# Obama vs Romney



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Well seeing as how the nomination calender has been moved up, thank you Florida for yet again fucking up politics... Seriously if any state secedes it should be Florida for the political bullshit they keep pulling.  Back on topic, cause of the caucuses being moved up we're probably going to start seeing political ads soon.  The republican candidates that stand a chance in the general election next fall are Romney and Ron Paul.  The rest don't have a chance at all against Obama, also Ron Paul has been trying for years to become the nomination and hasn't even come close, so that's not going to change.
My question FaF if it does come down to Romney vs Obama who would you vote for and why?
The reason why I'm asking is that if it doesn't come down to Romney vs Obama or Ron Paul vs Obama the election will be over before it begins.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 15, 2011)

But what about that maverick media darling, Sarah Pailin?


----------



## Smelge (Oct 15, 2011)

I don't care who you fuckers vote for, as long as it's not one of those psychotic republican cocksuckers.

Bollocks to all that "it's our country, you have no business talking about our politics" shite. What you bastards do affects the rest of the world. So don't fuck up and put a complete mental in power.


----------



## soundfox (Oct 15, 2011)

I hate politics.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 15, 2011)

*ENORMOUS SIGH*
I guess I have no choice but to vote for Obama again...
I wish we could have an actual _progressive_ president one of these days :V


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Ron Paul 2012.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Oct 15, 2011)

The only reason Obama would be seen as a bad president is because the GOP cock-blocks everything he tries to do so nothing gets done.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 15, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> I wish we could have an actual _progressive_ president one of these days :V



Even if he's not advanced much, at least he isn't actively setting everyone back like your last one.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

I'm voting for Romney cause he's more liberal than Obama, supports gay rights, and seeing as how the republicans have been trying to collapse the economy, if the economy collapses on a republican's term adios tea party and conservatives.  They may be able to hold out politically after one recession, but another recession on their watch will destroy them.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2011)

Not familiar with Huntsman or Johnson.

Obama because the others are far worse.  Fuck Herman Cain in his elitist prick eyesocket.  

Heaven forbid we get a strong LIBERAL candidate.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm voting for Romney cause he's more liberal than Obama, supports gay rights, and seeing as how the republicans have been trying to collapse the economy, if the economy collapses on a republican's term adios tea party and conservatives.  They may be able to hold out politically after one recession, but another recession on their watch will destroy them.



Another recession will fuck everything.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm voting for Romney cause he's more liberal than Obama, supports gay rights, and seeing as how the republicans have been trying to collapse the economy, if the economy collapses on a republican's term adios tea party and conservatives.  They may be able to hold out politically after one recession, but another recession on their watch will destroy them.



I don't think Romney's political and social views are of any relevance whatsoever.
All he is is a mouthpiece and puppet for corporate donors. Insert money and he will say and do whatever you want him to do :V He would be like George Bush as president, except instead of Cheney pulling the strings, it would be the Koch Brothers.
This is pretty much true for all the Republican nominees, except for maybe Ron Paul. He's just plain crazy. But he does appear to be genuine, I can see why people like him.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Before someone says something about me making this thread, blame Florida for moving up their time table.
Goddamn you Florida.


Smelge said:


> Another recession will fuck everything.


I know, it's a trap.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

*please delete*


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 15, 2011)

My blood boils any time Herman Cain opens his stupid mouth.
I'm not sure if it's possible, but I think he would fuck up the economy even worse than Donald Trump would...
999 tax is the worst idea ever
And with his '3 page bills' idea, I seriously am starting to think he's just illiterate, as Jon Stewart has hinted at


----------



## lupinealchemist (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm voting for Romney cause he's more liberal than Obama, supports gay rights, and seeing as how the republicans have been trying to collapse the economy, if the economy collapses on a republican's term adios tea party and conservatives.  They may be able to hold out politically after one recession, but another recession on their watch will destroy them.



What if the GOP is planning on passing Obama's bills only on a republican term to ensure republican immortality?  This shady political warfare is the kind of thing that got Hitler elected back then.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Before someone says something about me making this thread, blame Florida for moving up their time table.
> Goddamn you Florida.



Sorry :c


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> My blood boils any time Herman Cain opens his stupid mouth.
> I'm not sure if it's possible, but I think he would fuck up the economy even worse than Donald Trump would...
> 999 tax is the worst idea ever
> And with his '3 page bills' idea, I seriously am starting to think he's just illiterate, as Jon Stewart has hinted at


He probably is illiterate, listen to him speaking, if there's a drinking game where everytime he uses a long word you take a drink.  After a political debate you'll still be sober.


Aleu said:


> Sorry :c


Your state needs to be broken up into several smaller states, that way they can't fuck up politics anymore.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

*damn you double post*
*mods please delete*


----------



## Fay V (Oct 15, 2011)

I've mostly been ignoring the stuff till recently, but I guess I've liked some of the things that Ron Paul has said, and he does seem to be more genuine than others. Not that I'd fight to the death over it. 

Incidentally I just got off the phone from a survey about the 2012 election. The only strong view I had was "fuck perry"


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I've mostly been ignoring the stuff till recently, but I guess I've liked some of the things that Ron Paul has said, and he does seem to be more genuine than others. Not that I'd fight to the death over it.
> 
> Incidentally I just got off the phone from a survey about the 2012 election. The only strong view I had was "fuck perry"


Herman Cain is alot like Perry, he just hasn't opened his goddamn mouth enough to ruin himself yet.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Your state needs to be broken up into several smaller states, that way they can't fuck up politics anymore.


That would not be wise. Instead of one fuck up state, you'll have several fuck up states.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Herman Cain is alot like Perry, he just hasn't opened his goddamn mouth enough to ruin himself yet.



Says you.  I think he's done plenty of damage to himself with his "unemployed? poor? YOUR FAULT" shit.  Great way to alienate the fuck out of people, call them lazy whiny babies.



Aleu said:


> That would not be wise. Instead of one fuck up state, you'll have several fuck up states.



With a LOT more fuck-up senators too.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 15, 2011)

lupinealchemist said:


> What if the GOP is planning on passing Obama's bills only on a republican term to ensure republican immortality?  This shady political warfare is the kind of thing that got Hitler elected back then.


Godwin in only 17 posts! :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> Godwin in only 17 posts! :V


FaF has had a Godwn in the second post before, granted it was about cub.


That would truly suck if the republicans just pass Obama's jobs bill under their name.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 15, 2011)

Ron Paul is only fun to think about with the knowledge that he will never get anywhere near the White House. The guy thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea--you can't get any more loony than that while remaining in politics. He may sound sane when talking about our military spending and some aspects of foreign policy, but Ron Paul takes libertarianism to the point of no return.



			
				CannonFodder said:
			
		

> Your state needs to be broken up into several smaller states, that way they can't fuck up politics anymore.



Who would have guessed that America's flaccid penis would fuck up politics.


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 15, 2011)

lupinealchemist said:


> The only reason Obama would be seen as a bad president is because the GOP cock-blocks everything he tries to do so nothing gets done.



Precicely.  What you guys have right now is a minority govenment, or a 'lame duck' presidency.  People are saying that Obama promised change, but how can change be made if it's constantly blocked?  

This is why for years nothing major was done in Canada.  The Conservative party did not have the majority, and the other parties would band together to vote against bills that were proposed.  Sometimes this works in our favour to keep that party from having too much power and push through an agenda.  Sometimes it backfires, and that's what's happening in the US.  The trouble is, I don't believe America remembers a time they had a lame duck presidency (whether there was one recently or not) and that's exactly what you have.  

This is not to say that I agree with everything that the president supports.  I think that America should back the motion for the existence of a Palestinian state, but the GOP have publically said they would block him at almost every turn to give their party a favourable edge when it comes to the 2012 election.  _The GOP are blocking progress in America for votes.  _If that's showing that they care for their country, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## lupinealchemist (Oct 15, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> Godwin in only 17 posts! :V


 I had to look it up to see what you're talking about.
Sorry for the overused analogy, but it's still a very dirty tactic, considering if they actually do that.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 15, 2011)

Romney seems like the most sensible out of the Republican candidates, and its a shame that he really might not get the nomination.
Way to go Tea Party, you continue to fuck things up for all of us.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 15, 2011)

Obama :v lesser of way too many evils. 

Not just their policies, which go too far in all the wrong categories, or their beliefs (NON-CHRISTIANS, mah gad), but the likes of Newt, Cain, and Bachmann who...regularly lie, distort/stretch the truth, or what have you. 

Romney, Perry, Santorum I just don't think they have the 'it' factor (as common lingo goes now). They're okay in a few places, but nothing they're doing, or going to do would benefit the people or myself :v


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Romney seems like the most sensible out of the Republican candidates, and its a shame that he really might not get the nomination.
> Way to go Tea Party, you continue to fuck things up for all of us.


Tea Party?  More like Money Party.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 15, 2011)

I'll most likely vote for Obama, but I can't say for sure until I see who the Republican nominates and do some proper research on them. 

It will be my first time voting in a presidential election. (Though I've voted in a bunch of local/state elections.) I was _two days_ too young to vote in 2008. The voting was November 4; my 18th birthday was on the 6th. Hot damn I was mad.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> I'll most likely vote for Obama, but I can't say for sure until I see who the Republican nominates and do some proper research on them.
> 
> It will be my first time voting in a presidential election. (Though I've voted in a bunch of local/state elections.) I was _two days_ too young to vote in 2008. The voting was November 4; my 18th birthday was on the 6th. Hot damn I was mad.


I'll probably end up voting for obama anyhow.
If it came down to Romney vs Obama I'd have a hard choice, but considering who's funding the repubicans I'd reject vote for Romney in the end.
*epic typo*


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 15, 2011)

Obama.

If not him, Romney.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Oh dear, imagine what the Bachmann and Rick Perry ads are going to consist of >_<


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh dear, imagine what the Bachmann and Rick Perry ads are going to consist of >_<



"Vote for a *TRUE* Christian."


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Oh dear, imagine what the Bachmann and Rick Perry ads are going to consist of >_<


Augh

Auuuugh

my imagination is burning


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> "Vote for a *TRUE* Christian."


Imagine if one of them got the republican nomination with the other being on the ticket for their vice president.


Ad Hoc said:


> Augh
> 
> Auuuugh
> 
> my imagination is burning


We're going to see these in a couple weeks.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 15, 2011)

I think both Bachmann and Perry are essentially dead in the water as Republican nominees at this point. Their only hope is that Romney gets caught in some sort cannibalism scandal.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 15, 2011)

I could go for John Huntsman if I voted Republican. Anyways, being president sucks when you have a congress that sucks worse.


----------



## Antonia (Oct 15, 2011)

Oh no, people can read my comedy answer. Fuuuck.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> I think both Bachmann and Perry are essentially dead in the water as Republican nominees at this point. Their only hope is that Romney gets caught in some sort cannibalism scandal.


It's only a matter of time until Herman Cain becomes dead in the water too, and with the caucuses approaching even faster the republican base won't have enough time to act.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It's only a matter of time until Herman Cain becomes dead in the water too, and with the caucuses approaching even faster the republican base won't have enough time to act.



Pretty much happens in almost all Presidential Primaries, half the candidates just drop out before the first Primary.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Ron Paul is only fun to think about with the knowledge that he will never get anywhere near the White House. The guy thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad idea--you can't get any more loony than that while remaining in politics. He may sound sane when talking about our military spending and some aspects of foreign policy, but Ron Paul takes libertarianism to the point of no return.



I'd rather have a president that allows a ton of freedom rather than one that constantly restricts it.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I'd rather have a president that allows a ton of freedom rather than one that constantly restricts it.



So you believe businesses should be allowed to restrict services based on the race of the customer?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> So you believe businesses should be allowed to restrict services based on the race of the customer?



I don't see what the difference would be. They already do that here.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> I don't see what the difference would be. They already do that here.


 

Lots of things happen despite being against the law. We don't decriminalize murder, theft, drunk driving, etc., just because they happen anyway--even if we can't get rid of it completely, we can at least cut the prevalence. Anyway, anti-discrimination laws, while not perfect, have been fairly effective against institutionalized discrimination in many parts of the country. You're willing to support a candidate who would (if he could) throw them out entirely because they aren't quite perfect, or because they're weak/poorly enforced in your particular area?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Lots of things happen despite being against the law. We don't decriminalize murder, theft, drunk driving, etc., just because they happen anyway--even if we can't get rid of it completely, we can at least cut the prevalence. Anyway, anti-discrimination laws, while not perfect, have been fairly effective against institutionalized discrimination in many parts of the country. You're willing to support a candidate who would (if he could) throw them out entirely because they aren't quite perfect, or because they're weak/poorly enforced in your particular area?



So because it would be thrown out then everyone is going to suddenly be even more racist? The difference between this and murder/theft/drunk driving is that it can't really be PROVEN that it is race driven to not hire or hire someone because of race. If anything, he's right. The act is backfiring. People will be hired because of race so the employers don't look racist.


----------



## Leafblower29 (Oct 15, 2011)

Richard Stallman :V


----------



## Bliss (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'm voting for Romney cause he's more liberal than Obama, supports gay rights...


What on Earth is this?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> So because it would be thrown out then everyone is going to suddenly be even more racist? The difference between this and murder/theft/drunk driving is that it can't really be PROVEN that it is race driven to not hire or hire someone because of race. If anything, he's right. The act is backfiring. People will be hired because of race so the employers don't look racist.



You can compile a body of evidence that certain hiring practices are effectively discriminatory. New York's fire department recently lost a long running Title VII case over its examinations for new hires. Under the law, the Judge can not only require that the FDNY change its hiring practices, but also implement monitors to insure the new procedures are no longer discriminatory.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> What on Earth is this?


Goddamn it Romney, why you such a flipflop?


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Goddamn it Romney, why you such a flipflop?



As long as I've seen him run, he's never supported gay marriage. :|


----------



## Bliss (Oct 15, 2011)

*PAAAARIS FOR PRESIDENT!*

*Our Commander-in-Bikini*​


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You can compile a body of evidence that certain hiring practices are effectively discriminatory. New York's fire department recently lost a long running Title VII case over its examinations for new hires. Under the law, the Judge can not only require that the FDNY change its hiring practices, but also implement monitors to insure the new procedures are no longer discriminatory.



And how is that? How can they really tell they're hiring based on performance or based on color? Quotas?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> And how is that? How can they really tell they're hiring based on performance or based on color? Quotas?



Well, there are some fun statistics. Black and Hispanic firefighters make up roughly 10% of the FDNY and 50% of the NY population, and this discrepancy isn't due to a lack of applicants. Also, there are the examinations administered by the department which can be scrutinized for elements that would disproportionately lower the scores of minority applicants.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Well, there are some fun statistics. Black and Hispanic firefighters make up roughly 10% of the FDNY and 50% of the NY population, and this discrepancy isn't due to a lack of applicants. Also, there are the examinations administered by the department which can be scrutinized for elements that would disproportionately lower the scores of minority applicants.



And they can just as easily claim that the applicants didn't meet their requirements. Then it still comes down to hiring due to the applicant being a minority or not.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> And they can just as easily claim that the applicants didn't meet their requirements. Then it still comes down to hiring due to the applicant being a minority or not.



You're missing the point: the court is able to scrutinize both the candidates and the hiring criteria. It may then make a judgement as to whether minority applicants are being turned down for reasons not relating to job performance.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Herman Cain is alot like Perry, he just hasn't opened his goddamn mouth enough to ruin himself yet.



The hell are you talking about?

The fact that Perry opened his mouth during one of the debates and unleashed a horrid case of verbal diarrhea is exactly the reason why he's fallen in the polls.  You could see on Romney's face that he knew Perry would be out of the running.

That being said, Romney isn't going to win over too many hearts and minds within his own party to garner enough votes for a win.  And frankly, his change of tune to try and support OWS is just as disgusting to me as the rest of the GOP's one-week turnaround.  "We're sorry we called you jobless hippies, PLEASE VOTE FOR US!!!!!"

EDIT: Also my girlfriend had the best line for Cain's economic policy.  "9-9-9 Plan?  Bitch, you ordering pizza?"

She didn't know he was the CEO of a pizza chain.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Onnes said:


> You're missing the point: the court is able to scrutinize both the candidates and the hiring criteria. It may then make a judgement as to whether minority applicants are being turned down for reasons not relating to job performance.


So basically act as thought police then? It's really up to the employer on who they hire who they seem fit. Let's say a few applicants apply for a job and they have roughly the same qualifications. One just happens to be a minority (black, gay, hispanic, muslim idgaf). The employer does not choose the minority person for whatever reason. Maybe the other applicant dressed better, had a nicer outlook, whatever. Are they really going to punish the employer for not hiring the minority person?


----------



## Aetius (Oct 15, 2011)

How could you Un-American Socialists vote for Iraq Hussein Osama >:V

Seriously though, I really don't see anything wrong with Obama, he as done a decent job.
Him or Romney might win my vote.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The hell are you talking about?
> 
> The fact that Perry opened his mouth during one of the debates and unleashed a horrid case of verbal diarrhea is exactly the reason why he's fallen in the polls.  You could see on Romney's face that he knew Perry would be out of the running.
> 
> ...


The verbal diarrhea coming out of Perry's mouth is what I'm talking about, all it is going to take is for Cain to do the same thing.  Since in all probability Cain is illiterate, I doubt Cain is capable of going through this without the same thing happening to him that happened to Perry.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The verbal diarrhea coming out of Perry's mouth is what I'm talking about, all it is going to take is for Cain to do the same thing.  *Since in all probability Cain is illiterate,* I doubt Cain is capable of going through this without the same thing happening to him that happened to Perry.



Wow, where the fuck did that come from now?


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 15, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The hell are you talking about?
> 
> The fact that Perry opened his mouth during one of the debates and unleashed a horrid case of verbal diarrhea is exactly the reason why he's fallen in the polls.  You could see on Romney's face that he knew Perry would be out of the running.
> 
> ...



Sbarro's?  :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Wow, where the fuck did that come from now?


Go back and look at the debates and such he's been in, he either uses a pizza analogy, equates government policy to running a pizza company, or some other weak way to get his point across.
The day the man uses a word longer than ten letters is the day the world ends.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 15, 2011)

Shark_the_raptor said:


> Sbarro's?  :V



Godfather's actually.



CannonFodder said:


> Go back and look at the debates and such he's been in, he either uses a pizza analogy, equates government policy to running a pizza company, or some other weak way to get his point across.
> The day the man uses a word longer than ten letters is the day the world ends.



He's speaking in layman's terms and using analogies with which he hopes will resonate with small businesses and the average American watching the debates, which according to the polls it has.

It's one thing to attack the man's policies, CF.  It's another thing to make an uninformed claim about his intelligence.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> So basically act as thought police then? It's really up to the employer on who they hire who they seem fit. Let's say a few applicants apply for a job and they have roughly the same qualifications. One just happens to be a minority (black, gay, hispanic, muslim idgaf). The employer does not choose the minority person for whatever reason. Maybe the other applicant dressed better, had a nicer outlook, whatever. Are they really going to punish the employer for not hiring the minority person?


Typically it's determined by there being an established, documented pattern. No one expects an entity to hire every minority that applies, but they have a long history of rejecting all applicants of a given group regardless of their qualifications and experience, then that's a pretty rational basis for investigation. It's also not out of the question for an applicant to be told directly that the entity wants no part of "niggers, spics, fairies, etc.," it's less common now (mostly because it's asking to get sued, but that threat wouldn't be there without the laws) but it used to happen all the time. You yourself said here that businesses in your area have racist practices, you yourself must have seen it and known it to be obvious.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Oct 15, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Godfather's actually.



God damn it.  I like Godfather's.  Or did until it closed here.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Godfather's actually.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Talking in layman's terms can backfire.  Such as his 9-9-9 triple cheese pizza deal plan, people have been tearing it apart like dog and a chew toy.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Typically it's determined by there being an established, documented pattern. No one expects an entity to hire every minority that applies, but they have a long history of rejecting all applicants of a given group regardless of their qualifications and experience, then that's a pretty rational basis for investigation. It's also not out of the question for an applicant to be told directly that the entity wants no part of "niggers, spics, fairies, etc.," it's less common now (mostly because it's asking to get sued, but that threat wouldn't be there without the laws) but it used to happen all the time. You yourself said here that businesses in your area have racist practices, you yourself must have seen it and known it to be obvious.



Yes, minorities are being hired simply because they are minorities and they don't want to seem "racist" when in fact they are doing the opposite. However, do you honestly think that we'll suddenly revert to the 50s? I'm all for equality and so is Ron Paul. He just doesn't agree with how it's done.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 15, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Talking in layman's terms can backfire.  Such as his 9-9-9 triple cheese pizza deal plan, people have been tearing it apart like dog and a chew toy.



