# US presidential election



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 6, 2012)

Who did/will/would you vote for? And if there's one thing you could've changed about the race, what would it be? (such as how almost all of the ads are negative)


----------



## 431unknown (Mar 6, 2012)

All the adds are negative because that's how politics work. They all are snakes and if I could I would not vote for any of them.


----------



## Pong20302000 (Mar 6, 2012)

*
Vermin Supreme for president*


----------



## Rogue_Syst3m (Mar 6, 2012)

431unknown said:


> All the adds are negative because that's how politics work. They all are snakes and if I could I would not vote for any of them.



umm you dont have to vote for any of them?


----------



## 431unknown (Mar 6, 2012)

No, I do have to vote for one of them if I want to feel like I have a say in anything.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 6, 2012)

I am voting for Obama. I lived under Mitt's ruling in Massachusetts and he had a great job destroying that state and I am pretty sure under Newt and Rick, Mike and I will be treated like criminals, as would the rest of the gay community.


----------



## AlanJohn (Mar 6, 2012)

I am voting for Mr. Obama, because he can sing Blues.


----------



## mysticwaterfall (Mar 6, 2012)

I'll probably vote for Obama again becaue none of the GOP people have impresed me in the slightest... on the other had, I'm increasingly starting to think it really doesn't matter, as the other party will sabotage whoever wins anyway.


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 6, 2012)

When I listened to some debate thing they did and the candidates talked about how they were gonna change shit...I lol'd. They all wanted to cut out all the services helping the lower/middle class citizens while benefiting the upper class, and none of them were the least bit ashamed that they were gigantic douchebags.

Poor Obama is the best president in years but he's always getting shit on because he had to deal with Bush ruining the country, and all the slander campaigns against him. It's tragic but if and when someone else is voted in i'm betting they'll just drive the country into the ground. I don't think people realize what Obama has had to work with thus far. They think it's all sunshine and rainbows and Obama can just do a magic trick and make the national debt disappear.


----------



## Hop2089 (Mar 6, 2012)

Obama is the only candidate worth a darn, The GOP all suck and they are sexist pigs who need to get with the times, the world is evolving and they have stopped evolving.


----------



## emigre (Mar 6, 2012)

Obama because he would do the least worst job.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 6, 2012)

Obama is terrible but I'll vote for him again to protect the surpreme court from repub idiocy


----------



## JornTenge (Mar 6, 2012)

Lol Yes hes a lil weird but ill vote


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 6, 2012)

yuyuyup said:


> Obama is terrible but I'll vote for him again to protect the surpreme court from repub idiocy


He's only bad because he was left to clean up Bush's shit. It took Bush 8 years to fuck up America, it's going to take twice as long to clean it back up.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 6, 2012)

However... Obama wants to INCREASE the debt another couple trillion. That won't fuck up the countries economy at all. And he ended the space program. What are our enemies gonna do? PUT WEAPONS In SPACE. What happens if were not there to stop it? They'll blow the shit out of us.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> I am voting for Obama. I lived under Mitt's ruling in Massachusetts and he had a great job destroying that state and I am pretty sure under Newt and Rick, Mike and I will be treated like criminals, as would the rest of the gay community.



Catboy is correct, Nasty Newt would do the most he could to hurt the gay community. Sanctorum would work to make our laws closer to the bible. I don't even know what Mitt Romney stands for..... So I'm voting for Obama, he's not the best president. But he's better than all those god damn bible thumpers.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 6, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> However... Obama wants to INCREASE the debt another couple trillion. That won't fuck up the countries economy at all.


~43% of the current United States debt was under George W. Bush. That's a lot. Much of the debt increase under Obama has been economic recovery policies. The national debt would be a lot less of an issue if the Republicans would allow tax cuts for the rich to go away.

I'll be voting for Obama for the second time.


----------



## MakiManPR (Mar 6, 2012)

I hope we can vote for the president as we are part of US. If we are able to vote I'll vote for Obama. From all of them he's the onlyone that has showed interest in resolving our status.


----------



## Zetta_x (Mar 6, 2012)

When you work with a population this big, there is no such thing as a win-win situation. Every decision is going to have some advantages and disadvantages. So the idea of politics is to take all of their proposed decisions and show the disadvantages of them completely blinding from the advantages.

I will not be voting because the system is broken. In a true democracy, each vote is supposed to be independent from each other. However, there is a large amount of influential factors that nearly every vote is dependent on other people. This is not democracy, it's a broken system where large media and wealthy people have control over the masses mindset.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 6, 2012)

Obama is a great president. The sad fact is that most Americans think that Black people are magical creatures when they are just human like they are. They make mistakes and try to solve their own personal issues like everyone else does.  Anyone with a brain would realize that it's going to take more than one term to fix the American economy. Bush fucked it up real good. It's what he did best. Fucking stuff up.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Obama is a great president. The sad fact is that most Americans think that Black people are magical creatures when they are just human like they are. They make mistakes and try to solve their own personal issues like everyone else does.  Anyone with a brain would realize that it's going to take more than one term to fix the American economy. Bush fucked it up real good. It's what he did best. Fucking stuff up.



Hey, you forgot drinking!!!!


----------



## Shoat (Mar 6, 2012)

I just cannot understand how america has given both Bush presidents two full rounds and now a lot of them are not willing to give their first _actually decent_ president in a long time his second round.
Especially if the only alternative is a republican candidate.

Generally it's weird that you guys only get to choose between two parties and two candidates each election (and half the time one of them is the last president).
You'd think that over the decades at least a few more parties would have risen up that represent more different mindsets and thus allow the elections to more accurately represent what the people _actually_ want.

I mean, our system over here isn't perfect either, but people would explode in rage if we suddenly had a two-party system here and one of the two parties was a conversative and fanatically religious one. (_which, inexplicably, still exists in modern times even though having only barely changed it's mindset over the past century_)






431unknown said:


> No, I do have to vote for one of them if I want to feel like I have a say in anything.



You can write "BOTH OF THESE ARE BAD" on your piece of paper and hand that in.
It is a contribution to the election, and it's better than not participating at all, and definitely WAY better than just forcing yourself to vote for someone even though you actually don't like him.

If, suddenly, 50% of america's population hand in empty or "both guys suck" votes, it will have an effect.
Instead of just saying "meh" and supporting the system they don't like by voting someone they don't like (or ignoring the problem by not voting), that will actually change something. They can't get away with ignoring that if enough people do it.
And, if I remember correctly, america's declaration of independence tells you that, if you don't like your government, it is not only your right but your duty to change something about it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 6, 2012)

Shoat said:


> I just cannot understand how america has given both Bush presidents two full rounds



Actually George H W Bush (the dad) only served one term as President. Lost to Clinton (and Perot) in the 92 election. If Ross Perot hadn't run in 92 and split the vote, Bush would have been re-elected though.


----------



## lancaster000 (Mar 6, 2012)

Looks like its time for a reminder as to where the Candidates stand:
(read below)  Obama.....Gingrich...Romney..Santorum...Paul
Big $ Influence.......YES........YES.........YES.......YES........NO
Wars....................YES........YES.........YES........YES........NO
Bail outs...............YES........YES.........YES........YES........NO
Big government......YES........YES.........YES.......YES........NO
War on drugs.........YES........YES.........YES.......YES........NO
Deficit spending.....YES........YES..........YES.......YES.......NO
Balanced Budget....NO..........NO.............NO.........NO.......YES
End the FED..........NO..........NO.............NO.........NO.......YES
Follow Constitution..NO.........NO.............NO.........NO.......YES
Truthful...................NO.........NO.............NO.........NO.......YES
Protect Liberty........NO.........NO.............NO.........NO.......YES


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

Shoat said:


> I just cannot understand how america has given both Bush presidents two full rounds and now a lot of them are not willing to give their first _actually decent_ president in a long time his second round.


How is he decent? He's just as wasteful as Bush, just does less while at it. He's a lawyer, not a politician.
http://www.cbsnews.c...ain;contentBody



> Especially if the only alternative is a republican candidate.



Oh my goodness! Someone will actually start doing something about the ginormous debt the states are in, perhaps making the life of US citizens a little bit less comfortable! Grab the torches!



> Generally it's weird that you guys only get to choose between two parties and two candidates each election (and half the time one of them is the last president).
> You'd think that over the decades at least a few more parties would have risen up that represent more different mindsets and thus allow the elections to more accurately represent what the people _actually_ want.



"Mindsets" are not uniform in either party, they're all fragmented to some extent. The only real distinction is "liberal" and "conservative", however members of either party are just that with varying intensity. Still, I agree that a larger ammount of parties would likely benefit the system.



> I mean, our system over here isn't perfect either, but people would explode in rage if we suddenly had a two-party system here and one of the two parties was a conversative and fanatically religious one. (_which, inexplicably, still exists in modern times even though having only barely changed it's mindset over the past century_)


You used to have one party and nobody complained. (Unfunny NSDAP joke) But yeah, you're right. However, "Christian" and "Fanatical" doesn't always go together, y'know. While I admit that certain Republicans go overboard with their beliefs, it's not a general rule.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 6, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> They think it's all sunshine and rainbows and Obama can just do a magic trick and make the national debt disappear.



I don't think it's so much an expectation that he make the national debt disappear. It's just that he's made it so much worse. It was at 10.6 trillion the day he took office. That's the TOTAL of all debt taken on by the US government since 1776 though 2009. Today, only three years later, it's 15.5 trillion.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

There's always the alternative - start a nation-wide get-together, get a big piece of paper, write _"July 4th 1776 was a mistake, we're sorry, we surrender. Annex us, pretty please."_ on it, sign it one by one, send it to the UK and keep your fingers crossed. Maybe there is a chance for your debt to just magically "disappear" after all.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 6, 2012)

I am voting for Ron Paul even If he doesn't get the Rep. ticket as a write-in or independant vote. If there was one thing I could change It would be to totally revamp the whole voting process so the people's voices are really heard for once like they where when JFK and the presidents before him where elected legitimently.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 6, 2012)

I'm not american, but if i were, i would vote for Ron Paul.
He wants to cut a trillion dollars, and audit the fed, which is the greatest scam in history.
He talks about sound money, the gold and silver standard.
And he does not want to be the policeman of the world, and dares to speak the truth!

Edit: He were also against SOPA before it were ''politically correct'' 
-


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 6, 2012)

Looking at GBAtemp, I never would've guessed Obama's approval ratings plummeted. My vote is a secret, as I like to not start arguments over nothing.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> Looking at GBAtemp, I never would've guessed Obama's approval ratings plummeted. My vote is a secret, as I like to not start arguments over nothing.


I assume you're a Republican then.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 6, 2012)

lancaster000 said:


> Looks like its time for a reminder as to where the Candidates stand:
> (read below)  Obama.....Gingrich...Romney..Santorum...Paul
> Big $ Influence.......YES........YES.........YES.......YES........NO
> Wars....................YES........YES.........YES........YES........NO
> ...


Ron Paul is as crazy as the rest of the Republican candidates. The only good things about Ron Paul are his foreign policy and his views on  legalizing marijuana. Ron Paul is so small-government that he would abolish pretty much everything that isn't specifically outlined in the Constitution, which he claims is balancing the budget, but at the same time he thinks it's okay for the government to be big enough to monitor each and every pregnancy in the United States to make sure they're carried to term. Ron Paul also has issues with racial minorities, gays, and women. So yeah, he'll basically destroy the federal government (bye bye Medicare, student loans, etc), and he'll protect your liberty if you're a straight white man.



Foxi4 said:


> Shoat said:
> 
> 
> > I just cannot understand how america has given both Bush presidents two full rounds and now a lot of them are not willing to give their first _actually decent_ president in a long time his second round.
> ...


The reason the deficit is even an issue is because of wars that weren't paid for, tax-cuts for the rich that weren't paid for, and various other things under Bush. You can blame Obama for the part of the deficit spending that helped to bring this economy out of recession, but even conservatives say used to say that deficits don't matter when it means restoring the economy. Fixing the economy was the priority.

Liberals tend to argue that the deficit is the result of both a revenue problem and a spending problem; conservatives tend to argue that the deficit is just a spending problem, and many Republicans in office have signed pledges saying they will not raise taxes on anyone for any reason. Obama has already made spending concessions to the Republicans. Yeah, right, the deficit is Obama's fault.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Foxi4 none of the Republican plans tackle the deficit, Rick Sanctorum will cut corporations taxes to 0%, Mitt Romney plans on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They just plan on cutting social programs, now that may not sound like a big deal, but it still does nothing.


----------



## prowler (Mar 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> The sad fact is that most Americans think that Black people are magical creatures when they are just human like they are.


what


----------



## Frederica Bernkastel (Mar 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Obama is a great president. The sad fact is that most Americans think that Black people are magical creatures when they are just human like they are. They make mistakes and try to solve their own personal issues like everyone else does.  Anyone with a brain would realize that it's going to take more than one term to fix the American economy. Bush fucked it up real good. It's what he did best. Fucking stuff up.


You can count on my vote.


----------



## Valwin (Mar 6, 2012)

Obama is a bad president and i hope he does not win   i love how the Obama bubble burst and he now one of the worst presidents ever LOL


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 6, 2012)

Lacius said:


> lancaster000 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like its time for a reminder as to where the Candidates stand:
> ...



Sorry Lacius, but you've got a couple of things wrong.
English ain't my main language, so i could i no way formulate the response as Ron himself could, so i've added a couple of links.

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdjuOhU7WwU
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 6, 2012)

prowler said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > The sad fact is that most Americans think that Black people are magical creatures when they are just human like they are.
> ...



Brits wouldn't understand b/c European racism and North American racism are very different.


----------



## Valwin (Mar 6, 2012)

MakiManPR said:


> I hope we can vote for the president as we are part of US. If we are able to vote I'll vote for Obama. From all of them he's the onlyone that has showed interest in resolving our status.



BS  he haves shown 0 interest


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Foxi4 none of the Republican plans tackle the deficit, Rick Sanctorum will cut corporations taxes to 0%, Mitt Romney plans on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They just plan on cutting social programs, now that may not sound like a big deal, but it still does nothing.


Who says "tackle it"? The US is in no position to tacke its own debt, not in these unstable times. What they could attempt though is _not making it any worse then it already is._

People say_ "It's all because of the left-overs Bush left behind him"_, and I call _bullsh*t_ on that - _Bush didn't invent American Interventionism_, it's been a "tradition" in the States for years. Iraq and Afghanistan were not the first wars you fought in and _you guys should know more then anyone_ that any administration leaves some debt behind it. Question is, how are You going to tackle it, and suprise suprise, Obama tackled it wrong.

The previous elections were a joke, from the outside they looked more like a _cultural experiment_ then a political event - will the Americans choose a _"Woman",_ a _"Black Guy"_ or _"McCain"_, are they going to say _"No, we're not sexist!"_, _"No, we're not racist!"_ or will they choose _"The guy who's last name sounds like a brand of french fries"_ and I firmly believe that 80% of the voters had no clue what are the program either party represented.


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 6, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Obama is a bad president and i hope he does not win   i love how the Obama bubble burst and he now one of the worst presidents ever LOL



Aw adorable look guys

Valwin is trying to be political.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 none of the Republican plans tackle the deficit, Rick Sanctorum will cut corporations taxes to 0%, Mitt Romney plans on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They just plan on cutting social programs, now that may not sound like a big deal, but it still does nothing.
> ...



Technically it should be a " Woman", a "Black Guy" or a "Foreigner". McCain was no better than Obama, he literally wants to bomb everything, he wants to bomb Syria, his campaign was ran pretty much with I'm going to bomb Iran.


----------



## prowler (Mar 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> prowler said:
> 
> 
> > Hyro-Sama said:
> ...


ive played san andreas


----------



## Valwin (Mar 6, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is a bad president and i hope he does not win   i love how the Obama bubble burst and he now one of the worst presidents ever LOL
> ...



another useless HellsMalice comment that adds Nothing


----------



## Hells Malice (Mar 6, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Hells Malice said:
> 
> 
> > Valwin said:
> ...



Thank god I already said my piece in a previous post, and am not above openly mocking you at every opportunity.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


I couldn't care less for McCain, but I was disappointed that you guys didn't pick Clinton for president. Her husband was the last president in recent American history that *didn't* increase the national debt, in fact, he greatly decreased it during his presidency. I would expect no less from his wife. There's an old saying, _behind every great leader stands his wife_. I'm pretty sure she was more then well-versed in what her husband was up to and how he managed to perform his "Clinton Magic".


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Thesolcity said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at GBAtemp, I never would've guessed Obama's approval ratings plummeted. My vote is a secret, as I like to not start arguments over nothing.
> ...



Independent, try not to assume.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

Hells Malice said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > Hells Malice said:
> ...


Which is a shame. Clearly the idea of _Val*winning*_ has not been introduced to you yet.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...



It's not our fault, it's my party's fault, the voters chose Obama in the primary, Hilary couldn't get the nomination, had she run as 3rd party she only would have hurt the Democrats, she never would have won that way, had she been the nomination she would have won, there's is always 2016 for Hilary.


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 6, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> prowler said:
> 
> 
> > Hyro-Sama said:
> ...



As an American.....what?


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Thesolcity said:
> ...


Damn didn't notice my grammatical error. So I assume then you're rooting for some third party candidate who has no chance of winning. Am I right? If so which party are they in?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> It's not our fault, it's my party's fault, the voters chose Obama in the primary, Hilary couldn't get the nomination, had she run as 3rd party she only would have hurt the Democrats, she never would have won that way, had she been the nomination she would have won, there's is always 2016 for Hilary.


Yeah, I suppose.

I just realized who you are by the way, you used to have a Pokemon for an avatar, right? I used to disagree with you alot... Hum hum hum, I am positively suprised, you seem to be well-versed in those matters and you know what you want, that's for sure. Been a pleasure to discuss, really - I'm glad we agree on a few points for once.


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Thesolcity said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...



3rd party? Nah Im not hipster enough. 
I'm stuck between my candidate and not voting all together. I got fucked great the past 3 terms. 
But like I said, I won't mention my candidate, I shall instead lurk this thread until it becomes locked for flame reasons. 

Off Topic: What happened to your Kyogre?


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > It's not our fault, it's my party's fault, the voters chose Obama in the primary, Hilary couldn't get the nomination, had she run as 3rd party she only would have hurt the Democrats, she never would have won that way, had she been the nomination she would have won, there's is always 2016 for Hilary.
> ...


Don't call it a Pokemon, it was Kyogre, the cutest pokemon ever!!!! Yeah, you did. Of course, I am. I love politics. If Hilary runs in 2016 it will give us Democrats 8 more years as long as Obama wins 2012. She'll just have to beat out Andrew Cuomo.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Damn didn't notice my grammatical error. So I assume then you're rooting for some third party candidate who has no chance of winning. Am I right? If so which party are they in?



1. Grammar matters, it's the difference between "You know your shit." and "You know you're shit."  (Shamelessly steals a signature, I believe it was VA's ;P)
2. Curiousity killed the cat. If he wants his political views to remain secret then so be it. At least he's going to vote.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Damn didn't notice my grammatical error. So I assume then you're rooting for some third party candidate who has no chance of winning. Am I right? If so which party are they in?
> ...



I know that's why I fixed my error.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Don't call it a Pokemon, it was Kyogre, the cutest pokemon ever!!!! Yeah, you did. Of course, I am. I love politics. If Hilary runs in 2016 it will give us Democrats 8 more years as long as Obama wins 2012. She'll just have to beat out Andrew Cuomo.


Forgive me for saying this, but I sincerely hope Obama fails miserably, for your own good. He's done enough damage, now it's time for someone to sweep the debris, withdraw your troops and start saving.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Thesolcity said:
> ...



You remember Kyogre!!! I felt it was time to change avatars, I'll probably change again. Can you pm who you want to vote for????


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Foxi4 who the hell will do that. Only Ron Paul, he will never never never never times infinity get the Republican nomination. Plus if he loses It damages the Democratic party and it will strengthen the Republican Party. You realize that right. They'll fuck up the country and he can't lose miserably he already got 220 electoral votes locked. It will be a super close election.


A man can dream, can't he?


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Ron Paul has no chance if Obama loses we get Romney or Sanctorum. If you're talking about Obama failing miserably stop being a hater, and besides that not a dream that's a fantasy Illinois, California, and New York will never be flipped Republican, Obama has a small chance of flipping Texas though.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 6, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> Sorry Lacius, but you've got a couple of things wrong.
> English ain't my main language, so i could i no way formulate the response as Ron himself could, so i've added a couple of links.


Ron Paul says government should have no place in marriage and that marriage is a religious union between a man in a woman. He consistently courts the religious right and doesn't even answer the question when asked if homosexuality is a sin. In fact, Ron Paul is one of the most evasive politicians I've ever seen, usually answering questions with "the government is too big" and changing topics. Ron Paul published newsletters in the 80s and 90s that were very racist, homophobic, etc. Although just allegations, an ex-staffer said that Ron Paul has issues with gay people. This isn't surprising considering some of the peoples' positions who finance and run his campaigns. Ron Paul was also against anti-sodomy laws being overturned.

Ron Paul is extremely pro-life and supports the idea of personhood. Ron Paul thinks the Civil Rights Act was a horrible mistake and that people should be able to refuse racial minorities service on the basis of skin color.

In summary, Ron Paul is probably the worst candidate when it comes to civil liberties. He would also slash the federal government into something powerless and unrecognizable.




Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 none of the Republican plans tackle the deficit, Rick Sanctorum will cut corporations taxes to 0%, Mitt Romney plans on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. They just plan on cutting social programs, now that may not sound like a big deal, but it still does nothing.
> ...


Foxi4, the amount of debt incurred by Bush was almost unprecedented. One has to be a complete moron to both radically slash taxes and radically increase spending at the same time. To take $10.5 trillion (debt before Obama took office) and subtract it from $15.2 trillion (debt now) is not an accurate way to calculate Obama's contributions to the debt. $983 billion is Obama's contribution to the debt, and 81% of that was stimulus spending (which every reputable economist says should have been more). Obama has put together commissions to tackle the debt problem. Solutions have been proposed that are bipartisan. But the Republicans say it's either their way or no way. I'd say Obama has tackled things just right.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Ron Paul has no chance.


Why of course. America has always had an allergy to anything that spells its possible salvation.

I'll be honest with you, I would rather vote on a candidate that I agree with who has zero chances to win then on a candidate that I disagree with just because I _"disagree with him less" _then with his main adversary.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Ron Paul has no chance.
> ...


No, not our salvation, our destruction.


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 6, 2012)

Wow I can't believe that barely anyone said Ron Paul 2012, here.  Seems like everyone wants him on the internet.  Oh and Obama is a horrible president, the economy is much worse with him now, unemployement has rose in the country and so did inflation, and most of his crap didn't even work.  Just look at Obama Care what a failure, and extending unemployement, for people to get money.  Also with his socialism ideals, why does a huge percentage of my money have to go to people on welfare.  The other politicians are no better.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Let's assume that Obama does win, if 4 years from now the situation will worsen as I predict, will you then say "damn, I've been told this would happen" or will you blame some superficial reason like the first time around?


----------



## Lacius (Mar 6, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Wow I can't believe that barely anyone said Ron Paul 2012, here.  Seems like everyone wants him on the internet.  Oh and Obama is a horrible president, the economy is much worse with him now, unemployement has rose in the country and so did inflation, and most of his crap didn't even work.  Just look at Obama Care what a failure, and extending unemployement, for people to get money.  Also with his socialism ideals, why does a huge percentage of my money have to go to people on welfare.  The other politicians are no better.


Since Obama has taken office, the economy has gotten better and unemployment has gone down. Obama Care, although not fully activated yet, was a vast improvement on the system and is projected to save many lives. Extending unemployment killed two birds with one stone in that it both helped people who couldn't get work and injected stimulus money into the economy since those who collect on unemployment spend it rather quickly for food, bills, etc.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Wow I can't believe that barely anyone said Ron Paul 2012, here.  Seems like everyone wants him on the internet.  Oh and Obama is a horrible president, the economy is much worse with him now, unemployement has rose in the country and so did inflation, and most of his crap didn't even work.  Just look at Obama Care what a failure, and extending unemployement, for people to get money.  Also with his socialism ideals, why does a huge percentage of my money have to go to people on welfare.  The other politicians are no better.


I don't think you comprehend socialism.


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 6, 2012)

I really don't like Ron Paul's foreign policy.  I think at this time it is most important to destroy Iran's nuclear facility, as they are a danger to the US, and Israel.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> You mean a lazy ass House of Representatives that is led by Republicans. And our economy is getting better, in 4 years it will still not be where it was pre Bush,that will take 12-16 years to get back to. And how do you know I'll still be on GBATemp in 4 years, I might have moved on or died.


*Rolls eyes* That was a hypothetical question, and _"If there's a problem, there's an excuse"_. I don't know what's your measure of the state of the economy, but last time I checked your debt gets deeper, your national income isn't rising and the unemployment rates rise. If the economy's doing so much better then please answer, _for whom?_


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > You mean a lazy ass House of Representatives that is led by Republicans. And our economy is getting better, in 4 years it will still not be where it was pre Bush,that will take 12-16 years to get back to. And how do you know I'll still be on GBATemp in 4 years, I might have moved on or died.
> ...


The unemployment rates are declining if they were rising we would still be in a recession.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> I really don't like Ron Paul's foreign policy.  I think at this time it is most important to destroy Iran's nuclear facility, as they are a danger to the US, and Israel.


They're not even close enough to reach you with a nuclear strike. Also, have you not heard of _Nuclear Deterrence_?

People develop nukes not to use them but to defend themselves from others. It's a big warning sign saying _"Do not attack us, we have Nukes and we will blow your balls off if you come anywhere near us", _and you can't blame Iran for that seeing that the US likes to go on escapades in the Middle East unsupervised.

People are well-aware that "pressing the button" may aswell "end the world as we know it" - nobody's going to press it. It's a safety mechanism more then it is a weapon. By your logic, you should bomb _yourselves_, you're the biggest nuclear superpower in the world. You're going to say _"But nobody knows what atrocities Iran might do if they have this kind of weaponry" _to which I will respond _"Who's to say which of you is crazier - Iran or the US? Facts are that you have nukes and they want to have nukes, the rest depends on the point of view"._



smile72 said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


You're on the verge of the second dip, smile.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't like Ron Paul's foreign policy.  I think at this time it is most important to destroy Iran's nuclear facility, as they are a danger to the US, and Israel.
> ...


Yes, mainly due to the damn Eurozone crisis, believe it or not things are moving forward. More jobs are being created (note not government jobs).


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 6, 2012)

Iran is an irrational country, that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.  How many times have we seen Ahmadinejad say that Israel is a cancer that much be destroyed, or that the holocaust never happened, or that 911 was an inside job.  The guy is nuts and we have already seen his dictatorship in Iran and what it led to his people, republic my ass the guy has been faking votes for himself and everyone knows that.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Iran is an irrational country, that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.  How many times have we seen Ahmadinejad say that Israel is a cancer that much be destroyed, or that the holocaust never happened, or that 911 was an inside job.  The guy is nuts and we have already seen his dictatorship in Iran and what it led to his people, republic my ass the guy has been faking votes for himself and everyone knows that.


Are you trying to turn the discussion toward Iran???


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 6, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > Iran is an irrational country, that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.  How many times have we seen Ahmadinejad say that Israel is a cancer that much be destroyed, or that the holocaust never happened, or that 911 was an inside job.  The guy is nuts and we have already seen his dictatorship in Iran and what it led to his people, republic my ass the guy has been faking votes for himself and everyone knows that.
> ...


I'm trying to turn the discussion into Ron Paul's foreign policy.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 6, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Jakob95 said:
> ...


Okay, so you don't like his foreign policies. He'll never be the nominee so what's the point?


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Iran is an irrational country, that shouldn't be allowed to have nukes.


By your standards. By their standards, you guys are irrational for running around and attacking countries that are so far away from you that they barely have influence when it comes to your affairs, wearing banners of freedom and democracy while in fact you're just fighting for resources and influence.


> How many times have we seen Ahmadinejad say that Israel is a cancer that much be destroyed, or that the holocaust never happened, or that 911 was an inside job.


And how on Earth would he destroy Israel with nuclear warheads without frying his own ass? As far as 9/11 is concerned, America sort of asked for it... and the holocaust? Well, he hates the Jews, what else could he possibly say?


> The guy is nuts and we have already seen his dictatorship in Iran and what it led to his people, republic my ass the guy has been faking votes for himself and everyone knows that.


Agreed.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 6, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> I really don't like Ron Paul's foreign policy.  I think at this time it is most important to destroy Iran's nuclear facility, as they are a danger to the US, and Israel.



That's a great idea Jakob, starting WW3 would be just glorious now rather then later. I haven't seen any proof of a nuclear facility in Iran yet but I know for a fact that the US and Israel have gigantic ones. Sounds to me like they are trying to pull the same crap that got us to invade Iraq and we are gonna fall for It again, shame on us.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 6, 2012)

N.M. ZERO B.C. said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't like Ron Paul's foreign policy.  I think at this time it is most important to destroy Iran's nuclear facility, as they are a danger to the US, and Israel.
> ...


[yt]eKgPY1adc0A[/yt]

I too disagree with any kind of special treatment for Israel - they should be subjected to the same kind of sanctions the surrounding countries are subjected to. That said, the US should stop being the world's Policeman and start worrying about its own affairs for once.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 6, 2012)

Unemployment numbers (lower is better):








Economy (higher is better, blue is Obama's effect on the economy):






As for the potential double-dip in the economy, Foxi4, much of that has to do with Europe, the fact that the stimulus was a one-time thing that the Republican congress won't allow to be repeated, and the fact that we have come to realize that the economic crisis was worse than we thought it was and that the stimulus should have been a lot more.


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 6, 2012)

N.M. ZERO B.C. said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > I really don't like Ron Paul's foreign policy.  I think at this time it is most important to destroy Iran's nuclear facility, as they are a danger to the US, and Israel.
> ...


So why exactly do you think Iran has been looking for allies in South America.  Such as Venezualla that is a huge ally of Iran, with this country Iran is able to ship its nuclear weapons(in the future) from Syria to Venezualla and launch an attack from there. Iran's allies will be China and Russia so I understand your point about WW3, but if we don't launch an attack by the summer of this year Iran will move its nuclear facilities underground which will make it impossible to find.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Unemployment numbers (lower is better):
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What's the source of your graphs?? Also, pretty sure the unemployment graph shows not how many people are unemployed  ... it shows the rate at which new people are being added to the unemployment rolls, measured in jobs lost per month. But they don't count people who have flat-out given up looking for a job because they have 'taken themselves out' of the job market. The real unemployment situation in the USA is way bad, maybe the worst since the 1930's. (sorry, I don't have any misleading graphs for ya)


Edit: just to be a little more clear about this ... all your graph is showing is the rate at which jobs have been lost over the last several years. What your graph doesn't show is how many jobs are simultaneously being created. Jobs are always being lost at some rate, while people are also being hired at new jobs all the time too -- hopefully with more new jobs being created than jobs being lost. With your graph, all we see is how many jobs have been lost since 2007. We can't see how many people were getting new jobs during the same period. My guess ... not a hell of a lot.


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 7, 2012)

Actually checked it out on Google hes right.  It seems much worse though in reality.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Lacius, but you've got a couple of things wrong.
> ...



Ron Paul wants government out of the marriage issue, and have said following (In a 2008 ABC Interview):
Reporter: Should gays be allowed to marry?
RP: Sure, They can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.
However, they can't make me personally accept what they do, but i cant prohibit them from doing it.

And when Paul says the government is to big, its true.
America has 1000 military bases all over the world.
How do they finance these bases?
- Taxes. And when youre in debt, you start printing/lending money from the federal reserve, which makes the dollar devalue.

And on the racist allegations:
He did not wrote them, and do not advocate the behavior the newletters advocate.
And when you look at the numbers, he's the one candidate which most black supporters apart from Obama (for obvious reasons).

The reason for his decision on sodomy laws, is states rights, here's a quote:
''The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.''

In a speech to Congress in 2004, Paul explained his opposition to the civil rights act. he said following:
“The forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society.”


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> N.M. ZERO B.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Jakob95 said:
> ...


What gives you the *right* to even consider attacking another country because of superficial reasons and pure conjuncture without any proof? If they have any facilities then I do hope they move them before you guys roll in, seriously, how can you be so full of yourself, so casual about invading another country because "you don't like it"?

When was the last time the U.S got invaded by a foreign nation? Do remind me, I can't seem to remember. My God, you've just grown to "accept" the fact that you have the right to have nukes and you have the right to invade others and whenever anybody else does it then it is wrong and surely directed againts you, haven't you? You claim this is for the greater good, that this is a "war againts terror" but to those people YOU are the terrorists and they hate you wholeheartedly because time and time again YOU destroy their homeland and kill their people in the thousands while they cannot fight back since your country is simply out of reach for them. YOU are the world's biggest bully who rolls into cities with tanks and flies choppers while the natives have AK-47's, sticks and stones. Your attitude is horrible, I'm trying to refrain from saying "disgusting" but that's how I truly feel. I'm no hippie but you are crossing the line.


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > N.M. ZERO B.C. said:
> ...


Blame Fox News.  And anything can happen in the future you never know.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Blame Fox News.


If a TV programme thinks _for you_ then I'm going to blame _you_ for lack of better judgement and independent thought.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

Israels defence minister Ehud Barak, says that Iran isn't a threat to Israel,
so how on earth could Iran be a threat to the U.S?

Source:
http://www.haaretz.c...o-israel-1.7710


----------



## Shromz (Mar 7, 2012)

Anyway,  I get to vote in November!!!


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> Israels defence minister Ehud Barak, says that Iran isn't a threat to Israel,
> so how on earth could Iran be a threat to the U.S?
> 
> Source:
> http://www.haaretz.c...o-israel-1.7710


Iran may destabilize the US economy with a wave of _immigrants_ _looking for jobs in the US_, that's the only threat I can think of.


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > Blame Fox News.
> ...


I was being sarcastic.  You should go focus on your own Polish politics, don't understand what you are doing here.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > Israels defence minister Ehud Barak, says that Iran isn't a threat to Israel,
> ...



Makes me think of a classic South Park episode  :
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=768h3Tz4Qik


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> Ron Paul wants government out of the marriage issue, and have said following (In a 2008 ABC Interview):
> Reporter: Should gays be allowed to marry?
> RP: Sure, They can do whatever they want and call it whatever they want.
> However, they can't make me personally accept what they do, but i cant prohibit them from doing it.


By Ron Paul's logic, gays should be happy with just pretending to be married in states that don't allow gay marriage in a country that does not recognize it federally. So who cares about the rights and privileges granted to married couples? I find Ron Paul's comments very offensive. Ron Paul also thinks it's okay for states to decide whether or not being gay is illegal. Last I checked, he's also failed to distance himself from endorsements from people who want to make being gay punishable by death.



Libertarian94 said:


> And when Paul says the government is to big, its true.
> America has 1000 military bases all over the world.
> How do they finance these bases?
> - Taxes. And when youre in debt, you start printing/lending money from the federal reserve, which makes the dollar devalue.


I agree that the military is disgustingly big. But Ron Paul thinks that's justification for the elimination of the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development. Ron Paul also seems to be okay with cutting programs such as child nutrition programs, food stamps, cuts to the EPA, privatizing the FAA, etc.



Libertarian94 said:


> The reason for his decision on sodomy laws, is states rights, here's a quote:
> ''The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights — rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.''


So Ron Paul supported getting rid of the anti-sodomy laws, but he doesn't support using a branch of government to get rid of anti-sodomy laws. That makes so much sense.


----------



## freaksloan (Mar 7, 2012)

I don't want any of them, and I think the USA and the World would be better place if they all ceased to exist.

In my opinion, Obama will go down as being the WORST POTUS in the history of this country, and it has nothing do with the color of his skin.

I also think Romney is a RINO, who believes in man made global warming and socialized medicine.

So it doesn't matter who wins, we are SCREWED!


----------



## smile72 (Mar 7, 2012)

freaksloan said:


> I don't want any of them, and I think the USA and the World would be better place if they all ceased to exist.
> 
> In my opinion, Obama will go down as being the WORST POTUS in the history of this country, and it has nothing do with the color of his skin.
> 
> ...



If you think that you are foolish, there are much much worse presidents Ulysses S.Grant comes to mind. Do you know what socialized medicine is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Thesolcity (Mar 7, 2012)

*WAIT WAIT WAIT*

Since we're dragging Israel into this, didn't they announce they were going to attack Iran's nuke facility _*WITHOUT*_ alerting us prior?

