them. Let's vote Republican, surely _they _know what's best for America!"


This is precisely why the presidential election really isn't as important as other elections. Amusingly, a lot of people ignore those! See Renard's posts earlier.

Edit: I may not like Obama but I have to agree that guy has some real charisma; He's an excellent speaker and great at grabbing attention. I am sick of hearing him, but I'll admit when his voice comes on over some electronic medium it catches my attention.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 19, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> The arrogant, condescending attitudes of some of his supporters who shake their heads or yell and shout down anyone who doesn't support Obama also sway me a bit, its hard to cote for someone supported by such smug condescending douchebags who think they are smarter than everyone else for voting democrat. You have your choice I have mine.


Man, if I made all my choices based on the worst common denominator, I wouldn't be able to like anything. Video games? Have you PLAYED with MOBA players? My Little Pony? BUT (some) BRONIES ARE ANNOYING! Furries? THE FIRST FURRY I MET IMMEDIATELY TALKED ABOUT SEX! Women? MAN MY EX FUCKED ME OVER FUCK ALL WOMEN. Men? MEN ARE ABUSIVE JERKS WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU AND THEN CHEAT ON YOU.

Literally, I could not like anything on the planet with this reasoning.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 19, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> IFixed. And to me in 2009 it seemed most were just voting against the republican because it was the same party bush was from. Many did vote for obama because or bush hatred. Yes, mcCain made a terrible vice presidential pick. Obama won by himself, but with a huge amount of help from bush hatred and the media.
> 
> Either way I dont really think it will make a diffence, obama will fuck up america one way and romney will fuck it up another way.


So if you dont like either choice why vote? Voting for someone you dont think will do a good job is kind of dumb. Also, Im pretty sure Obama won because McCain chose Palin as his VP and his speaking skills (which if you watch him hes damn good at), not anything to do with Bush... In fact I know a lot of people who voted for and liked bush both times but also voted for Obama.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 19, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> It's so that you can vote in the primaries for either party. That way you don't have a bunch of Republicans voting in the Democratic primary and voting for the guy that's the worst for that party in order to have an easier general election. Or vice versa.



So why don't the parties themselves use their own membership rolls and check off who is voting based on that? I mean, what business do you have voting at a party convention for candidate selection if you're not a paid-up member of the party anyway? 

Having everyone's party affiliation on a public register seems waaaaaay too open for abuse.

Oh, and given Romney's comments about how he basically considers 47% of Americans are welfare bludgers(1) because they don't pay federal tax - especially considering how HE arranges his affairs to pay less tax than his secretary - as well as his managing to screw up PR on a simple trip to the Olympics,I don't think the guy is qualified to run a lemonade stand let alone the US. 

(1) I think the corresponding US English term is "moochers"?


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 19, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> So why don't the parties themselves use their own membership rolls and check off who is voting based on that? I mean, what business do you have voting at a party convention for candidate selection if you're not a paid-up member of the party anyway?
> 
> Having everyone's party affiliation on a public register seems waaaaaay too open for abuse.
> 
> ...



Yea, hes getting ridiculous. The sad thing is that Democratic states actually pay more in taxes than conservative states do. I also love how people like to bring in how he "saved the Utah olympics" when really he just funneled 400 million dollars of tax payer money into it (oh the irony). At least he probably isnt going to win, I mean lets face it in terms of public speaking hes worse than bush :/.

Also, yes it is


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Man, if I made all my choices based on the worst common denominator, I wouldn't be able to like anything. Video games? Have you PLAYED with MOBA players? My Little Pony? BUT (some) BRONIES ARE ANNOYING! Furries? THE FIRST FURRY I MET IMMEDIATELY TALKED ABOUT SEX! Women? MAN MY EX FUCKED ME OVER FUCK ALL WOMEN. Men? MEN ARE ABUSIVE JERKS WHO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU AND THEN CHEAT ON YOU.
> 
> Literally, I could not like anything on the planet with this reasoning.



It was in response to another earlier in the thread who said he wouldn't vote for republicans because all republicans are basically religious nutjobs that hate women and gays. Apparently it's fine to  stereotype one group of people but not another. The condescending doubhebaggy smarter than thou liberal is as common (and as annoying) as the super religious "kill the queers and women should be barefoot and pregnant" republicans, neither make up a majority of their parities, but they are there, and are annoying. If liberals/democrats can base ther vote on how those republicans/ conservatives act I can do the same.



FenrirUlv said:


> So if you dont like either choice why vote? Voting for someone you dont think will do a good job is kind of dumb. Also, Im pretty sure Obama won because McCain chose Palin as his VP and his speaking skills (which if you watch him hes damn good at), not anything to do with Bush... In fact I know a lot of people who voted for and liked bush both times but also voted for Obama.



I think each will fuck america up in different ways. I support romney more than obama since his views are more in line with mine (especially his VP pic, since i am more liibertarian than conservative). Obama won because mccain messed up his VP pick (who was terrible) and he was a good speaker, but its naive to discount liberal rage over the bush years  and the media all but sucking obamas dick as an influence. I mean most called cain "mcsame" and said he would be the same as bush, so vote obama. besides, if i don't vote some other person might vote for the other guy, voter apathy is no reason not to vote.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 19, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh, and given Romney's comments about how he basically considers 47% of Americans are welfare bludgers(1) because they don't pay federal tax - especially considering how HE arranges his affairs to pay less tax than his secretary - as well as his managing to screw up PR on a simple trip to the Olympics,I don't think the guy is qualified to run a lemonade stand let alone the US.


Relevant.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 19, 2012)

Romney is done for and it makes me happy.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 19, 2012)

I will vote for the Republican party when they say  in a straightfoward manner on national television that "a woman's place is at home and in the kitchen and not outside where she can be seen", "Blacks are monkeys and are dumb as nails", and "We should have a holiday called 'National fag-drag day'".

It seems that it's going that route. :V


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 19, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> It was in response to another earlier in the thread who said he wouldn't vote for republicans because all republicans are basically religious nutjobs that hate women and gays. Apparently it's fine to  stereotype one group of people but not another. The condescending doubhebaggy smarter than thou liberal is as common (and as annoying) as the super religious "kill the queers and women should be barefoot and pregnant" republicans, neither make up a majority of their parities, but they are there, and are annoying. If liberals/democrats can base ther vote on how those republicans/ conservatives act I can do the same.
> 
> 
> 
> I think each will fuck america up in different ways. I support romney more than obama since his views are more in line with mine (especially his CP pic, since i am more liibertarian than conservative). Obama won because mccain messed up his CP pick (who was terrible) and he was a good speaker, but its naive to discount liberal rage over the bush years  and the media all but sucking obamas dick as an influence. I mean most called cain "mcsame" and said he would be the same as bush, so vote obama. besides, if i don't vote some other person might vote for the other guy, voter apathy is no reason not to vote.



Unfortunatley though the republican party has actually made these things a part of their platform. They are against marriage equality, they have voted against equal wages for women (which where I live was actually taken away and women can now be paid much less. Oh, and I live in WI btw) They have voted against the choice for an abortion. These are all real things that they have done to work against equal rights in this country. Of course there are assholes in the democratic party too (Pierce Morgan anyone? I hate that guy), but they arent voting against equal rights.

The point I was trying to make is you act like you are given the choice between having your legs broken or your arms broken when you can choose neither. No one is saying that voting for someone else that isnt in the two main parties will get a third party elected or that not voting will change the outcome on an individual scale. The problem is people think only in the sense of themselves when voting is a collective, if a group of people are going to not vote how they want they have just lost their voice in the outcome. Voter apathy may not be a reason to vote, but just because most people vote between the democrat and republican is no excuse not to vote third party or someone you actually agree with more so either.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Unfortunatley though the republican party has actually made these things a part of their platform. They are against marriage equality, they have voted against equal wages for women (which where I live was actually taken away and women can now be paid much less. Oh, and I live in WI btw) They have voted against the choice for an abortion. These are all real things that they have done to work against equal rights in this country. Of course there are assholes in the democratic party too (Pierce Morgan anyone? I hate that guy), but they arent voting against equal rights.
> 
> The point I was trying to make is you act like you are given the choice between having your legs broken or your arms broken when you can choose neither. No one is saying that voting for someone else that isnt in the two main parties will get a third party elected or that not voting will change the outcome on an individual scale. The problem is people think only in the sense of themselves when voting is a collective, if a group of people are going to not vote how they want they have just lost their voice in the outcome. Voter apathy may not be a reason to vote, but just because most people vote between the democrat and republican is no excuse not to vote third party or someone you actually agree with more so either.



I am voting because while i tend to support the liberatarians more, they will not get in office and its basically voting for obama by default. Equal rights depends on what you classify a right as. Gays marrying  i would consider a right (thoguh the government can;t force a religion to recognize or preform it). Equal pat for equal work is a right. Abortion is not a right, and likely the one thing i do agree with republicans on, too many women use it in place of birth control, when it should only be used for threat to mothers health or rape/incest. On a mnational level the republicans are closer to my views than the democrats, except on social issues where the libertarians are mostly (except abortion). And there are things liberals/democrats have done to curtail rights as well, especially as regards religion and free speech.

As i said , when it comes to voting  , i am not far right, and would vote libertarian if it wasnt basically throwing my vote away. For the most improtant issue as i see it in the election, the economy, i would swing republican anyway.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 19, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> It was in response to another earlier in the thread who said he wouldn't vote for republicans because all republicans are basically religious nutjobs that hate women and gays. Apparently it's fine to  stereotype one group of people but not another. The condescending doubhebaggy smarter than thou liberal is as common (and as annoying) as the super religious "kill the queers and women should be barefoot and pregnant" republicans, neither make up a majority of their parities, but they are there, and are annoying. If liberals/democrats can base ther vote on how those republicans/ conservatives act I can do the same.


So, you're admitting that some people act like morons and douchebags, so that gives you the right to act the same? Well guess what that makes you? XD

Personally I can't vote for any Republicans thanks to their platform. That's a different beast entirely. If a Republican is outspoken against the national platform I'd support them, but that doesn't seem very likely. Not without involving pitchforks and torches, like Olympia Snowe's support did in 2005. I also couldn't support Mitt Romney after all he's said recently, the whole Libya incident was the nail in that coffin. Politicizing a friend of mine's death and attacking the commander in chief over American deaths without even having all the information? Good lord, that's the least presidential thing one could do.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 19, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> So, you're admitting that some people act like morons and douchebags, so that gives you the right to act the same? Well guess what that makes you? XD
> 
> Personally I can't vote for any Republicans thanks to their platform. That's a different beast entirely. If a Republican is outspoken against the national platform I'd support them, but that doesn't seem very likely. Not without involving pitchforks and torches, like Olympia Snowe's support did in 2005. I also couldn't support Mitt Romney after all he's said recently, the whole Libya incident was the nail in that coffin. Politicizing a friend of mine's death and attacking the commander in chief over American deaths without even having all the information? Good lord, that's the least presidential thing one could do.



I never said i act like a moron and douchebag, but that I watch the behavior of voters and dont want to be limped in with those people. I am not the one shaking my head and acting all smug because i am a democrat or ;liberal and see others voting for the other guy. I can see why some would vote for lama. i disagree with them, but i dont think im better than they are.

I support the republican platform more than the democratic one, this does not make me an evil, stupid, racist or misguided person, t means i support different values. What romney has said recently doesnt irk me much, and seems much like the "republicans are all bitter people that cling to guns and religion" thing obama said. And for the libya thing, that was not a personal incident, it was an attack on our consulate there where an ambassador and others happened to be killed. Obama practically apologized to the killers because some  offended them. The criticism of romney strikes me as hypocrisy, since anyone knows full well if it had been a republican president in power and obama or a democrat said the same thing romney did the media wouldnt bat an eyelash.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 19, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Unfortunatley though the republican party has actually made these things a part of their platform. They are against marriage equality, they have voted against equal wages for women (which where I live was actually taken away and women can now be paid much less. Oh, and I live in WI btw) They have voted against the choice for an abortion. These are all real things that they have done to work against equal rights in this country. Of course there are assholes in the democratic party too (Pierce Morgan anyone? I hate that guy), but they arent voting against equal rights.



It's said that the reasons they are against it is steeped in a pot of religious tea; that'll it will degrade the integrity of marriage, which is bull crap. They said the same thing about Blacks and mixed-race marriages before. The Equal pay is another bullshit excuse because some politicians do not hold the same standards as men in the workforce and still think of men as the breadwinners and women are a "50's sitcom in-home cook baby-making factory". Abortion is controversial with one handful believing that life begins as soon as the sperm touches the egg, another believing that "irresponsible women using it as a main source of birth control", and another have various reasons for and against it..


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 19, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I never said i act like a moron and douchebag, but that I watch the behavior of voters and dont want to be limped in with those people. I am not the one shaking my head and acting all smug because i am a democrat or ;liberal and see others voting for the other guy. I can see why some would vote for lama. i disagree with them, but i dont think im better than they are.
> 
> *I support the republican platform more than the democratic one*, this does not make me an evil, stupid, racist or misguided person, t means i support different values. What romney has said recently doesnt irk me much, and seems much like the "republicans are all bitter people that cling to guns and religion" thing obama said. And for the libya thing, that was not a personal incident, it was an attack on our consulate there where an ambassador and others happened to be killed. Obama practically apologized to the killers because some  offended them. The criticism of romney strikes me as hypocrisy, since anyone knows full well if it had been a republican president in power and obama or a democrat said the same thing romney did the media wouldnt bat an eyelash.



If you said what I bolded first instead of 'They started it!' I wouldn't have brought it up. Also the reason why people got onto Romney was because it wasn't even Obama that said it, but it was a tweet by the Cairo Embassy at 4:30 PM. Romney leapt at the chance and tried to make it sound like Obama said it, which is why I say he did so without all the information. Seems at least a few fell for it. The Obama administration disavowed the tweet on Politico.

This is the text that was issued from Obama a few hours later:

"I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified Americaâ€™s commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, *we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.
*
On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libyaâ€™s transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward."

Edit: Also I don't care about the news media, did I mention it was a _friend of mine? _ Because that's why I brought it up. I'm pretty sure I would've been pissed if anyone politicized it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2012)

I lean more towards Obama than Romney, and I take the 'Lesser of two evils' approach. 

Romney wants to make the Bush tax cuts permanent
Eliminate estate/inheritance tax
Cut the corporate tax rate
Repeal the corporate AMT
Cut the Education budget, and
cut Housing & Urban Development budget to pay for the big companies and wealthy tax cuts
Let companies not pay taxes on income earned outside the US. 
Keep the research/development tax, which I'm not entirely sure if it's a good or bad thing yet, and he eliminates a couple tax deductions that are a minor positive - Possibly. 
Overturn "Obamacare", which would put us more into debt
Ban same-sex marriage
Cut over 80% of abortions, leading to staggering increase of government aid and unsafe, illegal abortions performed, as well as increase in orphans while not giving orphanages more government aid. 
Make abstinence-only education the standard
Denies climate change
Wants to outlaw medical marijuana altogether
Drill more oil within America (even though oil companies can't handle it if things go awry)
Increase defence spending (despite it being grossly oversized already)
Increase our number of soldiers (I've found both that he wants to expand wars as well as bring home troops?)
Increase what I can only call "American Dick-waving" by means of showing other countries we're bigger/better than they are economically and militarily
Looser laws on immigration as long as they're considered highly skilled while increasing defence against immigrants that are "low-skilled/from South of the border"
Decrease or block Medicaid and similar 
Lower minimum wage (though he flip-flops on this)
Wire tap "suspicious" religious buildings (especially mosques
Believes the world is younger than 10,000 years old, but believes in evolution?
and finally a positive: Increase regulations on Chinese businesses import/export and stuff. 
I'm pretty sure that's all accurate, though he has flip-flopped on a few if not several issues before.
He wants to do a lot more damage than that, but those are the bigger issues that I've seen. I literally cannot begin to back Romney on almost any position he has. The few I'm with him on are like increasing export/important regulations, expand US businesses internationally, 
and a few of the smaller tax credits/tax cuts he wants to make, but they won't effect the economy as strong as all the negative cuts and credits he wants to make. 

Obama wants to do...almost the opposite on all of that. So yeah. Obama 2012, but I'm none too happy about it. He's put us way more into debt than I thought he would, is a bit slow on signing things that might help us, and really isn't going as far as he should. Though this can also be blamed on the Republican house denying all his shit, so...Not entirely his fault.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 19, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> *Looser laws on immigration as long as they're considered highly skilled while increasing defence against immigrants that are "low-skilled/from South of the border"*



So he wants to reinstate what Taft (or Roosevelt) had done earlier on with immigrants?

Also, there's talk about draining funing from college grants (like the pell grant) and adding more interest for Colege loans, but I think that was all what Ryan planned for.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 19, 2012)

Also I should note, timeline: 4:30 PM Cairo Embassy released the apologetic statement... and at 10:00 PM the protesters stormed the Libyan Consulate, giving the attackers the cover they needed. It is a little bit frustrating to see people not educating themselves over this and just going by sound bites when I lost someone in it. This is why I got pissed off that it became politicized.

Edit: ^^^ Haha, you reminded me, it was pointed out Mitt Romney's father came to America (from Mexico, where he was born, from two American citizens) and immediately had to rely on welfare, making him one of the 47% that wouldn't have paid income tax. He couldn't win the vote of his father.

(Related: I actually kind of like George W. Romney. You know, for being someone I never met.)


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 19, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Also I should note, timeline: 4:30 PM Cairo Embassy released the apologetic statement... and at 10:00 PM the protesters stormed the Libyan Consulate, giving the attackers the cover they needed. It is a little bit frustrating to see people not educating themselves over this and just going by sound bites when I lost someone in it. This is why I got pissed off that it became politicized.



Asking poeple to do research is too much effort. :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> So he wants to reinstate what Taft (or Roosevelt) had done earlier on with immigrants?
> 
> Also, there's talk about draining funing from college grants (like the pell grant) and adding more interest for Colege loans, but I think that was all what Ryan planned for.



I'm not too read up on Roosevelt's policies, but I'll take your word for it. 

I can definitely see him draining college funds, he already has noted that he wants to drain the education budget.

I wish I had hard numbers for things...But the act alone for even half of what he wants to do is bad enough, and with such a Republican and Conservative house, he can probably get damn near anything he or Ryan wants passed.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 19, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm not too read up on Roosevelt's policies, but I'll take your word for it.
> 
> I can definitely see him draining college funds, he already has noted that he wants to drain the education budget.
> 
> I wish I had hard numbers for things...But the act alone for even half of what he wants to do is bad enough, and with such a Republican and Conservative house, he can probably get damn near anything he or Ryan wants passed.



Which is why people should pay attention to their State and local elections. It wouldn't surprise me if people voted on the basis of the ads spammed on TV and the radio without doing any checks to see if any of them are valid.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Which is why people should pay attention to their State and local elections. It wouldn't surprise me if people voted on the basis of the ads spammed on TV and the radio without doing any checks to see if any of them are valid.



We (California) had  AWnold. The rest of the country can suck it :v


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 19, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> We (California) had  AWnold. The rest of the country can suck it :v



But but...Okay. :c


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> But but...Okay. :c



Now if all other states would follow suit and get celebrity Senators, then we'd all be in fantastic shape!


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 19, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Now if all other states would follow suit and get celebrity Senators, then we'd all be in fantastic shape!



Brad Pitt for Virginia Senator 2013. :V


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 19, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Brad Pitt for Virginia Senator 2013. :V



Matt Damon for Massachusetts? haha


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 19, 2012)

Even though he ended with a surplus I would feel embarrassed if Arnold was my... governator....


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 19, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Even though he ended with a surplus I would feel embarrassed if Arnold was my... governator....


Can't.. hear... Governator without listening to Parlez-Vous Francais...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRZ-jLOrFfk


----------



## FenrirUlv (Sep 19, 2012)

so apparently 6% of Ohioans that are conservative think Romney was responsible for killing Bin Laden... Do they live in an alternate universe or are they just trolling us?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 19, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> so apparently 6% of Ohioans that are conservative think Romney was responsible for killing Bin Laden... Do they live in an alternate universe or are they just trolling us?



Well that's...not surprising when you think about it because people STILL blame Obama for the economy crashing in '07 and for the hurricane that interrupted some republican conference thing or whatever.



Ozriel said:


> Brad Pitt for Virginia Senator 2013. :V



No he should come over here.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I support the republican platform more than the democratic one, this does not make me an evil, stupid, racist or misguided person, it means i support different values.



Unless your values are "I want to work myself to an early death for peanuts making some well-connected jackass in a suit filthy rich" then I think you would have to be at least one of those things.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 20, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Unless your values are "I want to work myself to an early death for peanuts making some well-connected jackass in a suit filthy rich" then I think you would have to be at least one of those things.



 My values as far as economy goes are to the right. Government control of an economy does not work. Basically it's a choice between working myself into an early grave for peanuts for some rich guy in a suit on my end, or working myself into an early grave for peanuts for some rich guy in the government to take for " the people" on yours. Neither extreme caricature is accurate, the republicans are not evil rich corporate people any more than liberals are evil socialists, but to those living in their deluded partisan fantasy land it can seem so.

Supporting the republicans does not make one evil, stupid, racist or misguided any more than democrats are. PJust partisan BS.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> My values as far as economy goes are to the right. Government control of an economy does not work. Basically it's a choice between working myself into an early grave for peanuts for some rich guy in a suit on my end, or working myself into an early grave for peanuts for some rich guy in the government to take for " the people" on yours. Neither extreme caricature is accurate, the republicans are not evil rich corporate people any more than liberals are evil socialists, but to those living in their deluded partisan fantasy land it can seem so.



However, Romney's (Romney being a former businessman) policies/bills/wants/needs/etc. are very much aimed towards aiding corporations and the rich by gutting the education system, housing for the poor, bloating the defence budget, and pushing more burdens onto the majority of Americans - Who wouldn't be able to reach above the 200k level (which is really freaking high) that he set due to the things he want to enact.

It's rather twisted.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 20, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Brad Pitt for Virginia Senator 2013. :V



Don't even need all of Brad Pitt. Just his ass. 

Dictator of Virginia for life.



Aleu said:


> No he should come over here.



You guys are getting Tebow in about 6 years or so. Get used to "Governor Jesus". :V


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 20, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Don't even need all of Brad Pitt. Just his ass.
> 
> Dictator of Virginia for life.



It would win the women vote...or most. :V


----------



## Lobar (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> My values as far as economy goes are to the right. Government control of an economy does not work. Basically it's a choice between working myself into an early grave for peanuts for some rich guy in a suit on my end, or working myself into an early grave for peanuts for some rich guy in the government to take for " the people" on yours. Neither extreme caricature is accurate, the republicans are not evil rich corporate people any more than liberals are evil socialists, but to those living in their deluded partisan fantasy land it can seem so.
> 
> Supporting the republicans does not make one evil, stupid, racist or misguided any more than democrats are. PJust partisan BS.



Fun fact: Obama has actually cut your taxes in his first term, and your taxes will be lower under his second term than they would be under what Romney's proposed.

meanwhile, here's some more secret video footage of the mittster


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 20, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Fun fact: Obama has actually cut your taxes in his first term, and your taxes will be lower under his second term than they would be under what Romney's proposed.
> 
> meanwhile, here's some more secret video footage of the mittster



Why the dog?

That vid made me think of this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I


----------



## Lobar (Sep 20, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Why the dog?
> 
> That vid made me think of this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgpa7wEAz7I



It shat on the roof of his car.

and fuck yes dead kennedys forever


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 20, 2012)

I am not trying to change peoples voter preference, since it will not happen, i merely state that I am voting for someone and why i am doing dso. it is very unlikely anyone here wll change my cote, just as I know I will not change anyones vote.  Both sides will try to tear down the other to support their stereotypes. The difference is I dont see people who dont vote my way as inferior to me or less intelligent than me.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Abortion is not a right, and likely the one thing i do agree with republicans on, too many women use it in place of birth control, when it should only be used for threat to mothers health or rape/incest.


I don't think you understand how serious of a procedure abortion can be and how much of an effect it can have on a woman who gets one. It's a traumatizing experience, I hear and have read numerous places. Here's one I got from googling real quick: http://www.pregnancyclinic.org/abortion/postabortion.html

Also, you're confusing "getting an abortion as a replacement for birth control" and "getting an abortion because you don't want to have a kid". It may seem subtle, but there's the big difference in tone. It's not like women are out there going "No, baby, you don't need a condom. I'll just get an abortion if I get pregnant, it's no big deal." It's something that happens when birth control fails (like the pill is infamous for) or when people make stupid mistakes and pregnancies happen that would completely derail their entire life. 



			
				Codark said:
			
		

> And there are things liberals/democrats have done to curtail rights as well, especially as regards religion and free speech.


[Citation needed]

And no "they don't permit people to tell gays they're terrible and burning in hell" or "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE UNDER GOD OUT OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE".


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 20, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> I don't think you understand how serious of a procedure abortion can be and how much of an effect it can have on a woman who gets one. It's a traumatizing experience, I hear and have read numerous places. Here's one I got from googling real quick: http://www.pregnancyclinic.org/abortion/postabortion.html
> 
> Also, you're confusing "getting an abortion as a replacement for birth control" and "getting an abortion because you don't want to have a kid". It may seem subtle, but there's the big difference in tone. It's not like women are out there going "No, baby, you don't need a condom. I'll just get an abortion if I get pregnant, it's no big deal." It's something that happens when birth control fails (like the pill is infamous for) or when people make stupid mistakes and pregnancies happen that would completely derail their entire life. .



I still think abortion should be limited to instances of rape, incest or the mother is going to die if she has the baby. "Having a baby now will fuck my life up" is not as legitimate to me, but that is my personal opinion on it. People do things all the time that fuck up their whole lives but they arent allowed to take other people out with them. if they desperately do not want a baby, avoiding sex (which it IS possible to do, shocking i know) or taking the pill, which is actually rather effective,  is much easier than getting an abortion.



Jashwa said:


> [Citation needed]
> 
> And no "they don't permit people to tell gays they're terrible and burning in hell" or "THEY'RE TRYING TO TAKE UNDER GOD OUT OF THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE".



The "fairness" doctrine immediately springs to mind, where they tried to regulate talk radio because they felt it was too dominated by conservatives and have the government enforce where both sides had to be said (this only applied to talk radio, not any other media like blogs, or cable news, which is overwhelmingly liberal). Also you seem to confuse the religious right with the right in general. I have never heard anyone seriously say gays are burning in hell, that is something from a religion, not conservatism. Then there are the "free speech zones" on college campuses, and the behavior of liberals themselves trying to shout down other opinions (conservatives do it too, but not as much from what i see). As for the pledge, I dont care much about that, the part about "under god" was not in the original pledge anyway


----------



## Spatel (Sep 20, 2012)

There are unironically things democrats have done to curtail rights. Only one Senator voted against the Patriot Act. And Obama signed the National Defence Authorization Act, which expands President Bush's legacy of unconstitutional executive powers even further, codifying indefinite military detentions into law for the first time in this country's history. Now our President, and any president after him, has the power to issue a detention on anyone in the world, even if they're far away from a battlefield, even if they're american citizens, and hold them indefinitely without trial and even execute them.

Self-proclaimed progressives who railed against Bush's far more mild human rights abuses who remain eerily silent about Obama's should be ashamed of themselves, and their hypocrisy for idolizing a tinpot dictator of a president--someone whose Attorney General makes me literally miss Ashcroft. Apparently as long as the person doing it is a democrat, they're ready to party like it's 1984.

The right should be ashamed of themselves as well, for complaining that even though our government provides tax havens for religious organizations and codifies their religious agenda into law at the federal level, puts Christians legally above other religions, even though they are a majority in this country who enjoy every possible right, every possible protection, every possible privilege, those left wing loonies are just oppressing them so hard. Never mind that most of them support the kinds of totalitarian policies we've gotten from our last several administrations. I can't be nice to these people. I don't have the patience anymore for their stupidity, their hypocrisy, and their sense of entitlement.



Jashwa said:


> I don't think you understand how serious of a  procedure abortion can be and how much of an effect it can have on a  woman who gets one. It's a traumatizing experience, I hear and have read  numerous places. Here's one I got from googling real quick: http://www.pregnancyclinic.org/abortion/postabortion.html



This  is actually completely full of misinformation. Nearly everything there  is either not scientifically unanimous, or a gross exaggeration of risks, or  outright lies. This and many other counseling services are actually religious organizations that get federal fucking funding to peddle  misinformation to try to scare women out of getting abortions. Many  states require women to attend counseling sessions through services like  these in order to get abortions.

Look at the page on pornography. It is complete bullshit.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I still think abortion should be limited to  instances of rape, incest or the mother is going to die if she has the  baby. "Having a baby now will fuck my life up" is not as legitimate to  me, but that is my personal opinion on it. People do things all the time  that fuck up their whole lives but they arent allowed to take other  people out with them. if they desperately do not want a baby, avoiding  sex (which it IS possible to do, shocking i know) or taking the pill,  which is actually rather effective,  is much easier than getting an  abortion.
> 
> The fairness: doctrine immediately springs to mind, where they tried to  regulate ralk radio because they felt irt was too dominated by  donservatives and have the government enforce where both sides had to be  said (this only applied to ralk radio, not any other media like blogs,  or cable news, which is overwhelmingly liberal). Also you seem to  confuse the religious right with the right in general. i ahve never  heard anyone seriously say gays are burning in hell, that is something  from a religion, not conservatism. Then there are the "free speech  zones" on college campuses, and the behavior of loberals themselves  trying to shout down other opinions (conservatives do it too, but not as  much from what i see). As for the pledge, I dont care much about that,  the part about "under god" was not in the original pledge anyway



So it's better for the mother to use _government aid_ to barely  scrape by with a baby she probably can't afford, than it is for her to  simply not go through a more-likely-than-not terrible 18 years with a  baby she didn't want? That seems rather conflicting, even if the  government does fund a single-digit percentage of abortion places like  Planned Parenthood. You want less government control, but you want more  people to rely on it? I know I'm being rather broad about it, but I'm  assuming by the more conservative/libertarian lean you want less  government control. If I'm wrong, forgive me. 

Abstinence isn't a realistic thing to expect, and that's been proven by  the abstinence-only education-versus-birth-rate-by-state thing (i.e. the  lack of _realistic_ sex education in some states, those same  states also have some of the highest birth rates in the country for  say...Unwanted pregnancies, pre-adulthood pregnancies, and so forth).  Stupid as it may be, humans won't give up sex as a collective whole, so  we have to have something reliable to 'fix' the situation that isn't  dependent on human faults/stupidity (such as not taking the pill, not  using a condom, etc.)  Abstinence-only education also _doesn't_ discuss uses of birth control, condoms, or whatever, I think. 

Mostly just discussing numbers, the MSNBC link  shows an actual list as of 2010. Majority of the top 15 states are  Southern states, of which I think most of them have Abstinence-only  education, are mostly Republican-leaning states, and they also tend to be the states with moderate-leaning-towards-higher abortion rates as well. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4700383...ch-state-has-highest-birth-rate/#.UFt5aFG5yMg
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/24/AR2008032401515.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=6588896&page=1#.UFt5CVG5yMg
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/01/07/34470/teen-pregnancy/
http://www.babycenter.com/0_surprising-facts-about-birth-in-the-united-states_1372273.bc?page=1


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I still think abortion should be limited to instances of rape, incest or the mother is going to die if she has the baby. "Having a baby now will fuck my life up" is not as legitimate to me, but that is my personal opinion on it. People do things all the time that fuck up their whole lives but they arent allowed to take other people out with them. if they desperately do not want a baby, avoiding sex (which it IS possible to do, shocking i know) or taking the pill, which is actually rather effective,  is much easier than getting an abortion.


 The pill requires a very specific routine of taking it in order to be effective and there are many factors that can mess it up, including other medication. 

You're allowed to keep your opinion on whether you think people should be miserable and possibly terrible parents and possibly raise a child poorly instead of just not having a kid and anyone that tries to make someone change their opinion on that stuff is wasting their time because you either believe in it or don't. I was just trying to inform you a little more on it because that's a pet peeve of mine that people claim women use abortions instead of birth control. 





			
				Cod said:
			
		

> The fairness: doctrine immediately springs to mind, where they tried to regulate ralk radio because they felt irt was too dominated by donservatives and have the government enforce where both sides had to be said (this only applied to ralk radio, not any other media like blogs, or cable news, which is overwhelmingly liberal). Also you seem to confuse the religious right with the right in general. i ahve never heard anyone seriously say gays are burning in hell, that is something from a religion, not conservatism. Then there are the "free speech zones" on college campuses, and the behavior of loberals themselves trying to shout down other opinions (conservatives do it too, but not as much from what i see). As for the pledge, I dont care much about that, the part about "under god" was not in the original pledge anyway


Are you drunk?


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 20, 2012)

Not all women , or even most women, that get abortions are poor. Some one in my family had one, she was not poor and got one just because she didnt want to have  a baby. Not because she coulnt support it, but just because she didnt want one. Its anecdotal but I doubt she is the only one. abortion is not something all women take seriously, and some women DO use it as a form of birth control whether you want to believe it or not.

Saying abstinence only is unrealistic is true. Expecting people to refrain rom sex, when they are hell bent on not getting pregnant, is reasonable though. If i am hell bent on staying out of gal. then go rob a store, you wouldn't give me a chance. Apparently for sex, actions have no consequences, which I disagree with. Just sounds like horny teenagers saying "But i can't help it ! I HAVE to have sex!" bullshit, no you don't. The only cases I think are right to have abortions are rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother, not because they made a bad choice and have to live with the consequences like you do any other time you screw up in life. I guess i am more into things like personal responsibility for ones actions than most here are though,  but having sex is a choice that has consequences. All that said, as long as tacpater money is not going to fund abortions, i have no problem with the status qoo as it stands.

Absrinence only education is one thing. I think schools should teach about birth control and condoms and stuff like that, but abstinence only behavior is the only 100 percent proven methond nt to get pregnant. I dont see why this makes such a stir when its obvious that no sex = no babies.  is it something most horny teens will follow? No, but then all actions have consequences. 

And no, I am not drunk or mentally impaired in any way. Having an opinion different than yours is not a sign of mental impairment.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Apparently for sex, actions have no consequences, which I disagree with. Just sounds like horny teenagers saying "But i can't help it ! I HAVE to have sex!" bullshit, no you don't. The only cases I think are right to have abortions are rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother, not because they made a bad choice and have to live with the consequences like you do any other time you screw up in life. I guess i am more into things like personal responsibility for ones actions than most here are though,  but having sex is a choice that has consequences.



*Evil detected.*

The sexual habits of other people, insofar as they do not affect you or others, are not your business.  But you somehow feel you should be able to inflict your personal feelings about sex upon the country and insist that it carry consequences for other people (and more specifically, consequences for _women_), and you would like it to be a function of big gub'mint to enforce these consequences that you think it should have.  Rather hypocritical for someone that complains about government interference when it affects yourself, don't you think?


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 20, 2012)

Lobar said:


> *Evil detected.*
> 
> The sexual habits of other people, insofar as they do not affect you or others, are not your business.  But you somehow feel you should be able to inflict your personal feelings about sex upon the country and insist that it carry consequences for other people (and more specifically, consequences for _women_), and you would like it to be a function of big gub'mint to enforce these consequences that you think it should have.  Rather hypocritical for someone that complains about government interference when it affects yourself, don't you think?



So expressing an opinion different than yours is evil? No, no its not. You will find a vast portion of the nation holds the same view I do. Limited abotrtion only in cases of rape, incest or threat to health of the mother. Those that want abortions for any reason are not as numerous as you think. It doesnt have to affect me directly for me to form an opinion on something, and no where do i state I support government laws to restrict abortion, but my own personal views on it. There is a very big difference between saying "i think abortion is wrong and only these types of abortion should be allowed" and "I want the government to ban all abortion except for these types". if you said that you didnt like people smoking cigarettes, i wouldnt care, if you said the government should make somoking cigarettes illegal then yes, i would care, even if i dont smoke myself.

As i stated earlier. I dont mind the status quo, with abortions allowed and no government funding for it. if the stays quo changes to where taxpayers have to  support it then yes, it would become something that affects me. if they wanted to ban all abortions i would be against that too. My personal stance is they should be limited to rape, incest  or mothers health, but that does not mean i support government enforcing my personal belief on abortion nationwide. Abortion isnt even on the top 10 list of reasons i am voting.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Not all women , or even most women, that get abortions are poor
> 
> abortion is not something all women take seriously, and some women DO use it as a form of birth control whether you want to believe it or not.
> 
> Saying abstinence only is unrealistic is true. Expecting people to refrain rom sex, when they are hell bent on not getting pregnant, is reasonable though. If i am hell bent on staying out of gal. then go rob a store, you wouldn't give me a chance. Apparently for sex, actions have no consequences, which I disagree with. Just sounds like horny teenagers saying "But i can't help it ! I HAVE to have sex!" bullshit, no you don't. The only cases I think are right to have abortions are rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother, not because they made a bad choice and have to live with the consequences like you do any other time you screw up in life. I guess i am more into things like personal responsibility for ones actions than most here are though,  but having sex is a choice that has consequences. All that said, as long as tacpater money is not going to fund abortions, i have no problem with the status qoo as it stands.



Actually that is wrong. I'm looking for more years than just 2008, but in 2008, poor women had the highest abortion rates in the USA, as well, abortions are increasing for poor women while decreasing for all others, and a majority of abortions outside the US are performed in developing countries around the world. 

Education about contraception, and being to afford it are two things that poor women may not have (free clinics are few and far between). We can't really determine whether or not they take it seriously though.

Your arguments against it are factually untrue, your anecdote is a probably a small number of situations, your opinions are uneducated at best or at the very least, unrealistic. The majority of women getting abortions are poor, they also may be miseducated or completely uneducated about the subject, and there's a good chance they don't have the resources other than abstinence, which we've already discussed is not a realistic goal to have in mind due to education. You can keep chanting about consequences, but there are hundred thousands of girls and women each year that have no idea sex can have such drastic consequences - We could hold them accountable, sure, but then they accept it and go get government aid. Then what?

See how that doesn't work? And if they don't get aid, then...well, the baby is likely to die anyways, or she'll simply go to another country to have it removed which puts her in mortal danger, depending on where she goes. So it's not a winning situation, even if your arguments did work. I may not sway you, but at least try to educate yourself.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 20, 2012)

I knew sex could get someone pregnant when i was 12 years old. I seriously dont accept that anyone couldnt know that sex means you can get pregnant by the time they are in their mid teen years. Everyone I talked to knew sex meant  you could have a baby (at least a possibility). 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2268993...ng-abortions-not-who-youd-think/#.UFuecLThHao

"Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens."- from that story. if you are older than 25 and dont know sex can lead to babies, you have serious mental issues. And thats from msnbc, which is hardly a conservative news 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WomensHealth/abortion-rate-poor-women/story?id=13665925#.UFugLrThHao

"Of the more than 1.2 million legal abortions reported in 2008, women whose family income fell below the national poverty level accounted for 42 percent of them."- that means that 68 percent were not below the poverty level, which is a majority. While a large percentage are poor, they are not the majority of abortions. Regardless,s if they are hellbent on not getting pregnant, not having sex is realistic. There is no NEED to have sex. If they dont understand that sex can lead to pregnancy then tell them that (though how they wouldnt know this is beyond me, it doesnt strike me as a serious argument).

I dont think its right to have them just because its inconvenient to have a baby. Cutting out sex or limiting it is no more inconvenient and means no babies. People should have to deal with the consequnces of their actions. Sex is a thing people choose to have *unless its rape, but i dont argue against abortion in that case).

I like the status quo on abortion. Women can have their abortions and I do not pay for them in any way. I might oppose the idea of one, but unless I am directly involved, i dont care as much as you are making out. I oppose abortions for anything but rape, incest or mothers heath, but that does not mean i want to legislate my feelings into law. Its not an issue i vote on, the economy is something more important to me.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> And no, I am not drunk or mentally impaired in any way. Having an opinion different than yours is not a sign of mental impairment.



It's not the fact that you're disagreeing. It's the absurd amount of typos you're doing.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I knew sex could get someone pregnant when i was 12 years old. I seriously dont accept that anyone couldnt know that sex means you can get pregnant by the time they are in their mid teen years. Everyone I talked to knew sex meant  you could have a baby (at least a possibility).



SO I could keep going round in circles with you, though this about sums up your argument:

You knew and the extremely small amount of people you knew supposedly knew as well, therefore everyone should. 

Let me help you with one thing since you don't know how percentages work:
42% isn't a majority if you look at it out of 100%, obviously. However it's not 42% and 58%, it's 42% + a series of smaller percentages that make up 100% (i.e. something like: 42% + 20% + 25% +13%), thus making the 42% the majority when you compare it to each different income level. Also realize that the average cost of a baby is roughly *250k* to 18 (That's roughly short of *14k* a year), and the poverty line that they listed is less than *11k*. So that means the woman has to more than *double her income *just to pay for the baby, on top of herself, which is likely costing over 11k a year and she's going into more debt every year already, now she'll have to burden herself and the government with an additional ~14k a year that she does not have. Also note that Mississippi has the highest poverty level in the country as of 2009. So making less than 25 grand a year would also put a woman in poverty if she had the baby, that bumps that 42% up by quite a bit if you consider the long run, and it'd likely be over 50% if you added the two percents together anyways, so yes...it very likely would be the majority out of 100%.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 20, 2012)

I am visually impaired with cataracts and glaucoma. My vision is not all that great so yes, i will make typos, but not because I don't know how to spell the word.



Lastdirewolf said:


> You knew and the extremely small amount of people you knew supposedly knew as well, therefore everyone should.



 I just do not buy that anyone would be so mind numbingly stupid that they don't know sex leads to babies.  Everyone I have ever talked to knows this unless they are like..five or something. In general all teenagers and every adult knows sex l is where babies come from. We had sex ed in the 5th grade and a health class that taught sexual functions (which was a state required course, in texas no less). To not know sex leads to pregnancy you would have to be extremely sheltered, or in a coma. No one that went to a public school could go without knowing what sex was , and what sex leads to. It is just common knowledge. 



Lastdirewolf said:


> Let me help you with one thing since you don't know how percentages work apparently:
> 42% isn't a majority if you look at it out of 100%, obviously. However it's not 42% and 58%, it's 42% + a series of smaller percentages that make up 100% (i.e. something like: 42% + 20% + 25% +13%), thus making the 42% the majority when you compare it to each different income level..



I know how statistics work. The majority of people getting abortions are not below the poverty line. Maybe they make up the largest group getting abortions as a single income group, but the majority of american women getting an abortion are not poor.  A majority implies most of the people doing something are a certain way, and that has to be greater than 50 percent. So while its accurate to say that those below the poverty line make up the largest single income group, they are not the majority. it would only be a majority if more than 50 percent of women getting them were poor. its close but n not quite there.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I know how statistics work. The majority of people getting abortions are not below the poverty line. Maybe they make up the largest group getting abortions as a single income group, but the majority of american women getting an abortion are not poor.  A majority implies most of the people doing something are a certain way, and that has to be greater than 50 percent. So while its accurate to say that those below the poverty line make up the largest single income group, they are not the majority. it would only be a majority if more than 50 percent of women getting them were poor. its close but n not quite there.



Poor is one step above poverty mind you, and while I don't have solid numbers, I'm pretty sure combining poor and poverty percents together would make more than 50%, unless the difference between 11k and 25k is only 7%.


----------



## Spatel (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I still think abortion should be limited to instances of rape, incest or the mother is going to die if she has the baby. "Having a baby now will fuck my life up" is not as legitimate to me, but that is my personal opinion on it. People do things all the time that fuck up their whole lives but they arent allowed to take other people out with them. if they desperately do not want a baby, avoiding sex (which it IS possible to do, shocking i know) or taking the pill, which is actually rather effective,  is much easier than getting an abortion.



It's unclear to me whether you think abortion is murder or not. You seem to be implying that it is in this paragraph, in which case that's pretty disturbing that you think murdering innocent children is okay in certain circumstances. Truly if abortion is murder, there should be no exceptions shouldn't there? We don't even give rapists the death penalty, and you're advocating killing a harmless fetus just because of a crime someone else committed.

Unless... you don't really think abortion is murder, you just want to punish women for having sex. I suspect that this is your real position. Feel free to clarify if it isn't. Note that 'facing the consequences' is doled out very unevenly in your dystopian future. Women have to suffer through pregnancy and childbirth, and then spend the rest of their lives raising the kid. Men who have unprotected sex only have to pay child support. The mother's body is permanently physically changed. An accident that can easily occur, even when you're on your best behavior, changes your life forever. We have the technology to prevent it from changing their life. Your two main argument paths for denying them a technology that we have are either:

1) It is murder. In which case, you're either a hypocrite or a terrible person for supporting it in cases of rape.*
2) It is punishment for youthful, careless mistakes. In which case, why don't you punish any other type of mistake? Let's take away all the seatbelts to punish people that text while driving. And if someone denies evolution, let's deny them life-saving antibiotics that account for bacterial resistance and let them face the consequences of their beliefs. You see where this type of thinking leads? It is a brutal punishment to dole out. Brutal, unnecessary, and barbaric. If you can prevent misery, why withhold the technology that prevents it?

What really makes it a cold punishment though is that many women who have abortions already have kids. You're literally denying those kids options for their future by forcing their parents to squeeze their resources more. And if the couple don't have kids yet but want them later, when they are more financially secure, you're denying those future kids that secure environment. The argument for legal, condition-less abortion that you cannot refute is that banning it literally punishes children. And don't bring up that "most people who have abortions are middle-class" bullshit. Most middle-class parents cannot afford to send one more kid to college. Most people in the "middle class" in the US are one severe injury away from bankruptcy. Taking away their overhead by forcing them to raise another kid is just as severe a consequence for any parent who isn't making six figures as it is for those in poverty.

*And on the subject of the rape exception: I don't even see how banning abortions except for rape is workable. 
Would women then have to prove they were raped to get the abortion? 
How much proof would they need? 
Do they have to take their rapist to court and get a conviction? 
Do they have to wait until sentencing to get their abortion or could they do it sooner? 
What if there isn't sufficient evidence to convict, even though they really were raped? 
They just have to suck it up and carry their rape-baby I guess.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 20, 2012)

Spatel said:


> words



this is a trap response. Anything I argue will be used to bash me as "ignorant" or "evil" because everyone else has their opinion and sticks to it through any evidence tossed at them. Somehow my opinion is wrong because it is not a leftist view. So i am not going to respomd to it. When it comes to abortion liberals want all abortions legal for every woman for any reason and some what the government to pay for it. Anything that deviates from their point of view is evil and must be shouted down or silenced (like anything else that isn't in agreement with them)

So i see no point in continuing to talk about it. You will not change my personal views on it, especially by calling me evil or ignorant. I havent even tried changing anyone else's opinion or attack anyone elses viewpoint on it.

I stated a personal opinion and all of a sudden everyone things I want to legislate it into law when i stated my personal belief. personal beliefs are hard to sway. In the case of abortion i am fine with the status quo even if i dont agree with all parts of it. My opinion on abortion is not black and white, and on such a complex issue it shouldnt be. Like most moderates I do not see abotion as an "everyone gets an abortion for any reason any thime in pregnancy"  or a "No abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason" thing. Yjat is the false choice of the extremes., and I am not an extreme right winnger who thinks all abortion is murder and that all sex must be for procreation BUT i think if you do have sex that is a choice, and choices have consequences.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 20, 2012)

I did show that while it may be your belief, it hinders the nation as a whole in the long run. So you may not be right or wrong, but if we followed your structure on that issue, there would be a significant increase in government aid being used as well as a higher export of abortions which would lead to more deaths of the non-child and mother. So if you are all for that, then huzzah. The cases you're willing to let abortions happen are less than 15-20% of the ~1.3 million that happen yearly.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I just do not buy that anyone would be so mind numbingly stupid that they don't know sex leads to babies. Everyone I have ever talked to knows this unless they are like..five or something. In general all teenagers and every adult knows sex l is where babies come from. We had sex ed in the 5th grade and a health class that taught sexual functions (which was a state required course, in texas no less). To not know sex leads to pregnancy you would have to be extremely sheltered, or in a coma. No one that went to a public school could go without knowing what sex was , and what sex leads to. It is just common knowledge



There are statistics of those that practice abstinence only and have sex are at greater risk of pregnancy due to ignorance in safe sex practices against STIs, STDs and proper usage of protection such as condoms, pills. etc. 
Also some night reading: http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications450
I'll dig up more links when I wipe the sleep from my eyes...

It's your opinion.


----------



## Spatel (Sep 20, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> this is a trap response. Anything I argue will be used to bash me as "ignorant" or "evil" because...


 Aww, that's not true. I don't think you're ignorant, or evil. I think you're just stubborn.  





> Like most moderates I do not see abotion as an "everyone gets an abortion for any reason any thime in pregnancy"  or a "No abortion anytime, anywhere, for any reason" thing. Yjat is the false choice of the extremes., and I am not an extreme right winnger who thinks all abortion is murder and that all sex must be for procreation BUT i think if you do have sex that is a choice, and choices have consequences.


  No... it is a choice that you think _should_ have more consequences than it does. It is something that you want to make into a bigger deal than it has to be.  Not putting a bandaid on a cut is a choice. Choices have consequences. If someone gets infected with MRSA because of a choice like that, it's pretty mean to withhold the technology that could treat them. That was a big part of my argument in the last post. You're making an arbitrary consequence when there doesn't have to be one.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 21, 2012)

As i have already said, politically speaking I am fine with the stays quo on abortion. I do not want all abortions made illegal because there is some medical purpose for some of them, but I dont like them. I dont like smokers, but i would not say that all cigarette smokers  should be put in jail and cigarettes made illegal, and its the same with abortion, i dont like it, but am not arguing it should be illegal 

 i have my ideas that are likely contradictory and nutty to those that dont agree with them, just like i dont see why some are in favor of legalizing smoking weed but then want to ban smoking of cigarettes, even in homes. That is a stance that makes no sense to me but i have met many who have it. My stance on abortion likely doesnt make sense to those more "into" the issue. i am a guy, who will never have an abortion. This does not mean I dont have a right to have an opinion on the issue just because I will not have an abortion or am not a woman. I meet women who have  opinions about circumcision, should i tell them that since they don't have a penis and will never be circumcised they should shut up and not have an opinion about it?

I will not going into the voting booth with abortion even on my mind, because it just does not matter that much to me. It will not be an issue I base my vote on come november.


----------



## Trpdwarf (Sep 21, 2012)

Just piping into say that if you don't like Abortion, don't have one. If you are a guy and don't like abortion fuck off. It's not your body. It's also insulting that the kinds of people who run around screaming abortion is murder tend to perpetuate false ideas of sex education that don't work. Abstinence only doesn't work. Education does. The thing is a lot of people who are anti-abortion are anti- real sex education and it drives me batty. They are also against or tend to be safer sex, condom use, and in general contraceptives.

How is your problem if someone is getting an abortion? How does it affect you? If it offends your religious or moral beliefs oh well. It's not your place to force what you believe on others especially when the only justification is "Well I just don't like it" or "it's against my religion". Your religion isn't a basis for laws and neither are your feelings. How does Abortion harm you? How does it harm anyone? What is so bad about it? Nothing. Women shouldn't have to explain why they get one that's their choice, and their decision.

EDIT: Kind of leaving myself open here. If you do it with a girl and you don't like that she decided to have an abortion (or keep it for that matter) it's something you should have thought about before sex. Ideally it's a discussion you should have before ever entering a sexual relationship that could result in a baby. Understand where each other stands if a pregnancy were to happen. Doing so prevents a lot of hurt feelings down the road. In any case I don't like and despise Romeny who has no real respect for the female's body. There are many things about him that disturb me and the pledge to take away abortion even in cases of rape/incest is terrible.

Remember the catholic girl that was raped, got pregnant and had to have an abortion to save her life because if the fetus started to grow it would kill her. She got excommunicated from her church and the rapist got "forgiven". This is the kind of thing you set women up for when you start campaigning to outlaw abortion. It won't change anything because people will turn to back-alley methods. Instead of seeing a drop in "Abortion" you are going to start seeing both the unborn fetus and mother die instead of just the fetus due to what desperate women will turn to. A person who thinks a step back to that time-period is a good thing is to me not a good quality for a president.


----------



## Traven V (Sep 21, 2012)

The end of the world 2012


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 21, 2012)

And the simpsons did another funny sketch about the election, like they did in 2008-
[YT]ArC7XarwnWI[/YT]


----------



## Lobar (Sep 21, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> this is a trap response



It's not a "trap", it's a logical demonstration (and thanks Spatel for a well-written post on the point) that the position of opposing abortion except in case of rape is a rationally untenable one unless your purpose for it is just to punish women who have sex, which is an evil goal.  That you can't find a reasonable counterargument to it isn't the product of any sort of rhetorical trick, it's the fact that he's _correct_.



CodArk2 said:


> BUT i think if you do have sex that is a choice, and choices have consequences



except for penis-havers


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 21, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Supporting the republicans does not make one evil, stupid, racist or misguided any more than democrats are. PJust partisan BS.



These would be the same Republicans who recently used a point of order to block passage of a bipartisan $1 billion jobs program which was mostly _written by Republicans_ to put unemployed veterans back to work as firefighters, police officers and in public work projects? 

*There's* your "partisan BS". Blocking support for military veterans to which your government ordered into harm's way for pure political spite. All part of a deliberate campaign by Republicans (started mere _days_ after Obama's election) to stop the Obama administration from accomplishing _anything_ of note regardless of how much it trashed your country in the process.

It's pretty bloody obvious even from this side of the Pacific that Republicans don't care how much they fuck the US over as long as they can get Obama out of the White House.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 21, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> As i have already said, politically speaking I am fine with the stays quo on abortion. I do not want all abortions made illegal because there is some medical purpose for some of them, but I dont like them. I dont like smokers, but i would not say that all cigarette smokers  should be put in jail and cigarettes made illegal, and its the same with abortion, i dont like it, but am not arguing it should be illegal
> 
> i have my ideas that are likely contradictory and nutty to those that dont agree with them, just like i dont see why some are in favor of legalizing smoking weed but then want to ban smoking of cigarettes, even in homes. That is a stance that makes no sense to me but i have met many who have it. My stance on abortion likely doesnt make sense to those more "into" the issue. i am a guy, who will never have an abortion. This does not mean I dont have a right to have an opinion on the issue just because I will not have an abortion or am not a woman. I meet women who have  opinions about circumcision, should i tell them that since they don't have a penis and will never be circumcised they should shut up and not have an opinion about it?
> 
> I will not going into the voting booth with abortion even on my mind, because it just does not matter that much to me. It will not be an issue I base my vote on come november.



You say you're fine with the status quo on abortion but stated you'll be voting for the guy that will eliminate any way for safe abortions and the method of preventing abortions. I think it's pretty bullshit for someone to say "I don't care about this issue" when voting because every. EVERY point -whether social or economic- is important. Arguably they tie in to each other. Say Roe vs Wade DOES get tossed. Abortions are now illegal, woo. Well now crime goes up because of:
-Babies born into homes not fit for them don't end up with the necessary nurturing or education
-Babies given up to foster homes which will end up abused because our system is shit
-Women being jailed as well as doctors because of abortions. 
-Due to the increase of babies born, there are not enough jobs for them when they grow up. It'll be like a second baby boom. We don't need another one.

You talk big about "hurr consequences" without realizing the consequences of what will happen if you vote for the guy who is just centimeters away from basically saying "I am going to royally fuck up America so bad, your grandchildren will feel it".


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 21, 2012)

Lobar said:


> It's not a "trap", it's a logical demonstration (and thanks Spatel for a well-written post on the point) that the position of opposing abortion except in case of rape is a rationally untenable one unless your purpose for it is just to punish women who have sex, which is an evil goal.  That you can't find a reasonable counterargument to it isn't the product of any sort of rhetorical trick, it's the fact that he's _correct_.


No, its because i dont see any point in arguing with it. ANYTHING i argue will be used to attack me. Because aparently liiberals dont understand the concept of being nuanced on abortion, you think its all or nothing and it isn't. Abortion is not a choice between "all abortion is murder"  and unishing women for sex" and "all women should have abortions when and where they want". MY PERSONAL OPINION on the matter is not something that will influence my vote so I dont see why its being debated.

I dont see things in the first rimester as being murder, because a fetus is not viable outside the mother in any way shape or form, but third trimester and most second trimester abortions I do see as murder. I agree with abortion in the case of rape, incest or if the mother is going to die from it, but usually those abortions happen in the 1st trimester anyway. If they dont i do not agree with them. I do not agree with abortions of convenience "oh this baby i dont want". Attack me all you want but thats my opinion.




Mayfurr said:


> These would be the same Republicans who recently used a point of order to block passage of a bipartisan $1 billion jobs program which was mostly _written by Republicans_ to put unemployed veterans back to work as firefighters, police officers and in public work projects?
> 
> *There's* your "partisan BS". Blocking support for military veterans to which your government ordered into harm's way for pure political spite. All part of a deliberate campaign by Republicans (started mere _days_ after Obama's election) to stop the Obama administration from accomplishing _anything_ of note regardless of how much it trashed your country in the process.
> 
> It's pretty bloody obvious even from this side of the Pacific that Republicans don't care how much they fuck the US over as long as they can get Obama out of the White House.



I dont think obama is a terrible president, even if i dont agree with his policies and policies, yes republicans do stupid partisan things, BOTH SIDES DO. . I have seen foreign news reports on our politics, and would be careful tursting them forunvarnished truth, just like i would with any news agency. Democrats do dumb, partisan bullcrap too, it is not just one party doing it in spite of what you will see on FAF or the news.



Aleu said:


> You say you're fine with the status quo on abortion but stated you'll be voting for the guy that will eliminate any way for safe abortions and the method of preventing abortions. I think it's pretty bullshit for someone to say "I don't care about this issue" when voting because every. EVERY point -whether social or economic- is important. Arguably they tie in to each other. Say Roe vs Wade DOES get tossed. Abortions are now illegal, woo. Well now crime goes up because of:
> -Babies born into homes not fit for them don't end up with the necessary nurturing or education
> -Babies given up to foster homes which will end up abused because our system is shit
> -Women being jailed as well as doctors because of abortions.
> ...



That sounds more like political proganda than reality 'Romney wants to take mah abortions!" . No, he wants to end federal funding for planned parenthood and other organizations that provide abortion services, but that not the same as ending abortions, I agree with that since i dont think the government should fund abortion providers with tax dollars. And no, I dont care about the issue, just as i am sure there are issues you dont care about either. Romney would not make abortions illegal, and no one is suggesting this. It just sounds like liberal propoganda BS, like i see on some boards where "republicans would bring back slavery!" (and yes i am serious since i ahve seen people argeing it.). My advice would be to look at what romney ACTUALLY stands for and NOT from places like daily kos, huffington post or msnbc, nor fox news. because your premise that voting for romney sis voting for ending abortion is just bullshit i can not find any evidence to support.

Whwen I said i agreed more with the republicans on the issue of abortion, its not because I want it banned, its because I want federal funding for it stopped. Why is that evil? If you leave the liberal echo chambers, you will find most americans are closer to my point of view on abortion than those here. That some abortion is alright, but only in cases of rape, incest or mothers health. that it should only be in first trimester and should not be government funded.Those arguing for 3rd trimester abortions are a minority or for tac dollars to pay for it are a minority, just a loud one.

You guts are basically jsut confirming my strotypes of liberals, that your all tolerant as long as ling as I am totally agreeing with you. I know FAF is a liberal echo chamber and no conservative (even a moderate one like me) will be able to say anything without being attacked for their politics. Its why none of the ones that voted for romney have said anything on this thread, because they would be attacked for everything by loudmouths.

I said there was one area i agreed more with republicans on than democrats in social issues: abortion, because i dont support government funding it in any shape or form, suddenly I am being told its a choice between banning all abortion or not? Sorry, just cant take that seriously because its obvious you didnt actually research what the republican platform is and are just going on stereotypes


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 21, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> No, he wants to end federal funding for planned parenthood and other organizations that provide aortic services, but that not the same as ending abortions, I agree with that since i dont think the government should fund abortion providers with tax dollars. And no, I dont care about the issue, just as i am sure there are issues you dont care about either. Romney would not make abortions illegal, and no one is suggesting this. It just sounds like liberal propoganda BS, like i see on some boards where "republicans would bring back slavery!" (and yes i am serious since i ahve seen people argeing it.). My advice would be to look at what romney ACTUALLY stands for and NOT from places like daily kos, huffington post or msnbc, nor fox news. because your premise that voting for romney sis voting for ending abortion is just bullshit i can not find any evidence to support.



Romney is pro-life, believes life begins at conception and blah blah blah, against abortions other than similar to what you hold - Which is currently less than 20% of the abortions that go on, and have already proven that would cause a gigantic amount of issues (upwards of a million new women on government aid every year, or an increase in mortality for the potential baby as well as the mother due to illegal and unsafe operations). It would be better for the government to fully fund abortions than it is for them to only allow 10-20% of them occur, financially speaking - I'm not saying I'm for that, but realistically, it's better for all of us in the long run (unless the Government pays out less than 1k for aid over 18 years).  Planned Parenthood funds a small percentage of abortions, so it shouldn't be as big a worry as the GOP platform has been making it. I think I was too strong on my earlier big-list statement and I'll go change it, but yeah...

Also: I think more American's are for abortions in specific cases, because the only options they've heard over the years are basically this.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 21, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> You guts are basically jsut confirming my strotypes of liberals, that your all tolerant as long as ling as I am totally agreeing with you. I know FAF is a liberal echo chamber and no conservative (even a moderate one like me) will be able to say anything without being attacked for their politics. Its why none of the ones that voted for romney have said anything on this thread, because they would be attacked for everything by loudmouths.



W2g. So instead of accepting that people have dissenting opinions, you overgeneralize because people do no agree with you because of the way you have worded things?
So if Democrats are "mewling thundercunt socialist pussies", then Republicans are "Stubborn as pigs, dumb as nails". 



> I said there was one area i agreed more with republicans on than democrats in social issues: abortion, because i dont support government funding it in any shape or form, suddenly I am being told its a choice between banning all abortion or not? Sorry, just cant take that seriously because its obvious you didnt actually research what the republican platform is and are just going on stereotypes



So you are opposed to funding that goes towards helpful public services such as Libraries, Civil safety (Millitary, Fire, and police departments), and education?
I hope that you meant some.

Oregon is the state that has the most tax payer funded abortions. 12 of them due deductions on abortions, which are either 1/3rd off of the payment or half depending on your income. Oregon is currently fighting to pass a bill that requires you to pay for an abortion out of pocket unless in the cases of rape, incest, or may result in the death of either the mother or both the child and the mother.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 21, 2012)

I never said I was in lockstep with republicans on all issues, even on abortion. You notice I said that i was "more like the republicans" which us not the same as saying I agree with every point they have on everything. While mu persona belief, if it were made law, would cause problems, so would anu change to the abortion laws. That is why i am fine with the status quo.

Some seem to be making the mistake of assuming that because I am more conservative-leaning I must be religious and basing my thoughts on abortion on that. I am not. I do not thing abortion is wrong because god/jesus/mohammed/flying spaghetti monster said so. Yhis is a stereotype. Not all conservatives are religious, and i am not even that conservative, I am more a centrist/moderate. I look at all issues fem both sides, but on abortion I could nto agree with either fully, which is why my opinion is so odd to an ideologically pure liberal or conservative.  The problem is I am not either one f those, and trying to caricature me as a conservative religious whackjob who hates women and wants them barefoot and pregnant wont work, because I am not like that.I see abortion as a societal problem which is complex, and dumbing it down to "All women have a right to abortions" vs 'They are killing the babies" just doesn't resonate with me, since like most political issues it is not black and white, good or bad


Ot seems something msot of you dont take into account, abortion affects whole families. it is not just the woman in question effected by an abortion. I didnt ust watch it on TVand make an opinion based on that. her family is basically right wing nut jobs. She is actually more conservative than I am, opposing gay marraige, opposing gun control, wanting religion in schools but yet somehow she had an abortion. I basically financed it and drove her up there, but yet get equal amounts of blame for it like i was the one that chose to have it one. Morally I was coficted because I believe it was wrong of her to do. The only reason i supported her at all was because she was family, even if through marriage and not blood.  This is better than i can say for her family , who basically will not talk to her or me. My family was like that for a while but got over it. But i rent the idea that only women are affected by abortion.  Abortion is not something i saw a debate on television about anf made an opinion for, I actually had to deal with it in my life. While it is anecdotal, one cannoy dicount personal experiences and pretend they ahve no affect on how they view the world. I cannot see abortion as murder because otherwise that would make me an accomplice to murder, which is something I cannot accept. I cannot say that all abortions are justified, because they are not. I cannot say that abortion is only a womans right to choose since in my own personal life, i got blamed as much as she did. She chose to ahve one, i chose to finance it in spite of the fact i was deeply conflicted on it and her family hates me because of it, and most of my family still brings it up even though it happened two years ago.

Se eventually did tell my brother  ot her family did) and there was more fighting , but they stayed together. Her opinions on it have moved to be about like mine are now, and she would not have another one unless she had to.  While I can see the crticism of my stance on abortion, it is nuanced because basically i do not want to condemn my own actions, because i did what i felt i had to at the time. Those that paint all abortion as murder are basically saying i am an accomplice to murder, and those that say all abortions are ok dont seem to understand the impact it has on families. If i could go back in time, i still would have done the same thing, even if i still hold the same stance that it was wrong of her to do. i never said i would make a law or support a law banning all abortions, but that doesnt mean i do not get an opinion on anything about abortions because "ITS HER BODY SEXIST PIG". Yeah, its also sexist to say a man has no right to have an opinion about a womans body just because he is a man. By that logic ladies shoudlnt have any opinion or say so about circumcisions because its not THEIR body. Bet that logic won't hold. I have a right to an opinion even if tis not happening to my body. Otherwise we have to apply that logic to everything.

Abortion is not a black and white, right or wrong topic, and trying to get me to say it is one or the other just doesnt hold up to what i have seen. Why people on here cant understand my stance that abortion is fine to have, the government shouldn't have to financially support it and not all abortions are right to have even if they shouldn't be illegal confuses me, but i am sure my opinion baffles others as well


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 21, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I dont think obama is a terrible president, even if i dont agree with his policies and policies, yes republicans do stupid partisan things, BOTH SIDES DO. [...] Democrats do dumb, partisan bullcrap too, it is not just one party doing it in spite of what you will see on FAF or the news.



*[citation needed]* Go on, if it's so common for Democrats to pull obstructive crap in the same way as Republicans then I'm sure you'll have no trouble producing examples.

I think you'll be scratching for that kind of example though, as from what I've seen the Democrats have been bending over backwards to encourage the Republicans on bipartisan issues, while the Republicans have been sulking in the corner being obstructive partisan brats. And the constant partisan blocking these arseholes have done on such basic things as the government budget has led to the lowering of the US's credit rating to that of New Zealand for a few months (before that rating dropped as well).



CodArk2 said:


> I have seen foreign news reports on our politics, and would be careful tursting them for unvarnished truth



I've seen both non-US AND US sources on the incident in question, and they're both pretty much in agreement. In fact, here's a US source for the story. And another. Whichever way you slice it, it's a pretty low thing to shaft returning military veterans in their time of need just for political point-scoring.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 21, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> W2g. So instead of accepting that people have dissenting opinions, you overgeneralize because people do no agree with you because of the way you have worded things?
> So if Democrats are "mewling thundercunt socialist pussies", then Republicans are "Stubborn as pigs, dumb as nails".
> 
> 
> ...



I do accept that people have different opinions, even if i dont agree with them, but for some reason the canard that I hate women, hate blacks, hate freedom or some combination of the 3 will be pulled up, because im not a liberal. "progressive. Having an opinion doesnt mean i hate something, just means i disagree with it.

Just because I lean conservative does not mean that I want all government out of everything. That would be a disaster. I do support a smaller government though. I of course support government funding for the military, to the schools to an extent, civil services are mostly local taxes. Entitlements need to be reformed so they dont bankrupt the nation though, and i dont trust democrats to ever do that.



Mayfurr said:


> *[citation needed]* Go on, if it's so common for Democrats to pull obstructive crap in the same way as Republicans then I'm sure you'll have no trouble producing examples.
> 
> I think you'll be scratching for that kind of example though, as from what I've seen the Democrats have been bending over backwards to encourage the Republicans on bipartisan issues, while the Republicans have been sulking in the corner being obstructive partisan brats. And the constant partisan blocking these arseholes have done on such basic things as the government budget has led to the lowering of the US's credit rating to that of New Zealand for a few months (before that rating dropped as well).
> 
> I've seen both non-US AND US sources on the incident in question, and they're both pretty much in agreement. In fact, here's a US source for the story. And another. Whichever way you slice it, it's a pretty low thing to shaft returning military veterans in their time of need just for political point-scoring.



You seem to not use logic. Both parties kill things the other party wants to do, Thats politics in the US.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ts-block-a-vote-on-president-obamas-tax-plan/
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/nov/22/nation/na-energy22
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/07/20060407-113202-5032r/

And that is seperate things. Democrats have obstructed things republicans wanted to do, and republicans obstruct things democrats want to do. And no BS about how "republicans want to hurt the country so the democrats have a right to obstruct it" because the republicans can say, and believe, the same thing about the democrats. I lean to the right wing, but that doesnt mean i support anything the republicans do, Blocking the bill you are mentioning was wrong, though I had too look at other sources. While i look at the huffington post and msnbc, i do not take them seriously as news sources and put them in the category I put Fox in for reliability. If you really want unbiased news, watch C-SPAN, CNN is also ok.

The credit rating thing is both parties fault, blaming it all on one party is partisan, and inaccurate, the debt issue last year was both parties fault. Of course each party blames the other side,ive seen democrats blame republicans and republicans blame democrats, both aprties were to blame with the debt issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...redit-rating/2011/08/06/gIQAd71BzI_story.html
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20089038-503544.html

And a bunch more..saying one political party was responsible for the rating downgrade is just too biased. I sod be more liekly to blame everyone in congress, republican or democrat, than jsut single out one party.


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 21, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I know FAF is a liberal echo chamber and no conservative (even a moderate one like me) will be able to say anything without being attacked for their politics.



That's kind of how this board rolls. You have any opinion and someone's going to challenge it. If you're gonna have an opinion, be prepared to back it up.


----------



## SSJ5Cloufiroth (Sep 22, 2012)

I'm voting for Mitt Romney.  President Obama's shoved high-level federal management into everything he can and seems to have no standard at all (anymore)regarding righteous values.  Mitt Romney seeks to fix the economic problems our current president, with possibly positive intentions, has execerbated, to annul the wacked-out tax-disguised-as-healthcare that's been hammered through the courts, and most importantly, understands the most fundamental and sacred elements of human life and society regarding family.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 22, 2012)

SSJ5Cloufiroth said:


> I'm voting for Mitt Robme.  President Obama's shoved high-level federal management into everything he can and seems to have no standard at all (anymore)regarding righteous values.  Mitt Robme seeks to fix the economic problems our *PREVIOUS* president, with possibly positive intentions, has execerbated, to annul the wacked-out tax-disguised-as-healthcare that's been hammered through the courts, and most importantly, understands the most fundamental and sacred elements of human life and society regarding family.



Fixed that for ya.  lol...and sacred elements of family?  Awww a homophobe!  How sweet...


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 22, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Fixed that for ya.  lol...and sacred elements of family?  Awww a homophobe!  How sweet...



Must be a troll. :V


----------



## Aetius (Sep 22, 2012)

Would somebody please explain to me how Supply Side economics will lift us out of this recession?


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 22, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Would somebody please explain to me how Supply Side economics will lift us out of this recession?



Sending the 47% to work in China's factories.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 22, 2012)

So am I the only one that has a problem the Cod took his sister in law to get an abortion without her husband even KNOWING.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 22, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> So am I the only one that has a problem the Cod took his sister in law to get an abortion without her husband even KNOWING.



You aren't but it's too easy to bother with it. :V


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 22, 2012)

Shockingly enough, there are conservatives in the world, there is no "trolling" about it. When FAF becomes an offical part of the democratic party then its trolling. And "fundamental and sacred elements of human life and society regarding family." does not always translate into "I hate all the queers and wanna see them burn!" except on the far right. In the same way that civil rights to most americans has nothing to do with gay marriage, except on the far left.



Jashwa said:


> So am I the only one that has a problem the Cod took his sister in law to get an abortion without her husband even KNOWING.



No, my family gave me more shit about it than anyone on FAF possibly could. She refused to tell my brother about it until i threatened to do it. She was never going to tell my brother at all. My brother was out of the country at the time. I did not have a chance to talk with him, she did , she talked to him pretty much daily on the phone. He was out of the country for about 2 months,and she didnt find out as far as i know late in her 2nd month.  She had a chance to tell my brother. I was not in a position to tell him, not to mention how i should bring it up even if i did ("hey, how are you,whats going on? Oh not much happening here, oh your wife is having an abortion and begging people to pay for it before you come home, otherwise not much" wouldnt work out too well).  So why should I get blame when he would be out of the country for a month after it happened and she refused to tell him when she talked with him? That is her fault, not mine.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Shockingly enough, there are conservatives in the world, there is no "trolling" about it.



Nobody is shocked that they _exist_ so much as they are bewildered at how so many people such as yourself got snowed into violently opposing their own best interests year-after-year.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 22, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Shockingly enough, there are conservatives in the world, there is no "trolling" about it. When FAF becomes an offical part of the democratic party then its trolling. And "fundamental and sacred elements of human life and society regarding family." does not always translate into "I hate all the queers and wanna see them burn!" except on the far right. In the same way that civil rights to most americans has nothing to do with gay marriage, except on the far left.



I am an Independent...and you take small things out of proportion. 
There are people on the left who have the same idea that the right have on gay marriage. If you want people to agree with you more, find a conservative board instead of making potshots. You say that "Dem damn librils" are horrible people, but it also makes your political stance look just as bad, if not worse. So far, you've been using veiled potshots and victimizing excuses because a handful people aren't on your side of thinking. So fucking what? Welcome to political thinking. Here's your complementary bag of opinions and QQ's. Have a nice day!


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 22, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Nobody is shocked that they _exist_ so much as they are bewildered at how so many people such as yourself got snowed into violently opposing their own best interests year-after-year.


That's easy.
Conservatism in a nutshell: We'll take away your rights while preaching freedom.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 22, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> That's easy.
> Conservatism in a nutshell: We'll take away *education/social security/medicare/foodstamps* while preaching freedom.



Fix'd. 

Welp, I just registered to vote in the State of California. I love noncompetitive elections.


----------



## Vega (Sep 22, 2012)

I'll be short, I'm voting for Obama.  Should Romney get elected as president, then I don't have to go that far to get to Canada as my state borders it.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 22, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Nobody is shocked that they _exist_ so much as they are bewildered at how so many people such as yourself got snowed into violently opposing their own best interests year-after-year.



That is one of the main differences beteen the far right and far left. I am not so arrogant to assume I know what other peoples "best interests" are. By most peoples viewpoint i *should* be a a solid liberal. But I am not. I am moderate, and lean conservative, I don't see democrats as having a monoploy on my best interests, or conservatives. Neither side represents all of what I think. Right now I see the republican part as being more in my best interest than the democratic one because deficit reduction and federal spending are big concerns with me, as well as the economy. Neither party  is perfect on it, but the republicans are closer to my views on it 




Ozriel said:


> I am an Independent...and you take small things out of proportion.
> There are people on the left who have the same idea that the right have on gay marriage. If you want people to agree with you more, find a conservative board instead of making potshots. You say that "Dem damn librils" are horrible people, but it also makes your political stance look just as bad, if not worse. So far, you've been using veiled potshots and victimizing excuses because a handful people aren't on your side of thinking. So fucking what? Welcome to political thinking. Here's your complementary bag of opinions and QQ's. Have a nice day!



Everyone does that in politics. I can claim to be independent, but I am not, since where I live you are registered as part of the party you tend to vote for. People make potshots at me in most messages addressing mem but yet this is fine. Mine are not though for some reason. Also, I dont think liberals are terrible people, i think they want whats best for america, they just have , in my personal opinion, bad ideas to get their, same as the conservatives do. Neither side had a monopoly of bad ideas, and both have their stupid nutty ideas that should never have even been considered. I would be slamming the far right if there were a lot of conservatives here, but there are not. I dont expect people  to be on my side of thinking, but I should point out i havent tried to sway people to my side of thinking, i just expressed it and was attacked for it because some are apparently looking for a conservative caricature to bash.




CannonFodder said:


> That's easy.
> *Politics* in a nutshell: We'll take away your rights while preaching freedom.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 22, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> That is one of the main differences beteen the far right and far left. I am not so arrogant to assume I know what other peoples "best interests" are. By most peoples viewpoint i *should* be a a solid liberal. But I am not. I am moderate, and lean conservative, I don't see democrats as having a monoploy on my best interests, or conservatives. Neither side represents all of what I think. Right now I see the republican part as being more in my best interest than the democratic one because deficit reduction and federal spending are big concerns with me, as well as the economy. Neither party  is perfect on it, but the republicans are closer to my views on it



Deficit reduction?  Uh...useless war...bush...8 fucking years in office..14 trillion dollars in debt from what..0 about?  Yeah, the repubs really got it going for that deficit there.  And the economy takes time to heal from a crisis and Romney...have you even SEEN WHAT HE'S DONE to himself lately?  My gawd man.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 22, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Everyone does that in politics. I can claim to be independent, but I am not, since where I live you are registered as part of the party you tend to vote for. People make potshots at me in most messages addressing mem but yet this is fine. Mine are not though for some reason. Also, I dont think liberals are terrible people, i think they want whats best for america, they just have , in my personal opinion, bad ideas to get their, same as the conservatives do. Neither side had a monopoly of bad ideas, and both have their stupid nutty ideas that should never have even been considered. I would be slamming the far right if there were a lot of conservatives here, but there are not. I dont expect people  to be on my side of thinking, but I should point out i havent tried to sway people to my side of thinking, i just expressed it and was attacked for it because some are apparently looking for a conservative caricature to bash.



You entered hunting grounds with deer antlers on your head and people shot at you. People aren't basking you for the basis of your political views, they are stating their opinion to why they *think* your opinion is bollocks. You are blaming people for shooting at you being a whinny hippy, when in fact, people are shooting at you because they think you are deer.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 22, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Deficit reduction?  Uh...useless war...bush...8 fucking years in office..14 trillion dollars in debt?  Yeah, the repubs really got it going for that deficit there.  And the economy takes time to heal from a crisis and Romney...have you even SEEN WHAT HE'S DONE to himself lately?  My gawd man.



To me it seems like the democrats are paying lip service to deficit reduction because republicans, anrd reality, are forcing them too. Bush DID ring up a massive debt, but obama has rung up more debt in one term than bish did in two.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_...s-increased-more-under-obama-than-under-bush/

When bush entered office in 2000, the US had 5 trillion in debt
http://www.usdebtclock.org/2000.html

in 2004, after 2 wars and 4 years of bush, we had 7 trillion
http://www.usdebtclock.org/2004.html

At the end of the bush presidency in 2008, we had 10 trillion
http://www.usdebtclock.org/2008.html

So in 8 years, he racked up 5 trillion in debt with 2 wars, as well as 2 rescissions, one of the major and economic polices to keep the economy form collapsing (TARP was passed under bush along with many other economic policies).  

Now we have had 4 tears under obama and we are 16 trillion in debt.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/index.html

this means that our national debt has gone up more in ONE obama term than in both bush terms. Bush had to deal with an economic collapse, major terrorist attacks and the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq. Why has the debt gone up more in 4 tears of obama than in 8 years of bush?  Thats what i am looking at. We had a budget deficit under clinton as well, bush increased it by 5 trilillion in 8 years, that is a bad thing yes. but then why did obama increase it by 6 trillion MORE in 4 years when bus increased it by 5 trillion in 8 years with all that was going on?

 And no "blame bush" answers, that man has not been in power in 4 years, its time to stop blaming him for everything. I doubt you would think it would be alright to blame clinton for 9-11, even though it happened 8 months into bushes presidency and came after 8 years of clinton being president, so the same applies, blaming bush for everything will not resonate with most americans anymore.


----------



## Tao (Sep 22, 2012)

Obama cause Romney is kinda mean and stuff. I don't get much into politics anyway!


----------



## Lobar (Sep 22, 2012)

No Republican President has reduced the national debt since Eisenhower.  Only Democrats have.

And if you want an honest answer on why the debt has increased so much in the last four years, the majority of it is because of the massive revenue shortfall in the wake of the 2008 disaster.  The bills haven't gone up so much as the money has stopped coming in.  The Republicans refusing to budge since on these historically low tax rates for the ultra-rich hasn't helped any.  So yes, it is actually Bush and Senate Republicans' fault, even if you don't want to face reality.

edit: vvvv also true, accounts for ~20% of "Obama's" spending IIRC.