The only thing that's backfired is that when anybody's challenged him on the actual mathematics of his policy the only response he's given is "look at the numbers".  Which is really all he has to do unless one of the other candidates actually sits down with the multitude of economists who've explained that his plan may not even pay for the bare essentials to keep government running.

His opponents have so far made ad hominem arguments against him with Romney saying that it's too simple a solution (no math to back it up), his wife saying when she hears 9-9-9 she wants to call 9-1-1, and Bachmann, true to form, saying that by flipping around the numbers, you get 666, implying Cain's plan is The Devil.  And every time someone says "9-9-9 Plan", Cain gets that much stronger, since he's actually got a recognizable and summary-based name for him plan, unlike his other candidates.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Yes, minorities are being hired simply because they are minorities and they don't want to seem "racist" when in fact they are doing the opposite. However, do you honestly think that we'll suddenly revert to the 50s? I'm all for equality and so is Ron Paul. He just doesn't agree with how it's done.


Mm, I question that. And, well, knowing history, I think it's a possibility. Not tomorrow, maybe even not in our lifetimes, but it may set a trend. Equality doesn't become set in stone just because it's (arguably) been around for a few decades, you don't need to study much history to see that. Women used to drive in Iraq, you know. 

But, how do you and Ron Paul recommend ending/curbing discrimination? I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 15, 2011)

The only thing I seem to remember about Mr. Cain other than his 999 thing is that in the debate I watched he repeated several times that the federal govt. should do less and that state govt. should do more, a statement I'm inclined to agree with, and he wasn't absolutely retarded about it.

I'll def. be doing more research before I vote though, whenever that'll be. No candidate will exemplify everything I believe in, but I'll need to find one where the parts we agree outweigh the parts I'll have to compromise, and blah blah blah.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> Mm, I question that. And, well, knowing history, I think it's a possibility. Not tomorrow, maybe even not in our lifetimes, but it may set a trend. Equality doesn't become set in stone just because it's (arguably) been around for a few decades, you don't need to study much history to see that. Women used to drive in Iraq, you know.
> 
> But, how do you and Ron Paul recommend ending/curbing discrimination? I'm genuinely curious.


Okay. I've lived in a predominately white area and a predominately black area. I've been trying to apply for jobs in both. In the predominately black area, there were more employees that were black which I found understandable. Currently while living in a predominately white area, I see the same thing. I also was applying at a store I've had many years experience working for and was overall a good employee PLUS the fact I helped train managers. Do you question it now? I think I am perfectly qualified to work there.

Also, there will never be an end to discrimination. People will be bigots. Plain and simple. If employers want to hire employees simply because of race or religion and turn down a perfectly good worker, hey, their loss of business.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 15, 2011)

Xenke said:


> The only thing I seem to remember about Mr. Cain other than his 999 thing is that in the debate I watched he repeated several times that the federal govt. should do less and that state govt. should do more, a statement I'm inclined to agree with...


Why? D:


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Okay. I've lived in a predominately white area and a predominately black area. I've been trying to apply for jobs in both. In the predominately black area, there were more employees that were black which I found understandable. Currently while living in a predominately white area, I see the same thing. I also was applying at a store I've had many years experience working for and was overall a good employee PLUS the fact I helped train managers. Do you question it now? I think I am perfectly qualified to work there.


That is terribly unfortunate. Civil rights laws protect all races and ethnicities, though. If you think there is a history of discrimination, and it was not just a fluke of that interview, I encourage you to fight it. 



Aleu said:


> Also, there will never be an end to discrimination. People will be bigots. Plain and simple. If employers want to hire employees simply because of race or religion and turn down a perfectly good worker, hey, their loss of business.


See:


Ad Hoc said:


> Lots of things happen despite being against the law. We don't  decriminalize murder, theft, drunk driving, etc., just because they  happen anyway--even if we can't get rid of it completely, we can at  least cut the prevalence. Anyway, anti-discrimination laws, while not  perfect, have been fairly effective against institutionalized  discrimination in many parts of the country. You're willing to support a  candidate who would (if he could) throw them out entirely because they  aren't quite perfect, or because they're weak/poorly enforced in your  particular area?


Also, we can say that the free market would end discrimination, but if it did, the problem should have sorted itself out, and we wouldn't have needed the laws in the first place. As it was, being born a minority used to be a life sentence of poverty and discrimination, unless you were truly exceptional. It took the Civil Rights movement, and not the free market, to turn things around. It just doesn't stand up, historically.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 15, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> That is terribly unfortunate. Civil rights laws protect all races and ethnicities, though. If you think there is a history of discrimination, and it was not just a fluke of that interview, I encourage you to fight it.
> 
> 
> See:
> ...



Fight how? All that's going to do is make me look like "a whiny bigot looking for their 15 of fame". Now that would paint me in a negative light to any future employers.

Also, those were different times. You can't really compare then to now because we're in a different mindset.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 15, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Why? D:



Things conducted by local govts. seem to be more custom tailored to whatever needs are the to be fulfilled. Sure, there's room for screw ups, and they do happen, but regardless of that, I have more faith in a state govt. trying to do something just over the domain of the state, rather then the fed. trying to create some all-inclusive thing that works for everyone (note: things will rarely work as intended for everyone).

I'm not saying give all the power to the states and have the fed. just twiddle it's thumbs, but maybe the fed. doesn't have to do so much.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Oct 15, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Fight how? All that's going to do is make me look like "a whiny bigot looking for their 15 of fame". Now that would paint me in a negative light to any future employers.


Well, that's an unfortunate situation. I truly feel for you, and that is not a facetious comment. 



Aleu said:


> Also, those were different times. You can't really compare then to now because we're in a different mindset.


The mindset's change was catalyzed by Civil Rights movement, though. Without it we would not be here. Either way, we are not impervious to the sands of times, and society is always changing. As I said, women once drove in Iraq. (The Middle East in general used to be an Eden of human rights and progress. Things change, not always for the better.) All societies go up and down; just because America has had a long history of "up" does not mean we can't turn around. Breaking the guards down may be unwise.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 15, 2011)

I would vote on the street. 

With a group of people.

Angry.

With bricks.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 15, 2011)

JesusFish said:


> I would vote on the street.
> 
> With a group of people.
> 
> ...


You're insane so it's understandable. :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 15, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You're insane so it's understandable. :V


We've known this for a very long time.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 16, 2011)

I'm starting to think that a ficus plant would be a fairly credible Presidential candidate these days...


----------



## Tycho (Oct 16, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> I'm starting to think that a ficus plant would be a fairly credible Presidential candidate these days...



I like plants.  *votes Ficus in 2012*


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Tycho said:


> I like plants.  *votes Ficus in 2012*


Fuck your plants, I like turtles! Vote Turtle in 2012!

I just wish the majority of the republican candidates would quit already, pretty much the only person that stands a chance against Obama is Romney, why do we have to listen to this political shit flinging when most of the other candidates don't even stand a chance?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fuck your plants, I like turtles! Vote Turtle in 2012!
> 
> I just wish the majority of the republican candidates would quit already, pretty much the only person that stands a chance against Obama is Romney, why do we have to listen to this political shit flinging when most of the other candidates don't even stand a chance?



Because there's still time for someone to catch Romney trying to eat a puppy. At least one other candidate has to stick around and be the next in line for the Republican nomination.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fuck your plants, I like turtles! Vote Turtle in 2012!



But are you turtle-y enough to vote for the Turtle Party?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Because there's still time for someone to catch Romney trying to eat a puppy. At least one other candidate has to stick around and be the next in line for the Republican nomination.


Not really, Florida moved up their Caucus, Ohio in response and the other states moved up theirs to prevent the political dumbfuckery that always happens in Florida from interfering again.  It wouldn't surprise me if Florida moves it up again and in the end the caucus already happened and Florida fucked up again.
In politics Florida is the attention whore that shows up to someone's wedding while wearing a wedding dress trying to steal the groom.


Mayfurr said:


> But are you turtle-y enough to vote for the Turtle Party?


You bet your sweet ass I am!


----------



## Xenke (Oct 16, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> But are you turtle-y enough to vote for the Turtle Party?



Yes.


----------



## Alstor (Oct 16, 2011)

GARY JOHNSON SUPPORTERS GO WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT









Really? No one?
Shit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Alstor said:


> foreveralone.jpg


Fix'd that for you.


Well after the start of this thread I learned more about Romney, fuck it I'm just going to vote for Obama.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fix'd that for you.
> 
> 
> Well after the start of this thread I learned more about Romney, fuck it I'm just going to vote for Obama.



If it came down to just Romney and Obama, I would to. Except I already knew I wasn't going to vote for him in the first place. :V
Still, I don't have much faith in the candidates this year.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Aleu said:


> If it came down to just Romney and Obama, I would to. Except I already knew I wasn't going to vote for him in the first place. :V
> Still, I don't have much faith in the candidates this year.


All the republican candidates are shit this year =_=


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2011)

I always knew it was going to be Romney that got the nod from the GOP.  In the end, his only real drawback to them is being Mormon.

That said, I was surprised how fast Perry was dragged down in the polls, and that for all the reasons it could have been, it was because they effectively branded him a _liberal_ over providing cancer-preventing vaccines and charging in-state students the actual in-state student tuition rate regardless of Mexican heritage.  That's some scary shit.

Romney won't make anything better though, that's for sure.  He effectively owes his political career to simply being a old white millionaire business-snake - everything the Republican Party is actually about and pretends it isn't.  He is the 1%.  Put him in the Oval Office and he'll go straight to work punching some new loopholes in the tax code for his executive brethren.

If you really need a reason to vote Obama over him though, here's one: Under our current Supreme court, our civil liberties are already crumbling.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in poor health.  If she kicks the bucket while a Republican is sitting in the big chair, it's game over for America.  Losing Roe would be just the beginning.



CannonFodder said:


> All the republican candidates are shit *every* year =_=


 
fixed


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I always knew it was going to be Romney that got the nod from the GOP.  In the end, his only real drawback to them is being Mormon.
> 
> That said, I was surprised how fast Perry was dragged down in the polls, and that for all the reasons it could have been, it was because they effectively branded him a _liberal_ over providing cancer-preventing vaccines and charging in-state students the actual in-state student tuition rate regardless of Mexican heritage.  That's some scary shit.
> 
> ...


I knew Perry would lose, it was only a matter of time.
Not to mention if there's another conservative on the supreme court imagine what will happen to gay rights?


----------



## Telnac (Oct 16, 2011)

Romney, largely because he's not Obama.  Obama's isolating himself even from his own cabinet and advisers and he's only offering plans that have problems getting unified Democratic support, much less winning over even a few Republicans.  IMO, that bodes ill for the rest of his presidency.  Clinton had a lot of Republican opposition but he could usually win over a few moderates like McCain to at least move some of his agenda forward.

But in truth, I'm not that excited about any of the Republican field.  Perry sounded interesting for about 2 hours, then I looked into his political beliefs.  Ack, Huckabee clone.  No!  Cain caught a lot of attention, so I looked into his 9-9-9 plan.  Wow, someone found a way to bring back the Great Depression overnight.  Why is anyone excited about him?  Because he's black?  Sorry, notable effort but skin color alone isn't going to win the Presidency.  The only things Romney has against him are that he has a centrist viewpoint (hardly damning in my book) and has ties to corporate America (who in politics today doesn't?)  Oh, and yeah, he's a Mormon.  God forbid we elect one of them for the first time.  </sarcasm>

In truth, I'd love it if Hillary entered the fray.  I don't care for her, but she at least has a brain.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> If you really need a reason to vote Obama over him though, here's one: Under our current Supreme court, our civil liberties are already crumbling.  Ruth Bader Ginsburg is in poor health.  If she kicks the bucket while a Republican is sitting in the big chair, it's game over for America.  Losing Roe would be just the beginning.


Royally sucks to survive a colon cancer by ten years only to be stricken with a pancreatic one.

She should've been made the Chief Justice, not the Bush's conservative newbie.



Telnac said:


> In truth, I'd love it if Hillary entered the fray.   I don't care for her, but she at least has a brain.


I'd have a cardiac arrest of *awesome*!


----------



## Telnac (Oct 16, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I'd have a cardiac arrest of *awesome*!


Indeed.  I'm a Republican, and I'd happily vote for her over anyone in the current Republican lineup.


----------



## Rasly (Oct 16, 2011)

Ill say same thing i said on beginning of your last election: Obama going to win and he will do exact same thing that Bush would have done and there is nothing you can do about it, just like last time, other candidates look like some clueless hobos.

If Bush were not having health problems, he would get reelected and you would call it Bush Care now =P


----------



## Bliss (Oct 16, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Indeed.  I'm a Republican, and I'd happily vote for her over anyone in the current Republican lineup.


Are you, now? :V

_



			Many of you are well enough off that the tax cuts may  have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track,  we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're  going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
		
Click to expand...





			In the Bible it says they asked Jesus how many times  you should forgive, and he said 70 times 7. Well, I want you all to know  that I'm keeping a chart.
		
Click to expand...

_


> _I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president._


_



			I'm undaunted in my quest to amuse myself by constantly changing my hair.
		
Click to expand...

_I'm a shameless Clintonhag.



Rasly said:


> If Bush were not having health problems, he would  get reelected and you would call it Bush Care now =P because president  is only a part of the system.


I assume you mean the older Bush since his son is bound by the Constitution to have only two term.

And he would probably have vetoed it anyway.


----------



## Calemeyr (Oct 16, 2011)

Who the hell is Gary Johnson?


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 16, 2011)

Whoever wins, we lose


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Whoever wins, we lose


I just wish the republicans would have one good candidate, sadly this isn't the case.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 16, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Romney, largely because he's not Obama.  Obama's isolating himself even from his own cabinet and advisers and he's only offering plans that have problems getting unified Democratic support, much less winning over even a few Republicans.  IMO, that bodes ill for the rest of his presidency.  Clinton had a lot of Republican opposition but he could usually win over a few moderates like McCain to at least move some of his agenda forward.



On the other hand, Clinton didn't have to deal with even half the political toxicity that Obama currently has to deal with. I mean, I get the impression that if Obama was suddenly able to bring about world peace the Republicans would _still_ bitch about what a lousy President he was because he put all the arms manufacturers out of work...



Telnac said:


> In truth, I'd love it if Hillary entered the fray.  I don't care for her, but she at least has a brain.



She would be... interesting, to say the least.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2011)

I think Obama is too conservative already without openly embracing Third Way as the Clintons did.

As for Romney's "centrism", I can't imagine anyone being more centrist than Obama already is.

This has been a frustrating Presidency, to be sure, but your choice in 2012 is to either keep it as-is or make it worse.  Don't throw in an anti-incumbent vote thinking it will make anything better, it sure as shit won't.


----------



## greg-the-fox (Oct 16, 2011)

I wish Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, Al Franken, or someone similar would primary Obama. Hell, I'd even vote for Michael Moore. Of course they'd have no chance of winning, but I'd like SOMEONE to at least show Obama that he's totally ignored and fucked over his base and all the people who got him elected, and we do have a voice and are not just mindless Democrat drones. Dammit Obama, compromise doesn't mean giving the other side 95% of what they want and calling it a 'victory' :V And the mainstream media's views do NOT reflect the views of average Americans, stop basing every decision that you make one the political 'center'. (moderate right wing) Why don't you actually listen to your base for once? I'll give you ONE more chance, but you'd better get it right this time. (nothing will change but at least the country will simply stagnate and not descend into complete Armageddon)


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> I wish Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, Al Franken, or someone similar would primary Obama. Hell, I'd even vote for Michael Moore. Of course they'd have no chance of winning, but I'd like SOMEONE to at least show Obama that he's totally ignored and fucked over his base and all the people who got him elected, and we do have a voice and are not just mindless Democrat drones. Dammit Obama, compromise doesn't mean giving the other side 95% of what they want and calling it a 'victory' :V And the mainstream media's views do NOT reflect the views of average Americans, stop basing every decision that you make one the political 'center'. (moderate right wing) Why don't you actually listen to your base for once? I'll give you ONE more chance, but you'd better get it right this time. (nothing will change but at least the country will simply stagnate and not descend into complete Armageddon)


Clinton needs to run against Obama, cause-
1)She'd win
2)She's left wing
3)Obama's approval rating is in the crapper.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> I wish Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, Al Franken, or someone similar would primary Obama. Hell, I'd even vote for Michael Moore. Of course they'd have no chance of winning, but I'd like SOMEONE to at least show Obama that he's totally ignored and fucked over his base and all the people who got him elected, and we do have a voice and are not just mindless Democrat drones. Dammit Obama, compromise doesn't mean giving the other side 95% of what they want and calling it a 'victory' :V And the mainstream media's views do NOT reflect the views of average Americans, stop basing every decision that you make one the political 'center'. (moderate right wing) Why don't you actually listen to your base for once? I'll give you ONE more chance, but you'd better get it right this time. (nothing will change but at least the country will simply stagnate and not descend into complete Armageddon)


 
I'd love Sanders for President but primarying an incumbent President is just plain dumb politically (though maybe Sanders could run in the general as an independent? but then you have the Nader effect).  Hold your nose and vote for the man, then focus on building support for a real liberal in 2016.

Also primary out Congressional Dems in the meantime, especially Blue Dogs, that _is_ a good idea.



CannonFodder said:


> Clinton needs to run against Obama, cause-
> 1)She'd win
> 2)She's left wing
> 3)Obama's approval rating is in the crapper.


 
I followed the 2008 Dem primary pretty closely, Obama and Hillary were damn near identical.  The most substantive policy difference between the two was that Hillary _supported_ a health insurance mandate.  We would not shift to the left at all if we switched out Obama for Hillary, there's no point to it.  It also won't ever happen because see above.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I followed the 2008 Dem primary pretty closely, Obama and Hillary were damn near identical.  The most substantive policy difference between the two was that Hillary _supported_ a health insurance mandate.  We would not shift to the left at all if we switched out Obama for Hillary, there's no point to it.  It also won't ever happen because see above.



Not to mention that (from what it looks like over here) Republicans have an even more rabidly pathological dislike of anyone named "Clinton" than they have for Obama...


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Not to mention that (from what it looks like over here) Republicans have an even more rabidly pathological dislike of anyone named "Clinton" than they have for Obama...


 
Yeah, if you really want the Right to start swallowing conspiracy theories whole and begging for more, put a Clinton in power.  You could only do worse with President Pelosi.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 16, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Not to mention that (from what it looks like over here) Republicans have an even more rabidly pathological dislike of anyone named "Clinton" than they have for Obama...


 
It helps that Clinton, despite being a tax and spend liberal, actually got significant boosts to the economy enacting his policies during his term. :V Republicans do NOT want a repeat of that.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 16, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Cain caught a lot of attention, so I looked into his 9-9-9 plan.  Wow, someone found a way to bring back the Great Depression overnight.  Why is anyone excited about him?



Because he's a *Washington Outsider* and the Tea Party eats that shit up.

Plus his plan is the most Republican of any Republican plan ever proposed in existence.


----------



## Conker (Oct 16, 2011)

I don't know enough about Romney to really say anything. 

Perhaps this election I'll actually be a good person and do research before voting :3


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> I don't know enough about Romney to really say anything.
> 
> Perhaps this election I'll actually be a good person and do research before voting :3


I'll save you some time, the majority of the people voting for Obama have the mentality of, "aw fuck it, I'll just vote for Obama again".


----------



## Lobar (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'll save you some time, the majority of the people voting for Obama have the mentality of, "aw fuck it, I'll just vote for Obama again".


 
Being frustrated with Obama does not mean a better solution exists.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Being frustrated with Obama does not mean a better solution exists.


There really isn't a better solution, so here's to four more mediocre years.


----------



## Conker (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'll save you some time, the majority of the people voting for Obama have the mentality of, "aw fuck it, I'll just vote for Obama again".


Yeah, pretty much my current plan


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 16, 2011)

Conker said:


> Yeah, pretty much my current plan


On the plus side ALL Obama has to do is keep the economy from collapsing.  As it stands Obama's approval rating combined with the incumbency advantage means he'll win against Romney, but it'll still come close.
Obama's general average approval rating across the board is averaging 45%(including those that strongly approve and slightly approve, etc), which gives him a damn good chance, and on average incumbents get a ten percent advantage.  On the other hand polls suggest Romney would get 41% of the vote.
So vote wise(not electoral college) will come down around to 55%-41%
Even with the margin of error Romney doesn't come close enough to give him a chance of winning.
Romney will come close but no cigar.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 16, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> On the other hand, Clinton didn't have to deal with even half the political toxicity that Obama currently has to deal with.


Are you kidding?!  Clinton presided over one of the most prosperous decades in world history, and the Republicans still impeached his ass for getting a blow job & lying about it.  Obama's just dealing with typical political obstructionism... or trying to, at least.  All presidents have to deal with that from the opposition party.  Good presidents find a way to pick off enough moderates from the opposition to advance their agenda anyway.  That's how Clinton handled things, even during the height of the impeachment debacle.  