Edit: Yup, carry on. Source


----------



## X_XSlashX_X (Mar 7, 2012)

I'll be voting for Obama seeing how I'm registered as a democrat.


----------



## DarkStriker (Mar 7, 2012)

I can't vote, but indeed voting for Obama again would be what i would have done anyways. I guess my main point would be, if USA collaps, so does half the world. I don't want that


----------



## freaksloan (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Unemployment numbers (lower is better):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Unemployment is only going down because once you no longer receive unemployment, you are no longer considered unemployed.

Like here in Ohio unemployed went down from 7.9 to 7.7%, but payroll in the same time period went down 25,000. So how can unemployment go down and the number of people receiving a check also go down? Shouldn't if unemployment is going down, payroll numbers should be going up?

I am unemployed, but I am not being counted as such because my unemployment compensation ran out in Feb.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > Ron Paul wants government out of the marriage issue, and have said following (In a 2008 ABC Interview):
> ...



Once again, Ron Paul believe in states rights, but what you are saying however, i just past the realms of reality.
The reasons he wants to cut all those departments is that they pushes prices up and destroy the market, and close down states buisnesses, and thus not creating jobs.
The reason he doesn't support it a federal mandate, is that it would involve the federal government regulating states, and telling them what to do.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Edit: just to be a little more clear about this ... all your graph is showing is the rate at which jobs have been lost over the last several years. What your graph doesn't show is how many jobs are simultaneously being created. Jobs are always being lost at some rate, while people are also being hired at new jobs all the time too -- hopefully with more new jobs being created than jobs being lost. With your graph, all we see is how many jobs have been lost since 2007. We can't see how many people were getting new jobs during the same period. My guess ... not a hell of a lot.


Hanafuda, each and every way the Bureau of Labor Statistics measures unemployment is in decline. The causal relationship between the stimulus and declining unemployment numbers is evident. At the very least, no matter how one looks at it, to say Obama has made unemployment or the economy worse is a blatant lie that is unsupported by evidence.









Libertarian94 said:


> Once again, Ron Paul believe in states rights, but what you are saying however, i just past the realms of reality.
> The reasons he wants to cut all those departments is that they pushes prices up and destroy the market, and close down states buisnesses, and thus not creating jobs.
> The reason he doesn't support it a federal mandate, is that it would involve the federal government regulating states, and telling them what to do.


The problem is that Ron Paul's cuts would likely lead to an economic depression. His cuts would instantly cause at least a 7% cut to GDP. And that's just at first. His cuts would put a stop to many things that infuse the economy with money (unemployment, foods programs, etc).

And since you bring it up, a health insurance mandate is the only way a system without pre-existing conditions can exist, just for starters.



freaksloan said:


> Unemployment is only going down because once you no longer receive unemployment, you are no longer considered unemployed.
> 
> Like here in Ohio unemployed went down from 7.9 to 7.7%, but payroll in the same time period went down 25,000. So how can unemployment go down and the number of people receiving a check also go down? Shouldn't if unemployment is going down, payroll numbers should be going up?
> 
> I am unemployed, but I am not being counted as such because my unemployment compensation ran out in Feb.


Actually, unemployment is going down because unemployment is going down. The market is getting better and jobs are being created. In my first chart, you are correct, you might not have been counted. But the trend still shows a better market, more jobs being created, less jobs being lost, and the causal relationship the stimulus had. The second chart I posted likely counted you in the total unemployment numbers, which is still going down.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Edit: Accidental double post.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

The middle class is almost wiped out and Ron Paul has had nothing to do with it.
The idea that his policies would be any worse for the middle class is ridiculous.
The devaluation of the dollar, over retulation, and debt of failed banks and corporations is getting transfered to the taxpayer, and is sucking the wealth of the middle class dry.
All because of government increasing, and spending like hell.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Mar 7, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > prowler said:
> ...



All of America assumed that by Obama becoming predisent he would solve *all* of America's problems in one term like he's the Messiah or something.


----------



## ZaeZae64 (Mar 7, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Thesolcity said:
> 
> 
> > Hyro-Sama said:
> ...


Hyro would know, since he's an american as well.

..Wait.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> The middle class is almost wiped out and Ron Paul has had nothing to do with it.


Ron Paul says he stands for the middle class, but Ron Paul focuses primarily on dismantling regulations that are in place to protect the middle class. The kind of privatization Ron Paul wants to do to make the government smaller only benefits the rich. Things the government does becomes for-profit, and that difference comes out of the pockets of the middle class.



Libertarian94 said:


> The idea that his policies would be any worse for the middle class is ridiculous.


The fact that his major cuts to the federal government would definitely cause a significant decrease in GDP is enough to say that his policies would be worse for the middle class.



Libertarian94 said:


> The devaluation of the dollar, over retulation, and debt of failed banks and corporations is getting transfered to the taxpayer, and is sucking the wealth of the middle class dry.


Not to say inflation isn't an issue, but the idea that we should move to gold and silver because their prices are constant is insane. They are hardly the model for price stability.



Libertarian94 said:


> All because of government increasing, and spending like hell.


It is my opinion that there are some things that the federal government should be in charge of. For example, the private insurance industry is a farce. A public option would be much better for people. Before the Patient Protection Act, people died all the time because of profit motive in the health insurance industry. There are some things a government spends money on. That's what a government is for. And we pay taxes. That's how a government works. Government spending isn't inherently bad. I agree that the deficit is a problem; that's how spending is bad. But it's not just a spending issue. Ron Paul would balance the budget by slashing spending and slashing taxes. It would suck. All you need for a balanced budget is to cut a little bit of wasteful spending, such as decreasing military spending, and getting rid of the tax cuts for the filthy rich that have been proven to have close to no effect on the economy. None of the Republican candidates have a practical plan for deficit reduction, including Ron Paul.


----------



## Valwin (Mar 7, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> *WAIT WAIT WAIT*
> 
> Since we're dragging Israel into this, didn't they announce they were going to attack Iran's nuke facility _*WITHOUT*_ alerting us prior?
> 
> Edit: Yup, carry on. Source



i hope they do because if it were for obama he would wait after the elections and that would be too late Iran haves already say if they have the weapon they will use it on Israel


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Mar 7, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> N.M. ZERO B.C. said:
> 
> 
> > Jakob95 said:
> ...


Do you really think Iran will attack another large nation that's capable of launching their own nukes?

That would result in the complete and utter annihilation of both Iran and whatever country they supposedly attack.
http://en.wikipedia....red_destruction

You're essentially saying that the US/Israel should launch an attack at Iran over something that they may or may not do in the future. That's completely idiotic.



Hyro-Sama said:


> prowler said:
> 
> 
> > Hyro-Sama said:
> ...


As a Canadian, what? I don't know what kind of backwards city you live in.


----------



## Valwin (Mar 7, 2012)

soulx said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > N.M. ZERO B.C. said:
> ...




Iran say already that they will do it


----------



## 431unknown (Mar 7, 2012)

I'd definitely vote for the first guy who would do the following.

1. bomb Iran and destroy their nuke program.
2. Pull all of our troops out of where ever the fuck they are and bring them home.
3. Take care of the fucken illegal immagrants. The ones that are here and are working and not in jail can stay the ones in jail go back where they came from. Seal off the fucken boarders afterwards. For the life of me they have more fucken rights than me.
4. Make all US territories decide if they want to be states or not. Give them one year to vote on it and if they decide they don't want to be states they get cut off and become their own nation.
5. No more birthright citizenship. If your parents aren't US citizens then your not either just because you were born on US soil.
6. Invest in our energy independence. We need to drill now but we also need to push forward with new Eco safe alternatives.

There is more but I'm tired of ranting. 

I just also would like to add  if a native American would ever run for office I'd vote for them in a heart beat.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

431unknown said:


> I'd definitely vote for the first guy who would do the following.
> 
> 1. bomb Iran and destroy their nuke program.
> 2. Pull all of our troops out of where ever the fuck they are and bring them home.
> ...


I don't really want to bomb iran. As much as I dislike them, that would get their supporters pissed off at us and we'd have another war on our hands. But I agree that we should get rid of their nuke program. The illegal immagrints don't need to go back home; they just need to go back to Ellis island and get in the back of the line and wait their turn.


----------



## 431unknown (Mar 7, 2012)

No the ones in jail need to go home the ones that actual want to work can stay.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 7, 2012)

431unknown said:


> I'd definitely vote for the first guy who would do the following.
> 
> 1. bomb Iran and destroy their nuke program.
> 2. Pull all of our troops out of where ever the fuck they are and bring them home.
> ...



Sounds to me like you would make a great dictator but the problem is your #1 conflicts with your #2 as any bombing of Iran would cause American troop deployment and massive blood shed in a distant land and not our borders.

If you where to release the immigrants in jail and send them back where they came from you'd first have to pay for that and what's to stop them returning again only this time wiser from being in jail with more weapons and more people they know.

The reason they have more rights then you is because the powers that be want them here to create the NAU plus they work cheap as a bonus to them.

Was also curious as to why US territories bother you so, most of them are little islands like the Virgin Islands, why would you want them to become States and why does It matter?

As far as U.S. citizenship goes, If you want to go that route your gonna have to kick everyone out of America and give the Indian's their land back because they are the true citizens and everyone else has occupied them and put them on reservation camps.
Makes me sick really and I would leave and give their land back to them If I had my way.

America could already have energy independence without oil but that goes against the plan's of the rich and powerful so they will always surpress that technology. They know about technology that would blow your mind that is between 20-50 years from where we are at now.


----------



## 431unknown (Mar 7, 2012)

If you can't read ALL OF what I posted and think about it for more than 2 seconds that's your problem.


If I had my way I'd leave too. I'd be on mars right now if it were possible slaying demon spawn.

Sorry if I'm being harsh I tired, sick, and at work right now so I can pay for some illegals jailhouse rent.


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 7, 2012)

431unknown said:


> No the ones in jail need to go home the ones that actual want to work can stay.



Why the hell do you want the ones in jail to go back home?  That is just one of the most stupidest comments I have ever seen.  Lets use a mexican for this example, if he kills someone should he go to jail for that? Yes.  Now if we had to send them back to Mexico and let them be free, then wtf they just got away by killing someone and are free.


----------



## 431unknown (Mar 7, 2012)

So it's better for me to pay to feed, cloth, and shelter them because they broke the law? Please! Send them back and seal the boarder.


----------



## Jakob95 (Mar 7, 2012)

431unknown said:


> So it's better for me to pay to feed, cloth, and shelter them because they broke the law? Please! Send them back and seal the boarder.


Death sentence.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

If the immigrants don't work, then they're out on the street. That's their problem. Our problem is registering them as citizens so that they CAN get jobs.
A bit off topic but: does anyone think that Newt Gingrich looks like the old guy from Up? I'm not trying to make fun of him I actually support him. I just noticed tht for some random reason...


----------



## 431unknown (Mar 7, 2012)

I'd rather not have to use the death sentence. I'd be a kind and merciful dictator. I do believe in an eye for an eye tho.

I dont know about the guy from up but I think Newt is a big piece of shit tho.

Also nobody deserves to live on the street.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 7, 2012)

The Republicans fighting for the nomination now are really a joke (yes, including Ron Paul). That's a shame, because a well versed and reasonable Republican candidate could do a lot to move the political conversation forward.

Is it sad when you legitimately miss Herman Cain's presence as a candidate?


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Ok ppl back on topic please! Which person r u gonna vote for? And why?


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> Looking at GBAtemp, I never would've guessed Obama's approval ratings plummeted. My vote is a secret, as I like to not start arguments over nothing.



You have to factor in the average age here and then it makes more sense. People even considering voting for Obama again is a joke. I'm not sure if he even has one accomplishment (running up trillions in debt doesn't count) besides "taking out osama", but that's hardly noteworthy. The military deserves credit there. Not the worst president, but he comes pretty damn close. I could go on and on about his failures. The blaming Bush thing should have only lasted the first two years at max. He could get another term and still be blaming bush on his eighth year, sh*t gets real old.

But if he wins again, won't be too surprised. All he has to do is sing, do a wink-wink, and do that white teeth sparkle, and he'll have the late teen early twenty vote again. All you have to do is take one economics class (with a professor teaching it that isn't on weed) and it'll be clear to vote conservative this time.

Herman Cain was my man, (his speeches were porn to me) but his dick may have gotten in trouble. So going with Romney I guess.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 7, 2012)

Blahkamehameha, I'm not sure you can even credit Obama for taking out Osama either depending on who you believe besides just what the mainstream media reported.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Yeah. Obamas gonna get extra votes cuz he was president when Osama bin Laden was killed. And cuz the media said that he was the one who organized it. In reality, spies found were he was hiding, then Obama said "ok. So let's send in the SEALs and get him." the seals did all the tactical work and actually aimed and pulled the trigger.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 7, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> Thesolcity said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at GBAtemp, I never would've guessed Obama's approval ratings plummeted. My vote is a secret, as I like to not start arguments over nothing.
> ...


Yeah, because tax cuts are the key to lowering a deficit.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Yeah. Obamas gonna get extra votes cuz he was president when Osama bin Laden was killed. And cuz the media said that he was the one who organized it. In reality, spies found were he was hiding, then Obama said "ok. So let's send in the SEALs and get him." the seals did all the tactical work and actually aimed and pulled the trigger.



Yes, because the media has everyone believing Obama charged that compound himself, John Matrix style.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

in response to smile: Indeed. You do know small businesses make up the backbone of America's economy right? Obama's admininstration (and senate) have smothered small business growth, and gave them a very uncertain future with the ominous obamacare.

And don't tell me you're going to argue that Obama has tried to lower the deficit.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 7, 2012)

I am confused as to why people are concerned over the deficit as If It was something that could be fixed. Where we are now there is no way that the deficit could be paid, we would even have trouble paying off just the interest on It and that alone would take much effort. The economy is in default, we are bankrupt and have been. The only thing that is still holding the system together is the reserve status of our money and we just keep printing It. This will work for awhile because It has been done in the past with other reserve country currency's but the problem is eventually super inflation will take over and then It's gameover.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

The deficit was a beast after bush left, but it wasn't impossible to deal with. Obama went ahead and supersized it to the max, so at this point it's uncontrollable. Inflation has already occurred quite noticeably in the last few months (been to grocery stores).

The current system is very unstable to say the least. Luckily China hasn't been pulling our chains yet, but there's no guarantee they won't in the future since they own so much of our debt.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Yeah. Then we'd be in another fucking recession or depression.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 7, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> The deficit was a beast after bush left, but it wasn't impossible to deal with. Obama went ahead and supersized it to the max, so at this point it's uncontrollable. Inflation has already occurred quite noticeably in the last few months (been to grocery stores).
> 
> The current system is very unstable to say the least. Luckily China hasn't been pulling our chains yet, but there's no guarantee they won't in the future since they own so much of our debt.



Look up super inflation in your browser, those goods price increases at the store, (regular inflation) are a whole different pony.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

Fed has a large piece of the blame pie like Obama does. Bernanke flat out lied about not printing more money which helped lead to the inflation.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 7, 2012)

I agree, the Fed is and was the problem all along since they set up shop in 1913. I am not blaming Obama he is just a puppet that reads the teleprompters and smiles and does what he is told.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Ok sumthing you guys have to see:
Step 1: go to YouTube
Step 2: type in Earl Pitts recession is over
Step 3: click on the video
Step 4: laugh and like


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

N.M. ZERO B.C. said:


> I agree, the Fed is and was the problem all along since they set up shop in 1913. I am not blaming Obama he is just a puppet that reads the teleprompters and smiles and does what he is told.


Obama appointed Bernanke, so yes he deserves a lot of the blame. But we better lay off this, we're getting pretty off topic. I could ramble about inflation and the fed for hours


----------



## smile72 (Mar 7, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> in response to smile: Indeed. You do know small businesses make up the backbone of America's economy right? Obama's admininstration (and senate) have smothered small business growth, and gave them a very uncertain future with the ominous obamacare.
> 
> And don't tell me you're going to argue that Obama has tried to lower the deficit.


No, but neither will Rick Sanctorum, lowering corporations tax rates to 0 will solve nothing. Neither will Mitt Romney, his tax plan will actually add to the deficit.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm not sure if you understand things correctly. Government spending needs to be reduced, not have more income to fuel it. Tax cuts will help economy big time as long as nonsense government spending is cut.

Tax less, spend less benefits everyone.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 7, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> N.M. ZERO B.C. said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, the Fed is and was the problem all along since they set up shop in 1913. I am not blaming Obama he is just a puppet that reads the teleprompters and smiles and does what he is told.
> ...



The topic is pointless without knowing the truth first to make a more informed decision about the election. Talking about these things are worthy to be mentioned here. Obama may have appointed Bernanke but was It really Obama that made that call?


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

Obama is supposed to be a leader. He should share blame for people he appoints and for his administration. Don't forget his wondrous stimulus packages and what a great success they were...(joke obv.)


----------



## smile72 (Mar 7, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> I'm not sure if you understand things correctly. Government spending needs to be reduced, not have more income to fuel it. Tax cuts will help economy big time as long as nonsense government spending is cut.
> 
> Tax less, spend less benefits everyone.


No, if corporations are taxed at 0, it won't matter, we will lose more money than it will bring in. Plus I don't think you understand that most government spending is no nonsense. Do you consider Medicare nonsense? What about the military? How about medicaid? Social security?


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

All of those need reworking and cuts yes. It's not pretty, but when government spending is this out of control, it's our responsiblity to make sacrifices. 

This has to be dealt with, even if it makes our lives less comfortable. Ron Paul is spot on on this subject, I wish I could support him if he wasn't whacky on other issues.

I'll gladly be happy if any of the republicans win, (even Ron Paul). We just can't afford Obama again. He's not changed things around, and it'd be foolish to gamble and give him another four years to do so after he's made things worse.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 7, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> All of those need reworking and cuts yes. It's not pretty, but when government spending is this out of control, it's our responsiblity to make sacrifices.
> 
> This has to be dealt with, even if it makes our lives less comfortable. Ron Paul is spot on on this subject, I wish I could support him if he wasn't whacky on other issues.
> 
> I'll gladly be happy if any of the republicans win, (even Ron Paul). We just can't afford Obama again. He's not changed things around, and it'd be foolish to gamble and give him another four years to do so after he's made things worse.


How has he made things worse?? There is an increase in private sector job growth. He has actually made things a little better. And nobody wants to touch the military actually all of the Republicans except for Ron Paul want to increase spending on the military.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

Private sector job growth? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjJPivGcDj8&feature=player_embedded#!


----------



## smile72 (Mar 7, 2012)

Yes, believe it or not there was private sector job growth.So regardless of what you say he has not made the economy worse. And none of the Republicans will be able to bring America back to where it was 7 years ago. And if you're wondering he has done more than 'Obamacare' which actually is a good thing and killing Osama bin Laden.


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 7, 2012)

When you say there has been private sector job growth and obamacare will be a magical happy thing for our drowning in debt country, you need to have facts to back these statements up. I doubt you even bothered watching the video I posted. It's only 3 minutes long, you might learn something rather than blindly supporting a president because he's the cool guy everyone likes.

Hopefully back on topic, for those of you yet to vote, it's best to go with the guy you feel is best capable to take steps into the right direction for a change, whether you like him or not. Even if he's old and ugly, the majority of us will never get the chance to hang out with them, so don't vote based on likability.


----------



## Jugarina (Mar 7, 2012)

I bet he did watch It, at least some of It but could not comprehend still what he was talking about in the video so he dismissed It all. I swear, a large portion of the population has been dumbed down and brain washed by the media and they dismiss facts and sometimes common sense. I have tried to wake up so many people but sure enough they just think I am some kinda terrorist that doesn't go along with the agenda. I see these people watching the news and I hear them say, "Yeah bomb them, blow those evil bastards off the map." I feel so discusted that normal everyday people don't have a problem with killing a whole country's people and chering them on while It is happening. Noone seems to look at the other picture or If they where in their shoes how they would feel.


----------



## FireGrey (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm an Aussie but I think Obama because he basically put the middle finger up to the upper class.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Jakob95 said:
> ...


I'm a citizen of the world, I'm interested in global politics because the crazy antics your governments pull off affect the global economy. The U.S is not a different planet, y'see. You happen to live in a superpower with extensive overseas influence, I'm pretty sure you understand why people of other nationalities would be interested in the U.S elections now.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 7, 2012)

Anyone who thinks Obama is doing a bad job needs to look at the facts.
The NASDAQ closed at over 3000 for the first time in 11-12 years.
Unemployment is dropping at is at just 8.3%.
Whether you realize it or not hes done a great job and things will only continue to get better.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> 431unknown said:
> 
> 
> > So it's better for me to pay to feed, cloth, and shelter them because they broke the law? Please! Send them back and seal the boarder.
> ...


I cannot believe that this went by unnoticed for whole 2 pages. There are silly posts, there are posts that make little sense, there are posts that are gramatically or lexically incorrect and there are also posts that are completely _cretinous_ which is a big accomplishment in my book.

What you are basically saying is that if a citizen of the U.S murdurers someone, he or she will get 25 years to life imprisonment while an illegal immigrant will recieve the death penalty for the same crime. How does that make any sense to you? Do I really have to explain how stupid it is? _Yes, clearly I do_ because _you came up with the idea in the first place_.

Your "solution" of this problem breaks not only the simple and well-known rules of equality, it's practically _inhuman _- you treat immigrants as if they were lesser men, you choose to kill them like animals because they're not "American". I'm not aware if you understand how many human rights the states would break if this was common practice. News flash, feller - except for Native Americans (although even they mixed with other races throughout the course of history) every single American out there is an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. What gives you the right to dictate who deserves to live and who deserves to die on the basis of citizenship?

It is _not _uncommon to be persecuted in the country in which you commited a crime, it is _not _uncommon to recieve time in that same country - it's like this_ all around the world_ and in every single case the criminal faces fair trial and recieves punishment accordingly to the law of a given country. If anything, a criminal may request extraditing him to his country of origin, but in that case it is a matter to be settled between the embassies of both countries.

I'm not going to _condemn_ you only because perhaps you did not realize the sheer weight of what you were saying or you conveyed your idea poorly but let me tell you - it's a stupid idea. The states are not doing anything extraordinary, every single civilized country I can think of has similar legislature and handles the exact same matter in the same fashion.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

N.M. ZERO B.C. said:


> I bet he did watch It, at least some of It but could not comprehend still what he was talking about in the video so he dismissed It all. I swear, a large portion of the population has been dumbed down and brain washed by the media and they dismiss facts and sometimes common sense. I have tried to wake up so many people but sure enough they just think I am some kinda terrorist that doesn't go along with the agenda. I see these people watching the news and I hear them say, "Yeah bomb them, blow those evil bastards off the map." I feel so discusted that normal everyday people don't have a problem with killing a whole country's people and chering them on while It is happening. Noone seems to look at the other picture or If they where in their shoes how they would feel.


Exactly. People think that everyone over in Iraq, Iran, and other countries are terrorists. But truthfully terrorists only make up a small part of the population. There are mostly innocent men, women, and children lliving over there. And the wars making it very difficult to live. 

If you bomb a country just cuz it's got a few terrorists, that is not right. There are a few terrorists in America, so would you kill every person in america just cuz there's a few terrorists?


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 7, 2012)

FireGrey said:


> I'm an Aussie but I think Obama because he basically put the middle finger up to the upper class.




This is not even a little bit true.


----------



## kthnxshwn (Mar 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > 431unknown said:
> ...


I'm pretty sure he was joking, but either way - he's 16 and his opinion as far as politics go doesn't really matter yet.


----------



## MakiManPR (Mar 7, 2012)

This thread need a poll


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

MakiManPR said:


> This thread need a poll


Done


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> People even considering voting for Obama again is a joke. I'm not sure if he even has one accomplishment (running up trillions in debt doesn't count)


Yeah, because Obama hasn't accomplished a single thing. And as I've already mentioned, Obama's contributions to the debt are less than $1 billion, and much of it was necessary for economic recovery. You're probably one of those people who thinks the stimulus was unneeded or a failure. Had we had a president with that kind of attitude, things would have gotten a lot worse.



N.M. ZERO B.C. said:


> Blahkamehameha, I'm not sure you can even credit Obama for taking out Osama either depending on who you believe besides just what the mainstream media reported.


Obama made all the major decisions involving both the finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden. The military did a great job, too. None of what the Bush administration "accomplished" helped with the killing of Osama.



blahkamehameha said:


> in response to smile: Indeed. You do know small businesses make up the backbone of America's economy right? Obama's admininstration (and senate) have smothered small business growth, and gave them a very uncertain future with the ominous obamacare.


Yeah, because the Small Business Act, raising investments in small business, giving more tax credits to small businesses, and allowing the effects of Obama Care on small business to be tax deductible: That's smothering small business growth.



blahkamehameha said:


> I'm not sure if you understand things correctly. Government spending needs to be reduced, not have more income to fuel it. Tax cuts will help economy big time as long as nonsense government spending is cut.
> 
> Tax less, spend less benefits everyone.


Good thing Obama's task force in figuring out a way to reduce the deficit includes spending cuts. Most rational people agree that the deficit problem is both a revenue problem (tax cuts on the rich that weren't paid for) and a spending problem. If the Bush tax cuts were allowed to expire now, by 2050, the debt would be roughly a third of what it will be if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to stay in place.

As I've already mentioned, spending isn't inherently bad. I agree that things can be trimmed a little bit. But Ron Paul's $1 trillion in cuts to the federal government would strike a crippling blow to the economy and is impractical.



blahkamehameha said:


> This has to be dealt with, even if it makes our lives less comfortable. Ron Paul is spot on on this subject, I wish I could support him if he wasn't whacky on other issues.


Ron Paul is wacky on all the issues (except maybe military cuts). His cuts to the federal government would instantly cause another recession. Ron Paul thinks it is not the government's place to do things like make sure companies are not destroying the environment or to make sure schools are getting the funding they need. If it were up to Ron Paul, pretty much everything would be privatized. When you say the above things need to be reworked, Ron Paul would destroy most of them. No one should be taking Ron Paul seriously. In all honesty, he's probably the worst candidate in this election.



blahkamehameha said:


> When you say there has been private sector job growth and obamacare will be a magical happy thing for our drowning in debt country, you need to have facts to back these statements up. I doubt you even bothered watching the video I posted. It's only 3 minutes long, you might learn something rather than blindly supporting a president because he's the cool guy everyone likes.
> 
> Hopefully back on topic, for those of you yet to vote, it's best to go with the guy you feel is best capable to take steps into the right direction for a change, whether you like him or not. Even if he's old and ugly, the majority of us will never get the chance to hang out with them, so don't vote based on likability.


There has been private sector job growth. Obama Care is paid for and does not contribute to the debt. The chart discussed above shows that initial unemployment has gotten better, which means the economy has gotten better, and you can see the causal relationship the stimulus had on initial unemployment getting better. You are correct that it does not show total unemployment. However, I posted a chart with total unemployment and each and every way unemployment is measured (including those who have been out of work for awhile and would not show up on the initial unemployment chart), and all those numbers are down as well as a result of the stimulus.

Basic economics: supply and demand. Conservatives think tax cuts for the wealthy will increase jobs. The logic here is that the wealthy will use their extra money to invest in more jobs. People get jobs, they get paid as that new tax money "trickles down" to them, and the wealthy make a profit. All this is accomplished by merely removing taxes, which means the problem is solved by actually removing government involvement. However, this entire thing is flawed.

The real way you increase jobs is to focus on demand, not supply. The above scenario assumes that tax breaks for the rich will allow them to increase their supply, sell more of whatever, and be able to hire more workers to sell whatever. However, the economy is bad because there is a lack of spending going on. If I own a bookstore in a horrible economy and receive tax cuts, I am not going to use that extra money to hire more workers; I'm going to pocket that money. Hiring more workers in an economy where I require less workers means just throwing the money away. I would hire more workers and see no positive change in my profit.

By focusing on demand, what the stimulus does, is how you make more jobs, which all the data shows is what happened. If, instead, I give tax cuts to the poor and to the middle class (the stimulus was the largest tax cut to the middle class in the history of this country), the middle class is going to use that extra money to go out and buy things. Businesses make more of a profit, they hire workers to keep up with the new demand, and the economy wheel starts turning again. In fact, tax cuts to people who need money the most, like people who are out of the job, spend that money rather quickly, and we actually see more of a return in the economy per dollar than how much we actually put in in the form of tax cuts/unemployment benefits.

The stimulus did all that. The numbers show that it had a positive effect. It could have done better. Reputable economists agree that the economy was worse than we thought it was, and even then they were saying that the stimulus should have been bigger. To say that unemployment is not better is a flat-out lie. People need to do some more research.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Hasn't anyone noticed that the unemployment rates only rlly started dropping when Obama started his campaign for re-election? He's doing it so that people think that he actually will be a better president 2nd term than he has been the last four years.

P.S. Don't forget to vote in the poll!


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Hasn't anyone noticed that the unemployment rates only rlly started dropping when Obama started his campaign for re-election?


Unemployment numbers started dropping long before Obama started his reelection campaign.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > Hasn't anyone noticed that the unemployment rates only rlly started dropping when Obama started his campaign for re-election?
> ...


Yes. They went down, then up, then down, then up, etc. Until like mid-late last year when they went down and slowly continued to go down. That's when the presidential race basically got going.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

EDIT: oops! Double post.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Yes. They went down, then up, then down, then up, etc. Until like mid-late last year when they went down and slowly continued to go down. That's when the presidential race basically got going.


The overall trend is that unemployment numbers are going down. I'm not saying things won't get worse, especially with our lack of stimulus spending, but that's the overall trend between the first stimulus package and today.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. They went down, then up, then down, then up, etc. Until like mid-late last year when they went down and slowly continued to go down. That's when the presidential race basically got going.
> ...


That's pure science fiction though, and you have to realize that there are several factors contributing to the decline in unemployment rates - it doesn't necessarily mean that people found jobs.

By not including:

1. People who leave the workforce, forfeit searching for jobs and retire
2. People who chose to enhance their qualifications and start studying again
3. People who emigrated out of the U.S in search for jobs elsewhere (applies mostly to "recent" legal immigrants who do not have family ties in the U.S yet)
4. People who chose to take "time off" to take care of the family and become housewives/husbands instead of being a part of the workforce

...you can "lower the unemployment rate" without even giving one job to a single person.

And just to prove that it's not my "imagination", it is estimated that in November 2011, the U.S economy generated 120,000 new jobs, however at the exact same time 315,000 chose to leave the workforce. I'm not even adding emigration issues into the equation and you can already see that Obama didn't touch the U.S with a magic wand, it's just that the U.S got sick and tired of waiting for the new jobs and simply stopped looking, waiting for the better days to come.

Here, some articles for you. The sudden decrease of unemployment rates, although influenced by stimulating the economy and laying the foundations for "creating new jobs" is most notably influenced by shrinking of the workforce itself.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1125180.html
http://articles.lati...w-jobs-20111203
http://www.usatoday....ootstraps_N.htm
http://www.politifac...-gains-are-act/


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > The middle class is almost wiped out and Ron Paul has had nothing to do with it.
> ...



1:
The problem with the regulations that the federal government puts in place, gets destroyed by the medicinal industry and the FDA.
Both have given the green light, allowing dangerous drugs to be put in medicine and food, only so the large companies can get profit.
Take for instance Aspartame, a sugar substitute in all diet products and even in regular sugar gum.
The Military developed it back in 65'.
And what aspartame actually is, is a mutated bacterias ''crap'', and its highly toxic and addictive.
Now the FDA of course, have made studies that dismisses the dangers of aspartame, but what at the same time is ironic, is that they have studies the contradict their own studies.
They got studies that says its good, and studies that says its bad.
Of course they are trying to suppress those studies.
And whats funny is that the pro-aspartame studies is studies by Monsanto, and if you know Monsanto, you would find it very easy to find the agenda here.
And if you go back to like... 77 or something like that, they couldn't get it approved due to the fact, that they tested it on 11 monkeys, of which 7 died, and the rest got brain and/or organ failure.

2:
Thats where the states come in!
If a state find that a department is neccesary, they are allowed to set up a state ''counterpart'' i believe its called.

3:
Gold and Silver can't be printed so the government can't create departments it won't be able to finance, and thus destroying debt.
And its a much more solid alternative, compared to the fed.
The FED operates in total secrecy. No one is allowed to see the FED's document.
Not the congress, not the president, not the C.I.A, not the F.B.I, not even the Supreme Court!

4:
I live in denmark, and where one of the countries in the world, that pays most taxes, and trust me, it destroys the market.
People prefer drive all the way to germany, due to taxes on our food and so on.
A glass of jam in germany cost only the quarter of what it does in denmark.
And a lot of families drive in extremely polluting cars from the 80's due to modern and more envirionment friendly cars are skyhigh in prices due to registration taxes.
Im all for punishing wall st.
But i don't mind people making a buck for being innovative and leading a good buisness.
You must remember that moneymasters at the top of the pyramid won't get what they deserve if you increase their taxes.
Because they will just order the politicians who are bought and sold, to pass more laws, that will involve more regulation, and thus more debt, printing more money, devaluing the currency.


PS: Sorry for the late response


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> That's pure science fiction though, and you have to realize that there are several factors contributing to the decline in unemployment rates - it doesn't necessarily mean that people found jobs.
> 
> By not including:
> 
> ...


You are correct in that there are many factors involved in calculating unemployment. But you need to consider the following:

1. Jobs are being created by the hundreds of thousands every month. The only room for misinterpretation there is that as we go back and look at previous months, it is coming to our attention that more jobs were created than previously thought.

2. Yes, the unemployment numbers are not perfect. But keep in mind that some of the people no longer actively seeking work should not be counted (retirement, full-time students, etc). The numbers are not as skewed as you might think. To say that it is possible that these numbers could exist without a single job having been created is what's "science fiction."
3. Also keep in mind that a lot of adjustments are done to these numbers. Many of the people who allegedly dropped off the radar are the result of  population adjustments. The BLS has been consistent in how it analyzes unemployment. Not only are you right that the unemployment numbers are likely higher than outlined by the data, but unemployment numbers are likely always higher than outlined by the data. Every independent economic analysis of jobs and the economy in this country shows improving conditions. To argue that things are just as bad as before Obama shows me that you believe what you want despite the evidence all around you.​I do not mean to say that the economy is no longer an issue. There's still a long way to go. It will be years before we are back to where we were pre-recession. People are still struggling. But things are better. And the evidence shows that things will continue to get better if Obama stays in office and is able to implement more of his economic recovery policies. Overall, the Republicans' plan would merely increase tax cuts to the rich, which most economists say would have no effect on the economy, and in an effort to reduce the deficit, make cuts that would actually hurt the economy. As you can see below, the best ways to help the economy are things Obama wants to do. The most insignificant ways to help the economy are Republican priorities:​


----------



## Thanatos Telos (Mar 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


People could've died too, just saying.
EDIT:NVM


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> 2. Yes, the unemployment numbers are not perfect. But keep in mind that some of the people no longer actively seeking work should not be counted (retirement, full-time students, etc). The numbers are not as skewed as you might think. To say that it is possible that these numbers could exist without a single job having been created is what's "science fiction."


I've skim-read your post, however this part just stands out to me. I'll give you a pleasant mathematical equation to prove that you are in fact wrong - "435000 * 0,4 / 315000 = 0,28 (...)". In the example I gave earlier, unemployment dropped from 9 to 8,6% within a month due to the fact that 120,000 new "jobs" were created and 315,000 people left the workforce. Altogether, these 435,000 people affected the state of matters by 0,4 per cent. Provided that NO new jobs would have been created, zero, zilch, nil and 315,000 people would choose to retire, study, emigrate or leave the workforce in any other fashion, we would see a 0,28% decrease of unemployment rates while not a single soul would actually get a job. It's not science fiction, it's what's going on.

The great majority of your so-called "improvements" as far as employment is concerned are virtually non-existant. I'll comment on your post in more detail later today, right now I could only skim-read.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> 1:
> The problem with the regulations that the federal government puts in place, gets destroyed by the medicinal industry and the FDA.
> Both have given the green light, allowing dangerous drugs to be put in medicine and food, only so the large companies can get profit.
> Take for instance Aspartame, a sugar substitute in all diet products and even in regular sugar gum.
> ...


What Ron Paul argues is that things like the FDA should be destroyed or made powerless, allowing the large companies to decide what's acceptable to put on the market. By your logic, Ron Paul is wrong.



