# Romney vs. Obama



## NeoSupaMario (Aug 25, 2012)

Who do you think will win/who will you vote for and why?


----------



## Clydefrosch (Aug 25, 2012)

im not an us resident so i dont get to vote, but from what i gather, i would vote obama if i could.
reason being that i wouldnt trust romney as far as i could throw him. hes constantly changing his mind on stuff if it makes him look better or more attractive for a voter, he doesnt have ANY plan. whenever i read about stuff he plans, its always just the final result, like less taxes, more jobs, fuck obama, but never, not once did he give any kind of explanation as to how he'd possibly do this.
and when he does, its ridiculous.
his so valued experience with the market and economy is based on borderline crime, then theres even more lieing with the whole tax debate. obviously this man is screwing the us tax system since always.
he apparently approves of lies in his anti obama tv spots too.

all in all, yes, obama didnt save america in 4 short years and may not be able to do it in 4 more (consider this: making the world a better place is complicated), but with romney, your country has no chance. at all. unless you are a filthy rich millionaire, there is nothing to win by voting for romney



having said that, i still fear that the sheer amount of money and all the lies this guy has available to use + this whole voting time thing where key-democratic demographics will apparently be disadvantaged, he may win still.
but i also hope that, should it come to that, the people will realize and force him to step down. chances are, he'll go down like nixon or something


----------



## chavosaur (Aug 25, 2012)

Its kinda rude to ask who your voting for isn't it? Voting is pretty private Mister.
Personally, for this election...


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 25, 2012)

The Presidential race really only matters if the one who wins also is fortunate enough to have both houses of Congress controlled by his party. If Obama wins and the Democrats take control of the House and keep the Senate, then things might get done. If Romney wins and the Republicans keep the House and get control in the Senate, then things might get done. Any other combination of circumstances just means at least 2 more years of pissing contests.


----------



## yuyuyup (Aug 25, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> The Presidential race really only matters if the one who wins also is fortunate enough to have both houses of Congress controlled by his party. If Obama wins and the Democrats take control of the House and keep the Senate, then things might get done. If Romney wins and the Republicans keep the House and get control in the Senate, then things might get done. Any other combination of circumstances just means at least 2 more years of pissing contests.


I entirely disagree, the most important thing a president can do is pick Supreme Court justices which is the #1 reason I will vote for Osbama Bin Hussein


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 25, 2012)

Who will win? Well, it definitely won't be the U.S. citizens.


----------



## BORTZ (Aug 25, 2012)

Oh god this is going nowhere good. I hope a mod locks this.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 25, 2012)

yuyuyup said:


> I entirely disagree, the most important thing a president can do is pick Supreme Court justices which is the #1 reason I will vote for Osbama Bin Hussein



hmmm ... you've got a point. Guess I'll have to cancel out your vote then LOL.  

You are right though ... there probably will be some retirements in the next term, but who it is will largely depend on the outcome of the election. Conservative justices tend to sit put when a liberal is in the White House, and vice versa. Although Ginsburg, Scalia, Breyer, and Kennedy are all older than dirt, they've all probably got at least 4 more years in 'em, and they know it. If Ginsburg and Breyer didn't think they could last another 4 years they would've already retired so Obama could appoint liberal replacements. So unless one of the justices dies (and yeah, obviously it could happen) there probably won't be any cataclysmic shifts in the balance regardless of the outcome of the election. But, ya never know, so can't blame for taking that as a serious consideration.


----------



## ComeTurismO (Aug 25, 2012)

I don't live there, i'm Canadian. I don't follow the worlds news, but I used to. Obama seems like a good guy then. I don't know this Romney Shomney guy so No for him.


----------



## emigre (Aug 25, 2012)

Obama because he's the least worst option.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Aug 25, 2012)

I am voting for Obamney. Both great candidates, but only one has what it takes, who will be victorious? Who will die... lose? We will find out soon enough.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 25, 2012)

I dislike both of them. Obama has already proven to be inept in office (though after all the shit Bush left behind I can't blame him too much), and Romny is not going to make anything better. Personally I think Ron would've have gotten some shit done where we need it the most right now. Here, in the USA. Sadly, looking back, I don't think there's been a decent president since Clinton (Clinton wasn't that good either, but whatever). Congress and the Senate both need some fresh blood and young faces to make some decisions and the Judicial system needs a similar workout. So, I don't like either of them and I won't be casting my vote either way since voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 25, 2012)

Everytime I look at Romney I think: 'this guy will wage war against the whole world, and lose'
He's way too outrageous.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 25, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Everytime I look at Romney I think: 'this guy will wage war against the whole world, and lose'
> He's way too outrageous.




You do realize that Obama massively escalated troop levels in Afghanistan and is selectively killing all over the place in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and who knows where else with frequent unmanned drone strikes, right?? Almost 300 drone strikes in Pakistan alone under Obama, over 5 times more than Bush. Plenty of war going on already and you're worried about the other guy because of a feeling you get when you look at him??  Okay.


----------



## dickfour (Aug 25, 2012)

If you have gone to the store and had to buy a loaf of bread or some milk or had to fill your gas tank or looked for a job I don't see how you could vote for Obama. He's been a complete disaster for the average working person. Basically if you sign your checks on the front you'll vote for Romney and if you sign your checks on the back you'll be for Obama or if your so young that you don't need to buy the staples of life. I thnk Romney will win big. Obama has lost the razzle dazzle, he has no record to run on so he's waging a campaign of silly smears. All the enthusiasm is among Romney supporters so yeah I don't see a path to victory for Obama


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 25, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Black-Ice said:
> 
> 
> > Everytime I look at Romney I think: 'this guy will wage war against the whole world, and lose'
> ...


I'm not getting into no political opinions.
All I said is what I see Romswhatever doing. For all we know, he could triple all the numbers you just stated.
Politics and Leaders isn't as plain and simple as people think.


----------



## ouch123 (Aug 27, 2012)

Obama, because while he hasn't got much done, he didn't break everything. I'm not sure that would still be true with Romney as president.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Aug 27, 2012)

I see no discernible difference between either of them as they're both paid off by the same factions.


----------



## deshayzilla (Aug 27, 2012)

Honestly the differences between Romney and Obama are very small. They're both are back by rich champaign donors. They don't really care about anyone else besides the people who already have money and the people who run giant corporations.
I mean look at this http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
There is no significant statistical evidence that Obama and Romney are different. 
It would be like choosing between a PS3 and an Xbox 360...but both systems only played Madden.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Aug 27, 2012)

If I have to pick, Obama because he did bring a closure to 911 (bin Laden).

However, everyone knows that regardless who win the race, there will be no significant difference. Both are backed by political parties; contrary to what George Washington wanted.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 27, 2012)

Obama. I personally saw how bad Mitt really is.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 27, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Obama. I saw personally how bad Mitt really is.


Where were you for the last 4 years? Neither of them should be allowed into office. >.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 27, 2012)

Sterling said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > Obama. I saw personally how bad Mitt really is.
> ...


Obama is still not as bad as Mitt. I was born and raised in Massachusetts and saw just how fast we lost all our jobs.
If Mitt plans on doing what he did to Massachusetts, then there is no hope for America.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 27, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > The Catboy said:
> ...


Agreed, but Obama is still pretty bad. Both are going to destroy the USA if given the slightest chance. It's a lose lose situation.


----------



## MEGAMANTROTSKY (Aug 27, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Black-Ice said:
> ...


No, but the class interests they serve are quite obvious, even if they aren't simple. The Democrats and Republicans are essentially two sides of the same coin: That is, they both lie in the pocketbook of the rich and powerful. Obama has basically continued most or all of Bush's policies, and has even intensified them to boot. He also has not carried out a single one of his election promises--the failed closing of Guantanamo Bay and the Wall Street bailout being the tip of the iceberg. There is no basis for thinking that Obama will carry out a qualitatively different policy than Romney. The process of social degeneration (that is, the gutting of social programs and living and working conditions) may appear more benign or act slower under a Democratic presidency, but it won't end up much different than what Romney has in store. When placed alongside his actual political record, Obama's positive and personal qualities, whatever they may be, appear largely irrelevant. In the end, it is only workers and youth--the majority of the American populace--who will suffer in the end.

In this context Obama represents his party and himself quite accurately. He is a two-faced bourgeois politician, a warmonger, and a scoundrel.


----------



## trumpet-205 (Aug 27, 2012)

Both sides are already well underway in destroying the US. Our credit score was tanked while two sides were fighting instead of helping.

*George Washington once said in his Farewell address that political parties will do nothing but to seek more power and revenge in opposing parties, that political parties are enemies to the government. *


----------



## Fishaman P (Aug 27, 2012)

Obama actually knows what he's doing.  The Republican ads are calling him out for the stimulus and Obamacare, but those are great things, and they either worked or will work.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 27, 2012)

Fishaman P said:


> Obama actually knows what he's doing.  The Republican ads are calling him out for the stimulus and Obamacare, but those are great things, and they either worked or will work.


Neither of those things you mentioned will work. I'm all for a socialized healthcare plan, but Obamacare is bastardized and inefficient (I'd prefer something like what the Canadians or the British have). The stimulus is also a placebo that doesn't work well either.


----------



## Kioku_Dreams (Aug 28, 2012)

Honestly? I can't say it much matters. Romney is playing a dirty as all hell campaign. Then you have Obama.. Who is just.. A nuisance we put as our face. Either way we go, we have a hypocrite who can't stick to one thing... And we have some intellectually inept figure head who doesn't care for the people so much as his morals.


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 28, 2012)

*Insert 3rd party candidate who steals all the votes from both here*


----------



## Pleng (Aug 28, 2012)

Fishaman P said:


> Obama actually knows what he's doing.  The Republican ads are calling him out for the stimulus and Obamacare, but those are great things, and they either worked or will work.



Did he actually call it Obamacare?! Or is this just a nickname people have given it??


----------



## Alex221 (Aug 28, 2012)

Do you guys really want an Illuminati puppet ruling us?


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Aug 28, 2012)

Alex221 said:


> Do you guys really want an Illuminati puppet ruling us?



Punch as opposed to Judy?


----------



## Alex221 (Aug 28, 2012)

Vulpes Abnocto said:


> Alex221 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you guys really want an Illuminati puppet ruling us?
> ...


lol are you talking about this? i haven't slept so i can't think well
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Aug 28, 2012)

Alex221 said:


> lol are you talking about this? i haven't slept so i can't think well
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_and_Judy



Yeah, precisely. Puppet vs puppet.


----------



## Thesolcity (Aug 28, 2012)

You wouldn't get me out to the polls this year if you paid me. Don't citizen votes not matter anyways during presidential elections? Its all up to state electoral reps IIRC.




Alex221 said:


> Do you guys really want an Illuminati puppet ruling us?



Queue tinfoil hat crowd.


----------



## narutofan777 (Aug 28, 2012)

obama i think will win. romney has made himself look like a fool from the stuff I've read online.


----------



## Fishaman P (Aug 28, 2012)

Thesolcity said:


> You wouldn't get me out to the polls this year if you paid me. Don't citizen votes not matter anyways during presidential elections? Its all up to state electoral reps IIRC.


You have that a little backwards.  The states tally up votes separate from other states, and the majority vote in the state decides which party the Electoral College votes go to.  The number of EC votes depends on the state's population, so you were probably thinking of the fact that a few states basically control the election.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 28, 2012)

Fishaman P said:


> Thesolcity said:
> 
> 
> > You wouldn't get me out to the polls this year if you paid me. Don't citizen votes not matter anyways during presidential elections? Its all up to state electoral reps IIRC.
> ...


No, the electoral college has total control over the votes. They can vote however they want regardless of state votes. Not that they necessarily do that sort of thing all the time, but it happens.


----------



## GeekyGuy (Aug 29, 2012)

Don't know who will win, but I'm pretty certain about who will lose: The American people.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Neither of those things you mentioned will work. I'm all for a socialized healthcare plan, but Obamacare is bastardized and inefficient (I'd prefer something like what the Canadians or the British have).


Although I'm also for a government-run healthcare plan, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does a lot of great things and expands healthcare coverage. It's a step in the right direction.



Sterling said:


> The stimulus is also a placebo that doesn't work well either.


That's just not true at all.

*Edit*: I forgot to say that I will vote for Obama. I think it is likely that Obama will win, but a lot can change between now and then. For those of you who want to see how you side with the presidential candidates, you can take a pretty cool quiz here. I might post my results later.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 29, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > The stimulus is also a placebo that doesn't work well either.
> ...


I'm not going to lie. I understood very little from that article beyond what I remember from my high school economics class. Now, I have two problems with their figures. One, they post no sources to where they got their info to create their graphs and two, they say nothing of unemployment (current or previous). Here is a video that shows the National Unemployment average. It is separated by states and counties. It's a nice and easy to read visualwith what I deemed a reliable source.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okzyC_SDfjY[/youtube]

Now, that's what I understand. That is why I say that the stimulus is a placebo and not a legitimate way to combat a recession or a depression. Not only did the stimulus benefit only the higher ups in businesses, but the working class also suffered. I don't understand why, or where, or how things went wrong. I just understand that for some reason unemployment has been on the rise (I've been affected and unemployed).

As for my opinion of government spending? I say a big fat no to that. I'm alright with social programs and other stuff, but for what they really use it for, no.







I need to get a bit more involved... I'm an avid libertarian.  Oh, and the quiz is very non-biased from what I could see, and I'm pleasantly surprised.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2012)

Sterling said:


> I'm not going to lie. I understood very little from that article beyond what I remember from my high school economics class. Now, I have two problems with their figures. One, they post no sources to where they got their info to create their graphs and two, they say nothing of unemployment (current or previous).


Here is another website with some more charts using the same numbers from the BEA and BLS that the last website presumably used. Unemployment likely wasn't included in the first website because it's so difficult to measure, but it is included in the second website. While unemployment is still bad, the stimulus definitely had an effect. It should also be worth noting that the proponents of the stimulus admit that the stimulus should have been more, especially since we know now how much worse the economy was than we thought when the stimulus was enacted.



Sterling said:


> Oh, and the quiz is very non-biased from what I could see, and I'm pleasantly surprised.


I was also pleasantly surprised by how extensive and non-biased the test was.

Also, my quiz results:



Spoiler










http://www.isidewith...esults/67835249


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Aug 29, 2012)

It seems like I need to learn more about Gary Johnson.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 29, 2012)

Vulpes Abnocto said:


> It seems like I need to learn more about Gary Johnson.
> *Snip



He's going to be on the ticket this year. I now have a reason to make a poll run. I have a friend who loves the guy and always posts on facebook about him. Also, that political quiz is amazing.

EDIT: Have I mentioned how awesome the political poll is, because I don't think I have.


----------



## Densetsu (Aug 29, 2012)

Spoiler










Admittedly I left some stuff blank because I don't know enough about some of the issues to have a stance on any of them.



Sterling said:


> Also, that political quiz is amazing.
> 
> EDIT: Have I mentioned how awesome the political poll is, because I don't think I have.


To your statement, I must add the following:

That political poll is awesome.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 29, 2012)

Spoiler











How come no one has ever informed me of Jill Stein? 
I am throwing my vote to her now!


----------



## Sterling (Aug 29, 2012)

Densetsu said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I had to google for some basic definitions myself (even then usually the default answer was no), but for the most part it was pretty clear. I'm not behind the green movement even though much of what they say makes sense.

@The last part, I concur.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 29, 2012)

Well, well. Turns out I'm a Paulite. But I might agree with someone who lives down my street even more ... doesn't mean I'm going to vote for my neighbor.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> How come no one has ever informed me of Jill Stein?
> I am throwing my vote to her now!


Jill Stein is a badass, but since she has no chance of winning, a vote for her actually helps Mitt Romney. Since she and Obama are 80-90% the same, I would just as soon vote for Obama, even if my political quiz had come out with Jill Stein on top. That's my view anyway.

Also, for those of you who want to see how we answered our political quizzes, all you have to do is take the numerical code in our picture URLs and paste them in the results URL. For example:

My results photo: http://imgs.isidewith.com/results-image/*67835249*.jpg

My code: *67835249*

My results page: http://www.isidewith.com/results/*67835249*


----------



## -MarioFan- (Aug 29, 2012)

*Just my two cents on this..it's a rant so feel free to ignore. I'm not trying to argue with anybody about this subject. These are my personal opinions on the matter.

Obviously Obama is the popular vote, but I have a feeling that Romney is going to win. Unfortunatley, there have been some changes in the process of being able to vote. This mostly affects the poor communitites down south; the majority who would be voting for Obama. You now need to have a photo ID to vote. Under the fourth amendment, you should be able to obtain a free state identification card. Not a lot of people know about this. I didn't even know about this until earlier this month. The DMV will make you pay for the card unless you speak up. The costs vary in different states. The point is that since these id's cost, do you really think these people in the poorer communites will be able to afford them? $10 might not seem much to you, but to them it could mean choosing between eating for the next couple of days, or voting. What would you choose? Politics over here is screwed up. I can't stand my country.

/rant


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2012)

-MarioFan- said:


> Obviously Obama is the popular vote, but I have a feeling that Romney is going to win. Unfortunately, there have been some changes in the process of being able to vote. This mostly affects the poor communities down south; the majority who would be voting for Obama. You now need to have a photo ID to vote. Under the fourth amendment, you should be able to obtain a free state identification card. Not a lot of people know about this. I didn't even know about this until earlier this month. The DMV will make you pay for the card unless you speak up. The costs vary in different states. The point is that since these id's cost, do you really think these people in the poorer communities will be able to afford them? $10 might not seem much to you, but to them it could mean choosing between eating for the next couple of days, or voting. What would you choose? Politics over here is screwed up. I can't stand my country.


These new voter ID laws are definitely an issue. They strip away voting rights, disproportionately affect minorities, and have been created despite the evidence that there is relatively no voter fraud in the United States. Likewise, Republicans admit that the new voter ID laws are to help Miit Romney win the election. However, while I disagree with the new voter ID laws that disproportionately affect Obama voters, I don't see it being enough to hand Mitt Romney the election, given the poll numbers. But we'll have to wait and see what the repercussions are.

Another thing worth noting here is the state of early voting in the 2012 election, particularly in Ohio. In 2004, lines to vote were extremely long and the whole thing was a mess, so Ohio implemented new early voting policies (if I remember correctly, I think they were forced to), and voting went smoothly in 2008. Coincidentally, Ohio also went Democratic in 2008. Now Republicans in the state are taking away early voting, and as far as I can understand it, it's for no reason than to disproportionately affect Obama voters. But wait, there's more. Before Ohio's Republican Secretary of State decided to cut early voting statewide, he actually decided to only cut early voting in counties that were likely to vote Democratic.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 29, 2012)

-MarioFan- said:


> *Just my two cents on this..it's a rant so feel free to ignore. I'm not trying to argue with anybody about this subject. These are my personal opinions on the matter.
> 
> Obviously Obama is the popular vote, but I have a feeling that Romney is going to win. Unfortunatley, there have been some changes in the process of being able to vote. This mostly affects the poor communitites down south; the majority who would be voting for Obama. You now need to have a photo ID to vote. Under the fourth amendment, you should be able to obtain a free state identification card. Not a lot of people know about this. I didn't even know about this until earlier this month. The DMV will make you pay for the card unless you speak up. The costs vary in different states. The point is that since these id's cost, do you really think these people in the poorer communites will be able to afford them? $10 might not seem much to you, but to them it could mean choosing between eating for the next couple of days, or voting. What would you choose? Politics over here is screwed up. I can't stand my country.
> 
> /rant



Anyone who is gainfully employed has had to produce a driver's license or state issued ID to get hired. And anyone who is unemployed and as poor as what you imply has already needed to produce ID to sign up for public assistance programs, i.e. welfare, food stamps, unemployment, SS disability, etc. Whether a driver's license or a non-operator's state ID, if you want a check from the federal government you have to show ID to apply. I'll give you that there will always be a statistically small number of people (homeless and crazy?) who are legal voters (not felons, not illegal immigrants) and who have never signed up for any public assistance and have never bothered to get a state issued ID, but the numbers are so low as to be offset by the benefit of preventing voter fraud that is gained by a voter ID law. There's no way enough people are adversely affected by this to change the outcome of a national election, unless its because its going to prevent dead people and illegals and felons from voting, and also people voting multiple times in different districts.

Go ahead ...  toot that 'voter suppression' horn. But it's B.S.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Anyone who is gainfully employed has had to produce a driver's license or state issued ID to get hired. And anyone who is unemployed and as poor as what you imply has already needed to produce ID to sign up for public assistance programs, i.e. welfare, food stamps, unemployment, SS disability, etc. Whether a driver's license or a non-operator's state ID, if you want a check from the federal government you have to show ID to apply. I'll give you that there will always be a statistically small number of people (homeless and crazy?) who are legal voters (not felons, not illegal immigrants) and who have never signed up for any public assistance and have never bothered to get a state issued ID, but the numbers are so low as to be offset by the benefit of preventing voter fraud that is gained by a voter ID law. There's no way enough people are adversely affected by this to change the outcome of a national election, unless its because its going to prevent dead people and illegals and felons from voting, and also people voting multiple times in different districts.
> 
> Go ahead ...  toot that 'voter suppression' horn. But it's B.S.


Many people don't have driver's licenses or anything else that would be considered valid voter ID, including but not limited to students and other young voters, minorities, people in urban areas, the elderly, and the handicapped. I should also point out that I wasn't required to show my driver's license to most (if not all) of my previous employers. Side note: You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote. Regardless, if you compare the number of people affected by new voter ID laws and the number of instances of voter fraud, relatively speaking, voter fraud doesn't exist and isn't worth denying so many people the ability to vote. Also, it can be successfully argued that a lot of these new voter ID laws are essentially poll taxes, which also affects likely Obama voters disproportionately.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 29, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone who is gainfully employed has had to produce a driver's license or state issued ID to get hired. And anyone who is unemployed and as poor as what you imply has already needed to produce ID to sign up for public assistance programs, i.e. welfare, food stamps, unemployment, SS disability, etc. Whether a driver's license or a non-operator's state ID, if you want a check from the federal government you have to show ID to apply. I'll give you that there will always be a statistically small number of people (homeless and crazy?) who are legal voters (not felons, not illegal immigrants) and who have never signed up for any public assistance and have never bothered to get a state issued ID, but the numbers are so low as to be offset by the benefit of preventing voter fraud that is gained by a voter ID law. There's no way enough people are adversely affected by this to change the outcome of a national election, unless its because its going to prevent dead people and illegals and felons from voting, and also people voting multiple times in different districts.
> ...



whatever.



> You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote.



False.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> > You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote.
> 
> 
> 
> False.


You're arguing that if you have a job, you have valid ID. If you don't have valid ID, then you don't have a job. That's only relevant if you're arguing that it's okay if the voter ID laws stop the unemployed and people without voter ID from being able to vote.

Regardless, it's not true that you must have a valid form of voter ID to have a job.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 29, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > > You're essentially arguing that only the employed should be able to vote.
> ...




Again, false. I never said "if you don't have a valid ID, then you don't have a job" - or anything even close to that. The point was simply that just about everyone has some form of valid state-issued ID already, regardless of whether they're employed, unemployed, rich, or poor. You need it for the basics of life, whether you're gainfully employed or living on public assistance. Yes, you'll always be able to find a few exceptions, but FEW where the "burden" of obtaining the photo ID is realistically going to keep a person from voting. I have no problem with requiring a photo ID to vote. Actually, if there is a hurdle to voting in the USA, it's the requirement of registering to vote. More people in the USA have their driver's license or a state-issued photo ID than are registered to vote. My 19 year old is an example of this - has his driver's license, but not registered to vote. I've even offered to take him to the voter's registration office downtown - no interest. But (and this is just my opinion) if you can't be bothered to get a photo ID and register to vote, then you don't care enough and/or know enough to vote anyway.


Also, as to  "it's not true that you must have a valid form of voter ID to have a job," see here:

http://www.ehow.com/list_6546580_forms-identification-employment.html



> Federal laws of the United States require that employers ask all new employees to complete Form I-9. This form is used to verify that an individual is authorized to work in the United States. An employer who fails to verify an employee's identification and work authorization can face criminal prosecution and/or fines. When an individual is hired to work for a company in the U.S., proof of identification and authorization to work in the country can be verified through several documents.






> Typically when an employee or employer fills out an I-9 for a new hire, at least two forms of identification must be produced by the employee for the employer to verify and accurately identify the employee's identification and authorization to work in the U.S. The two forms of identification must include one form of ID suitable to establish identity along with one form of ID to establish employment authorization. For individuals over the age of 18, identity can be established through the use of a voter registration card; U.S. military card or draft record; or a photo identification card such as a school ID; driver's license or federal, state or local government-issued ID card. Individuals under the age of 18 can establish identity through the use of school or doctor's records.




So, technically you're right - you don't have to produce "a valid form of voter ID" to get a job - there are a couple types of ID that can be used besides a driver's license or govt issued ID. But in most cases you'd have to use the driver's license / govt. ID to get that other form of ID.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 29, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Again, false. I never said "if you don't have a valid ID, then you don't have a job" - or anything even close to that. The point was simply that just about everyone has some form of valid state-issued ID already, regardless of whether they're employed, unemployed, rich, or poor. You need it for the basics of life, whether you're gainfully employed or living on public assistance. Yes, you'll always be able to find a few exceptions, but FEW where the "burden" of obtaining the photo ID is realistically going to keep a person from voting. I have no problem with requiring a photo ID to vote.


Most people have a valid form of voter ID, sure. But a lot of people don't have any use for driver's licences, etc. For example, in Wisconsin, only around 80% of white people have a driver's license, and only around 50% of African-Americans and Hispanics have driver's licenses. As you can plainly see, these new voter ID restrictions disproportionately affect certain groups, including racial minorities, poor people, the elderly, young people, etc, as I've already mentioned. You also forget that people who live in urban areas and/or take the bus to and from work have no need for driver's licenses, and poor people tend to have a higher rate of license suspension due to the fact that it's sometimes easier to switch to public transportation than pay a fine. Likewise, obtaining the proper voter ID is difficult for various reasons, especially for particular groups who are likely to vote Obama. One of this biggest issues is that many voters who have been able to vote in the past will be turned away at the polls because they won't know about the new voter ID requirements until election day.



Hanafuda said:


> Actually, if there is a hurdle to voting in the USA, it's the requirement of registering to vote. More people in the USA have their driver's license or a state-issued photo ID than are registered to vote. My 19 year old is an example of this - has his driver's license, but not registered to vote. I've even offered to take him to the voter's registration office downtown - no interest. But (and this is just my opinion) if you can't be bothered to get a photo ID and register to vote, then you don't care enough and/or know enough to vote anyway.


At the same time, a lot of people are registered to vote who don't have what you would consider to be valid voter ID. Unlike your 19 year-old, these people have an interest in voting but are disproportionately targeted with laws that make it harder to vote. But you bring up an interesting topic: voter registration. Voter registration is another way Republicans are targeting specific groups in order to minimize likely Obama voters. It's not an issue of whether or not people can be bothered; it's the issue of making it difficult to vote for people who have always been able to vote, and they often times don't have the money, practical means, or knowledge to get a proper voting ID in time, and all of this is being done to solve a problem that literally does not exist.

Edit:



Hanafuda said:


> So, technically you're right - you don't have to produce "a valid form of voter ID" to get a job - there are a couple types of ID that can be used besides a driver's license or govt issued ID. But in most cases you'd have to use the driver's license / govt. ID to get that other form of ID.


Tell that to people who have jobs but don't have accepted forms of voter ID. And again, unless your point is that we should only be worried about people who are employed being able to vote, then all you've been able to show, despite the fact that voter ID is not required to have a job, is a.) the majority of people have valid voter ID (no one is arguing this), and b.) particular groups (the poor, unemployed, young, students, etc) are hurt more by the voter ID laws than others.

And one final point: There have been 10 cases of in-person voter fraud, 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud, and 400 cases of registration fraud in the entire country since 2000, and it's likely that the new voting laws in Pennsylvania alone will potentially bar 758,000 registered voters from voting in the state.


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 29, 2012)

Welp.
I got Obama.


----------



## LightyKD (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm still voting for Obama but I find my result to be interesting...


----------



## LightyKD (Aug 29, 2012)

Hate to double post so please forgive but, NEW strategy kids! We vote Obama in now, get Jill Stein to switch parties (From Green Party to Democratic) temporarily and get her on the 2016 Democratic ticket. That way we can have another bad-ass as president for eight more years and secure some progress for this damn country!


_Jill Stein's Wikipedia_
http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Jill_Stein


----------



## pubert09 (Aug 29, 2012)

I love how a few people don't really answer the question....

I would have to say Obama. I have looked at both candidates' views on things, and I agree with Obama more than Romney over the issues that are more important to me.

As for winning I have no idea. I haven't heard much as far as who will vote for who besides here or how likely they will win on news sources.


----------



## The Catboy (Aug 29, 2012)

Lacius said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > How come no one has ever informed me of Jill Stein?
> ...


She's not just a bad ass, I looked her up and was shocked that there was someone out there that literally stood for the same things I stand on! Almost every last detail!


----------



## Skelletonike (Aug 29, 2012)

I'm not American but I did that quizz just for fun:







I didn't even know of that woman, but it seems like she and Obama value the environment and immigration problems (I don't live there but I know that it's pretty hard for illegal immigrants, especially the kids, which are innocent).

Well, it's hard to find any real decent politicians nowadays, and it takes a long time to change a country, especially one as big as the USA, so people shouldn't diss Obama that much.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 29, 2012)

Lacius said:


> And one final point: There have been 10 cases of in-person voter fraud, 491 cases of absentee ballot fraud, and 400 cases of registration fraud in the entire country since 2000, and it's likely that the new voting laws in Pennsylvania alone will potentially bar 758,000 registered voters from voting in the state.



No, those are just the ones that have been caught and successfully prosecuted, i.e. proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For every one instance that gets caught, how many do you figure get away with it? How many do you figure get caught, but a good criminal defense lawyer finds a hole in the case and gets it pleaded to something else? And for every one instance of fraud in your statistics, how many actual fraudulent votes? Don't tell me 1 fraudulent vote per case - after the 2010 election they arrested the county clerk, county commissioner, and the county sheriff of a county not too far from where I live, and they admitted to stuffing the box with "over 100" fraudulent absentee ballots, which means there was more likely hundreds. That counts as one case in your list, but at least a hundred votes.

Statistics never tell the truth.


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> No, those are just the ones that have been caught and successfully prosecuted, i.e. proven beyond a reasonable doubt. For every one instance that gets caught, how many do you figure get away with it? How many do you figure get caught, but a good criminal defense lawyer finds a hole in the case and gets it pleaded to something else? And for every one instance of fraud in your statistics, how many actual fraudulent votes? Don't tell me 1 fraudulent vote per case - after the 2010 election they arrested the county clerk, county commissioner, and the county sheriff of a county not too far from where I live, and they admitted to stuffing the box with "over 100" fraudulent absentee ballots, which means there was more likely hundreds. That counts as one case in your list, but at least a hundred votes.


The type of voter fraud you're referring to would in no way be affected by stricter voter ID laws, so forgive me if I'm failing to see your point. If you do some more research on the topic, you'll see that the number of in-person voter fraud cases in the U.S. does not warrant potentially barring 758,000 registered voters from voting (in Pennsylvania alone). Side note: I picked Pennsylvania as my example arbitrarily.



Hanafuda said:


> Statistics never tell the truth.


That's a pretty bold statement, haha. It's also a pretty convenient belief to have when one is making bold claims and either doesn't want to have to provide evidence or wants to ignore contradictory evidence. Quite honestly, it appears that voter suppression is the real voter fraud.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 30, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Statistics never tell the truth.
> ...



The purpose of a statistic in politics is to distract the audience from the big picture and instead focus their attention on a tiny 'fact' and present it as the whole truth. Case in point, your number of 758,000 people in Pennsylvania who won't get to vote. It's horseshit. First of all, where does the number come from? Democrat party state officials. Second, what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%? Then what do you figure is the typical voter turnout among people who've never bothered to obtain either a driver's license or govt-issued ID? Finally, that total is based on the number of total registered voters in the state, but every state in this country is full of voter registration rolls that are greater than the actual population (including children, puppy dogs, and trees). 

Statistics never tell the truth.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 30, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%?



Not possible, because that's a statistic so it cannot be true.

Anyway, looks like you got yesterday's GOP line-toing memo about what position to take if people start trying these dirty liberal tactics of using things like facts and evidence.




> 'We're Not Going to Let Our Campaign Be Dictated by Fact-Checkers'



http://www.theatlant...heckers/261674/

Quite...