----------



## Conker (Sep 22, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> this means that our national debt has gone up more in ONE obama term than in both bush terms. Bush had to deal with an economic collapse, major terrorist attacks and the war in afghanistan and the war in iraq. Why has the debt gone up more in 4 tears of obama than in 8 years of bush?  Thats what i am looking at. We had a budget deficit under clinton as well, bush increased it by 5 trilillion in 8 years, that is a bad thing yes. but then why did obama increase it by 6 trillion MORE in 4 years when bus increased it by 5 trillion in 8 years with all that was going on?
> 
> And no "blame bush" answers, that man has not been in power in 4 years, its time to stop blaming him for everything. I doubt you would think it would be alright to blame clinton for 9-11, even though it happened 8 months into bushes presidency and came after 8 years of clinton being president, so the same applies, blaming bush for everything will not resonate with most americans anymore.


There were some payments enacted under Bush that wouldn't go into effect until after his term, meaning that some of debt incurred under Obama isn't his fault.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 22, 2012)

I'm voting for Romney because we have bad credit thanks to a black president who can't lead.
#tcot


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 22, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> snip



Yeah yeah...You have some points there...but still, we are getting the f out of afhanistan and iraq...it was a totally useless war man...Obama got Osama...(lol their names are the same almost) and what about Obamacare?  Sure it might be "bad" to force people to either get health insurance or force a "fee," but it WILL help us lower costs.  Plus Obama doesn't lie his ass off like Romney and Ryan do.  Have you listened to him flip-flop?  Romney is NOW PRO-GAY, pro-obamacare.  He's acting like a fish out of water after all the stupid bs he's gotten himself into.  Have you seen Ryan lying man?


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 23, 2012)

Conker said:


> There were some payments enacted under Bush that wouldn't go into effect until after his term, meaning that some of debt incurred under Obama isn't his fault.



That is true of any president. The budget for the next year is passed the year before. That said, it was largely economic stuff that obama would have passed anyway to keep the economy from collapsing. The vast majority of that is not from bush though, most of the 6 trillion happened in his 2nd year. I dont blame the presidents for the economy directly either. if I am out of work I do not blame obama, but presidential and congressional policy does have an affect on the economy.




zachhart12 said:


> Yeah yeah...You have some points there...but still, we are getting the f out of afhanistan and iraq...it was a totally useless war man...Obama got Osama...(lol their names are the same almost) and what about Obamacare?  Sure it might be "bad" to force people to either get health insurance or force a "fee," but it WILL help us lower costs.  Plus Obama doesn't lie his ass off like Romney and Ryan do.  Have you listened to him flip-flop?  Romney is NOW PRO-GAY, pro-obamacare.  He's acting like a fish out of water after all the stupid bs he's gotten himself into.  Have you seen Ryan lying man?



Afghanistan was not useless, its what we actually were supposed to be focusing on after 9-11. We did eventually get osama bin laden (which obama is trying to treat as a personal achievement when it was the military doing it). As for iraq, was it useless? Depends on how you look at it. one of bin ladens biggest beefs with the US was we had troops in saudi arabia (which he regarded as infidels in a holy land, since mecca is in saudi arabia). Those soldiers were protecting saudi arabia from saddam invading them like he did kuwait. When we took saddam out of power, we could take those troops out of saudi arabia. Bush was the one who negotiated us leaving iraq as well, it just happened under obama.

As for healthcare, I am against more government control of healthcare, and think it needs to be reformed. I think obamacare was halfassed and done wrong, and saying'Well republicans blocked it" doesnt ring true, the deomcrats had a supermahority in the senate and a majority in the house, they basically rammed it through over objections.  With the medical stuff i have in my personal life, wone would think that i would support the government paying for all my medicines and stuff I have done. it appeals to me a first, but then i step back and see the government has this massive debt. I would rather pay my own bills. Some say "Oh you will go bankrupt with the bills!" but i havent yet, and if its a choice between me going bankrupt and my country going bankrupt, one would have a much bigger affect on the world than the other.

yes I have seen romneys "flip-fops" on things tanging from abortion, to obamacare to gay marriage. Peoples minds do change. I am pro gay and pro gay marraige myself, so that position doesnt really work against me voting for him. It is common for pilticians to lie and change things around. obama said he would fix our schools and half the deficit. I can find plenty of examples of things obama said that he has not done.

here is just one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jJvkkNmR_8

 All politicians lie and make promises they cannot keep, not just republicans (or democrats).


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Shockingly enough, there are conservatives in the world, there is no "trolling" about it. When FAF becomes an offical part of the democratic party then its trolling.



Newsflash: There's a significant number of FAF readers / posters _that aren't American_... so whining about how somehow anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "democrat" (in the US sense) is bullshit.

In fact, the US Democratic Party would be somewhere to the _right_ on the European / Australasian political spectrum...



CodArk2 said:


> And "fundamental and sacred elements of human life and society regarding family." does not always translate into "I hate all the queers and wanna see them burn!" except on the far right.



Okay. Explain to us then exactly what "fundamental and sacred elements of human life and society regarding family" actually *means*.
What _are_ these elements? Because everyone I've come across so far who uses such phrases is dog-whistling to the gay-bashers by using such flowery phrases which, unless otherwise qualified, always seem to boil down to "gays aren't family and shouldn't be treated as such."

Lots of conservative types keep spouting off about the "sanctity" of families in general and marriage in particular, yet somehow manage to contrive definitions that not only exclude gay people but also groupings of _straight_ people as well. For example, the argument that "gays can't reproduce with each other therefore marriage isn't appropriate and that isn't a family either" also excludes infertile straight couples, straight couples that choose _not_ to reproduce, and straight couples that have no children of their own but have an adopted family.



CodArk2 said:


> In the same way that civil rights to most americans has nothing to do with gay marriage, except on the far left.



Over half of the American population supports same-sex marriage being legalised - so that's hardly "most" Americans being opposed.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 23, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Off-topic: I've never understood how some Americans/American politicians can hate universal healthcare so much.  It's been proven to work and gets better results.  Alas, I shall never know, can someone enlighten me?



It's about beating illness by pulling yourself by your bootstraps. There's nothing more American than paying for wildly overpriced medical procedures with laughably overpriced insurance premiums. Plus I'm not going to pay for someone else's medical problems (even if that's what I'm already doing while paying for private insurance).


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 23, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Off-topic: I've never understood how some Americans/American politicians can hate universal healthcare so much.  It's been proven to work and gets better results.  Alas, I shall never know, can someone enlighten me?



I'm not saying the US healthcare system is great because it isn't.  It's flawed and needs change (which is difficult as we have all seen), but we also don't have the worst healthcare system in the world.  There are flaws with universal healthcare as well.  They generally have very long waits to get in to see a physician and certain services are not provided.  The way our government is running, they would probably ruin any universal healthcare system.  Medicare/medicaid and social security are all in serious trouble as they are right now (yes I know about the changes Obamacare is making).  Universal healthcare would also decrease competition in the US that allows physicians to provide better care (you can argue against this but in reality this is what happens).  There are more negatives than this, but the point is universal healthcare is far from perfect.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 23, 2012)

Keep in mind America spends more on private health care than any other country in the world does on their universal health care, both in absolute figures and as a percentage of GDP.  We pay _more_ to administer health care to _less_ people.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> As for healthcare, I am against more government control of healthcare, and think it needs to be reformed.



Okay. So are you in favour of more of a private-sector approach to healthcare, considering that under the private-sector healthcare model the US spends nearly double the amount per person on healthcare than anyone in the OECD but is in no way at the top of healthcare measurements compared to other countries that _do_ have more of a publicly-funded healthcare system?



CodArk2 said:


> I would rather pay my own bills. Some say "Oh you will go bankrupt with the bills!" but i havent yet,



In other words: "I've just fallen through 1,000 feet without a parachute and I'm not hurt in _any_ way so far... so hey, who needs a parachute!"

Though I rather suspect you'll change your tune rapidly if you _are_ faced with a mountain of medical bills that you have bugger-all prospect of paying off due to illness / injury / lack of work... just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it'll _never_ happen. _"There but for the grace of <deity> go I"_ and all that.



CodArk2 said:


> and if its a choice between me going bankrupt and my country going bankrupt, one would have a much bigger affect on the world than the other.



A "valiant" sacrifice - but I doubt the majority of Americans living on the bones of their arses would be so "public-spirited" to lie down and die in a ditch to save the government (or the mega-wealthy's tax rates) a few bucks , so it's not your decision to make for them.

But if you _do_ decide to sacrifice your own well-being for the sake of the government deficit - just make sure that before you pass on you dig your own grave and pull the dirt in after yourself to save the government even _more_ money in not having to pay to bury you...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Keep in mind America spends more on private health care than any other country in the world does on their universal health care, both in absolute figures and as a percentage of GDP.  We pay _more_ to administer health care to _less_ people.



To borrow a phrase: "Universal healthcare is the worst of all health care models - except all the others that have been tried."

Not to mention â€œYou can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else.â€ - W. Churchill, UK Prime Minister 1940-45, 1951-55


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 23, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Newsflash: There's a significant number of FAF readers / posters _that aren't American_... so whining about how somehow anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "democrat" (in the US sense) is bullshit.
> 
> In fact, the US Democratic Party would be somewhere to the _right_ on the European / Australasian political spectrum...



Yes, i know some here are not american. And you aren't a democrat, but you ARE a liberal. in the US most liberals are democrats and most conservatives are republicans. I am pretty good at telling what someones political orientation is.




Mayfurr said:


> Okay. Explain to us then exactly what "fundamental and sacred elements of human life and society regarding family" actually *means*.



To an american sonservative it *can* mean they dont like gays, or jsut that they support traditional marriage, or dont like abortion, or want religion to have a greater role in society. I find it amusing that anyone who is for traditional marriages must be anti gay though, since often that isnt the case. Many conservatives are against gay marriage, but not against gays. Some are, but the majority are not. I ake the more libertairian view that the government shouldnt be involved in it and should give  all consenting adults civil union status if they want it. I took issue more with the idea that being for a traditional family is being some bible thumping gay basher.




Mayfurr said:


> Over half of the American population supports same-sex marriage being legalised - so that's hardly "most" Americans being opposed.



My argument was not whether most americans supported or opposed it , though considering the majority of states have voted to ban gay marriage with rather large margins i doubt the majority of americans support it. And most americans do not use the term "civil rights" to refer to gay marriage, most americans think of civil rights as that movement in the 60s with martin luther king/ If you ask americans about "civil rights" they will likely think of MLK as well, the only ones i hear that use civil rights to refer to gay marriage IS the far left.



Mayfurr said:


> Okay. So are you in favour of more of a private-sector approach to healthcare, considering that under the private-sector healthcare model the US spends nearly double the amount per person on healthcare than anyone in the OECD but is in no way at the top of healthcare measurements compared to other countries that _do_ have more of a publicly-funded healthcare system?



If government healthcare were anything like the other US government departments i have to deal with on a frequent or not so frequent basis then i would rathe take my chances paying my own bills. Obviously you have never been to the DMV. not being from the US and all.  I dont really care what other countries are doing "Everyone else s doing it" is not really sound logic, its actually a fallcy (Argumentum ad populum). The US is a completely different nation and culture than europe or other places, what is right for other countries might not be for us, and vice vera.



Mayfurr said:


> In other words: "I've just fallen through 1,000 feet without a parachute and I'm not hurt in _any_ way so far... so hey, who needs a parachute!"
> 
> Though I rather suspect you'll change your tune rapidly if you _are_ faced with a mountain of medical bills that you have bugger-all prospect of paying off due to illness / injury / lack of work... just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it'll _never_ happen. _"There but for the grace of <deity> go I"_ and all that.



Actually I was faced with a lot of medical bills. I have 3 different conditions that required several surgeries to only partially fix. Its why i "make so many typos" as one earlier put it. its not from being unintelligent, its because I have glaucoma and had cataracts stemming from uveitis. After having something like 6 eye surgeries, yes, i was in debt, but payed it off. Same thing after I had teeth taken out because of  sjÃ¶gren's syndrome. Same with issues with rheumatoid arthritis. That shit is expensive, and at the time I did not have a job, because i was basically blind. I still got my bills payed off. I am the last that needs to be lectured to about medical bills, since most people under 30 do not have health like mine. That said I still dont support government taking over all healthcare. Asking the government to pat all my bills, even if it is not really my fault. Once you start an entitlement it is nearly impossible to stop it or reform it.




Mayfurr said:


> A "valiant" sacrifice - but I doubt the majority of Americans living on the bones of their arses would be so "public-spirited" to lie down and die in a ditch to save the government (or the mega-wealthy's tax rates) a few bucks , so it's not your decision to make for them.
> 
> But if you _do_ decide to sacrifice your own well-being for the sake of the government deficit - just make sure that before you pass on you dig your own grave and pull the dirt in after yourself to save the government even _more_ money in not having to pay to bury you...



I dont care about the tax cuts, we actually tshould pay more taxes but i doubt either party will do that. The wealthy should pay more races, but the mistake most seem to make on that is sounding bitter that some are rich and they aren't, which sounds immature and jealous. "tacing the rich until they are poor like me" will not solve the nations problems nor would it make the average american any richer or better off. And I would not "lie down ina  ditch to save the government" because i dont care about the government all that much. But i know if the government goes bankrupt then all the stuff  we argue about will be meaningless. A bankrupt government cannot build better schools. a bankrupt government cannot keep our military in shape, a bankrupt country cannot  pay out social security or medicare or medicaid, let alone universal healthcare, to say nothing of the affects it would have on the world. I look at that more than having uncle sam pay my medical bills, Its not because i see people as "lazy" or that sick people somehow deserve it because I not lazy or deserving of the medical stuff that happened to me, I just think the government has bigger issues right now paying its own bills to ask them to start paying mine.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Yes, i know some here are not american. And you aren't a democrat, but you ARE a liberal. in the US most liberals are democrats and most conservatives are republicans. I am pretty good at telling what someones political orientation is.



Fine, so I'm a "liberal" by US standards. So what? "Liberal" isn't a swear word where I'm from. Unlike in the US it seems, where it appears that having a modicum of concern about your fellow citizens that are less well-off than you practically makes you a "Commie".

Fun fact: The rightmost NZ political party - the ACT Party - once advertised itself as "the liberal party"... which goes to show "liberal" doesn't necessarily mean the same thing politically speaking all around the world. Did you know the Aussies have a "Liberal Party"?



CodArk2 said:


> To an american sonservative it *can* mean they dont like gays, or jsut that they support traditional marriage, or dont like abortion, or want religion to have a greater role in society. I find it amusing that anyone who is for traditional marriages must be anti gay though, since often that isnt the case. Many conservatives are against gay marriage, but not against gays. Some are, but the majority are not. I ake the more libertairian view that the government shouldnt be involved in it and should give  all consenting adults civil union status if they want it. I took issue more with the idea that being for a traditional family is being some bible thumping gay basher.



You haven't answered the question. What *are* the _"fundamental and sacred elements of human life and society regarding family" _?



CodArk2 said:


> My argument was not whether most americans supported or opposed it , though considering the majority of states have voted to ban gay marriage with rather large margins i doubt the majority of americans support it. *And most americans do not use the term "civil rights" to refer to gay marriage*



Citation needed.



CodArk2 said:


> If government healthcare were anything like the other US government departments i have to deal with on a frequent or not so frequent basis then i would rathe take my chances paying my own bills. Obviously you have never been to the DMV. not being from the US and all.



All that means is that US government departments need better organising, not that the principle is wrong. Like why it takes six WEEKS for someone to get a passport in the US versus ten working DAYS here in NZ.



CodArk2 said:


> I dont really care what other countries are doing "Everyone else s doing it" is not really sound logic, its actually a fallcy (Argumentum ad populum). The US is a completely different nation and culture than europe or other places, what is right for other countries might not be for us, and vice vera.



Ah, the old "The US is exceptional" argument. 

Just like everyone else in the world. 

It's funny how countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand - all Anglo-Saxon countries with similar histories to the US in terms on being immigrant-based cultures - still manage to come up with a healthcare system that's publicly funded which takes _less _money to deliver more health benefits to its population than what the US can do with its ideologically-motivated private-based system.  

As one Internet blog article put it a few years back: Each year, 101,000 Americans die needlessly because they're not French.



CodArk2 said:


> Actually I was faced with a lot of medical bills. I have 3 different conditions that required several surgeries to only partially fix. Its why i "make so many typos" as one earlier put it. its not from being unintelligent, its because I have glaucoma and had cataracts stemming from uveitis. After having something like 6 eye surgeries, yes, i was in debt, but payed it off. Same thing after I had teeth taken out because of  sjÃ¶gren's syndrome. Same with issues with rheumatoid arthritis. That shit is expensive, and at the time I did not have a job, because i was basically blind. I still got my bills payed off. I am the last that needs to be lectured to about medical bills, since most people under 30 do not have health like mine. That said I still dont support government taking over all healthcare. Asking the government to pat all my bills, even if it is not really my fault.



While I applaud you for being able to work your way through all the shit you've been through, _not everyone can make it the way you have done_ - just because you've been able to pull it off doesn't mean that _everyone_ can and that no-one deserves a back-stop. Because _no-one_ deserves to go bankrupt or die in a gutter through lack of resources to address health-care concerns in a civilised country.



CodArk2 said:


> The wealthy should pay more races, but the mistake most seem to make on that is sounding bitter that some are rich and they aren't, which sounds immature and jealous. "tacing the rich until they are poor like me" will not solve the nations problems nor would it make the average american any richer or better off.



NO-ONE is suggesting "the rich should be taxed until they are poor" - straw-man, much?



CodArk2 said:


> And I would not "lie down ina  ditch to save the government" because i dont care about the government all that much.



Given that your position is that the government has bigger problems than your medical bills and you've basically said you don't want to "trouble" the government with this despite what need you're in, that is in effect EXACTLY what you've said.



CodArk2 said:


> a bankrupt government cannot keep our military in shape



You DO know that the US spends nearly double the military spend _of the next *ten *biggest military spending countries *combined*_... in fact, the US could cut its military budget in _half_ and *still* kick arse! The US Marine Corps on its own is bigger than the combined military of most entire _countries_ - mine included - and the Marines are the _smallest_ branch on the uS armed forces.

The best "shape" that the US military can be described as is "bloated". Yet Romney wants to _increase_ spending on this already gargantuan force - and wants to cut benefits from what he considers the "undeserving" poor in order to fund it. Including _you_, if you're part of the 47% that don't pay federal taxes (and in Planet Romney, that makes you a bludger off the state).



CodArk2 said:


> a bankrupt country cannot pay out social security or medicare or medicaid, *let alone universal healthcare*, to say nothing of the affects it would have on the world.



If universal healthcare is so fundamentally unaffordable, then how come the UK was able to implement its National Health Service _immediately after World War II_ when the UK was on the bones of its arse, its major cities *bombed out* and the economy practically *bankrupt*?


----------



## CaptainCool (Sep 23, 2012)

I don't live in the states (thank you, oh great atheismo!) but if I did i would most definitely NOT vote for someone like Romney.
First of all, he is a mormon. Even other religions laugh about momonism and that's saying something. I simply wouldn't be comfortable with a head of the government who firmly believes that the garden eden is in freaking Missouri or that the native americans were a lost hebrew tribe. I like to have people in charge who have a solid grasp on reality.
Also, he is changing his damn mind all the freaking time!


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2012)

And when the treasurer of one of the US's closest allies describes the biggest threat to the world's economy are the "cranks and crazies" in the US Republican Party, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Romney for the presidency from a global perspective. And that's considering that Romney was the _sanest_ of the Republican candidates this time around...



> Swan, one of few world leaders able to boast his country had avoided recession during the global financial crisis, also labelled the Tea Party wing of the Republicans as "extreme".
> 
> "Let's be blunt and acknowledge the biggest threat to the worldâ€™s biggest economy are the cranks and crazies that have taken over the Republican party," Swan said in a speech to a conference in Sydney.
> 
> ...



Because whether Americans like it or not, the US presidential elections have enormous ramifications far beyond the borders of the United States - and over a billion people who have no say at all in any of this will have to live with whoever Americans select for the next four years.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2012)

I think one of my bigger issues with Romney, is how keen he is on using every available tax loophole he can - Cayman island accounts, "investment income" from Bain Capital with a max tax rate of 15% (most Americans pay closer to 30% on their income), hedge fund investing in Elliot Associates, 'blind' trust fund trustees that he knows very well and have invested with or into their companies, Swiss bank accounts that invest against the USD, and so much more. 

I'm all for the rich getting richer and using the available loopholes...But the way Romney goes about it is pretty shitty, and he's practically proud that he didn't accidentally overpay on his taxes - He paid every dime he owed and not a penny more. l:


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 23, 2012)

Once again, I must preface my thoughts with the fact that the US healthcare system is flawed and there is a tremendous amount of waste, but universal healthcare is NOT something that is amazing.  For younger people, who generally do not have many medical problems, universal healthcare is great.  For people with more severe problems or elderly, they do not get the treatment they need in a timely manner.  Someone from Sweden may be waiting on a procedure for 12 months.  They come to the US, and a neurosurgeon may do the procedure in a couple of days (yes, this happened very recently).  Our own healthcare system is in desperate need of the slow change that is occurring, but do NOT think universal healthcare is perfect.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 23, 2012)

BouncyOtter said:


> Once again, I must preface my thoughts with the fact that the US healthcare system is flawed and there is a tremendous amount of waste, but universal healthcare is NOT something that is amazing.  For younger people, who generally do not have many medical problems, universal healthcare is great.  For people with more severe problems or elderly, they do not get the treatment they need in a timely manner.  Someone from Sweden may be waiting on a procedure for 12 months.  They come to the US, and a neurosurgeon may do the procedure in a couple of days (yes, this happened very recently).  Our own healthcare system is in desperate need of the slow change that is occurring, but do NOT think universal healthcare is perfect.


Speaking as someone that has worked in healthcare and has family that works in healthcare, I assure you that the bullshit of "you have to wait if it's severe or if you're old" is just that. *BULLSHIT.* Those who are in a more severe situation get treated first. No ifs, ands, or buts. The only thing that will change (if we adopt something like NHS) will be that health insurance companies will be non-existent.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 23, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Speaking as someone that has worked in healthcare and has family that works in healthcare, I assure you that the bullshit of "you have to wait if it's severe or if you're old" is just that. *BULLSHIT.* Those who are in a more severe situation get treated first. No ifs, ands, or buts. The only thing that will change (if we adopt something like NHS) will be that health insurance companies will be non-existent.



It happens in European countries whether you think it does or not.  It takes much longer to get in to see a physician than it does in the US.  Also you cannot honestly say that if adopted some kind of universal healthcare (which will not happen in the US even if I would like to see it) system that the only change will be that health insurance companies will vanish.  There were would be a lot of repercussions, some good some bad.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2012)

BouncyOtter said:


> Once again, I must preface my thoughts with the fact that the US healthcare system is flawed and there is a tremendous amount of waste, but universal healthcare is NOT something that is amazing.



I admit universal healthcare is not perfect, BUT it's a damn sight *better *than the US system. Medical bankruptcy is practically unheard of in universal healthcare systems, yet it's pretty common in the US.



BouncyOtter said:


> For younger people, who generally do not have many medical problems, universal healthcare is great.  For people with more severe problems or elderly, they do not get the treatment they need in a timely manner.  Someone from Sweden may be waiting on a procedure for 12 months.  They come to the US, and a neurosurgeon may do the procedure in a couple of days (yes, this happened very recently).



... What you omit to mention is that speedy treatment in the US only occurs IF they have the money to pay for the treatment. If you don't have the $$$ up front to pay for the treatment in the US, or your health insurance manages to wriggle out of paying for the treatment, the wait for treatment in the US lasts the rest of your life 

You may have to wait a while for non-urgent treatment in a public healthcare system, but you WILL be treated in the end without draining your bank accounts in the process. And in countries like the UK and New Zealand, private health insurers do exist for people who want to have some more assurance about the timeliness of treatment - as a _supplement_ to the public system.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 23, 2012)

BouncyOtter said:


> It happens in European countries whether you think it does or not.  It takes much longer to get in to see a physician than it does in the US.



I'm not European, but I *live *in a country with a universal healthcare system - and I can tell you that your claim is *BULLSHIT*. I have NO problem seeing a physician when I need to, and other members of my family have had no trouble seeing specialists when they need to either.

Where _are _you getting your information on universal healthcare? Fox News?


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 23, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> I admit universal healthcare is not perfect, BUT it's a damn sight *better *than the US system. Medical bankruptcy is practically unheard of in universal healthcare systems, yet it's pretty common in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Everything you've said is true, and I agree with it.  If I had to pick between the two systems, I think public healthcare would be better if implemented properly.  I've just been trying (and failing) to say that neither system is perfect, and that the US is never going to adopt universal healthcare unless there is some miraculous change, but even the simple changes of Obamacare have been hard to pass.  Most physicians in the US are not happy with these changes because unfortunately to be highly successful hospitals and medicine in general needs to be treated like big business (sounds obvious).  Patients still trust physicians a lot, but there is an increasing disconnect between patients and physicians.  There are a lot of problems that would occur with such a radical shift in healthcare systems.  

As a future physician myself, we are trying to learn to deal with these changes while keeping the patient's needs first.  We are in a constant struggle with the government and insurance companies and as mentioned earlier any change is met with massive opposition.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 23, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> I'm not European, but I *live *in a country with a universal healthcare system - and I can tell you that your claim is *BULLSHIT*. I have NO problem seeing a physician when I need to, and other members of my family have had no trouble seeing specialists when they need to either.
> 
> Where _are _you getting your information on universal healthcare? Fox News?



Just classes and other physicians, who see it happen.  I'm talking specifically about some European countries.  I didn't say it happens all the time or even a lot. I've just been playing the other side from things I have heard and as I just mentioned I have been doing an extremely poor job at it.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 23, 2012)

BouncyOtter said:


> It happens in European countries whether you think it does or not.  It takes much longer to get in to see a physician than it does in the US.  Also you cannot honestly say that if adopted some kind of universal healthcare (which will not happen in the US even if I would like to see it) system that the only change will be that health insurance companies will vanish.  There were would be a lot of repercussions, some good some bad.



Yes. I can honestly say that will be the only change. Right now, I don't like the healthcare bill because it basically forces people to buy health insurance. It doesn't benefit anyone except the insurance companies. Health insurance is essentially the most useless insurance, especially for young and healthier individuals.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Sep 23, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Right now, I don't like the healthcare bill because it basically forces people to buy health insurance. It doesn't benefit anyone except the insurance companies. Health insurance is essentially the most useless insurance, especially for young and healthier individuals.


 
This is so true.  And as a young probably relatively healthy individual you are paying for those that aren't.  I know why they are doing, but it's still rough.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 23, 2012)

Just popping in; you know Mitt Romney's claim that 47% of people that don't pay taxes are "victims"?  Wouldn't that mean he's claiming that as well active duty soldiers receiving combat pay are "victims"?  If so then he just insulted our armed forces bad.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Just popping in; you know Mitt Romney's claim that 47% of people that don't pay taxes are "victims"?  Wouldn't that mean he's claiming that as well active duty soldiers receiving combat pay are "victims"?  If so then he just insulted our armed forces bad.



He insulted a whole fucking lot of people bad. I haven't heard him try and backpedal quite yet, but it's probably coming if he hasn't already, because that was a HUGE smack in the face of America.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 23, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> He insulted a whole fucking lot of people bad. I haven't heard him try and backpedal quite yet, but it's probably coming if he hasn't already, because that was a HUGE smack in the face of America.


He's not backpedaling at all.  Instead he's using the "you didn't understand what I meant" tactic instead.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> He's not backpedaling at all.  Instead he's using the "you didn't understand what I meant" tactic instead.



That is so much worse. He's going from a trowel to dig his grave to a shovel, and seems to have no issue if he ramps it all the way up to a damn backhoe.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 23, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> That is so much worse. He's going from a trowel to dig his grave to a shovel, and seems to have no issue if he ramps it all the way up to a damn backhoe.


And that folks is why you don't run a candidate that isn't a good public speaker.  Whether or not someone likes Obama on the other hand you have to give it to the man, he knows how to woo a crowd.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 23, 2012)

BouncyOtter said:


> This is so true.  And as a young probably relatively healthy individual you are paying for those that aren't.  I know why they are doing, but it's still rough.



Actually I don't have insurance and I'm on unemployment. Sure I now have a job but I'm not eligible for benefits until I'm full time. And I'm not going to purchase insurance at all. If I need life saving surgery? Not going to get it. Hell I'll probably sign a DNR form if there are any. So, yeah I'm not really paying anything since I don't really have any money to give.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> And that folks is why you don't run a candidate that isn't a good public speaker.  Whether or not someone likes Obama on the other hand you have to give it to the man, he knows how to woo a crowd.



McCain had no issue with Palin, other than the fact he lost - Haha.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 23, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> McCain had no issue with Palin, other than the fact he lost - Haha.



Palin would have been a good choice, only if he (mccain) was able to make her shut her mouth.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Palin would have been a good choice, only if he (mccain) was able to make her shut her mouth.



You must be joking. She was easily one of the most unqualified VP's in a while. She had what, a handful of years as someone other than a soccer mom?

2 1/2 years as Governor of Alaska
1 year as a Chairperson 
6 years as Mayor of a town of less than 8k people. Oh baby


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Sep 23, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You must be joking. She was easily one of the most unqualified VP's in a while. She had what, a handful of years as someone other than a soccer mom?



She went to church, that's all the qualification I need. 

Jesus for four more years!


----------



## Aetius (Sep 23, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You must be joking. She was easily one of the most unqualified VP's in a while. She had what, a handful of years as someone other than a soccer mom?



The Vice President literally just has to look pretty and do Jack Shit (look at Biden). 

Strategically, she was a good choice in that 1. She managed to get the right behind Mccain, and 2. The democrats (and public for that matter) knew so little about her, that they had no idea what to do. Mccain made the fatal mistake of letting her make a joke of herself in the media.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 23, 2012)

GOvernment run healthcare sounds good in theory, but i do not think it would work in the US. It would become an entitlement program that the democrats would make impossible to reform or modify even if it needs it, jsut look at social security or medicaid/medicare, those cant even be touched because the democrats go 'Oh mah god republicans are trying to kill old people/poor people!" and it would be the same thing with public healthcare The system we have now does not work  and needs reform, but just saying "Well fuck it all, lets put the US government in charge" does not sound more appealing. It would also be politicized like nothing else and anyone being honest about it knows it. Would abortion be supported by it? Would there be a long waiting list to be seen? And it is easy to say "Well MY public healthcare system doesnt do that!" , but you live in a country of 4 million people. The US has 300 million people. Just because another country has done it does not mean we would or could.or should for that matter.

Saying "well I am in themedical field" doesnt really sway my opinion either, I have some in my family that are doctors and physicians, my mother is a nurse, and with my medical stuff I have been around quite a few other doctors . Most that i have talked to wouldnt support it because the government pays less. So part of the problem seems to be the greed of doctors and nurses. Id you are in the medical field, ask yourself if you would accept everyone on mid care and how much that pays. Could you mak a living off it? My mother who has been a nurse for around 30 years doesnt think so, neither does my uncle who is a doctor, or two of my cousins in the medical profession. There would be layoffs or pay would be reduced. Thats where most of the "savings" would come from on the cost of a government run healthcare system. The wait times would come because we have a larger population, as well as fewer doctors and nurses in the field because these greedy medical professionals charge more than what the government thinks they should get. if you are in the medical profession, think about how many places dont take medicaid or medicare and WHY that is. Most medical professionals WOULD work on the amount they would get from the government, but say it doesnt pay the bills.

As for the sound clip. What romney actually said is that  at least 47 percent of the nation would not vote for him no matter what he did. This much is true. He said 47 percent also paid no income taxes (which is accurate, since every tax center in the country agrees with that). he then said that many of the ones that wont vote for him feel they ae entitled to government handouts for everything from food to houseing to meical care. What most seem to be bitching at is that romney basically called liberals entitled moochers. I would share your anger except i remember obama calling all conservatives bitter people that cling to guns and religion because they dont agree with him.  I sdidnt cling to guns or religion, but I did think it was snobby and an insult


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I would share your anger except i remember obama calling all conservatives bitter people that cling to guns and religion because they dont agree with him.  I sdidnt cling to guns or religion, but I did think it was snobby and an insult



People aren't questioning what Romney said, just that he's a complete asshole for saying it, especially because he's talking about our military - Who he wants to invest more money in to. 

I'd like to see the quote on that. Obama doesn't really sound like the type to paint with such a broad brush, especially because he's a Christian himself.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 23, 2012)

Aetius said:


> The Vice President literally just has to look pretty and do Jack Shit (look at Biden).


Look at it this way, Palin would've been only one heart attack away from running the country...


----------



## Aetius (Sep 23, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Look at it this way, Palin would've been only one heart attack away from running the country...



He seems pretty alive to me :V


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 23, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Nah, Afghanistan is, was, and always will be pointless.  It's called the "empire killer" for a reason, besides no one wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghan peoples.



"Never get involved in a land war in Asia."




Commie Bat said:


> Off-topic: I've never understood how some Americans/American politicians can hate universal healthcare so much.


It's Big Goberment, and one step closer to Soviet Union communism. /1950s.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 23, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> People aren't questioning what Romney said, just that he's a complete asshole for saying it, especially because he's talking about our military - Who he wants to invest more money in to.




I am not defending his remarks per se, but in the media I see a lot of things about it that are  making it into a bigger thing than it is. Basically he made a statement that was overly bored, and likely was not thinking over it dully. I doubt strongly he had the military in mind when he said it, or seniors or any other group. he was likely thinking of the "welfare queen" which is a stereotype among some in the right wing. He was right that 47 percent do not pay taxes and  most people who feel entitled to government moneywill not vore dor him, but it wuld have made more sense if he had separated the two, since not all people that do not pay invome taxes want more government entitlements.



			
				Lastdirewolf;3050271
I'd like to see the quote on that. Obama doesn't really sound like the type to paint with such a broad brush said:
			
		

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/04/obama-explains-2/
> 
> "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
> ...


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 23, 2012)

I saw the Obama "gaffe" all over the news for MONTHS when it happened. Maybe that's because I live in PA, though. 

The difference is, Obama was talking about a smaller group of people that had things in common other than their political leanings. He didn't say "Everyone who supports McCain clings to their guns and religion" like Romney did with his gaffe. Obama said that there were small towns in the midwest where there haven't been jobs in a long time and that they cling to guns and religion to try to explain their frustrations. It's a much more defined group of people and it's MUCH LESS of an insult, no matter how butthurt people may have gotten over it. Saying someone blames frustrations on certain scapegoat issues is so much less insulting than saying that almost half the country are essentially mooching off the government and can't take care of themselves and only vote Obama because he'll give them free shit.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 23, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> I saw the Obama "gaffe" all over the news for MONTHS when it happened. Maybe that's because I live in PA, though.
> 
> The difference is, Obama was talking about a smaller group of people that had things in common other than their political leanings. He didn't say "Everyone who supports McCain clings to their guns and religion" like Romney did with his gaffe. Obama said that there were small towns in the midwest where there haven't been jobs in a long time and that they cling to guns and religion to try to explain their frustrations. It's a much more defined group of people and it's MUCH LESS of an insult, no matter how butthurt people may have gotten over it. Saying someone blames frustrations on certain scapegoat issues is so much less insulting than saying that almost half the country are essentially mooching off the government and can't take care of themselves and only vote Obama because he'll give them free shit.



Romney's statement hit the elderly, the poor, the military, the extremely wealthy (a number of them didn't pay their income taxes or used loopholes/tax-avoidance companies), mostly live in Republican states, pay an almost equal total amount if you include other taxes (in which they don't have the finances for loopholes), and so forth. 

His words might be correct, but he forgot to add a whole lot of things and insulted a whole mess of people on his way there. The numbers aren't as skewed as he states them to be.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 23, 2012)

I am more of the opinion that both candidates made stupid statements that they would not have said if they knew they would have been caught. Obamas "bitter clingers to guns and religion" and romneys "47 percent" are sweeping statements that will insult a lot of people, as will most statements that generalize a large portion of the population. Politics doesnt work that way, you dont have to be in a group he described to be insulted by something. I dont own guns or cling to religion or hate immigrants, but I am from a small town in the midwest (or south, depending on how one classes northern arkansas). I still took offense at it even if i was not one he described.  Romeny is likely in the same boat with this, most of the people feeling anger about it were already not voting for him anyway, and are not in the group he talked about. 

http://theweek.com/article/index/233491/romneys-47-percent-vs-obamas-bitter-clingers-which-is-worse

I fall into the "both were equally stupid" camp.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 23, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I am more of the opinion that both candidates made stupid statements that they would not have said if they knew they would have been caught. Obamas "bitter clingers to guns and religion" and romneys "47 percent" are sweeping statements that will insult a lot of people, as will most statements that generalize a large portion of the population. Politics doesnt work that way, you dont have to be in a group he described to be insulted by something. I dont own guns or cling to religion or hate immigrants, but I am from a small town in the midwest (or south, depending on how one classes northern arkansas). I still took offense at it even if i was not one he described.  Romeny is likely in the same boat with this, most of the people feeling anger about it were already not voting for him anyway, and are not in the group he talked about.
> 
> http://theweek.com/article/index/233491/romneys-47-percent-vs-obamas-bitter-clingers-which-is-worse
> 
> I fall into the "both were equally stupid" camp.


The difference is Romney insulted a far larger number of americans.


----------



## Kahoku (Sep 23, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> This is going to end in tears. Just sayin'.



Word, and I am going Obama.


----------



## Kahoku (Sep 23, 2012)

Gibby said:


> why aren't I on the poll?
> 
> Fix it now.



I love you and will have your kids.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 23, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> The difference is Romney insulted a far larger number of americans.



So what?  Who the fuck cares how many people either of them insulted?  Christ, were making it out to be a game of one-up. 

The thing people should be concerned with is that this is a guy who's trying to reform fiscal policy in this country who believes that the middle class makes $200,000 or less and clearly doesn't have those 47% on his mind, aside from those who are like him. 

Seriously, the collateral damage isn't as important as the message he's putting forth. That being again that anyone who doesn't play the system or has millions of dollars stashed away in offshore accounts and investments clearly isn't worth his time. This is what the Republican Party was afraid of and why they were searching for someone, anyone who could run for president besides Romney. The dude is the quintessential snake-oil salesman with a 1980's Gordon Gecko vibe. 

His problem is that he's too Republican for the Republican Party. And before you start blasting off on DEM LIBRULS Cod, I'm a moderate who holds enough sense to know that "voting for the platform" and voting out an incumbent for the sake that they are the incumbent is fuckin stupid.

I don't think anyone here is a 100% supporter of everything Obama has done or what the democrats have done. But right now guys like Romney and Ryan are simply not what this country needs right now and certainly not even what their own party needs right now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 23, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> So what?  Who the fuck cares how many people either of them insulted?  Christ, were making it out to be a game of one-up.
> 
> The thing people should be concerned with is that this is a guy who's trying to reform fiscal policy in this country who believes that the middle class makes $200,000 or less and clearly doesn't have those 47% on his mind, aside from those who are like him.
> 
> ...


I know that.
What I was getting at is Romney shot his presidential run in the face with buckshot.

Yeah, the republican party was hoping for anyone but romney cause I think everyone knew he was going to say something like this eventually.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 23, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> His problem is that he's too Republican for the Republican Party. And before you start blasting off on DEM LIBRULS Cod, I'm a moderate who holds enough sense to know that "voting for the platform" and voting out an incumbent for the sake that they are the incumbent is fuckin stupid.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is a 100% supporter of everything Obama has done or what the democrats have done. But right now guys like Romney and Ryan are simply not what this country needs right now and certainly not even what their own party needs right now.



I don't see liberals as evil, or even bad people. i diagree with their policies. I would actually be considered moderate, jsut leaning conservative/right, I am not voting  they way i am because obama is the incumbent but because i disagree with his polices. i dont agree with the republicans fully either, but agree more with them than the democrats. I actually like ryan more than romney, but i dont really think any of them, the 2 presidential candidates or their VPs would be "the end of america" if they were elected or ran the country.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I don't see liberals as evil, or even bad people. i diagree with their policies. I would actually be considered moderate, jsut leaning conservative/right, I am not voting  they way i am because obama is the incumbent but because i disagree with his polices. i dont agree with the republicans fully either, but agree more with them than the democrats. I actually like ryan more than romney, but i dont really think any of them, the 2 presidential candidates or their VPs would be "the end of america" if they were elected or ran the country.



I don't think you really understand the political spectrum.  Ryan is a harder-right, even-greedier asshole than Romney is.  He loves Ayn Rand and the only reason he isn't an outright Objectivist is because then he couldn't be a fundie Christian too.

And if Justice Ginsburg dies while a Republican is in office, it really pretty much is game over for America.  That's the bottom line that people should be talking about more.


----------



## softi (Sep 24, 2012)

Lobar said:


> I don't think you really understand the political spectrum.  Ryan is a harder-right, even-greedier asshole than Romney is.  He loves Ayn Rand and the only reason he isn't an outright Objectivist is because then he couldn't be a fundie Christian too.
> 
> And if Justice Ginsburg dies while a Republican is in office, it really pretty much is game over for America.  That's the bottom line that people should be talking about more.



lobar whats your facebook address

EDIT: i want to yiff you and have your pinapple squirrel babbies


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 24, 2012)

Lobar said:


> And if Justice Ginsburg dies while a Republican is in office, it really pretty much is game over for America.


Considering that Obama is leading in Florida, Ohio, Idaho and that Hillary is running next election I don't think we're going to have to worry about that.


----------



## Hir (Sep 24, 2012)

i will vote for vermin supreme


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 24, 2012)

BouncyOtter said:


> Everything you've said is true, and I agree with it.  If I had to pick between the two systems, I think public healthcare would be better if implemented properly.  I've just been trying (and failing) to say that neither system is perfect, and that the US is never going to adopt universal healthcare unless there is some miraculous change, but even the simple changes of Obamacare have been hard to pass.  Most physicians in the US are not happy with these changes because unfortunately to be highly successful hospitals and medicine in general needs to be treated like big business (sounds obvious).  Patients still trust physicians a lot, but there is an increasing disconnect between patients and physicians.  There are a lot of problems that would occur with such a radical shift in healthcare systems.
> 
> As a future physician myself, we are trying to learn to deal with these changes while keeping the patient's needs first.  We are in a constant struggle with the government and insurance companies and as mentioned earlier any change is met with massive opposition.



<nods> Fair enough. It certainly appears that the ideological fixation in certain sectors of "public sector bad, private sector good!" doesn't help matters, let alone the vested interest of Big Medicine Businesses as you've described.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 24, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> What I was getting at is Romney shot his presidential run in the face with buckshot.



I think you mean "_whacked his presidential chances in the nuts with a wrecking ball_". Or as one NZ blog commenter put it, "_he couldnâ€™t have fucked himself harder if heâ€™d sat on an elephant dildo._"

And if this is how Romney handles dealing with the American public, how the *hell* is he going to perform on the world stage as the (so-called) "leader of the free world" - given that he managed to piss off America's closest ally (the UK) during what was just a "smile and wave" visit to the _Olympic Games_?

With Romney's current record of only opening his mouth to change feet, if by some chance he _did_ become US president he'll probably wind up kicking off two more brand-new wars within six months...


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 24, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> I think you mean "_whacked his presidential chances in the nuts with a wrecking ball_". Or as one NZ blog commenter put it, "_he couldnâ€™t have fucked himself harder if heâ€™d sat on an elephant dildo._"
> 
> And if this is how Romney handles dealing with the American public, how the *hell* is he going to perform on the world stage as the (so-called) "leader of the free world" - given that he managed to piss off America's closest ally (the UK) during what was just a "smile and wave" visit to the _Olympic Games_?
> 
> With Romney's current record of only opening his mouth to change feet, if by some chance he _did_ become US president he'll probably wind up kicking off two more brand-new wars within six months...


Naw, chances are he won't make it past the debates.  If by some miracle he does become president then he'll become a lame duck president extremely fast considering that part of being president is being a good debater and public speaker that can connect with the general populace.  Romney is neither.  So there's no way in hell he'd be able to get us to go to a long term war again.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 24, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Considering that Obama is leading in Florida, Ohio, Idaho and that Hillary is running next election I don't think we're going to have to worry about that.



Isnt she retiring at the end of the year? I doubt she would run.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 24, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Isnt she retiring at the end of the year? I doubt she would run.


She's retiring from cabinet cause she's fed up with Obama and has been eyeing a 2016 run for a while.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 24, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Naw, chances are he won't make it past the debates.  If by some miracle he does become president then he'll become a lame duck president extremely fast considering that part of being president is being a good debater and public speaker that can connect with the general populace.  Romney is neither.  So there's no way in hell he'd be able to get us to go to a long term war again.



He's already broadly insulted a vast number of people on all sides, and we haven't even gotten to the debates yet. He's just inexplicably forward on helping businesses and millionaires get richer, and I've barely encountered a thing that suggests he has any positive plans for the poor and middle class - Just plans to help those who make over 200k while gutting things below 100k to pay for it.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 24, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> She's retiring from cabinet cause she's fed up with Obama and has been eyeing a 2016 run for a while.



Really? I haven't heard much news that remotely implies that.


----------



## ScaredToBreathe (Sep 24, 2012)

I'm not a fan of Romney's social politics but I am not a fan of Obama's economic choices.
In the end I would probably say Romney just because I think he would provide some reforms for programs that REALLY need it (i.e. WIC) and cut spending.
The way I see it, politicians often use hot-button social issues to get people riled up. They don't actually do a whole lot about them in office. So I'm not all that worried that Romney would take away abortion, gay rights and a woman's right to leave the house.
But I'm not old enough to legally vote, so it doesn't really matter what I think anyway.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 24, 2012)

ScaredToBreathe said:


> I'm not a fan of Romney's social politics but I am not a fan of Obama's economic choices.
> In the end I would probably say Romney just because I think he would provide some reforms for programs that REALLY need it (i.e. WIC) and cut spending.



WIC doesn't need much reforming, just the EBT program. It needs it...a lot.
They need to remove the ability to buy junk food (Snack cakes, sodas, candy, etc) with EBT cards and offer discounts on buying fresh fruits and veggies (not frozen).


----------



## Aleu (Sep 24, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> WIC doesn't need much remorming, just the EBT program. It needs it...a lot.
> They need to remove the ability to buy junk food (Snack cakes, sodas, candy, etc) with EBT cards and offer discounts on buying fresh fruits and veggies (not frozen).



The ability to buy toilet paper would be nice. Seriously, can't buy that stuff with the benefits card unless you have children. ARGH.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 24, 2012)

Aleu said:


> The ability to buy toilet paper would be nice. Seriously, can't buy that stuff with the benefits card unless you have children. ARGH.



And tolietries like soap, tooth pastes, deoderant.


----------



## Kosdu (Sep 24, 2012)

Can anybody explain that olympics comment to me, with qoutes?

Read it... Didn't seem such a big deal.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 24, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> And tolietries like soap, tooth pastes, deoderant.



All of this very much yes. I mean, they want us to get a job...how can we do that if we smell like ass and can't afford decent soap?


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 24, 2012)

Aleu said:


> All of this very much yes. I mean, they want us to get a job...how can we do that if we smell like ass and can't afford decent soap?



because they wanna keep tha 'po folk down.
I mean if they hate poor people so much, why not bring back the Eugenics program? The rich people would have more money and less worries about giving money and assistance to those who need it. :V


----------



## Bread (Sep 24, 2012)

I'm for the most part conservative but I'm pretty torn on this election, haven't decided yet.
I probably would of voted for Ron Paul but now that I've read more into him I'm kind of glad he's no longer in the race.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 24, 2012)

Bread said:


> I'm for the most part conservative but I'm pretty torn on this election, haven't decided yet.
> I probably would of voted for Ron Paul but now that I've read more into him I'm kind of glad he's no longer in the race.



Surprising since he was considered to be the two legged-horse old horse with wieght problems. The only reason he wasn't taken out of the race is because people made a fan base around that horse, or pity because he was trying so hard.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 24, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> because they wanna keep tha 'po folk down.
> I mean if they hate poor people so much, why not bring back the Eugenics program? The rich people would have more money and less worries about giving money and assistance to those who need it. :V


"Curse those poor people. They need to get jobs!"
...
-votes down adding in things to help others acquire said jobs-


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 24, 2012)

Aleu said:


> "Curse those poor people. They need to get jobs!"
> ...
> -votes down adding in things to help others acquire said jobs-



The poor are needed to gasp in awe at your immense wealth...while cleaning your houses and mowing your lawns. Let's be honest, that's all they are good for. Keep the masses uneducated and poor so you can have servants who cannot do simple math or read a book.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 24, 2012)

Aleu said:


> "Curse those poor people. They need to get jobs!"
> ...
> -votes down adding in things to help others acquire said jobs-



It's all about wage suppression.  Desperate workers are compliant workers.


----------



## Charles Rabbit (Sep 24, 2012)

Ron Paul 2012


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 24, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I don't see liberals as evil, or even bad people. i diagree with their policies. I would actually be considered moderate, jsut leaning conservative/right, I am not voting  they way i am because obama is the incumbent but because i disagree with his polices. i dont agree with the republicans fully either, but agree more with them than the democrats. I actually like ryan more than romney, but i dont really think any of them, the 2 presidential candidates or their VPs would be "the end of america" if they were elected or ran the country.



I'm not seeing how you can like either of them, especially considering Ryan there is a habitual liar.

Even on trivial shit like how many marathons he won and what times.  Granted, a candidate's marathon time is not a qualifier for the presidency or any office underneath, but the fact that he decided something as meaningless as his status as a marathon runner needed to be fabricated, I don't hold high hopes for the man.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 24, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm not seeing how you can like either of them, especially considering Ryan there is a habitual liar.
> 
> Even on trivial shit like how many marathons he won and what times.  Granted, a candidate's marathon time is not a qualifier for the presidency or any office underneath, but the fact that he decided something as meaningless as his status as a marathon runner needed to be fabricated, I don't hold high hopes for the man.



I honestly do not like ANY of the candidates. Obama-biden or Romney-ryan. I dont base my voting of a president solely on the VP pick. I didnt like sarah palin at all, but that didnt influence my vote muchThe president is less important than the senate and house of representatives anyway, as all the democrats complaining of "republican obstructionism" show. As for ryan being a habitual liar, i can say the same about Obama (and most other politicians out there).


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 24, 2012)

Charles Rabbit said:


> Ron Paul 2012


He can't win don't jizz yourself


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 25, 2012)

Aleu said:


> The ability to buy toilet paper would be nice. Seriously, can't buy that stuff with the benefits card unless you have children. ARGH.



Wait, WHAT? Friggin' _bog roll_ is now considered a luxury in the US if you're single and on welfare?!?

How do they expect you to take that kind of shit?


----------



## Lobar (Sep 25, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Wait, WHAT? Friggin' _bog roll_ is now considered a luxury in the US if you're single and on welfare?!?
> 
> How do they expect you to take that kind of shit?



With leaves, apparently.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 25, 2012)

Despite eight years of Bush-isms, I don't think I've read anything as fundamentally STUPID coming from a US presidential candidate as this:



> Romneyâ€™s wife, Ann, was in attendance, and the candidate spoke of the concern he had for her when her plane had to make an emergency landing Friday en route to Santa Monica because of an electrical  malfunction.
> 
> â€œI appreciate the fact that she is on the ground, safe and sound. And I donâ€™t think she knows just how worried some of us were,â€ Romney said. *â€œWhen you have a fire in an aircraft, thereâ€™s no place to go, exactly, thereâ€™s no â€” and you canâ€™t find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows donâ€™t open. I donâ€™t know why they donâ€™t do that. Itâ€™s a real problem. So itâ€™s very dangerous. *And she was choking and rubbing her eyes. Fortunately, there was enough oxygen for the pilot and copilot to make a safe landing in Denver. But sheâ€™s safe and sound.â€ (emphasis added)



Well geez, I don't know, maybe aircraft windows don't open at altitude because the plane would immediately de-pressurise and you'd be getting a 200kph+ wind through the cabin?

THIS is the brains trust Republicans want to lead the USA?

Fuck me, Romney's making George W. Bush look like Stephen Hawking...


----------



## Lobar (Sep 25, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Despite eight years of Bush-isms, I don't think I've read anything as fundamentally STUPID coming from a US presidential candidate as this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think this is just what happens when robots try to tell jokes (about their wives...in fiery plane crashes...while they're standing right next to them...).


----------



## Charles Rabbit (Sep 25, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> He can't win don't jizz yourself


 Yes, Ron Paul can't win because the GOP is rigged. I'm keeping my boots on the ground and voting for what I believe. I will write him in. My vote will count to me. What he stands for is what I stand for.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 25, 2012)

Charles Rabbit said:


> Yes, Ron Paul can't win because the GOP is rigged. I'm keeping my boots on the ground and voting for what I believe. I will write him in. My vote will count to me. What he stands for is what I stand for.



Rigged?  Anyone can vote for him or anyone they want as a write in...Nothing's rigged technically.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 25, 2012)

Charles Rabbit said:


> Yes, Ron Paul can't win because the GOP is rigged. I'm keeping my boots on the ground and voting for what I believe. I will write him in. My vote will count to me. What he stands for is what I stand for.


WHooooooosh


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 25, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I'm not seeing how you can like either of them, especially considering Ryan there is a habitual liar.
> 
> Even on trivial shit like how many marathons he won and what times.  Granted, a candidate's marathon time is not a qualifier for the presidency or any office underneath, but the fact that he decided something as meaningless as his status as a marathon runner needed to be fabricated, I don't hold high hopes for the man.



Think about it this way:
You are voting for class president and the two choices you have are a dumb as nails person who believes that the class should have more freedom and less homework, and the other who smells of piss who believes that more homework and studies would bring the school out of the gutter and into the limelight. In order to make sure your vote counts, you vote for the one who doesn't smell like piss and called a "Litte faggy queer" by him and his friends. :V


----------



## Aetius (Sep 25, 2012)

Charles Rabbit said:


> Yes, Ron Paul can't win because the GOP is rigged. I'm keeping my boots on the ground and voting for what I believe. I will write him in. My vote will count to me. What he stands for is what I stand for.



Maybe nobdy voted for him because he had terrible ideas?


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 25, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Maybe nobdy voted for him because he had terrible ideas?



Vermin Supreme > Ron Paul


----------



## Bread (Sep 25, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> But, state rights!  :V


I did agree with him on that
correct me if I'm wrong but didn't he vote for the "protection of marriage" and vote against same sex couples having the right to adopt children ?


----------



## Charles Rabbit (Sep 25, 2012)

Well, the media ignored him and did not give him a fair chance out of all the other players. Hes honest on what he says (check his voting record), and doesn't not spin talk. Do your research! It would seem like furries would want liberty and freedom since they express themselves alot. WAKE UP! Ask any questions, I'll find something for you!

He receives twice as much from military then all the republican members combined from the military. Mitt Romney biggest contribution is Goldman Sachs (The person who owns the FED. The FED prints money, The FED is private owned.) Ron Paul's goal is to wake up America.

Veterans For Ron Paul at Washington (400 Veterans Troops)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAfGTb2YAIA

Who is Ron Paul? 10 mins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8Z5lexXMPA&feature=related


Losing America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DVOvGTg8ylA&feature=related

Ron Paul Crowds Vs Others
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIP-ibpRYIY

Media controls what "if" and "what" you think of Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKMnQYV_twM&feature=related

Twice as much from military then all the republican members combined
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91LiOxG7YHw&feature=related

Ron Paul Top Donations
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CE_jimq5aAU


Ron Paul Predictions 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

Romney Cheats
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcqbSCsVtuw&feature=related

Wake Up America
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABaMHiJIy4k&feature=channel&list=UL

Ron Paul Crowds Vs Others
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIP-ibpRYIY

Ron Paul RNC Tribute Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ1aXD3_cVw

Why the media ignores Ron Paul
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7oBdgazJI

Ron Paul Message to Supporters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOHlN5JWsw8

Does Minimum Wage Hurt Workers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct1Moeaa-W8

Why Not Print More Money
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkyBnaYCUhw&feature=relmfu

And lots more.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 25, 2012)

Charles Rabbit said:


> W Things like online votes (Like CNN), where Ron Paul got 93% votes, then the media removes the poll right after. He goal is to wake up America.



You do know that the reason they recycle online polls is because:

1: The are utterly pointless and frivolous

2: So many people rig them with spambots, that they are legendary for not even being close to what a poll is.


----------



## Charles Rabbit (Sep 25, 2012)

Removed by user


----------



## Aetius (Sep 25, 2012)

Charles Rabbit said:


> True, Anonymous support for Ron Paul might have spammed botted too.  *There must be lots of  dedication for Ron Paul for them to use spam bot and not the others then.*



Its more of a case of people wanting to fuck around.


----------



## Charles Rabbit (Sep 25, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Its more of a case of people wanting to fuck around.


I don't think so. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1DA1nLwicY

Ron Paul Crowds  VS Others (Real People)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIP-ibpRYIY


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 25, 2012)

It's actually true, and not, that Ron Paul won Iowa, because the reasoning is a rule loophole. Iowa's delegation is chosen based on who is the last at the caucus generally. Ron Paul's supporters figured this rule out and camped the caucus out, most who go don't even know the rule. So when it came to choosing delegates, they were almost entirely Ron Paul supporters, which lead to confusion as to why the straw polls contested the delegates, the ones who actually choose. All thanks to a little knowledge into the caucus. But when it came to the actual RNC, they instituted a new rule; that delegates had to choose based upon the public vote, not upon who they personally supported, and thus Iowa was forced to go to Mitt Romney, since Rick Santorum had already dropped out of the race and Mitt Romney was second in the public polls in Iowa. Both parties were rigging that particular election.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 25, 2012)

Charles Rabbit said:


> Well, the media ignored him and did not give him a fair chance out of all the other players. Hes honest on what he says (check his voting record), and doesn't not spin talk. Do your research!



http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ron-paul/

This seems to indicate that he has about 39% mostly false or worse, as compared with Obama's 27%, Romney's 42%, Gingrich's 57%, Santorum's 44%, Perry's 48%, Cain's 69%, and Trump's 70%. 

So it is true that, according to politifact.com and their fact checking on controversial statements, he was better than any Republican candidate that had a chance, really. He was still higher than Obama by a significant margin with making false statements, though. 


Although I'd chalk it up to him just being stupid and kind of crazy instead of a liar, so I guess your statement is true.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 25, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ron-paul/
> 
> This seems to indicate that he has about 39% mostly false or worse, as compared with Obama's 27%, Romney's 42%, Gingrich's 57%, Santorum's 44%, Perry's 48%, Cain's 69%, and Trump's 70%.
> 
> ...



Still, I find it funny Ron keeps running because none of the other candidates take him seriously. The GOP wouldn't even let him speak at their convention. :V


----------



## Lobar (Sep 25, 2012)

Ron Paul was the craziest guy running in the Republican primary in 2008

and one of the _least_ crazy guys in the primary for 2012

this should tell you something


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 25, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Ron Paul was the craziest guy running in the Republican primary in 2008
> 
> and one of the _least_ crazy guys in the primary for 2012
> 
> this should tell you something


I love Ron Paul, but not for the reason you'd think - he's the only different voice in all the candidates, ever. Where Republican primaries are one-upmanship of who is the most jingoistic, who is the most Conservative, Ron Paul pipes up with the only competition, and the only one willing to make other candidates argue their position, instead of Anything You Can Do I Can Do Better. Whereas Democratic primaries range from center-right to leftists, Republican primaries are right to far right. The Grand Old Party is slowly shrinking their tent size, and the Democrats keep inflating theirs


----------



## Lobar (Sep 25, 2012)

I will give Ron Paul credit for having principles and being unafraid to stick to them even when it's not what his audience wants to hear.

they just happen to be crazy principles


----------



## Aetius (Sep 25, 2012)

Lobar said:


> they just happen to be crazy principles



Specially him wanting to cut taxes even lower and create more Laissez-Faire economics....


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 25, 2012)

This is how I see most young Ron Paul supporters:
"Ron Paul is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! I'm going to vote for him because of this!" *completely ignores the rest of his positions and plans for America*


----------



## Captain Howdy (Sep 26, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> This is how I see most young Ron Paul supporters:
> "Ron Paul is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! I'm going to vote for him because of this!" *completely ignores the rest of his positions and plans for America*



That's how a lot of voters vote, sadly. Just switch 'Ron Paul' as well as 'wars' with basically any candidate or issue :v


----------



## Lobar (Sep 26, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> This is how I see most young Ron Paul supporters:
> "Ron Paul is against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan! I'm going to vote for him because of this!" *completely ignores the rest of his positions and plans for America*



you forgot pot


----------



## Batty Krueger (Sep 26, 2012)

We're voting communist.
Both Romney and Obama are just terrible people.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

d.batty said:


> We're voting communist.
> Both Romney and Obama are just terrible people.


You'd be better off voting for Stewart Alexander of the Socialist Party of America, because the Communist Party keeps nominating candidates that can't legally take office as protest against those rules. Which would be clever if they had a chance of getting elected.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2012)

Well this election is already over.  Obama is ahead of romney by around 10% in all of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Ohio and Pennsylvania.



This greatly surprises me.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> This greatly surprises me.


It's cause the closer we're getting to the election the dumber Romney is getting when in front of a microphone.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> It's cause the closer we're getting to the election the dumber Romney is getting when in front of a microphone.


Yeah, but everyone in the rural areas around me seem to be so upset with Obama and his "lies" that they would never vote for him. Maybe people out east are more intelligent.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2012)

Yanks be merciful.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 26, 2012)

The election was over months ago.

The important thing is to make the margin as big as possible and that the Democrats regain the House, otherwise I feel gloomy about your and our future.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> The election was over months ago.
> 
> The important thing is to make the margin as big as possible and that the Democrats regain the House, otherwise I feel gloomy about your and our future.


We still have 40 something days until the election, three debates and plenty of oppurtunities for golden youtube moments.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> We still have 40 something days until the election, three debates and plenty of oppurtunities for golden youtube moments.


Plus Conservatives think they have it in a bag, still. There's a meme on Conservative forums that all the polls are oversampling Democrats, thus leading to http://unskewedpolls.com/ which is what all the right-wingers are talking about.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Plus Conservatives think they have it in a bag, still. There's a meme on Conservative forums that all the polls are oversampling Democrats, thus leading to http://unskewedpolls.com/ which is what all the right-wingers are talking about.


And there is a massive problem Romney is having.  Biased polls are dandy for propoganda, but you don't actually want to use it for election strategy.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> And there is a massive rpoblem Romney is having.  Biased polls are dandy for propoganda, but you don't actually want to use it for election strategy.


The only real strategy he can have at this point is abandoning Ohio entirely. Obama has a 5-10 point lead advantage there. But then he'd have to win every other toss-up state in order to win enough EVs, and that's not a very likely outcome.

Five Thirty Eight is also putting forward a Democratic senate majority at 82.8% probability.


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 26, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Yanks be merciful.



It's no surprise that Israel is the only country with over 50% support for Romney, seeing as Romney's Middle East policy appears to be basically making the USA Israel's bitch


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> It's no surprise that Israel is the only country with over 50% support for Romney, seeing as Romney's Middle East policy appears to be basically making the USA Israel's bitch



Bending it over and fucking Israel in the ass. :V


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 26, 2012)

This election is not "in the bag" for either candidate. It will come down to thwe wire and will be a close election.

The mistake many in the media and likely here are making is that this will be 2008 all over again. It will not be. 2008 was an unusual year with very high voter turnouts, I doubt that will happen in this year. Many of those voting for obama in 08 were hugely enthusiastic and motivated to vote, which i doubt is the same in 2012. 

Obama won in 2008 by 7 points and 10 million votes to mccain. I honestly do not see history repeating itself. Mcacain got 45.7% of the vote to Obama's 52.9%. That was in a year when pretty much everything weent right for Obama. You had an inept, widely hated republican president in office, with an economic collapse happening right before the election(democrats are usually considered stronger on democestic issues like the economy), Obama offering change from all that and hppe for a better future, Mccain seeming erratic and most republicans not liking him much anyway, and huge voter turnouts in largely democratic voting areas, while most republicans didnt like mecain and stayed home. It was the perfect storm as it were. This is not true in 2012.

In addition, another VERY important factor in this election is the electoral college. The 2010 census changed which states  get more votes in the electoral college. Texas gained the most seats, with four votes. Texas is a GOP state, Florida gained 2 votes in the college, its a toss up, Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, Washington all gained one seat. Of those Washington is theonly safe democrat sate, nevada went for obama in 08, unsure if it will this time, the other 4 are republican. Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, all lost one seat, of those states, only Louisiana and Missouri are republican the rest lean democrat. New York and Ohio(!!!) lost 2 seats in the electoral college, NY is democrat, Ohio is a swing state. States losing seats in the electoral college are less important to win, states gaining electoral college seats are more important to win, thus electoral college gains favor republicans, not democrats. Most of the news and others i see are still using the 2008 electoral college results which are now inaccurate.

Even in a perfect storm scenario in 2008 obama won 52 percent of the vote and 10 million more voters voting for him than mccain. This will not happen in 2012 because voters have actually seen obama now and many do not like his policies. Obama may win the presidency, but you are setting yourself up for disappointment if you think it will be any kind of landslide or mandate on obamas part. Incumbents only win in landslides if they are very popular, and obama isn't. I expect it to be a close election either way.

As to the house and senate, democrats will likely keep control of the senate, but the republicans will control the house. Democratic control of the sentate will likely be diminished, but still stand. The sneate however, is in play. The house though, is not, it is very likely to stay GOP dominated. Theres no sign of a national wave that would throw the House GOP out of power, and Democrats must defend 20 seats, compared to 16 for the GOP. Democrats woud lneed 25 seats to take control of the house, and that is very unlikely.


----------



## Saylor (Sep 26, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> This election is not "in the bag" for either candidate. It will come down to thwe wire and will be a close election
> 
> The mistake many in the media and likly here are making is that this will be 2008 all over again. It will not be. 2008 was an unusual year with very high voter turnouts, I doubt that will happen in this year. Many of those voting for obama in 08 were hugely enthusiastic and motivated to vote, which i doubt is the same in 2012.
> 
> ...



Could not have been better said than that. I agree with you completely on how you stated that Obama won't get as many votes as some people are expecting because of how some people changed their minds on Obama and his policies. I know that I will be working at the elections as a poll manager this November, so I might be able to get an idea of what the election results will be for the precinct that I will be working in, but I won't be able to share it with anyone since the results are supposed to be kept confidential.

EDIT: I am going to be voting for Obama this election, mainly because I feel that if Romney is elected, that he will piss off Iran so much that Iran will nuke Israel, thus causing a chain of events that will lead to WW3. But there are a lot of points that I disagree with that Obama is trying to change. One of those points is Obama's ideas on gun control, I personally believe that you should be able to own the biggest and fastest shooting gun in the world as long as it is NOT used as a weapon.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 26, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> The election was over months ago.
> 
> The important thing is to make the margin as big as possible and that the Democrats regain the House, otherwise I feel gloomy about your and our future.



They might still be able to hold on their majority in the Senate, but I doubt a house takeover would take place. (They should be getting 5-9 seats this year)


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> -stuff-



You're overgeneralizing, dude.

People are split inbetweeen candidates with 50% agreeing with Romney and 50% agreeing with Obama (gallup.com), but poll tallies are putting Obama (D) about 6 points ahead of Romeny (R) in the Polls. Obama is in the lead with electorial votes (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground) at the moment, but time will tell. Some Republicans are fed up with the flip-floping that the GOP candidate is doing at the moment to win votes, as well as some "Questionable" things he has been saying either on stage, behind closed doors, or what the Ads are saying. 

At most, some are saying that it will be a tie-off between the two candidates. Time will tell I guess come November.

This seems like another Kangaroo election, like with the election that ended in Bush's second term.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> This election is not "in the bag" for either candidate. It will come down to thwe wire and will be a close election


According to opinion polls Obama already has 265 electors for sure - he would only need _five_ more. 

But, hey, one can never tell!


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> According to opinion polls Obama already has 265 electors for sure - he would only need _five_ more.
> 
> But, hey, one can never tell!



Epic Beardman republican!


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

Obama definitely has the edge in EVs presently, and Florida is leaning Obama. Romney is facing an uphill battle, I don't think he has it in him to pull out a hat trick, he hasn't really endeared himself recently to anyone, and has alienated many. I mean, we have Republicans losing their seats recently and blaming Mitt Romney's campaign, it's all gone tits up.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Obama definitely has the edge in EVs presently, and Florida is leaning Obama. Romney is facing an uphill battle, I don't think he has it in him to pull out a hat trick, he hasn't really endeared himself recently to anyone, and has alienated many. I mean, we have Republicans losing their seats recently and blaming Mitt Romney's campaign, it's all gone tits up.



Romney could always win over Vegans and say that Obama fucks his dog. :V


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Romney could always win over Vegans and say that Obama fucks his dog. :V


You mean Mr. Strapped-His-Dog-To-The-Top-Of-His-Car? Yeah, I think he's lost that vote.

Besides, Vegans vote for Jill Stein.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> You mean Mr. Strapped-His-Dog-To-The-Top-Of-His-Car? Yeah, I think he's lost that vote.
> 
> Besides, Vegans vote for Jill Stein.



"Green" party? (no pun intended)

I actually had a chance to talk to him for one of my PS projects since she was a hardcore raw vegan and Jill was at the PETA headquarters. >.>


----------



## Bliss (Sep 26, 2012)

When Bill Clinton opens his mouth one gets on one's knees and does so too.

[yt]uzDhk3BHi6Q[/yt]


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> "Green" party? (no pun intended)
> 
> I actually had a chance to talk to him for one of my PS projects since she was a hardcore raw vegan and Jill was at the PETA headquarters. >.>


I actually see the PETA endorsement as a negative, but that's because I've had bad experiences with the PETA in the past. A bunch of guys made a fake video of a cow getting ground up that PETA swore was real, even when we showed them the original videos were just mashed together to make it look real, and I realized at that point PETA lies to its members as much as any other political organization. I hate liars.



Commie Bat said:


> You've got to be kidding.
> 
> Iran is full of air, and always acts like they're the 'tuff kid' yet they aren't. I'd be more afraid of Israel attacking Iran...and every other Middle Eastern country for that matter. Thus calling for your assistance, dragging you guys into another Mid East war.
> 
> Besides, when has the last time Iran has attacked anyone, compared to Israel?


Someone pointed out something funny to me. Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq were all considered the Axis of Evil. Out of the three of these, only one has nuclear capability... and only one wasn't invaded by America. After that, I kind of understood why they were adamant about having them.


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 26, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> You're overgeneralizing, dude.
> 
> People are split inbetweeen candidates with 50% agreeing with Romney and 50% agreeing with Obama (gallup.com), but poll tallies are putting Obama (D) about 6 points ahead of Romeny (R) in the Polls. Obama is in the lead with electorial votes (http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground) at the moment, but time will tell. Some Republicans are fed up with the flip-floping that the GOP candidate is doing at the moment to win votes, as well as some "Questionable" things he has been saying either on stage, behind closed doors, or what the Ads are saying.
> 
> ...



Not really. I am going on common sense. Obama will not win with this huge mandate landslide like some seem to think he will. Some seem to act like he will do like Reagan did in 84 and take 48 out of 50 states, this will not happen. I should also point out that polls have got it wrong in the past.  I haven't gotten too ig a sense of republicans being tired of Romney, though many i talk to do think he can run his campaign better. The bigger question is are they more fed up of his gaffes or flip flips than they are of Obama. 

The stuff about the electoral college is not  a generalization, and i fail to see how saying obama won't win with a landslide so dont expect it is generalizing. I strongly doubt people are as excited about  a second obama term as they were for a first, that will eat into turnout. We will see close to the election but I stand by my prediction that obama may win but it will be narrowly. A romney win would be narrow as well, it may be a 2000 scenario where obama wins more electoral votes and romney the popular vote or vice versa, still too close to tell, but no landslide for either candidate. Democrats stay in control of  the senate with fewer seats, republicans retain the house.



Lizzie said:


> According to opinion polls Obama already has 265 electors for sure - he would only need _five_ more.
> 
> But, hey, one can never tell!



Its impossible to tell, though I would sdisagre with them calling Missouri and tennessee tossups, those are pretty solid republican states/ I still think its too early to really call the election for either guy,i mean I know texas will go for romney and the south will too, NE will go obama and west coast too, but thats true of most elections.I count all the states in the red and blue bars (except tennessee and missouri) as swing states. which means their votes are up for grabs. Its too close for me to say either one will own it. a responsible media would be the same way.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Not really. I am going on common sense. Obama will not win with this huge mandate landslide like some seem to think he will. Some seem to act like he will do like Reagan did in 84 and take 48 out of 50 states, this will not happen. I should also point out that polls have got it wrong in the past.  I haven't gotten too ig a sense of republicans being tired of Romney, though many i talk to do think he can run his campaign better. The bigger question is are they more fed up of his gaffes or flip flips than they are of Obama.
> 
> The stuff about the electoral college is not  a generalization, and i fail to see how saying obama won't win with a landslide so dont expect it is generalizing. I strongly doubt people are as excited about  a second obama term as they were for a first, that will eat into turnout. We will see close to the election but I stand by my prediction that obama may win but it will be narrowly. A romney win would be narrow as well, it may be a 2000 scenario where obama wins more electoral votes and romney the popular vote or vice versa, still too close to tell, but no landslide for either candidate. Democrats stay in control of  the senate with fewer seats, republicans retain the house.



So your common sense is to make assumptions based on what your senses tell you? 

The Popular vote with Obama is about 51%, while Romney holds about 44% (Down from 47%) right now because his flip flopping issues and ads that are smearing against his opponent (With a handful haf-true to false). 

Right now, MO and TN are leaning and Red according to CNN. The Tossup states right now are Virginia, Iowa, Wyomming, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> So your common sense is to make assumptions based on what your senses tell you?
> 
> The Popular vote with Obama is about 51%, while Romney holds about 44% (Down from 47%) right now because his flip flopping issues and ads that are smearing against his opponent (With a handful haf-true to false).
> 
> Right now, MO and TN are leaning and Red according to CNN. The Tossup states right now are Virginia, Iowa, Wyomming, Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, New Hampshire, and Nevada.


MO is going to be very red, believe me. At the moment, polling averages give it a 10 point advantage to Mitt Romney, and Missouri (save St. Louis and sometimes Kansas City) is a very Conservative state with a high rural to urban ratio. I mean, Todd Akin made the stupidest remarks that pissed off both sides of the fence, but he'll likely get elected just by being a Republican.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> MO is going to be very red, believe me. At the moment, polling averages give it a 10 point advantage to Mitt Romney, and Missouri (save St. Louis and sometimes Kansas City) is a very Conservative state with a high rural to urban ratio. I mean, Todd Akin made the stupidest remarks that pissed off both sides of the fence, but he'll likely get elected just by being a Republican.



I wouldn't know. I only know two people that are Born and bred from MO, but I know that MO going blue would mean that Hell's frozen over, pigs have evolved to fly, and there are over a billion obese women singing at the same time.




Commie Bat said:


> Iran having nuclear weapons has less proof than Israel having the same.  Though on the topic of Invasion, why not invade Pakistan, India, or North Korea.  I mean they have nuclear capability yet not much is said.  Yes I understand those countries are "protected" yet, so is Iran.



The only way that the US will go after Israel is if a newly appointed pres says that the Jews are planning to bomb us with Chinese nuclear warheads....and then state that the Jews are calling for a holy war against the US.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> I wouldn't know. I only know two people that are Born and bred from MO, but I know that MO going blue would mean that Hell's frozen over, pigs have evolved to fly, and there are over a billion obese women singing at the same time.
> 
> The only way that the US will go after Israel is if a newly appointed pres says that the Jews are planning to bomb us with Chinese nuclear warheads....and then state that the Jews are calling for a holy war against the US.


Actually I just checked the average polling data; Akin is losing, but not by the landslide he deserves. (For those that don't know, he said women had 'a natural defense against getting pregnant when raped' and thus abortions in the case of rape shouldn't be legal)

Also it wouldn't surprise me if that isn't a contingency plan of the Israeli government, because governments have hilariously ridiculous ones. I know one of the contingency plans that's been in place in the US since the 1950s is in case we're attacked by aliens, and has full strategies already written up.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 26, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Also it wouldn't surprise me if that isn't a contingency plan of the Israeli government, because governments have hilariously ridiculous ones. I know one of the contingency plans that's been in place in the US since the 1950s is in case we're attacked by aliens, and has full strategies already written up.



We have one for any country that exists, even the UK and Canada.


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

Aetius said:


> We have one for any country that exists, even the UK and Canada.



That's funny!
War plan "Rainbow" sounds like a plan if gays decide to rise up and turn everyone gay.


----------



## Schwimmwagen (Sep 26, 2012)

Isn't there also a plan made in case of a zombie apocalypse or godzilla or something?


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Isn't there also a plan made in case of a zombie apocalypse or godzilla or something?



We have to, it's inevitable that a Zombie horde will come and eat your wife.

Godzilla is Japanese. Unless Japan creates a GMO monster to attack America, we do have a war plan against Japan.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 26, 2012)

Gibby said:


> Isn't there also a plan made in case of a zombie apocalypse or godzilla or something?


The CDC has a plan in store actually.  Quarantine the entire area as fast as possible before it gets anywhere.


CodArk2 said:


> -long post-


The problem for Romney is that as it stands Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are going to Obama.
It's not completely open and close, it's that Romney has less than a 1 in 5 chance of winning at this point and that his chances are further slipping as we get closer to the election.


----------



## Saylor (Sep 26, 2012)

Alright. I think I let this wait long enough. In my previous post about voting for Obama, I was only kidding. I just made up some bs about WW3 to screw around with people. Now IRL, I wouldn't give a shit about foreign policies, I wouldn't care about anything. If somebody pissed me off like in the middle east, I would turn them into a glass parking lot. Besides if I said that I was voting for Obama in the state of SC, I would probably already be dead.


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 26, 2012)

Saylor said:


> One of those points is Obama's ideas on gun  control, I personally believe that you should be able to own the biggest  and fastest shooting gun in the world as long as it is *NOT used as a  weapon*.



Why do people bring up Obama and gun control? That's why I'm laughing when I hear gun stores and suppliers are gearing up for a massive amount of people buying guns after Obama's election. Name me one time where Obama pushed any kind of gun control law through congress? I'm waiting....

...still waiting...

None. Not once.

And isn't that the point of guns? That they're weapons?


----------



## Saylor (Sep 26, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> Why do people bring up Obama and gun control? That's why I'm laughing when I hear gun stores and suppliers are gearing up for a massive amount of people buying guns after Obama's election. Name me one time where Obama pushed any kind of gun control law through congress? I'm waiting....
> 
> ...still waiting...
> 
> ...



Because earlier in his campaign he said that he was going to try and enforce strict gun control laws. Honestly, he won't ever be able to control guns. The only reason I have a problem with it, is because it seems like just  wasted effort on something you can'f control. Because who says that you can't just get a Russian AK-47 off of the black market. But I know that he won't be able to pass any policieson gun control, so I guess that you are right. But you are wrong on saying that all guns are used as weapons. Yes, people do use them as weapons. But that's not the point, most gun owning citizens in the US don't even use them as weapons. Unfortunately there are some knuckleheads who go and try robbing banks and shooting people with them. I own several firearms myself, so I would know this. I also remember that as soon as Obama was elected president it was nearly impossible for me to find SKS ammo (7.62x39mm) because of 1 everyone was stocking up with it as much as they could possibly fit in their truck because they were afraid he would ban the ammo for AK-47's and SKS's, and 2 the taxes were already so high because of previous bills passed, so everywhere I could find ammo, I couldn't afford it. That is why everyone is so worked up about gun control laws.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 26, 2012)

so gun nuts are causing a shortage due to their own paranoia, therefore their paranoia is justified

wat

I bet there's good money in stockpiling guns and ammo during republican administrations and reselling them after democrats win elections


----------



## Ozriel (Sep 26, 2012)

Saylor said:


> Because earlier in his campaign he said that he was going to try and enforce strict gun control laws. Honestly, he won't ever be able to control guns. The only reason I have a problem with it, is because it seems like just  wasted effort on something you can'f control. Because who says that you can't just get a Russian AK-47 off of the black market. But I know that he won't be able to pass any policieson gun control, so I guess that you are right. But you are wrong on saying that all guns are used as weapons. Yes, people do use them as weapons. But that's not the point, most gun owning citizens in the US don't even use them as weapons. Unfortunately there are some knuckleheads who go and try robbing banks and shooting people with them. I own several firearms myself, so I would know this. I also remember that as soon as Obama was elected president it was nearly impossible for me to find SKS ammo (7.62x39mm) because of 1 everyone was stocking up with it as much as they could possibly fit in their truck because they were afraid he would ban the ammo for AK-47's and SKS's, and 2 the taxes were already so high because of previous bills passed, so everywhere I could find ammo, I couldn't afford it. That is why everyone is so worked up about gun control laws.



The gun control laws are more for preventing people from accessing Black market weapons, and prevent dangerous level criminals for accessing them. More or less, stomping the criminal underground market.
He never said that he'd get rid of them, which is paranoid gun nut BS who cannot sleep without a rocket launcher under their pillows.