Libertarian94 said:


> 2:
> Thats where the states come in!
> If a state find that a department is neccesary, they are allowed to set up a state ''counterpart'' i believe its called.


Imagine a world where states created their own FDA systems (except not federal obviously). Let's say my home state of Missouri sets one up. Businesses might see that and decide to go to Iowa, which hypothetically doesn't have a state FDA system in place. In order to bring back business, Missouri gets rid of its FDA lookalike. The end result is that no states have FDA lookalike systems, and businesses are allowed to do whatever they want, despite the consequences to peoples' health, the environment, etc. There are just some things that the federal government should be in charge of. You wouldn't make military a state thing, would you?



Libertarian94 said:


> 3:
> Gold and Silver can't be printed so the government can't create departments it won't be able to finance, and thus destroying debt.
> And its a much more solid alternative, compared to the fed.
> The FED operates in total secrecy. No one is allowed to see the FED's document.
> Not the congress, not the president, not the C.I.A, not the F.B.I, not even the Supreme Court!


I agree that inflation is an issue, but it is a lot less of an issue that Ron Paul makes it out to be. Likewise, there is no evidence one way or the other that switching to the gold standard and abolishing the FED would have any effect on the economy.



Libertarian94 said:


> 4:
> I live in denmark, and where one of the countries in the world, that pays most taxes, and trust me, it destroys the market.
> People prefer drive all the way to germany, due to taxes on our food and so on.
> A glass of jam in germany cost only the quarter of what it does in denmark.
> And a lot of families drive in extremely polluting cars from the 80's due to modern and more envirionment friendly cars are skyhigh in prices due to registration taxes.


Obama doesn't want to increase taxes on the middle class. If anything, Republicans do. They threatened to let the payroll tax cut for the middle class expire. Some of them want to create a national sales tax that disproportionately hurts the middle class more than it hurts the rich.



Libertarian94 said:


> Im all for punishing wall st.
> But i don't mind people making a buck for being innovative and leading a good buisness.
> You must remember that moneymasters at the top of the pyramid won't get what they deserve if you increase their taxes.
> Because they will just order the politicians who are bought and sold, to pass more laws, that will involve more regulation, and thus more debt, printing more money, devaluing the currency.


Regulations exist because there is nothing else to stop corporations from, say, destroying the environment. Obama wants people to be innovative. He's not punishing that. But the United States is about paying one's fair share. Just one's fair share. That's all. Unfortunately, the Republicans, Ron Paul included, pander to the rich and worry more about decreasing the taxes of the rich than decreasing the taxes of the middle class. Likewise, the Republicans threaten to allow taxes on the middle class to go up in an effort to get what they want. The rich should pay their fair share. Data has shown time and time again that tax benefits to the rich do not help the economy. Trickle-down economics does not work.



Libertarian94 said:


> PS: Sorry for the late response


It's all good, bro.

It should be worth noting here that Ron Paul has virtually no chance of becoming the Republican nominee for president. It will likely be Obama vs. Romney, with there being a slim chance of it being Obama vs. Santorum.




Foxi4 said:


> I've skim-read your post, however this part just stands out to me. I'll give you a pleasant mathematical equation to prove that you are in fact wrong - "435000 * 0,4 / 315000 = 0,28 (...)". In the example I gave earlier, unemployment dropped from 9 to 8,6% within a month due to the fact that 120,000 new "jobs" were created and 315,000 people left the workforce. Altogether, these 435,000 people affected the state of matters by 0,4 per cent. Provided that NO new jobs would have been created, zero, zilch, nil and 315,000 people would choose to retire, study, emigrate or leave the workforce in any other fashion, we would see a 0,28% decrease of unemployment rates while not a single soul would actually get a job. It's not science fiction, it's what's going on.
> 
> The great majority of your so-called "improvements" as far as employment is concerned are virtually non-existant. I'll comment on your post in more detail later today, right now I could only skim-read.


I understand what you're trying to say. However, your logic is flawed:

1. The private sector has added 2.3 million new jobs since March 2010. Upon further reflection, that number has very likely been amended to be slightly higher, but I don't have that data in front of me.

2. In one year, Obama created more private sector jobs than Bush did in eight years. These aren't relative numbers that could have been skewed because people are retiring or what-have-you. These are actual numbers reported by the actual private sector.

3. There are fewer net jobs available now than there were when Obama took office. But the stimulus has caused there to be consistent increases in private sector jobs. That's a fact. Despite the flaws you might see in how unemployment data was collected, what we know as fact about private sector job additions coincides with the improving unemployment numbers collected by the BLS.

4. Many of the jobs having still been lost after the stimulus were public sector jobs. Roughly 600,000, actually. And this is much in part due to the cuts caused by the Republicans and their poor attempts at deficit reduction. Simply put, Obama has a good record when it comes to jobs and the economy; the only thing Republicans have really done of the jobs and the economy, even recently, is hammer away at it.

5. Considering what we know about economics, the numbers collected by the BLS, the auto industry bailout, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the HIRE Act, the Education Jobs Act and Medicaid Assistance Act, and the Small Business Jobs Act, to say that Obama has not helped improve the economy and jobs is, well, foolish. No offense, but I'm trying to figure out why you're not looking it this from an objective point-of-view. I live in Missouri, so many of the conservatives I know fail at defending conservative economic positions (which aren't really worthy of defending). Most of the time, they've made up their minds about social issues and then just live in a bubble where conservatism and Fox News are right about the economy, and Obama is wrong despite the facts.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm looking at the situation from a very objective point of view precisely because I am remote from the United States, as much as it's humanly possible. I look at the situation from afar, and trust me, when you distance yourself from a given situation, you get to fit more its aspects within your horizon. You beautifuly sugar-coat what you believe in by simply adding "since March", magically multiplying the numbers sky high while I specifically chose one month to show you a trend. People didn't make a nation-wide agreement that they're going to quit on November - they're quitting monthly.

I honestly think that our two perspectives are vastly different and it's impossible for us to find a common ground since what you acknowledge as Obama's influence on the economy I call coincidence. What you call dragging the nation out of depression I call the natural order of things and the consequence of the market stabilizing itself like it did after every single crash in history, with or without stimulus.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm looking at the situation from a very objective point of view precisely because I am remote from the United States, as much as it's humanly possible. I look at the situation from afar, and trust me, when you distance yourself from a given situation, you get to fit more its aspects within your horizon. You beautifuly sugar-coat what you believe in by simply adding "since March", magically multiplying the numbers sky high while I specifically chose one month to show you a trend. People didn't make a nation-wide agreement that they're going to quit on November - they're quitting monthly.
> 
> I honestly think that our two perspectives are vastly different and it's impossible for us to find a common ground since what you acknowledge as Obama's influence on the economy I call coincidence. What you call dragging the nation out of depression I call the natural order of things and the consequence of the market stabilizing itself like it did after every single crash in history, with or without stimulus.


I understand what you mean. However, if you look at the data, statistically, it is highly improbable that the stimulus and other Obama factors had little or no influence on the economic improvements. It's like global warming. Sure, there is a chance that the climate change we are witnessing is natural. But based on what we know about carbon dioxide and its effect on global temperature, the historical amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and its correlation with global temperatures, it is statistically significant that one had that effect on the other. Science, whether it's climate science or even economics, is all about variables, correlation, causal relationships, and statistical significance. Based on the data, it is highly improbable that what we have seen with the United States economy is coincidence; to say "Obama's policies had a positive influence on the economy" is a factually correct statement.


----------



## sputnix (Mar 7, 2012)

if I where an american citizen I would probably vote for obama for president and ron paul for the republican nominee.
Why, well Gingrich is just a dispicable person [left his first wife who payed for his university tuition on her deathbed when she had cancer for example]
Romney is a liar who says he fights for the middle class but is really in it to save the upper class [who fund him BTW] millions of tax dollars [his tax plan saves him $4 million]
Santorum is just a batshit insane right wing christian fundamentalist who changed his character and sold himself out as a lobbyist to become the ultimate right wing republican and surprisingly it's working [though his horrendous views on contraception will most likely be his downfall]
Ron Paul has the least negatives about him but is so far out he isn't going to win
Obama is good but is too much of a pussy in office, the reason he isn't passing laws he promised and raising taxes on the rich isn't because Bush fucked up America so much or the amount of Republicans in the senate it's just he has no balls he spends more time making bills that he thinks the Republicans would be O.K. with but they always and will always fight them as that's all they want to do even if they would have created the same bill it's all about making Obama look bad. All of this was proven when leaked Obama memos where released here's a video explaining them [kinda long but worth it if you actually care about politics]
[yt]BJDfzoh9-rA[/yt]


----------



## Clydefrosch (Mar 7, 2012)

honestly, I'd rather have you all vote for obama once more. considering the situation he started with and the sticks that republicans threw in his way, he did more than good.

not to say everything he ever did was the right thing, but things would probably be much worse if he hadnt been president.


----------



## Foxi4 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at the situation from a very objective point of view precisely because I am remote from the United States, as much as it's humanly possible. I look at the situation from afar, and trust me, when you distance yourself from a given situation, you get to fit more its aspects within your horizon. You beautifuly sugar-coat what you believe in by simply adding "since March", magically multiplying the numbers sky high while I specifically chose one month to show you a trend. People didn't make a nation-wide agreement that they're going to quit on November - they're quitting monthly.
> ...


I never said that Obama did not influence the state of matters, what I said was that this influence is sluggish. So sluggish in fact that the market adjusts itself naturally at a higher rate then Obama's administration is capable to stimulate it. I can see certain merits of his presidency but from the perspective of a foreigner I really don't think that enough was done in order to pull the U.S out of the depression, not to mention that I disagree that the debt "was fully inherited" from Bush's administration - Obama's new legislature generated it for the most part. After all, economical stimulus does not come cheap.

I can see the merits of extending his presidency however I would much rather see someone else on his seat. Obama is a typical "People's President" - he doesn't really "do" much, but he looks pretty on photos and people love him to bits.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I never said that Obama did not influence the state of matters, what I said was that this influence is sluggish. So sluggish in fact that the market adjusts itself naturally at a higher rate then Obama's administration is capable to stimulate it.


So basically, you're saying that the Obama presidency had little or no effect on the economy, which is absolutely not true. All leading economists agree that we would be in a lot worse of a situation if it hadn't been for Obama's policies. In fact, as I've already mentioned, more should have been done, but Obama had to appease the Republican moderates in order to get it through.



Foxi4 said:


> I can see certain merits of his presidency but from the perspective of a foreigner I really don't think that enough was done in order to pull the U.S out of the depression, not to mention that I disagree that the debt "was fully inherited" from Bush's administration - Obama's new legislature generated it for the most part. After all, economical stimulus does not come cheap.


What's your opinion about Obama's impact on the debt and what is fact are two entirely different things. Numbers don't lie in this case. ~43% of the current United States debt was the direct result of George W. Bush. ~17% of the current debt was Obama, and roughly 80% of that was economic recovery. You can't choose to ignore those numbers. Likewise, you can't say that Obama has racked up too much debt yet argue that not enough was done to stimulate the economy. They contradict each other.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > 1:
> ...




1. Actually, No.
Science would get taken care of by the free market, making it impossible for government to lobby the food and drug industry, since the government no longer took care of scientific decisions.
But yes, it would allow the market to push their products out legally, no matter what they contain.
And if a corporation decided to put, for instance,  Mercury in their soft drinks, people wouldn't buy it, and then the company would collapse.
Compare that to what there is now, where large corporations gets different dangourus chemicals approved as being safe, due to lobbying.

- http://www.alternet.org/story/137551/how_big_pharma_distorts_science_to_get_fda_approval_for_dangerous_drugs/
- http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/lies-and-deception-how-the-fda-does-not-protect-your-best-interests

2. Thats how the free market functions.
If i have a desire to tax some people because of their buisness or how much income they get, i can't ignore the fact that people will try to work around it.
My country for instance has lost a lot of jobs to neighboor-countries, due to our taxation.
If i make a dime more than 68.917.41 USD a year, i have to pay 60% in taxes.
Its only natural that it would want me to move to another country, from a logical perspective.

3. Watch this short 30-minute documentary and tell me that the Fed isn't a large issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGk5ioEXlIM

4. When you start going down the taxation road, you will eventually hurt the middle class.
And lets not forget that the Fed's prints money like it were toilet paper, and that means that the middle class gets poorer, and the thus, gets punished.
And when you start taxing all corporations that make a lot of money to finance your public sector (whether its health care, military etc.) some of the people will move their buisness to another country,
And thats when you'll end up at crossroads, because, you can then either A: Tax the buisness owners further, B: Tax both the middle class, the poor, and the rich trough taxes on food etc. or
C: you can start cutting spending to get the corporations back (And JOBS!).

5.. But the regulations don't work when the people that are supposed to regulate is bought and paid for, by lobbyists and corporations.


But yeah, i know, Paul ain't got a big chance, which saddens someone, and makes others cheer.
But you americans could at least try to find someone with his foreign policy then, because a lot of countries around don't want the U.S policing their very move  .


----------



## nando (Mar 7, 2012)

obama. hope he stops bending over for the reps


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

" It should be worth noting here that Ron Paul has virtually no chance of becoming the Republican nominee for president. It will likely be Obama vs. Romney, with there being a slim chance of it being Obama vs. Santorum." 
Or Obama vs. Gingrich lol


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> 1. Actually, No.
> Science would get taken care of by the free market, making it impossible for government to lobby the food and drug industry, since the government no longer took care of scientific decisions.
> But yes, it would allow the market to push their products out legally, no matter what they contain.
> And if a corporation decided to put, for instance,  Mercury in their soft drinks, people wouldn't buy it, and then the company would collapse.
> Compare that to what there is now, where large corporations gets different dangourus chemicals approved as being safe, due to lobbying.


The FDA prevents companies from selling you harmful things. Without the FDA, they could put whatever they want into your products. You argue that the free market would take care of that, but even with the FDA, you argue that harmful things are getting through, and yet the free market does not do anything about it either. By your logic, the free market system does not work when it comes to protecting the consumer. Here in Missouri, we had a ballot issue about banning puppy mills. Many conservatives argued that the free market would get rid of puppy mills. If people don't like what puppy mills do, they can just not buy from them and they would go out of business. However, without the government stepping in and putting restrictions on puppy mills, the free market wasn't doing anything about it. Time and time again, we have seen that the free market often times does not work when it comes to protecting the interests of those without lobbyists (middle class citizens, the environment, puppies, etc).



Libertarian94 said:


> 2. Thats how the free market functions.
> If i have a desire to tax some people because of their buisness or how much income they get, i can't ignore the fact that people will try to work around it.
> My country for instance has lost a lot of jobs to neighboor-countries, due to our taxation.
> If i make a dime more than 68.917.41 USD a year, i have to pay 60% in taxes.
> Its only natural that it would want me to move to another country, from a logical perspective.


When it comes to taxing the rich, the United States taxes are some of the lowest in the world. One of the things Obama wants to do is make it so people making more than $250,000 a year pay a little more in taxes. It's definitely not unreasonable. It's pretty much the same tax rate they paid during the Clinton administration. The Republicans, however, want to drop taxes without paying for them. However, while they want to cut middle class taxes a wee bit, they want to cut the taxes of the super rich substantially. Ron Paul wants to get rid of middle class taxes completely and have the super rich pay very little, which is highly impractical, unless you have a powerless government that doesn't do anything.

That state of taxes in your country and the state of taxes if Obama and the Democrats got their way are two completely different things. The system proposed by Obama is extremely fair. In fact, when polled, roughly 60-70% of citizens think the rich should pay slightly higher taxes.



Libertarian94 said:


> 3. Watch this short 30-minute documentary and tell me that the Fed isn't a large issue:
> [**snip**]


Sorry, that's too long. I'll pass.



Libertarian94 said:


> 4. When you start going down the taxation road, you will eventually hurt the middle class.
> And lets not forget that the Fed's prints money like it were toilet paper, and that means that the middle class gets poorer, and the thus, gets punished.


I agree that inflation is an issue, but not so much an issue that we need to switch over to gold. We've got more pressing issues. Besides, the value of gold is more unstable than one might think. Likewise, Ron Paul exaggerates the percent inflation of the US dollar and flat-out lies.



Libertarian94 said:


> And when you start taxing all corporations that make a lot of money to finance your public sector (whether its health care, military etc.) some of the people will move their buisness to another country,
> And thats when you'll end up at crossroads, because, you can then either A: Tax the buisness owners further, B: Tax both the middle class, the poor, and the rich trough taxes on food etc. or
> C: you can start cutting spending to get the corporations back (And JOBS!).


Corporations benefit from being in the United States. They use the roads to transport goods. They benefit from living in a society where crooks aren't allowed to just walk in and steal from them, using the protection of the police and whatnot. Suffice it to say, corporations benefit greatly from the federal government and are allowed to be prosperous. It is only fair that they pay taxes. Corporate taxes are extremely low in the United States. The latest proposal from the Obama administration actually lowers that rate even further while also getting rid of a few loopholes. Tax cuts have also been proposed as an inventive to keep corporations hiring workers in the United States. It's not like the federal government wants to take all of the profits from corporations. Just a fair amount. They will still make record profits like they have been. No one really has the right to complain.



NeoSupaMario said:


> Or Obama vs. Gingrich lol


Gringrich's chances are so low that it is fair to say that he will not get the nomination. Santorum's chances are also low, but not so low that I can say that he won't get it. The only thing Gingrich is causing by staying in the race is that he's causing more delegates to go to Mitt Romney. If Gingrich were to drop out of the race, more delegates would go to Santorum.

And Ron Paul has no chance. I've heard that he's manipulating the potential brokered convention system in order to get delegates, but no one really thinks it's going to work out.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

I think Gingrich still has a chance. If he wins the next primary, he has a shot.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I think Gingrich still has a chance. If he wins the next primary, he has a shot.



He'd need to win the next _5_ primaries to be seriously considered. That's not going to happen.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I think Gingrich still has a chance. If he wins the next primary, he has a shot.


Gingrich is wildly unpopular. He got one state during his last popularity surge and his home state; that's not very much. Sure, it's still possible for Gingrich to win the nomination, but he would have to win a lot more states in the future, and he's not expected to, especially the ones with big potential delegate gains. Pretty much everything that counts is expected to go either Romney's way or Santorum's way. It'll still likely be Romney though.

You might as well count Gingrich out.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Note the lol at the end of that statement.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Note the lol at the end of that statement.


The poll says you're a Gingrich supporter. I assumed you were serious.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

I was but he's fallen too far behind to win... *sigh* time to go with second best.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I was but he's fallen too far behind to win... *sigh* time to go with second best.


In your opinion, who is the second best?


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

I don't mean to offend you, Lacius,, but... Anyone except Paul or Obama.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I don't mean to offend you, Lacius,, but... Anyone except Paul or Obama.


I don't take offense. I don't mean to offend you either, but why do you want Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum when their plans are just to slash taxes for the rich and hope for the best? Since Gingrich is essentially out, I'll hold off on my criticisms of Gingrich's problems with ethics. But Romney appears to be an out-of-touch multimillionaire, and Santorum appears to want to return us to the 19th century. They're also against contraception, people having health care, etc. In all honesty, Obama appears to be the only adult among the lot.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Actually, No.
> ...




1. Regulation works as well as prohibition.
Meaning that it don't. But yes, of course there would be dangerous substances in the free market, but people would be told and become aware of the dangers there are to using those different
substances, whereas FDA lobbyies and claims that dangerous substances not only are safe, but healthy too.
We must remember that even if people became of aware the dangers of aspartame, there would still be someone who would buy it, and prefer it, since it doesn't contain sugar.
I can personally advocate against the use, but i can't prohibit people from it.
I myself am a vegetarian, but does that mean, that i should protect you from eating meat, because its linked to a lot of different cancers?
- No, right?

2. I however believe Pauls plan would work.
You remove the taxes from the middle class = They get more for themselves = People would work more, and harder.
At the same cutting the taxes for the rich would mean the different buisnesses/factories etc would get into the U.S, if you of course at the same time cut some of the federal regulation, that is incredibly
corrupt anyway.

3. It's cool, I'll just post a Jefferson quote then:
''I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then
by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.''

4: I guess you'll win this one..
I'll agree immediatly, that it does not seem to be a large tax raise, unless you are a really really huge american brand.
But i don't know what Coca Cola, Converse, Levis´, McDonalds etc. makes a year, so i can't really, argue against your point... yet that is  .
- I off course still find the gold standard an important issue which is explained detailed in the documentary i linked to earlier.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > I don't mean to offend you, Lacius,, but... Anyone except Paul or Obama.
> ...


Actually I think Romneys the second best. I don't like some of his ideas, but what I really want to have happen is that he can get rid of Americas debt. I like some of Santorums ideas better, but I think he lacks experience. Just like pokemon, if you don't have enough experience, you can't do well against opponets or issues. And just in case anybody's wondering why I don't go for Paul, it's cause he's to isolationist and some of his ideas are pretty wack-o. What happened the last few times we went with isolationist presidents? The world wars broke out.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> 1. Regulation works as well as prohibition.
> Meaning that it don't. But yes, of course there would be dangerous substances in the free market, but people would be told and become aware of the dangers there are to using those different
> substances, whereas FDA lobbyies and claims that dangerous substances not only are safe, but healthy too.
> We must remember that even if people became of aware the dangers of aspartame, there would still be someone who would buy it, and prefer it, since it doesn't contain sugar.
> ...


No. It is the role of the government to, for example, prohibit things that are detrimental to the environment. It has been proposed that hydraulic fracturing has been linked to flammable water supplies. If these companies had it their way, they would use the most toxic of chemicals for their hydraulic fracturing. The free market is not going to stop that because most people don't know or don't care. The small number of citizens who now have flammable water are the ones who suffer, and their voice is not strong enough to do anything about it. That's where the federal government comes in.



Libertarian94 said:


> 2. I however believe Pauls plan would work.
> You remove the taxes from the middle class = They get more for themselves = People would work more, and harder.
> At the same cutting the taxes for the rich would mean the different buisnesses/factories etc would get into the U.S, if you of course at the same time cut some of the federal regulation, that is incredibly
> corrupt anyway.


Again, the cuts proposed by Ron Paul would reduce GDP by 7% and cause another recession. Likewise, it would hurt the poor (getting rid of food stamps and aid for feeding children), he would cripple medicare, etc. The federal government also invests in new technologies, and Ron Paul would cut that as well. He would argue that the private sector is where new technologies come from, and he's right, but government funding has led to many innovations throughout history, but Ron Paul is too senile to care. Ron Paul is also too senile to understand that invasive government mandated sonograms for women seeking abortions is big government, not small government.



NeoSupaMario said:


> Actually I think Romneys the second best. I don't like some of his ideas, but what I really want to have happen is that he can get rid of Americas debt. I like some of Santorums ideas better, but I think he lacks experience. Just like pokemon, if you don't have enough experience, you can't do well against opponets or issues. And just in case anybody's wondering why I don't go for Paul, it's cause he's to isolationist and some of his ideas are pretty wack-o. What happened the last few times we went with isolationist presidents? The world wars broke out.


The tax plans of Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich would *all* increase the federal debt by trillions. That's what happens when you slash taxes for the very wealthy without paying for them. While they propose spending cuts, they're aren't even enough to offset even the tax cuts they propose.

If you are worried about the federal debt, Obama and Paul are your only viable options, and we know what Ron Paul's economic policies would do to the federal government and the economy.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

Edit: Double post.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Regulation works as well as prohibition.
> ...




1. Thats a question about private property.
As long the buisness does it within its own land, and makes sure it doesn't spread to others pieces of land, there is no case.

2.  If government spending/borrowing held the economy above water, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed, and countries like Italy and Greece wouldn't be in trouble.
Government spending does not create any profit, because the money comes from the taxpayers.
So if Paul cutted the spending/taxes, that very money that he cutted would end up in the american peoples pocket.
And then the people would spend the money in the private sector.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 7, 2012)

I'm still on the Cain Train
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68TX9LpOrco


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
> Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
> Santorum: not enough experience
> Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
> ...



Romney: Flip-flopper who does not know if he's for or against abortion, and the one who created the blueprint for Obamacare  .

And Paul's idea is not isolationism, He wants to trade with countries and be friends with countries, he does not however want to interviene in countries and tell them how they're supposed to live  .


----------



## Lacius (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I also don't want the space program to be cut either.


You and me both, but other than Gingrich's silly "moon colony as the 51st state" business, I don't think you're going to find anyone willing to leave NASA alone during this "fix the deficit" period. And honestly, if the deficit is as big a problem as you say, you should be okay with sacrificing some space cuts.



NeoSupaMario said:


> And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all.


The United States military is disgustingly big. Obama's cuts to defense are minimal. The federal government does three big things: medicare, social security, and defense. If you want to talk about trimming the deficit, you're going to have to cut defense, especially with it being as wasteful as it is. Even with Obama's proposed cuts, it is still disgustingly big. Don't feel vulnerable.



NeoSupaMario said:


> Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
> Santorum: not enough experience
> Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
> Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
> Romney is the last one standing.


Let me amend that for you:

Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas *some really bad ideas*.

Santorum: not enough experience, *wants to add trillions to the debt, and wants contraception to be illegal*.

Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls, *isn't electable, has ethics issues, wants to add trillions to the debt, and has crazy ideas such as child janitors and states on the moon.*

Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship. *Obama is not a dictator nor a communist. Please support those points if you want me to respond to them, because they're baseless and I don't know where to begin other than to say that he's just not.*

Romney is the last one standing *wants to add trillions to the debt, flip-flops on every major issue, doesn't sit well with most voters (most consider him out of touch), has a very low approval rating, conservatives might not like that he basically invented RomneyCare/ObamaCare, and doesn't care about the poor and thinks they're already well-off due to safety nets.*


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Mar 7, 2012)

emigre said:


> Obama because he would do the least worst job.



/thread

Really, this is practically the only point that needs to be made.

If you want a nation ran by complete asshats then vote for one of the Republicans. It's too bad that Huntsman had to quit because the Republican party is full of retards.

Although, it could be said that in the past month or so, Obama has been doing a fantastic job.

I'm looking forward to the presidential debates this year. I've heard that Obama ran LAPS around McCain, who is a great speaker. Any of the current candidates will surely be destroyed. It should be entertaining for me.

EDIT: I'm quite aware of the ad-hominems here, but when there are still a huge number of people who refuse to believe Obama was born here, despite the evidence, that's a sign of party idiocy. If one truly thinks Obama is a socialist, that person is probably an idiot. Obama is basically Eisenhower when compared to FDR, a true progressive.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 7, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
> ...


Yeah, Paul wants to trade free market slave labor goods for shiny gold.  I sure do love all my Chinese shit.  God bless leaders like Ron Paul.  Just let the slave children bodies pile up to the sky, and we can sled down them with products made from the next wave of slave kids


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

yuyuyup said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...



If you send money to china, they don't put it in a shoebox.
They're going to spend it.
Unfortunately they are buying america's debt and consumerism.
But there's a benefit, because those dollars come back.
Also, when you get products, and buy products cheaper from China.
Lets say a computer costs 100 dollars instead of 1000 dollars.
A person would then spare 900 dollars, and that helps the economy, because the last 900 dollars stays in that persons pocket.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 7, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> yuyuyup said:
> 
> 
> > Libertarian94 said:
> ...


Exactly, that's some good ol' fashioned slave labor.  As long as it helps out the USA, those Chinese can tough out the lax workplace regulations, etc.  It's all about the American dream.  I wonder if I should threaten suicide to get a raise, like when those Chinese Foxxconn workers threatened mass suicide to improve work conditions.  I mean, it's only fair, right ?  That's free trade.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
> Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
> Santorum: not enough experience
> Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
> ...


I think I'll reply to this one in particular.

Paul: Proof of isolationism? Removing the military threat we have on the world is not isolationism. Check out his anti-war ad, and pay attention to his point when he starts saying he's not an isolationist. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjK0YNBBTaQ

Santorum: Really. This is his flaw. This is what's holding you back from voting for him. 

What about his support of Christian ideology becoming law? His anti-intellectualism? His anti-China feelings? His jingoism? Basically, Santorum himself?

Gingrich: I really don't want to get into Gingrich.

Obama: [citation needed][critical thought required]

Romney: Flip-flopper. Dishonest. Unrepresentative of the people. Anti-intellectual (for the masses).


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

yuyuyup said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > yuyuyup said:
> ...



Well, If you don't like it, you can reject supporting it, by not buying any products made in China.
But remember, by boycotting China, you aren't starving the dictators, but the poor workers that barely get anything for starters.
I don't like the way animals are treated in slaugtherhouses, so i don't eat meat, but i can't force my moral-beliefs down upon others.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 7, 2012)

Uncle FEFL said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
> ...


Yeah I really liked that video but his views on other issues killed him for me.
Obama it is for me.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
> Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
> Santorum: not enough experience
> Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
> ...


What's wrong with all of you!!! Does anyone actually know what communism is?????? Obama is not even a liberal, he's a moderate. A goddamn moderate!!!!! I would like him soooooooo much more if he was actually a liberal.
Here you go NeoSupaMario
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 7, 2012)

My science teacher once got so pissed off when of his teacher friends who hes known for years called Obama socialist.
He pretty much destroyed all of the republican candidates as unprepared or just really really stupid.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't want the space program to be cut either.
> ...


I'm sorry. I don't know what I was doing when I typed about Obama being a dictator... I don't really know where that came from. But from my perspective, it looks as if he wants everyone to be perfectly equal no matter what. Meaning that if one guy goes to work and works his ass off while another guy stays at home and just watches tv, they'll get paid the same wage. That's what I understand communism to be, and (no offense) I don't think that's fair. (assuming that both guys are equally strong and capable; it's a different case if the guy who didn't work was too old/young and/or crippled.)


----------



## smile72 (Mar 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


That's not what he's for and that's not really communism.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 7, 2012)

smile72 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
> ...



However, Obama have pushed for different types of legislation that might be seen as communist.
Look up the Cybersecurity act, that would give the white house control over the american internet.
Look up the NDAA bill, that allows the President to order the assasination of a U.S citizen WITHOUT trial.

That's total government control, which usually gets assosiated with communism .


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


It's these kinds of wack-o things that make me dislike obama.
P.S. Thanks for the backup, Libertarian94


----------



## smile72 (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Regardless he's still not a communist.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


And yet you support Romney.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

I didn't mean that I thought he was a communist; I meant that I thought he was trying to change the government from a democratic system to a communist-TYPE system. 
And I don't really support Romney, I just think he's second best to Gingrich.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I didn't mean that I thought he was a communist; I meant that I thought he was trying to change the government from a democratic system to a communist-TYPE system.


Obamacare is not even similar to Canada's socialized medicine.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

??? I never said it was.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> ??? I never said it was.


Then what has he been doing that has made you think he's turning our democracy toward communism.


----------



## Flame (Mar 8, 2012)

im not from the states, so i dont know what happened, BUT what happened to Sarah Palin. isn't she not in the running?


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

I already said. He's trying to make everyone perfectly equal. For example: there are 2 guys with the same age and same capabilities. One goes to work and works his ass off. The other stays home and watches tv. They both get paid the same wage.
It's not as bad as that yet, but if Obama gets another 4 years to screw thongs up, I think it will happen. 
EDIT: I was talking to smile72


----------



## smile72 (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I already said. He's trying to make everyone perfectly equal. For example: there are 2 guys with the same age and same capabilities. One goes to work and works his ass off. The other stays home and watches tv. They both get paid the same wage.
> It's not as bad as that yet, but if Obama gets another 4 years to screw *things* up, I think it will happen.
> EDIT: I was talking to smile72



Yeah, that will never happen. That is completely delusional.


----------



## yuyuyup (Mar 8, 2012)

Flame said:


> im not from the states, so i dont know what happened, BUT what happened to Sarah Palin. isn't she not in the running?


She never joined the race but she heavily teased she would last year


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

smile72 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > I already said. He's trying to make everyone perfectly equal. For example: there are 2 guys with the same age and same capabilities. One goes to work and works his ass off. The other stays home and watches tv. They both get paid the same wage.
> ...


It's just my opinion. You can disagree with it, but I am NOT dillousional.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...



Protip: The president didn't propose these laws. The REPUBLICAN Congress did. Although, the blame isn't totally theirs--because the Democrats also voted for these two types of laws.

The government, that is, Congress, wants control. Not the president. In fact, Obama did something fairly clever with the NDAA bill: 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/03/1070450/--Obama-just-Vetoed-Indefinite-Military-Detention-in-NDAA?via=siderec

Excellent insight into why this move was smart from a commenter on reddit: 

"Great. Obama resisted using a pointless veto which would have been overturned by Congress anyways and would have led to him being attacked for vetoing money to the troops.

Instead he used the threat of the veto to gut the bill of some of its worst provisions while also insuring that he would have greater leeway in enforcing other troubling provisions. Then he used this leeway to effectively nullify the troubling riders to the budget.

He has basically avoiding a needless political hissy fit over the defense budget while outmaneuvering Congress and defusing a policy bomb set by Republicans. This is why this man is president and the armchair politicians on Reddit are not.

EDIT: A post from Lawfare Blog on the matter: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/02/initial-comments-on-the-implementing-procedures-for-ndaa-section-1022/


Second EDIT:

The way I see it the president had 3 main options:

1) Veto the original bill. This would have led to a political pissing match over the defense budget and Congress would have likely overturned the veto and we would be stuck with a much worse bill. At best Obama would be able to negotiate a better version of the bill (which is what he actually did by threatening to veto.)

2) After winning his concessions he could have still vetoed the bill. This would understandably upset Congress and lead to a political bitch-fit and Congress may be so upset that they refuse to negotiate anymore and simply pass the original bill. At best Obama would have his concessions and a bill passed over his veto and would have weathered a needless political fight while damaging any remaining trust between the legislature and the executive.

3) What he did in actuality was win his concessions through the veto threat and then signed the bill with a signing statement. He then used the leeway in the bill to nullify many of the remaining trouble spots with minimal political fighting.

Basically the political system is pretty messed up but I believe Obama made the right decisions to ultimately prevent the worst riders to the budget being implented without a pointless political furor.

I know that some will say that even a symbolic veto would have been nice and that Obama should have done that. However as I implied in my second edit, I believe that a symbolic veto, although pleasing to many, would have quite likely done damage to the interest of improving actual policy."


----------



## smile72 (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


You can't even spell delusional. You have no foundation for that thought. That's like the birth certificate garbage, no foundation.

Edit:999 posts, only 1 left till 1000. Where should I post it???


----------



## Lacius (Mar 8, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> However, Obama have pushed for different types of legislation that might be seen as communist.
> Look up the Cybersecurity act, that would give the white house control over the american internet.
> Look up the NDAA bill, that allows the President to order the assasination of a U.S citizen WITHOUT trial.
> 
> That's total government control, which usually gets assosiated with communism .


See Uncle FEFL's post about how Obama did not support that provision in the NDAA bill and issued a signing statement.

Next you're going to tell us that the Affordable Care Act was a government takeover of health care, and that's communism.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 8, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > However, Obama have pushed for different types of legislation that might be seen as communist.
> ...



I said its assosiated with communism, due to it, being government control.
And If you look at facts Obama had ordered the assasination of an american citizen, before the bill was voted through.
Anwar al-awlaki was an american born citizen, which means the he had the right to a trial, yet his assasination was ordered by the Obama administration .
So i just assumed Obama would be all for this bill .

http://www.guardian....bs-barack-obama


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

smile72 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


its a joke.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


I don't believe you.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 8, 2012)

Eye dondt liek grammah nasiz.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 8, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> I said its assosiated with communism, due to it, being government control.
> And If you look at facts Obama had ordered the assasination of an american citizen, before the bill was voted through.
> Anwar al-awlaki was an american born citizen, which means the he had the right to a trial, yet his assasination was ordered by the Obama administration .
> So i just assumed Obama would be all for this bill .
> ...


Are you telling me that if someone is a threat of violent attack against the United States and cannot be captured, he or she should not be killed when there is no other alternative? You know very well that the NDAA amendment went as far as to say that these assassinations can take place on United States soil. I think it is unfair not to draw a distinction between the two.

Plus, Obama's views on the subject are clearly outlined in his signing statement.


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Mar 8, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> I said its assosiated with communism, due to it, being government control.
> And If you look at facts Obama had ordered the assasination of an american citizen, before the bill was voted through.
> Anwar al-awlaki was an american born citizen, which means the he had the right to a trial, yet his assasination was ordered by the Obama administration .
> So i just assumed Obama would be all for this bill .
> ...