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 30, 2012)

If anyone's curious...

http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z1c9z/i_am_barack_obama_president_of_the_united_states/


----------



## Lacius (Aug 30, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> The purpose of a statistic in politics is to distract the audience from the big picture and instead focus their attention on a tiny 'fact' and present it as the whole truth. Case in point, your number of 758,000 people in Pennsylvania who won't get to vote. It's horseshit. First of all, where does the number come from? Democrat party state officials. Second, what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%? Then what do you figure is the typical voter turnout among people who've never bothered to obtain either a driver's license or govt-issued ID? Finally, that total is based on the number of total registered voters in the state, but every state in this country is full of voter registration rolls that are greater than the actual population (including children, puppy dogs, and trees).


To be fair, I never said, "758,000 people in Pennsylvania who won't get to vote." I was very careful in how I worded that, so please go back and read. You're not going to change the fact that all the estimates point to there being 758,000 registered voters who do not currently have the proper voter ID in Pennsylvania. A lot can change between now and then, so I'm definitely not claiming that there will still be 758,000 people in Pennsylvania who are unable to vote, and I'm not claiming that all 758,000 of those registered voters will try to vote, but those are the facts. Unless you can show me a.) In-person voter fraud is a much bigger issue than the facts appear to claim, or b.) A significant number of people won't be affected by these new voter ID laws (side note: disproportionately against Obama voters), then I fail to see your point.

Even if you were to make a case for just one of those, you _might_ have a point. If there really were a voter fraud problem and these voter ID laws prevented more cases of voter fraud than it did block legitimate voters from voting, we might be able to talk. However, since there is virtually no voter fraud, nothing is gained by these new voter restrictions. Likewise, since there is evidence that many people do not currently have the voter ID necessary to vote, you're left with a significant net loss of eligible voters. By your own admission, you're just guessing that there's an in-person voter fraud problem (the facts say there isn't), and you're just guessing that it won't have an impact on voters who fail to have the necessary voter ID (the facts say it will).



Hanafuda said:


> Statistics never tell the truth.


That's still a pretty bold statement, and it's my personal opinion that a world without numbers often times makes the truth pretty relative.

I would also like to point out that, in Pennsylvania once again, that Republicans have stated that because of the voter ID laws, Romney will win Pennsylvania. This either means that a.) They're arguing that Obama did/would only win Pennsylvania because of voter fraud, further feeding into the fairy tale that Obama isn't a legitimate President (birtherism anyone?), or b.) That voter ID laws disproportionately affect Obama voters, giving Romney an edge. Don't pretend this is something it's not.


----------



## Hanafuda (Aug 30, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > what's the typical voter turnout in the first place? Maybe 35%?
> ...




No, I didn't read any 'talking points memo' or whatever your article's about, I was only discussing the use of statistics in politics (and law). The purpose of a statistic in politics is never to prove the truth of something - a statistic's purpose is always and only to persuade the audience to reach a desired conclusion or belief, rather than the conclusion or belief put forth by the opponent. It is an argument in favor of a particular point of view, nothing more or less. It is never "the truth." There is ALWAYS another side to the story. Both parties use statistics this way - it's to be expected. Basic stuff. Just look at any political race or even any political argument as if it were a trial in a courtroom - truth is not the objective. Winning is. That's politics.


----------



## LightyKD (Aug 30, 2012)

Anybody watching this crappy ass Republican Convention, more importantly this horrid speech? I swear the Republicans are just annoying.


----------



## koimayeul (Aug 30, 2012)

French but my aunt lives in Oklahoma so i took the quizz anyway. Good one!.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 30, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...



This is what Romney is running his campaign on, the logical fallacy of false equivalence and the bizarre idea of factual relativism. You look at it like a court? As in, when someone goes "we found 230 spots of the victim's blood on the suspect's clothes' and you go" That's just prosecution bias, that's just, like, your opinion man."

If one person says there are 51 states and one says there are 8,that doesn't mean they're both equally valid opinions, or that the answer must lie somewhere in the middle. If Romney comes out with an easily fact checked lie, like a specific figure in an order signed by Obama it is not partisan bullshit to point out it is a lie. Likewise, if a politician claims something is true when reality shows differently. If you truly believe what you are saying, I presume you don't vote because you think both parties are just as good as each other as you're not capable of distinguishing if what they're saying is true, if their policies would work, if their concerns are genuine... 

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.


----------



## Sterling (Aug 30, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > BlueStar said:
> ...



He's saying that Statistics are easily manipulated into data that they want you to get behind. Something like the amount of people who signed a contract is a hard number. But a statistic stating that the number of people who could have signed the contract were prevented by (specific reason here). When in actuality someone could have not signed it for some other reason. To the uninformed, such a thing can easily be manipulated into data that sways people because the main reason is perceived to be bigger than the rest. This gives an overriding sense of importance that shoves everything else out of the way.


----------



## BlueStar (Aug 30, 2012)

Sterling said:


> He's saying that Statistics are easily manipulated into data that they want you to get behind.



But the solution to this is not to throw your hands up and say "We will never know!  All statistics are equally wrong!" (or even more absurdly "All statistics are always wrong all of the time") it's to actually look at the methodology and application to see how accurate the claims are.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Aug 30, 2012)

I dont vote anybody. They are the corruption of the nations. I dont understand why people vote them. We are the powers and we can vote ourselves. Why vote them ?


----------



## Etheboss (Aug 30, 2012)

The USA could use a third political party at the top to level things out.

In present times a 2 party system is outdated and unfair for a lot of people that are voting, they allways have to pick the less worst for them.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 3, 2012)

Etheboss said:


> The USA could use a third political party at the top to level things out.
> 
> In present times a 2 party system is outdated and unfair for a lot of people that are voting, they allways have to pick the less worst for them.




There was an old joke back in the cold war days that involved an American telling a Soviet citizen how sorry he was for him, because when elections were held he only had one choice - the communist party candidate. And the Russian replied,"Yes, you Americans are so free - you get _two_ to pick from." or something like that.


----------



## tatripp (Sep 3, 2012)

ouch123 said:


> Obama, because while he hasn't got much done, he didn't break everything. I'm not sure that would still be true with Romney as president.


I disagree. Obama has done a lot and did break everything. Look at the current debt. He has already created more debt than bush did in all 8 years. Congress probably also has much more to do with the budget than the president so I guess it isn't fair to completely blame him or bush.


----------



## Nathan Drake (Sep 3, 2012)

Etheboss said:


> The USA could use a third political party at the top to level things out.
> 
> In present times a 2 party system is outdated and unfair for a lot of people that are voting, they allways have to pick the less worst for them.


I don't know if a third party would really level things out. In the end, it's still just the lesser of a collection of evils. The biggest problem lies in the fact that we're still so reliant on the, as you stated, outdated _two_ party system, when really, our political system is comprised of a myriad of parties all across the political spectrum, encompassing various values and viewpoints. None of these parties get TV time though because they don't have a big enough backing. Getting enough backing requires money. Getting enough money to run a political campaign requires getting yourself known to earn contributions. In the end, it's just the two majority parties with all of the backing, while the others are forced into obscurity with no recourse for ever becoming a serious political force within the US.

With this problem comes the political problems in the US. The political problems generally hit this division: one side is for it, and the other side (generally republican, to be fair) has some Christian value stemming from 50's religious values that just keeps things that shouldn't even be a debate, a debate for _decades_. It's ridiculous, and it's held the US back for many years with nobody seeming to care to attempt to influence true change that this country so desperately needs.

It's the politically primitive two party system that will lead me to not vote this November. My first presidential election, and I could care less for feeding my (government deemed useless) vote into the system. I mean, hell, for what's considered the most important election, "the people" just contribute to the popularity vote. When we're essentially just pushed into the "your vote is bullshit" column, you know that the system has some kinks to work out.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 3, 2012)

tatripp said:


> He has already created more debt than bush did in all 8 years.


That isn't even close to the truth.

Not even close.


----------



## ouch123 (Sep 3, 2012)

Lacius said:


> tatripp said:
> 
> 
> > He has already created more debt than bush did in all 8 years.
> ...


Though I'm not so sure both of the above aren't biased, this is still significantly better than just repeating political spew as fact.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 4, 2012)

Found this interesting, from the 1956 GOP platform:

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

Crazy, from outside looking in, how the constant lurch to the far right just doesn't show any sign of stopping for the Republicans.  

Barry Goldwater predicted exactly as much.



> On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
> I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?
> And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."
> 
> *Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.*



This is someone who was known as 'Mr Conservative' back in his time.  If he was in the GOP now they'd be calling him a RINO liberal marxist.  Which I guess compared to the fringe wingnuts they're letting dictate the direction of his old party, he is.


----------



## tatripp (Sep 4, 2012)

ouch123 said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > tatripp said:
> ...



The chart shown is misleading. It doesn't show the amount of debt from each president, but the amount of debt from their policies. Obama continued Bush policies, but that debt is labeled under bush. It is also misleading because it puts one man against another even though they have been president for a different amount of time. It is an old chart from 2011. 3 years vs 8 years. Try using the Debt to penny calculator from the treasury and entering in the terms of office for both presidents. http://www.treasurydirect.gov/NP/BPDLogin?application=np

Bush spent a lot but Obama spent more in less than half the time. I will vote for Romney because a vote for Romney is a vote against Obama. Romney will still spend too much and debt will increase but not as much as if it was under Obama. Obama inherited a mess but Bush inherited a time bomb that is the housing market. 

@Ouch123 I am definitely biased but at least I know that I am. That chart is more biased than I am but it doesn't appear to be because of its clever manipulation of statistics. I think that chart is even less valuable than random political spew.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 4, 2012)

tatripp said:


> It doesn't show the amount of debt from each president, but the amount of debt from their policies.


Isn't that the point? You cannot blame Obama for debt accumulated due to Bush's policies, especially when Obama is against those policies and the Republicans are for making those policies permanent.



tatripp said:


> It is an old chart from 2011.


Despite one of the charts being from 2011, the numbers are relevant, current, and accurate.



tatripp said:


> Bush spent a lot but Obama spent more in less than half the time.


The charts above clearly show that's not true.



tatripp said:


> I will vote for Romney because a vote for Romney is a vote against Obama. Romney will still spend too much and debt will increase but not as much as if it was under Obama. Obama inherited a mess but Bush inherited a time bomb that is the housing market.


Obama is the candidate who has offered bipartisan deficit-reduction plans that include both decreasing spending and increasing revenue. Bowles-Simpson, anyone? Romney offers plans that decrease spending but decrease revenue to the point that the spending cuts don't offset even those. Romney's plan wouldn't decrease the deficit.



tatripp said:


> Obama inherited a mess but Bush inherited a time bomb that is the housing market.


One could successfully argue that Bush's deregulation of Wall Street had much to do with the economic downturn.



tatripp said:


> That chart is more biased than I am but it doesn't appear to be because of its clever manipulation of statistics. I think that chart is even less valuable than random political spew.


It must be pretty convenient to label statistics that don't agree with your point of view as a "clever manipulation." Based on this thread, conservative ideology seems to depend on the idea that numbers and statistics don't matter, and as I've already said, that makes the truth pretty relative. However, I've shown how the above graphs you have a problem with aren't "clever manipulations." To say that Obama has contributed substantially more to the debt than the $1.4 trillion of Obama policies that were mostly economic recovery is what's a manipulation of facts (and those aren't even long-term contributions to the deficit). Bush policies are what are primarily contributing to the debt and deficit, and I'm not sure how that can be argued against.


----------



## tatripp (Sep 4, 2012)

Lacius said:


> tatripp said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't show the amount of debt from each president, but the amount of debt from their policies.
> ...


The deficit since Obama has been in office has been more than when GW Bush's 8 year term. Obama said that he would only last one term if he didn't get the financial crisis solved. He specifically ran for president on the platform that he will get the economy back together. Bush policies are a main reason for the current economic crisis but obama's policies are worse than Bush's.
It is unfair to blame bush's policies for Obama's failure. If you see someone push a kid who can't swim in a pool and you don't save him, you are as guilty as the pusher. 
My bottom line is that Obama is going to spend like crazy and the economy will not get better anytime soon. Romney is going to spend slightly less and the economy will still not get better anytime soon.
Bush's tax cuts can also be seen as an economic stimulant so you shouldn't look at that in the short term either and shouldn't be on that chart.
I do not want Romney as a president, but i really don't want obama as a president.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 4, 2012)

Some awesome sign placement by the RNC


----------



## Gahars (Sep 5, 2012)

I know this is a bit late, but it's been bugging me. Can we get Clint Eastwood's chair added to the poll?

He's a risky upstart, but he's got a shot!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2012)

tatripp said:


> The deficit since Obama has been in office has been more than when GW Bush's 8 year term.


First of all, that's just not true. Obama has actually lowered the deficit. Second, even if the deficit were higher, Obama inherited much of that deficit from Bush's policies. Out of curiosity, what part of that don't you understand? Here's a quote from one of the links I already posted:



> It's 2009. Even though the president entered office in 2009, the fiscal year 2009 spending for October 2008 to September 2009 was requested by President Bush and worsened by his policies (see previous deficit chart). The Congressional Budget Office noted that President Obama inherited $1.2 trillion of the total $1.4 trillion deficit for 2009.
> 
> And even though it's staring him in the face, Beauprez failed to note that the president has reduced the deficit nearly every year. Again, by Beauprez's own numbers, the president has cut the deficit every year except for one. Between 2009 and 2012, the president will have reduced the deficit by $312 billion. Put another way, the president has cut the deficit by nearly 25 percent -- so far.


Also, here's a chart from that same source:



Spoiler











The deficit has not been significantly reduced, but that's because the underlying problems (Bush's policies) are still in effect. Obama wants to end those policies; Romney not only wants to make those policies permanent, but he wants to make them worse. Mitt Romney would slash revenues and likely explode the deficit.



tatripp said:


> Obama said that he would only last one term if he didn't get the financial crisis solved. He specifically ran for president on the platform that he will get the economy back together.


The last time I checked, the Stimulus worked. Unemployment is still bad, but the economy has improved under Obama. Keep in mind, however, that the economy was worse than anyone thought, and most economists agree that the Stimulus should have been bigger.



tatripp said:


> Bush policies are a main reason for the current economic crisis but obama's policies are worse than Bush's.
> It is unfair to blame bush's policies for Obama's failure. If you see someone push a kid who can't swim in a pool and you don't save him, you are as guilty as the pusher.


Again, the economy has improved under Obama, so I'm unsure how "Obama's policies are worse" or how your analogy applies.



tatripp said:


> My bottom line is that Obama is going to spend like crazy and the economy will not get better anytime soon. Romney is going to spend slightly less and the economy will still not get better anytime soon.


Obama has viable deficit-reduction plans, regardless of anymore potential recovery spending. Also, unemployment is expected to average around 6.3% in 2016, thanks in part to Obama's economic recovery policies. Oppositely, as I've already said, Romney's tax policy would likely increase the deficit.



tatripp said:


> Bush's tax cuts can also be seen as an economic stimulant so you shouldn't look at that in the short term either and shouldn't be on that chart.


Just because you think something is economic stimulus, which is a fair conversation to have about the Bush tax cuts, does not mean it is deficit-neutral; of course it should still be on the chart. You can't just pretend something isn't contributing to the deficit because you like it, haha. The vast majority of Obama's added spending has been economic recovery, so I fail to see the point of that. As for whether or not the Bush tax cuts should stay because they allegedly stimulate the economy, they actually don't stimulate the economy that much, particularly the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. The best kinds of economic stimulus give money to the poor, who have to immediately spend that money rather than sit on it like the rich do. This is why Obama is in favor or extending the Bush tax cuts, for the time being, for those making less than $250,000. Economists agree that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 would have no real effect on the economy.


----------



## Jakob95 (Sep 5, 2012)

I think Obama is better of the two because he is actually trying to do something about education.  While when Romney got asked the question about college prices, he told the girl who asked to see what she can afford and go with that, this guy is basically not going to do shit about college prices...  Plus I heard that he wanted to cut all financial aid to students.
EDIT:  Maybe Chris Christie for 2016 heard that guy was going to want to run.  We need another Taft in office lmao.


----------



## smile72 (Sep 5, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Fishaman P said:
> 
> 
> > Obama actually knows what he's doing.  The Republican ads are calling him out for the stimulus and Obamacare, but those are great things, and they either worked or will work.
> ...


Yeah, but socialized healthcare won't work the Conservative media controls the South and a decent part of the Midwest, heck with the money they have they can destroy it all the want even though every modern country has it. Obamacare is the best you will get for the next decade.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 5, 2012)

smile72 said:


> Chris Christie is the same as Romney (just a lot less fake).... they are both ignorant.



In Chris Christie's defense he's probably, in terms of mass index, equivalent to two Romneys.


----------



## smile72 (Sep 5, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> > Chris Christie is the same as Romney (just a lot less fake).... they are both ignorant.
> ...


I do not disagree with you. But I would say 2.5-3 Romneys.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 5, 2012)

Anybody watching the Democratic National Convention right now?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 5, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> I think Obama is better of the two because he is actually trying to do something about education.  While when Romney got asked the question about college prices, he told the girl who asked to see what she can afford and go with that, this guy is basically not going to do shit about college prices...  Plus I heard that he wanted to cut all financial aid to students.
> EDIT:  Maybe Chris Christie for 2016 heard that guy was going to want to run.  We need another Taft in office lmao.




He says that because the college tuition price issue is a "bubble" and the "air" is the over-availability of student loans. It's not that you shouldn't be able to get some assistance for college, but the reason schools have been able to jack up their tuition so astronomically over the last 25 years is because the federal government has shown itself willing to keep loaning however much it takes for the students to pay that tuition. If your parents make a lot then you can only borrow little, but if your parents don't make much, you can borrow a shitload!! Of course, never mind that once you get out you'll be competing for some shit low-paying jobs against all those people who didn't need to take out big loans (and who have connections through their wealthy parents that you don't). Simply put, going to a high priced school when you're poor and taking on deep debt to make it happen is a bad financial choice almost every time. Sure, you can find an exception here and there. But most people who come out of college $100k or more in debt on student loans find a job paying $35k or $40k if they're lucky and they are slaves to that loan. Believe it or not (and I know you don't want to believe it) a financially challenged 18 year old is much better off going into the military and getting a medical or aero-mechanic job, get the free technical training, then come out and either go to school on the GI Bill or else get a job in the private sector based on their technical skills.

The advice was sound ... don't go so far in debt for a diploma that the salary it gets you is dwarfed 4:1 by what you owe. Your paycheck has to cover home, car, insurance of all kinds, taxes, gas, food, clothing, piano lessons for your kid, football uniform fee for your other kid, etc etc. A big student loan payment  is a heavy burden to pile on top of that.

Again, I know it sounds harsh, but the fact is the schools can charge that much because the government is willing to loan you that much.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Anybody watching the Democratic National Convention right now?


I'm watching it. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Nancy Keenan had a speaking role.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 5, 2012)

Lacius said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody watching the Democratic National Convention right now?
> ...



My wife and I were tickled by Kal Penn's speech. #SexyFace


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 5, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Anybody watching the Democratic National Convention right now?




I don't watch American television, except for the occasional sporting event. I read. I do watch Japanese television though, every night. Far as I know it isn't on.


----------



## Costello (Sep 5, 2012)

interesting thread (and poll)
I am happy to see that, in spite of what bad mouthed haters might say, discussions on the Temp can be polite and people who disagree with one another don't necessarily insult and flame each other 

threads like this are what makes me proud to be a part of this community!

I took the poll myself and see what I got:


Spoiler


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 5, 2012)

ZOMG that last speech from the Governor of Massachusetts was AMAZING! Also, his situation should serve as prime example why Romney should NOT be president. That state, when ran by Romney was #49 in job creation and then this guy comes in and now that state is a mover and shaker in a positive direction.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> That state, when ran by Romney was #49 in job creation and then this guy comes in and now that state is a mover and shaker in a positive direction.


The only state that had more people leave the workforce than Massachusetts while Romney was Governor was Louisiana, and that was because of Hurricane Katrina.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 5, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> ZOMG that last speech from the Governor of Massachusetts was AMAZING! Also, his situation should serve as prime example why Romney should NOT be president. That state, when ran by Romney was #49 in job creation and then this guy comes in and now that state is a mover and shaker in a positive direction.




Factcheck.org says that is not accurate.

http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/


A new ad from the Obama campaign takes aim at Mitt Romney’s performance as governor of Massachusetts, claiming he had “one of the worst economic records in the country.” But the ad overreaches with several of its claims.

The ad states that job creation in Massachusetts “fell” to 47th under Romney. That’s a bit misleading. Massachusetts’ state ranking for job growth went from 50th the year before he took office, to 28th in his final year. It was 47th for the whole of his four-year tenure, but it was improving, not declining, when he left.
The ad’s claim that Romney “cut taxes for millionaires” isn’t as black-and-white as billed. Romney opposed a plan to impose a capital gains tax retroactively, insisting on delaying the hike eight months. That’s different than pushing for a tax cut.
The ad claims that Romney raised taxes on the middle class. It’s true that Romney imposed a number of fees, but none of them targeted middle-income persons. Also, Romney proposed cutting the state income tax three times — a measure that would have resulted in tax cuts for all taxpayers — but he was rebuffed every time by the state’s Democratic Legislature.
The ad claims Romney “left the state $2.6 billion deeper in debt.” It’s true that long-term bond debt — used for capital improvements — rose under Romney, as it had in the years before he took office. But Romney wasn’t piling up yearly deficits to support operating expenses the way the federal government is, because Massachusetts requires balanced budgets.
The ad claims that when Romney was governor, “Massachusetts lost 40,000 manufacturing jobs, a rate twice the national average.” That’s close to true, but the state lost a greater number of manufacturing jobs in the four years before Romney took office, and more in the four years after he left. In fact, the rate of job loss in manufacturing slowed during Romney’s time as governor.
The ad claims Romney “outsourced call center jobs to India.” Not exactly. What he did was veto a measure that would have prevented the state from doing business with a state contractor that was locating state customer-service calls in India. Democrats who controlled the Legislature could have overridden the veto, but didn’t. The veto was supported by leading newspapers as a savings to taxpayers.


----------



## Kayot (Sep 5, 2012)

Quote wars are annoying.

Anywho, I'm with Hanafuda on this one.

Of couse I'd like to the the president. I'd steward the office and collect a lifetime pay of 250,000$ a year for the rest of my life. Shame that the people winning this are billionares and piss that kind of cash away on a single blackjack round in Vegas. I wish I was rich. I also wish I had a DearS. And Lighthawk Wings. Wishings nice.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 5, 2012)

Just finished watching Michelle's speech. Almost cried a few times. It was VERY moving.


----------



## BerserkLeon (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm probably biased, but I like Obama more.
Though, the entire [voting] process seems silly, considering:
The Electoral College people _can_ do whatever they want. Yes, they're usually responsible people who want the process to work, but they _can_ screw it all up.
The vote always comes down to the two major parties. This doesn't seem to be so much because what the minority parties' stance on everything is wrong, but because they're the minority. If one wants their vote to really matter at all, they're probably going to vote for one of the big two, even if they firmly believe someone from party X has the 'correct' views on *everything*. This is also a problem with the EC, since they probably figure not many people (or other electors) will choose someone from party X, they're more likely to go with the D/R candidates (that is, if they were to go out of line and vote for someone other than what the popular vote in their state was).
If you ask me, an entirely new system needs to be established.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2012)

BerserkLeon said:


> The vote always comes down to the two major parties. This doesn't seem to be so much because what the minority parties' stance on everything is wrong, but because they're the minority. If one wants their vote to really matter at all, they're probably going to vote for one of the big two, even if they firmly believe someone from party X has the 'correct' views on *everything*. This is also a problem with the EC, since they probably figure not many people (or other electors) will choose someone from party X, they're more likely to go with the D/R candidates (that is, if they were to go out of line and vote for someone other than what the popular vote in their state was).


This is why I advocate a two-round voting system, but that's not going to happen.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 5, 2012)

How can people get away with writing stuff like this that they've just pulled in its entirety straight out of their ass?

http://therothshow.com/2012/06/obama-is-inventing-authority-out-of-the-sky-his-toy-executive-orders/


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 5, 2012)

Just because my Wife and I were talking about it... 

(parody of Will.I.Am's "New Day" from The Boondocks)   

and you can find the original here...


----------



## tatripp (Sep 5, 2012)

Lacius said:


> tatripp said:
> 
> 
> > The deficit since Obama has been in office has been more than when GW Bush's 8 year term.
> ...



You responded to everything that I wrote which is good but unfortunately I don't have much time so I will only respond to some of it.
First go back to that treasury link i posted earlier and type the information in manually. The total budget deficit has increased slightly more in Obama's current time in office than in Bush's 8 years. 
Providing a link that says the stimulus worked means nothing to me because I can find plenty that say they don't work. You can't tell if a stimulus plan worked because you cannot compare it to what would have happened (especially in a case like this). 
The Economy has improved slightly under Obama after it has worsened a lot. Are we not in worse economic condition now than when bush was in office.
My analogy was meant to show that Obama is as nearly guilty as bush for allowing his policies to continue. He can't just stop them all immediately but he willingly continued some of them.
It is definitely not a good idea to expect a projected unemployment rate. Obama predicted while running for office that the economic crisis would be fixed or else he would be a one term president. The current unemployment rate is not a good description of actual unemployment. http://money.cnn.com/video/news/2012/07/06/n-youth-unemployment-labor.cnnmoney/   I'm not sure if the numbers on that video are completely accurate but the current unemployment rate certainly is not.

It is also not fair to say that economists agree that bush tax cuts will not impact the economy. I'm sure that some say that but it is a huge generalization to say "economists agree."


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 5, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Just because you think something is economic stimulus, which is a fair conversation to have about the Bush tax cuts, does not mean it is deficit-neutral; of course it should still be on the chart. You can't just pretend something isn't contributing to the deficit because you like it, haha. The vast majority of Obama's added spending has been economic recovery, so I fail to see the point of that. As for whether or not the Bush tax cuts should stay because they allegedly stimulate the economy, they actually don't stimulate the economy that much, particularly the tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. The best kinds of economic stimulus give money to the poor, who have to immediately spend that money rather than sit on it like the rich do. This is why Obama is in favor or extending the Bush tax cuts, for the time being, for those making less than $250,000. Economists agree that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 would have no real effect on the economy.




If Obama is in favor of extending the "Bush tax cuts," then isn't a bit disingenuous on your part to post a link to a chart purporting to show how damaging those tax cuts are to the national debt and economy? Not to mention continuing to attribute that purported damage to Bush in a prior post as a bad thing, and then touting the tax cuts as a good thing ("for the time being") in the post above and crediting Obama for it.


On last night's convention speeches, here's a link to the AP, "SOME OBAMA PROGRAMS EMBELLISHED BY DEMOCRATS." Embellished. During the Republican convention they called that lying.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CVN_DEMOCRATS_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-09-04-23-35-49


----------



## Lacius (Sep 5, 2012)

tatripp said:


> First go back to that treasury link i posted earlier and type the information in manually. The total budget deficit has increased slightly more in Obama's current time in office than in Bush's 8 years.


I don't think you understand the difference between "debt" and "deficit." The debt has continued to increase because we have a deficit. However, the deficit has actually gone down marginally under Obama. The deficit hasn't gone down much, however, because the major sources of our deficit (Bush policies) are still in effect. Obama wants to get rid of the Bush tax cuts, for example; Republicans want to both make them permanent and make them bigger. If the debt and deficit are what are important to you, then it appears that you should vote for Obama.



tatripp said:


> Providing a link that says the stimulus worked means nothing to me because I can find plenty that say they don't work. You can't tell if a stimulus plan worked because you cannot compare it to what would have happened (especially in a case like this).


Actually, it's pretty easy to see the causal relationship between the Stimulus and the economic recovery, so according to the numbers and most reputable economists, the Stimulus worked. Go back and look at those charts I posted. We can talk about what the role of government should be in the economy, the effect of economic recovery measures on the deficit, and many other things, but to say "the Stimulus didn't work" or "it's impossible to know if the Stimulus worked" are just a bold-faced lies.



tatripp said:


> Are we not in worse economic condition now than when bush was in office.


The economy is unarguably better off now than when Obama first took office, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. It should also be noted that the economy got to where it was before Obama took office in part because of Republican views on deregulation.



tatripp said:


> My analogy was meant to show that Obama is as nearly guilty as bush for allowing his policies to continue. He can't just stop them all immediately but he willingly continued some of them.


When it comes to the deficit and the debt, Obama has actually proposed bipartisan deficit-reduction policies that didn't happen thanks to Republican obstruction. Likewise, Obama would have repealed the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 if it hadn't been for Republican obstruction. You can't argue that Obama wants those Bush policies to continue and is just as guilty as Bush if Obama is the one who wants to end these Bush policies and the Republicans want to make them permanent. As for the economy, your analogy does not apply if Obama signed into law various economic recovery policies that worked. They didn't go far enough, but they worked.



tatripp said:


> It is definitely not a good idea to expect a projected unemployment rate. Obama predicted while running for office that the economic crisis would be fixed or else he would be a one term president. The current unemployment rate is not a good description of actual unemployment. http://money.cnn.com...labor.cnnmoney/   I'm not sure if the numbers on that video are completely accurate but the current unemployment rate certainly is not.


Based on the evidence, that "projected unemployment rate" is what appears to be the most likely. It's relevant because Romney claims that he will bring unemployment down to the level that it's expected to get to on its own thanks in part to Obama policies. It should also be noted that many previous projections on unemployment were made at a time when we didn't know that the economy was as bad as it was, which is why everyone now says that the Stimulus should have been bigger.

It appears that Romney's plan for the debt and deficit is to give more tax breaks to the rich that counter any of the spending cuts he has proposed, and Romney's plan for the economy is to give more tax breaks to the rich and take credit for the projected unemployment rate that we're expected to get anyway. From my point of view, it sounds like Romney isn't offering any viable solutions.



tatripp said:


> It is also not fair to say that economists agree that bush tax cuts will not impact the economy. I'm sure that some say that but it is a huge generalization to say "economists agree."


When most economists agree that tax breaks for the wealthy have very little economic benefit for each dollar "spent" (lost revenue), then it's a fair generalization. Tax breaks for the wealthy have very little effect on the economy because tax breaks for the rich don't tend to change their spending habits, nor does it incentivize job-creation. Even if a wealthy "job-creator" is given a tax break, if spending hasn't increased and the economy hasn't improved, the wealthy "job-creator" actually loses money if he or she creates jobs using that extra money. Oppositely, tax breaks and whatnot for the poor tend to increase spending and stimulate the economy, incentivizing "job-creators" to actually create jobs because there's a demand and it's profitable.

*Edit*:



Hanafuda said:


> If Obama is in favor of extending the "Bush tax cuts," then isn't a bit disingenuous on your part to post a link to a chart purporting to show how damaging those tax cuts are to the national debt and economy? Not to mention continuing to attribute that purported damage to Bush in a prior post as a bad thing, and then touting the tax cuts as a good thing ("for the time being") in the post above and crediting Obama for it.


Obama wants to end the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000, which is still a a significant reduction of the deficit. As I've already mentioned, tax cuts for the lower and middle classes actually have a positive effect on the economy, so Obama favors keeping them in place for the time being, just as Obama was in favor of economic recovery measures that included major tax cuts for the lower and middle classes. I also never said that the tax cuts were "damaging to the economy."  I also never said that Obama's view to extend the tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 is good for the deficit, because it's not. None of what you said changes the facts that a.) The Bush policies are the source of our current deficit and debt problems because they were unpaid for, and b.) Obama is the candidate who actually offers solutions for the debt, deficit, and economy.



Hanafuda said:


> On last night's convention speeches, here's a link to the AP, "SOME OBAMA PROGRAMS EMBELLISHED BY DEMOCRATS." Embellished. During the Republican convention they called that lying.
> 
> http://hosted.ap.org...-09-04-23-35-49


Actually, there's a major difference between embellishing and lying. The difference is that when they say things like (for example), "So instead of the Medicare guarantee, Republicans would give seniors a voucher that limits what's covered," they're telling the truth. Sure, that only applies to future beneficiaries, but it doesn't change the fact that the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it. Just because it would be more accurate to say, "Republicans would give future seniors a voucher that limits what's covered," doesn't make it a lie. In fact, considering it's common knowledge how the Republicans would end Medicare as we know it, it's not even embellishment (unless you've changed how words work and I don't know about it).


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 5, 2012)

I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase "end Medicare as we know it." It presupposes that Medicare, as it currently exists, is an efficient, well-managed, self-sustaining program that is good for both providers and insured, and that there is no need for reform. Personally I think it is a socialist abomination, but now that seniors are dependent on the teat and planning their retirements around it,  we'll probably never be able to get rid of it. It's a societal cancer, just like most democratic entitlement programs. 