Obama, on the other hand, can't get even one moderate Republican to go along with his agenda.  The Democratic party's divided, so not even all Democrats are going along with Obama's plans.  The Republican party, on the other hand, is united in opposition.   That's not good for Obama or his agenda!

Rather than whine about Republican obstructionism, he should be doing something about it.  Vilifying the opposition works to rally your base, but when that's the only tactic you have, you lose any opportunity of finding common ground with some moderates on the other side.  What's worse, it starts to piss off independent voters too if you do it long enough (and recent polls are showing that very thing.)   If Obama doesn't change tactics, he's not only going to lose re-election, but he's going to lose it in a landslide... no matter who the Republicans nominate.  (Well, almost.  I like some of Ron Paul's ideas, but I see no way he'd ever be elected President.  He comes off as a bit... out there!)

Obama should look at things like LBJ did and realize he should step down for the good of his own party and let Hillary take center stage.  Alas, I don't see him doing that.


----------



## Torrijos-sama (Oct 16, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You're insane so it's understandable. :V



It's a wholesome, European solution.

Think of England, or Greece.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 16, 2011)

There are ways to measure the level of obstructionism within a given congress, namely by tracking the use of the filibuster. This article has a graph of senate cloture votes by congressional session, and clearly shows a huge increase when Republicans became the minority. The rise in the use of the filibuster goes far beyond anything seen in the last half-century.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 16, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> On the plus side ALL Obama has to do is keep   the economy from collapsing.  As it stands Obama's approval rating   combined with the incumbency advantage means he'll win against Romney,   but it'll still come close.
> Obama's general average approval rating across the board is averaging   45%(including those that strongly approve and slightly approve, etc),   which gives him a damn good chance, and on average incumbents get a ten   percent advantage.  On the other hand polls suggest Romney would get  41%  of the vote.


The problem with that is that nearly every economist is predicting a  double dip recession starting Q1 or Q2 next year.  Obama's job's bill  isn't getting anywhere in the Senate.  Even though Obama only needs 1  more moderate Republican to vote for it to pass, he can't even get that.   That's not to mention the House, where the bill's DOA.  The deficit  commission's in a no-win situation, so I'm betting we'll end up with a  poisonous bill coming out of Congress that Obama's going to be forced to  sign at the end of November.  In it will be deep cuts in popular programs  and as much as Obama's going to try to blame Congress (and for once, I'd  agree with him), the fact will remain that it's his signature on the bill and the Republicans will use that against him.  The dude in the White house always  ends up with egg on his face when things get bad.

I really doubt Obama's approval rating will be in the low 40s by spring  of next year.  I'm betting Obama's approval rating's going to rival Bush's lows, and that's BAD in an election year!  Being an incumbent helps, but not when the country's  going down the crapper.  If the Democrats want to keep the White House,  they need to nominate someone else.  Yeah, Hillary's agenda closely  mirrors Obama's (which is why I don't like her) but unlike Obama, I  believe Hillary will take clues from her husband's performance and find  ways to work with enough Republicans to get things done no matter how  poisonous the political climate is (which is why I'd vote for her anyway.)


----------



## Armaetus (Oct 16, 2011)

Eh, most furries are left or center so they'll either abstain or vote for Obama reelection because of all the bullshit the GOP's been doing.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 16, 2011)

Why is Glorious Comrade Stalin not in this poll?

He would cream the other candidates without a blink.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 16, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Why is Glorious Comrade Stalin not in this poll?
> 
> He would cream the other candidates without a blink.



If by cream you mean "assassinate" or "command secret police to send to a gulag", yes.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 17, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I followed the 2008 Dem primary pretty closely, Obama and Hillary were damn near identical.  The most substantive policy difference between the two was that Hillary _supported_ a health insurance mandate.  We would not shift to the left at all if we switched out Obama for Hillary, there's no point to it.  It also won't ever happen because see above.


Silly Americans... don't elect the one who got the most votes. :V

I couldn't stand to live in a federation!



Mayfurr said:


> Not to mention that (from what it looks like over here) Republicans have an even more rabidly pathological dislike of anyone named "Clinton" than they have for Obama...


They are _afraid_ of looking like pathetic, foolish idiots when contrasted to the success of a 'tax-and-spend liberal'. 



Telnac said:


> Yeah, Hillary's agenda closely  mirrors Obama's (which is why I don't like her) but unlike Obama, I  believe Hillary will take clues from her husband's their performance and find  ways to work with enough Republicans to get things done no matter how  poisonous the political climate is (which is why I'd vote for her anyway.)


Fixed that for you. :V


----------



## Aetius (Oct 17, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Silly Americans... don't elect the one who got the most votes. :V
> 
> I couldn't stand to live in a federation!



lol super delegates



Tycho said:


> If by cream you mean "assassinate" or "command secret police to send to a gulag", yes.



Sounds like a good domestic policy :V


----------



## Telnac (Oct 17, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Fixed that for you. :V


*lol*  Fair enough!


----------



## Bliss (Oct 17, 2011)

Telnac said:


> *lol*  Fair enough!


She may well be one of the most popular living politicians. Not to mention spending, like, the last decade as America's most admired woman.

Even though she said she's not interested being the Secretary of State for another term... how about the Secretary of Defense?


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 17, 2011)

Glaice said:


> Eh, most furries are left or center so they'll either abstain or vote for Obama reelection because of all the bullshit the GOP's been doing.


 
Well a lot of their economic plans aren't exactly solid and their ethics and morals aren't really congruent with our own.

There's very little that any of us can really look at these candidates and see someone who could be an effective leader whilst also improving the country.  Most of these guys are more interested in party-lines and their corporate-backers, especially Romney and Cain.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 17, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Silly Americans... don't elect the one who got the most votes. :V



Not that clear-cut.  You have to count the votes of the unsanctioned Michigan and Florida primaries to give her the popular vote win.  Obama's name didn't even appear on the ballot in Michigan.


----------



## Alisbet (Oct 17, 2011)

Obama certainly takes the cake.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 17, 2011)

Alisbet said:


> Obama certainly takes the cake.



I demand a recount.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 17, 2011)

so basically two thirds of us are a bunch of pinko socialists that hate Obama because he's a conciliatory center-right shitsmear that failed to repeal the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, pass a public option, get us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or accomplish any of his other goals with the exception of ending DADT and possibly DOMA and nominating some decent justices

 but we have to vote for him anyway because the alternatives are significantly worse... significantly 

and the other third are libertarians

and a couple other people are chucklefucks that ironically voted for Michelle Bachman and Rick Santorum... I hope


----------



## Aetius (Oct 17, 2011)

Spatel said:


> so basically two thirds of us are a bunch of pinko socialists that hate Obama because he's a conciliatory center-right shitsmear that failed to repeal the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, pass a public option, get us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or accomplish any of his other goals with the exception of ending DADT and possibly DOMA and nominating some decent justices
> 
> but we have to vote for him anyway because the alternatives are significantly worse... significantly
> 
> ...



On the bright side, no love for Rick Perry.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2011)

Spatel said:


> so basically two thirds of us are a bunch of pinko socialists that hate Obama because he's a conciliatory center-right shitsmear that failed to repeal the Bush tax cuts, the Patriot Act, close Gitmo, pass a public option, get us the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or accomplish any of his other goals with the exception of ending DADT and possibly DOMA and nominating some decent justices
> 
> but we have to vote for him anyway because the alternatives are significantly worse... significantly
> 
> ...


Pretty much... If anybody on the republican ticket gets the presidency say goodbye to-
gay rights(what little america has)
women's rights to choose
the repeal of DADT
all the work done to fix the economy
---pagebreak and a shit long list later----
states requiring teenagers be vaccinated against HPV

Pretty much if you don't want america to go to the shitter so bad that all that will be left of america after the republican's presidency is a huge cratter filled with piss and shit from see to shining sea, vote for Obama next fall.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Pretty much... If anybody on the republican ticket gets the presidency say goodbye to-
> gay rights(what little america has)
> women's rights to choose
> the repeal of DADT
> ...



I heavily doubt the republicans would get rid of those, they might as well just spend the whole time arguing how the rich pay too high taxes.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I heavily doubt the republicans would get rid of those, they might as well just spend the whole time arguing how the rich pay too high taxes.


Have you listened to Cain?
He's leading in the polls right now.
If he gets it we truly are utterly fucked.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Have you listened to Cain?
> He's leading in the polls right now.
> If he gets it we truly are utterly fucked.


Forgot about that guy, I keep on thinking he is just a low key candidate.

But jesus, where the hell did he come from?


----------



## Neuron (Oct 17, 2011)

greg-the-fox said:


> I don't think Romney's political and social views are of any relevance whatsoever.
> All he is is a mouthpiece and puppet for corporate donors. Insert money and he will say and do whatever you want him to do :V He would be like George Bush as president, except instead of Cheney pulling the strings, it would be the Koch Brothers.
> This is pretty much true for all the Republican nominees, except for maybe Ron Paul. He's just plain crazy. But he does appear to be genuine, I can see why people like him.


Uuuh... I don't know when it became popular to think that Obama doesn't take corporate interests and he's representative of the working man...

but he's totally just as bad.

Also I kind of feel like the president is one big figurehead most of the time, his views don't ever seem to get accomplished because derp GOP. 

I like a lot of what Ron Paul says I guess but I really think that "uber gold standard" shit is retarded. Gold needs to be used in electronics, not sitting around somewhere and being traded so that money has "value." I thought Fiat dollars were backed by a standard of labor or some shit.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Forgot about that guy, I keep on thinking he is just a low key candidate.
> 
> But jesus, where the hell did he come from?


Because of the fact Florida moved up their Caucus in all probability there won't be enough time for Cain to lose popularity quick enough like Perry did.
All Cain has to do is not have verbal diarrhea like Perry during a debate and he'll win the nomination.


He's a businessman, he was sucking corporate dick before he even tried running.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 17, 2011)

The problem for Cain is that his 9-9-9 plan is simply insane. Even mainstream media sources have noted that it would raise the tax burdens dramatically on the lower and middle classes, while lowering it on the upper class. It would also most likely fail to reach current levels of tax revenue, which would mean reductions in government services further screwing over the poorest members of society.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The problem for Cain is that his 9-9-9 plan is simply insane. Even mainstream media sources have noted that it would raise the tax burdens dramatically on the lower and middle classes, while lowering it on the upper class. It would also most likely fail to reach current levels of tax revenue, which would mean reductions in government services further screwing over the poorest members of society.


What is worse is that he's 20 points ahead of romney.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What is worse is that he's 20 points ahead of romney.



Consider the trajectories of previous favorites like Perry and Bachmann. They stayed popular only up until they were put under scrutiny and people actually listened to what they were saying. Cain is basing his entire campaign on a plan that is Ron Paul grade crazy and it is going to come out in the debates and the press.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Consider the trajectories of previous favorites like Perry and Bachmann. They stayed popular only up until they were put under scrutiny and people actually listened to what they were saying. Cain is basing his entire campaign on a plan that is Ron Paul grade crazy and it is going to come out in the debates and the press.


Again, goddamn it Florida.
We now have two months until the Caucuses start.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Again, goddamn it Florida.
> We now have two months until the Caucuses start.



It took Perry less than a month to crash and burn. I also think you are overestimating the importance of early primaries in this day and age; just look back to how McCain's fortunes changed during the 2008 election cycle.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2011)

Onnes said:


> It took Perry less than a month to crash and burn. I also think you are overestimating the importance of early primaries in this day and age; just look back to how McCain's fortunes changed during the 2008 election cycle.


I hope there's enough time for him to crash and burn.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 17, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I hope there's enough time for him to crash and burn.



In the world of politics, there is more than enough time.


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 17, 2011)

Argue with me if you want. Here's what I have to say:

I don't like Obama's policies. I believe that universal healthcare is a great, dandy thing, as long as you have the budget to support it. Maybe when we have a 50's style economic explosion, we can have universal healthcare.

I don't like the fact that he said he'd take us out of the war, and yet we have the highest number of troops in recent history fighting there.

I don't like his ideas on how to solve the budget crisis. I'm probably the most center, moderate person out there. I think we should both tax the exceedingly wealthy (above maybe $2 million) and try to streamline or eliminate many government agencies and allow the private sector to run them with regulations. Instead of drastic measures like taxing everyone with something to tax or, on the other extreme, cutting the fuck out of everything, we should sort of do half of both so that their combined effects will push back the deficit. A good nudge in the right direction will restore the public's faith in the economy better than some extreme plan a president wants to fit into a 4 year term.

That said, I just don't like the Republicans. I agree with them on many economic matters to an extent, but damn, it's almost comical how little they know about public perception. Most of them live up the stereotype.

So you see, I have the choice between an incumbent who chooses only one side of what I think would be a good plan and pushes it way too far, or any number of practically Skeletor-level supervillains. I'm fucked.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 17, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> Argue with me if you want. Here's what I have to say:
> 
> I don't like Obama's policies. I believe that universal healthcare is a great, dandy thing, as long as you have the budget to support it. Maybe when we have a 50's style economic explosion, we can have universal healthcare.
> 
> ...


We all know no matter what we're fucked, just join the, "aww fuck it, I'll just Obama again" camp.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 17, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> I don't like Obama's policies. I believe that universal healthcare is a great, dandy thing, as long as you have the budget to support it. Maybe when we have a 50's style economic explosion, we can have universal healthcare.



We are within the top 10 countries in GDP/capita. Why should we be unique among first world countries in not providing healthcare?



> ... I think we should both tax the exceedingly wealthy (above maybe $2 million) and try to streamline or eliminate many government agencies and allow the private sector to run them with regulations...



It's all well and good to say you want to cut spending; however, cutting spending means cutting some kind of service which you fail specify. Some minimal detail is important, lest one assumes you are wanting to go the full Ron Paul and eliminate food inspections.

EDIT: The open, immutable voting certainly adds something to this thread.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

GingerM said:


> As this is all happening in a foreign country, it's not of great interest to me.


Short version the united states of america is fucked, in the bad way.

Long version the republicans are trying to create a new recession to reduce Obama's popularity that way they can get a republican in office, however the current crop of republican candidates are horrible and some of them their economic plans would outright destroy america's economy, the rest are far worse.  It'd be like voting between a shitty politician and a even shittier one.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> We are within the top 10 countries in GDP/capita. Why should we be unique among first world countries in not providing healthcare?
> 
> EDIT: The open, immutable voting certainly adds something to this thread.


He would vote for Cain. Surely he has a good reason. :V


----------



## Neuron (Oct 18, 2011)

GingerM said:


> As this is all happening in a foreign country, it's not of great interest to me.


It should be, because America's super wealthy are working to fuck you up the ass too. Want a job at slave wages, courtesy of our corporate profit complex? :V


----------



## GingerM (Oct 18, 2011)

.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 18, 2011)

GingerM said:


> Thus, not a shitpost, but thank you for leaping to unwarranted conclusions.



Yeah, right, sure.

It's a fucking shitpost.

Goddamn, how did you find your way back here? I thought I locked the kitchen door.


----------



## GingerM (Oct 18, 2011)

.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 18, 2011)

GingerM said:


> I'm beginning to wonder why I bothered.



Oh, there's no question as to the "why" of this most graceful return to FAF you have made.  You're a rabid attention whore. You NEED an audience to lap up your egomaniacal self-absorbed feminazi verbal vomiting, or that big horse dong on your character won't rise and shine.


----------



## GingerM (Oct 18, 2011)

.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 18, 2011)

GingerM said:


> I gather you'd prefer I delete my other posts on the subject?



Damn, you LOVE to delete and ninja edit dontcha?

I don't care at this point whether you go and rage-delete your posts and sulk.  Do whatever you want.  And quit playing dumb, just because you're actually good at something doesn't mean you need to do it constantly.  You're just a fucking showoff.


----------



## GingerM (Oct 18, 2011)

Tycho, I apologize without reservation for letting my temper get the better of me. I deleted the entries because after reading them again, it seemed pretty clear I was continuing to shitpost and that Xaerun or another mod would probably remove them anyway.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Can we get back on topic?

Anybody know when is the first Caucus anyhow?  Last I saw January 3.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 18, 2011)

The Tax Policy Center has run the numbers on Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
 Highlights: bottom quintile sees a 19% drop in after-tax income, top quintile sees a 7% raise. The top 0.1% of earners actually get an almost 27% increase in after-tax income.



CannonFodder said:


> Anybody know when is the first Caucus anyhow?  Last I saw January 3.



Iowa goes first on January 3rd.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 18, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The Tax Policy Center has run the numbers on Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
> Highlights: bottom quintile sees a 19% drop in after-tax income, top quintile sees a 7% raise. The top 0.1% of earners actually get an almost 27% increase in after-tax income.
> 
> 
> ...


So basically Cain's plan would bend over the poor and make them take it and give a nice big tax deduction towards the rich?
Yeah this plan is not going to go over so well and I guess you were right Onnes, Cain's numbers are going to tumble sooner rather than later.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 18, 2011)

The survey is like, "What do you want?  A nasty papercut?  Or having various limbs chopped off, or your eyes gouged out, or your fingers smashed, or your testicles hooked up to a car battery for an hour?"

Goddamn.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 19, 2011)

Commiecomrade said:


> I don't like his ideas on how to solve the budget crisis. I'm probably the most center, moderate person out there. I think we should both tax the exceedingly wealthy (above maybe $2 million) and try to streamline or eliminate many government agencies and allow the private sector to run them with regulations. Instead of drastic measures like taxing everyone with something to tax or, on the other extreme, cutting the fuck out of everything, we should sort of do half of both so that their combined effects will push back the deficit.


 
Problem one is that you've defined the recent political climate as the center, whereas "cutting the fuck out of everything" has actually been the bulk of government action for the last thirty years.  To fix things we need to counteract that, because far from being centrist, we're currently the most hyperconservative developed nation in the world.

Problem two is that you've identified the deficit as the primary problem, not unemployment.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 19, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The Tax Policy Center has run the numbers on Cain's 9-9-9 plan.
> Highlights: bottom quintile sees a 19% drop in after-tax income, top quintile sees a 7% raise. The top 0.1% of earners actually get an almost 27% increase in after-tax income.



And I think that's a major issue if we honestly need someone to run on the numbers here.  Just by looking at the name of the plan you start seeing some immediate problems.

That income tax is now, across the board, 9% for everyone means that poor households which pay less than 5% of their income on taxes now pay 9% and the super wealthy which pay anywhere around 30-35% are now paying only 9% of their income on taxes.  It's a plan that simultaneously gives extreme tax breaks for the rich while crippling the poor and simply doesn't make any sense considering that the government would receive virtually no where near the same revenue they had before, since taxing 9% on a poor household which brings in virtually nothing is still virtually nothing.  Throw in the 9% sales tax on everything and anything and the poor no longer have the means to buy goods, and then fall within the issue of choosing whether to pay for electricity and water or food and clothing.

As I said, Cain's plan is the most Republican of any Republican plan ever.  And I think the other Republicans know this, but to denounce the plan means that they're going against everything their party seems to stand for.  What are Romney and Perry supposed to say?  "YOU'RE GIVING THE POOR AN UNFAIR DEAL AND THE RICH NEED TO BE TAXED MOAR THAN THAT!"  The Tea Party would call for their heads.

The only way they could get away with arguing against it is that certain things the government provides would no longer be properly funded, like the military, boarder patrol, and all those other fun parts of government the extreme right don't want to get rid of, though with government shutdowns being threatened every other month, it doesn't appear like anyone in Washington really gives a shit about paying our armed forces for their duty.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 19, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Problem one is that you've defined the recent political climate as the center, whereas "cutting the fuck out of everything" has actually been the bulk of government action for the last thirty years.  To fix things we need to counteract that, because far from being centrist, we're currently the most hyperconservative developed nation in the world.
> 
> Problem two is that you've identified the deficit as the primary problem, not unemployment.


What's even more annoying when you think about it many people consider themselves conservative because for who knows how long considering yourself liberal is a unspeakable crime in hyperconservative eyes.
For example here in Texas, if you vote democrat some people automatically jump to thinking the person is a socialist communist nazi satanist atheist who is trying to subvert, "good american morals".
I'd say a fair percentage of the hyperconservatism is that many people are too stupid to understand what's right wing propaganda and what's not.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 19, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> The only way they could get away with arguing against it is that certain things the government provides would no longer be properly funded, like the military, boarder patrol, and all those other fun parts of government the extreme right don't want to get rid of, though with government shutdowns being threatened every other month, it doesn't appear like anyone in Washington really gives a shit about paying our armed forces for their duty.


They really don't care at all about paying our armed forces right now despite the fact they looove to fucking push the agenda so much. Just look at Azure. Just look at all the veterans occupying right now.