There's also hear-say that he wants to get rid of hunting, which is also a rumor. :V


----------



## Saylor (Sep 26, 2012)

Lobar said:


> so gun nuts are causing a shortage due to their own paranoia, therefore their paranoia is justified
> 
> wat
> 
> I bet there's good money in stockpiling guns and ammo during republican administrations and reselling them after democrats win elections



I wouldn't doubt it. There were a lot of ordinary people selling ammo for pretty high prices, I'm not sure how many people bought their ammo that they were selling, but I'm pretty sure that they made a pretty decent amount of money that way.

I also know that it was nearly impossible to find .45 ACP rounds too.


----------



## Saylor (Sep 26, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> The gun control laws are more for preventing people from accessing Black market weapons, and prevent dangerous level criminals for accessing them. More or less, stomping the criminal underground market.
> He never said that he'd get rid of them, which is paranoid gun nut BS who cannot sleep without a rocket launcher under their pillows.
> 
> There's also hear-say that he wants to get rid of hunting, which is also a rumor. :V



Don't get me wrong, but I agree that they need to try and stop the black market, because I went through the process of making sure that my firearms legally belonged to me. I find it wrong that someone can just get a .50 cal machine gun off of the black market and not have to file a bunch of paperwork making sure that it is legal. That paperwork is supposed to make sure that you are mentally capable of owning high-powered firearms like that. I personally don't care what you are shooting, as long as it is legally yours.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 26, 2012)

Saylor said:


> Don't get me wrong, but I agree that they need to try and stop the black market, because I went through the process of making sure that my firearms legally belonged to me. I find it wrong that someone can just get a .50 cal machine gun off of the black market and not have to file a bunch of paperwork making sure that it is legal. That paperwork is supposed to make sure that you are mentally capable of owning high-powered firearms like that. I personally don't care what you are shooting, as long as it is legally yours.



*shoves your mouse cursor at the button to the right of "Reply with quote" MULTI.. QUOTE


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

Saylor said:


> Because earlier in his campaign he said that he was going to try and enforce strict gun control laws. Honestly, he won't ever be able to control guns. The only reason I have a problem with it, is because it seems like just  wasted effort on something you can'f control. Because who says that you can't just get a Russian AK-47 off of the black market. But I know that he won't be able to pass any policieson gun control, so I guess that you are right. But you are wrong on saying that all guns are used as weapons. Yes, people do use them as weapons. But that's not the point, *most gun owning citizens in the US don't even use them as weapons.* Unfortunately there are some knuckleheads who go and try robbing banks and shooting people with them. I own several firearms myself, so I would know this. I also remember that as soon as Obama was elected president it was nearly impossible for me to find SKS ammo (7.62x39mm) because of 1 everyone was stocking up with it as much as they could possibly fit in their truck because they were afraid he would ban the ammo for AK-47's and SKS's, and 2 the taxes were already so high because of previous bills passed, so everywhere I could find ammo, I couldn't afford it. That is why everyone is so worked up about gun control laws.



Do they.. do they use them as flower pots? No matter what, a gun is a weapon. They're used as a weapon.. and nothing else. They can't cut meat like a knife, they can't be used to open packaging. They're not a tool, they're a weapon, because they have one use: firing. Unless you're destroying them by making them into sculptures, then they are arguably art. They're weapons used against nature or against man, but either way, they're still a weapon. And not using them doesn't mean you're not using them as a weapon, it just means you're not using them, like not using explosives doesn't mean you're not using them *as* explosives, because they're still explosives.

Also if he campaigned for removing guns, he's really done a terrible job of it, because he's had four years of opportunity and I haven't even heard of it being brought up.


----------



## Aleu (Sep 26, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Do they.. do they use them as flower pots? No matter what, a gun is a weapon. They're used as a weapon.. and nothing else.


They could be used as sex toys. I hear they do a bang up job.


----------



## Saylor (Sep 26, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Do they.. do they use them as flower pots? No matter what, a gun is a weapon. They're used as a weapon.. and nothing else. They can't cut meat like a knife, they can't be used to open packaging. They're not a tool, they're a weapon, because they have one use: firing. Unless you're destroying them by making them into sculptures, then they are arguably art. They're weapons used against nature or against man, but either way, they're still a weapon. And not using them doesn't mean you're not using them as a weapon, it just means you're not using them, like not using explosives doesn't mean you're not using them *as* explosives, because they're still explosives.
> 
> Also if he campaigned for removing guns, he's really done a terrible job of it, because he's had four years of opportunity and I haven't even heard of it being brought up.



Okay. You got me there. But most people don't run around shooting other people with them.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 26, 2012)

Aleu said:


> They could be used as sex toys. I hear they do a bang up job.


I know a girl into that. She worries me. Particularly when she said it had to be 'loaded and cocked or it didn't count'. Girl has a death wish.

/derail


----------



## Saylor (Sep 26, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> I know a girl into that. She worries me. Particularly when she said it had to be 'loaded and cocked or it didn't count'. Girl has a death wish.
> 
> /derail



That's pretty fucked up 0_o I hope you're only kidding.


Anyways, I'm done. I'm voting for Obama, mainly because Romney sounds so stupid right now, he insulted the US Military, and that recent quote that he made at that convention that got him in so much trouble. Honestly, I think that both of them are worthless scumbags that won't do anything, but I have to choose, and right now Obama is looking like a little bit more well qualified for the job since he was already in office for 4 years and he ordered Bin Laden's assassination.


----------



## moonchylde (Sep 27, 2012)

I'm starting to wonder if Romney secretly wants out of the race, but doesn't want to lose face by quitting this late in the game... so he's making sure he'll lose by pretending to be a hopelessly disconnected, mentally retarded super cunt. I mean, no one who's smart enough to build a fortune and run for office could make so many stupid mistakes, right?


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 27, 2012)

Saylor said:


> That's pretty fucked up 0_o I hope you're only kidding.
> 
> 
> Anyways, I'm done. I'm voting for Obama, mainly because Romney sounds so stupid right now, he insulted the US Military, and that recent quote that he made at that convention that got him in so much trouble. Honestly, I think that both of them are worthless scumbags that won't do anything, but I have to choose, and right now Obama is looking like a little bit more well qualified for the job since he was already in office for 4 years and he ordered Bin Laden's assassination.



Vote dem everytime ^^. Republicans have really amazed me with their bullshit this year. Though what amazes me even more is that a lot of people will STILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY after all he's done...


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 27, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Bending it over and Israel fucking the USA in the ass. :V



Fixed.



BrodyCoyote said:


> Someone pointed out something funny to me. Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq were all considered the Axis of Evil. Out of the three of these, only one has nuclear capability... and only one wasn't invaded by America. After that, I kind of understood why they were adamant about having them.



You mean Iran, Iraq, and North Korea - but yeah, I agree that it's funny that the country with a rudimentary nuclear capability (North Korea) gets left alone, while the country that didn't have nukes (Iraq) gets invaded. Given what happened to Iraq right next door, what _didn't_ happen to North Korea, and being within range of a nuclear-armed country (Israel) that operates on the "You lookin' at _me,_ pal?" level of launching military strikes, it would be hardly unsurprising of Iran to at least _consider_ nuclear weapons.

However, Iran has repeatedly said - including as part of a fatwa, or religious proclamation - that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic and that Iran won't have them. And if anyone doubts the authority of a fatwa, they might like to ask Salman Rushdie.



moonchylde said:


> I'm starting to wonder if Romney secretly wants out of the race, but doesn't want to lose face by quitting this late in the game... so he's making sure he'll lose by pretending to be a hopelessly disconnected, mentally retarded super cunt. I mean, no one who's smart enough to build a fortune and run for office could make so many stupid mistakes, right?



I figured the same thing for John McCain in 2008, seeing as the presidency after the Wall Street crash was looking rather like a poisoned chalice. In his case, he saddled himself with Sarah Palin so that he'd lose...


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 27, 2012)

moonchylde said:


> I'm starting to wonder if Romney secretly wants out of the race, but doesn't want to lose face by quitting this late in the game... so he's making sure he'll lose by pretending to be a hopelessly disconnected, mentally retarded super cunt. I mean, no one who's smart enough to build a fortune and run for office could make so many stupid mistakes, right?


Nah, there's no reason for him to drag down other Republicans with him. I knew he was sunk from the moment he chose Paul Ryan, though, one of only a few guys to co-author a bill making abortions in the case of rape illegal. (Along with, surprise, Todd Akin!)


----------



## Saylor (Sep 27, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Vote dem everytime ^^. Republicans have really amazed me with their bullshit this year. Though what amazes me even more is that a lot of people will STILL VOTE FOR ROMNEY after all he's done...



Well I used to be a really strong Republican 4 years ago, but now after seeing their bullshit, I really stopped caring for them. Now it seems like everyday all they do is bitch about something else, but nothing gets done. Again, Obama ordered Bin Laden's assassination which proved to me that he actually can get shit done. So yeah, Obama 2012.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 27, 2012)

Saylor said:


> Obama ordered Bin Laden's assassination which proved to me that he actually can get shit done. So yeah, Obama 2012.



Assuming this is even true, ordering the death of a man is nothing out of the ordinary if you ask me. The credit only goes to the men who risked their lives that day.


----------



## Bliss (Sep 27, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Assuming this is even true...


Did the US change the Commander-in-Chief whilst we were not looking? :V



> The credit only goes to the men who risked their lives that day.


Assuming assassination is anything one could take credit for.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 27, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Did the US change the Commander-in-Chief whilst we were not looking? :V
> 
> Assuming assassination is anything one could take credit for.



Some people claim Bush was MORE responsible or some such.

And yes, assuming that is something to be proud of.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 27, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Some people claim Bush was MORE responsible or some such.
> 
> And yes, assuming that is something to be proud of.


Bush's administration had like seven years to find the guy though.  There's no gold medal for failure.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 27, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Bush's administration had like seven years to find the guy though.  There's no gold medal for failure.



I do not claim to know the inner workings of the entire operation over the years, and to be frank I could not bother to look into it as it really does not matter to me. It is just bothersome to see people tout this to either presidential figure as if it transforms the person into the next Abraham Lincoln or some such.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 27, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> I do not claim to know the inner workings of the entire operation over the years, and to be frank I could not bother to look into it as it really does not matter to me. It is just bothersome to see people tout this to either presidential figure as if it transforms the person into the next Abraham Lincoln or some such.


I know.  What does piss me off about Bush is twice during his presidency he did have the oppurtunity to order Osama's assassination.  I have no pity for the man.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 27, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I know.  What does piss me off about Bush is twice during his presidency he did have the oppurtunity to order Osama's assassination.  I have no pity for the man.


When did Bush have good intel on Osama's location after 9/11?


----------



## Aetius (Sep 27, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> When did Bush have good intel on Osama's location after 9/11?



During the Bush Administration, the CIA found the identity and who Osama's courier was.

This man was extremely critical to finding where Osama was.


----------



## Lobar (Sep 27, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Some people claim Bush was MORE responsible or some such.



A very recent poll taken in Ohio shows that 15% of Republicans there say _Romney_ deserves the credit for killing bin Laden.  That's just an absolute willful disconnect from reality.


----------



## Rilvor (Sep 27, 2012)

Lobar said:


> A very recent poll taken in Ohio shows that 15% of Republicans there say _Romney_ deserves the credit for killing bin Laden.  That's just an absolute willful disconnect from reality.



Oh my goodness that is some Space Pirates level of ridiculousness there haha.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 27, 2012)

Aetius said:


> During the Bush Administration, the CIA found the identity and who Osama's courier was.
> 
> This man was extremely critical to finding where Osama was.


Even to this day nothing makes sense about Bush's administration's search for Osama.  Did Bush actually want to find Osama?  Was he worried about civilian casualties if there was a air strike?  If he knew how to find Osama then why didn't he find Osama?
It just doesn't make sense.

I don't think we'll ever really know why Bush was such a complete fuckup especially considering so much is classified and will probably never be de-classified in our lifetime.


----------



## Gryphoneer (Sep 27, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Did Bush actually want to find Osama?


Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Al-Qaeda was already in disarray after they were found to be behind 9/11 and their leaders went into hiding, combined with the eventual invasion of their base state they couldn't field any further attacks. Staving off the capture/killing of the leaders was insofar expedient to the Bush administration and their masters as they could maintain the image of a still extant threat. "The dangerous tewwowists are still out there!" Injecting some plausibility into the FUD.

Another reason why Bush, his goons and their corporate overlords should be executed for high treason (besides rigging the 2000 election; crass mismanagement of the intelligence services that made 9/11 possible in the first place; provably lying to their subjects in order to go to war; bringing back concentration/death camps; ... )


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 27, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Even to this day nothing makes sense about Bush's administration's search for Osama.  Did Bush actually want to find Osama?  Was he worried about civilian casualties if there was a air strike?  If he knew how to find Osama then why didn't he find Osama?
> It just doesn't make sense.
> 
> I don't think we'll ever really know why Bush was such a complete fuckup especially considering so *much is classified and will probably never be classified in our lifetime.[*/QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 27, 2012)

Aleu said:


> They could be used as sex toys. I hear they do a *bang up* job.


Because no one else did it....


----------



## CodArk2 (Sep 27, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Another reason why Bush, his goons and their corporate overlords should be executed for high treason (besides rigging the 2000 election; crass mismanagement of the intelligence services that made 9/11 possible in the first place; provably lying to their subjects in order to go to war; bringing back concentration/death camps; ... )



Executed for reason?  the 200 election was unusual, but I fail to see how it was rigged, even if it was controversial. The other shit issatshi. Bush was solely responsible for 9/11  because of his crass mismanagement? Yeah,  lets forget that clinton was running those for 8 years and bush was only in office for 8 months when 9/11 happened, lets blame it all on bush. Of course obama gets to blame bush for stuff 3 years into his presidency, so I do not understand why you dont do the same with bush for 9/11.  The lead up to the iraq war had false intelligence, though I think its a stretch to assume bush himself did such, many nations thought he had WMD before the war started, not just the US.  And what concentration/death camps? guantanmo? that is a prison, there is a difference, certainly not a camp where we send all of a certain group of people based on race or religion to kill them off as a people like auschwitz or something. The only time america has had concentration camps in the recent past was the japanese in WW2, and that was under a democratic president.

Bush was a bad president, but there is a point where it becomes exaggeration.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> ???


I meant declassified.  It was a typo.


Wow Romney's chances of winning are still shrinking.  It's now barely over a 3 in 20 chance.
Any bets on how long until the GOP starts shifting into damage control mode?


----------



## Saylor (Sep 28, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I meant declassified.  It was a typo.
> 
> 
> Wow Romney's chances of winning are still shrinking.  It's now barely over a 3 in 20 chance.
> Any bets on how long until the GOP starts shifting into damage control mode?



In any other situation I would say that I don't bet money just because of my current financial status as not having a steady job, but in this case, I would call it unfair because I know that whoever you bet against would probably lose a lot of money.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2012)

Saylor said:


> In any other situation I would say that I don't bet money just because of my current financial status as not having a steady job, but in this case, I would call it unfair because I know that whoever you bet against would probably lose a lot of money.


The GOP had better get it's ass in gear and do some serious damage control cause at this rate not only will Romney get his ass kicked, but the chances of the democrats regaining control of the senate are increasing as time goes on as well.


----------



## zachhart12 (Sep 28, 2012)

Romney is dead in the water, as he should be


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Romney is dead in the water, as he should be


It's not so much as whether or not Romney is going to lose.  It's about how badly he's going to lose and how much the dems are going to retake the senate.


----------



## Aetius (Sep 28, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> It's about how badly he's going to lose and how much the dems are going to retake the senate.



Ummm.. they currently control it.

Also I doubt the dems would have the momentum to take 25-28 seats in the house and successfully defend themselves.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Ummm.. they currently control it.
> 
> Also I doubt the dems would have the momentum to take 25-28 seats in the house and successfully defend themselves.


(whoopsadaisy)
If Romney doesn't learn to shut his damn mouth pretty soon considering how fast his presidential run is bursting into flames then we may not be looking at the dems taking 25 seats, but enough that the gop will be sweating under their collars.


----------



## Batty Krueger (Sep 28, 2012)

Is it bad that I first read the thread title as "Furry Erection 2012"?


----------



## Mayfurr (Sep 28, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> the 200 election was unusual, but I fail to see how it was rigged, even if it was controversial.



The fact that the person in charge of the 2000 Florida election process where all the recounts were going on just _happened_ to also be involved in Bush's election campaign isn't a clue that something dodgy might have been going on? Good grief, if the 2000 Florida election was being held in some tin-pot African country the US would be condemning the election result as blatantly fraudulent.



CodArk2 said:


> The lead up to the iraq war had false intelligence, though I think its a stretch to assume bush himself did such, many nations thought he had WMD before the war started, not just the US.



_Many_ nations? Only the UK and Australia were pretty much gung-ho supportive of the US position, most other countries - including mine - weren't terribly convinced as to whether Iraq really had WMD, and the majority of those in the so-called "Coalition of the Willing" were mostly being bought off by the US to the point where it should have been "Coalition of the Billing". 



CodArk2 said:


> And what concentration/death camps? guantanmo? that is a prison, there is a difference, certainly not a camp where we send all of a certain group of people based on race or religion to kill them off as a people like auschwitz or something.



Guantanamo was - I mean, _is_ as Obama still hasn't closed the blasted place, damn it - an American version of a Soviet-era Gulag rather than a "death camp"... but even so, _that's_ a pretty big stain on the US's reputation along with the whole "extraordinary rendition" business where you could be picked up almost anywhere in the world after being denounced as a "terrorist", get tortured for info you didn't have and get sent off to Gitmo to languish years without trial. And why was Guantanamo chosen for this? Because Bush could claim with a straight face that it wasn't US territory - _despite being under US control for the best part of a century_ - so US law wouldn't apply. This is _exactly_ the kind of shit that the US pounded the Soviet Union over with respect to human rights, but of course it's not a crime if America does it...


----------



## Zoetrope (Sep 28, 2012)

I'm too Canadian to care!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Sep 28, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> Another reason why Bush, his goons and their corporate overlords should be executed for high treason (besides rigging the 2000 election; crass mismanagement of the intelligence services that made 9/11 possible in the first place; provably lying to their subjects in order to go to war; bringing back concentration/death camps; ... )



Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda's plots were known about as far back as the Clinton Administration. No one in the intelligence community thought it was remotely possible that a group of jihadists could get into the country, pass through airport security with box cutters an hijack four planes simultaneously, among the other plots that were being floated around. Absolutely absurd to place blame and say that a one administration deserves to be executed over that. There's more than enough internal blame to go around for incompetence, none of which requires the response of execution. 

Oh and yes, let's pretend the US never had and still doesn't have black sites all over the world where some Cold War era "enhanced interrogation techniques" haven't been and or still are used outside of the Bush Administration. Concentration/death camps?  Shut the fuck up.  You don't need to drum up images of Aushwitz to describe what's going on there, especially since any rational person can tell with all the bad that's gone on there it's no where near the kinds of things people felt under Nazi occupation or during Chairman Mao's reeducation efforts.


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2012)

d.batty said:


> Is it bad that I first read the thread title as "Furry Erection 2012"?


Why did OP name the thread "furry election 2012" instead of just "election 2012" anyhow?


----------



## Aleu (Sep 28, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Why did OP name the thread "furry election 2012" instead of just "electin 2012" anyhow?



Because fucking everything needs to have "furry" in it to stay relevant to furries.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 28, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Why did OP name the thread "furry election 2012" instead of just "electin 2012" anyhow?



Because he's polling furries. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.


----------



## Kosdu (Sep 28, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Because fucking everything needs to have "furry" in it to stay relevant to furries.



Yes, being a furry is related to fucking everything

=P


----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Because he's polling furries. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.


It's not that it's not hard to understand; it's that the reasoning of sticking the word "furry" into things unrelated is just really weird.  It'd be like making a thread on donuts and instead of having the title as "donuts" changing it to "furry donuts".


----------



## Aetius (Sep 28, 2012)

Well, would you look who is starting to cruise.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Sep 28, 2012)




----------



## CannonFodder (Sep 28, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


>


I want to see a "Ooh that's gotta hurt".
I know it's not going to happen, but it would make for a good popcorn flick seeing fox flip their shit if that did happen.


----------



## CrazyLee (Sep 28, 2012)

Kosdu said:


> Yes, being a furry is related to *fucking everything*
> 
> =P



Of course furries fuck everything :V
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcYppAs6ZdI


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 1, 2012)

Coming this Wedsnday.. Wedsnday.. wedsnday the asskicking of the century as Romney is pitted against the debate heavyweight Obama.  Tune in to see Romney's presidential bid burst into flames as he realizes it's too late to shift into damage control mode for the GOP.  Wedsnday. Wedsnday. Wedsnday.  ROUND ONE(of three) FIGHT!


But in all seriousness I think Wedsnday is going to be either hilariously bad for Romney or we're going to see his campaign shift into trying to at least walk away after the election with some dignity left.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 1, 2012)

Wool the real Romney please stand up?



> Just to make doubly sure we're talking about the same breed of sheep, we offer you this description of a New Zealand Romney so that you Americans can reply to let us know if they're the same.
> 
> Here we go:
> 
> ...


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 1, 2012)

I've already stopped caring about the election in November between Obama and Romney. 

But if you want to help me in an election that really does matter in November, vote for my fursona in Dracolicoi's tournament, which promises to be entertaining and relevant.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 1, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3r95wNDIu4&feature=g-u-u


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 1, 2012)

Both sides will claim their candidate woon the election and the other lost. The debates will not really change much unless there is  something memorable.If romeny can lay out why he would make a better president than obama he would win. Romney would have to majorly fuck up to be hammered", which I dont see happening. It is also bad form to call a debate before it even starts. Considering Obamas performance the the 2008 presidential debates, I wouldnt bet on obama flattening anything. Obama doesnt hate republicans with the same zeal you seem to.

Basically debates are exercises in confirmation bias. Everything you like about Obama you will see in the debate, and everything you do't like about Romney you will see up there. Debates are less about swaying votes than about energizing the people already voting for them. I will not call the debates a victory for either side until, you know, they are actually done with. Same thing with the election.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 1, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Basically debates are exercises in confirmation bias. Everything you like about Obama you will see in the debate, and everything you do't like about Romney you will see up there. Debates are less about swaying votes than about energizing the people already voting for them. I will not call the debates a victory for either side until, you know, they are actually done with. Same thing with the election.



It's only bias to an extent. In a way, presidential debates is more akin to a talent show at the Apollo. You perform well, and people will appaud. You perform poorly, and you are more likely to be dragged off by a clown with a sheep herder's crook. Metaphorically speaking. 
At most, people will speak of their performance than the confomation that the issues at stake are still the main focus. 

The DNC and GOP conventoions are more akin to prep rallies that get the blood pumping and everyone into a political wardance of sorts...minus the large dust clouds. There's still the copious amounts of whooping and the waving of novelty flags made in china.

People usually watch it to see the eloquence of the candidates and how well they debate each other on the issues. Mind you, there will be more fallacies and stawmen than a debate on Gaiaonline's Extended Discussion, but people will watch it.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 1, 2012)

I just read a short interview with Ted Nugent and I'm ashamed to be from the same state as him. He said, about the comment about either being dead or in jail if Obama's re-elected, that Obama's a criminal and if anyone can't see that they're either deluded or stupid. However, he never bothered bringing up exactly WHAT made Obama a criminal, which makes me think he was just spouting bullshit. Not once did he mention any US laws that Obama has broken. If anyone knows of any, and why Obama's not in a prison right now, please indulge me.

Also, apparently Nugent's from Jackson, Michigan. Having been to Jackson before it explains Nugent's gun-toting redneck attitude perfectly. Jackson's about the most white trash redneck you can get in Michigan. I think only Howell is more white trash and that's because the KKK's Michigan branch is in Howell.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 1, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> It's only bias to an extent. In a way, presidential debates is more akin to a talent show at the Apollo. You perform well, and people will appaud. You perform poorly, and you are more likely to be dragged off by a clown with a sheep herder's crook. Metaphorically speaking.


And if you perform badly enough the audience will throw rotten tomatoes and you'll never be seen in politics again.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 1, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> I just read a short interview with Ted Nugent and I'm ashamed to be from the same state as him. He said, about the comment about either being dead or in jail if Obama's re-elected, that Obama's a criminal and if anyone can't see that they're either deluded or stupid. However, he never bothered bringing up exactly WHAT made Obama a criminal, which makes me think he was just spouting bullshit. Not once did he mention any US laws that Obama has broken. If anyone knows of any, and why Obama's not in a prison right now, please indulge me.
> 
> Also, apparently Nugent's from Jackson, Michigan. Having been to Jackson before it explains Nugent's gun-toting redneck attitude perfectly. Jackson's about the most white trash redneck you can get in Michigan. I think only Howell is more white trash and that's because the KKK's Michigan branch is in Howell.


We need a national disposal service for white trash.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 1, 2012)

I'm voting for the candidate that wants to lower my taxes.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 1, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> I just read a short interview with Ted Nugent and I'm ashamed to be from the same state as him. He said, about the comment about either being dead or in jail if Obama's re-elected, that Obama's a criminal and if anyone can't see that they're either deluded or stupid. However, he never bothered bringing up exactly WHAT made Obama a criminal, which makes me think he was just spouting bullshit. Not once did he mention any US laws that Obama has broken. If anyone knows of any, and why Obama's not in a prison right now, please indulge me.
> 
> Also, apparently Nugent's from Jackson, Michigan. Having been to Jackson before it explains Nugent's gun-toting redneck attitude perfectly. Jackson's about the most white trash redneck you can get in Michigan. I think only Howell is more white trash and that's because the KKK's Michigan branch is in Howell.


Didn't he get a secret service visit not too long ago for making vague threats should Obama be reelected? Wait here it is. Google ftw. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/...-obama-comments-issue-resolved-210612592.html

The golden bit from it:


			
				Ted Nugent said:
			
		

> "This is the Saul Alinsky 'Rules for Radicals' playbook," Nugent said on CNN radio. "The Nazis and the Klan hate me. I'm a black Jew at a Nazi Klan rally. There are some power-abusing, corrupt monsters in our federal government who despise me because I have the audacity to speak the truth--to identify the violations of our federal government--in particular Eric Holder, the President and Tim Geithner."


Yes, I can see how getting a secret service visit for threatening statements is _exactly_ like being the victim of a genocide.

Also, http://www.slate.com/articles/video...yan_campaigns_told_in_video_game_fights_.html

Edit: Oh we're talking about the same thing. My brain didn't connect these two... maybe because he only got a Secret Service visit, which is a reasonable reaction, and he was acting like it was a crime against humanity.

He's making me stupid by extension.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 2, 2012)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> I'm voting for the candidate that wants to lower my taxes.



So... Obama?


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 2, 2012)

Spatel said:


> So... Obama?


Unless he's rich.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 2, 2012)

I still don't know how the F to embed Youtube videos, it just never works. 

EDIT by Jashwa:[yt ]XdhRzt5geeQ[ /yt]

[yt]XdhRzt5geeQ[/yt]

Anyways, the video is hilarious, because it shows how little Ryan and Romney understand, as well as possibly how fun this election is going to be if these little snippets keep popping up - Out of context is fun!

Jobs for the elderly, jobs for the military, AND jobs for the poor! Schweet. 

Too bad they have no plan outlined to bring jobs other than real vague stuffs.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 2, 2012)

Any time you meet one of these right-wingers that loves Ted Nugent, just share with them his own account of how he deliberately failed his physical exam to dodge the Vietnam draft. 



			
				Ted Nugent said:
			
		

> I got my physical notice 30 days prior to. Well, on that day I ceased cleansing my body. No more brushing my teeth, no more washing my hair, no baths, no soap, no water. Thirty days of debris build. I stopped shavin' and I was 18, had a little scraggly beard, really looked like a hippie. I had long hair, and it started gettin' kinky, matted up. Then two weeks before, I stopped eating any food with nutritional value. I just had chips, Pepsi, beer-stuff I never touched-buttered poop, little jars of Polish sausages, and I'd drink the syrup. I was this side of death. Then a week before, I stopped going to the bathroom. I did it in my pants. poop, piss the whole shot. My pants got crusted up.
> 
> See, I approached the whole thing like, Ted Nugent, cool hard-workin' dude, is gonna wreak havoc on these imbeciles in the armed forces. I'm gonna play their own game, and I'm gonna destroy 'em. Now my whole body is crusted in poop and piss. I was ill. And three or four days before, I started stayin' awake. I was close to death, but I was in control. I was extremely antidrug as I've always been, but I snorted some crystal methedrine. Talk about one wounded motherfucker. A guy put up four lines, and it was for all four of us, but I didn't know and I'm vacuuming that poop right up. I was a walking, talking hunk of human
> poop. I was six-foot-three of sin. So the guys took me down to the physical, and my nerves, my emotions were distraught. I was not a good person. I was wounded. But as painful and nauseous as it was â€” 'cause I was really into bein' clean and on the ball â€” I made gutter swine hippies look like football players. I was deviano.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 2, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Any time you meet one of these right-wingers that loves Ted Nugent, just share with them his own account of how he deliberately failed his physical exam to dodge the Vietnam draft.


The one time you can call someone a giant piece of shit and it _not_ be an ad hominem.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 3, 2012)

Why can't more ads be like this one?

[yt]hDTT1yRNsFE[/yt]


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 3, 2012)

"Paid for by the Jewish Council.."

That was surprising. Overall an entertaining ad, although it wasn't the best argument wise. I liked the part with the parents most.


----------



## Percy (Oct 3, 2012)

So Obama is going to be visiting my campus tomorrow.
This will be interesting.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 3, 2012)

Percy said:


> So Obama is going to be visiting my campus tomorrow.
> This will be interesting.


Hold up a sign saying, "Vermin Supreme 2012"


----------



## Percy (Oct 3, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Hold up a sign saying, "Vermin Supreme 2012"


I don't have the material to make a sign.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 3, 2012)

So you know how the GOP has taken up the anti-voter fraud platform? One that would discourage minorities from voting, as well as students (Student IDs wouldn't count as proper identification, but oddly, gun permits do!), veterans (Veteran affair cards don't count, they don't have your address!) and the elderly? (Those Social Security cards you guys have been voting with for your entire lives? Nixed.) Well..

http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/...election-fraud-probe-and-a-case-of-hypocrisy/

Strategic Allied Consultants was actually under a different name back when the other allegations of voter fraud and destruction of ballots came up, and the GOP leaders emailed them to change their name so they wouldn't be linked to such rumors.. and look what happened.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...er-fraud-allegations-20120928,0,4284007.story

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 3, 2012)

And to counter the serious:
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830834/mitt-romney-style-gangnam-style-parody


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 3, 2012)

I LOVE the voter fraud argument, because it keeps popping back up from the right-wing media and various GOP people, despite their not being a shred of evidence that like...More than ~100 fraudulent votes have been placed in recent years (somewhere around 100 at least). I think you need like...5-10k votes to actually have a whole number percentage? Probably even higher, it's just so damn laughable, and extremely obvious why they are hammering away at it.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 3, 2012)

And since this is a generalized voting thread, some Missouri Senate election news!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...5267e4-0d7f-11e2-ba6c-07bd866eb71a_story.html



			
				Washington Post said:
			
		

> JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. â€” Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin once equated abortion providers to terrorists and *suggested that it was â€œcommon practiceâ€ for them to be â€œgiving abortions to women who are not actually pregnant.â€*




Todd Akin is the biggest bag of dumb I have ever seen in my life.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2012)

I don't understand this whole "Omg anti-voter fraud BAD" ordeal and how it's supposed to discourage students/minorities/whatever from voting. Wouldn't a driver's license suffice?


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 3, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I don't understand this whole "Omg anti-voter fraud BAD" ordeal and how it's supposed to discourage students/minorities/whatever from voting. Wouldn't a driver's license suffice?


41,000 Americans don't have driver's licenses. Myself being one of them, because getting a license for a car I don't have seems awful superfluous. The elderly frequently don't have them because beyond a certain age you need to take all the tests, written and driving, to renew, and it's just a lot of effort when you don't really go anywhere very often. Many Latino voters and African-American voters don't have licenses because they live in the city and can take the bus. (Heck, I live in a less-than huge city and we have buses that go all over the city, and if I don't take the bus, I bike)

Plus Mike Turzai, House Majority leading Republican, kind of let slip it was politically motivated. This video explains it quite a bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60


----------



## Aleu (Oct 3, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> 41,000 Americans don't have driver's licenses. Myself being one of them, because getting a license for a car I don't have seems awful superfluous. The elderly frequently don't have them because beyond a certain age you need to take all the tests, written and driving, to renew, and it's just a lot of effort when you don't really go anywhere very often. Many Latino voters and African-American voters don't have licenses because they live in the city and can take the bus. (Heck, I live in a less-than huge city and we have buses that go all over the city, and if I don't take the bus, I bike)
> 
> Plus Mike Turzai, House Majority leading Republican, kind of let slip it was politically motivated. This video explains it quite a bit:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60



A ton of other places require a drivers' license for identification, especially with either a debit or credit card. Buying booze or cigarettes (if you're under 40). Seriously, it's mind boggling to me that many people wouldn't have a license for whatever reason and I don't understand how they get by.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I don't understand this whole "Omg anti-voter fraud BAD" ordeal and how it's supposed to discourage students/minorities/whatever from voting. Wouldn't a driver's license suffice?



A driver's or a state liscense. The latter being easier to obtain than the former for those that  do not own a car or drive.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 3, 2012)

Aleu said:


> A ton of other places require a drivers' license for identification, especially with either a debit or credit card. Buying booze or cigarettes (if you're under 40). Seriously, it's mind boggling to me that many people wouldn't have a license for whatever reason and I don't understand how they get by.



People CAN have proper State ID's, you do realize that right? They are cheaper than Drivers Licenses as well, and have almost the exact same usage - Other than allowing one to drive. However, they are still rather unnecessary for that very same reason.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 3, 2012)

Aleu said:


> A ton of other places require a drivers' license for identification, especially with either a debit or credit card. Buying booze or cigarettes (if you're under 40). Seriously, it's mind boggling to me that many people wouldn't have a license for whatever reason and I don't understand how they get by.


Welcome to being poor. Lots of people don't even have debit or credit cards, and live off prepaid cards if they need them for any online purchases or the like. Lots of poor buy cigarettes off other people instead of stores, you can occasionally find them dealing on the streets. Otherwise possible to live without all those things.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 3, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> Welcome to being poor. Lots of people don't even have debit or credit cards, and live off prepaid cards if they need them for any online purchases or the like. Lots of poor buy cigarettes off other people instead of stores, you can occasionally find them dealing on the streets. Otherwise possible to live without all those things.



Or selling their bus passes for a few bucks to buy one. I've seen that too often where I am.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 4, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I don't understand this whole "Omg anti-voter fraud BAD" ordeal and how it's supposed to discourage students/minorities/whatever from voting. Wouldn't a driver's license suffice?



Why do you NEED identification to vote in the first place? I've voted in around eight New Zealand elections and not once have I _ever_ been asked for _any_ form of identification at the polling booth. Yet voter fraud here is minuscule to non-existent...

The whole US "voter fraud" / "voter ID" business stinks like a dog turd on a hot day.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 4, 2012)

I, for one, don't believe the republicans are doing it necessarily to suppress votes but merely because it looks good. They can say "WE STOPPED VOTER FRAUD" and if you don't know that it was essentially a non issue, then it makes them look really credible and trustworthy. I think the vote suppression is a bonus.


----------



## TheMetalVelocity (Oct 4, 2012)

Obama? Oh god!


----------



## Percy (Oct 4, 2012)

...holy fuck, there's a huge line to see Obama today.
Not surprising, but it's seriously about a mile or two long. I'm not even going to bother, because I'll be able to hear his speech from my window.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 4, 2012)

KONY 2012.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 4, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Why do you NEED identification to vote in the first place? I've voted in around eight New Zealand elections and not once have I _ever_ been asked for _any_ form of identification at the polling booth. Yet voter fraud here is minuscule to non-existent...
> 
> The whole US "voter fraud" / "voter ID" business stinks like a dog turd on a hot day.



So someone can't vote twice or vote in place of someone else? The voting precincts here are pretty close together so if someone wanted to take an extra effort, they could just precinct hop.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 4, 2012)

Aleu said:


> So someone can't vote twice or vote in place of someone else? The voting precincts here are pretty close together so if someone wanted to take an extra effort, they could just precinct hop.


Or you know a politician could say THIS-
[YT]EuOT1bRYdK8[/YT]


----------



## zachhart12 (Oct 5, 2012)

Aleu said:


> So someone can't vote twice or vote in place of someone else? The voting precincts here are pretty close together so if someone wanted to take an extra effort, they could just precinct hop.



Exactly...They need to at least ask for a name and address.  I'm liberal and I don't think voter ID is really a bad idea.  It DOES prevent fraud.  Everyone should have at least a state ID for christs sake.  Maybe I'm dumb, Iono.  I mean I registered to vote, right?  Why not ask for my name and address at the very least to PROVE that I'm actually registered?


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 5, 2012)

Aleu said:


> So someone can't vote twice or vote in place of someone else? The voting precincts here are pretty close together so if someone wanted to take an extra effort, they could just precinct hop.



The polling stations here can be within easy reach of each other too, so the same thing applies... yet there's been bugger-all voting fraud here in NZ. And _neither_ major political party has ever campaigned on the kind of voter ID stuff that occurs in the US.

You go into the polling venue, get your name crossed off in the electoral roll book, you receive your ballot paper(s), go to the booth, tick the boxes with a pen, fold the ballot paper and shove it in the returns box - done. You can show a Voter Card that's mailed out to every voter, but that just makes the "cross your name off the roll as having voted" faster, it's not obligatory to use it.

Maybe Kiwis are just more honest, or else all our ratbags are exported to Australia


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 5, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Or you know a politician could say THIS-
> [YT]EuOT1bRYdK8[/YT]



And the US has the nerve to bitch about democracy in _other_ countries? Fuck, if this was someone in some African or Central American country the US would be first in line to send in election monitors...

Maybe it's time some of the world's other democracies sent in election observers to keep the US politicians honest


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 5, 2012)

I don't see the issue with voter ID. If you get government assistance like food stamps you have to show photo ID, same with social security or medicaid etc. The race argument holds no water, black people can get ID cards just as easily as white people can, so can hispanics pr aisans,. Now if one means mexicans, that isn't racist at all, non citizens should not vote. same with people who have died but pull a jesus and manage to vote on election day. 

I dont see it as being a problem unless you are a crooked politician trying to get people to vote that shoudlnt vote in the first place. its only voter suppression if it keeps people who should vote from voting.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I don't see the issue with voter ID. If you get government assistance like food stamps you have to show photo ID, same with social security or medicaid etc. The race argument holds no water, black people can get ID cards just as easily as white people can, so can hispanics pr aisans,. Now if one means mexicans, that isn't racist at all, non citizens should not vote. same with people who have died but pull a jesus and manage to vote on election day.
> 
> I dont see it as being a problem unless you are a crooked politician trying to get people to vote that shoudlnt vote in the first place. its only voter suppression if it keeps people who should vote from voting.



Nobody ever worries about those damn Canadians do they?


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 5, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Nobody ever worries about those damn Canadians do they?



in texas, no, since we dont really have any canadians here. The US also doesn't have an issue with mass immigration from canada and politicians pandering to canadians. I am against any person who is not a citizen of he US voting in US elections be they canadian, mexican or whatever.  i don't vote in their elections, they shouldn't vote in ours.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 5, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> The polling stations here can be within easy reach of each other too, so the same thing applies... yet there's been bugger-all voting fraud here in NZ. And _neither_ major political party has ever campaigned on the kind of voter ID stuff that occurs in the US.
> 
> You go into the polling venue, get your name crossed off in the electoral roll book, you receive your ballot paper(s), go to the booth, tick the boxes with a pen, fold the ballot paper and shove it in the returns box - done. You can show a Voter Card that's mailed out to every voter, but that just makes the "cross your name off the roll as having voted" faster, it's not obligatory to use it.
> 
> Maybe Kiwis are just more honest, or else all our ratbags are exported to Australia



We ARE full of crazies, you know.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I don't see the issue with voter ID. If you get government assistance like food stamps you have to show photo ID, same with social security or medicaid etc. The race argument holds no water, black people can get ID cards just as easily as white people can, so can hispanics pr aisans,. Now if one means mexicans, that isn't racist at all, non citizens should not vote. same with people who have died but pull a jesus and manage to vote on election day.
> 
> I dont see it as being a problem unless you are a crooked politician trying to get people to vote that shoudlnt vote in the first place. its only voter suppression if it keeps people who should vote from voting.


Actually in Louisiana you are allowed to vote if you are dead, because it's possible for a person to vote in advance and then die before the election.  If someone votes in advance of the election, but dies before then I think it should still count cause they still voted legally and by all accounts it should count.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 5, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Actually in Louisiana you are allowed to vote if you are dead, because it's possible for a person to vote in advance and then die before the election.  If someone votes in advance of the election, but dies before then I think it should still count cause they still voted legally and by all accounts it should count.



That's not voting if you're dead. That's voting...then dying. Not dying before you're able to vote.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 5, 2012)

Aleu said:


> That's not voting if you're dead. That's voting...then dying. Not dying before you're able to vote.


It still shows up as voter fraud.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Oct 5, 2012)

From what i can see so far there is either Obama or Romney to vote for though I saw something that said Gary Johnson(a third party candidate) is running too?

Is that true or am I hearing things wrong?

Also if Gary Johnson is running too what can some people tell me about him?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 5, 2012)

There are third party candidates available if you're not in a swing state (which is really stupid imo).

They really have no chance of even being considered for presidential election.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Oct 5, 2012)

Aleu said:


> There are third party candidates available if you're not in a swing state (which is really stupid imo).
> 
> They really have no chance of even being considered for presidential election.



Well that is bs.

I am in a swing state so i cant vote for anyone else but Obama and Romney right?

:c


----------



## Aetius (Oct 5, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> I am in a swing state so i cant vote for anyone else but Obama and Romney right?
> 
> :c



Well you are free to vote for anybody you would like, its just they have no chance of winning : /


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 5, 2012)

I am so eager to get out and vote now. I found out one of the proposals that Republicans and Tea Partiers have put on my Ballot. Listen to this bullshit:



> PROPOSAL 12-5
> A PROPOSAL TO *AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION* TO LIMIT THE ENACTMENT OF NEW TAXES BY STATE GOVERNMENT
> 
> This proposal would:  Require a* 2/3 majority vote of the State House and the State Senate*, or *a  statewide vote of the people at a November election*, in order for the  State of Michigan to* impose new or additional taxes on taxpayers or  expand the base of taxation or increasing the rate of taxation*.
> This section shall in no way be construed to limit or modify tax limitations otherwise created in this Constitution.



WAT? WHAT THE FUCK? They're actually requiring a SUPERMAJORITY to fucking raise any fucking taxes? Or a vote of the people? To raise ANY taxes? And this is a constitutional amendment?!

Fucking hell. Those Tea Partiers have gone too far. This fucking means war!


Edit: and if anyone's curious Grover Norquest is a financial backer of this. No surprise there.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 5, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> I am so eager to get out and vote now. I found out one of the proposals that Republicans and Tea Partiers have put on my Ballot. Listen to this bullshit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This has been done before, and it hasn't worked out ohh so well.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> in texas, no, since we dont really have any canadians here. The US also doesn't have an issue with mass immigration from canada and politicians pandering to canadians. I am against any person who is not a citizen of he US voting in US elections be they canadian, mexican or whatever.  i don't vote in their elections, they shouldn't vote in ours.



You didn't really pick up on my sarcasm, but that's alright. You seem to hold a pretty strong belief for something that is not an issue in the US.


----------



## meowchi75 (Oct 5, 2012)

I'm more leaning towards voting for Obama. I just feel that Romney doesn't really care much for the middle and lower classes as much as Obama...but either way, if Congress doesn't want to cooperate with the President who gets elected...


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 6, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> From what i can see so far there is either Obama or Romney to vote for though I saw something that said Gary Johnson(a third party candidate) is running too?
> 
> Is that true or am I hearing things wrong?
> 
> Also if Gary Johnson is running too what can some people tell me about him?


You need to check your local elections. Some states only have the two parties (like mine), a few have Libertarian or Green tickets (Gary Johnson and Jill Stein), and only a few have fringe candidates (Rocky Anderson, I believe his name was, of the Justice Party, Stewart Alexander of the Socialist Party USA, etc)

None of them have a chance in hell of winning, unless one of the major parties fracture. Which might happen on the Republican side if they lose the election, because this election is a total gimme (Awful economy, ending of two wars, several foreign affairs issues..) that they're still losing. If they make a major move to center, there's a possibility of Conservatives cutting out entirely (and would ironically make them more liberal than the Democrats), or if they move further right, economic Conservatives could splinter off and push for a strong Independent or Libertarian candidate. Only then would said candidate have a fair chance and be pulled into debates, like Ross Perot was. Otherwise, any third party is just going to get ignored and pushed to the back.

Democracy Now had the Justice Party and Green Party candidates weigh in during the debates Wednesday night. I don't think any other third parties even bothered.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 6, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You didn't really pick up on my sarcasm, but that's alright. You seem to hold a pretty strong belief for something that is not an issue in the US.



It is an issue, if we don't pass voter ID how will we keep conservatives from cheating in our elections?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politi...e-echoes-of-acorn-but-differences-too/1254881


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 6, 2012)

This might have been posted before but w/e.
The republicans seem to think that Mitt already lost. They are pulling away the money from his campaign and are dumping it into other things like senate seats.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjAi0R2YTDs&feature=g-vrec


----------



## zachhart12 (Oct 6, 2012)

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830834/mitt-romney-style-gangnam-style-parody

straight up millionaire!!!!!!!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 6, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> This might have been posted before but w/e.
> The republicans seem to think that Mitt already lost. They are pulling away the money from his campaign and are dumping it into other things like senate seats.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjAi0R2YTDs&feature=g-vrec


He pretty much already has lost.  At least his party is acting less stupid, cause when you're looking forward to a asskicking as bad as Mitt no matter how much money you throw at the guy he will not win.


----------



## CaptainCool (Oct 6, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> He pretty much already has lost.  At least his party is acting less stupid, cause when you're looking forward to a asskicking as bad as Mitt no matter how much money you throw at the guy he will not win.



I think it's funny that they are already playing the blame game with Romney^^ Did you watch that video? I really like that quote about how it is Romney's campaign and how it is his job to win


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 6, 2012)

Romney is actually up in the polls right now, so investors might be backing off, but the electoral college is potentially favouring him right now - I don't see this lasting, but it's too soon to call it quits.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I am against any person who is not a citizen of he US voting in US elections be they canadian, mexican or whatever.



What about *legal *US residents who _aren't_ actual US citizens? They pay taxes, why shouldn't *they *be allowed to vote? It was "No taxation without representation" in the US a while back - what's changed?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 6, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> What about *legal *US residents who _aren't_ actual US citizens? They pay taxes, why shouldn't *they *be allowed to vote? It was "No taxation without representation" in the US a while back - what's changed?



I don't know.

If I was living in New Zealand for whatever reason but wasn't a citizen why should I have a voice in their government?  Let's say I just lived there six months out of the year or I was with Peter Jackson's army of people filming on for the Lord of the Rings movies.  If I rent a car or an apartment there, why should I suddenly hold power over making governmental decisions for a country am I not even a citizen of?  Sure I live there, but only by the grace that their government allows me to based on a visa which they have to approve.  In essence I am a guest of their nation, not someone who suddenly wields any sort of power over the decision-making that effects almost four-and-a-half million people full time.  Something ain't right about that.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Oct 6, 2012)

And now for insanity in the Maine elections: the incumbent GOP has attacked the Democratic candidate for... her World of Warcraft playing as a Rogue, and her posts on the World of Warcraft forums, and has linked this to why she should not be trusted in politics.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49313145/ns/us_news-weird_news/

Only in America~


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 6, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> And now for insanity in the Maine elections: the incumbent GOP has attacked the Democratic candidate for... her World of Warcraft playing as a Rogue, and her posts on the World of Warcraft forums, and has linked this to why she should not be trusted in politics.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49313145/ns/us_news-weird_news/
> 
> Only in America~


Oh come on.  The incumbent missed a perfectly good joke oppurtunity.  What the incumbent should have said was, "Can you really trust my opponent to fight for anti-sodomy laws since rogues do it from behind?"


----------



## Rilvor (Oct 6, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> And now for insanity in the Maine elections: the incumbent GOP has attacked the Democratic candidate for... her World of Warcraft playing as a Rogue, and her posts on the World of Warcraft forums, and has linked this to why she should not be trusted in politics.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49313145/ns/us_news-weird_news/
> 
> Only in America~



Before the mob arrives to discuss this, I would like to point out something people in other sites seem to have missed:

I have yet to see how this information was acquired mentioned anywhere. What this story means depends entirely on how this information was found out. Allow me to explain.

If the Democratic candidate was responsible for the removal of her anonymity through her own revealing of who "Santiaga" is, then yes her statements are very unprofessional and she should have never allowed them to be linked to someone in her station.

If this information was gathered through some other means, and "Santiaga" never revealed who she is in real life then this is a major breach of privacy and the anonymity one should be able to reasonably expect. There is nothing wrong with her saying these things from an anonymous position as it would have been reasonable to expect no one would twist her words against her or use what she does in her free time as a weapon.

It can be agreed in general that this is an absurd thing to make a big deal out of, but one must remember that not everyone understands gaming or World of Warcract and even then people have different viewpoints of what someone in her station says online.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 6, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If I was living in New Zealand for whatever reason but wasn't a citizen why should I have a voice in their government?  Let's say I just lived there six months out of the year or I was with Peter Jackson's army of people filming on for the Lord of the Rings movies.  If I rent a car or an apartment there, why should I suddenly hold power over making governmental decisions for a country am I not even a citizen of?  Sure I live there, but only by the grace that their government allows me to based on a visa which they have to approve.  In essence I am a guest of their nation, not someone who suddenly wields any sort of power over the decision-making that effects almost four-and-a-half million people full time.  Something ain't right about that.



You've missed the difference between "legal (permanent) resident", "citizen" and "visitor":

Visitor - Allowed to enter the country as a guest and to work, but has no legal right to live there permanently.

Legal Permanent Resident - Allowed to live in the country permanently (typically over one year), but remains a citizen of their original country.

Citizen - Allowed to live in the country permanently AND it a citizen of that country (plus others if dual-citizenship is allowed).

What you've described are VISITORS, not LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENTS.

Here in New Zealand:


> Basically, you are qualified to enrol [to vote] if:
> 
> you are 18 years or older
> you are a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident and
> you have lived in New Zealand for one year or more without leaving the country



... which sounds fine to me. I don't see any justification as to why permanent non-citizen residents of a country should be denied the ability to vote. They've made a commitment to the country AND have paid taxes.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 8, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> You've missed the difference between "legal (permanent) resident", "citizen" and "visitor":
> 
> Visitor - Allowed to enter the country as a guest and to work, but has no legal right to live there permanently.
> 
> ...



Had a big post ready to go and lost it.  Bare with me as I'm likely not going to touch on everything I had in my mind at the time.

Your main complaint as it appeared to me was that because someone pays taxes then they should be allowed to vote in a country's election.  And you don't need to be a permanent resident to pay another country's taxes, most people do so all the time when they visit.

The other issue I take from this is just because one is considered a "permanent resident" that doesn't automatically imply that they actually live in said country or partake in what it means to actually belong to said country.  You're still, in the government's eyes, considered a guest of that country who has to abide by the laws therein whilst you remain there.  You might as well make the claim that because I have to follow your laws I should be allowed to vote.  

I work with a guy who's a Colombian national at the arena I work at.  He rents an apartment here in New Jersey and has done so for several years now.  He's considered a resident alien and has his green card.  He however spends roughly six-seven months out of the year in Colombia with his family, coming up here mostly during the heavy times of the year where a lot of sports are intersecting on one another as my line of work is VERY seasonal.  He's a nice guy and all, but I'm not exactly sure he should be allowed to vote as he's not a naturalized citizen nor does he necessarily want to be one.  He knows very little about the politics of our nation and doesn't really care.  

It appears to me on this forum and others many people do hold onto this idea that the uneducated voter is as much, if not more dangerous than the person who doesn't vote.  As far as he's concerned, Obama is a Muslim faggot-loving nigger.  I'm not exactly sure he's the best choice for someone I want to have a say in what direction my country goes on through economic, foreign, and domestic policy among others if how he qualifies the presidency is their stance on gay marriage, especially when they're not even a citizen of this country.  Now you could make the claim that this mentality already exists on people who are already citizens, and you'd be right.  However, consider the state of the country right now in relation to the issue of illegal immigration.  There's a debate which has been going around for years about the possibility of making it easier for illegal residents of this country to become legal ones with a possibility towards easier citizenship down the road; primary factor of course being that we want to help these people get better wages and start paying into the system through legal taxable income which I don't really disagree with in principle.  Most of the individuals are from Mexico or other countries within Latin America, mostly God-fearing Catholics at that (most statistics I found have Roman Catholicism being roughly 80% pervasive within the populations of Mexico and Latin American countries).

Why is this important?  Well we already saw in this last census, as Cod pointed out, that Southern states with the exception of Louisiana have largely gained electoral votes or stayed the same while a good deal of Northern states have lost votes.  If within the next eight years some immigration reforms are made that do allow for those illegal residents to become legal, which at last estimate in 2010 was somewhere around 11.2 million, you could see another swing coming in 2020 when the next census is taken.  And I tend to think that if the choice came down to logistics or religious morals, most of those 11.2 million people would vote for their religious morals which would mean votes towards the Republican party, and it's clear how you and most of the rest of this forum feels about them.  

tl:dr, I don't believe what goes on in New Zealand with a population half of New York City can be just copied and pasted onto a country like the US that holds 311.6 million people considering drastically different domestic issues and voting practices each country has.



BrodyCoyote said:


> And now for insanity in the Maine elections: the incumbent GOP has attacked the Democratic candidate for... her World of Warcraft playing as a Rogue, and her posts on the World of Warcraft forums, and has linked this to why she should not be trusted in politics.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49313145/ns/us_news-weird_news/
> 
> Only in America~



This actually doesn't seem like insanity once you actually look into what was being said and some real issues that crop up.

Now yes, certainly someone's character class or the fact that they enjoy playing video games shouldn't be a deciding factor or held against anyone looking to hold public office.

But before you start going off on "lol conservatards no get teh vidya..."

As per Colleen's own admission she has joked about allowing herself to get too involved in WoW, so much so that her work suffers because of it.  This does not show me, if I was a voter in Maine, that she takes work seriously or that she knows how to prioritize and issues with work ethic (also with some undertones of a possible addiction.  It is WoW afterall.).  Likewise, she's also used the Blizzard forums to go off on political rants, most of them being vulgar and unprofessional.  All of this is stuff that SHE HAS PUT OUT THERE HERSELF ON THE INTERNET.  That is just enough fodder to wage a campaign on the content of one's character which can completely derail someone's campaign.  

Now you can certainly question whether or not those attacks are fair, she doesn't help herself by keeping alive accounts where she throws around expletives at other players and politics whilst joking about playing WoW when she should be working as a social worker.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 9, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The other issue I take from this is just because one is considered a "permanent resident" that doesn't automatically imply that they actually live in said country or partake in what it means to actually belong to said country.  You're still, in the government's eyes, considered a guest of that country who has to abide by the laws therein whilst you remain there.



If you have been granted the right to reside permanently in a country, it usually means that you have to meet fairly strict commitment criteria. For example, the "commitment criteria" for New Zealand that you must meet at least one of for permanent residency, in addition to having held a residence visa for two years:
* Been in country for 184+ days in each of two 12 month periods
* Tax resident status
* Approved investor, including investing NZ$1 million or more for two years (hello Kim Dotcom!)
* Have a business in NZ with 25% stake or over for at least two years
* Own a home and/or been employed in NZ for at least nine months in two years

All that is hardly "guest" status in the same way as someone is who is fresh off a 747 in Auckland on a tourist visa. 

With the level of commitment demonstrated by the above, why _shouldn't_ someone - even the infamous Kim Dotcom - be allowed to vote?
I seem to recall someone saying during the 1776 insurrection against Britain something about "_No taxation without representation_" - maybe I was mistaken.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I work with a guy who's a Colombian national at the arena I work at.  He rents an apartment here in New Jersey and has done so for several years now.  He's considered a resident alien and has his green card.  He however spends roughly six-seven months out of the year in Colombia with his family, coming up here mostly during the heavy times of the year where a lot of sports are intersecting on one another as my line of work is VERY seasonal.  He's a nice guy and all, but I'm not exactly sure he should be allowed to vote as he's not a naturalized citizen nor does he necessarily want to be one.  He knows very little about the politics of our nation and doesn't really care.



On the other hand, I've worked with Sri Lankan IT professionals who were granted permanent residence and who were scrupulously working their way towards full NZ citizenship status, making sure that they adhered to the residency criteria and so forth. So what you're saying is that because of a few jerkwads, people who are genuinely working towards citizenship should be excluded from a voice in their community and adopted country?



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> However, consider the state of the country right now in relation to the issue of illegal immigration.  There's a debate which has been going around for years about the possibility of making it easier for illegal residents of this country to become legal ones with a possibility towards easier citizenship down the road; primary factor of course being that we want to help these people get better wages and start paying into the system through legal taxable income which I don't really disagree with in principle.  Most of the individuals are from Mexico or other countries within Latin America, mostly God-fearing Catholics at that (most statistics I found have Roman Catholicism being roughly 80% pervasive within the populations of Mexico and Latin American countries).
> 
> Why is this important?  Well we already saw in this last census, as Cod pointed out, that Southern states with the exception of Louisiana have largely gained electoral votes or stayed the same while a good deal of Northern states have lost votes.  If within the next eight years some immigration reforms are made that do allow for those illegal residents to become legal, which at last estimate in 2010 was somewhere around 11.2 million, you could see another swing coming in 2020 when the next census is taken.  *And I tend to think that if the choice came down to logistics or religious morals, most of those 11.2 million people would vote for their religious morals which would mean votes towards the Republican party, and it's clear how you and most of the rest of this forum feels about them. *



So what? We have a high proportion of religious Pacific Islander immigrants here in NZ who are somewhat conservative in their outlook - it doesn't mean I'd look for ways to exclude their voice just because I might not like their politics. 

Anyone who seriously suggests that people should be excluded from voting just because they might vote the "wrong" way is a *coward.* But then, gerrymandering and voter restrictions for political gain _do _seems to be the American Way(tm) - hell, the very _word_ "gerrrymander" is a US invention! The more I read about the US electoral system, the more I shake my head in disbelief that this is supposedly a model for the world!



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> tl:dr, I don't believe what goes on in New Zealand with a population half of New York City can be just copied and pasted onto a country like the US that holds 311.6 million people considering drastically different domestic issues and voting practices each country has.



Well, a higher percentage of people vote in NZ elections as opposed to those in the "leader of the free world" - people were worried that we "only" had a turnout of 75% of registered electors in our last election, compared with - what was it? - barely 50% in the US bothered to vote in '08? 

Yeah.... we're different.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 9, 2012)

Rilvor said:


> Before the mob arrives to discuss this, I would like to point out something people in other sites seem to have missed:
> 
> I have yet to see how this information was acquired mentioned anywhere. What this story means depends entirely on how this information was found out. Allow me to explain.
> 
> ...




The way I see it as well, it's not different than a politician admitting he plays Call of Duty. (Tim Kaine plays it)

Then again, I can see why politicians are nitpicking at it since it has a stigma attached to it. It would be like a governor or senator saying that he/she's a furry and whatever party would be picking at it because of the negative connotations that the fandom has, especially if the person is a fursuiter.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> -stuff-



With more people using the internet, I think it comes down to the individual to look at the candidates and research the issues that they have and make a general consensus that the person is the person that they are voting for and making sure what they accuse...and accused for is either true or false. That's asking too much though.

 At work, I see a handful of people doing research on each candidate, while a few watch TV ads advertised on hulu and youtube and go by that instead of doing some research.
There's a Local Tea party that hates Obama but sees Romney as just as bad, but most of what they say aren't exactly true. I had the pleasure of sitting in on one of their meetings (fixing the projector and computer) and listen in on some of the things spoken.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 9, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The other issue I take from this is just because one is considered a "permanent resident" that doesn't automatically imply that they actually live in said country or partake in what it means to actually belong to said country.


_'... or permanent resident and *you have lived in New Zealand for one year or more without leaving the country*'.
_


> He knows very little about the politics of our nation and doesn't really care.


He has been successfully Americanised, then!



> And I tend to think that if the choice came down to logistics or  religious morals, most of those 11.2 million people would vote for their  religious morals *which would mean votes towards the Republican party*...


You tend to think wrong. At least for the last two/three decades Hispanic and Latino Americans, regardless of being more uneducated and religious and their opinion perhaps traditionally defined 'conservative', have consistently leaned to the Democratic party by a supermajority - foreign-born even more clearly.

GOP seems to have antagonised them for a good while.



Mayfurr said:


> I seem to recall someone saying during the 1776 insurrection against Britain something about "_No taxation without representation_" - maybe I was mistaken.


#colonialproblems


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 9, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> All that is hardly "guest" status in the same way as someone is who is fresh off a 747 in Auckland on a tourist visa.



The government still doesn't view you as one of their own.  Part of the reason why the term also used to describe legal resident is *resident alien*.  If I was a legal resident in New Zealand, if for some reason something happened to me in say India, I couldn't exactly go to the New Zealand embassy to ask for help, be it legal trouble/loss of documents/whatever.  Likewise if I commit certain crimes such as possibly being stopped for a DUI, I could be deported from the country.  Yes, it certainly doesn't seem like the government of New Zealand views me as anything more than a tolerated presence within their country and nothing more who can easily be sent away and become another country's problem, ie my home country.



> I seem to recall someone saying during the 1776 insurrection against Britain something about "_No taxation without representation_" - maybe I was mistaken.



Not really relevant because those colonists were still considered subjects of the British crown/naturalized Brits, not aliens living within British territory.



> On the other hand, I've worked with Sri Lankan IT professionals who were granted permanent residence and who were scrupulously working their way towards full NZ citizenship status, making sure that they adhered to the residency criteria and so forth. So what you're saying is that because of a few jerkwads, people who are genuinely working towards citizenship should be excluded from a voice in their community and adopted country?



Not at all.  If your Sri Lankan friend becomes a citizen then he should absolutely be allowed to vote.  On the other hand, if your argument is "since he's in the process of becoming a citizen he should be allowed to vote, I'd have to say I disagree with that.  It's similar logic to "I'm 17 at the time of the election when the voting age is 18.  Since I'm going to be 18 in December I should just be allowed to vote."  Not really how that works in this country.



> So what? We have a high proportion of religious Pacific Islander immigrants here in NZ who are somewhat conservative in their outlook - it doesn't mean I'd look for ways to exclude their voice just because I might not like their politics.
> 
> Anyone who seriously suggests that people should be excluded from voting just because they might vote the "wrong" way is a *coward.* But then, gerrymandering and voter restrictions for political gain _do _seems to be the American Way(tm) - hell, the very _word_ "gerrrymander" is a US invention! The more I read about the US electoral system, the more I shake my head in disbelief that this is supposedly a model for the world!



Well I mean we've had discussions on here where people want to ban certain types of political speech and that's pretty much the same stance I've taken with them.

Ignoring what way those individuals may be voting, you're still dealing with a problem of the disproportionate shift in regional power in this country when considering how those immigrants will affect the electoral college.  Of course that 11.2 million is a figure generated from 2010.  In another 10 years that number could be increased, adding a great influx of people in this country which shifts power based solely on population.  I do believe that is a potentially damning issue when the states which would have the most say in the presidency could potentially have a greater concentration in the South.  An entire nation's policies being shaped based on the electoral decisions of a single region is something I personally wouldn't look forward to.



> Well, a higher percentage of people vote in NZ elections as opposed to those in the "leader of the free world" - people were worried that we "only" had a turnout of 75% of registered electors in our last election, compared with - what was it? - barely 50% in the US bothered to vote in '08?



Of course again you're talking about the difference between trying to compel 4.4 million people to vote as opposed to 311.6 million.  Even at 50% you're still talking about getting four times as many people voting in the US elections as opposed to New Zealand's.  I'd say looking at it from that perspective we do a decent job.  



Lizzie said:


> _'... or permanent resident and *you have lived in New Zealand for one year or more without leaving the country*'.
> _



How is that qualified?  One year in the country between elections?  Just one year continuous in the country and then do whatever the hell you want and you can still vote?  Seriously, I don't know.  You tell me.  Because I'm looking at this in comparison to someone's entire life as opposed to a single election.



> You tend to think wrong. At least for the last two/three decades Hispanic and Latino Americans, regardless of being more uneducated and religious and their opinion perhaps traditionally defined 'conservative', have consistently leaned to the Democratic party by a supermajority - foreign-born even more clearly.
> 
> GOP seems to have antagonised them for a good while.



Of course that was a poll back in June and the opinions of individuals change.  In 2011, due to the large number of deportations during Obama's administration, 59% were disapproving of Obama's policies, which pretty much disputes the idea of them consistently being pro-Dem.  One of the driving factors that would be against Obama particularly with Latinos is what happened with an interview with Telemundo last month where immigration reform was brought up, with interviewer Jose Diaz Balart nailing the President on those deportations.  Elections in the general mindset of the public can very much come down to a "what have you done for me lately" approach and if the Republican campaign decides to take advantage of those deportation numbers to present to Latinos, there could be some real issues for this election.  There's been growing concern that I've seen amongst Latinos considering that Obama hasn't lived up to the promises he's made in 2008 and aren't necessarily holding to the belief that he'll be more aggressive with his promised immigration reform over the next four years.  The Republicans aren't necessarily against the idea of having Latinos here for work, even Bush attempted to legalize the 11-12 million already here towards the end of his second term.  The Republican Party has also recently been revamping their approach towards Latinos by featuring them more prominently within their ranks, as was seen at the RNC.  I don't believe you're going to see similar numbers with McCain as you will with Romney come November.



Ozriel said:


> With more people using the internet, I think it comes down to the individual to look at the candidates and research the issues that they have and make a general consensus that the person is the person that they are voting for and making sure what they accuse...and accused for is either true or false. That's asking too much though.
> 
> At work, I see a handful of people doing research on each candidate, while a few watch TV ads advertised on hulu and youtube and go by that instead of doing some research.
> There's a Local Tea party that hates Obama but sees Romney as just as bad, but most of what they say aren't exactly true. I had the pleasure of sitting in on one of their meetings (fixing the projector and computer) and listen in on some of the things spoken.



S'why I'd always tell people not to discount the effect of political ads and muckraking.  There are a significant amount of people who will look at those ads and use them to base their votes on.  I wouldn't be surprised if people look at Obama's latest sarcastic ad on Romney's PBS statements as a means for wanting to vote for Obama.

[yt]bZxs09eV-Vc[/yt]

Interesting side note, Sesame Workshop is demanding that the Obama campaign take down the ad because they never approved the use of Big Bird in the ad, as the company does not endorse political candidates.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 9, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> S'why I'd always tell people not to discount the effect of political ads and muckraking.  There are a significant amount of people who will look at those ads and use them to base their votes on.  I wouldn't be surprised if people look at Obama's latest sarcastic ad on Romney's PBS statements as a means for wanting to vote for Obama.
> 
> [yt]bZxs09eV-Vc[/yt]
> 
> Interesting side note, Sesame Workshop is demanding that the Obama campaign take down the ad because they never approved the use of Big Bird in the ad, as the company does not endorse political candidates.



Interesting.
Like I said earier, there are reasons why I won't put a vote for Romeny or the republican party this election.
Between the policies, the vicitimizing, and the mudslinging, it feels like I am at a debate pannel in a furry convention. It's pointless, stupid, anf laughable. Don't take my word for it.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 9, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Interesting.
> Like I said earier, there are reasons why I won't put a vote for Romeny or the republican party this election.
> Between the policies, the vicitimizing, and the mudslinging, it feels like I am at a debate pannel in a furry convention. It's pointless, stupid, anf laughable. Don't take my word for it.



Well we are on a furry website.  :V


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 9, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Well we are on a furry website.  :V



If this were Sofurry or some other backwater furry comminity on the net, I would be inclined to agree. Until the next "Swarm", it's somewhat...normal...


----------



## Ranguvar (Oct 9, 2012)

White president, black president I don't gyear. Just scoot me up some doo doo and I'll be right there.


----------



## KigRatel (Oct 9, 2012)

I can tell that this has been somewhat civil.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2012)

I just found out about the new big bird political commercial.

...This election is getting silly.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 9, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I just found out about the new big bird political commercial.
> 
> ...This election is getting silly.



lol, 'getting'.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 9, 2012)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> lol, 'getting'.


At this rate we're going to have people banging together two coconuts in seach of the holy grail levels of silly.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 9, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> At this rate we're going to have people banging together two coconuts in seach of the holy grail levels of silly.



President Obama, doesn't not bang those coconuts hard enough. As your candidate, I will make sure that the coconuts will be banged together harder.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 9, 2012)

Along with all those virgin wenches in the castle, who I plan to marry and form a cult with in Utah.*


----------



## Spatel (Oct 10, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Why is this important?  Well we already saw in this last census, as Cod pointed out, that Southern states with the exception of Louisiana have largely gained electoral votes or stayed the same while a good deal of Northern states have lost votes.  If within the next eight years some immigration reforms are made that do allow for those illegal residents to become legal, which at last estimate in 2010 was somewhere around 11.2 million, you could see another swing coming in 2020 when the next census is taken.  And I tend to think that if the choice came down to logistics or religious morals, most of those 11.2 million people would vote for their religious morals which would mean votes towards the Republican party, and it's clear how you and most of the rest of this forum feels about them.



I don't think it's a reason to disenfranchise them, just because we might disagree with them. In a reverse scenario, the Republicans have a vested interest in keeping DC from being represented at a federal level. That really isn't fair to the citizens of DC, who have no say in Senate affairs and no viable way of achieving it without a Constitutional Amendment that either retro cedes them or gives them statehood.

Besides, Mexican immigrants are likely to be more economically left wing than the average American voter, so you win some you lose some.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 10, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> How is that qualified?  One year in the country between elections?  Just one year continuous in the country and then do whatever the hell you want and you can still vote?  Seriously, I don't know.  You tell me.  Because I'm looking at this in comparison to someone's entire life as opposed to a single election.


You said that being a permanent resident didn't _'imply actually living in the country or partaking in what it means to live in said country'_. Obviously that is not the case.

Perhaps civilised nations of the world do not have to worry about, nor have ever had a problem of, them foreigners doing whatever the hell they want and still vote. ï¼¼(^â–½^ï¼ )ãƒŽ



> Of course that was a poll back in June and the opinions of individuals change. In 2011, due to the large number of deportations during Obama's  administration, 59% were disapproving of Obama's policies, which pretty  much disputes the idea of them consistently being pro-Dem.


It wasn't only a poll that only asked current political affiliation but voting history in presidential elections back to 1980. 67, 52, 67, 72, 61, 69, 62, 59 per cents against twenties and thirties seems _pretty much_ consistent pro-Democrat to me. 



> I don't believe you're going to see similar numbers with McCain as you will with Romney come November.


We do not have to, because not voting for Obama does not translate as a vote to Romney.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 11, 2012)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Not at all.  If your Sri Lankan friend becomes a citizen then he should absolutely be allowed to vote.  On the other hand, if your argument is "since he's in the process of becoming a citizen he should be allowed to vote", I'd have to say I disagree with that.



No, what I'm saying is that such people have _already_ demonstrated their commitment to the country, therefore they should be able to vote. *This is NZ government policy.* Why does such logic not apply to the US, aside from "OMG brown people voting the wrong way!"



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Ignoring what way those individuals may be voting, you're still dealing with a problem of the disproportionate shift in regional power in this country when considering how those immigrants will affect the electoral college.  Of course that 11.2 million is a figure generated from 2010.  In another 10 years that number could be increased, adding a great influx of people in this country which shifts power based solely on population.  I do believe that is a potentially damning issue when the states which would have the most say in the presidency could potentially have a greater concentration in the South.  An entire nation's policies being shaped based on the electoral decisions of a single region is something I personally wouldn't look forward to.



Again, _so what?_ Is this sufficient reason to disenfranchise people? You're living in a (so-called) democracy - suck it up and deal with it.
Of course, you could always ditch the electoral college and go for straight majority votes...

... though I guess that seeing as the US Founding Fathers set up the electoral college and the Founding Fathers are practically gods in US society, any suggestion of dumping archaic institutions that no longer apply to the modern age would be seen as sacrilege or something. Though I don't know why the US should think that such change is hard - after all, NZ dumped its UK-based Upper House in the 60's when it was no longer relevant, and the UK-style First-Past-The-Post voting system was dumped in favour of a Mixed Member Proportional voting system based on what the _Germans_ have. You may have more people, but you've got more resources that us as well as that "can-do" spirit Americans for decades have been telling us they have...



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Of course again you're talking about the difference between trying to compel 4.4 million people to vote as opposed to 311.6 million.



"Compel"? You must be thinking of Australia where voting _is_ compulsory on pain of prosecution. Voting here is encouraged, but not mandatory.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Even at 50% you're still talking about getting four times as many people voting in the US elections as opposed to New Zealand's.  I'd say looking at it from that perspective we do a decent job.



Wait, _what?_ By that logic, as little as 20% of Americans voting would be considered "good" because it's still at least twice the number of voting people in New Zealand - yet I doubt that most Americans would be happy with their fate being determined by as little as one in five people.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2012)

Biden is practically curb-stomping Ryan in the debate right now, turn it on if you can.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 11, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Biden is practically curb-stomping Ryan in the debate right now, turn it on if you can.


That's what the GOP gets for choosing a VP for his face and not his debating skills.


----------



## Day Coydog (Oct 11, 2012)

Hey, OP why no Chris Christie?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 11, 2012)

Day Coydog said:


> Hey, OP why no Chris Christie?



...Because he emphatically refused to run? on a treadmill :V


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 12, 2012)

If this election was based solely on this community, Obama would win hands down. Fortunately for the rest of the world, it doesn't so, who do you think will win. Not who you like more, who is likely to win.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> If this election was based solely on this community, Obama would win hands down. Fortunately for the rest of the world the conservative majority in the US and the minorities of conservatives outside of the US, of which most are incapable of articulating what about the president they don't like beyond the talking points they're fed from Fox News and talk radio, it doesn't so, who do you think will win. Not who you like more, who is likely to win.



Fixed that for you. 

October is a long month, at this point it's a toss up, and until Mitt starts making some clear leads, elections typically favor the incumbent. What hurts Willard's chances are an improving economy. Pot holes in his future include two debates and 'October surprises' that occur in the last two week of election season. If Obama holds steady, in any way balances the gains Willard made in the last week and continues to outspend him and his super pacs, Obama will likely win with a small majority of electoral votes. Obama will also likely win the popular vote, regardless of electoral outcome.

Penis.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> If this election was based solely on this community, Obama would win hands down. Fortunately for the rest of the world, it doesn't so, who do you think will win. Not who you like more, who is likely to win.



Frankly, this election was over before it started.  The primary cycle where the Republican base frantically threw their support to one candidate after another desperately trying to find someone they hated less than Romney made that clear.  With last week's debate, Romney may have finally made enough of a drive to kick a field goal, but Obama was ahead by a touchdown.  Biden's success tonight marks today as the day Romney's numbers were the highest they will ever be, and it still wouldn't be enough.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 12, 2012)

I couldn't watch the debate because I procrastinated on this term paper. Although I'm hearing from pals that both Ryan and Biden both did a good job.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 12, 2012)

Aetius said:


> I couldn't watch the debate because I procrastinated on this term paper. Although I'm hearing from pals that both Ryan and Biden both did a good job.


Ryan was getting torn a new asshole.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 12, 2012)

Ryan made no major gaffes, the weirdness of his "bean" story aside.  But Biden continually took him to task over his bullshitting, and on the Afghanistan question in particular Ryan ended up looking inexperienced and unknowledgeable.  He also was plainly dancing as he was taking fire about the specifics of his tax plan.

edit: sums it up


----------



## zachhart12 (Oct 12, 2012)

Aetius said:


> I couldn't watch the debate because I procrastinated on this term paper. Although I'm hearing from pals that both Ryan and Biden both did a good job.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j3roG09O6T4#!


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 12, 2012)

Vice presidential debates dont matter much, but its cute you guys gloat on the vice presidential debate, and not the major ass kicking obama got in the first debate even after gloating about how obama would win before it even started.... For the VP debate neither really "won". Ryan didnt win it, but neither did biden. It was more a draw than anything, and even stil, doesnt matter much in the election, people vote for president, the VP comes along for the ride. 

Biden didn't come off as aggressive, he came off as downright rude, interrupting EVERYTHING ryan was trying to say. He also had that creepy rapist smile that was just...it made me shudder. Everyone I talked to about it said ryan came off as more likable, and both didnt really give much specifics on their plans. The general consensus i am getting is no one won, dbeiden looked like an asshole and had a creepy smile, ryan was nerdy seeming and didnt give much in the way of specifics, in part because biden kept interuppting him, but that biden gave no specifics either. In other words, a wash. 

Either way i doubt it will influence the numbers much, the next presidential debate will be the one to watch and influence the results of the elections much. if obama performs like he did in his firs debate the election is basically over, but since its a town hall format i think obama will do better, though i still think romney will do good.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 12, 2012)

The last debate was like watching two furries argue about porn. It was retarded to say in the least.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 12, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Vice presidential debates dont matter much, but its cute you guys gloat on the vice presidential debate, and not the major ass kicking obama got in the first debate even after gloating about how obama would win before it even started.... For the VP debate neither really "won". Ryan didnt win it, but neither did biden. It was more a draw than anything, and even stil, doesnt matter much in the election, people vote for president, the VP comes along for the ride.
> 
> Biden didn't come off as aggressive, he came off as downright rude, interrupting EVERYTHING ryan was trying to say. He also had that creepy rapist smile that was just...it made me shudder. Everyone I talked to about it said ryan came off as more likable, and both didnt really give much specifics on their plans. The general consensus i am getting is no one won, dbeiden looked like an asshole and had a creepy smile, ryan was nerdy seeming and didnt give much in the way of specifics, in part because biden kept interuppting him, but that biden gave no specifics either. In other words, a wash.
> 
> Either way i doubt it will influence the numbers much, the next presidential debate will be the one to watch and influence the results of the elections much. if obama performs like he did in his firs debate the election is basically over, but since its a town hall format i think obama will do better, though i still think romney will do good.



Even though romney did the same thing in his debate with Obama?


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 12, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Even though romney did the same thing in his debate with Obama?




Obama could actually get out sentences without being interrupted. Ryan could not. In most things Obama said Romney did not interrupt him, there were a few times Romney did interupt Obama, and a gew times Obama interrupted Romney. Biden was interupting Ryan at every question, or snorting, smirking, laughing, etc.  No one watching the presidential debate would say Romney did the same to Obama.

Vice presidential debates are not really all that important anyway, its the presidential debates that matter.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 12, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> obama coudl get out sentences without being interrupted. Ryan could not. In most things obama said romney did not interrupt him, there were a few times romney did interupt obama, and a gew times obama interrupted romney. Biden was interupting ryan at every question, no one watching the presidential debate would say romney did the same to obama.


That doesn't change anything. "Oh he didn't do it as OFTEN" yeah but...he still did it.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 12, 2012)

Aleu said:


> That doesn't change anything. "Oh he didn't do it as OFTEN" yeah but...he still did it.



Yes, he did, again, Romney interrupted Obama. Apparently you missed the other part: Obama interrupted Romney too. If it happens some in a debate its fine. i didnt see Obama as being assholeish for interrupting Romney a few times or vice versa. its different when its on every single question.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 12, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Yes, he did, again, Romney interrupted Obama. Apparently you missed the other part: Obama interrupted Romney too. If it happens some in a debate its fine. i didnt see Obama as being assholeish for interrupting Romney a few times or vice versa. its different when its on every single question.



And you're overexaggerating here. It wasn't on every single question and Ryan has interrupted to. So this pissing and moaning of "bawww he interrupted" is...really petty really.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 12, 2012)

Biden was incredibly nice to Ryan. Not once during the debate did he get up and punch Ryan in the face, so he showed the man far more respect than he deserves.

They traded blows for the most part, but it felt like Biden got a few more in. That's about the best the Dems could've hoped for.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 12, 2012)

Aleu said:


> And you're overexaggerating here. It wasn't on every single question and Ryan has interrupted to. So this pissing and moaning of "bawww he interrupted" is...really petty really.



Petty things have an influence on debates. It wasnt just the interruptions , it was the near constant smirking, giggling, chuckling and rape face smiles. They may seem petty, but petty things can influence a debate, from the tie one wears to the size of the american flag pin to the hair color to the number of hairs in someones nose. 