*There is nothing that government can give a man that has not first been taken from another under threat of force.*


----------



## Sterling (Sep 5, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase &quot;end Medicare as we know it.&quot; It presupposes that Medicare, as it currently exists, is an efficient, well-managed, self-sustaining program that is good for both providers and insured, and that there is no need for reform. Personally I think it is a socialist abomination, but now that seniors are dependent on the teat and planning their retirements around it,  we'll probably never be able to get rid of it. It's a societal cancer, just like most democratic entitlement programs.
> 
> *There is nothing that government can give a man that has not first been taken from another under threat of force.*



The government is there to improve the quality of life for all it's citizens. Taking away social programs is a good way to remove the only things they've done to do so. After that we just have a government that funnels our money into things that won't help us at all, or military.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 5, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> socialist abomination



I like the sound of that.

I'm just very tired of how "socialist" or "communist" are thrown around as negative words. Socialism and communism embody two fantastic ideas that a government should strive to be. A place where its citizens can live in peace, where there's no more poverty, no more unequal distribution of wealth, no more classes. It's utopian. Not that we have achieved it, but if a government is truly striving towards reaching that utopia, more power to them. If a government is trying to make my life better and easier, to make sure I don't fall victim to crippling poverty or stand on the backs of others and rule through economics, then I'm all the more for it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 5, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > socialist abomination
> ...




Not the job of government in my opinion, nor in the opinion of the men who wrote the United States Constitution. The Constitution established a federal government of (very) limited and specifically enumerated powers. Essentially, in the vision of the drafters of our Constitution, the job of the federal government was to maintain necessary infrastructure, handle the delivery of mail, oversee federal elections, and the common defense (i.e. military). Social welfare was not a job the Founders contemplated or gave to the federal government - it is a role which has been forced into the laws by yes, socialists among our elected officials, particularly since the 1930's. And their purpose in doing so was ever and always to get more and more people dependent on government for their standard of living, thereby forcing them to continue voting for the party that is sending them the check.

"A place where its citizens can live in peace, where there's no more poverty, no more unequal distribution of wealth, no more classes. It's utopian."

Simply put, this will never happen on this world, except where a poor mockery of it has been forced upon people by a totalitarian dictatorship in the name of communism (and so, only really happens in the propaganda). There will always be people who are smarter, work harder, and do more important things than others. Should those people not be paid more for their greater ability, harder work, and greater contribution? Or do you propose that the dude with the meth problem who works the graveyard shift at the 7-11 be paid the same as a brain surgeon?? Furthermore, there will always be people who see a peaceful condition as an opportunity ripe for violence. And there will always be people who see the offer of charity to the less fortunate as an excuse to give up at working themselves, and join in on the gravy train.





Sterling said:


> The government is there to improve the quality of life for all it's citizens.



No it isn't. See above.

Edit: Sterling, I can't say I agree with you because the entirety of your post was based on the proposition that social welfare programs are one of the few things government does that is good. I believe social welfare programs create dependency and weakness in the culture, so I cannot agree with that. But, after giving it some thought I realized I have no objection to the statement I quoted above, "The government is there to improve the quality of life for all it's citizens." To the extent this means the roads are in good repair, the mail arrives promptly, etc. as I discussed above, I agree. But I don't want the federal government to be the world's largest insurance company, which is exactly what it is today. And the executives and managers are all corrupt.


----------



## smile72 (Sep 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase "end Medicare as we know it." It presupposes that Medicare, as it currently exists, is an efficient, well-managed, self-sustaining program that is good for both providers and insured, and that there is no need for reform. Personally I think it is a socialist abomination, but now that seniors are dependent on the teat and planning their retirements around it,  we'll probably never be able to get rid of it. It's a societal cancer, just like most democratic entitlement programs.
> 
> *There is nothing that government can give a man that has not first been taken from another under threat of force.*


I'm tired of people attacking socialism... a lot of people in America especially senior citizens can't afford health insurance. That's why every other developed country has a universal health care system.


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 6, 2012)

Universal health coverage isn't socialism anyway.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Not the job of government in my opinion, nor in the opinion of the men who wrote the United States Constitution. The Constitution established a federal government of (very) limited and specifically enumerated powers. Essentially, in the vision of the drafters of our Constitution, the job of the federal government was to maintain necessary infrastructure, handle the delivery of mail, oversee federal elections, and the common defense (i.e. military). Social welfare was not a job the Founders contemplated or gave to the federal government - it is a role which has been forced into the laws by yes, socialists among our elected officials, particularly since the 1930's. And their purpose in doing so was ever and always to get more and more people dependent on government for their standard of living, thereby forcing them to continue voting for the party that is sending them the check.
> 
> "A place where its citizens can live in peace, where there's no more poverty, no more unequal distribution of wealth, no more classes. It's utopian."
> 
> Simply put, this will never happen on this world, except where a poor mockery of it has been forced upon people by a totalitarian dictatorship in the name of communism (and so, only really happens in the propaganda). There will always be people who are smarter, work harder, and do more important things than others. Should those people not be paid more for their greater ability, harder work, and greater contribution? Or do you propose that the dude with the meth problem who works the graveyard shift at the 7-11 be paid the same as a brain surgeon?? Furthermore, there will always be people who see a peaceful condition as an opportunity ripe for violence. And there will always be people who see the offer of charity to the less fortunate as an excuse to give up at working themselves, and join in on the gravy train.



The fact that we still stick to the doctrine of long dead men from roughly 250 years in the past baffles me. Nowadays we live in such a radically different world that saying "The Founding Fathers wouldn't have liked that!" is just plainly dated. In 250 years we've gone from 13 measly colonies to one of (if not the greatest) super power the world has ever known. We've spread across to 50 states, adopted and outlawed slavery, been in (and won) two world wars, put a man on the moon, and created the most devastating weaponry in history. We shouldn't always assume the Founding Fathers wrote a timeless classic.

Would you say every CEO, every politician, everyone of wealth is smarter, works harder, and does more important things? The people who mine coal and work in factories are what make our country work. Yes, we need a structure for distributing them, but the base of the country is often those of lower income in dead end jobs. We couldn't live without food from farmers, we couldn't have power without coal and whatever we use, we couldn't drive to work without gas.

I think money is an irrelevant object. The fact that we use worthless paper currency to judge someone's worth is ridiculous. The fact that one human being gets put above another because of circumstances is ridiculous. Those that hold back society will filter out. But someone who was already born without no future shouldn't be suffering while someone born of privilege gets a free ride to continue privilege.

There'd be a lot of things to fix before making that utopian society, actually it'd just be easier to start from scratch, but I think with enough regulations, programs, infrastructure, it's achievable.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > The government is there to improve the quality of life for all it's citizens.
> ...



I can't say I don't agree with you. The government is full of the corrupt, but as a person who has been on Welfare for about 3 years now (only two of those have I been unemployed) I can safely say that I would probably not be here now if there weren't such programs. Before I was all along with the Republicans. That the government shouldn't be involved with Citizen's lives. To a certain extent I still agree. When I look at it from an unselfish human point of view, I can see how the central body of government should have a hand in helping out it's citizens. For people like me who are down on their luck or cannot afford to take care of themselves, these programs are a blessing. When I get on my feet, I'll gladly pay my dues to help others.

I simply cannot fathom why someone would be so against social programs when they are so helpful. Is it jealousy, or malice, or simply human nature? I agree they can be better and should be revamped, but as a fellow human who has seen people just walk past someone who is on the street who is hungry, I just can't see how anyone one could want these things gone (especially since most people won't give willingly in the first place). When the government properly provide flawless help to anyone is the day when religion will no longer apply. It will simply not happen. Which is why I'm satisfied with flawed help with opportunity for improvement.

EDIT: I'm in attendance for the "I agreed with Guild McCommunist" club again.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase "end Medicare as we know it." It presupposes that Medicare, as it currently exists, is an efficient, well-managed, self-sustaining program that is good for both providers and insured, and that there is no need for reform. Personally I think it is a socialist abomination, but now that seniors are dependent on the teat and planning their retirements around it,  we'll probably never be able to get rid of it. It's a societal cancer, just like most democratic entitlement programs.


Fortunately for our discussion, we can compare a United States with Medicare to a United States without Medicare:



> Before Medicare's creation, only half of older adults had health insurance, with coverage often unavailable or unaffordable to the other half. Older adults had half as much income as younger people and paid nearly three times as much for health insurance. Medicare also spurred the integration of thousands of waiting rooms, hospital floors, and physician practices by making payments to health care providers conditional on desegregation.


http://en.wikipedia....Program_history

So no, people aren't dependent on Medicare because they plan their retirements around it; they're dependent on Medicare because there was (and is) a need for it. Quite honestly, I don't see how one can argue that Medicare is a "societal cancer" unless one also believes that the United States is a country that casts aside its poor, elderly, disabled, and other vulnerable populations and tells them to fend for themselves. As high as health care costs are for the elderly, a United States without Medicare is pretty impractical and unfair for those who wouldn't be able to afford health care. I know you don't think this, but since it's unarguable that Medicare allows many elderly people to have health coverage when they wouldn't have it otherwise, it sounds to me like you're saying that the elderly are a "societal cancer."

I also don't think we're a country that should allow people to die from lack of health insurance because they happen to be poor, have a preexisting condition, etc, and the best way to do that would be government-run quality health care for all.


----------



## Shano56 (Sep 6, 2012)

Where is the option for neither and IDGAF because the puppet has already been selected?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 6, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> The fact that we still stick to the doctrine of long dead men from roughly 250 years in the past baffles me. Nowadays we live in such a radically different world that saying "The Founding Fathers wouldn't have liked that!" is just plainly dated. In 250 years we've gone from 13 measly colonies to one of (if not the greatest) super power the world has ever known. We've spread across to 50 states, adopted and outlawed slavery, been in (and won) two world wars, put a man on the moon, and created the most devastating weaponry in history. We shouldn't always assume the Founding Fathers wrote a timeless classic.



And we've done all that under that "old" Constitution. It always amazes me how young people tend to assume the old to be somehow ignorant of the human condition, and the dead even more so. But human nature is and always shall be one of the only things we can depend on, and the Constitution was written in full contemplation of human nature. Technology and the march of time only change the ways in which some people go about doing things, but it doesn't change what we do. 

Also I should add that despite what I've had to say in my last few posts, I'm not a heartless bastard who thinks the poor shouldn't get help. I donate to charities of my choosing, and will even be donating a car later this year to my state's Heritage for the Blind. I just don't think government should be the source and solution. I feel this way for the same reason I think abortion should be legal, gay marriage should be legal, and the 'war on drugs' should end - because government shouldn't be managing and controlling every aspect of our lives. That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights - government must be limited and kept in check to preserve liberty. Anyway, these are more philosophical considerations than practical ones - but Franklin was correct when he said, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."



> Would you say every CEO, every politician, everyone of wealth is smarter, works harder, and does more important things? The people who mine coal and work in factories are what make our country work. Yes, we need a structure for distributing them, but the base of the country is often those of lower income in dead end jobs. We couldn't live without food from farmers, we couldn't have power without coal and whatever we use, we couldn't drive to work without gas.
> 
> I think money is an irrelevant object. The fact that we use worthless paper currency to judge someone's worth is ridiculous. The fact that one human being gets put above another because of circumstances is ridiculous. Those that hold back society will filter out. But someone who was already born without no future shouldn't be suffering while someone born of privilege gets a free ride to continue privilege.



Well, you're kinda dodging the point that some jobs are simply worth more and deserve to be compensated better than others, but when it comes to massive hoarded wealth and  inheritance, I'm pretty sympathetic to where you're coming from. So this is the thing ... I watched that whole "Occupy" fiasco some months ago, knowing all along what it would devolve into and fizzle in the end, but every day I was waiting and hoping for someone in that movement to "get it" and make it heard loud and clear - so listen up cuz I'm going to let the cat out of the bag ... 

If you want there to be a real change in the imbalance of wealth, if you want the kinds of change to happen that you thought you were voting for when you voted for Obama, then stop worrying about taxing income. Instead, tax individual wealth. Making 'the rich' (i.e. over 250k/yr) pay a higher income tax rate will only crush small businesses and result in higher prices for consumers, as the big corporate retailers and manufacturers compensate for the higher tax burden on their income. Instead, impose a flat percentage tax on every individual's personal wealth over (for example) 2 million. Romney's worth 250 million? Bill Gates is worth 61 billion? Fine, we'll take 20% of that this year. And next year, we'll take 20% of what's left. And so on. 

I wonder if the Democratic Party would get behind that?


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> If you want there to be a real change in the imbalance of wealth, if you want the kinds of change to happen that you thought you were voting for when you voted for Obama, then stop worrying about taxing income. Instead, tax individual wealth. Making 'the rich' (i.e. over 250k/yr) pay a higher income tax rate will only crush small businesses and result in higher prices for consumers, as the big corporate retailers and manufacturers compensate for the higher tax burden on their income. Instead, impose a flat percentage tax on every individual's personal wealth over (for example) 2 million. Romney's worth 250 million? Bill Gates is worth 61 billion? Fine, we'll take 20% of that this year. And next year, we'll take 20% of what's left. And so on.
> 
> I wonder if the Democratic Party would get behind that?



UK Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg proposed something similar recently

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/tax/9515557/Lib-Dems-will-continue-to-push-for-Nick-Cleggs-wealth-tax-says-Vince-Cable.html


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 6, 2012)

Taxing individual wealth goes againts reason. In essence, you're taking away 20% of someone's savings just to take 20% of the exact same savings next year - you're taxing a citizen two times for the same thing - it's the court equivalent of breaking the Double Jeopardy rule. You can't punish people for being successful or for being responsible with their savings. By the way, I hope that those "20%" were just a joke - no debit account brings that kind of profits on a yearly basis - in essence, an account holder would gain aprox. 5% yearly from the bank and then lose 20% yearly due to tax - I don't have to tell you that this leads to "closing accounts and putting money in socks", right?

Tax evasion would skyrocket, it sounds like an incredible mess to me. Now, don't get me wrong - I'm all for equality and change, but what if someone's income suddenly rapidly drops? What if I'm "worth" XYZ dollars while making ABC dollars yearly and suddenly lose my job? I'm not magically worth "less" - I have the same wealth, I'm just not making any income, however I'd be taxed as if I were.

I don't think it's a well-balanced solution at all, even if it "looks good" on paper. If you don't want businesses to run straight out of your country and your people to start literally hiding their savings on over-shore accounts, I suggest that you leave "accomodated wealth" alone.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Also I should add that despite what I've had to say in my last few posts, I'm not a heartless bastard who thinks the poor shouldn't get help. I donate to charities of my choosing, and will even be donating a car later this year to my state's Heritage for the Blind. I just don't think government should be the source and solution.


I understand that you're not a "heartless bastard," but depending on good people like you who donate to charities doesn't exactly solve the problems that so-called entitlement programs solve. There isn't exactly a viable alternative other than letting the poor, elderly, etc. fend for themselves.



Hanafuda said:


> Making 'the rich' (i.e. over 250k/yr) pay a higher income tax rate will only crush small businesses and result in higher prices for consumers, as the big corporate retailers and manufacturers compensate for the higher tax burden on their income.


Actually, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 a year, which is what you seem to be referring to, would have little to no effect on small businesses. Something like 97% of small businesses would be unaffected by allowing those particular tax cuts to expire, according to nonpartisan congressional estimates.



Hanafuda said:


> Instead, impose a flat percentage tax on every individual's personal wealth over (for example) 2 million. Romney's worth 250 million? Bill Gates is worth 61 billion? Fine, we'll take 20% of that this year. And next year, we'll take 20% of what's left. And so on.


Doesn't that mean the government could potentially take from someone more than he or she makes per year?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 6, 2012)

Hey, I'm not seriously suggesting that - I just said it was the solution to the complaint about the imbalance of wealth. You can raise income taxes all you like, it won't do anything about the 1% sitting on hundreds of millions/billions while the rest of us make just enough to get our kids educated and into the same crappy jobs we worked at till retiring.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Hey, I'm not seriously suggesting that - I just said it was the solution to the complaint about the imbalance of wealth. You can raise income taxes all you like, it won't do anything about the 1% sitting on hundreds of millions/billions while the rest of us make just enough to get our kids educated and into the same crappy jobs we worked at till retiring.


You do realize that those wealthy families most likely weren't always wealthy - one of them down the line was a good businessman and created his/her empire through hard work, right? Y'know, following the American Dream?

Bill Gates is one of the richest people on Earth even though I'm willing to bet that barely anyone on this very forum has a legal copy of Windows installed on their computer, unless it was pre-installed (OEM), and you know what? He started in a garage.

Apple is now the biggest US-based company, and guess what? They started in a garage too.

So how's about you stop being disgruntled and start being enterprising - there are ideas to be had and inventions to be invented. Envy of someone's success doesn't validate taking away someone's wealth, and while I agree that there are some fortunes that were made illegally, they all deserve to be "presumed innocent".


----------



## Lacius (Sep 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Hey, I'm not seriously suggesting that - I just said it was the solution to the complaint about the imbalance of wealth. You can raise income taxes all you like, it won't do anything about the 1% sitting on hundreds of millions/billions while the rest of us make just enough to get our kids educated and into the same crappy jobs we worked at till retiring.


I think the issue is more about making sure people pay their fair share. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing that we punish success by excessively taxing the rich until they're middle class. The problems are, however, that:
The middle class is shrinking
People like Mitt Romney pay a tax rate of 13% because they benefit from a rigged system
The system is rigged to benefit the rich because of big money in politics (worsened by the Citizens United case)
Republicans want to give more tax breaks to the rich by increasing the burden on the poor (whether it's increasing taxes on the poor to ending spending programs that benefit the poor).
That doesn't seem very fair to me.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 6, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Envy of someone's success doesn't validate taking away someone's wealth ...



Hey, I'm just playing devil's advocate. Tell it to this guy ...








Actually I'm surprised to see you guys backlash against that proposal (though we didn't hear yet from Guild McCommunist or smile72). You're a more reasonable bunch than I thought. But before generalizing "Republicans" as the only ones serving the rich, don't forget that Senator Kerry, Warren Buffett, the Kennedys, and all those Wall Street bankers and brokers that Obama bailed out are benefiting from that rigged tax system just as much as Romney or any other Republican. And they had a lot more to do with making the laws the way they are than Romney ever did.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 6, 2012)

I don't actually know enough about politics to get in on this discussion. I will be watching though.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 6, 2012)

Cant wait for the President's speech tonight! Hopefully, the release of the jobs numbers tomorrow wont derail the momentum. So far, the early reports released today are making tomorrow's release look bright.


----------



## smile72 (Sep 7, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > Envy of someone's success doesn't validate taking away someone's wealth ...
> ...


You didn't hear me yet due to my lack of internet.... Read my blog. And I agree we shouldn't tax someone's personal saving it's beyond foolish. But neither should Mitt Romney pay 13% because of a super rigged tax system.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 7, 2012)

Great speech tonight! I'm fired up for November!


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 12, 2012)

My wife and I got tickets to see Michelle Obama on Thursday!  Anybody else going to any political events soon?


----------



## BlueStar (Sep 19, 2012)

Ouch
Jon Stewart Tears Apart Romney’s Assertions About The ‘Dependent’ 47 Percent
http://www.mediaite....ent-47-percent/

Also
Mitt Romney will probably get 95 electoral votes from ‘moocher’ states. Obama will probably get 5.
http://www.washingto...=rss_ezra-klein


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Apparently, the Romney camp is holding a series of "Victory Rallies" today...

Can't find a online source but I have been watching MSNBC since 2pm EST and they talked about it a few times.

*(WARNING: Incomming Sarcasm)*
"Muthafucka! How da hell you gonna throw a victory rally when election day is STILL 40+ days away?!"

Reminds me of this picture...


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

He's entitled to rally around the states in which projections show that he'll get the majority of votes - that's merely strenghtening his position. Most would think that visiting the states in which he has a poor chance at winning would be better, but on the other hand, it's not insane to add some aditional cover to the bases you already own.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 24, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Reminds me of this picture...



Still pisses me off whenever I see that picture. The "Mission Accomplished" banner was in reference to that boat finishing it's tour of duty and returning stateside.


----------



## Gahars (Sep 24, 2012)

Obama is leading Romney with a lot of groups, including... NASCAR fans.

Can't say I saw that coming.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> He's entitled to rally around the states in which projections show that he'll get the majority of votes - that's merely strenghtening his position. Most would think that visiting the states in which he has a poor chance at winning would be better, but on the other hand, it's not insane to add some aditional cover to the bases you already own.



What projections have you been reading? All the polls I have seen has Obama in the lead between 3-5 points. Not to mention the projections have Obama with 350+ electorate votes in comparison to Romney's 280-ish votes and the electorate votes are what matters the most in the U.S. election process. Granted, as a proud Democrat I'm not tooting the victory horn yet. There are 3 Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debate and those will be a make or break moment for either party. I'm going into this with my fingers crossed. Also, Foxi, YES, you're right, Romney has every right to rally where-ever he wants to BUT, calling it a "Victory Rally" when there are still over 40 days left in this election season is a bit premature.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> What projections have you been reading? All the polls I have seen has Obama in the lead between 3-5 points. Not to mention the projections have Obama with 350+ electorate votes in comparison to Romney's 280-ish votes and the electorate votes are what matters the most in the U.S. election process. Granted, as a proud Democrat I'm not tooting the victory horn yet. There are 3 Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debate and those will be a make or break moment for either party. I'm going into this with my fingers crossed. Also, Foxi, YES, you're right, Romney has every right to rally where-ever he wants to BUT, calling it a "Victory Rally" when there are still over 40 days left in this election season is a bit premature.


...You are aware how the election system works in the US, right?

The U.S.A consists of States (duh!) - Romney may lead in some and lose in others, and he's interested in the ones he has a lead in.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 24, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Obama is leading Romney with a lot of groups, including... NASCAR fans.
> 
> Can't say I saw that coming.




not the middle class. 14 point lead there.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81584.html

And here's a graph showing tracking of the Gallup poll so far for the month of September. Romney sure had a horrible week last week. His campaign's on the ropes n' shit.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > What projections have you been reading? All the polls I have seen has Obama in the lead between 3-5 points. Not to mention the projections have Obama with 350+ electorate votes in comparison to Romney's 280-ish votes and the electorate votes are what matters the most in the U.S. election process. Granted, as a proud Democrat I'm not tooting the victory horn yet. There are 3 Presidential debates and one Vice Presidential debate and those will be a make or break moment for either party. I'm going into this with my fingers crossed. Also, Foxi, YES, you're right, Romney has every right to rally where-ever he wants to BUT, calling it a "Victory Rally" when there are still over 40 days left in this election season is a bit premature.
> ...



Um DUDE! I LIVE in the United States. Look at my flag and we do NOT have a popular vote system. The popular votes basically serve as a guide for the electorate voters and while Romney might want to keep the states he have a lead in, there are eight "swing states" in this country that are make or break states for either party and right now Romney is in Ohio (a swing state) trying to racket u up more votes. Also, Obama is leading (barely   ) in most of the swing states so.... nuff said for now


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Polls FTW

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

As you can see the current President has a somewhat stable lead with, Romney leading in only 11 spots on the first page and Obama leading in at least 67 spots. Need I say more???


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

Seeing that my preferred candidate already dropped out of the election, you're doomed either way. You have a choice between "same old" and "insane", so you're between a rock and a hard spot, really.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Seeing that my preferred candidate already dropped out of the election, you're doomed either way. You have a choice between "same old" and "insane", so you're between a rock and a hard spot, really.



As long as Obama wins, we will be fine. If Romney gets into office I'm leaving this country. Last thing I want to see is this country go into a Dark Ages state. The Republican party are really trying to turn this country into a theocracy in which education and reasoning take a back seat to their crusade against non-Christians.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 24, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Um DUDE! I LIVE in the United States. Look at my flag and we do NOT have a popular vote system. The popular votes basically serve as a guide for the electorate voters and while Romney might want to keep the states he have a lead in, there are eight "swing states" in this country that are make or break states for either party and right now Romney is in Ohio (a swing state) trying to racket u up more votes. Also, Obama is leading (barely   ) in most of the swing states so.... nuff said for now



Nuff said? Maybe. All those assumptions are based only on polls. Yes, they're the only reference we have, but they're rarely accurate when it's all over (unless it's a landslide). Most of the polls being done recently that show Obama with a lead are sampling democrats over republicans by 11% or so, when there were only 7% more registered democrats than republicans for the 2008 election.  Has the registered base of democrats in the USA really increased by 4% over the last 4 years? The results of the 2010 election would suggest otherwise. On the other hand, the percentage of people who are dependent on SS disability or food stamps or unemployment or welfare has probably increased by much more than 4% over the last 4 years, so ironically the  polls (and Romney's comment about the 47%) may ultimately prove accurate after all.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Seeing that my preferred candidate already dropped out of the election, you're doomed either way. You have a choice between "same old" and "insane", so you're between a rock and a hard spot, really.


I'd rather stick with the same old than have some nut job like Mitt in office. At least with the same old I can retain what little rights I still have.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

Petty squabbles. You have more important things to worry about than your forreign interests and/or religious disputes - the U.S has internal problems which remained unfixed for several years now.

You need another president like Bill Clinton - fair play, he may not have been the best husband, but he was the only president out of the last few who not only didn't increase the deficit - in fact, he decreased it. It's a shame that a good politician was sent to the margins because of his shabby personal life, which shouldn't be of anyone's concern.

Americans have a horrible tendency to lead to voting between two complete extremes rather than looking for someone who represents the center - the sweet-spot of politics. You had Ron Paul and you wasted that opportunity in my opinion.



The Catboy said:


> I'd rather stick with the same old than have some nut job like Mitt in office. At least with the same old I can retain what little rights I still have.


Fair play, it's the better candidate out of the two, but it doesn't help the U.S in its current economical predicament.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > Um DUDE! I LIVE in the United States. Look at my flag and we do NOT have a popular vote system. The popular votes basically serve as a guide for the electorate voters and while Romney might want to keep the states he have a lead in, there are eight "swing states" in this country that are make or break states for either party and right now Romney is in Ohio (a swing state) trying to racket u up more votes. Also, Obama is leading (barely   ) in most of the swing states so.... nuff said for now
> ...



It's obvious that we stand on different sides of the fence BUT, I agree with you. The polls do have a margin of error and I really think this election boils down to which party can 1) energize their base and 2) get enough independent voters to side with them for this election. Politics is like a game of chess but sadly this game isn't for fun and it effects everyone. I have a feeling that no matter who you are rooting for, we all will have out fingers crossed on Election night because the race will be that damn close.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 24, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> As long as Obama wins, we will be fine.



wow. cuz we've been rebounding like a damned rocket the last four years, right?



> If Romney gets into office I'm leaving this country.



So your allegiance to your nation is so weak that it's dependent entirely on your satisfaction with the outcome of a Presidential election?    



> Last thing I want to see is this country go into a Dark Ages state. The Republican party are really trying to turn this country into a theocracy in which education and reasoning take a back seat to their crusade against non-Christians.



Hyperbole. You're good at it.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather stick with the same old than have some nut job like Mitt in office. At least with the same old I can retain what little rights I still have.
> ...


Going to be honest.
Me wanting to live a normal life >> me being pursued because I just happen to gay and not a Christian.

Also Mitt is not going to help America, he drove Massachusetts into the ground. If he plans on doing the same to America as he did to Massachusetts, I am getting the fuck out of America if he gets in office.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Petty squabbles. You have more important things to worry about than your forreign interests and/or religious disputes - the U.S has internal problems which remained unfixed for several years now.
> 
> You need another president like Bill Clinton - fair play, he may not have been the best husband, but he was the only president out of the last few who not only didn't increase the deficit - in fact, he decreased it. It's a shame that a good politician was sent to the margins because of his shabby personal life, which shouldn't be of anyone's concern.
> 
> ...



LMFAO! Ron Paul? That's who you were rooting for? That racist son of a bitch is crazy and I'm glad he's no where near the Presidential seat.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Going to be honest.
> Me wanting to live a normal life >> me being pursued because I just happen to gay and not a Christian.
> 
> Also Mitt is not going to help America, he drove Massachusetts into the ground. If he plans on doing the same to America as he did to Massachusetts, I am getting the fuck out of America if he gets in office.


I never said that he would, I think that man is insane and shouldn't be a politician, let alone a candidate for the President's seat. What I said was that you are left with two options, neither of which is going to help. You can merely choose the rate at which the country will further descend.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> You need another president like Bill Clinton - fair play, he may not have been the best husband, but he was the only president out of the last few who not only didn't increase the deficit - in fact, he decreased it. It's a shame that a good politician was sent to the margins because of his shabby personal life, which shouldn't be of anyone's concern.



That happened when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Their budget, but Clinton takes credit.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > As long as Obama wins, we will be fine.
> ...




YES because I'm not a nationalist and I care more about the well being of ALL of Earth and not just one country


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> LMFAO! Ron Paul? That's who you were rooting for? That racist son of a bitch is crazy and I'm glad he's no where near the Presidential seat.


Sure, pursue someone for the mistakes of the past rather than read his political programme.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > Going to be honest.
> ...


Considering the fact that it took Bush 8 years to fuck up the country, I doubt it's going to be fixed in only 4.
When it really comes down it, Obama will do more for America than Mitt.

Personally I would rather have many other people over both of them, but give the choices I have, Obama is better choice.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 24, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > The Catboy said:
> ...




You're being pursued? By who? Gay police?

Drove Massachusetts into the ground? It was 50th in job creation when he took office, and 28th when he left.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > LMFAO! Ron Paul? That's who you were rooting for? That racist son of a bitch is crazy and I'm glad he's no where near the Presidential seat.
> ...



http://newsone.com/1748295/top-10-racist-ron-paul-friends-supporters/


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...



You know, Catboy and I could be like those dinky Republicans and say that, "we will not let facts dictate our campaign". *giggle*


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > LightyKD said:
> ...


The whole "storm" around Ron Paul is a whirl in a glass of water - people pull out some 10-year old newsletters just like they pulled out Obama's birth certificate. Are you going to judge a person through the prism of his supporters or the prism of his reform plans?


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 24, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> YES because I'm not a nationalist and I care more about the well being of ALL of Earth and not just one country



Then you have no allegiance to your nation and when you say the pledge it's a lie. You should join the peace corps.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...



I'm just throwing gasoline on the fire. Moreover, it's easy for you to support Ron Paul because you're not an American or African American for that matter.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > Foxi4 said:
> ...


Well for starters, the man started out pro-gay, now he wants to put a national ban on gay marriage. That's just starters.
Also have you ever lived in Massachusetts? I was born and raised there for 20 year actually. The fact is, I had personally watched every job leave my town, all the towns around me and pretty much all of Western Massachusetts fell apart. How do I know this? I watched it personally. But interesting note, Eastern Massachusetts is actually doing a lot better, so maybe Eastern Massachusetts improved.



Spoiler: Not to mention the guy flip flops on every issue


----------



## someonewhodied (Sep 24, 2012)

I'm guessing most of you think like this every 4 years:
"Which of these republicans will scare me into voting democrat this time?"


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > YES because I'm not a nationalist and I care more about the well being of ALL of Earth and not just one country
> ...



Actually I would love to! Not sure how my wife would deal with it


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

There's always option no.3...

Return the tea you owe England and apologize, maybe they'll take you back.


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> There's always option no.3...
> 
> Return the tea you owe England and apologize, maybe they'll take you back.


Is our room still open?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> I'm just throwing gasoline on the fire. Moreover, it's easy for you to support Ron Paul because you're not an American or African American for that matter.


I personally think that it's easy for me to support him because I'm incredibly pragmatic; I'm not concerned about his past, his family friends, his views on the world or his favourite tie - I'm concerned with his proposed reform, and on its helm the removal of American troops from war zones they are currently in to put a gauze on the part of U.S politics which bleeds the most money - military spending. I was impressed with his campaign ad about military interventions and I absolutely agree with what he said - Americans are not welcome, neither in Iraq nor in Afghanistan and should withdrawl. Fair play, Obama promised the same thing, but apparently he's not in a hurry about that. Romney on the other hand wants to increase military spending, which I find pretty silly seeing that the U.S is already a military superpower.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just throwing gasoline on the fire. Moreover, it's easy for you to support Ron Paul because you're not an American or African American for that matter.
> ...



However pragmatic you may be it still doesn't change the fact that your support is still easier to give as you have no past racial traumas. (Specifically at the hands of white Americans) Anyway, I'm getting off track.  It is a shame he got knocked out of the race as he's clearly a superior candidate than Romney. I think Ron Paul did himself a disservice by running as a Republican. As an independent he would have garnered more support IMO. Moreover, don't a large amount of republicans have stocks in companies that build weaponry/equipment for the military? If so,  that might explain the push for bigger military spending in the Romney budget.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 24, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> That happened when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress. Their budget, but Clinton takes credit.