My aunt is one of those who believes the income tax should be 10% across the board and anything else is unfair. I don't think she quite understands just how much of 11,000 or less per year makes 10% a very high number that can't be afforded by the poor, they can't just sacrifice $1,000-$2,000 bucks of what needs to go to food and water and shelter.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 19, 2011)

Lacus said:


> My aunt is one of those who believes the income tax should be 10% across the board and anything else is unfair. I don't think she quite understands just how much of 11,000 or less per year makes 10% a very high number that can't be afforded by the poor, they can't just sacrifice $1,000-$2,000 bucks of what needs to go to food and water and shelter.



But the rich pay sooo much :V

I still don't get why people still support a flat tax : /


----------



## Tycho (Oct 19, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> But the rich pay sooo much :V
> 
> I still don't get why people still support a flat tax : /



because they're fucking dumb
because they're too lazy to do any substantial amount of math
because they're convinced a huge portion of society is freeloading off them and their HARD EARNED PAY and GOSHDARNIT that just ain't right, LET'S TEACH THEM A LESSON
because they're fucking dumb
because they're fucking dumb
dumb
D
U
M
B

the amount of irrational hatred these people harbor towards lower classes is just mindboggling to me
I HATE YOU FOR NOT BEING SUCCESSFUL
I HATE YOU FOR GETTING ROGERED UP THE ARSE BY JOHN Q. BILLIONAIRE
I HATE YOU FOR NOT BEING RICH ENOUGH TO CODDLE AND GIVE HANDOUTS TO *ME*
ME ME ME ME ME ME WHY AREN'T YOU WORKING FOR ME I'M THE IMPORTANT ONE HERE


----------



## Micahchu (Oct 19, 2011)

Personally, I believe we should give Ron Paul a chance. He won't win a peace prize for nothing, he won't vacation to Hawaii every 2 months and parade around with his shirt off, and god forbid if there's another oil spill, he's smart enough to not take the blame for it. Obama was better than Bush Jr....sort of, but let's give the old man a chance.

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/


----------



## Tycho (Oct 19, 2011)

Micahchu said:


> Personally, I believe we should give Ron Paul a chance. He won't win a peace prize for nothing, he won't vacation to Hawaii every 2 months and parade around with his shirt off, and god forbid if there's another oil spill, he's smart enough to not take the blame for it. Obama was better than Bush Jr....sort of, but let's give the old man a chance.
> 
> http://www.ronpaul2012.com/



Paul is a donut of crazy with sane-sprinkles on it.  He's a radical, but is he the right kind of radical?


----------



## Bliss (Oct 19, 2011)

Micahchu said:


> he won't vacation to Hawaii every 2 months


Who wouldn't want to work from home?


----------



## Aetius (Oct 19, 2011)

Micahchu said:


> Personally, I believe we should give Ron Paul a chance. He won't win a peace prize for nothing, he won't vacation to Hawaii every 2 months and parade around with his shirt off, and god forbid if there's another oil spill, he's smart enough to not take the blame for it. Obama was better than Bush Jr....sort of, but let's give the old man a chance.
> 
> http://www.ronpaul2012.com/



"HEY GUYS! LETS GO BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD! WHILE WE ARE AT IT, LETS WITHDRAW ALL OUR TROOPS FROM EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY!!"

Ron Paul would have been an amazing candidate in the 1920s, however this is 2011 : /


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 19, 2011)

Rand Paul 2012


----------



## Neuron (Oct 19, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> "HEY GUYS! LETS GO BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD! WHILE WE ARE AT IT, LETS WITHDRAW ALL OUR TROOPS FROM EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY!!"
> 
> Ron Paul would have been an amazing candidate in the 1920s, however this is 2011 : /


Also get rid of the FDA because what do they even do.

He has so many reasonable and good ideas, and then he has ideas that are just too far out there, although to be honest, he would probably be the lesser of all the evils even with his more batshit crazy ideas.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 19, 2011)

Lacus said:


> He has so many reasonable and good ideas, and then he has ideas that are just too far out there, although to be honest, he would probably be the lesser of all the evils even with his more batshit crazy ideas.



He claims Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be abolished. He and his son have also compared the programs to slavery. The guy is irredeemable.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 20, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The problem for Cain is that his 9-9-9 plan is simply insane. Even mainstream media sources have noted that it would raise the tax burdens dramatically on the lower and middle classes, while lowering it on the upper class. It would also most likely fail to reach current levels of tax revenue, which would mean reductions in government services further screwing over the poorest members of society.



Ron Paul accused Herman Cain's tax plain of being too regressive. _Ron Paul_.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Ron Paul accused Herman Cain's tax plain of being too regressive. _Ron Paul_.



Herman Cain just pulled that 9-9-9 thing out of his ass.  He thought it sounded catchy or something.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 20, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Herman Cain just pulled that 9-9-9 thing out of his ass.  He thought it sounded catchy or something.



And can you blame him? Is it not true that you all remember him and his silly plan?

He knows how to market. The problem is he needs a better product.


----------



## Tycho (Oct 20, 2011)

Xenke said:


> And can you blame him? Is it not true that you all remember him and his silly plan?



Very true.  Damn, the man isn't a complete moron.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 20, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Very true.  Damn, the man isn't a complete moron.



That is assuming he has some plan to profit from this whole process. He certainly has no chance of winning the presidency.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Very true.  Damn, the man isn't a complete moron.


Then again one of his pizza chains may have had a three XL pizza deal one day for $9-$9-$9 and got the idea from there.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

nine-inch with nine toppings for nine bucks, we'll balance the budget with savings on pizza


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 20, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Herman Cain just pulled that 9-9-9 thing out of his ass.  He thought it sounded catchy or something.



I can't help being reminded that "999" is the UK emergency number (the equivalent of the US 911)...


----------



## Telnac (Oct 20, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> I can't help being reminded that "999" is the UK emergency number (the equivalent of the US 911)...


*lol*  Love the irony.  If Cain's 9-9-9 plan passes, we will need to call emergency services alright!  It's hard to conceive of a faster way to collapse the US economy.

I know furries tend to be left of center, but Obama's just Jimmy Carter 2.0: good intentions, lousy results.  Unless the economy suddenly booms in the next 12 months, or if the Republican candidate completely shoots himself in the foot like McCain did, I don't see him being re-elected.  If you guys don't want to see one of the Republicans in the White House, you need to find a way to make some noise about getting Hillary into the fray.  She can demolish the entire Republican field.  Obama's going to really struggle to beat nearly any of them.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 20, 2011)

Nah Obama is Clinton with a bad economy. This election will probably be 1996 again, but with a bad economy. The Republican field is exactly the same as it was back then. There are no Reagans running this time, and there are no major gaffes like the Iran Hostage Crisis to pin to the incumbent president.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Oct 20, 2011)

Telnac said:


> *lol*  Love the irony.  If Cain's 9-9-9 plan passes, we will need to call emergency services alright!  It's hard to conceive of a faster way to collapse the US economy.



Who needs an economy when I have the 2nd amendment?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

Spatel said:


> Nah Obama is Clinton with a bad economy. This election will probably be 1996 again, but with a bad economy. The Republican field is exactly the same as it was back then. There are no Reagans running this time, and there are no major gaffes like the Iran Hostage Crisis to pin to the incumbent president.


 
It's suspected that the Reagan campaign struck a deal with Iran to not release the hostages before the election, and then after winning, not until after the inauguration.  They ended up being released just twenty minutes after his inaugural address.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 20, 2011)

Smelge said:


> I don't care who you fuckers vote for, as long as it's not one of those psychotic republican cocksuckers.
> 
> Bollocks to all that "it's our country, you have no business talking about our politics" shite. What you bastards do affects the rest of the world. *So don't fuck up and put a complete mental in power.*



Too late, we already did that, if you hadn't bothered to notice.




greg-the-fox said:


> *ENORMOUS SIGH*[bn]
> I guess I have no choice but to vote for Obama again[/b]...
> I wish we could have an actual _progressive_ president one of these days :V



You always have a choice.  And I fear "one of these days" will never occur.  Pure pipedreaming.




Aleu said:


> Ron Paul 2012.



Anyone but Obama.  He's already screwed this nation enough, another four years of him will destroy this country.  Then again, four years of any candidate is ripe for ruination.




lupinealchemist said:


> The only reason Obama would be seen as a bad president is because the GOP cock-blocks everything he tries to do *so nothing gets done*.



Yeah, and everything he has passed "cocksucker" approval has worked so wonderfully...  :V




Smelge said:


> Even if he's not advanced much, *at least he isn't actively setting everyone back like your last one*.



You seem to have again failed to notice the "State of the Union" as it presently stands under Obama.  National debt out of control, no jobs, Universal Healthcare a fiasco, not to mention the "Fast and Furious" scandal:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/19/gop-reps-directly-press-obama-on-fast-and-furious/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/16/ftn/main20121062.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-subpoena-holder-in-fast-and-furious-probe/




Smelge said:


> Another recession will fuck everything.



Including the Democrats, if Obama is elected again.




Onnes said:


> So you believe businesses should be allowed to restrict services based on the race of the customer?



Freedom, not business practices... that has nothing to do with the Freedom of The People.  Not to mention, restricting services based on race would be a violation of Freedom.




Aleu said:


> So because it would be thrown out then everyone is going to suddenly be even more racist? The difference between this and murder/theft/drunk driving is that it can't really be PROVEN that it is race driven to not hire or hire someone because of race. If anything, he's right. *The act is backfiring. People will be hired because of race so the employers don't look racist.*



Exactly.  My grandfather owned a business, and due to the "racial quotas" required by the laws, he ended up having to pass on qualified applicants just so he could meet quota by hiring someone LESS qualified, due solely to their race.




Aleu said:


> And how is that? *How can they really tell they're hiring based on performance or based on color? Quotas?*



At least back three decades or so, as I said above, yes, by quotas.  You had to have a certain number of minority employees, even if they "performed" lower than a white person.  Which wasn't always the case, but if push came to shove, then the underperfomer got the job, and the white applicant got the boot, just because he/she wasn't a minority.




Marcus Stormchaser said:


> Who the hell is Gary Johnson?



I said the same thing about Obama in 2008, but he's somehow in the White House now... go fig.




Antonin Scalia said:


> Whoever wins, we lose



Indeed...


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

I've been keeping moderately up to date on the whole romney vs perry thing going on.
Perry thankfully has no chance of a comeback, so he's attacking romney hard and so are obama's supporters.  Which hopefully will turn out in the end, cause if they are demonizing romney this early on when cain eventually falls popularity wise romney will not rise.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

tl;dr

Dammit CF you ruined it :V


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 20, 2011)

999 is the emergency number in the U.K.  *Coincidence?!


*Anyways, vote for a third party you idiots (not the Tea Party).


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 20, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> 999 is the emergency number in the U.K.  *Coincidence?!
> 
> 
> *Anyways, vote for a third party you idiots (*not the Tea Party*).



_I like tea...   _


----------



## Onnes (Oct 20, 2011)

How has this thread made it 8 pages without someone going all in on the Santorum jokes? Why else would he even be on the poll?
Not to mention that barely anyone seems willing to defend a Romney or Ron Paul vote.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Onnes said:


> How has this thread made it 8 pages without someone going all in on the Santorum jokes? Why else would he even be on the poll?
> Not to mention that barely anyone seems willing to defend a Romney or Ron Paul vote.


 Santorum jokes have been overused already.
Well I started out going for Romney, but changed to Obama.


Mojotech said:


> tl;dr
> 
> Dammit CF you ruined it :V


I ruin everything.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 20, 2011)

Onnes said:


> He claims Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional and should be abolished. He and his son have also compared the programs to slavery. The guy is irredeemable.


Uhm you know what I take back everything I said. He can go fuck himself. 

Hillary Clinton though...hmm.


----------



## mrfoxwily (Oct 20, 2011)

No offense, but third party voting will never get you anywhere.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 20, 2011)

mrfoxwily said:


> No offense, but third party voting will never get you anywhere.


like bipartisan voting ever really did.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 20, 2011)

Lacus said:


> like bipartisan voting ever really did.


 
Multiparty systems have a few problems- but the long story short is they dilute power a good deal, and wind up with someone who relatively little people voted for in office. The two-party system also has some serious issues, mind you, being that there's nobody that anyone's really satisfied with- each politician ends up being master of none and comes off kinda meh across the board..

Either way, voter apathy is a huge problem.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Anyways, vote for a third party you idiots (not the Tea Party).


 
Nobody wants to accidentally Nader their way into getting a Republican elected again.  Third party voting is just _strategically_ a terrible idea as long as we keep using a first-past-the-post system without some form of proportional representation.



Onnes said:


> How has this thread made it 8 pages without someone going all in on the Santorum jokes? Why else would he even be on the poll?
> Not to mention that barely anyone seems willing to defend a Romney or Ron Paul vote.


 
Just because Santorum is technically running (down his leg :V) doesn't mean he's any more politically relevant than he was after being ousted from the Senate five years ago.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Multiparty systems have a few problems- but the long story short is they dilute power a good deal, and wind up with someone who relatively little people voted for in office. The two-party system also has some serious issues, mind you, being that there's nobody that anyone's really satisfied with- each politician ends up being master of none and comes off kinda meh across the board..
> 
> Either way, voter apathy is a huge problem.


What about having a law where everyone must vote?


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What about having a law where everyone must vote?


 
I'm all in favor of making election day a national holiday, and requiring at least an empty ballot be submitted.  It still won't fix our first-past-the-post system though, it's just a good idea.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I'm all in favor of making election day a national holiday, and requiring at least an empty ballot be submitted.  It still won't fix our first-past-the-post system though, it's just a good idea.


Is there anyway that america could accomplish this?


----------



## CAThulu (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Is there anyway that america could accomplish this?



Oh hell, Canada has been trying to figure that one out for a few years, and it can't be done w/o the public getting upset that their right to NOT vote is in jeopardy.

Especially since up here we've had a bumper crop of politicians that none of us really want to vote for. :/    
(yes, it could be much worse, but no one's really happy with the policies and platforms that have been put forth by any party.)


----------



## Lobar (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Is there anyway that america could accomplish this?


 
Republicans generally seek to discourage overall voter turnout so probably not anytime soon. :\


----------



## Onnes (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Is there anyway that america could accomplish this?



Make voting day a national holiday.
Allow votes to be cast in every church and bar.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 20, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Republicans generally seek to discourage overall voter turnout so probably not anytime soon. :\


Isn't that because republicans vote more?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 20, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Isn't that because republicans vote more?


 
No, it's because anything that can prevent people that might possibly vote Democratic from exercising their voting rights means a greater chance of GOP victories.

Voter caging, robocalls warning people not to vote if they have even an unpaid parking ticket because of arrest, fliers declaring the day for voting in heavily-Democrat-leaning areas to be the day after polls close, shutting down ACORN because it helped eligible poor and minority voters to, you know, vote..  Voting machines, which are so inherently secure yet made by companies that also manufacture ATMs without these problems, have far less stringent regulation than slot machines and at least one company is chaired by a very staunch Republican backer, are completely ignored.  It (and the various voter ID laws) aren't about combating election fraud, it's about using every possible way to disenfranchise non-Republican voters.  In fact, the only high profile election fraud case I can even recall was of a Republican.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> No, it's because anything that can prevent people that might possibly vote Democratic from exercising their voting rights means a greater chance of GOP victories.
> 
> Voter caging, robocalls warning people not to vote if they have even an unpaid parking ticket because of arrest, fliers declaring the day for voting in heavily-Democrat-leaning areas to be the day after polls close, shutting down ACORN because it helped eligible poor and minority voters to, you know, vote..  Voting machines, which are so inherently secure yet made by companies that also manufacture ATMs without these problems, have far less stringent regulation than slot machines and at least one company is chaired by a very staunch Republican backer, are completely ignored.  It (and the various voter ID laws) aren't about combating election fraud, it's about using every possible way to disenfranchise non-Republican voters.  *In fact, the only high profile election fraud case I can even recall was of a Republican.*



Democrat election fraud doesn't have to be "high profile" in order to exist:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/democrats_and_vote_fraud_on_th.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25349

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...ork-times-democratic-voter-fraud-s-crazy-talk

http://prevarication.net/2010/11/democratic-voter-fraud-in-full-swing/


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 21, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Democrat election fraud doesn't have to be "high profile" in order to exist:
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/democrats_and_vote_fraud_on_th.html
> 
> ...



oh dear oh dear

Registration fraud is not voting fraud, and The American Thinker (lol) article makes this false conflation- even bringing up ACORN.  ACORN flagged fraudulent registration forms turned in by voters looking to pad their numbers and turned them in to the registration offices- because it's illegal to throw those out.  Similarly, if someone registers Donald Duck to vote, that doesn't mean that registration for Donald Duck is going to get to vote.  Not saying it isn't bad or doesn't happen, but that doesn't affect elections.  Now, the drive to make photo ID is intended to make it harder for poor people to vote, since they're less likely to have identification and more likely to vote Democrat.  When it's coupled with forms of ID that cost money to obtain, no matter how little, that's a poll tax.  I'm seeing lots of complaints about absentee ballots and early voting- why?  I will be voting absentee because I'm going to college far from home but still want to vote- yet as a college student, I'm more likely to vote for someone who isn't a Republican and use absentee ballots.  Thus, they have to go.  I'm really kind of at a loss as to the problem with early voting, seriously.

CFP and Prevarication?  Whoa, it's almost like you typed "DEMOCRAT VOTER FRAUD" and picked up the first few things that looked like they said what you were looking for.  These sites are trash, look at the front pages.  And the Washington Examiner article is hilarious in saying "Hmm, did I hallucinate the controversy over ACORN?"  I don't know, did I hallucinate the part where ACORN was acquitted and the whole thing was a manufactured outrage where one conservative outlet cites another conservative outlet which cited another conservative outlet which cited some guy and suddenly everyone's talking about it and there's a huge conspiracy.

In fact I'm kind of wondering why I'm bothering to respond to this site considering *YOU ARE NOT MAKING YOUR OWN POINTS, YOU ARE LINKDUMPING IN LIEU OF ACTUALLY MAKING AN ARGUMENT.  YOU ARE SAYING "OH YEAH?  WELL READ THESE WALLS OF TEXTS AND DON'T DARE SAY A WORD UNTIL YOU'VE READ EVERYTHING"*  Jesus this misdirection you do is awful and you really really need to stop doing it.  Just stop.  Don't do it again.  Ever.  Only scumbags do this.  Only worthless trash does this.  Stop.  Fucking stop.  It makes me tear my hair out that you could be so lazy.  Where's your 'conservative work ethic'?

If you're trying to prove "IT HAPPENS WITH DEMOCRATS TOO" I don't think anyone doubts that.  One group is just more concerted and effective than the other, and has a noise machine to drown out all talk.  How much did we hear about ACORN and LIBERALS ruining elections from the media, and how much did we hear about Supreme Court Justice David Prosser?  Certainly nothing nationwide.  Diebold machines?  Almost nothing- yet they're horribly insecure and easily tampered with.  Florida?  Only the controversy at the end of a heated election, then "AL GORE CONCEDES BUSH IS THE WINNER."  Black Panthers at a Philly voting station, one with a stick?  That stuck around for several news cycles and is still brought up.  Arizona Minutemen carrying guns and harrassing Latino voters at the polls?  It happened, but you never heard about it.  Wonder why?

Registration fraud is serious and should be taken care of, but voter suppression and fraud (i.e. the part that really matters) is very rare and is the realm of conservatives.

Your post is garbage.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 21, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> words



P.S. don't bother reading this everyone also don't reply to Roose he's just going to threadshit.  Up next: "HOW ABOUT THAT HOPE AND CHANGE YOU WANTED" hurf durf


----------



## Lobar (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Isn't that because republicans vote more?


 
It seems Republicans generally have more capacity to get registered on time and physically make it to the polling booth on Election Day proper.  Absentee voting, early voting, lax registration deadlines, mail-in ballots, etc. all tend to favor Democrats, so Republicans typically fiercely oppose them.

And then there's vote caging that Bobskunk got into a bit.  The gist of how it works is the RNC will obtain a list of registered voters and send out a mass mailing of non-forwardable, first-class mail to those voters they target as being likely to vote Democrat.  They then make a list of every voter whose mail was returned as undeliverable (which actually happens a _lot_ with mass mailings for a variety of reasons) and submit those names to be purged from the voter rolls.  On Election Day, they then send out a volunteer lackey with a copy of the list to the polling stations, and when any of those voters show up to vote, they challenge their vote.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> oh dear oh dear
> 
> Registration fraud is not voting fraud, and The American Thinker (lol) article makes this false conflation- even bringing up ACORN.  ACORN flagged fraudulent registration forms turned in by voters looking to pad their numbers and turned them in to the registration offices- because it's illegal to throw those out.  Similarly, if someone registers Donald Duck to vote, that doesn't mean that registration for Donald Duck is going to get to vote.  Not saying it isn't bad or doesn't happen, but that doesn't affect elections.  Now, the drive to make photo ID is intended to make it harder for poor people to vote, since they're less likely to have identification and more likely to vote Democrat.  When it's coupled with forms of ID that cost money to obtain, no matter how little, that's a poll tax.  I'm seeing lots of complaints about absentee ballots and early voting- why?  I will be voting absentee because I'm going to college far from home but still want to vote- yet as a college student, I'm more likely to vote for someone who isn't a Republican and use absentee ballots.  Thus, they have to go.  I'm really kind of at a loss as to the problem with early voting, seriously.
> 
> ...