It's not associated with communism. I implore you to look up what it is. Communism is an economic policy. A dictatorship is a government structure. Stop slapping on a negative and incorrect connotation onto a word undeserving of such criticism. Communism is not a bad word. Advocates of communism deserve to be heard, because communism has a great argument.

Clamoring for the status quo, on the other hand, does not. At least in my eyes. Conservatives everywhere are under the assumption that the world can stay the same. All conservatives really do is prolong change to the point where violence occurs. Social conservatism, to me, is dangerous for humanity. This has proven itself to me time and time again (1776, 1789, 1848, to name some of the biggest that I know).

Fiscal conservatism, though, has fairly valid arguments. This is why countries like the United States have "blue dog" voters--Democrats who are fiscally conservative, but socially progressive.

Indeed. I do not agree with such an action. Which is why I agreed with emigre's post on the front page: Obama is the lesser of two evils.

I defend Obama when people have invalid arguments against him.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

smile72 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Well, _someone _can't take a joke. 

Anyways, also say one thing you like about who you vote for and one thing you don't like about who you vote for.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 8, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...



I like Obama because he is not a bible thumping idiot (like Sanctorum). I don't like that he's "evolving" on gay marriage, he should just admit that he supports it.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 8, 2012)

Whoops, i apparently got my stuff messed up there, my bad.
I just assumed it to be assosiated communism when we look at what we've´previously critisized China for:
Internet regulation and Assasinations of people of your own nation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, however everybody knows that politicians kind of got a hang for saying things one day, and doing the opposite the next.
It does not change the fact that there was ordered the murder of an american citizen, no trial, no nothing.
Not even interrorgation to get some information from Awlaki.
And it weren't exactly like they tried to get him alive, i mean... they ordered a drone strike on him for crying out loud!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576307594129219756.html


----------



## Uncle FEFL (Mar 8, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> Whoops, i apparently got my stuff messed up there, my bad.
> I just assumed it to be assosiated communism when we look at what we've´previously critisized China for:
> Internet regulation and Assasinations of people of your own nation.


People are obviously wrong a lot of the time. Censorship of a market is not communism, CONTROL of it is. A dictatorship, like I said, is the reason for those things.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 8, 2012)

I Still find it kinda funny that the Obama Administration requested the NDAA bill, apparently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5Oo3gzj2oc


----------



## blahkamehameha (Mar 8, 2012)

I'd like to hear some reactions to Obama's ingenious idea of not agreeing to the pipeline project. I know he of course has some kind of messianic foreknowledge of how creating those thousands of jobs would have actually hurt us in the long run, so I'm thankful he's looking out for us...


----------



## Gahars (Mar 8, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> I'd like to hear some reactions to Obama's ingenious idea of not agreeing to the pipeline project. I know he of course has some kind of messianic foreknowledge of how creating those thousands of jobs would have actually hurt us in the long run, so I'm thankful he's looking out for us...



The president didn't outright oppose the plan; however, it was still in preliminary stages of design (like on issues of safety and prevention of spills). He asked that the issue be set aside until all the facts were known, but because the Republican party wanted to make this an election issue, their members in Congress pushed it through to force his hand. Obama smartly vetoed it; I think both sides of the political spectrum can agree that its better to use caution for a project like this, especially when the consequences down the road could be so severe.

Also, the idea that this pipeline would have added an incredible amount of jobs is little more than a fabrication; the actual number is much lower (Here is an interesting article on the matter). The overall effect on unemployment would have been minimal, at best.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

Yes. The pipeline may add jobs for awhile, but once it's done, those jobs will disappear.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 8, 2012)

blahkamehameha said:


> I'd like to hear some reactions to Obama's ingenious idea of not agreeing to the pipeline project. I know he of course has some kind of messianic foreknowledge of how creating those thousands of jobs would have actually hurt us in the long run, so I'm thankful he's looking out for us...




It is like telling people that they should go out and smash their windows, to get the glazing industry running.
Yes, GDP might go up, but it won't make people richer.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Mar 8, 2012)

I don't see an option for Vermin Supreme! I want my pony!


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 8, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> I don't see an option for Vermin Supreme! I want my pony!


I'm probably gonna get yelled at, but who's "Vernin Supreme"?


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 10, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see an option for Vermin Supreme! I want my pony!
> ...


I can't believe you.
Vermin Supreme is THE canidate.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 11, 2012)

So... Who is he?


----------



## Gahars (Mar 11, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> So... Who is he?



There's a website called Google...


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 12, 2012)

...


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

If Obama gets re-elected, this will be me:





CK THIS


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 15, 2012)

If Romney gets elected,this will be me:




CK THIS


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> So regardless of what you say Obama has not made the economy worse.... And if you're wondering he has done more than 'Obamacare' which actually a good thing


This is some pretty smelly 




Have a look at the chart below.




There's no line going down. Only up. If Obamas the wonder president you say he is, give me reason to believe that the economy hasn't gotten worse and has gotten better. And don't give me shit about how he had to clean up "Bush's mess," cuz if he was fixing it that line would be going down.


----------



## W.I.C.K.E.D. (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > So regardless of what you say Obama has not made the economy worse.... And if you're wondering he has done more than 'Obamacare' which actually a good thing
> ...


I will say that this chart doesn't accurately portray the entire picture though. Bush came into office under a surplus, where as Obama came into office with substantial debt, in a recession, and in time of war. Not to mention policies that Bush created increased the debt day by day from the first second Obama stepped foot into office. That's like me running the electric bill up insanely, then moving out, and fitting my roomate with the bill. Obama has increased the debt, but he has been in a position that not many can or would overcome. I'm not really a fan of politics or statistically arguing which president made it worse, but you have to logically look at the the whole picture and formulate your own opinions on the bullshit you find through media and the internet.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

Ok then. Here's another chart. 




note how much Obamas put on in his first term. No telling how much he'll add in his second term (if he gets a second term)


----------



## W.I.C.K.E.D. (Mar 15, 2012)

Yes, but like I said, he fell into a pair of pants with holes in the pockets. Our debt does gain interest, so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around, inevitably the debt does mathmatically have to increase. He does not create the budget, he does not solely decide it. The surge into afganistan played a major part in the debt occurred during his term as we were essentially more than doubling the amount of troops abroad.That is a lot of salaries that require imbursement. He was put into a hard position where it was either admit complete failure overseas and chalk up our losses, or take a risk and possibly get the original target that spurred the main cause of our accumulated debt. If your monthly income is...let's say, $1000 dollars. You hand me a credit card and I run up thousands of dollars in bills. Your monthly minimum payment then exceeds what you can afford to pay. The debt realistically can't be paid off or won't for a great deal of time. Now if by chance you accrue more debt in this time for whatever reason, of course it is going to seem like your budgeting skills are lacking moreso now than they were prior to you handing me that credit card (even though it was because of a situation I created for you).Bush made the debt substantial enough that it would be almost impossible to recover in a timely manner, and any debt added to that which was actually created during Obama's term by him is the reason I believe the numbers look like that. I could be wrong, but I believe it makes sense.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario, you have obviously made up your mind about Obama and the debt, regardless of the facts. Yes, the debt has gone up while Obama has been President. This is because we have a deficit. However, many of the Bush policies that were never paid for are still in effect, and they contribute the most to our growing debt.

Many conservatives often call foul when I bring this up, often times saying that they've had enough of liberals blaming Bush, but facts are facts. See below:






As you can see, the debt is going up under Obama; you are right about that. But it is not his policies doing it. See that sliver of light blue? That's the effect Obama policies have had on the debt, and it was mostly economic recovery. And here are some specific numbers for you:

Obama contributions to the current debt: ~1.4 trillion:
~800 billion from the Recovery Act.
~250 billion from the December 2010 middle class tax cut deal.
~400 billion from the HIRE Act, small business help, etc.

The Bush tax cuts contributed ~3 trillion to the current debt alone, and that's obviously going to keep going up if the Bush tax cuts continue. Republicans have the tendency to increase spending and cut taxes to the rich without paying for any of it. Mitt Romney, the likely Republican nominee, would cut taxes to the very rich without paying for it, increasing the debt ~3 trillion over the next 10 years.

If the debt is an important issue of yours, Obama is the only viable candidate.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2012)

W.I.C.K.E.D. said:


> Yes, but like I said, he fell into a pair of pants with holes in the pockets. Our debt does gain interest, so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around, inevitably the debt does mathmatically have to increase. He does not create the budget, he does not solely decide it. The surge into afganistan played a major part in the debt occurred during his term as we were essentially more than doubling the amount of troops abroad.That is a lot of salaries that require imbursement. He was put into a hard position where it was either admit complete failure overseas and chalk up our losses, or take a risk and possibly get the original target that spurred the main cause of our accumulated debt. If your monthly income is...let's say, $1000 dollars. You hand me a credit card and I run up thousands of dollars in bills. Your monthly minimum payment then exceeds what you can afford to pay. The debt realistically can't be paid off or won't for a great deal of time. Now if by chance you accrue more debt in this time for whatever reason, of course it is going to seem like your budgeting skills are lacking moreso now than they were prior to you handing me that credit card (even though it was because of a situation I created for you).Bush made the debt substantial enough that it would be almost impossible to recover in a timely manner, and any debt added to that which was actually created during Obama's term by him is the reason I believe the numbers look like that. I could be wrong, but I believe it makes sense.




If that were true, then Clinton's numbers would be shit too. But they're not. Things got turned around when he was President, and especially during his second term (Republicans controlled both houses of Congress IIRC, so welfare reform got pushed through among other things. Those were the Gingrich years as Speaker of the House.).

As for the surge in Afghanistan, that belongs to Obama. He campaigned on it, arguing that Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war and we weren't doing enough there. Bush didn't make him do it, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for his first two years and they hypocritically went in for it too after wringing their hands over Bush's military spending. Three years of escalation and a trillion down the hole, I don't see where we've accomplished anythingin Afghanistan. If anything, it's worse now. Obama should've gotten us out of Afghanistan from day one, not to mention keeping his promise to close Gitmo.

And FWIW I'm not a Republican. I'm a registered Democrat who also believes in fiscal responsibility and keeping the USA from sinking into default. Bush didn't do a good job, but Obama and the Congress we have now are only making it worse.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

W.I.C.K.E.D. said:


> so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around,


He said he did. "Change we can believe in" he said. Now it's more like


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2012)

Lacius,

the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of Obama's reign and renewed those "Bush" tax cuts. They are not "Bush" tax cuts anymore.


edit: and what's more, the cuts continue to this day because the Democrat controlled Senate hasn't passed a budget (despite being Constitutionally mandated to do so) for over three years, so the status quo spending just carries on.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Mar 15, 2012)

Mitt Romney, he's my boiiiiii!


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Bush didn't do a good job, but Obama and the Congress we have now are only making it worse.


FINALLY someone gets it!


----------



## W.I.C.K.E.D. (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> W.I.C.K.E.D. said:
> 
> 
> > so unless coming into office he had a plan to entirely turn the economy around,
> ...


You are right. He did. Easier said than done in most cases though.
@ Hanafuda. I highly doubt desert storm cost anything near what the current has, and I don't believe Bush seniors created debt was anywhere near what his sons was. So the current hurdle has probably been harder to overcome than it was for Clinton.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2012)

W.I.C.K.E.D. said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > W.I.C.K.E.D. said:
> ...




it doesn't matter. under Reagan and Bush 1, the debt increased substantially. Not as much as under Bush 2, but it still increased. And yet during the Clinton years we ran a NEGATIVE balance (i.e. we made progress against the debt). This proves that proper policies can pull things in the right direction. I don't care how much "Bush baggage" you want to use as your scapegoat, you can't justify an increase of 24% of total debt (that's all debt accrued by the USA from 1776 to 2009) in only two years and a half years, i.e from 2009 - June 2011 when that graph was made. Since almost another year has gone by the number is probably over 30% now, and we're still in Obama's first term.

edit: also, like I said above, where's the effort to do anything to turn things around anyway??? The Senate has kicked the can down the road for three years without passing a budget, allowing those "Bush" tax cuts to continue, doing absolutely nothing to either increase revenue or cut spending. They're spiraling us into the black hole and will neither hit the brake nor take their foot off the gas. So if you want me to agree Bush is even partly to blame for the additional 1/3 in total debt this country has added to its total accumulated debt over just the last 3 years (versus the 203 years that came before), then you'd have to show me they'd actually been trying to turn it around. But they ain't doin' shit ... too worried somebody might get pissed when the free money stops coming in the mail and might not vote democrat next time.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> If that were true, then Clinton's numbers would be shit too. But they're not. Things got turned around when he was President, and especially during his second term (Republicans controlled both houses of Congress IIRC, so welfare reform got pushed through among other things. Those were the Gingrich years as Speaker of the House.).


Clinton's tax increases on upper-income taxpayers in his first year were the primary contributors to the surplus. The Republicans were against it. That's not to say other things didn't happen in his second term, but the surplus had nothing to do with the Republicans.



Hanafuda said:


> As for the surge in Afghanistan, that belongs to Obama. He campaigned on it, arguing that Iraq was the bad war and Afghanistan was the good war and we weren't doing enough there. Bush didn't make him do it, and the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for his first two years and they hypocritically went in for it too after wringing their hands over Bush's military spending. Three years of escalation and a trillion down the hole, I don't see where we've accomplished anythingin Afghanistan. If anything, it's worse now. Obama should've gotten us out of Afghanistan from day one, not to mention keeping his promise to close Gitmo.


I mostly agree with you on this one, especially with Gitmo since he campaigned on that. However, Obama's Afghanistan withdrawal timetable, although a little disappointing, is better than the likely Republican alternative.



NeoSupaMario said:


> He said he did. "Change we can believe in" he said. Now it's more like *snip*


Obama did turn the economy around. Look it up.



Hanafuda said:


> the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of Obama's reign and renewed those "Bush" tax cuts. They are not "Bush" tax cuts anymore.


Technically, no. The Republicans refused to extend unemployment unless the Bush tax cuts were also extended. Because unemployment is one, if not the best kind of economic stimulus, Obama felt it was more important to stimulate the economy and allow the tax cuts to be extended than allow the tax cuts to expire and risk a double-dip recession. I'm obviously torn on this decision, just as Obama obviously was. If the Republicans had not held the unemployed hostage (they've been holding a lot of things hostage in the past couple of years, huh?), then the Bush tax cuts would be gone. The Democrats hate them, and rightfully so. The Democrats tried passing an extension on the Bush tax cuts for people making under $250,000 a year, but the Republicans voted no and killed it. They only cared about the tax cuts for the rich, or no tax cuts for the middle class and no unemployment.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Lacius,
> 
> the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for the first two years of Obama's reign and renewed those "Bush" tax cuts. They are not "Bush" tax cuts anymore.
> 
> ...


There's the big lie that everyone tells, you forget the Blue Dog Democrats, who are technically Republicans. They still don't have 60 which would allow a filibuster proof Senate.You sound like a Republican to me.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

Lacius said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > He said he did. "Change we can believe in" he said. Now it's more like *snip*
> ...


Oh he turned it around alright. Just in the wrong direction.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

W.I.C.K.E.D. said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Yeah, he has improved unemployment. He has helped us get out of a recession because the Congress that just says no surely didn't.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> W.I.C.K.E.D. said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


----------



## Lacius (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> it doesn't matter. under Reagan and Bush 1, the debt increased substantially. Not as much as under Bush 2, but it still increased. And yet during the Clinton years we ran a NEGATIVE balance (i.e. we made progress against the debt). This proves that proper policies can pull things in the right direction. I don't care how much "Bush baggage" you want to use as your scapegoat, you can't justify an increase of 24% of total debt (that's all debt accrued by the USA from 1776 to 2009) in only two years and a half years, i.e from 2009 - June 2011 when that graph was made. Since almost another year has gone by the number is probably over 30% now, and we're still in Obama's first term.


I agree that you can't justify an increase of 24% of total debt (one could argue that increasing the debt is not as much of a priority as stopping the economy from hemorrhaging), but remember that the Obama policies were not very significant.

You can argue that extending the Bush tax cuts was a bad decision. Easily. But what's important now is that Obama has pledged not to extend the Bush tax cuts on people making over $250,000 again. Mitt Romney and other Republican nominees would not only allow them to continue, but they would take it even further. If one is concerned about the debt, Obama is the obvious choice.



NeoSupaMario said:


> Oh he turned it around alright. Just in the wrong direction.


Do you have any evidence? Because I've already posted evidence to the contrary, and since then, jobs numbers have been posted that show new jobs still being created, more people re-entering the job-search, and unemployment not getting worse despite those re-entering the job-search. I'm starting to suspect that you're just trolling me. To argue that the economy is doing anything but getting better under the Obama policies is contrary to the data.

Edit: Just to be clear, that doesn't mean we don't have a long way to go.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > W.I.C.K.E.D. said:
> ...


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Lacius,
> ...




They did have 60, and they didn't act. And who gives a shit about a filibuster?? Let the fucking Republicans filibuster.

In 2009 and 2010 the Democrats controlled the Congress, period. All the Republicans could do was squawk and whine, and the Democrats didn't have the balls to fix shit.

And, I said I'm a registered Democrat. And I mostly vote Democrat, though in local races where I know the candidates (sometimes personally) I don't always follow the line so I don't check straight ticket. I did vote for Obama in 2008. I feel fucked, so it ain't happening again. I would vote for Hillary if she ran. I'm 44 years old and have voted in more elections than you've probably even been alive for.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


Blue Dog Democrats. They were the original problems they didn't have a majority without them.

Joe Lieberman
Ben Nelson


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > it doesn't matter. under Reagan and Bush 1, the debt increased substantially. Not as much as under Bush 2, but it still increased. And yet during the Clinton years we ran a NEGATIVE balance (i.e. we made progress against the debt). This proves that proper policies can pull things in the right direction. I don't care how much "Bush baggage" you want to use as your scapegoat, you can't justify an increase of 24% of total debt (that's all debt accrued by the USA from 1776 to 2009) in only two years and a half years, i.e from 2009 - June 2011 when that graph was made. Since almost another year has gone by the number is probably over 30% now, and we're still in Obama's first term.
> ...


Funny; I was starting to suspect that you were trolling me. 
Anyways, examples:
-Obamacare
-Gas Prices: families are starting to have to choose between putting food on the table and putting gas in the car to get to work. I'm serious.
-Taxes: Obama, you can't play Robin Hood. Soaking the rich will only start a cycle of who's rich and who's poor.
-Jobs: mostly from stimulus packages. But once the stimulus runs out, companies have to lay off people and whoever just got a job is right back where they started.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


You realize Presidents don't control gas prices, "Fox News" pointed that out during the 2004 election. Now they've changed their mind though. Obamacare is good, it's a Republican idea, ever heard of Mitt Romney or  Newt Gingrich. God, you are the troll here.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...




That's what the whip is for (i.e. majority whip, minority whip). And the whole thing about "the republicans held unemployment hostage to keep the tax cuts" argument assumes it was necessary and good to keep people out of work sitting at home eating cheese doodles. Where are the original ideas that got us out of the Depression in the 30's?? Put those people to work and then give them a check. That's what Roosevelt did and we still benefit from it.

And again I say, who gives a damn about a filibuster? It would've just made the Republicans look like foolish elitist a-holes defending the rich (i.e. confirmation of what we already know), so why should the Democrats have been afraid of it? They had the votes for a majority win ... the Republicans could've filibustered it till they were blue in the face, but in the end the tax cuts could've been stopped.

I don't believe any of that shit .. they just make up excuses for each other and keep the ball rolling.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


No, DINOs were the problem. It's the Democratic Senators from the Republican States. They voted for Obamacare due to pressure from Harry Reid but that's all they really did to help Obama.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> You realize Presidents don't control gas prices, "Fox News" pointed that out during the 2004 election. Now they've changed their mind though. Obamacare is good, it's a Republican idea, ever heard of Mitt Romney or  Newt Gingrich. God, you are the troll here.



you're right about that to some extent. What the President does control is how much money gets printed, because pumping paper money out onto the street devalues the dollar and raises the price of everything. And the Obama administration has been going overtime printing money for three years now. So in that respect, his policies have affected prices. I agree with you that Fox has been hypocritical in their coverage of the gas price situation now vs. 2004, but to be fair about it Bush DID get the price of gas back down. Took a little while, but when Obama took office the price per gallon was back well under $2. It's double that now.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > You realize Presidents don't control gas prices, "Fox News" pointed that out during the 2004 election. Now they've changed their mind though. Obamacare is good, it's a Republican idea, ever heard of Mitt Romney or  Newt Gingrich. God, you are the troll here.
> ...


Yeah, and it just has to go down before the election. Stop hating on Obama and praising Bush.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> In 2009 and 2010 the Democrats controlled the Congress, period. All the Republicans could do was squawk and whine, and the Democrats didn't have the balls to fix shit.


First off, Democrats only had 60 votes in the Senate in 2009 (before the death of Ted Kennedy). So no, not "period." Second, the Democrats did a lot during that time, including but not limited to economic recovery, health care reform, etc. Second, because Republicans filibustered pretty much everything in the Senate, 60 votes are required; you already know this. But as already mentioned, there are moderate Democrats and "Blue Dog" Democrats who had to be appeased in order for things to pass. For example, if it weren't for the appeasement of moderate Democrats, health care reform would have likely been a public option (as it was in the House). As for the debt, I've already shown that Obama is not to blame for its continued increase. If Obama is elected to another term, we can expect the deficit to be reduced, both from the end of the Bush tax cuts and deficit reduction plans that have already been proposed.



NeoSupaMario said:


> Anyways, examples:
> -Obamacare
> -Gas Prices: families are starting to have to choose between putting food on the table and putting gas in the car to get to work. I'm serious.
> -Taxes: Obama, you can't play Robin Hood. Soaking the rich will only start a cycle of who's rich and who's poor.
> -Jobs: mostly from stimulus packages. But once the stimulus runs out, companies have to lay off people and whoever just got a job is right back where they started.


What are these examples of? Examples of how Obama has made the economy worse? Obamacare does not have a negative effect on the economy nor the debt. Gas prices are not Obama's fault. Some people argue that they're Obama's fault because of Keystone not happening, but Keystone would have had little to no effect on gas prices, and any effect wouldn't have been for years. As for taxes, Obama wants the rich to pay a fair share, like those during the Clinton administration. Obama is also for closing loopholes but lowering rates, which is also extremely fair. In fact, without the knowledge that closing loopholes/lowering rates is an Obama proposal, the vast majority of Americans support it. As for jobs, yes, as you just said, the stimulus improved job growth. However, you misunderstand how stimulus works. To put it very simply, it got the gears of the economy turning again. It's not just money that's pumped into some paychecks and then runs out. However, I agree that the stimulus was too little and that more would help. Thanks for saying so. I'm glad I'm getting through to you.



Hanafuda said:


> That's what the whip is for (i.e. majority whip, minority whip). And the whole thing about "the republicans held unemployment hostage to keep the tax cuts" argument assumes it was necessary and good to keep people out of work sitting at home eating cheese doodles. Where are the original ideas that got us out of the Depression in the 30's?? Put those people to work and then give them a check. That's what Roosevelt did and we still benefit from it.


While unemployment was getting better, people were still struggling; they still are, even. A lot of people needed unemployment. To say it kept people out of work sitting at home and eating cheese doodles is, if anything, offensive. Unemployment is usually given to those who are in desperate need of money, and they spend that money quickly on things they need, such as food, utilities, rent, etc., and that money helps get the economy going. It was both the morally right thing to do for people who were unemployed and the most logical thing to do in terms of getting the economy going again.

*Also, unemployment benefits was created in response to the Great Depression. It helped the people who were unemployed and helped the economy.*



Hanafuda said:


> And again I say, who gives a damn about a filibuster? It would've just made the Republicans look like foolish elitist a-holes defending the rich (i.e. confirmation of what we already know), so why should the Democrats have been afraid of it? They had the votes for a majority win ... the Republicans could've filibustered it till they were blue in the face, but in the end the tax cuts could've been stopped.
> 
> I don't believe any of that shit .. they just make up excuses for each other and keep the ball rolling.


The Bush tax cuts were to expire after 2010. There was nothing to vote on in regard to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy until the Republicans held unemployment benefits and the tax cuts for the middle class hostage.

Edit: As for why he didn't repeal them super early in his term, you got me. Since they were going to expire in 2010, I guess they were seen as a low priority. I'm not sure if he could have gotten the repeal through the Senate for reasons we already discussed. It's much easier to let things expire with no action than getting together votes that you likely don't even have to do it. The main point though is that Obama and the Democrats are very much against the Bush tax cuts that contribute the most to our debt. The Republicans would make the tax cuts for the wealthy worse.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...




not hating on anyone, not praising anyone. Except Bill Clinton. Good President. I like Eisenhower too ... he might've been a Republican but maybe the best President of the 20th Century. Didn't try to rule, just preside. Too bad we can't get people like that in charge anymore.

I don't really care who gets elected President ... we're in a world of shit either way.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

I'm not praising Bush at all. And the way he is affecting gas prices is that hes trying to get everyone to switch to these electric or water powered or Hybrid cars (the small three wheeled ones that if you get in a crash in you're dead)


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


No, we will be much worse off if a Republican takes office. And NeoSupaMario what the hell are you talking about. Obama is looking into natural gas.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> And NeoSupaMario what the hell are you talking about. Obama is looking into natural gas.


My bad. He's looking into tht too. Here's the article: Obama will propose a $1 billion “National Community Deployment Challenge” to help 10 to 15 communities “invest in the necessary infrastructure, remove the regulatory barriers, and create the local incentives to support deployment of advanced vehicles at critical mass.”
“Deployment Communities would serve as real-world laboratories, leveraging limited federal resources to develop different models to deploy advanced vehicles at scale,” states a White House summary of the initiative, which is part of Obama’s fiscal 2013 budget plan.

The proposal is aimed at spurring the use of electric vehicles, natural-gas-powered vehicles and other alternative fuels. The White House, in the summary, sought to emphasize its bipartisan roots, noting electric-vehicle legislation sponsored by Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > And NeoSupaMario what the hell are you talking about. Obama is looking into natural gas.
> ...


So what electric cars are good for the environment, what's your point?


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

He's using the gas prices to get everyone to get electric cars. Although he claims to have nothing to do with the gas prices, he will take responsibility for the prices going down as the election starts between him and the nominee.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> He's using the gas prices to get everyone to get electric cars.


Your kidding right, okay first he can't control gas prices, second high gas prices are bad for him, third most people can't afford electric cars. Stop watching "Fox News". Because none of what you said in this statement is even close to being true.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > He's using the gas prices to get everyone to get electric cars.
> ...


Oh, really? Prove it. And I don't watch FoxNews for politics. I listen to talk radio.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Your kidding right, okay first he can't control gas prices, second high gas prices are bad for him, third most people can't afford electric cars. Stop watching "Fox News". Because none of what you said in this statement is even close to being true.
> ...


Smile72, he's likely trolling you and fails to realize that the burden of proof is on him to show any evidence that Obama is deliberately controlling gas prices to fuel (haha, get it?) an electric car agenda.



NeoSupaMario said:


> He's using the gas prices to get everyone to get electric cars. Although he claims to have nothing to do with the gas prices, he will take responsibility for the prices going down as the election starts between him and the nominee.


There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Obama is deliberately making gas prices higher so people will buy electric cars. Likewise, these higher gas prices are due to reasons unrelated to the President's policies. Tensions with Iran is likely a big contributor. If you follow the news, you know what's going on with that.

The Republicans say that increased drilling would lower gas prices, but this is not true, especially since projects like Keystone would have taken years to start. Likewise, the US is exporting more gas than we're importing. Keystone and extra drilling would not help gas prices.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

Okay when gas prices go up. Poll numbers for the president go down. Because people pay more, thus they have less to spend. Leaving them angry and needing someone to blame.


----------



## emugirl1994 (Mar 15, 2012)

Gas prices have nothing to do with the Obama administration, it's all about Iran and their threat to cut back on exporting of oil if they're not allowed to keep their nuclear weapons. Obama isn't being elitist either when he's telling Americans to get electric vehicles, since in the long run it'd save you money on gas. But if you were to buy an electric car, stay away from the Japanese car models. Although Japanese cars seem to be superior in terms of longevity and quality, this is part of the reason why GM had to have a government bail out. It couldn't compete with the insanely low prices of imported Japanese cars so the government had to step up. As far as I know, the only American electric car is the Chevy Volt.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

Lacius said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Oh my god. Lacius figured me out.
/sarcasm
Honestly, I don't troll anywhere except the EoF

@[member='smile72']: gas prices go down, polls go up. Thats why obama will push for lowering gas prices right before the final vote.


Aaaaaand here come Lacius and Smile72.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


If they stay up for too long they will damage him.I wonder if you know what you are talking about. That's like saying Bush wanted high gas prices in 2004.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

He'll want to look like a... How do I put this... "hero" right before the final vote to leave a good last impression. By supposedly single handedly lowering the gas prices.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> He'll want to look like a... How do I put this... "hero" right before the final vote to leave a good last impression. By supposedly single handedly lowering the gas prices.


Yeah, that's really really wrong. Because that will screw him over.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

Ik! I'm just saying. That's what it looks like he's doing to me. Now i know you and Lacius have your minds set on Obama and I can't change that, and I have my mind set on anyone but Obama or Paul. So I'll keep arguing over these political issues, but I wont change my mind.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Ik! I'm just saying. That's what it looks like he's doing to me. Now i know you and Lacius have your minds set on Obama and I can't change that, and I have my mind set on anyone but Obama or Paul. So I'll keep arguing over these political issues, but I wont change my mind.


Okay. yeah the only difference is your candidates are actually bad for the economy. Obama doesn't hate poor people Rick Sanctorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich do. That's what you don't realize, it's not that I'm a super Obama fan it's that unlike you I read the candidates positions.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

smile72 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > Ik! I'm just saying. That's what it looks like he's doing to me. Now i know you and Lacius have your minds set on Obama and I can't change that, and I have my mind set on anyone but Obama or Paul. So I'll keep arguing over these political issues, but I wont change my mind.
> ...


Nope. I watched the debates. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




WHAT NOW


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 15, 2012)

Fun fact, before both sides negotiated a ballanced budget for 4 consecutive years under clintons administration, the last president to pass a ballanced budget besised clinton was this guy:

IMAGE

STOP SPENDING OUR MONEY ON USELESS SHIT, NO ONE NEEDS A CONDOM IN 3RD GRADE!


also, no corportation should have any form of contract with the federal fovernment,
the government should focus on SECURITY, MONITARY STABILITY AND ENSURING THE FREEDOM AND THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE!

That is all.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


The fact that you still don't comprehend Obama's positions. As proven by your past posts.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Mar 15, 2012)

Inflation = Gas Prices.

- Just sayin'!


----------



## Lacius (Mar 15, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> Inflation = Gas Prices.


If you honestly believe that inflation is the cause of rising gas prices, then you know neither about inflation nor gas prices. I don't even know how to touch that comment except to say that gas prices rise *and fall* drastically due to the market, what's going on overseas, etc.



The Living Shadow said:


> Fun fact, before both sides negotiated a ballanced budget for 4 consecutive years under clintons administration, the last president to pass a ballanced budget besised clinton was this guy: *snip*


As I've already mentioned, the policies that largely accounted for the surplus were not bipartisan and passed by Clinton and the Democrats in his first year in office. The Republicans were very much against what caused our surplus (higher taxes on the rich), and the very same thing is happening today.



NeoSupaMario said:


> Ik! I'm just saying. That's what it looks like he's doing to me. Now i know you and Lacius have your minds set on Obama and I can't change that, and I have my mind set on anyone but Obama or Paul. So I'll keep arguing over these political issues, but I wont change my mind.


Well, here are the facts. Obama does not have some magic switch he uses to raise and lower gas prices. Gas prices are a highly variable thing that depend on the gas market, what's going on overseas, etc. If you read any of the reports, you would know that everyone agrees that what's going on in Iran right now is the large contributor to the increases we're seeing in gas prices here. Your idea that Obama is raising gas prices so he can lower them right before the election is baseless and makes no sense. Higher gas prices equal lower poll numbers. Likewise, the evidence shows both that Obama cannot control gas prices in the ways in which you believe, and the higher gas prices we see today are mostly due to the state of things in Iran. If you're going to argue anything different, on gas prices or anything else we've talked about thus far, please provide at least one piece of credible evidence. Looking at the state of things in this thread discussion, Obama appears to win fiscal issues hands-down. I wouldn't be able to look at this thread objectively and think otherwise.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 15, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > Inflation = Gas Prices.
> ...


If you feel that way, then so be it. I've looked at it, and that's the way it seems to me. I was just pointing out that, it's pretty rate to have a budget under control for a long time now.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 15, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> If you feel that way, then so be it. I've looked at it, and that's the way it seems to me. I was just pointing out that, it's pretty rate to have a budget under control for a long time now.


Reagan took a ~1 trillion national debt and made it ~3 trillion. This was due to tax cuts, especially for the rich (sound familiar?). George H.W. Bush didn't help when he pledged no new taxes. Bill Clinton came in with his 1993 deficit-cutting package, which did not get a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate since it raised taxes on the very wealthy (don't worry, it had no negative effect on the economy). So yeah, feel free to believe that balancing the budget during the Clinton years was bipartisan, but the facts are extremely clear.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 15, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > Libertarian94 said:
> ...


 Obama has the budget
Under control?


----------



## Gahars (Mar 15, 2012)

Ah, image macros: clearly the absolute best way to discredit your opponent's argument.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 15, 2012)

1.							Republican Logic							*471* up, *72* down 
A type of logic that the Republican mind subscribes to. Basically Republican logic tells Republicans that only the rich white male Christian God is the only true God and that everything else is false religion. Republican logic sees no problem with blood soaked oil wars, tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the rest of the country, the gutting of social programs, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, and to make life as miserable as possible for non-Republicans. This sort of logic makes no sense to the rest of the world.				
Republican logic is the logic of goose stepping, brown shirt and jack boot wearing thugs.						


From Urban Dictionary.


----------



## notmeanymore (Mar 15, 2012)

ThatDudeWithTheFood said:


> 1.							Republican Logic							*471* up, *72* down
> A type of logic that the Republican mind subscribes to. Basically Republican logic tells Republicans that only the rich white male Christian God is the only true God and that everything else is false religion. Republican logic sees no problem with blood soaked oil wars, tax breaks for the rich at the expense of the rest of the country, the gutting of social programs, the destruction of the Bill of Rights, and to make life as miserable as possible for non-Republicans. This sort of logic makes no sense to the rest of the world.
> Republican logic is the logic of goose stepping, brown shirt and jack boot wearing thugs.
> 
> ...


Because all Republicans are like that. Of course.

My God is my God, I don't *force* others to my religion, I try to lead them there. (Though I haven't done a very good job as of late.)
Oil wars are not proper, and I am in favor of domestic oil, regardless of it "ruining the views" from our beaches or whatever crap logic rich folk have.
Tax breaks should be universal, not just for one class/race of people.
Social programs are not and should not be the federal government's domain.
The Bill of Rights is a *necessary* part of our Constitution.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > Lacius said:
> ...


I was talking about when clinton was president, not obama.

@Lacius Don't just blame it on one side, remember who's had the power in congress the last 50 years? It was not republicans, it was democrats. Why can't everyone own up and say "hell, he's right for once, maybe we did go a little power crazy and spend just a little too much." How hard would that be? Small "and large" buisness has always been the scapegoat, ever since the great depression, how has this worked out I wonder? Same effect...

@[member='ThatDudeWithTheFood'], nice, very very nice. It should be common knowledge that, just like the split between democrats is as obvious by todays standard, it should work just the same for republicans, Big government repubicans like mitt romney, and small government republicans like ron paul.  Thing is, the process isn't perfect and it never will be people will smear and that's just how the train rolls on down the track.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 15, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> ThatDudeWithTheFood said:
> 
> 
> > 1.							Republican Logic							*471* up, *72* down
> ...


I wanted to point out that this just applies to the Republican canidates I feel like.


----------



## notmeanymore (Mar 15, 2012)

ThatDudeWithTheFood said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > ThatDudeWithTheFood said:
> ...


And those are?