Actually, the budget surplus was due largely in part to the revenue increases Bill Clinton passed during his first term. These revenue increases did not receive a single Republican vote, so it's only fair that Clinton and the Democrats get all the credit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 24, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> However pragmatic you may be it still doesn't change the fact that your support is still easier to give as *you have no past racial traumas.*


Y'know... I'm Polish... Nazis didn't particularily like us... areyoufingkiddingme.jpg 



> Anyway, I'm getting off track.  It is a shame he got knocked out of the race as he's clearly a superior candidate than Romney. I think Ron Paul did himself a disservice by running as a Republican. As an independent he would have garnered more support IMO. Moreover, don't a large amount of republicans have stocks in companies that build weaponry/equipment for the military? If so,  that might explain the push for bigger military spending in the Romney budget.


True, I don't know, and true.

He is the superior candidate, and it goes without saying. Independents don't get a lot of support, again, due to the American "custom" of binarity - North vs. West, Democrats vs. Republicans, Conservatives vs. Liberals - your life is based on binary oppositions and people who are in the middle are branded "undecided" and thus untrustworthy. I personally think that a system different than a two-party one could benefit your country, but hey! That's a pretty major change, and it's not really compatible with "the American way of doing politics". As for Romney's support of agressive military politics, he voiced those even before he was a candidate - I think he actually believes that if he puts a stick into every anthill in the world, the ants will thank him for building masts in their homes... that, and his friends surely do have said shares and encourage him.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Sep 24, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Hyro-Sama said:
> 
> 
> > However pragmatic you may be it still doesn't change the fact that your support is still easier to give as *you have no past racial traumas.*
> ...



I greatly apologize. I didn't even consider that.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> I greatly apologize. I didn't even consider that.


Dude, don't mention it, it's no biggie.


----------



## Gahars (Sep 25, 2012)

@[member='Foxi4']

I find Ron Paul's views to be extremely, extremely worrisome. He champions deregulation and smaller government to a degree that would only be extremely detrimental if enacted. He is a huge advocate for states' rights (a political philosophy that has lingered on after being soundly discredited in our Civil War), and would repeal important pieces of legislation like the Civil Rights Act if given the opportunity. He also opposed a Supreme Court ruling that overruled a Texas anti-sodomy law on this same basis. He believes that the states have the power to pass and enforce openly discriminator laws, and that the Federal Government has no authority to intervene on behalf of the citizens. (Ron Paul also does not accept the theory of evolution, which certainly does him no wonders in my book.)

I agree that the United States' shouldn't be so quick to send out the troops, but he takes it to an almost isolationalist extreme. Under President Obama, we have withdrawn from Iraq, and are continuing to withdraw from Afghanistan under the set timetables.

Ron Paul is a fringe candidate, further right than any other (and in this political climate, that's saying something). Nominating him, let alone electing him, would be a serious mistake.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2012)

I have a different opinion, Gahars. The Civil War merely underlined how different Americans are depending on the state they were brought up in. Americans moreso than any other nation differ from one another on the very base ideological levels - I'm sure you realize that. What applies in the North, doesn't necessarily apply in the South. Social norms of states are very different, and Ron merely acknowledges that. He gives the states a right to govern themselves according to their own customs rather than press them into policies with which some agree and some disagree. The United States are huge in size, and they remain undivided precisely because of state law. Too much pression from Washington only makes the crevice between opposing ideologies deepen. I don't see why you're afraid of giving the voice to the people - let the democratic majority govern themselves as originally intended. What other alternative do you have? Split?

As for his politics regarding military withdrawl, attempting to establish peace by means of diplomacy and trade isn't isolation - it's just a different way of achieving the same goal. He never said he wants to isolate the U.S, he merely wants to stop attacking every single Middle East country on the map that isn't an American ally (or "isn't anymore").


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Sep 25, 2012)

Gahars said:


> I find...



Of all the pro or anti Paul rhetoric I've read (and there has been quite a bit) This is the most articulate and best thought-out reply I've read. Nicely done. 

Do you have thoughts to share about the libertarian and green party candidates? (Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, respectively)


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 25, 2012)

Vulpes Abnocto said:


> Jill Stein


Jill Stein has my vote!
She actually has pretty much the same stance on most issues as myself
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2012)

Gahars said:


> I find Ron Paul's views to be extremely, extremely worrisome. He champions deregulation and smaller government to a degree that would only be extremely detrimental if enacted. He is a huge advocate for states' rights (a political philosophy that has lingered on after being soundly discredited in our Civil War), and would repeal important pieces of legislation like the Civil Rights Act if given the opportunity. He also opposed a Supreme Court ruling that overruled a Texas anti-sodomy law on this same basis. He believes that the states have the power to pass and enforce openly discriminator laws, and that the Federal Government has no authority to intervene on behalf of the citizens.


And yet, Ron Paul advocates a federal ban on abortion. Despite him crying "small government" and "states' rights," I don't see how Ron Paul's views are anything other than arbitrary.


----------



## Gahars (Sep 25, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I have a different opinion, Gahars. The Civil War merely underlined how different Americans are depending on the state they were brought up in. Americans moreso than any other nation differ from one another on the very base ideological levels - I'm sure you realize that. What applies in the North, doesn't necessarily apply in the South. Social norms of states are very different, and Ron merely acknowledges that. He gives the states a right to govern themselves according to their own customs rather than press them into policies with which some agree and some disagree. The United States are huge in size, and they remain undivided precisely because of state law. Too much pression from Washington only makes the crevice between opposing ideologies deepen. I don't see why you're afraid of giving the voice to the people - let the democratic majority govern themselves as originally intended. What other alternative do you have? Split?



I get what you're saying, but that only goes so far. We're talking about laws and practices that dehumanized and exploited an entire race for the sake of cheap labor, or laws that prevented those same people from taking part in the voting process, or laws that that would criminalize the act of intercourse between two consenting individuals of the same sex. When you're norms and traditions infringe upon the basic human rights of citizens, there is a problem.

While the federal government gives the states' much in the way of free reign, they are still subservient to it. They are not distinct entities to themselves. We tried that approach with the Articles of Confederation, and the results were... less than stellar, to say the least.

Where did I oppose giving the voice to the people?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2012)

Lacius said:


> And yet, Ron Paul advocates a federal ban on abortion. Despite him crying "small government" and "states' rights," I don't see how Ron Paul's views are anything other than arbitrary.


I call _bullshit _on that.



			
				Ron Paul said:
			
		

> _"It is now widely accepted that there's a constitutional right to abort a human fetus. Of course, the Constitution says nothing about abortion, murder, manslaughter, or any other acts of violence. Criminal and civil laws were deliberately left to the states._
> _*I consider it a state-level responsibility to restrain violence against any human being.* I disagree with the nationalization of the issue and reject the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion in all 50 states. *Legislation that I have proposed would limit federal court jurisdiction of abortion, and allow state prohibition of abortion on demand as well as in all trimesters.* It will not stop all abortions. Only a truly moral society can do that._
> 
> _*The pro-life opponents to my approach are less respectful of the rule of law and the Constitution.* Instead of admitting that *my position allows the states to minimize or ban abortions, they claim that my position supports the legalization of abortion by the states. This is twisted logic.*"_




He is not a supporter of abortion, but he wishes the _states _to decide whether abortion is legal in them or not, without federal pressure.



> Where did I oppose giving the voice to the people?



Gahars, by taking the power of choice away from the state with its elected representants, you practically take it away from the people who chose them. Now, don't get me wrong - there should be a bill which establishes equality among all members of the American society. You have one, it's called the Constitution. If a state law goes againts the constitution, it's null and void - simple as that. Other than that though, the state should govern itself and its representatives should be responsible to those who live in said state. I see what you're saying and I think that the "truth" is in the middle - it always is. There is no perfect solution as of today, but I'd choose Paul over Romney any day, really.


----------



## nando (Sep 25, 2012)

i can't believe so many expect obama to win. i'm rooting for him, but it's not looking bright plus the voting requirements the republicans implemented are gonna cost obama a lot of votes. they are seriously sick and i expect them to pull every dirty trick in order to win the election.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 25, 2012)

nando said:


> i can't believe so many expect obama to win. i'm rooting for him, but it's not looking bright plus the voting requirements the republicans implemented are gonna cost obama a lot of votes. they are seriously sick and i expect them to pull every dirty trick in order to win the election.



I think if the Republicans managed to get Bush Jr. re-elected in '04 then a lot of things are possible.

I mean we see a lot of publicity towards Romney and his campaign but that's just natural of new candidates. Obama still has a pretty large base. I wouldn't say either candidate winning is set in stone though.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> He is not a supporter of abortion, but he wishes the _states_ to decide whether abortion is legal in them or not, without federal pressure.


The Sanctity of Life Act, a bill that Ron Paul has reintroduced numerous times, is a federal personhood measure.



nando said:


> i can't believe so many expect obama to win. i'm rooting for him, but it's not looking bright plus the voting requirements the republicans implemented are gonna cost obama a lot of votes. they are seriously sick and i expect them to pull every dirty trick in order to win the election.


While the Republicans are trying to rig the system with new voter ID laws, the odds still appear to be very much in Obama's favor. It should also be noted that many of these voter ID laws have, for the time being, been struck down by the courts.


----------



## Gahars (Sep 25, 2012)

Vulpes Abnocto said:


> Do you have thoughts to share about the libertarian and green party candidates? (Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, respectively)



I disagree with libertarianism in general. I think it's an interesting, but seriously impractical ideal. I feel as if they look at the system the way it is, see that it has problems, and rather than explore ways to improve or fix it, they just give up and decide to tear it all down. (Like regulation. Sure, it can be obstructive and inefficient, but it sure beats going back to the Gilded Age). I haven't kept up too much on Gary Johnson specifically, though, so I can't really saw much about any of his specific policies or agendas.

As for Jill Stein and the Green Party (good band name, by the way), I generally like them. I think their hearts are in the right place, at least. I just couldn't see myself ever voting for them; partly because I'm not sure how well they'd be able to implement any of their proposals, and partly because I would want to use my vote more pragmatically.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2012)

Lacius said:


> The Sanctity of Life Act, a bill that Ron Paul has reintroduced numerous times, is a federal personhood measure.


...and it states that, I crudely quote_:_



> _the Congress declares that--_
> _(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and_
> _(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and_
> _(2) the Congress recognizes that *each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.*_
> ...


In other words, it recognizes that human life begins during conception, however leaves regulation of practices regarding unborn children to the State while preventing The Supreme Court from having any jurisdiction over the State's law.

I don't necessarily agree with the first part - the way I see it, life only begins after the recompilation of the mother's and father's D.N.A which occurs after the zygote nests in the womb (aprox. 72 hours from the act), but that the latter part appears to be perfectly fine.


----------



## Gahars (Sep 25, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Gahars, by taking the power of choice away from the state with its elected representants, you practically take it away from the people who chose them. Now, don't get me wrong - there should be a bill which establishes equality among all members of the American society. You have one, it's called the Constitution. If a state law goes againts the constitution, it's null and void - simple as that. Other than that though, the state should govern itself and its representatives should be responsible to those who live in said state. I see what you're saying and I think that the "truth" is in the middle - it always is. There is no perfect solution as of today, but I'd choose Paul over Romney any day, really.



As I've mentioned, the states are not separate political entities. They're closer to administrative units of the federal government than anything else. The federal government ensures that the spirit of the Constitution is upheld in these units, from striking down unjust laws to passing laws prohibiting unjust actions. When a state government will not act on behalf of all its citizens, the federal government must be able to intervene.

I'm a United States citizen first, and a citizen of New Jersey second. The supremacy of the federal government over the states is a reflection of that fact.

I agree with your quote, certainly, even if I disagree with your definition of middle. Honestly, I think that the Republican Party had a fine candidate in John Hunstman... who they soundly ignored. Sure, I likely wouldn't have voted for him anyway, but he was sensible (far more so than his competition), and would have been an interesting opponent to the incumbent president (especially in the debates).


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> In other words, it recognizes that human life begins during conception, however leaves regulation of practices regarding unborn children to the State while preventing The Supreme Court from having any jurisdiction over the State's law.


Actually, a federal personhood law would ban abortion in almost all cases at the federal level. A personhood law might also ban things such as hormonal birth control. It is the functional equivalent (except at the federal level) of the Mississippi personhood measure that failed because it was too extreme, even for many pro-life Mississippians. It is also worth noting that this Sanctity of the Life bill is the same federal personhood measure that both Todd Akin and Paul Ryan co-sponsored.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2012)

Gahars said:


> As I've mentioned, the states are not separate political entities. They're closer to administrative units of the federal government than anything else. The federal government ensures that the spirit of the Constitution is upheld in these units, from striking down unjust laws to passing laws prohibiting unjust actions. When a state government will not act on behalf of all its citizens, the federal government must be able to intervene.
> 
> I'm a United States citizen first, and a citizen of New Jersey second. The supremacy of the federal government over the states is a reflection of that fact.


I agree with you, there needs to be a reasonable boundry between just and unjust which should be derrived from globally-accepted concepts of Human Rights. That said, I believe that states should be given a degree of wiggle space so that their law can be adjusted to work specifically for the benefit of those who inhabit them. I'm a strong believer in Constitution and I think that it should be the bill which defines the American identity first and foremost - I merely recognize the fact that states have different customs and beliefs and they should be given the opportunity to excercize them as long as the laws they wish to establish do not infringe upon minorities, be it religious, sex or race ones. 



Lacius said:


> Actually, a federal personhood law would ban abortion in almost all cases at the federal level. A personhood law might also ban things such as hormonal birth control. It is the functional equivalent (except at the federal level) of the Mississippi personhood measure that failed because it was too extreme, even for many pro-life Mississippians. It is also worth noting that this Sanctity of the Life bill is the same federal personhood measure that both Todd Akin and Paul Ryan co-sponsored.


I'm basing my opinion about it solely on what I've read about it. Many people often misunderstand the word "Authority" with the word "Duty" - it is up to the State to decide which abortion and contraception-related laws it should follow - according to the quote, the States are not pushed to ban neither of those - they are given the authority to do so if they so seem fit.

Don't get me wrong - I do not support the entirety of the bill. I believe it should be a subject for discussion and I think that if properly phrased and edited, it could become something acceptable by both the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice options, as unlikely as it sounds.

*EDIT:* Damn you, Merge Bot! You fail me once again!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 25, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I merely recognize the fact that states have different customs and beliefs and they should be given the opportunity to exercise them as long as the rights they wish to establish do not infringe upon minorities, be it religious, sex or race ones.


The difference between you and Ron Paul is that he does not appear to care whose rights are trampled on in the name of states' rights, even if that means, for example, a business is able to lawfully refuse to hire someone based solely on that someone's skin color.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 25, 2012)

Gahars said:


> I agree with your quote, certainly, even if I disagree with your definition of middle. Honestly, I think that the Republican Party had a fine candidate in John Hunstman... who they soundly ignored. Sure, I likely wouldn't have voted for him anyway, but he was sensible (far more so than his competition), and would have been an interesting opponent to the incumbent president (especially in the debates).



Oh Huntsman, one of the most interesting Republicans out there. I mean the man had foreign policy experience and felt really relatable. Not that I agreed with everything he said but I found him to seem like a decent guy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> > I merely recognize the fact that states have different customs and beliefs and they should be given the opportunity to exercise them as long as the rights they wish to establish do not infringe upon minorities, be it religious, sex or race ones.
> ...


The American Constitution as it is today already prohibits that. Even if the State was given such power, it would be unable to create laws which stand directly againts the Constitution.

*EDIT:* With that said, I can see what you mean and I agree that it creates certain dangers. I too am concerned with possible abuse of such priviledges and I too believe that if such legislature were to be in place, there would have to be thick boundries of what the state can and can't do as far as tolerance is concerned. I'm *obviously* not a supporter of discrimination of any kind.


----------



## Gahars (Sep 25, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > As I've mentioned, the states are not separate political entities. They're closer to administrative units of the federal government than anything else. The federal government ensures that the spirit of the Constitution is upheld in these units, from striking down unjust laws to passing laws prohibiting unjust actions. When a state government will not act on behalf of all its citizens, the federal government must be able to intervene.
> ...



And I agree that there should be wiggle room, and there certainly is. That's been an important aspect of our nation; states can act as contained microcosms where new policies and ideas can be experimented with before being brought out to the national level.

That being said, that wiggle room has a limit - and the federal government properly keeps them to it, as any good boss must.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 25, 2012)

Gahars said:


> That being said, that wiggle room has a limit - and the federal government properly keeps them to it, as any good boss must.


Perhaps you are right - in my case, it all runs down to the issues of abortion and other "typically heated" debates. I think it's a relict of the olden times which, in the advent of a myriad of contraception methods as well as Morning-After pills (another difference between me and Ron here) which I believe should be free and state-funded, abortion became obsolete, necessary only in the instances of rape where the victim had no chance of preventing pregnancy. (No, Todd Akin, just... no.)

I find it a barbaric procedure that should be avoided at all costs, especially with all the opportunities contemporary medicine has given us, and I can understand how certain states would want it either limited or outlawed. I'd rather if state money was spent on education on how to properly plan a family than on forceful removal of fetuses.


----------



## Aurora Wright (Sep 25, 2012)

I'm well enough part of the LGBT community (as T and L XD) so if I was American I'd have to vote Obama


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 27, 2012)

Let's make a meme out of this picture! 







BTW this is the 2nd time a baby cried (on the campaign tour) when Romney held him/her


----------



## Lemmy Koopa (Sep 28, 2012)

It'd be Obama, he barely does anything but he's the least evil of the 2.


----------



## dickfour (Sep 28, 2012)

Today Obama said he needed another term to fix the economy I heard that and I couldn't stop laughing


----------



## CCNaru (Sep 28, 2012)

I will be voting for Romney but I don't think he has any chance. my votes won't matter anyways

Incumbents will usually win unless they really, REALLY fuck up, and in Obama's case it's mostly been no progress, maybe a little improvement - it didn't turn worse. Nor did he fuck up his image during his term. I also don't think Romney has that final punch that can turn the public around.

And the Clinton's speech was really good... although I could only see Lewinsky during his speech.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Sep 28, 2012)

wow...GBATEMP says obama is going to win..either way I don't like either of them..but...what choice do you have?..one of em is going to win


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 28, 2012)

CCNaru said:


> Incumbents will usually win unless they really, REALLY fuck up, and in Obama's case it's mostly been no progress, maybe a little improvement - it didn't turn worse.




The hell it didn't. Durable goods dropped 13% just last month.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 28, 2012)

LMFAO at the Romney lovers and yes, that 47% speech Romney game was a hard nail to his campaign. Even with that I'm not brimming with overconfidence. Anything can happen within these next 39 days.


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 28, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> LMFAO at the Romney lovers and yes, that 47% speech Romney game was a hard nail to his campaign. Even with hat I'm not brimming with overconfidence. Anything can happen within these next 39 days.



I agree. The debates can make or break it for either candidate.


----------



## CCNaru (Sep 28, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> CCNaru said:
> 
> 
> > Incumbents will usually win unless they really, REALLY fuck up, and in Obama's case it's mostly been no progress, maybe a little improvement - it didn't turn worse.
> ...



Overall then


----------



## Lacius (Sep 28, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> The hell it didn't. Durable goods dropped 13% just last month.


Well, the facts seem to show that things have gotten better. It should also be noted that the Stimulus also had a positive effect on durable goods. There is no way Obama could have gotten us completely out of the hole we were in with just one term, but things have definitely improved under Obama. In comparison, Romney's plan doesn't appear to do very much.


----------



## dickfour (Sep 28, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > The hell it didn't. Durable goods dropped 13% just last month.
> ...


If you what you mean by things improving under Obama is US incomes dropping by 3000 dollars during the recovery, gas prices going up about 100% in the past four years, rising food prices , US economic competitiveness dropping to 7th in the world, two credit downgrades, a stagent economy, above 8% unemployment for the past four years, and a 16 trillion dollar deficit then yes we've had lots of progress under Obama


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 28, 2012)

dickfour said:


> Today Obama said he needed another term to fix the economy I heard that and I couldn't stop laughing


So we can give Bush 8 years to dig us into this hole, but we can't give Obama another 4 to try and fix it?


----------



## Gahars (Sep 28, 2012)

So Samuel L. Jackson is making his contribution to the Obama campaign: Wake the F**k Up!


----------



## Lacius (Sep 28, 2012)

dickfour said:


> If you what you mean by things improving under Obama is US incomes dropping by 3000 dollars during the recovery, gas prices going up about 100% in the past four years, rising food prices , US economic competitiveness dropping to 7th in the world, two credit downgrades, a stagent economy, above 8% unemployment for the past four years, and a 16 trillion dollar deficit then yes we've had lots of progress under Obama


Let's take those one by one, shall we?



dickfour said:


> US incomes dropping by 3000 dollars during the recovery


That's misleading. US incomes have actually improved since when the Recession was at its worst, so don't say it has actually gone down "during the recovery."



dickfour said:


> gas prices going up about 100% in the past four years


Gas prices have been steadily going up since long before Obama was President (the sharp decline before Obama took office was caused by deflation caused by the Recession). In fact, gas prices are marginally lower now than when they were at their peak high when George W. Bush was President. The President actually has very little to do with gas prices.



dickfour said:


> rising food prices


If you're referring to the immediate rising food prices, you can blame the recent summer drought for that. If you're referring to the overall trend, I refer you back to gas prices.



dickfour said:


> US economic competitiveness dropping to 7th in the world


The cited reasons for the drop to seventh are the same as those for the credit downgrade explained below:



dickfour said:


> two credit downgrades


You do realize that occurred because of uncertainty caused by the Republicans having seriously considered not raising the debt ceiling and refusing to raise taxes under any circumstances, yes?



dickfour said:


> a stagent economy, above 8% unemployment for the past four years


And yet, the economy is improving thanks to the Stimulus.



dickfour said:


> and a 16 trillion dollar deficit


You act like George W. Bush and the Republicans didn't cause the deficit and debt problem we're in now:

_“If not for the Bush tax cuts, the deficit-financed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the effects of the worst recession since the Great Depression (including the cost of policymakers’ actions to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term. By themselves, in fact, the Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will account for almost half of the $20 trillion in debt that, under current policies, the nation will owe by 2019. The stimulus law and financial rescues will account for less than 10 percent of the debt at that time.”_

http://www.cbpp.org/...fa=view&id=3490


----------



## Hanafuda (Sep 28, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > The hell it didn't. Durable goods dropped 13% just last month.
> ...




Every source you site is a liberal-biased one, with the exception of ycharts. And it doesn't paint a pretty picture if the trend continues:



> US Durable Goods Orders is at a current level of 198.49B, down from 228.62B last month. This represents a monthly annualized growth rate of -158.1%, compared to a long term average annualized growth rate of 3.56%.




The "good times", if you want to call it that, which preceded the last month may be attributable to the stimulus. But if it's petering out, we're in for some dire shit to come. Anyone can borrow on the credit card to get by a little longer, but only up to a point.


----------



## air2004 (Sep 28, 2012)

Why do people think that there is a difference between the left and right of this country?


----------



## Gahars (Sep 28, 2012)

air2004 said:


> Why do people think that there is a difference between the left and right of this country?



Because they are conflicting political ideologies with different stances on how to best manage the nation?


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 28, 2012)

air2004 said:


> Why do people think that there is a difference between the left and right of this country?


Because there is a clear cut difference between them on how they want run this country.


----------



## air2004 (Sep 28, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> air2004 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people think that there is a difference between the left and right of this country?
> ...


How are they different again ?


----------



## The Catboy (Sep 28, 2012)

air2004 said:


> The Catboy said:
> 
> 
> > air2004 said:
> ...


Well considering the fact that Republican believe in lowering taxes, tax breaks for the rich, as well small government. Where as Democrats tends to believe in higher taxes for the rich, lower taxes for the poor, and larger government.
Those are just some examples of how they are different.


----------



## Lacius (Sep 28, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Every source you site is a liberal-biased one, with the exception of ycharts.





Hanafuda said:


> Another liberal (and Soros funded) source.


Any liberal bias you perceive doesn't change the numbers, haha. Also, if you check the sources of the numbers in most (if not all) of my sources,  you'll see that they're from nonpartisan sources.



Hanafuda said:


> The "good times", if you want to call it that, which preceded the last month may be attributable to the stimulus. But if it's petering out, we're in for some dire shit to come. Anyone can borrow on the credit card to get by a little longer, but only up to a point.


Let me get this straight; your argument has shifted from "things have gotten worse under Obama" to "things have gotten better under Obama but it's only temporary"? Haha. Also, most economists agree that the Stimulus wasn't big enough, due in part to the fact that we weren't aware of just how bad the economy was at the time. You're right, however, that the recovery is starting to hit a standstill. You should also realize that many things were stripped from the Stimulus due to Republican filibuster (what else is new?).



Hanafuda said:


> edit: and notice, as an example of the bias, how that paragraph attributes the debt that will accrue through 2019 in-part to the "Bush tax cuts" and the war in Afghanistan. But Democrats had the opportunity to kill those tax cuts and didn't, Obama has supported their continuation "in the short term", and Afghanistan - thanks to the troop surge - is Obama's (failed) baby. Bush hasn't been president for four years and the Democrats control the Senate (i.e. the budget, which they haven't even written/changed for over 3 years), and yet it's still all Bush's fault. yep.


You are correct about what Obama had the opportunity to do regarding the Bush tax cuts and Afghanistan; however, this is not evidence of a "liberal bias."

Regarding the Bush tax cuts, Obama wanted to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire for those making more than $250,000 a year; this did not happen because the Republicans in Congress were willing to let them expire for everyone (among other things like refusing to extend unemployment benefits) rather than let them expire for just those making more than $250,000 a year; in essence, they held the poor and middle class hostage in order to continue the tax cuts for the rich, so it is fair to rest the blame on the Republicans for the Bush tax cuts and their contribution to the debt and deficit. Second, it should be noted that Obama still plans to let the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire while Romney wants to make them worse. It should also be noted that the temporary extension of the Bush tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 is a form of economic stimulus. My sources are correct in showing that the debt and deficit problem is caused by Bush policies that decreased revenue and increased spending when none of it was paid for.

As for Afghanistan, it's unfair to call it Obama's "failed baby" when it has been going on for nearly 11 years. Likewise, Obama's plan to end the war in Afghanistan is not only good foreign policy, but also deficit-reducing.



Hanafuda said:


> Bush hasn't been president for four years and the Democrats control the Senate (i.e. the budget, which they haven't even written/changed for over 3 years), and yet it's still all Bush's fault. yep.


Budgets were passed when Democrats were in control. After Republicans took over the House, a budget was still passed in 2011 in the form of The Budget Control Act that specifically dealt with partisan differences. And again, the Bush tax cuts were extended only because of Republican obstruction.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 28, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og35U0d6WKY

WAKE THE FUCK UP!

Seriously? How can people act as if the left and the right are the same? I will not vote for a party, politician or anything in the middle that uses their influence to push a radical religious agenda and tries to push the idea of war with Iran just to create some self fulfilling prophecy. I will not vote for people who invade couple's bedrooms with silly religious based rules and regulations. -a party that does not care about women's rights, minorities, the sick and the well being of the poor. in short, "Fuck those elephant ass muthafuckas!"


----------



## Lacius (Sep 28, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> I will not vote for people who invade couple's bedrooms


To be fair, Samuel L. Jackson invaded couples' bedrooms in that video.


----------



## LightyKD (Sep 28, 2012)

Lacius said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > I will not vote for people who invade couple's bedrooms
> ...



*Giggle* True, very true.


----------



## SixSenseEagle (Sep 30, 2012)

I'm really in to this type of stuff, but this is really Important yall need to pay attention to.

The Main Question is who will you Vote for, for your Kids/Family future? The Choice is yours to make, and also don't vote for the wrong person When the Time come cuz it limted as of right now.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Sep 30, 2012)

Mitrak Obamney...

Ron Paul 2012!


----------



## ComeTurismO (Oct 1, 2012)

Lol, a political thread on a gaming forum...
Anyway, the reason why I think Obama will win is because he did so much for America..


----------



## Sterling (Oct 1, 2012)

xAC3L3G3NDx said:


> Lol, a political thread on a gaming forum...
> Anyway, the reason why I think Obama will win is because *he did so much for America*..



I disagree with that sentiment. I haven't seen the effects much, if at all. This could be because I'm not particularly attentive, or something else entirely. I agree though, he'll probably win, but not for that reason.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 1, 2012)

Sterling said:


> I disagree with that sentiment. I haven't seen the effects much, if at all. This could be because I'm not particularly attentive, or something else entirely.


Actually, Obama has accomplished quite a lot.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 1, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree with that sentiment. I haven't seen the effects much, if at all. This could be because I'm not particularly attentive, or something else entirely.
> ...



In that list I see very few things I understand. I do however see something I understand very well being thrown about in many of the sources. Money. That's precisely why I don't like Obama in the first place. His big spending isn't fixing what Bush started, only covered it up. Let me tell you something. Throwing these links around aren't helping you prove your points. All this tells me is that Obama did something somewhere. I don't understand even half of these things nor do I understand many of the concepts and intricacies of political policies. There's no cause and effect in these lists. This is why I've largely stayed out of this topic. From my "average citizen" point of view, nothing has changed. Nothing Obama has done has significantly improved the quality of life for the people around me or myself. This is not to say I'd rather have Romney in either. He's a putz and he'll be worse than Obama. We need someone who'll put the American people first and the problems of the rest of the world second.


----------



## mkdms14 (Oct 1, 2012)

Hey this may come as quiet a big shock to all of you but both parties are corrupt.  There I said it.  Both make similar promises.  Democrats say "free everything" to the poor and lazy.  Republicans say "No Taxes" to the rich and greedy.  What about people who are neither rich nor poor?  I am not taking any sides with any party for as I said before both parties are corrupt simple as that.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 2, 2012)

mkdms14 said:


> Hey this may come as quiet a big shock to all of you but both parties are corrupt.  There I said it.  Both make similar promises.  Democrats say "free everything" to the poor and lazy.  Republicans say "No Taxes" to the rich and greedy.  What about people who are neither rich nor poor?  I am not taking any sides with any party for as I said before both parties are corrupt simple as that.



Wow, how controversial, I'm so shocked. No, wait, it's exactly what millions of apathetic teenagers say every single day on every single message board ever since the beginning of time and possibly the most deliberately uncontroversial, mealy mouthed fence sitting position you can take.  Yes, both parties have problems (although not your overly-simplified stereotypes) but they're not identical, nor are they identically corrupt.


----------



## mkdms14 (Oct 2, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> mkdms14 said:
> 
> 
> > Hey this may come as quiet a big shock to all of you but both parties are corrupt.  There I said it.  Both make similar promises.  Democrats say "free everything" to the poor and lazy.  Republicans say "No Taxes" to the rich and greedy.  What about people who are neither rich nor poor?  I am not taking any sides with any party for as I said before both parties are corrupt simple as that.
> ...



You know what your right I was oversimplifying it.  By the way I am not apathetic teenager.  I am concern individual that believes that government has become too involved in our lives(if you live in the USA).  I am in favor of limited government.  Problem is there is no one in Washington that shares my same views on limited government that is why I am not for either party.  That being said Barak Obama will probably win this coming election why because America is not ready for a Mormon President. (however I could be wrong we will just have to wait and see)


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 3, 2012)

mkdms14 said:


> That being said Barak Obama will probably win this coming election why because America is not ready for a Mormon President


I don't think him being a Mormon has anything to do with anymore. Don't get me wrong, I am sure there are a lot of people who have an issue with that, but at this point I think it's more people don't want Mitt.
The man is a complete nut, he flip-flops on *ALL* the issues, it doesn't matter what these issue is, he will always change his opinion on it when questioned. The man has been caught many times lying and even lying about lying. It boils down to the fact that people don't like being lied to.
Not to mention his plans will drag America back decades and ruin our country. He plans on destroying progress as we know it, then continuing the horrible idea of lowering taxes for the rich.

It pretty much all boils down to, he's not good for America and people are slowly noticing that.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 3, 2012)

It's DEBATE DAY! Who here wants to turn the debate into a drinking game!? We can take a shot every time Romney says a "zinger"


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Oct 3, 2012)

Sorry, have to post this. I have an obligation 

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830834/mitt-romney-style-gangnam-style-parody


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 3, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Sorry, have to post this. I have an obligation
> 
> http://www.collegehu...am-style-parody



In response...

*Vote Obama Style*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3gapBh_yqk


----------



## gamefan5 (Oct 3, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Sorry, have to post this. I have an obligation
> 
> http://www.collegehu...am-style-parody


I have never laughed this much at a parody.


----------



## gamefan5 (Oct 3, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, have to post this. I have an obligation
> ...


Ok I take it back. This made me laugh way more.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 3, 2012)

*THIS!!!*


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 4, 2012)

well romney seems to have won the first debate


----------



## mkdms14 (Oct 4, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Sorry, have to post this. I have an obligation
> 
> http://www.collegehu...am-style-parody


I can help but say that Collegehumor although funny made a hug mistake.  They talked about drink fancy champagne and stuff.  Hate to break it to you all but the guys mormon.  You know the kind of people that don't believe in having a good time by getting drunk.  So other than that good video.  I felt obligated because some of my friends are mormon and they always refused alcohol.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Oct 4, 2012)




----------



## Gahars (Oct 4, 2012)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


>



Ah, always good to see reasoned analysis.