Your post, however, is very entertaining... thanks, Bob.




Lobar said:


> It seems Republicans generally have more capacity to get registered on time and physically make it to the polling booth on Election Day proper.  Absentee voting, early voting, lax registration deadlines, mail-in ballots, etc. all tend to favor Democrats, so Republicans typically fiercely oppose them.
> 
> And then there's vote caging that Bobskunk got into a bit.  The gist of how it works is the RNC will obtain a list of registered voters and send out a mass mailing of non-forwardable, first-class mail to those voters they target as being likely to vote Democrat.  They then make a list of every voter whose mail was returned as undeliverable (which actually happens a _lot_ with mass mailings for a variety of reasons) and submit those names to be purged from the voter rolls.  On Election Day, they then send out a volunteer lackey with a copy of the list to the polling stations, *and when any of those voters show up to vote, they challenge their vote*.



Do you have any documentation of this practice?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 21, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Your post, however, is very entertaining... thanks, Bob.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mostly was frustrated because of the animals in the dorm next door.  This college is so trashy and auuuugh you really have to stop linkdumping instead of making your own argument, especially when you don't even vet the material beyond 'has a headline that agrees with point i'm trying to make.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_(voter_suppression)#2004_US_Election  2004 and 2008 were full of incidents.  Before you say "why trust Wikipedia?" (while giving links to sites with front page articles like "BARRY SOETORO'S SHARIA PLAN TO HATE AMERICA") there are footnotes and citations for every listed incident.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 21, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> What about having a law where everyone must vote?



Like the Aussies do?

Can't see it happening in the US though, especially when there appears to regularly be moves by various political parties to _restrict_ voting rights to people that might vote for their opponents. I mean, the term "gerrymander" for arbitrarily fixing electoral boundaries to benefit one's own political party to the exclusion of others originated in the US in the first place...



Lobar said:


> I'm all in favor of making election day a national holiday



Hell, what about just scheduling the day of the election to a *Saturday *- like we do in NZ? Simple!


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 21, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Mostly was frustrated because of the animals in the dorm next door.  *This college is so trashy and auuuugh you really have to stop linkdumping* instead of making your own argument, especially when you don't even vet the material beyond 'has a headline that agrees with point i'm trying to make.'
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caging_(voter_suppression)#2004_US_Election  2004 and 2008 were full of incidents.  Before you say "why trust Wikipedia?" (while giving links to sites with front page articles like "BARRY SOETORO'S SHARIA PLAN TO HATE AMERICA") there are footnotes and citations for every listed incident.



If I did that, I wouldn't get to see you frustrated anymore.

Hey, you want my own argument?  Fine.  You asserted that "the only high profile election fraud case I can even recall was of a Republican", and I simply provided my opinion that "high-profile" or not, Democrats also commit election fraud.  They just cover it up better.  Not to mention, your assertion was only one case that you could recall... not very significant, if one is all you can recall.  You made it sound like a big thing.  Like only a Republican would commit election fraud.  Give equal credit to both parties, neither is innocent of political illegalities.

Oh, and here's more linkdumping, for your enjoyment:

http://www.chicagonow.com/publius-forum/2011/03/democrat-election-fraud-fake-tea-partiers-charged/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/20/tried-steal-election-ny-voter-fraud-case-heats/

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/04/gillibrand-pitches-the-wfp-app.html

And I don't have a problem with Wikipedia, it can be very handy.

Here's an interesting and relevant video:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=331_1288233022

If it's happening in one state, it could be happening in others.  There, left a nice, brief and tidy "argument" for the vid link... enjoy.

Hmmm... found this also interesting:

http://www.texasrainmaker.com/2008/10/15/witnessing-democrat-election-fraud-firsthand/




Mayfurr said:


> Like the Aussies do?
> 
> Can't see it happening in the US though, especially when there appears to regularly be moves by various political parties to _restrict_ voting rights to people that might vote for their opponents. *I mean, the term "gerrymander" for arbitrarily fixing electoral boundaries to benefit one's own political party to the exclusion of others originated in the US in the first place...
> 
> ...



It sure did, all the way back in 1812, thanks to Massachusetts governor Elbridge Gerry.  Far as I'm concerned, the practice should be outlawed.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 21, 2011)

I did a fancy quiz. :3c



Barack Obama * (97%)
Joseph Biden (86%)
Hillary Clinton (77%)
Michael Bloomberg (56%)
Ron Paul * (31%)
 
_* Indicates real candidacy._


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 21, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> I did a fancy quiz. :3c
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We got almost identical results.
Hivemindhighfive!


----------



## Tycho (Oct 21, 2011)

an internet quiz? Really?

That's just terrible.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 21, 2011)

Tycho said:


> an internet quiz? Really?
> 
> That's just terrible.


My mother did one that had been also done by, like, 90% of those who were running for the parliament and voted based on her results. It had the same system as that one (but the answers were given in a sliding scale). _So why on Earth not?_

It was so popular they're now making one for the presidential election. I think I should go suggest a few questions myself. :smile:


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

Well looks like Herman Cain truly is stupid, since he got flack for the 9-9-9 plan, he's now changed it to the 9-0-9 plan for the poor.

Also Nevade is not moving up their Caucus.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Well looks like Herman Cain truly is stupid, since he got flack for the 9-9-9 plan, he's now changed it to the 9-0-9 plan for the poor.
> 
> Also Nevade is not moving up their Caucus.



You read the Fox News version of this story ;v? Blaming the poor to 'force' Cain to make this plan.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 22, 2011)

WAAAH THOSE ASSHOLE PEOPLE IN POVERTY, POINTING OUT SOMETHING THAT IS UNFAIR BECAUSE IT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ACTUAL FUCKING MATHEMATICS.

For all you republicans out there, I'm going to do a little SIMPLE FUCKING MATH* for you.

*by no means exact

Let's say a poor household earns about $11,000 a year and is a family unit of 4. They need to pay rent, buy food, and pay the other bills which let's say adds up to around 500-1,000 a month, probably more like over 1,000. If you're using you're brain, you'll quickly find out that isn't even enough to cover the full 12 months of the year. 9% of 11,000 is (.09 x 11,000) is about $990, and some people even want a 10% tax rate for everyone leaving them with $1,000 to pay in taxes. There simply isn't enough money to go around. They can't even be expected to fully pay their living expenses for the entire year especially with inflation, let alone be expected to pay a 9% fucking tax on everything.

Let's look at the rich. Let's say they make about $250,000 and are taxed 9%. (.09 x 250,000) That leaves them with $22,550 in taxes, and they have plenty left over to take care of the rest of their expenses. It makes more sense for someone who can afford the cost of living but not for someone that can't even afford to eat. In fact, they should probably even contribute a little more, all things considered doing the math.

Now, the average middle class income for all of the united states being 9% THAT is something that might make a helluva lot more sense, doing the math here. (48,000 x .09) leaving them at around $4,350 in taxes while currently most of the middle class falls into paying 15-25% which makes it around $7,200, that's why the middle class is struggling so hard. Combine that with heavy payroll, high cost of living and stagnant wages, that would make sense.

As it stands, many of the MEGA WEALTHY are ALREADY falling into paying 5-15% of their taxes leaving them in this 9% bracket, because lol tax breaks and so on, and then they don't pay the payroll taxes and etc. They don't pay shit for taxes compared to how well off they are. They collectively screw people in poverty, lower AND upper middle class all in one go.  How on earth is that fair?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 22, 2011)

^Lacus you are forgetting one crucial piece of information though, the republican party is anti-science.
You'd have better luck trying to explain sub-atomic physics to the amish.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 22, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> ^Lacus you are forgetting one crucial piece of information though, the republican party is anti-science.
> You'd have better luck trying to explain sub-atomic physics to the amish.


Next I'll be beating a brick wall trying to explain why stem cell research is not killing babies. WOOOO!


----------



## Aleu (Oct 24, 2011)

And now Herman Cain has shot himself even more in the foot by wanting to outlaw abortions. This is such a wonderful idea, ain't it?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 24, 2011)

Aleu said:


> And now Herman Cain has shot himself even more in the foot by wanting to outlaw abortions. This is such a wonderful idea, ain't it?



It is a prerequisite for winning the Republican nomination.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2011)

Aleu said:


> And now Herman Cain has shot himself even more in the foot by wanting to outlaw abortions. This is such a wonderful idea, ain't it?


Hermain Cain:
chances of winning nomination: fairly good if perry's camp attacks romney to the point romney can't rise above the rest.
chances of winning general election: 0%


----------



## Neuron (Oct 24, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Hermain Cain:
> chances of winning nomination: fairly good if perry's camp attacks romney to the point romney can't rise above the rest.
> *chances of winning general election: 0%*


^GOD I SURE HOPE SO.

Seriously, this guy fucking blows.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2011)

Lacus said:


> ^GOD I SURE HOPE SO.
> 
> Seriously, this guy fucking blows.


The republicans better pray to god that cain doesn't get the nomination, cause even if Obama's approval rating winds up in the crapper Obama will still wipe the floor with cain.
The reason being incumbents get a advantage, even if obama's approval rating was in the single digits coupled with the incumbency advantage he'd still win.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

Aleu said:


> And now Herman Cain has shot himself even more in the foot by wanting to outlaw abortions. This is such a wonderful idea, ain't it?



They ALL want to ban abortions.  Santorum also wanted to ban contraception for good measure, even.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> They ALL want to ban abortions.  Santorum also wanted to ban contraception for good measure, even.


The irony is recent generations have become more and more liberal compared to the baby boomers, if they banned abortions and contraceptives that would create a baby boom which would years down the line completely fuck up politics for the conservatives.

I wonder if a politcal party can get a darwin award?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 24, 2011)

If anything we should be supporting Cain. These flat-tax plans are  political suicide: everyone knows that they are effectively regressive  and that's why they've never made it beyond the lunatic fringe.



CannonFodder said:


> The irony is recent generations have become more and more liberal compared to the baby boomers, if they banned abortions and contraceptives that would create a baby boom which would years down the line completely fuck up politics for the conservatives.



The boomers started liberal, and in some cases they were even more liberal than millennials. They simply became conservative with age.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 24, 2011)

Onnes said:


> If anything we should be supporting Cain. These flat-tax plans are  political suicide: everyone knows that they are effectively regressive  and that's why they've never made it beyond the lunatic fringe.
> 
> The boomers started liberal, and in some cases they were even more liberal than millennials. They simply became conservative with age.


Why do you think I plan on voting for Cain in the caucus and Obama in the general election?
It will devastate the republican party if he winds up on the ticket.


I know that, but in all likelihood the current crop won't follow in their steps.


----------



## Neuron (Oct 25, 2011)

Lobar said:


> They ALL want to ban abortions.  Santorum also wanted to *ban contraception* for good measure, even.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeah, right, like that will ever win the ticket.

If it does I will eat my hat and get rid of my IUD (reluctantly)


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Lacus said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA yeah, right, like that will ever win the ticket.
> 
> If it does I will eat my hat and get rid of my IUD (reluctantly)


If a republican gets the presidency, considering one of the supreme court judges has bad health and if she takes a turn for the worst the republicans can plant a extremely conservative judge, the supreme court may decide contraceptive and abortions to be illegal and repeal roe vs wade.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 25, 2011)

The reason every Republican other than Romney has a flat-tax plan is that there are enough gullible people out there who think "gee simpler tax forms, alright. I'll take it", not realizing they're going to end up paying several thousand more per year when they're making ends meet right now. The top 20% of income earners own 80% of the wealth in this country, but only pay 60% of the taxes. Our system is regressive *right now* so just imagine how regressive it would be with a flat tax.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 25, 2011)

Did I just read another flat tax proposal? Good lord!


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Did I just read another flat tax proposal? Good lord!


As a Texan I can verify that Rick Perry is retarded.

It's just going to further drag Perry's chances further down.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 25, 2011)

Honestly I have been trying to figure out whom I would support and I honestly have not found one person whom I would trust to not fuck things up. Its almost as bad as us up here. We have a Orwellian inclined conservative leader, and an NDP opposition who's leader just died. That and the liberals whom are not organized enough to be notable.

its like HMM WHICH BRAND OF SHIT SHALL I DINE ON FOR 4 YEARS.


But more-so then usual.


----------



## Ames (Oct 25, 2011)

Why can't I vote for Nader?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

JamesB said:


> Why can't I vote for Nader?


Cause I gerrymandered the votes.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 25, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Did I just read another flat tax proposal? Good lord!



Not to mention this piece of bullshit:


> One of Perryâ€™s key assertions is that a flat-tax will make it easier for Americans to file their tax returns.
> 
> â€œThis simple 20% flat tax will allow Americans to file their taxes on a postcard, saving up to $483 billion in compliance costs,â€ Perry wrote in the Wall Street Journal.



What he *doesn't* say is that it's perfectly possible to have a "tax return on a postcard" regime _without_ implementing a flat tax - simply by removing the thousands of exemptions and rebates while keeping the existing rates. We've done that in here in NZ... in fact, the income tax form is so simplified it's no longer obligatory to file a tax return if you're a regular wage / salary earner. AND you can fill the thing in online.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> If anything we should be supporting Cain. *These flat-tax plans are  political suicide*: everyone knows that they are effectively regressive  and that's why they've never made it beyond the lunatic fringe.



Someone needs to propose a proportional tax...


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Someone needs to propose a proportional tax...


 perhaps while removing all tax breaks which would prevent unfair benefits to those whom are rich and making a tax system that could fit in a small 200 page document and not a several thousand page one?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Lead Jester said:


> perhaps while removing all tax breaks which would prevent unfair benefits to those whom are rich and making a tax system that could fit in a small 200 page document and not a several thousand page one?


Not that simple, america needs a progressive tax not a regressive one.  However conservatives in america have a hateboner for anything that has the word, "progressive" in the name.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not that simple, america needs a progressive tax not a regressive one.  However conservatives in america have a hateboner for anything that has the word, "progressive" in the name.



*Communist*


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2011)

Lead Jester said:


> perhaps while removing all tax breaks which would prevent unfair benefits to those whom are rich and making a tax system that could fit in a small 200 page document and not a several thousand page one?



Yes...


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> *European style democratic socialist who supports a progressives tax with a value added tax as well as free trade agreements who thinks letting congress vote on the budget was a fucking stupid mistake and that the budget should be separate from congress to avoid pork.*


Fix'd that for you.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fix'd that for you.



But... but I _like_ pork.........  ;-;


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> But... but I _like_ pork.........  ;-;


Too bad,
*takes out USDA stamp*
*BAM!*
*"Product is unfit for human consumption"*


----------



## Onnes (Oct 25, 2011)

Let's show why flat taxes are bad. Consider two families: family A with a gross income of $50k and family B with a gross income of $500k. Now suppose a 50% flat tax is instituted; the magnitude is chosen to better illustrate the point. Family A will wind up with $25k after taxes--if they lived in my area they wouldn't be able to afford both rent and food. On the other hand, family B would still have $250k, which is more than enough to pay for basic necessities while still having emergency funds and disposable income. The concept at play here is diminishing marginal returns on income: the more money you have the less an additional dollar matters.


----------



## Zachywolf (Oct 25, 2011)

they're all just so darned lame...
The USA deserves so much better than those ppl


----------



## Aetius (Oct 25, 2011)

I miss Republicans like Goldwater and Ford :' (


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Not that simple, america needs a progressive tax not a regressive one.  However conservatives in america have a hateboner for anything that has the word, "progressive" in the name.


 Thats nice too. But, really I do think taxing in any context besides your income tax is unethical.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Lead Jester said:


> Thats nice too. But, really I do think taxing in any context besides your income tax is unethical.


 The problem is the US has a shit ton of deficit, we have to figure out new ways of income eventually otherwise the deficit will take several decades to recover from.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 25, 2011)

Lobar said:


> They ALL want to ban abortions.  Santorum also wanted to *ban contraception *for good measure, even.



Wait....WHAT? No way, they CAN'T be this stupid. Like...ALL forms of contraception? BC pills, condoms, surgery, etc? Even if people paid for it by themselves? Okay, I need some citation.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Wait....WHAT? No way, they CAN'T be this stupid. Like...ALL forms of contraception? BC pills, condoms, surgery, etc? Even if people paid for it by themselves? Okay, I need some citation.


[YT]9MBO9tNNejo[/YT]
[YT]zjv0ZEdi8ss[/YT]


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem is the US has a shit ton of deficit, we have to figure out new ways of income eventually otherwise the deficit will take several decades to recover from.


 SO tax in ways that are obvious?  Not  going to make you loved as a leader, but at least you have something resembling honesty.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 25, 2011)

He's not saying he wants to ban contraception. He's saying that they don't work or harm women.

Regardless he's still a moron. I hope whoever voted for him in the poll did so out of jest.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Lead Jester said:


> SO tax in ways that are obvious?  Not  going to make you loved as a leader, but at least you have something resembling honesty.


The income gap is growing absurd.
Only solution, have a vat tax on top of a progressive tax.
America has a regressive tax which not only fucks over government, but places most of the burden on the middle class or poor.

A conventional income tax is not going to cut it, it'd be the equivalent of finding a crack in the space shuttle's window before launch and putting duct tape over it and calling it fixed.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 25, 2011)

Lead Jester said:


> Thats nice too. But, really I do think taxing in any context besides your income tax is unethical.



In what way is something like a VAT unethical where income tax isn't?


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> In what way is something like a VAT unethical where income tax isn't?


 Honestly I just desire tax-transparency, and an easily read tax code.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 25, 2011)

Lead Jester said:


> Honestly I just desire tax-transparency, and an easily read tax code.



VATs are so popular these days precisely because they are simple and easy to collect. They completely bypass the bizarre accounting of profit and loss involved in corporate and high individual incomes.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 25, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I miss Republicans like *Goldwater* and Ford :' (


*gasp*

Why do you like them anyway? They were silly anti-communists.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 25, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> *gasp*
> 
> Why do you like them anyway? They were silly anti-communists.



Goldwater was a pretty good guy, I like the words he used when he was against DADT and Bans on gays in the military.
"You don't have to _be_ straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to _shoot_ straight."

and his words against the more conservative wing of the republican party
"Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and  you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."

Pretty cool dude.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 25, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The income gap is growing absurd.
> Only solution, have a vat tax on top of a progressive tax.
> America has a regressive tax which not only fucks over government, but places most of the burden on the middle class or poor.
> 
> A conventional income tax is not going to cut it, *it'd be the equivalent of finding a crack in the space shuttle's window before launch and putting duct tape over it and calling it fixed*.



You must have heard this report:  http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...e-london-takeoff/story-e6frfq80-1226175840769


----------



## Spatel (Oct 25, 2011)

Onnes said:


> VATs are so popular these days precisely because they are simple and easy to collect. They completely bypass the bizarre accounting of profit and loss involved in corporate and high individual incomes.


   They're harder to collect than income taxes and much more regressive. They're better than sales taxes, property taxes, and other forms of consumption tax, but they are still consumption taxes at the end of the day. The loopholes in a VAT system are just as large as they would be in a progressive taxation system, and the accounting infrastructure required is just as complex.  There's another economic effect that people don't talk about much. Consumption taxes discourage the buyer from buying.  On the other hand, an income tax does not discourage a business from hiring workers, and it does not discourage workers from seeking employment, because the demand for these things is inelastic.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 25, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Wait....WHAT? No way, they CAN'T be this stupid. Like...ALL forms of contraception? BC pills, condoms, surgery, etc? Even if people paid for it by themselves? Okay, I need some citation.


 
Okay, I did get it slightly off, he did not pledge to ban contraception if he was elected president.  However, he _did_ pledge to repeal all federal funding for all forms of contraception, while condemning the use of contraception altogether:



			
				Rick Santorum said:
			
		

> One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, with this whole sexual libertine idea, where many of Christian faith have said, "Well that's okay, contraception's okay." Itâ€™s not okay. Itâ€™s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. It's supposed to be within marriage. Itâ€™s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal, but also procreative. Thatâ€™s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. You take any part of that out, then you diminish the act! ...This is special and it needs to be seen as special.
> 
> ...These are important public policy issues. These have a profound impact on the health of our society.



So while he hasn't promised to ban contraception as President, it is in line with his ideology, and his pledge to completely defund it can probably be seen as an intermediate step in a larger war.  Much the same way that overturning Roe doesn't immediately ban abortion, but all abortion opponents have their sights set first on Roe.