----------



## Lacius (Mar 15, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Obama has the budget
> Under control?


Under control? No. However, Obama's proposed budget slashes away at the deficit by allowing tax breaks for the rich to go away, among other things (trimming waste, etc). "Under control" would imply there not being a deficit at all. Unfortunately, both the debt and the deficit are massive, and that's going to take some time. Likewise, the US economy is still fragile, and history has shown us that shifting focus to deficit-reduction as opposed to stimulus spending can have negative consequences on the economy. So in summary, no, the debt problem is not yet under control, but the Obama budget is the only one that offers any real solutions that are projected to eventually get us to a place where they are under control. All of the major Republican candidates' budgets make the debt worse with more tax benefits for the rich.



TehSkull said:


> My God is my God, I don't *force* others to my religion, I try to lead them there. (Though I haven't done a very good job as of late.)
> Oil wars are not proper, and I am in favor of domestic oil, regardless of it "ruining the views" from our beaches or whatever crap logic rich folk have.
> Tax breaks should be universal, not just for one class/race of people.
> Social programs are not and should not be the federal government's domain.
> The Bill of Rights is a *necessary* part of our Constitution.


I understand that not all people who identify as Republican are like that. However, as far as the Republican track record goes, the above summary of Republicans in office is now very accurate, especially with the candidates for President. The Republicans in office have moved very far to the right; arguably, there are no moderate Republicans left. I agree that domestic oil is better than foreign oil, but you have to admit that there are numerous environmental issues involved with oil-drilling, and considering the fact that oil is not a renewable resource, investment in alternative forms of energy that are both renewable and better for the environment is logical. As for taxes, they should be fair for everyone. This is why the Obama budget proposes keeping the Bush tax cuts for the lower and middle classes but letting the tax cuts expire for the rich. I disagree with you about the role of the federal government in social programs. Are you arguing that things like social security and medicare should be destroyed?

And I don't think anyone is arguing against the Bill of Rights.

*Edit:*



The Living Shadow said:


> @Lacius Don't just blame it on one side, remember who's had the power in congress the last 50 years? It was not republicans, it was democrats. Why can't everyone own up and say "hell, he's right for once, maybe we did go a little power crazy and spend just a little too much." How hard would that be? Small "and large" business has always been the scapegoat, ever since the great depression, how has this worked out I wonder? Same effect...


I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. I've noted the facts about the Democrats' effect on the economy and the debt, and the Republicans' effect on the economy and the debt in recent times, and the facts are quite clear.

Because I've said this numerous times already, I'll keep this short. After Clinton, we were on the road to erasing our debt completely. Bush enacted major tax cuts, increased military spending (Iraq, Afghanistan), and all without paying for any of it. These things are the largest contributors to the deficit even today. Obama's increased spending is minimal in comparison, and it was mostly economic recovery. It is quite obvious that the blame falls on the Republicans, and the Republican presidential candidates don't appear very eager to redeem themselves, considering that they want to make the debt problem worse.


----------



## notmeanymore (Mar 15, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I understand that not all people who identify as Republican are like that. However, as far as the Republican track record goes, the above summary of Republicans in office is now very accurate, especially with the candidates for President. The Republicans in office have moved very far to the right; arguably, there are no moderate Republicans left. I agree that domestic oil is better than foreign oil, but you have to admit that there are numerous environmental issues involved with oil-drilling, and considering the fact that oil is not a renewable resource, investment in alternative forms of energy that are both renewable and better for the environment is logical. As for taxes, they should be fair for everyone. This is why the Obama budget proposes keeping the Bush tax cuts for the lower and middle classes but letting the tax cuts expire for the rich. I disagree with you about the role of the federal government in social programs. Are you arguing that things like social security and medicare should be destroyed?
> 
> And I don't think anyone is arguing against the Bill of Rights.


Everything I said just now was a direct response to TDWTF's quote. Alternative energy is great too. Personally, if I could have any car in the world, I'd have the Tesla Roadster, it's sexy and it's electric. Domestic oil is just the lesser of two evils, and as long alternative energy is "alternative" and not "primary" we should worry about how to get oil.
I'm not studied enough in it to talk one way or the other about the economy.

Should social security and medicare be destroyed? No. They shouldn't have been made in the first place, but since they have been created and many Americans rely on them, they need to be reformed.


----------



## ThatDudeWithTheFood (Mar 15, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> ThatDudeWithTheFood said:
> 
> 
> > TehSkull said:
> ...


Who else the republican presidential canidates.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 16, 2012)

ThatDudeWithTheFood said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > ThatDudeWithTheFood said:
> ...


If that's how you feel, more power to you. We all have a horse in the race, just have to understand the facts. Of course, we all interperate things differently that's what makes us unique.




Lacius said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > Obama has the budget
> ...


Let's just say this, we all have inherited a HORRIBLE DEBT, both sides contributed. If we want to get out of it, we have to give up the freebie's, no company should be in contract with the government, if they fail they fail. If we want to save the nation as a whole, no one person should get special benefits, we all need to feel the pain because obviously the road we are on now is headed to a dead end. We are americans, and we can get through this, yes it may suck, but just like the companies who can't afford to pay for the unions, we can't afford to pay for studies of watching a shrimp on a treadmill. Money was wasted, and it no longer can be. We have 211 TRILLION IN DEBT. I think the 3rd graders can go without condoms for a while. IT WILL BE PAINFUL, but there is nothing else we can do.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 16, 2012)

I wonder how long it'll be before this topic is pinned?


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 16, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I wonder how long it'll be before this topic is pinned?


not sure, and 500!


----------



## Valwin (Mar 16, 2012)

Well this Sunday here in the island we will have the Next Republican Primary for 23 delegates.
After looking at what I been offer I decided to go with Romney what won me over was his position on the Colony of Puerto Rico Number 1 issue the Status he say that Puerto Rico becoming a state is very possible and that we won’t need to speak English to be a state also that we Don't need a super majority  of the vote  to decide to be a state.

in the other part Santorum seem to be really dumb Person because when ask about the island status problem he say that we need to speak English to be a state witch that argument is really dumb seem how in the USA constitution nowhere in it say that ENGLISH is the official language of the USA also he seem to be a damn racist .


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 16, 2012)

Val wins again!
P.S. There are a few updates to the poll.
Vermin Supreme supporters, you're gonna love the update! Plus you may choose multiple choices for like 2nd and 3rd best.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 16, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> ThatDudeWithTheFood said:
> 
> 
> > TehSkull said:
> ...


You realize that without certain things like Medicaid people will die. I would have been one of those people as I had cancer, yeah don't bullshit by saying "we will all feel pain " if you want to cut back on medicare, medicaid, social security, food stamps. Than lets also raise taxes on anyone who makes over $1 million a year.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 16, 2012)

Valwin said:


> in the USA constitution nowhere in it say that ENGLISH is the official language of the USA also he seem to be a damn racist .




Well, it is _written in English _... kinda sets the tone, doncha think??


Don't worry, just kidding. I agree with you - although I do think English should be taught as the primary language in public schools, simply so we can all communicate with each other as a nation. But my own house is bilingual (English and Japanese) so as far as I'm concerned anyone who wants "English as the official language" can go F themselves. And yes, Santorum needs to go away. I'm kinda meh on Romney though. I don't think he's the big evil some here in this thread are trying to make him out to be though. Already expressed my views on Obama ... wish I had a different Democrat to vote for. I may end up voting for my next door neighbor or something like that.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> Should social security and medicare be destroyed? No. They shouldn't have been made in the first place, but since they have been created and many Americans rely on them, they need to be reformed.


Out of curiosity, how would you recommend they be reformed?



The Living Shadow said:


> Let's just say this, we all have inherited a HORRIBLE DEBT, both sides contributed.


Yeah, we have all inherited a horrible debt. The economic downturn alone contributed unavoidable amounts to the national debt, and we're all in this together. However, as for who caused the problem, it was the Republicans, mainly George W. Bush. If he hadn't enacted those tax cuts and spent money on those wars without paying for any of it, the debt problem would be a *lot* less of a problem. Considering the track we were on after Clinton, the debt might have been insignificant (it's hard to say with the economic downturn, but it likely wouldn't be much of an issue). I don't understand how you get both sides contributing out of all of this.



The Living Shadow said:


> If we want to get out of it, we have to give up the freebie's, no company should be in contract with the government, if they fail they fail.


If you're talking purely about solving the debt problem, you are right that not bailing out companies would contribute less to the national debt. However, in terms of the economy, letting businesses die where they fall is a huge mistake.



The Living Shadow said:


> If we want to save the nation as a whole, no one person should get special benefits, we all need to feel the pain because obviously the road we are on now is headed to a dead end.


With the Republicans rejecting any proposal at deficit reduction, yes, you are right. We are at an impasse. However, Obama's proposed budget cuts spending in ways that forces everyone to make sacrifices and increases revenue from increased taxes on the very wealthy (and in a fair way).



The Living Shadow said:


> We are americans, and we can get through this, yes it may suck, but just like the companies who can't afford to pay for the unions, we can't afford to pay for studies of watching a shrimp on a treadmill. Money was wasted, and it no longer can be. We have 211 TRILLION IN DEBT. I think the 3rd graders can go without condoms for a while. IT WILL BE PAINFUL, but there is nothing else we can do.


Shrimp on a treadmill? Condoms for third graders? Could you please explain what you're talking about. Whatever it is, it's likely insignificant when it comes to lowering the deficit.



NeoSupaMario said:


> Plus you may choose multiple choices for like 2nd and 3rd best.


It's likely that allowing one to choose multiple choices will skew the results. For example, some might vote for every candidate but Obama, making it seem like Obama is very unpopular. I recommend you fix that.


----------



## DDTarZan (Mar 16, 2012)

Well, I would vote for Obama again. He didn't screw things over nearly as bad as Bush did, kinda had to clean up after him too. Plus, keeps the Republicans out of office. But he did sign ACTA, so...

Maybe Ron Paul, but I know little about him other than he speaks the truth, but we've never really had honesty in the White House, so I don't trust it.

Santorum needs to shut the fuck up. Romney needs to shut the fuck up.

I won't vote, and a good reason is:


----------



## notmeanymore (Mar 16, 2012)

Lacius said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > Should social security and medicare be destroyed? No. They shouldn't have been made in the first place, but since they have been created and many Americans rely on them, they need to be reformed.
> ...


I honestly have no idea. Reform is needed, but I'm not so politically-minded to know how to reform it. People like [member='smile72'] are exactly why I say don't just do away with it, some people need it. There is assuredly some way for the system to cost less and accomplish more.

Also, could you fix all the rest of the quotes from your post, I didn't say most of that.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> Also, could you fix all the rest of the quotes from your post, I didn't say most of that.


Woops, haha, oh boy *tugs collar*


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 16, 2012)

Lacius said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > Let's just say this, we all have inherited a HORRIBLE DEBT, both sides contributed.
> ...


Condom shrimp Should I go on? This has been a problem for a long ass time, it didn't just magically start under bush, or Reagan this has been fought over  for at least 100 years. When we say smaller government, this is what we are talking about, what possible benefit could studying the sex habits of a squirrel have on our nation? What about spending 85 million on at that court house in Florida? If that's not enough, have a look here. You can blame the war all you want, but the war isn't the only problem, and in fact before the elections in 2006, it was mostly conservative compared to years to come, check it out yourself. Because we had to massive amounts of spending tagged on by the democrats who controlled congress between 2006 and 2008, everyone hated George Bush, they were too stupid to realize "hey we are being set up to be raped by big government." I distinctly remember watching a program on tv, with a bunch of dumb ass kids on tv listening to this guy on the stage screaming "who are we going to vote for? Obama!" and everyone on mtv screaming " we hate bush!" I thought obama pledged to go through the budget "line by line" but what he really was saying was, "I am the worlds biggest troll." You can continue to blame the people who were trying to run a tight ship all you want, but those who aren't actually paying attention, will always be raped and those who actually give a shit about the country they reside in will learn to watch over the shoulder for the molester. I've already told you about 211 trillion, that's with a T we are in debt, continuing to ignore the simple fact that, we ARE BROKE does not fix the situation, WE NEED TO FIX IT NAOW! But attempting to distract us on petty side issues will only make the issue worse.

Grow up, buy a budget book at Kroger's and have a plan, because easy credit never worked and will always lead to a dead end.

@Smiley, maybe we could afford help with cancer if we hadn't spent all of that money on useless shit, I am sorry to hear of your helth situations, but I can not help that, and neither can anyone on this forums or anyone on the net for that matter. I've completely dropped cable tv, and a bunch of other shit. If I can do it, so can everyone else. Hell, I've got a friend who lost net access for 5 years because of the family budget, he understands and lives with it.

Have a plan or pay a stupid tax, that's how life works.


----------



## Rockhoundhigh (Mar 16, 2012)

From the start people have expected Obama to come in like some god of economics and fix everything like he's FDR, and hell that took even him years to do. People may trash him and while his methods to gain voters are questionable as they always are in campaigns (they pretty much have to be to get the average dumbasses' attention) and the novelty of of him being the first black president is over I have more faith in the guy than anyone else running against him. So far I've failed to see him make anything worse and considering that the last president had the competence of a 3rd grader he's at the very least the safe choice.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 16, 2012)

Rockhoundhigh said:


> So far I've failed to see him make anything worse ...




yeah, everything's going great.


(few days ago in Wash DC)


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> yeah, everything's going great.
> (few days ago in Wash DC)
> *snip*


Rising gas prices are due to tensions with Iran and other things unrelated to Obama policies. If you're going to argue that Obama is making gas prices, or anything for that matter, worse, please support it with evidence.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 16, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > yeah, everything's going great.
> ...




Those "tensions with Iran and other things" don't happen in a vacuum. A lot of it comes down to the Obama administration utterly failing to follow through on their promise of getting us the fuck out of the middle east and the 'war on terrorism' and letting them sort out their own problems. The tension with Iran is between Iran and the USA, Israel, etc. Maybe if the whole middle east situation had been handled better over the last three years the price of gas wouldn't have doubled in the same time.

Politics, in the end, is a simple thing ... if it happens on your watch, you own it. He asked for the big boy chair, and that means he's responsible for putting out the fires, either by making friends out of enemies, or making dust out of enemies. When you just make enemies angrier, and those enemies happen to be in the middle east, the price of gas goes up.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Those "tensions with Iran and other things" don't happen in a vacuum. A lot of it comes down to the Obama administration utterly failing to follow through on their promise of getting us the fuck out of the middle east and the 'war on terrorism' and letting them sort out their own problems.


I agree with you that Obama could have done better in getting us out of the wars in the Middle East. However, we're out of Iraq and there is a time table for getting out of Afghanistan. No viable Republican candidate offers anything better in terms of leaving the Middle East.



Hanafuda said:


> Maybe if the whole middle east situation had been handled better over the last three years the price of gas wouldn't have doubled in the same time.


There has been no data linking Obama policies with increasing gas prices. Gas prices are highly variable and there is no quick fix. Most Republicans will tell you otherwise and claim that increased drilling will solve all our problems. They also laugh at ideas like investing in alternative energy sources and better fuel efficiency standards. When it comes down to it, the market is to blame. If you are going to argue that Obama's policies are to blame, please support it.



Hanafuda said:


> Politics, in the end, is a simple thing ... if it happens on your watch, you own it.


You're implying that, for example, policies already in effect are Obama's fault. By your logic, the debt problem is Obama's fault, even though we all know that Bush's policies that are still in effect are to blame. You're right, however, that that's how most people see it, which is evidenced by the declining poll numbers experienced by the rise in gas prices that are not Obama's fault. And despite this, some conservatives say that Obama is deliberately raising gas prices.



Hanafuda said:


> He asked for the big boy chair, and that means he's responsible for putting out the fires, either by making friends out of enemies, or making dust out of enemies. When you just make enemies angrier, and those enemies happen to be in the middle east, the price of gas goes up.


Keep in mind that gas prices are going up largely due to profit motive, not Obama policies. This is evidenced by the fact that the United States is exporting more oil than it's importing. Gas prices are a complicated issue. Remember that they were going up during the Bush administration as well. Neither President is really to blame. Obama policies have, if anything, stopped gas prices from being worse with the increased US oil production and increased efficiency standards.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 16, 2012)

Lacius,

it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread by now how you're going to respond to anything negative about Obama, so why not just stop bothering with going through the motions? Instead of typing out all those repetitive denials and attempts to deflect all burdens and blames away from the President over and over again, you could just post this picture:









That way, we'd just automatically know that you'd come back in the thread with your standard comebacks, and we'd all save a lot of time.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> Condom shrimp Should I go on? This has been a problem for a long ass time, it didn't just magically start under bush, or Reagan this has been fought over  for at least 100 years. When we say smaller government, this is what we are talking about, what possible benefit could studying the sex habits of a squirrel have on our nation? What about spending 85 million on at that court house in Florida? If that's not enough, have a look here. You can blame the war all you want, but the war isn't the only problem, and in fact before the elections in 2006, it was mostly conservative compared to years to come, check it out yourself.


Thank you for the links. I agree with you that wasteful spending is also an issue. And contrary to popular belief, the Obama administration has actually trimmed away wasteful spending, simplified systems, etc. in an effort to reduce the deficit. Billions in spending have been saved. While some of the things you listed above are arguably wasteful, however, they are insignificant when it comes to our actual deficit problem. While these things add up, cutting what you're talking about barely puts a dent in the deficit. Military spending, the Bush tax cuts, etc: Those are the *vast majority* of the problem. It is fortunate that the Obama plan is a combination of everything listed above, including increased revenue from getting rid of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, trimming away at wasteful spending, making various spending sacrifices, etc.



The Living Shadow said:


> Because we had to massive amounts of spending tagged on by the democrats who controlled congress between 2006 and 2008, everyone hated George Bush, they were too stupid to realize "hey we are being set up to be raped by big government." I distinctly remember watching a program on tv, with a bunch of dumb ass kids on tv listening to this guy on the stage screaming "who are we going to vote for? Obama!" and everyone on mtv screaming " we hate bush!" I thought obama pledged to go through the budget "line by line" but what he really was saying was, "I am the worlds biggest troll." You can continue to blame the people who were trying to run a tight ship all you want, but those who aren't actually paying attention, will always be raped and those who actually give a shit about the country they reside in will learn to watch over the shoulder for the molester. I've already told you about 211 trillion, that's with a T we are in debt, continuing to ignore the simple fact that, we ARE BROKE does not fix the situation, WE NEED TO FIX IT NAOW! But attempting to distract us on petty side issues will only make the issue worse.


It is common knowledge that it was Bush decreasing revenue and increasing spending (wars, etc) that caused our deficit and debt problem. If you could include specific numbers about how the Democrats added any significant amount to the deficit during 2006 and 2008, that would be great. And to say that the Republicans were trying to run a tighter ship is baseless. George W. Bush was fiscally irresponsible when he increased spending and decreased revenue *substantially*. Mitt Romney's budget isn't any better. Obama is the only viable candidate who has a legitimate plan that actually trims away at the deficit over time. It is also fair to say that Obama is the only viable candidate who has a plan that does not increase the deficit.

Also, the condom thing is a state issue and isn't relevant.



The Living Shadow said:


> @[member='Smiley'], maybe we could afford help with cancer if we hadn't spent all of that money on useless shit, I am sorry to hear of your helth situations, but I can not help that, and neither can anyone on this forums or anyone on the net for that matter.


If by "useless shit," you mean Bush tax cuts, the wars, etc, then yes, you are right.



Hanafuda said:


> Lacius,
> 
> it's pretty clear to anyone reading this thread by now how you're going to respond to anything negative about Obama, so why not just stop bothering with going through the motions? Instead of typing out all those repetitive denials and attempts to deflect all burdens and blames away from the President over and over again, you could just post this picture:
> *snip*
> That way, we'd just automatically know that you'd come back in the thread with your standard comebacks, and we'd all save a lot of time.


You're implying that I think Obama is infallible; I do not. In fact, the list of things I think he should have done differently is pretty long, and I've already commented about that. For example, I've already admitted than I'm not a fan of Obama's Afghanistan policies. In that case, I believe he's definitely just the lesser of two evils. But when people like yourself make baseless accusations and claim they're good enough reasons to vote for someone else who, by their logic, would actually make those things worse, I feel the need to step in and correct the misinformation. For example, if someone comes here and says they're voting for Mitt Romney instead of Obama because fixing the debt is important to him or her, I feel compelled to step in and say that the huge deficit was not Obama's fault, Obama's budget actually includes a long-term plan at solving the deficit that both increases revenue and cuts frivolous spending, and Mitt Romney's budget increases the deficit because it gives more huge tax breaks to the very wealthy. I don't think that's unreasonable. In fact, I think it's the purpose of this thread.

You call my posts "repetitive denials," but I'm not the one making baseless accusations to make the Republican candidates seem more viable than they actually are. You call my responses "standard comebacks," but they might be standard because they're true, unless you have evidence to the contrary? I like to think I'm open-minded.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 16, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Rising gas prices are due to tensions with Iran and other things unrelated to Obama policies.








You want proof, look at what he's doing with drilling policies.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> You want proof, look at what he's doing with drilling policies.


If you are referring to the Keystone pipeline, it would be years before we would see any effect. Likewise, increased drilling in the United States likely would not lower gas prices. Afterall, the United States is already exporting more oil than we're importing, and regardless the gas prices are what they are due to the unstable market. Unless you want to be more specific about what you mean by "what he's doing with drilling policies"?


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 16, 2012)

Lacius said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > Condom shrimp Should I go on? This has been a problem for a long ass time, it didn't just magically start under bush, or Reagan this has been fought over  for at least 100 years. When we say smaller government, this is what we are talking about, what possible benefit could studying the sex habits of a squirrel have on our nation? What about spending 85 million on at that court house in Florida? If that's not enough, have a look here. You can blame the war all you want, but the war isn't the only problem, and in fact before the elections in 2006, it was mostly conservative compared to years to come, check it out yourself.
> ...



See, this is the problem I try going "bi-partisan" and say both parties are to blame, and democrats such as Lacius want to strictly blame republicans, I attempt to show how democrats are wastefully spending away like a teenager at the mall with the parents credit card, and it's still "attack republicans" NO MATTER what I do, or what I say it's strictly the fault of the republicans. I could go on forever, but it will do no good so I am going to ask a few basic questions:
#1. With all of the power that the democrats have had for the last 50 years, why is it that it took so long to balance a budget before Clinton's term in office?
#2.Why is it, that the senate has not passed a budget for over a thousand days?
#3. YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE TWO HUNDRED AND ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.
#4.Why is it, that republicans are at fault for the housing market? I thought they tried to prevent it: See video

#5.It's estimated world war II financial cost Was over a trillion dollars "$1,000,000,000,000+" Are you telling me, that it's ok to fight that war to free those people, but it's not ok to free different people who lived under the same conditions? I mean, one was lead by A DEMOCRAT and the other was lead by A REPUBLICAN. The influence of the nazi's never left the middle east, what do you think causes these people to act like they do?

I think that's enough questions for now, can we try and actually answer them instead of deflecting them and blaming bush? I mean, hell even tarp was written by a bunch of communists.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> See, this is the problem I try going "bi-partisan" and say both parties are to blame, and democrats such as Lacius want to strictly blame republicans, I attempt to show how democrats are wastefully spending away like a teenager at the mall with the parents credit card, and it's still "attack republicans" NO MATTER what I do, or what I say it's strictly the fault of the republicans. I could go on forever, but it will do no good so I am going to ask a few basic questions


Just because it sounds nice to say something was bipartisan does not make it true, and when it comes to the debt and the deficit, I've already posted very specific numbers supporting that Bush's policies are what caused the vast majority of the problem. Obama's contributions to the debt are minimal in comparison, and most of his contributions to the debt have been economic recovery.



The Living Shadow said:


> #1. With all of the power that the democrats have had for the last 50 years, why is it that it took so long to balance a budget before Clinton's term in office?


Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to say, especially with this talk of Democrat control for 50 years. Since roughly 1950 and Truman, the debt was on its way down from what it was at due to World War II. Reagan and H.W. blew up the debt by giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Clinton came in and balanced it in large part due to increased revenue from taxing the rich a little higher (and yet they made record profits) without a single vote from the Republicans. Then George W. Bush exploded the debt once more with tax cuts and increased spending. Many of those Bush policies are still in place and still contributing to the debt, primarily the Bush tax cuts. However, Obama's proposed budget does a lot to lower the deficit. Romney's proposed budget does a lot to raise the deficit. I'm not sure what your point is, nor where it's supported by evidence. Either way, it's obvious here that the Republicans are not the party of fiscal responsibility. They cut small-item things that have no impact on the debt but give tax cuts to the wealthy without paying for them.



The Living Shadow said:


> #2.Why is it, that the senate has not passed a budget for over a thousand days?


Not much can be accomplished when Republicans reject every idea proposed by the Democrats and refuse to raise taxes on anyone. Obama has put together *bipartisan* commissions tasked with deficit reduction, but the Republicans reject everything. If you read the article you posted, you will see that the Democrats have both passed and tried to pass various budgets. No, they did not go far enough. But that is difficult when everything is filibustered and rejected. Either way, you should not expect anything substantial to happen until after the 2012 elections.



The Living Shadow said:


> #3. YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE TWO HUNDRED AND ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLAR QUESTION.


The proposed Obama budget for 2013 addresses the deficit in a very significant way. If the deficit is brought down, that eases the debt issue. Hopefully, eventually, the deficit can be eliminated and the debt can start going down. Romney's plan increases the deficit and the debt. So yeah, I would say the debt question has been addressed.



The Living Shadow said:


> #4.Why is it, that republicans are at fault for the housing market? I thought they tried to prevent it: See video
> [media]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=cMnSp4qEXNM[/media]


I never said the Republicans were at fault for the housing market. A lot of factors went into the housing market crisis. The Democrats were not at fault. The Republicans were not at fault. The closest I can get to assigning blame is to the Republicans because the debt played a partial role, but in this instance I am not assigning blame to either side. Why bring it up like I did?



The Living Shadow said:


> #5.It's estimated world war II financial cost Was over a trillion dollars "$1,000,000,000,000+" Are you telling me, that it's ok to fight that war to free those people, but it's not ok to free different people who lived under the same conditions? I mean, one was lead by A DEMOCRAT and the other was lead by A REPUBLICAN. The influence of the nazi's never left the middle east, what do you think causes these people to act like they do?


World War II was inevitable, and you understand why. Iraq had not even attacked the United States. The Iraq War also occurred under false pretenses. Wars are expensive, but one does not cut taxes across the board in the way that Bush did at the same time. You say I'm bringing up Bush a lot, but that doesn't mean I'm wrong. The math speaks for itself.



The Living Shadow said:


> I think that's enough questions for now, can we try and actually answer them instead of deflecting them and blaming bush? I mean, hell even tarp was written by a bunch of communists.


I don't think you understand what communism is. Likewise, the article you posted is a bunch of baseless conspiracy theories that have already been proven to be not true. The stimulus was not a "scamulus" and most definitely helped the economy (at the very least, it prevented it from getting worse). The Affordable Care act was not a government takeover of health care; people still get their insurance from private insurance companies. The article also conveniently leaves out the fact that the stimulus was the biggest tax break for the middle class in US history. I think you have a lot of misconceptions about what the Obama administration has done. If you could take your conspiracy theories and narrow them down to specific questions, I would be glad to clarify.


----------



## GeekyGuy (Mar 16, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> And if there's one thing you could've changed about the race, what would it be?



Make the peoples' vote count. Unfortunately, that's not how it works. America is a corporate oligarchy, and it's only their sway that accounts for anything in a presidential "election." This is not a comment based on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Most credible scholars around the globe agree that such is the nature of our government. Even Ron Paul, as ethical as his comments and policies on paper sound -- who's to say he would actually do what he says he would do if elected. Obama didn't. The people can elect whomever they like, but corporate America still runs the show.

Of course, I would _like_ to have a unicorn as a pet, but I don't ever expect that to happen, either.


----------



## Jamstruth (Mar 16, 2012)

I find the American system very strange. Your President is seperate from your Congress. So you can have a President who's party doesn't have a majority in Congress resulting in none of his plans getting enacted because the other party rejects the thing.
Also you have the Congress elections 2 years after a new President is elected so you have time to go "This new President has done jack shit. I'm voting for the opposite party" after you already elected the opposite party's presidential candidate before.

I'm generalising wildly though. I won't pretend to have any understanding of your political system but I'd say: Have 1 election every 4 years that covers both issues. Maybe then it might look like your President is doing something.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

Jamstruth said:


> I find the American system very strange. Your President is seperate from your Congress. So you can have a President who's party doesn't have a majority in Congress resulting in none of his plans getting enacted because the other party rejects the thing.
> Also you have the Congress elections 2 years after a new President is elected so you have time to go "This new President has done jack shit. I'm voting for the opposite party" after you already elected the opposite party's presidential candidate before.
> 
> I'm generalising wildly though. I won't pretend to have any understanding of your political system but I'd say: Have 1 election every 4 years that covers both issues. Maybe then it might look like your President is doing something.


No, you're right. A parliamentary system is probably more logical. There's almost always an enthusiasm gap with the voters at the midterm election, so presidents are almost always cursed to have everything blocked after the first two years.

While we're on the topic of broken systems, I also think preferential voting should be a thing in the United States.

Edit: major typo


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 16, 2012)

Jamstruth said:


> Have 1 election every 4 years that covers both issues. Maybe then it might look like your President is doing something.


Unfortunately, that is impossible. In the first place the two ruling parties are run by and for big business, much like the Labour and the Conservative parties in Britain, despite their pretensions. Usually the issues that are discussed at elections (and in Congress) are not the people's interests, but against them. Populism serves a useful cloak, though. The "elections" are also socially and financially prejudicial against those who are not from those parties, and may not be allowed into debates at all. And I actually believe that Obama is doing plenty, in that he's largely continuing the regressive policies of his predecessor; Bush signed for the Wall Street bailout, and Obama enforced it. In short, bourgeois politics in America are largely dictated by a virulent brand of pragmatism and, above all, money.

Edit: Corrected one sentence that may hace been misleading, with an example.


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 16, 2012)

The GOP have no-one whatsoever in the running who looks like presidential material.  Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are Bob Doles and John Kerrys, not Bill Clintons and George Bushes.

Can't see anything other than four more years for Obama,


----------



## Haloman800 (Mar 16, 2012)

Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Mar 16, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.



Exactly. *coughcoughsmile72coughcoughlaciuscoughcough*


----------



## Lacius (Mar 16, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.


How has he run this country into the ground? That's a bold (and as I see it, unsubstantiated) claim.



NeoSupaMario said:


> Exactly. *coughcoughsmile72coughcoughlaciuscoughcough*


If this thread is any indication, liberal policies appear to be the best policies. Feel free to correct me if I've overlooked something.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 16, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.


How has he run this country into the ground?????? I don't think any of you understand what you're talking about. And all of the GOP candidates hate the poor. Mitt Romney wants to kill Planned Parenthood. But you all probably believe that all they do is abortion (cough*3%cough). And he plans on giving the rich more tax cuts after making the Bush tax cuts permanent (this is totally gonna fix our deficit). But to do that he'll have to give a 30% cut to every social program. But don't worry he'll keep raising the military budget. To keep all of you people in a state of paranoia and ignorance.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 16, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.




I agree with you that things could always be better, but there has been no data linking Obama policies with the country running into the ground. Just because the country runs into the ground doesn't mean it is due to Obama. No. The factors that lead to a country going to hell in a handbasket are highly variable and it is impossible to say it is all due to Obama policies. No, in fact it is all due to Bush policies, 100%.  Most Republicans will tell you otherwise and claim that our national debt going from 10 trillion to 15 trillion in only 3 years is a big deal, but they are liars. There are also many complicated factors that affect the high unemployment rate, gas prices, the rate of home foreclosures, the failure of foreign policy leadership in the middle east, diminished value in the dollar, and corrupt enforcement practices by the Department of Justice. But none of those factors are Obama. They are all Bush. And Republicans. If you are going to argue that Obama's policies are to blame, please support it. Because it's Republican policies that are to blame. Anyone who disagrees with my unsupported claims must support their claims with evidence, which I will then claim is biased and false.

These are not the droids you're looking for.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Mar 16, 2012)

And here I thought the country was run into the ground before Obama was elected.

What people fail to realize is that it takes a long ass time to fix the many mistakes Bush and those before him made. I wouldn't be surprised if it took more than several years. 

But I suppose people would rather blame Obama than admit the country was headed down a terrible path before that.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 16, 2012)

<p>





Lacius said:


> </p>
> <p>
> 
> 
> ...


<br />
</p>
<p>No matter what I say, you are up in arms about defending the democrats massive spending, you run your mouth it was all bushes fault, and bill Clinton is a fiscal god. I still see absolutely no answer on how to defeat the 211 trillion dollar deficit, you lack even an inclining of detail. While it's true you have to spend money to make money, you don't spend it like this! Paul Ryan had a great plan, but no one is giving it a shot, reminds me of when Clinton stated, and this is a direct quote<br />
<br />


> Now that we have brought the deficit down, we have no intention of turning back. My budget keeps us on the course of fiscal discipline by proposing $81 billion in additional deficit reduction through the year 2000.


<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1995/02/03/us/the-clinton-budget-the-overview-clinton-s-budget-falls-well-short-of-gop-demands.html?pagewanted=2&amp;src=pm">Source</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>He had no major plans to reduce balance the budget, he cut a little here and a little there. We had a balanced budget thanks to the republicans in congress, not because of what Clinton did. Even the uber liberal news paper SFGATE agrees states it was the republican's plan that paved the way to a balanced budge!<br />
<br />
</p>
<div>





> The new Clinton budget replaces the formal one he submitted in February that called for continued $200 billion deficits. The new plan adopts the keystone GOP goal of a balanced budget, but postpones the 2002 target date by three years.


<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/1995/06/14/MN34818.DTL">Source</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Liberals who want to &quot;spread the wealth around&quot; will never help this great country in the long run, you only make things worse. We are not made of money, we are not trumps and we do not have the money to [censored] ourselves financially over and over agian. YES, wars cost money, but it doesn't help when you tack on amendments to defense bills just to <a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/14/reid-threatens-keep-congress-next-year/">spend money</a>.<br />
<br />
The point about the housing market is, I know you didn't say that but it's the mindset I was getting at, WE TRIED TO WARN THE NATION, but no one gave a shit until it happened.<br />
<br />
@#5, I was just stating the obvious fact, it cost's just as much now as it did then, even bin laden said that there was a war in iraq between the terrorist and the united states, Do I like the way our soldiers had to fight with hands tied behind them? No, but it's a larger scale, we do not know everything, we are not high level operatives in the cia, and we do not have the right to call these things, if you are going to help someone out, great! It helps if we actually know WHAT THE MISSION IS! When is the last time that the mission in Afghanistan was stated? We are just &quot;over yonder&quot; We do not have an explicit idea what the mission is, and it looks like we are getting out even earlier now, so you can't blame the war much longer.<br />
<br />
I probably know more about carl marx than you ever did, fun fact! The lazy bastard refused to work, and let his child starve to death, because he didn't want to work. Horrible human being, horrible indeed! Communism is mass unionism, we have a mass union problem in our country right now... sound familiar? We need more union busting!<br />
</div>


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 16, 2012)

Phoenix Goddess said:


> But I suppose people would rather blame Obama than admit the country was headed down a terrible path before that.



No, I blame him (and the Congress) for stepping on the gas pedal instead of hitting the brakes and turning around.


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 16, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Wow, I knew GBAtemp was liberal, but I didn't know it was this bad. Obama has run this country into the ground & you're set on giving him 4 more years of poverty and foodstamps.



What utter bullshit. If the US had followed the path championed by GOP hardliners you'd be living in a western Somalia by now.


----------



## emigre (Mar 16, 2012)

As someone raised in a Muslim Social Democratic family, I would vote Obama as he is the closest to my ideological leanings.


----------



## Valwin (Mar 16, 2012)

what were you thinking Santorum telling us we need to speak English over here by lol XD


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 16, 2012)

Valwin said:


> [media]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=YR32hBw6oXM[/media]
> 
> 
> what were you thinking Santorum telling us we need to speak English over here by lol XD


Well...look how far you're half-assed attempt at English has gotten you here.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 16, 2012)

Santorum made those comments because he's courting the Missouri (and other states similar to it) vote. Puerto Ricans can't vote for President, the amount of delegates at stake there is smaller, and he wasn't doing particularly well in PR to begin with, so his campaign likely won't see this as much of a hit.

That's not saying his comments weren't bad or anything (he's certainly not endearing himself to the hispanic vote), but there is a method to the madness... this time.


----------



## Jamstruth (Mar 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> what were you thinking Santorum telling us we need to speak English over here by lol XD



Well..it would make sense that if you want to be a part of a country where the official language is English you would have to adopt English as an official language.