Also, I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul is not running for president. He lost the Republican nomination, and so he's out of the race. If you want a libertarian, then you would have to vote for Gary Johnson (and it looks like he might not be on the ballot in every state).

You could also try to a write in campaign, but then you're going to have to compete with the likes of "Ron Pole", "Led Zeppelin Rules!", etc.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Oct 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Ah, always good to see reasoned analysis.
> 
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but Ron Paul is not running for president. He lost the Republican nomination, and so he's out of the race. If you want a libertarian, then you would have to vote for Gary Johnson (and it looks like he might not be on the ballot in every state).
> 
> You could also try to a write in campaign, but then you're going to have to compete with the likes of "Ron Pole", "Led Zeppelin Rules!", etc.


As much of a reasoned analysis as wasting your vote on 2 greedy, self-serving lowlifes as Obama and Romney. Of course I know that Ron Paul is no longer in the race as a presidential candidate. My point was "you're better off writing in Ron Paul, than voting for the other 2 guys". When it comes down to it I will write in Ron Paul or of course vote Gary Johnson before I ever supported either of the stance changing, lying pieces of crap.

I'd rather compete with the likes of "Ron Pole" or "Led Zepplin Rules!" than with the likes of the ignorant, brainwashed idiots who believe everything the media tells them.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 4, 2012)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Ah, always good to see reasoned analysis.
> ...



Because calling the people you disagree with politically "self-serving lowlifes" and "lying pieces of crap" is the true mark of careful, reasoned thinking, right?


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 4, 2012)

@[member='RchUncleSkeleton']

If you don't want to waste your vote, let me quote a funny piece of fiction...

[yt]bXEglx-or6k[/yt]

Vote _"None of the above!"_ - a mirracle just might happen.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Oct 4, 2012)

mkdms14 said:


> TwinRetro said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, have to post this. I have an obligation
> ...



My father in law is a die hard Mormon, and he's a major alcoholic, so your mileage may vary I guess.

The point of the video was to laugh, not to sit there and analyze it


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 4, 2012)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


>




Ron Paul is no longer a candidate.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 4, 2012)




----------



## mkdms14 (Oct 4, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> mkdms14 said:
> 
> 
> > TwinRetro said:
> ...


I guess your right you got some jews that eat pork and others who don't, so I guess it only normal to have some mormons that drink and others that don't.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 4, 2012)

Pfft, who cares about Obamney.

Vermin Supreme is where it's at!

[yt]4d_FvgQ1csE[/yt]


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

chavosaur said:


> Its kinda rude to ask who your voting for isn't it? Voting is pretty private Mister.
> Personally, for this election...


If you don't want to disclose this "private" matter, than no one is forcing you.

I'm for a smaller government and less taxes. We need businesses making money so they can hire workers and increase the economy. These businesses can't make money because of all the government taxes, regulations, and rules. They're forced to outsource jobs just so they can afford to stay in business. If we had less taxes, the businesses can make more money, and in turn hire more employees, which in turn increases the economy.

Mitt Romney 2012!


edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
Remember, this is the average supporter/voter of Obama:


----------



## Lacius (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> We need businesses making money so they can hire workers and increase the economy. These businesses can't make money because of all the government taxes, regulations, and rules.


This is a very common misconception of how the economy works. It's simple supply and demand. If you have an economy at a stand-still like it was when the recession was at its worst, people are out of work and lack the income to buy things. Because of the lack of demand, businesses do not have a need for as many workers or as much supply as they normally would, so these workers get laid off. This causes the lack of demand to become worse, and the compounding effect continues until the economy is no longer functioning as it should (and likely would have led to a depression without the Stimulus). If the answer is to give tax breaks to the wealthy and the "job-creators," it is not profitable for them to use that money to increase supply or hire more workers because you still have the same low level of demand, so they sit on that money. In order to get businesses to hire workers, you need policies that actually stimulate the economy; food stamps and unemployment benefits are good examples of ways to do this in a poor economy because they spend that money rather than sit on it, increasing demand and stimulating the economy. As for regulation, it was the dismantling of regulatory policies that got us into this bad economy in the first place.

Edit: I thought it would be important to add the fact that the tax cuts Romney proposes (disproportionately for the rich) would either a.) explode the deficit even more, or b.) force the middle class to pay substantially more than they do now. There's no getting around the math.



Haloman800 said:


> They're forced to outsource jobs just so they can afford to stay in business. If we had less taxes, the businesses can make more money, and in turn hire more employees, which in turn increases the economy.


The companies that outsource are usually the big businesses that are not in a situation in which they need to outsource in order to survive; they do it because it's just that more profitable. The best way to stop the outsourcing of American jobs is to use tax incentives to make businesses want to keep jobs here. Likewise, it would probably be a good idea to stop the tax breaks that incentivize outsourcing.



Haloman800 said:


> Remember, this is the average supporter/voter of Obama:


Ignoring the fact that the woman in that video didn't really touch on any substantive policy issues whatsoever, I wouldn't call this the "average Obama voter." However, this reminds me of a video of interviews with the participants of Glenn Beck's rally. I'm not using this video to make any baseless claims about the average Romney-voter; it's just for your entertainment:



In all fairness, there is a similar video of interviews with attendees of Jon Stewart's rally, although I thought it was less shocking.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

> If the answer is to give tax breaks to the wealthy and the "job-creators," it is not profitable for them to use that money to increase supply or hire more workers because you still have the same low level of demand, so they sit on that money.


They're not going to sit on the money, because it's profitable for them to hire more people, create more and better products, market them, and bring in a profit. It increases the quality of the items and drives down the cost, the employees get paid and more are hired.

Bottom line, everyone wants to make money. It's more profitable for business owners to spend it on employees and products than it is for them to "sit on it".



> The companies that outsource are usually the big businesses that are not in a situation in which they need to outsource in order to survive; they do it because it's just that more profitable. The best way to stop the outsourcing of American jobs is to use tax incentives to make businesses want to keep jobs here. Likewise, it would probably be a good idea to stop the tax breaks that incentivize outsourcing.


You have to go back to the main reason why people are outsourcing jobs: Taxes. It's _much_ cheaper to hire someone in India than it is in America, this is because all of the taxes and rules and regulations put on by the American government. If these were removed, than business owners would hire people in AMERICA, which would give jobs to AMERICANS, and increase the economy. Everybody wins.

You say it's not detrimental for the big businesses survival to outsource jobs, but look at it like this: If you have to choose between buying a $50 shirt and a $20 shirt, and they were the EXACT SAME, which would you spend?

Suggesting that increasing taxes in order to force businesses to hire in America is just foolish. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. It would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It's the cause of the fire, increasing it isn't going to make things better, only worse.


> Ignoring the fact that the woman in that video didn't really touch on any substantive policy issues whatsoever, I wouldn't call this the "average Obama voter." However, this reminds me of a video of interviews with the participants of Glenn Beck's rally. I'm not using this video to make any baseless claims about the average Romney-voter; it's just for your entertainment:
> 
> [media]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=ht8PmEjxUfg[/media]


Last time I checked, Glenn Beck isn't running for President of the United States. And as you said, that video is much less "shocking".


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> Remember, this is the average supporter/voter of Obama:



Firstly, no it isn't.  Secondly...



> There is one problem with the Obama Phone: It doesn’t exist.
> Since 2009, there has been an urban myth that Obama created a program to provide free phones to low-income Americans at taxpayer expense. There is, in fact, a government program that will provide low-income people with a free or low cost cell phone. It was started in 2008 under George W. Bush.
> The idea of providing low-income individuals with subsidized phone service was originated in the Reagan administration following the break-up of AT&T in 1984. (It was expanded and formalized by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.) The program is paid for by telecommunications companies through an independent non-profit, not through tax revenue.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 5, 2012)

@SkyNewsBreak: U.S. unemployment rate fell to 7.8% in Sept, below 8% for the first time in nearly four years, Labour Dept says employers added 114,000 jobs


----------



## leic7 (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> You have to go back to the main reason why people are outsourcing jobs: Taxes. It's _much_ cheaper to hire someone in India than it is in America, this is because all of the taxes and rules and regulations put on by the American government. If these were removed, than business owners would hire people in AMERICA, which would give jobs to AMERICANS, and increase the economy. Everybody wins.


An outsourced position in India has to pay taxes to both the US and India governments, doesn't it? How can taxes (to both countries) be the main factor that results in lower costs to hire internationally, where the company would have to pay twice, compared to hiring domestically where they'd only have to pay once? Taxes are proportional to income levels. The main reason it's cheaper to hire in India isn't because of taxes, but wages. American workers earn substantially more than workers in India for the same jobs, and their work conditions are also better. Even if you were to eliminate all taxes for domestic workers, it would still be far cheaper to operate out in a developing country.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> They're not going to sit on the money, because it's profitable for them to hire more people, create more and better products, market them, and bring in a profit. It increases the quality of the items and drives down the cost, the employees get paid and more are hired.
> 
> Bottom line, everyone wants to make money. It's more profitable for business owners to spend it on employees and products than it is for them to "sit on it".


If there is little or no demand for a product, businesses lose money if they invest in increasing product or hiring more workers than they need. For clarity, imagine a business that sells 5 products per minute, and it takes 5 workers to push those products. However, due to a failing economy, the demand for that product has gone down to 1 product per minute. The profitable thing to do is to fire 4 workers and not invest in making so many products that the business is losing money. If you just give the rich tax breaks, that demand is still going to be 1 product per minute. Would it be more profitable to A.) spend the extra money on more products and more workers, despite the fact that the business will still only sell as many products (1 per minute) as with 1 worker, or B.) sit on that money? The answer is B because A results in a net loss of money. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.



Haloman800 said:


> You have to go back to the main reason why people are outsourcing jobs: Taxes. It's _much_ cheaper to hire someone in India than it is in America, this is because all of the taxes and rules and regulations put on by the American government. If these were removed, than business owners would hire people in AMERICA, which would give jobs to AMERICANS, and increase the economy. Everybody wins.


Actually, tax rates in the United States, especially on the rich and corporations, are at historic lows. Taxes were higher during the Clinton years, and businesses and the economy did just fine. The idea that taxes are what are mainly driving businesses out of the United States is just silly; the main reason businesses outsource is because of lower wages. The best way to stop outsourcing of American jobs (other than lowering wages in the United States) is to give tax incentives to businesses that choose not to outsource and tax disincentives to businesses that do choose to outsource.



Haloman800 said:


> Suggesting that increasing taxes in order to force businesses to hire in America is just foolish. That's what got us into this mess in the first place. It would be like trying to put out a fire with gasoline. It's the cause of the fire, increasing it isn't going to make things better, only worse.


I'm not suggesting that increasing taxes on businesses causes businesses to hire in America (unless you're referring to tax disincentives to outsourcing); I'm saying that taxes are fairly low in the United States already, and there is no need to lower them more when it does not address the larger problems behind outsourcing.



Haloman800 said:


> Last time I checked, Glenn Beck isn't running for President of the United States.


I am aware of this. I posted the video to show you that you can find people of varying levels of craziness on just about any side of any discussion. However, I'm still unsure what the point of your video was other than to show me a passionate Obama-supporter who was only able to bring up the issue of Obama Phone, which BlueStar correctly pointed out is a non-issue.


----------



## Haloman800 (Oct 5, 2012)

Lacius said:


> If there is little or no demand for a product, businesses lose money if they invest in increasing product or hiring more workers than they need. For clarity, imagine a business that sells 5 products per minute, and it takes 5 workers to push those products. However, due to a failing economy, the demand for that product has gone down to 1 product per minute. The profitable thing to do is to fire 4 workers and not invest in making so many products that the business is losing money. If you just give the rich tax breaks, that demand is still going to be 1 product per minute. Would it be more profitable to A.) spend the extra money on more products and more workers, despite the fact that the business will still only sell as many products (1 per minute) as with 1 worker, or B.) sit on that money? The answer is B because A results in a net loss of money. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.


If there's no demand for a product, or there's a better company that can provide a product of better value and cheaper cost, than the first business has failed, and if the 2nd business's product is really that good, then they will increase productions, which will open new jobs, and hire new employees. It's capitalism at work, increasing quality and driving down prices. Putting high taxes on hiring people and all these restrictions and rules is just going to discourage trying in the first place.

The problem is the government won't let capitalism work; They give these huge bailouts to these banks that failed, so the banks are careless and reckless in their investments with the money WE gave them, because they know the government will bail them out if need be. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.



> Actually, tax rates in the United States, especially on the rich and corporations, are at historic lows. Taxes were higher during the Clinton years, and businesses and the economy did just fine. The idea that taxes are what are mainly driving businesses out of the United States is just silly; the main reason businesses outsource is because of lower wages. The best way to stop outsourcing of American jobs (other than lowering wages in the United States) is to give tax incentives to businesses that choose not to outsource and tax disincentives to businesses that do choose to outsource.


The richest people in the nation, or the "1%", are paying over *half* their income. 55 cents on every dollar or _more_. The money needs to be in the hands of the people who earned it, they know what's best, not the government. Like I stated earlier, if they had their own capital (which they themselves earned, not the government), they can re-invest it in the economy to increase it even further. This helps everybody, as more jobs are created, the economy increases, and their capital grows.

The government doesn't have anything, only what they take from hardworking citizens.



> I'm not suggesting that increasing taxes on businesses causes businesses to hire in America (unless you're referring to tax disincentives to outsourcing); I'm saying that taxes are fairly low in the United States already, and there is no need to lower them more when it does not address the larger problems behind outsourcing.


Yes, I'm sure taxes _are_ fairly low for the 47 million people who were on foodstamps during Obama's last 4 year reign. The number of people on them doubled within the last 4 years of his presidency. But taxes are _definitely _not low for anything above the lower class.


I'm done debating this. I have a job to do, and this whole argument is pointless, as you're clearly not ever going to stop clinging to your left wing socialist mindset, and I'm sure no one else is going to be swayed by either of our statements, the majority of the people here probably aren't even old enough to vote.

My last statement is, if you actually think Obama can trick the American people into giving him 4 more years of tyrannical dictatorship, taxes and foodstamps, you have a surprise coming to you in November .


----------



## Lacius (Oct 5, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> If there's no demand for a product, or there's a better company that can provide a product of better value and cheaper cost, than the first business has failed, and if the 2nd business's product is really that good, then they will increase productions, which will open new jobs, and hire new employees. It's capitalism at work, increasing quality and driving down prices. Putting high taxes on hiring people and all these restrictions and rules is just going to discourage trying in the first place.


I understand the basic premise of capitalism. The problem is that your explanation of how the economy works only works in a healthy economy. If you don't have demand because people are out of work, the economy stands still. That's why it's so difficult to come out of a depression or recession. When the Great Depression happened, stimulus policies such as infrastructure spending and World War II spending (the best example of stimulus) are what got us out of it. In fact, after the economy started to recover a little bit the first time, politicians came in and decided it was time to cut the debt and deficit, ending programs that stimulated the economy and sending the economy back down. We've been in this position before.



Haloman800 said:


> The problem is the government won't let capitalism work; They give these huge bailouts to these banks that failed, so the banks are careless and reckless in their investments with the money WE gave them, because they know the government will bail them out if need be.


Well, first of all, the bank bailouts have been paid back with interest. I agree that the banks were reckless, which is why new regulation is in place to keep them from being reckless and stop future bailouts. It was deregulation in the Bush years that caused the financial meltdown in the first place. Thankfully, laws are now in place that prevent future bailouts.



Haloman800 said:


> The richest people in the nation, or the "1%", are paying over *half* their income. 55 cents on every dollar or _more_. The money needs to be in the hands of the people who earned it, they know what's best, not the government. Like I stated earlier, if they had their own capital (which they themselves earned, not the government), they can re-invest it in the economy to increase it even further. This helps everybody, as more jobs are created, the economy increases, and their capital grows.


I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers. The top marginal tax rate on ordinary income is 35%. However, it's very important to note that capital gains, interest, and dividends are taxed at a maximum of 15%. Since most rich people have their income come from a combination of these things, their effective tax rate is usually something less than 35%; this is why Mitt Romney's tax rate was something around 13.9% after deductions. The average effective tax rate for the top 1% is 20.6%. The average effective tax rate for the top 400 people is 16.6%.

During World War II, the effective tax rate for the rich was something like 90%; this is because you increase revenue when you're forced to increase military spending. We have a deficit and debt problem because Bush slashed revenues and increased military spending all without paying for either. Am I saying we should raise the effective tax rate for the rich to 90%? No. However, it is fair to say that the rich should pay their fair share when we have a debt problem, especially when they're effectively paying less than the middle class.



Haloman800 said:


> Yes, I'm sure taxes _are_ fairly low for the 47 million people who were on foodstamps during Obama's last 4 year reign. The number of people on them doubled within the last 4 years of his presidency. But taxes are _definitely _not low for anything above the lower class.


The number of people on food stamps has gone up because we are in a recession and people were starting to be out of work long enough that they couldn't rely only on their savings anymore. And as I have already noted, food stamps are one of the best forms of economic stimulus (if not the best).



Haloman800 said:


> I'm done debating this. I have a job to do, and this whole argument is pointless, as you're clearly not ever going to stop clinging to your left wing socialist mindset, and I'm sure no one else is going to be swayed by either of our statements, the majority of the people here probably aren't even old enough to vote.


No one is asking you to argue with me.



Haloman800 said:


> My last statement is, if you actually think Obama can trick the American people into giving him 4 more years of tyrannical dictatorship, taxes and foodstamps, you have a surprise coming to you in November .


Based on the polls, it is very likely that Obama will win in November. Can a lot happen between now and then? Yes. But with each passing day, the odds of that become less likely, and people are already voting early in swing states like Ohio with Obama's poll numbers as high as they are.

Also, when did conservatives decide it was lamentable to help the poor be able to eat with food stamps during a recession?


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 7, 2012)

Everyone seen this?


----------



## Deleted_171835 (Oct 8, 2012)

Somewhat relevant.

*Arkansas state rep.* Hubbard believes that slavery was, in the end, a good thing for African-Americans:
*“… the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise. The blacks who could endure those conditions and circumstances would someday be rewarded with citizenship in the greatest nation ever established upon the face of the Earth.” (Pages 183-89)*

Hubbard believes integrating schools is harmful to white students because, in his opinion, blacks are lazy, have no discipline and are causing a decline in education:

*“… one of the stated purposes of school integration was to bring black students up to a level close to that of white students. But, to the great disappointment of everyone, the results of this theory worked exactly in reverse of its intended purpose, and instead of black students rising to the educational levels previously attained by white students, the white students dropped to the level of black students. To make matters worse the lack of discipline and ambition of black students soon became shared by their white classmates, and our educational system has been in a steady decline ever since.”  (Page 27)*

http://talkbusiness....ng-in-disguise/

>politics in amurrica



Haloman800 said:


> My last statement is, if you actually think Obama can trick the American people into giving him 4 more years of *tyrannical dictatorship*, taxes and foodstamps, you have a surprise coming to you in November .


----------



## DSGamer64 (Oct 8, 2012)

Romney is too stupid to win the election, but maybe he has played people for fools by stooping to the traditional "I'm a racist, homophobic, redneck Republican" role just so he could win the candidate nomination. I don't see how someone with his history as being a more progressive conservative type of politician, would ever openly say some of the things he has said and done some of the things he has done. If he isn't trolling the media and the voters and actually does believe all the bullshit nonsense he has said recently, then there is no hope of him getting elected. As weak as Obama's presidency has been, anyone who believes that he doesn't represent all Americans, is a worse choice then the guy who had a lousy term as president. I honestly don't think Romney is even close to winning the election, he clearly has a huge disconnect with the lower and middle class and those voters will be the one's who elect the president, not the upper class.


----------



## DSGamer64 (Oct 8, 2012)

Haloman800 said:


> chavosaur said:
> 
> 
> > Its kinda rude to ask who your voting for isn't it? Voting is pretty private Mister.
> ...



And what do Conservatives know about creating jobs? Last time I checked, Romney had zero plans for decreasing the unemployment rate, and that isn't going to happen in a weak economy with a country that has a huge financial debt and businesses all facing their own financial problems. If you think lowering the taxes on big businesses is going to lower unemployment, you are blind as a bat. Raising corporate taxes puts money back into the governments coffers, giving businesses tax breaks makes no sense unless they are actually maintaining strong financial gains on the markets. Also, given how much American's want more for less, you shouldn't be crying about all your jobs being sent to China and India when you aren't willing to pay a slightly higher for products in order to keep businesses there. So your own fellow countrymen can all be blamed for the loss of jobs, and instead of exporting many goods, you are now spending more money to import them from another country.

You should really take some economics 101 or something, if you think Obama's presidency has been "4 years of a tyrannical dictatorship" with high taxes and foodstamps if you believe he is to blame for all the things wrong with America. Somewhere in Texas, George Bush is laughing at how much he fucked America over, and every Republican president since the 70's has dragged the country further into debt rather then attempting to establish a financial surplus. Not to mention all the cockblocking of the Republicans in Congress didn't help the Obama administration do anything in the last 4 years, they are so fucking narrow minded that it's amazing Obamacare even got passed.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 8, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Everyone seen this?
> [media]http://www.youtube.c...h?v=U9G8XREyG0Q[/media]




In your video, looking at the graph at 1:15, it looks like the plan was working well until the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. How 'bout that.


Also, I find it interesting that the graph of comparative 'job growth' by President at 1:26 conveniently leaves Obama out. I wonder why??

And for, "Some regulations are necessary to protect the economy," - Romney said EXACTLY that during the debate last week.


Also re: last week's debate vs. your video - Obama sounds a lot better when he can read what someone else wrote for him off that teleprompter, huh.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 8, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> In your video, looking at the graph at 1:15, it looks like the plan was working well until the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006. How 'bout that.


Ignoring the fact that what you just said is a logical fallacy, the economic decline you're referring to was caused by the financial crisis of 2007–2008, which is well-established to have been due to deregulation and existing lack of regulation.



Hanafuda said:


> Also, I find it interesting that the graph of comparative 'job growth' by President at 1:26 conveniently leaves Obama out. I wonder why??


Since you didn't seem to pay attention, the point of the graph was to show the effect of the disproportionate tax cuts for the rich on job-creation (specifically the lack of one). Including the Obama years wouldn't have been relevant when he was not the one who engaged in trickle-down economics.



Hanafuda said:


> And for, "Some regulations are necessary to protect the economy," - Romney said EXACTLY that during the debate last week.


Romney said a lot of things during the debate last week, and many of them were either a.) new positions he was just taking for the first time, or b.) lies. Saying what he did about regulation does not mean he hasn't been running on the same type of deregulation that got us into this economic mess in the first place. For example, Romney has campaigned on repealing the Dodd-Frank financial reform law without offering any specifics on new regulatory policies he would enact.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 8, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Also re: last week's debate vs. your video - Obama sounds a lot better when he can read what someone else wrote for him off that teleprompter, huh.



See, that's what I don't get about political BS arguments. Obama writes a lot of his own stuff. He certainly gets advice, but just because it's on the teleprompter, doesn't mean it isn't written by the big man himself. This is a weak excuse used by the opposite party, and I'm tired of hearing it.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 9, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Also re: last week's debate vs. your video - Obama sounds a lot better when he can read what someone else wrote for him off that teleprompter, huh.


I rather have someone who has at least done some good, who hasn't flip flop nearly so much for just
the sake of flip flopping when it convenient, and actually has a plan (not this sketchy junk that Romney is doing)
that most if not all people can follow to try rather than worry about how good he looks in a debate.




Hanafuda said:


> And for, "Some regulations are necessary to protect the economy," - Romney said EXACTLY that during the debate last week.


His "some" must be different than his, or is it?






Not saying he is perfect because no one is, but I think it is much, much better for us if the President stays
the President.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 9, 2012)

KingVamp, 


some of the 'flip-flops' in your videos are fair depictions. Obama has his share too (gay marriage, gitmo, pledge to cut the deficit in half).

Some are deceptive editing.

Some are accurate in depicting a change of opinion/position, but nearly 18 years apart. (I'm 45 and I don't agree with nearly anything that might've come out of my mouth 18 years ago)

And none of what I see there comes even close to a President who learns that an American embassy is under attack, but goes to bed. Then wakes up to find out an Ambassador has been murdered by al qaeda, but has the administration publicly announce it was a "spontaneous demonstration," while he hops a plane to Las Vegas for a fundraiser. 

I'm not voting _for_ Mitt Romney. It just so happens that's the only effective way I have of voting against someone else.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 9, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm not voting _for_ Mitt Romney. It just so happens that's the only effective way I have of voting against someone else.



This seems to be the pattern nowadays. People aren't voting "for" a person anymore, but are voting "against" the other person. Neither of the candidates are great, so go with what you believe to be the lesser evil as you don't dislike a candidate as much as the other, but you don't like them as well.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 9, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> some of the 'flip-flops' in your videos are fair depictions. Obama has his share too (gay marriage, gitmo, pledge to cut the deficit in half).
> 
> Some are deceptive editing.
> 
> Some are accurate in depicting a change of opinion/position, but nearly 18 years apart. (I'm 45 and I don't agree with nearly anything that might've come out of my mouth 18 years ago)


I never said Obama didn't flip flop, I said he didn't do as nearly much as Romney.  Even if you were to cut some of it away, it
is still quite more than Obama and there more videos on it on u tube. One video showed (I didn't post 'cause it wasn't
working here) show flip flop in weeks and even days of each other.



Hanafuda said:


> And none of what I see there comes even close to a President who learns that an American embassy is under attack, but goes to bed. Then wakes up to find out an Ambassador has been murdered by al qaeda, but has the administration publicly announce it was a "spontaneous demonstration," while he hops a plane to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.


I'm confuse about this whole thing.  Can you give me a unbiased source? Are you sure you not condensing too much?



Ok, read more about embassy attack, but the way you put was quite crudely.

Seem like there were warnings, that they may have chosen to ignored and later it seem like they try to cover up their
mistake after it actually happen.


If I got that right, then I can't really defend that. All I can say is human error,but I already stated no one perfect.
It is quite sad that this happen.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> some of the 'flip-flops' in your videos are fair depictions. Obama has his share too (gay marriage, gitmo, pledge to cut the deficit in half).
> 
> Some are deceptive editing.
> 
> Some are accurate in depicting a change of opinion/position, but nearly 18 years apart. (I'm 45 and I don't agree with nearly anything that might've come out of my mouth 18 years ago)


First of all, in reference to the gay marriage "flip-flop," actions speak louder than words. Obama has always had pro-gay policy positions and has accomplished a lot when talking about LGBT issues. In 2004, Obama said he thought marriage was between a man and a woman but still advocated an end to DOMA. Between 2010-2011, Obama talked about how his views on same-sex marriage were evolving until announcing he was for it in 2012. I would hardly call that a flip-flop. As for the others you mentioned, I think you're confusing flip-flops with promises broken due mainly to obstruction. These don't reflect changes in policy positions.

One difference between Obama and Romney is the quantity of Romney's flip-flops. I could probably name more positions of Romney's that he's flip-flopped on than not, including but not limited to abortion rights, gay rights, gun rights, minimum wage, stem cell research, campaign finance laws, the auto bailout, *health care*, taxes, capital gains taxes, Osama bin Laden, immigration, Social Security, and Medicare.

The second difference between Obama and Romney is that many of Romney's flip-flops occur fairly suddenly and usually aren't "18 years apart." For example, Romney has notably been running on repealing the Affordable Care Act. On the campaign trail, he said he was in favor of keeping the provision in the Affordable Care Act that bars insurance companies from denying health care due to preexisting conditions. Not long after that, the Romney campaign said that was untrue. Then, in last week's debate, Romney said he wanted to keep that provision again. Right after the debate, the Romney campaign said again that he actually wasn't in favor of that. And don't get me started on his flip-flops on taxes before, during, and after the debate. It should be apparent that Romney will say whatever it takes to Etch A Sketch his way to the presidency.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 9, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > And none of what I see there comes even close to a President who learns that an American embassy is under attack, but goes to bed. Then wakes up to find out an Ambassador has been murdered by al qaeda, but has the administration publicly announce it was a "spontaneous demonstration," while he hops a plane to Las Vegas for a fundraiser.
> ...




I don't think there are any unbiased sources anymore. But as for the circumstances I related, it's all public record now. Obama was briefed on the attack on our Embassy in Libya within 90 minutes to 3 hrs after it began. The Administration knew the attackers were al qaeda affiliated w/in 24 hrs. But they let the whole thing rest on that stupid movie trailer, and the guy who made the video (an idiot, an a-hole, but not a murderer) was arrested as further distraction/mollification. That this was a pre-planned terrorist attack was denied by Jay Carney to ABC news on 09/14, to CBS news on 09/19, and by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to just about all networks (Fox News Sunday, Face the Nation, ABC This Week, Meet the Press) on Sunday 09/16. And, Obama did indeed hold a fundraiser rally in Vegas on 09/12/2012.

The Director of National Intelligence finally issued a statement on 09/28 admitting that the attack on the US Embassy in Benghazi in which the US Ambassador and 3 other Americans were murdered was a deliberate and organized attack by al qaeda affiliated terrorists, something the White House had known for over two weeks. Now, there are news reports surfacing about Ambassador Stevens making specific requests for additional security, and being concerned about being the focus of an al qadea hit, and his requests for additional security were denied. And a 16 member special forces security team was pulled out of Benghazi just a month before the attack, to cap off a reduction in security that had been going on all year. (interview with the unit commander below)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WOdfJ4AbcI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilwM1frx9gk


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 9, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Also re: last week's debate vs. your video - Obama sounds a lot better when he can read what someone else wrote for him off that teleprompter, huh.
> ...




Oh, does he now? I remember when the same was said about Reagan. I knew better - I went to school with one of his "speechwriters" and heard all about it (she was a revisionist/proofreader on the staff - the job got her a full law school scholarship).

When billions of dollars are at stake daily, words are not left to chance except when necessary. I have no doubt there's a staff of writers, revisers, and proofreaders dozens deep that generate every word that scrolls across Obama's famous teleprompter. It's even more critical nowadays that every word be scrutinized before going public than it was in the past (i.e. before the internet). And I'm not saying this is just an Obama thing - I'm sure every President's staff wants as much control of the message as they can manage, and consider all unscripted speech as "loose cannon" time. Obama holds few press conferences and takes questions very rarely for a reason. Last week's debate was one of those situations where the words could only be pre-canned to a limited extent, and we all saw how that went.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I don't think there are any unbiased sources anymore.


That's a pretty bold statement. I suppose that's easy to say when a lot of the information that contradicts what you hear on Fox News comes from unbiased sources.



Hanafuda said:


> But as for the circumstances I related, it's all public record now. Obama was briefed on the attack on our Embassy in Libya within 90 minutes to 3 hrs after it began.


So what?



Hanafuda said:


> The Administration knew the attackers were al qaeda affiliated w/in 24 hrs. But they let the whole thing rest on that stupid movie trailer, and the guy who made the video (an idiot, an a-hole, but not a murderer) was arrested as further distraction/mollification. That this was a pre-planned terrorist attack was denied by Jay Carney to ABC news on 09/14, to CBS news on 09/19, and by U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to just about all networks (Fox News Sunday, Face the Nation, ABC This Week, Meet the Press) on Sunday 09/16.


At the time, the evidence that the attack was affiliated with al-Qaeda was circumstantial and appeared to be more likely due to that internet movie trailer. Later, more evidence came in of it being an al-Qaeda attack. After that, the White House admitted that it was al-Qaeda. There isn't really any controversy here. When evidence is still coming in and there's uncertainty, there's a balancing act between telling the American people what you think happened and not saying anything definitive without having all the facts. This is why most of the official statements on the Libyan attacks say something like "the best information we have today..." or "we think it's likely that..."

You're arguing that the White House changing their position on what happened in Libya as new evidence was still being gathered and interpreted is somehow evidence that Obama intentionally misled the public only to tell the truth a couple weeks later, and all for no discernible reason.



Hanafuda said:


> And, Obama did indeed hold a fundraiser rally in Vegas on 09/12/2012.


So what?



Hanafuda said:


> Now, there are news reports surfacing about Ambassador Stevens making specific requests for additional security, and being concerned about being the focus of an al qadea hit, and his requests for additional security were denied. And a 16 member special forces security team was pulled out of Benghazi just a month before the attack, to cap off a reduction in security that had been going on all year.


The "specific request" you're referring to was to keep a single DC-3 airplane, so please don't imply that people somehow knew that the attack was going to happen but they were intentionally hung out to dry by the President. There was no evidence that an attack like this was going to happen, so there was no reason to increase security, nor was anyone actually requesting increased security where the attack happened. There's no reason to politicize this. It's easy to talk about what should have been done in hindsight.