This _is_ Santorum we're talking about here.  You might not be familiar with his reputation, since he was voted out five years ago and hasn't been politically relevant since, but he basically used to be the Rukh Whitefang of the Senate.  This is not unexpected from him at all.

I mean, just look at this pic of his family on stage with him at his concession speech five years ago.  That family is uptight as fuck.  Actually it's not all that important, I just love posting that photo.  His farmhand-daughter's tears are delicious.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 25, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Goldwater was a pretty good guy, I like the words he used when he was against DADT and Bans on gays in the military. "You don't have to _be_ straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to _shoot_ straight."  and his words against the more conservative wing of the republican party "Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and  you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have."  Pretty cool dude.


 Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. His recent conflicts with the Republican movers and shakers over gay rights has cast his history in rose-colored glasses for many younger people, but actually his brand of fiscal conservatism is pretty much what we're seeing from Republicans starting with Reagan onwards.  They want to dismantle what's left of the New Deal.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 25, 2011)

There has not been a "good" president in the span of the existence of the United States, nor will there be in the near future barring unforeseen consequences.  Any leader can be systematically deconstructed easily.  So the "I wish XXX was president still" nostalgia doesn't really cut it.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 25, 2011)

Spatel said:


> They're harder to collect than income taxes and much more regressive. They're better than sales taxes, property taxes, and other forms of consumption tax, but they are still consumption taxes at the end of the day. The loopholes in a VAT system are just as large as they would be in a progressive taxation system, and the accounting infrastructure required is just as complex.



The genius is that most of the accounting infrastructure burden is placed on the business and not the government. If any link in the chain of manufacturing fails to properly report VAT then the other parties will be inclined to note the error.



> There's another economic effect that people don't talk about much. Consumption taxes discourage the buyer from buying.  On the other hand, an income tax does not discourage a business from hiring workers, and it does not discourage workers from seeking employment, because the demand for these things is inelastic.



Corporate taxes lower potential investments, which implies decreased demand for goods and services and hence potentially lower hiring. In the end, whether a VAT is progressive or regressive depends on how the government chooses to spend the money. In Europe, where it is popular, it goes towards supporting significant social programs and is otherwise largely given back to those of lower incomes.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 25, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Okay, I did get it slightly off, he did not pledge to ban contraception if he was elected president.  However, he _did_ pledge to repeal all federal funding for all forms of contraception, while condemning the use of contraception altogether:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They look so...er...mmph...

Also, does he not get that people that are married use them too? 

Wait...he Catholic, right?


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> You must have heard this report:  http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...e-london-takeoff/story-e6frfq80-1226175840769


 How'd you know?


Aleu said:


> They look so...er...mmph...
> 
> Also, does he not get that people that are married use them too?
> 
> Wait...he Catholic, right?


Yes, Rick Santorum is catholic.

Thank god he has no chance of getting the candidacy.  I don't have anything against catholics, but sweet mary if he became president we'd be in some deep shit.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> How'd you know?



I put two and two together... since I saw that report in my online newsfeed, I figured, since you brought up the "ductaped windscreen" thing, you must have seen the report, as well.  And given it that "shuttle twist"...


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 26, 2011)

Spatel said:


> They're harder to collect than income taxes and much more regressive. They're better than sales taxes, property taxes, and other forms of consumption tax, but they are still consumption taxes at the end of the day. *The loopholes in a VAT system are just as large as they would be in a progressive taxation system*, and the accounting infrastructure required is just as complex.



Actually, it depends upon the implementation - all you need to do is eliminate most of the exceptions so that practically everything is covered. Here in New Zealand there are bugger-all exceptions to the 15% Goods and Services Tax (GST): primarily rent, received interest, donations and "some financial services".



Spatel said:


> There's another economic effect that people don't talk about much. Consumption taxes discourage the buyer from buying.  On the other hand, an income tax does not discourage a business from hiring workers, and it does not discourage workers from seeking employment, because the demand for these things is inelastic.



True. On the other hand, depending on the setup businesses can claim back VAT/GST on their business expenses, and there may (or may not) be a corresponding cut in income tax to offset the consumption tax.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

It seems as though the conservatives have learned a new trick, they're now using african american conservatives to call the KKK.
Can someone explain to me how exactly how Cain playing the racecard against Obama makes any sense?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> It seems as though the conservatives have learned a new trick, they're now using african american conservatives to call the KKK.
> Can someone explain to me how exactly how Cain playing the racecard against Obama makes any sense?


 
There's some comment about a pot and kettle I could make here. What could it possibly be.....


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> There's some comment about a pot and kettle I could make here. What could it possibly be.....


It's the pot calling the kettle black white.


----------



## Spatel (Oct 27, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> There has not been a "good" president in the span of the existence of the United States, nor will there be in the near future barring unforeseen consequences.  Any leader can be systematically deconstructed easily.  So the "I wish XXX was president still" nostalgia doesn't really cut it.


 Alright I'm calling your bluff. Do John Quincy Adams.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 27, 2011)

I was looking up information on the republican candidates in 2012 and ran across this-
[YT]1aBaX9GPSaQ[/YT]
It's a funny satire, but considering how much the republican party tries to suppress votes it's not far off.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 27, 2011)

You can create a petition at the White House website. :]



> Good morning,
> 
> It's part of my job to make sure President Obama gets to hear the  voices and perspectives of people outside Washington â€“ and lately,  that's not been difficult.
> Everywhere the President goes, he gets the same message: Americans  just want folks in Washington to work together to build an economy that  works for the middle class, not just the wealthiest â€“ and is based on  rewarding responsibility, hard work and fairness.
> ...


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 31, 2011)

Everybody and their grandma has already heard about the Cain sexual harassment scandal, however this is why I put the thread as "Obama vs Romney" cause I already knew Cain was going to fuck up/someone else at the front of the republican side was going to leading to Romney getting it.


I honestly don't know who would win in Obama vs Romney.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 31, 2011)

Looks like Cain did fuck up. About time.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 31, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I honestly don't know who would win in Obama vs Romney.



If it's straight up Obama v. Romney, then it's Obama.  No one knows where Romney stands and the first thing the Obama camp is going to use against him is either the fact that he continually flip-flops on the issues or his comment in Iowa that "corporations are people."

At least with Obama you know what you're going to get, good or bad.

As far as Cain is concerned, I don't think this kills his chances.  As it stands right now the whole thing is just about how he may or may not have said inappropriate things to someone while he was a lobbyist in the restaurant business.  He was accused but never found guilty of anything.  That isn't "fucking up", that's just someone finding something in his criminal record.  And as we all know, whether or not you've been found guilty of anything, an accusation can follow and hurt you later on in life.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 31, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If it's straight up Obama v. Romney, then it's Obama.  No one knows where Romney stands and the first thing the Obama camp is going to use against him is either the fact that he continually flip-flops on the issues or his comment in Iowa that "corporations are people."
> 
> At least with Obama you know what you're going to get, good or bad.
> 
> As far as Cain is concerned, I don't think this kills his chances.  As it stands right now the whole thing is just about how he may or may not have said inappropriate things to someone while he was a lobbyist in the restaurant business.  He was accused but never found guilty of anything.  That isn't "fucking up", that's just someone finding something in his criminal record.  And as we all know, whether or not you've been found guilty of anything, an accusation can follow and hurt you later on in life.


Obama's camp has already been going after Romney even before the causes start.
I guess that was their plan all along.


I know it doesn't outright kill Cain's chances, but he's in hot water and if he fucks up in the slightest he may end up destroying himself.  If he gets asked the question, "If you didn't sexually harass them, then why did you pay a settlement?", then he's done for.  The reason being if he gets asked that there is no correct answer.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 31, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> You can create a petition at the White House website. :]



That's preeeeeeeeeety counterproductive compared to a grassroots (I hate that stupid fucking buzzword) campaign.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 31, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> That's preeeeeeeeeety counterproductive compared to a grassroots (I hate that stupid fucking buzzword) campaign.


Creating a petition, having people sign it and presenting it to an executive office isn't grassroots anymore?


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Oct 31, 2011)

Lizzie said:


> Creating a petition, having people sign it and presenting it to an executive office isn't grassroots anymore?



No because each petition about marijuana legalization has been removed each time it reaches a critical level, also because it is not politically convenient


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 1, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I know it doesn't outright kill Cain's chances, but he's in hot water and if he fucks up in the slightest he may end up destroying himself.  If he gets asked the question, "If you didn't sexually harass them, then why did you pay a settlement?", then he's done for.  The reason being if he gets asked that there is no correct answer.


 
He paid that settlement the same reason why Michael Jackson paid his, so that he didn't have to spend even more money going to trial and having to explain himself with what he will call a baseless allegation.  Better to spend the money than waste time sitting in a court room listening to allegations he claims are false.

You can make the same argument, why didn't the accuser take him to trial if this was such an egregious act?  And the answer will be she was looking for a pay day from the man in charge, or at least that's the story Cain's people will put out.

CF, I've conducted interviews with several people, some hard pressing questions too.  Something like that won't kill anyone, because you're assuming guilt rather than having the facts.  In this situation, since the matter has gone away, questions regarding it are useless.  If a reporter asks, "did you do it?" you're going to get a no.  You can ask him did he settle, but he's got no obligation to tell you how much.  The why is pretty obvious, he didn't want it to go to trial for whatever reason.  But just because a settlement was paid =/= an admission of guilt.  MJ paid a settlement to one mother, then took another one to trial and was acquitted.  That doesn't mean he was guilty and then innocent.  If anything it tells us that he didn't want to have to drag this issue out in a trial the first time, then the second time he decided to go to trial in order to settle this and any further matters once and for all by making an example out of his accusers who plunged further into debt by bringing up a failed suit against him.


----------



## Qoph (Nov 1, 2011)

Jon Huntsman is a pretty cool guy, too bad the Republicans won't ever pick a moderate.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 1, 2011)

Qoph said:


> Jon Huntsman is a pretty cool guy, too bad the Republicans won't ever pick a moderate.



I don't even think the Republicans would pick Reagan at this point because, as Jon Stewart said, they wouldn't trust one of those "Hollywood types."


----------



## Qoph (Nov 1, 2011)

By 2020 I think the Republicans will pick some guy foaming at the mouth, ranting about how Europe is ruled by Satan and only God can cure us of taxes.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 1, 2011)

Qoph said:


> By 2020 I think the Republicans will pick some guy foaming at the mouth, ranting about how Europe is ruled by Satan and only God can cure us of taxes.


On the plus side they're shooting themselves in the foot, the people they have running for presidency will end up with people freaking the fuck out that they're on the nomination.


----------



## thewall (Nov 1, 2011)

Qoph said:


> By 2020 I think the Republicans will pick some guy foaming at the mouth, ranting about how Europe is ruled by Satan and only God can cure us of taxes.



Oh goodie!  A straw man argument!

What would you say if I told you that the democrats will pick some guy who foams at the mouth, talking about how Christians are intolerant bastards, how SUVs will kill the planet, etc?


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 1, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Oh goodie!  A straw man argument!
> 
> What would you say if I told you that the democrats will pick some guy who foams at the mouth, talking about how Christians are intolerant bastards, how SUVs will kill the planet, etc?


Problems with your logic-
1)This is a furry forum, majority of furries are agnostic or atheist. Meaning they won't give a shit.
2)I would automatically vote for a extremist liberal who thinks SUV's are killing the planet, cause it's been ages since we've had a true liberal as president.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 1, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Oh goodie!  A straw man argument!
> 
> What would you say if I told you that the democrats will pick some guy who foams at the mouth, talking about how Christians are intolerant bastards, how SUVs will kill the planet, etc?



Oh goodness I can tell your posting in this thread will be quality.

I'd say it's far less likely to happen, and the current crop of GOP contenders are a few steps away from that to begin with.  I'd also suggest learning the difference between insincere hyperbole and a genuinely made argument, Qoph was not speaking literally.

There are also few analogues on the supposed "left" to that of the right.  If two people are taken with extremist viewpoints, one representing "liberal" positions and the other representing "conservative" positions, whether as a candidate or a media entity, can you really say the liberal would have as much exposure, clout and support as the conservative?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 1, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> There are also few analogues on the supposed "left" to that of the right.  If two people are taken with extremist viewpoints, one representing "liberal" positions and the other representing "conservative" positions, whether as a candidate or a media entity, can you really say the liberal would have as much exposure, clout and support as the conservative?



If for no other reason than the fact that conservatives foster a more violence-prone and everything-phobic constituency with their stances.  The conservatives' greatest weapon is FEAR, which inevitably becomes ANGER, HATE and DESPAIR.  The conservatives have discovered that constituencies respond to fear with the greatest magnitude of action.  Fear is inherently destructive and regressive, however stirring it may be.


----------



## thewall (Nov 1, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Oh goodness I can tell your posting in this thread will be quality.  I'd say it's far less likely to happen, and the current crop of GOP contenders are a few steps away from that to begin with.  I'd also suggest learning the difference between insincere hyperbole and a genuinely made argument, Qoph was not speaking literally.  There are also few analogues on the supposed "left" to that of the right.  If two people are taken with extremist viewpoints, one representing "liberal" positions and the other representing "conservative" positions, whether as a candidate or a media entity, can you really say the liberal would have as much exposure, clout and support as the conservative?


  Yes.   





Tycho said:


> If for no other reason than the fact that conservatives foster a more violence-prone and everything-phobic constituency with their stances.  The conservatives' greatest weapon is FEAR, which inevitably becomes ANGER, HATE and DESPAIR.  The conservatives have discovered that constituencies respond to fear with the greatest magnitude of action.  Fear is inherently destructive and regressive, however stirring it may be.


  HAHAHAHA.  The same could be said for liberals.  "We must fear the hate filled intolerant religious right or they will destroy us!  WAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!"    I'm a libertarian conservative, but I enjoy poking fun at right wing and religious stupidity just as much as those on the left do.  I'm also fairly tolerant of other people's sexual orientation and religion.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 1, 2011)

The only thing I really fear as a liberal is the damage conservative fearmongering does.

Nothing to fear but fear itself.


----------



## thewall (Nov 1, 2011)

Tycho said:


> The only thing I really fear as a liberal is the damage conservative fearmongering does.
> 
> Nothing to fear but fear itself.



So the left is immune to fearmongering, isn't it?


----------



## CynicalCirno (Nov 1, 2011)

Obama has been seriously denied by the republicans forthe past year.
Even though I'm not really hyped about how he handled the US, he must be better than the other partial fanatics.

Republicans have taken risks in the past, why can't they with Obama's plans? _Maybe he can. _Perhaps, with support from the other sides, several issues would have just vanished, as if magic drifted through - well, not really, but if I get to see republicans crumbling and letting Obama do what he's supposed to do, I'm going for him.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 1, 2011)

mike37 said:


> So the left is immune to fearmongering, isn't it?



Ahaha what left?!


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 1, 2011)

mike37 said:


> So the left is immune to fearmongering, isn't it?


There is no longer a liberal party, the democrats are centralist.


----------



## Evan of Phrygia (Nov 1, 2011)

I vote Bachmann

Because not only does she have the fighting spirit of John Waynes Gacy, she has the eyes of Charles Manson


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 1, 2011)

I have a question with the downfall of perry and cain, is it just me or is Romney the luckiest fucker alive?


----------



## Tycho (Nov 1, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I have a question with the downfall of perry and cain, is it just me or is Romney the luckiest fucker alive?



He hasn't won anything yet.  Don't put cart before horse.  Still plenty of time for him to take a fall.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 2, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I have a question with the downfall of perry and cain, is it just me or is Romney the luckiest fucker alive?



Romney has always been the most prepared of all the Republican candidates. Perry turned out to be completely incapable of functioning on a national stage and Cain is really just trying to win the lunatic vote. As it gets closer to the general election, primary voters will move increasingly to the more moderate and electable candidates, like Romney.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 2, 2011)

Qoph said:


> Jon Huntsman is a pretty cool guy, too bad the Republicans won't ever pick a moderate.


 
He's _sane_, and accepts scientific findings as true (holy fuck how did we sink so low that that could make a candidate stand out from the pack) but still economically conservative, more so than Romney IIRC.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 2, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I have a question with the downfall of perry and cain, is it just me or is Romney the luckiest fucker alive?



There's nothing lucky about his predicament.  Frankly he's shot himself in the foot just as much as any other candidate and has continually been the bridesmaid, never the bride at nearly every Republican poll.  He's mediocre as a candidate and the Republicans recognize this.  The only thing, I think, that's kept him in the race is that of the three, he's the most balanced guy, even if he changes his mind a shit ton.

Again, his comments on corporations being people and his attempts to relate to OWS after dismissing them will likely be major issues with him.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 2, 2011)

Tycho said:


> If for no other reason than the fact that conservatives foster a more violence-prone and everything-phobic constituency with their stances.  The conservatives' greatest weapon is FEAR, which inevitably becomes ANGER, HATE and DESPAIR.  *The conservatives have discovered that constituencies respond to fear with the greatest magnitude of action.*  Fear is inherently destructive and regressive, however stirring it may be.



Funny, but it's the liberals who use FEAR as a weapon, especially in their quest to violate the Second Amendment, by saying "More guns equals more crime!" when the facts say otherwise.  When confronted with the approval of concealed-carry legislation, they yell "If it becomes law, we'll see a return to the Old West, with gunfights and more bloodshed in the streets!"  Yet, when it passes, and nothing changes... other than a reduction in crime... they never admit they were wrong, and continue to try and instill FEAR in their constituency.


----------



## thewall (Nov 2, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> There is no longer a liberal party, the democrats are centralist.



I don't have an ass anymore.  I laughed it off.



Roose Hurro said:


> Funny, but it's the liberals who use FEAR as a weapon, especially in their quest to violate the Second Amendment, by saying "More guns equals more crime!" when the facts say otherwise.  When confronted with the approval of concealed-carry legislation, they yell "If it becomes law, we'll see a return to the Old West, with gunfights and more bloodshed in the streets!"  Yet, when it passes, and nothing changes... other than a reduction in crime... they never admit they were wrong, and continue to try and instill FEAR in their constituency.



Thanks man.


----------



## Gremlin (Nov 2, 2011)

I'll vote for the side that gives me free ice cream.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 2, 2011)

Put your helmet on, Roose.

And just get out, Mike. :V


----------



## Lobar (Nov 2, 2011)

Has anyone even mentioned guns since the Heller decision? :\  Nobody on the left really gives a shit about guns anymore.


----------



## ShÃ nwÃ ng (Nov 2, 2011)

Matt Taibbi is the best journalist ever
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/rick-perry-the-best-little-whore-in-texas-20111026

Favorite lines:



> But Rick Perry has managed to set a scary new low in the annals of opportunism, turning Texas into a swamp of political incest and backroom dealing on a scale not often seen this side of the Congo or Sierra Leone.
> ...
> In an era when there's exponentially more money in politics than we've ever seen before, Perry is the candidate who is exponentially more willing than we've ever seen before to whore himself out for that money.
> ...
> Throughout his time as governor, whenever his ideology or his religion comes into conflict with the need to give a handout to a major campaign donor, ideology and religion lose every single time.



Pretty much sums up why Perry is probably the worst possible choice for president, even in this field.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 2, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Matt Taibbi is the best journalist ever
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/rick-perry-the-best-little-whore-in-texas-20111026
> 
> Favorite lines:
> ...


 I knew he would be, I live in texas, the amount of stupid shit's he done as governor made it obvious before any of this happened that he's the worst candidate for president.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Has anyone even mentioned guns since the Heller decision? :\  Nobody on the left really gives a shit about guns anymore.



Lol left got butthurt :V


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> *Put your helmet on, Roose.*
> 
> And just get out, Mike. :V



I don't have a motorcycle, and I'm at my computer, not on my bicycle, so... NO.  Oh, by the way, that hat on your froggy head isn't hiding your lobotomy scar.  (Does anyone here know how to pith a frog?)




Lobar said:


> Has anyone even mentioned guns since the Heller decision? :\  *Nobody on the left really gives a shit about guns anymore.*



Then how do you explain this:  http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/02/politics/fast-and-furious/

And this:  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiep...hrough_fast_and_furious_found_in_arizona_raid

Aaand this:  http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins...members-and-the-nra-seek-holders-resignation/




Crusader Mike said:


> Lol left got butthurt :V



If you read the above links, you'll find it's way more than mere butthurt.  And for those of you too stupid to read the links... oh, pardon, those who like to yell "LINKSPAM!"... the three above links provide info on a Government operation called "Fast and Furious", in which our own government sold nearly 2000 weapons to Mexican drug cartels.  So, yes, the "left" is still giving quite a shit about guns... still want to find any excuse to violate our Second Amendment rights... and has only taken to subterfuge in their attempts to fulfill their anti-gun agenda.  What better way?  Make a huge fuss about American guns fueling the drug wars in Mexico, then make sure the guns actually _are_ American in origin by selling those guns to Mexican criminals?  Only reason this came out is due to the fact a few involved agents had a conscience.  Knew this operation was wrong.  And blew the whistle.  Oh, and the fact an agent got killed by said weapons.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 2, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> If you read the above links, you'll find it's way more than mere butthurt.  And for those of you too stupid to read the links... oh, pardon, those who like to yell "LINKSPAM!"... the three above links provide info on a Government operation called "Fast and Furious", in which our own government sold nearly 2000 weapons to Mexican drug cartels.  So, yes, the "left" is still giving quite a shit about guns... still want to find any excuse to violate our Second Amendment rights... and has only taken to subterfuge in their attempts to fulfill their anti-gun agenda.  What better way?  Make a huge fuss about American guns fueling the drug wars in Mexico, then make sure the guns actually _are_ American in origin by selling those guns to Mexican criminals?  Only reason this came out is due to the fact a few involved agents had a conscience.  Knew this operation was wrong.  And blew the whistle.  Oh, and the fact an agent got killed by said weapons.