 Note that I was not stating my observation only, but those of people I know, many of whom are undecided. They all complained about the interruptions by biden, and his giggling and the creepy smiles he would give.  I dont think that the debate was won by ryan, but in terms of likeability I'm getting the sense that biden was not too well liked (outside of those already supporting obama, who will overlook any flaw in their candidate). It seemed like it was every question, it was a figure of speech. I know ryan was not interrupted on ever question, but it felt that way...

 I think most will see this as a draw, as both candidates put in good points, but it was not a knockout  win for biden, in spite of the political spin.



Spatel said:


> Biden was incredibly nice to Ryan. Not once during the debate did he get up and punch Ryan in the face, so he showed the man far more respect than he deserves.



I swear this forum is way too partisan. Punching someone in the face? really? It would have made wonderful TV. But it would have been bad for obama for 2 reasons. One, his vice president would be facing assault charges, with recordings and millions of witnesses. Two, obama would likely lose the election because fof the sarah palin affect: many voted against mccain because he picked a dumb vice president, palin. Most americans wont want a man who will punch someone for having a different opinion than them who is a heartbeat away from having their finger on the nuclear button, and it would call obama into question for putting such a man into that position already. So you can fantasize, but it would have been the end of obamas campaign likely.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 12, 2012)

^It may have not been a knock out win, but it was a 60 something year old smacking up a poor fellow stuck in the corner telling him to get off his damn yard and smirking while doing so.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 12, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I swear this forum is way to partisan. Punching someone in the face? really? It would have made wonderful TV. But it would have been bad for obama for 2 reasons. One, his vice president would be facing assault charges, with recordings and millions of witnesses. Two, obama would liekly lose the election because fof the sarah palin affect: many voted against mccain because e picked a dumb vice president, palin. Most americans wont want a man who will punch someone for having a different opinion than them with their finger on the nuclear button, and it would call obama into question for putting such a man into that position already. So you can fantasize, but it would have been the end of obamas campaign likely.



I think he said that jokingly. Do not take stuff so super duper serial.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 12, 2012)

Plain fact is that if Ryan hadn't told so many lies and outright fabrications, Biden wouldn't have needed to interject so much.  Because Biden actually called Ryan on it, he's "rude", but if he hadn't, he'd have been "weak", so he took the better half of the catch-22 there.  I ask which is ruder - to interrupt a liar, or to actually be the liar making the other guy out to be a shitbag for things that aren't true?

Conservatives harping on style makes it plain that they think they lost on substance.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 12, 2012)

Heh.

Ryan: "Iran now has material to make 5 nuclear bombs..."

Where you getting your info Ryan? Iran doesn't have enough material for ONE, and in fact Israel wants to strike them before they get to a point where they're close to getting enough material for ONE bomb, that 90% or so that Netanyahu drew on his cartoon bomb.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 12, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Plain fact is that if Ryan hadn't told so many lies and outright fabrications, Biden wouldn't have needed to interject so much.  Because Biden actually called Ryan on it, he's "rude", but if he hadn't, he'd have been "weak", so he took the better half of the catch-22 there.  I ask which is ruder - to interrupt a liar, or to actually be the liar making the other guy out to be a shitbag for things that aren't true?
> 
> Conservatives harping on style makes it plain that they think they lost on substance.



Paul Ryan looked presidential and Joe Biden acted like a child.

Both of them lied about things. Biden wasn't rude for calling him out on it, he was rude because he kept laughing like a 3rd grader who heard a fart joke, and interrupting constantly. He was very un vice-presidential.  There was little substance on either side.

The only voters left in play are the undecided and those of weak political loyalty. How would such voters react to tonight's debate? In Ryan they saw someone who is sober and substantive, and in Biden they saw someone who was disrespectful, snide, constantly interrupting, and laughing and smiling at inappropriate times and topics. Indeed, Biden came across as almost bipolar, hardly able to contain himself for the first 60 minutes of the debate, and then very low energy and reserved for the final 30 minutes.

My guess is that voters who are still in play value style over substance, and in the style category, Ryan trounced Biden. Undecided voters in heartland swing states do not like the constant rudeness and disrespect Biden showed toward Ryan.

You can ifnore it all you want or pretend they were equally rude to each other, but they were not.  Biden's energy and aggression was undoubtedly a crowd pleaser for Democratic partisans, but did little to persuade swing voters or pull republicans over tp the obama biden camp.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 12, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> ... though I guess that seeing as the US Founding Fathers set up the  electoral college and the Founding Fathers are practically gods in US  society, any suggestion of dumping archaic institutions that no longer  apply to the modern age would be seen as sacrilege or something.



Not to get too off track but this is something that has always bothered me, especially since the conservatives bring it up ALL the time (IE waving around the constitution).
The constitution was written by a bunch of men 200+ years ago who were making decisions based on their world view at that time. While most of them were intellectuals and quite intelligent considering the average IQ and education of the time, they still were writing from an older point of view. Times change, and people's attitudes change. That's why they stuck the ability to change the constitution with amendments because they KNEW things might be different in the future.

Yet conservatives hold the original constitution as some kind of holy document that is the only thing that should be followed, screw the rest of the system. They elevate the founding fathers to sainthood (and then butcher and distort their beliefs to further their own agenda), even though the founding fathers were HUMAN and had flaws (Jefferson owning slaves is one that's brought up the most). And if we only paid attention to the constitution as the document necessary to run the government, we'd have to stop allowing women/blacks to vote and treat blacks as 3/5ths of a person, BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS ARE IN THE CONSTITUTION (Conservatives would probably want women and blacks not to vote anyway since they tend to vote Democrat).

But hey, many conservatives treat another ancient text (*coughbiblecough*) as an inerrant guide to follow strictly, so no wonder they do the same to the constitution.




Aetius said:


> This has been done before, and it hasn't worked out ohh so well.


Yes, and California is a model of bureaucratic efficiency. :V

I'm not exactly sure why you would support a state constitution amendment to force a supermajority vote for raising or changing taxes. That would just cause the state government to do even more work to govern properly. Plus, the amendment says either a legislative supermajority OR a statewide vote in November. How exactly do they choose which one of those to use? Imagine that they choose the statewide vote... then we'd have to wait until NEXT November to make any kind of major change on taxes. The language clearly states that the people vote can only happen in November, which smells like bullshit.

I should mention that the people against this proposal include all the Michigan unions, the AFL-CIO, The Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Republican governor of Michigan, several businesses, and people on both sides of the isle. The people supporting the amendment includes Norquest, the Koch's, the Tea Party, some Republicans, and the person who started the proposal who I will mention below.


There's another proposal, Prop 6, which is on the Michigan ballot, saying that any International bridge or tunnel crossing must be approved by taxpayers in a vote before being built. Years ago Michigan and Canada started working towards building a public bridge between the US and Canada in Detroit. According to the latest agreement Canada will foot the bill for the bridge and their customs, while the federal government will foot the bill for the US customs, and little state money will be used in the project. However, there's already a bridge nearby to Canada, owned privately by a conservative billionaire who wants to build his own bridge (the Canadians won't let him, though). This greedy bastard has been running attack ads against the public bridge and throwing money at politicians to stop it. He was the one who got proposal 5 and 6 on the ballot to prevent the public bridge from being built, because he fears competition. This amendment will affect any bridge or tunnel built between Canada and Michigan, however.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Michigan_International_Bridge_Initiative,_Proposal_6_(2012)
http://www.mlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/10/michigan_decides_2012_proposal_1.html


As for other proposals on the ballot I haven't decided on them yet. One is whether to allow local emergency managers. Two protect collective bargaining. One is for an amendment to force Michigan to have 25% alternative energy by 2025.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 12, 2012)

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/elections/2012/us-president/ So far, so interesting.


----------



## zachhart12 (Oct 12, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Paul Ryan looked presidential and Joe Biden acted like a child.
> 
> Both of them lied about things. Biden wasn't rude for calling him out on it, he was rude because he kept laughing like a 3rd grader who heard a fart joke, and interrupting constantly. He was very un vice-presidential.  There was little substance on either side.
> 
> ...



And wtf did Biden lie about?


----------



## Bliss (Oct 12, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> My guess is that voters who are still in play value style over *substance*, and in the style category, *Ryan trounced Biden*.


What is young Willard and Paul's magical budget that cuts taxes, increases military spending and reduces the deficit? Shall we finally see it *after* the election? :V

Obama has made his realistic and rather responsible budget public, whilst the Republican camp descends to reality-free 'Five Point Plans' and demagoguery. Yes, Democrats occasionally do it as well... but, at end of the day, they have something to fall back upon.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 12, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> And wtf did Biden lie about?



Instead of posting the ones ive found, ill jsut ink it.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=4eb_1350046076

There is a list of 10. Of course ryan lied about things, but I admit both sides do. For some reason people here seem to think democrats cannot lie. Im sure more will come out now that fact checkers are going over it, but the thing is both sides told lies in teh debate, but i find it rediculous some her e thing that thats justification for interrupting ryan...

oh, yeah and because the interrupting thing came up earlier

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/t...tes-the-democrats-have-become-the-rude-party/

"Joe Biden interrupted Paul Ryan 82 times in 90 minutes." So yeah, I wasnt far off, Biden interrupted Ryan almost once a minut , seriously. Ryan interrupted biden 3 times, 3 times in the whole debate. biden? 82. And thats not counting the moderator, who interrupted him 31 times. So ryan was interrupted 113 times in 90 minutes, bidden was interrupted just 3 or 4 times. Ryan was interrupted every 47 seconds if they were spaced evenly, so my ears werent bullshitting me, he was interrupted all the time.  Dont bullshit me and say ryan did that as much as biden did, or romney on obama for that matter, because it wasnt close. The complaints were about Romney interrupting Lehrer, not Obama (I'm not sure that that ever happened). He did it a total of 12 times in the 90 minute debate. Raddatz interrupted Ryan nearly three times as often as that.



Lizzie said:


> What is young Willard and Paul's magical budget that cuts taxes, increases military spending and reduces the deficit? Shall we finally see it *after* the election? :V



Reread what you just quoted. "My guess is that voters who are still in play value style over substance, and in the style category, Ryan trounced Biden." . On style, yes, ryan came out as the winner. DIben came off as rude and condescending.

Seems more agree with me than you: http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...yan-wins-the-polls-against-laughing-joe-biden

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/11/cnn-poll-on-debate-winner-ryan-48-biden-44/



> Half of all debate watchers questioned in the poll said the showdown didn't make them more likely to vote for either of the candidates' bosses, 28% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and 21% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect President Barack Obama.
> 
> According to the survey, 55% said that the vice president did better than expected, with 51% saying that the congressman from Wisconsin performed better than expected.
> 
> ...



So yeah, if you are a democrat you likely loved biden last night, if you were anyone else, then you didn't, that includes most independents apparently.


----------



## Gucci Mane (Oct 12, 2012)

"NUMBERS? heh, ain't no one gonna hip to that jive, babydoll. now check me blastin' my lats" *inserts cassette in boombox, bombtrack starts playing* - paul ryan


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 12, 2012)

Is it just me or is everyone playing the hope game with whatever the fuck candidate they're voting for. Newsflash people: Romney's a flabbergasted flip-flopping cuntbag and Obama's a twit. The reason why people are so bent out on saying Romney won is that he said something while Obama stood there like a stuck pixel. No one won. It was a retarded debate. There are two more coming up, judge that instead.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 12, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Is it just me or is everyone playing the hope game with whatever the fuck candidate they're voting for. Newsflash people: Romney's a flabbergasted flip-flopping cuntbag and Obama's a twit. The reason why people are so bent out on saying Romney won is that he said something while Obama stood there like a stuck pixel. No one won. It was a retarded debate. There are two more coming up, judge that instead.



Cute attempt to end the conversation, you might as well say that all republicans are rasists and all people who vote for Rommny are only doing so because they hate all that is good in the world. News Flash, atempting to have attacks without facts supporting it means you have lost.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 12, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> Cute attempt to end the conversation, you might as well say that all republicans are rasists and all people who vote for Rommny are only doing so because they hate all that is good in the world. News Flash, atempting to have attacks without facts supporting it means you have lost.



Republicans are racist and people who are voting for Romney are no better than dog shit on the bottom of my shoe. In fact, if republicans were so vehemently worried about money, they should be lynching minorities who'd vote democratic to have a unified Republic with the master race. Besides, if I were a Republican candidate, I would bring in a regime which would get rid of democrats because they are nothing but garbage, and garbage doesn't need to vote.  Happy? :V



When it comes to debating, I tend to look at body language than hearing words. Romney really wants to win and he'll do whatever he can in regards to speech to sway the vote and taking an aggressive stance. Obama's being overconfident and feels that he already has it in the bag, and his body language tell you that if you pay attention enough.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 13, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> For some reason people here seem to think democrats cannot lie.


No. We only think that Democrats are fundamentally less inclined to lie for whatever reason.



> Reread what you just quoted. "My guess is that  voters who are still in play value style over substance, and in the  style category, Ryan trounced Biden." . On style, yes, ryan came out as  the winner.


And I cannot comprehend how _politely_ lying and refusing to give any substance to the Romney budget (something presented as his 'thing') could be counted in any way as a victory - other than a Pyrrhic one. This isn't a Miss USA pageant in which you may promise world peace and the moon and no one pays mind. Obama has been in the White House for four years and now knows he needs to emphasise matters of fact instead of hope and change, which he has done more or less successfully... mainly because the Romney campaign seems to live on another plane of existence and tries to falsely assure people it can fix the budget deficit with the same medicine which turned it to a sharp rise and support the current standard of living for many old, poor and young Americans at the same time. The US debt is simply too big to be offset by cutting taxes and praying that future growth will eventually compensate for it. Especially since the country's tax revenue as percentage of GDP is already among the very lowest of industrialised nations.

I didn't ask for your opinion on who won the debate nor if Yanks agreed with it.



Ozriel said:


> Obama's *sexy*.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 13, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> No. We only think that Democrats are fundamentally less inclined to lie for whatever reason.



Which they aren't , both parties lie. I can admit this, and I don't put a political party on a pedestal. The democrats are just as prone to lying as republicans are for the simple reason that they are human. The only ones who think politicians of one party dont lie but the others do are naive.



Lizzie said:


> And I cannot comprehend how _politely_ lying and refusing to give any substance to the Romney budget (something presented as his 'thing') could be counted in any way as a victory - other than a Pyrrhic one. Obama has been in the White House for four years and now knows he needs to emphasise matters of fact instead of hope and change, which he has done more or less successfully... mainly because the Romney campaign seems to live on another plane of existence and tries to falsely assure people it can fix the budget deficit with the same medicine which turned it to a sharp rise and support the current standard of living for many old, poor and young Americans at the same time. The US debt is simply too big to be offset by cutting taxes and praying that future growth will eventually compensate for it. Especially since the country's tax revenue as percentage of GDP is already among the very lowest of industrialised nations.



Obama doesnt have much substance either, he basically spends his whole time talking about how bad bush fucked up the economy and everything is bushes fault. Bush wasnt a good president but damn, there IS a cut off point for presidential blame, and the president doesnt cause companies to fall either. of course some of the partisans on here will jump on that, but the fact is both have glaring holes in their announced budgets or things they woudl do, because they dont want attack ads aired about it before the election. Yes the social security, medicare, and medicaid plans need to be reformed, and yes, taxes will likely have to go up eventually, thoguh not ust on the super rich either, even though that seems popular to do now. I doubt romney will be able to do everything he would want because democrats control the senate, so  stuff would be watered down (or not passed if the dems turn into the "obstruct everything" party even though this will be alright when THEY do it.) Both political parties in the US are like immature children, i jsut happen to agree with mroe of one than another.



Lizzie said:


> I didn't ask for your opinion on who won the debate nor if Yanks agreed with it.



No, i gave mine anyway earlier, no one won the debate, it was a draw. . A slight minority is saying ryan did better."Yanks" are the only ones whose opinions matter, the rest of the world means little  as far as opinion goes.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 13, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Which they aren't , both parties lie. I can admit this, and I don't put a political party on a pedestal. The democrats are just as prone to lying as republicans are for the simple reason that they are human. The only ones who think politicians of one party dont lie but the others do are deluded and naive.
> 
> Obama doesnt have much substance either, he basically spends his whole time talking about how bad bush fucked up the economy and everything is bushes fault. Bush wasnt a good president but damn, there IS a cut off point for presidential blame
> 
> I doubt romney will be able to do everything he would want because democrats control the senate, so  stuff would be watered down (or not passed if the dems turn into the "obstruct everything" party even though this will be alright when THEY do it.) Both political parties in the US are like immature children, i jsut happen to agree with mroe of one than another.



Oh you can admit this, how brave of you. You are aware that most people lie, right? Even if it's not to their benefit. I regularly track Politifact and a few other fact-checkers, the key difference is that Democrats at least try to aim at helping the majority, and even if they lie about it, _some_ results still occur that help the nation eventually, whilst Republicans have little-to-no interest in helping the nation as a whole and are adamant about lying about it - They pay people to be aware of the internet, fact-checkers, media, and all that (hopefully).

Obama doesn't spend most of his time talking trash on Bush, he spends most of his time defending himself against those who think HE caused all the problems - Despite not having any national power until 2009. The cut off point happens when a large portion of this nation recognize that Obama had nothing to do with national fuck-ups until 2009 - Everything went to hell in 2007 and 2008, people were expecting miracles. He's been defending almost every aspect of his entire existence for 3 years now. 

Maybe I missed something, but Obama was having trouble passing things in the last 3 years because of a Republican-controlled HoR or Senate, so it's highly surprising that the Republicans would have trouble passing things through those. The Republicans have shown that in general, they don't have the Nations interest at heart in recent years, so yeah, it'll be great if Democrats control the HoR or the Senate and can block the stupid shit Republicans want to pass. I'd rather not have Romney's or Ryan's budgets passed, they would be cutting things I need (being that I make less than 100k) and/or they would screw up my/my parents healthcare or something worse.


----------



## Rasly (Oct 13, 2012)

I dont care, because it should be clear for all by now that it dosnt matter who you choice.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 13, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Oh you can admit this, how brave of you. You are aware that most people lie, right? Even if it's not to their benefit. I regularly track Politifact and a few other fact-checkers, the key difference is that Democrats at least try to aim at helping the majority, and even if they lie about it, _some_ results still occur that help the nation eventually, whilst Republicans have little-to-no interest in helping the nation as a whole and are adamant about lying about it - They pay people to be aware of the internet, fact-checkers, media, and all that (hopefully).



I said it more because I know if i dont say that republicans lie explicitly i will be attacked for thinking repubicnas dont lie,w hen I know they do. I see both as trying to help the majority, just in very different ways. Of course the other side is going to completely misrepresent what someone wants (left wing: h the republicans want to help out only the rich people! right wing: oh the democrats want everyone on welfare!)but the truth is usually not that extreme.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Obama doesn't spend most of his time talking trash on Bush, he spends most of his time defending himself against those who think HE caused all the problems - Despite not having any national power until 2009. The cut off point happens when a large portion of this nation recognize that Obama had nothing to do with national fuck-ups until 2009 - Everything went to hell in 2007 and 2008, people were expecting miracles. He's been defending almost every aspect of his entire existence for 3 years now.



To a point, though he does tend to blame the bush administration for things that actually are his fault took, like the "fast and Furious program.I accept that obama had little responsibility for what happened before he became president (thoguh he did have some because he was part of the senate). I also do not blame the president completely or even mostly for our problems, things like the economic crash on 2008 are ot a presidents fault directly.




Lastdirewolf said:


> Maybe I missed something, but Obama was having trouble passing things in the last 3 years because of a Republican-controlled HoR or Senate, so it's highly surprising that the Republicans would have trouble passing things through those. The Republicans have shown that in general, they don't have the Nations interest at heart in recent years, so yeah, it'll be great if Democrats control the HoR or the Senate and can block the stupid shit Republicans want to pass. I'd rather not have Romney's or Ryan's budgets passed, they would be cutting things I need (being that I make less than 100k) and/or they would screw up my/my parents healthcare or something worse.



Actually that is wrong. For the first 2 years of his presidency, Obama had a democrat controlled house and senate, not a supermajority i think, but a sizable majority. The republicans control the house of representatives afte the late 2010 election (and didnt take office until early 2011). This was afte r obamacare had passed, which most americans hated. it passed because the democrats controlled the house of representatives, senate and presidency. Usually bad things happen when this is the case (for example, the republicans controlled both houses of congress and the presidency from 2002 to 2006, thus giving us the iraq war) and most americans prefer a divided government for that reason, hence the republicans taking the house.

So basically obama has had 2 years of a  friendly house of representatives and one, almost 2 now, of a hostile one. That still doesnt excuse the senate from not passing budgets, as that is still controlled by the democrats. I dont support the repiubcans being obstructionist jsut for the sake of being obstructionist (though this is not as common as the DNC woudl ahve you believe), but the same applies to the other party. It would also look bad on the democrats because they have been railing against it and will rightfully be accused of hypocrisy. I doubt romney will get whatever he wants unless republicans win the senate and keep the house ADN win the presidency, which I just dont see happening. I think both parties should work together, since they have more in common than they woudl like to admit


----------



## HipsterCoyote (Oct 13, 2012)

I'm voting for Paul Ryan because he's the closest bet to Ron Paul and I want my vote to actually er, count.  The problem is that Romney is kind of awkwardly attached to the ticket.  His platform is another issue entirely but honestly when I think of Romney all I can think of is, "Here, the god of Mormonism and his many wives, through endless celestial sex,  produced billions of spirit children!"


----------



## Aleu (Oct 13, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> I'm voting for Paul Ryan because he's the closest bet to Ron Paul and I want my vote to actually er, count.  The problem is that Romney is kind of awkwardly attached to the ticket.  His platform is another issue entirely but honestly when I think of Romney all I can think of is, "Here, the god of Mormonism and his many wives, through endless celestial sex,  produced billions of spirit children!"


I don't see how you can like Ryan but not Romney when they're pretty much the same :/


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 13, 2012)

Aleu said:


> I don't see how you can like Ryan but not Romney when they're pretty much the same :/



Nuh-uh, unlike Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan hasn't wavered as much on all the issues when it's politically convenient. They're completely different people.


----------



## Gucci Mane (Oct 13, 2012)

HipsterCoyote said:


> I'm voting for Paul Ryan because he's the closest bet to Ron Paul and I want my vote to actually er, count.  The problem is that Romney is kind of awkwardly attached to the ticket.  His platform is another issue entirely but honestly when I think of Romney all I can think of is, "Here, the god of Mormonism and his many wives, through endless celestial sex,  produced billions of spirit children!"



im sorry U couldnt vote 4 the racist's favorite pon raul


here's your consolation


a devout catholic who dedicated his life to gladly fellating people richer than he will ever be in his whole life
(in case U didnt know that makes him a shit catholic)


thanks d('. ')d 


the children R the futur


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 17, 2012)

Favourite moment of the debate tonight?

Obama got the word "Gangbangers" to trend worldwide.


----------



## zachhart12 (Oct 17, 2012)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Nuh-uh, unlike Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan hasn't wavered as much on all the issues when it's politically convenient. They're completely different people.



Ryan lies his ass off


----------



## Bliss (Oct 17, 2012)

[yt]ekQSpbwKkdg[/yt]


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 17, 2012)

That video....simply amazing. Reminds me of autotune the news.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 17, 2012)

I like this new trend better than those gib-gabs or whatever the fuck they were when Bush was pres.


----------



## Ryuu (Oct 17, 2012)

i would be voting for oblama .... but then again i think the whole thing is a total waste of time. Congress is where stuff gets done


----------



## Aetius (Oct 17, 2012)

Uh, I forgot to ask California to send me an absentee ballot.

Is it too late for that?


----------



## Bliss (Oct 17, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Uh, I forgot to ask California to send me an absentee ballot.
> 
> Is it too late for that?


No.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 17, 2012)

Gucci Mane said:


> im sorry U couldnt vote 4 the racist's favorite pon raul
> 
> 
> here's your consolation
> ...


When replying to people in a political debate keep in mind this helpful tips:
1: Try to use proper grammar, using "txt" language makes you look somewhat illiterate
2: Don't pull the fucking race card.


----------



## Ryuu (Oct 17, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> When replying to people in a political debate keep in mind this helpful tips:
> 1: Try to use proper grammar, using "txt" language makes you look somewhat illiterate
> 2: Don't pull the fucking race card.



But this is Merica.


----------



## Cynicism (Oct 17, 2012)

I'll be voting for Obama again.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Oct 17, 2012)

I'm still on the fence.  I haven't fully decided what are the most important issues to me.  Healthcare is huge because it will have a massive impact on my future career.  Luckily, I'm not really motivated by money.


----------



## Gucci Mane (Oct 17, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> When replying to people in a political debate keep in mind this helpful tips:
> 1: Try to use proper grammar, using "txt" language makes you look somewhat illiterate
> 2: Don't pull the fucking race card.



1. duly noted, nerd
2. lmbo ron paul is an actual racist tho

you want me to find his scanned newsletters


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 18, 2012)

Gucci Mane said:


> 1. duly noted, nerd
> 2. lmbo ron paul is an actual racist tho
> 
> you want me to find his scanned newsletters


I didn't know that typing legibly makes people nerds, but Id rather be a nerd than an illiterate moron. Also, you didn't say Ron Paul, you said "pon raul" (Yes I knew what you meant but more to the fact that you are a moron). Proof reading your post to make sure it actually makes any sense is not some labor intensive task either. Further, I know Ron Paul is a racist but it doesn't matter, because you were trying to say voting for Ron Paul makes you racist "_im sorry U couldnt vote 4 the racist's favorite pon raul"._


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 18, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> I didn't know that typing legibly makes people nerds, but Id rather be a nerd than an illiterate moron. Also, you didn't say Ron Paul, you said "pon raul" (Yes I knew what you meant but more to the fact that you are a moron). Proof reading your post to make sure it actually makes any sense is not some labor intensive task either. Further, I know Ron Paul is a racist but it doesn't matter, because you were trying to say voting for Ron Paul makes you racist "_im sorry U couldnt vote 4 the racist's favorite pon raul"._



You are replying to a Negroid troll.


----------



## Nylak (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm too lazy to read through this entire thread, but I hate both of them.  I will personally be voting for Obama (unless I can be convinced otherwise) because Romney scares the fuck out of me (I'm gay and female; use your imagination).

*Does anyone genuinely like either of the candidates, and can they logically explain to me why?*  I'm not being facetious; I like to hear people talk about their preferred candidate in a simple, straightforward fashion without being excessively aggressive or illogically impassioned.  ...Or devolving into an argument.  I just want simple facts, simple opinions.

If you want, of course.     :]  I would enjoy it.


----------



## Gucci Mane (Oct 18, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> I didn't know that typing legibly makes people nerds, but Id rather be a nerd than an illiterate moron. Also, you didn't say Ron Paul, you said "pon raul" (Yes I knew what you meant but more to the fact that you are a moron). Proof reading your post to make sure it actually makes any sense is not some labor intensive task either. Further, I know Ron Paul is a racist but it doesn't matter, because you were trying to say voting for Ron Paul makes you racist "_im sorry U couldnt vote 4 the racist's favorite pon raul"._



just because i dont type the way you want me to you get  
cool

honestly what more is there to say

vote for obama cause you support gays but think its cool as fuck people dying lots in afghanistan
vote for romney because you hate obama more than him

vote for gary johnson if you want to legalize weed (and child labor) 

thats it

these are the only reasons available


----------



## Bliss (Oct 18, 2012)

Nylak said:


> *Does anyone genuinely like either of the candidates, and can they logically explain to me why?*  I'm not being facetious; I like to hear people talk about their preferred candidate in a simple, straightforward fashion without being excessively aggressive or illogically impassioned.  ...Or devolving into an argument.  I just want simple facts, simple opinions.


I don't like Obama. The biggest failure of his administration is the government  putting those deer-crossing signs, which direct the deer population  anywhere they want, on busy highways and the Interstate. :V


----------



## Nylak (Oct 18, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> I don't like Obama. The biggest failure of his administration is the government  putting those deer-crossing signs, which direct the deer population  anywhere they want, on busy highways and the Interstate. :V


I am now voting for Romney.  Thank you for bringing this astronomical issue to my attention; I had no idea.  What an oversight on my part.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 18, 2012)

Nylak said:


> *Does anyone genuinely like either of the candidates, and can they logically explain to me why?*


I like Obama because he supports gays, doesn't support big business, and is sticking up for human rights. He's also a good talker and he's made positive strides with our appearance to other countries and our international relations. He's relatable and likable and intelligent sounding and people really underestimate how much that effects how other countries view us. I think he's made positive strides in health care reform and he helped pass policies that saved the auto industry and helped improve the country economically. He also hasn't started any wars and seems committed to keeping us away from war, which is an obvious bonus, especially when the war doesn't even concern us. I think he's fallen short on his promises because of how cockblocked he was by trying to be bipartisan, but I don't blame him for it. No one could fulfill the expectations placed on him in '08.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 18, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> I like Obama because he supports gays, doesn't support big business, and is sticking up for human rights.



...and that's different from any other Democrat? :roll:

Also, re: foreign relations, he really hasn't done much of anything.

He is too much of a pussy to actually help out other countries when it's needed.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 18, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> I like Obama because he supports gays, doesn't support big business, and is sticking up for human rights.



One out of three, anyways.

still beats romney


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> ...and that's different from any other Democrat? :roll:
> 
> Also, re: foreign relations, he really hasn't done much of anything.
> 
> He is too much of a pussy to actually help out other countries when it's needed.


Not saying he's too different from any other Democrat. 

And he hasn't taken many actions, but he's done a lot for how people view us across the world. That still counts for something.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2012)

And thus the media's overplaying of bumps is getting shot down like a game of duckhunt.
If you haven't heard the so called, "romney surge" is reversing.  I can't say I'm surprised, cause no matter how much hype up is created for short term gains politically it doesn't mean it's going to stay there in the long run.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 18, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> And thus the media's overplaying of bumps is getting shot down like a game of duckhunt.
> If you haven't heard the so called, "romney surge" is reversing.  I can't say I'm surprised, cause no matter how much hype up is created for short term gains politically it doesn't mean it's going to stay there in the long run.


Which poll are you referencing? Because the ones I've seen have all stated that it's pretty much even, when before the "surge" Obama was clearly leading.


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 18, 2012)

On the topic of gay marriage, I thought that was a vote-by-state issue, seeing how a presidential candidate has no real influence on the matter other then "hey! Them dudes love cocks and dem chicks like pussies. Im okay with that" :V


Also the gallup polls showed romney leading by 7%, showing Obama 45, Romney 52 and the rest floating up in the abyss of "we dont matter" candidates. Cant blame the polls really seeing how Obama sucked in the past two debates in the eyes of this moderate.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Which poll are you referencing? Because the ones I've seen have all stated that it's pretty much even, when before the "surge" Obama was clearly leading.


I'm keeping a eye out on-
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
by the new york times.

I like reading their site cause it actually shows the probability both candidates have of winning and shows it over time so you don't have to read the gallup polls every day to get a idea of who's going to win with forecasts and if the election were to take place right now.  Sure they're even in the popular vote, but electoral votes are what the ones that actually matter.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 18, 2012)

Toshabi said:


> On the topic of gay marriage, I thought that was a vote-by-state issue, seeing how a presidential candidate has no real influence on the matter other then "hey! Them dudes love cocks and dem chicks like pussies. Im okay with that" :V



They *could* try to push through legislation and force the whole preemption thing. (federal law supersedes state law, etc.)

The problem with state law for things like that is the inconsistency. If you go into another state you might no longer be married.

Personally I think marriage should be removed from the law altogether.  It has no place there.

That's its own topic though.

I think the polls are too close to tell but they definitely changed a lot since before the debates.

Maybe Romney will actually win...


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 18, 2012)

I never trust polls because theyre an influence by the events of the time and can change by election. I remember las election when that old ugly geezer was ahead of obama by 3 points at one time. Only difference is this time around the Romney lead actually makes sense.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Oct 18, 2012)

Even though I don't identify with either party I will be voting for Romney because Obama hasn't done anything for this country. I mean look unemployment is way up, the number of people on food stamps is to, the national debt has skyrocketed, ect ect. I could be here all day mentioning these things so what I can't understand is why are people so adamant to defend him?  I mean yes to a certain extent you can blame some of the problems on the Bush administration but that's all I ever hear Obama and Democrats do is blame Bush or Republicans.  I also don't view him as a strong leader at all and this makes our country look weak, ex his "apology tour" and not to forget Israel or Poland either.  I know I won't change anyone's mind if it's already made up but that's just my view on this.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2012)

Toshabi said:


> I never trust polls because theyre an influence by the events of the time and can change by election. I remember las election when that old ugly geezer was ahead of obama by 3 points at one time. Only difference is this time around the Romney lead actually makes sense.


Pretty much.  People need to remember it's about the electoral votes and not the popular vote.  There have been people who have lost the popular vote, but won because of the electoral votes.  Even if a gallup poll shows that Obama and Romney are dead even on the popular vote that doesn't mean the number of electoral votes is.  Obama is ahead in electoral votes is basically what I'm getting at.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 18, 2012)

Toshabi said:


> On the topic of gay marriage, I thought that was a vote-by-state issue, seeing how a presidential candidate has no real influence on the matter other then "hey! Them dudes love cocks and dem chicks like pussies. Im okay with that" :V
> 
> 
> Also the gallup polls showed romney leading by 7%, showing Obama 45, Romney 52 and the rest floating up in the abyss of "we dont matter" candidates. Cant blame the polls really seeing how Obama sucked in the past two debates in the eyes of this moderate.


The problem with it being a state by state thing is that the benefits of marriage are mostly through the federal government and not the state. In addition, other states are supposed to recognize marriages from other states though there are a few amendments that cause issue with that (like here in wisconsin, gay marriage outside of the state can result in either a $10,000 fine or 6 months in jail).


----------



## Ricky (Oct 18, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> like here in wisconsin, gay marriage outside of the state can result in either a $10,000 fine or 6 months in jail.



Wait, what? Really?

How does that even work?

If there were a law that said you can't get married anywhere or there is a fine, you'd think the offense took place in the state where they got married hence out of WI's jurisdiction.

Of course I'm probably missing something here but I'm curious how that works out.


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Wait, what? Really?
> 
> How does that even work?
> 
> ...



Shock collars and location chips. :V

That or he is probably fucking up the interpretation of that law. Too lazy to research atm.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Wait, what? Really?
> 
> How does that even work?
> 
> ...



Yep, Its considered "evading state law" and I was actually wrong, its nine months jail time.

"Under current Wisconsin law, 765.30(1)(a) of the Wisconsin code, "Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state" can be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned for up to 9 months, or both."


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 18, 2012)

Probably because you're a resident of Wisconsin and are illegally seeking a right exclusive out of state which isn't legal in the state you're in. Just move out yo.

And yes, that is you evading state law. :V


----------



## Ricky (Oct 18, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Yep, Its considered "evading state law" and I was actually wrong, its nine months jail time.
> 
> "Under current Wisconsin law, 765.30(1)(a) of the Wisconsin code, "Any person residing and intending to continue to reside in this state who goes outside the state and there contracts a marriage prohibited or declared void under the laws of this state" can be fined up to $10,000 or imprisoned for up to 9 months, or both."



Oh, wow.

So the premeditation to evade the law was a transgression committed in WI, itself?

Either way, that's really shady IMO.

They don't need to recognize it, but to actually give jail time is kind of fucked up.

Then again, it's Wisconsin and full of Bible-thumpers :roll:


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 18, 2012)

Toshabi said:


> Probably because you're a resident of Wisconsin and are illegally seeking a right exclusive out of state which isn't legal in the state you're in. Just move out yo.
> 
> And yes, that is you evading state law. :V


No other states (that I am aware of) have this law, it technically isnt evading state law if you are not in the state. (for example, they cant prosecute you for buying medical marijuana where its legal, its the same sort of deal)

Also, I hate it when people say "just move" Its not like you can just uproot family, friends, job, etc. How about they just stop treating me like a second class citizen or in this case even a criminal... Sorry, but thats been building up for a while because its the excuse EVERYONE uses and to be honest Im damn tired of it.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 18, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Its not like you can just uproot family, friends, job, etc.



Actually, I've done that on multiple occasions =P


----------



## Ranguvar (Oct 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Then again, it's Wisconsin and full of Bible-thumpers :roll:



Try Mississippi dawg. Some of the shit our representatives blows MY FUCKING MIND.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Actually, I've done that on multiple occasions =P


well that makes one of us, While I am moving soon I dont have a job here anymore anyway and Im moving to go to school and be with my mate anyway. What I mean is there are people where basically it can cause a big mess up in their lives if they are required to move.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 18, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> well that makes one of us, While I am moving soon I dont have a job here anymore anyway and Im moving to go to school and be with my mate anyway. What I mean is there are people where basically it can cause a big mess up in their lives if they are required to move.



It *always* fucks your life up a bit, then you meet a new group of people and get things together again.

Most people don't ever move. They just stay where they are no matter how much it sucks because that's what they are used to.

It's a bit easier for me because I'm not the type of person who needs other people. I get by just fine on my own.

Still, I think it's a good move for most people to move away and do their own thing at some point.

It's good you have plans :3


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 18, 2012)

Ricky said:


> It *always* fucks your life up a bit, then you meet a new group of people and get things together again.
> 
> Most people don't ever move. They just stay where they are no matter how much it sucks because that's what they are used to.
> 
> ...


Yea, it is, to be honest the town I live in... my god its messed up... Im 18 and two of my friends are dead, one murdered the other suicide if that gives any idea of what its like here... Its weird though because this is one of the richest counties in the state, but all the younger people, like mid 20s and under, are just... ugh. Not the worst place or anything though I guess.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 19, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Even though I don't identify with either party I will be voting for Romney because Obama hasn't done anything for this country. I mean look unemployment is way up, the number of people on food stamps is to, the national debt has skyrocketed, ect ect. I could be here all day mentioning these things so what I can't understand is why are people so adamant to defend him?  I mean yes to a certain extent you can blame some of the problems on the Bush administration but that's all I ever hear Obama and Democrats do is blame Bush or Republicans.  I also don't view him as a strong leader at all and this makes our country look weak, ex his "apology tour" and not to forget Israel or Poland either.  I know I won't change anyone's mind if it's already made up but that's just my view on this.



He did reform some of the grants and loans for education, especially the GI bill for the military veterans and members looking to go through college and the Pell grant for those who need it. Got rid of the stupid interest on education loans, etc. 

The number of recepients who live on food stamps vary from place to place and some people choose to stay on stamps just because they can and won't change.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 19, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Also, re: foreign relations, he really hasn't done much of anything.
> 
> He is too much of a pussy to actually help out other countries when it's needed.



What, an eleven year war in Afghanistan and a treasury-draining war in Iraq isn't enough for you? You want ANOTHER war?

Only in the US would working constructively with other countries to solve problems through diplomacy be "soft"...


----------



## Ricky (Oct 19, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> What, an eleven year war in Afghanistan and a treasury-draining war in Iraq isn't enough for you?



Who ever said anything about a war, let alone one in Afghanistan?

That was never even a war. It started out as the "War on Terror." I remember because I was in Boot Camp right after 9/11 when Bush announced it. My parents sent me the newspaper and I thought the same thing I do now: it's a war on a fucking ideal and that doesn't even make any sense.

I'm not talking about Afghanistan and I'm not talking about fucking Vietnam. I'm talking about Syria in the middle of a civil war and the government bombing neighborhoods with innocent civilians and executing women and children. I'm talking about Iran who recently threatened to wipe Israel off the map (that was the pres and Ayatollah) and Iran sitting there making nuclear bombs for the last ten fucking years. And I'm talking about us sitting here not doing a goddamned thing when we are the biggest military power in the world and we could at least put all that money we spend way too much of at use and HELP OTHER COUNTRIES THAT NEED IT.

Shit, France even offered to help with a no-fly zone and all we are doing is twiddling our fucking thumbs.

_*THAT'S FRANCE FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!*_



Mayfurr said:


> Only in the US would working constructively with  other countries to solve problems through diplomacy be "soft"...



A lot of good that did either of those things.

This is what it is like over there in Syria, by the way:

[yt]k9bO0vIYGJM[/yt]


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 19, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Even though I don't identify with either party I will be voting for Romney because Obama hasn't done anything for this country. I mean look unemployment is way up, the number of people on food stamps is to, the national debt has skyrocketed, ect ect. I could be here all day mentioning these things so what I can't understand is why are people so adamant to defend him?  I mean yes to a certain extent you can blame some of the problems on the Bush administration but that's all I ever hear Obama and Democrats do is blame Bush or Republicans.  I also don't view him as a strong leader at all and this makes our country look weak, ex his "apology tour" and not to forget Israel or Poland either.  I know I won't change anyone's mind if it's already made up but that's just my view on this.



Romney is fully intent on fucking things up - He barely even hides this fact. His policies hurt the middle and lower class, while aiding the upper class and those who know how to play the game.

Obama has done a lot, and the debt isn't entirely his fault - People keep latching onto this idea that Democrats blindly blame the Bush Administration and that Obama is a savior - This isn't the case. The Bush Administration put us deep into debt that continued to spiral out of control throughout the Obama years, and the whole Housing Market bust was not Obama's fault either, but it was one of the main causes of our recession. A lot of it IS the fault of Republicans, or the Bush administration, because of the policies/bills/laws/etc. that were put forth - You can't just say "Oh they put us 5 trillion in debt, but the rest is Obama's fault" - There is fallout from such an awful presidency that put us around 5+ trillion in debt, and that is what we've seen. It's not like someone can just turn that level of debt around. I can admit that adding to it was probably not the best idea at this time, even though I somewhat support what Obama aims for - But giving Bush a pass because Obama has added nearly the same amount doesn't make sense. And voting for Romney, who has absolutely no intention of getting rid of the debt, makes even less sense. 

The Republicans controlled the HoR, which made them able to shut down almost anything that Obama put up to a vote - So again, it's the "Party of No" that is at fault, for better or for worse.

The "apology tour" is an outright lie. So you can just forget that Republican talking point. 

You won't change anyone's mind, because you aren't fully informed. This means there is room to grow and to learn, which is good - Knowledge is power, and what not. I still have a ways to go in regards to understanding all of this myself, it's a dynamic and complex playing field x_x


----------



## Bliss (Oct 19, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Also, re: foreign relations, he really hasn't done much of anything.


Are you fucking kidding? Non-US peoples and countries love Obama or, by least, think of him as a vastly better candidate to another Republicunt who believes _'God chose America to lead the world and pursue a unilateral foreign policy'_ - a more or less direct quote from Willard.



Ricky said:


> (federal law supersedes state law, etc.)


That is not how it works. The US Congress has authority on some issues like taxing, foreign policy, defence, trade, citizenship, copyright and money creation whilst others such as family, moral and education laws are reserved for the States and Commonwealths. The problem is that even if _all_ states had same-sex marriage the federation would not _have to_ acknowledge them in its own capacity and could, for one example, ignore a foreign-born person's marriage to a US citizen in his or her naturalisation proceedings (as they do now because of the Defense of Marriage Act).



Ricky said:


> I'm talking about Syria in the middle of a civil war and the government bombing neighborhoods with innocent civilians and executing women and children.


Great. Now they may have an _elected_ Islamic government to do the same.



> I'm talking about Iran who recently threatened to wipe Israel off the map (that was the pres and Ayatollah) and Iran sitting there making nuclear bombs for the last ten fucking years.


Israel has already driven them sand-niggers and ragheads to the desert and has been creating weapons of mass destruction for forty, fifty years (and playing a childish game of threats and strategic silence for as long). It has been a surprisingly effective policy to protect their sovereignty and _'right to exist'_; surely it would be an understandable and reciprocal path for Iran to protect theirs.



> And I'm talking about us sitting here not doing a goddamned thing when we are the biggest military power in the world and we could at least put all that money we spend way too much of at use and HELP OTHER COUNTRIES THAT NEED IT.


_Waito piggu gÅ h__Åmu!_ :V


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 19, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Obama has done a lot, and the debt isn't entirely his fault - People keep latching onto this idea that Democrats blindly blame the Bush Administration and that Obama is a savior - This isn't the case. The Bush Administration put us deep into debt that continued to spiral out of control throughout the Obama years, and the whole Housing Market bust was not Obama's fault either, but it was one of the main causes of our recession. A lot of it IS the fault of Republicans, or the Bush administration, because of the policies/bills/laws/etc. that were put forth - You can't just say "Oh they put us 5 trillion in debt, but the rest is Obama's fault" - There is fallout from such an awful presidency that put us around 5+ trillion in debt, and that is what we've seen. It's not like someone can just turn that level of debt around. I can admit that adding to it was probably not the best idea at this time, even though I somewhat support what Obama aims for - But giving Bush a pass because Obama has added nearly the same amount doesn't make sense. And voting for Romney, who has absolutely no intention of getting rid of the debt, makes even less sense.



Most conservatives turned against Bush *because* of his out of control spending, he left with one of  the lowest approval ratings for a reason. Conservatives don't blame Obama for the whole debt either. Bush came into office with a 5 trillion dollar debt already. that was from Clinton, elder Bush, Reagan, Carter etc.  Bush added 5 trillion to that. He is rightly criticized for that. But when Obama adds 6 trillion dollars to the debt in *half* the time Bush did, that is a problem, and cannot be explained away by "its all bushes fault"! Especially when he said he would cut deficits in half... Giving Obama a pass on the debt because Bush spent or did so much also doesn't make sense.

http://www.politifact.com/new-hamps...rack-obama-accrue-more-debt-half-time-george/  is a pretty good point on this fact.  Blaming the debt all on one political party is stupid, and ignores facts.  We came out of the clinton years with debt, bush doubled it, he should be criticized for it, but that doesn't absolve Obama for spending even more now. I didnt expect Obama to cut the debt in half, but I didnt expect him to add 6 trillion to it either. Any party should be questioned for that level of spending. No one can get rid of the massive amount of debt we have in one term or two, Obama or Romney, but it would be nice if we stopped adding to it like a runaway train and trying to blame the other party for it.



Lastdirewolf said:


> The Republicans controlled the HoR, which made them able to shut down almost anything that Obama put up to a vote - So again, it's the "Party of No" that is at fault, for better or for worse.



This is only partly true. If you are saying republicans controlled the House of Representatives the whole time Obama was in office its dead wrong. Democrats controlled the House and senate with supermajorities until 2010. Democrats like pointing to the time after the start of 2011 when republicans took the House and the democrats lost the supermajority in the senate and saying "This is how the whole presidency has been!" When it has not. 

Also, by your logic the democrats were just as much at fault for the economic collapse as Bush was, they had a supermajority in the house and senate then too. I mean if its ok to blame all or most of obamas failings on a republican controlled house, then surely its not out of place to blame democrats for the last 2 years of the bush presidency, when they controlled both the house and senate with supermajorities is it? But no lets forget that fact, it doesnt go with the democratic narrative of all problems in this country being the fault of republicans. 

I find the lack of logic to be bracing:
-republican president, democratic house and senate: all problems are the republican presidents fault 
-democratic president, democratic senate, republican house: all problems are the republicans in the HoR fault 

How about the senate not passing a budget in over 3 YEARS? how are you going to blame the "party of no" for that? http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...oehner-says-senate-dems-havent-passed-budget/ . Somehow i suspect that in democratland this too is somehow republicans fault. By the way, failing to pass a budget was a big part of why the US credit rating was downgraded. There is a reason the congress, and not just the house of representatives, is hated and has the lowest approval rating in history, and it is not just one party responsible for that, but both.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Oct 19, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S4W1B4U0gA&feature=youtu.be

^ did anyone else find that insulting?


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 19, 2012)

How come no one is talking about the Alfred E. Smith dinner? Now THAT'S good politics!


----------



## Ryuu (Oct 19, 2012)

this thread is as fucked up as the election. 

IMHO, as a country we should not be bickering about "who" is better, we should be looking at things that we need to change to succeed as a nation and get it done instead of this whole " omg he said something stupid and im going to put it ALL OVER IN ADS AND TV AND SHIT.


----- im not a political guy, but something in this election process seems messed up.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 19, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Even though I don't identify with either party I will be voting for Romney because Obama hasn't done anything for this country. I mean look unemployment is way up, the number of people on food stamps is to, the national debt has skyrocketed, ect ect. I could be here all day mentioning these things so what I can't understand is why are people so adamant to defend him?  I mean yes to a certain extent you can blame some of the problems on the Bush administration but that's all I ever hear Obama and Democrats do is blame Bush or Republicans.  I also don't view him as a strong leader at all and this makes our country look weak, ex his "apology tour" and not to forget Israel or Poland either.  I know I won't change anyone's mind if it's already made up but that's just my view on this.



You have to be pretty freaking ignorant to think that Obama has done absolutely nothing for the country. The stimulus is an example. It's helped businesses, that can't be denied. There's also the repeal of DADT and allowing gay marriage in DC. Yeah, the unemployment's high. Did you think it'd go away overnight? He can't guarantee who would be hired and who wouldn't be.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Oct 19, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You won't change anyone's mind, because you aren't fully informed. This means there is room to grow and to learn, which is good - Knowledge is power, and what not. I still have a ways to go in regards to understanding all of this myself, it's a dynamic and complex playing field x_x



I hate this notion of "you don't agree with me therefore you're ignorant and wrong of the issues".  It makes you, and I'm using this in general terms for anyone who does this, look like a pompous ass. I chose to put things in more general terms because, as I stated, I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind that has already made it up.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 19, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4S4W1B4U0gA&feature=youtu.be
> 
> ^ did anyone else find that insulting?


While Id like to vote for a third party unfortunatley the american people are nowhere near ready to elect any party besides republican or democrat so essentially it is a waste.



Ryuu said:


> this thread is as fucked up as the election.
> 
> IMHO, as a country we should not be bickering about "who" is better, we should be looking at things that we need to change to succeed as a nation and get it done instead of this whole " omg he said something stupid and im going to put it ALL OVER IN ADS AND TV AND SHIT.
> 
> ...


Talking about who is better is talking about who's platform is better (basically the same shit) and unfortunately you are never going to get away from ads or any of this shit when you have a democracy, its something you just have to get over.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 19, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I hate this notion of "you don't agree with me therefore you're ignorant and wrong of the issues".  It makes you, and I'm using this in general terms for anyone who does this, look like a pompous ass. I chose to put things in more general terms because, as I stated, I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind that has already made it up.



...where are you getting this? It's not simply because he disagrees, it's because you're misinformed which makes you wrong. If you at least backed up anything instead of sitting there and said that Obama has done nothing then you'd be taken more seriously.


----------



## Ryuu (Oct 19, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Talking about who is better is talking about who's platform is better (basically the same shit) and unfortunately you are never going to get away from ads or any of this shit when you have a democracy, its something you just have to get over.



We need a lie detector in the debates  with a taser  to the lairs


----------



## Echo Wolf (Oct 19, 2012)

Aleu said:


> You have to be pretty freaking ignorant to think that Obama has done absolutely nothing for the country. The stimulus is an example. It's helped businesses, that can't be denied. There's also the repeal of DADT and allowing gay marriage in DC. Yeah, the unemployment's high. Did you think it'd go away overnight? He can't guarantee who would be hired and who wouldn't be.



The stimulus didn't work though and those other issues, such as gay rights, take a back seat to me when were in the midst of major economic problems; this is not to say I don't believe in gay rights. I didn't expect that all the problems would go away quickly but I would expect that they would start to be getting better if there was any progress. But there hasn't been any progress and that's the problem, in fact the economy has gotten worse. That's really what I can't understand, why do people say he's done something when it's obvious that the economy is getting worse?



Aleu said:


> ...where are you getting this? It's not simply because he disagrees, it's because you're misinformed which makes you wrong. If you at least backed up anything instead of sitting there and said that Obama has done nothing then you'd be taken more seriously.



Maybe from the quote I pulled off from there. It's pretty obvious through what he said that that is indeed what he is getting at.  Calling someone ignorant for having a different view than you does make you look like that. I cited reasons for why I felt that he hasn't been an effect president, excuse me for thinking that it wasn't necessary for me to write an essay about the subject before I posted a different view than the majority...


----------



## Aleu (Oct 19, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> The stimulus didn't work though and those other issues, such as gay rights, take a back seat to me when were in the midst of major economic problems; this is not to say I don't believe in gay rights. I didn't expect that all the problems would go away quickly but I would expect that they would start to be getting better if there was any progress. But there hasn't been any progress and that's the problem, in fact the economy has gotten worse. That's really what I can't understand, why do people say he's done something when it's obvious that the economy is getting worse?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe from the quote I pulled off from there. It's pretty obvious through what he said that that is indeed what he is getting at.  Calling someone ignorant for having a different view than you does make you look like that. I cited reasons for why I felt that he hasn't been an effect president, excuse me for thinking that it wasn't necessary for me to write an essay about the subject before I posted a different view than the majority...


Doing something that "didn't work" and doing nothing are two completely different things. There's "doing nothing" and then there's "it's not working how I wanted it to work".

Again, it wasn't because you held a different view. It's that your view was wrong and other posters have explained why you are wrong. Also, how do you expect the economy to get better. In order for it to get better, places need to hire. If places are not hiring or they are but denying people who are on unemployment/welfare for people who already have a job then really, what can any president do? Sure there's bennies for some companies that do take those who are on some sort of welfare but that's up to them to take it for one and it's also up to the people to actually give an effort.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Oct 19, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Doing something that "didn't work" and doing nothing are two completely different things. There's "doing nothing" and then there's "it's not working how I wanted it to work".
> 
> Again, it wasn't because you held a different view. It's that your view was wrong and other posters have explained why you are wrong. Also, how do you expect the economy to get better. In order for it to get better, places need to hire. If places are not hiring or they are but denying people who are on unemployment/welfare for people who already have a job then really, what can any president do? Sure there's bennies for some companies that do take those who are on some sort of welfare but that's up to them to take it for one and it's also up to the people to actually give an effort.



It's obvious that Obama's methods aren't working though, no one has proved anything at all besides telling me that the entire debt isn't his fault which I might add I never said it was. Yes the problem is companies aren't hiring but saying that we can't blame Obama for the high unemployment rate because it's a bad economy or because businesses aren't hiring makes zero sense. I'm in firm belief that reducing taxes and government spending would be much more effective to getting the economy moving again. Companies have to feel secure and have money before they will hire people. And yes when I said "hasn't done anything" I meant that his policies haven't accomplished anything, an error on phrasing on my part.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 19, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> It's obvious that Obama's methods aren't working though, no one has proved anything at all besides telling me that the entire debt isn't his fault which I might add I never said it was. Yes the problem is companies aren't hiring but saying that we can't blame Obama for the high unemployment rate because it's a bad economy or because businesses aren't hiring makes zero sense. I'm in firm belief that reducing taxes and government spending would be much more effective to getting the economy moving again. Companies have to feel secure and have money before they will hire people. And yes when I said "hasn't done anything" I meant that his policies haven't accomplished anything, an error on phrasing on my part.


The thing is, companies are and have been hiring people, just people who already have jobs. It's still a problem now. The longer you are without a job, the less likely you are able to acquire a job because of that gap. Also people that have been at work for years are out of touch with what employers are looking for now. It's not a matter of throwing money at something or taking money away and say it'll be better.


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 19, 2012)

Aleu said:


> The thing is, companies are and have been hiring people, just people who already have jobs. It's still a problem now. The longer you are without a job, the less likely you are able to acquire a job because of that gap. Also people that have been at work for years are out of touch with what employers are looking for now. It's not a matter of throwing money at something or taking money away and say it'll be better.



What the fuck kind of reasoning is this I don't even-

II think the dems need a new representative in this thread to pick up the slack.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 19, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Are you fucking kidding? Non-US peoples and countries love Obama or, by least, think of him as a vastly better candidate to another Republicunt who believes _'God chose America to lead the world and pursue a unilateral foreign policy'_ - a more or less direct quote from Willard.



Helping prevent women and children from being slaughtered is not a matter of foreign policy; it's simply doing the right thing.

Besides, you're wrong at least in the Middle-East where people don't really like him because we aren't helping anyone out (and people need the help).



> "Global approval of President Barack Obama's policies has declined  significantly since he first took office, while overall confidence in  him and attitudes toward the U.S. have slipped modestly as a  consequence," according to the Pew report.



...unless you are comparing this to Bush, in which case I think anyone would do better.



Lizzie said:


> That is not how it works. The US Congress has authority on some issues like taxing, foreign policy, defence, trade, citizenship, copyright and money creation whilst others such as family, moral and education laws are reserved for the States and Commonwealths. The problem is that even if _all_ states had same-sex marriage the federation would not _have to_ acknowledge them in its own capacity and could, for one example, ignore a foreign-born person's marriage to a US citizen in his or her naturalisation proceedings (as they do now because of the Defense of Marriage Act).



Right, and there's this one:

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

There *are* things the government can do, especially if this is considered a civil right's issue.



Lizzie said:


> Great. Now they may have an _elected_ Islamic government to do the same.



Did you want them to all convert to Buddhists or something?

I don't care what religion is dominant, just that women and children stopped getting raped and massacred with air power.



Lizzie said:


> Israel has already driven them sand-niggers and ragheads to the desert and has been creating weapons of mass destruction for forty, fifty years (and playing a childish game of threats and strategic silence for as long). It has been a surprisingly effective policy to protect their sovereignty and _'right to exist'_; surely it would be an understandable and reciprocal path for Iran to protect theirs.



Israel is a recognized nuclear power.

You obviously haven't been paying attention to Iran or what's been going on there for the last 10 years.

The UN has tried diplomacy for AN ENTIRE DECADE and it hasn't done any good.

At least Romney is willing to step up to the plate.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 19, 2012)

Ryuu said:


> We need a lie detector in the debates  with a taser  to the lairs


I agree, but then all our politicians will die. wait a second...


----------



## Aleu (Oct 19, 2012)

Toshabi said:


> What the fuck kind of reasoning is this I don't even-
> 
> II think the dems need a new representative in this thread to pick up the slack.



It's reasoning from someone who's been paying the fuck attention to what is going on beyond the numbers. Seriously, how can anyone expect a president to magic away unemployment or expect him to have _any _sort of control over that?


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 19, 2012)

Ask Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan.

And they do have the power via regulations and how they tax. If I were you, I would read up on politics a bit more before blindly contributing for your side. Your the type of people who drive moderates to the opposing side by spewing random feelings and uninformed 'facts'.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 19, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> But when Obama adds 6 trillion dollars to the debt in *half* the time Bush did, that is a problem, and cannot be explained away by "its all bushes fault"! Especially when he said he would cut deficits in half... Giving Obama a pass on the debt because Bush spent or did so much also doesn't make sense.
> 
> How about the senate not passing a budget in over 3 YEARS? how are you going to blame the "party of no" for that? http://www.politifact.com/ohio/stat...oehner-says-senate-dems-havent-passed-budget/ . Somehow i suspect that in democratland this too is somehow republicans fault. By the way, failing to pass a budget was a big part of why the US credit rating was downgraded. There is a reason the congress, and not just the house of representatives, is hated and has the lowest approval rating in history, and it is not just one party responsible for that, but both.



So Bush & co having control of the nation for 8 years before Obama had little impact on our economy post-Bush years?
Start with Bush's ~6T
Add the War = ~7.4T
Add the Bush-era Tax cuts = ~8.9T
Add Bush-era tax cuts fallout during Obama years (they lasted until 2010) = ~10.2T
Add Bush-era (I think) unfunded Automatic Stabilizers = ~12T
(There's also a cost-of-interest that would add another 1.5T or so, but that's not directly Bush's fault. There's also Bush adding to the Medicare program without funding, but I can't find definitive numbers. Some say 300b, some say 1.1T)
So we're above 16T right now, and I can stop right there, leaving ~4T of the 16 Obama's fault without looking further into it. 

So yeah, the vast majority of it is Bush's fault. He doubled the debt over the course of a decade (much of it spilling into Obama's years), and we're meant to believe that none of that debt that Bush directly put in place doesn't continue to add up or have some sort of fallout post-Bush years? I can blame Obama for not getting rid of it even though he said he would, but come on. 

However above all of that, Romney has no budget plans that can remove the debt, and he's very likely to only add to it for the sake of helping the wealthy, without removing any debt and pushing more costs onto the majority of Americans. Obama may very well add to the debt more, I'm not absolving him of anything but rather trying to get the numbers straight. 

As for the no budget, you're right. That's both parties fault. The Dems hold a slight majority and haven't tried to pass one, but Repubs haven't tried either. Though with the HoR dominated by Republicans, with a much larger majority (241R, 191D), anything the Dems pass is likely to get shot down or back-loaded with additional crap - So there is _some_ logic to not trying to pass something (if I remember right, if a budget is passed, the members can add things to it with little discretion, or it simply goes to a vote, which the Repubs hold the majority), but I to would at least like to see them try.



Echo Wolf said:


> I hate this notion of "you don't agree with me  therefore you're ignorant and wrong of the issues".  It makes you, and  I'm using this in general terms for anyone who does this, look like a  pompous ass. I chose to put things in more general terms because, as I  stated, I know I'm not going to change anyone's mind that has already  made it up.



It has nothing to do with agreeing with me, it's you not having the  facts, and are therefore wrong, or at the very least, misleading. You can call me anything you want, but if you have no facts to  back any of it up, then what's the point? 

You were wrong about Obama doing nothing for this country.
You were misleading about unemployment (~7.5% when Obama was put into power, it's 7.8% now, and a lot of it is because of Bush-era issues.)
You can't wholly blame Obama for an increase of people on food stamps (this relates to the above point)
The National Debt is mostly Bush's & his policies fault, and Romney is going to make it way worse. Obama has added around 1/4th of the total debt. 
You were wrong about the 'apology tour'.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Oct 19, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> While Id like to vote for a third party unfortunatley the american people are nowhere near ready to elect any party besides republican or democrat so essentially it is a waste.



It isnt a waste because i am voting for who i think would be better fitted to run this country. 

It may take awhile but people are starting to see the downside and the problem with a 2 party system.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Oct 19, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> It has nothing to do with agreeing with me, it's you not having the  facts, and are therefore wrong, or at the very least, misleading. You can call me anything you want, but if you have no facts to  back any of it up, then what's the point?
> 
> You were wrong about Obama doing nothing for this country.
> You were misleading about unemployment (~7.5% when Obama was put into power, it's 7.8% now, and a lot of it is because of Bush-era issues.)
> ...


I didn't mean what I said as a personal insult to you just that how you came of, whether intentional or unintentional, made you seem like that. My first post was intentionally left general but since you want to keep at it here:
1. I already stated this was wrong phrasing on my part.
2. The percent I've read holds it at 8.1% and it has stayed over 8% for 43 months. Also Bush did cause some of this but you can't blame everything on him, this is one of my biggest problems with Democrats.
3. They have rose significantly since Obama has taken office, I think around 15% of Americans are on food stamps now.
4. Obama has added 1/4 of the debt and this is just his *first*, and hopefully last, term. I don't see how Romney would be adding to the debt at all and you've providing nothing to back that up.
5. If this isn't apologizing for America I don't know what is, HERE.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 19, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> It isnt a waste because i am voting for who i think would be better fitted to run this country.
> 
> It may take awhile but people are starting to see the downside and the problem with a 2 party system.


Im not trying to belittle a third party vote or anything, but realistically a third party isnt getting elected (at least not this election anyway) thats all Im saying. Id love for their to be a plausible third party candidate though.



Echo Wolf said:


> 5. If this isn't apologizing for America I don't know what is, HERE.



I saw an honest president acknowledging we have made mistakes. I dont see why anyone would have a problem with that. We should learn form the mistakes we have made and do better. (Im not going to get into the other points because in all honesty I dont have the patience to write a huge essay or go look up all the statistics at the moment. My fault I know.)


----------



## Dragonfurry (Oct 19, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> Im not trying to belittle a third party vote or anything, but realistically a third party isnt getting elected (at least not this election anyway) thats all Im saying. Id love for their to be a plausible third party candidate though.
> 
> 
> I saw an honest president acknowledging we have made mistakes. I dont see why anyone would have a problem with that. We should learn form the mistakes we have made and do better. (Im not going to get into the other points because in all honesty I dont have the patience to write a huge essay or go look up all the statistics at the moment. My fault I know.)



Well i would rather vote for someone who i think would be better than the lesser of 2 evils. :/


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 19, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Well i would rather vote for someone who i think would be better than the lesser of 2 evils. :/


As would I, but unfortunately its the situation we're stuck in at the moment. I think though that soon enough we will dissolve this whole 2 party system and it wont matter though. I see more and more people as independents rather than party affiliated every year.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 19, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So Bush & co having control of the nation for 8 years before Obama had little impact on our economy post-Bush years?
> Start with Bush's ~6T
> Add the War = ~7.4T
> Add the Bush-era Tax cuts = ~8.9T
> ...




The wars during the bush years were recorded in the bush era debt , so they dont count to obamas. The war in iraq was largely over when obama took office, and most estimates I see for the war cost are around  trillion for both of them. Democrats also had many supporters of the war in iraq...no one really disapproved of the afghan war at all. Tax cuts are somethign obama has tried to extend on his own, without bush at all, and the bush era tax cuts enjoyed bipartisan support,obama himself has bragged about tax cuts for middle class americans. 

All the budget issues have a strong influence by congress, since the congress controls the budget, not the president. There were a number of things that were not bushes fault either in terms of spending. As for th  4 trillion in money obama supposedly sepnt without any input from bush, defense of hm out be easier if he hadn't said something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q

Why then is it wrong for calling out obama? Obama said bush was irrespnsible and unpatriotic for raising the debt 4 trillion dollars, so why is it ok when obama does it? And the fact he did it in one term, while bush took two, doesnt make bush any more right in what he did, since he was an inept president, but it doesnt make obamas spending any more right, especially when he calls others that did it unpatriotic and irresponsible. The debt bush rang up is bushes fault, but obamas debt is obamas. Tax cuts in and of themselves do not raise the debt, they onyl do that when you dont decrease spending along with them, whcih neither president did. Obama kept the tax cuts though, if you'll recall, so he isnt absolved of those either.

If i am to blame bush for the obama   year debts, then I suppose it is ok for me to blame first term bush debts on clinton, as well as the 2001 recession we had that lasted into 2002. But no, thats all counted as bush, as iare several clinton era polcies that lasted into the bush presidency. But we dont blame clinton for that.The debt has ballooned under obama, just as it did under bush, jsut when it was rising under bush, it was bushes fault, when it rises under obama, its bushes fault. I blame congress more for debt than presidents anyway, so i dont really hold either responsible for the debt fully.

Romney has budget ideas, but not like a 1,400 page document stating every single dollar he would spend if elected. I should point out that no president has ever had that. Obama didn't, bush didnt, clinton didnt, neither did bush 41 or reagan. none had budget plans, they had ideas on waht they would cut or expand, got into office, got hit with the cold water of being president and did what they did. i also don't see romney passing tax cuts for the rich that would contribute to raising the debt, he would have to cut spending somewhere, and i doubt it woudld be popular. The republcian party has a lot of deficit hawks, and if romney raised the debt by trillions he would quickly lose party support, at least among fiscal conservatives, who do make up a large bloc of the party.

As for the budget, the claim the republicans would bloc it or something is be lovable..in 2001 and 2012, but it wasnt for the first 2 years of obamas presidency when  democrats had supermajorities in the house and senate, yet the denate hasnt passed a budget since april of 2009.

http://www.politifact.com/new-jerse...ssman-leonard-lance-claims-us-senate-has-not/

This failure is not a republcian failure but one of the democrats. The house has proposed and passed budgets only to be shot down by the senate, they even sot down president obamas request for a budget: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-alternatives/2012/05/16/gIQAUA3WUU_blog.html 

So in the case of the senate not passing a budget, its the democrats at fault, not the republicans. All the more so in 2009 and 2010 when they had supermajorities.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 19, 2012)

It would be a dream that unemployment numbers would fall and we'd see a rise in jobs, but first, you'd have to do things that would keep businesses from exporting jobs that would benefit our citizens to other countries.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 19, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> It would be a dream that unemployment numbers would fall and we'd see a rise in jobs, but first, you'd have to do things that would keep businesses from exporting jobs that would benefit our citizens to other countries.



Eh... Then those companies would lose revenue and need to lay people off.

Besides, that's not what caused the rise in unemployment we saw. Most of what happened is really part of a natural credit bust that followed the post-Reagan boom. It's all superficial and nothing really changed but the consumer and investor mentality caused a self-perpetuating downward spiral where people were getting laid off, not spending money and hence companies lose money and need to lay more people off. A lot of it was from bad mortages too, as everyone knows. Basically there was a bunch of money we thought was there that didn't actually exist. This leads to recession and this is part of the boom and bust cycle as well.

Policy can definitely make a difference but I'm not sure Bernanke did more good than harm. Only time will tell. The QE bullshit definitely didn't do as much as was expected though, and that worries me a lot. I almost think we should just leave this shit alone.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 19, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Even though I don't identify with either party I  will be voting for Romney because Obama hasn't done anything for this  country. I mean look unemployment is way up, the number of people on  food stamps is to, the national debt has skyrocketed, ect ect. I could  be here all day mentioning these things so what I can't understand is  why are people so adamant to defend him?  I mean yes to a certain extent  you can blame some of the problems on the Bush administration but  that's all I ever hear Obama and Democrats do is blame Bush or  Republicans.  I also don't view him as a strong leader at all and this  makes our country look weak, ex his "apology tour" and not to forget  Israel or Poland either.  I know I won't change anyone's mind if it's  already made up but that's just my view on this.



1) Obama  can't magically wave a wand and make unemployment disappear. He can  suggest laws and policy changes to help encourage the recovery of the  economy but he can't do everything.
2) The reason the number of people on food stamps is high is because of the worst recession since the '30s. Plus, the incomes of the middle class are going down.
3)  The national debt has been skyrocketing for a while, but with taxes  being cut left and right why is anyone surprised? This is not something  that started with Obama.



Echo Wolf said:


> but  that's all I ever hear Obama and Democrats do is blame Bush or  Republicans.


But that's all I hear Republicans do is blame  all the problems of the nation on Obama, claiming he's out to destroy  America and works for Satan... or is that Stalin?



Echo Wolf said:


> I also don't view him as a strong leader at all and this  makes our country look weak, ex his "apology tour" and not to forget  Israel or Poland either.  I know I won't change anyone's mind if it's  already made up but that's just my view on this.


What exactly  makes a "strong leader"? Waving your guns around? Threatening to blow  up Iran? Kissing Israel's ass? The reason the rest of the world hates  our ass is because we run around policing it and threatening to blow up  countries that don't do what we want them to.



Ricky said:


> That was never even a war.


Fighting a foreign country's military, destroying their government (the Taliban, Saddam), and then occupying their country isn't war? Well then I wonder what is.



Ricky said:


> I'm not talking about Afghanistan and I'm not talking about fucking Vietnam. I'm talking about Syria in the middle of a civil war and the government bombing neighborhoods with innocent civilians and executing women and children. I'm talking about Iran who recently threatened to wipe Israel off the map (that was the pres and Ayatollah) and Iran sitting there making nuclear bombs for the last ten fucking years.


Iran has no nuclear bombs. They may or may not be trying to make one, but they don't have any. I don't know where you got this idea that they've had bombs for 10 years. Also, the stuff about wiping Israel off the map is just chest slapping. They don't have the power to defeat Israel and Israel has the military strength to turn their country into a wasteland and they know it. The grandiose language is just so countries will back off from them.

As for Syria, everyone here is fully aware of what's going on, except for you. No one wants to rush into war there for several reasons. First, Syria is backed fully by Russia and Iran (and to some extent China), and going to war with Syria might drag us into a war with Iran, or even Russia, who has LOTS of NUKES. Plus, the Rebels have members of Al-Queda in their ranks and rushing in may cause Syria to become a terrorist haven or at least a hardcore islamic country. No one likes Assad and no one wants to see him in power but just going in without a plan would fuck things over even worse.
Plus, the rebels haven't exactly been champions of justice either, and have also done horrible things (if maybe less horrible than Assad).



Ricky said:


> At least Romney is willing to step up to the plate.


Yay, starting war with Iran because they _might_ have nukes in the future. That strategy sure worked out for Bush and Iraq, didn't it. Let's just mindlessly blow Iran to the stone ages. You'd make a great Republican, you're a wonderful war monger.
And I'm sure the Iranian people will just EMBRACE us like the Iraqis did once we get rid of their tyrant leaders.

And if you believe that, please read up on Iran's history and WHY they hate the west so much before you comment again.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Oct 19, 2012)

So many essays...


----------



## Ricky (Oct 19, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> Fighting a foreign country's military, destroying their government (the Taliban, Saddam), and then occupying their country isn't war? Well then I wonder what is.



Saddam wasn't in Afghanistan, silly. He was in charge of Iraq.

Also, that wasn't my point. We wanted to start a war on an ideal because of the 9/11 attacks but that never even made sense. The WAR ON TERROR.  You can't start a war on an ideal and that fucking thing was doomed from the start.



> Iran has no nuclear bombs. They may or may not be trying to make one, but they don't have any.



Wow, you must know more than everyone else because many people think they COULD have a bomb by now.

And read better please, I said they have been making nuclear weapons for the last 10 years.  I never said they had any.

 And finally, no nuclear war is going to start if we establish a no-fly zone. Get realistic.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 19, 2012)

So if we're starting off Obama on a clean slate, and add up what he's added to the deficit, then we get:
Stimulus spending and cuts- ~1.1T
Non-defence discretionary spending - ~1.4T
Health reform and entitlement spending changes - 1.5
Having a hard time finding how much the Obama care cost us, but I knew that one big act was ~860b, or whatever. So that makes 2.3T. I'm struggling to find the correct numbers here for Obama, but I have them for Bush and for the nation as a whole. 

I didn't even include those numbers in my previous break down regarding Bush. The same categories would've added a couple more trillion onto the total Bush-era debt was was already at ~12T out of the ~16T we have now. 

I don't necessarily care or want to argue what Obama said, since I've got all the numbers going around. They're both liars and cheaters, who cares at this moment >_>

Fact of the matter is, Bush's whole presidency had a gigantic monetary fall out that left the Obama administration scrambled to try and handle the mess he was given and he's doing a mediocre-at-best job of handling such a gigantic issue. With Obama handling the 16T debt we're in, which he was only responsible for 1/4th of, then he may continue to try and do something positive - Though if we stop at him and let Romney in, there's a slew of things he's going to immediately add to the debt - One of which is repealing Obamacare, which'll add 1-1.5T to the debt alone. 

Romney plans on cutting government aid and education budgets (amongst other necessary programs), raising taxes on the poor, the eldery, and possibly the military. He also seems very likely to go and cut rich taxes whether or not it's to pay for all of that. His policies and ideas are not aimed at aiding the general populous. He also wants to increase Military spending and have a bigger show of force, so you can just count the hundreds of billions - if not Trillions - he'll be spending on the military's already bloated budget. Even worse, he's going to do any if not all of this and then blame it on Obama for getting us trapped in a debt that spiraled out of control (even though he had the smallest part to do with it)


----------



## Ryuu (Oct 19, 2012)

FenrirUlv said:


> So many essays...



Just what i was thinking


----------



## Echo Wolf (Oct 19, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> 1) Obama  can't magically wave a wand and make unemployment disappear. He can  suggest laws and policy changes to help encourage the recovery of the  economy but he can't do everything.
> 2) The reason the number of people on food stamps is high is because of the worst recession since the '30s. Plus, the incomes of the middle class are going down.
> 3)  The national debt has been skyrocketing for a while, but with taxes  being cut left and right why is anyone surprised? This is not something  that started with Obama.
> 
> ...



1. Did I ever say I expect everything to be fixed? No I didn't, what I did say was that if he was actually fixing the economy maybe we would have actually seen some progress. But we haven't, were worse off than we were four years ago.
2.This is because of the economy, which goes back to my first point. I don't see how you can't hold Obama in anyway accountable for this considering he's supposed to be fixing the economy.
3. Taxes need to be cut so businesses can actually hire people. Did you know that America has the highest corporate tax rate? It's no wonder why businesses go to other countries like China instead of here.

I don't agree 100% with either party; they are both guilty of this but I find it much more prevalent, at least now, with Democrats. I have listened to Obama and the Bush administration is something he constantly blames for all his failings.

Finally I believe that a leader shouldn't bring up the past, especially when it can be interpreted as apologizing, and instead work on doing things right in the present. He should be forceful when he needs to be yet calm and collected at the same time. Not some unstable nut job flexing America's muscles.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 20, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Well i would rather vote for someone who i think would be better than the lesser of 2 evils. :/



If you live in a state where your vote doesn't matter anyway, I'd say go for it. If you live in a swing state, your vote for the lesser evil matters a lot. It's all that's keeping this country from turning back the clock 40 years on social issues.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 20, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> 1. Did I ever say I expect everything to be fixed? No I didn't, what I did say was that if he was actually fixing the economy maybe we would have actually seen some progress. But we haven't, were worse off than we were four years ago.


We got legitimate healthcare reform. The effects of that will be very noticeable and positive in a few years. Is it single payer? No. But it's an incremental step in the right direction even with the individual mandate. 



> 2.This is because of the economy, which goes back to my first point. I don't see how you can't hold Obama in anyway accountable for this considering he's supposed to be fixing the economy.


Obama is accountable. He's done a pretty good job keeping us out of a great depression, despite being met with a Congress that is more divided along partisan lines than ever before, and having to fight the Senate filibuster his entire time in office for each millimeter of progress. FDR had two branches of government to work with, and eventually all three. Obama is very limited in the scope of his abilities in comparison. 

By the same token I would not blame Bush for starting the recession. Alan Greenspan and the Congressional sessions from 1995-2006 should take much of the blame. 



> 3. Taxes need to be cut so businesses can actually hire people. Did you know that America has the highest corporate tax rate? It's no wonder why businesses go to other countries like China instead of here.


Tax rates are already lower on individuals than they have ever been since World War 2. Remember when Bush cut taxes ten years ago, and all those jobs never got created? And bear in mind our taxes were very low, relatively speaking, when Bush took office. The relationship between economic growth and tax rates is nebulous. Back in the 50s and 60s we had tax brackets going up to 90%, and yet the economy surged. Most economists reject the idea that low tax rates = faster economic growth, or that it can even get you out of a recession. Even conservative economists usually reject the notion that lowering taxes will increase government revenues through economic growth.

What really makes all of this hilarious is that the concept of debt spending didn't come into parlance until WWII. Our GDP had already returned to pre-1929 levels before WWII, but FDR balanced the budget when he was in office. The New Deal programs he passed represented a massive increase in government involvement in the economy. He paid for this by creating the Capital Gains tax (at twice the rate we have it now--30%, which is where it should be). Despite raising taxes on "job creators" in the middle of the great depression, it did not start a new depression, nor did it cause us to stay in the depression. 

The insane thing is that both candidates plan to cut taxes. Obama literally said he would cut corporate tax rates (a stupid thing to do, as we've seen from the Eurozone countries that have tried such measures that it does nothing, along with Canada, which cut its corporate rate to no avail). But as I've maintained before, Obama is a right-leaning president on economic issues.


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 20, 2012)

So..... did anyone else catch the Alfred E. Smith dinner? Let's talk about gags and jokes made between the politicians. >:[


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 20, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> 2.This is because of the economy, which goes back to my first point. I don't see how you can't hold Obama in anyway accountable for this considering he's supposed to be fixing the economy.
> 3. Taxes need to be cut so businesses can actually hire people. Did you know that America has the highest corporate tax rate? It's no wonder why businesses go to other countries like China instead of here.
> 
> Not some unstable nut job flexing America's muscles.



Nobody has said that  Obama can't be held accountable, it's just that you're on the opposite side of the spectrum and want to blame him for way more than he's done. 

Taxes don't need to be cut, except for the middle class and poorer Americans who could really use that extra couple percentages they wouldn't have to pay. Trickle-down economics doesn't work.

Businesses are outsourcing to China and India, because the minimum wage there is pennies, and all the cost of getting a store or factory opened up is significantly cheaper in the long run, because you can pay the workers a fraction of what you would have to pay them here. 

That last part made me giggle. That is actually exactly one of Mitt Romney's platforms. He's a Militant American Exceptionalist, let me quote you his very own website:

"_He will put our Navy on the path to increase its shipbuilding rate from  nine per year to approximately fifteen per year, which will include  three submarines per year. He will also modernize and replace the aging  inventories of the Air Force, Army, and Marines, and selectively  strengthen our force structure. And he will fully commit to a robust,  multi-layered national ballistic-missile defense system to deter and  defend against nuclear attacks on our homeland and our allies.__
"Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts"_
_"He will reverse the three massive rounds of defense cuts signed into  law by President Obama so the United States can restore and *rebuild the  finest Armed Forces the world has ever known*."_

I wouldn't call Romney unstable, he is very much aware of what he's doing (and likely surprised at how well it's working), but he is 100% dedicated towards adding to the debt by increasing military strength and spending (or will cut taxes for the rich, or increase taxes for the poor to pay for it).


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 20, 2012)

@Lastdirewolf: From your understanding and me asking this from a moderate's point of view, what is Obama's economic plan and how does he plan to turn the debt around? The things that make me uneasy about considering Obama over Romney at the moment is the fact that the debt did increase during his term, unemployment hit new highs during his term along with him not properly utilizing the political power he had when he controlled the house, senate and white house during his first two years. Do you personally think he could've done way better the first two years or was there a reason as to why not much got done?