Hanafuda said:


> Oh, does he now? I remember when the same was said about Reagan. I knew better - I went to school with one of his "speechwriters" and heard all about it (she was a revisionist/proofreader on the staff - the job got her a full law school scholarship).


You went to school with one of Reagan's speechwriters, so that means Obama does not write his own speeches?



Hanafuda said:


> I have no doubt there's a staff of writers, revisers, and proofreaders dozens deep that generate every word


Of course Obama has a staff of writers, proofreaders, etc. who make edits and give suggestions; that doesn't mean Obama doesn't write his own speeches. Obama writes his speeches and is an accomplished author. All presidential candidates have speech-writing teams that help him or her to write speeches. So what?



Hanafuda said:


> every word that scrolls across Obama's famous teleprompter.


"Obama's famous teleprompter"? Obama uses prepared remarks just like any other candidate. So what?



Hanafuda said:


> And I'm not saying this is just an Obama thing - I'm sure every President's staff wants as much control of the message as they can manage, and consider all unscripted speech as "loose cannon" time.


Then why are we talking about this?



Hanafuda said:


> Obama holds few press conferences and takes questions very rarely


That's not true.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 9, 2012)

Lacius, I don't rely on FoxNews for anything. I don't watch it, I don't read it. I understand that their reporting is weighted "right" just as MSNBC's is obviously weighted "left." I tend to avoid them both. The videos I posted above are from CNN and CBS, which I don't think are always "up the middle" objective, but they're probably perceived as "unbiased" by most people. KingVamp asked for unbiased sources, so I did my best to provide that. On the other hand, you're quoting dailykos as proof of something??? Seriously? And where's _your_ source for "At the time, the evidence that the attack was affiliated with al-Qaeda was circumstantial and appeared to be more likely due to that internet movie trailer"??? Because this article from thedailybeast says the administration had "strong indications" of the al-qaeda link within 24hrs.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/09/26/u-s-officials-knew-libya-attacks-were-work-of-al-qaeda-affiliates.html



I am amused to see that there is nothing related to this man that you won't defend ... Obama is truly flawless, isn't he.


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 9, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Obama is truly flawless, isn't he.


Noones flawless.
The problem I think is that people make Obama out to be sooooo much worse than he really is.
He's not THAT bad.
Politics is all exaggeration, politicians and voters. Noones free from exaggeration


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 9, 2012)

Black-Ice said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is truly flawless, isn't he.
> ...




I agree with you. But go back through this thread (and others) and look at Lacius' posts - he is in constant blind advocacy mode. Any criticism of his man is met with attack. He concedes nothing, to the point of being absurd. Even when there is overwhelming evidence, as I've already shown above with the news links to reputable news sources that the administration knew one thing about the embassy attack and was telling Congress and the press something else, he's lashing back with the talking points. Admit nothing! Deny everything! Demand proof! And when they prove it, Defend it!


----------



## AceWarhead (Oct 9, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Black-Ice said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


Everyone has flaws, no one's perfect.
He's makin' Obama out to be Jesus Reincarnated or something.
This is Politics. They all lie. No use denying it.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 9, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Lacius, I don't rely on FoxNews for anything. I don't watch it, I don't read it. I understand that their reporting is weighted "right" just as MSNBC's is obviously weighted "left." I tend to avoid them both.


Are Fox News and MSNBC politically biased? Sure. I would argue that Fox News is more politically biased than MSNBC, but sure. The difference between Fox News and MSNBC is that Fox News is a right-wing propaganda machine filled with conspiracy theories and lies.



Hanafuda said:


> The videos I posted above are from CNN and CBS, which I don't think are always "up the middle" objective, but they're probably perceived as "unbiased" by most people. KingVamp asked for unbiased sources, so I did my best to provide that.


Right, but my issue was with your statement that there was no such thing as "unbiased sources," not with the sources you provided on an unrelated topic.



Hanafuda said:


> On the other hand, you're quoting dailykos as proof of something??? Seriously?


I never claimed anything about the bias of anyone's sources. Despite the liberal bias the Daily Kos admittedly has, are you saying the reporting on what people have said about Obama's speech-writing in 2004 and 2008 is incorrect? If not, then I don't see your point.

The difference here is that the claim that Obama doesn't write his speeches (or that he writes fewer speeches than other candidates) is completely unsubstantiated. The fact that I used Daily Kos as a source of some quotes about Obama's speech-writing habits is irrelevant. I've posted links to the Maddow Blog too; that doesn't make the nonpartisan numbers they post incorrect, for example. The liberal sources I use here and there don't make my points any less valid, particularly when the facts are correct. Like I already said, there's a big difference between, for example, MSNBC and Fox News. Only one of these networks has a history of reporting false and misleading information, and that network is Fox News. Am I saying MSNBC is always right? No. But the number of lies reported by Fox News is insurmountable for it to be taken seriously as a news organization.



Hanafuda said:


> And where's _your_ source for "At the time, the evidence that the attack was affiliated with al-Qaeda was circumstantial and appeared to be more likely due to that internet movie trailer"??? Because this article from thedailybeast says the administration had "strong indications" of the al-qaeda link within 24hrs.
> 
> http://www.thedailyb...affiliates.html


Please note that the information you're citing does not include any specific evidence that the administration was aware of that pointed towards an al-Qaeda attack; we're pretty much taking someone else's word about what the administration knew or didn't know. According to this wonderful source:



> One intelligence official clarified to Fox News that there was not a "definitive" lead on who might have been responsible for the Libya attacks in the immediate aftermath, though officials had an idea of the suspects.
> 
> "It's inaccurate to suggest that within the first 24 hours there was a definitive calling card and home address for the perpetrators of the Benghazi attack. Potential suspects and data points emerge early on, but it still takes time to be certain who is responsible," the official said.


As for the actual intelligence, there was confusion as to whether it was an al-Qaeda attack or the result of the protest over that film. According to intercepted phone calls, "the alleged attacker said the locals went forward with the attack only after watching the riots that same day at the U.S. embassy in Cairo." Am I saying there definitely weren't communication failures between people and agencies? No, I'm not saying that. But that's far from saying Obama intentionally misled people only to correct the record days later (after having more evidence). There's a reason the official statement said, "assessment may change as additional information is collected" and that the investigation is "on-going."



Hanafuda said:


> Obama is truly flawless, isn't he.


I'm pretty sure I never said that. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though.

*Edit*:



AceWarhead said:


> Everyone has flaws, no one's perfect.
> He's makin' Obama out to be Jesus Reincarnated or something.
> This is Politics. They all lie. No use denying it.


Let me set the record straight; I do not think Obama is infallible. I criticize Obama all the time. For example, Obama incorrectly implied during the debate that it was the Bush tax cuts themselves that caused the economic recession (to be fair to Obama, he didn't directly say this). However, the things that I have replied to in this thread have, in my opinion, been inaccurate or misleading. There are plenty of things in this thread I let slide because they were fair criticisms of the President. Please don't make me out to be someone who is blind to the facts.

*Double Edit*:



Hanafuda said:


> I agree with you. But go back through this thread (and others) and look at Lacius' posts - he is in constant blind advocacy mode. Any criticism of his man is met with attack. He concedes nothing, to the point of being absurd. Even when there is overwhelming evidence, as I've already shown above with the news links to reputable news sources that the administration knew one thing about the embassy attack and was telling Congress and the press something else, he's lashing back with the talking points. Admit nothing! Deny everything! Demand proof! And when they prove it, Defend it!


Alright. Let's talk about people who ignore facts. I took a few minutes to look back at *your* previous posts in this thread:

Let's talk about how you ignore the fact that we now know that 1.3 million people could potentially be affected by Pennsylvania's voter ID law, something you refuse to accept because, according to you, voter I.D. doesn’t disenfranchise anyone and “statistics never tell the truth.”

Let’s talk about how you don’t seem to be able to accept that the Bush tax cuts are bad policy as far as the deficit is concerned.

Let’s talk about how you don’t think Medicare is “good for the insured.” Let’s talk about how you think seniors only depend on Medicare because it has been around for so long and doesn’t fill any kind need that existed before Medicare despite evidence to the contrary.

Let’s talk about how you think letting the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year will crush small businesses despite evidence to the contrary.

Let’s talk about how you essentially claimed that the Bush tax cuts are Obama’s fault even though the Republicans held the middle class tax cuts and unemployment benefits hostage for the extension of the Bush tax cuts.

Let’s talk about how you called entitlement programs a “cancer” and then hypocritically called The Catboy out for using hyperbole.

Let’s talk about how you think it was a bipartisan effort during the Clinton administration that led to the budget surplus when it was the revenue increases that didn’t get a single Republican vote that primarily led to the budget surplus.

Let’s talk about your claim that durable goods has gone down under Obama when it’s actually gone up.

Let’s talk about your claim that Democrats taking control of congress in 2006 led to the Recession.

Let’s talk about your claim that Obama’s and Romney’s flip-flopping are somehow similar.

I'm curious to hear how much of this you have conceded or if this is another example of hypocrisy.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 10, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> http://www.thedailyb...affiliates.html


Publicly declaring an attack to be an al-Qaeda attack isn't something to be taken lightly, so I'd understand the reservations officials had at the time, when they weren't 100% sure that it was indeed an al-Qaeda attack. This is America, there are certain elements in this country that would react to the news in all the 'wrong' ways when they hear "al-Qaeda" and "attack" in the same sentence, e.g. invasion of other countries, war on terror, racial profiling, unlawful detention of prisoners of war, various Security Acts, etc. etc. So officials better be sure beyond the shadow of a doubt that it's no one else but al-Qaeda behind the attack before they make that announcement to the world.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 10, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.thedailyb...affiliates.html
> ...




Yeah but it wasn't just "the world" they kept the info from - they didn't tell Congress either. Watch the CNN vid above.


----------



## Janthran (Oct 10, 2012)

Obama hasn't done anything good and I don't like his morals.
I'm not old enough to vote anyway but that's just the way I see it.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 10, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


What's the difference between telling Congress and telling the world? I didn't follow the news on this, was there supposed to be a 'publication ban' of some sort for the hearing? If not, and if the investigation was still ongoing at the time, then it's only appropriate to exercise judgment in choosing which 'talking points' they'd give publicly.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 10, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I'm curious to hear how much of this you have conceded or if this is another example of hypocrisy.



I'm curious to hear how much time you spent making that list. LOL

Look, I'll respond to a couple of those just to show how your list if full of crap. I'm not going to debate them all since we'd be here til the 2016 election and still disagree.

First, I called Catboy's post "hyperbole" because he said that if Romney was elected we would go into a "Dark Ages state," that the Republican party was trying to turn the country into a  "theocracy" and that education and reason were going to take a backseat to a "crusade against non-Christians."

That's just a bit over the top, isn't it? As in, even if it were intended metaphorically, the metaphor would be neither realistic nor apt. So, yeah, it's hyperbole.

On the other hand, entitlement programs are, as currently managed (and whether you like to hear it or not), a cancer on our economy. Entitlement programs (unemployment, SS, medicare, medicaid, welfare programs) take up about 55 to 60% of the total federal budget. Yes, we should have those programs for the genuinely needy, to the extent we can afford it as a society, but more than half of the budget??? That shouldn't be, and until recently, it wasn't like that. (And remember, that's from a budget where 40% of all the dollars spent are borrowed, i.e. just adding to the national debt.) Just 30 years ago, the percentage of American households receiving some kind of federal assistance was about 30%. Now it's over 50%.  The number of people in the USA on food stamps has DOUBLED just in the last four years. Is this sound management when it results in a trillion dollar deficit, every year? If entitlement payouts are not reformed, the status quo will ultimately result in the collapse of our government and economy. We may disagree about to fix it, but as currently managed, the entitlement program situation _is, metaphorically,_ an ever-metastasizing cancer, in that it is grown beyond a level of healthy management into becoming a deadly drain on the body, and cannot just be "cut off." This is not 'hyperbole.'

Ok, now how about the durable goods statement. My statement was that durable goods went down over 13% last month (August) alone. And that was true : 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443916104578022081483101410.html

Your comeback was to point out that durable goods, overall since Obama and the stimulus came along, are improved:
http://ycharts.com/indicators/durable_goods_orders

And, looking at the chart at that link, you can see we're both right. General trend of improvement, then a deep crash in August. I never rebutted your statement because you were correct. But I was too - biggest single-month drop since the depth of the crisis in 2008-2009. Wonder how next month will look?

So, anyway, a few things ...

1) Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. Doesn't mean you're wrong either, it's just that political causes and effects are never certainties. You may think one thing is to blame, while I blame another thing. You may have an article that says x, I have an article that says y. 

2) You just want to push all the blame away from your guy, when he is the responsible person in office. He ASKED for it, but he's not taking responsibility for it. He said if it wasn't fixed in one term, then he should be voted out. I say, ok then.

3) Unlike the fears expressed by some here about how the world will revert to the Spanish Inquisition if Romney is elected, the only thing I see really being that different as a result of this election is Supreme Court nominations, and even there I expect limited ripples in the pond. I will be voting against Obama, but he's the president now and today was a good day, so whatever.

4) Finally, just because I don't accept your "evidence" as proof of your position doesn't make me a hypocrite. Since I'm not compelled to come back for the last word every time, it really doesn't bother me if something gets left hanging without being argued back and forth. It's not like I'm going to change my mind, nor will you. So, peace, brother. And I'm out.

(Now you can have the last word.)


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 10, 2012)

I like how A Bug's Life deals with who is at fault.

[yt]NWSrwEYJBrg[/yt]


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm curious to hear how much time you spent making that list. LOL


No more than 10-15 minutes.



Hanafuda said:


> Look, I'll respond to a couple of those just to show how your list if full of crap. I'm not going to debate them all since we'd be here til the 2016 election and still disagree.


Last time I checked, we've already debated them.



Hanafuda said:


> First, I called Catboy's post "hyperbole" because he said that if Romney was elected we would go into a "Dark Ages state," that the Republican party was trying to turn the country into a  "theocracy" and that education and reason were going to take a backseat to a "crusade against non-Christians."
> 
> That's just a bit over the top, isn't it? As in, even if it were intended metaphorically, the metaphor would be neither realistic nor apt. So, yeah, it's hyperbole.


I don't disagree with any of this.



Hanafuda said:


> On the other hand, entitlement programs are, as currently managed (and whether you like to hear it or not), a cancer on our economy. Entitlement programs (unemployment, SS, medicare, medicaid, welfare programs) take up about 55 to 60% of the total federal budget. Yes, we should have those programs for the genuinely needy, to the extent we can afford it as a society, but more than half of the budget??? That shouldn't be, and until recently, it wasn't like that. (And remember, that's from a budget where 40% of all the dollars spent are borrowed, i.e. just adding to the national debt.) Just 30 years ago, the percentage of American households receiving some kind of federal assistance was about 30%. Now it's over 50%.  The number of people in the USA on food stamps has DOUBLED just in the last four years. Is this sound management when it results in a trillion dollar deficit, every year? If entitlement payouts are not reformed, the status quo will ultimately result in the collapse of our government and economy. We may disagree about to fix it, but as currently managed, the entitlement program situation _is, metaphorically,_ an ever-metastasizing cancer, in that it is grown beyond a level of healthy management into becoming a deadly drain on the body, and cannot just be "cut off." This is not 'hyperbole.'


Let me begin by including your whole quote since this looks like an argument over semantics:



Hanafuda said:


> I'm getting pretty tired of the phrase "end Medicare as we know it." It presupposes that Medicare, as it currently exists, is an efficient, well-managed, self-sustaining program that is good for both providers and insured, and that there is no need for reform. Personally I think it is a socialist abomination, but now that seniors are dependent on the teat and planning their retirements around it,  we'll probably never be able to get rid of it. It's a societal cancer, just like most democratic entitlement programs.
> 
> *There is nothing that government can give a man that has not first been taken from another under threat of force.*


I can't help but notice that you used the term "societal cancer" and not "economic cancer," and this was immediately after you described it as a "socialist abomination," so I'm having difficulty looking at this from the point of view that you were only referring to the effects of entitlement programs on the debt and deficit without reform. I never argued that there isn't a need for reform. It should be noted though that Social Security if an example of an entitlement program that does not have a budget shortfall; in fact, it produced a surplus in the most recent years. If one were to hypothetically increase the payroll tax on individuals making more than $250,000 to make up for a hypothetical budget shortfall of Social Security in the future, which may or may not happen, I assume you would still consider it a societal cancer, and this is one of the reasons why I believe your statement was hyperbole. Arguing that entitlement programs are a societal cancer, by your logic, is like saying the United States military is a societal cancer (military spending is also going up).

The second reason your statement was hyperbole was because there is a fundamental flaw in your comparison between entitlement programs and cancer. While cancer is malignant, uncontrollable, and yields no benefits, entitlement programs are not some uncontrollable malignant force killing society, and they definitely yield benefits. Cancer, if left to its own devices, often results in death. The statement "leaving entitlement programs to their own devices" is fundamentally flawed in the same way it's flawed to posit a United States that never passes any new laws or budgets. Even if one were to consider a world where "leaving entitlement programs to their own devices" is a logical statement, I hardly think the result would be the death of society.

Third, the mere fact that your statement, metaphor or not, was an exaggeration shows that it is considered hyperbole since entitlement programs are not actually killing society.

Fourth, the fact that these entitlement programs have not always had budget shortfalls and can have their budget shortfalls eliminated or reduced is evidence that they are not actually a cancer on the national debt, pretending you said "economic cancer" rather than "societal cancer." You're free to argue that budget shortfalls are a harmful to the debt and deficit, but entitlement programs are not inherently bad themselves if this is what you meant by "societal cancer." And even then, it's a stretch to say "budget shortfalls are a societal cancer."

Fifth, I do have to admit when I'm wrong. I was wrong that you and The Catboy both used hyperbole in equal ways. While you took cancer, something that's deathly serious, very much unlike entitlement programs, and evokes a lot of emotion, to exaggerate the effect of entitlement programs on the debt (still pretending you said economic cancer), The Catboy said basically that Republicans would cause a Dark Ages state in terms of our education system. Considering that a.) conservatives often times advocate not teaching evolution in public schools, b.) refusing to teach known science on religious grounds is a form of intellectual repressiveness, and c.) "Dark Ages" is also defined as "a period or stage marked by repressiveness, a lack of enlightenment or advanced knowledge, etc," then one could successfully argue that The Catboy's comments weren't hyperbole or even colorful metaphor; they could be taken literally. Sorry, Catboy.



Hanafuda said:


> Ok, now how about the durable goods statement. My statement was that durable goods went down over 13% last month (August) alone. And that was true :
> http://online.wsj.co...1483101410.html
> 
> Your comeback was to point out that durable goods, overall since Obama and the stimulus came along, are improved:
> ...


I don't think there appears to be any disagreement here. I could get into the specifics on why the sudden drop occurred, but that's no longer relevant. I appreciate the humble concession though.



Hanafuda said:


> 1) Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm wrong. Doesn't mean you're wrong either, it's just that political causes and effects are never certainties. You may think one thing is to blame, while I blame another thing.


I agree with you completely.



Hanafuda said:


> You may have an article that says x, I have an article that says y.


This doesn't mean that X and Y are equally valid in terms of what's supported by evidence. For example, you can't logically claim that the new voter ID laws aren't a form of voter fraud themselves when all the evidence appears to point in that direction. The same goes for many of the things from your past that I listed above. The numbers show us that trickle-down economics don't work. The numbers show us that the provisions in the Stimulus, for the most part, have a stimulating effect on the economy. The numbers show us that, without Romney's specifics on closing tax loopholes, there is no way Romney could implement his 20% tax cuts and increased military spending without either a.) increasing taxes on the middle class, or b.) substantially increasing the deficit and debt. The data shows us that man-made global warming is happening. The data overwhelmingly shows us that evolution is real. The data shows us that same-sex couples are just as capable as parents as heterosexual couples. The data shows that taxes on the rich are at historic lows. The data shows that Obama is the only candidate who actually has a viable deficit-reduction plan, and it has the added bonus of including specifics. The problem isn't that I read X and you read Y; the problem is, respectfully, that the numbers often times haven't agreed with Y.



Hanafuda said:


> 2) You just want to push all the blame away from your guy, when he is the responsible person in office.


I'm not sure if you're referring to the debt or the economy, but it doesn't matter; the answers are pretty much the same. I'm not deciding, "I like Obama so let me arbitrarily deflect all this blame away from him." Referring to the debt, it is accurate to say that Bush policies are what created this debt and deficit, it is accurate to say that these Bush policies are policies the Republican candidate for president still embraces, it is accurate to say that these Bush policies are still in effect, it is accurate to say that Obama wants to repeal these debt-causing Bush policies, it is accurate to say that these Bush policies are still in effect because of the Republicans, it is accurate to say that Obama has a specific deficit-reduction plan, and it is accurate to say that Romney's plan without specific loopholes would increase the debt and deficit substantially.



Hanafuda said:


> He ASKED for it, but he's not taking responsibility for it.


Regarding the debt, Obama didn't ask for it. Although Obama has marginally decreased the deficit, the deficit-causing Bush policies are still in effect, and we still have a debt problem. The Bush tax cuts would have been allowed to expire if the Republicans hadn't voted no on just keeping the tax cuts for the middle class from expiring, and Obama would have successfully lowered the deficit substantially. Obama has specific plans to decrease the debt and deficit. Romney will increase them.

Regarding the economy, Obama takes full credit for the economic recovery that has occurred. I'm sorry that the Recession was extremely bad, worse than we thought for the Stimulus that was passed, and that the Republicans have blocked further stimulus and infrastructure spending, but them's the facts.



Hanafuda said:


> He said if it wasn't fixed in one term, then he should be voted out. I say, ok then.


As far as I'm aware, Obama never claimed to completely fix either the debt or the economy by the end of his first term. If I'm mistaken, then that was a promise Obama probably couldn't have kept. Then again, if one takes away the Republican obstructionism, it's interesting to imagine how much better they could have been by now. It's all speculation of course, but it's speculation based in numerical evidence.

It's also worth noting that if Obama did say this, it doesn't automatically mean Obama's fiscal policies are ineffective and Romney's fiscal policies are effective.



Hanafuda said:


> 3) Unlike the fears expressed by some here about how the world will revert to the Spanish Inquisition if Romney is elected, the only thing I see really being that different as a result of this election is Supreme Court nominations, and even there I expect limited ripples in the pond. I will be voting against Obama, but he's the president now and today was a good day, so whatever.


I don't think the world would revert to the Spanish Inquisition if Romney were elected, but I also don't think Supreme Court nominations would be the only noticeable difference of a Romney presidency. But I'm not going to get into all that right now.



Hanafuda said:


> 4) Finally, just because I don't accept your "evidence" as proof of your position doesn't make me a hypocrite.


I refer you to your earlier quote:



Hanafuda said:


> He concedes nothing, to the point of being absurd. Even when there is overwhelming evidence, as I've already shown above with the news links to reputable news sources that the administration knew one thing about the embassy attack and was telling Congress and the press something else, he's lashing back with the talking points. Admit nothing! Deny everything! Demand proof! And when they prove it, Defend it!


So yes, when I present reputable evidence and you "admit nothing" and "deny everything," that makes you a hypocrite. The hyperbole thing was also an example of hypocrisy.



Hanafuda said:


> Since I'm not compelled to come back for the last word every time, it really doesn't bother me if something gets left hanging without being argued back and forth. It's not like I'm going to change my mind, nor will you. So, peace, brother. And I'm out.
> 
> (Now you can have the last word.)


Like I told someone else earlier, no one is asking you to argue with me.



Janthran said:


> Obama hasn't done anything good


Obama has accomplished a lot in the past four years.



Janthran said:


> and I don't like his morals.


Care to be more specific?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 10, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > He concedes nothing, to the point of being absurd. Even when there is overwhelming evidence, as I've already shown above with the news links to reputable news sources that the administration knew one thing about the embassy attack and was telling Congress and the press something else, he's lashing back with the talking points. Admit nothing! Deny everything! Demand proof! And when they prove it, Defend it!
> ...



Dude, when I wrote "Admit nothing! Deny everything! Demand proof! And when they prove it, Defend it!" I wasn't describing my approach to participating in this thread. I was describing yours. I think that was obvious to anyone who has been following this, except you apparently.

Also, here's this for ya, since you expressed some interest. See ya elsewhere on the board!

oh- it's from the Today Show, Feb 1, 2009.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 10, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Dude, when I wrote "Admit nothing! Deny everything! Demand proof! And when they prove it, Defend it!" I wasn't describing my approach to participating in this thread. I was describing yours. I think that was obvious to anyone who has been following this, except you apparently.


I am aware that you were describing what you thought was my approach to participating in this thread. It's hypocrisy because I have successfully shown that it's actually your approach to participating in this thread. You do know what a hypocrite is, yes?


----------



## 10_0ARMY (Oct 10, 2012)

There should be a poll in the news about this data. I'd lol if I saw the nightly news say "a new poll from GBATemp shows Obama has a 60 point lead over Romney. Clearly Romney has lost touch with gamers."


----------



## Janthran (Oct 10, 2012)

Specifically his views on abortion.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 11, 2012)

* Romney: ‘We Don’t Have People Who Die Because They Don’t Have Insurance’*



> Mitt Romney doubled down on his suggestion that uninsured Americans can find the care they need in emergency rooms



So the plan is for people to not go to the doctor and then turn up in emergency rooms, by which time their condition is acute and much more expensive to treat, then the government picks up the tab and passes it on to the taxpayer, or the hospital picks up the tab and passes it on to people who do buy insurance to pay for their care?  I'm struggling to see how this can been seen as a good idea by anyone on either side of the political spectrum.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 11, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> So the plan is for people to not go to the doctor and then turn up in emergency rooms, by which time their condition is acute and much more expensive to treat, then the government picks up the tab and passes it on to the taxpayer, or the hospital picks up the tab and passes it on to people who do buy insurance to pay for their care?  I'm struggling to see how this can been seen as a good idea by anyone on either side of the political spectrum.


I think Mitt has issues with getting his head around how the life of the "less fortunate" actually looks like, perhaps due to his successful business-life.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 11, 2012)

Romney in 2008:



> And we said: You know what? If somebody could afford insurance, they should either buy the insurance or pay their own way. They don’t have to buy insurance if they don’t want to, but pay their own way. But they shouldn’t be allowed to just show up at the hospital and say, somebody else should pay for me.
> 
> And so we said: No more free riders. It was like bringing “workfare” to welfare. We said: If you can afford insurance, then either have the insurance or get a health savings account. Pay your own way, but no more free ride.


Romney doesn't know how he feels about health care, as evidenced on the night of the debate when he was against mandating coverage of people with preexisting conditions, then for it, and then against it again.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 11, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Romney doesn't know how he feels about health care, as evidenced on the night of the debate when he was against mandating coverage of people with preexisting conditions, then for it, and then against it again.


I think he knows very well what he feels about it himself, he merely doesn't know what kind of an attitude will gain him more votes.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 11, 2012)

Im not really feeling it for either choice here. I mean im generally more conservative when it comes to big issues, but more liberal on social ones. I dont know. And i mean the lesser of two evils is still... evil.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 11, 2012)

Janthran said:


> Specifically his views on abortion.


That honestly a bigger question than even the president. Straight out allow it, limited it, banned it; either
way you look/seem bad.



BortzANATOR said:


> Im not really feeling it for either choice here. I mean im generally more conservative when it comes to big issues, but more liberal on social ones. I dont know. And i mean the lesser of two evils is still... evil.



You think Obama is evil?



This really sums it up.



May want to think twice with, "I'm just voting against the other guy", when they guy (Romney) you are voting for is much worst.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 11, 2012)

...I didnt say i was voting for either of them.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 11, 2012)

BortzANATOR said:


> ...I didnt say i was voting for either of them.


Wasn't talking about you, sorry. 
Just people saying that in general.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 11, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> BortzANATOR said:
> 
> 
> > ...I didnt say i was voting for either of them.
> ...





KingVamp said:


> BortzANATOR said:
> 
> 
> > ...I didnt say i was voting for either of them.
> ...


Oh oh, ok. No big deal.


----------



## Janthran (Oct 11, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > Specifically his views on abortion.
> ...


I know it sounds stupid to say this, but the media hates Romney. And that's why everyone else does.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2012)

Janthran said:


> I know it sounds stupid to say this, but the media hates Romney. And that's why everyone else does.


You're right; that does sound stupid, particularly when you have no evidence to back it up. Ignoring the fact that the media has arguably been fair in its reporting of either candidate, the simplest explanation would be that the media and everyone else hate Romney for the same reasons, not one causing the other.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 12, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Janthran said:
> 
> 
> > I know it sounds stupid to say this, but the media hates Romney. And that's why everyone else does.
> ...



Plus, there's plenty of people out there claiming that the media has been way too soft on Romney, so...


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2012)

The media is making Romney lie and flip flop for convenient sake, so they can hate him and have people outside the media able to make close to 30mins of him doing so without even possibly covering everything. Oh wait.... the media can't make him do that.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 12, 2012)

And don't get me started on Fox News' effect on perceptions of Obama.


----------



## cuamoose (Oct 12, 2012)

DAMMIT GUYS, WHY DID YOU HAVE TO TURN THIS TOTALLY NORMAL TOPIC INTO A POLITICAL DEBA-


Oh, that was the point? Carry on.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 12, 2012)

I just don't want to hear about Bush for the next 4 years, no matter who takes leadership.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 12, 2012)

I can't believe "neither" isn't an option for who you will vote for.

Anyway, since I can't choose an answer to one poll without choosing the other, I'll just say here that I think Obama will win. To me, that's been clear since before Romney was even nominated, and it's even more clear to me now.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 12, 2012)

The moderator of the vice-presidential debate did a much better job at pressing the candidates on key issues:

[referring to the 20% tax cut plan]

Mod: Let's talk about this 20%. You have refused, yet again, to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20% across the board tax cut, do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it and that's why you won't tell voters?

Ryan: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements...

Mod: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math?

Ryan: Look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil did... blah blah blah ...we want to work with congress on how best to achieve this, that means successful...

Mod: ...no specifics again.

Ryan: What we're saying is, lower tax rates 20%, start with the wealthy...

Mod: You guarantee this math will add up?

Ryan: Absolutely, 6 studies have guaranteed it.

At this point, I'm mildly curious, what is he talking about?


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 12, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E87gciwebw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 12, 2012)

Paul Ryan got Pwned at the debate!


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 12, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Paul Ryan got Pwned at the debate!


----------



## dickfour (Oct 12, 2012)

I couldn't get last the weird faces Biden was making. He looked insane.


----------



## Joe88 (Oct 12, 2012)

I was waiting for biden to yell you kids get off my lawn.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2012)

I can't believe purposely lying wins you a debate.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 12, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Ryan got Pwned at the debate!




LMFAO! You quote CNN? those fools have started leaning to the right since 2010. Everybody else pretty much agrees that Ryan got smoked last night.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 12, 2012)

4 dead Americans is not a laughing matter.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 12, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> 4 dead Americans is not a laughing matter.


Did you or anyone genuinely interpret Biden's laughing as at the deaths themselves? The first time he laughed was right after Ryan suggested what had happened was "the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy, which is making the world more chaotic and us less safe." That's when Biden laughed. Ryan then went on to explain how the administration's projecting "weakness abroad" with its policy regarding Iran... Honestly, I would probably laugh at the absurdity in what he said, too.


----------



## Jakob95 (Oct 12, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> http://www.youtube.c...be_gdata_player


Lmao that made my day.


----------



## dickfour (Oct 12, 2012)

When a wise man debates a fool the fool rages and laughs and there is no peace. Biden was acting like the fool laughing and making weird faces. I shudder to think this clown is a heart beat from the presidency


----------



## gage astronomer (Oct 12, 2012)

As I watched the debates on my Xbox 360 a poll popped up and said, "Have you already decided who you want to vote for?"****While I am leaning towards one side I thought to myself... "not really... I mean I am watching these debates and if the other party rocks my brain I would consider changing sides." 

To my surprise the results were something along the lines of 90% already KNEW who they were going to vote for. And then the next question was, " who would YOU vote for" with around 83% saying Obama.

Myself...I am an Atheist Republican...man if feels sooo good to say that blanketed by the anonymity of the internet! The sad thing about Romney's 47% mark that I don't know the real percentage not including the old and the vets but what I do know for a FACT is that the welfare system is greatly being misused and taken advantage of by a crap load of free loaders. The media and liberals want to paint a picture where those freeloaders HAVE to be black as joked in the video posted earlier but where I live (98% white) I would say 60% are on food stamps. My wife who is a manager at a grocery store watches as these people come in and fill 3 ... READ that again THREE carts to the brim. Some with steak and lobster, some with a whole cart full of soda, some with a whole cart of little Debbie, some with super expensive MONSTER energy drinks. Then they expoloit thier cards to get money for beer and smokes. We have lived in states like Illinois, Florida, and now our current red state and this crap is rampant all over...all except when we lived in Seattle....and I will get to that in a moment. I don't blame the free loaders, kudos to them for grabbing what our government is making it easy for them to get.