----------



## Valwin (Mar 17, 2012)

Jamstruth said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > what were you thinking Santorum telling us we need to speak English over here by lol XD
> ...




Well actually all federal affairs here are done in  English  since 1902  

and the   USA have no official language  in fact   states are the ones that set language they want and we as a state would have 2 Espanol and English


----------



## smile72 (Mar 17, 2012)

Jamstruth said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > what were you thinking Santorum telling us we need to speak English over here by lol XD
> ...


There is no official language in the United States of America.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 17, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Jamstruth said:
> 
> 
> > Valwin said:
> ...



Let's try and work something out here, if the official language of a newly added state was two languages such as in p.r. and the option to vote for one of the languages to be declared down the line as an official language, with the possibility of it being changed again in the future, would you support that Smile?


----------



## smile72 (Mar 17, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Jamstruth said:
> ...


If you mean the official language for the entire country, no I would not support such a stupid and useless proposal.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 17, 2012)

smile72 said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


No,  if puerto rico held it to a vote if and when they became a state "again, not saying they are but this is a hypothetical question" and the vast majority chose to speek spanish as an official language, but the option to re-test that vote say 12 years down the line and see where everyone stood on the matter, would you support that option for the voters to decide, and not the state legislature?


----------



## smile72 (Mar 17, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > The Living Shadow said:
> ...


I guess yeah, but I don't think Puerto Rico will become a state for a while. I don't mind the voters deciding somethings. However somethings (civil rights, can not and should not be decided by voters).

Also why the hell is Vermin Supreme an option he will never be on the ballot. He's running in the Democratic Primary, anyone who thinks he will beat President Obama is a fool and he didn't even make the ballot on 10 states. And he lost to Obama in Iowa and New Hampshire.


----------



## Valwin (Mar 17, 2012)

smile72 said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...




in Novermber puertoricans are going to vote for status question for the following 3 questions


1. Independence

2 Free Association   AKA independence again

3 Statehood


i am positive statehood will win  and i think we will resolve this issue finally


----------



## smile72 (Mar 17, 2012)

Valwin said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > The Living Shadow said:
> ...


Puerto Rico would then be worth 7 electoral votes.


----------



## Jamstruth (Mar 17, 2012)

I didn't mean to cause such a debate.
The "Official" language doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to say it. Its just the language that must be used in court documents etc.
Don't you think it would cause an issue if Puerto Rico became a state and all the law and court documents were still printed in Spanish while the rest of the States uses English?


----------



## Lacius (Mar 17, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> No matter what I say, you are up in arms about defending the democrats massive spending, you run your mouth it was all bushes fault, and bill Clinton is a fiscal god. I still see absolutely no answer on how to defeat the 211 trillion dollar deficit, you lack even an inclining of detail.


Obama's proposed budget reduces discretionary spending by $1 trillion over the next 10 years. For every dollar in revenue from those making more than $250,000 per year (ending Bush tax cuts) and from closing corporate loopholes, Obama's proposed budget has $2.50 in spending cuts including the deficit reduction enacted over the last year. Including legislation from 2011, Obama's policies trim the deficit by around $5 trillion. Much of that is getting rid of the Bush tax cuts. Those are pretty specific numbers, so I'm not sure what your point is.



The Living Shadow said:


> Paul Ryan had a great plan, but no one is giving it a shot


Paul Ryan's plan destroys Medicare as we know it and will later cause seniors to pay thousands more a year for health care. It also raises taxes on the middle class and decreases taxes substantially on the very rich. Finally, the TPS projects that the changes in Medicare, Social Security, tax increases on the middle class, etc. probably won't offset the tax cuts for the rich and the debt will continue to increase. So no, Paul Ryan's plan is not viable.



The Living Shadow said:


> He had no major plans to reduce balance the budget, he cut a little here and a little there. We had a balanced budget thanks to the republicans in congress, not because of what Clinton did. Even the uber liberal news paper SFGATE agrees states it was the republican's plan that paved the way to a balanced budget


Actually, no. The major reason for the balanced budget was the increased revenue from tax increases on the rich. Because these tax increases did not get a single Republican vote, it is fair to say that the balanced budget was due to Clinton and the Democrats.

What actually reduced the deficit was Clinton's budget passed with Democrat majorities. There was a Balanced Budget Act in 1997 that was bipartisan, but it really just cut spending and siphoned the savings to other things (capital gains tax cuts, etc). In fact, it contributed slightly more to the debt.



The Living Shadow said:


> The new Clinton budget replaces the formal one he submitted in February that called for continued $200 billion deficits. The new plan adopts the keystone GOP goal of a balanced budget, but postpones the 2002 target date by three years


This is a misinterpretation of the data:

1993 - deficit $255 Billion
1994 - deficit $203 Billion
1995 - deficit $164 Billion
1996 - deficit $108 Billion
1997 - deficit  $22 Billion
1998 - SURPLUS  $69 Billion
1999 - SURPLUS $124 Billion
2000 - SURPLUS $236 Billion

As you can see, the deficit was steadily decreasing thanks to Clinton's tax increases on the rich. The only thing the Republicans had anything to do with was the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, and it actually did nothing to lessen the deficit. While it decreased spending, it only moved money around to offset tax cuts included in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.



The Living Shadow said:


> Liberals who want to &quot;spread the wealth around&quot; will never help this great country in the long run, you only make things worse.


I can't respond to that unless you're more specific.



The Living Shadow said:


> YES, wars cost money, but it doesn't help when you tack on amendments to defense bills


The fact that the spending bill was attached to the defense bill is not relevant in terms of war costs. Things are attached to defense bills all the time. A budget that dictated how things would be spent in the coming year was going to be attached to the defense bill regardless of who was doing it or what money was going to be spent on.

The fact that Bush massively increased spending on things like the wars and decreased revenue with massive tax cuts was the worst thing anyone could do to the debt. Democrats were very much against that. It is obvious that the Democrats are the ones who are fiscally responsible, not the Republicans. Likewise, the bill you are referring to increased spending by about $16 billion. I agree with you that spending did not need to be increased, but consider both that $16 billion is insignificant compared to the major causes of our deficit (Bush tax cuts, for one) and that Obama actually proposed spending cuts that were not implemented in that particular spending amendment.



The Living Shadow said:


> The point about the housing market is, I know you didn't say that but it's the mindset I was getting at, WE TRIED TO WARN THE NATION, but no one gave a shit until it happened.


This is an unsubstantiated claim. Even if one's interpretation of the video is correct, it is dated 2003. If Republicans knew what was to come, Bush and the Republican majorities chose to do nothing about it. Democrats had no power during that time. If you want to argue that your interpretation of the video is accurate, the Republicans are responsible for the housing crisis. However, I still say that it is neither party's fault.



The Living Shadow said:


> @#5, I was just stating the obvious fact, it cost's just as much now as it did then, even bin laden said that there was a war in iraq between the terrorist and the united states, Do I like the way our soldiers had to fight with hands tied behind them? No, but it's a larger scale, we do not know everything, we are not high level operatives in the cia, and we do not have the right to call these things, if you are going to help someone out, great! It helps if we actually know WHAT THE MISSION IS! When is the last time that the mission in Afghanistan was stated? We are just &quot;over yonder&quot; We do not have an explicit idea what the mission is, and it looks like we are getting out even earlier now, so you can't blame the war much longer.


It has been confirmed that the reasons for the Iraq War in the first place were lies. Likewise, the increased spending combined with the decreased revenue put us in the debt situation we're in now. You talk about World War II like there's some kind of parallel, but there isn't. Even ignoring that World War II was unavoidable, steps (taxes, bonds, etc) were taken to at least help reduce the debt incurred from World War II. The Iraq War was unnecessary, unpopular, based on lies, and unpaid for.



The Living Shadow said:


> I probably know more about carl marx than you ever did, fun fact! The lazy bastard refused to work, and let his child starve to death, because he didn't want to work. Horrible human being, horrible indeed! Communism is mass unionism, we have a mass union problem in our country right now... sound familiar? We need more union busting!


To say you know more about Carl Marx than I do is a bold and unsubstantiated claim. I made that comment that you might not know what communism is because you compared the stimulus (something that helped the economy and was the biggest tax break for the middle class in history) to communism. The stimulus is something that metaphorically jump-started the economy. That's the opposite of communism. Unless you're against tax breaks, for starters, and think they're communism, I was fair in my assessment that you weren't entirely sure what you were talking about.

As for your view on labor unions... what? Could you explain how that's relevant to any part of our discussion? I might honestly have missed your point. Regardless, labor unions allow the ability to collectively bargain, make sure workers and being treated fairly, etc. Labor unions are very much a civil rights issues, as evidenced by the fact that Martin Luther King Jr. was highly supportive of labor unions. Some conservatives like to argue that labor unions contribute massively to, for example, state debt. However, the busting of labor unions all over the states by Republicans has not helped the budget in any of those states. On the contrary, most of these Republican-controlled states are just cutting taxes for the rich and not balancing their budgets. Sound familiar? It should.

As for all this talk about English as an official language in the United States, it seems like a silly debate. I honestly understand peoples' fears that they won't be able to understand something that's going on because the business is being conducted in a language other in English, however racist those fears might be. But I'm a linguist, and one needs to keep in mind that languages are in a constant state of change. What we define as English now might not be English tomorrow. And where do we draw the line? Do we make it so official business conducted in the capitals cannot be conducted in, for example, AAVE? There are two vowel shifts happening in America, and some linguists believe that different parts of the United States won't, verbally, be mutually intelligible in the future. Are we going to make laws specifying what kind of English should be spoken then? It's my opinion that vaguely defining English as an official language is just tying our hands behind our backs in the future.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 17, 2012)

Jamstruth said:


> I didn't mean to cause such a debate.
> The "Official" language doesn't necessarily mean that everyone has to say it. Its just the language that must be used in court documents etc.
> Don't you think it would cause an issue if Puerto Rico became a state and all the law and court documents were still printed in Spanish while the rest of the States uses English?


Nope,not really.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 17, 2012)

Lacius said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > No matter what I say, you are up in arms about defending the democrats massive spending, you run your mouth it was all bushes fault, and bill Clinton is a fiscal god. I still see absolutely no answer on how to defeat the 211 trillion dollar deficit, you lack even an inclining of detail.
> ...


Thank you,Lacius finally someone says it. Paul Ryan's plan destroys Medicare and only increases the debt. And of course, we only had a surplus by raising taxes.


----------



## Deleted User (Mar 17, 2012)

They're all wankers, I call dibs on *Jeremy clarkson for the president of the world.*


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Mar 18, 2012)

tigris said:


> They're all wankers, I call dibs on *Jeremy clarkson for the president of the world.*


THIS X1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 18, 2012)

Jeremy Clarkson is a fucking wanker.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 18, 2012)

I didn't know who the fuck Jeremy Clarkson was. So I looked him up, he's a douchebag. This is about the U.S. presidential election, don't derail the thread. He is British born, therefore he's unimportant.


----------



## ZenZero (Mar 18, 2012)

Clarkson is a brilliant man. Speaks the Truth, and says what the rest of us think, but are too scared of sounding not PC to say.

Anyway, despite being from england - I voted for Obama, as far as I can tell the guy has done brilliantly, and solved the problems that his dick of a predecessor setup.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 18, 2012)

ZenZero said:


> Clarkson is a brilliant man. Speaks the Truth, and says what the rest of us think, but are too scared of sounding not PC to say.
> 
> Anyway, despite being from england - I voted for Obama, as far as I can tell the guy has done brilliantly, and solved the problems that his dick of a predecessor setup.


That's the problem you're from England therefore you haven't heard any Fox News or Conservative Talk Radio (such as Rush Limbaugh). (No this is not an insult, people who are not from Aamerica often don't understand why Obama has such low ratings).


----------



## ZenZero (Mar 18, 2012)

smile72 said:


> ZenZero said:
> 
> 
> > Clarkson is a brilliant man. Speaks the Truth, and says what the rest of us think, but are too scared of sounding not PC to say.
> ...



Fair point, Our media over here is nearly always positive where Obama is concerned.

And surely the guy who was pres when they killed Binladen deserves a second term?


----------



## smile72 (Mar 18, 2012)

ZenZero said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > ZenZero said:
> ...


No, it's not just that it's that Conservatives over here are never pleased, they give credit to the Army and Bush Jr. rather than the president for Bin Laden's killing. For Gadhfi, the Army and the French. They want to bomb Iran now,but if Obama does, "it wasn't fast enough", "we shouldn't have bombed iran", etc.


----------



## I_AM_BIB (Mar 18, 2012)

All the votes are bullshit. Simply because you only have a choice of a few people who are all going to ruin America, maybe not in the same way, but equally. It's a government of lies with their secrets hidden in false information. How can you ever believe the news nowadays when on the new people just say stuff you have no proof of. A obvious example, Osama Bin Laden killed. They wont show his body, hardly anyone "saw" it. And then they say they threw it in the sea. 

You may tell this to their faces, but they always have excuses of the laws they invented. "Why wont you show it on TV?" "Oh because people might find it horrible." Bullshit. People don't need to watch it if they always give them warnings before. They have everything their way, why would we want any one of them?... You don't have a clue what they might decide next.


----------



## I_AM_BIB (Mar 18, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Jeremy Clarkson is a fucking wanker.


If Jeremy Clarkson is a fucking wanker, the rest of them are lower than anyone can describe.

JFK was probably one of the only good presidents of America ( I don't know many, I'm from England ), but what happened to him? People (and we know who the "people" are) got fire up their arse and killed him. Fuck this president of America bullshit. Scrap this law.


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 18, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0i0RXMvzMs


----------



## Gahars (Mar 18, 2012)

I_AM_BIB said:


> All the votes are bullshit. Simply because you only have a choice of a few people who are all going to ruin America, maybe not in the same way, but equally. It's a government of lies with their secrets hidden in false information. How can you ever believe the news nowadays when on the new people just say stuff you have no proof of. A obvious example, Osama Bin Laden killed. They wont show his body, hardly anyone "saw" it. And then they say they threw it in the sea.
> You may tell this to their faces, but they always have excuses of the laws they invented. "Why wont you show it on TV?" "Oh because people might find it horrible." Bullshit. People don't need to watch it if they always give them warnings before. They have everything their way, why would we want any one of them?... You don't have a clue what they might decide next.





The Living Shadow said:


> I probably know more about carl marx than you ever did, fun fact!



Though you evidently don't know enough to spell his name correctly.


----------



## emigre (Mar 18, 2012)

I've got to say Karl Marx's work is a brilliant yet difficult read. Easily one of the most important people to have ever lived.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 18, 2012)

I_AM_BIB said:


> All the votes are bullshit. Simply because you only have a choice of a few people who are all going to ruin America, maybe not in the same way, but equally.


To argue that two political parties with radically different points of view will equally ruin the country is baseless. For example, in terms of the debt, we know that the Democrats have plans that are projected to reduce the deficit over time. Oppositely, all of the Republican plans cut taxes and raise the debt. Despite the fact that there will only be two viable choices, many important issues are at stake. The debt, women's rights, gay rights, the environment, investments in new technologies, energy, etc. To say that the results of the election will be inconsequential is absolutely not true.



I_AM_BIB said:


> It's a government of lies with their secrets hidden in false information. How can you ever believe the news nowadays when on the new people just say stuff you have no proof of. A obvious example, Osama Bin Laden killed. They wont show his body, hardly anyone "saw" it. And then they say they threw it in the sea.
> 
> You may tell this to their faces, but they always have excuses of the laws they invented. "Why wont you show it on TV?" "Oh because people might find it horrible." Bullshit. People don't need to watch it if they always give them warnings before. They have everything their way, why would we want any one of them?... You don't have a clue what they might decide next.


There are examples of the government lying (ex. the Iraq War). But to argue that the government is always lying sounds paranoid. For example, there's absolutely no reason to think that the government lied about the circumstances involving Osama bin Laden's death and disposal. Likewise, if you're arguing that the results of the presidential election are inconsequential because the government lies, then it should be noted that one could argue that the Republicans are more a party of lies than the Democrats. If lying is an issue for you, then the results of the presidential election absolutely matter.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 18, 2012)

Lacius said:


> There are examples of the government lying (ex. the Iraq War). But to argue that the government is always lying sounds paranoid. For example, there's absolutely no reason to think that the government lied about the circumstances involving Osama bin Laden's death and disposal.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2111001/Osama-bin-Laden-WAS-NOT-buried-sea-flown-US-cremation-leaked-emails-reveal.html


----------



## Lacius (Mar 18, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> http://www.dailymail...ils-reveal.html


There's a reason why, when it matters, evidence has a CoC. The way it was obtained calls into question the the validity of the evidence. Am I saying it isn't possible that we were lied to? No, it's possible. But to what end? Why does it matter if Osama bin Laden was cremated or buried at sea? Why the lie? Anonymous makes a name for itself by doing things that gets it talked about. What better way to do that than to fuel a popular conspiracy theory? The way I see it, there's no reason to think we were lied to about Osama bin Laden's disposal, so the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, and what was provided by Anonymous is far from conclusive/reputable.

In summary, it's possible but not probable that we were lied to about Osama bin Laden's disposal. Until there is real evidence, it remains a conspiracy theory.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 18, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > The Living Shadow said:
> ...


If you are just going to sit there and continuously defend and not provide any fact's whatsoever I am not going to sit here and attempt to correct you over and over again, much like my sessions with bluestar who also lacked sources  I will not stay up until 3 in the morning researching and providing links to documentation. I have school to worry about, I don't have time to screw around arguing with a fool who wishes to deflect deflect deflect.

Btw, Germany, France, the United kingdom Spain, Portugal and countless others must be "racist" for having an 'official language', everything was written in the native tongue and still is. So why should the united states be any different? <--- That's a rhetorical question, It doesn't warrant a response.

@[member='KarL'], who really gives a damn how it's spelled? I just jumped to the way I am used to spelling/typing that name, give me a break from the nit picking for damn sake.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 18, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> If you are just going to sit there and continuously defend and not provide any fact's whatsoever I am not going to sit here and attempt to correct you over and over again, much like my sessions with bluestar who also lacked sources  I will not stay up until 3 in the morning researching and providing links to documentation. I have school to worry about, I don't have time to screw around arguing with a fool who wishes to deflect deflect deflect.


You're getting a little personal, don't you think?

Regardless, I've posted very specific facts and numbers. Saying otherwise is not going to change that. If you do end up wanting to continue our discussion, I recommend you start by posting evidence that Obama does not have a deficit-reduction plan or that any of the major Republican candidates won't worsen the deficit, for starters.

If you have a problem with any of the data I've provided, please say so and counter it with your own. Otherwise, I feel my points are extremely valid.


----------



## Gahars (Mar 19, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> @[member='KarL'], who really gives a damn how it's spelled? I just jumped to the way I am used to spelling/typing that name, give me a break from the nit picking for damn sake.



Why so defensive? And is it too much to expect that, when someone claims to be an expert on a specific person (their life, philosophy, etc.), they know how to spell their name correctly?


----------



## Valwin (Mar 19, 2012)

Romney wins Puerto Rico primary yay


----------



## smile72 (Mar 19, 2012)

I_AM_BIB said:


> All the votes are bullshit. Simply because you only have a choice of a few people who are all going to ruin America, maybe not in the same way, but equally. It's a government of lies with their secrets hidden in false information. How can you ever believe the news nowadays when on the new people just say stuff you have no proof of. A obvious example, Osama Bin Laden killed. They wont show his body, hardly anyone "saw" it. And then they say they threw it in the sea.
> 
> You may tell this to their faces, but they always have excuses of the laws they invented. "Why wont you show it on TV?" "Oh because people might find it horrible." Bullshit. People don't need to watch it if they always give them warnings before. They have everything their way, why would we want any one of them?... You don't have a clue what they might decide next.



Someone's extremely paranoid. Yeah,only one party will ruin the U.S. as they are anti women's and gay rights, they're always crying over religious freedoms. They believe tax cuts are the answer to everything and that all social programs are evil.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 19, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Lacius said:
> ...


That's different, those are not nations created by immigrants.
Here you go



> According to Henry Aaron, one of two economists who coined the term "premium support" in response to criticisms of health care vouchers, states that the Republican plan for Medicare uses vouchers, not “premium support”. The defining attribute of the plans that Aaron christened “premium support” was that governmental financial support would rise with average health care costs. The Republican plan instead, has this support rising with the consumer price index (general inflation). This difference is crucial to understanding the Republican proposal—the cost of health care is rising much faster than the consumer price index. The Republican voucher plan is virtually guaranteed to become increasingly inadequate over time. Beneficiaries will need to pay for the increases in health care costs due to inflation –- that how the Republican plan saves money.
> 
> 
> The vouchers would rise in value with the consumer price index (general inflation), but as medical expenses have been rising much faster than the consumer price index, the value of the government subsidy would erode over time. When the program begins in 2022, the typical 65-year old would be responsible for about 25% of the cost of their healthcare, which is consistent with Medicare as it exists today. However, the share paid out-of-pocket by this typical 65-year-old in 2030 would be 68% under the Republican plan, according to the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office.



http://en.wikipedia....edicaid_reforms


----------



## gshock (Mar 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> (few days ago in Wash DC)



I'd vote Obama, but I'd still sooner make changes to my lifestyle then wait for the rest of the country to make changes for everybody first.

( No matter who was president. )

If gas prices go up consider getting some cheap solar PV cells to help offset the cost of fuels and grid dependency.

Fossil fuels as a finite resource are going to continue to be expensive no matter who's sitting in the president's seat in the near future.

Not everything is the federal goverments fault.



smile72 said:


> That's the problem you're from England therefore you haven't heard any Fox News or Conservative Talk Radio (such as Rush Limbaugh). (No this is not an insult, people who are not from Aamerica often don't understand why Obama has such low ratings).


( I'm not sure if you're joking or not but here Fox News is ridiculed frequently and is considered about as credible as news stand tabloids. Just saying. )



emigre said:


> I've got to say Karl Marx's work is a brilliant yet difficult read. Easily one of the most important people to have ever lived.


Which of his ideas would that be. Out of curiosity.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 19, 2012)

gshock said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > (few days ago in Wash DC)
> ...


Not to the Conservatives. To the Conservatives Fox News is completely factual.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 19, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Not to the Conservatives. To the Conservatives Fox News is completely factual.



Fox News obviously has its bias, but how does this make it any different from any other "news" outlet?? MSNBC, the New York Times ... obviously just as biased but to the opposite pole. There isn't much journalism going on these days that isn't pushing one direction or the other. Even places you might go where there isn't really a (D) or (R) spin, such as reason.com, still have their libertarian agenda pushing their idea of what is "news."

Basically, you either avoid all media and choose to stay uninformed, or you soak it all up from all sides and try to discern the likely truth by remembering all political "news" is really a sales pitch. If you only listen to one set of cheerleaders you're intentionally uninterested in the truth. 

FWIW, I don't even watch any English-speaking television anymore, with the exception some college football in the fall. My family sits down to a couple hours of japanese tv every night, but that's it. I get my "news", such that it is, from visiting a variety of news sites and blogs, some conservative and some liberal.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Not to the Conservatives. To the Conservatives Fox News is completely factual.
> ...


The difference is MSNBC doesn't aim to lie. Any person with a brain who has seen Fox News realizes the difference.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 19, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...




I have a brain. I'm saying they all lie.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I have a brain. I'm saying they all lie.


I'm not saying you won't find a mistake here and there from other networks like MSNBC, but Fox News consistently *lies* and misrepresents the facts. This is why seven studies have consistently found that Fox News viewers are the most misinformed. Canada has a law that prohibits its broadcasts from blatantly lying and deceiving viewers, and it was enough to keep Fox News out of Canada, at least for a time (I don't know how the matter was resolved or if it ever was). You can argue that all networks lie to some degree, but there is no way that other networks like MSNBC are even close to the level of Fox News.

Fox News controversies

In the interest of fairness, there's an MSNBC controversies page as well, but you'll notice that it pales in comparison.

Regardless of how detrimental Fox News arguably is to society, I feel there has yet to be sufficient evidence provided that supports the idea that any of the Republicans are viable candidates for president of the United States. Republican policies are largely out-of-touch and illogical, and when it comes to conspiracy theories that Obama is a socialist-communist-Muslim-foreigner-atheist, Fox News hasn't helped.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 19, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > I have a brain. I'm saying they all lie.
> ...




I said all media outlets have their slant. You're admitting that, but arguing over to what degree. You can compare Foxnews to MSNBC wikipedia 'controversy' websites one-on-one if you like, but that omits (whether wikipedia has such  pages for them or not) ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, HLN, plus the print media, i.e. NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, etc, not to mention the services such as AP and Reuters. The majority of 'mainstream' journalists working out there are reporting from a liberal bias - are you going to honestly deny that? Most recently the exposure of "journo-list" provided hard evidence of an organized narrative, but it should be apparent just from being exposed to it if your eyes are open.

I'm not disagreeing with you that Fox is feeding people twisted news. I'm just saying, if you think there's isn't an equal but opposite twist being applied to current events at other media outlets, you're not an objective consumer of information.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I said all media outlets have their slant. You're admitting that, but arguing over to what degree. You can compare Foxnews to MSNBC wikipedia 'controversy' websites one-on-one if you like, but that omits (whether wikipedia has such  pages for them or not) ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, PBS, HLN, plus the print media, i.e. NYT, Washington Post, LA Times, Time, Newsweek, etc, not to mention the services such as AP and Reuters. The majority of 'mainstream' journalists working out there are reporting from a liberal bias - are you going to honestly deny that?


While journalists might be disproportionately liberal, there is no real evidence supporting your claim that the majority of reporting has a liberal bias. And just playing devil's advocate for a second, who is to say that reporting from a liberal bias is inherently bad as long as the reporting remains ethical? I'd like to know what you think it means to report from a liberal bias.



Hanafuda said:


> I'm not disagreeing with you that Fox is feeding people twisted news. I'm just saying, if you think there's isn't an equal but opposite twist being applied to current events at other media outlets, you're not an objective consumer of information.


Facts are facts regardless of how they're reported and the commentary that is included. Fox News reports in a way that distorts the facts so they are no longer facts. To say that Fox News is equal with any of the other media outlets is not looking at it from an objective point of view. Fox News claims to be unbiased and report the facts. It is neither of those things. Other media outlets report the facts, often times as objectively as possible. MSNBC doesn't claim to be impartial, and even if they did, calling out the Republicans on, for example, hypocrisy isn't a liberal bias; it's reporting facts that just happen to cast the Republicans in a negative light. MSNBC pundits like Rachel Maddow often times offer commentary that expresses a point-of-view and makes some kind of argument based on the facts. Biases or not, it doesn't become morally objectionable until one's trying to deceive the audience, and Fox News is the only news outlet that consistently does this with the distortion and misrepresentation of the facts, and it's probably because the facts are not on its side.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 19, 2012)

Lacius said:


> While journalists might be disproportionately liberal, there is no real evidence supporting your claim that the majority of reporting has a liberal bias.



res ipsa loquitur, dude.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > While journalists might be disproportionately liberal, there is no real evidence supporting your claim that the majority of reporting has a liberal bias.
> ...


First of all, journalists *might* be disproportionately liberal. I'm not prepared to make that claim, and there's conflicting evidence.

Second, because a journalist might be left-leaning does not mean that his or her reporting will reflect his or her political ideology (but I'm not saying it never does either). There are many factors to consider, such as the fact that journalists often times try to report as objectively as possible, have network higher-ups that influence what's reported and how it's reported, etc. In fact, one could successfully argue that the media owners are the ones with agendas, and those agendas (corporate interests, etc) are often times right-leaning.

Third, I would argue that many news outlets (excluding Fox News, of course) often times report the facts as objectively as possible (ex. "conservatives are angry because of X. Liberals are angry because of Y"). The whole "liberal media" concept, to me, appears to be the right's defense when they're portrayed negatively and called out on their hypocrisy. For example, the famous Katie Couric interview of Sarah Palin. Do you think Katie let her political ideology dictate how she interviewed Palin? While Palin and Fox News would have you believe Palin's poor interview was because of the liberal media, most people, including McCain's campaign staff, agree that it was a fair interview without any bias; Palin just happened to give a really poor interview. Conservatives cannot call "foul" just because the facts are against them or they say something stupid. One could argue that the liberal media debate is only an issue because conservatives say a lot of stupid things, and what you call a "liberal bias" might be closer to common sense than a "conservative bias."


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 19, 2012)

You know, being a guy who has actually lived under Mitt Romney's rule, I can say without a doubt he sucks. He only supported half of Massachusetts and that was the East half. If you lived in the Western half, you were screwed. Being that I lived there for 20 years, I watched ti go from a great place with lots of business, to a mess run down with slumlords, no jobs, and just dead. His systems only helped the rich and big cities, but dragged down the little man big time. 
Santorum and Ginrich are both right-wing extremist that will drag our country into the dark ages if they are put into office. Personally I don't want to be treated like criminal over the minor part of my life.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 19, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Santorum and Ginrich are both right-wing extremist that will drag our country into the dark ages if they are put into office. Personally I don't want to be treated like criminal over the minor part of my life.


The Republicans in general have moved so far right in this country that Romney could also be considered a right-wing extremist. He supports personhood amendments, which could arguably outlaw contraception in the form of the pill, and he has signed NOM's 2012 presidential pledge, which includes constitutionally banning gay marriage and appointing a "presidential commission to investigate harassment of traditional marriage supporters."


----------



## Advi (Mar 19, 2012)

I think Santorum's infamy as an extremely evangelical and homophobic prick has actually helped him a bit by distracting people from the fact that he's also blatantly politically corrupt and self-serving.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 20, 2012)

Advi said:


> I think Santorum's infamy as an extremely evangelical and homophobic prick has actually helped him a bit by distracting people from the fact that he's also blatantly politically corrupt and self-serving.


You are correct. Southern "Christian" Americans will get over that stuff as long as their candidate hates gays and abortion.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 20, 2012)

Lacius said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > If you are just going to sit there and continuously defend and not provide any fact's whatsoever I am not going to sit here and attempt to correct you over and over again, much like my sessions with bluestar who also lacked sources  I will not stay up until 3 in the morning researching and providing links to documentation. I have school to worry about, I don't have time to screw around arguing with a fool who wishes to deflect deflect deflect.
> ...



You have NOT provided facts, you've pulled numbers out of thin air, where as I actually PROVIDE both left and right leaning sources to back up my arguments. for example here is another one! TITLE: National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush via cbs.com, you are so full of bullshit it isn't even funny. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT, PROVIDE FACTUAL DATA EVEN IF IT IS BIASED.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> You have NOT provided facts, you've pulled numbers out of thin air, where as I actually PROVIDE both left and right leaning sources to back up my arguments. for example here is another one! TITLE: National Debt has increased more under Obama than under Bush via cbs.com, you are so full of bullshit it isn't even funny. IF YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE AN ARGUMENT, PROVIDE FACTUAL DATA EVEN IF IT IS BIASED.


You're right that the debt has gone up under Obama, but as you can see from the following, the debt is largely caused by Bush policies still in place, specifically the Bush tax cuts, and Obama plans on letting them expire as a part of his deficit-reduction plan. The light blue portions are Obama's contributions, and they're largely economic recovery measures (stimulus, etc). The major Republican candidates for president would increase the tax cuts for the rich and worsen the deficit. Sorry dude, but facts are facts.











The Living Shadow said:


> edit: @[member='smile'], wow wikipedia really? Is this the same wikipedia article that stil list's obama's fraudulent birth certificate as a conspiracy theory? Check out the second link in my signature, alternatively watch this
> *snip*


The Obama birth certificate conspiracy theory has been disproved. The original documents (every form you could possibly ask for, and from before Adobe Illustrator [that made me lol]) are a matter of public record, there are birth announcements in newspapers, etc. The burden of proof is on you and other conspiracy theorists to provide a shred of tangible evidence that Obama was not born in the United States. You say I don't support my arguments with evidence (even though I have been posting links early in the thread, such as the charts above, and thought I didn't have to keep posting them), but I guess I should have expected hypocrisy.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 20, 2012)

Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.


Thank you! Glad to see I am not the only dog in this fight 

@B.C.It's not a damned conspiracy theory, we are not talking alluminati here, I've produced a video here, and if you doubt the video I have a challenge for you, pull up the white hose link, open irfanview alone and then copy the image from the pdf into irfanview, same results with a less powerful program! That document's as legitimate as a flying pig! I guess the facts are too good for you, everything has to be right vs. left. Another thing, I want an absolute answer on this, what problem is this miracle budget supposedly fixing? The invisible debt, or the visible debt? I am sure you will attempt to dodge the question like so many before you.

Edit: Forgot about this, forgive me Here you go!


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 20, 2012)

You're seriously still a birther? Jesus H Christ.

The pdf file offers no evidence of forgery, as anyone who actually knows anything about the format will tell you

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obamas-birth-certificate-legit/

Although I'm sure Adobe and Fox are in the tank for Obama as well. Hell, I'm probably a government agent paid by George Soros to discredit you on the Internet.

If you had any genuine desire to find out, you could make a pdf file using a similar set up yourself, run the same 'tests' and see that it came back with the same 'proof' that you faked it and, because it was you that made it, you would know that was incorrect first hand, without any doubts that the person telling you this has some kind of evil agenda. But we both know you have no desire to do that, because the truth is not something you have genuine interest in, and it would mean you couldn't just claim I was using 'biased sources', which you're about to do in your next post.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 20, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> You're seriously still a birther? Jesus H Christ.
> 
> The pdf file offers no evidence of forgery, as anyone who actually knows anything about the format will tell you
> 
> ...


As I stated earlier, it's the same result as the video I posted earlier.



Also


----------



## emigre (Mar 20, 2012)




----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 20, 2012)

emigre said:


>


You have allot of fun trolling around here, don't you?


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 20, 2012)

It could just be a matter of me believing a multitude of Adobe users and you some tin foil hat wearer with a youtube account, but the fact is the steps the video goes through do not demonstrate it's fake, so the fact you follow those steps and get that results means nothing. Adobe products have been automatically layering and using OCR on imported info for quite some time. They were doing it before the birth certificate was posted and they still do it now. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. 

There at least seems to be consensus amongst nearly all on the right, even ex-birthers, that this is now a lost battle and one that did a considerable damage to their cause. But the GOP just can't seem to shake the last dregs of this lunatic fringe attached to them like a limpet, and it's that which means Obama's set for another four years (unless some far right terrorist nut murders him). And I'm sure people will still be opening pdf's in notepad when there's only a few months left of his second term and discovering that his birth certificate isn't real and it's actually made up of SQUARES! And they'll still be incredulous when people sigh and roll their eyes rather than taking to the streets in a rage.


----------



## emigre (Mar 20, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> You have allot of fun trolling around here, don't you?



Excellent response to a reasonable claim. If Obama wasn't mixed race and  would there be so much batshit insanity over his birthplace? Honestly it seems apparent to me, a good amount of opposition to the Obama administration is based on irrationality than legitimate political reasoning.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 20, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> It could just be a matter of me believing an Adobe technician and you some tin foil hat wearer with a youtube account, but the fact is the steps the video goes through do not demonstrate it's fake, so the fact you follow those steps and get that results means nothing. Adobe products have been automatically layering and using OCR on imported info for quite some time. They were doing it before the birth certificate was posted and they still do it now. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
> 
> There at least seems to be consensus amongst nearly all on the right, even ex-birthers, that this is now a lost battle and one that did a considerable damage to their cause. But the GOP just can't seem to shake the last dregs of this lunatic fringe attached to them like a limpet, and it's that which means Obama's set for another four years (unless some far right terrorist nut murders him). And I'm sure people will still be opening pdf's in notepad when there's only a few months left of his second term and discovering that his birth certificate isn't real and it's actually made up of SQUARES! And they'll still be incredulous when people sigh and roll their eyes rather than taking to the streets in a rage.




Discredit, discredit ,discredit, is that all you people can do? Hell, that's all you seem to be able to do bluestar, just as stubborn as ever. 98% of the media panders to the democratic party in this country, what does that tell you? There is no difference between a compliant media and a state owed media. It's the liberal way, mock torment and discredit. I've been right before, and I know I am right now. Mock me all you want, I know the truth, and will continue to sing it until the day I die.


emigre said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > You have allot of fun trolling around here, don't you?
> ...



Nice try mega troll, not gonna work.


----------



## emigre (Mar 20, 2012)

Ah you are part of the irrational Right wing lobby.