From what you're saying about Romney and what I've seen with Obama these 4 years, it seems like no matter who I chose, the debt will only rise.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 20, 2012)

Toshabi said:


> @Lastdirewolf: From your understanding and me  asking this from a moderate's point of view, what is Obama's economic  plan and how does he plan to turn the debt around? The things that make  me uneasy about considering Obama over Romney at the moment is the fact  that the debt did increase during his term, unemployment hit new highs  during his term along with him not properly utilizing the political  power he had when he controlled the house, senate and white house during  his first two years. Do you personally think he could've done way  better the first two years or was there a reason as to why not much got  done?
> 
> From what you're saying about Romney and what I've seen with Obama these  4 years, it seems like no matter who I chose, the debt will only  rise.



Obama has the American Jobs Act, he plans on investing into  Infrastructure, he intends on cutting tax cuts for the wealthiest  Americans, Payroll tax cuts (including a Payroll tax holiday), and he  plans on offering a slew of tax credits for small businesses, families,  and making college more affordable. There's...a huge list of things like  increasing minimum wage, he already passed the Equal Pay thing but he's  probably going to go back to it soon, filtering money back into  education, doing the whole green-energy thing, and a bunch of other  stuff. I think Obama could've done way better for his years in office, I  only think he did a moderately okay job. If even half of the things he  wants to go into place do, without being changed, then I think we'll be  seeing a much better future and the debt start to shrink. I know Romney  will add to it, but Obama has at least proposed ways of lowering it. If  you want a more detailed list, you're going to have to go to wikipedia,  or google 'Obama's Economic Plan', here's one site I use as a reference. The website as a whole has a Progressive slant, _but_ they do have some good information in some areas.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Israel is a recognized nuclear power.



What do you mean, "recognised"? 
Israel isn't a recognised Nuclear Weapon State under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty - hell, Israel hasn't even _signed_ it (unlike Iran).
Israel doesn't even officially _admit_ that it has nuclear weapons - the world only knows for sure that they have them because of the whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu.

And as far as Israel being "allowed" to have nukes, well it's only because of their hiding behind their BFF Uncle Sam that they've been able to get away with it for so long. Not to mention that the five Nuclear Weapon States under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty haven't exactly followed _their_ side of the NPT with nuclear weapon disarmament.

Israel is only "a recognized nuclear power" in the same style as North Korea - only in that they've got nukes. Doesn't mean that Israel (or anyone else) _legitimately_ has them.



Ricky said:


> You obviously haven't been paying attention to Iran or what's been going on there for the last 10 years.



This would be the ten years where every successive year Iran has supposedly only been three to five years away from having a nuke? The nukes which _their own leaders_ have said are un-Islamic (which carries a lot of weight in a theocracy)?

Not to mention that Israel hasn't been exactly reticent in its desire to launch an offensive against Iran and bomb the shit out of it - as long as it can con the US into helping, of course. Romney would be quite likely to be Netanyahu's mouthpiece by the look of it.



Ricky said:


> At least Romney is willing to step up to the plate.



What, you mean the fellow who couldn't even complete a "smile and wave" tour of the UNITED KINGDOM for the _Olympic Games_ without pissing his hosts off? The fellow who thinks dissing America's biggest creditor - China - in an election campaign is a _good_ idea?

Romney couldn't find his arse with both hands and Google Maps.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I also don't view him as a strong leader at all and this makes our country look weak, ex his *"apology tour" *



Oh for feck's sake... _what_ "apology tour"? 

As one local blogger here put it, "_Only in America could Barack Obama's attempts at diplomacy and trying to find middle ground between the US and its allies and adversaries, be translated as him "apologising for America"._"

It's this continual "patriotic" chest-beating, "never apologise", never admit a mistake arrogance attitude of the US that alienates its friends and delights its enemies.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> The fellow who thinks dissing America's *biggest creditor* - China - in an election campaign is a _good_ idea?



*Cough* *Cough*

No matter who gets elected, China will be unhappy.

You have Romney who wants to designate China as a currency manipulator.
You also have Obama who wants to place tariffs on certain Chinese products.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2012)

Aetius said:


> *Cough* *Cough*
> 
> No matter who gets elected, China will be unhappy.
> 
> ...



On the other hand, loudly proclaiming to the effect that China needs to be "contained" (really? How many countries has China bombed in the last ten years? Did China put a gun to to the head of all those US companies who outsourced their operations there?) is hardly going to make them view the US with any less suspicion than they do now.

(And as for all the reports from a country with more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world _combined_ that China is "warmongering" over launching one ex-Russian aircraft carrier that doesn't have any aircraft yet, it's rather like the pot calling the kettle black...)


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Israel isn't a recognised Nuclear Weapon State under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty



Yeah, you're right. I had to look it up.

 I thought it was.



> This would be the ten years where every successive year Iran has supposedly only been three to five years away from having a nuke? The nukes which _their own leaders_ have said are un-Islamic (which carries a lot of weight in a theocracy)?



I'm talking about enriching uranium. Back about 10 years ago everyone said "stop doing that" but they claimed it was for civil purposes. They stopped cooperating with the inspections though and shit went back and forth while they kept producing it on a massive scale. The UN has imposed multiple sanctions but it's not helping.



> Not to mention that Israel hasn't been exactly reticent in its desire to launch an offensive against Iran and bomb the shit out of it - as long as it can con the US into helping, of course. Romney would be quite likely to be Netanyahu's mouthpiece by the look of it.



If they don't just do it anyway, if Obama wins. They also said pretty clearly they are willing to do it without us.

I don't blame them.  10 years of diplomacy hasn't done a damn thing.



> What, you mean the fellow who couldn't even complete a "smile and wave" tour of the UNITED KINGDOM for the _Olympic Games_ without pissing his hosts off? The fellow who thinks dissing America's biggest creditor - China - in an election campaign is a _good_ idea?



He trolled the UK a bit. I'm okay with that. Seriously, nothing he said was that bad at all.

The Palestine one was better :lol:

But by "stepping up to the plate" I meant helping out Israel. Even if they aren't an official nuclear power that doesn't mean we should just continue to let Iran make weapons.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> But by "stepping up to the plate" I meant helping out Israel. Even if they aren't an official nuclear power that doesn't mean we should just continue to let Iran make weapons.


 
Wouldn't overt hostility, as well as possible airstrikes, against Iran just push them even more to consider the creation of Atomic Weapons as a deterrent?


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Wouldn't overt hostility, as well as possible airstrikes, against Iran just push them even more to consider the creation of Atomic Weapons as a deterrent?



They are already trying; everyone is quite aware they are not enriching the stuff for "civil purposes" hence the sanctions.

Israel wants to target their nuclear facilities. The reason they said they want to do it soon is they think Iran is moving them further underground (who knows if that is the case).

Regardless, the point is to stop them from making WMD's (although it's not certain they actually have one at this point).


----------



## Ames (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> But by "stepping up to the plate" I meant helping out Israel.



ooooh boy

this can only end well


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

The wiping off the map comment got to me.

They are the ones with the most to lose out of this, surrounded by Islamic nations who hate them.

All it takes is one bomb.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Israel wants to target their nuclear facilities. The reason they said they want to do it soon is they think *Iran is moving them further underground *(who knows if that is the case).


Bombing the Nuclear sites will just speed up that process even more. Making it much harder for infiltration and intelligence gathering, as well as the possible further militarization of Nuclear Sites. This would make any future airstrikes completely futile. 



Ricky said:


> Regardless, the point is to stop them from making WMD's (although it's not certain they actually have one at this point).


Just bombing them will only piss them off even more and make the idea of creating a nuclear weapon for deterrence seem all the more attractive.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Bombing the Nuclear sites will just speed up that process even more.



You're forgetting about limiting factors.

I'm pretty sure if they could do something faster, they would do it faster in the first place.

If they could have made a bomb by now, they have it.

It's not like they are just going to decide "hey let's make this now" and do it, like they just never quite decided before.

So what is your suggestion, anyway?  Just keep sitting here with our thumb up our ass like we have been?


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 20, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> a huge list of things like  increasing minimum wage,



For the most part, I see where you're coming from. This little bit right here though I wanna discuss a bit.

Isn't raising the minimal wage sort of backwards? If the minimal wage goes up, prices of common goods will go up since business have to pay their lowest employees more money for flipping burgers, mopping floors, ect. Sure finding a better paying job is hard (it took me almost a year to get the job I have now), but heightening minimal wage seems like it'd do more harm then good in the long run for people like me who earn 8 dollars more then the hourly minimal wage rate in California. 


One more thing about the wealthy tax cuts, how much would they be by and what about the opposing side raising the argument that the wealthy already pay the most/the wealthy use that money to create more jobs? In addition, what is the expected tax rate for the wealthy to pay in taxes and how much would it be raised by Obama's new tax policy on the rich?

(I'm chalked full of questions today, it's just very rarely do I see a level headed politician on either side that has the time to discuss what they know. I plan to hit codarc in a bit with mind-boggling questions).


----------



## Aetius (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> So what is your suggestion, anyway?  Just keep sitting here with our thumb up our ass like we have been?



At least try to pursue some sort of a diplomatic outcome.

Military action will just make the situation all the worst and complicated.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

Aetius said:


> At least try to pursue some sort of a diplomatic outcome.



Again.  Ten years.

_*TEN YEARS!!!*_


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 20, 2012)

Toshabi said:


> For the most part, I see where you're coming from. This little bit right here though I wanna discuss a bit.
> 
> Isn't raising the minimal wage sort of backwards? If the minimal wage goes up, prices of common goods will go up since business have to pay their lowest employees more money for flipping burgers, mopping floors, ect. Sure finding a better paying job is hard (it took me almost a year to get the job I have now), but heightening minimal wage seems like it'd do more harm then good in the long run for people like me who earn 8 dollars more then the hourly minimal wage rate in California.
> 
> ...



California has one of the highest minimum wages, because California is one of the most expensive states to live in. Outside Cali it drops off. If businesses are barely scraping by, then yeah, increasing the minimum wage will hurt them, but if an employer, say for retail, could spread 100USD more on his employees paycheques rather than buying several boxes of shampoo that will only sit in the warehouse, there is an immediate gain. Or simply not hiring an excessive amount of people helps too. 

I don't believe that prices would go up to compensate for the increased minimum wage, since a store shouldn't be running paycheque to paycheque, there is likely some level of profit in most stores that could be used towards beefing up staff rather than more products - Even if it's as small as making the Minimum Wage 9USD instead of 8.25 or whatever. 

I'm not too sure about the wealthy tax cuts, I'm a bit too drunk and tired to remember the info, so I'm too lazy to look it up as well. I do know that the argument that the wealthy are job-creators is patently false, it stems from the trickle-down economy style that never worked. When you give rich people money, or take less away from them, they simple take what they have and invest it (for the most part). If the rich worked like the trickle-down economy thinkers want them to, then the system would be fantastic.

I can't remember the wealthy tax rate or any of that, but a quick Google search for those words will get you something useful. Check for Huffingtonpost, Politifact, CNN, Washingtonpost (non-Op/Ed or blog), and all that~


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Again.  Ten years.
> 
> _*TEN YEARS!!!*_



And where's Iran's supposed nukes then? We've been hearing this "OMG IRAN HAZ NUKES OMFGBBQ" for the last ten fucking years and there's been no sign of them. I'd say diplomacy has FUCKING WORKED.

So what would you have the US do with Iran, hmmm? Threatening Iran with attack will only push Iran towards nukes. 
Actually _attacking_ Iran to get rid of their supposed nukes will be a logistical nightmare which will make Iraq and Afghanistan look like playground fights - and if the USA threatens or uses its _own_ nukes, the US's standing in the world will plummet lower than a turd down a long-drop dunny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#The_U.S._stance


> Lieutenant General Ronald Burgess, the chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in January 2010 that there is no evidence that Iran has made a decision to build a nuclear weapon and that the key findings of a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate are all still correct



And frankly, Israel wailing about Iran's supposed nuke capability and so-called lack of UN inspection access is total and utter crocodile tears seeing as ISRAEL won't let ANYONE - including their BFF USA - anywhere near _their_ nuke facilities. Why should Israel have a nuke monopoly in the Middle East, especially given Israel's "bomb the shit out of anyone who looks at me funny" policy?

More to the point, why is US Middle-East policy dictated by Tel Aviv?


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> The wiping off the map comment got to me.
> 
> They are the ones with the most to lose out of this, surrounded by Islamic nations who hate them.
> 
> All it takes is one bomb.



And how many times since has Israel threatened to bomb Iran? More times than I can count.

Who is the real warmonger?


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> And where's Iran's supposed nukes then? We've been hearing this "OMG IRAN HAZ NUKES OMFGBBQ" for the last ten fucking years and there's been no sign of them. I'd say diplomacy has FUCKING WORKED.



Eh, 10 years ago we *knew* they didn't have any =P

Diplomacy hasn't worked despite pressure from the UN for a long-ass time.

It's not a question if they have nukes; they need to be stopped from manufacturing them.

They aren't playing with the IAEA.



> And frankly, Israel wailing about Iran's supposed nuke capability  and so-called lack of UN inspection access is total and utter crocodile  tears seeing as ISRAEL won't let ANYONE - including their BFF USA -  anywhere near _their_ nuke facilities. Why should Israel have a  nuke monopoly in the Middle East, especially given Israel's "bomb the  shit out of anyone who looks at me funny" policy?



Israel already has nukes and they aren't using them.

That doesn't mean every other country should be allowed to make nuclear weapons.

Do you not see how that could be a *bad* thing? Especially with Iran?



> So what would you have the US do with Iran, hmmm?



Make a timeline and stick with it.



Mayfurr said:


> And how many times since has Israel threatened to bomb Iran? More times than I can count.



Yeah, but as a last resort. Again, I don't really blame them but I agree they have been on the offense a bit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Again.  Ten years.
> 
> _*TEN YEARS!!!*_


There's a problem with your logic though.  Nuclear warfare is a self fulfilling prophecy pretty much.  If you push a foreign nations to the point they feel as though their only option left is a nuclear strike because you are trying to prevent them attaining nuclear capability that defeats what you set out to in the first place.
What I'm getting at is if they do have nukes the last thing you want to do is make them desperate enough to use them.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> There's a problem with your logic though.  Nuclear warfare is a self fulfilling prophecy pretty much.  If you push a foreign nations to the point they feel as though their only option left is a nuclear strike because you are trying to prevent them attaining nuclear capability that defeats what you set out to in the first place.



Who said anything about a nuclear strike? :/

It would be more like a strategic bombing and only as a last resort if obligations aren't met.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Eh, 10 years ago we *knew* they didn't have any =P
> 
> Diplomacy hasn't worked despite pressure from the UN for a long-ass time.
> 
> ...



Meanwhile, the US and the UK are wanting to replace its nuclear stockpile, manufacturing new nukes. Why shouldn't they (and France, Russia and China, if they decide to follow) be blocked and sanctioned for that, as well as for their failure to _disarm their nuke forces_ as stipulated by the NPT?

If you want to be worried by a nuke-armed state, look over at Pakistan at the moment.  



Ricky said:


> Israel already has nukes and they aren't using them.
> 
> That doesn't mean every other country should be allowed to make nuclear weapons.



NO-ONE should have nuclear weapons - but I think it's the height of arrogance for nuclear states like the US (and Israel) to loudly proclaim how states like Iran can't have nukes when the US and Israel have NO FUCKING INTENTION of getting rid of theirs. 

As I've stated in other threads - if nukes are evil for Iran to have, then they're evil for ANYONE to have. But if they're good for the US et al to have (especially as the US has bombed more countries in the last twenty years than Iran has in modern history) then it's fucking arrogant to say that some states are "undeserving" to have them. All it is is "do as I say, not as I do" - and that _really_ pisses me off.



Ricky said:


> Yeah, but as a last resort. Again, I don't really blame them [Israel] but I agree they have been on the offense a bit.



Oh, I see. Israel can threaten Iran as often as it likes and as hard as it likes but it's okay - but Iran can't make even a sideways comment about Israel without people like you clamouring for war and "bomb bomb bomb Iran". Riiiiight.

So is it OK for Israel to make a pre-emptive strike on Iran? And if so, would it be right for Iran to make a pre-emptive non-nuclear strike on Israeli forces in self-defence? If not, why not? 

Would you say that Israel has a right to self-defence but Iran does not? If so, why?



Ricky said:


> Who said anything about a nuclear strike? :/
> 
> It would be more like a strategic bombing and only as a last resort if obligations aren't met.



Strategic bombing, nuclear strike... same thing when it comes to a war of aggression. It's just the volume of the blast.

A nuke power pounding Iran back to the Middle Ages to get them to give up nukes is just so fucking counter-productive I don't know where to start. All you do is make the case for countries to follow North Korea's examples and GET nukes so that Uncle Sam will be deterred from bombing them.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> NO-ONE should have nuclear weapons - but I think it's the height of arrogance for nuclear states like the US (and Israel) to loudly proclaim how states like Iran can't have nukes when the US and Israel have NO FUCKING INTENTION of getting rid of theirs.



It's not just the US and Israel. Iran is under heavy international pressure.

But I agree with you. I don't think anyone should have them.

It's not realistic to expect anyone to just give up their nuclear stockpile though.

You're trying to set a precedent: "X country has this, so every other country should have this as well." That's not the way things work. Some countries are just fucked up and Iran is one of them. It's not the same as Israel having them or the UK.



> Oh, I see. Israel can threaten Iran as often as it likes and as hard as it likes but it's okay - but Iran can't make even a sideways comment about Israel without people like you clamouring for war and "bomb bomb bomb Iran". Riiiiight.



I didn't say we should bomb anyone; I said we should give an ultimatum and stick to a timeline.

I'm not a military guru though. I'm not really qualified to say what would work the best.

What is beyond me is how you don't see the difference between the two countries here. Why did Iran threaten Israel? It was out of pure hate. Israel wanted to strategically bomb them because they said they were moving the nukes. Most other countries have been trying to get Iran to stop the program for 10 years. Those two aren't nearly the same thing.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Oct 20, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Nobody has said that  Obama can't be held accountable, it's just that you're on the opposite side of the spectrum and want to blame him for way more than he's done.



Are you even reading what I'm righting? I admitted that all of the economic problems aren't his fault but that he has made them worse since he has taken office. You also seem extremely adamant in defending him so I can accuse you of being on the opposite side of the spectrum.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Taxes don't need to be cut, except for the middle class and poorer Americans who could really use that extra couple percentages they wouldn't have to pay. Trickle-down economics doesn't work.


You seem to be saying the same thing Obama wants to get pounded into everyone's head. That if Romney was elected he would raise taxes on the middle class and poor and give tax breaks to the wealthy. Romney has corrected President Obama on this many times yet Obama still says it.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Businesses are outsourcing to China and India, because the minimum wage there is pennies, and all the cost of getting a store or factory opened up is significantly cheaper in the long run, because you can pay the workers a fraction of what you would have to pay them here.



Part of Romney's plan for the economy is to crack down on countries such as China so that we, America, can be competitive in manufacturing again.



Lastdirewolf said:


> That last part made me giggle. That is actually exactly one of Mitt Romney's platforms. He's a Militant American Exceptionalist, let me quote you his very own website:
> 
> _..._
> 
> I wouldn't call Romney unstable, he is very much aware of what he's doing (and likely surprised at how well it's working), but he is 100% dedicated towards adding to the debt by increasing military strength and spending (or will cut taxes for the rich, or increase taxes for the poor to pay for it).



We need a strong military this day in age. What I meant by "nut job flexing America's muscles" was someone who's going to go out and start wars we have no part in.  Now to the second part let me ask you this question: What is Obama's plan for the economy? To my knowledge he hasn't even said what it was yet.

But you know whatever; you're going to believe what your going to believe and so am I. Hence my first post that said I really didn't care about changing anyone's mind. I have a feeling if we keep on going this will turn into an debate over ideals eventually so I'm out.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 20, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Part of Romney's plan for the economy is to crack down on countries such as China so that we, America, can be competitive in manufacturing again.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is just sad. Romney has sent jobs from his own company overseas to China so him saying that he's going to crack down on countries such as China is very laughable. And his company wasn't even in trouble then. They reported record profits.

Also, we ALREADY HAVE a strong military. Hell, we cut military funding and we STILL have enough left over for a strong military.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 20, 2012)

Aleu said:


> This is just sad. Romney has sent jobs from his own company overseas to China so him saying that he's going to crack down on countries such as China is very laughable. And his company wasn't even in trouble then. They reported record profits.
> 
> Also, we ALREADY HAVE a strong military. Hell, we cut military funding and we STILL have enough left over for a strong military.



If there was more funding being put into the military, they would be recruiting out of the ass and lowering their standards to take anyone...almost anyone..Just like the "war on terror" a decade or so back.

I'm serious. Last time I saw recruiters at my campus, they accepted an obese guy to join. That's sad. >.>

It's hard to take anything Romney says seriously due to him flip flopping back and forth.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> We should like totally let Iran keep making nuclear weapons. They like _totally_ won't use them and stuff. Also, Israel is raping people as punishment for crimes and hanging kids because they are gay just like Iran. Like, totally. Yeah



Yeah, sure ok :roll:


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 20, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Are you even reading what I'm righting? I admitted that all of the economic problems aren't his fault but that he has made them worse since he has taken office. You also seem extremely adamant in defending him so I can accuse you of being on the opposite side of the spectrum.
> 
> You seem to be saying the same thing Obama wants to get pounded into everyone's head. That if Romney was elected he would raise taxes on the middle class and poor and give tax breaks to the wealthy. Romney has corrected President Obama on this many times yet Obama still says it.
> 
> ...



Saying 'all' of the economic problems are not his fault isn't saying much, because a _majority_ of the problems are not his fault. They are only his fault for not _fixing_ them, even though the level of debt wasn't about to be overturned in 4 years (it took a decade to earn the debt, why or how would it take less to get rid of it?), but most of them were policies and things enacted during the Bush years. I'm not adamant about defending him, I'm adamant about getting the facts straight, especially considering how much worse off we'll be with Romney in place if people don't know the facts about Obama.

Romney has "corrected" President Obama about taxes, but it's still _mostly true_. He even said in the Hofstra debate that he would never ever raise taxes on the wealthy. 
"because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they're paying now." and "And I will not â€” I will not under any circumstances, reduce the share that's being paid by the highest income taxpayers."

Those are Romney's words. He also claims amongst all that, that he'll give tax cuts across the board to the less-than-wealthy, but the numbers aren't really adding up to where the money will come from to pay for it all (hint hint, the cuts aren't coming, or they're going to sacrifice another part of the budget, like education), and such.

From FactCheck.org
(Obama) Romney said that â€œI am not going to have people at the high end pay    less than theyâ€™re paying nowâ€ under his tax plan. But thatâ€™s not what  he   said earlier, as Obama correctly noted.*Obama:* [D]uring a Republican primary, he    stood onstage and said, Iâ€™m going to give tax cuts â€” he didnâ€™t say   tax  rate cuts; he said tax cuts â€” to everybody, including the top 1    percent, you should believe him, because thatâ€™s been his history.​Romney pushed back, explaining that â€œIâ€™m not looking to cut taxes for    wealthy people.â€ But his remarks this time were different in tone and    substance than what he said before, as the president suggested.
 Obama was referring to an exchange  during a Republican primary debate, when Rick Santorum charged that    Romney â€œsuggested raising taxes on the top 1 percent.â€ Romney countered:*Romney, Feb 22, 2012:* I said today that weâ€™re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent."

So Romney flip-flopped on that particular part of the issue, or he was lying at one point or another. 
​Romney has quite a bit of money invested in China, or at least a Chinese company, why would he start cracking down now?

Obama imposed trade sanctions against China, in which Romney rallied against despite supposedly being _for_ imposing restrictions on China (apparently), and it cost us a couple thousand jobs here. So I guess cracking down isn't necessarily the best?

As for military spending? We're upwards of over 1 trillion on our military. We're #1 in Military spending by a large margin, China is spending about half of what we spend, or less, and they're #2 in military spending - That makes the USA account for ~40% of global arms spending. Do we need more? *Seriously?* We're spending more than like, the next 15 or 20 countries combined. Romney wants to add 2 trillion _more_ to it, *tripling* our spending, and it would have us spending more on military than probably the next 30-50 countries. Where is all that money going to come from? Not the rich, not businesses, and definitely not from Romney's own pocket. 

'Obama's economic plan' is gigantic, or at least, there is _a lot_ of reading to do, but it _is_ there. Just Google it.

You've shown your ignorance for the 3rd time now, and I'm more than happy to keep correcting and informing you, but some Google searches on your part could save me time, and they'll keep you informed. CNN, Politifact, Factcheck.org, the Washington Post has a fact checker, ABC news has a fact checker, hell even Snopes has a Political wing now. Please do some research.

This all isn't in some adamant defence of Obama, this is all fact-checking and corrections on what you've said.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> Who said anything about a nuclear strike? :/
> 
> It would be more like a strategic bombing and only as a last resort if obligations aren't met.


It doesn't have to be a nuclear strike.  If we push them to the point as though they feel their only option left is nuclear then they'll do it.
Let's say hypothetically idunno China was invading, and was just utterly decimating us to the point anybody that fought was instantly decimated, would you use nukes as a last resort to defend yourself from a invading nation?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 20, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> If there was more funding being put into the military, they would be recruiting out of the ass and lowering their standards to take anyone...almost anyone..Just like the "war on terror" a decade or so back.
> 
> I'm serious. Last time I saw recruiters at my campus, they accepted an obese guy to join. That's sad. >.>
> 
> It's hard to take anything Romney says seriously due to him flip flopping back and forth.



Well they can lose weight. One of my friends was pretty fat when he went in then a few years later after he was done with whatever training, he was in pretty good shape. I did have on recruiter try to get me to join over the phone. I just laughed. Skinny 100lb girl that's gun shy on the field? HA


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2012)

Who else wants to bet Florida is going to fuck up the election again?


----------



## burakki (Oct 20, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Who else wants to bet Florida is going to fuck up the election again?



Florida may have a big impact, but it's not as important as Ohio. As it stands, no Republican within the past 50-60 years has won the election if they did not win Ohio. And also it seems right now, Florida is probably going to go to Romney because of a combination of purging the voter polls and the enactment of voter id laws and such. It's unfortunate, but it seems this is the way the Republicans want the election to play out.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2012)

Ricky said:


> But I agree with you. I don't think anyone should have them.
> 
> It's not realistic to expect anyone to just give up their nuclear stockpile though.



If it's realistic to expect others to forgo what you consider "the ultimate defence", it's realistic to expect you to forgo that "ultimate defence" as well. Anything else is simply a case of "might make right" and "for my friends, everything - for my enemies, the law!"



Ricky said:


> You're trying to set a precedent: "X country has this, so every other country should have this as well." That's not the way things work. Some countries are just fucked up and Iran is one of them. It's not the same as Israel having them or the UK.



Israel has repeatedly attacked Lebanon and Syria in the last ten years alone.
The United Kingdom (in collusion with France and Israel) invaded Egypt to take control of the Suez Canal in the 1950s.
The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s.
The UK and USA invaded Iraq under false pretences in 2003.
And let's not forget France and the USA in Vietnam.

Iran? Hasn't started a war with _anyone_ in the last sixty years - the Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq.

Going by "countries that have attacked others", I'd say Iran is looking _less_ "fucked up" than the US.



Ricky said:


> I didn't say we should bomb anyone; I said we should give an ultimatum and stick to a timeline.



An ultimatum is no bloody good if there's no teeth to what you've going to do if your conditions aren't met. Short of war, what are you going to do if the ultimatum isn't met?



Ricky said:


> What is beyond me is how you don't see the difference between the two countries here. Why did Iran threaten Israel? It was out of pure hate.



Oh, I guess the way Israel has been treating the Palestinians has NO impact on how the Muslim world feels about Israel. Riiiight...



Ricky said:


> Israel wanted to strategically bomb them because they said they were moving the nukes.



Well that would be a trick, wouldn't it? Moving non-existing nukes...

Why should we believe Israel when it's patently obvious they want to retain a nuclear monopoly?


----------



## Ricky (Oct 20, 2012)

OK, so wait. Instead of addressing things sentence by sentence l want to make sure we are on the same page.

You are saying the world should just let Iran make nukes. You seriously believe that?

Seriously?

I think people are more worried about indirect terrorist threats rather than direct military intervention from Iran.

If you really see no problem with them making nukes I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Oct 20, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> You've shown your ignorance for the 3rd time now, and I'm more than happy to keep correcting and informing you, but some Google searches on your part could save me time, and they'll keep you informed. CNN, Politifact, Factcheck.org, the Washington Post has a fact checker, ABC news has a fact checker, hell even Snopes has a Political wing now. Please do some research.



Srsly, have you even been reading everything I said? I tell you I'm out of this and you write me an entire essay; yep that's logic. I find it even more ridiculous when you complain about wasting time after that. Also, that whole "they'll keep you informed" thing is what pisses me off; it really makes it seem as though you are talking down to me. Finally you do realize that all those sources you mentioned are left leaning right??


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 20, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Srsly, have you even been reading everything I said? I tell you I'm out of this and you write me an entire essay; yep that's logic. I find it even more ridiculous when you complain about wasting time after that. Also, that whole "they'll keep you informed" thing is what pisses me off; it really makes it seem as though you are talking down to me. Finally you do realize that all those sources you mentioned are left leaning right??



I've read everything you said, and that's the thing, you've still been saying a lot. You actually made an entire multi-tiered response, and _then_ said you were out. So I corrected everything you said, and I gave you a parting response. If you didn't want a full response, then you shouldn't have written one - Let alone a thought-out response with multiple quotes. Yep, that's logic. I complained about wasted time, because you apparently just wanted to post a bunch of bullshit and leave, which isn't how open forums work - Plus, people who lurk may be getting informed as well. 

I'm sorry that you're pissed off, and I wasn't trying to talk down to you, I meant everything in an honest and straight-forward fashion. If I made a mistake, I'll correct it. If my sources are bad, show me better ones - I want to be as informed as I can be as a voter. 

Until then, I guess I'm out as well, per the style of 'out' you've chosen.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2012)

Ricky said:


> OK, so wait. Instead of addressing things sentence by sentence l want to make sure we are on the same page.
> 
> You are saying the world should just let Iran make nukes. You seriously believe that?



IRAN IS NOT MAKING NUKES, despite what Israel might be saying. Even if Iran was, there's no credible way of putting that nuclear genie back in the bottle _without invading and occupying the entire country like how the US did with Iraq_ - and look how well that worked out.

I don't want ANY country to have nukes, but it may well be that the least-worst option is to have a nuclear-capable Iran that is reminded that the minute it ever goes nuclear it will be treated the same as other nuclear weapon states. That is, if Iran ever launches a nuclear strike, there will be immediate nuclear retaliation from _somebody_.

Besides, we "let" nations like the USA and Israel have nukes without anyone complaining, despite their history of making attacks on other countries. We "let" India and Pakistan - two nations that regularly have a go at each other and who loathe each other - have nukes. We "let" the UK, France, Russia and China have nukes. We "let" countries like Brazil and Japan have near-nuke capability - they could "go nuclear" fairly quickly if they felt the need - and I'm damn sure that countries like Argentina, South Korea and China aren't thrilled at _that_ prospect.



Ricky said:


> I think people are more worried about indirect terrorist threats rather than direct military intervention from Iran.



Even _if_ Iran developed nukes, they sure as hell won't let them get into the hands of anyone else - for the same reason that the US doesn't hand out nukes to "freedom fighters" in Iran and other places.



Ricky said:


> If you really see no problem with them making nukes I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.



The problem I have is not whether Iran has nukes or not - especially as membership of the nuclear club ups the ante with respect to being targeted by other nuclear powers. The problem I have is the sanctimonious hypocrisy of the five "have nuke" powers (that's not counting India and Pakistan) in ensuring that no-one else has nukes while at the same time making damn sure they keep theirs.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 21, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Srsly, have you even been reading everything I said? I tell you I'm out of this and you write me an entire essay; yep that's logic. I find it even more ridiculous when you complain about wasting time after that. Also, that whole "they'll keep you informed" thing is what pisses me off; it really makes it seem as though you are talking down to me. Finally you do realize that all those sources you mentioned are left leaning right??



CNN is the most impartial of the "big three"and is best described as "sensationalist" rather than consistently left- or right-biased.  Politifact and Factcheck are decidedly impartial by design and if you're going to assert otherwise you better cite examples.  Tax Policy Center, the source of the analysis that Romney's tax plan math doesn't work, is also a long-running impartial entity, and Romney himself cited them as an "impartial source" when attacking his opponents in the primary.  Finally, Wa-Po is a traditionally center-_right_ leaning paper.  That you are so quick to rush to cry "bias!" in the face of widespread disagreement from relatively neutral parties is indicative that *you have been misinformed.*

Let's also not forget that the current top tax bracket was established by the Bush tax cut, passed at a time of relative prosperity with a sunset period written into the bill and an explicit promise that it would not become permanent.  That temporary rate was already extended once in 2010 as the first act of Republicans after the election.  Even with their gains, they had to force it through the Senate by literally holding the legislature hostage with a blanket filibuster on all other bills, which they promised to maintain through the end of the session unless the top-bracket cut extension was passed.  They did this when repealing DADT was still on the table, unemployment benefits were about to run out at Christmas, and we were already overdue to renew the START arms treaty with Russia, necessary to prevent us from heading in the direction of a World War III.

There is nothing more important to the GOP than cutting taxes for the wealthy.  There is almost nothing else important to the GOP at all.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 21, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> IRAN IS NOT MAKING NUKES, despite what Israel might be saying. *Even if Iran was*



They're not, but even if they are... :roll:

For  argument's sake, let's ignore all the evidence the IAEA has found pertaining to design documents and activities that are entirely  specific to making weapons. WHY are they refusing the IAEA the access they need to follow through with the inspections? If it were for completely peaceful purposes they wouldn't have anything to hide and probably would not want to go through all this political BS.

What really got to me was when we offered to GIVE THEM materials and help fund a peaceful nuclear energy program if they would just fucking cooperate. They didn't even do that. That's just a bit of a red flag right there.



> The  problem I have is not whether Iran has nukes or not - especially as  membership of the nuclear club ups the ante with respect to being  targeted by other nuclear powers. The problem I have is the  sanctimonious hypocrisy of the five "have nuke" powers (that's not  counting India and Pakistan) in ensuring that no-one else has nukes  while at the same time making damn sure they keep theirs.



We can't let countries develop nuclear weapons just because other countries have them. I agree  the US should ditch them along with everyone else but if we let  every other country make them in the meantime something bad is going to happen.  That's just the law of averages; if you give enough people a gun someone  will shoot someone and certain people are more likely to do it than  others. At least most of the nuclear powers today *probably* have the common sense not to use them.

Maybe  some of this is my own bias because I don't like Ahmadinejad; I think  he's a sick fuck and I think he's full of shit. I believe he's capable of an underhanded move such as using terrorist channels to bomb Israel. Regardless, I don't think we should let the  opportunity arise to test that one. He did say Israel should be wiped off the map, after all.

I'm not saying we should just go in and bomb them but we need to stop sitting on our hands not doing anything. We need to give them deadlines to either ditch the program or have full-on inspections. If they don't meet those deadlines then yes, we should strike. This shit has been going on long enough and although you seem very optimistic I think all the evidence points to some very shady shit.



Mayfurr said:


> I don't want ANY country to have nukes, but it  may well be that the least-worst option is to have a nuclear-capable  Iran that is reminded that the minute it ever goes nuclear it will be  treated the same as other nuclear weapon states. That is, if Iran ever  launches a nuclear strike, there will be immediate nuclear retaliation  from _somebody_.



Nuclear war is not an option.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 21, 2012)

The problem with Iran is one of swatting a hornet that's sitting on the nest.  It's not controversial to say Ahmadinejad is a shit that shouldn't be in power, but much of the hostility in the region is the result of how much the U.S. has been meddling in their affairs already.  The fuckup with Shah is only just now beginning to fade from the Iranian memory, do we really want to go and give them whole new reasons to hate us and perpetuate the cycle?


----------



## Ricky (Oct 21, 2012)

Lobar said:


> The problem with Iran is one of swatting a hornet that's sitting on the nest.  It's not controversial to say Ahmadinejad is a shit that shouldn't be in power, but much of the hostility in the region is the result of how much the U.S. has been meddling in their affairs already.  The fuckup with Shah is only just now beginning to fade from the Iranian memory, do we really want to go and give them whole new reasons to hate us and perpetuate the cycle?



Eh...  On the other hand there are a lot of people getting pissed we aren't helping the FSA.

It's always a double-edged sword.

We are either sticking our nose in other people's affairs or being selfish and not helping other countries when we should be.

I guess that's the onus of being the biggest military power in the world.


----------



## Toshabi (Oct 21, 2012)

@lastdirewolf: Thanks for the reply and info. That cleared a lot of things up.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 21, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Who else wants to bet Florida is going to fuck up the election again?



HEY! Didn't Florida side with Obama last election?


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 21, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> Oh, I guess the way Israel has been treating the Palestinians has NO impact on how the Muslim world feels about Israel.


True. The Muslim world has hated Israel since before it was Israel. They've shown time and time again that they don't give one flying fuck about the Palestinians, or else they wouldn't have been refugees for 20 years before Israel even took the West Bank and Gaza. They'd have been allowed to assimilate into the countries they were refugees in. They've historically used the Palestinians as a rallying cry and moral highground but they've shown time and time again that they don't actually care about them. Even if they did, how Israel has treated them recently has no effect on how the other countries feel about it.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 21, 2012)

Aleu said:


> HEY! Didn't Florida side with Obama last election?



Proved his point. loloololololololol

#tcot #realcommonsensepatriotconstitutionsolutions #buyxconservativesnewshallowbook


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> True. The Muslim world has hated Israel since before it was Israel.



How can something be hated before it exists? You're talking bullshit.



Jashwa said:


> They've shown time and time again that they don't give one flying fuck about the Palestinians, or else they wouldn't have been refugees for 20 years before Israel even took the West Bank and Gaza.



Refugees are people who have fled or been kicked out OF THEIR OWN LANDS - it's got nothing to do with them being "assimilated" anywhere else. If Canada had invaded the USA(1) and kicked you out to make way for hordes of maple-syrup totin' bilingual Canuck settlers, I'd say the _last _thing you'd be thinking is "Oh well, I'd better assimilate myself into some other place like Mexico." No - you'd resist, you'd fight to reclaim your home.

What you're basically saying is that Muslim countries should have simply aided and abetted Israel's ethnic-cleansing land-grabs by removing Israel's Palestinian "problem" for then, regardless of whether the Palestinians concerned actually wanted to become Egyptians / Lebanese / Syrians / Jordanians etc.

(1) Highly unlikely I know, but I'm making a point.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2012)

Ricky said:


> What really got to me was when we offered to GIVE THEM materials and help fund a peaceful nuclear energy program if they would just fucking cooperate. They didn't even do that. That's just a bit of a red flag right there.



They ARE building a peaceful nuclear program - and they want to do it themselves *as is their right under the NPT.* For Iran, it's a matter of national pride that they can do this stuff, and developing nuclear energy will allow them to sell the oil they would otherwise burn themselves to other countries. And the LAST thing that Iran wants is to have a major source of energy like nuclear power controlled by someone outside their country - much like the US would resent (say) Russia controlling US uranium supplies.

Besides, even if Iran does get nukes - who would they use them against in an aggressive strike?
Not Israel - Facing Israel means facing the US, and Iran cannot match the US.
Not the US - Iran cannot match the US.
Not Russia - they're friends with Iran, and Iran can't match them for nuclear weapons.
Not Pakistan - they're friends with Iran.
Not Afghanistan - no reason to fight.

The only reason why Iran _might_ want nukes is for deterrence - _self-defence_ - to give countries like Israel and the US pause if they're thinking of attacking Iran. And even then using the damn things would be tantamount to suicide (and don't give me that bullshit about the mullahs wanting to bring down Israel in a self-destructive nuclear Armageddon, even they're not that stupid).



Ricky said:


> Maybe  some of this is my own bias because I don't like Ahmadinejad; I think  he's a sick fuck and I think he's full of shit. I believe he's capable of an underhanded move such as using terrorist channels to bomb Israel.



Not with nukes he won't. Iran isn't THAT stupid - even using terrorists as a front for a nuclear strike will lead straight back to Iran and instant retaliation. 



Ricky said:


> Regardless, I don't think we should let the  opportunity arise to test that one. He did say Israel should be wiped off the map, after all.



What he SAID was that one day Israel would vanish from the pages of time - which is NOT the same as "I want to wipe them out RIGHT NOW".

Again, how many times recently has Israel loudly threatened to attack Iran?



Ricky said:


> I'm not saying we should just go in and bomb them but we need to stop sitting on our hands not doing anything.



The US is _not_ sitting on its hands - unless you don't count economic sanctions against Iran as "action".


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2012)

Aleu said:


> HEY! Didn't Florida side with Obama last election?


Yeah, but pretty much every time, the last few elections, that elections haven't been one sided Florida dicks up the election and they have to spend days recounting and recounting and recounting the votes.  Asking Florida to run a nice fair straight forward election is like asking Disney to not rape your childhood for money.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 21, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I find the lack of logic to be bracing:
> -republican president, democratic house and senate: all problems are the republican presidents fault
> -democratic president, democratic senate, republican house: all problems are the republicans in the HoR fault


I find your lack of logic to be unimpressive:

If a bill gets to the _Resolute_ desk, it is on the president's full discretion if he or she signs it or not. If a bill does not get there, there is little he or she could do about it.



Ricky said:


> Besides, you're wrong at least in the Middle-East where people don't really like him because we aren't helping anyone out (and people need the help).


How does that even refute anything I said?



Jashwa said:


> The Muslim world has hated Israel since before it was Israel.


You mean the British, with their Mandatory Palestine, who unilaterally invited all Jews and Zionist terrorist groups to migrate to the Muslim colony (_DÄr al-IslÄm _since thirteen centuries ago) they had stripped from the Ottoman Empire to artificially establish a Jewish majority from 11 per cent of the original population so they could excuse an exclusive state for them?

BE & Mates Â® 1917 Completely Unjustified New Tension


----------



## Ricky (Oct 21, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> They ARE building a peaceful nuclear program - and they want to do it themselves as is their right under the NPT.



You completely avoided the point. If it WERE for peaceful purposes, why wouldn't they WANT us to give them materials and funding?



Spoiler: The Reason Why



*IT'S NOT FOR PEACEFUL PURPOSES*


The IAEA *has found design documents* for NUCLEAR WARHEADS.

Also, stuff like this:



> The IAEA also expressed concern about Iranâ€™s Parchin site, reporting  that after the IAEA notified Iran that it suspected nuclear weapons  related activity there, satellite imagery showed â€œextensive activitiesâ€:Satellite imagery available to the Agency for the period  from February 2005 to January 2012 shows virtually no activity at or  near the building housing the [large explosives containment vessel in  which to conduct hydrodynamic experiments]. However, since the Agencyâ€™s  first request for access to this location, satellite imagery shows that  extensive activities and resultant changes have taken place at this  location. [...]
> 
> In light of these extensive activities, the Agencyâ€™s ability to  verify the information on which its concerns are based has been  adversely affected and, when the Agency gains access to the location, its ability to conduct effective verification will have been significantly hampered.​*The Institute for Science and International Security has said that it suspects the Iranians have been engaged in an extensive clean up operation at Parchin*.



*Iran is trying to build a bomb, plain and simple* (if they have not done so already).



> The only reason why Iran _might_ want nukes is for deterrence - _self-defence_ - to give countries like Israel and the US pause if they're thinking of attacking Iran.



Right. So YOU ARE saying it's perfectly okay for them to build a bomb :\



> Not with nukes he won't. Iran isn't THAT stupid



Well, I'm glad you know him this well.

Unfortunately, the entire world is not quite as convinced :roll:



> What he SAID was that one day Israel would vanish from the pages of time - which is NOT the same as "I want to wipe them out RIGHT NOW".
> 
> Again, how many times recently has Israel loudly threatened to attack Iran?



However you want to translate it. That's not quite the way I heard but still, he is saying they should be wiped off the map. Netanyahu is not threatening to wipe Iran off the map. He was threatening to strategically target nuclear facilities AFTER 10 YEARS OF FAILED SANCTIONS AND ATTEMPTED DIPLOMACY.

Again, if you don't see the difference and how _*one is fueled from PURE HATE*_ I don't know how else to convey the message to you.



> The US is _not_ sitting on its hands - unless you don't count economic sanctions against Iran as "action".



_*TEN YEARS*_



Spoiler: Ten Years



*IT'S NOT WORKING!!!*





Mayfurr said:


> How can something be hated before it exists? You're talking bullshit.



Actually, since Israel comes from Yisrael (which translates to "The Promised Land" I believe) Jashwa is right if you followed the whole Zionist movement since the British conquest of Palestine.



Lizzie said:


> How does that even refute anything I said?



His popularity isn't all that great, unless you're comparing him to Bush (jr) =P


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 21, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> How can something be hated before it exists? You're talking bullshit.


I've been studying this for the past year. I'm talking about hating the group of people that went on to form Israel (The Zionist Jews led by David Ben-Gurion's Jewish Agency Executive and Chaim Weizmann). The Muslim's hated them for moving to Palestine and buying land and hiring Jewish workers over Palestinians. This isn't a new thing about the Palestinians nowadays. It's just over 100 years old. 





			
				Mayfurr said:
			
		

> Refugees are people who have fled or been kicked out OF THEIR OWN LANDS - it's got nothing to do with them being "assimilated" anywhere else. If Canada had invaded the USA(1) and kicked you out to make way for hordes of maple-syrup totin' bilingual Canuck settlers, I'd say the _last _thing you'd be thinking is "Oh well, I'd better assimilate myself into some other place like Mexico." No - you'd resist, you'd fight to reclaim your home.
> 
> What you're basically saying is that Muslim countries should have simply aided and abetted Israel's ethnic-cleansing land-grabs by removing Israel's Palestinian "problem" for then, regardless of whether the Palestinians concerned actually wanted to become Egyptians / Lebanese / Syrians / Jordanians etc.


No, what I'm saying is that if they REALLY cared about the refugees, then they wouldn't have kept them in shitty camps with terrible living conditions for 20 years and they would've actually tried to help them out. Fun fact: West Bank Palestinian's living conditions (food, water, education, etc) actually IMPROVED after Israel took over until the Intifada and the military crackdown by Israel. Jordan wasn't and couldn't help them as much as Israel did. You'd expect a country to help out those in its care (who they wanted to annex, especially), but that didn't happen. Same thing with camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Egypt. These countries all talked big about how they supported the Palestinian cause and how they wanted to get the Palestinians their land back and how they cared about the Palestinians, but all they gave a shit about was their own interests and Palestinians were a convenient cause that could help get them support for their offensives against Israel. None of my statement is saying that Palestinians are in the wrong for wanting to fight to get their home back. I'm saying other countries don't fight for the Palestinians. 



Lizzie said:


> You mean the British, with their Mandatory Palestine, who unilaterally invited all Jews and Zionist terrorist groups to migrate to the Muslim colony (_DÄr al-IslÄm _since thirteen centuries ago) they had stripped from the Ottoman Empire to artificially establish a Jewish majority from 11 per cent of the original population so they could excuse an exclusive state for them?


No, because that's biased and untrue. The British DID unilaterally help Jewish settlers establish a home in Palestine but if you knew anything about Palestinian/Israeli history, then you'd know that the Jews had to basically fight a war with the British to form Israel in 1947. Jewish terrorists regularly targeted the British and the more legitimate Jewish leaders fought them politically. David Ben Gurion is famous for saying, during WWII, that "We must fight the war as if there were no White Paper and fight the white paper as if there were no war." (The white paper being a document the British issued that stopped Israeli immigration, which they did on no less than 3 occasions. The British were in favor, until they gave up, of a Partition Plan that supported Jewish and Palestinians. Also, the Jews were never a majority in Palestine/Israel until AFTER the war of 1948. When Britain was there, it was still a minority of Jews. 

Britain was in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM pro Jews against the Arabs. Britain was always trying to strike a balance between two groups that it promised things to that it couldn't back up because it needed the help against the Ottoman Empire in WWI. It shifted between pro Arab and pro Israeli policies, causing both groups to despise it in the end. While it served as the vehicle that let the Jews gain control of the western half of Palestine, it was by no means responsible for Israel and it didn't establish Israel.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 22, 2012)

Ricky said:


> You completely avoided the point. If it WERE for peaceful purposes, why wouldn't they WANT us to give them materials and funding?



I already answered this - they want to prove that THEY can do it themselves without relying on anyone else, especially as the LAST thing they want is to make themselves vulnerable to their enemies.
Hell, Iran has seen how Russia can put the squeeze on Europe over gas supplies, and the US is desperately trying to wean itself off Middle East oil. To Iran, deliberately making themselves open to the US cutting off nuclear fuel supplies would be criminally *stupid*.



Ricky said:


> Right. So YOU ARE saying it's perfectly okay for them to build a bomb :\



Don't put words in my mouth. How does "_The only reason why Iran might want nukes is for deterrence - self-defence - to give countries like Israel and the US pause if they're thinking of attacking Iran _" equal "_Mayfurr says it's okay for Iran to have nukes_"? 

There is a difference between an explanation of possible motives on their part and openly endorsing that view - something which your mind seems incapable of grasping.



Ricky said:


> That's not quite the way I heard



You were misinformed.



Ricky said:


> Netanyahu is not threatening to wipe Iran off the map. He was threatening to strategically target nuclear facilities AFTER 10 YEARS OF FAILED SANCTIONS AND ATTEMPTED DIPLOMACY.
> 
> Again, if you don't see the difference and how _*one is fueled from PURE HATE*_ I don't know how else to convey the message to you.



Oh, so Ahmadinejad is "fuelled by pure hate" but Netanyahu is not? I'm glad you know _him_ so well.
How do you know Netanyahu isn't "fuelled by pure hate", given all the ACTUAL (not theoretical) attacks he's unleashed on Lebanon and Gaza? 

Regardless of the motives, a threat of attack...



Spoiler: Threats



*... IS STILL AGGRESSION!*



(See, I can play with spoilers too.)

But let's assume you get your war and your beloved "strategic bombing" of Iran is initiated.
* Where are you going to launch the attacks _from_? No state bordering Iran will let your forces anywhere near, and the states that ARE friendly (Israel) are too far away. You'd have to conduct these attack from carrier forces in the Indian Ocean, committing a significant chunk of the US carrier fleet to the job.

* Even if you took out the nuclear facilities, you've just given Iran the justification for going nuclear anyway. Saddam Hussein in Iraq wasn't interested in nuclear weapons until the Israelis bombed the French-built Osiraq reactor facility, but after the event he figured that it was probably a good idea if Israel wanted him to stop it...

* And how are you going to stop Iran from _rebuilding _those facilities? You're talking occupation of Iran and complete regime change - and look how well THAT worked in Iraq. Now try doing Iraq in a scale ten times bigger for Iran.

* HOW THE FUCK ARE YOU GOING TO PAY FOR IT? The US economy's pretty wobbly after the GFC and 14 years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Israel won't help, you're already paying THEM $3 BILLION a year (that you don't actually have) in "aid". Europe can't help because of the Eurozone crisis. Russia and China won't help you fund a war of aggression - hell, China might even call in a few of their loans to the US. In short, the US can't _afford_ another damn war.

* Finally, are you REALLY willing to SLAUGHTER INNOCENT IRANIAN CIVILIANS in the process? If you think Iran's pissed with you now, wait until the Iranian people have seen their families killed by weapons with "Made in USA" stamped on them - and Iranians have long memories.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 22, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> I find your lack of logic to be unimpressive:
> 
> If a bill gets to the _Resolute_ desk, it is on the president's full discretion if he or she signs it or not. If a bill does not get there, there is little he or she could do about it.



Maybe you don't understand because you aren't american or old enough to vote even if you were american.... It actually is pretty noticeable in american politics. Democrats  only adhere to the principle of  "the buck stops here" regarding the president when a republican is in office , when a democrat is president though then its lower ranking republicans in the house or senate that are to blame if some policy fails. The republicans likely have the same impulse, but I haven't actually seen it much yet. When you compare the bush years with the Obama years though, my logic does make sense. One party is always trying to balem the other for all the ills of the countery even if they don't hold the white house

Also, a bill can get past the president if there is a supermajority in the house or senate. The democrats had supermajorities in both sides of congress from 2006 to 2010, meaning they could pass laws even over a presidential veto if they wanted to.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 22, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Maybe you don't understand because you aren't american or old enough to vote even if you were american.... It actually is pretty noticeable in american politics. Democrats  only adhere to the principle of  "the buck stops here" regarding the president when a republican is in office , when a democrat is president though then its lower ranking republicans in the house or senate that are to blame if some policy fails. The republicans likely have the same impulse, but I haven't actually seen it much yet. When you compare the bush years with the Obama years though, my logic does make sense. One party is always trying to balem the other for all the ills of the countery even if they don't hold the white house
> 
> Also, a bill can get past the president if there is a supermajority in the house or senate. The democrats had supermajorities in both sides of congress from 2006 to 2010, meaning they could pass laws even over a presidential veto if they wanted to.



please explain to me in what sense is 50-49-Lieberman a supermajority


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 22, 2012)

Lobar said:


> please explain to me in what sense is 50-49-Lieberman a supermajority




I was wrong on democrats having a super majority for the entire two years, but they did have short stints as  a super majority, and they always had a  a majority, and did have a democratic president. It was not 50-49-lieberman for most of 2009/20010 though. The democrats had 58 denators, and 2 independents who caucus with them, amking them de facto democrats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010



> After the previous elections (in 2008), the United States Senate was composed of 58 Democrats, 40 Republicans, and 2 independents who caucus with the Democrats.



[quote0Despite these Republican wins (in 2010), however, the Democrats retained a majority of the Senate with 51 seats plus 2 independents who caucus with them, compared to the 47 Republicans.[/quote]

So yeah, they had a de facto super majority, then lost it in the 2010 elections

The correct tally is 51 democrats and its basically 53, and 47 republicans in the senate at this point in 2012.

The situation where the two parties were split more or less 50 50 was in 2001-2002. 2007 (110th congress)was also evenly decided, with 49 seats for the democrats and republicans and 2 independndents (that  were de facto democrats), which changed the next time (111th congress) to give them a de facto supermajority with 59 democrats and 1 indpeendent that voted with them most of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/110th_United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/112th_United_States_Congress
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/di...have-60-votes-in-the-senate-and-for-how-long/


----------



## Lobar (Oct 22, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I was wrong on democrats having a super majority for the first two years, but they did have a majority, and did have a democratic president. It was not 50-49-lieberman for most of 2009/20010 though. The democrats had 58 denators, and 2 independents who caucus with them, amking them de facto democrats.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2010
> 
> ...



They theoretically had exactly enough votes to invoke cloture for a nonconsecutive length of time totaling less than a year, which your own source cites "wasn't for a very long period of time at all".  This further ignores that the Democratic party does not have the ideological purity of the Republicans and encompasses a broader range on the political spectrum, including some members that are actually moderately conservative (notably Max Baucus and Arlen Specter at the time).  Cloture votes failed 24 times in the 111th Congress.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 23, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> No, because that's biased and untrue.


God forbid not anti-British or anti-Semitic!



> ... Jews had to basically fight a war with the British to form Israel in 1947. Jewish terrorists regularly targeted the British and the more legitimate Jewish leaders fought them politically. David Ben Gurion is famous for saying, during WWII, that "We must fight the war as if there were no White Paper and fight the white paper as if there were no war." (The white paper being a document the British issued that stopped Israeli immigration, which they did on no less than 3 occasions.


Indeed, disregarding a 'war', they were shooting themselves in the foot and they knew it.



> Britain was in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM pro Jews against the Arabs. Britain was always trying to strike a balance between two groups that it promised things to that it couldn't back up because it needed the help against the Ottoman Empire in WWI. It shifted between pro Arab and pro Israeli policies, causing both groups to despise it in the end. While it served as the vehicle that let the Jews gain control of the western half of Palestine, it was by no means responsible for Israel and it didn't establish Israel.


The United Kingdom is very much the reason Israel became to existence. But, admitted, she showed _fairness_ by abstaining in 1947 and _graciously_ not voting behalf of, like, half the world. Instead, from that time, we could point at the US: a problem was straightforwardly solved when  Uncle Sam squeezed the needed legitimasing votes from a stumb of a United Nations by witholding foreign aid. :V

What I find interesting is the idea played that a colonial power inviting foreigners to migrate to another people's national homeland, allocate them a portion of that land and planning to transfer the natives to somewhere else could, in any sense, be considered 'striking a balance'. Other words are used when the argument isn't about Zionism. It merely happened to be.



CodArk2 said:


> Maybe you don't understand because you aren't american or old enough to vote even if you were american....


At least I can consistently write somewhat legible English. Good game. ~

Time for some comical relief!

[yt]dX_1B0w7Hzc[/yt]


----------



## ArsenicWolf (Oct 23, 2012)

Poll needs an undecided answer.

I honestly have no clue who to vote for, I like certain points each of them like to make and if there was a candidate that put all that together, I'd happily vote for them. I suppose I have to pick who I believe will be the lesser of two evils, and I haven't decided who that is yet.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2012)

ArsenicWolf said:


> Poll needs an undecided answer.
> 
> I honestly have no clue who to vote for, I like certain points each of them like to make and if there was a candidate that put all that together, I'd happily vote for them. I suppose I have to pick who I believe will be the lesser of two evils, and I haven't decided who that is yet.



Flip a coin?


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Flip a coin?


No, bad.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> No, bad.



Roll a die?


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 23, 2012)

Research and make an informed decision?


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 23, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Research and make an informed decision?



Silly cat, people don't do research anymore! That's what TV is for! You can recieve all the overgeneralized ads on TV to help you make an informed descision. :V


----------



## Lobar (Oct 23, 2012)

I did the research, let me tell you to just vote Obama.


----------



## Ricky (Oct 23, 2012)

Lobar said:


> I did the research, let me tell you to just vote Obama.



No =P


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 24, 2012)

Well Romney confirmed that he wanted to increase our spending on the military, despite the significant proportion of the budget it takes already. Por queeeeeee


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 24, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Well Romney confirmed that he wanted to increase our spending on the military, despite the significant proportion of the budget it takes already. Por queeeeeee


WHY DO YOU QUESTION IT

WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA

WHY DO YOU WANT THE COMMUNISTS TO WIN


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 24, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> WHY DO YOU QUESTION IT
> 
> WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA
> 
> WHY DO YOU WANT THE COMMUNISTS TO WIN



D:

I better buy a bigger flag pin then :v


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 24, 2012)

McCarthy 2016


----------



## Ricky (Oct 24, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Well Romney confirmed that he wanted to increase our spending on the military, despite the significant proportion of the budget it takes already. Por queeeeeee



I hope that didn't surprise you.

You may have noticed by now there are certain things all Republicans say.

Personally, I'd like to see military spending CUT but there are too many other thing where I side with Romney.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 24, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> McCarthy 2016



Ron Paul 2008 2012 2016!


----------



## zachhart12 (Oct 24, 2012)

Ricky said:


> I hope that didn't surprise you.
> 
> You may have noticed by now there are certain things all Republicans say.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see military spending CUT but there are too many other thing where I side with Romney.



Romney is the greasiest scumbag I've ever seen


----------



## Bliss (Oct 24, 2012)

Potholes. There's a pothole right in front of my house.

[yt]05uQR5C2AXw[/yt]


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Romney is the greasiest scumbag I've ever seen



He's not Italian, and don't insult italian people. >:V


----------



## akutenshi.ishimura1995 (Oct 24, 2012)

god help us all if Obama gets another term -_- if he does, sorry to say, then we're all screwed

here is something to chew on, during the Bingazi incident, there were two navy seals in Bingazi that had radioed in for backup (via air backup and possibly ground reinforcements) and the Obama Administration denied it because they didn't want to "offend" those in Bingazi, so those two soldiers, and all the other people including the senator, died mainly because the president was off in Las Vegas having a good time, debating and hanging out celebrities and the Obama Administration decided not to help because they wanted to not "offend" those in Bingazi...gee.....people wonder why i don't want to be a soldier when i get out of school. probably because i know i'll get attacked and while i'm under attack, hear from the administration that Obama set up saying "Sorry, but we don't want to offend or become a threat to those people so you're going to die...have a nice day!" oh yeah, lets not forget about how fucking tough it is to get a job in the US because hey, he decied to shut down NASA, decided to raise taxes on small businesses, and decided "hey, our military is too big! lets downgrade it to one of the smallest armies in the world so we can be picked on by other countries!" oh yeah, lets not forget about the that little incident where we were suppose to install a missile defense station with some of the most advanced technology we have so we can be ready for when the middle east DID get nuclear technology and decided "hey, i'm going to launch nukes at America!!! yay!!" or Russia or China (we're not exactly getting well together in case most of you have turned a blind eye to that) and he's bowed before multiple other leaders making him the first president to bow down to 3rd world countries. yeah guys, he's really good at being a president


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

akutenshi.ishimura1995 said:


> god help us all if Obama gets another term -_- if he does, sorry to say, then we're all screwed



We'll be fine. At most, there will be more butthurt than when Bush was re-elected. :V



akutenshi.ishimura1995 said:


> -stuff-



Wait...what the fuck are you talking about. Bowing in some Asian cultures is a sign of greeting/politeness. 
Also, What the fuck?!


----------



## akutenshi.ishimura1995 (Oct 24, 2012)

oh yeah, would it also hurt to mention that the guards that where at the embassy in Bingazi where people FROM Bingazi who didn't hesitate one moment to point out where the US Senator had went to. if Obama hadn't been so cheap, we could've had US troops there defending instead of hired arms that would much rather sell out those in need of help than fight to protect those people. yeah guys, he's a really good guy, he's just screwing up left and right. lets give him another 4 years to screw us over!  THATS THE SPIRIT! if he gets elected, i'm moving to Canada


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

akutenshi.ishimura1995 said:


> oh yeah, would it also hurt to mention that the guards that where at the embassy in Bingazi where people FROM Bingazi who didn't hesitate one moment to point out where the US Senator had went to. if Obama hadn't been so cheap, we could've had US troops there defending instead of hired arms that would much rather sell out those in need of help than fight to protect those people. yeah guys, he's a really good guy, he's just screwing up left and right. lets give him another 4 years to screw us over!  THATS THE SPIRIT! if he gets elected, i'm moving to Canada



Drink the Kool-Aid instead. Canada doesn't want American scrubs there since they've filled their quota on Mexicans. :V


EDIT: You know you can use the edit button and edit your post, right? Please do not double post.


----------



## akutenshi.ishimura1995 (Oct 24, 2012)

right.....he didn't do it in just Asia, he also said how America was to blame for nearly everything that has happened recently. yeah, downgrading our military will hurt us more than save us.

yeah, because you know i'm right on almost every single one of these issues, you'll change the subject. natural . oh yeah, nice comment on mexicans, you must be loved by them. and if i can't go to canada, Germany, here i come. i'd much rather live in Canada, Germany, hell, even Mexico than be in America with Obama being president for another 4 years


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

akutenshi.ishimura1995 said:


> right.....he didn't do it in just Asia, he also said how America was to blame for nearly everything that has happened recently. yeah, downgrading our military will hurt us more than save us.
> 
> yeah, because you know i'm right on almost every single one of these issues, you'll change the subject. natural . oh yeah, nice comment on mexicans, you must be loved by them. and if i can't go to canada, Germany, here i come. i'd much rather live in Canada, Germany, hell, even Mexico than be in America with Obama being president for another 4 years



I believe that you believe that. :V

The whole "apology tour" was proven false by a couple of News sources, one of them being AP and Politifact, along with every neocon's conspiracy theory about him bowing and being subservient to other leaders in Islamic territories and selling us out.

Considering I live in a Strong navy port, the millitary is pretty strong. hell, you can make cuts left and right and still they would be okay. Millitary spending on things when it is not during wartime is frivilous and will hurt the US than help. The only reason why I'd see if the funding was needed is if we were at a high wartime instead of conflicts in the middle east.

I understand if you don't like him, but it's better to state the reasons why than make other Republicans look bad.  
Also, please stop double posting. I know you are new here, but use the edit button. It's better for you to edit add in your thoughts than to spam mutiple posts of garrble.


----------



## akutenshi.ishimura1995 (Oct 24, 2012)

right...so the whole bingazi incident was a lie to? it really was just an organized riot that seemed more like a militant attack than abunch of angry people attacking an embassy? do you pay attention to the news? the radio? newspapers? at least with Romney we have a chance of getting our economy back up and at least we can show some back bone to other countries if we need to


----------



## Aetius (Oct 24, 2012)

akutenshi.ishimura1995 said:


> Romney we have a chance of getting our economy back up



If only we knew what Romney wanted to do.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

akutenshi.ishimura
east with Romney we have a chance of getting our economy back up and at least we can show some back bone to other countries if we need to [/quote said:
			
		

> Reading into what he wants to do, it won't. As much as he thinks helping businesses by giving them tax cuts will help isn't. Humans are greedy people and in my opinion will induce bailouts because people don't know how to prioritize and putting themselves into debt due to greed.
> 
> The Deficit isn't as bad, but right now we do not need a Republican president this moment, or atleast not Romney right now. He isn't a decent Republican, in fact, he makes Regan look like a saint and Bush (Jr) look like Jesus Christ.


----------



## CrazyLee (Oct 24, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Ron Paul 2008 2012 2016!



But Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution! :V



akutenshi.ishimura1995 said:


> stuff


Ouch. I just had an aneurism from all the stupid I just read.

So, what bullshit have I seen today?
- Texas Republican threatens to arrest UN voting inspectors. Well, so much for election transparency. I think Liz will have a field day with this one.
- - The IBD runs a front page article saying that Obama is cozy with terrorists. So this is what conservatives are doing to smear Obama now? Saying he's friendly with terrorists?
And it gets worse....
- Apparently Obama's friendly with Muslims and is actually the father of a black communist! I especially love the billboard, ignoring the fact that gas was $4 before Obama was president and was (briefly) cheap thanks to the economy crashing.
- And Trump wants Obama to release his passport and college transcript so Obama will be "transparent" like previous presidents. I didn't realize previous presidents were expected to reveal their birth certificates, passports, and college transcripts. Also, didn't Clint Eastwood already make Obama transparent? :V

This is extremely relevant.
[yt]p-CkBrQfKMA[/yt]


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> But Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution! :V
> 
> 
> Ouch. I just had an aneurism from all the stupid I just read.
> ...



I recieved a couple of those ads in the mail before. It's all cheap tactics. People need to stop relying on other media and do some research on non bias news sites on each candidate. It's not that hard, people!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> BSo, what bullshit have I seen today?
> - Texas Republican threatens to arrest UN voting inspectors. Well, so much for election transparency. I think Liz will have a field day with this one.


We've pretty much gotten used to it down here.  That's a bad sign when a state's voters are so used to rigged elections that they no longer care and will vote anyways.


----------



## Jashwa (Oct 24, 2012)

akutenshi.ishimura1995 said:


> stuff about moving out of america


From your FA Profile:

Age: 17


Well, that explains the ignorance filling literally everything you said. Good luck moving to Canada when you're 17, kid.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 24, 2012)

Aetius said:


> If only we knew what Romney wanted to do.


Our economy is_ already _improving; it's not something that can correct itself in 2 or 3 presidential terms.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Our economy is_ already _improving; it's not something that can correct itself in 2 or 3 presidential terms.


I think one of the biggest problems is that since there was a boom period before the housing crash everyone just automatically assumes that the economy is supposed to be that bustling.  Kinda sets the bar too high for the president.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I think one of the biggest problems is that since there was a boom period before the housing crash everyone just automatically assumes that the economy is supposed to be that bustling.  Kinda sets the bar too high for the president.




That stupid spear chucker failed us! BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW! BArack Hussein Obama is a "Welfare president" for lazy ass 47% welfare assholes! :V
Makin' friends with sand N****rs too! :V

The US is now a Third world country!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> That stupid spear chucker failed us! BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW! BArack Hussein Obama is a "Welfare president" for lazy ass 47% welfare assholes! :V
> Makin' friends with sand N****rs too! :V
> 
> The US is now a Third world country!


If it wasn't for the fact our companies exploit foreign workers paying them pennies per hour we probably would be a second world country.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 24, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> That stupid spear chucker failed us! BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWW! BArack Hussein Obama is a "Welfare president" for lazy ass 47% welfare assholes! :V
> Makin' friends with sand N****rs too! :V
> 
> The US is now a Third world country!


I dunno about 'making friends with [wadi wogs]'; it was* Romney *who just said 'We can't kill our way out of this mess' in the last debate. Then he went on to talk about 'religious extremism'; which made me laugh out loud.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 24, 2012)

I already voted.Yay for early voting. 

Also, I  find saying "I'm gonna move to canada if the guy i prefer to win loses" to be stupid. Both sides do it and its annoying. Moving out of the US changes nothing in the US and is the cowards way out. Even if obama wins, I doubt things will be much different unless by some miracle the democrats win the House and increase their seats in the Senate, which looks unlikely. 

If america goes down the toilet, it ill not be because of one man, Obama or Romney. Congress runs the government as much as the president does. So stop acting like the president is the one doing everything, because it makes you look ignorant. Especially when you say you would prefer living in mexico if Obama wins re-election. I didnt vote for him, but I dont think america would be *that* bad if he wins re-election...but maybe thats because I've been to mexico...


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> If america goes down the toilet, it ill not be because of one man, Obama or Romney. Congress runs the government as much as the president does. So stop acting like the president is the one doing everything, because it makes you look ignorant. Especially when you say you would prefer living in mexico if Obama wins re-election. I didnt vote for him, but I dont think america would be *that* bad if he wins re-election...but maybe thats because I've been to mexico...



Compared to America, some parts of Mexico are absolutely shit, especially the areas bordering Belize.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Oct 24, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Compared to America, some parts of Mexico are absolutely shit, especially the areas bordering Belize.


Think of the Equator as the 'Idiot Line' XD


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 24, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Think of the Equator as the 'Idiot Line' XD



Stay out of Chetumal if you like your penis. :V

Atleast the coke is good. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Atleast the coke is good. :V


Pepsi is better.


Also a bit of new news.  North carolina is now swinging towards romney, but virginia seems to be leaning towards Obama.  So all in all no ground was gained.


----------



## akutenshi.ishimura1995 (Oct 24, 2012)

it's nice to know we have jerks (using the term losely) that have stereotypes they put people into. you know....i'd go for one of the other 14 candidates.....but thats me. final statement, good luck arguing, have fun hating, good bye!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2012)

Donald Trump go back to television already, politics isn't for you-
[YT]MgOq9pBkY0I[/YT]


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 25, 2012)

akutenshi.ishimura1995 said:


> if he gets elected, i'm moving to Canada



Jet Blue is offering 1,006 round-trip non-stop tickets to 1 of 21 different countries to those whose candidate lost (i.e. leaving the country if X or Y wins)
_
"On November 6th, America will elect the next U.S. President. If things don't go your way, don't worry.  			Here's your chance to get a free flight out of the country with JetBlue. Participate in our  			poll and login to Facebook to enter. If you change your mind you can always come back. Or not. It's a free country."_

And it's BENGHAZI, not Bingazi. If you're going to complain about it, at least spell it correctly. Sheesh. Either awful troll or ignorant child :v


----------



## Lobar (Oct 25, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Either awful troll or ignorant child :v



You say that like it couldn't be both. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2012)

Well when the election is underway whoever wins Ohio afterwards you can pretty much turn off the tv since the state has a one in two chance of deciding the election.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 25, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> So, what bullshit have I seen today?
> - Texas Republican threatens to arrest UN voting inspectors. Well, so much for election transparency. I think Liz will have a field day with this one.



<facepalm>
It sounds like the US could do with introducing free, fair and transparent elections at home in places like Texas before it goes installing democracy anywhere else  



CrazyLee said:


> - And Trump wants Obama to release his passport and college transcript so Obama will be "transparent" like previous presidents. I didn't realize previous presidents were expected to reveal their birth certificates, passports, and college transcripts.



I notice El Trumpo didn't include tax records in his "transparency" request - given that I understand that every recent US presidential candidate (except Romney) has released theirs...



CrazyLee said:


> Also, didn't Clint Eastwood already make Obama transparent? :V



You owe me a new keyboard


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 25, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> <facepalm>
> It sounds like the US could do with introducing free, fair and transparent elections at home in places like Texas before it goes installing democracy anywhere else



As a person living in texas, who has ived in other states as well. I dont see anything different with texas elections.  I have voted in texas, didnt see anything shady about it though.Its not as if 90 percent of the state votes republican or something. Elections here are free and fair, and pretty transparent...


----------



## Lobar (Oct 25, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> As a person living in texas, who has ived in other states as well. I dont see anything different with texas elections.  I have voted in texas, didnt see anything shady about it though.Its not as if 90 percent of the state votes republican or something. Elections here are free and fair, and pretty transparent...



I, too, am a middle-class white guy that has never experienced voter suppression or other electoral shenanigans!

checkmate, libtards


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 25, 2012)

Texas is a brightly glowing Conservative-red state though, with one of the highest electoral college votes in the nation (I think it's 2nd or 3rd in the nation). So maybe not 90%, but a majority of Texas voters are Republican, and so are the Electoral College voters.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Oct 25, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Texas is a brightly glowing Conservative-red state though, with one of the highest electoral college votes in the nation (I think it's 2nd or 3rd in the nation). So maybe not 90%, but a majority of Texas voters are Republican, and so are the Electoral College voters.


Look at it this way, it helps balance out California which is one of the most liberal states in the nation.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 25, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Pepsi is better.
> 
> 
> Also a bit of new news.  North carolina is now swinging towards romney, but virginia seems to be leaning towards Obama.  So all in all no ground was gained.



PPP just released a poll showing it even again in NC.
Grove had Obama +3 here last week. Granted, Grove is a terrible poll.
Rasmussen had Romney at +6 on the 17th, but they've had Romney at +6 in this state since April. They've always overestimated Republican support here.

I suspect Romney will indeed win NC, but by a few thousand votes, not 2%, let alone 6%.


----------



## CodArk2 (Oct 25, 2012)

Lobar said:


> I, too, am a middle-class white guy that has never experienced voter suppression or other electoral shenanigans!
> 
> checkmate, libtards



I fail to see how there is any voter suppression in texas at all. Having ID is not voter suppression. There are not gangs of people keeping others from voting for democrats or republicans. The claims that voter ID laws are voter supression rings hollow to me, and always has




Lastdirewolf said:


> Texas is a brightly glowing Conservative-red state though, with one of the highest electoral college votes in the nation (I think it's 2nd or 3rd in the nation). So maybe not 90%, but a majority of Texas voters are Republican, and so are the Electoral College voters.



Well actually, in 2008, mccain didnt win by much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2008

55.4% voted for mccain, or 4,479,328. 43.6% voted for obama, or 3,528,633.  Texas is the 2nd largest state in electoral votes, only california is bigger n terms of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2008

In california, 8,274,473 or61.0% voted for obama, and 5,011,781 or 37.0% voted for mccain in 2008.
California is more liberal than texas is conservative, but somehow texas is being accused of voter fraud  and unfair elections on here and califnrinia isn't....


----------



## Lobar (Oct 25, 2012)

Romney will probably get NC, and Virginia is a tossup.

But let's say he manages to pick up all the most contentious swing states: NC, Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Iowa, and maybe even New Hampshire for good measure.  He still needs Ohio, Nevada, or Wisconsin to finish it, and Obama's consistently polling about three points ahead in all of those.

If Obama gets Ohio and Virginia, Romney must sweep the rest to win (won't happen).  If Romney takes Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, Obama must sweep the rest to win, but aside from Colorado, they're all relatively safe.

Taking Ohio + Wisconsin + anything else but NH would win it for Obama.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Well actually, in 2008, mccain didnt win by much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2008
> 
> 55.4% voted for mccain, or 4,479,328. 43.6% voted for obama, or 3,528,633.  Texas is the 2nd largest state in electoral votes, only california is bigger n terms of them.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2008


Yeah, people always stereotype Texas as 324230975238572% conservative or something and claim we're a bunch of rednecks who ride horses to work and herd cattle across the plains.
As for the voter fraud, it's not so much as voter fraud as some of our politicians gerrymandering voting districts in order to supress the opposing party in elections.  Think of it this way, even though 55.4% voted for mccain and 43.6% for obama don't you find it a bit strange that the number of representatives in congress does not represent that?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 25, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> Look at it this way, it helps balance out  California which is one of the most liberal states in the  nation.



I know that, I was merely being factual. 



CodArk2 said:


> Well actually, in 2008, mccain didnt win by much: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_Texas,_2008
> 
> 55.4% voted for mccain, or 4,479,328. 43.6% voted for obama, or 3,528,633.  Texas is the 2nd largest state in electoral votes, only california is bigger n terms of them.
> 
> ...



Yes I know, but Texas is still the most Conservative state, I think. The Voter Fraud thing is bullshit altogether, dunno why people are even bothering discussing it.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Yes I know, but Texas is still the most Conservative state, I think. The Voter Fraud thing is bullshit altogether, dunno why people are even bothering discussing it.


Depends on where you live in Texas.  The panhandle is the most conservative part of Texas, whereas the Austin area is extremely liberal.  Being in Waco sucks though, cause I live next to Baylor :<


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2012)

Just ow, just fucking ow.  The romney campaign did a extremely bad and I mean horrible photoshop to make it look like there were more people at one of his rallies.
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcd797KXSh1rvbuguo1_1280.jpg
I think it was about to give me aneurism if I stared at it any longer.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 26, 2012)

I'm clearly retarded, because I looked at it for a minute and didn't notice anything. 

And then someone pointed it out to me. And suddenly every single thing in the picture jumped out at me.


----------



## Kosdu (Oct 26, 2012)

Can I haz thing pointed out to me?

And cheezeburgers, that too.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 26, 2012)

Could there actually be a chance that Romney may win the Popular vote?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Could there actually be a chance that Romney may win the Popular vote?


It's very possible, but the chances of him winning the electoral vote is still hovering at less than a 1/3 chance.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 26, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Could there actually be a chance that Romney may win the Popular vote?



I'm doubting it, but I think he might get a somewhat close second. Maybe like 5-8% less than Obama.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 26, 2012)

Kosdu said:


> Can I haz thing pointed out to me?



The photo on the bottom, it's been chopped up, and multiple copies of the pieces stitched together to stretch out that tent and make it look far bigger and more populated than it actually was.

Start at the pillars in the foreground, then look at the crowd in the back and the treeline, look at the support structure holding up the canvas, try reading the overhead banner from behind...

It's a REALLY bad photoshop job.


----------



## Kosdu (Oct 26, 2012)

Oh, thanks man. 

Oh my good gosh, I've never seen a more botched job 
XD


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2012)

Kosdu said:


> Oh, thanks man.
> 
> Oh my good gosh, I've never seen a more botched job
> XD


At most the central area is the only actual area with people in it and even some of the seats are photoshoped to fill in empty seats.  It's giving me a migraine trying to find all the photoshoped areas.


And now Romney is using Obama's 2008 slogan of "change".  Romney needs to stop this silliness, it's going to give someone a fatal aneurysm at this point.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 26, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Could there actually be a chance that Romney may win the Popular vote?



It looks very likely that Romney will win the popular vote, based on national polls from the past few weeks. He has an uphill climb to win the electoral vote though. Unless something changes in the polls in the next week, we are on track for another Electoral College/Popular Vote split just 12 years after the previous one.


----------



## Kosdu (Oct 26, 2012)

So a friend of mine with common sense, watched the last debate. 

Appearently, he said Romney claimed he wanted to "Cut taxes on the middle class and increase taxes on the first"



What. The. Hell.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 26, 2012)

Kosdu said:


> So a friend of mine with common sense, watched the last debate.
> 
> Appearently, he said Romney claimed he wanted to "Cut taxes on the middle class and increase taxes on the first"
> 
> ...



That's his position for the week.

Also that photoshop was so godawful even I noticed it, and I'm shit at it.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 26, 2012)

Spatel said:


> It looks very likely that Romney will win the popular vote, based on national polls from the past few weeks. He has an uphill climb to win the electoral vote though. Unless something changes in the polls in the next week, we are on track for another Electoral College/Popular Vote split just 12 years after the previous one.



Keep in mind that the cable news media benefits from a race that appears to be highly contentious, so they're going to favor reporting the polls that fit that narrative.

Nate Silver's aggregate poll model has the favorability to win the popular vote at 71%-29% in Obama's favor, and Romney's chances of winning the Electoral College without the popular vote only at 5.3%.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Oct 26, 2012)

Hmm, this poll has too few options. Obviously it was made by an Obamney bot. 34 pages though, I'm sure this was pointed out...