In Seattle it was not so bad because to get that tasty food stamp money you had to a) be employed with a low paying job or b) go to an office an sit and look for jobs. This cuts back on people getting paid under the table to qualify for low income and stops people from sitting at home and watching their shows and just waiting for that check/card to come in from uncle sam....and why isn't drug tested regulated across the board to accept food stamps. So many apparent drug addicts coming in to fill their several shopping carts...on my dime is mind boggling.

The funny thing is the media bashes Romney because his dad was on welfare...welfare is a decent thing but like myself and Romney's dad it was a appreciative crutch to move on to BETTER things not just live off the system. Not have MORE kids while on welfare to get more money. And why are we cutting our budget on WIC yet aiding more to food stamps? WIC is great...awesome...if you’re not on WIC.

WIC forces you to eat healthy, forces you to get specific cheese, milk, juice. No Kraft cheese for you, house brand cheese only! Healthy and cost effective. Why aren't we making food stamps more like this, give hands outs but make it inconvenient and ... not so damn tasty.
Google food stamp costs under Obama's administration and the amount spent is astounding! Now if Obama said he was going to launch ObamaMart....where welfare people could get their cheap food produced in America and to do this he would have to open factories which would create jobs...warehouse, it jobs, truck drivers, receptionist....he would have me leaning towards his ticket in a heartbeat. Sure that certain percent would flip...I have to go from eating steak and ribs to terrible mac and cheese?" They would be in an uproar. Now fyi they did recently (a month ago) block Monster drinks from food stamps so it is possible to still regulate how MY money feeds the poor but nobody is actually doing this.


The thing is I am open minded....feed the poor but don't make it easy for em. Don't take my guns but...maybe regulate my bullets like in California and a certain city in Illinois...I am not happy with these ideas but I am open to them so if a party were to make some sort of plan that could meet a common middle ground I ... and very few others ... would be open ears. But when 90% watch the debate and already know who they are voting for common sense gets pushed out of the way and you have to go with the most extreme side that hits closest to home. 

And just for kicks


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 12, 2012)

I can't see a thing with the black theme and what is this isidewith.com about?


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 12, 2012)

Had to share this picture!


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 12, 2012)

gage astronomer said:


> As I watched the debates on my Xbox 360 a poll popped up and said, "Have you already decided who you want to vote for?"****While I am leaning towards one side I thought to myself... "not really... I mean I am watching these debates and if the other party rocks my brain I would consider changing sides."
> 
> To my surprise the results were something along the lines of 90% already KNEW who they were going to vote for. And then the next question was, " who would YOU vote for" with around 83% saying Obama.
> 
> ...



I resent what you say about what people on food stamps put in their carts. What business is it of yous if people are putting steak and lobsters in their carts? BTW steak isn't that expensive. I highly doubt that people in need of their EBT cards are filling their shopping carts with the best cuts of meat. Where the fuck do you get off judging people?! How about you put yourself in their shoes. Try having to feed yourself with a EBT card and then come back to us. I'm sick and tired of the right trying to create this damn image of a "welfare mama" with no fucking idea of what it's truly like to have to need food assistance.


----------



## gage astronomer (Oct 12, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Try having to feed yourself with a EBT card and then come back to us.





gage astronomer said:


> The funny thing is the media bashes Romney because his dad was on welfare...welfare is a decent thing but like *myself* and Romney's dad it was a appreciative crutch to move on to BETTER things not just live off the system.



Was on foodstamps for 2 months in Chicago 
I know...I know...I truley did not walk in their shoes ... to do such would mean I would have to live off the system for a year or two...but I got myself an idea of how the process works.

When you grow up and start paying taxes you will understand how a cart full of steaks is your buisness when it is your tax dollars that pay for that steak. Food from my mouth to those that don't even want to work.

Stop and seperate those that are using the system from its intended purpose to those who just exploit an easy way of life.

When you have not worked in 8 months, have not looked for a job in 12, and as long as I pay MY taxes I should be able to express my concern over where MY dollars go to.


----------



## Jakob95 (Oct 12, 2012)

I know lots of people that are on welfare or unemployement that are rich.  They are just "legally unemployed" they work in businesses and make cash instead of check so they don't have to pay taxes and so the government doesn't know that they have a job.  Pretty smart actually, lots of my best friends went to college like that because they got financial aid for the whole thing, while there Dad's own a Benz, and a house here in NYC.  And then I know some people who own small businesses like Jewlery stores, or barber shops and they make a fortune and for there tax's they write that they only make $30 grand a year so they don't have to pay a lot of taxes since they make cash.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 12, 2012)

gage astronomer said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > Try having to feed yourself with a EBT card and then come back to us.
> ...



LMFAO When I grow up and pay taxes??? I'm a 27 year old married man. I know what it's like to live from paycheck to paycheck doing what you can to get by. You just like the rest of the Right Wing have absolutely no clue what it's like for most Americans to have to struggle. You and Romney and that "47% attitude". I swear, November cant get here fast enough. The republican party needs to grow the fuck up, come into the 21st century an find a fucking human heart!


----------



## geishroy (Oct 12, 2012)

gage astronomer said:


> Atheist Republican



tl;dr after this





i haz a pair of these i warez


----------



## gage astronomer (Oct 12, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> LMFAO When I grow up and pay taxes??? I'm a 27 year old married man. I know what it's like to live from paycheck to paycheck doing what you can to get by.
> 
> The republican party needs to grow the fuck up, come into the 21st century an find a fucking human heart!


I apologize for assuming you were not of age to pay your taxes yet…it just baffles me how someone is okay to live paycheck to paycheck and know there are those out there like Jakob95 talk about exploiting the system…and somehow just okay with it…

I do like you’re so willing to jump to say I have no heart…my desire is not to cut welfare and food stamps, just reform it so that way honest middle class people can survive…and just to clarify while I am currently retired and living off MY savings from a bit of hard work my wife is well below the 40k yearly range and I have two kids.  I believe that we can lower the taxes and help the WORKING middle class and while you might say I am heartless all I want is for everyone to contribute to the pot…a lot like GBAtemp….those that know me, know I helped with those day 1 releases ya’ll love soooo much even on the games I did not want. Why? Because I was appreciative of the hard work those behind the scenes did for me and I wanted to give back rather than just being a moocher.

As far as the atheist republican thing goes…
It is quite simple
I believe  in the death penalty, I believe we should work for what we call ours, I believe in right protect my family with my guns… but since I am an atheist I am also prochoice, and have no feelings towards gay marriage, while I do want to protect the environment … I do want to tap that pipe in Alaska. While I don’t do drugs I do think we should legalize pot and tax the hell out of it… and while I do not pay for sex think we should legalize, regulate, and tax the hell out of prostitution.  I also support what other countries call a luxury tax… that is for instance the boat I just purchased. In other countries where they don’t tax the hell out of your income they would tax the hell out of my purchase and anything similar. This gives people the opportunity to make their money and save it for retirement or what not and are only then penalized for wasteful spending.
While I usually lurk as I am too busy these days being a Dad…I felt like venting…I will probably go back to lurking as my daughter has called for my attention twice now…but you all have a good one 


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 12, 2012)

gage astronomer said:


> LightyKD said:
> 
> 
> > LMFAO When I grow up and pay taxes??? I'm a 27 year old married man. I know what it's like to live from paycheck to paycheck doing what you can to get by.
> ...



My apologies for calling you heartless. it's just that i get tired of some people who are well off and have never had to struggle, judging people who can barely keep what they have together. it's really frustrating because I see it a lot and these are the people who one take a second to talk to the person on the other side and learn something about life. They stay in their own bubble and say "If I can do it, so can you" without realizing how easy they have had it. With that said, maybe our entitlements and the welfare and child support systems do need reforming BUT giving members o the 1% a tax cut isn't going to solve the problem. This notion that if we give those who are hoarding all the wealth even more and maybe they will share is bullshit. It's like telling a 4 year old with no manners training and a whole cookie jr to share the cookies with his/her classmates. It's not happening.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 13, 2012)

From World Nut Daily

http://www.wnd.com/2...-god-but-allah/


> According to Arabic-language and Islamic experts, the ring Obama has been wearing for more than 30 years is adorned with the first part of the Islamic declaration of faith, the Shahada: “There is no god except Allah.”



Are they really, genuinely, persisting with this abject fucking stupidity?


----------



## Gahars (Oct 13, 2012)

Conspiracy theorists like these don't care about little things like "facts" or "reality".

If they did, they wouldn't be conspiracy theorists in the first place.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 13, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


(This comment is not directed at you, it's directed at the people up in arms about this)
Going to be honest, would it even matter if it was Islamic?
It doesn't matter if the the man is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or even an Atheist, what does any of this have to do with him in office? Religion should have no hold on government and shouldn't even be a concern of the voters. The fact that people are actually concerned over a leaders religion in this country only shows how shallow and close-minded some people have become. It also destroys the foundation that America was founded upon and insults the millions of soldiers who fought for the right to practice any religion one chooses to practice.


----------



## lokomelo (Oct 13, 2012)

I'm not from USA, I've been there only once in my life, so I know that I have no business here. But I was reading some pages here and I want to know why adjectives like "communist", "socialist" and "Islamic" are insults on USA? Ok, you had an enemy that was communist orientated, but this do no mean that every form of communism and socialism (and there's many) is something avoidable. There are some good values on communism.

And about the president being Islamic or not, why should it matter? It is not a election for the new pope, it is a election for a new president.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 13, 2012)

lokomelo said:


> I'm not from USA, I've been there only once in my life, so I know that I have no business here. But I was reading some pages here and I want to know why adjectives like "communist", "socialist" and "Islamic" are insults on USA? Ok, you had an enemy that was communist orientated, but this do no mean that every form of communism and socialism (and there's many) is something avoidable. There are some good values on communism.
> 
> And about the president being Islamic or not, why should it matter? It is not a election for the new pope, it is a election for a new president.


It's pretty much Cold War prejudice being mixed into poor education filled with half-baked conspiracies, all wrapped up in nice little package.
In other words, people keep these old/half-assed ideas about something and refuse to look more into it, then use it as an "insult" because they think it's an insult, then other people use it as the same way and it becomes an insult. It's like how people use other phrases that aren't insults as an insult, it's only people's of lack of understanding and prejudice, that then lead to people using and abusing it.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 13, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> I know lots of people that are on welfare or unemployement that are rich.


Oh really?
While I do agree that there should be more restrictions on welfare, like proof of trying to get a job at a certain age or something, I find
it funny he put all the blame on the 47% with no backing. If what you said was truth.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 13, 2012)

Classy...


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 13, 2012)

lokomelo said:


> I'm not from USA, I've been there only once in my life, so I know that I have no business here. But I was reading some pages here and I want to know why adjectives like "communist", "socialist" and "Islamic" are insults on USA? Ok, you had an enemy that was communist orientated, but this do no mean that every form of communism and socialism (and there's many) is something avoidable. There are some good values on communism.
> 
> And about the president being Islamic or not, why should it matter? It is not a election for the new pope, it is a election for a new president



The excuse I've heard from these mouth breathers when you call them up on that its that they're not making a big deal out of it because he's Muslim but because he's 'lying' about being a Christian.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 13, 2012)

By the way, people will sometimes buy high value stuff like lobster and energy drinks because they're easiest to sell on to turn into money to pay debts. Shouldn't happen, but it does.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 13, 2012)

If living on welfare is really so "tasty" and comfortable and desirable, then why aren't you on it? The same question I posed to those who said our prisons were getting "too good".


----------



## Jakob95 (Oct 13, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Classy...


Well there are tons of black people who are the same like that guy, who would vote for Obama just because hes black.


----------



## geishroy (Oct 13, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > Classy...
> ...



it's fine to be racist, but why bring their weight into this?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Classy...




What's the source for this? The image you linked is on imageshack, but did it originate with a legit news service? Cuz I really, really don't like seeing something like that, and I think it's a very small minority of Americans these days who will tolerate such racist horseshit as that (despite what some assume, 99.999% of conservative/republican/tea party people are not also members of the klan). Anyway, I'd like to know at what event this guy was wearing this thing, and if there's any more to the story.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > Classy...
> ...



Here's one news site; they mention that this is from a campaign event in Lancaster, Ohio.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> What's the source for this? The image you linked is on imageshack, but did it originate with a legit news service? Cuz I really, really don't like seeing something like that, and I think it's a very small minority of Americans these days who will tolerate such racist horseshit as that (despite what some assume, 99.999% of conservative/republican/tea party people are not also members of the klan). Anyway, I'd like to know at what event this guy was wearing this thing, and if there's any more to the story.


"Not all Republicans are racists, but racists are more than likely to be Republicans." It's hard to argue that the efforts to paint Obama as foreign, lying about welfare work requirements, calling him the "Food Stamp President," etc. don't have racist undertones.

Also, you don't have to be part of the KKK to be racist:


----------



## Jakob95 (Oct 14, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > What's the source for this? The image you linked is on imageshack, but did it originate with a legit news service? Cuz I really, really don't like seeing something like that, and I think it's a very small minority of Americans these days who will tolerate such racist horseshit as that (despite what some assume, 99.999% of conservative/republican/tea party people are not also members of the klan). Anyway, I'd like to know at what event this guy was wearing this thing, and if there's any more to the story.
> ...


Depends on what you look at.  Go to other websites like those white supremacist websites and you will see them post pictures of black people posting tweets like " I'll [censored] a white girl if Romney gets elected" "I'll shoot a white guy", and other stuff like that.  Plus most of all black people will vote for Obama cause he's black, while there are more liberal white people I think that will vote for Obama then there are more conservative black people that will vote for Romney.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 14, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


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



Do you have anything to back that up? Like, can you prove that they're voting for Obama only because he's black, and not for any other reasons (like, say, these voters have been a consistently loyal voting block for the Democrats since about the Great Depression, they approve of his performance, and/or they disagree with the Republican platform)?

Because that seems like a hell of a projection to make.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 14, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Depends on what you look at.  Go to other websites like those white supremacist websites and you will see them post pictures of black people posting tweets like " I'll [censored] a white girl if Romney gets elected" "I'll shoot a white guy", and other stuff like that.  Plus most of all black people will vote for Obama cause he's black, while there are more liberal white people I think that will vote for Obama then there are more conservative black people that will vote for Romney.


That's not really a reliable source of information. A white supremacist site will find the worst of the worst of tweets, facebook updates, quote, anything to work in their favor, they will even make stuff up and edit thing to work their way.
In reality the amount of people who are voting for Obama, aren't voting based on his race and it's actually a very small percentage that are concerned about his race. This really being true on both ends of the spectrum. The truth of the matter is, it's the ones who speak the loudest that are heard and in all honestly, people often record or listen to these people because they did something to get attention, like wear a racist shirt or vote based on race. The simple reason these people are noticed and brought up is often to increase views for a News channel, Youtube channel, or because they made themselves noticeable and someone is exploiting that noticeably.


----------



## Jakob95 (Oct 14, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> Jakob95 said:
> 
> 
> > Depends on what you look at.  Go to other websites like those white supremacist websites and you will see them post pictures of black people posting tweets like " I'll [censored] a white girl if Romney gets elected" "I'll shoot a white guy", and other stuff like that.  Plus most of all black people will vote for Obama cause he's black, while there are more liberal white people I think that will vote for Obama then there are more conservative black people that will vote for Romney.
> ...


Yeah I know the whole point of posting that was its the same for liberal websites as well instead they put the race card towards the whites.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

LOL That dude with half his lower teeth missing is mentally ill or something. But if you're willing to be selective when choosing who to interview, it's not hard to find racists.

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

Anyway, as for the guy in the t-shirt about the 'white' house ... yeah fuck that guy. But if you've got common sense then you know it's not fair to judge a whole group by one jerk who shows up looking to stir things up.  (Considering the obvious bad optics, it does make me wonder whose side the guy is really on - but unless/until someone proves otherwise it's fair to assume he's the bigot he appears to be.) Both sides do it of course - the "Obamaphone" video for example. 

As for calling Obama "the food stamp president" - well, how else do you get across to people the significance of the fact that the number of food stamp recipients has about doubled in the last 3 1/2 yrs and keeps on increasing despite the so-called 'recovery' ?? (http://www.trivisonno.com/wp-content/uploads/Food-Stamps-Monthly2.jpg) But 'food stamps' doesn't have a racial connotation to me - it's mostly white trash scammers at Wal-Mart that I think of when I think about food stamps. As someone already discussed above, they're not hard to spot. You'll probably think I'm generalizing but seriously - go out to WalMart on a Saturday afternoon and watch the people with poor personal hygiene buy cartloads of brand-name snacks, drinks, meats, cheeses, cakes, you name it, with food stamps. Oftentimes another member of the family will go through the line separately to buy beer and cigarettes, which can be easily afforded since they didn't have to buy the food. On the other hand my wife and I make about $135k combined and a lot of what we purchase is "great value" products, because that's what we can afford.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 14, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> Yeah I know the whole point of posting that was its the same for liberal websites as well instead they put the race card towards the whites.


I don't think this really has anything to do with being Liberal or Conservative. Most likely anyone using race like that is only using it to draw more attention towards themselves for some other purposes. Racism is a very touchy subject and right now can be a goldmine for views/attention, which most likely is what these people want.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

Interesting article on the latest topic:

*DO BLACK PEOPLE SUPPORT OBAMA BECAUSE HE'S BLACK?*

http://hosted.ap.org...-10-13-14-08-26


The article is fairly objective in considering the question, but in the end avoids plainly stating the answer it clearly showed to be true. The answer is yes, most do. The article answers another question, which is: isn't that racist? Again, the answer is Yes, but for some reason we're supposed to see it as benign and excusable.


edit: I edited the font size on the headline - I copied/pasted directly from the article page and it was too big.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> As for calling Obama "the food stamp president" - well, how else do you get across to people the significance of the fact that the number of food stamp recipients has about doubled in the last 3 1/2 yrs and keeps on increasing despite the so-called 'recovery' ??


It's possible to talk about food stamps without not-so-subtly implying that Obama is giving away free stuff to black people and that's why they vote for him; that's also presumably what Romney was alluding to when he said, "I'll never convince them [the 47%/Obama supporters] they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

I should point out that there's less reluctance to get food stamps due to the recession, policies enacted by Bush, and economic recovery policies enacted by Obama. And as I've already mentioned, food stamps are one of the best forms of economic stimulus.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Oct 14, 2012)

I've met plenty of people who aren't black support Obama because he's black.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> go out to WalMart on a Saturday afternoon and watch the people with poor personal hygiene buy cartloads of brand-name snacks, drinks, meats, cheeses, cakes, you name it, with food stamps. Oftentimes another member of the family will go through the line separately to buy beer and cigarettes, which can be easily afforded since they didn't have to buy the food. On the other hand my wife and I make about $135k combined and a lot of what we purchase is "great value" products, because that's what we can afford.


What exactly are you trying to say? That food stamp recipients are actually financially well of? That their standard of living is actually better than those making $135k? What's the dollar equivalence of the food stamps, anyway?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Interesting article on the latest topic:
> 
> *DO BLACK PEOPLE SUPPORT OBAMA BECAUSE HE'S BLACK?*
> 
> ...


Ignoring for a second that the article didn't "clearly show" that "most" black people vote for Obama solely because of skin color, I think you missed the point of the article:



> Told that some saw her tweet as racist, she said that's not what she meant. "I was saying that as a black woman, Romney doesn't have that much that would make us want to vote for him," said Scott-Miller, who is black. "Because Barack Obama lives with three black women in his house, he knows about what they need, he knows about the issues we may be facing, he talks to black women on the regular."
> 
> Sherrilyn Ifill, a law professor at the University of Maryland, wrote a column last week exploring why so many black voters are rejecting Romney. She said it has less to do with the candidate than with his party's treatment of Obama, such as John Sununu calling the president "lazy" after the debate, a congressman shouting "You lie!" during the State of the Union address, claims that Obama is not a citizen and more.
> 
> ...


Basically, it's not racism if it has less to do with race and more to do with policy and animosity from the other side. I refer you back to Gahars' point about being a loyal voting block for the Democratic Party.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Basically, it's not racism if it has less to do with race and more to do with policy and animosity from the other side. I refer you back to Gahars' point about being a loyal voting block for the Democratic Party.




That all depends on whether you agree with Sherilynn Ifill. It's just her opinion but it is used to close the article as if that is the conclusion that was reached. That's just crafty journalism. Interestingly enough, she is the cousin of Gwenn Ifill, one of the debate moderators in the 2008 election who denied any conflict of interest in moderating the debate while her book, "The Breakthrough : Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" was written, printed, and waiting to be released on Obama's inauguration day. Sherilynn Ifill has also published a book called, "The Relevance of Nooses and Lynching in the Age of Obama." Why go to _this_ person to refute the proposition that Scott-Miller's tweet to Stacey Dash ("You get a lil money and you forget that you're black and a woman. Two things Romney hates.") was racist??? 

I just think political correctness has hurt our ability to be honest with ourselves. That black people would want to see the first black president get re-elected, regardless of his record or competence, is completely understandable. The root of the emotion for feeling that way isn't much different than that guy with the "white" house t-shirt, but I think it's just a truth of human nature we're not going to evolve beyond for a long, long time. Why do you think gangs tend to assemble along racial lines? It's an issue of trust.


----------



## Lemmy Koopa (Oct 14, 2012)

I can imagine some republicans being against Obama for both policies and race.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

leic7 said:


> What exactly are you trying to say? That food stamp recipients are actually financially well of? That their standard of living is actually better than those making $135k? What's the dollar equivalence of the food stamps, anyway?



Not sure what you mean by the 'dollar equivalence' ... if you mean how much buying power does being on food stamps give you? ... I believe a family of 4 that qualifies can get 500-600 dollars a month in food stamps, depending on income. AFAIK, the food stamps can only be used for FOOD - so that 500-600 bucks is actually quite a bit to have available. My family of four does not spend that much on groceries a month if you eliminate non-food items. With non-food items included (TP, paper towels, deodorant, soap, toothpaste, cleaning products, etc) our budget probably is about 600.  But since the folks on food stamps have to spend that 500-600 bucks on food only, most don't skimp and it's plain to see in the checkout line. But, a lot of people on food stamps where I live still do go cheap, because they can trade the food stamps for cash, or drugs.


Basically, it's 6000 to 7200 dollars of tax free income a year for a family of four. There are some people who truly need this help. I am not in any way opposed to the program, but only to how it is administered. There are a lot of people who are receiving food stamps now who are lying to qualify, and nothing is done to check or stop it. You want food stamps? You can probably get them.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Basically, it's 6000 to 7200 dollars of tax free income a year for a family of four. There are some people who truly need this help. I am not in any way opposed to the program, but only to how it is administered. *There are a lot of people who are receiving food stamps now who are lying to qualify, and nothing is done to check or stop it.* You want food stamps? You can probably get them.



Do you have proof to back up either claim?


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> The article is fairly objective in considering the question, but in the end avoids plainly stating the answer it clearly showed to be true. The answer is yes, most do.



You're really saying _most_ black voters are only voting for Obama because he's black?  You don't think their political views have anything to do with it, or that it's based on that fact that people like Al Gore, who stood on a similar platform but was white got 90% of the black vote?  You think if the policies were exactly the same but the republican candidate was black and the democrat one white that most, ie more than 50% of these voters would have switched their vote and voted republican?

How many Romney voters do you think are voting for him because he's white?  How many Mormon voters are voting for him because he's Mormon?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Basically, it's 6000 to 7200 dollars of tax free income a year for a family of four. There are some people who truly need this help. I am not in any way opposed to the program, but only to how it is administered. *There are a lot of people who are receiving food stamps now who are lying to qualify, and nothing is done to check or stop it.* You want food stamps? You can probably get them.
> ...




They catch a few, but it's a small percentage of the whole and they know it. I work in state government and I've seen how 'fraud' enforcement with entitlement programs usually works, which is when some private citizen (who usually knows the person who lied to get benefits) finds out about the fraud, they report it. When that happens, the government agency acts. But typically, little effort goes into actively auditing for fraud. Nothing like what people imagine. Remember the woman who had won a million bucks in the lottery but someone found out she was still getting food stamps? (she died recently - winning the lottery is bad for your health) The only reason she got caught is someone ratted her out to a TV station. 

It's not hard to find stories about food stamp fraud. About 15% of households nationwide are receiving food stamps now, and in some states like Michigan it's about 25% of all households.  

http://www.wsoctv.com/news/news/special-reports/9-investigates-food-stamp-fraud-costly-taxpayers/nN5kQ/


http://www.abc2news.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/millions-commit-food-stamp-fraud-every-year


Here's a story about Universities encouraging their students to apply for foodstamps/EBT cards regardless of their socioeconomic background, i.e. don't tell the government your parent's make six figures, just claim you're poor.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/27/universities-encourage-students-to-enroll-in-food-stamp-program/


Here's an interesting forum discussion/poll where 16% of those responding admitted to lying to get food stamps, and some give explanations for how to work it.
http://forum.baby-gaga.com/about2217294-1.html

Here's a story where lots of state employees in Connecticut got caught committing food stamp fraud by misreporting their income on a special program after Hurricane Irene. Unfortunately for them, there actually was an audit (this would never happen where I live). And they were fired.
http://articles.courant.com/2011-12-06/news/hc-ed-state-food-fraud-20111206_1_federal-disaster-aid-state-employees-low-income

But wait! Thanks to the union, they got their jobs back!
http://articles.courant.com/2012-06-13/news/hc-dsnap-jobs-back-0614-20120613_1_d-snap-program-food-stamp-susan-r-meredith


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> But wait! Thanks to the union, they got their jobs back!
> http://articles.cour...usan-r-meredith



Good for the union, as the investigation found the guys reinstated didn't commit intentional fraud.  Shows how important it is for workers to be unionised.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> You're really saying _most_ black voters are only voting for Obama because he's black?



The title of the article was, "Do Black People Support Obama Because He's Black.", not do they vote for him because he's black. There is a difference between asking whether Obama gets more support from blacks vs. just their reasons for voting for him. And it's stated in a nutshell in the article:



> In 2011, as black unemployment continued to rise, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus said that if Clinton was still president, "we probably would be still marching on the White House . (but) nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president."




So, Obama gets a pass from the Congressional Black Caucus where a white president would not. They admit it. Does this also extend to the black community at large? It's possible. Would blacks who voted for Obama in 2008 be satisfied with the current high employment for blacks, high gas prices, etc., not to mention the promises of "Hope" and "Change" back then, if he were white??? Heck, would any Democrat really be satisfied with how he's done if he were white? His administration deports illegal aliens like they're mad about it, they ignored his promise to leave states with med marijuana alone, the whole 'gun walking' thing of supplying drug cartels weapons that were then used for murder, plus the mess in Afghanistan, the drone wars in Yemen and Pakistan, bailing out bankers instead of the poor --- I don't think the democrat base would be real satisfied if, for example, this had been Kerry as president doing these things.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > You're really saying _most_ black voters are only voting for Obama because he's black?
> ...



Rubbish, if he was white we'd have exactly the same situation, we'd have Democrats of all colours saying he was doing well and Republicans saying he'd done terribly.

Would Bush have been re-elected half way through his fuck up if he'd been black?  Or would he have lost all the white vote?

I don't get why you're trying to play semantics as if there's a difference over who you 'support' and who you vote for either.  Obama is the Democratic candidate, the black population has overwhelmingly supported the Democratic candidate for decades.  It's trying to see discrimination where none exists due to some people having a whiney victim complex that would be described as politically correct if it was coming from anyone but white people.

Anyway, you've managed to work out that most black people support Obama because he's black, what percentage of white people support Romney because he's white?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > But wait! Thanks to the union, they got their jobs back!
> ...




Or maybe it shows how important it is to have the 'independent arbitrator' in your pocket. Who knows. Politics is politics.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...



Maybe the independent arbitrator was in the pocket of the company and actually all the workers should have been reinstated?  Who knows.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > BlueStar said:
> ...



I don't think so. Jimmy Carter was abandoned by Democrats in the 1980 election, because the economy tanked, he reacted poorly to terrorist actions against American interests, and he just generally was not an effective leader. The electoral vote count was 489 Reagan, 49 Carter.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...



But this isn't Jimmy Carter.  We've had the same on both sides for years, through Bush and Clinton one side was sure the incumbent was absolutely RUINING the county how could people NOT SEE IT!  It's just exactly the same, except now you think the only reason the other side can't see your point of view is because the president is black.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2012)

It should also be noted that you're claiming that this article that includes a few interviews and Tweets from celebrities, etc. is evidence that black people predominantly vote skin color.



Hanafuda said:


> Interestingly enough, she is the cousin of Gwenn Ifill, one of the debate moderators in the 2008 election who denied any conflict of interest in moderating the debate while her book, "The Breakthrough : Politics and Race in the Age of Obama" was written, printed, and waiting to be released on Obama's inauguration day. Sherilynn Ifill has also published a book called, "The Relevance of Nooses and Lynching in the Age of Obama."


So what?



Hanafuda said:


> That black people would want to see the first black president get re-elected, regardless of his record or competence, is completely understandable.


That's far from being able to say African-Americans are voting for Obama despite hypothetical opposing political views or just because he's black. What you're arguing is analogous to saying Hispanic voters vote for Hispanic Democrats solely because of race and not because of, for example, policy positions on immigration, so this entire conversation seems silly and unnecessarily divisive to me.



Hanafuda said:


> The root of the emotion for feeling that way isn't much different than that guy with the "white" house t-shirt, but I think it's just a truth of human nature we're not going to evolve beyond for a long, long time. Why do you think gangs tend to assemble along racial lines? It's an issue of trust.


Did you just compare black people rallying behind the President to black people amalgamating into gangs? Classy.



Hanafuda said:


> There are a lot of people who are receiving food stamps now who are lying to qualify, and nothing is done to check or stop it.


Even if we were to agree that 1% of food stamps benefits is a lot (which I don't), that's far from being able to say that "nothing is done to check or stop it." It's also far from being able to warrant, in my opinion, Paul Ryan's plan to kick 8-10 million people off the program. It's not a good idea to cut $134 billion from food stamps immediately after a recession, both for moral reasons and economic reasons.




Hanafuda said:


> > In 2011, as black unemployment continued to rise, the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus said that if Clinton was still president, "we probably would be still marching on the White House . (but) nobody wants to do anything that would empower the people who hate the president."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, because none of this is baseless conjecture at all.



Hanafuda said:


> I don't think so. Jimmy Carter was abandoned by Democrats in the 1980 election, because the economy tanked, he reacted poorly to terrorist actions against American interests, and he just generally was not an effective leader. The electoral vote count was 489 Reagan, 49 Carter.


I know how bad you conservatives want it to be so, but Barack Obama is not Jimmy Carter.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> But this isn't Jimmy Carter.  We've had the same on both sides for years, through Bush and Clinton one side was sure the incumbent was absolutely RUINING the county how could people NOT SEE IT!  It's just exactly the same, except now you think the only reason the other side can't see your point of view is because the president is black.



Read that quote again from the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. They see the problems just fine. They're just not acting on them like they would if the president were white. That's exactly what he said.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Read that quote again from the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. They see the problems just fine. They're just not acting on them like they would if the president were white. That's exactly what he said.


You do realize that the chairman says the main reason for hypothetically not treating Obama poorly is because he doesn't want to empower the people who hate the president, yes? The entire point of the statement you keep citing is to say that they're rallying behind the President due to the animosity (which may or may not be race-related) on the right. Didn't I say this a long time ago? Wow.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 14, 2012)

Just put Morgan Freeman into office like in the movies, then everyone will be happy.

Remember when Romney made a comment about Big Bird? Who can forget? Wanna know something else? Obama's ad producers (with Obama's approval) are using Big Bird (or clips of him) in their ads against Romney....without permission from the Sesame Workshop. They have since requested the ad be removed, as they do not participate in such campaigns.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > But this isn't Jimmy Carter.  We've had the same on both sides for years, through Bush and Clinton one side was sure the incumbent was absolutely RUINING the county how could people NOT SEE IT!  It's just exactly the same, except now you think the only reason the other side can't see your point of view is because the president is black.
> ...



If he is implying that (and its not EXACTLY what he's saying) he's exactly wrong. It's politics, it's a way of trying to stop a candidate taking your voter block for granted. The NRA etc come out with the same type of stuff when a Republican is in office. Carter, by the way, got 86% of the black vote in 1980.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Did you just compare black people rallying behind the President to black people amalgamating into gangs? Classy.




No I didn't. Because it's not just blacks who "amalgamate" along racial/ethnic lines as gangs. Step into any prison and you'll soon become acquainted with the social arrangement of things, and not picking a side is not an option. And out on the street it's the same - white gangs (bikers, usually), black gangs, mexican gangs, vietnamese gangs. It goes back a long way ... italian mafia, KKK, etc. They do this because of some base and misguided instinct humans have of trusting "our own" more than "the others."