Ohh boy! Iran-Contra part 2! 

Where is Ollie North when you need him?


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 2, 2011)

There's no point in even trying anymore with you, Roose, if you're just going to try to make things personal and linkspam. :V I'm done with you.


As for Mike, you really need to learn that just mocking and belittling other people's statements without presenting anything of substance, especially in such a strident tone, won't get you taken very seriously. Don't worry though, I'm sure you'll understand when you're older. :V


----------



## Lobar (Nov 2, 2011)

ShÃ nwÃ ng said:


> Matt Taibbi is the best journalist ever


 
sometimes I like to imagine Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Paul Krugman as a triad of holy knights rescuing America from the clutches of a Reagan liche


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> There's no point in even trying anymore with you, Roose, if you're just going to try to make things personal *and linkspam*. :V I'm done with you.
> 
> 
> As for Mike, you really need to learn that just mocking and belittling other people's statements without presenting anything of substance, especially in such a strident tone, won't get you taken very seriously. Don't worry though, I'm sure you'll understand when you're older. :V



Ha, did I pin this or did I pin this?  Mojo, I hope you understand what you just did to yourself.




Lobar said:


> sometimes I like to imagine Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Paul Krugman as a triad of holy knights rescuing America from the clutches of a Reagan liche



Ouch...


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> sometimes I like to imagine Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Paul Krugman as a triad of holy knights rescuing America from the clutches of a Reagan liche


Unfortunately it's like the search for the san graal, I half expect hundreds of years from now for there to be a religion with Reagon as the God.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 2, 2011)

Lobar said:


> sometimes I like to imagine Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Paul Krugman as a triad of holy knights rescuing America from the clutches of a Reagan liche




you forgot Mark Ames dummy!


----------



## Aetius (Nov 2, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> As for Mike, you really need to learn that just mocking and belittling  other people's statements without presenting anything of substance,  especially in such a strident tone, won't get you taken very seriously.  Don't worry though, I'm sure you'll understand when you're older.  :V



This thread lost all seriousness after Page 5 :V 




Lobar said:


> sometimes  I like to imagine Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald, and Paul Krugman as a  triad of holy knights rescuing America from the clutches of a Reagan  liche





Antonin Scalia said:


> you forgot Mark Ames dummy!



Looks like we found the four horsemen of the Liberalocalypse according to Conservatives.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 2, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Looks like we found the four horsemen of the Liberalocalypse according to Conservatives.


I'd welcome the Liberalocalypse because the four horsemen of it would bring logic, reason, sanity and knowledge.


Speaking of the election, Obama may very well get re-elected cause the economy is starting to look up.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 2, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I'd welcome the Liberalocalypse because the four horsemen of it would bring logic, reason, sanity and knowledge.



If you're an example of the kind of people a Liberalocalypse would foster, I highly doubt that.


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 2, 2011)

Roose Hurro said:


> Ha, did I pin this or did I pin this?  Mojo, I hope you understand what you just did to yourself.



"Did to himself"?

Does that mean if he said earlier "Oh come on, Roose is just going to come in here and dump a bunch 'interesting and relevant' links" and then you do exactly that, he would be justified in saying exactly what you said?  If I said "kill all cops" and then said "oh i guess some dummy is going to take issue with that," lo and behold you take issue with that, does my calling it beforehand actually make you a dummy?  I submit that it does not, and you should stop being ridiculous.  This comic comes to mind, too.  Also it's not "being stupid" in not reading your links, it's realizing that they're really just roadblocks and time wasters.  I wouldn't say "Don't even think about replying to me until you read _Das Kapital_," nor would I have you respond to the book rather than to my own points.  Besides, you could have just posted "Oh yeah?  What about Fast and Furious?" instead of "Oh yeah?  Explain this: [link] [link] [link]."  You couldn't even bother to say what you were linking to, like you needed to maintain this "read 'em and weep" smug pretense.  My eyes have rolled out of my head from how often you do that, it's really tacky.

I also don't see how Fast and Furious correlates to "liberals giving a shit about gun control," it's yet another facet of at least 40 years of retarded policy toward drugs and any/all countries to the south, this one went further than previous arms tracing sales and seems like it was drafted by people who had no idea what they were even trying to accomplish.  That's probably the only part of it that can possibly be considered worse than Iran-Contra- what possible value it has for anything.  Even as a gun control conspiracy theory kind of thing, what shitkickers like Breitbart are pushing, it just doesn't make sense.  Please show me where any gun control items have come up- because the only things I can recall happening are open carry being allowed in national parks, and the Heller decision.  Even based on the F&F conspiracy of "AMERICAN GUNS SHOWING UP IN MEXICAN DRUG GANGS," there has been nothing.  That doesn't mean you won't have people saying gun fetishism is stupid, before you go on one of your goofy goddamn first-five-google-results rampages.  Liberals as a bloc will never fully be okay with guns (particularly because of how nuts some people get over them,) nor will the Brady campaign ever really give up, but will you ever be able to settle down and admit to yourselves that Obama isn't going to take your guns?  Even a few years after he leaves office, will you let go of your fear, or will you see a lack of action as evidence of an even greater conspiracy than you first imagined?  Even RON PAUL with his "deregulate everything" boner would have a difficult time taking a hacksaw to government: despite the awfully expanded conception of the executive branch initiated by Bush and continued by Obama, this shit can't be done without Congressional approval.  Stop wetting your pants over this.

Unlike conservatives and their dozens of abortion bills, liberals have priorities above taking toys away from a bunch of whiny babies- they can't even get a jobs bill passed in the house, let alone passed in the senate because of fears it will make Obama look good.  The number one Republican priority is to ensure he is a one term president, no matter how much that priority conflicts with actually helping the country- in fact, it directly conflicts, because if the country is doing well, the sitting president tends to be associated with it, while if the country goes to shit, the sitting president also takes the blame.  Republicans are trying to keep things shitty for everyone because they want to play politics and get whichever nut they nominate elected in 2012.  Nobody gives a shit about your guns.  Nobody.  :V


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 2, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If you're an example of the kind of people a Liberalocalypse would foster, I highly doubt that.


Hey!  It's my job to do widespread generalizations, not yours.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 3, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> *"Did to himself"?*



Yes, Bobby... let me explain:



Roose Hurro said:


> If you read the above links, you'll find it's way more than mere butthurt.  *And for those of you too stupid to read the links... oh, pardon, those who like to yell "LINKSPAM!"*... the three above links provide info on a Government operation called "Fast and Furious", in which our own government sold nearly 2000 weapons to Mexican drug cartels.  So, yes, the "left" is still giving quite a shit about guns... still want to find any excuse to violate our Second Amendment rights... and has only taken to subterfuge in their attempts to fulfill their anti-gun agenda.  What better way?  Make a huge fuss about American guns fueling the drug wars in Mexico, then make sure the guns actually _are_ American in origin by selling those guns to Mexican criminals?  Only reason this came out is due to the fact a few involved agents had a conscience.  Knew this operation was wrong.  And blew the whistle.  Oh, and the fact an agent got killed by said weapons.



Mojo stepped right into it.  As I figured he would.  I've been on this site for quite a number of years, and when I provide my opinion or bring up information, I get told to provide links to "prove" my claims.  Then, when I provide said "proof", I get told my links are "bad"... don't meet with approval due to "bias"... or I have people like Mojo, declaring "Linkspam!" out the wazoo.  Would a video be better?  Or would it be too much work to watch a video, too?  And Bobby, if you'd been paying attention, I did explain what I was linking to... oh, wait, it seems you did, given all you just posted.  And no, the links I provide are not _Das Kapital_.  In fact, the three links I provided were very brief articles, maybe two minutes, if you're a slow reader.  I'm a moderately fast reader, so even a page or two is "brief" to me.

Horribly bad comic, by the way... drawn and written by a two year old.

You don't see the correlation?  Lobar made the claim that *"Nobody on the left really gives a shit about guns anymore."  Which, as I made clear, is a false claim.  Simply that.  The left has never forgotten its agenda, it has simply not made a big show of it, because it knows if it did, it would be political suicide.  It isn't because it doesn't give a shit.  Fast and Furious, in fact, has made it clear they've simply "gone underground", as it were.  Hide their tactics by making them look like simple, legitimate law-enforcement operations.  Hidden, because... well, we all know why law-enforcement, especially govenment operations related matters, are kept under the matress.

Doesn't make sense?  Of course it makes sense, if you look at it from an International Policy angle.  What better justification for gun-control than this?  We already have the United Nations small arm treaty issue going on, as well:  http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/0...lobal-firearms-trade-raising-concerns-for-us/  And ISACS:  http://www.un-casa-isacs.org/isacs/Welcome.html

Oh, in that first link in the above paragraph, we have this:




			But Versnel said that the vast majority of countries support additional regulations on civilian weapons.

â€œJust about everybody is pushing for more,â€ Julianne Versnel, the director of operations for the Second Amendment Foundation, who also attended the conference, told FoxNews.com. â€œIt's Europe, it's Africa, it's the Caribbean, it's South America. Mexico has been at the forefront.â€
		
Click to expand...


Which brings us back to Fast and Furious... but first, a counter to my above links:  http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp

This part is really relevant to the issue of the Small Arms Treaty (and perhaps ISACS):  http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp




			There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals it or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

Click to expand...


Which brings us back to the "Heller" decision.  Are you still with me, Bobby?  I know I'm not the best when it comes to write-ups like this, but you wanted material from my hand, you got it.

But again, back to Fast and Furious.  Here we have Senator Dianne Feinstein:  http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/01/s...ontrol-is-real-problem-with-fast-and-furious/  In that article, she claims "that lax gun control laws, not Obama administration malfeasance within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF), was the real problem uncovered by Operation Fast and Furious."  She also "advocated for Operation Fast and Furious as a springboard from which to advocate for gun control laws, including national databases and government-controlled firearms registration."  So, we have one Democrat right here who is still quite gung ho on gun control.  Do you want me to provide more links, quotes and info?  You know, to show "the left" isn't giving up on their agenda?  Oh, and here's a good tidbit:




According to the Obama administrationâ€™s BATF, 70 percent of weapons recovered in Mexico come from the United States. Feinstein insisted those numbers are a â€œvery deep concern for me.â€
		
Click to expand...


Here we come right back to the government... to a Democratic senator... still insisting, when THEY are the ones who sold those arms to Mexico.  THEY are the ones responsible for that 70 percent figure.  Though that very figure in highly in doubt.  But I won't be going further into this.

Well...

...  You can keep playing the "Republicans are worse than Democrats" thing, or Whatever, or you can just realize you wrote a major post just to disagree with a simply correction of a very real inaccuracy in what Lobar claimed.  I will simply go on knowing politics shit up everything, no matter whether they're "Republican" or "Democratic" politics.  It all sucks eggs.  And yes, as you noted, even when Obama is gone, everything will continue on with no changes.  But my pants will always and forever remain dry.*


----------



## Bobskunk (Nov 3, 2011)

You missed my point, Roose, which I knew you would.

Just because you declare a thing to be so does not make it so.  You assert that not reading the links and calling it linkspam is stupid, and that Mojotech is stupid because he didn't read the links and called it stupid.

"If P, then Q.  P.  Therefore, Q."  Yet Q doesn't actually follow from P, no matter how much you want it to or say so.  Even if you try to change it by saying "He's stupid because he's predictable," that still doesn't follow.  I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you, but when your replies/rebuttals turn into walls of links and you castigate others for not wasting their time with you beyond what you're posting in the first place..  I wrote a major post disagreeing with this tactic, claiming that this particular incident is "minor" doesn't change that it's part of an aggravating string of behavior, which has been going on for years.  Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of grasping that fact; "What forest?  All I see here is a tree.  Just one tree, yep."

You further miss the point by offering to link videos instead.  What you link isn't the problem, it's replying with "look at these links! [link] [link] [link]" and making that your entire argument, rather than making your point right there in your post and supporting it with something.  Even if it's "Obama is starting down the path of TAKING ALL OUR GUNS with the Fast and Furious operation, which tries to scapegoat American gun laws for the presence of weapons among the drug cartels. [link, or even an in-line link]"  You're lazy when you just tell others to read your links and respond to them.

UN treaties mean nothing if the U.S. doesn't sign them.  We still haven't signed the cluster bomb treaty or the treaty banning land mines.  Even if there was any political will to sign such a treaty, it would never pass.  Every bill and appointment is already being filibustered no matter how simple, so for something like "ban all guns" (which, again, the second amendment takes primacy) it simply will not happen, even if the Republican opposition in the legislature was at all sane this would still be something they would oppose.  Please go ahead and tell me how a single senator or any of her friends will ban all guns- don't play this semantics game of "show someone who doesn't like guns, therefore your argument is false and we're a week away from gun grabbing."  Nobody's going to do a thing about it.  This "left agenda" of banning all guns has not and will not be implemented, and "the most anti-gun president in history" or whatever the fuck you want to say about Obama has set no policy toward gun control.  Find something else to wet yourself over.

You like to seize on absolutes and then say "I win."  While I understand how you would see that, Lobar isn't actually saying "nobody," it's an exaggeration, especially if "give a shit" really means "tries to do anything about it."  Unless you want to go the other way and seize on "giving a shit" to be literal, because I don't think gun control has driven any congresspeople to defecate.  I'm actually having trouble finding any recent gun control bills- everything I'm finding is either referring to the 1994 AWB, or is conservative hand-wringing about Obama "going around the second amendment."  There was that one about banning high capacity magazines after Congresswoman Giffords was shot, but that's all I'm seeing.  Plus I'm having a hard time understanding how "maximum of ten shots in a handgun magazine" is exactly equal to "no handguns allowed at all or rifles or shotguns or anything."  Sure have been a load of abortion-restricting bills all over, though, many of them passing.

"Republicans and Democrats are both equally bad!"  Not my fault that you have an obsession with equating the two at all times, though that doesn't stop you from routinely going on about how those dastardly liberals really are worse.  I recognize the Republican mindset to be harmful to the middle and lower classes, seeking to enrich the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else.  I recognize that, if they had their way, not even an Upton Sinclair for our lifetime would be able to halt the erosion of safety and environmental regulations, and labor exploitation.  They see China as a model in more ways than one, though they can't seem to get past "China says it's communist" when it's become an increasingly capitalistic society with an even stronger authoritarian bent.  Business can do whatever it wants, can pay whatever it wants people to pay, and there's no EPA to say they can't dump everything in a river, no FDA to make sure there's no melamine in their food products.

I, as a liberal, think that's completely shitty.  But which party is always griping and attempting to defund this stuff?  Who will benefit?  Who will be hurt?  These are people who still prefer to blame poor people for the mortgage collapse, when it was the newfound freedom of large banks that caused the mess, for everybody.

P.S. gee I wonder why Mexico would want gun control..  I thought an armed society was a polite society? :V


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 3, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> You missed my point, Roose, which I knew you would.
> 
> You like to seize on absolutes and then say "I win."



He seems to have missed that the whole INB4 tactic doesn't actually change his argument into something not linkspam. Also, he has no grasp of sarcasm. :V

That, and his odd sort of black and white thinking is sadly common among autistic people. They have trouble dealing with nuance, often seeing it as a weakness to avoid cognitive dissonance. 

It also causes them to have very little patience, especially when people disagree with their incredibly rigid views, which online often manifests with them being highly likely to cherry pick bits and pieces from people's posts, never reading supporting links (including their own) and a very high probability of them taking respectful disagreement as personal attacks.


That said, what do you feel about it being illegal to own heavy assault weaponry by the  usual populace, yet having flamethrowers be legal to own?


----------



## thewall (Nov 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> There's no point in even trying anymore with you, Roose, if you're just going to try to make things personal and linkspam. :V I'm done with you.
> 
> 
> As for Mike, you really need to learn that just mocking and belittling other people's statements without presenting anything of substance, especially in such a strident tone, won't get you taken very seriously. Don't worry though, I'm sure you'll understand when you're older. :V



Same to everyone else making paranoid statements about the right wing.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 3, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Same to everyone else making paranoid statements about the right wing.


You just fucking proved Mojotech right!
Ever hear of the phrase, "IT'S A TRAP!"?


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 3, 2011)

"China is 'trying to develop nuclear capability.'" - Herman Cain


----------



## Onnes (Nov 3, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> "China is 'trying to develop nuclear capability.'" - Herman Cain



The man is going to have a heart attack when he finally learns Pakistan has nukes.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 3, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The man is going to have a heart attack when he finally learns Pakistan has nukes.



What?!


----------



## thewall (Nov 3, 2011)

Why do we even allow political/religious threads?  I haven't had any intelligent discussions with anyone about anything on here, with a few exceptions.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 3, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> "China is 'trying to develop nuclear capability.'" - Herman Cain



Looks like we found the world's first time traveler!

But seriously? What the fuck Cain????



mike37 said:


> Same to everyone else making paranoid statements about the right wing.



I think he was referring to me, this confusion is killing me >_> I don't know, I need a name change.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 3, 2011)

mike37 said:


> Why do we even allow political/religious threads?  I haven't had any intelligent discussions with anyone about anything on here, with a few exceptions.


 Religion/Political/transgender thread are the three forum taboos, however since the election is coming up it's inevitable and since in all probability Romney is going to end up winning the nomination it's better to have one big old thread dedicated to Obama vs Romney than 30 threads all over the place.
tl;dr: making a Religion/Political/transgender thread is a forum taboo, but when it's a massive news story it's better to have one thread dedicated towards it.

Meaning a year from now this thread will be going on in all probability, it will prevent thread spammage in the future.


Onnes said:


> The man is going to have a heart attack when he finally learns Pakistan has nukes.


If he learns how many countries now have nukes he's going to have a heart attack, stroke and heart failure all at once.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 3, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I haven't looked real closely to anyone other than Romney and Obama; so overall who has the best/most sane foreign policy?  (most non-aggressive preferably)


Romney's is meh. 

The rest of the republican candidates scare me however.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Religion/Political/transgender thread are the three forum taboos...



Is this really the case at the present time? This thread along with the Occupy thread haven't seen much in the way of incidents, and absolutely nothing happened in your last transgender thread. I'm sure someone could engineer such a thread that was nothing but wanton flames and threats of violence, but that doesn't appear to be the current norm.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 3, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> You just fucking proved Mojotech right!
> Ever hear of the phrase, "IT'S A TRAP!"?


 
And THAT'S how occupatio is supposed to be done, bitches. :V



Crusader Mike said:


> I think he was referring to me, this confusion is killing me >_> I don't know, I need a name change.


 
I was referring to Mike37.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 3, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I was referring to Mike37.



Ahh alrighty then x3 

Seems like Perry's and Cain's campaign are now fighting between with each other.

Looks like that is very good news for Romney.


----------



## Ad Hoc (Nov 3, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Is this really the case at the present time? This thread along with the Occupy thread haven't seen much in the way of incidents, and absolutely nothing happened in your last transgender thread. I'm sure someone could engineer such a thread that was nothing but wanton flames and threats of violence, but that doesn't appear to be the current norm.


We also had that neutral pronoun thread in R&R, which _was_ designed to be a troll thread, but actually turned out pretty civil.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 3, 2011)

Ad Hoc said:


> We also had that neutral pronoun thread in R&R, which _was_ designed to be a troll thread, but actually turned out pretty civil.


 It's cause the people who in the past caused trouble are permabanned.


Mojotech said:


> And THAT'S how occupatio is supposed to be done, bitches. :V


9/10
1 point deduction for easy target.



Back on topic Crusader Mike I think this is what Romney planned all along.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 3, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I haven't looked real closely to anyone other than Romney and Obama; so overall who has the best/most sane foreign policy?  (most non-aggressive preferably)


 
Ron Paul, sadly.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 3, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Ron Paul, sadly.



Careful there, Ron Paul wouldn't just do away with foreign military bases but also foreign aid. He criticized Bush for greatly increasing funding towards helping HIV/AIDS victims in Africa.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 3, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> Doing away with foreign bases is a good thing.  There is no need for 737 of them (as of 2007).