*does a topic search for Johnson*

*6 results, only 3 of which mention him*

Stay classy, FAF. I'll be over in the Libertarian/Ron Paul camp for the second election in a row.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 26, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Hmm, this poll has too few options. Obviously it was made by an Obamney bot. 34 pages though, I'm sure this was pointed out...
> 
> *does a topic search for Johnson*
> 
> ...



this explains so much about your posting


----------



## TeenageAngst (Oct 26, 2012)

Yeah, what'cha see is what'cha get.

So how 'bout them drone strikes, there was a division on that point in the debates, eh?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Yeah, what'cha see is what'cha get.
> 
> So how 'bout them drone strikes, there was a division on that point in the debates, eh?


Both Obama and Romney are pro-drone strikes.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Oct 26, 2012)

What are you talking about, Cannon? Obama is demonstrably pro-drone by having already committed numerous acts of murder and inflicting terrible collateral damage in the name of keeping America safe. Romney however is a flip-flopper. Sure, right now he might be pro-drone, but if he gets elected, you never know! You just can't believe the man. What if Romney gets elected, and some 8 year old in Yemen that would otherwise have been killed in a drone strike decides he/she wants to attack U.S. soldiers occupying his/her country?

It's night and day.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 27, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Keep in mind that the cable news media benefits from a race that appears to be highly contentious, so they're going to favor reporting the polls that fit that narrative.
> 
> Nate Silver's aggregate poll model has the favorability to win the popular vote at 71%-29% in Obama's favor, and Romney's chances of winning the Electoral College without the popular vote only at 5.3%.



Nate Silver's model is based on an aggregate of state polls. Nationwide popular vote polls have had Romney at an advantage for the past two weeks. Historically, these national pollsters have much larger error bars than the aggregate of state polls, and they gradually converge with the state results in the last few days approaching the election.

I do believe I was mistaken though. After looking at the national polls again I fail to see a Romney advantage. You could pretty much choose the polls you like and run with a narrative that makes you feel good.

Gallup - Romney +5
Rasmussen - Romney +3
ABC/Washington Post - Romney +1
IBD/TIPP - Obama +2
AP/Gfk - Romney +2
CBS - Obama +2
Politico/GWU - Romney +2
Monmouth/SurveyUSA - Romney +3
Washington Times/JZ Analytics - Obama +3
NBC/Marist - Tie
Hartford - Obama +3

This was taken from RCP by the way. I know it's a conservative site. I just use it psychologically to gauge the 'worst possible scenario', as it tends to be fairly accurate, plus maybe 2 percentage points in the R direction.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 27, 2012)

Spatel said:


> Nate Silver's model is based on an aggregate of state polls. Nationwide popular vote polls have had Romney at an advantage for the past two weeks. Historically, these national pollsters have much larger error bars than the aggregate of state polls, and they gradually converge with the state results in the last few days approaching the election.
> 
> I do believe I was mistaken though. After looking at the national polls again I fail to see a Romney advantage. You could pretty much choose the polls you like and run with a narrative that makes you feel good.
> 
> ...


You keep forgetting it's about the electoral votes and not the popular votes though.


----------



## Rheumatism (Oct 27, 2012)

I'm voting for Gibby.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 27, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> You keep forgetting it's about the electoral votes and not the popular votes though.



We were discussing the possibility of a split between the electoral vote and popular vote, though, which would result in an epic media shitfest.

Even worse would be if Romney somehow pulled off an electoral vote _tie_ without winning the popular vote, which could possibly result in fulfilling some Mayan prophecies.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 27, 2012)

Lobar said:


> We were discussing the possibility of a split between the electoral vote and popular vote, though, which would result in an epic media shitfest.
> 
> Even worse would be if Romney somehow pulled off an electoral vote _tie_ without winning the popular vote, which could possibly result in fulfilling some Mayan prophecies.


The news media always lose their shit, it's good money.  A small part of me hopes that happens and with how foxnews pretty much thinks Obama is "obama bin laden" I hope they lose their shit to the point they try and create a movement to repeal the electoral college and suceed.  Not very likely as such a move would destroy our two party system and allow for other third parties to gain equal footing, _but_ foxnews and the tea party movement isn't exactly being powered through brain power.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 28, 2012)

i did a thing


----------



## Kixu (Oct 28, 2012)

@Lobar
I approve of this.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 1, 2012)

Told you the so called, "romney surge" was ending.  With only five days until the election any electoral ground Romney gained after the first debate is pretty much gone.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 1, 2012)

You people see things like 80% chance of winning and get hopeful. I see 80% chance of winning and think "OH GOD HOW IS THERE A 20% CHANCE THAT HE'LL LOSE IT'LL DEFINITELY HAPPEN"


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 1, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> You people see things like 80% chance of winning and get hopeful. I see 80% chance of winning and think "OH GOD HOW IS THERE A 20% CHANCE THAT HE'LL LOSE IT'LL DEFINITELY HAPPEN"


Then just make sure you vote.  My vote may not be worth crap cause texas is solid red, but you live in a battleground state and if it goes to romney and you don't vote then you will have permission to kick yourself.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 1, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Then just make sure you vote.  My vote may not be worth crap cause texas is solid red, but you live in a battleground state and if it goes to romney and you don't vote then you will have permission to kick yourself.


Already absentee balloted like a week ago.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 1, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> You people see things like 80% chance of winning and get hopeful. I see 80% chance of winning and think "OH GOD HOW IS THERE A 20% CHANCE THAT HE'LL LOSE IT'LL DEFINITELY HAPPEN"



For what it's worth McCain was given something like a 15% chance of winning at this point in 2008 and that was a blowout.  It's more a measure of the possibility that the polls are wrong and how wrong they would have to be than a chance that Romney could pull off some game-winning hail mary move that shifts everything in his favor at the last minute.


unrelated edit to avoid double-post:  It's looking like Romney's latest hurricane "relief" photo-op might be another soup kitchen moment.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/the-making-of-romneys-storm-relief-event


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Nov 1, 2012)

Looks like Bronco Bama is going to get the majority of electrical college votes.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 1, 2012)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Looks like Bronco Bama is going to get the majority of electrical college votes.


Pretty much.  Romney just can't seem to seduce any new states to the his side other than north carolina and I think everyone saw that coming.  Romney has been in a constant uphill battle to try and get more electoral votes and is beginning to slide backwards.  The closest he ever got was right after the first debate and it's been slowing falling apart after that.


----------



## thoughtmaster (Nov 2, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Well honestly what is even the appeal of Romney?  At least I can see why people tend to like Obama; but Romney, no.
> 
> And it really shouldn't be a choice between the two; it's obvious which one is the better candidate.


That may be your opinion but some people may think differently so there should be a choice because it means they are able to remove their leader if they don't think he did a good job running the country. Freedom to choose your own way, that is important.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 2, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> That may be your opinion but some people may think differently so there should be a choice because it means they are able to remove their leader if they don't think he did a good job running the country. Freedom to choose your own way, that is important.



So his appeal is to "Think Differently"...Isn't that the Apple slogan?

Boy that is like _the_ perfect motto for Romney.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Nov 2, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> So his appeal is to "Think Differently"...Isn't that the Apple slogan?
> 
> Boy that is like _the_ perfect motto for Romney.



That and "Change We Can Believe In" and "Yes We Can".

I don't know what other slogan/motto Romney is willing to use.


----------



## zachhart12 (Nov 2, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Then just make sure you vote.  My vote may not be worth crap cause texas is solid red, but you live in a battleground state and if it goes to romney and you don't vote then you will have permission to kick yourself.



Doesn't matter if you live in red state, vote anyways


----------



## tetrahedron (Nov 2, 2012)

I Am That Is said:


> Ok guys, I'm suprized this hasn't been done, but I thought it would be interesting to have our own mini rlcrtion here. Basically vote, then if you want, post why below!
> 
> Obama 2012 anybody?



Why is Ron Paul not on the poll? I think he would make a cool furry.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 3, 2012)

Vote Obama: The only man running that you know can't be re-elected in 2016.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 3, 2012)

Why are you guys so anti-dictators? Imagine if America was a dictatorship!

[yt]zIOPw0Ewj4Q[/yt]


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Vote Obama: The only man running that you know can't be re-elected in 2016.


Not according to this e-mail to Newt Gingrich supporters


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 3, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Not according to this e-mail to Newt Gingrich supporters



I really hope that it was just a troll email, or some hacker got their hands on it, because that is _staggeringly_ stupid. _Even_ for Newt Gringrich, or his staffers, or whomever is in control of the newsletter.

I also can't wait to see the ridiculous backpedal. That alone will be hilarious.


----------



## GhostWolf (Nov 3, 2012)

Troll email is easier to take than political phone calls, I have gotten so many vote for me calls I had to turn off my phone until the election is over.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 3, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I really hope that it was just a troll email, or some hacker got their hands on it, because that is _staggeringly_ stupid. _Even_ for Newt Gringrich, or his staffers, or whomever is in control of the newsletter.
> 
> I also can't wait to see the ridiculous backpedal. That alone will be hilarious.


Apparently they rent out the e-mail to advertisers or something like that and this is how it happened. At least that's what I heard.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 3, 2012)

Lizzie said:


> Why are you guys so anti-dictators? Imagine if America was a dictatorship!
> 
> [yt]zIOPw0Ewj4Q[/yt]


This scene is so truthful it hurts.


----------



## shteev (Nov 3, 2012)

barab obabo

presiserp ofo tht uninu stats ofo amerirema


----------



## Delta Fox (Nov 3, 2012)

there are 15 people outside of the US who would vote for Romney


----------



## zachhart12 (Nov 3, 2012)

Alerio Corvinus said:


> there are 15 people outside of the US who would vote for Romney



Very true. Just talked to a republican today.  WAAAA OBAMA IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING SOCIALIST.  Socialism really isn't a bad thing, sorry bitch


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 4, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Very true. Just talked to a republican today.  WAAAA OBAMA IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING SOCIALIST.  Socialism really isn't a bad thing, sorry bitch



Most republicans don't like obamas policies, but few actually call him a socialist.  To me, most democrats sound like WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.  

And considering how many wars it started and how many people it killed int he 20th century, socialism  IS a bad thing. Its up there with hitler the list of bad things. Anyone who says socialism is "not that bad" has obviously never studied the nations it operated in. Obama isnt a socialist, but Romney isn't a lot of the crap the left spews out about him either. Both parties try to paint the others candidate as an extremist to scare their bases away from voting for the other guy.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 4, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Most republicans don't like obamas policies, but few actually cal him a socialist. To be fair, to me, most democrats sound like WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.
> 
> And considering how many wars it started and how many people it killed int he 20th century, socialism ins a bad thing. Its up their with hitler in the top 5 bad things. Anyone who says socialism is "not that bad" has obviously never studied the nations it operated in. Obama isnt a socialist, but Romney isn't a lot of the crap the left spews out about him either. Both parties try to paint the others candidate as an extremist to scare their bases away from voting for the other guy.


I wondered how long until someone godwin'ed this thread.


----------



## Iudicium_86 (Nov 4, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Most republicans don't like obamas policies, but few actually call him a socialist.  To me, most democrats sound like WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.
> 
> And considering how many wars it started and how many people it killed int he 20th century, socialism  IS a bad thing. Its up there with hitler the list of bad things. Anyone who says socialism is "not that bad" has obviously never studied the nations it operated in. Obama isnt a socialist, but Romney isn't a lot of the crap the left spews out about him either. Both parties try to paint the others candidate as an extremist to scare their bases away from voting for the other guy.



Or maybe one should now start looking at current models of [Democratic] Socialism and various elements of it being practiced in many EU countries with great success and rate with high qualities of life. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, etc.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 4, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Most republicans don't like obamas policies, but few actually call him a socialist.  To me, most democrats sound like WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.
> 
> And considering how many wars it started and how many people it killed int he 20th century, socialism  IS a bad thing. Its up there with hitler the list of bad things. Anyone who says socialism is "not that bad" has obviously never studied the nations it operated in. Obama isnt a socialist, but Romney isn't a lot of the crap the left spews out about him either. Both parties try to paint the others candidate as an extremist to scare their bases away from voting for the other guy.


Do you like your basic education? Having emergency services? Defense from foreign invasion? Roads, bridges, and rail systems? Yes?
*All of these things are publicly funded, which is all 'socialism' necessarily implies.
*


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 4, 2012)

Iudicium_86 said:


> Or maybe one should now start looking at current models of [Democratic] Socialism and various elements of it being practiced in many EU countries with great success and rate with high qualities of life. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, etc.



That might be good, but i dont really see thos enations as being 'socialist". The government does not own the facotries and farms, and socialism is government ownership  or control of methods of production. They have more social welfare, but that is not socialism.



Kit H. Ruppell said:


> Do you like your basic education? Having emergency services? Defense from foreign invasion? Roads, bridges, and rail systems? Yes?
> *All of these things are publicly funded, which is all 'socialism' necessarily implies.*



That is not what socialism is. Socialism is an economic system with "social" (usually government)ownership of the means of production and management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. I am not anti-government. That is anarchism. Some government is necessary for social order.Public education in the US mostly is paid for by state and local taxes, not federal taxes. Most roads and bridges are also likewise locally funded, only the interstates are maintained by the feds.

Socialism inplies the central voernment should own all the roads, all the schools in the country, all the facotries and refineries, all  the farms, all the railroads, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc. Government should own everything, but especially farms and factories. Socialism is not the same as saying "some people should pay for things that are the common good". That is not socialism. Government taking over the economy is socialism. Obama is not a socialist by that standard, and it is not really even that widespread and accusation among republicans, though some say the healthcare thing is socialist like. i do not agree with them, but i see where they are coming from.



Commie Bat said:


> What's with the American right and 'evil socialism' that'll destroy the world? :V  Especially since many nations get along just fine with it.
> 
> Socialism has caused wars?  I haven't heard of that one before.
> 
> ...



Because socialism gave rise to communism, which killed between 80 and 150 million people. it IS an evil ideology. Fascism killed about 20 million,  when both are evil ideologies but socialism death count is much higher.

Under the banner of socialism thre have been many many civil wars, and quote a few international wars, the most famous of which were the korean and vietnam wars. The soviet war in afghanistan in the 80s was anther, because they were trying to make afghanistans government communist. The civil wars that happened when communists and socialists took power  are many, especially in africa and asia, but also in Europe and latin america. Millions died in those, then if they took power, in purges that followed.

Socialism and communism (I use the term interchangeably because they did. It was the Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics, after all, not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics) are up there with hitler on the list of bad things in terms of the number of people killed, though the ruin it brought to many  nations is also a factor in why I say its bad.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 4, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> That might be good, but I dont think moving toward that type of socialism is a good thing. The US has a much larger population tha is much more ethnically diverse than those nations.. None of those nations are renowned for their economic growth or power either. Many european nations are having riots because the government has cut government programs because of massive debts rung up from the social welfare programs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The reason why europe is in the shitter is because of greece and the euro.  Greece should have never been allowed into the EU in the first place.


As for the second part someone really needs to retake government 101.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 4, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> The reason why europe is in the shitter is because of greece and the euro.  Greece should have never been allowed into the EU in the first place.
> 
> 
> As for the second part someone really needs to retake government 101.



That is partly it. Spain, Italy, Potugal and Ireland are also ahving issues. It is not entirely because of their socialized programs, but those do not help the situation. It gives us the lesson that natiosn that spend beyond their means will have major problems in the future.. the idea of america ending up like greece would be an international nightmare, and one that should be avoided if it can be. Of course, americas debt is a bit different than Europe.





 explains it fairly well.


As for what socialism is, what i just said it was is broadly accepted as what it is. Socialism is government control of means of production, like factories and farms. That is the basic idea of socialism.  If your definition of socialism is different then argue with those same textbooks because they say the same thing.

As for things like what anarchy is: its no government. Where school funding and roads come from is fairly easy. Most does NOT come from the federal government. The feds own the interstates, they dont own the road in front of your house or do any work on it, the local government or state government does that. Same with the schools. None of that is really federal.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 4, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> As for what socialism is, what i just said it was is broadly accepted as what it is. Socialism is government control of means of production, like factories and farms. That is the basic idea of socialism.  If your definition of socialism is different then argue with those same textbooks because they say the same thing.


These wouldn't happen to be from Abeka, would they ? 
:V


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 4, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> These wouldn't happen to be from Abeka, would they ?
> :V



No, they were actually from when I took economics in college. Govenrment control of means of production is THE deinfition of socialism.

Even the dictionary says so.

www.merriam-webster.com: Definition of SOCIALISM


> soÂ·cialÂ·ism noun \ËˆsÅ-shÉ™-ËŒli-zÉ™m\
> 
> Definition of SOCIALISM
> 
> ...



Note defintion 1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

And what I said:


CodArk2 said:


> As for what socialism is, what i just said it was is broadly accepted as what it is. Socialism is government control of means of production, like factories and farms. That is the basic idea of socialism.  If your definition of socialism is different then argue with those same textbooks because they say the same thing.



Has nothing to do with some radical right wing philosophy, socialism is what it is.


----------



## Glitch (Nov 4, 2012)

Oh God, great.  Come back after months and within five minutes I see this cluster.

Go Obama, screw Romney and pretty much the entire right wing.  I try to see some good in people but when it comes to Ryan, Romney, Akin, Mourdock, Bachmann... You should get the picture.

I'd rather have a president that is so-so in office but a good person (Obama) than possibly ok/decent in office and a shitty person (Romney).  Plus I am not self-loathing enough to vote my rights away.


----------



## zachhart12 (Nov 5, 2012)

Romney is so greasy even a bucket of oil would drown...does that even make sense?  Anyways, you get the picture.  Anyone who votes for him has their head far...far....far up their ass.



Iudicium_86 said:


> Or maybe one should now start looking at  current models of [Democratic] Socialism and various elements of it  being practiced in many EU countries with great success and rate with  high qualities of life. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands,  etc.



yay someone with a brain!


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.



Well he's not stupid. He's incredibly smart, or at least, business smart. 

He's also very greedy.

And rich.

And a decepticon.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 5, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Well he's not stupid. He's incredibly smart, or at least, business smart.
> 
> He's also very greedy.
> 
> ...



The one I responded to is very...juvenile about politics, tending to view it more like a  football game than a philosophical discussion, so he likely does think that about Romney. Both sides like to think they come across as logical and mature, but to the other side they come across as idiots. But on both sides many people seem to think "Oh my gosh, I am so closed-minded and I disagree with them because my affiliation is the best. The others want to destroy america!"

Both Obama and Romney are smart, though both are also greedy, greedy for power. both want power. Both are rich, Obama is also a millionaire.  Both call the other a deception and in some areas they are right. Its odd to me how everything people from one party say can easily be said about the other, yet people think the parties are so different.


----------



## BouncyOtter (Nov 5, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> Anyone who votes for him has their head far...far....far up their ass.



I'll preface this by saying I already voted, and I didn't vote for Romney.  However, you are saying nearly half of the country has its head up its ass.  I know this is not the case for a lot people, but I dare say that many people that vote for Obama also have their heads up their asses.  They don't really understand what his full plans are.  They think Obama will provide them magical solutions to their lives and immediately side with him.  Clearly, a large chunk of people vote for the candidate that they believe will help them personally, not necessarily the country as a whole.  Romney's platform is appealing to certain populations of people and not just the stereotypical extreme right wing conservatives because Romney really isn't extreme.  I just don't think its fair to say only people voting for Romney are "idiots".  

As a side note, I still can't see this being a very close election.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 5, 2012)

@ BouncyOtter 

Ah,but half this nation DOES have its head up its ass. Hell according to a national poll last year 51% of Americans still believe in god for goodness sake. Of course, that discussion is for a whole 'nother thread. =0


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> The one I responded to is very...juvenile about politics, so he likely does think that about Romney. Both sides like to think they come across as logical and mature, but to the other side they come across as idiots. But on both sides many people seem to think "Oh my gosh, I am so closed-minded and I disagree with them because my affiliation is the best. The others want to destroy america!"
> 
> Both Obama and Romney are smart, though both are also greedy, greedy for power. both want power. Both are rich, Obama is also a millionaire.  Both call the other a deception and in some areas they are right. Its odd to me how everything people from one party say can easily be said about the other, yet people think the parties are so different.



I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not saying I'm 'adult', and I'm not saying I'm logical or mature. I'm not calling Romney-voters stupid, because it makes sense to vote for Romney if you're making 6 figures a year or more - He will benefit those people. I never said the other side was closed-minded, but I can say that your overdramatization isn't far off, and it's somewhat correct, even if you don't like it.

Romney is greedy for money, and probably power, because that can get him more money. Obama is less rich that Romney, but has proven to some extent that he actually wants to help America. As versus Romney, who says that, but his policies and previous voting record shows he does not want to help America, or that he flip-flops on things. Which is what greedy liars do.

I'm pretty sure most people aren't calling each other decepticons (not deceptions), y'know, the Transformers?

You keep pretending like you're some Romney-leaning innocent Centrist. But you're not. I don't care about your ideology. I've refuted your points time and time again on both politics and religion. I just don't want to see you keep spreading the same stupid shit like all the Fox News/Tea-Bagger/Extreme-Right GOP-tards. Everybody knows that politicians are parasites. Everybody knows they lie. Everybody knows that they are generally bad people because of this, and everybody knows that both sides of politics are generally fucking stupid, but we have to deal with it.

And last but not least; when your team is doing X, pointing out that the other team is kinda doing it too doesn't change the fact that *your team is still doing it*. It doesn't lessen the blow, it doesn't change a damn thing. The right-wingers love pointing and wagging fingers, but it doesn't change that they are still doing the deed. 

Now I'm sure you're going to reply to all of that, but take time for this as well:
As an average American, a person within the large majority of people who live in this country, where the 4-person Nuclear-family household is making less than 35k a year, how is Romney going to help us? How is Romney going to lessen the debt? How is Romney going to get our soldiers back home, getall of our schools properly funded, get our jobless jobs, and overall benefit the middle class, the working class, and all of those whom make up most of America?

You seem so quick to defend him, or at least try to 'spread the blame' so it appears less on him, so lets hear it.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 5, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not saying I'm 'adult', and I'm not saying I'm logical or mature. I'm not calling Romney-voters stupid, because it makes sense to vote for Romney if you're making 6 figures a year or more - He will benefit those people. I never said the other side was closed-minded, but I can say that your overdramatization isn't far off, and it's somewhat correct, even if you don't like it.



None of that was leveled specifically at you, more at politics in general. Both sides tend to see the other as being stupid, ignorant and closed minded. Romney will benefit others besides the rich , no one would vote for him if he was only going to help the rich.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Romney is greedy for money, and probably power, because that can get him more money. Obama is less rich that Romney, but has proven to some extent that he actually wants to help America. As versus Romney, who says that, but his policies and previous voting record shows he does not want to help America, or that he flip-flops on things. Which is what greedy liars do.



Being less rich doesn't mean he isn't rich. If he has over a million, he is rich. Obama wants money as well, just for different things than Romney does. Obama didn't really have a voting record before he became president, since he hadnt even finished one term as a senator. I would say both want to help america, just in different ways



Lastdirewolf said:


> m pretty sure most people aren't calling each other decepticons (not deceptions), y'know, the Transformers?.



That was an odd autocorrect.

I'





Lastdirewolf said:


> You keep pretending like you're some Romney-leaning innocent Centrist. But you're not. I don't care about your ideology. I've refuted your points time and time again on both politics and religion. I just don't want to see you keep spreading the same stupid shit like all the Fox News/Tea-Bagger/Extreme-Right GOP-tards. Everybody knows that politicians are parasites. Everybody knows they lie. Everybody knows that they are generally bad people because of this, and everybody knows that both sides of politics are generally fucking stupid, but we have to deal with it.



I never said I was innocent, but I am a centrist that leans right. i am not from the far right. I have never brought up religion so no idea where that is coming from. i am agnostic, and i never really entered into a religious discussion. Some points of mine you have refuted, some of yours I have refuted as well. I am not part of the tea party of extreme right wing, nor do i watch fox. My thinking is usually different from theirs. 



Lastdirewolf said:


> And last but not least; when your team is doing X, pointing out that the other team is kinda doing it too doesn't change the fact that *your team is still doing it*. It doesn't lessen the blow, it doesn't change a damn thing. The right-wingers love pointing and wagging fingers, but it doesn't change that they are still doing the deed.



Most of the time its not 'the other team is kinda doing it" , the other team is often doing it just as much. Pointing out hypocrisy does lessen the blow, well maybe not to people already set in their ways... The left wing also likes pointing and wagging fingers, both sides do it because both ant to call out the others while making themselves seem better. Its how politics works.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Now I'm sure you're going to reply to all of that, but take time for this as well:
> As an average American, a person within the large majority of people who live in this country, where the 4-person Nuclear-family household is making less than 35k a year, how is Romney going to help us? How is Romney going to lessen the debt? How is Romney going to get our soldiers back home, getall of our schools properly funded, get our jobless jobs, and overall benefit the middle class, the working class, and all of those whom make up most of America?
> 
> You seem so quick to defend him, or at least try to 'spread the blame' so it appears less on him, so lets hear it.



Its actually because i am tired of the liberal circle jerk this thread pretty much seems to be. I just stated I was voting romney and got attacked for it. So its less defending him, more I made a decision and was attacked for it. 

I could give multiple ways romney would benefit the middle and working classes, and you woudl say"Oh thats BS" then give me things Obama has said he would do in a second term. Most of the middle class is NOT better off after 4 years under Obama. I could just as easily flip the question and ask what is Obama doing to get us jobs, or fix schools , or bring soldiers home, orlessen the debt. And unlike with romney, i can compare what he is saying now to what he promised in 2008 and how many of those promises he did and didn't keep. I could go into all of what Romney has said he would do, but I dont work for the romney campaign, that and his plans on all those things have been talked about and are fairly easy to find, just most here seem to not to want to read them and get all info about romney from the Obama campaign , which has  a vested interest in making romney look as bad as possible. Why should we re-elect obama?  As someone in the middle class, I dont really see anything obama is offering that is better. of course others will disagree, btu these are opiniosn, and as hard as it is to believe, there is no wrong or right in those.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I would say both want to help america, just in different ways
> 
> I never said I was innocent, but I am a centrist that leans right. i am not from the far right. I have never brought up religion so no idea where that is coming from. i am agnostic, and i never really entered into a religious discussion. Some points of mine you have refuted, some of yours I have refuted as well.
> 
> ...



Romney doesn't want to help America, he wants to help out America's rich.

I never said you were, I said you were acting like it, and that you're more like a far-right pretending to be centrist. 

I'm pretty sure we've have our back-and-forths on religion, and you've replied, but rarely refuted. That is more of your 'everyone is doing it, so it's cool that I do it too' style.

Pointing out hypocrisy that typically isn't there, is what you're doing, so it doesn't lessen the blow. It just makes those whom you're defending look worse. 

It's not how politics work, it's how right-winger politics work. They try to show that there are liars, cheats, and thieves elsewhere, to make themselves appear less criminal. Who are the ones touting the 'sanctity of marriage' _(but have mistresses, and/or multiple divorces)_, or the ones who thinly veil their hatred of gays _(yet get caught with male escorts)_, or even the ones who are all for individual freedoms _(except for women's right to choose, adoption, immigrants, religion, drugs, healthcare, and all those other talking-points)_*?*
(Yes I know Liberals are terrible people too, but jeesh, come on)

And finally, to last laughable little paragraph there. You aren't even going to try? You're just going to give an idiotic round-about non-answer to an otherwise direct series of questions. You could flip the question, but I've already answered most of why Romney would be a terrible president before in this thread - I vote for the lesser of two evils, that being Obama, and I've shown enough reason before on why he's a good pick if you're say, middle class. He's not done as much as he should have, but he'll at least not completely screw us over like Romney would (who fully plans on tacking on several more trillion first-day as POTUS). We're already seeing education rising, a jobless rate that is getting better, our troops are due back, so on and on. Mediocre little wins that all accumulate. Obama is slow, but steady, and mostly predictable. 

Good job, though. You might be a politician yourself one day.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 5, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Romney doesn't want to help America, he wants to help out America's rich.



That is more a campaign slogan of obamas. Which is said more becuase it is a politically rousing thing to say than because of accuracy. Romney has middle class plans, as does Obama.




Lastdirewolf said:


> I never said you were, I said you were acting like it, and that you're more like a far-right pretending to be centrist.



I actually am centrist. A far right person wouldn't be on a furry website, nor would they be in favor of legalizing gay marriage or weed. Really the only thing I am more to the right on is abortion and gun control, neither of which I like much. I might be far right in the context of this particular board, but in the sphere of american politics I am just a bit right of center or moderate conservative. 



Lastdirewolf said:


> I'm pretty sure we've have our back-and-forths on religion, and you've replied, but rarely refuted. That is more of your 'everyone is doing it, so it's cool that I do it too' style.



I dont really recall having talked of religion, not in the recnt past. I am agnostic, which is a fancy way of saying "I don't know". I don't really talk much about it so posting in a thread about it, that turned into an argument , is unlike me. My points are refuted sometimes, but ore often they are debated and disagreed with, but not really refuted. Most of what I post on these is in fact, opinion, opinions are hard to refute. For facts, some have been refuted on both sides. 




Lastdirewolf said:


> It's not how politics work, it's how right-winger politics work. They try to show that there are liars, cheats, and thieves elsewhere, to make themselves appear less criminal. Who are the ones touting the 'sanctity of marriage' _(but have mistresses, and/or multiple divorces)_, or the ones who thinly veil their hatred of gays _(yet get caught with male escorts)_, or even the ones who are all for individual freedoms _(except for women's right to choose, adoption, immigrants, religion, drugs, healthcare, and all those other talking-points)_*?*
> (Yes I know Liberals are terrible people too, but jeesh, come on)



Its in large part because liberals tend to like using individual conservatives failings to discredit conservatism  in general. Instead of rightly calling out the individual for wrongdoing they call out everyone like him and act like they are the same way. The ones doing the bad stuff should be called out on it. 

 Individual freedoms are iffy, because some have different definitions of what an individual freedom is. I might consider it my personal freedom to stab someone or steal a TV but its not. On all those issues you listed republicans are not a monolith. I dont like abortion much but some republicans  are ok with it.Asoption, I am fine with gay couples adopting, some social conservatives are not. Immigrants,  pretty much all are fine with *legal* immigration, we disagree with the massive hordesof illegal immigrants coming in from mexico, which was bad in the mid 2000s, some are ok with amnesty, others want to kick them all out, most don't care. Living in a border state thats something I hear a lot about and its hardly the same thing. Religion? The republican party does NOT have an official religion so I dunno why it even comes up. Drugs? I am for legalizing weed if its taxed like cigarettes and stuff, but harder drugs should still be illegal. which is far different than the social conservatives, who want cigarettes and beer banned too. Healthcare? I dont see how the republicans deny personal freedom in it, its not like they stand over you screaming 'you arent getting that heart surgery!".

I also fail to see why any of it has anything to do with Romney though. does anyone seriously believe Romney is seething with hate at gay people? Mormon jokes aside, has Romney been found to have is tresses or any divorces. I question how much is attacks on romney himself, and attacks against the republican party as a platform, or the stereotypes about it. It is relatively common for both sides to make strawnmen of the other then tear them down and act liek they won. Liek arguing all republicans are against all abortions, when they are not. Or republicans only care about the rich. etc. These are straw men. It is better to tear down what he is running on, not strawmen of republicans in general.





Lastdirewolf said:


> And finally, to last laughable little paragraph there. You aren't even going to try? You're just going to give an idiotic round-about non-answer to an otherwise direct series of questions. You could flip the question, but I've already answered most of why Romney would be a terrible president before in this thread - I vote for the lesser of two evils, that being Obama, and I've shown enough reason before on why he's a good pick if you're say, middle class. He's not done as much as he should have, but he'll at least not completely screw us over like Romney would (who fully plans on tacking on several more trillion first-day as POTUS). We're already seeing education rising, a jobless rate that is getting better, our troops are due back, so on and on. Mediocre little wins that all accumulate. Obama is slow, but steady, and mostly predictable.
> 
> Good job, though. You might be a politician yourself one day.



I know why *I* voted Romney, but others have different opinions. ROmney has plans and proposals for helping the middle class, btu those are ignored on the left in favor of the "romeny wants to lower taxes on the rich" spiel. many of his claims about the middle class being hurt by Romneys plans were found false, like : http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-romney-could-take-away-middle-class-tax/ . On the debt, I dont see obama cutting it, romney has a plan to start cutting it, though its long term and largely involves spending cuts, which is whats horrifying liberals.Romney has also discussed plans to create jobs, though I know that that is unlikely, because presidents dont create jobs directly, they set policy that lets the economy grow. Schools are more state and local issue than presidential. We are getting out of the war in afghanistan by 2014, both agreed to it.. Saying "Romney wall screw us" sounds more like scremongering to meme, amny said the same when Obama took office and we are still here. I cant find any proof that educate n is better under obama, the jobless rate is around 8 percent, it went up last month to 7.9 percent, and both will take troops out of Afghanistan. Obama is not terrible as a president, but i still think we can do better.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 5, 2012)

I gotta ask, why is Romney even trying to run anymore?  The guy has barely above a one in ten chance of winning and he's still acting like he's for certain going to get it.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 5, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I gotta ask, why is Romney even trying to run anymore?  The guy has barely above a one in ten chance of winning and he's still acting like he's for certain going to get it.


He must attain the status of US President as a stepping stone to godhood!


----------



## Bliss (Nov 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> That might be good, but i dont really see thos enations as being 'socialist". The government does not own the facotries and farms, and socialism is government ownership  or control of methods of production. They have more social welfare, but that is not socialism.


Maybe you don't understand because you aren't Norwegian/Swedish/Danish/Finnish/Dutch. The government here does very much own factories and farms. Public ownership of means of production is the greatest method to create wealth for benefit of _all_ citizens. Many of the largest manufacturing corporations are either wholly, majority or plurality-owned by the government.



> Socialism inplies the central voernment should own all the roads, all  the schoosl in the country, all the facotries and refineries, all  the  farms, all the railroads, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc.


It implies that as much as capitalism implies private individuals should own all the roads, all the schools in the country, all the factories and refineries, all the farms, all the railroads, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc. 



> Because socialism gave rise to communism, which killed between 80 and 150 million people. it IS an evil ideology. Fascism killed about 20 million,  when both are evil ideologies but socialism death count is much higher.


Capitalism gave rise to colonialism, imperialism, slavery, violence against and exploitation of workers and has led to mass slaughter in the name of 'freedom' to accumulate capital to the hands of a few private individuals. Sweatshops and child labour exist to this day to create cheap goods to be sold to wealthy capitalist countries. Capitalism IS an evil ideology. Death count and suffering are unimaginable and incalculable in historical context.

Yeah. We can play this game.



> Under the banner of socialism thre have been many many civil wars, and quote a few international wars, the most famous of which were the korean and vietnam wars. The soviet war in afghanistan in the 80s was anther, because they were trying to make afghanistans government communist. The civil wars that happened when communists and socialists took power  are many, especially in africa and asia, but also in Europe and latin america.


This statement is ridiculously biased. It takes two to tango; under the banner of capitalism there have been many civil wars and a few international wars. 

The civil wars happened when capitalists took power as a puppet government of, say, the US and couldn't accept that the people didn't want to become a neocolony of another great power or continue to be abused as a colony of the original one. No matter how brutal these administrations were, the US & pals continued to support them in name of the right ideology (pun intended).


----------



## Ranguvar (Nov 5, 2012)

So I am still undecided. Should I vote authoritarian or slightly less authoritarian tomorrow?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> That is more a campaign slogan of obamas.
> 
> I dont really recall having talked of religion
> 
> ...



Calling it a campaign slogan of Obama's doesn't negate the fact that it's true. 

We haven't talked recently on religion, last year and the year before that though, phew.

When so many conservatives act like morally holy rollers, it stops becoming 'calling out the individual' and turns into 'wow, maybe this group is a bunch of assholes'. If it was just a handful of conservatives, then yes it'd be unfair to label them that, but it's not a handful, it's dozens upon dozens over the years. 

That paragraph was attacking conservatives in general, but Romney isn't too far off of that whole thing - He's just done a better job at saying less about all of his opinions.

"Like arguing all republicans are against abortions" - That is a Strawman argument. You're putting words into my mouth, Strawmanning my argument, while claiming I'm making a Strawman argument. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





I mean, I guess if we're going to start throwing around logical fallacies, your last two posts have been largely red herrings or strawman arguments in-and-of-themselves. You bring up irrelephant stuff that I didn't say, or add more to what I'm saying and then counter those point - Rather than my actual points.

In case you didn't read that whole politifact article, let me point out this part for you:
*"Romney has said he would not reduce the mortgage deduction and has  promised not to increase taxes on the middle class. However, he has  failed to provide enough details for analysts to model what his plan  would actually do.

    There are reasonable concerns that the numbers in Romneyâ€™s plan donâ€™t  add up. The ad assumes that to get the numbers right, the worst possible  outcomes for the middle class are likely. It says some major deductions  could be taken away."*

So what we can extract from that is: he promises not to raise taxes on the middle class (which is not the same as helping, or lowering taxes), but he hasn't given enough details about his plan - So all we have is promises and numbers that don't add up, if I'm to be so bold. Get it?

Like said above, Romney has given vague details on how he plans on cutting the deficit. He's not going to cut taxes on the rich, and he promises not to raise taxes on the middle class, but he's going to "cut out underbrush of deductions and loopholes in the tax code" - Which he has yet to expand upon. He wants to cut income tax rates, but hasn't proposed how he's going to pay for it. Though what I do know for certain, is that Romney wants to add 2 trillion to the deficit by literally feeding 2 trillion into the defense budget, and has offered no way to pay for it. So we can only assume it's going to add to the deficit, or he's going to be cutting somethings important. 

Romney on jobs though, is somewhat laughable, due to his personal investments in companies that outsource jobs and investing in foreign companies. Romney has stated that he wants to create 12 million jobs, which is partially assuming what you're talking about, but that has already been rated as null and void. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/fact-check-romneys-12-million-jobs/ because 12 million jobs are estimated to be created by 2016 anyways, with or without him. He hasn't promised jobs on top of that, so if all he wants is 12 million - That's likely what we're going to get, regardless.

"Romney will screw us" is a personal opinion, and partially scarey, I do admit....Though it's based in likelihoods and numbers, even if it is an opinion. 

Obama passed Race to the Top, which is a 4.35 billion investment into the education system to give less-funded schools more funds and higher quality teachers, improving the graduation rate of high-schoolers, and basically doing a mini-recovery of Bush's No Child Left Behind act. 

Obama has managed to keep the unemployment rate from exploding nationally, even if some states were hit harder than others. It was 7.3% when Bush left, and it's 7.9% now, after one of the largest economic melt-downs in US history. It is still high, it was only 5.7 when Bush entered, but it's been _only_ been steadily dropping month by month since the rate reached its peak - Not quickly, but the actual numbers are there. If you follow the average rate, it'll be 6.7 by this time next year, and 5.5 by 2014 - Thought that's merely based on the -.1%/month.

I agree that we can definitely do better, but Romney is not the answer.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 5, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> Soviet Union in comparison to Hitler.  Alright that makes a lot of sense.


Because it's not like both were totalitarian regimes that were responsible for millions of deaths. Even ignoring the fact that former lasted for much longer to plague us. :3c



Commie Bat said:


> Why do you guys only use us as an example?


Because you guys created communism.



> Especially since the Soviet Union was not "true communism" as there has  never been a true communist country.


There has probably never been any 'true [paste an -ism]' country. We have to do with have we have.


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 5, 2012)

Is it over yet? Here in colorado i am more focused on Amendment 64, to legalize marijuana


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 5, 2012)

^sig quote  ^

LOL


----------



## Sharpguard (Nov 5, 2012)

I'm voting Jill Stein. I'd vote "Nobody" but I don't think that's an option.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 5, 2012)

I'm voting Vermin Supreme because he's the most supreme of all the vermin candidates. Plus, he'll give everyone a free pony when elected!


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 5, 2012)

Well dayum, Romney's chances of winning has gone below ten percent.  Romney is in for a world of pain tomorrow.


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 5, 2012)

I am going Obama for reasons like... Romney sucks. Maybe next election we can get a better candidate.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 5, 2012)

Addressing the other two briefly: I dont see socialsm as "The Big Bad". it is to me, a largely discredited economic theory. Capitalism has flaws, but they can be fixed. In communism you usually had a dictator and bureaoucracy that were resistant to change, and would likely shoot you if you suggested it.Some government regulation of businesses is needed, but taking them over is a step too far, since governments tend to be inefficient. 

Communismt *as a theory* is great, but Communism *in practice* has been terrible for humanity. I don't find many who consider dictatorship and mass death to be good things



Lastdirewolf said:


> Calling it a campaign slogan of Obama's doesn't negate the fact that it's true.
> 
> We haven't talked recently on religion, last year and the year before that though, phew.
> 
> ...



But not all conservatives are religious. I certainly am not. Both sides have things one can point at and call them hypocrites about. The "holy rollers" are a prime target on the left. The rich liberals are a prime target on the right. But I know I ahve not talked of religion on FAF. if i did, i am agnostic, so I don't see that causing an argument. Usually my arguemnts are with fundamentalist Christians trying to convert me or fundamentalist atheists trying to do pretty much the same, and not understand agnostic means I dont give a fuck about whether there is a god or not. So it is unlikely.



Lastdirewolf said:


> "Like arguing all republicans are against abortions" - That is a Strawman argument. You're putting words into my mouth, Strawmanning my argument, while claiming I'm making a Strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually I was thinking of anothers arugemnet earier in this thread..or it might have been somewhere else, was a while ago. One of their main reasons to vote against romney was that he wanted to ban all abortions "even those for rape or incest!". You attack some right wing positions and viewpoints that I do not share, this is likely the same. It might be a strawman in your specific case, but not in mine. I have run into democrats saying romney wants to ban all abortions, or that romnet hates women or blacks or other things like thatThose arent straw men, but examples of things i have seen in other places. More than a few of the attacks on republicans here though are strawmwen, and no one can really point out who said such things.




Lastdirewolf said:


> I mean, I guess if we're going to start throwing around logical fallacies, your last two posts have been largely red herrings or strawman arguments in-and-of-themselves. You bring up irrelephant stuff that I didn't say, or add more to what I'm saying and then counter those point - Rather than my actual points.
> 
> In case you didn't read that whole politifact article, let me point out this part for you:
> *"Romney has said he would not reduce the mortgage deduction and has  promised not to increase taxes on the middle class. However, he has  failed to provide enough details for analysts to model what his plan  would actually do..
> ...



There are concerns abotu the tax thing, on both sides. Neither have really given specifics about what they would to help out the middle class. Obama has said training teachers and some tax tweaks. Both promise change but are light on specifics. You attack conservatives in genral at times, and i dont take offense, so dont take anything i say when talking about the wider liberal base or democrats as being at you specifically. Just because I am responding to your post does not mean I am only citing your behavior or words. I know I ahve used fallacies, but I am not debating. I know no one will change their opinion because of me, though my opinion wont change much either. I was just pointing out that many of the clims of what republicans want to do or are , on here, are straw men.  Both candidates have things that don't add up, in terms of taxes, both seem to ignore they have to pas any tax changes through congress. 




Lastdirewolf said:


> Like said above, Romney has given vague details on how he plans on cutting the deficit. He's not going to cut taxes on the rich, and he promises not to raise taxes on the middle class, but he's going to "cut out underbrush of deductions and loopholes in the tax code" - Which he has yet to expand upon. He wants to cut income tax rates, but hasn't proposed how he's going to pay for it. Though what I do know for certain, is that Romney wants to add 2 trillion to the deficit by literally feeding 2 trillion into the defense budget, and has offered no way to pay for it. So we can only assume it's going to add to the deficit, or he's going to be cutting somethings important.



Neither offers a clear plan on it. I certainly dont trust Obama on it. he has run 1 trillion dollar deficits all 4 years he has been in office.Polticians dont get too specific on things they woudl cut, because here is what happens "Romeny said he woudl cut this thing, but lok at this poor innocent family it would hurt, he is a monster for supporting this!" and everyone here would agree in lockstep. He is going to cut government spending. As for defense, its more complex than just"he wants to raise it 2 trillion": http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/  . It seems to me that rhater than "adding" 2 trillion, he just will cut defense spending less than obama. of course it kinda bils down to what we cut. Cut the military, or entitlements. 

QUOTE=Lastdirewolf;3077181]
Romney on jobs though, is somewhat laughable, due to his personal investments in companies that outsource jobs and investing in foreign companies. Romney has stated that he wants to create 12 million jobs, which is partially assuming what you're talking about, but that has already been rated as null and void. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/fact-check-romneys-12-million-jobs/ because 12 million jobs are estimated to be created by 2016 anyways, with or without him. He hasn't promised jobs on top of that, so if all he wants is 12 million - That's likely what we're going to get, regardless. [/QUOTE]

The real question is which party one thinks is better for business. Because businesses are the ones that create jobs, not presidents. and republicans are usually better for businesses than democrats are. Of course then others will point out the recession and act like thats all one parties fault which is oversimplifying  complex issues to soundbites.  The economy actually did well under bush, but most only seem to remember 2008, ven though that was caused by the hosing market collapse which many were responsible for, not tax cuts or the war in iraq or any other policy democrats love to hate.




CannonFodder said:


> Well dayum, Romney's chances of winning has gone below ten percent.  Romney is in for a world of pain tomorrow.




I strongly doubt his chances are THAT low. He is pretty much tied with the president nationally. It would be more accurate to say something like his chances of winning were 30 or 40 percent.  If romney were down by huge (more than 20 percent margin) percent in polls maybe i coudl understand putting his chances that low, but as it stands, 10 percent or less is jsut too low based on the actual facts.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 5, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I strongly doubt his chances are THAT low. He is pretty much tied with the president nationally. It would be more accurate to say something like his chances of winning were 30 or 40 percent.  If romney were down by huge (more than 20 percent margin) percent in polls maybe i coudl understand putting his chances that low, but as it stands, 10 percent or less is jsut too low based on the actual facts.


Again, popular vote doesn't matter.  Electoral vote is the one that matters.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Addressing the other two briefly: I dont see socialsm as "The Big Bad". it is to me, a largely discredited economic theory. Capitalism has flaws, but they can be fixed. In communism you usually had a dictator and bureaoucracy that were resistant to change, and would likely shoot you if you suggested it.Some government regulation of businesses is needed, but taking them over is a step too far, since governments tend to be inefficient.
> 
> Communismt *as a theory* is great, but Communism *in practice* has been terrible for humanity. I don't find many who consider dictatorship and mass death to be good things



Socialism =/= communism =/= fascism. Stalin Russia =/= Social Democratic Europe, or even the social programs of the US. Perhaps we need to stop throwing around random words.


Also, you may believe that Romney wanted to reduce spending and fix the budget, but he's already made clear he wants to spend MORE on the US military budget. Right now the military is around 1/5th to 1/4th of the entire US budget and is pretty much the largest thing spent on by US taxpayer money. Any discussion on balancing the budget has to include how to shrink that massive figure.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Nov 6, 2012)

This is pretty much how I expect the elections to go tomorrow:

[yt]uAI_R624HHY[/yt]


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 6, 2012)

"Want a good reason to vote for Obama? 

Look at the people telling you not to..."


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Addressing the other two briefly: I dont see socialsm as "The Big Bad". it is to me, a largely discredited economic theory. Capitalism has flaws, but they can be fixed.



Like the flaws that brought on the 2008 financial crash? And the 1930s depression?



CodArk2 said:


> In communism you usually had a dictator and bureaoucracy that were resistant to change, and would likely shoot you if you suggested it.



Yeah, that's why capitalist countries like Chile under Pinochet and Argentina under military juntas had no death squads and were paragons of freedom of expression... oh, wait. No they weren't.



CodArk2 said:


> Some government regulation of businesses is needed, but taking them over is a step too far, *since governments tend to be inefficient. *



That'll be why the US private healthcare system spends less and covers more people than "socialist" public health care systems in Europe and Australasia... oh, wait. No it doesn't.

And light-handed government regulation of things like mining safety and letting coal mine owners self-regulate because they'd NEVER cut corners on the safety of their workers because they'd go bust if they did, because the unfettered free market will keep everything fine and dandy... oh, wait. No it doesn't.

Where _have _you been in the last ten years?


----------



## Fernin (Nov 6, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> "Want a good reason to vote for Obama?
> 
> Look at the people telling you not to..."



I think we may for once be in agreement about something? Given this fact and that we're about to have a two term black president, I do indeed believe it's getting quite chilly in hell lately. XD


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Addressing the other two briefly: I dont see socialsm as "The Big Bad". it is to me, a largely discredited economic theory. Capitalism has flaws, but they can be fixed. In communism you usually had a dictator and bureaoucracy that were resistant to change, and would likely shoot you if you suggested it.Some government regulation of businesses is needed, but taking them over is a step too far, since governments tend to be inefficient.
> 
> Communismt *as a theory* is great, but Communism *in practice* has been terrible for humanity. I don't find many who consider dictatorship and mass death to be good things
> 
> ...



Again, I've never said *all* conservatives are religious. Are you going to keep up this tirade?

Obama _has_ given specifics. He's had _four fucking years_, do you not know his policies by now? Again, ignorance. 

What I was attacking in bold, was your not complete reading of the link you sent me, or at least, not referencing the part that _actually_ balances your position - Rather than spreading the blame like you have been in your last several posts.

Romney has vehemently dodged questions regarding specifics - That is not normal. He has leaked a bit of information here and there, but he's making huge claims, bold assertions, and then not backing up most of it with facts or numbers. 

As for military spending, that website didn't counter my point. It agreed that adding 2 trillion was the goal, they are just unsure of the specifics, because that is how Romney runs his campaign. Even if you forget that number and go from the "cutting defense spending less", that's still _worse_, because we're meant to be pulled out through 2014. So why the hell would you keep up or increase military spending when we're not going to be using it?

Republicans are in the pocket of big businesses, yes, or may own stock themselves in some. The economy didn't go well under Bush, the economy was in the calm before the storm under Bush, due to his policies or lack thereof. If you clicked that link from the Buereau of Statistics, you'd see that the storm hit in 2008 - That is why it's such a huge deal. Multiple things went wrong that Bush could've at least tried to stop or fix. This is how it broke down in 2008 by month:

2008
(J)5.0
(F)4.9
(M)5.1
(A)5.0
(M)5.4
(J)5.6
(J)5.8
(A)6.1
(S)6.1
(O)6.5
(N)6.8
(D)7.3
 
2009
(J)7.8. 
 

See how in one year, unemployment jumped 2.8%? It doesn't just suddenly stop growing at a rate like that. They can blame Bush for a lot of this, as well as the war in middle East, because it was either his choosing to do these things, or his choosing to ignore these things. You seem to quick to pull the blame off of Bush, when it seemed he did very little to stop it. Under Obama, the worst it got nationally was an increase of 2.2% from Bush's left over 7.8% (which was a total increase of 2.8% in 2008, or an overall increasing of 2.1% since 2002), and under Obama, it was brought back down to that number and will continue to slide down. Obama wasn't given a relatively healthy economy, it was on the brink of collapse when he came into power.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 6, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> Socialism =/= communism =/= fascism. Stalin Russia =/= Social Democratic Europe, or even the social programs of the US. Perhaps we need to stop throwing around random words
> 
> Also, you may believe that Romney wanted to reduce spending and fix the budget, but he's already made clear he wants to spend MORE on the US military budget. Right now the military is around 1/5th to 1/4th of the entire US budget and is pretty much the largest thing spent on by US taxpayer money. Any discussion on balancing the budget has to include how to shrink that massive figure.



They aren't the same, but communism and facism are both butal dictatorial regimes that have killed millions.. Communism is based ion a socialist economic model as well. Socialism itself is not evil, though communism is. If you think fascism is evil but communism isn't its essentially hypocrisy.

Also, Romney does not ant to spend more on the military, he just wants to cut it less than obama does. EROmney will cut it by 2 trillion less than obama would. Personally i think the military budet should be cut to a point, but so should entitlements





Mayfurr said:


> Like the flaws that brought on the 2008 financial crash? And the 1930s depression?



Yes like those. I know its hard to grasp, but capitalism is basically a cycle of boom and bust. No where does capitalism state that the boom will go on forever. I think there should be some government regulation of businesses that are lynhpins of the economy, but government takeover of them will not (and never has) solved anything.



Mayfurr said:


> Yeah, that's why capitalist countries like Chile under Pinochet and Argentina under military juntas had no death squads and were paragons of freedom of expression... oh, wait. No they weren't.



There were death squads, but did they kill because they were socialists, but because the dictator beleived they were a threat to his power.Chile also wasn't a democracy. 



Mayfurr said:


> That'll be why the US private healthcare system spends less and covers more people than "socialist" public health care systems in Europe and Australasia... oh, wait. No it doesn't.
> 
> And light-handed government regulation of things like mining safety and letting coal mine owners self-regulate because they'd NEVER cut corners on the safety of their workers because they'd go bust if they did, because the unfettered free market will keep everything fine and dandy... oh, wait. No it doesn't.
> 
> Where _have _you been in the last ten years?



Again, i never said that there should be no regulation of businesses. SOME government regulation is needed. But government takeover of businesses is not though. It rarely benefits the economy at all. 

Outr healtchare system needs reforms, but i dont think taking it over  by the government is the solution either. 

As for where I ahve been the last 10 years, that would be the United States, the country having the election and thus one aware of the problems it has




Lastdirewolf said:


> Again, I've never said *all* conservatives are religious. Are you going to keep up this tirade?
> 
> Obama _has_ given specifics. He's had _four fucking years_, do you not know his policies by now? Again, ignorance. .



I know of obamas policies, and i disagree with them. Not every single one of them, but more than a few. Romney has not said every single thing he would cut or tweak, because if he does, you get idiotic sideshows like the "big bird" thing because he said he would cut PBS. Both romney and obama  have given broad outlines of what they woudl cut, but neither has said what they would cut exactly, what programs, what department. Candidates dont do that because then peoples eyes glaze over.



Lastdirewolf said:


> As for military spending, that website didn't counter my point. It agreed that adding 2 trillion was the goal, they are just unsure of the specifics, because that is how Romney runs his campaign. Even if you forget that number and go from the "cutting defense spending less", that's still _worse_, because we're meant to be pulled out through 2014. So why the hell would you keep up or increase military spending when we're not going to be using it?



Well you keep using the Obama line that Romney will "raise" defense spending by 2 trillion, when he plans to not cut it by that amount. he corrected him on that several times in the debates. You seem to expect Romney to itemize and go line by line for things he would cut, on national TV, which is pretty unrealistic.obama has not really said what he would specifically cut either. what parts of the military is he cutting? Why is it being cut? would it reduce our ability to project power or defend ourselves? You seem to think no crisis requiring military means will spring up during the next four years, which is a bad bet to place. Saying we arent going to use it implies the world will go according to plan, history shows it almost never does and things can go wrong.




Lastdirewolf said:


> Republicans are in the pocket of big businesses, yes, or may own stock themselves in some. The economy didn't go well under Bush, the economy was in the calm before the storm under Bush, due to his policies or lack thereof. If you clicked that link from the Buereau of Statistics, you'd see that the storm hit in 2008 - That is why it's such a huge deal. Multiple things went wrong that Bush could've at least tried to stop or fix.



Owning stock does not  mean the business owns you, it means you own a part of a business, through shares. The economcy did do ok under bush. the years 2001-2007 saw a high amount of economic growth. But everyone focuses on 2008. First off 2008 was not caused solely by bush. The housing market collapsed, which caused issues with the banks because of bad debt in the housing market. The banks started collapsing because of the debt which eld to problems in most of the economy. 

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/  shows both sides. But I am much like the article, thinking (wait for it) both sides messed up. Blaming only bush is just wrong, since much of what caused the economic collapse was not in the presidents hands in the first place.




Lastdirewolf said:


> See how in one year, unemployment jumped 2.8%? It doesn't just suddenly stop growing at a rate like that. They can blame Bush for a lot of this, as well as the war in middle East, because it was either his choosing to do these things, or his choosing to ignore these things. You seem to quick to pull the blame off of Bush, when it seemed he did very little to stop it. Under Obama, the worst it got nationally was an increase of 2.2% from Bush's left over 7.8% (which was a total increase of 2.8% in 2008, or an overall increasing of 2.1% since 2002), and under Obama, it was brought back down to that number and will continue to slide down. Obama wasn't given a relatively healthy economy, it was on the brink of collapse when he came into power.



So unemployment went up in a recession. Shocking. See previous  area, bush does not deserve all, or even most of the blame. It was caused by the housing market collapse causing other issues in the economy. The war in the middle east WAS bushes fault. Iraq was a war he *chose* to get into, but the iraq war did not cause the 2008 financial collapse. And many seem to forget what Bush did to keep the economy from going over the edge. he actually did a lot. for example, TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, was passed under Bush, not Obama. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program )  The bank bailouts were also done under bush, not obama.  And another thing that many democrats ignore, even the Auto Bailout, of GM, chrysler, and Fored, was done under Bush. Of course Obama is taking credit for it, but he didn't sign the bill. ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1208/16740.html  )

So  why is Obama takiing credit for the auto bailout when he didnt even sign it?  Many people seem to be ignorant of the  Bush ears, partly because many were so blinded by hatred they went into hate-seizures every time his name is mentioned. Most of the economic bills that actually saved the economy were passed under Bush, not Obama. Bush was not a great president, but pretending it was obama saving the economy ignores a lot of things Bush did.  The 2008 recession ended in June 2009, after Obama was in office just 6 months. Obama did pass the stimulus biill in February of 2009, but that did not end the recession. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...35341e-e176-11e1-ae7f-d2a13e249eb2_story.html ) Most of the heavy lifting, saving the banks and GM, was done by Bush, the pull out from iraq by 2011 was also negotiated in advance by Bush. ( http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/06/27/memo-to-media-bush-set-a-timetable-for-withdraw/166835 )

Of course most of these things are forgotten by democrats, because they were too high off obama winning to really notice. Many of these things came down in late 2008, before Bush left office on january 20th, 2009. The president doesnt pack his bags and leave on  the day after election day. Bush  was the president until jan. 20th, so everything that happened between elction day and jan. 20th is Bush, not Obama.

Bush did a lot before he got out of office, he was the one that established the framework for pulling otu fo Iraq. he was the one that signed the bailouts and TARP., so likely saved the economy. As soon as april, economists were saying the US was out of recession, much of that was due to Bushes policies, not Obamas (who had been in office for less than 6  months). You give obama too much credit, and Bush too little.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 6, 2012)

There are many reasons to vote for Obama, but a lot more not to vote for Romney.

1. The lies.  Both him and his campaign have BLATANTLY lied and misrepresented facts.  I don't want a President in the White House I can't trust.  From the very start with the lies about Obama saying "If we talk about the economy we'll loose" to the end where he lied about Jeep moving their production to China, he has been dishonest.  Not to mention changing his position depending on who he talks to.

2. The secrecy.  He won't show his taxes like every other Presidential candidate    Refuses to give details on what tax deductions he will eliminate.  Hasn't given an interview or answered a question from a reporter in a month.  Avoids talking about his Religion.  Refused to participate in the Youth Debate.  

3. His economic 'plan'.  He wants to cut taxes by 20% for everyone.  But that's a relative cut, so the highest 35% would go to 28%, a 7% cut, and the lowest at 10% would go to 8%, a 2% cut.  Then he wants to eliminate both the inheritance tax and taxes on capital gains.  This is a huge amount of money, and he won't say how it will be paid for.  Studies show it can't be paid for even if you remove ALL deductions, so he has been saying it will be paid for partly by economic growth.  Great, that's growth that could have been spent reducing the deficit that will now be given as a gift to the rich.

4.  Military.  We don't need 2 billion dollars worth of more battleships and bayonets.  The US Navy is weak?  Our Navy is bigger than the rest of the planets put together!  50% of the military ships on the seas are owned by the US.  Next biggest is Russia with 10%.  We have FIVE TIMES as many ships as our 'biggest geopolitical threat'.  Show me one Navy admiral who would trade an aircraft carrier or nuclear submarine for two battleships.  This isn't the 18th century anymore.  

5. Income inequity.  It's the worst it's ever been, and accelerating.  Even back in the robber barron days it wasn't this bad.  For the past 30 years middle class and worker wages have stagnated while the super rich have seen theirs grow 500%.  ALL of the economic growth and productivity gains have gone to the super rich and none of it to working families.  The top 1% owns a third of the wealth in the country.  That number has been growing for decades, and is accelerating.  Romney will give the biggest tax cuts to the rich, eliminate estate taxes (which favor the rush as they don't cut in until you have more than $5 million to pass on), and get rid of capital gains which is where almost all of the top earners get their income, and the bottom 99% have virtually none of.   How anyone can think the path we are on is a good thing is crazy.  How much should the 1% own before it's a problem?  50 percent?  75 percent?  100 percent?  

This isn't just a fairness thing.  This is a survival thing.  Economies work by moving money.  Money has to flow.  It flows through spending, which the middle class and poor do the most of.  MOney does teh economy NO good sitting in a bank in the Cayman Islands.  The rich are not job creators.  Demand is, and small businesses that form to handle demand.  

That's my rant.  Now I'm going to vote.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2012)

I just finished voting.  Kinda nice to live right next to the voting center.


----------



## Ranguvar (Nov 6, 2012)

Voted for Romney/Ryan this morning. Problem America?


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 6, 2012)

This election has been dirtier than the Bush Vs. Kerry re-election. I shouldn't have to see an effigy of Obama and Michelle outside of a poll office, or Bigbird tying Romey to a stake.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 6, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> "Want a good reason to vote for Obama?
> 
> Look at the people telling you not to..."


Christian terrorists, trailer trash, and the Cult of the Smoking Tapir ?
I don't need any convincing.


----------



## zachhart12 (Nov 6, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I just finished voting.  Kinda nice to live right next to the voting center.



I voted Obama too.  LOL I just talked to a guy in the local furry group here.  He's gay and voted for Romney...LOL


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 6, 2012)

zachhart12 said:


> I voted Obama too.  LOL I just talked to a guy in the local furry group here.  He's gay and voted for Romney...LOL



Just voted as well.  Gay and voting for Romney?  Well, maybe he is a submissive masochist and hopes Romney will punish him with more anti-gay laws.  Or hope he will follow that crazy Pastor's advice and round up all the gays into an internment camp he imagines would be like some sort of 24/7 bdsm club.  That would be one heck of a first executive order.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Also, Romney does not ant to spend more on the military, he just wants to cut it less than obama does. EROmney will cut it by 2 trillion less than obama would.


Stopped reading here. You may find this interesting: http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

The DoD has only been spending ~$600 billion (I say only in comparison to $2 trillion, not only in comparison to other countries) per year. Over 10 years it would have a total of $6 trillion. Obama wants to cut that 10 year total by ~$500 billion. By your math (which isn't correct, as Romney wants to increase the budget to 4% of the GDP as opposed to the 3.2% to 3.5% it is now), that would STILL lead to increasing the budget by an average of $150 billion per year or $1.5 trillion total. 

To make it even more hilarious is that the military leaders are in agreement with Obama's plan and believe that it isn't necessary to throw more money at the military.

This is a prime example of how you don't do your research and how ignorant you are. I don't have the time to fact check all of your statements, though. 

Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-romney-would-spend-2-trilllion-military/


----------



## Fallowfox (Nov 6, 2012)

It's probably been pointed out, but it's interesting that Apathy is more popular than Romney.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 6, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Stopped reading here. You may find this interesting: http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf
> 
> The DoD has only been spending ~$600 billion (I say only in comparison to $2 trillion, not only in comparison to other countries) per year. Over 10 years it would have a total of $6 trillion. Obama wants to cut that 10 year total by ~$500 billion. By your math (which isn't correct, as Romney wants to increase the budget to 4% of the GDP as opposed to the 3.2% to 3.5% it is now), that would STILL lead to increasing the budget by an average of $150 billion per year or $1.5 trillion total.
> 
> ...



I think you just wanted to call me ignorant and that I did no research. First, in the debates, Obama and Biden *repeatedly* stated ROmney wanted to "increase defense spending by 2 trillion dollars". that was their number, bit romneys, and not something i pulled out of my butt.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/

Somehow I don't see you telling Obama and Biden they didn't do research. They were the ones who made the claim. I pointed out that Romney said he didnt want to make massive cuts in defense spending and most of what obama  said was him rasing funding was actually just romney not cutting it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...1f11a5a-1992-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_blog.html

Also, the military officers answer to the president, they are basically his employees, so theya re not unbiased. I think the budget needs o be cut, but saying Romney wants to raise it, when he said he just wants to cut it less (which is over several years, not in one years spending. I guess I have to clarify that point. The US has never spent 2 trillion a year on the military under any president. I know that.).


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I think you just wanted to call me ignorant and that I did no research. First, in the debates, Obama and Biden *repeatedly* stated ROmney wanted to "increase defense spending by 2 trillion dollars". that was their number, bit romneys, and not something i pulled out of my butt.
> 
> http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/
> 
> Somehow I don't see you telling Obama and Biden they didn't do research. They were the ones who made the claim. I pointed out that Romney said he didnt want to make massive cuts in defense spending and most of what obama  said was him rasing funding was actually just romney not cutting it.



The problem is Romney is claiming that stopping the two wars amounts to a cut in spending.  He says that once we leave Afganastan and Iraq we should KEEP SPENDING all that money on the military.

So he very much wants to increase military spending.  He wants to make the war spending permanent.  That's just crazy.  You can't call that 'not raising spending'.

When wars end, you stop spending money on them.  Those are the 'massive cuts' Obama is making.  

A quote from that article...

_Sharp â€” who wrote an essay in 2008 for the Army War Collegeâ€™s journal, Parameters, titled â€œTying US Defense Spending to GDP: Bad Logic, Bad Policyâ€ â€” told us in an email that the Romney campaign essentially wants to â€œinstitutionalize war costsâ€ going forward._
_â€œHis campaign is arguing that the United States should try to spend at least as much on defense in the years ahead as it did during the past decade when it was fighting two wars,â€ Sharp wrote._
_â€œIâ€™m saying having the additional costs for war makes sense when you have a war,â€ Sharp elaborated in a phone interview with us. â€œI would question whether you should institutionalize the war costs, which they are suggesting.â€_


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> They aren't the same, but communism and facism are both butal dictatorial regimes that have killed millions.. Communism is based ion a socialist economic model as well. Socialism itself is not evil, though communism is. If you think fascism is evil but communism isn't its essentially hypocrisy.


Communism is a system of government, nothing more, nothing less. It is when it is placed into the wrong hands, which has happened more often than not, then it becomes evil. Humans are evil and have the ability to do evil, irregardless of what government they happen to be a part of. Communism may have failed multiple times, but it's because of the actions of the people running the system, not the system itself. Capitalist systems have also done great evil. This is something people have been trying to tell you a bunch of times and you keep ignoring it.

Also, even if you personally understand that Communism is not entirely socialism and that they're similar but separate, a lot of the Republicans you seem to support don't share your opinion, and many see socialism and communism as the same Great Evil, without seeing the distinctions between them.

And I laugh at your assertion of Romney's plans for the military budget because everything I've read says otherwise.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 6, 2012)

You guys are voting today, right? I am keeping my fingers crossed... Romney would be a massive disaster, and don't expect him to pay for it, he does think disaster relief funding from the federal government is immoral afterall >__>
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ood-victims-is-immoral-makes-no-sense-at-all/


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I think you just wanted to call me ignorant and that I did no research. First, in the debates, Obama and Biden *repeatedly* stated ROmney wanted to "increase defense spending by 2 trillion dollars". that was their number, bit romneys, and not something i pulled out of my butt.
> 
> http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/


"Sharp determined  that it would cost $7.8 trillion to phase in an increase in the  Pentagonâ€™s base budget to a minimum of 4 percent of GDP over the next 10  years, from 2013 to 2022, using the Congressional Budget Officeâ€™s projections (page 57) for economic growth"

Obamaâ€™s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal (page 240) says the president would spend $5.7 trillion on the base defense budget during that same 10-year period

If it was at around the same as this year, it would be ~$6 trillion for the 10 year span. This makes Romney/Ryan's plan a $1.8 trillion increase. Pretty damn close to $2 trillion.


----------



## Rheumatism (Nov 6, 2012)

Well I voted.  Accidently voted against Gay marriage too.  8I


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 6, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> The problem is Romney is claiming that stopping the two wars amounts to a cut in spending.  He says that once we leave Afganastan and Iraq we should KEEP SPENDING all that money on the military.
> 
> So he very much wants to increase military spending.  He wants to make the war spending permanent.  That's just crazy.  You can't call that 'not raising spending'.
> 
> When wars end, you stop spending money on them.  Those are the 'massive cuts' Obama is making.



Uh, dunno if you noticed but we pulled out of the war in iraq last year. We are no longer funding that war because we are no longer in it. Afghanistan is being funded, for now. Bush signed an agreement with the iraqi government before he left office, and obama followed that time table. Most of the finding cuts are due to 'sequestration" ( http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/11/06/4392490/sequestration-cuts-influencing.html )  And much of the rest is cutting the size of the military (  http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politics/pentagon-strategy-shift/index.html ). None really are form the wars ending.



CrazyLee said:


> Communism is a system of government, nothing more, nothing less. It is when it is placed into the wrong hands, which has happened more often than not, then it becomes evil. Humans are evil and have the ability to do evil, irregardless of what government they happen to be a part of. Communism may have failed multiple times, but it's because of the actions of the people running the system, not the system itself. Capitalist systems have also done great evil. This is something people have been trying to tell you a bunch of times and you keep ignoring it.
> 
> Also, even if you personally understand that Communism is not entirely socialism and that they're similar but separate, a lot of the Republicans you seem to support don't share your opinion, and many see socialism and communism as the same Great Evil, without seeing the distinctions between them.
> 
> And I laugh at your assertion of Romney's plans for the military budget because everything I've read says otherwise.




Communism is a good theory, but every single place it has been practiced, the results were the same. A dictatorial regime that murders many , suppresses rights, and ruins the economy. I cannot find a single nation where communism was practiced and it worked(as n making people better off than capitalism). I have studied the theory of communism, and  socialism by extension, the latter has had some success in some small nations, the former has almost never succeeded. Can anyone name a successful communist country?

I know socialism and communism are different. But Communism usually uses a socialist based economy. Socialism without communism is not as bad, though i still dont support it. Communism in theory is good, communism in practice has been bad. No capitalism has not been perfect, but little has been in human history. It has produced the wealth and power the western world has.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/will-romney-increase-defense-spending-by-2-trillion/  is mostly what i use on the dense stuff. During the debates i distinctly remember a conversation the two had about it, obama saying romney wanted to raise it by 2 trillion, and romney saying he wasnt going to raise it, jsut cut it less than what obama was proposing.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> Uh, dunno if you noticed but we pulled out of the war in iraq last year. We are no longer funding that war because we are no longer in it. Afghanistan is being funded, for now. Bush signed an agreement with the iraqi government before he left office, and obama followed that time table. Most of the finding cuts are due to 'sequestration" ( http://www.heraldonline.com/2012/11/06/4392490/sequestration-cuts-influencing.html )  And much of the rest is cutting the size of the military (  http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/05/politics/pentagon-strategy-shift/index.html ). None really are form the wars ending.



I read the article.  We are still spending billions in Iraq even if no troops are on the ground.  We haven't pulled out financially by a long shot. 

Regardless, my point stands.  Romney is saying he is not increasing spending only because he is basing his 'baseline' on the spending when we were still fighting two wars.  He wants to put spending BACK at the level it was when we were still in and claim he's not raising military spending.  That's dishonest at best.  We should not continue to spend money like we are still fighting wars after they are over.

As for sequestration, that whole mess happened due to the Republicans putting a gun to the head of our economy and threatening to shoot if they didn't get big cuts.  Cuts Ryan voted for.  Cuts Romney was for before he was against them.  And both Romney and Obama have stated they will not let those cuts happen.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 6, 2012)

Rheumatism said:


> Well I voted.  Accidently voted against Gay marriage too.  8I



How can you accidentally vote for or against something?  Or did you seriously vote for that retarded mormon?


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 6, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> How can you accidentally vote for or against something?  Or did you seriously vote for that retarded mormon?



Here in California we always have ballot initiatives worded like, "The stop the authorization of the denial of the request to remove the restrictions on eliminating the tax exemption of tax avoidance proposal."

A real example of Prop 40 that I just voted on.

"State Senate districts are revised every ten years following the federal census. This year, the voter-approved California Citizens Redistricting Commission revised the boundaries of the 40 Senate districts. This referendum petition, if signed by the required number of registered voters and filed with the Secretary of State, will: (1) Place the revised State Senate boundaries on the ballot and prevent them from taking effect unless approved by the voters at the next statewide election; and (2) Require court-appointed officials to set interim boundaries for use in the next statewide election."

Voting YES on this does nothing, while voting NO would pull the power to draw district lines from the public Citizens Redistricting Commission and put it in back the hands of politicians.  

Pretty easy to vote the opposite what you are thinking with some of these.

Easy to just mark the wrong checkbox too I suppose.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 6, 2012)

While studying voting records of different candidates, I found a bill called the "Stop the war on coal act" created by republicans, voted and passed by Republican representatives.
WHAT IN THE HOLY FUCK IS THIS?!


----------



## Ranguvar (Nov 6, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> While studying voting records of different candidates, I found a bill called the "Stop the war on coal act" created by republicans, voted and passed by Republican representatives.
> WHAT IN THE HOLY FUCK IS THIS?!



Wait until the Republicans take the senate and the white house. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!!!!! (Oh I forgot Liberals took God out of their platform). Besides its like Liberals hate American Energy or something. You don't hate America do you?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 6, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> I know of obamas policies, and i disagree with them. Not every single one of them, but more than a few. Romney has not said every single thing he would cut or tweak, because if he does, you get idiotic sideshows like the "big bird" thing because he said he would cut PBS. Both romney and obama  have given broad outlines of what they woudl cut, but neither has said what they would cut exactly, what programs, what department. Candidates dont do that because then peoples eyes glaze over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you know Obama's policies, then how are you possibly confused on what his policies and plan are? He's had 4 years. It's pretty obvious what he's going to be doing. Obama has given what he's going to cut, and he's done some already, because he's the President. He's not hiding anything, whereas Romney is. If Romney's plans are to cut PBS, then yeah, it deserves to be ridiculed, because PBS is like a fraction of a percent - If that is all we know of him, then that's how stupid and ridiculous he looks. If he doesn't want to look stupid and ridiculous, then he should've elaborated more.

I keep using that line that Romney will raise it by 2 trillion, because just as* your own source said*, he is going to raise it by 2 trillion. They just haven't specified *where* yet, but the number is 2 trillion. I never Romney should itemize or go into some big'ol Red Herring argument.

We currently have no use for the trillion we're spending on military, so adding 2 trillion more - Like both of our sources have agreed upon - Is absolutely pointless. We're over-spending as it is, why spend more?

Owning stock does not mean the business owns you. You're right. But again, I never said that. You're connecting dots that I never placed and projecting your personal bias onto what I've said. However, investing in companies that are outsourcing jobs looks pretty shitty for a guy who wants to be President and claims he wants to create jobs *here*, in the country he wants to run. 2001-2007 saw a big economic growth, I'm not disagreeing on that, but like I said before, it was the calm before the storm. We were setting ourselves up for a big fall, and that is what happened - I don't see many analysts disagreeing with that sentiment. The recession wasn't solely caused by Bush, I again, I never said it was. Are you going to keep projecting your personal bias and adding words to damn near everything I say? However, Bush was President. He could've done _something_, or at least _tried_ to halt it, but he didn't until it was way past already happening. Where are the bills, policies, laws, or what have you that Bush tried enacting to try and stop banks from giving ridiculous mortages and all those things that lead to the housing collapse? He reacted to it, but did nothing preventative. Almost all of those things listed on that source you linked were things Bush could've at least _tried_ to do something about _before_ they caused problems. 

You're missing the point. You see that part where it says:
"which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market." That part? 
That is what helped contribute a lot to all the other problems listed on that page. Bush did next to nothing when it counted.

I never said the Iraq war caused the 2008 Financial collapse, but it sure was a couple hundred billion dollars we could've used for something else, wasn't it?

TARP was too little too late, wasn't it - I dunno how long he was debating on it, but don't you think those were things he should've much earlier, when signs were pointing to a problem years earlier? Rather than as a reaction to how shitty it got at the end of his final term? TARP was aimed more at trying to handle the sub-prime mortgage crisis, a bank bailout. ARRA, under Obama, was to create jobs and provide transparency, accoutability, etc. They are 2 large, but different beasts - Though ARRA did include a couple billion towards banks as well, and there were other cash-for-cars programs. TARP did little to promote the economy or stimulate job growth - I do see people attributing the auto bailout to Obama, it was signed in 3 months before Obama took presidency. 

I don't see what economic bills were passed under Bush when it counted, since he passed TARP in the last 3 months of his presidency, and TARP was aimed only as a bank bailout, not an economic recovery as a whole - It was just to stop shit from getting worse, since he failed to pass something preventative during the first 7 years. 

I guess you can say the 2008 recession ended in 2009, but it was the cause of the 2009-until-now recession that we're still recovering from. So it's a little semantic to say it ended, since it largely caused a second recession immediately after it "ended". The jobless rate continued to grow until 2010, and it rarely leveled out. 700 billion towards the banks isn't "heavy lifting", because it didn't stimulate the economy or grow where we needed it to - Like I said before, it merely helped halt things from getting too out of hand under the same guy who did nothing to stop it earlier. Good job, Bush did nothing to stop it from happening, but when it finally came to his attention years after it was an obvious problem, he did something to slow one portion of the recession that he did little to prevent. 

You don't give credit to a police officer who witnessed a house burglary on duty; when it was his responsbility to stop it, and he had the power to do so, but he didn't until the robbers had their van almost completely full, and _then_ stepped in to stop it. Sure, if you look at the big picture, he did in fact stop it...eventually. Though if you look at the details, that officer could've stepped in at annnny time during the robbery, and not wait until damn near the end to do something. That is why I give him so little credit, and that's why he deserves so little credit.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 6, 2012)

Election day. I've given it some thought and Tank just had a better policy. Sorry gibby. TVT


----------



## Toshabi (Nov 6, 2012)

I voted already. Casted my vote for Mirack Obamney/Jaul Ryden.


Workin it like a true moderate (9'-')9


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Nov 6, 2012)

Green_Knight said:


> Wait until the Republicans take the senate and the white house. WHERE IS YOUR GOD NOW!!!!! (Oh I forgot Liberals took God out of their platform). Besides its like Liberals hate American Energy or something. You don't hate America do you?



Wait you can be a liberal and not hate America? That's not what Sega Palin told me.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 6, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> If you know Obama's policies, then how are you possibly confused on what his policies and plan are? He's had 4 years. It's pretty obvious what he's going to be doing. Obama has given what he's going to cut, and he's done some already, because he's the President. He's not hiding anything, whereas Romney is. If Romney's plans are to cut PBS, then yeah, it deserves to be ridiculed, because PBS is like a fraction of a percent - If that is all we know of him, then that's how stupid and ridiculous he looks. If he doesn't want to look stupid and ridiculous, then he should've elaborated more..



I dont see the "hiding" you are descrying. romney is not itemizing everything he would cut, because it woudl be too long and liberals would immediately attack his plans to cut their pet programs. Obama in his first campign said he woudl vaguely "cut" programs, but didnt say which ones either. its something first time candidates for president always do. none give specifics.  Romney used it as an example of things he would cut, and was ridiculed for it. Liberals seem to want to pretend any cut is stupid and misguided unless its for the military it seems.



Lastdirewolf said:


> I keep using that line that Romney will raise it by 2 trillion, because just as* your own source said*, he is going to raise it by 2 trillion. They just haven't specified *where* yet, but the number is 2 trillion. I never Romney should itemize or go into some big'ol Red Herring argument.
> 
> We currently have no use for the trillion we're spending on military, so adding 2 trillion more - Like both of our sources have agreed upon - Is absolutely pointless. We're over-spending as it is, why spend more?



I still remember Romney having an argument in the second debate saying he didnt want to cut it as much as obama did, not raise it. I tend to believe that.

I think we should cut defense spending in areas we dont need it. The wars, we are not fighting. But most of the cuts are not coming from ending the wars, they are from closing bases,  and cutting the number of soldiers, ships and planes. The issue is whether he wanted to *add* 2 trillion over the years, or just not *cut* the spending by 2 trillion. 

To me making a big thing about cutting defense spending while ignoring that most of our government spending doesn't go to defense is a red herring. If we cut defense, we should cut everything, nothing should be off the table, but neither party shows any interest in that. My own opinion is defense spending should be cut, but so should a lot of other things in the government.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Owning stock does not mean the business owns you. You're right. But again, I never said that. You're connecting dots that I never placed and projecting your personal bias onto what I've said. However, investing in companies that are outsourcing jobs looks pretty shitty for a guy who wants to be President and claims he wants to create jobs *here*, in the country he wants to run. 2001-2007 saw a big economic growth, I'm not disagreeing on that, but like I said before, it was the calm before the storm. We were setting ourselves up for a big fall, and that is what happened - I don't see many analysts disagreeing with that sentiment. The recession wasn't solely caused by Bush, I again, I never said it was. Are you going to keep projecting your personal bias and adding words to damn near everything I say? However, Bush was President. He could've done _something_, or at least _tried_ to halt it, but he didn't until it was way past already happening. Where are the bills, policies, laws, or what have you that Bush tried enacting to try and stop banks from giving ridiculous mortages and all those things that lead to the housing collapse? He reacted to it, but did nothing preventative. Almost all of those things listed on that source you linked were things Bush could've at least _tried_ to do something about _before_ they caused problems.