----------



## TLSS_N (Mar 20, 2012)

emigre said:


> Ah you are part of the irrational Right wing lobby.



Just one more post added to my account, going to bed... night.


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 20, 2012)

I also think you need to read further down that wnd article and wade through their spin. As he says himself in his clarification "what I see about how the PDF is built does not prove any falsification."

Everything he said on the original article about the layers and OCR being absolutely no indication of forgery is true and at no point does he imply otherwise later. After being harassed by birthers and accused of working for Obama because he once commented on an amazon page about a book about Obama, he's clarified that these layers etc don't prove authenticity, as the article may imply (after all, EVERYTHING can be forged.) But they certainly don't prove or even slightly indicate any nefarious activity. So the fact you can see them by looking at the pdf, again,means absolutely nothing.



> Discredit, discredit ,discredit, is that all you people can do?



What?  You dedicate your entire life to discrediting Obama and anyone who doesn't think he's the anti-christ.



> Hell, that's all you seem to be able to do bluestar, just as stubborn as ever.



Oh, I'm sorry, I should just accept anything you tell people as truth even if it comes with zero evidence and is demonstrably false.  To do otherwise is being 'stubborn'.



> 98% of the media panders to the democratic party in this country, what does that tell you?



It tells you you pull statistics directly out of your ass.



> There is no difference between a compliant media and a state owed media. It's the liberal way, mock torment and discredit. I've been right before, and I know I am right now.



You will believe any lie you are told, as long as it backs your established world view.  I could go and invent a juicy story about Obama, global warming, the gays and the liberal media today, post it on Free Republic tomorrow and see you post it as gospel on here by Thursday.



> Mock me all you want, I know the truth, and will continue to sing it until the day I die.



"The media is lib'rul, this I know, because my radio tells me so..."


----------



## Gahars (Mar 20, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> Nice try mega troll, not gonna work.



Wait, you claim that the media only aims to discredit... and yet, when Emigre raises a legitimate point, you try to discredit him through petty insults.

Hypocrisy, thy name is The Living Shadow.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 20, 2012)

The Living Shadow said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.
> ...




No offense but we're not even close to being on the same side. But I keep coming back to counter Lacius because I've been a democrat for probably longer than he's been alive and I do not like the hard-left socialist turn the party has taken recently. On the last page Lacius said, "The Republicans in general have moved so far right in this country that Romney could also be considered a right-wing extremist." I can tell you, having the benefit of being around for the 70's, 80's, and 90's, that this is absolutely not true. It is the leadership of the democratic party whose ideology has shifted dramatically, and many democrats over 40y.o. these days are only voting democrat for local and state candidates because they do not support the national party's (DNC) platform.




emigre said:


> If Obama wasn't mixed race and  would there be so much batshit insanity over his birthplace? Honestly it seems apparent to me, a good amount of opposition to the Obama administration is based on irrationality than legitimate political reasoning.




I agree with this. But it is also possible to be opposed to Obama being president without being a birther, and without being a racist. I supported Hillary in the 2008 nomination process and I'm still a registered dem though I'm starting to lean libertarian, simply because their strict constitutionalist philosophy of fiscal responsibilty with social liberty is closer in line with how I'm thinking these days. 

It is worth mentioning, however, that democrats did sue in Federal court to disqualify McCain over his birthplace as well. If McCain had won the 2008 election, I do believe there would still be democrats out there still saying he wasn't a 'natural born citizen' either. Heck, there are still plenty of democrats who are still livid over the 2000 election and the Supreme Court's decision that stopped the recounts in Florida.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Mar 20, 2012)

emigre said:


> Excellent response to a reasonable claim. If Obama wasn't mixed race and  would there be so much batshit insanity over his birthplace? Honestly it seems apparent to me, a good amount of opposition to the Obama administration is based on irrationality than legitimate political reasoning.


Oh? I think that statement went a touch overboard. The opposition that I have encountered among people here is hardly "irrational," and has nothing to do with his race. His administration is largely based on collusion and fear of the Christian right, and he has allowed the most reactionary policies in general to solidify under his watch; the Wall Street bailout and Bradley Manning's treatment, for example. He has broken most of, if not all, all of his promises for greater social reform. At this point he is even far worse than his predecessor, little more than a friendly face to cover up the rapacity of US imperialism abroad.

Obama is a shameless bourgeois politician and a scoundrel. Such an opinion is based on his political history, not his racial heritage. That is, at least, the opposition I've encountered.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Funding for the "Center on Budget and Policy Priorities," i.e. CBPP, comes from the Democracy Alliance, which was set up by George Soros and Tim Gill. Most everyone here's probably heard of Soros. Tim Gill's "Gill Action Fund" provides political support (CASH) to politicians and political parties conditioned on their support of LGBT rights, and that of course means the Democratic party. In other words, your graphs say what they were paid to say. They are "based on" CBO numbers, but CBPP is known to adjust those numbers to suit their interpretations and forecasts. Just because you can produce a jpg of a chart doesn't mean it's accurate. Your source has an agenda.


The numbers I have provided are accurate. If you have data that contradicts it, feel free to post it. But these are very specific numbers with little room for interpretation. Your claim that the graphs say what they were paid to say is baseless. Likewise, the CBO is nonpartisan and concurs with these numbers. The following is from the CBO and is just the difference in the debt focusing only on one variable (the Bush tax cuts):






I'm happy to argue the debt and the deficit (and the effect each of the candidates for president would have on them), but please, if you're going to question the numbers, provide some evidence. Until you do, these charts by the CBO and CBPP can be considered accurate. You're basically saying "the CBPP has an agenda so they can't be right." Your logic is flawed, especially in the absence of contradictory evidence. You argue there's a bias and that the data provided by the CBPP is misleading, but this argument against the CBPP's assement has proven to be false (it argues that the projections through 2011 were flawed due to things like failing to include the effects the tax cuts would have on the economy [which no reputable economist thought would occur]), and we can see that the CBPP projections through 2011 were accurate. Here's more data (CBO, etc):








Hanafuda said:


> But I keep coming back to counter Lacius because I've been a democrat for probably longer than he's been alive


Looking at this thread objectively, you don't appear to be doing a very good job countering me. No offense intended. And I don't see how our ages are relevant.



Hanafuda said:


> and I do not like the hard-left socialist turn the party has taken recently. On the last page Lacius said, "The Republicans in general have moved so far right in this country that Romney could also be considered a right-wing extremist." I can tell you, having the benefit of being around for the 70's, 80's, and 90's, that this is absolutely not true. It is the leadership of the democratic party whose ideology has shifted dramatically, and many democrats over 40y.o. these days are only voting democrat for local and state candidates because they do not support the national party's (DNC) platform.


I'm not going to argue that the Democratic party has remained constant over the years, but I get the feeling you don't know exactly what it means to be socialist, because the Democrats are not. If you could provide some evidence, that would help me understand your thinking. As for the Republicans, it is quite apparent. We're talking about birth control as an issue again, the Tea Party specifically focused on replacing moderates with conservatives in the 2010 elections, etc. Issues like amnesty for illegal immigration, cap and trade, individual mandates, etc. were all Republican ideas originally. Now they have taken a hard-right turn. Even Reagan likely would be too liberal by today's standards for Republicans.



The Living Shadow said:


> Discredit, discredit ,discredit, is that all you people can do?


The information you are providing is not credible. Likewise, the burden of proof is on you to show that Obama was not born in the United States. All you have shown is that any generic birth certificate can be edited using Adobe software in 2012. Why, specifically, is Obama's birth certificate a fake? Also, to what end? Did his family decide they would run him in a presidential election so they planted newspaper birth announcements, etc. when he was a baby? Let's just say there's a reason why all your conspiracy evidence is limited to shady conspiracy websites and YouTube. Even your precious Fox News thinks this debate is pointless.



The Living Shadow said:


> I've been right before, and I know I am right now. Mock me all you want, I know the truth, and will continue to sing it until the day I die.


Can you prove it, let alone support it? This kind of statement shows me that you live in a bubble of your own facts. It does not matter how much evidence is shown to you. You will continue shouting "Obama wasn't born in the United States" despite the evidence, which means you are an illogical person.


----------



## The Catboy (Mar 20, 2012)

Ok, seriously people? Still a debate over if Obama was born in a America? You know if he is still in office and wasn't kicked out, then he was born in America. There end of discussion.


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 20, 2012)

Lacius said:


> The following is from the CBO and is just the difference in the debt focusing only on one variable (the Bush tax cuts):



No, it isn't from the CBO. It's from thinkprogress.org, and it reflects "_the author's calculations_", again "based on" data from the CBO and ITEP (another 'progressive' group).

As for your demand for evidence to the contrary, I've already explained my opinion that there is no objective reporting to be had. Everyone's got their charts and pie-graphs to show what they want everyone else to believe is the truth, all based on the same allegedly objective data. Ever hear the one about "lies, damned lies, and statistics?" I'm sure "the Heritage Foundation" has a few very credible looking graphs that purport to disprove your graphs ... they're bullshit too.

That said, even if we take your graph as truth, note that with or without the Bush tax cuts, publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP was steadily declining until 2009, and then steeply climbs.

Anyway, I already agreed with you pages ago that the so-called "Bush tax cuts" should have been repealed in the first year Obama took office. But they weren't, even though the democrats held a majority in both houses of Congress. Why didn't they do that? Oh that's right, because the Republicans might've filibustered the extension of unemployment benefits for people who'd already used theirs up. Oooooh, scary. I'll say it one more time ... they should have let them filibuster. But, the democrats' majority in the House is long gone and its pointless to debate that now I guess. Though if the democrat-controlled Senate would've passed a budget even once in the past 3 and 1/2 years, maybe those "Bush" tax cuts that they can't seem to be able to stop could've at least been fought over some, instead of just letting them continue. As far as I'm concerned, not even fighting it = same as voting for it to go on.

Finally, as for the veracity of the data in that graph ... it shows the debt growing and growing in the years to come, all due to those durn "Bush tax cuts." But your graphs, nor thinkprogress.org or any other of your sources, even begin to consider that LESS SPENDING could also keep the debt from growing.




> I'm happy to argue the debt and the deficit (and the effect each of the candidates for president would have on them), but please, if you're going to question the numbers, provide some evidence.



ugh.



> Looking at this thread objectively, you don't appear to be doing a very good job countering me. No offense intended. And I don't see how our ages are relevant.



You can go on believing that.


----------



## Lacius (Mar 20, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I've already explained my opinion that there is no objective reporting to be had. Everyone's got their charts and pie-graphs to show what they want everyone else to believe is the truth, all based on the same allegedly objective data.


Numbers are numbers, friend. For example, you take the Bush tax cuts, you subtract them from the deficit, and it is easy to see how big a part they play in the deficit problem. The CBO and numerous other nonpartisan groups agree that the numbers are accurate, and arguments to contrary barely exist. Your non-objective reporting is conservatives unfairly saying "Obama has raised the debt more than any other president" when that is not true. If you do not think these numbers are objective or reflect the truth, please, find me some evidence. Your idea that the numbers "might reflect a bias" could be said of anything ever said in the history of the world, even the facts.



Hanafuda said:


> That said, even if we take your graph as truth, note that with or without the Bush tax cuts, publicly held debt as a percentage of GDP was steadily declining until 2009, and then steeply climbs.


The debt balloons starting in *2008* due to both recovery measures and the actual economic downturn.



Hanafuda said:


> Anyway, I already agreed with you pages ago that the so-called "Bush tax cuts" should have been repealed in the first year Obama took office. But they weren't, even though the democrats held a majority in both houses of Congress. Why didn't they do that? Oh that's right, because the Republicans might've filibustered the extension of unemployment benefits for people who'd already used theirs up. Oooooh, scary. I'll say it one more time ... they should have let them filibuster. But, the democrats' majority in the House is long gone and its pointless to debate that now I guess. Though if the democrat-controlled Senate would've passed a budget even once in the past 3 and 1/2 years, maybe those "Bush" tax cuts that they can't seem to be able to stop could've at least been fought over some, instead of just letting them continue. As far as I'm concerned, not even fighting it = same as voting for it to go on.


As I've already said, I kind of agree with you. Because of the Republicans' filibuster, there were only two scenarios: extend unemployment and help the economy while also extending the Bush tax cuts and increasing the debt without any positive effect on the economy, or don't extend unemployment and see a negative effect on the economy while allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire and decreasing the debt without any effect on the economy. Both scenarios can be successfully argued. Obviously, the best option would have been extending unemployment while also letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but it was physically impossible to do that due to the filibuster. Since you're on the side of the second option, I am going to just say that helping the economy is probably a bigger priority than deficit reduction, especially in the midst of a double-dip recession. Not extending unemployment *might* have pushed the economy over the edge. Again, I see your point, and from a purely debt point-of-view, the Democrats should have just let them filibuster the unemployment and let the tax cuts expire.

*Major edit*: I forgot to mention that your option of letting them filibuster would have let all of the Bush tax cuts expire, including those on the lower and middle class, and that would have had a negative effect on the economy. Democrats tried passing an extension on just those, but the Republicans killed it. So yes, your idea would have decreased the debt substantially over time. However, the economy would have been hit two-fold.



Hanafuda said:


> Finally, as for the veracity of the data in that graph ... it shows the debt growing and growing in the years to come, all due to those durn "Bush tax cuts." But your graphs, nor thinkprogress.org or any other of your sources, even begin to consider that LESS SPENDING could also keep the debt from growing.


Obama's proposed budget cuts spending as well. It's essentially a bipartisan effort (although the Republicans refuse it get on-board because it raises taxes on the rich through letting the Bush tax cuts expire and various other means).



Hanafuda said:


> > I'm happy to argue the debt and the deficit (and the effect each of the candidates for president would have on them), but please, if you're going to question the numbers, provide some evidence.
> 
> 
> ugh.


I'm sorry providing evidence is so annoying for you?


----------



## J3LL0 (Mar 21, 2012)

I like Ron Paul. He seems to stick with what he says.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 21, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> The Living Shadow said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


The only difference is Obama was born in Hawaii, McCain was born in Panama (not a state or a territory).


----------



## Hanafuda (Mar 21, 2012)

smile72 said:


> The only difference is Obama was born in Hawaii, McCain was born in Panama (not a state or a territory).



Actually, pretty sure at the time McCain was born that the Panama Canal Zone _was_ a U.S. territory. O/T, but worth pointing that out.


----------



## smile72 (Mar 21, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > The only difference is Obama was born in Hawaii, McCain was born in Panama (not a state or a territory).
> ...


I know but not all of Panama was a territory.McCain was born in the canal zone though so yes that was a U.S territory.


----------



## MENU! (Mar 21, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> He's only bad because he was left to clean up Bush's shit. It took Bush 8 years to fuck up America, *it's going to take twice as long to clean it back up.*


Now _that's_ optimism!


----------



## Lacius (Mar 21, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> It is worth mentioning, however, that democrats did sue in Federal court to disqualify McCain over his birthplace as well. If McCain had won the 2008 election, I do believe there would still be democrats out there still saying he wasn't a 'natural born citizen' either.


That was more a question of eligibility, not whether or not his place of birth was part of a mass conspiracy. It was established that McCain met eligibility requirements and the issue was dropped, if you would even call it an issue. In no way is it the same thing as the birthers out there refusing to acknowledge the evidence.



Hanafuda said:


> Heck, there are still plenty of democrats who are still livid over the 2000 election and the Supreme Court's decision that stopped the recounts in Florida.


I'm still upset about the 2000 election. Sure, I've accepted it, but Gore won the popular vote. Likewise, it is probable that Florida went for Gore. It is arguably likely that if Florida hadn't gone for Gore, it would have if a disproportionate number of black people hadn't been disallowed to vote. I would say that none of this is relevant, but Republicans have a habit for employing voter suppression for political gain, especially now.


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 21, 2012)

J3LL0 said:


> I like Ron Paul. He seems to stick with what he says.



Sticking to what you say when what you say is stupid is not an admirable trait.


----------



## BlueStar (Mar 21, 2012)

Lacius said:


> This kind of statement shows me that you live in a bubble of your own facts



This is the problem with far-right wingnuts who have a paranoid victim complex.  They get wound up in this positive feedback loop by gorging on all the media, talk shows, sites, blogs and forums run by like minded folk.  And this is where you get the the "99.9999% of the media is Liberal, how can't you _see_ it?!?!"  

Of course if you spend all week looking at WND and listening to Beck and Rush Limbaugh BBCWorld is going to look liberal, in the same way as if you walk around all day wearing yellow sunglasses and then take them off everything looks blue.


----------



## DigiTak (Mar 21, 2012)

Vermin Supreme. Free ponies for all.


----------



## I_AM_BIB (Apr 1, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I_AM_BIB said:
> 
> 
> > All the votes are bullshit. Simply because you only have a choice of a few people who are all going to ruin America, maybe not in the same way, but equally.
> ...



But all this voting of people we have no clue of what they might do makes EVERYONE lose trust in the government. It's unfortunately a problem that the only choices on voting are all shit, why not have a large range? Maybe just rethink a new way of election, maybe new people!


----------



## I_AM_BIB (Apr 1, 2012)

Paranoia is something most people have nowadays, i don't mind if you call me paranoid, but the government doesn't really set a good example to what they do do they? If we could just live in Religious freedom we would be fine, but we simply can't. What we should do is have certain rules to different states to all countries around the world, and different areas with different religions (no racial segregation), but let other people visit other areas, but not aloud to live there. This might seem a bit strange or offensive to some people, but it would cancel out most problems that simply start from religion.


----------



## Coconut (Apr 1, 2012)

Wow, for a sec, I thought it said 'Presidential erection'


----------



## KinGamer7 (Apr 1, 2012)

Coconut said:


> Wow, for a sec, I thought it said 'Presidential erection'


Gives a whole new meaning to the 'None; they all suck' choice in the poll...


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 8, 2012)

Lol


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

I_AM_BIB said:


> Paranoia is something most people have nowadays, i don't mind if you call me paranoid, but the government doesn't really set a good example to what they do do they? If we could just live in Religious freedom we would be fine, but we simply can't. What we should do is have certain rules to different states to all countries around the world, and different areas with different religions (no racial segregation), but let other people visit other areas, but not aloud to live there. This might seem a bit strange or offensive to some people, but it would cancel out most problems that simply start from religion.


That is extremely paranoid and against everything America stands for, if you are going to discuss this country read the first amendment of our Constitution. And that also breaks many of our laws.


----------



## Frogman (Apr 9, 2012)

I would vote for Obama if I lived in America that is...


----------



## Sterling (Apr 9, 2012)

Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.


He still won't win whether he's on the ballot or not. And he would be one of the worst for the country, sure he gets us out of all conflicts,but he's much too state's rights like saying it's the state's right whether they should allow homosexual sex. He would be a terrible president. And to everyone (yes I know of Lawrence v.Texas)


----------



## Sterling (Apr 9, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > Definitely for Ron Paul. Whether you like him or not, I think he is the best future for this country. If he isn't on the ticket, I'm doing a write in.
> ...


I'd rather vote for someone who I agree with than for the people who are on the ticket. Besides, I'm all for reduction of big government, and I personally don't have an opinion on homosexual marriage.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Apr 9, 2012)

Sterling said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Sterling said:
> ...



The problem is that in some states people see homosexuality as wrong.
Now ask yourself, whats best of the following:
1. The federal government issues a mandate for homosexual marriages, creating more tension and diversity, and hatred between people.
2. People eventually sooner or later starts seeing it as acceptable, as other states do so, and thus don't really mind homosexuals getting married?


----------



## Sterling (Apr 9, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Forced change isn't good at all. Homosexual Marriages are becoming increasingly accepted. Change should happen slowly.


----------



## emigre (Apr 9, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Forced change isn't good at all. Homosexual Marriages are becoming increasingly accepted. Change should happen slowly.



Little Rock?


----------



## GreatCrippler (Apr 9, 2012)

Two wars we can't afford, record unemployment, gas pushing $5 a gallon. Why the hell is gay marriage such a hot topic? Two guys wanna get married, who gives a rats ass? Per usual, I imagine I will be voting Libertarian. Vote for who you believe in, not who you believe will win.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2012)

GreatCrippler said:


> Vote for who you believe in, not who you believe will win.


That alone is a perfect principle to follow. If everyone would just listen to what their reason and heart say, people wouldn't be voting for "the popular candidate that will surely win" and instead choose representatives who actually *represent* them. This shouldn't be a popularity contest, I'm lovin' your attitude.

No vote is ever wasted, even if "your" candidate doesn't win the election. Vote in a way that will let you close your eyes at night knowing that you made the right choice.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Libertarian94 said:
> 
> 
> > Sterling said:
> ...


First off I was referring to sodomy laws, and forced change is good, it's what ended the Jim Crow Laws, and anti sodomy laws, which never would have been overturned in Texas,Mississippi, or Alabama.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 9, 2012)

@[member='smile72']

Rare is it that we fully see eye to eye, but that day has arrived, at least on this issue of forced change.

Now, obviously, forced change shouldn't be applied to everything; for some issues, it is a matter of waiting. However, when it comes to the civil rights of an oppressed group of people, I think forcing change is more than justified. And to add on to his examples, without intervention, who knows how long the institution of slavery would have continued in the Southern states. 

And you need to be careful with your assumptions. Homosexuality is becoming more accepted in many places, but there are still a large amount of areas where that isn't the case (or the opposition has become even more extreme in retaliation). Waiting it out will accomplish nothing there.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Gahars said:


> @[member='smile72']
> 
> Rare is it that we fully see eye to eye, but that day has arrived, at least on this issue of forced change.
> 
> ...


The south is a wonderful example, gay marriage will never never never times infinity be passed in the deep south if it is not forced it will be like the anti sodomy laws, which never would have been removed had the Supreme Court not struck them down.


----------



## Sterling (Apr 9, 2012)

Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.


Oh well it's fine if it's just discrimination, yes forced change is needed, if people had voted, no state would have same sex marriage especially Iowa.


----------



## Sterling (Apr 9, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.
> ...


Look, that's just my opinion. You're free to disagree with me. I just can't justify massive forced changes with the current situation. Meanwhile there are much more pressing issues that MUST be dealt with. What with an aging infrastructure, shitty wars, and the current energy situation, it seems to me sorting a small social issue is the least of our worries.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Sterling said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Sterling said:
> ...


I agree, but I wouldn't call it small, and I don't see Republican candidates solving any one of those.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Apr 9, 2012)

Honestly, gay marraige isn't a pressing issue for any of these candidates but I believe Ron Paul will be the best choice for this Country to move forward and get out of the disaster that Bush got us into and Obama hasn't been able to pull us out of. No one short of a gay president is going to put homosexual marraige as a priority unless they think it'll help them win, they really don't care personally.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 9, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.



If you couldn't marry, for the sake of example, the woman you loved for no other reason than the fact that you were a man and she was a woman, wouldn't you feel oppressed? That's the state infringing upon your pursuit of happiness right there (not a constitutional guarantee, sure, but it was an ideal the Founding Fathers staunchly believed in).


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> Honestly, gay marraige isn't a pressing issue for any of these candidates but I believe Ron Paul will be the best choice for this Country to move forward and get out of the disaster that Bush got us into and Obama hasn't been able to pull us out of. No one short of a gay president is going to put homosexual marraige as a priority unless they think it'll help them win, they really don't care personally.


A lot of gay men and women care about gay marriage and every gay member in the House of Representatives cares about it.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 9, 2012)

smile72 said:


> RchUncleSkeleton said:
> 
> 
> > Honestly, gay marraige isn't a pressing issue for any of these candidates but I believe Ron Paul will be the best choice for this Country to move forward and get out of the disaster that Bush got us into and Obama hasn't been able to pull us out of. No one short of a gay president is going to put homosexual marraige as a priority unless they think it'll help them win, they really don't care personally.
> ...



And every member of Congress with gay constituents.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Gahars said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > RchUncleSkeleton said:
> ...


Such as Nancy Pelosi, Debbie Wasserman Schultz and even those without many gay people in their district such as John Lewis.


----------



## Harumy (Apr 9, 2012)

I won't vote of course 
But if I had to i think i'll choose Obama ^^
A lot of people here like him too!


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2012)

smile72 said:


> The south is a wonderful example, gay marriage will never never never times infinity be passed in the deep south if it is not forced it will be like the anti sodomy laws, which never would have been removed had the Supreme Court not struck them down.


Right now you're just assuming that every person from the deep south of the states is a redneck with a shotgun and straw sticking out of their shoes. Aren't you just as discriminating againts them as the souther states altogether are discriminating againts gay marriage?


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > The south is a wonderful example, gay marriage will never never never times infinity be passed in the deep south if it is not forced it will be like the anti sodomy laws, which never would have been removed had the Supreme Court not struck them down.
> ...


Nope, they are in the bible belt.
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




And I never said that, you said that. If I were you Foxi, I would change my view of the South. It's a lot different than you think. It's not that stereotype that you think it is. But it is overly religious.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 9, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


What does that matter? They could be in the _Orion's Belt_ for all I care, what you're saying is that _forced changes_ are necessary because _some people disagree with you._

Your country was built on the foundations of democracy, stick to it.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 9, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...


That's a dumb argument, when people are discriminated against the majority doesn't matter look at slavery, Jim Crow, anti-sodomy. None of these would have passed by people's vote and none of them did in the south, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia struck down their anti sodomy laws but only through their Supreme Court.


----------



## Sterling (Apr 10, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > Just to be clear, I'm all for forced change when the crimes against a race/sexual orientation reaches the level of inhuman. Slavery and segregation were things I absolutely agree needed to be changed. However, I don't see forced change needed at this time. Homosexuals have plenty of ways to live their lives in happiness, and that will only increase as the times change. Homosexuals are in no way "oppressed". Mildly discriminated against? Sure, but not oppressed to the point of needing forced change.
> ...


Of course I would, but depending on the bigger issues, I wouldn't agree to devoting time and resources to it unless many of the things that need to be solved were, or close to being resolved. Of course, using your example, the state in question would have most of the straight couples leaving post haste. That's big because the majority of the people in the US are straight. The reason it's a small social issue is because it's limited to a minority. While this won't diminish it's importance (which it's about the most important social issue right now), there are much more pressing things that need to be attended to!


----------



## Gahars (Apr 10, 2012)

@[member='Sterling']

The problem with that, though, is that there will always be "more pressing" concerns to focus on. If we kept pushing off and delaying action by that justification (economic troubles here, war there, etc.), than nothing would ever be accomplished.

And, by that logic, why not just get it over with so that it's no longer distracting us from the rest of the problems we face?


----------



## Sterling (Apr 10, 2012)

Gahars said:


> @[member='Sterling']
> 
> The problem with that, though, is that there will always be "more pressing" concerns to focus on. If we kept pushing off and delaying action by that justification (economic troubles here, war there, etc.), than nothing would ever be accomplished.
> 
> And, by that logic, why not just get it over with so that it's no longer distracting us from the rest of the problems we face?


Just put it on the back burner, and treat it like a background process on a computer. There will always be bigger problems, but most resources should be devoted to the bigger issues, and minimal ones to the smaller (but still important) ones. look, it'll get done eventually, but a forced transition is just uncomfortable, and no real good will come of it. Homosexuals will just have to bear and grin until it's solved, because a slow and precise change will be much better in the long run.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> That's a dumb argument, when people are discriminated against the majority doesn't matter look at slavery, Jim Crow, anti-sodomy. None of these would have passed by people's vote and none of them did in the south, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia struck down their anti sodomy laws but only through their Supreme Court.


It's not dumb, it simply implies that certain cultural changes need to occour before a new law is made.

Slavery was abolishes, but racial segregation remained and blacks were still discriminated againts for years - in some places they still are discriminated againts.

Anti-Sodomy Laws were struck down, but a gay citizen is still considered a second-class citizen in some regions, so what changed, exactly?

Laws will be laws and people mostly abide them, but you can't convince a society to think differently because you think it's better for them. When you do something *againts* the society, the society will rebel and begin to discriminate againts given people or ideas even more strongly to show their disapproval. You want to give gays a slit of paper that says they are legally married while at the same time make their lives a nightmare.

Transformations like these take a long time and have to be executed step by step, not from day 1 to day 2.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > That's a dumb argument, when people are discriminated against the majority doesn't matter look at slavery, Jim Crow, anti-sodomy. None of these would have passed by people's vote and none of them did in the south, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Georgia struck down their anti sodomy laws but only through their Supreme Court.
> ...


They don't go to jail or pay a fine for having sex, if they weren't struck down it would still be illegal in Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma. Yeah, getting married, makes their life miserable. And guess what if we wait for every state to legalize gay marriage it will go into the next century or even further. You do not comprehend the American Bible Belt. Yet, you spout off this nonsense. Gays are still discriminated against in the South, should we have waited until 2050, when they were ready?  Should the African Americans have waited until the South was ready?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> *They don't go to jail or pay a fine for having sex*


----------



## Gahars (Apr 10, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > @[member='Sterling']
> ...



That analogy still doesn't quite work. If the smaller problem is constantly taking away precious time and resources from the bigger problems looming on the horizon, why not get it out of the way so it's no longer a distraction? That way the maximum amount of attention can be spent on the "most important" issues. 

Again, you say, "it'll get done eventually," where does that end? Years? Decades? Longer? With each new problem that faces us, it will be pushed further and further into the back burner.

Sure, forced transitions are uncomfortable, but civil rights are never a matter of comfort. We're talking about traditions and customs built upon discrimination against a group of people; should we abide by institutional injustice because that's way it's always been done? Think of it as a band-aid on your knee; better to rip it off and get it over with than to slowly peel it off and prolong the pain. 



> Homosexuals will just have to bear and grin until it's solved



I think your choice of words there was a bit... awkward


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > *They don't go to jail or pay a fine for having sex*


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Exactly, that was point, and when the changes was made the South resisted it took years for the South to get even slightly used to the changes. It also made the South change from voting Democrat to Republican. And state's rights should not matter in this case. Gay marriage is a civil right, it should not be determined by states whether they want to discriminate against one group. Yes, we stand under one flag and one constitution yet some people are still unequal, we need to fix that, and sometimes you have to tell people their vote doesn't matter when it harms someone else's rights. The South will get used to it or not, it doesn't matter. They can remain bitter over it, just like they did the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I and many others won't care. Fox "News" will but they are not really news.


Don't get me wrong on this one - I'm not saying that _"gay marriage should not be allowed", _I'm saying that the changes leading towards making it legal should be _well thought-through and should not be made in an instant_, as that never works and only leads to trouble. A series of changes is better than one big overhaul.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, that was point, and when the changes was made the South resisted it took years for the South to get even slightly used to the changes. It also made the South change from voting Democrat to Republican. And state's rights should not matter in this case. Gay marriage is a civil right, it should not be determined by states whether they want to discriminate against one group. Yes, we stand under one flag and one constitution yet some people are still unequal, we need to fix that, and sometimes you have to tell people their vote doesn't matter when it harms someone else's rights. The South will get used to it or not, it doesn't matter. They can remain bitter over it, just like they did the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I and many others won't care. Fox "News" will but they are not really news.
> ...


It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.


If it's not State Law then all you really need is the majority of the states saying "Yes, let's do that" and the southern ones will have little to say. That said, give them the benefit of being eased into an idea they don't particularily enjoy rather then shoving it up their ass.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.
> ...


It's better to have it faster, it will be the same reaction either way.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 10, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > It won't work either way the Bible Belt will be in an uproar that's what you don't understand. It could be made legal in 30 states, it will still anger the South. If it's legalized everywhere.
> ...



Not sure if intentional or (more) awkward wording.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Unintentional, but I see how this could be funny... 

That said, you are ommiting lesbians, how rude of you! *Rubbing againts them* should also be included.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Apr 10, 2012)

Personally, I don't see why governments think they have a right to tell someone homosexuality is bad. I think we have more things to worry about than someone wanting to marry someone of the same gender. Who the fuck cares? Making it a big issue is the problem now when it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. "Bearing and grinning" through discrimination is a stupid thing to say when people get killed, bullied, banned, and publicly hated for it. But I suppose African-Americans grinned through slavery, so I totally don't see the problem with homosexuals having to when they shouldn't have to in the first place   

I guess the high percentage of obesity in America is a small problem too, right?

Long story short, there are better things to worry about. Trying to fix things that aren't broken is one of America's biggest problems, because we aren't focusing on things that should matter. We probably won't see a president who will focus on more important things any time soon, so I hope people vote for the person who they believe will help them and the rest of America the most.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Phoenix Goddess said:


> Personally, I don't see why governments think they have a right to tell someone homosexuality is bad. I think we have more things to worry about than someone wanting to marry someone of the same gender. Who the fuck cares? Making it a big issue is the problem now when it shouldn't have been a problem in the first place. "Bearing and grinning" through discrimination is a stupid thing to say when people get killed, bullied, banned, and publicly hated for it. But I suppose African-Americans grinned through slavery, so I totally don't see the problem with homosexuals having to when they shouldn't have to in the first place
> 
> I guess the high percentage of obesity in America is a small problem too, right?
> 
> Long story short, there are better things to worry about. Trying to fix things that aren't broken is one of America's biggest problems, because we aren't focusing on things that should matter. We probably won't see a president who will focus on more important things any time soon, so I hope people vote for the person who they believe will help them and the rest of America the most.


You can't control someone in America, they can be fat if they want.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> You can't control someone in America, they can be fat if they want.



Nor did I say that, did I?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> You can't control someone in America, they can be fat if they want.


They can also be homophobes if they want to.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Phoenix Goddess said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > You can't control someone in America, they can be fat if they want.
> ...


You mentioned the high rate of obesity, you can't stop parents that want to buy their kids tons of fast food. Or food that's really high in fat. So we can't do much about obesity. We can tell people to eat healthier but it's their decision at the end of the day.


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> You mentioned the high rate of obesity, you can't stop parents that want to buy their kids tons of fast food. Or food that's really high in fat. So we can't do much about obesity. We can tell people to eat healthier but it's their decision at the end of the day.
> 
> They can be a homophobe, they could also be a racist, or a pedophile, you can't control people. It's their life, they can do what they want with it. Until it violates someone else's rights.


Alright then, let's assume that the child is a victim here - the parents feed their kids with junk which will inevitably lead to future obesity and thus be harmful to their health. Not once and not twice have I heard of people who sued their parents for feeding them junk food when they were little and wanted the parents to pay their medical bills now that they've grown up. It wasn't their choice to be fat - it was the parents who were neglectful and did not think through their diet. Don't those children deserve protection from unreasonable diets?

Afterall, it is their civil right to be in good health.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > You mentioned the high rate of obesity, you can't stop parents that want to buy their kids tons of fast food. Or food that's really high in fat. So we can't do much about obesity. We can tell people to eat healthier but it's their decision at the end of the day.
> ...


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Under most states law children are sometimes seen more as property of their parents. Plus they can't vote. So their Representatives or Senators are a lot less likely to consider their opinions. And again those kids want that fat food, so technically everything is all right legally.


I see. So someone who is underage falls into different categories just because he or she is young. That, and you personally surveyed the fat population in its entirety.

I know of cases where children were fed fast food only because it was a cheap option, not because they wanted to eat it on a daily basis. Moreover, you conviniently mistake the argument and transcribe it from "regulating diets of children and imposing rules on the parents until the child can decide what diet it wants to follow" to "letting kids eat what they want".

They are the property of their parents with little rights, but they have the right to choose what to eat? Contrasts and double standards, I say.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Under most states law children are sometimes seen more as property of their parents. Plus they can't vote. So their Representatives or Senators are a lot less likely to consider their opinions. And again those kids want that fat food, so technically everything is all right legally.




And what about the ones who don't want it, but it's what they are given anyway? Would you suggest they starve? Would you say, "Well, they were given a choice. Fatty food or hunger."?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

Phoenix Goddess said:


> And what about the ones who don't want it, but it's what they are given anyway? Would you suggest they starve? Would you say, "Well, they were given a choice. Fatty food or hunger."?


Don't you know that pizza is a vegetable? Did you live under a rock for the last year? 

Remember - 5 slices a day cover your daily intake of vegetables and fruit!


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Under most states law children are sometimes seen more as property of their parents. Plus they can't vote. So their Representatives or Senators are a lot less likely to consider their opinions. And again those kids want that fat food, so technically everything is all right legally.
> ...