So you guys could just move right in? :V 

I am actually for some base closures, however some critical ones need to be maintained.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 3, 2011)

Onnes said:


> Careful there, Ron Paul wouldn't just do away with foreign military bases but also foreign aid. He criticized Bush for greatly increasing funding towards helping HIV/AIDS victims in Africa.



Honestly? The HIV/AIDS problem in Africa looks like a gaping chasm with no bottom to me.  Doesn't help that the Catholic Church is sabotaging education and prevention efforts wherever it can.  I suppose someone has some idea of how to tackle the problem but it looks so hopeless to me when I hear about how many virgin girls of every age were raped by men who think doing so will cure them, or some other similarly horrific story.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 3, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Honestly? The HIV/AIDS problem in Africa looks like a gaping chasm with no bottom to me.  Doesn't help that the Catholic Church is sabotaging education and prevention efforts wherever it can.  I suppose someone has some idea of how to tackle the problem but it looks so hopeless to me when I hear about how many virgin girls of every age were raped by men who think doing so will cure them, or some other similarly horrific story.


The only way they could help the hive problem in africa is if they developed a vaccine and with the help of the catholic church got everyone to get vaccinate- Oh wait! Thanks to africa we can't get rid of the last of polio


----------



## Onnes (Nov 3, 2011)

Tycho said:


> Honestly? The HIV/AIDS problem in Africa looks like a gaping chasm with no bottom to me.  Doesn't help that the Catholic Church is sabotaging education and prevention efforts wherever it can.  I suppose someone has some idea of how to tackle the problem but it looks so hopeless to me when I hear about how many virgin girls of every age were raped by men who think doing so will cure them, or some other similarly horrific story.



This doesn't mean we can't help the situation. There's no good reason not to provide cost-effective treatment to those afflicted, which is exactly what we are doing with this foreign aid. While it may not yet be possible to cure HIV/AIDS or eradicate the virus we can at least try to reduce its impact on individuals and society.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 4, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> *You missed my point, Roose*, which I knew you would.



Same here, Bobby...




Bobskunk said:


> *Just because you declare a thing to be so does not make it so.*  You assert that not reading the links and calling it linkspam is stupid, and that Mojotech is stupid because he didn't read the links and called it stupid.
> 
> "If P, then Q.  P.  Therefore, Q."  Yet Q doesn't actually follow from P, no matter how much you want it to or say so.  Even if you try to change it by saying "He's stupid because he's predictable," that still doesn't follow.  I'm more than happy to have a discussion with you, but when your replies/rebuttals turn into walls of links and you castigate others for not wasting their time with you beyond what you're posting in the first place..  I wrote a major post disagreeing with this tactic, claiming that this particular incident is "minor" doesn't change that it's part of an aggravating string of behavior, which has been going on for years.  Unfortunately, you seem to be incapable of grasping that fact; "What forest?  All I see here is a tree.  Just one tree, yep."



Indeed, but it works both ways.  And I have to be aggravating, I'm a "curmudgeon... it's my job.  If I didn't aggravate you, you most likely wouldn't write such nice, informative posts in return.  And this place would be boring.  So, see, I'm quite capable of grasping facts, the _major_ fact being, it's my job to keep you on your toes.





Bobskunk said:


> You further miss the point by offering to link videos instead.  What you link isn't the problem, it's replying with "look at these links! [link] [link] [link]" and making that your entire argument, rather than making your point right there in your post and supporting it with something.  Even if it's "Obama is starting down the path of TAKING ALL OUR GUNS with the Fast and Furious operation, which tries to scapegoat American gun laws for the presence of weapons among the drug cartels. [link, or even an in-line link]"  *You're lazy when you just tell others to read your links and respond to them.*



Not really.  As you've noted, I'm quite capable of adding personal fluff to a link, if I feel I need to do so.  But I'm not a teenager, I'm in poor health, and I never claimed to be a master debater... I'm just here to have fun, and to interact with people in a social venue, people from around the world.  Another thing, though:  When I "tell" you to look and read, it's so I can get you to respond without my own material coloring your response.  Like Mojo, when he keeps trying to play his tired "autistic" crap, whenever I write something he doesn't like.  We may not agree on things, but you're far more engaging to "talk" with than him, because you don't stoop to such childish tactics.

Fast and Furious?  It could very well be just a serious blunder, but I don't think so.  I just remember reading all about how Calderon was blaming America for arming the drug cartels, all the "facts" of how yada-yada percent of the guns in Mexico came from America... and then F&F comes out, and it turns out our own government has been selling weapons illegally to those cartels.  It's quite simple to put two and two together and get four.  It makes sense, doesn't it?  A great way to increase gun control, to pull back the political risk of suicide, by have a grand demonstration of "how desperately" we need to crack down on guns... not how desperately we need to crack down on crime, which is the real issue.  So, the serious blunder was in getting caught, not in the program itself... _that_ was going just as planned.

Heh, and look!  No links!  All my own opinionated words.






Bobskunk said:


> UN treaties mean nothing if the U.S. doesn't sign them.  We still haven't signed the cluster bomb treaty or the treaty banning land mines.  Even if there was any political will to sign such a treaty, it would never pass.  Every bill and appointment is already being filibustered no matter how simple, so for something like "ban all guns" (which, again, the second amendment takes primacy) it simply will not happen, even if the Republican opposition in the legislature was at all sane this would still be something they would oppose.  Please go ahead and tell me how a single senator or any of her friends will ban all guns- don't play this semantics game of "show someone who doesn't like guns, therefore your argument is false and we're a week away from gun grabbing."  Nobody's going to do a thing about it.  This "left agenda" of banning all guns has not and will not be implemented, and "the most anti-gun president in history" or whatever the fuck you want to say about Obama has set no policy toward gun control.  *Find something else to wet yourself over.*



My pants are perfecly dry, Bobby.  Yes, UN treaties mean nothing... but the thing is, nothing is keeping the U.S. from signing them, other than the threat of political suicide ( or what you call "political will" ).  That's the way government works, it's all politics.  Doesn't mean their aren't people in power who wouldn't like to see that particular treaty signed.  And it's not a matter of banning all guns... any gun-ban is unacceptable, and a violation of The People's rights.  And there's another angle the anti-gun people use:  http://oakpark.patch.com/articles/oak-park-exploring-new-weapons-rules ... gun ownership as a "public health" issue.  Which has also been used to ban certain guns.  Are you familiar with Morton Grove?  An entire city that banned the ownership of guns.  As the above article makes clear, they weren't the only city to do so.

Really, I don't need to argue about gun-grabbing being a week away.  Because the gun-grabbing has already occured in some areas, many years ago.  Though fortunately, that's changing for the better.  But those who do want to see guns banned have not gone away.  Have not forgotten their agenda.





Bobskunk said:


> You like to seize on absolutes and then say "I win."  While I understand how you would see that, Lobar isn't actually saying "nobody," it's an exaggeration, especially if "give a shit" really means "tries to do anything about it."  Unless you want to go the other way and seize on "giving a shit" to be literal, because I don't think gun control has driven any congresspeople to defecate.  I'm actually having trouble finding any recent gun control bills- *everything I'm finding is either referring to the 1994 AWB, or is conservative hand-wringing about Obama "going around the second amendment."*  There was that one about banning high capacity magazines after Congresswoman Giffords was shot, but that's all I'm seeing.  Plus I'm having a hard time understanding how "maximum of ten shots in a handgun magazine" is exactly equal to "no handguns allowed at all or rifles or shotguns or anything."  Sure have been a load of abortion-restricting bills all over, though, many of them passing.



As I've said before, the "left" is afraid of commiting political suicide, so they don't push the "hard-sell" button, they instead turn to "low-key" efforts.  Like I said, they haven't forgotten their agenda, they just know they have to keep their distance from the issue if they wish to "live".  Abortion?  That's a separate issue for a separate thread, if you want to discuss particulars.  I won't go into it here.  Suffice it to say, gun-control advocates have to be subtle in their efforts.  Those in government, especially.

Here we have an indication of how subtle.  Though I have to admit, if Obama really does push for enforcing existing laws that actually punish criminals who abuse guns, I'm all in favor of it... it's something we've needed for a long time.  But my problem is, I don't trust him.  Why?  Because he can't keep his promises, even his negative ones.  Yeah, funny, but the Brady Campaign has given Obama's administration an "F" when it comes to gun-control.  That's very comforting... makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.  And again, my pants are dry.

As for "high-capacity" magazines, they're a non-issue, far as I'm concerned.  It only takes one bullet to kill a person.  And no one else able to shoot back to allow even someone with a single-shot to take down just as many people as someone with a "high-capacity" magazine.





Bobskunk said:


> "Republicans and Democrats are both equally bad!"  *Not my fault that you have an obsession with equating the two at all times*, though that doesn't stop you from routinely going on about how those dastardly liberals really are worse.  I recognize the Republican mindset to be harmful to the middle and lower classes, seeking to enrich the wealthiest Americans at the expense of everyone else.  I recognize that, if they had their way, not even an Upton Sinclair for our lifetime would be able to halt the erosion of safety and environmental regulations, and labor exploitation.  They see China as a model in more ways than one, though they can't seem to get past "China says it's communist" when it's become an increasingly capitalistic society with an even stronger authoritarian bent.  Business can do whatever it wants, can pay whatever it wants people to pay, and there's no EPA to say they can't dump everything in a river, no FDA to make sure there's no melamine in their food products.



No, not your fault... but it is your fault thinking I believe "liberals really are worse."  I believe both liberals and conservatives are equal.  Both do equally bad things, just with a different focus.  Which is why we have a two-party system in the first place.  Well, two dominant parties.  And see?  You keep focusing on your specific beef, just as I do on mine.  It's how things work.  Not everyone can agree when it comes to politics... or religion... or on what to have for breakfast.  So far, things have been balancing out.  It would not be wise to allow either extreme to dominate.






Bobskunk said:


> *I, as a liberal, think that's completely shitty.*  But which party is always griping and attempting to defund this stuff?  Who will benefit?  Who will be hurt?  These are people who still prefer to blame poor people for the mortgage collapse, when it was the newfound freedom of large banks that caused the mess, for everybody.



And you think I, as an independent, DON'T think it's also shitty?  I've said this before, but I'll say it again:  Both parties are crap.  Happy?






Bobskunk said:


> P.S. gee I wonder why Mexico would want gun control..  *I thought an armed society was a polite society?* :V



When that society is civilized... Mexico has a very serious problem with corruption, with being run by criminal organizations.  All you have to do is look around, and see that guns are only a problem in nations where corruption and crime are rampant.  It's a matter of crime-control, not gun-control.  Especially criminally-run governments.

After all, only criminals commit crimes with guns.  The very definition of a law-abiding gun owner is that they are "law-abiding", and therefore not a criminal threat.




Mojotech said:


> He seems to have missed that the whole INB4 tactic doesn't actually change his argument into something not linkspam. *Also, he has no grasp of sarcasm.* :V



I have a very good grasp of sarcasm, so good, in fact, I have a habit of giving it a squeeze, just like a roll of Charmin.   :V





Mojotech said:


> That, and his odd sort of black and white thinking is sadly common among autistic people. *They have trouble dealing with nuance, often seeing it as a weakness to avoid cognitive dissonance.*



Ooo... the mythical "They"...!  Heh, you're funny, Mojo.  But the problem is, those who see the world in shades of gray have no color in their lives.  So, I bring color, even if it is only in the form of "black and white".  Just like the black words I'm writing on a white page right now.  How's that for "nuance"...?





Mojotech said:


> It also causes them to have very little patience, especially when people disagree with their incredibly rigid views, which online often manifests with them being highly likely to cherry pick bits and pieces from people's posts, never reading supporting links (including their own) *and a very high probability of them taking respectful disagreement as personal attacks*.



Ohhh... ahaha!  Your whole post here is "nuanced" by writing to me from third person, and attacking me with this "autistic people" angle.  Pot, kettle, black?






Mojotech said:


> That said, what do you feel about it being illegal to own heavy assault weaponry by the  usual populace, *yet having flamethrowers be legal to own*?



It's also legal for me to buy as much gasoline as I can afford, which I could use to make a bomb, or as an accelerant to burn down buildings (throw flames)... yet, at least in California, I can't buy black powder, due to the DOJ classifying it as an explosive.  I find that odd.  But then, there are many "odd" laws out there:  http://www.dumblaws.com/


----------



## Lobar (Nov 4, 2011)

thread has terminal stage 4 malignant roosenoma

start the morphine drip


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 4, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> "China is 'trying to develop nuclear capability.'" - Herman Cain


 


Onnes said:


> The man is going to have a heart attack when he finally learns Pakistan has nukes.


 


Crusader Mike said:


> Looks like we found the world's first time traveler!



Either that, or Cain's talking about the "other" China, a.k.a. Taiwan...

...

Naaaah. Too sensible.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 4, 2011)

Lobar said:


> *thread has terminal stage 4 malignant roosenoma*
> 
> start the morphine drip



I love you too, Lobar...   :V


----------



## Onnes (Nov 4, 2011)

It looks like we aren't going to learn the details of Cain's sexual harassment charges--one of the accusers has been released from the confidentiality agreement but has chosen not to discuss the case. How disappointing.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 4, 2011)

Onnes said:


> It looks like we aren't going to learn the details of Cain's sexual harassment charges--one of the accusers has been released from the confidentiality agreement but has chosen not to discuss the case. How disappointing.



Disappointing indeed : (

The allegations however will be just as damaging regardless.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Nov 4, 2011)

Onnes said:


> It looks like we aren't going to learn the details of Cain's sexual harassment charges--one of the accusers has been released from the confidentiality agreement but has chosen not to discuss the case. How disappointing.



She's saving it for her bound-to-be New York Times best-selling tell-all book.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 4, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> She's saving it for her bound-to-be New York Times best-selling tell-all book.


And the book shall be named, "Black walnut, or how the man who groped me almost became president"


----------



## lupinealchemist (Nov 4, 2011)

Was just paying attention to politics. Has Cain seriously been trolling the GOP? 
Pokemon, Sim City, 45, black walnut; incredible.


----------



## Lobar (Nov 5, 2011)

Cain is popular because silly-crazy is still an improvement over scary-crazy.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 5, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Cain is popular because silly-crazy is still an improvement over scary-crazy.


Bachmann scares me >_<


----------



## Mayfurr (Nov 5, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Cain is popular because silly-crazy is still an improvement over scary-crazy.



Given that the role being applied for has (among other things) the finger on the nuclear button, I don't think "silly-crazy" is much of an improvement over "scary-crazy". There's enough idiotic fuckwits in power on this planet without having one in charge of several thousand nukes...


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 5, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> Given that the role being applied for has (among other things) the finger on the nuclear button, I don't think "silly-crazy" is much of an improvement over "scary-crazy". There's enough idiotic fuckwits in power on this planet without having one in charge of several thousand nukes...


On the plus side there's no way Cain would win the general election.
If the republicans want to win the presidency they'd have to chose Romney.


----------



## Aetius (Nov 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> On the plus side there's no way Cain would win the general election.
> If the republicans want to win the presidency they'd have to chose Romney.


I think Romney has a pretty good chance on winning the primary, now that Perry and Cain are trying to rip each other's balls out. 

Should be an interesting general election if he gets nominated.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 5, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> I think Romney has a pretty good chance on winning the primary, now that Perry and Cain are trying to rip each other's balls out.
> 
> Should be an interesting general election if he gets nominated.


Fifty dollars says Florida is going to fuck up yet again...
Oh wait they already did!


----------



## Aetius (Nov 5, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Fifty dollars says Florida is going to fuck up yet again...
> Oh wait they already did!



Florida ruins everything for everyone.

Examples: 2000 election, 2008 Democratic primary.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 5, 2011)

Crusader Mike said:


> Florida ruins everything for everyone.
> 
> Examples: 2000 election, 2008 Democratic primary.



Rick Scott, Miami, seafood...


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 5, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Rick Scott, Miami, seafood...


If it was up to me I propose a law that no caucus can start before may, also that Florida can't hold their caucus until everyone else has done their's.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 5, 2011)

The whole system of giving different states different primary dates is idiotic. Those states with the earliest primaries end up wielding disproportionate power in the electoral process; just look at all the stupid shit politicians go through to appeal to Iowa compared to far more populous states like Florida or California.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 5, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The whole system of giving different states different primary dates is idiotic. Those states with the earliest primaries end up wielding disproportionate power in the electoral process; just look at all the stupid shit politicians go through to appeal to Iowa compared to far more populous states like Florida or California.


I totally agree, all the primaries and shit should be held on the same day.


----------



## Sharpguard (Nov 5, 2011)

Whoever will stand the hardest Against the Religious Right purist bullshit. It's why I don't mind Obama or Ron Paul as much, they have some sanity on the mic and that's what's most important to me.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

I know it's been a week, but now Gingrich is passing Cain as Cain's popularity falls.

Is it just me or is the republican nomination a race to find a nominee that isn't Romney?
Gingrich is at 19% and rising, Romney is at 23% and Cain it toast.

Republicans make up your damn mind already.


----------



## Onnes (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> I know it's been a week, but now Gingrich is passing Cain as Cain's popularity falls.
> 
> Is it just me or is the republican nomination a race to find a nominee that isn't Romney?
> Gingrich is at 19% and rising, Romney is at 23% and Cain it toast.
> ...



The problem is that as soon as any other candidate takes the spotlight, it is rapidly revealed that they can't function as anything but a joke. Gingrich is carrying so much baggage that he'll be crushed in a general election, not to mention that he simply isn't that likeable.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The problem is that as soon as any other candidate takes the spotlight, it is rapidly revealed that they can't function as anything but a joke. Gingrich is carrying so much baggage that he'll be crushed in a general election, not to mention that he simply isn't that likeable.



And Chris Christie sits on the sidelines, waiting, watching.


----------



## Roose Hurro (Nov 11, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The problem is that as soon as any other candidate takes the spotlight, it is rapidly revealed that they can't function as anything but a joke. Gingrich is carrying so much baggage that he'll be crushed in a general election, *not to mention that he simply isn't that likeable*.



Not to mention, I've given him the nickname "Nude Groinitch".


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 11, 2011)

Reminder: Rick Perry did _not_ say a thing.  Sorry, oops.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 11, 2011)

Onnes said:


> The problem is that as soon as any other candidate takes the spotlight, it is rapidly revealed that they can't function as anything but a joke. Gingrich is carrying so much baggage that he'll be crushed in a general election, not to mention that he simply isn't that likeable.


 
Obama may be getting trolled hard by conservatives, but sanity at least means something in America I hope so between that and the incumbent advantage he'll probably get re-elected. With the crumbling conservative base, there's not much but loonies left for them.


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Obama may be getting trolled hard by conservatives, but sanity at least means something in America I hope so between that and the incumbent advantage he'll probably get re-elected. With the crumbling conservative base, there's not much but loonies left for them.


 Pretty much Romney is the only one that stands a chance in the general election, otherwise the general populace is going to freak out and it'll be a landslide victory for Obama.


Tycho said:


> And Chris Christie sits on the sidelines, waiting, watching.


 He's said no so many times they should have realized that he's not going to run.
"Hey bby, wanna run for election?"
"No"
"Oh come on it'll only be four years"
"No"
"You'll win the election"
"No means no"


Onnes said:


> The problem is that as soon as any other candidate takes the spotlight, it is rapidly revealed that they can't function as anything but a joke. Gingrich is carrying so much baggage that he'll be crushed in a general election, not to mention that he simply isn't that likeable.


Well since the caucuses are coming up pretty darn soon they're going to have to choose someone.  Since it's a race to find someone other than Romney either Romney is just going to stroll on through with all the infighting or someone's going to get the nomination barely only to later on to have their popularity go down even before the election.


----------



## Tycho (Nov 11, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> He's said no so many times they should have realized that he's not going to run.
> "Hey bby, wanna run for election?"
> "No"
> "Oh come on it'll only be four years"
> ...



Either he's just being a cocktease and is waiting until the GOP falls on its hands and knees and makes him a very nice offer or he wants to see the GOP take a fall.  Of course, it would take more than just losing the presidential election to screw the GOP.


----------



## Antonin Scalia (Nov 11, 2011)

Current top 3 Republican Candidates
- Mitt Romney
- Mitt Romney
- Mitt Romney*




*Mitt Romney


----------



## CannonFodder (Nov 11, 2011)

Antonin Scalia said:


> Current top 3 Republican Candidates
> - Mitt Romney
> - Mitt Romney
> - Mitt Romney*
> ...


Followed by Mitt Romney and trailing Mitt Romney is Mitt Romney.
You gotta hand it to the guy though, all he did was sit back, take a look at all the other candidates and go, "23% is enough to beat these bozos."


----------



## Gryphoneer (Aug 19, 2015)

I vote Mitt Romney for mod!


----------