I dont blame presidents for economic booms or failures. i dont blame obama for whats going on now, i do hold him responsible for the debt, just as i did bush and others before that.  The president doesnt control the economy. And you keep sayign im adding words to what you say, but you said bush did nothing about the recession, which is false, bush did quite a bit to keep the economy from sliding off a cliff. Bush and the republicans actually tried to stop the housing bubble several times. All the way from 2002, but democrats ignored it or tried to cast it as bush and republicans trying to keep poor people and minorities from owning homes.



Lastdirewolf said:


> You're missing the point. You see that part where it says:
> "which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market." That part?
> That is what helped contribute a lot to all the other problems listed on that page. Bush did next to nothing when it counted.



The housing bubble cannot be blamed on one person or party. I never said Bush was blameless on the financial cirisis, but only looking at what bush did or didnt do is  very narrow. There were a lot of things in play with that, i woudl honestly blame freddie mae and fannie mac more, and bush did want to regulate them as early as 2002, but democrats said the evil republicans wanted to keep poor people and minorities from home ownership and he backed off.  ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html )



Lastdirewolf said:


> TARP was too little too late, wasn't it - I dunno how long he was debating on it, but don't you think those were things he should've much earlier, when signs were pointing to a problem years earlier? Rather than as a reaction to how shitty it got at the end of his final term? TARP was aimed more at trying to handle the sub-prime mortgage crisis, a bank bailout. ARRA, under Obama, was to create jobs and provide transparency, accoutability, etc. They are 2 large, but different beasts - Though ARRA did include a couple billion towards banks as well, and there were other cash-for-cars programs. TARP did little to promote the economy or stimulate job growth - I do see people attributing the auto bailout to Obama, it was signed in 3 months before Obama took presidency.
> 
> I don't see what economic bills were passed under Bush when it counted, since he passed TARP in the last 3 months of his presidency, and TARP was aimed only as a bank bailout, not an economic recovery as a whole - It was just to stop shit from getting worse, since he failed to pass something preventative during the first 7 years.



Bush was late, which I agree on, , but he was warning peiople about a housing crisis  as early as 2003, and tried making an agency to oversee freedie and fannie, ( http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html ), but was blocked by democrats because they said it would keep poor people and minorities from home ownership. When it came to TARP and other things, those were just responding to things resulting from the housing crisis, which really wasnt bushes fault.

http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/  has pretty much the whle thing, going back to the clinton years. Had bush actually passed a law or something, the democrats would have said "Oh bush and the republicans are evil! republicans want to keep poor people from homeownership!" and you know that would have been the case, even if bush was right.




Lastdirewolf said:


> I guess you can say the 2008 recession ended in 2009, but it was the cause of the 2009-until-now recession that we're still recovering from. So it's a little semantic to say it ended, since it largely caused a second recession immediately after it "ended". The jobless rate continued to grow until 2010, and it rarely leveled out. 700 billion towards the banks isn't "heavy lifting", because it didn't stimulate the economy or grow where we needed it to - Like I said before, it merely helped halt things from getting too out of hand under the same guy who did nothing to stop it earlier. Good job, Bush did nothing to stop it from happening, but when it finally came to his attention years after it was an obvious problem, he did something to slow one portion of the recession that he did little to prevent.
> 
> You don't give credit to a police officer who witnessed a house burglary on duty; when it was his responsbility to stop it, and he had the power to do so, but he didn't until the robbers had their van almost completely full, and _then_ stepped in to stop it. Sure, if you look at the big picture, he did in fact stop it...eventually. Though if you look at the details, that officer could've stepped in at annnny time during the robbery, and not wait until damn near the end to do something. That is why I give him so little credit, and that's why he deserves so little credit.



Technically the  recession ended in 2009. We have had slow growth since then, but not really a recession. Yes the jobless rate kept going up, even after the stimulus. The aim of bush was not to get the economy growing, it was to keep it from collapsing, so in that respect it was successful. bush kept the economy from collapsing, Obama tried to make it grow but failed  for the most part. If bush *had* tried to stop it from happening democrats woudl ahve attacked him as keeping the poor and minorities from homeownership, and if nothing had happened, that wouldnt have changed the accusations.

Bush did see the economic riris coming, and wated to prevent it, but the "republicans are racist and hate the poor!" crap got in the way and stoped them from regulating freddie mae and fannie mac, which bush wanted to do. Bush may not derve as much credit as i give him, but obama doesnt really deserve much either. It is in large part because the president has no real control over the economy at all.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 6, 2012)

Wee, I cant vote.

Well, hopefully Ill ask for an absentee ballot in 4 more years.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2012)

We're already getting in our first rigged voting machines.
[YT]QdpGd74DrBM[/YT]
I guess the people saying the voting machines are rigged weren't crazy afterall.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 6, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> We're already getting in our first rigged voting machines.
> [YT]QdpGd74DrBM[/YT]
> I guess the people saying the voting machines are rigged weren't crazy afterall.



Rigged is kind of a stretch until we get more evidence that there was organized vote rigging.
A glitch seems more applicable


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Rigged is kind of a stretch until we get more evidence that there was organized vote rigging.
> A glitch seems more applicable


Nope, so far the voting machines having problems only do this whenever you select Obama.  If you select a third party candidate or any other candidate for lesser political positions it works fine.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Nov 6, 2012)

I wonder if the number of street signs and bumper stickers is any indication of how the election will go. If that's the case, Obama's gonna get crushed in Virginia, the amount of Romney signs is just insane (though the number of signs is still a lot less than I remember in previous elections which is kind of odd)

There's this one crazy mofo who has a GIGANTIC banner in his yard, I'm talking 20 feet wide that says "Romney blah blah blah, vote Nobama" or something along those lines, along with about 8 other signs.
My theory is that Republicans in general are just more opinionated and prone to shoving their opinions in your face, and Democrats are more reserved and private about their opinions. (there are of course exceptions lol)


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 6, 2012)

Commie Bat said:


> That would be; achieving energy independence regardless of environmental impact, and human suffering.



I think you mean... increasing profits for gas and oil companies regardless of environmental impact, and human suffering while claiming it would get us to energy independence, which it won't.

The USA uses 25% of the energy extracted worldwide.  We are not going to drill or mine our way to energy independence.  Romney is flat out lying when he says more drilling can make us energy independent   What is he going to do, forbid US oil companies from selling oil to other countries?  Oil is a global market.  Sold to the highest bidder.  And those big Texas oil companies will be just as happy to sell all our oil to China if they pay enough for it.

Yeah, a complete myth.  Fox News says that over and over, so it MUST be true.  Thanks for reminding me. :V


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 6, 2012)

If Romney wins i will "facepalm" Then lose all hope for MERICA


----------



## Toshabi (Nov 6, 2012)

Ryuu said:


> If Romney wins i will "facepalm" Then lose all hope for MERICA




If I had a dollar for every time someone on any political side said this about the other candidate, I'd probably be able to pay off the rest of my college tuition.


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 6, 2012)

Bronco Bamma better win this, America.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 6, 2012)

I sincerely hope I don't wake up in the morning with a Mormon and a Randroid as our top officials tomorrow.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 6, 2012)

Holy shit, this is so fucking amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72YG2DhWHmE

If only elections were decided by this.


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 6, 2012)

Toshabi said:


> If I had a dollar for every time someone on any political side said this about the other candidate, I'd probably be able to pay off the rest of my college tuition.



Im an independent.


----------



## Bipolar Bear (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm not in the U.S, so I don't really have a say in the matter. But if I had to choose, I'd choose Obama.


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 6, 2012)

Bipolar Bear said:


> I'm not in the U.S, so I don't really have a say in the matter. But if I had to choose, I'd choose Obama.



i like Obama, but here in Colorado i went for Amend. 64. Have to show my support


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 6, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrthOPLAKM

By the way, any unofficial results for now? Who's winning?


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 6, 2012)

Obama has 123 Romney 152 .


----------



## Aetius (Nov 6, 2012)

Mayonnaise said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjrthOPLAKM
> 
> By the way, any unofficial results for now? Who's winning?



So far "Too close to call"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032553...on-news-political-issues-events/#.UJnHasXA9WL


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 6, 2012)

[REDACTED]


----------



## Bir (Nov 6, 2012)

I vote for these things:

If I'm raped, I don't want Romney to say I'm lying. 
If me or my family were to accidentally get an officer of the law killed, I don't believe that accidents deserve the death penalty.
If Romney wins, I won't be able to afford to drive to work because at the end of each month, I have no money saved up, except for maybe two dollars, literally. I can't afford his rule.
If Obama wins, I can finally have my health problems looked at, because I will be able to be part of his medical care program. Without him, I will forever continue to wonder what the hell is wrong with me. I have been denied emergency service at the hospital because I can't afford insurance.
I believe the President of tomorrow should work to unite the nation, to encourage it's growth into diverse races.
If Obama wins, perhaps my sisters will finally get some tutors at school and actually have a chance to be smart and make something of themselves. If Romney wins, they will be nothing to him or the country because he won't let them be. Without money, you're useless to him.
I voted for Gay rights. I want to see gay marriages, I want to see adopted children, I want to see their battle of acceptance nationwide begin and flourish. 
I want to see money being invested into the country, not China. I think a president that is willing to invest into their own country has some major balls.
I want to see my father be able to afford his medication, so that he can breath.
I want to see my mother be able to get  leg surgery so that she can finally get back to work.


I want Obama to win, because he's all I have faith in right now. He's my only hope. I trust him.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 6, 2012)

Because of the Electoral College it's pretty pointless to look at the numbers.   Polls close at 8PM local times, so right now only the east coast has a decent percentage of returns, with the middle still tabulating and the west coast not even reporting results yet.

But so far it's all going pretty much as predicted by 538 with the exception of Virginia which is going for Romney.  538 predicted an Obama win, so it's looking likely so far.  Hes winning all the stats predicted except for Va so far.  Florida is way too close to call and will be until the very end.  If ROmney wins FL, it will be because of Rick Scott reducing voting hours and leaving people in line as polls close and unable to vote and other voter suppression tactics.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 6, 2012)

It keeps swinging back and forth.

Both sites I've eyeballed show Romney with a slight actual vote lead, but Electoral votes swing back and forth. For a while Romney had a decent lead, now Obama has a small lead.


----------



## Bliss (Nov 6, 2012)

If Obama gets Florida (currently 50-49 in his favour, 87 per cent counted), apparently that would pretty much settle it.


----------



## Bantamu (Nov 6, 2012)

Romney.
Because I'm a republican and his plans wont negatively affect me as much as obama's.
Purely because of my lifestyle/living conditions and what-not


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 6, 2012)

Anybody know when we should know the results for the election?  Or when Ohio's results at least should be in?


----------



## Aetius (Nov 6, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Anybody know when we should know the results for the election?  Or when Ohio's results at least should be in?



Obeezy won.


----------



## zachhart12 (Nov 6, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Obeezy won.



Yus!!!!!!!


----------



## Bliss (Nov 6, 2012)

Obama-daitÅryÅ:

banzai! 

Banzai! 

Banzai!


----------



## Mayonnaise (Nov 6, 2012)

For reals?


----------



## Percy (Nov 6, 2012)

I am a happy kitty now.


----------



## Ranguvar (Nov 6, 2012)

I voted Romney. Jimmies Status: Rustled


----------



## Rheumatism (Nov 6, 2012)

Damn gif.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 6, 2012)

Having voted for Johnson I'm about as disappointed in America this round as I was last round. Not even 2% voted a third party candidate... what the hell...


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2012)

Sorry, seeing this from an outsiders view, I'm amazed anyone voted for Romney. Is that really a thing anyone wants?

He prances around the world offending every country he visits for starters, then pretty much everything about the Republican party is completely fucking mental. Sure the Democrats may not be the best, but at least they're not complete frothing lunatics. Fox news supports them. That should be all you need to know to back someone else.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 7, 2012)

Smelge said:


> Sorry, seeing this from an outsiders view, I'm amazed anyone voted for Romney. Is that really a thing anyone wants?



Its funny considering how he is currently leading the popular vote (By a thin margin).


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 7, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Having voted for Johnson I'm about as disappointed in America this round as I was last round. Not even 2% voted a third party candidate... what the hell...



Kinda my same reaction since i voted for him too.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

I was *really* holding out for 5% but very few states even cracked 2%. I don't understand it, the two main candidates are ridiculously bad.


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2012)

At least theres a reduced chance of the entire rest of the world getting either invaded, nuked or in some other way completely fucked because one nation can't keep it's hands off everyone else. Hell, living in a small oil-rich country, it's surprising we haven't been invaded yet by America.

I keep hearing Americans whine on about how it's the business of nobody but Americans who they vote for, but the day that America stops affecting the rest of the world will be the day we stop rooting for the candidate least likely to cause a global clusterfuck.


More to the fucking point, why the hell would you vote for a party that says "Hey, if we tax the rich less, it'll create more jobs for everyone!". What kind of complete moron thinks that'll mean anything other than "rich people keep even more of their money while the poor keep less of theirs".


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

Smelge said:


> At least theres a reduced chance of the entire rest of the world getting either invaded, nuked or in some other way completely fucked because one nation can't keep it's hands off everyone else. Hell, living in a small oil-rich country, it's surprising we haven't been invaded yet by America.
> 
> I keep hearing Americans whine on about how it's the business of nobody but Americans who they vote for, but the day that America stops affecting the rest of the world will be the day we stop rooting for the candidate least likely to cause a global clusterfuck.



Libya and Yemen say hi


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

OH snap, there's a chance Obama is going to get Florida as well.


----------



## OfficerBadger (Nov 7, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Kinda my same reaction since i voted for him too.



Ditto.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 7, 2012)

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000127700&play=1


----------



## Aetius (Nov 7, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000127700&play=1



Now that is being a poor sport.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000127700&play=1


Considering Obama is probably going to win florida it won't matter.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Nov 7, 2012)

Obama won.  Yay.


That is all.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 7, 2012)

I think this should be looked at. I am not sure if it is binding.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 7, 2012)

NOw back to our regular scheduled programs. With no fucking political ads!


----------



## Smelge (Nov 7, 2012)

Wait, so if Obama won, does this mean that women who have been raped can now get pregnant again?

DAMN YOU OBAMA


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 7, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> There were [Chilean and Argentinian] death squads, but did they kill because they were socialists, but because the dictator beleived they were a threat to his power.



Dude, *all* dictators kill because they believe the people they are killing are a threat to their power. *No-one* kills people "just because they are socialists".



CodArk2 said:


> Chile also wasn't a democracy.



You're dodging the subject - we're not talking democracy vs dictatorships, we're talking socialism vs. capitalism. You seem to want to smear socialist dictators as purely a product of socialism, while giving capitalist dictators a free pass as not being a product of capitalism. 

Contrary to what you think, socialism and democracy are NOT mutually exclusive, and neither are capitalism and totalitarian dictatorship. Any claim otherwise is simply a reversion to mindless Cold War-era "COMMUNISM IZ BAD! CAPITALISM IZ GOOD!" bleating. Newsflash: the Cold War ended over twenty years ago.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 7, 2012)

Well, Romney conceded not long ago, so Obama's in for another four years... and the rest of the world can breathe a little easier.

But once again, the marvels of the modern media are showing to the world the utter shambles that passes for the US voting process...



> Its election day in America - and as usual we are seeing pictures of long queues to vote. Early voters in Florida were forced to wait for seven hours to exercise their democratic rights. In other places, the wait is a mere four hours. And as this account makes clear, polling stations are understaffed, have broken and run-down equipment, and have no requirement for disabled access.
> 
> This is not the way democracy works in civilised countries. *You don't have to queue to vote in New Zealand. You don't have to work out for yourself where the ballot box is in Germany. You don't have to rely on the kindness of strangers to access the polling place to cast your vote if you're disabled in Australia. *These are all signs that America's democracy - the one it prides itself on labelling "the greatest in the world" - is fundamentally broken and run-down.
> [...]
> *Neither do you see outright voter suppression, or robocalls trying to scare people away from the polls or telling them about "telephone voting" to convince them they have already voted. America is alone in the civilised world in this. *As for reports of voting machines flipping votes from one candidate to another, or politicians ordering secret, last-minute updates to the software, they [Mayfurr: with apologies to CommieBat] belong in Russia, not in a democracy. (emphasis added)


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 7, 2012)

So Berry won.

Also, the senate will stay a Democrat majority.
Sadly, the house looks like it will stay a GOP majority. Does anyone want to bet that the next four years will be stagnation in Congress as the GOP blocks EVERYTHING vaguely center of right to make Democrats look bad?

Also, the two Republicans who made the rape remarks, Akin and Mourdock, lost their races. You could say they got.... *sunglasses*... raped in the election.....

Elsewhere in the nation, the first gay senator was elected in Wisconsin, Colorado looks like it legalized marijuana, and the ban on gay marriage in Minnesota looks like it may very narrowly lose. It's looking to be a good night.


Statewide just about everything I voted for/against went my way. The tea party proposals were defeated. So were the union proposals but I don't mind. The representatives I voted for won. The city proposal to all but decriminalize pot passed by over 70% (we're a college town of hippies, duh).
All I'm waiting for is to see if the liberal supreme court justices I voted for win or not, but it looks like conservative justices may win this one.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

^All in all it was a good night.  Could have been better, could have been worse, but I'm just glad it went alright.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

You guys have very low standards for success.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> You guys have very low standards for success.


I take it you voted for romney and you're upset?


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I take it you voted for romney and you're upset?





> Having voted for Johnson I'm about as disappointed in America this round as I was last round. Not even 2% voted a third party candidate... what the hell...



And low standards of reading comprehension.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I take it you voted for romney and you're upset?


Maybe it was a "better of two evils" cheapshot?


Regardless until a voting system besides first past the post is used the 3rd party will always be a damaging choice as it increases the odds of whoever you disagree with most being elected.

It is a sad and broken system


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

When both mainstream parties perpetuate war, debt, and cringingly bad social policies, is there really a lesser evil?

At what point do the two candidates become too indistinguishable?

There is no lesser evil. Obama could have said he would legalize pot and gay marriage tomorrow and I still wouldn't have voted for him, because I'd know my vote would go towards continued massacres abroad.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> When both mainstream parties perpetuate war, debt, and cringingly bad social policies, is there really a lesser evil?
> 
> At what point do the two candidates become too indistinguishable?
> 
> There is no lesser evil. Obama could have said he would legalize pot and gay marriage tomorrow and I still wouldn't have voted for him, because I'd know my vote would go towards continued massacres abroad.


Not really my point, may as well be lazy and use links instead of thinking at 2 am.

Simply compare:
[yt]s7tWHJfhiyo[/yt]
and
[yt]3Y3jE3B8HsE[/yt]


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 7, 2012)

Semi-related, can anybody confirm this for me? 

I heard that Puerto Rico was voting on statehood again. However this time, they might actually pass it. :O


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

The spoiler effect, or as I call it the Ross Perot effect, only works if there is a worse option. That is, if the two main candidates share some sort of significant difference where one is notably worse than the other.

From my perspective, a person who place fiscal responsibility and military downsizing at the top of the list, there was no lesser evil. I would be equally displeased with Romney as president than Obama. If both candidates aren't going to represent at least one of the issues most important to me then I cannot vote for them, I'm simply outside the demographic. The third party candidates are my only option at that point, and it's not a "spoiler" since otherwise I wouldn't have voted at all.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> The spoiler effect, or as I call it the Ross Perot effect, only works if there is a worse option. That is, if the two main candidates share some sort of significant difference where one is notably worse than the other.
> 
> From my perspective, a person who place fiscal responsibility and military downsizing at the top of the list, there was no lesser evil. I would be equally displeased with Romney as president than Obama. If both candidates aren't going to represent at least one of the issues most important to me then I cannot vote for them, I'm simply outside the demographic. The third party candidates are my only option at that point, and it's not a "spoiler" since otherwise I wouldn't have voted at all.



 Without an alternative vote system most others seem to be unwilling too risk voting for a 3rd party. In the end the result is the same, the party you favor cannot be feasibly elected. 

Personally I just know Obama will be less likely to piss off the rest of the world by shouting "USA USA" at everyone while trampling on women's rights. Thats the only reason I rather Obama, but thats like saying I'd rather Hurpies then HIV.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

You have to set a line you won't cross when dealing with elected officials. After a certain line, they're just not feasible. As I said, Obama could have taken a lot of fringe issues and made them hard stances during his campaign and it wouldn't matter. Yeah, pot legalization and specific women's rights and all that is great, but when you're still murdering people abroad and enacting things like the NDAA, it's trifling to say the least. My options were 3rd party or none at all, and I do hope more people start doing this. Maybe if the Libertarians get enough of a turnout the major political parties will start pandering to us for a change.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> You have to set a line you won't cross when dealing with elected officials. After a certain line, they're just not feasible. As I said, Obama could have taken a lot of fringe issues and made them hard stances during his campaign and it wouldn't matter. Yeah, pot legalization and specific women's rights and all that is great, but when you're still murdering people abroad and enacting things like the NDAA, it's trifling to say the least. My options were 3rd party or none at all, and I do hope more people start doing this. Maybe if the Libertarians get enough of a turnout the major political parties will start pandering to us for a change.



That still does not adress the fact the very election system itself is broken so far that in actual functionality anyone else but the big two are not options that can gain any results anymore.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

Maybe, but I can't change that. I can however go on for the next 4 years without blood on my hands.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Maybe, but I can't change that. I can however go on for the next 4 years without blood on my hands.


Still gotta pay taxes, buy appliances and, use gas and power. These days if you live, you have supported someone's war sadly. Honestly I still feel if one is not seeking solutions themselves, they are just as bloody-handed as anyone simply supporting the system.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

There's a difference between voluntary and involuntary support. I'm at least actively trying to change what's going on and refuse to surrender my vote for a few trifling differences in rhetoric.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> There's a difference between voluntary and involuntary support. I'm at least actively trying to change what's going on and refuse to surrender my vote for a few trifling differences in rhetoric.


 I will give you that much.


 I  can suggest that sometime soon when things will get more... rocky on a national(likely also multinational) level (give it a decade or two) maybe a chance for severe reform could pop up.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 7, 2012)

Most republicans I know are having reactions pretty much like this to the Obama win.... I am callously, and shamelessly amused.
[yt]YersIyzsOpc#t=16s[/yt]


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

Fernin said:


> Most republicans I know are having reactions pretty much like this to the Obama win.... I am callously, and shamelessly amused.
> *vid*


I was wondering why someone was screaming profanities earlier.


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 7, 2012)

Fernin said:


> Most republicans I know are having reactions pretty much like this to the Obama win.... I am callously, and shamelessly amused.
> [yt]YersIyzsOpc#t=16s[/yt]



You wish. Most republicans are disappointed in the result, but not turing into screaming lunatics.  Most are actually a bit relieved, because the election is over, and Obama can never run again. The more accurate video would be more disbelief and shaking heads, but not screaming.


----------



## Dragonfurry (Nov 7, 2012)

CodArk2 said:


> You wish. Most republicans are disappointed in the result, but not turing into screaming lunatics.  Most are actually a bit relieved, because the election is over, and Obama can never run again. The more accurate video would be more disbelief and shaking heads, but not screaming.



Its just a joke jeez you didnt have to pick it apart. >.>


----------



## Lobar (Nov 7, 2012)

This election is an unmitigated disaster for the Republicans.  Not only did Obama win, he did it decisively and is likely going to clear the 50% popular vote hurdle.  Dems are also probably looking at actually _picking up_ seats in both the Senate and the House (at absolute minimum, they won't be losing any).  Voters also ran the table for gay marriage ballot measures.  The only thing Repubs have to celebrate is that it looks like Dean Heller held on to his Senate seat by a hair.

Republicans are desperate right now because the economy is improving and they are without any means of taking credit for it or denying it to the Democrats.  The control the Tea Party has taken within the GOP is going to prevent them from making any credible bipartisan gestures as the numbers for the Christmas season come out in coming months.  These next few years pose a serious danger to Republicans' image as the economy party.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

I would celebrate the demise of the Republican neocons but that would inherently acknowledge the Democrat neocons as a preferable alternative.

I only hope this severe beating causes the Republican party to go back to their roots and start upholding genuine conservative values. At least then they'd be campaigning on principle.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

Lobar said:


> This election is an unmitigated disaster for the Republicans.  Not only did Obama win, he did it decisively and is likely going to clear the 50% popular vote hurdle.  Dems are also probably looking at actually _picking up_ seats in both the Senate and the House (at absolute minimum, they won't be losing any).  Voters also ran the table for gay marriage ballot measures.  The only thing Repubs have to celebrate is that it looks like Dean Heller held on to his Senate seat by a hair.
> 
> Republicans are desperate right now because the economy is improving and they are without any means of taking credit for it or denying it to the Democrats.  The control the Tea Party has taken within the GOP is going to prevent them from making any credible bipartisan gestures as the numbers for the Christmas season come out in coming months.  These next few years pose a serious danger to Republicans' image as the economy party.


It's going to be funny to try and watch them hold onto the house in 2014.


----------



## Fernin (Nov 7, 2012)

Dragonfurry said:


> Its just a joke jeez you didnt have to pick it apart. >.>



Actually I was only half joking. Around 30 or so people on one of the politcal forums I frequent have posted videos on youtube of them doing everything from screaming in rage to one of them putting a picture of obama he printed out on his shed and shooting it with a shotgun several times. Funny all around frankly. X3


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

I think there's one thing we are all grateful for regardless of political ideology, at least the election is done quickly and that there's probably not going to be any weeklong recounts.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 7, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I think there's one thing we are all grateful for regardless of political ideology, at least the election is done quickly and that there's probably not going to be any weeklong recounts.



They may recount Florida anyways but the election won't hinge on it.


----------



## CaptainCool (Nov 7, 2012)

I am glad that Mitt lost so decisively. Really really fucking glad.
But I am still concerned that so many people thought voting for Romney is a good idea :T This really shows that if you pump enough money into a campaign you can make people vote for an obvious liar.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 7, 2012)

So I woke up this morning after having a dream about Obama visiting my school/work/whatever it was, and later we had a beer together. Also I caught him snorting coke in the bathroom.

Thank god this shit is over now, I can get back to dreaming about more fun things.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

Lobar said:


> They may recount Florida anyways but the election won't hinge on it.


I hope Florida gets the message that the election is over and that with 99% of the votes counted and clearly more votes are leaning towards Obama that they don't have to recount.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm wondering what shit storm is soon to follow, now that they don't have to keep things looking dandy for the vote.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 7, 2012)

Fernin said:


> Most republicans I know are having reactions pretty much like this to the Obama win.... I am callously, and shamelessly amused.
> [yt]YersIyzsOpc#t=16s[/yt]



My neighbours were certainly doing that. :/


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 7, 2012)

CaptainCool said:


> I am glad that Mitt lost so decisively. Really really fucking glad.
> But I am still concerned that so many people thought voting for Romney is a good idea :T This really shows that if you pump enough money into a campaign you can make people vote for an obvious liar.



I know, right? I mean jeez, just look how many votes Obama got! That guy lied about everything.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2012)

Honestly. The US election was only last night and the BBC is already speculating on America's next act of aggression, what they're going to do to force Iran to abandon their nuclear programme.

Oh well, four more years.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 7, 2012)

The two party system is horribly broken, yeah.  It's come down to a choice between bad and terrible.  Now, I'm glad Obama won, but with the Democrats and Republicans conspiring to keep any third party from getting on the ballot, getting money or getting in on any debates, it's always a choice between one or the other.

I live in California and in recent years for local elections we have this thing called Ranked Choice Voting which lets you vote for several people at once.  You can actually vote for a third party and NOT throw your vote away because your 2nd choice gets used if your third party candidate gets knocked out.  It's not perfect, but we elect a LOT of independents now.  Both Republicans and Democrats fought the new system, dragging teh heels and filing lawsuit after lawsuit but now that it's hear it's working great.  The best thing is since independent centrists has a GOOD chance of winning, both the left and the right are forced to move closer to the center to compete.  It's awesome.


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> I live in California and in recent years for local elections we have this thing called Ranked Choice Voting which lets you vote for several people at once. You can actually vote for a third party and NOT throw your vote away because your 2nd choice gets used if your third party candidate gets knocked out.



The UK had a vote for a system like that. The propaganda against it from the major parties was incredible, which sadly the masses totally bought into and it failed to pass.

Compare the yes advert to the no advert. Which one do you think got the most funding? The No campaign utterly disgusted me with just how much BS is in it, it's absolutely incredible people believed it.

Politics really does make you develop a disdain for the population as a whole.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

ADF said:


> Honestly. The US election was only last night and the BBC is already speculating on America's next act of aggression, what they're going to do to force Iran to abandon their nuclear programme.
> 
> Oh well, four more years.


My money is on Mali.  Easy target and going, "derm taliban live thar" would be easy enough of a reason politically to justify attacking.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 7, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> The two party system is horribly broken, yeah.  It's come down to a choice between bad and terrible.  Now, I'm glad Obama won, but with the Democrats and Republicans conspiring to keep any third party from getting on the ballot, getting money or getting in on any debates, it's always a choice between one or the other.
> 
> I live in California and in recent years for local elections we have this thing called Ranked Choice Voting which lets you vote for several people at once.  You can actually vote for a third party and NOT throw your vote away because your 2nd choice gets used if your third party candidate gets knocked out.  It's not perfect, but we elect a LOT of independents now.  Both Republicans and Democrats fought the new system, dragging teh heels and filing lawsuit after lawsuit but now that it's hear it's working great.  The best thing is since independent centrists has a GOOD chance of winning, both the left and the right are forced to move closer to the center to compete.  It's awesome.



It sounds awesome. I am surprised that there were no independent candidates on my ballot this election.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 7, 2012)

But will Puerto Rico become the 51st state?


----------



## Digitalpotato (Nov 7, 2012)

YES!  

I sincerely hope the GOP doesn't just try to vote "no" to spite Obama. GOP, you're getting potential voters. Don't throw them away telling them "lol no u don't cuz we hate Obama and don't want him to sign this." Great way to make them spite-vote Democrat!


----------



## Gryphoneer (Nov 7, 2012)

In related news, Salt Lake City has revoked the entire Romney clan's admittance to Mormon heaven as punishment for their failure.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 7, 2012)

Gryphoneer said:


> In related news, Salt Lake City has revoked the entire Romney clan's admittance to Mormon heaven as punishment for their failure.



How do they do that?  Change the secret handshake to get into heaven and not tell Mitt?


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 7, 2012)

ADF said:


> Honestly. The US election was only last night and the BBC is already speculating on America's next act of aggression, what they're going to do to force Iran to abandon their nuclear programme.
> 
> Oh well, four more years.


What about Israel chewing on its leash? They're just as much of a problem for the region und da vorld. Radical Islamists aren't the only type of loonie in the Middle East.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Nov 7, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> How do they do that?  Change the secret handshake to get into heaven and not tell Mitt?



Pretty obvious it's by dance:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46PXaJxzuDE

Keep it classy Ole Miss:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG3u8rOFNr4


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 7, 2012)

Aetius said:


> But will Puerto Rico become the 51st state?


We'll have to come up with another arrangement for the stars though. That'd be a bitch. :V


----------



## Percy (Nov 7, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> We'll have to come up with another arrangement for the stars though. That'd be a bitch. :V



There's already a theoretical flag with 51 stars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/51st_state
It's on there.
V Aside)


----------



## Ikrit (Nov 7, 2012)

the first website i visited this morning was /pol/


----------



## ADF (Nov 7, 2012)

Kit H. Ruppell said:


> What about Israel chewing on its leash? They're just as much of a problem for the region und da vorld. Radical Islamists aren't the only type of loonie in the Middle East.



The lack of a mention of Israel doesn't mean I condone the loonies over there and their West endorsed invasion of Palestine (oh dear I criticised Israel, I must be an anti-semite!) 

Basically there is a big club and Iran isn't in it. It's ok for friends of the empire of the day to develop nuclear technology, but anyone who isn't is clearly up to no good.

It's basically a repeat of the Iraq invasion. We have no proof the technology they're developing will be used for WMDs, but America is itching to preemptively invade "just in case". Of course Iran has friends, so going ahead with that could kick off something much bigger. Why not? Some economists genuinely believe WW2 got America out of the depression, why not WW3 stimulus to kick start the economy?


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 7, 2012)

They showed a shot of Romney's Boston headquarters after he lost... so many stoney faces. One woman was crying hard.
I guess it makes me a horrible person that I enjoyed their pain. Those tears. So delicious.

Perhaps Mr Burns shouldn't have endorsed Romney.

In other news, it looks like gay marriage is now legal in 3 new states and a ban on gay marriage narrowly was defeated... I wish it hadn't been such a narrow defeat but what can you do.


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 7, 2012)

Glad Obama won and all, but its time to solve this nations issues, and pass a legal marijuana law. Then all will be fine


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Nov 7, 2012)

Ryuu said:


> Glad Obama won and all, but its time to solve this nations issues, and pass a legal marijuana law. Then all will be fine



I'm fighting for the right to have people marry that shit, with all the bitching you hear you about it.


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 7, 2012)

Butterflygoddess said:


> I'm fighting for the right to have people marry that shit, with all the bitching you hear you about it.



hahaha


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 7, 2012)

Somewhere about 99% of Florida has reported in and it's going to Obama.  Even though the election is over having Romney lose by somewhere around 130 electoral votes has got to burn.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 8, 2012)

ADF said:


> It's basically a repeat of the Iraq invasion. We have no proof the technology they're developing will be used for WMDs, but America is itching to preemptively invade "just in case". Of course Iran has friends, so going ahead with that could kick off something much bigger. Why not? *Some economists genuinely believe WW2 got America out of the depression, why not WW3 stimulus to kick start the economy*?



With that kind of logic, the Iraq war should have been pretty much a cost-recovery exercise at worst instead of the bottomless money pit it actually was.

How can you tell when an economist is making stuff up? Their lips are moving.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 8, 2012)

http://youtu.be/VwQCUnFSj4s

The tears, they sustain me! My black heart is filled!


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 8, 2012)

Springfield! I just moved from KC!! hahhaaha


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 8, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> With that kind of logic, the Iraq war should have been pretty much a cost-recovery exercise at worst instead of the bottomless money pit it actually was.
> 
> How can you tell when an economist is making stuff up? Their lips are moving.



F.A. Hayek says hi.

http://youtu.be/GTQnarzmTOc


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 8, 2012)

Ryuu said:


> Springfield! I just moved from KC!! hahhaaha


You missed the establishment of F3Con! Though ironically I probably can't attend due to my scheduling going tits-up. I'm not even in the city right now! (And actually missed out on voting due to it!)


----------



## Lobar (Nov 8, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> How can you tell when an *Austrian* is making stuff up? Their lips are moving.



Fixed that for you a bit.


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Fixed that for you a bit.



Keynesians aren't any better. A Keynesian response to the recent American hurricane damage? It's a good thing, because imagine all the jobs that will be created rebuilding after the disaster. All the economic activity in gathering raw materials, constructing desirable products, labour in putting the homes back together, the coffee and sandwiches those builders will consume from the local businesses, the cleaners, undertakers re-burying the dead etc.

America should have natural disasters more often, look at all the labour demand it created? Disasters are good for the economy, they create jobs.

-edit

Hey lets fake a war! We can build tanks, jets and ships; take them out to the middle of nowhere and blow them up. Then tell the public this none existent enemy killed our troops and we have to build more tanks, jets and ships to get back at them.

Imagine the jobs it would create!


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 8, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Fixed that for you a bit.



Now come on, not _all_ Austrians are economists 



ADF said:


> Keynesians aren't any better. A Keynesian response to the recent American hurricane damage? It's a good thing, because imagine all the jobs that will be created rebuilding after the disaster. All the economic activity in gathering raw materials, constructing desirable products, labour in putting the homes back together, the coffee and sandwiches those builders will consume from the local businesses, the cleaners, undertakers re-burying the dead etc.



We had the same kind of talk after both Christchurch earthquakes... needless to say, if it's working it's not exactly visible.
(Especially as on a per-capita basis, the earthquakes had a bigger damaging effect on NZ than Hurricane Katrina had on the US...)


----------



## ADF (Nov 8, 2012)

Mayfurr said:


> We had the same kind of talk after both Christchurch earthquakes... needless to say, if it's working it's not exactly visible.
> (Especially as on a per-capita basis, the earthquakes had a bigger damaging effect on NZ than Hurricane Katrina had on the US...)



The problem they tend to overlook when arguing building a bridge to nowhere or destroying just so you've got something to rebuild, is you're diverting resources that would have gone to things society actually wants. 

Sticking a brick through someone's window may mean they now have to hire someone to install a new one, to purchase the window from a manufacturer who got the raw materials from a supplier. But that person may have intended to spend that money on a new suit, or a day out. The unnecessary expense of replacing a damaged window is good for those in the business of windows, but it has taken money from the suit maker or the recreational centre that would have been recipients of that money. So the argued economic benefits of destruction is just growing one part of the economy at the expense of another.

Of course the typical governments reaction to this would be to hire an army of civil servants to go around smashing windows, because the windows repair business would decline without state aid and those jobs would be lost. Funded by placing additional taxes on the suit maker and recreational centre of course.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 8, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Fixed that for you a bit.



Hey Lobar, how's that central planning working out for you?


----------



## thoughtmaster (Nov 8, 2012)

It is a sad day for America. Does anyone have a one-way ticket to Cuba?


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 8, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> It is a sad day for America. Does anyone have a one-way ticket to Cuba?


I don't think you've thought this through.

Alternate punchline: be a terrorist.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2012)

Are you kidding me?  The 2016 campaign is already starting with a couple of people already announcing they want to run.  This is getting ridiculous, election has become the Christmas of politics annexing all other years on the calender and it is their manifest destiny to from the both ends of the 4 year term ending in a trail of tears for the 2014 senate and house elections and pushing them to reservations of political obscurity.


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 9, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> It is a sad day for America. Does anyone have a one-way ticket to Cuba?



Have you considered swimming to Cuba?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2012)

Ah shit.  For those of you saying the next war is going to be with Iran it looks like you may win that bet.  After firing at a drone they have been launching about 20 missiles at afghanistan the last few days.  I sure hope they don't have nukes yet or this is going to go badly, very badly.


----------



## BRN (Nov 9, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> They showed a shot of Romney's Boston headquarters after he lost... so many stoney faces. One woman was crying hard.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 9, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> They showed a shot of Romney's Boston headquarters after he lost... so many stoney faces. One woman was crying hard.
> I guess it makes me a horrible person that I enjoyed their pain. Those tears. So delicious.







The thing that kills me about this picture is apparently someone gave her their Obama hat to wipe the tears away.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 9, 2012)

thoughtmaster said:


> It is a sad day for America. Does anyone have a one-way ticket to Cuba?



Four states allowed gay marriage, three legalized marijuana, a religious nut was prevented from being president and enforcing his views on an entire country. 

Sad day indeed. Now time to haul ass to an island that is generally raped by hurricanes yearly and still under a communist ruler who wants to basically make it China Jr... Because that is so much better than a free nation.


...yeah...


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 9, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Four states allowed gay marriage, three legalized marijuana, a religious nut was prevented from being president and enforcing his views on an entire country.
> 
> Sad day indeed. Now time to haul ass to an island that is generally raped by hurricanes yearly and still under a communist ruler who wants to basically make it China Jr... Because that is so much better than a free nation.
> 
> ...




It's a gigantic step backwards.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 9, 2012)

So very, very delicious. The last three minutes almost cracked a tooth from their sweetness.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2012)

Attaman said:


> [YT]e4699sVXbBo[/YT] The last three minutes almost cracked a tooth from their sweetness.


The republicans tears are delicious.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 9, 2012)

Hmm still not entirely sure how Romney lost that badly seeing as how everything I read was saying that the race was going to be incredibly close. I saw Romney as the lesser of two evils in this situation but that really doesn't matter now. What we really need to worry about is the the economy. Do I think that Obama's policies can get it fixed? No, but I won't be wishing failure on him; quite the opposite actually because we can't afford to get any worse. All I really care about is that the economy get's better so here's hoping that the next four years will be much more successful than the last four, I'm extremely doubtful of this though. If things get worse though, I reserve the right to be a sarcastic asshole all I want.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 9, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> Ah shit.  For those of you saying the next war is going to be with Iran it looks like you may win that bet.  After firing at a drone they have been launching about 20 missiles at afghanistan the last few days.  I sure hope they don't have nukes yet or this is going to go badly, very badly.



"As long as the Arabs are fighting among themselves, opportunists like the Turks, the Saudis, and the Gulf states can alight on the corpse and feed to their hearts content. In the meantime, the Israelis can sit tight and wait for the propitious moment to go after Hezbollah, annex the West Bank, and fulfill the old Zionist dream of a Greater Israel. With the last of Iranâ€™s local alliles out of the way, the stage is set for the Big One: Iran.

Having facilitated the dominance of the Islamist militias, Washington pretends to be horrified by its own handiwork. To prevent this 'hijacking' weâ€™ll soon see a NATO-Arab League-sponsored expeditionary force, dubbed 'peacekeepers,' consisting mostly of Turkish janissaries and British and American spooks, ready to move in after their Islamist allies make short work of the Baâ€™athists. This will be done in the name of "protecting minorities," i.e. Alawites and Christians, who will eventually be driven out just like the Copts and others are being driven out of Egypt.

We are in for yet another 'humanitarian' intervention, with all the pious liberals who worship at the altar of Obama given a fresh opportunity to flex their 'national security' muscles. And because these dreary 'humanitarians' are so unimaginative, theyâ€™ll conjure, a la Libya, another Benghazi Moment â€“ a 'humanitarian disaster' so horrific that failure to intervene will amount to a Moral Crime. At which point the State Department matriarchs will get on their broomsticks and swing into action once again, accompanied by numerous 'progressive' party-lining pundits.

That the Obama cultâ€™s electoral triumph is scheduled to coincide with the revving up of the regime-change machine is hardly surprising: whatâ€™s a little bit shocking is that they hardly wasted any time doing it. Barely twenty-four hours had passed before Cameron issued his Syrian interdict, and the foreign policy wonk circuit was alight with signals the warlords of Washington and London are on the move.

I know of two Republican senatorial candidates who got their heads handed to them trivializing the subject of rape: however, when it comes to the rape of an entire country, Americaâ€™s liberals are mum." -Justin Raimondo


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 9, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Hmm still not entirely sure how Romney lost that badly seeing as how everything I read was saying that the race was going to be incredibly close. I saw Romney as the lesser of two evils in this situation but that really doesn't matter now. What we really need to worry about is the the economy. Do I think that Obama's policies can get it fixed? No, but I won't be wishing failure on him; quite the opposite actually because we can't afford to get any worse. All I really care about is that the economy get's better so here's hoping that the next four years will be much more successful than the last four, I'm extremely doubtful of this though. If things get worse though, I reserve the right to be a sarcastic asshole all I want.



Shrinking jobless numbers, shrinking defense spending, putting a little more tax burden on the rich & wealthy, weed being legalized in 2 states, and a bundle of other things are coming that renders a better economy. Seems to be a little better than what would've happened with Romney, the opposite in some cases v:


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 9, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Hmm still not entirely sure how Romney lost that badly seeing as how everything I read was saying that the race was going to be incredibly close.


It wasn't that close, really. Nate Silver was pretty spot-on with his analysis, Obama got the EVs and some to spare. The people saying it was really close was the media, because if they just said 'Well this guy is gonna win' they wouldn't get the viewers. Gotta market the elections for maximum profit!


----------



## Aetius (Nov 9, 2012)

BrodyCoyote said:


> The people saying it was really close was the media, because if they just said 'Well this guy is gonna win' they wouldn't get the viewers. Gotta market the elections for maximum profit!



More based on the facts that Obama was able to carry the "swing states" by fairly close margins.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 9, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Hmm still not entirely sure how Romney lost that badly seeing as how everything I read was saying that the race was going to be incredibly close. I saw Romney as the lesser of two evils in this situation but that really doesn't matter now. What we really need to worry about is the the economy. Do I think that Obama's policies can get it fixed? No, but I won't be wishing failure on him; quite the opposite actually because we can't afford to get any worse. All I really care about is that the economy get's better so here's hoping that the next four years will be much more successful than the last four, I'm extremely doubtful of this though. If things get worse though, I reserve the right to be a sarcastic asshole all I want.


Cause Romney alienated so many different types of voters that anybody that wasn't a white caucasian male thought he was nutty.  Romney is a prime example of why you don't alienate the general populace in order to win the primary.


----------



## ADF (Nov 9, 2012)

I know finances are not the subject of this thread. But when I see crap like this being done by governments, it becomes clear why our governments finances are a shambles...

Let's pay off a loan by using one part of the state (central bank) to lend the other part of the state (government) the money to repay it by having them buy our own bond/gilt. We'll then repay the original loan plus interest to the central bank so that the debt matter is settled. Of course the central bank is part of the state, so they can just give those interest payments right back to us.

Hey! Why not use the profit on the loan we made to ourselves to avoid having to issue ourselves more loans? We'll save billions in loans we would have had to loan ourselves, by instead using the profit on the loan we made to OH FORGET IT! >_<



> As of last March, the Bank held Â£24bn in cash received from government interest payments





> The interest income ultimately belongs to the government under the terms of an indemnity provided to the Bank





> This is likely to reduce the government's budget deficit by about Â£11bn a year, based on the Bank's current cost of borrowing


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 10, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Hmm still not entirely sure how Romney lost that badly seeing as how everything I read was saying that the race was going to be incredibly close. I saw Romney as the lesser of two evils in this situation but that really doesn't matter now. What we really need to worry about is the the economy. Do I think that Obama's policies can get it fixed? No, but I won't be wishing failure on him; quite the opposite actually because we can't afford to get any worse. All I really care about is that the economy get's better so here's hoping that the next four years will be much more successful than the last four, I'm extremely doubtful of this though. If things get worse though, I reserve the right to be a sarcastic asshole all I want.



He lost badly because the race was never as close as the media, and the Romney camp was pushing.  People like Nate were saying it was going to be a blowout, but nobody listened to them and instead tuned into Fox who were talking about Romney's upcoming landslide and how Nate Silverman and people like him were just crazy.  They drank their own Kool-Aid and were shocked when reality hit.

Not sure what the next four years will bring.  Four more years of Republican obstructionism.  Will they break their previous world record of 250 filibusters making sure nothing Obama wants gets passed?  Hold the economy hostage again to demand gifts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling instead of passing it like it's been done the last 50 times?   Will they double down and dig their heels in and drag things to a halt or cooperate and pass bills both can agree on and stop hurting our country?

They did not get elected to serve a party.  They were elected to serve the COUNTRY and that means if you don't have teh votes because the PEOPLE didn't give them to you, you can't throw tantrums and refuse to let anything pass.  No matter WHO is in power, there is always a minority side, and if Democrats pulled this crap the next time they are out of power then we can say good bye to ever getting anything done, ever.  This garbage needs to stop.  Democrats worked with Bush when he was in power, now it's the Republican's to swallow their hate and get to work.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 10, 2012)

I love the party warfare. Republicans are obstructionists! Democrats are socialists! Haha, who do you think funds both parties? Wall Street. It's like Cenk said on TYT, the Democrats talk a good game but when it comes time to implement it they always give in to the Republicans, because secretly they agree with their neocon viewpoints and it means more money for them. The dems are just better at running for office than the Republicans because they realize progressive views sell, even if they're never actually implemented.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 10, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Shrinking jobless numbers, shrinking defense spending, putting a little more tax burden on the rich & wealthy, weed being legalized in 2 states, and a bundle of other things are coming that renders a better economy. Seems to be a little better than what would've happened with Romney, the opposite in some cases v:



I hope that those shrinking job numbers aren't just from people stopping looking for work or just because of seasonal jobs opening up. The decrease in defense spending could be seen as a pro or a con, shrinking it could be a risk to national security because it does act to deter violence. I remember hearing about how even just having a few ships in an area can and has prevented the escalation of violence. Even though marijuana is going to be legalized in Colorado and Washington it is still be a federal offence; I do believe that since those two states did legalize it it may give rise to some interest debates and possible federal court cases regarding the laws. Whichever way it goes it's going to be interesting for sure...




BrodyCoyote said:


> It wasn't that close, really. Nate Silver was pretty spot-on with his analysis, Obama got the EVs and some to spare. The people saying it was really close was the media, because if they just said 'Well this guy is gonna win' they wouldn't get the viewers. Gotta market the elections for maximum profit!



The night before the election I was looking at the polls from the swing states and they were pretty close. It just doesn't make sense to me that, with those percents, he would get blown out of the water that badly you know?



DragonTalon said:


> He lost badly because the race was never as close as the media, and the Romney camp was pushing.  People like Nate were saying it was going to be a blowout, but nobody listened to them and instead tuned into Fox who were talking about Romney's upcoming landslide and how Nate Silverman and people like him were just crazy.  They drank their own Kool-Aid and were shocked when reality hit.
> 
> Not sure what the next four years will bring.  Four more years of Republican obstructionism.  Will they break their previous world record of 250 filibusters making sure nothing Obama wants gets passed?  Hold the economy hostage again to demand gifts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling instead of passing it like it's been done the last 50 times?   Will they double down and dig their heels in and drag things to a halt or cooperate and pass bills both can agree on and stop hurting our country?
> 
> They did not get elected to serve a party.  They were elected to serve the COUNTRY and that means if you don't have teh votes because the PEOPLE didn't give them to you, you can't throw tantrums and refuse to let anything pass.  No matter WHO is in power, there is always a minority side, and if Democrats pulled this crap the next time they are out of power then we can say good bye to ever getting anything done, ever.  This garbage needs to stop.  Democrats worked with Bush when he was in power, now it's the Republican's to swallow their hate and get to work.



TBH everyone in D.C needs to get their heads out of their asses. Democrats and Republicans both do this so you can't really blame it on a particular party but this type of shit is why I don't align myself with either of them...


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 10, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I hope that those shrinking job numbers aren't just from people stopping looking for work or just because of seasonal jobs opening up. The decrease in defense spending could be seen as a pro or a con, shrinking it could be a risk to national security because it does act to deter violence. I remember hearing about how even just having a few ships in an area can and has prevented the escalation of violence. Even though marijuana is going to be legalized in Colorado and Washington it is still be a federal offence; I do believe that since those two states did legalize it it may give rise to some interest debates and possible federal court cases regarding the laws. Whichever way it goes it's going to be interesting for sure...



Nope...They've been falling all year long. 

The decrease in defense spending is a pro for now, we're pulling out of the Middle-East for the most part, and we're cutting the fat, hopefully, on an already inflated defense budget. The one Romney wanted to triple.

It's a federal offense, but it's legal within the state.


----------



## Toshabi (Nov 10, 2012)

WTF THE LIBERTARIANS LOST AGAIN!? HOW THE FUCK DID THAT HAPPEN!?



/slowpoke


----------



## Gryphoneer (Nov 10, 2012)

Must've been the global socialist conspiracy! :V


----------



## Toshabi (Nov 10, 2012)

Don't worry guys! Gary Johnson locked in almost 1% of the vote! WE SURE SHOWED THEM! >:[


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 10, 2012)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Nope...They've been falling all year long.
> 
> The decrease in defense spending is a pro for now, we're pulling out of the Middle-East for the most part, and we're cutting the fat, hopefully, on an already inflated defense budget. The one Romney wanted to triple.
> 
> It's a federal offense, but it's legal within the state.





Lastdirewolf said:


> It's a federal offense, but it's legal within the state.



The fact remains were still at 7.9% unemployment and we have an incredible amount of people on welfare  Those things I've mentioned are something that has to be considered when looking at this. The other issue is, as I have said, debatable. Do I think in this day in age it's a good thing to be shrinking our military? No. Finally, that doesn't mean that you still can't be arrested for it. The Supremacy clause in the constitution basically states that when a federal law and a state law conflict the federal law supersedes it. The state can say you can go smoke marijuana all you want but if the DEA decides to do a raid, which they have done to dispensaries, you can and will be arrested.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 10, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> The other issue is, as I have said, debatable. Do I think in this day in age it's a good thing to be shrinking our military? No.


How else do you propose they balance the budget?


----------



## Spatel (Nov 10, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Hmm still not entirely sure how Romney lost that badly seeing as how everything I read was saying that the race was going to be incredibly close. I saw Romney as the lesser of two evils in this situation but that really doesn't matter now. What we really need to worry about is the the economy. Do I think that Obama's policies can get it fixed? No, but I won't be wishing failure on him; quite the opposite actually because we can't afford to get any worse. All I really care about is that the economy get's better so here's hoping that the next four years will be much more successful than the last four, I'm extremely doubtful of this though. If things get worse though, I reserve the right to be a sarcastic asshole all I want.



The media benefits from portraying elections as a horse-race. They portrayed it as much closer than it actually was. The state polls showed Obama ahead the entire time in Ohio, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, the swing states that he needed to win, and in the last couple weeks he pulled ahead in Virginia and Colorado. Romney was ahead in the national polls in October, and Republicans were counting on the national polls to be right and the state polls to be wrong.

The national polls only had Romney ahead because of Gallup and Rasmussen though, which historically overestimate Republican support. Ignoring those two, they had the same outcome as the state polls. Obama's victory relied on minority voters, because he lost the white vote by 10+ points. National pollsters often have a hard time accurately sampling black and latino voters. State pollsters have an easier time because states are more homogenous populations by themselves.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 10, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> The fact remains were still at 7.9% unemployment and we have an incredible amount of people on welfare  Those things I've mentioned are something that has to be considered when looking at this. The other issue is, as I have said, debatable. Do I think in this day in age it's a good thing to be shrinking our military? No. Finally, that doesn't mean that you still can't be arrested for it. The Supremacy clause in the constitution basically states that when a federal law and a state law conflict the federal law supersedes it. The state can say you can go smoke marijuana all you want but if the DEA decides to do a raid, which they have done to dispensaries, you can and will be arrested.



Yeah it is, but sometimes in cases like this, you do have to look at the big picture, which shows a mostly steady downwards trend. We have 4.1% of the total US population on welfare, and that doesn't even necessarily mean they're jobless either, so the numbers don't correlate. 

As for our military, we're spending significantly more than the next dozen countries combined. I think we can skate by if we started cutting out little chunks here and there - I'm not talking some massive 25, or 50% cut. Like 3, 5, 10% can open up tens if not hundreds of billions to much more necessary programmes. 

And yeah, you can be arrested for it, but does the DEA usually go storming legal dispensaries that are following the law exactly as it's ordered by the state with no illegal funny business on the side? I kinda doubt it.


----------



## Sai_Wolf (Nov 10, 2012)

In other election news, Obama has finally been declared winner of FL. 3 to 4 days after election night.

And Allen West still refuses to concede to Murphy, even though the ballots have all been counted.

He has filed injunctions and is demanding a recount, even though the difference between the two totals falls out of the .5% margin. (Murphy beat him by .7)

If you want extreme denial, look no further to Ex-Congressman West.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 10, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> How else do you propose they balance the budget?



Personally I believe cutting down on other programs would be a better alternative than shrinking the military. The budget doesn't need to increased as much as Romney suggested but should at the very least stay constant. Especially now considering what's going on with Iran and the middle east.



Lastdirewolf said:


> Yeah it is, but sometimes in cases like this, you do have to look at the big picture, which shows a mostly steady downwards trend. We have 4.1% of the total US population on welfare, and that doesn't even necessarily mean they're jobless either, so the numbers don't correlate.
> 
> And yeah, you can be arrested for it, but does the DEA usually go storming legal dispensaries that are following the law exactly as it's ordered by the state with no illegal funny business on the side? I kinda doubt it.



The unemployment rate has just recently gone under 8% after it was over that for 43 months. I'm just suggesting that I'd hold off on calling this definite progress quite yet.

They have the power to do it is all I'm saying, it's not going to be any different until there is change in the federal law. I'd imagine there's going to be many problems surrounding the federal law and who actually is going to want to sell marijuana due to fear of being prosecuted for a federal crime. It's not the like the dispensary situation were they have a "reason" to be buying the marijuana, it's simply for recreation. Only time will tell though I suppose.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 10, 2012)

> Personally I believe cutting down on other programs would be a better alternative than shrinking the military. The budget doesn't need to increased as much as Romney suggested but should at the very least stay constant. Especially now considering what's going on with Iran and the middle east.



*cracks his knuckles*

1: Iran is no threat to the United States. The U.S. and Israel have been gunning for this war since our actions in the middle east started and the propaganda against them is enormously overblown. They do not have and never were researching nuclear weaponry. We've had them under embargo for years and have their nation surrounded with well staffed military bases thanks to our escapades in the middle east. Plus, idk if you know this, but Russia isn't exactly fond of Iran since they're trying to manipulate deals with oil and gas pipelines. We have Mother Russia to take care of Iran in case they get uppity.

2: American military spending cracked $700 billion in 2012 ALONE. It's sickening how much of our money goes towards the military and it's embarrassing as a nation.

3: Lest we forget what amazing projects the military is spending this money on: The Bradley fighting vehicle, it was supposed to be a troop carrier but turned into a jack-of-all-trades does-nothing-well flop. A very expensive flop at that. The Abrams main battle tank: Easily the largest tank in the world, it costs several times as much as it's Russian counterpart, is much more difficult to operate, is far too large and heavy for its job, and is nowhere near effective enough to justify the cost. I did the math a while back and found you could have something like 7 Russian or German tanks (both of which are high quality and used all over the world) for the price of one A1. 3: The F-22, a jet fighter meant to fight enemies that don't exist, it costs hundreds of billions in research and to produce, and we STILL can't get them to operate properly. 4: The Osprey. It was meant to replace the MW2 famed Pave-Low, but it has far too many technical issues and there are even today reports of crashes due to malfunctions that, in any other piece of military machinery, would have been ironed out ages ago. All of these machines cost hundreds of billions of dollars EACH and are not sold to anyone else in the world, essentially forcing the government to eat the ridiculous costs the military contractors impose on them.

4: We have military bases in Japan, Germany, and many other locations all over the globe that are not only points of political contention but costing us a tremendous amount of money to keep operational. There is no reason to have these bases there. Japan isn't operating a military base in Utah. We don't have a German military base in Florida. We don't need a military base in Okinawa.

5: The size and unyielding presence of our military is the #1 reason our nation experiences violence from foreign powers. It's like we're perpetually clobbering the middle east with a big stick and then wonder why occasionally they try to take a swing at us. Cut our military down to size, bring our troops back within our boarders, and you'll see less resentment worldwide.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 10, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> The unemployment rate has just recently gone under 8% after it was over that for 43 months. I'm just suggesting that I'd hold off on calling this definite progress quite yet.
> 
> They have the power to do it is all I'm saying, it's not going to be any different until there is change in the federal law. I'd imagine there's going to be many problems surrounding the federal law and who actually is going to want to sell marijuana due to fear of being prosecuted for a federal crime. It's not the like the dispensary situation were they have a "reason" to be buying the marijuana, it's simply for recreation. Only time will tell though I suppose.



Yes it just got under 8%, not sure what the difference is. If you followed any of what I've said, you'd note that the unemployment rate has been steadily falling since its peak in late 2009, with the only a couple .1% ticks up. It's not falling fast enough, but the trend overall is downwards. That's progress. It's been brought back down to Bush-era-end level. 

Well if Washington or Colorado follow how California does it, then it's pretty simple. They're probably going to be more focused on cross-boarder illegal selling than the actual internal selling. Though if they follow the Dutch model (you have to register to each club/shop/etc. you want to buy from), then it could get interesting.


----------



## ADF (Nov 10, 2012)

The thing about any claims of green shoots, such as GDP growth or reduced unemployment, is we have to remember that the crisis measures are still in effect. Central bank interest rates are still less than 1%, they're still performing quantitative easing.

Any claims of a recovery have to be sustained without crisis measures, otherwise the crisis measures have to stay in effect to maintain the "recovery" and that is simply not possible. Never mind the damage effective zero percent interest rates are having, when the next crisis comes along (which the present environment welcomes) they're going to have nothing to combat it. What are they going to do? Cut interest rates? They're already practically zero. Print money? They've been doing that for years.

If another crisis situation comes along, we're buggered, because we've got nothing left. All the available measures are already in full throttle just to sustain the present situation.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I hope that those shrinking job numbers aren't just from people stopping looking for work or just because of seasonal jobs opening up.


The shrinking unemployment numbers have, unlike what Fox and company may be trying to claim, constant over the last several _months_, going back into '11 I believe.



Echo Wolf said:


> The decrease in defense spending could be seen as a pro or a con, shrinking it could be a risk to national security because it does act to deter violence.













We cannot afford to cut defense spending! :V We must cut entitlement funding!



Echo Wolf said:


> The night before the election I was looking at the polls from the swing states and they were pretty close.


 On which stations / venues? I ask this because, well, a number of talking heads, TV stations, and so-on were either trying to play up the election being closer than it was, or honestly believed that the electoral vote totals were going to be swapped and that Romney would easily win majority vote of the public.



Echo Wolf said:


> It just doesn't make sense to me that, with those percents, he would get blown out of the water that badly you know?


 Turns out villifying over 47% of the population does _not_ cause you to get more favor than less. Who knew?



Echo Wolf said:


> TBH everyone in D.C needs to get their heads out of their asses. Democrats and Republicans both do this so you can't really blame it on a particular party


Oh, but we can. One party in particular has held the Global Economy hostage - twice - in the last several years, specifically done everything in their power to obstruct anything other than total domination in the political arena / policy-writing, and continues to put forward people who say horrifically bigoted and hateful comments about women and sexual / racial minorities. One of the big issues in the current political arena is that so many people on the far right refuse to see common sense and continue to insist "Any day now, you're going to see that smoking gun that proves all of our party's actions are not only matched by the Left but taken to further extremes. Yep, any day now."




TeenageAngst said:


> The dems are just better at running for office than the Republicans because they realize progressive views sell, even if they're never actually implemented.


 Considering progressive views have been legalized very recently in a national election that was a stunning victory to the Democratic Party, and you admit yourself to Republican attempts at obstructivism, saying they merely pay lip service is a bit disingenuous. Or is this another one of those "blame game" things like when the Democrats were blamed for abstaining on a bad budget bill despite the Bill having been Republican-made, Republican-backed, and supported all the way until it was realized the Democrats weren't going to play the "See? Obstructionists!" game for them?



Echo Wolf said:


> and we have an incredible amount of people on welfare


 _The government offering help to people is not a bad thing_. If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but dear fucking christ when the hell did it get so bad in the US that over 47% of the population was considered to be subhuman enemies undeserving of basic things like food and shelter? Was it before or after the poor were called into question about how "poor" they really are since the majority own _refrigerators_?



Echo Wolf said:


> Do I think in this day in age it's a good thing to be shrinking our military?


 _Yes_. Well, it's that or increase taxes, or cut funding to things like making sure people can eat and have an education.

Guess which of these three choices Romney leant most towards? Hint, it's the third, with a hint of the second shifted onto the Middle & Lower income brackets. :V


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 10, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> *cracks his knuckles*
> 
> 1: Iran is no threat to the United States. The U.S. and Israel have been gunning for this war since our actions in the middle east started and the propaganda against them is enormously overblown. They do not have and never were researching nuclear weaponry. We've had them under embargo for years and have their nation surrounded with well staffed military bases thanks to our escapades in the middle east. Plus, idk if you know this, but Russia isn't exactly fond of Iran since they're trying to manipulate deals with oil and gas pipelines. We have Mother Russia to take care of Iran in case they get uppity.
> 
> ...



1. You're reminding me of my extremely radical friend who believes everything is a conspiracy. Knowing how trying to talk to him about anything goes I'm going to avoid this batch of worms.

3. You do understand why our weapons cost so much right? What the military is really pushing now is computers in weapons systems so yes it is going to cost a bunch more but it's worth it if it will help save the lives of our servicemen and women. Yeah we could have German or Russian tanks but they don't compare to the Abrams, hell the Abrams was designed to fight and kill Russian tanks. They're not selling tanks or jets to anyone else in the world because the United States wants to have the best equipment on the battlefield. Think of it this way, your on a Navy ship in the middle of a war. There are 3 bombers coming to try to sink the ship but they easily get shot down by the missile defense system. Would you be complaining that the government is spending way to much money on that system or would you be happy that it's there?

4. If you'd look at history you'd understand why we have bases in German and Japan. Also certain bases are located in strategic positions to allow for faster deployment of troops.

5. Military presence has also helped stop the escalation of violence as well. I don't believe that we should be as involved with the Middle East as we are now but I do believe that simply leaving and shrinking our military could pose a huge security risk.




Attaman said:


> Oh, but we can. One party in particular has held the Global Economy hostage - twice - in the last several years, specifically done everything in their power to obstruct anything other than total domination in the political arena / policy-writing, and continues to put forward people who say horrifically bigoted and hateful comments about women and sexual / racial minorities. One of the big issues in the current political arena is that so many people on the far right refuse to see common sense and continue to insist "Any day now, you're going to see that smoking gun that proves all of our party's actions are not only matched by the Left but taken to further extremes. Yep, any day now."



Alright so by what you said the Democratic party has never done anything of that nature? Seems right to me. (sarcasm)



Attaman said:


> _The government offering help to people is not a bad thing_. If that's not what you meant, I apologize, but dear fucking christ when the hell did it get so bad in the US that over 47% of the population was considered to be subhuman enemies undeserving of basic things like food and shelter? Was it before or after the poor were called into question about how "poor" they really are since the majority own _refrigerators_?



I was suggesting that have so many people on welfare isn't good. We should be appalled that these numbers are that high, not because the governments giving out handouts but because the number of them has increased so much. We need to get people off welfare and the only way that's going to happen is if this economy gets better. Welfare was never some permanent solution to poverty you know. Seems like today you can't say anything about welfare without someone jumping to the conclusion that you hate poor people.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 10, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Alright so by what you said the Democratic party has never done anything of that nature? Seems right to me. (sarcasm)


 If you want to compare the Republican Party of 2012 with the Democratic Party of 1860, that's _more_ than fine by me. 

Note I'm not saying that Democrats have never done bad shit. But if you're forced to repeatedly call on further and further historical events to say "See? What we're doing _right now_ isn't bad!", you're really jumping through hoops to convince yourself that your party is doing nothing wrong.



Echo Wolf said:


> I was suggesting that have so many people on welfare isn't good.


 If I may ask, what necessarily is wrong about welfare itself? I mean, the implications can be seen as a negative, yes (that the people require welfare either to supplement or be their standard of living), but what about welfare in itself is taboo? Why, exactly, is offering basic things like healthcare, food, and housing to one's citizens horrible?



Echo Wolf said:


> not because the governments giving out handouts


 _Stop calling welfare a fucking handout_. Or do you say the same about your roads, your school system, your functional power grid, etcetera?



Echo Wolf said:


> Welfare was never some permanent solution to poverty you know. Seems like today you can't say anything about welfare without someone jumping to the conclusion that you hate poor people.


 When you call them leeches, parasites, demonize them as being non-proper Americans, burdens on society, joke about how "poor" they really are if they can own a refrigerator, and _tell fucking veterans that if they cared for their nation they should have died instead of survived a cripple_, you're not being called a duck when you're a moose. You're being called a duck because you're a fucking duck.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 10, 2012)

> 1. You're reminding me of my extremely radical friend who believes everything is a conspiracy. Knowing how trying to talk to him about anything goes I'm going to avoid this batch of worms.



There's lots of conspiracies in the government. Believe it or not, when there's millions of dollars to secure for military contractors you're heavily invested in, chances are good you're going to pull unnecessary strings for them.



> 3. You do understand why our weapons cost so much right? What the military is really pushing now is computers in weapons systems so yes it is going to cost a bunch more but it's worth it if it will help save the lives of our servicemen and women. Yeah we could have German or Russian tanks but they don't compare to the Abrams, hell the Abrams was designed to fight and kill Russian tanks. They're not selling tanks or jets to anyone else in the world because the United States wants to have the best equipment on the battlefield. Think of it this way, your on a Navy ship in the middle of a war. There are 3 bombers coming to try to sink the ship but they easily get shot down by the missile defense system. Would you be complaining that the government is spending way to much money on that system or would you be happy that it's there?



That's called escalation and is the reason the Cold War was so sinister. First off, it's actually not helping our servicemen. Helping our servicemen is not having them in the middle of a fucking warzone for corporate interests. Second, selling weapons to foreigners is exactly what our and every other military producer yearns to do as it adds credibility to the design and lowers production costs. We GAVE the Saudis Abrams tanks and they hated them. They refuse to reorder and are going back to the Russian weapons they previously used. Truth is we want to peddle our supertech but no one's buying because rational nations realize it's a waste of money and the machines do not perform as advertised. Third, having the best equipment on the battlefield does not secure victory. I'd rather have 7 German-made tanks than 1 Abrams. I'd rather have 10 troop transports than one Bradley. It's all about cost-benefit, and the American military fails horribly at such analysis.



> 4. If you'd look at history you'd understand why we have bases in German and Japan. Also certain bases are located in strategic positions to allow for faster deployment of troops.



This isn't 1946. We're not at war with Japan, we're not at war with Germany. These bases ARE a point of political contention though and should be removed. We're not the world's police force, we don't need our bases everywhere. If we wanted to deploy quickly we would do so through an allied Japanese or German base.



> 5. Military presence has also helped stop the escalation of violence as well. I don't believe that we should be as involved with the Middle East as we are now but I do believe that simply leaving and shrinking our military could pose a huge security risk.



Have you been asleep since 2001? Military intervention has caused escalation. We're firing on 5 nations now and have killed over a million civilians. We've destroyed people's lives out of pure hatred and vengeance for 9/11, an operation carried out by an extremist sect of a gang that hung out in Afghanistan, an organization we created to fight the Soviets! What if China invaded the USA because the Mafia decided to blow up a building in Beijing? Because that's pretty much what we did in Afghanistan.

Plus since 9/11 we've seen our civil liberties thrown in the garbage, mostly because people like you refuse to question what the government says and go along with the scare tactics hook, line, and sinker. I'm convinced mentalities like yours are more of a danger to my life and liberties than any foreign power or extremist faction.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 11, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Note I'm not saying that Democrats have never done bad shit. But if you're forced to repeatedly call on further and further historical events to say "See? What we're doing _right now_ isn't bad!", you're really jumping through hoops to convince yourself that your party is doing nothing wrong.



I never said I supported either party, just that they both are equally as shitty.



Attaman said:


> If I may ask, what necessarily is wrong about welfare itself? I mean, the implications can be seen as a negative, yes (that the people require welfare either to supplement or be their standard of living), but what about welfare in itself is taboo? Why, exactly, is offering basic things like healthcare, food, and housing to one's citizens horrible?
> 
> _Stop calling welfare a fucking handout_. Or do you say the same about your roads, your school system, your functional power grid, etcetera?



What's wrong about welfare is that it's expensive, especially considering the amount of people that are on it. I'm not saying that it should be removed but what I am saying is that it shouldn't be seen as a solution. I have no problem if someone looses their job or gets hurt and needs to go on welfare for a while until they can get themselves back on track but you have people who are content with doing jack shit and just living off tax money. That's what I have a problem with; why should my money that I work hard for go to someone like that? Does that make me a bad person for thinking that? I think not. At my previous job in a grocery store I saw so many people, at least daily sometimes more, come in and buy necessities with food stamps and then have about 200 dollars worth of other shit that my parents, both with pretty solid jobs, couldn't even afford (filet mignon, seafood, ect). To top it all off I've seen people do that and then they had an iPhone, see anything wrong with that picture? I sure do. I'm not saying that everyone does that though just that there are problems with those programs.




Attaman said:


> When you call them leeches, parasites, demonize them as being non-proper Americans, burdens on society, joke about how "poor" they really are if they can own a refrigerator, and _tell fucking veterans that if they cared for their nation they should have died instead of survived a cripple_, you're not being called a duck when you're a moose. You're being called a duck because you're a fucking duck.



When did I ever say anything of that nature?



TeenageAngst said:


> There's lots of conspiracies in the government. Believe it or not, when there's millions of dollars to secure for military contractors you're heavily invested in, chances are good you're going to pull unnecessary strings for them.



Not saying that there isn't foul play in government or military, shit if I did I wouldn't mind if everyone called me stupid. What I'm saying is that despite the reasons we have a serious problem brewing over there.



TeenageAngst said:


> That's called escalation and is the reason the Cold War was so sinister. First off, it's actually not helping our servicemen. Helping our servicemen is not having them in the middle of a fucking warzone for corporate interests. Second, selling weapons to foreigners is exactly what our and every other military producer yearns to do as it adds credibility to the design and lowers production costs. We GAVE the Saudis Abrams tanks and they hated them. They refuse to reorder and are going back to the Russian weapons they previously used. Truth is we want to peddle our supertech but no one's buying because rational nations realize it's a waste of money and the machines do not perform as advertised. Third, having the best equipment on the battlefield does not secure victory. I'd rather have 7 German-made tanks than 1 Abrams. I'd rather have 10 troop transports than one Bradley. It's all about cost-benefit, and the American military fails horribly at such analysis.



First, I'm speaking about the efficiency of the weapons and vehicles not their situation so lets clear that up right away. Second, I'd imagine the reason were having so many problems selling our tech weapons is because there complicated to use. Hell I think the military school to qualify to be a crewman on one of those tanks is 9 weeks long.



TeenageAngst said:


> This isn't 1946. We're not at war with Japan, we're not at war with Germany. These bases ARE a point of political contention though and should be removed. We're not the world's police force, we don't need our bases everywhere.



You simply asked why they were there and I gave the reason. And I never said we were I don't agree with a lot of the things the military does but it's a simple fact that we can't go back to being an isolationist country in this day in age.



TeenageAngst said:


> Have you been asleep since 2001? Military intervention has caused escalation. We're firing on 5 nations now and have killed over a million civilians. We've destroyed people's lives out of pure hatred and vengeance for 9/11, an operation carried out by an extremist sect of a gang that hung out in Afghanistan, an organization we created to fight the Soviets! What if China invaded the USA because the Mafia decided to blow up a building in Beijing? Because that's pretty much what we did in Afghanistan.
> 
> Plus since 9/11 we've seen our civil liberties thrown in the garbage, mostly because people like you refuse to question what the government says and go along with the scare tactics hook, line, and sinker. I'm convinced mentalities like yours are more of a danger to my life and liberties than any foreign power or extremist faction.



Pretty sure there isn't an American Mafia so that really doesn't make any sense... And people like me are responsible for the government stepping on our rights? Yep there you are jumping to conclusions about me. Just because I love my country doesn't mean I'm some deep south illiterate Americaphile. Let me ask you this question, what have you done to prevent our rights being trampled on? Besides going around and accusing people of causing this. I'm not a person who get's intimidated by "scare tactics" and I can tell you this things such as the Patriot Act piss me off beyond belief.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 11, 2012)

> Not saying that there isn't foul play in government or military, shit if I did I wouldn't mind if everyone called me stupid. What I'm saying is that despite the reasons we have a serious problem brewing over there.



Yeah, a problem we caused, and one that could be fixed by adopting an non-interventionist policy. You know, like Japan has.



> First, I'm speaking about the efficiency of the weapons and vehicles not their situation so lets clear that up right away. Second, I'd imagine the reason were having so many problems selling our tech weapons is because there complicated to use. Hell I think the military school to qualify to be a crewman on one of those tanks is 9 weeks long.



Efficiency per dollar spent and reliability both are abysmal with our equipment. And foreign powers don't like our equipment not because of the complexity of the operation, because there certainly is that, it's the cost. It's all down to budget.



> You simply asked why they were there and I gave the reason. And I never said we were I don't agree with a lot of the things the military does but it's a simple fact that we can't go back to being an isolationist country in this day in age.



There's a difference between being isolationist and having military bases in everyone else's nations pretending like we're the goddamn mother hen of NATO. These countries are big boys, they can take care of themselves, and breathing down the neck of every nation in the world is costing us way too much.



> Pretty sure there isn't an American Mafia so that really doesn't make any sense... And people like me are responsible for the government stepping on our rights? Yep there you are jumping to conclusions about me. Just because I love my country doesn't mean I'm some deep south illiterate Americaphile. Let me ask you this question, what have you done to prevent our rights being trampled on? Besides going around and accusing people of causing this. I'm not a person who get's intimidated by "scare tactics" and I can tell you this things such as the Patriot Act piss me off beyond belief.



Really? Cause it sounds like you're all for anything the government says will keep you safe from the boogeyman terrorists. Anything the military machine needs cause god knows we have an image to keep up, eh?


----------



## CodArk2 (Nov 11, 2012)

You guys sayong the military accounts for s much of our spending have no idea what you are talking about. 

http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/   explains it better. The military spending is a large part of our DISCRETIONARY spending, not total spending. Discretionary spending is about 31 percent of US total Spending, 62 percent is mandatory spending.  Social security, Labor, Unemployment, medicare and Health take up 88 percent of mandatory spending, and thats most of the US budget. 

So THIS is what the US budget ACTUALLY looks like:  http://nationalpriorities.org/media/uploads/federal_budget_101/Figure8.2.png

So yeah, we spend a lot on the military, but you need to take into account the entitlements the Office of Management and Budget says make up most of the budget. Saying the military spends HALF the US budget is false. it spends half of discretionary spending. Discretionary spending is smaller than mandatory spending, which is mostly social security and medicaid.

If you say 'yeah cut the military budget!" tinking that will address what most federal spending is ACTUALLY on, you will be mistaken. And considering the social security and medicaid expenditures are growing at a fast pace, it will take up even more of the budget in the future if its not reformed., and some polticians are going to keep hacking at the military budget thinking the debt will go down, when thats not where most of our spending is actually going.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 11, 2012)

$500,000,000,000+ a year is still a ridiculous amount to be spending on the military, no matter how you slice it.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 11, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Yeah, a problem we caused, and one that could be fixed by adopting an non-interventionist policy. You know, like Japan has.



It's also a problem we can't easily get out of right now. I'll say it again I don't agree with what's going on in the Middle East but it's still a problem, regardless of who's fault it is.



TeenageAngst said:


> Efficiency per dollar spent and reliability both are abysmal with our equipment. And foreign powers don't like our equipment not because of the complexity of the operation, because there certainly is that, it's the cost. It's all down to budget.



I'm really curious as to were you're getting this information from. You do know that every piece of equipment gets sent to be tested before it get's sent out. Now I can some battlefield issues arising but major mechanical flaws as you suggest, I think not. If anything it's at most a problem of cost, which as I've stated is worth it.



TeenageAngst said:


> Really? Cause it sounds like you're all for anything the government says will keep you safe from the boogeyman terrorists. Anything the military machine needs cause god knows we have an image to keep up, eh?



Srsly? If you really believe this after everything I've said you're either incredibly ignorant or not reading what I'm saying. Also, You never answered my question either and you're still doing the exact same thing I said. It sounds like you're just mad at anyone that thinks different than you; _anyone who doesn't believe that the military and government and twiddling their figurative mustaches with everything they do is automatically a sheep to the government_, ey? You really do like to throw around accusations now don't you.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 11, 2012)

> It's also a problem we can't easily get out of right now. I'll say it again I don't agree with what's going on in the Middle East but it's still a problem, regardless of who's fault it is.



Sure we can, by withdrawing. It really is that simple.



> I'm really curious as to were you're getting this information from. You do know that every piece of equipment gets sent to be tested before it get's sent out. Now I can some battlefield issues arising but major mechanical flaws as you suggest, I think not. If anything it's at most a problem of cost, which as I've stated is worth it.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Accidents

Oh, you think it's worth it, eh? Haha, yeah, cause it's totally working so far, man. 



> Srsly? If you really believe this after everything I've said you're either incredibly ignorant or not reading what I'm saying. Also, You never answered my question either and you're still doing the exact same thing I said. It sounds like you're just mad at anyone that thinks different than you; _anyone who doesn't believe that the military and government and twiddling their figurative mustaches with everything they do is automatically a sheep to the government, ey? You really do like to throw around accusations now don't you._



I'm just saying, you're sounding an awful lot like a neocon right now.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2012)

To the few people disappointed that Obama got re-elected, now you know how it feels when Bush got re-elected.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 11, 2012)

Yeah, considering they have the exact same goddamn policies.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 11, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Pretty sure there isn't an American Mafia so that really doesn't make any sense...



About as much as there is an Iraq Al Qaeda or Afghanistan Al Qaeda. It's a multi-national organization. And if you're saying there are no more Mafias in America, I'd point out the La Cosa Nostra Mafia of New York. Heck, even _Montreal, Canada_ has a Mafia organization.