I don't see many kids saying no to candy or McDonalds.If their parents violate their rights, then the States step in, but parents have a lot of rights over their kids they can do a lot of things, if they want to raise their kid as a racist it's legal, diets are thought of as parents discretion.Do I believe America should be healthier yes, but it's people's choice.
This is a perfect example http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/23/10487071-florida-agency-returned-kids-to-monster-dad


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Apr 10, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Don't you know that pizza is a vegetable? Did you live under a rock for the last year?
> 
> Remember - 5 slices a day cover your daily intake of vegetables and fruit!



I try to hide under the biggest rock I can find since I can't currently escape this planet 

But have no fear, when the aliens come, enslave all and leave this planet, I'll come back up from my rock and fix what everyone destroyed 

And get rid of every piece of fried food I can find 

But I do have to ask... does that include pizza with bacon, hamburger, an assload of cheese, tons of pepperoni, chicken, and sausage?


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Phoenix Goddess said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Under most states law children are sometimes seen more as property of their parents. Plus they can't vote. So their Representatives or Senators are a lot less likely to consider their opinions. And again those kids want that fat food, so technically everything is all right legally.
> ...


Call the police, it's the only thing they can do. I can't help them, don't know them, plus it would be kidnapping.


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> You mentioned the high rate of obesity, you can't stop parents that want to buy their kids tons of fast food. Or food that's really high in fat. So we can't do much about obesity. We can tell people to eat healthier but it's their decision at the end of the day.


Education about healthy foods can help as can the already proposed _fat tax_. No sane parent would purposely feed their kid what is essentially garbage day in and day out. They're either forced to due to money issues, an inability to cook and just not knowing any better. And have you thought that there may be other issues contributing to the problem such as perhaps poverty? If you had a choice between eating junk food or nothing at all, what would you choose?


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

smile72 said:


> I don't see many kids saying no to candy or McDonalds.If their parents violate their rights, then the States step in, but parents have a lot of rights over their kids they can do a lot of things, if they want to raise their kid as a racist it's legal, diets are thought of as parents discretion.Do I believe America should be healthier yes, but it's people's choice.
> This is a perfect example http://usnews.msnbc....-to-monster-dad


American Child Services have alot to learn from for example European ones.

It's not within the rights of a parent to destroy the life and health of their child or fashion them into a socially incompatible freak.



Phoenix Goddess said:


> But I do have to ask... does that include pizza with bacon, hamburger, an assload of cheese, tons of pepperoni, chicken, and sausage?



As long as it has tomato sauce on it, you're good to go. Everything else is just "toppings". No, literally.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 10, 2012)

To be fair, Congress never said that pizza itself was a vegetable - just the tomato sauce used in it.

Is it still stupid? Absolutely, but hey, it's not as horrible.

EDIT: I see you Ninja'd me with that slice of a post


----------



## smile72 (Apr 10, 2012)

Junk food But a fat tax is a tax and who controls our House of Representatives? Let's say it together now REPUBLICANS! Yeah, that ain't happen in the near future might be a possibility in 2013 (if the elections go the Democrats way).


----------



## Foxi4 (Apr 10, 2012)

soulx said:


> Education about healthy foods can help as can the already proposed _fat tax_. No sane parent would purposely feed their kid what is essentially garbage day in and day out. They're either forced to due to money issues, an inability to cook and just not knowing any better. And have you thought that there may be other issues contributing to the problem such as perhaps poverty? If you had a choice between eating junk food or nothing at all, what would you choose?


Really well-said. The funny thing is that the government seems to be walking the other way, for example by proclaiming pizza (well, sauce, but still) a vegetable just to allow schools to serve it as one of the daily portions of veg. Perpostrous - they could've just increased the funding for school kitchens and make cuts elsewhere. Y'know, in a department that _doesn't make the future of America a greasy one_, and children are the future.



smile72 said:


> Some Americans look at Europe with disdain. They hate anything that uses Europe as an example to say we're second to them. I don't think that way but some do, hence why some politicians (cough*Mitt Romney*cough) take advantage of that.


A nation should strive to become better and better rather then bother with petty issues like "who came up with this idea first?".  By this logic you should abandon democracy because it's a Greek invention. It's sad to hear that some politicians do resort to the "our law is shit but it's OUR law, at the very least!" argument which is againts all logic. A good idea is a good idea, and that's that.


----------



## pubert09 (Apr 10, 2012)

I took this poll that compared my opinions to candidates and my most important values matched Obama.


----------



## Sterling (Apr 10, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > Gahars said:
> ...


Doesn't quite work? A background process on a computer commits a certain amount of unwavering resources. In this case, we introduce laws and by slow integration get American society comfortable with the idea. It may be a small issue, but it's an important one. I'm not saying we need to ignore it. Also, I don't see my choice of words awkward... Unless you mean bear.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 10, 2012)

@[member='Sterling']

Yes, I'm very well aware of what you were referring to. The problem is, though, the political process of the US just doesn't work that way. As we've gone over, sure, there are many places in the nation where people are reevaluating their longstanding views; however, in other areas, there is active resistance to change. Progress has stalled in these places, if it ever began at all; the "background process" approach will accomplish nothing there.

I understand that you want to avoid causing undue conflict and strain (generally paraphrasing here), but your suggested approach would do just that. If half of the nation continually develops a progressive stance on this basic issue of civil rights while the other half remains firm in its intolerance, that will only create a wider and wider gap between them. That's divisive tension right there.

Why wait, and let the injustice against this group of people continue any longer than it has to? Like I said before, ending this will be uncomfortable no matter what; we might as well be done with it quickly instead of prolonging the pain and turmoil. Let's just get this out of the way instead of ignoring it (and, really, delaying comprehensive action in favor of other problems is ignoring it).


----------



## Sterling (Apr 11, 2012)

@[member='Gahars']

How would you propose to go about that? I'm not a politician, but I am conservative. I'm resistant to sudden change, and progress for the sake of progress isn't good for the country. I was raised a Christian, and my parents taught me that being gay is wrong. So, the part about the Bible belt being very resistant to something like this is accurate. As I grew up though, I've realized things and I have changed my opinion. I would be one of the first people to line up at the voting cubicles to allow gay marriage. My point is, that given enough time, people growing up will have differing opinions and then change would be welcomed, but sudden change will just bring resentment. Last I checked, resentment is what cause the American Revolution. Though I'm not saying that will happen, but like I say resentment isn't such a good thing.


----------



## notmeanymore (Apr 11, 2012)

>Santorum drops out of the race.
>America is doomed.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

Sterling said:


> @[member='Gahars']
> 
> How would you propose to go about that? I'm not a politician, but I am conservative. I'm resistant to sudden change, and progress for the sake of progress isn't good for the country. I was raised a Christian, and my parents taught me that being gay is wrong. So, the part about the Bible belt being very resistant to something like this is accurate. As I grew up though, I've realized things and I have changed my opinion. I would be one of the first people to line up at the voting cubicles to allow gay marriage. My point is, that given enough time, people growing up will have differing opinions and then change would be welcomed, but sudden change will just bring resentment. Last I checked, resentment is what cause the American Revolution. Though I'm not saying that will happen, but like I say resentment isn't such a good thing.



Sweeping legislation (DOMA shows us that the Federal Government does have the power to define marriage on the national level) and a Supreme Court ruling or a Constitutional Amendment (if it had to come to that) would easily clear the way. Are any of those likely given the political atmosphere in Washington today? No, but that doesn't we shouldn't keep fighting for it.

I am happy to hear how your views have changed and grown over the years. Sadly though, you're not the standard; if anything, you are somewhat of an exception. Your own personal experiences do not guarantee that a majority of those resistant to progress will come to change their minds.

And yeah, civil rights will naturally cause resentment from those holding backwards, outdated viewpoints. Beyond the Civil War (when bigotry and oppression were economic institutions for the South), has that resentment sparked a full blown war after women were granted the right to vote? After the victories of the Civil Rights movement in the 60s? After the Supreme Court declared that states couldn't bar interracial marriage? After the Supreme Court declared that states couldn't outlaw same-sex sexual activity? No, no, no, and no. Using that pretense to prolong injustice just doesn't hold up.

And to go back to your reference to the American Revolution, it's worth remembering that we are a nation founded upon the beliefs that all were created equal, and that each person is entitled to the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. How can we take pride in our heritage when we can't even live by those basic tenets of our society?




TehSkull said:


> >Santorum drops out of the race.
> >America is doomed.



Yeah, I saw. I guess santorum just wasn't gelling with the voters...


----------



## notmeanymore (Apr 11, 2012)

No man, his daughter is real sick. He's dropping out to be with her.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> >Santorum drops out of the race.
> >America is *saved*.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> No man, his daughter is real sick. He's dropping out to be with her.



I'm aware that's the explanation he's offered, though I'd be willing to make a $10,000 bet that his trailing in the polls (even in his own home state) and massive campaign debt were the _primary_ reasons he dropped out (or, at the very least, played a significant role).


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

Gahars said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > No man, his daughter is real sick. He's dropping out to be with her.
> ...


The real reason is Pennsylvania, if he stayed in, he would have lost his home state that would have fucked him over for 2016, when Ronald Reagan lost in 1976, he won his home state of California. Rick Santorum would have lost Pennsylvania. So I agree, he didn't drop out for his daughter.


----------



## notmeanymore (Apr 11, 2012)

smile72 said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > >Santorum drops out of the race.
> ...


Mmm nope. I meant what I said. If he didn't have a chance and would've lost anyway, then him dropping out should have no influence on the outcome of the race.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > TehSkull said:
> ...


He will be running in 2016 or 2020 don't kid yourself, losing Pennsylvania would have hurt him severely in 2016.


----------



## notmeanymore (Apr 11, 2012)

smile72 said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


But regardless he would lose 2012 according to you. And I doubt he'll be running in 2016, unless by some bizarre occurrence Obama wins.
Hopefully in 2016/2020, Mike Huckabee will run again.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > TehSkull said:
> ...


No, it's a fact he would lose 2012. Obama, has a good chance of winning, he's actually a good president, much better than his predecessor.


----------



## notmeanymore (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm Republican. You're Democratic. This conversation is going nowhere.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> I'm Republican. You're Democratic. This conversation is going nowhere.


Doesn't change the fact that Obama is still a good president.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 11, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> But regardless he would lose 2012 according to you.


It is unlikely that Santorum would have been able to win the general election.



TehSkull said:


> And I doubt he'll be running in 2016


Santorum is at least considering running in 2016. And if history has shown us anything, he will likely be the initial front runner. If he had lost Pennsylvania, it would have hurt him in 2016, and we all knew he wasn't going to get the nomination in 2012.



TehSkull said:


> unless by some bizarre occurrence Obama wins.


A lot can happen between now and the general election, but according to recent data, if the election were held today between Obama and Romney, Obama would likely win.



TehSkull said:


> Hopefully in 2016/2020, Mike Huckabee will run again.


I don't think he is willing to give up his program on Fox News.


----------



## notmeanymore (Apr 11, 2012)

Lacius said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > unless by some bizarre occurrence Obama wins.
> ...


Exactly. That's why I don't want Romney to win. This is so backward; Romney's winning and yet he's probably the least likely of the four to win against Obama.

And if I remember correctly, Neil Cavuto said on air that Fox News would allow him to keep his show if he ran for President. I'm sure the same would apply for Huckabee.


----------



## FlashX007 (Apr 11, 2012)

To be perfectly honest I think neither party are good enough. There needs to be serious changes in both parties. Honestly both sides are lying and deceitful. Although Democrats hold a better value they are just as corrupt as the Republicans.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 11, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> That's why I don't want Romney to win. This is so backward; Romney's winning and yet he's probably the least likely of the four to win against Obama.


Like Santorum's positions or not, they're too radical for the general public. Santorum would have never carried swing states. Santorum's ultra-conservative base likely wouldn't have been enough to carry him to the presidency. This is why Romney was actually the best pick among the field of candidates to run against Obama. The problem for Republicans is that Romney is not a very electable candidate either. The other problem for the Republicans is that their current war on women has created a gender gap of about 10-20 points across the board among women (all women). Likewise, it has created more enthusiasm among women, so not only are women now much more likely to vote for Obama, but they are also much more likely now to be the ones who show up and vote. Don't focus all the blame on Romney when the Republicans just have bad policies. And a lot of them.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

Lacius said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > That's why I don't want Romney to win. This is so backward; Romney's winning and yet he's probably the least likely of the four to win against Obama.
> ...


Not true, at all most of Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina are all in the Bible Belt. Even Ohio is pretty conservative. Santorum could have won, had he not been against Romney.


----------



## BlueStar (Apr 11, 2012)

I'd have more chance of beating Obama than Santorum.

You don't have to convince very conservative voters to vote for the republican candidates, they will anyway. And there's not enough of them in the country to elect you as president. You need at least some moderates and Santorum is industrial grade, concentrated moderate repellant. 

Plus even many people who are outwardly against pornography and abortion will think twice in the privacy of the voting booth if they think laws against them might actually be implemented.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > TehSkull said:
> ...



There's a big difference between "conservative" and "Rick Santorum-conservative." Many of the Republican voters in those states (especially Florida) wouldn't want someone with his extreme positions to win; if they wouldn't vote for Obama, they'd likely just skip the election altogether. On the flip side, his candidacy would energize the Democratic base to come and vote.

You're also forgetting about independents, who really end up deciding the swing states. The support for Rick Santorum among them was fainter than a fart in a tornado.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

Gahars said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Lacius said:
> ...


Yes, but it does energize the conservatives, and those independents are often a lot more conservative than you think.  Mitt Romney alienates a decent amount of conservatives, simply because they don't want to vote for him because in their eyes, it's like voting for Obama, so they won't be turning out on November 6th.





BlueStar said:


> I'd have more chance of beating Obama than Santorum.
> 
> You don't have to convince very conservative voters to vote for the republican candidates, they will anyway. And there's not enough of them in the country to elect you as president. You need at least some moderates and Santorum is industrial grade, concentrated moderate repellant.
> 
> Plus even many people who are outwardly against pornography and abortion will think twice in the privacy of the voting booth if they think laws against them might actually be implemented.


Were you born in America? If not, no you could not beat Obama.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

@[member='smile72']

A candidate like Santorum only energizes the most extreme fringes of the conservative base (the people who vote in the primaries is only a minority, and don't reflect the party membership as a whole). The moderates in the Republican party would not tip their support to a man like that; as I said, if they wouldn't vote for Obama, then they would likely just skip the election altogether.

And no, not quite. Independents are a bit more centrist than anything else. At the very least, they support policies like access to contraception for women and more sympathetic treatment of illegal immigrants; not exactly popular ideas with the modern Republican party. 

Mitt Romney's real problem isn't with conservatives voting for him; while many aren't exactly thrilled with him as a candidate, he's not hated or even greatly disliked either. His real problem lies with the rest of the nation. While he might have been able to trumpet his status as a moderate in previous elections, he's had to take staunchly conservative positions on key issues (like the previously mentioned immigration and contraception) in order to placate the party's base this time around. Romney has basically won the primary, but he alienated independent, as well as women, voters in the process (and the poll numbers are reflecting this). 

Winning those key voters back and distancing himself from the right wing elements of the party may very well be a huge challenge (possibly the greatest) for Romney in the upcoming election. 

Also, on the subject of the post @BlueStar made...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk


----------



## notmeanymore (Apr 11, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > There's a big difference between "conservative" and "Rick Santorum-conservative." Many of the Republican voters in those states (especially Florida) wouldn't want someone with his extreme positions to win; if they wouldn't vote for Obama, they'd likely just skip the election altogether. On the flip side, his candidacy would energize the Democratic base to come and vote.
> ...


I know as a conservative I'd rather Romney won than Obama so I'll go out and vote purely for the chance of that.


----------



## BlueStar (Apr 11, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Yes, but it does energize the conservatives, and those independents are often a lot more conservative than you think.  Mitt Romney alienates a decent amount of conservatives, simply because they don't want to vote for him because in their eyes, it's like voting for Obama, so they won't be turning out on November 6th.



The 'engergised' conservatives who wouldn't have otherwise have gone out and voted would be massively outnumbered by normal conservatives and moderates who would be horrified by what the GOP had turned into.  And the vast, vast majority of those 'energised' nutters will still be voting for Romney just because he's not Obama.

Santorum getting the nomination would have been the best thing to happen to Obama since being elected.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but it does energize the conservatives, and those independents are often a lot more conservative than you think.  Mitt Romney alienates a decent amount of conservatives, simply because they don't want to vote for him because in their eyes, it's like voting for Obama, so they won't be turning out on November 6th.
> ...


You all forget the fact that had he won the nomination, he would then work his way toward normal conservative.
http://www.270towin.com/2012-polls/
I can't believe Obama is beating Mitt Romney in North Carolina and losing in Virginia.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 11, 2012)

@[member='smile72']

No one has forgotten that, but when you say things like (on the subject of pregnant [censored] victims)...



> I believe and I think that the right approach is to accept this horribly created, in the sense of [censored], but nevertheless, in a very broken way, a gift of human life, and accept what God is giving to you.



Yeah, distancing yourself from such an extreme position is going to be a nigh impossible task.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 11, 2012)

Gahars said:


> @[member='smile72']
> 
> No one has forgotten that, but when you say things like (on the subject of pregnant [censored] victims)...
> 
> ...


Karl Rove would have helped him try though.


----------



## DragorianSword (Apr 11, 2012)

I know I'm not an American but I hope you can stil appreciate my toughts about the elections.
Ron Paul is my personal favorite, but since its very unlikely he's going to be chosen I would still chose Obama.
Sure he has made mistakes, but then again all presidents before him have too.
You might ask why I don't want to choose any of the other candidates.
That's mainly because I think religion and state have to be separated at al costs.
The other candidates keep some things that really have to be changed like they are or change things for the worst so they can practice their religion better, but that's just not how a country works and we still have to respect other religions in a country.
For example you can say you're against abortion because of your religion and that's ok for me, but other people do think it's ok and I think we have to let them do what they want.

That's just what I wanted to say about it and I hope you respect that.
Also I'm sorry if I said something that's not correct so feel free to correct me.


----------



## BlueStar (Apr 12, 2012)

I find it strange, given your other positions, that you like Ron Paul, someone who expressly does not believe in the separation of church and state and who would push through legislation allowing the abortion to be outlawed.


----------



## DragorianSword (Apr 12, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> I find it strange, given your other positions, that you like Ron Paul, someone who expressly does not believe in the separation of church and state and who would push through legislation allowing the abortion to be outlawed.



Yes I know, BUT he still says that the government shouldn't make a decision about abortion. So to him it's a choice the states have to make.
Since not all states are that conservative there will be states where it is allowed.
Same on gay mariage. He thinks the church has to make a decision about that. Not the government.
He's also against the death penalty which is a plus to me.

Also he wants to get the troops out of Irak and South-Korea and his ideas for the economy are also good for most part. (except quiting the United Nations and World Bank)

I know it seems a little in conflict with what I said about state and religion being separated at first, but actually I agree with Ron Paul on most parts because he's not extremely conservative.


----------



## BlueStar (Apr 12, 2012)

Beertje111 said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > I find it strange, given your other positions, that you like Ron Paul, someone who expressly does not believe in the separation of church and state and who would push through legislation allowing the abortion to be outlawed.
> ...



Well firstly, he seems extremely conservate to me, on almost all the polarising issues.

But anyway, how is the tyranny of the state any better than the tyranny of the federal government?  What comfort is it to a pregnant 16 year old in Kansas that if she's lived in California she could have had an abortion?  Or if she was rich enough to fly over there, she could have one, but if you're not, tough shit, it's life threatening pregnancy or coat hanger abortion for you kid.  That's FREEDOM for you though, isn't it?  The freedom of the state to tell a woman what she can do with her body, or to declare some people are second class citizens.  Remember, this was someone who was against the civil rights act for the same reasons.  It seems to me Paul is a far-right winger who has managed to get liberal college kids to support him with clever wordplay.  He doesn't believe in evolution, gay marriage or reproductive rights, but he's such a nice guy he won't tell you you can't do them.  He'll just chaneg the law so states can do that to you.  Sorry, I mean have the freedom to do that to you.  You groovy kids like freedom right?
For a Doctor, he seems to have no understanding of herd immunity either, so he think manditory vaccinations are bad as well.  Because parents should have the freedom to risk the life of their child, and the childrren of everyone else in their vicinity.
That's without even getting into his batshit crazy economic policies, which is basically to not have an economy and trade chunks of gold and beef with each other like it's the wild west.  But then at least he's consistent.  And the stupider the idea he sticks to, the more it shows he's a man of conviction.
I'd go as far as to say Ron Paul makes Palin, Santorum and Bachmann look like positively sane individuals.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 13, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Beertje111 said:
> 
> 
> > BlueStar said:
> ...


He's just as conservative as Santorum but he gets a lot of supporters by using the words "freedom" he's a perfect example of how  wordplay can sell things.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 25, 2012)

Well guys, it looks like it's gonna be Romney versus Obama. Now who would you go for? (you'll have to vote in the comments, I don't know how to change/refresh the poll)

I for one hope Romney wins. If Obama wins, the world really will end in 2012.


----------



## Libertarian94 (Apr 26, 2012)

I would still vote Paul (If i could, that is).
I'm think it's important to vote on what you really believe in, and not compromise because ''this'' or ''that'' candidate has a better chance, so... It's still Paul for me!


----------



## zachtheninja (Apr 26, 2012)

I'm going to write-in Ron Paul, even if he doesn't win a primary.


----------



## zachtheninja (Apr 26, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> I would still vote Paul (If i could, that is).


You can always write-in Ron Paul on your ballot. (Perfectly legal under the Constitution, 2 presidents have been elected this way.)


----------



## Demonbart (Apr 26, 2012)

Well comparing their policies I came to the conclusion that Romney is a greedy bastard who only thinks of himself and the upper class, and Obama has great ideas that just didn't come to fruition due to how the US legal system works, so I would vote for Obama.


----------



## dickfour (Apr 26, 2012)

My take is anybody but Obama. I can't think of one thing that's improved in my life since he's taken the helm. Basically he's a failure. High unemployment, high gas prices, high food prices, exploding deficit. I'm sorry but if you suck at your job you should be fired. I don't want to hear any excuses like "oh he can't get what he wants done" he's gotten plenty done it's just failed. I've had to fire people who can't do their job, oh they've had lots of excuses but that's pretty lame in my opinion. You can't do your job right get the hell out I need to hire a serious person that can.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 26, 2012)

dickfour said:


> My take is anybody but Obama. I can't think of one thing that's improved in my life since he's taken the helm. Basically he's a failure. High unemployment, high gas prices, high food prices, exploding deficit. I'm sorry but if you suck at your job you should be fired. I don't want to hear any excuses like "oh he can't get what he wants done" he's gotten plenty done it's just failed. I've had to fire people who can't do their job, oh they've had lots of excuses but that's pretty lame in my opinion. You can't do your job right get the hell out I need to hire a serious person that can.


Gas prices have nothing to due with Obama, and plus his tax plan is the only one to deal with the deficit, Romney only makes the deficit larger, and he has done things. Killed bin Laden, saved GM and Chrysler, he has helped lower unemployment.Yeah Romney, a person who has no opinion on anything, should run the country.
Editamn misspelled bin Laden


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 27, 2012)

smile72 said:


> dickfour said:
> 
> 
> > My take is anybody but Obama. I can't think of one thing that's improved in my life since he's taken the helm. Basically he's a failure. High unemployment, high gas prices, high food prices, exploding deficit. I'm sorry but if you suck at your job you should be fired. I don't want to hear any excuses like "oh he can't get what he wants done" he's gotten plenty done it's just failed. I've had to fire people who can't do their job, oh they've had lots of excuses but that's pretty lame in my opinion. You can't do your job right get the hell out I need to hire a serious person that can.
> ...


Hear me clearly: THIS IS BULLSHIT. 

Killed bin laden? No- the seals did that.

Helped lower unemployment? Heck- the only time someone was shovel ready was at their funeral.


----------



## Jamstruth (Apr 27, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > dickfour said:
> ...


You seem to be blaming Obama for a lot of things he can't control.
High unemployment was caused by the global recession. Its pretty bad in most Western countries on the employment front just now. Obama can try and stem this unemployment but he didn't cause it.
High Gas Prices? Blame the global markets for that one. Everybody wants more and more oil and its getting more expensive to extract.
Exploding deficit? Part of that deficit was inherited but he took over during a recession, a time where you have to spend money to stop the economy completely collapsing due to stupid number crunching by high end bankers who suddenly think nothing's a safe bet and devalue everything. He would spend more anyway, he's a Democrat not a Republican.

As a non-American my voice doesn't really count for much. Just putting things in a bit of perspective. Britain has an increased deficit from over the recession to deal with as well but our country is nowhere near as big as yours so it hasn't reached into the trillions. Its not particularly anybody's fault. It was a requirement to stop the world's economy collapsing.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 27, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > dickfour said:
> ...


Yes,but the seals couldn't do it without his order. And  here is our VP quoting your favorite candidate Mitt Romney.
“In 2008, while campaigning, Gov. Romney was asked what he would do about Bin Laden. Let me tell you exactly what he said, he said, ‘there would be a very insignificant increase in safety’ if bin laden was brought to justice. Then he went on to say, ‘it’s not worth moving heaven and earth, spending millions of dollars, just to catch one person,’” said Biden.​


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 27, 2012)

President > vice president. Unless something happened to Romney he woulda taken out bin laden.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Apr 27, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> President > vice president you dumbass. Unless something happened to Romney he woulda taken out bin laden.



Nothing like name-calling to prove your point.


----------



## BlueStar (Apr 28, 2012)

Here you go dickfour 

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

"Yes but APART from that... and the aqueduct..."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

As for gas prices, here's the funny thing. The right's spin machine spent the Bush years telling everyone that the potus could do nothing about gas prices. Now all of a sudden when terrible things are happening like unemployment going down, they seem to talk about little else but high gas prices and how it's all the president's fault 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nyq1azDlmCI

And "exploding deficit"? Who tells you this stuff? Maybe this might help you get a grip on reality. It might look unusual to you if you've been told the deficit is because of those "tax and spend liberals"


----------



## smile72 (Apr 28, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> President > vice president you dumbass. Unless something happened to Romney he woulda taken out bin laden.


NeoSupaMario, he was quoting Romney who at that time in 2008 was running for President. And if we are to believe what Romney says, no he wouldn't have, he admitted it himself, he also said he would not have bailed out GM or Chrysler. And name calling, I don't expect much from you who pretty much lies about Obama, and is just ignorant about politics, but that's what you get when you watch too much Fox News.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 28, 2012)

smile72 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > President > vice president you dumbass. Unless something happened to Romney he woulda taken out bin laden.
> ...









L.O. F***ing. L. I don't have cable and I don't go to fox news's website. Now, might I ask what your sources are?


----------



## smile72 (Apr 28, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


Your constant wrong information. Your ignorance of how the market works.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 28, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Your constant wrong information. Your ignorance of how the market works.


And thats your source? You're assuming EVERYTHING I say is wrong?

Wow. Goes to show how valuable your opinions are.


----------



## dickfour (Apr 28, 2012)

I think it's interesting how liberals think Obama and the Dems are for woman's and gay rights when Obama invites and funds members of the Egyptian  Muslim Brotherhood. It's the Obama admin policy to support a party with hundreds of millions that kills homosexuals, that's passing a law to make it legal to have sex with your dead wife. Other proposals are to ban female education, make it legal for men to marry 14 year old children and institute mandatory female genital mutilation. To make matters worse Obama has appointed radical anti woman and anti homosexual brotherhood members to key US gov positions. So if you for gay rights and woman's rights I don't see how you could be for Obama.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 28, 2012)

dickfour said:


> So if you for gay rights and woman's rights I don't see how you could be for Obama.


http://www.barackoba...urce=issues-nav
https://my.barackobama.com/page/-/Blog%202012/Progress%20for%20LGBT%20Americans.pdf
http://www.barackoba...urce=issues-nav

When it comes to the differences between Democrats and Republicans, the Democrats are much more pro-gay and pro-women than the Republicans.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 29, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Your constant wrong information. Your ignorance of how the market works.
> ...


Look at your past quotes. Plus, I know my opinions are valuable because I actually present facts instead of lies.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 29, 2012)

Once again you fail to cite your sources.
Mine are my life, friends, community, and talk radio.


----------



## dickfour (Apr 29, 2012)

Lacius said:


> dickfour said:
> 
> 
> > So if you for gay rights and woman's rights I don't see how you could be for Obama.
> ...


Not so sue about that. Democrats seem to be in love with extremists that kill gays and treat women like chattel. They go so far as to commit billions to those causes and elevate those people and groups to positions of power in the US. The Dems are duplicitous and will throw gays and women under the bus if it suits their needs and that's exactly what they're doing. I wonder how long it will take for them to turn on gays here? I suppose that's going to depend on demographic trends. Well see libs turning on gays and women in Europe a lot sooner. Anyway I look at Obama's support of the brotherhood as a window to see where his true heart is on those subjects. It seems to me that Republicans would never support a group comited to female genital mutilation.


----------



## Lacius (Apr 29, 2012)

dickfour said:


> Not so sue about that. Democrats seem to be in love with extremists that kill gays and treat women like chattel. They go so far as to commit billions to those causes and elevate those people and groups to positions of power in the US. The Dems are duplicitous and will throw gays and women under the bus if it suits their needs and that's exactly what they're doing. I wonder how long it will take for them to turn on gays here? I suppose that's going to depend on demographic trends. Well see libs turning on gays and women in Europe a lot sooner. Anyway I look at Obama's support of the brotherhood as a window to see where his true heart is on those subjects. It seems to me that Republicans would never support a group comited to female genital mutilation.


Could you support this with evidence please? I'm at a loss to find anything.


----------



## Gahars (Apr 29, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Mine are my life, friends, community, and talk radio.



Just worth pointing out: Relying on Talk Radio as a "source" is never a good sign.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 29, 2012)

I definitely don't rely on it too much.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 29, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
> Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
> Santorum: not enough experience
> Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
> ...


Here is your proof, you said Obama wants to turn America into a dictatorship, you also accused him of being a communist and you don't know our defense budget otherwise you wouldn't have been sarcastic. Please stop making misinformed comments.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 29, 2012)

smile72 said:


> NeoSupaMario said:
> 
> 
> > I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
> ...


My point is, you're only saying I'm wrong cuz of one thing I said- maybe I was exaggerating a bit. But where are your OTHER SOURCES besides assuming that everything I say is a lie to prove me wrong? This means websites, life, news, magazines, etc.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 29, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > NeoSupaMario said:
> ...


That wasn't exaggerating, that's stupidity, and do you really need evidence to prove Obama is not a communist? Do you really need evidence to show that our military budget is astronomically high?


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 29, 2012)

Yes. And it seems very peculiar that you are so hesitant to prove how Obama is actually a good president with evidence (other than saying that it's because I'm always wrong)


----------



## smile72 (Apr 29, 2012)

If you mean the Romney thing... here's him lying about the bailout saying it was his idea http://thehill.com/b...ut-was-his-idea
Here's what he really said.....http://www.nytimes.c...omney.html?_r=1
Here's why he never would have got Bin laden....http://www.huffingto..._b_1461670.html


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 29, 2012)

smile72 said:


> If you mean the Romney thing... here's him lying about the bailout saying it was his idea http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/224371-romney-campaign-claims-auto-bailout-was-his-idea
> Here's what he really said.....http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1
> Here's why he never would have got Bin laden....http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-abrams/yep-you-heard-it-here-1st_b_1461670.html


----------



## smile72 (Apr 29, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > If you mean the Romney thing... here's him lying about the bailout saying it was his idea http://thehill.com/b...ut-was-his-idea
> ...


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Apr 29, 2012)

For the last time! The seals did the killing and the spies found bin laden! Obama just said "ok let's go take him out" he didn't do any tactical work for it except maybe budget.

Healthcare has only gotten worse; I wish they'd repeal ObamaCare. 

If a car company's failing, the government doesn't need to step in and hand them a couple million dollars. The car company needs to figure out why they r failing; not just rely on the gov to give em bucks, and fix the problem.


----------



## smile72 (Apr 29, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> For the last time! The seals did the killing and the spies found bin laden! Obama just said "ok let's go take him out" he didn't do any tactical work for it except maybe budget.
> 
> Healthcare has only gotten worse; I wish they'd repeal ObamaCare.
> 
> If a car company's failing, the government doesn't need to step in and hand them a couple million dollars. The car company needs to figure out why they r failing; not just rely on the gov to give em bucks, and fix the problem.


They would have gone bankrupt that's a fact and the seals couldn't have gotten him without Obama telling him to. So he was the reason bin Laden is dead. You do realize that Obamacare does a lot to help people right? Regardless, I have proven Obama is a good president, why is Romney a good candidate and no he is not Obama bullshit.


----------



## smile72 (May 10, 2012)

It's been more than a week I'm assuming you can't give me any reasons why Romney is a good candidate can you NeoSupaMario?


----------



## The Catboy (May 10, 2012)

Mitt is a horrible leader, he drove Western Massachusetts into the dirt and ruined the state for years to come. How do I know this? I lived there.
America will be driven into the dirt as well if Mitt is even allowed near the White House.


----------



## smile72 (May 13, 2012)

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-last-word/47381548/#47381548
Well we now know that Mitt Romney was a bully, normally I wouldn't care what happened 45 years ago, except, he still is today. From his various "apologies" you can tell he sees this incident as just a PR problem, that he himself probably doesn't feel much remorse, and also that he can't remember the incident, which could mean a couple of things to me, one he bullied a number of people, that this incident doesn't stand out, or two, it doesn't mean anything to him, he feels no remorse. I hope this is not the case, but from how he acts, it seems that Ann hasn't changed him much, perhaps he's the same person he was back then, perhaps, he is worse now.


----------



## Libertarian94 (May 14, 2012)

While i am a Paul supporter i'll agree.
Mitt spent most his time working for consulting and investment companies, often buying out companies, firing all their workers and selling of the assets.
Sure, some people lost their jobs... But Mitt was good at making money.
He's so good at making money that he's got over 200 million dollars now.
And when he didn't do that, he was protesting against the anti-war protesters during the Vietnam war.

Doesn't really gives him any thumbs up in my book.


----------



## smile72 (May 15, 2012)

Libertarian94 said:


> While i am a Paul supporter i'll agree.
> Mitt spent most his time working for consulting and investment companies, often buying out companies, firing all their workers and selling of the assets.
> Sure, some people lost their jobs... But Mitt was good at making money.
> He's so good at making money that he's got over 200 million dollars now.
> ...


He's a hawk who is too scared to fight for his country, personally neither would I (I don't like America) but I myself am a dove. It's not whether Mitt was good at making money, he calls himself a job creator, sure he created some jobs, but he probably killed more jobs than he made.I don't want him in the White House.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2012)

Mitt always lies
http://www.huffingto..._n_1372408.html


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Mitt always lies
> http://www.huffingto..._n_1372408.html


We all know he lies, but I do love Rachel.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > The Catboy said:
> ...


Yeah... and I myself can never get enough Rachel Maddow. I'm assuming you also watch The Rachel Maddow Show?


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2012)

smile72 said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > Mitt always lies
> ...


I know, but I liked that video and just felt like posting it. I thought it simple and to the point personally.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > The Catboy said:
> ...


So what do you think of her?


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2012)

smile72 said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Not really, that's actually the first time I ever watched her show. I was looking for a video comparing Mitt's statements through out his campaign and ended up finding that video.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2012)

smile72 said:


> So what do you think of her?


Quite interesting. I found not only did she know her stuff, but she kept it very simple and too the point. As well made it more interesting to watch compared to the video I was looking.
I most likely will watch more of show.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > So what do you think of her?
> ...


I'm the assuming you have MSNBC? If you do she is on Monday thru Friday at 8 (I say 8 since you are in the Midwest).


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2012)

smile72 said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > smile72 said:
> ...


Of course. I shall remember that. For now I also have the internet, which of course should hold her videos as well.
Also I live East enough that I am still in Eastern Time. Although I am in stone throwing distance to the Midwest time.


----------



## smile72 (May 20, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > The Catboy said:
> ...


Cool, hope you enjoy her show.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Jun 6, 2012)

Thought this kind of went with this topic. 



Spoiler


----------



## AlanJohn (Jun 6, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Thought this kind of went with this topic.
> *snip*


I'd probably vote for Mark Hamill.


----------



## LightyKD (Jun 9, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Obama is a bad president and i hope he does not win   i love how the Obama bubble burst and he now one of the worst presidents ever LOL




Is there a "Do not like" button we can add because someone is VERY uninformed.


----------



## Anon10W1z (Jun 9, 2012)

No matter who wins, the US will get trashed eventually.


----------