Though honestly I think a more apt comparison would be the American Third Position, Aryan Nation (Or the Aryan Nations 88, which are in many states), The True Invisible Empire of the Ku Klux Klan, etc.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 11, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Sure we can, by withdrawing. It really is that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



O yes the wonderfully reliable source that is Wikipedia. Thanks for the bountiful amount of reliable information. Also, since when does admitting that there's a problem in the Middle East make someone a neocon? I don't support the damn war but I admit there's a problem there. We can't simply withdraw all our troops out tomorrow as you suggest it's a much more complex problem than that. Hopefully by 2014 we'll be out of Afghanistan but understand this, it's not going to happen overnight.



BrodyCoyote said:


> About as much as there is an Iraq Al Qaeda or Afghanistan Al Qaeda. It's a multi-national organization. And if you're saying there are no more Mafias in America, I'd point out the La Cosa Nostra Mafia of New York. Heck, even _Montreal, Canada_ has a Mafia organization.
> 
> Though honestly I think a more apt comparison would be the American Third Position, Aryan Nation (Or the Aryan Nations 88, which are in many states), The True Invisible Empire of the Ku Klux Klan, etc.



There are mafias in America but I don't believe there are any of them that were made strictly of Americans, that would be the most diverse mafia ever... Yeah the better comparison would have been those groups though.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 11, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> There are mafias in America but I don't believe there are any of them that were made strictly of Americans, that would be the most diverse mafia ever... Yeah the better comparison would have been those groups though.


Native American Mafia? Well, I guess they _do_â€‹ have the casinos..


----------



## Attaman (Nov 11, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> I never said I supported either party, just that they both are equally as shitty.


Oh no, you can't play this card. At least, not unless you're willing to show me a certain party holding the Global Economy hostage twice (with the stated purpose of "It'll tank the other side's election odds and allow us to pass all sorts of shit in the chaos" for at least one of the situations), repeatedly calling to restrict rights on female / homosexual citizens to the point that it can be a major selling point in campaigning ads (as in "Vote for me and I'll put those damn queers back in line"), makes routine comments about "Legitimate Rape", proposes the economic / tax burden be shifted onto the middle and lower class whilst further reducing taxes on the upper income brackets, has routinely referred to 47%+ of the nation as subhuman parasites / "stealing" the vote from "proper" citizens, etcetera?

You keep going on about this "smoking gun" that shows the Democrats to be just as bad as the Republicans in the last several years. So far, the only argument you've made for why they compare is... Welfare costs. An odd thing to bring up when early in the Obama presidency they were vilified for attempting to cut Medicare even further than recent Republican plans (though to be fair, they were going to put about a third of the money cut into a more efficient Rom-I-mean-Obama-care instead of just taking it out with no alternative). It reminds me of something, I can't quite... oh, yes! It reminds me of the Fox News Echo-Chamber which was honestly surprised when Romney lost the election both electorally and by public vote despite _all_ their "experts" stating how in-the-bag it was.



Echo Wolf said:


> What's wrong about welfare is that it's expensive, especially considering the amount of people that are on it.


 This is a reason to _increase funding_ towards welfare, you realize, not gut it? That or you aren't answering my question / are a bad person. The question was:



			
				Me said:
			
		

> If I may ask, what necessarily is wrong about welfare itself? I mean, the implications can be seen as a negative, yes (that the people require welfare either to supplement or be their standard of living), but what about welfare in itself is taboo? *Why, exactly, is offering basic things like healthcare, food, and housing to one's citizens horrible?*



If your response really is "It's expensive", you're saying one of three things:
One: You didn't read my question.
Two: Welfare is _not_ bad, the current costs are and either improving its efficiency (of which reducing costs should come AFTER and not BEFORE) or adding more money is required.
Three: Welfare's bad because offering people basic needs _costs money_.

One is just being lazy, two encourages changing the system to be either more efficient (not worse-funded) or better funded (to take into account negative efficiency), and three's just being _evil_. Would you like to change your answer? If not, considering what you say below, I'm going to lean towards you arguing three.



Echo Wolf said:


> I have no problem if someone looses their job or gets hurt and needs to go on welfare for a while until they can get themselves back on track but you have people who are content with doing jack shit and just living off tax money.





Echo Wolf said:


> That's what I have a problem with; why should my money that I work hard for go to someone like that?





Echo Wolf said:


> When did I ever say anything of that nature?



"I'm not saying they're subhuman parasites stealing money from honest working MURRICANS to live a life of luxury instead of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, but they're subhuman parasites stealing money from honest working MURRICANS to live a life of luxury instead of pulling themselves up by their bootstraps."

You're arguing that despite only a small minority of Welfare recipients being "leeches", the majority should suffer just to spite a small minority.



Echo Wolf said:


> At my previous job in a grocery store I saw so many people, at least daily sometimes more, come in and buy necessities with food stamps and then have about 200 dollars worth of other shit that my parents, both with pretty solid jobs, couldn't even afford (filet mignon, seafood, ect).


 Almost _fifteen percent_ of the nation is on Food Stamps, and you're going to have the _gall_ to say that "so many" of them are undeserving of such? If you want to critique them on anything critique them on how they're spending their money on more expensive luxury foods, as being on Food Stamps does not magically make Filet Mignon 10% the price for them ebil poor parasites compared to what your Bootstrap parents had to pay.



Echo Wolf said:


> To top it all off I've seen people do that and then they had an iPhone, see anything wrong with that picture?


 Some 95% of the supposed "poor" have refrigerators. What's up with that? :V



Echo Wolf said:


> I'm not saying that everyone does that though just that there are problems with those programs.


 Yes, there are problems. No, "Throw them all into a fire the witches will burn and the innocent magically remain burn-free" is not in any way shape or form a viable solution.


----------



## benignBiotic (Nov 11, 2012)

Preface - [I didn't vote this year and have almost zero political knowledge] I saw that Romney cut his campaigners credit cards with no warning after he lost the election. What. A. Douche.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 11, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Oh no, you can't play this card. At least, not unless you're willing to show me a certain party holding the Global Economy hostage twice (with the stated purpose of "It'll tank the other side's election odds and allow us to pass all sorts of shit in the chaos" for at least one of the situations), repeatedly calling to restrict rights on female / homosexual citizens to the point that it can be a major selling point in campaigning ads (as in "Vote for me and I'll put those damn queers back in line"), makes routine comments about "Legitimate Rape", proposes the economic / tax burden be shifted onto the middle and lower class whilst further reducing taxes on the upper income brackets, has routinely referred to 47%+ of the nation as subhuman parasites / "stealing" the vote from "proper" citizens, etcetera?
> 
> You keep going on about this "smoking gun" that shows the Democrats to be just as bad as the Republicans in the last several years. So far, the only argument you've made for why they compare is... Welfare costs. An odd thing to bring up when early in the Obama presidency they were vilified for attempting to cut Medicare even further than recent Republican plans (though to be fair, they were going to put about a third of the money cut into a more efficient Rom-I-mean-Obama-care instead of just taking it out with no alternative). It reminds me of something, I can't quite... oh, yes! It reminds me of the Fox News Echo-Chamber which was honestly surprised when Romney lost the election both electorally and by public vote despite _all_ their "experts" stating how in-the-bag it was.



You do realize that the Congress is split with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and the Democrats controlling the Senate? You can't pin everything on Republicans as much as you'd like considering their both not willing to work together to get things passed. The way you're presenting Republicans is frankly over exaggerated and ridiculous. You're quoting some things one idiot said and making it out as though it's part of the Republicans core beliefs. If you're going to continue to do that I'm not going to discus this point with you any longer.



Attaman said:


> This is a reason to _increase funding_ towards welfare, you realize, not gut it? That or you aren't answering my question / are a bad person. The question was:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Program is too expensive, solution, shovel more money into it. Have you been listening to anything I've said? Look how far were in debt and you want to increase welfare and similar programs spending? You do realize that welfare was never supposed to be a permanent solution to poverty don't you? Right now you have being being born into welfare and living on it right up until they die. You don't see a problem with this, you think we should expand this? All you've done is just sling mud at me by saying that I "hate poor people" and that I think they're "less than a person". I've never said any of those things what I have said is that we need to reduce people's dependency on welfare and get those people back to work. Welfare and other programs like it make up a huge part of our budget, if you want to talk about reducing our debt it's those programs that we need to cut back on.




Attaman said:


> You're arguing that despite only a small minority of Welfare recipients being "leeches", the majority should suffer just to spite a small minority.
> 
> Almost _fifteen percent_ of the nation is on Food Stamps, and you're going to have the _gall_ to say that "so many" of them are undeserving of such? If you want to critique them on anything critique them on how they're spending their money on more expensive luxury foods, as being on Food Stamps does not magically make Filet Mignon 10% the price for them ebil poor parasites compared to what your Bootstrap parents had to pay.
> 
> ...



There you go putting words into my mouth again. I was simply highlighting some pretty large problems in these programs. When I was working you had these people come in and they would buy part of their things with food stamps, basic things like bread, milk, ect, and then they would pay for these ridiculously expensive things like choice cuts of steak with cash. Also, there's a big damn difference between an iPhone and a refrigerator. An iPhone costs what like 800 dollars and the contract with the data plan is about 100 dollars a month or so. All you've been saying is just how if anyone thinks that welfare should be shrunk/ fixed they're evil poor hating bastards and how, because I think there are problems with welfare, I think all poor people should live off of bread and water in a whole. You couldn't be any farther from the truth and frankly I'm offended that you'd even believe that notion for a second. Never once have I said anything that even resembles the comments you've quoted.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 11, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> You do realize that the Congress is split with Republicans controlling the House of Representatives and the Democrats controlling the Senate?


 Yes, that is the current state of affairs. You are up to date with current political situations, would you like a cookie? Now can we discuss how a number of Republicans purposefully pushed for a budget-default unless their increasingly-high demands were met, gloating how if the government didn't blink they could pass all kinds of shit in the chaos? Purposefully pushing forward harmful bills in an attempt to defame the opposition then panicking when it backfires? Perhaps you want me to dig up the, what is it now, sixth Republican official in the last year to say something stupid about rape and a woman's body? Maybe how they pressured a congressional, non-partisan report to be withdrawn after finding the tenant of their main economic plans the last 30-some years have been bunk? Or, hey, how about I pull up some of those presidential campaign ads for the like of Rick Perry and Gingrich? Maybe spice things up by mentioning the _many_ attempts at voter suppression across the United States that - at some points - had Republican officials _gloating_ that by placing such restrictions in effect they'd modify the voting demographic enough so as to carry a state that - in the national election - they wound up losing w/o such restrictions?

As you said, I cannot pin everything on the Republicans. But if you feel the blame should be split 50:50 you might as well believe that trickle-down works, Obama is a non-US Citizen Kenyan Muslim, and that Donald Trump should have been our 2012-2016 Presidential choice.



Echo Wolf said:


> The way you're presenting Republicans is frankly over exaggerated and ridiculous.


 _Threatening to default the United States Debt doesn't need to be exaggerated_. Look at Greece, look at it! Look at all the chaos it's suffering because of its looming default! Now, look at the US - compare the position the US has in the global economy versus Greece - and tell me with a straight face that it defaulting would have _less_ a negative footprint. While keeping in mind that the double-threatening of defaulting actually _lowered our international credit score_ merely from the _possibility_ that we might.



Echo Wolf said:


> You're quoting some things one idiot said and making it out as though it's part of the Republicans core beliefs.


 Hey, hey Echo. Listen to some of the more popular Republican talking heads. Romney has been routinely stated to be not-Republican enough, despite his already hardline stances. :3c When you have news stations cackling about how he's not Republican enough, but "better than Obama at least", it's hard to say that it's a rather small minority being loud. Especially since it takes two to tango and the default threats couldn't have built up any steam if it were just 1-2 munchkins being loud.



Echo Wolf said:


> If you're going to continue to do that I'm not going to discus this point with you any longer.


 See: "Oh shit he knows about the political situation bail out back to the echo chamber!"



Echo Wolf said:


> Program is too expensive, solution, shovel more money into it. Have you been listening to anything I've said?


 And you continue to refuse to answer a very, _very_ simple question.

Hint: If you're going to keep going on about why all these programs are too expensive, need to be cut, people should only be on them for a short time, etcetera, you need to offer a reason other than begging the question and returning to "It's too expensive". _Why_ is welfare such a bad thing? You've stated yourself now, many times, that you have less issues with the numbers and more that your TAX MONEH is going towards "Filet and Seafood" courtesy of "entitlement spending" and "handouts". However, your entire basis for such seems to boil down to "How dare they get better government benefits than I". Really think they have it easy? Get yourself fired, move to a project, and ask for government aid. See how much easier they have it. Go on. And before you whinge about how I'm misrepresenting or the like, _*no*_. If you're going to bitch about someone _possibly_ abusing _food stamps_ as a reason why "entitlement spending" "handouts" need major cuts, I'm going to assume you have no real clue about how the system works and are just bitching because you want a slice of the imaginary cake.



Echo Wolf said:


> Look how far were in debt and you want to increase welfare and similar programs spending?


 First, thank you for referring to it as "welfare" and not "handout" or "entitlement". Second, _yes_. That or we actually increase the taxes on the higher income brackets, reduce funding towards the military (in the very least, stop with the plans to add even more money to their programs), and stop playing a game of hypocrisy wherein the poor are expected to pick themselves up by their bootstraps whilst having all their safety nets cut in the vain hope that trickle down economics magically begins to work _any second now_ (most probably at the same time the Democrats are revealed to be secret baby-eating murder death-cultist muslim-fags who have been planning for years to institute death panels).



Echo Wolf said:


> You do realize that welfare was never supposed to be a permanent solution to poverty don't you?


 Again, I have to ask _why_ is the idea of the government _providing aid to its people_ seen as taboo? Gives you roads? You're fine. Inspects your food? Super. Provides a household that makes less in a year than the national average - with both parents working and supporting dependents - a small safety net? HORRIBRU!



Echo Wolf said:


> Right now you have being being born into welfare and living on it right up until they die.


 Hint: If you think system exploitation on the recipient's side of the equation is the main culprit behind this, your head is up your ass. Similarly, if you think the cases of this happening via "Welfare Queens" are anywhere near enough to support the shit it'll put "legitimate" recipients through, you can probably cancel that prostate exam since you're in perfect position to determine for yourself.



Echo Wolf said:


> You don't see a problem with this, you think we should expand this?


 I don't think _ensuring that someone can eat and has a roof over their head is a case of entitlement-based parasitism_.



Echo Wolf said:


> All you've done is just sling mud at me by saying that I "hate poor people"


 Considering how you've come close to frothing mad at the idea of someone on foodstamps having cash and buying a luxury food, I'd say that's not a foul claim.



Echo Wolf said:


> I've never said any of those things what I have said is that we need to reduce people's dependency on welfare and get those people back to work.


 Hint again: The way to reduce their dependency is not "We'll only let you go this far, then you're on your own. We're also cutting funding." Furthermore, you _still_ have yet to clarify _what_ is wrong with welfare spending. So far the majority of your comments have been wurbles of "Expensive this" and "Filet that" with a hint of "Welfare Queen", which says *absolutely nothing* except that you support gutting the defense budget, increasing taxes on every income bracket, and have some odd hatred of cows and aquatic beings.



Echo Wolf said:


> Also, there's a big damn difference between an iPhone and a refrigerator. An iPhone costs what like 800 dollars and the contract with the data plan is about 100 dollars a month or so.


 Try $99 a month with with first two years free courtesy of contract. But nah, best be assuming that the people on food stamps are shelling out $2000 a year on their phone plus another $1000+ on luxury foods (assuming they go grocery shopping twice a month. And spend an average of $41 on such luxury foods each time as "seafood" and "not dogfood-grade meat").



Echo Wolf said:


> All you've been saying is just how if anyone thinks that welfare should be shrunk/ fixed they're evil poor hating bastards


 If they repeatedly call them entitled prats milking benefits while comparing them to honest-to-goodness proper citizens (which, coincidentally, the one complaining about 'em always counts as), I'm going to call the quacking water fowl with a bill and webbed feet a duck.



Echo Wolf said:


> You couldn't be any farther from the truth and frankly I'm offended that you'd even believe that notion for a second.


 _Then stop having a terminal case of foot-in-mouth_.

EDIT: Clarification. This:



Echo Wolf said:


> Also, there's a big damn difference between an iPhone and a refrigerator. An iPhone costs what like 800 dollars and the contract with the data plan is about 100 dollars a month or so.


 Try $99 a month with with first two years free courtesy of contract. But nah, best be assuming that the people on food stamps are shelling out $2000 a year on their phone plus another $1000+ on luxury foods (assuming they go grocery shopping twice a month. And spend an average of $41 on such luxury foods each time as "seafood" and "not dogfood-grade meat").

Was wrong. It should say:

"Try $99 for the phone with the first two years free", then continue as normal.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 11, 2012)

Although Echo Wolf is an absolute tit and couldn't understand necessary military spending if it slapped him upside the head, spending all this money on welfare really is a bad idea. The idea that poor people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is what this nation was built on. It's what I'm doing right now, actually. Even when I was unemployed for a year, I never collected a cent in unemployment benefits.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 11, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> Although Echo Wolf is an absolute tit and couldn't understand necessary military spending if it slapped him upside the head, spending all this money on welfare really is a bad idea. The idea that poor people need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is what this nation was built on. It's what I'm doing right now, actually. Even when I was unemployed for a year, I never collected a cent in unemployment benefits.


Congrats, you had the opportunity to do such. Many people, unfortunately, _don't_. There's a whole slew of socio-economical reasons why one person might be able to go from "a year unemployed" no problem, whereas another - for an example - sees one month unemployed - benefits or not - as "Oh god I'm going to need to resort to robbery to stay off the streets".

One of the main problems being that certain people can't seem to realize that welfare includes the latter, and think "Well if I could survive a few months off welfare these people with all their entitlement spending should be in the clear!" It also, again, goes back to the question of "Why is Welfare in-and-of-itself seen as bad?"


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 11, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Congrats, you had the opportunity to do such. Many people, unfortunately, _don't_. There's a whole slew of socio-economical reasons why one person might be able to go from "a year unemployed" no problem, whereas another - for an example - sees one month unemployed - benefits or not - as "Oh god I'm going to need to resort to robbery to stay off the streets".
> 
> One of the main problems being that certain people can't seem to realize that welfare includes the latter, and think "Well if I could survive a few months off welfare these people with all their entitlement spending should be in the clear!" It also, again, goes back to the question of "Why is Welfare in-and-of-itself seen as bad?"



See, that's the kind of condescension that makes it so hard to advocate welfare. "Oh, you managed to pull yourself up? Good for you, now give some of your hard earned money to the other poor schmuck, you heartless bastard." If people are getting handouts (and they are handouts, they do no work and get a government check) then what's the incentive to pull yourself up? Why should I work my way through college if I can get an easy $25k a year job and collect a welfare check? Believe it or not you can live comfortably on welfare, my family has done it, and I blame it 100% for taking away my mom's incentive to get a better job. She's was making $11 an hour at a Walgreens 30 hours a week and collecting government benefits. She has a freaking chemistry degree and refuses to use it because it's too much work. She'd rather work 30 hours a week, collect government benefits, and keep on keeping on at her customer service gig.


----------



## Attaman (Nov 11, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> See, that's the kind of condescension that makes it so hard to advocate welfare.


 It's not condescension, though, and if that's the tone you received from that post than I apologize. Point remains that many people can _not_ make due without welfare propping them up as they search for work / try to make a living / are unable to contribute, whether this is due to their own failing or some sort of social / economic / physical factor working against them.



TeenageAngst said:


> "Oh, you managed to pull yourself up? Good for you, now give some of your hard earned money to the other poor schmuck, you heartless bastard."


 And that poor schmuck can give some of their hard earned money right back to you.



TeenageAngst said:


> If people are getting handouts (and they are handouts, they do no work and get a government check) then what's the incentive to pull yourself up?


 The quality of living? That the majority are not getting this "handout" by choice but necessity? Mind, I'm starting to feel like I should withdraw my apology if this conversation's about to go the way I think it's going.



TeenageAngst said:


> Why should I work my way through college if I can get an easy $25k a year job and collect a welfare check?


 Why do you view college merely as a mean to make extra money? You don't even seem to consider the education part relevant, just "I'll pay money for four years and come out being paid extra as a result".


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 11, 2012)

I educate myself, I need that piece of paper to get a good job. I've learned more during the 2 years I spent working full time and studying on my own than I have during 3 years of college. Hell, were it not for that self-teaching I wouldn't be doing well in college at all. I certainly wouldn't have graduated community college with a 3.68 gpa. If I could get into the jobs I want without that piece of paper I'd be analyzing business expenditures right now.



> It's not condescension, though, and if that's the tone you received from that post than I apologize. Point remains that many people can _not make due without welfare propping them up as they search for work / try to make a living / are unable to contribute, whether this is due to their own failing or some sort of social / economic / physical factor working against them._



And somehow that's my problem? I have enough issues to deal with without the government deciding I need to shoulder someone else's burden for them.



> And that poor schmuck can give some of their hard earned money right back to you.



Ha. ha. ha. That'll be the day.



> The quality of living? That the majority are not getting this "handout" by choice but necessity? Mind, I'm starting to feel like I should withdraw my apology if this conversation's about to go the way I think it's going.



My mom is complacent, and she's not alone. My family is suffering and can barely make ends meet, but they're used to it. There's no immediate reason for her to get a better job even as my dad's health suffers. My sister is 19 and doesn't have a job nor a driver's license because everything she needs is paid for by either my parents or the government.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 11, 2012)

Attaman said:


> Yes, that is the current state of affairs. You are up to date with current political situations, would you like a cookie? Now can we discuss how a number of Republicans purposefully pushed for a budget-default unless their increasingly-high demands were met, gloating how if the government didn't blink they could pass all kinds of shit in the chaos? Purposefully pushing forward harmful bills in an attempt to defame the opposition then panicking when it backfires? Perhaps you want me to dig up the, what is it now, sixth Republican official in the last year to say something stupid about rape and a woman's body? Maybe how they pressured a congressional, non-partisan report to be withdrawn after finding the tenant of their main economic plans the last 30-some years have been bunk? Or, hey, how about I pull up some of those presidential campaign ads for the like of Rick Perry and Gingrich? Maybe spice things up by mentioning the _many_ attempts at voter suppression across the United States that - at some points - had Republican officials _gloating_ that by placing such restrictions in effect they'd modify the voting demographic enough so as to carry a state that - in the national election - they wound up losing w/o such restrictions?



Iâ€™ve been saying that itâ€™s both their fault this entire time, not how much of the blame goes one way or another. That was the original point I was trying to make.



Attaman said:


> Hey, hey Echo. Listen to some of the more popular Republican talking heads. Romney has been routinely stated to be not-Republican enough, despite his already hardline stances. :3c When you have news stations cackling about how he's not Republican enough, but "better than Obama at least", it's hard to say that it's a rather small minority being loud




I was more speaking about the extremist views you were talking about. Also, I do believe that it was stupid that Romney had to be â€œMore Republicanâ€ to get the nomination from the GOP.



Attaman said:


> See: "Oh shit he knows about the political situation bail out back to the echo chamber!"




Iâ€™m referring to the fact that youâ€™re making the GOP out to be some cartoony villains. Also, how the hell did you find out about my secret layer? Guess I shouldnâ€™t have put that sign up thereâ€¦



Attaman said:


> And you continue to refuse to answer a very, _very_ simple question.



My answer should have been quite clear, we cannot afford to keep these programs going. You speak of cutting the debt in a roundabout way but if you really want to make an impact on the debt we need to decrease spending on these programs and, at the very least, fix them so people canâ€™t live indefinitely on them.



Attaman said:


> Again, I have to ask _why_ is the idea of the government _providing aid to its people_ seen as taboo?




Welfare was never meant to be a permanent solution to poverty, thatâ€™s why itâ€™s bad. People werenâ€™t meant to be living off of it.




Attaman said:


> I don't think _ensuring that someone can eat and has a roof over their head is a case of entitlement-based parasitism_.




The length of time people spend on it is a problem. If people know that they can live off welfare a certain way what why would they bother looking for work.



Attaman said:


> Considering how you've come close to frothing mad at the idea of someone on foodstamps having cash and buying a luxury food, I'd say that's not a foul claim.



First, Iâ€™ve remained calm this entire time. Iâ€™m a pretty relaxed person and I certainly donâ€™t go ape shit over an online discussion. I talk in a semi sarcastic way that doesnâ€™t seem to translate well over text. Second, that money could be going to a better cause if theyâ€™re on welfare. When I saw that it did make me angry because it seemed to me that they were fine living the way they were. It definitely painted the picture that they had figured out how to get by living the way they were. Those types of programs werenâ€™t meant to be used in that nature and thatâ€™s my problem with it.



Attaman said:


> Hint again: The way to reduce their dependency is not "We'll only let you go this far, then you're on your own. We're also cutting funding." Furthermore, you _still_ have yet to clarify _what_ is wrong with welfare spending. So far the majority of your comments have been wurbles of "Expensive this" and "Filet that" with a hint of "Welfare Queen", which says *absolutely nothing* except that you support gutting the defense budget, increasing taxes on every income bracket, and have some odd hatred of cows and aquatic beings.




Itâ€™s a very large expense thatâ€™s why, you talk about decreasing the deficit and yet you talk about increasing these types of programs. It doesnâ€™t add up; letâ€™s just say that, ok, were going to expand these programs like you said we should. We increase taxes to pay for these programs and now people have less money to spend because of the taxes. That would hurt the economy even more than it is already.



Attaman said:


> Try $99 a month with with first two years free courtesy of contract. But nah, best be assuming that the people on food stamps are shelling out $2000 a year on their phone plus another $1000+ on luxury foods (assuming they go grocery shopping twice a month. And spend an average of $41 on such luxury foods each time as "seafood" and "not dogfood-grade meat").




When I said that I also stated that I know that not everyone does that just that itâ€™s a problem. And thereâ€™s a big difference between dog food and lobster but you should know that.





TeenageAngst said:


> Although Echo Wolf is an absolute tit and couldn't understand necessary military spending if it slapped him upside the head, spending all this money on welfare really is a bad idea.


 
I was simply explaining to you why those things you mentioned were the way they were. No real need to call me names over it. In reality yeah we could do with closing down a few bases in the middle of but fuck nowhere but that doesnâ€™t mean we should gut the entire defense budget.


----------



## Ryuu (Nov 12, 2012)

So... Obama won. This has now turned into a political thread that can not be stopped. LOL


----------



## Attaman (Nov 12, 2012)

TeenageAngst said:


> I educate myself, I need that piece of paper to get a good job. I've learned more during the 2 years I spent working full time and studying on my own than I have during 3 years of college.


 Which, overall, is not how it should be. Institutes of learning are supposed to be for, well, learning, not rote and temporary memorization. Somehow the system has been twisted to the point that rote / memorization are the desired product, not an actual education. Arguably philosophy is one of the "majors" that still focuses on such, but unless you plan on being a philosophy major to teach others to be philosophy majors there's not very much practical application for such (at least not as much as the average professor will try and let on) when it comes to utilizing your education.



TeenageAngst said:


> Hell, were it not for that self-teaching I wouldn't be doing well in college at all. I certainly wouldn't have graduated community college with a 3.68 gpa. If I could get into the jobs I want without that piece of paper I'd be analyzing business expenditures right now.


 In this field I cannot properly comment. I know of the problem (dramatically increasing standards for jobs to the point that often times an entry-level position will cite something like 4+ years experience or a Masters Degree), but insufficiently the cause. Merely that similar to how an education has (unfortunately) become irrelevant to the average college experience, the job market's making increasing demands of its workers.



TeenageAngst said:


> And somehow that's my problem? I have enough issues to deal with without the government deciding I need to shoulder someone else's burden for them.


 Everyone shoulders someone else's burden. Do you think all the money that goes into your school's roads comes directly from students and faculty who attend it? That your education prior to college was fully paid by concerned parents of your community?



TeenageAngst said:


> Ha. ha. ha. That'll be the day.


 Considering approximately 15% of the population's on foodstamps, but 7.9% is unemployed, yeah, at least a good 46% of them are doing so now (if you assume that everyone of that 7.9% is included in the food stamp percentage).




Echo Wolf said:


> Iâ€™ve been saying that itâ€™s both their fault this entire time, not how much of the blame goes one way or another. That was the original point I was trying to make.


 Your original comment that started the Republican-Democrat placed them on equal footing after responding to a comment about mass-Republican obstructivism. Yes, that's saying both are at fault, but at no point did you imply that one party is more responsible than the other. Actually, you specifically responded to me (and DragonTalon) saying such with what amounts to an undignified "Oh yeah well Dems suck too!" (and then went on to, using your direct words, state "they both are equally as shitty").

You can say your entire point was that we shouldn't be spending time blaming people, which is true. What _should_ be done is the people playing economic (and, arguably slightly, political) terrorism get kicked out of office and people who actually put "Nation" over "Party" voted in. Unfortunately, there's still a strong current in the population that believes not only is that behavior acceptable, it should be _encouraged_ (See: People who insist that defaulting our nation's debt would only hurt for a few months / years then have us come out AMERICAN SUPERMEN! without realizing that they're missing a critical part of the Enclave's plan).



Echo Wolf said:


> I was more speaking about the extremist views you were talking about. Also, I do believe that it was stupid that Romney had to be â€œMore Republicanâ€ to get the nomination from the GOP.


This is what happens when one party spends a few years playing echo-chamber with itself and riling up a population leaning further and further to extremes with false-facts that're presented as true until the world kicks 'em kicking and screaming to reality. Not saying neither party twists facts in their favor or the like, but there's a reason Fox and many of their affiliates were absolutely _floored_ when Romney not only lost Electorally, but Popular Vote too. Similarly why some representatives believe that - unlike what every other Economist in the world knows - defaulting the United States' debt is only going to end in tears.



Echo Wolf said:


> Iâ€™m referring to the fact that youâ€™re making the GOP out to be some cartoony villains.


 _They're making themselves out to be_. I don't need to get involved in any way, shape, or form. Their recent behavior points towards some sort of rip in the fabric of the universe wherein a significant number of politicians with [R] next to their name have been replaced with villainous caricatures.



Echo Wolf said:


> My answer should have been quite clear, we cannot afford to keep these programs going.


 But we can afford further tax cuts and / or continued funding of the military at its current levels? I would have thought "Feed your citizens" would have ranked higher than "Launch drones at other peoples' citizens", but the more you know.



Echo Wolf said:


> You speak of cutting the debt in a roundabout way but if you really want to make an impact on the debt we need to decrease spending on these programs and, at the very least, fix them so people canâ€™t live indefinitely on them.


 Again, I have to ask _why_? What is wrong with the government providing a living for people? Does it somehow devalue you for not requiring government assistance? Is the act of providing aid to one's citizens taboo?



Echo Wolf said:


> Welfare was never meant to be a permanent solution to poverty, thatâ€™s why itâ€™s bad. People werenâ€™t meant to be living off of it.


 So it's bad because you aren't supposed to provide _long-term_ needs, only short?

If so, this implies that we should be looking to _help those people out of poverty_, *not* light fire to the shelter behind them and wish them luck. Which, unfortunately, gutting Welfare, Social Security, PBS and other educational programming / supplements, and so-on _is_. If that money's coming out of Welfare, it's going to _need_ to go right back into other programs to help the people.

Well, that or you tell everyone to get off Welfare, try scrounging together enough money to secure the documents, then apply for the military. But this only applies to certain age-groups and then leads to you having a bunch of people who are reliant entirely on the military for a living and have nothing to come back to.



Echo Wolf said:


> The length of time people spend on it is a problem. If people know that they can live off welfare a certain way what why would they bother looking for work.


 And those people you know in no way, shape, or form make up the majority of welfare. The issue should not be seen as "There's so many people on Welfare for long-term durations, we must cut its funding", it should be "There's so many people on Welfare for long-term durations, how do we help them out so that they aren't reliant on government aid". Again, mind, there's nothing - that I can find - inherently _wrong_ with the government supplying things like food, shelter, or even healthcare to its citizens. It'd be nice if the government could do so universally, instead of having to prioritize between those who most need it.



Echo Wolf said:


> First, Iâ€™ve remained calm this entire time.


 Yes, you remained rather calm while going off on tangents of how the people you saw on food stamps with _sea food_ in their shopping carts are leeches. 



Echo Wolf said:


> Second, that money could be going to a better cause if theyâ€™re on welfare.


 Like the mili- oh wait a minute. :V



Echo Wolf said:


> When I saw that it did make me angry because it seemed to me that they were fine living the way they were.


 People need comforts / luxuries. It's the same reason the idea of "BOOTSTRAPS!" is horrific. The idea works around complete dehumanization of the subject in question, telling them to work 50-60 hours a week spending the bare minimum on food and entertainment to the point that you're basically turning someone into a labour puppet with the pretense that "If you do this really well for really long and are really lucky you will eventually get to relax". People simply aren't _meant_ for 20+ years of such tedium, which is why many places that _do_ socially pressure people into such livings have stupidly high rates of suicide and mental issues. 



Echo Wolf said:


> Itâ€™s a very large expense thatâ€™s why, you talk about decreasing the deficit and yet you talk about increasing these types of programs.


 Well, yes, because I'm working under a basic assumption that taxes will be raised and loopholes closed. A principle that, seemingly, economists agree will provide the US with more money to spend and a larger budgetary allowance.



Echo Wolf said:


> It doesnâ€™t add up; letâ€™s just say that, ok, were going to expand these programs like you said we should. We increase taxes to pay for these programs and now people have less money to spend because of the taxes. That would hurt the economy even more than it is already.


 Raising the taxes on the higher income bracket _won't_ hurt the economy. That's just it. It's been found by _non-Partisan Congressional Studies_ that such won't harm the economy in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, this equation assumes that the raise in taxes is one-way, and that any money sucked up by the citizens will - at best - make no impact, at worst _raise_ costs of living.

Though I do have to wonder why increased taxes are being considered bad _now_ by many talking heads, when the main focus is on the higher income brackets, instead of during all the talk of "flat taxes", wherein many of the issues you're speaking about would be a greater concern.



Echo Wolf said:


> When I said that I also stated that I know that not everyone does that just that itâ€™s a problem. And thereâ€™s a big difference between dog food and lobster but you should know that.


Yes. However, just because one's reliant on government aid does not mean they should be made to pick the lowest-cost option time after time. It might be the most intelligent choice to pick cheaper foods so that you can acquire more of such for less, but it is definitely not the most desirable. 



Echo Wolf said:


> In reality yeah we could do with closing down a few bases in the middle of but fuck nowhere but that doesnâ€™t mean we should gut the entire defense budget.


 The thing is, we've already seen many, _many_ other programs have comparable gutting before the military sacred cow. Hell, Romney argued for raising spending on the military by a few billion USD if I remember right. This is, at the same time, when things such as the _Food and Drug Administration_ are on the chopping block for budget. That shit you eat? Needs less regulation. Iran? Throw another base at 'em.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 12, 2012)

> Everyone shoulders someone else's burden. Do you think all the money that goes into your school's roads comes directly from students and faculty who attend it? That your education prior to college was fully paid by concerned parents of your community?



I know all the money comes out of the school's account because I was at the announcement when they finally decided to put $1.2 million into making an alternative entrance/exit to one of the campuses.

And, as a matter of fact, my education prior to college was done via homeschooling, in which my parents taught me and later mostly involved me teaching myself pretty much all of highschool. All the while my parents and I were paying taxes for a school system we never used. So yeah.

I don't expect any more out of anyone else than what I went through myself. Why is this so terrible?


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 12, 2012)

Attaman said:


> You can say your entire point was that we shouldn't be spending time blaming people, which is true.


Thatâ€™s pretty much the point Iâ€™ve been trying to get across. No oneâ€™s hands are clean of this and we shouldnâ€™t waste time pointing fingers when there are much more important problems at hand.



Attaman said:


> But we can afford further tax cuts and / or continued funding of the military at its current levels? I would have thought "Feed your citizens" would have ranked higher than "Launch drones at other peoples' citizens", but the more you know.


 
Tax cuts for whom? And when I spoke about the military I stated that we shouldnâ€™t be shrinking as much as people believe it should be. We do need to stop the Wars in the Middle East but itâ€™s something that canâ€™t happen overnight.



Attaman said:


> So it's bad because you aren't supposed to provide long-term needs, only short?


What Iâ€™m saying is that itâ€™s more important to get people back and working again rather than have them be on welfare for an indeterminate amount of time.  Iâ€™m aware that some jobs donâ€™t pay enough but people should look for ways to improve their lives instead of being complacent with them. Education is very important and I know for a fact there are grants/ scholarships for people who are in a certain income bracket. I knew a guy who got classes set up at the local community college to eventually get into nursing. He was living with relatives/ in his car for a few months and worked in delivery jobs. People like that I donâ€™t have a problem with them getting assistance but people who donâ€™t try to improve their situation I have a problem with.



Attaman said:


> Yes, you remained rather calm while going off on tangents of how the people you saw on food stamps with sea food in their shopping carts are leeches.


Wasnâ€™t really a tangent, I was just giving what some of my observations are about food stamps/ect. It really bothered me though because a large portion of my check, as with everyone else, would go to taxes that fund those programs. I donâ€™t expect them to eat shit but thatâ€™s seriously excessive. If it seems like I was/am pissed Iâ€™m not, people always seem to think I am for some reason thoughâ€¦



Attaman said:


> Raising the taxes on the higher income bracket won't hurt the economy. That's just it. It's been found by non-Partisan Congressional Studies that such won't harm the economy in any way, shape, or form. Furthermore, this equation assumes that the raise in taxes is one-way, and that any money sucked up by the citizens will - at best - make no impact, at worst raise costs of living.


Americanâ€™s are already struggling with money now. Saying that it wonâ€™t do anything to economy is looking at the best case scenario. With whatâ€™s happening now why should we risk doing anything like that?



Attaman said:


> Yes. However, just because one's reliant on government aid does not mean they should be made to pick the lowest-cost option time after time. It might be the most intelligent choice to pick cheaper foods so that you can acquire more of such for less, but it is definitely not the most desirable.


There are much more viable options that the two extremes of spam and lobster. Thatâ€™s my big problem with that.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 12, 2012)

I love the argument that welfare is at fault for TA's mother being lazy and not wanting to put in work to get a better quality of living and be able to improve his dad's health. If there wasn't welfare, would she magically want to put her chemistry degree to use doing more work? Probably not. She'd probably just have to work like 40 hours at Walgreens instead of 30 or something like that. Or their quality of living would just be EVEN WORSE. 

It's not welfare's fault your mother is lazy, TA. It's her own fault. You'd think that you'd realize that with how much you usually pin things on the individual and not the system.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 12, 2012)

Ryuu said:


> So... Obama won. This has now turned into a political thread that can not be stopped. LOL



Three things that cannot be avoided: death, taxes, and politics.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Three things that cannot be avoided: death, taxes, and politics.


This is the thread that never ends.
Yes, it goes on and on my friend.
Some people started posting not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue posting forever just because...
This is the thread that never ends.
Yes, it goes on and on my friend.
Some people started posting not knowing what it was,
And they'll continue posting forever just because...


But in all seriousness I'm so glad this election is over.  Now congress can get back to doing nothing.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 12, 2012)

It really baffles me how people think that others will lower their quality of living purposefully just so they can get free stuff. 

Really, raise your hand if you would put yourself through the stress of losing your home, worrying about if you're going to eat or feed your children, just so you can get free money.

Okay fine. Let's just remove welfare. Now what. What does this solve? If anything it creates more problems.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 12, 2012)

Gay Marriage and marijuana were legalized on the same day in Washington.
Apparently the bible was misinterpreted.
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, they shall both be *stoned*."


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 12, 2012)

What I want to know is how likely is it that the GOP is going to get their butts kicked in 2014 though?  Since Obama got re-elected and the economy is recovering when it eventually recovers fully they will not be able to claim any part in it and will look terrible for obstructing Obama.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Nov 12, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> What I want to know is how likely is it that the GOP is going to get their butts kicked in 2014 though?  Since Obama got re-elected and the economy is recovering when it eventually recovers fully they will not be able to claim any part in it and will look terrible for obstructing Obama.



4 years seems like such a long time, but Romney & the GOP did a fantastic job of ostracizing themselves in this election. What most people heard were Romney's 'binders full of women', the plethora of GOP people talking poorly about rape for some reason, the GOP-backed voter-ID law that appeared very much aimed at minorities, the anti-gay/gay-marriage slurs, and pretty much pick a minority race or group and the GOP showed some level of hatred towards it - Unless it was an anti-gay group/corporation/whatever.

And don't forget Romney's random appearances with a poorly done spray tan, to appear more Latino I guess? And when he got called out on it, the campaign denied it and his next appearance he was _a lot_ more white. 

Also: lol magic mormon underwear.


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 12, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> O yes the wonderfully reliable source that is  Wikipedia. Thanks for the bountiful amount of reliable information.



Oh hay it's that typical conservative response of  "Wikipedia doesn't say what I want it to say IT MUST BE BIASED AND A  PART OF THE LIBERAL AGENDA!" If you don't like it you can always try  Conservapedia.



CodArk2 said:


> You guys sayong the military accounts for s much of our spending have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> http://nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/   explains it better. The military spending is a large part of our DISCRETIONARY spending, not total spending. Discretionary spending is about 31 percent of US total Spending, 62 percent is mandatory spending.  Social security, Labor, Unemployment, medicare and Health take up 88 percent of mandatory spending, and thats most of the US budget.
> 
> ...



Nice job quoting a website that sounds horrifically biased.

First off your numbers are horribly off. True, Social Security and Medicare are larger expenses in the budget than military expenses, but only by a percentage point or two. All three programs are about 20% of the total budget, so that means they're 60% of the budget combined. HOWEVER, you have forgotten that Social Security and Medicare are both paid for by the FICA tax, also known as the Payroll tax, which takes a small amount out of everyone's pay checks. The Defensive budget is not paid for by a separate tax, but is paid for out of the general fund.

Here's a chart showing the payroll tax in bright green. What is interesting about this pie chart is that it shows that 83% of the federal government's operating budget comes from taxing the paychecks of people. Both the payroll tax for social security (bright green) and income tax (blue) are taxes on paychecks. Corporate tax (8%) is only a tiny fraction of the money that comes in to the government. Anyone who says that businesses are being taxed to death is bullshitting.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 12, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> Oh hay it's that typical conservative response of  "Wikipedia doesn't say what I want it to say IT MUST BE BIASED AND A  PART OF THE LIBERAL AGENDA!" If you don't like it you can always try  Conservapedia.



Do you even understand what we were discussing and also Wikipedia has *never *been a credible source of information. It's a site were anyone can edit it at any time; hell one of my friends made it his goal to exploit the crap out of this and kept on using proxies to edit stupid things into articles. If you believe everything that Wikipedia says fine by me but *no one* else accepts it a reliable source of information. It's a site that anyone who thinks they're an expert on a topic can edit articles and that's its fatal flaw.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 12, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Iâ€™ve been saying that itâ€™s both their fault this entire time, not how much of the blame goes one way or another. That was the original point I was trying to make.



You can't POSSIBLY be serious in saying the near default that happened was in any way the fault of the Democrats?  

The Republicans said they would allow the US to default on it's debts unless Democrats gave in to their demands.  They were not voting NO to raising the debt because they thought it was a bad idea, they were threatening to vote NO unless they got their way on something that could have, and nearly did trash our economy.  Are you faulting the Democrats for giving in and not letting the economy crash?  The debt ceiling HAS to be raised.  We simply can't default on our debts without SERIOUS consequences.

And yet again... think back to Bush vs Gore.  Do you really think that Gore would have abandoned Afghanistan and lied about WMD's to invade Iraq and throwing us into a 10 year war, causing thousands of US casualties and tens of thousands of crippled vets and racking up huge debt, combined with massive tax cuts to the rich?  You think electing Gore instead would not have changed anything because they are the same?

How many Republicans believe in global warming?  Any?  You think they will do anything about it?  The Democrats are not going to do a LOT because of the financial pain involved but they at least are not trying to pretend it's not happening and are TRYING.

The lie that both parties are the same so don't bother to vote is a myth spun by Republicans who have a vested interest in suppressing the vote.

Which is another difference.  How many Democratic controlled states are passing laws to make it HARDER to vote?  None.  It's all Republicans.

They truly have lost their way.  I look forward to when enough of their base dies off from odl age that they are forced to veer back to the center to stay relevant.  Then maybe we can get some shit done.




Echo Wolf said:


> Do you even understand what we were discussing and also Wikipedia has





Echo Wolf said:


> *never *been a credible source of information. It's a site were anyone can edit it at any time; hell one of my friends made it his goal to exploit the crap out of this and kept on using proxies to edit stupid things into articles. If you believe everything that Wikipedia says fine by me but *no one* else accepts it a reliable source of information. It's a site that anyone who thinks they're an expert on a topic can edit articles and that's its fatal flaw.



Um... a whole hell of a lot of people trust Wikipedia.  It's WIDELY considered an accurate site.  You are showing vast ignorance or bias here.  The best part is the sources at the bottom of each page.  You can actually look up where the information came from if you want to verify it.  WIkipedia has been a huge success and yes, some false information gets in but it's almost always corrected and the vast majority is good.

As for your friend.  He is an ass hole of the worst kind.  No better than spray panting a mural or defacing someone elses property just for the pure fun of destroying something.  Your friend is an idot, childish and sadly is a perfect example of humans being selfish and caring about nothing but their own pleasure.  I hope he eventually grows up.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 12, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> Um... a whole hell of a lot of people trust Wikipedia.  It's WIDELY considered an accurate site.  You are showing vast ignorance or bias here.  The best part is the sources at the bottom of each page.  You can actually look up where the information came from if you want to verify it.  WIkipedia has been a huge success and yes, some false information gets in but it's almost always corrected and the vast majority is good.
> 
> As for your friend.  He is an ass hole of the worst kind.  No better than spray panting a mural or defacing someone elses property just for the pure fun of destroying something.  Your friend is an idot, childish and sadly is a perfect example of humans being selfish and caring about nothing but their own pleasure.  I hope he eventually grows up.



Who consider's Wikipedia a reputable site? Go try to have a serious discussion with anyone and quote Wikipedia and see what they say. Go turn in a term paper in any College with Wikipedia as a source and watch yourself get laughed out of there. There are reasons no one seriously uses Wikipedia and you are choosing to ignore them to spite me. You most likely didn't even read what we were discussing and the only thing you and Lee have shown me is that you're both ignorant. If someone want's to be taken seriously they need to give credible sources that have a good reputation, not the proverbial bar room dart board of information accuracy that is Wikipedia.
Also, Wikipedia isn't the Sistine chapel of the internet's knowledge. If anything what my friend did was the equivalent of rubbing a turd on some intercity graffiti. Also, you're damming a person for screwing around in Wikipedia. You act as though he hacked into some government data base and through highly sensitive information up on the web for kicks. He didn't need to use proxies to do it you know, the only reason he used them was so he couldn't get IP banned. You're completely free to change anything in the articles. Just grow up, srsly.


----------



## helioswolf (Nov 12, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> I love the argument that welfare is at fault for TA's mother being lazy and not wanting to put in work to get a better quality of living and be able to improve his dad's health. If there wasn't welfare, would she magically want to put her chemistry degree to use doing more work? Probably not. She'd probably just have to work like 40 hours at Walgreens instead of 30 or something like that. Or their quality of living would just be EVEN WORSE.
> 
> It's not welfare's fault your mother is lazy, TA. It's her own fault. You'd think that you'd realize that with how much you usually pin things on the individual and not the system.



this is just an obvious case of him thinking that the rules don't apply to him, that he can just do whatever the hell he wants and that equal work guarantees equal results.  @TA No, sorry, you're not better than the rest of us.  We're going to drag you down to the bottom of the barrel, to the absolute lowest common denominator and you're going to like it because you're not special and.. stuff.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 13, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Who consider's Wikipedia a reputable site? Go try to have a serious discussion with anyone and quote Wikipedia and see what they say. Go turn in a term paper in any College with Wikipedia as a source and watch yourself get laughed out of there. There are reasons no one seriously uses Wikipedia and you are choosing to ignore them to spite me. You most likely didn't even read what we were discussing and the only thing you and Lee have shown me is that you're both ignorant. If someone want's to be taken seriously they need to give credible sources that have a good reputation, not the proverbial bar room dart board of information accuracy that is Wikipedia.



Of course most Professors are not going to take Wikipedia references as valid, duh.   But follow the links in a Wiki article to find out where they sourced the information and give them that and they will be perfectly happy.  Did Wikipedia beat you up in high school or something?  You keep saying nobody takes Wikipedia seriously and everyone think's its full of crap, you seem to not just dislike it, but hate it.  I've never seen this attitude before, other than from the founders and users of Conservipedia.    

Really, just where, and who do you talk to that laugh at you if you bring up Wikipedia references?   

Or is it that people have been using Wikipedia references to refute your argument and you just find it easier to claim they are biased or wrong or whatever your issue with it is?



Echo Wolf said:


> Also, Wikipedia isn't the Sistine chapel of the internet's knowledge. If anything what my friend did was the equivalent of rubbing a turd on some intercity graffiti. Also, you're damming a person for screwing around in Wikipedia. You act as though he hacked into some government data base and through highly sensitive information up on the web for kicks. He didn't need to use proxies to do it you know, the only reason he used them was so he couldn't get IP banned. You're completely free to change anything in the articles. Just grow up, srsly.



You are telling ME to grow up, after bragging about how your friend makes it his lifes goal to vandalize the work of thousands of people?   You think it's just all fun and games to ruin the work of others?  You are seriously screwed up.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 13, 2012)

Just because you find something on Wikipedia doesn't make it false or not reliable. It just means you have to double check. You can't just discount something because it's from wikipedia like you would from the daily mail


----------



## Aleu (Nov 13, 2012)

I feel like it's 2005 all over again with this whole Wikipedia nonsense. Professors don't accept wiki because it's unreliable. They don't accept it because it's too easy. It doesn't encourage real digging and research on a subject.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 13, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> Of course most Professors are not going to take Wikipedia references as valid, duh.   But follow the links in a Wiki article to find out where they sourced the information and give them that and they will be perfectly happy.  Did Wikipedia beat you up in high school or something?  You keep saying nobody takes Wikipedia seriously and everyone think's its full of crap, you seem to not just dislike it, but hate it.  I've never seen this attitude before, other than from the founders and users of Conservipedia.
> 
> Really, just where, and who do you talk to that laugh at you if you bring up Wikipedia references?
> 
> Or is it that people have been using Wikipedia references to refute your argument and you just find it easier to claim they are biased or wrong or whatever your issue with it is?



So you argument is "here's Wikipedia go follow the sources on your own", that defeats the purpose of posting the source in the first place. I don't hate Wikipedia, I use it when someone throws around a phrase that I don't really know, but it's not credible in the least. Wikipedia isn't written by experts on subjects, if you're going to try to convince me about something give me information from an expert not Joe from Ohio who thinks he's one. You're making yourself seem really ignorant and your only argument is "oh you don't like it because it goes contrary to your beliefs". This really shows that you don't have a single idea what was being discussing and you're just arguing this in spite of me. Go try to have a serious debate with someone in real life and tell them you got your information from Wikipedia. No one is going to care what you have to say after that. Also, I've never even heard of Conservipedia before.



DragonTalon said:


> You are telling ME to grow up, after bragging about how your friend makes it his lifes goal to vandalize the work of thousands of people?   You think it's just all fun and games to ruin the work of others?  You are seriously screwed up.


How is that bragging? I'm merely pointing out what some people do and guess what, that's exactly what that site allows and that's its major problem. That's why it's not a reputable source not because "o I'm mad pissed because it opposes mah beliefs". Also, If you're really going to say in all seriousness that calling someone a worthless piece of shit for screwing around with Wikipedia articles is justified then you really do need to grow up and get your head out of your ass because you sound like a child.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 13, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> So you argument is "here's Wikipedia go follow the sources on your own", that defeats the purpose of posting the source in the first place. I don't hate Wikipedia, I use it when someone throws around a phrase that I don't really know, but it's not credible in the least. Wikipedia isn't written by experts on subjects, if you're going to try to convince me about something give me information from an expert not Joe from Ohio who thinks he's one. You're making yourself seem really ignorant and your only argument is "oh you don't like it because it goes contrary to your beliefs". This really shows that you don't have a single idea what was being discussing and you're just arguing this in spite of me. Go try to have a serious debate with someone in real life and tell them you got your information from Wikipedia. No one is going to care what you have to say after that. Also, I've never even heard of Conservipedia before.



It doesn't defeat the purpose, that IS the purpose.  A source of information.  It's organizing existing information in a way that's easy to find and read.   Not everyone has access to, or can wade through a thousand research papers.  But anyone can go to Wikipedia and see a summary of a subject and then see exactly where the information came from and read the source.    

I talk to lots of people and use, and hear references to Wikipedia all the time.  I've never seen someone laugh and deride me, or anyone from using it.  Aside from you.  I really have to wonder who you hang around with that dismisses anyone if they mention Wikipedia.  I've never run into anyone outside of college professors that would say anything like that.

Wikipedia isn't written by experts?  Really?  Now you are showing your ignorance.  It's written by all kinds of people, from good to bad.  Fans of people or products write articles, but there are lots of actual scientist, physicists and chemists that monitor and write Wiki articles.   It's not perfect, it's far from it, and there is real misinformation there, but to call it a

If Wikipedia is not credible in the least, why you you even bother using it to look anything up?  You are not making any sense.    



Echo Wolf said:


> How is that bragging? I'm merely pointing out what some people do and guess what, that's exactly what that site allows and that's its major problem. That's why it's not a reputable source not because "o I'm mad pissed because it opposes mah beliefs". Also, If you're really going to say in all seriousness that calling someone a worthless piece of shit for screwing around with Wikipedia articles is justified then you really do need to grow up and get your head out of your ass because you sound like a child.



I'm a child because I am upset that someone is going around defacing and vandalizing something, but you are QUITE mature for being all for it.  Right.  

I've noticed something, several times now you have said that vandalizing Wikipidea is ok because the rules allow it.  That more than anything shows your lack of critical thinking, or even basic understanding.  You keep saying that Wikipedia allows anyone to change articles so it's perfectly ok and reasonable to go in and deliberately wreck articles and add knowingly untrue facts.  That's so wrong it's sad.


----------



## Vega (Nov 13, 2012)

If you want to see people being childish, take a look at some of the stuff on this FB Page..  It's kind of ridiculous, some of these people genuinely believe that Obama being re-elected is the "Death Of America".  Then there's the whole thing about 15 states wanting to secede from the US.  *sigh*  -_-


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 13, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> It doesn't defeat the purpose, that IS the purpose.  A source of information.  It's organizing existing information in a way that's easy to find and read.   Not everyone has access to, or can wade through a thousand research papers.  But anyone can go to Wikipedia and see a summary of a subject and then see exactly where the information came from and read the source.



You're missing the point, the information isn't always accurate. Giving a source means giving an accurate source that is written by someone who is credible and should have some authority on a subject. Wikipedia is just an amalgamation of information from people who think they're experts on a subject. Even if there are experts who contribute to that site there's no way of telling what information came from them and what came from someone else.



DragonTalon said:


> I talk to lots of people and use, and hear references to Wikipedia all the time.  I've never seen someone laugh and deride me, or anyone from using it.  Aside from you.  I really have to wonder who you hang around with that dismisses anyone if they mention Wikipedia.  I've never run into anyone outside of college professors that would say anything like that.



In an intelligent discussion? While debating an issue? You'd be getting a much less friendlier response than talking on a corner with your buddy about something.



DragonTalon said:


> Wikipedia isn't written by experts?  Really?  Now you are showing your ignorance.  It's written by all kinds of people, from good to bad.  Fans of people or products write articles, but there are lots of actual scientist, physicists and chemists that monitor and write Wiki articles.   It's not perfect, it's far from it





DragonTalon said:


> It's not perfect, it's far from it



You just admitted to how stupid your argument is, thank you very much for agreeing with me.



DragonTalon said:


> If Wikipedia is not credible in the least, why you you even bother using it to look anything up?  You are not making any sense.



Simple, I use it a lot of times for looking up colloquial phrases and such. I certainly don't use it as a tool for serious research or debate though.



DragonTalon said:


> I'm a child because I am upset that someone is going around defacing and vandalizing something, but you are QUITE mature for being all for it.  Right.
> 
> I've noticed something, several times now you have said that vandalizing Wikipidea is ok because the rules allow it.  That more than anything shows your lack of critical thinking, or even basic understanding.  You keep saying that Wikipedia allows anyone to change articles so it's perfectly ok and reasonable to go in and deliberately wreck articles and add knowingly untrue facts.  That's so wrong it's sad.


It's an article that's meant to be edited by the people who read it. It's quite funny how highly you regard Wikipedia as if it's the Holy Grail of the worlds knowledge. I said you need to grow up because you act as if you believe that people don't do this. Like this doesn't happen to Wikipedia constantly, intentionally or unintentionally. You're ignorant and choose to believe that it's a perfectly reputable source and that's why you need to grow up. That and also the fact how you put my friend right on the figurative cross for ever doing that to Wikipedia. Face it it's not perfect, it's not meant to be perfect and you even admit it to not be perfect. Grow up and go do something else besides making a stupid argument.


----------



## TeenageAngst (Nov 13, 2012)

Wikipedia is usually right on the money unless it's a controvercial issue. I'm guessing that's what this discussion devolved into.

btw I don't think Helen Keller ever actually existed. It just doesn't add up.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 13, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> You're missing the point, the information isn't always accurate. Giving a source means giving an accurate source that is written by someone who is credible and should have some authority on a subject. Wikipedia is just an amalgamation of information from people who think they're experts on a subject. Even if there are experts who contribute to that site there's no way of telling what information came from them and what came from someone else.
> 
> In an intelligent discussion? While debating an issue? You'd be getting a much less friendlier response than talking on a corner with your buddy about something.



Please inform me and my low-class corner buddies who you 'debate' with that have such higher standards?  You have NO idea who my friends and colleges are, or who I talk to.  



Echo Wolf said:


> You just admitted to how stupid your argument is, thank you very much for agreeing with me.



I never claimed Wikipedia was perfect.  Nothing is.   Not even Encyclopedias are perfect.  Aside from mistakes, they get outdated fast and are useless for any kind of research on anything cutting edge or that happened recently.  It's still damn useful and is usually very accurate.  Just because some mistakes get in, and some people intentionally mess with it hasn't kept it from being a very good resource.   I don't care WHERE you get your information, but if your doing serious research you ALWAYS check multiple sources.



Echo Wolf said:


> Simple, I use it a lot of times for looking up colloquial phrases and such. I certainly don't use it as a tool for serious research or debate though.
> 
> It's an article that's meant to be edited by the people who read it. It's quite funny how highly you regard Wikipedia as if it's the Holy Grail of the worlds knowledge. I said you need to grow up because you act as if you believe that people don't do this. Like this doesn't happen to Wikipedia constantly, intentionally or unintentionally. You're ignorant and choose to believe that it's a perfectly reputable source and that's why you need to grow up. That and also the fact how you put my friend right on the figurative cross for ever doing that to Wikipedia. Face it it's not perfect, it's not meant to be perfect and you even admit it to not be perfect. Grow up and go do something else besides making a stupid argument.



I got upset at your friend vandalizing Wikipedia the same way I would get upset if you talked about a friend who ran around smashing car windows at night or spray painting peoples houses.  It's juvenile behavior, like scribbling your crayons on the wall when your three because you don't understand right from wrong.  Wikipedia is like those "Take a penny, leave a penny" bowls.  It's open for anyone to edit in good faith.  If your friend stole all the pennies from those bowls every visit would you say that's all right because it says 'take a penny' right there?  I'll say it again, your friend is a jerk who gets off on ruining other peoples work.

Again, I never said it was perfect.  But is IS a reputable source.  You are very, very alone in your disdain of it.  The vast majority of the public uses it every day, and that includes experts and scientists as well. 

Not sure why you are going off on it not being perfect, I think you said it a dozen times.  I never said it was.  I said it was a good source of information, and I stand by that.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 13, 2012)

DragonTalon said:


> Please inform me and my low-class corner buddies who you 'debate' with that have such higher standards?  You have NO idea who my friends and colleges are, or who I talk to.



It's obvious that whoever you talk to it wasn't a serious debate if Wikipedia is an accepted source.



DragonTalon said:


> I never claimed Wikipedia was perfect.  Nothing is.   Not even Encyclopedias are perfect.  Aside from mistakes, they get outdated fast and are useless for any kind of research on anything cutting edge or that happened recently.  It's still damn useful and is usually very accurate.  Just because some mistakes get in, and some people intentionally mess with it hasn't kept it from being a very good resource.   I don't care WHERE you get your information, but if your doing serious research you ALWAYS check multiple sources.



That was the moment you shot yourself right in the foot. The difference between Wikipedia and Encyclopedias/ books are that those are actually fact checked, no one's going to spend money getting a book with false or outdated information in it. The same is true with articles from reputable sources. You admit that Wikipedia has mistakes and people screw with it constantly; how can you make the claim that it's reputable enough to present it as evidence for an argument?



DragonTalon said:


> I got upset at your friend vandalizing Wikipedia the same way I would get upset if you talked about a friend who ran around smashing car windows at night or spray painting peoples houses.  It's juvenile behavior, like scribbling your crayons on the wall when your three because you don't understand right from wrong.  Wikipedia is like those "Take a penny, leave a penny" bowls.  It's open for anyone to edit in good faith.  If your friend stole all the pennies from those bowls every visit would you say that's all right because it says 'take a penny' right there?  I'll say it again, your friend is a jerk who gets off on ruining other peoples work.
> 
> Again, I never said it was perfect.  But is IS a reputable source.  You are very, very alone in your disdain of it.  The vast majority of the public uses it every day, and that includes experts and scientists as well.
> 
> Not sure why you are going off on it not being perfect, I think you said it a dozen times.  I never said it was.  I said it was a good source of information, and I stand by that.



I used what he did as an example to tell you what people do to that site constantly. It's not the same as "spray painting a horse" or "breaking windows", if you believe that than you obviously don't have a basic understanding of different levels of criminal behavior; editing Wikipedia isn't even near the same league as those things you've mentioned, it's not even a crime considering you're allowed to edit it. It's not a reputable source and even Wikipedia doesn't pretend that it is (source). Wikipedia openly admits that "some of the articles are complete rubbish" and they also go on to say "please do not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions" . It doesn't matter if you use Wikipedia, just about everyone does, but it starts to become a problem when you try to pass it off as being reputable and worthy of use in a debate.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 14, 2012)

Echo, Jesus Christ you're missing the point. 

95% of the wikipedia entries are correct. If you click the source, you can decide for yourself if it's accurate or not. 

There is absolutely 0 shame and nothing wrong with linking to wikipedia, as it oftentimes has things laid out in nicer easier to read portions than the original source material. 

I've had professors actively encourage students to check wikipedia and I go to one of the best universities in the country. 

Stop acting like you know it all and admit when you're wrong.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 14, 2012)

Well, Echo Wolf thinks CNN, ABC, Factcheck,org, Politifact, Snopes, and the friggin' Washington Post are all biased in favor of the Dems too, so... :roll:

He's totally impartial though you guys! :V


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 14, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Echo, Jesus Christ you're missing the point.
> 
> 95% of the wikipedia entries are correct. If you click the source, you can decide for yourself if it's accurate or not.
> 
> ...




And there are a shitton of source links below the entry's article just in case if people want to refer to those.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 14, 2012)

Lobar said:


> Well, Echo Wolf thinks CNN, ABC, Factcheck,org, Politifact, Snopes, and the friggin' Washington Post are all biased in favor of the Dems too, so... :roll:
> 
> He's totally impartial though you guys! :V



That explains a lot.  Now I can see that these people he keeps bringing up that he has these serious debates with that laugh and ridicule anyone who brings up Wikipedia are probably a bunch of 'severely conservative' friends who are allergic to facts and think there is nothing morally wrong with defacing web sites.  Gee, I wonder what organizations he considers fair and balanced.  

Anyway, He made his points, I made mine, both several times and neither is going to change so I'm not going to argue with him any more over Wikipedia.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 14, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> Echo, Jesus Christ you're missing the point.
> 
> 95% of the wikipedia entries are correct. If you click the source, you can decide for yourself if it's accurate or not.
> 
> ...



You're missing the point here, if someones going to bring up a source then I shouldn't have to go rifling around trying to find if it's accurate or not. That's my point and also Wikipedia says don't use it for making critical decisions. How much more obvious can I get?



Lobar said:


> Well, Echo Wolf thinks CNN, ABC, Factcheck,org, Politifact, Snopes, and the friggin' Washington Post are all biased in favor of the Dems too, so... :roll:
> 
> He's totally impartial though you guys! :V



A lot of those sources do lean left, are you seriously trying to say that they don't? Are you saying that you and everyone else on this site impartial? Guarantee if anyone else would of made a similar remark not half the fucks would be pouring out of everyone. I will admit I wasn't as well read up on the political fact checker ones and I hadn't been sleeping much when I wrote that. 



DragonTalon said:


> Anyway, He made his points, I made mine, both several times and neither is going to change so I'm not going to argue with him any more over Wikipedia.



Yeah don't try to act like your taking the high road here when you're the one who brought it up.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 14, 2012)

It's a pretty pointless argument, because we're _not_ submitting a work to professionals, we're not turning in a paper, we're not putting in footnotes to our posts or putting endnotes to our threads. It'd be one thing if it's a site that purposely tries to alter facts, but this feels an awful lot like splitting hairs. You cannot cite Wikipedia, but wake me when anyone, _anyone at all_, properly cites a primary source in a forum argument.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 14, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> You're missing the point here, if someones going to bring up a source then I shouldn't have to go rifling around trying to find if it's accurate or not. That's my point and also Wikipedia says don't use it for making critical decisions. How much more obvious can I get?



Which is why it links to the sources instead of people solely relying on it.



Echo Wolf said:


> A lot of those sources do lean left, are you seriously trying to say that they don't? Are you saying that you and everyone else on this site impartial? Guarantee if anyone else would of made a similar remark not half the fucks would be pouring out of everyone. I will admit I wasn't as well read up on the political fact checker ones and I hadn't been sleeping much when I wrote that.




"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -Stephen Colbert


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> A lot of those sources do lean left, are you seriously trying to say that they don't? Are you saying that you and everyone else on this site impartial? Guarantee if anyone else would of made a similar remark not half the fucks would be pouring out of everyone. I will admit I wasn't as well read up on the political fact checker ones and I hadn't been sleeping much when I wrote that.


People were claiming that Nate Silver's calculations were "leaning left" and he accurately predicted the electrion results.  What I'm getting at is there's a difference between a actual left leaning bias and a actual political science.  You can't just throw out scientific studies just cause they don't agree with your own views upon the world.  Why do you think the GOP lost this election?  Rather than rely on gallup polls and such to warn them which states they were going to lose they created their own biased polls and instead listened to that when it was nothing more than confirmation bias of their own political ideals and hence they got their asses kicked hard cause they wren't able to accurately tell how the election was going and couldn't come up with a better battle plan for winning.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 14, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Which is why it links to the sources instead of people solely relying on it.



Then if it does why not just post those links instead of posting Wikipedia and saying look for it yourself. Is that really that hard to comprehend?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 14, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Then if it does why not just post those links instead of posting Wikipedia and saying look for it yourself. Is that really that hard to comprehend?


I feel like I have the urge to throw a heavy book(I dunno something like "in search of lost time and space" level of heavy) at someone for this argurment deviating from the election to legitimacy of wikipedia sources.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 14, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> I feel like I have the urge to throw a heavy book(I dunno something like "in search of lost time and space" level of heavy) at someone for this argurment deviating from the election to legitimacy of wikipedia sources.





CrazyLee said:


> Oh hay it's that typical conservative response of "Wikipedia doesn't say what I want it to say IT MUST BE BIASED AND A PART OF THE LIBERAL AGENDA!" If you don't like it you can always try Conservapedia.



And so it began.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 14, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> And so it began.



actually it was here
http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/124389-Furry-election-2012/page45?p=3081058#post3081058


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 14, 2012)

Aleu said:


> actually it was here
> http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/124389-Furry-election-2012/page45?p=3081058#post3081058



Take notice how his comes 33 posts after mine though; it wasn't being discussed and no one had said anything about it until that point.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 14, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> Take notice how his comes 33 posts after mine though; it wasn't being discussed and no one had said anything about it until that point.



Doesn't matter. You still lit the match.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 14, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Doesn't matter. You still lit the match.



Lit the match? What by not accepting Wikipedia as a source? Yeah that's totally my fault everyone break out the stones and torches, never mind the person who brought it up way past the point of relevance.


----------



## FenrirUlv (Nov 14, 2012)

You guys are all being a bit thick headed here.
First, you guys should know better than to link wikipedia, Im sorry but he has a point, thats why those sources ARE there at the bottom of the page, link to the actual articles its just courtesy in this aspect. Its kind of retarded to say hey go here to a website anyone can edit but double check the sources yourself. That aside, in most cases wiki is reliable echo. I cant tell you how many times that either a page is locked and cant be edited anyway or where I have fact checked it and be right in the first place. The only times I really have issues with things being correct are on smaller more specific pages and at that point its just stupidly obvious what is fake so dont start up some completely pointless argument about whether it is relevant or not, it just makes you look like a tool who is avoiding the topic (this goes to both of you, Im too lazy to read your other posts and see "who started it".

Edit: cant believe I forgot this... U mad republicans?


----------



## Lobar (Nov 14, 2012)

Echo Wolf said:


> A lot of those sources do lean left, are you seriously trying to say that they don't? Are you saying that you and everyone else on this site impartial? Guarantee if anyone else would of made a similar remark not half the fucks would be pouring out of everyone. I will admit I wasn't as well read up on the political fact checker ones and I hadn't been sleeping much when I wrote that.



I remembered that post of yours because I responded to it once already, which you ignored:



Lobar said:


> CNN is the most impartial of the "big three"and is best described as "sensationalist" rather than consistently left- or right-biased.  Politifact and Factcheck are decidedly impartial by design and if you're going to assert otherwise you better cite examples.  Tax Policy Center, the source of the analysis that Romney's tax plan math doesn't work, is also a long-running impartial entity, and Romney himself cited them as an "impartial source" when attacking his opponents in the primary.  Finally, Wa-Po is a traditionally center-_right_ leaning paper.  That you are so quick to rush to cry "bias!" in the face of widespread disagreement from relatively neutral parties is indicative that *you have been misinformed.*



I'm biased towards that which has the most factual evidence behind it.  That just happens to put me significantly to the left on the current American spectrum.


----------



## Echo Wolf (Nov 15, 2012)

Lobar said:


> I remembered that post of yours because I responded to it once already, which you ignored:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm biased towards that which has the most factual evidence behind it.  That just happens to put me significantly to the left on the current American spectrum.



Well excuse me if I miss one reply out of five on the same post. Kind of makes it incredibly hard to keep track of everything when you have ten different people all saying you're wrong and a horrible person at the same exact time.

And you're saying you have no bias whatsoever? That's quite amazing, I didn't even think that was humanly possible at all.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 15, 2012)

http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/man-distraught-over-presidential-election-result-kills-himself/

Florida man kills himself over the results of the election.

And now people are saying the election is rigged to favor Obama. God damn these fucking morons.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 15, 2012)

Aleu said:


> http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/man-distraught-over-presidential-election-result-kills-himself/
> 
> Florida man kills himself over the results of the election.
> 
> And now people are saying the election is rigged to favor Obama. God damn these fucking morons.




The closer we get to 12/21, the crazier people get. 

I talked to a overly religious republican in line who was "Demanding" that I vote for Romney because he is the Savior and Obama is the antichrist. Any of his followers would transform into demons on judgement day. >.>


----------



## Aleu (Nov 15, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> The closer we get to 12/21, the crazier people get.
> 
> I talked to a overly religious republican in line who was "Demanding" that I vote for Romney because he is the Savior and Obama is the antichrist. *Any of his followers would transform into demons on judgement day*. >.>


BITCHIN'!!


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 15, 2012)

Aleu said:


> BITCHIN'!!



Being a demon would be totally awesome, wouldn't it?


----------



## Aleu (Nov 15, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> Being a demon would be totally awesome, wouldn't it?



So much better than human. I'd get demonic powers and shit.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 15, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> The closer we get to 12/21, the crazier people get.
> 
> I talked to a overly religious republican in line who was "Demanding" that I vote for Romney because he is the Savior and Obama is the antichrist. Any of his followers would transform into demons on judgement day. >.>



Waaaaaait a minute.  I kept hearing that I am going to hell for being a Democrat which I admit, sounded rather sucky.  But now they are saying I'm going to turn into Hellboy?  F*ck yeah!  I'm going to Home Depot RIGHT NOW and get me one of those angle grinders.  And more cats.  I f*cking LOVE cats!


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 15, 2012)

Ozriel said:


> The closer we get to 12/21, the crazier people get.
> 
> I talked to a overly religious republican in line who was "Demanding" that I vote for Romney because he is the Savior and Obama is the antichrist. Any of his followers would transform into demons on judgement day. >.>


The irony is that idol worship is against the bible so therefore saying that romney is jesus is in of itself against their own beliefs.


----------



## Aleu (Nov 15, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> The irony is that idol worship is against the bible so therefore saying that romney is jesus is in of itself against their own beliefs.



Most I've seen from these types is that they're only in Christianity for the label and probably couldn't even state what the Ten Commandments are.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Nov 15, 2012)

Aleu said:


> Most I've seen from these types is that they're only in Christianity for the label and probably couldn't even state what the Ten Commandments are.



Pretty sure one of them is "Thou Shalt Not Marry the Gays" cause that's how our founding fathers intended it when they wrote the bible.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 15, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> The irony is that idol worship is against the bible so therefore saying that romney is jesus is in of itself against their own beliefs.



 It's not okay unless it is a Christian Idol, then it is exempt because you are worshiping Jesus. :V




DragonTalon said:


> Waaaaaait a minute.  I kept hearing that I am going to hell for being a Democrat which I admit, sounded rather sucky.  But now they are saying I'm going to turn into Hellboy?  F*ck yeah!  I'm going to Home Depot RIGHT NOW and get me one of those angle grinders.  And more cats.  I f*cking LOVE cats!



I can deal with Horns and a tail...and cloven hooves.

That aside, the Election has turned into one of the nastiest ones since Obama Vs McCain. People are divided over different political beliefs, and the vocal minority are three eggs short of a Dozen and inventing conspiracy theories. One of them being Obama is a Muslim Zionist that has sold America to the Taliban and the Illuminati to the one that I posted earlier.

I think I am going to spread a rumor that Abstergo owns America and Obama is their robot puppet. :V


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 15, 2012)

...Muslim Zionist? 


Those words, I don't think they know what they mean.


----------



## Ozriel (Nov 15, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> ...Muslim Zionist?
> 
> 
> Those words, I don't think they know what they mean.



I stopped asking if people knew that those words meant. If I do, I usually get a "It's a hidden faction to turn the world into Muslims".


----------



## Aetius (Nov 15, 2012)

Jashwa said:


> ...Muslim Zionist?
> 
> 
> Those words, I don't think they know what they mean.



Kinda like how the Tea Party likes to call Obama a "Communist Nazi Antichrist".


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 15, 2012)

Pretty much. 


I think it's funny that they happened to choose two groups that historically do NOT get along well to combine.


----------



## BrodyCoyote (Nov 15, 2012)

No, no, better. I frequently hear that he's a gay Muslim Atheist. The longest one I've heard of was on a right-wing website, and it was baby-killing Muslim Atheist gay Communist Nazi Socialist coke-addicted 0bamugabe.

That being said, crazy right wing forums also came up with my favorite name: The Fresh Prince of Bill Ayers.


----------



## DragonTalon (Nov 15, 2012)

I personalty love how they say Obama is both a socialist AND a communist.  Often in the same sentence.  These people have NO idea what these words mean.  Other than Fox News and Rush say them like they are bad words so they must be bad, right?

My all time favorite.  STUDY IT OUT!  STUDY IT OUT! 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E87gciwebw


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 15, 2012)

Aleu said:


> http://tampa.cbslocal.com/2012/11/14/man-distraught-over-presidential-election-result-kills-himself/
> 
> Florida man kills himself over the results of the election.





> Hamiltonâ€™s partner Michael Cossey


The guy was gay and killed himself over Obama? Wat?
(it might be business partner but they did mention he owned a salon so...)


----------



## Aleu (Nov 16, 2012)

CrazyLee said:


> The guy was gay and killed himself over Obama? Wat?
> (it might be business partner but they did mention he owned a salon so...)



No, he was gay. But yeah I'm guessing he believed that his salon would be going out of business?
 But here again it's a tanning salon in Florida. That's a retarded idea unless you're having it operate only in the winter :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 16, 2012)

This is how the elections should be decided-
[YT]0pJTn5n1jKg[/YT]


----------



## CrazyLee (Nov 26, 2012)

Reviving a kinda-old thread to post this article I found on who voted what in the election.

There are way too many red arrows in that chart.

I'm also disappointed to see that college graduates went over to the Romney side. Apparently our secondary education system is failing hard.


----------



## Inciatus (Nov 26, 2012)

I rather like all the red arrows.


----------



## Jashwa (Nov 26, 2012)

Red arrows are to be expected during rough economic times. People tend to fault the incumbent for the economy and vote against him (or hopefully someday, her). Also, Obama won 2008 in a landslide, at least electorally, and many many people were fed up with Republicans because of Bush so it was an unusually large margin of victory for the democrats. We're just beginning to see a return to normalcy and business as usual for America being almost 50/50 split.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Nov 27, 2012)

Aetius said:


> Kinda like how the Tea Party likes to call Obama a "Communist Nazi Antichrist".


Still better than white trash terrorists that live their lives according to the superstitions of dead savages.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 27, 2012)

I can say that the one thing that I voed for this year was sobriety but I am worried that admitting the fact that I am a recovering alcoholic (it's been about two weeks since my last drink) will be met with cold, stern judgement from other people. I think it would be karmic retribution

I still cannot believe that we are still discussing the election weeks after the final vote was cast. Obama won, get over it, and I do not want Texas to secede because quite frankly, getting to A-Kon or Furry Fiesta is difficult enough, now imagine an extra set of passports one would need to get into Texas.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 27, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> I can say that the one thing that I voed for this year was sobriety but I am worried that admitting the fact that I am a recovering alcoholic (it's been about two weeks since my last drink) will be met with cold, stern judgement from other people. I think it would be karmic retribution
> 
> I still cannot believe that we are still discussing the election weeks after the final vote was cast. Obama won, get over it, and I do not want Texas to secede because quite frankly, getting to A-Kon or Furry Fiesta is difficult enough, now imagine an extra set of passports one would need to get into Texas.


If you think this is bad just wait until congress fails to pass a budget.  The most probable outcome is that FoxNews is going to try and pin the blame on Obama even though he's not a congressmember and then utterly lose it when people start getting made at the GOP for the inevitable filibuster and our soldiers and such start to not receive their paychecks.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 27, 2012)

CannonFodder said:


> If you think this is bad just wait until congress fails to pass a budget.  The most probable outcome is that FoxNews is going to try and pin the blame on Obama even though he's not a congressmember and then utterly lose it when people start getting made at the GOP for the inevitable filibuster and our soldiers and such start to not receive their paychecks.



I'll be honest with you- I voted for Obama, if for no other reason than the fact that the BoM has some really awful stuff to say about dark-skinned people. Sure, he can say that he would be committed to a diverse cabinet btu I highly doubt it.


----------



## Inciatus (Nov 27, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> I'll be honest with you- I voted for Obama, if for no other reason than the fact that the BoM has some really awful stuff to say about dark-skinned people. Sure, he can say that he would be committed to a diverse cabinet btu I highly doubt it.



What are the BoM you are talking about?


----------



## DarrylWolf (Nov 27, 2012)

Inciatus said:


> What are the BoM you are talking about?



The Book of Mormon, the work that the LDS church in Salt Lake City holds as being Scripture and no one else recognizes its legitimacy. Historical scholars have found thousands of grammatical errors, anachronisms, and mistakes that have embarrassed the church for years. In the BoM, you would read about two tribes from which the Mormons claim Native Americans come from- the Nefites who maintained the Law of God in the Americas and the Lamanites who did not. The Lamanites were punished and given "darker skin" than their Nefite brethren. Later books like the Doctrines and Covenants held that our souls pre-existed and that black skin was a sign of premortal disobedience to the will of God in not fighting Lucifer during the Controversy in Heaven between Jesus and Lucifer.

Because Romney lost, it's all academic and we probably will never have a Mormon in the White House but if we did, I'd be very concerned.


----------



## Inciatus (Nov 27, 2012)

DarrylWolf said:


> Because Romney lost, it's all academic and we probably will never have a Mormon in the White House but if we did, I'd be very concerned.



We may still have a Mormon president, just certainly not in the next four years. Him losing doesnt really prove anything.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 28, 2012)

Ah great, someone needs to send congress the fucking memo that the election is over cause they're now campaigning about the immenient failure to pass a budget rather than pass the fucking budget.

This is the election that never ends, it goes on and on my friend, somebody starting shit flinging not knowing what they had done, and they'll continue forever just because. . 

This election is why we should have Harold Saxon for prime minister.


----------