I would appreciate if you would refrain from attempting to be Chris Matthews, suggesting secret racist implications in the words of others in an attempt to score a few points. I'm trying to neutrally and honestly discuss race to the extent it may be a factor in influencing the extent to which people may be willing to 'look the other way' for Obama. It was being discussed in this thread already, and I ran across an article that was on-point and current, so I linked it. I also noted that it appeared to me the substantive content in the article did indeed support the conclusion that Obama being black does have an effect on the black community's level of support for him. The opinion content at the end of the article seems intended to defuse that.

Among black people I know, some friends some not, most have no more interest in politics than anyone else. But Obama can do no wrong. As I stated above, I think this is perfectly fine, and I do not judge this negatively as I see it as a normal thing that humans do. The problem is, it seems to be verboten to acknowledge that people are the way they are.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 14, 2012)

Is it not doublethink, by the way, for Romney and his supporters to be complaining about unemployment in one breath and then call the unemployed moochers in the next?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > Read that quote again from the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. They see the problems just fine. They're just not acting on them like they would if the president were white. That's exactly what he said.
> ...




Exactly, He's admitting they're shielding Obama (doesn't want to empower people who hate the president) where they would not have shielded Clinton but instead would have been "marching on the White House." You think the republicans didn't have animosity for Clinton? What is the reason the Congressional Black Caucus is willing to look the other way to shield Obama and not empower those who hate him, but would not have been willing to refrain similarly for Clinton's sake? What is the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus admitting is the distinction between Obama and Clinton that matters to the CBC?


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


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


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> > The answer to both questions may be the same number.
> 
> 
> 
> 'Most'?




No, it's a joke - the numerical answer to both questions is the same ----



How many Romney voters do you think are voting for him because he's white?

43,697

How many Mormon voters are voting for him because he's Mormon?

43,697


I dunno, it seemed kind of funny when I thought of it. Mormons, LOL.


----------



## zuron7 (Oct 14, 2012)




----------



## Lacius (Oct 14, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> No I didn't. Because it's not just blacks who "amalgamate" along racial/ethnic lines as gangs. Step into any prison and you'll soon become acquainted with the social arrangement of things, and not picking a side is not an option. And out on the street it's the same - white gangs (bikers, usually), black gangs, mexican gangs, vietnamese gangs. It goes back a long way ... italian mafia, KKK, etc. They do this because of some base and misguided instinct humans have of trusting "our own" more than "the others."
> 
> I would appreciate if you would refrain from attempting to be Chris Matthews, suggesting secret racist implications in the words of others in an attempt to score a few points. I'm trying to neutrally and honestly discuss race to the extent it may be a factor in influencing the extent to which people may be willing to 'look the other way' for Obama. It was being discussed in this thread already, and I ran across an article that was on-point and current, so I linked it. I also noted that it appeared to me the substantive content in the article did indeed support the conclusion that Obama being black does have an effect on the black community's level of support for him. The opinion content at the end of the article seems intended to defuse that.


I'm not stooping down to an ad hominem attack by calling you racist; however, you did say that black people rally behind Obama in the same way "gangs tend to assemble along racial lines." It was a very poor choice of words on your part and was, at the very least, inconsiderate (ignoring for a second that you have no evidence that your claim is accurate).



Hanafuda said:


> Exactly, He's admitting they're shielding Obama (doesn't want to empower people who hate the president) where they would not have shielded Clinton but instead would have been "marching on the White House." You think the republicans didn't have animosity for Clinton? What is the reason the Congressional Black Caucus is willing to look the other way to shield Obama and not empower those who hate him, but would not have been willing to refrain similarly for Clinton's sake? What is the Chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus admitting is the distinction between Obama and Clinton that matters to the CBC?


You apparently weren't able to understand the point I had to say about this statement by the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, so I'll clarify. He wasn't citing Obama's race as reason for why he would hypothetically rally behind Obama and not a hypothetical whiter president; he was citing the unprecedented animosity on the other side that many perceive to have racist undertones. To further clarify, he's not saying he's rallying behind Obama solely because he's black; he's rallying behind Obama because the other side allegedly hates him in part because he's black. Neither scenario exists in a hypothetical universe with a white president. Again, it's hard to argue that efforts to paint Obama as a Muslim Kenyan aren't racist.

All of this is ignoring the fact that what you're citing is baseless conjecture from one or two people who, as far as I know, are unable to hop universes to look at alternate realities. Your entire point is also moot in that both Al Gore and John Kerry received ~93-95% of the African-American vote, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say policy is a major factor.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 14, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > No I didn't. Because it's not just blacks who "amalgamate" along racial/ethnic lines as gangs. Step into any prison and you'll soon become acquainted with the social arrangement of things, and not picking a side is not an option. And out on the street it's the same - white gangs (bikers, usually), black gangs, mexican gangs, vietnamese gangs. It goes back a long way ... italian mafia, KKK, etc. They do this because of some base and misguided instinct humans have of trusting "our own" more than "the others."
> ...



Bullshit. This is what I said:



> I just think political correctness has hurt our ability to be honest with ourselves. That black people would want to see the first black president get re-elected, regardless of his record or competence, is completely understandable. The root of the emotion for feeling that way isn't much different than that guy with the "white" house t-shirt, but I think it's just a truth of human nature we're not going to evolve beyond for a long, long time. Why do you think gangs tend to assemble along racial lines? It's an issue of trust.




If "gang" = black to you, then it's you that has the problem, just the same as with Chris Matthews, for whom "food stamps" for some reason also = black. My quote above attributes a certain level of 'latent racism' to ALL human beings, all races. I'm speaking of something that operates on our psyche at an almost instinctive level, and motivates our social behavior in all activities. This  trait, though undesirable, is better if acknowledged openly than swept under the rug of denial. I am not, however, equating blacks who support Obama with street gangs (of any race), and you know it. The racial affiliation of street gangs is a more base, negative expression of this trait, grounded in fear. On the other hand, the tendency for the majority of blacks to support Obama more fervently than white democratic politicians (and that's the issue, not just who they vote for) is more akin to the same reason that the majority of all Americans still marry within their own race.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > What exactly are you trying to say? That food stamp recipients are actually financially well of? That their standard of living is actually better than those making $135k? What's the dollar equivalence of the food stamps, anyway?
> ...


Um, isn't $7,200/year for a whole family well below the poverty line? Did I miss something crucial?


----------



## leic7 (Oct 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > You're really saying _most_ black voters are only voting for Obama because he's black?
> ...


I think what the chairman meant was that they just didn't want to give the opponents additional ammunition for their attack campaigns. The president happens to be black, and they also happen to be black, so the optics of their organization protesting against the president would have a very high chance of being hijacked to be used in headlines such as this, "THE PRESIDENT IS SO BAD THAT EVEN HIS OWN RACE HAS TURNED AGAINST HIM. SEE?". They just didn't want that. I can understand this, because I can imagine if one of my parents was the head of a program that I happened to disagree with, I wouldn't want to be seen out marching and protesting against the program in the streets, despite the fact that I did oppose it. Because I could just imagine what the headlines in the papers would say the next morning... and I could frankly do without the drama, thank you very much.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 15, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIixGrSjKs8

Come on. See this "man" lies.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 15, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Um, isn't $7,200/year for a whole family well below the poverty line? Did I miss something crucial?



No the foodstamps (it's not really "stamps" anymore - you get a debit card) are just for buying food as a supplement to the income you're already receiving. A family of four (2 parents/2 kids, or 1 parent/3kids) can receive this assistance if their income is low - somewhere around $24k a year or less. It's tax free and theoretically only to be used to purchase food, so for those who are working fulltime at a low paying job, or for those who are temporarily unemployed, it's a nice boost and I'm glad they can get that help. But with almost 1/5th of all USA households getting them now (double from what it was 3 and 1/2 years ago), it's obviously no longer something that people resort to only when they're on hard times.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> If "gang" = black to you, then it's you that has the problem


Haha. By saying that black people rally behind Obama in the same way "gangs tend to assemble along racial lines," you're drawing a comparison between black Obama supporters and gangs. I'm not saying you meant anything racist by it, but as I already said, it was at least a very poor choice of words. I find it funny when conservatives say or do something stupid and try to use the "I'm rubber; you're glue" defense. Republicans try to destroy Medicare? They respond by saying Democrats are the ones trying to destroy Medicare. The Republican Party and the Tea Party have an image of racism? They respond by saying Obama is actually the racist one who hates white people. I can't say this was unexpected. Just admit that you misspoke, I'll admit that you're probably not a racist, and we'll move on to topics that actually have substance.



Hanafuda said:


> just the same as with Chris Matthews, for whom "food stamps" for some reason also = black.


Are you referencing Chris Matthews' reporting on Newt Gingrich singling out the black community in saying they should "demand paychecks instead of food stamps"? It seems to me like Newt Gingrich is the one who drew the comparison here.



Hanafuda said:


> I am not, however, equating blacks who support Obama with street gangs (of any race)


When you first said it, you said black people rally behind Obama for the same reason "gangs tend to assemble along racial lines;" you're saying the two are equivalent. Sorry, bro.



Hanafuda said:


> On the other hand, the tendency for the majority of blacks to support Obama more fervently than white democratic politicians (and that's the issue, not just who they vote for)


I'd like to see some real evidence of this, especially when Al Gore and John Kerry received roughly the same percentage of black voter support as Barack Obama. I know you conservatives like to ignore the numbers when they don't agree with your point, but them's the facts. Your entire argument is based one thing that one guy said, and I've already shown that you're misrepresenting the quote to fit your narrative.



Hanafuda said:


> is more akin to the same reason that the majority of all Americans still marry within their own race.


You're comparing apples and oranges, Hanafuda. While we've already outlined a few of the reasons why African-Americans are more likely to vote for Obama or any other Democrat (policy positions, alleged race-based animosity against Obama, etc), interracial marriage in America has to do with things like compatible cultural background, socioeconomic status, linguistic pragmatics, sexual attraction, etc. There's no way you can compare the two.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 15, 2012)

Lacius said:


> You're comparing apples and oranges, Hanafuda. While we've already outlined a few of the reasons why African-Americans are more likely to vote for Obama or any other Democrat (policy positions, alleged race-based animosity against Obama, etc), interracial marriage in America has to do with things like compatible cultural background, socioeconomic status, linguistic pragmatics, sexual attraction, etc. There's no way you can compare the two.




I just did.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > You're comparing apples and oranges, Hanafuda. While we've already outlined a few of the reasons why African-Americans are more likely to vote for Obama or any other Democrat (policy positions, alleged race-based animosity against Obama, etc), interracial marriage in America has to do with things like compatible cultural background, socioeconomic status, linguistic pragmatics, sexual attraction, etc. There's no way you can compare the two.
> ...



And you just completely missed the point.


----------



## Valwin (Oct 15, 2012)

Romney say that if the people of puertorico  vote for statehood this November  and he becomes president that he would help us achieve it  and well i dint really like the guy but he just won me over


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 15, 2012)

Gahars said:


> And you just completely missed the point.



I've not missed anything. We disagree, and Lacius likes to attribute insidious intent to the words of others when none was stated. What else is new?

Good night, fellas.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 15, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Romney say that if the people of puertorico  vote for statehood this November  and he becomes president that he would help us achieve it  and well i dint really like the guy but he just won me over



That's what I call a politician's promise. I'd advise you to take it with a huge grain of salt in preparation for the off chance he doesn't do it because he thinks you guys will re-elect him, or he's just lying.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2012)

Valwin said:


> Romney say that if the people of puertorico  vote for statehood this November  and he becomes president that he would help us achieve it  and well i dint really like the guy but he just won me over


Obama also vows support for Puerto Rico if they vote for statehood. He is also the first U.S. president to make an official state visit to Puerto Rico since 1961.



Hanafuda said:


> I've not missed anything.


If the above is any indication, you apparently missed my entire point. By saying "I just did" and not responding to any of my valid points on why your comparison of black support for Obama and interracial marriage was a false one, you're essentially putting your fingers in your ears and screaming. I'd like to actually hear why you think black voters pick Obama for the same reason that a person picks his or her spouse. According to you, that "same reason" is race. According to data, black voters pick Obama because of policy, and people often times pick their spouses due to the reasons I listed above. I know you conservatives don't like to be specific, but what you're saying sounds like a "bunch of stuff" that you've arbitrarily decided to believe.



Hanafuda said:


> We disagree, and Lacius likes to attribute insidious intent to the words of others when none was stated.


Ignoring for a moment that what you said undeniably pointed to an equivalence between black people rallying behind Obama and gangs "tending to assemble along racial lines," I'm pretty sure I made it a point to say numerous times that I don't think it was insidious intent on your part. You should probably Google what it means to say "poor choice of words" and "inconsiderate."


----------



## Valwin (Oct 15, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > Romney say that if the people of puertorico  vote for statehood this November  and he becomes president that he would help us achieve it  and well i dint really like the guy but he just won me over
> ...



yes he did as he did back in 2008 and did nothing to push anything in congress he comes here to Get money and leaves


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2012)

Valwin said:


> yes he did as he did back in 2008 and did nothing to push anything in congress he comes here to Get money and leaves


Until Puerto Ricans vote for it, I'm not sure what you expect him to "push through Congress." It should also be noted that the President's Task Force on Puerto Rico has advocated for these votes, among other things.


----------



## Valwin (Oct 15, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Valwin said:
> 
> 
> > yes he did as he did back in 2008 and did nothing to push anything in congress he comes here to Get money and leaves
> ...



he could have push some projects that were in congress in order to resolve the issue


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2012)

Valwin said:


> he could have push some projects that were in congress in order to resolve the issue


Could you be a little more specific? I'm not that informed about what's currently going on with Puerto Rico.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > Um, isn't $7,200/year for a whole family well below the poverty line? Did I miss something crucial?
> ...


So...you don't have a problem with the parts of the food stamp program that benefit people who are eligible for it, correct? You only have issues with the parts where the program seems to benefit those who aren't eligible, right?

I just did a quick google on food stamp fraud, my findings all seem to point to a fraud rate of 1%* of the overall program. Is this 1% fraud rate what you've been talking about all this time?

Just to put it into perspective, I googled US military spending, didn't look much further than Wikipedia, but it appears the entire food program would cost as much as roughly 10% of the military budget. If that 1% of waste of 10% of the military expenditure (~0.1% of military expenditure) is what you've been spending that much energy on, aren't there other things that are more worthy of attention that could potentially save taxpayers much more than 0.1% of the military expenditure?


* http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/fraud/fraud_2.htm


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 15, 2012)

leic7 said:


> I just did a quick google on food stamp fraud, my findings all seem to point to a fraud rate of 1%* of the overall program. Is this 1% fraud rate what you've been talking about all this time?



It's only "fraud" if you get caught _and_ they prove it. Until you get caught _and_ convicted, you're just another one of the 47 million people receiving food stamps. In other words, there is no way to put a percentage on the amount of actual food stamp fraud that's going on. If they're catching and actually convicting 1% of recipients, then what percentage aren't getting caught?? Somewhere above, when I was asked to 'provide sources,' I posted a link to a forum discussion where it was asked as a poll, did you lie to receive food stamps? 16% answered yes.* And that's just the ones who were willing to admit it. I also posted a link showing where US universities are openly encouraging students to apply for foodstamps regardless of their socioeconomic background (i.e. even if their parents, upon whom they are still dependents, are 'rich').


*edit: Also, I just noticed that the link you provided defines fraud as the exchange of foodstamps for cash. That's not what I've been talking about, so that 1% number, even if it were accurate (which i doubt) wouldn't apply. That's also consistent with what I was saying above, that government agencies don't put as much effort into checking whether recipients are being truthful as most citizens would think. They define fraud as illegally exchanging foodstamps already issued for cash, so that's what they are trying to catch. 

And, it's not like all the 'fraud' going on is just people getting foodstamps who never would/should qualify for benefits. That's probably rather rare, and fairly easy to catch. It's more likely that the majority of cases are resulting from exaggeration - a person who does qualify for some level of food stamp benefits, but fudges their income numbers so they can get even more.

Here's an interesting government chart showing the history of food stamp program participation going back to 1971. Check out the spike in participation numbers and cost over the last few years.

http://www.fns.usda....SNAPsummary.htm


----------



## Gahars (Oct 15, 2012)

Welp, made my first campaign donation today. It wasn't a whole lot, but hey, it's the thought that counts.


----------



## Flame (Oct 15, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Welp, made my first campaign donation today. It wasn't a whole lot, but hey, it's the thought that counts.



which party.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 15, 2012)

Flame said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > Welp, made my first campaign donation today. It wasn't a whole lot, but hey, it's the thought that counts.
> ...



A quick glance at my past posts should give you a pretty good idea.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 15, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> It's only "fraud" if you get caught _and_ they prove it. Until you get caught _and_ convicted, you're just another one of the 47 million people receiving food stamps. In other words, there is no way to put a percentage on the amount of actual food stamp fraud that's going on. If they're catching and actually convicting 1% of recipients, then what percentage aren't getting caught??


You do realize there is no evidence of food stamp fraud beyond the 1% cited above, yes? You're essentially arguing that because you arbitrarily think it could possibly be more that there's a food stamp fraud problem (and that it warrants cutting $134 billion from the program?). This is the voter fraud debate all over again. Despite the fact that there's virtually no evidence of in-person voter fraud, you've arbitrarily decided that there actually is in-person voter fraud.



Hanafuda said:


> Somewhere above, when I was asked to 'provide sources,' I posted a link to a forum discussion where it was asked as a poll, did you lie to receive food stamps? 16% answered yes.


Your entire basis for this argument is a poll where 24 people said they lie in order to get food stamps. Both because of the number of people polled and the selective-sampling (it was a convenience poll where people self-selected themselves to participate), the poll you cited does not constitute as proper random sampling. That's why you don't hear about this 16% anywhere.



Hanafuda said:


> And that's just the ones who were willing to admit it. I also posted a link showing where US universities are openly encouraging students to apply for foodstamps regardless of their socioeconomic background (i.e. even if their parents, upon whom they are still dependents, are 'rich').


The universities did not explicitly ask for students who still receive money from rich families to apply for food stamps. And even if they had, so what? A bad recommendation from a university would not invalidate the program.



Hanafuda said:


> It's more likely that the majority of cases are resulting from exaggeration


I'd like to see some evidence of this, because that's a pretty bold claim.



Hanafuda said:


> Here's an interesting government chart showing the history of food stamp program participation going back to 1971. Check out the spike in participation numbers and cost over the last few years.
> 
> http://www.fns.usda....SNAPsummary.htm


It's almost as if there had been an economic recession.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 16, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > I just did a quick google on food stamp fraud, my findings all seem to point to a fraud rate of 1%* of the overall program. Is this 1% fraud rate what you've been talking about all this time?
> ...



To keep things in perspective, do you understand that the military's expenditure is much larger than SNAP expenditure? You don't know what percentage of SNAP recipients cheat by fudging their numbers to get more money, do you know what percentage of the military's funding has been obtained by contractors who cheat and fudge their numbers to get more than what they deserve? If the same unknown percentage of fraud exists in both programs, the military's frauds would cost taxpayers much more than the SNAP frauds, because of the sheer size of the military's expenses: 1% fraud in defense contracts is worth quite a few times more than 1% fraud in SNAP. Therefore, it makes economical sense to pay at least as much attention to the military's spending as to SNAP spending.

I'm glad that you're concerned about the possible misuse of public money, but I find it strange that you'd choose to focus a disproportionate amount of attention on a relatively "small potato". Why is that? Meanwhile, the Department of Defense had awarded almost $400 billion of contracts over a 10 year period to companies AFTER these very companies had been caught and convicted of defrauding DOD (http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=57672667-8958-44d9-936e-074de29f9be3). $400 billion was the TOTAL expenses incurred by the food program over that same period. And that's just the money given to companies with a documented history of fraud, how much more money has been given to other companies that have never been caught? Are you concerned about the honesty of these seemingly innocent contractors with clean track records, the same way you're concerned about those seemingly innocent food stamp recipients with clean records? You should be.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 16, 2012)

Well, it looks like Obama may have God on his side after all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nUDg-O93GU


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 16, 2012)

Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. _I'm voting for change_ come November.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. _I'm voting for change_ come November.


The last few years have likely been the worst few years for everyone; that's because we were in a recession. That doesn't mean the economy isn't recovering. Romney's economic plan is to give tax breaks for the rich, which is one of the weakest ways to stimulate the economy; Romney would also have to accomplish this by exploding the deficit or increasing taxes on the middle class. Obama's recovery plans actually improve the economy.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 16, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Welp, made my first campaign donation today. It wasn't a whole lot, but hey, it's the thought that counts.


With that alone,sadly :/, you are now supporting more than me.
Good job!



SickPuppy said:


> Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. _I'm voting for change_ come November.


Then didn't vote lying flip flopping Mitt Robme because he going to bring it back (aka no change) to things that cause this mess in the first place and possibly much worse.


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 16, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> SickPuppy said:
> 
> 
> > Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. _I'm voting for change_ come November.
> ...



Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.



Lacius said:


> SickPuppy said:
> 
> 
> > Financially, the last few years have been the worst for me. If I hadn't paid off the mortgage on my house about 5 years ago, I'd have probably lost it. _I'm voting for change_ come November.
> ...


I'm sorry, I don't follow pre-election television, aint nothing but a bunch of campaign promises. And you know how those go. _Obama's recovery plans_? Haven't seen anything yet from this guy.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.


It was the policies of life-long Republicans that got us into this recession in the first place.



SickPuppy said:


> _Obama's recovery plans_? Haven't seen anything yet from this guy.


Then you might want to check out my link to the effects of Obama's stimulus.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 16, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.



Why I'm trying get a Star Wars reference out of this? 

You are basically saying you want worse for yourself and voting lies even when you was giving
warnings,  you do know that right?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> SickPuppy said:
> 
> 
> > Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.
> ...




No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 16, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.



Why can't you just leave gracefully? Parting shots like this are kinda immature IMO. What would you think of politicians if they acted this way in a televised debate?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 16, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.
> ...




You mean like Joe Biden last week??? LOL

That wasn't a 'parting shot.' I'm just tired of trying to have a discussion when you guys are trying to have an indoctrination session. Not to mention that I got told above that I'm "_probably_ not a racist" in a post that was supposed to be about _my_ poor choice of words.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 16, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...



Umm, I haven't taken much part in the discussions thus far, and I've agreed with you on several different things. As a person who's mostly followed the discussions, I just call it like I see it, whether people like it or not. Indoctrination accusations are a bit of a stretch. The poor choice of words accusation not so much. I also think you're missing the point of a _debate_. That's where two or more people present points of differing views on the same subject in order to convince other just who's more right. Indoctrination? Hardly. You're both fighting to get others to see your point of view as the most right. You can't accuse others of such things in a debate without pointing at yourself as well (since you willingly participated).

As for Biden, I think he's a putz. I don't get cable TV, nor do I care enough about the vice president to pay attention to pointless debates.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> Your words have no meaning to me, I'm a life long Republican. Go rattle somebody else's chain that will listen to you.


You're basically saying, "I will not change my views no matter what evidence is presented to me," which means you've started with a conclusion rather than a hypothesis and aren't being objective. I would never say, "Your words have no meaning to me because I'm a life-long liberal." My political ideology is based entirely on the evidence; if I'm presented with valid opposing evidence, then my political views will change accordingly.



Hanafuda said:


> No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.


Just saying, "My eyes are open and you are wrong" isn't very substantive and does nothing to support one's views. As I mentioned already, all this accomplishes is conveying the fact that one isn't objective.



Hanafuda said:


> You mean like Joe Biden last week??? LOL


What Sterling was probably getting at was that your "You guys can go on telling each other how right you are" comment was a sarcastic parting shot that lacked substance. The difference between you and Joe Biden is that Joe Biden called Paul Ryan out on his lies and lack of specifics and was able to back it up. "You guys can go on telling each other how right you are" implies that we aren't actually right and we're just telling each other that we are, but that's a pretty bold statement not to support with a shred of evidence, which is why it's a parting shot.



Hanafuda said:


> That wasn't a 'parting shot.' I'm just tired of trying to have a discussion when you guys are trying to have an indoctrination session.


When you make a baseless claim that's also a sarcastic parting shot, like you did and Joe Biden didn't, it's difficult to respond to that other than saying "Um, no?" So in this specific instance, no, you're not trying to have a discussion; you're just trying to elicit an emotional response without providing anything of substance to respond to. You think we're just a bunch of people who are wrong but get comfort from getting on the internet and telling each other that we're actually right? Cool. Back that up.



Hanafuda said:


> Not to mention that I got told above that I'm "_probably_ not a racist" in a post that was supposed to be about _my_ poor choice of words.


Despite the fact that you compared black people supporting President Obama to gangs "tending to assemble along racial lines," I said you're probably not a racist because it seemed like just a poor choice of words with no malicious intent behind the example. A simple "thank you" would have sufficed, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and should have said you probably are a racist.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 16, 2012)

Things must be going pretty bad for Obama if he is willing to now blame Democrats other than himself for the bad things that are happening right now. Hillary Clinton responsible for the Libya attacks? This blame game has gone on long enough.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Things must be going pretty bad for Obama if he is willing to now blame Democrats other than himself for the bad things that are happening right now. Hillary Clinton responsible for the Libya attacks? This blame game has gone on long enough.


Could you give me a source that shows Obama actually assigning blame to Hillary Clinton or any other Democrat?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 16, 2012)

Lacius said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > Things must be going pretty bad for Obama if he is willing to now blame Democrats other than himself for the bad things that are happening right now. Hillary Clinton responsible for the Libya attacks? This blame game has gone on long enough.
> ...



You know, a confirmation doesn't require having to open one's mouth, and that is what Obama did this morning in Virginia when a reporter asked if Hillary Clinton was to blame for Benghazi. If she wasn't to blame, then you'd think that he would have said so, right? A simple "no" would have sufficed, since he was talking candidly to the reporter before that question was brought up.

But you know this is going to pop up in tonight's debate, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> You know, a confirmation doesn't require having to open one's mouth, and that is what Obama did this morning in Virginia when a reporter asked if Hillary Clinton was to blame for Benghazi. If she wasn't to blame, then you'd think that he would have said so, right? A simple "no" would have sufficed, since he was talking candidly to the reporter before that question was brought up.
> 
> But you know this is going to pop up in tonight's debate, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.


It wasn't exactly a real interview, let alone an interview with the time required to talk about that kind of thing, haha:



The fact that the question was in response to Hillary Clinton saying she's responsible for the security of American diplomatic outposts means it's not going to be a simple "yes" or "no" answer.

Also, as you already mentioned, there's a debate tonight.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 16, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> No, he's "basically saying" his eyes are open. You guys can go on telling each other how right you are. Have fun.


If his eyes are open then he would see that Obama is actually is helping this country, despite Mitt trying to cover up that fact.
If his eyes are open then he would see that Romney is nothing,but lies. Lies on lies on top of lies and even top of more lies.
If his eyes are open then he would see that Obama actually cares about this country and the people, not just 1%.
If his eyes are open then he would see that Romney is going to bring us back (possibly worse) from the state we trying to leave.

If voting for someone like Romney for his numerous on a whim lies to just get his way and not caring for the less fortunate is having his eyes open then I didn't want to see what he would do with his eyes closed.


----------



## Jakob95 (Oct 16, 2012)

I honestly doing want Puerto Rico to be a state of the U.S because then it will be weird having 51 states...  I think 50 states sound better, and where are we going to fit that extra star on the flag?


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 16, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> If his eyes are open then he would see that Romney is going to bring us back (possibly worse) from the state we trying to leave.



Crystal balls are not allowed here!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2012)

Jakob95 said:


> I honestly doing want Puerto Rico to be a state of the U.S because then it will be weird having 51 states...  I think 50 states sound better, and where are we going to fit that extra star on the flag?


I don't know if you're being serious or not, but that made me chuckle. I should also point out that we already have flags drawn up with 51 states, 52 states, etc.



DiscostewSM said:


> Crystal balls are not allowed here!


There's a difference between soothsaying and understanding how policy positions would affect the United States economy.


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 16, 2012)

I gotta learn to stay out of threads like this.

I don't like either of the candidates, but since I swing to the republican side then that's where my vote is. My vote is based on the 2nd Admendment, and the current Democrat fails in that department. What? What are you talking about sickpuppy? Obama fails? Obama as a senator, before he was president, is very much for all types of gun control and his track record in the senate proves it, may as well call Obama "George Soros's b*tch", with all the campaign donations he's taken from that guy over the years. All that crap you see in the media now is nothing by campaign lies, from both sides. Don't base your vote on campaign lies.

I have nothing more to say in this thread.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 16, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> I gotta learn to stay out of threads like this.


No one is asking you to debate.



SickPuppy said:


> My vote is based on the 2nd Amendment  and the current Democrat fails in that department. What? What are you talking about sickpuppy? Obama fails? Obama as a senator, before he was president, is very much for all types of gun control and his track record in the senate proves it


President Obama has no plans to repeal the Second Amendment. In reality, Obama has been in favor of banning the sale of assault weapons and requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows  which is far from wanting to take your guns away. I don't think anyone needs an assault weapon, and I think anyone buying a gun should have to submit to a background check; it seems like common sense to me. Again, this is far from wanting to take away your right to bear arms.

It should also be noted that as President, all Obama has done involving gun rights (as far as I know) is sign laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons at places like national parks, etc. What more do you want?



SickPuppy said:


> with all the campaign donations he's taken from that guy over the years.


So what?



SickPuppy said:


> All that crap you see in the media now is nothing by campaign lies, from both sides. Don't base your vote on campaign lies.


I agree that one shouldn't base his or her vote on campaign lies, but that's far from being able to say that everything you see in the media is a lie.

*Edit:*

On an unrelated note, check out this website for details on the Romney-Ryan tax plan.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2012)

Lacius said:


> President Obama has no plans to repeal the Second Amendment. In reality, Obama has been in favor of banning the sale of assault weapons and requiring background checks for buyers at gun shows  which is far from wanting to take your guns away. I don't think anyone needs an assault weapon, and I think anyone buying a gun should have to submit to a background check; it seems like common sense to me. Again, this is far from wanting to take away your right to bear arms.



What's an assault weapon? What does NEED have to do with it?


edit:
Oh and by the way for anyone gullible enough to trust one of Lacius's links, that one above "for details about romney's tax plan" is actually a DNC site disguised as a Romney campaign site. Sneaky B.S.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> I gotta learn to stay out of threads like this.
> 
> I don't like either of the candidates, but since I swing to the republican side then that's where my vote is. My vote is based on the 2nd Admendment, and the current Democrat fails in that department. What? What are you talking about sickpuppy? Obama fails? Obama as a senator, before he was president, is very much for all types of gun control and his track record in the senate proves it, may as well call Obama "George Soros's b*tch", with all the campaign donations he's taken from that guy over the years. All that crap you see in the media now is nothing by campaign lies, from both sides. Don't base your vote on campaign lies.
> 
> I have nothing more to say in this thread.


edit: Forgot to mention that I didn't know much about that, but this video still holds


Well then, let's ask Romney.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 17, 2012)

ZOMG! The debate tonight was amazing!


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> What's an assault weapon? What does NEED have to do with it?


According to Wikipedia, an assault weapon is a weapon that is "designed for rapidly firing at human targets from close range." Not to politicize it, but I can't think of any reason why someone would need an assault weapon unless they plan on doing mass damage. Assault weapons used to be banned before the ban expired in 2004, and it caused a drop in assault weapon crimes by 66%.



Hanafuda said:


> Oh and by the way for anyone gullible enough to trust one of Lacius's links, that one above "for details about romney's tax plan" is actually a DNC site disguised as a Romney campaign site. Sneaky B.S.


Two seconds on the website and anyone will realize that it's not a Romney campaign site; it's not meant to be deceptive. It is meant to be both funny and informative.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 17, 2012)

Let's just all agreed that Romney got "murked" tonight!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1H6SanVXcM

...Epic Pwnage!


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > What's an assault weapon? What does NEED have to do with it?
> ...




By that definition, practically any semi-automatic firearm is an 'assault weapon.' Even some not semi-automatic weapons can meet that definition ... pump shotguns, lever action rifles, and revolvers, for example. (I assume you do understand that the 'assault weapon ban' had nothing to do with fully automatic weapons, i.e. machine guns, right?)

Here's what can be done with an 1873 Winchester rifle.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOsQ9eDO3TE

Wikipedia also says that "assault weapon" is a political term. In other words, there is no objective definition.

And, not that it really matters to the issue that much, but (also from wikipedia) ...




> The





> United States Department of JusticeNational Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.


 


So, what exactly is it that you want to ban? And again, what difference does it make whether anyone "needs" it?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Let's just all agreed that Romney got "murked" tonight!
> 
> (youtube)
> 
> ...



I did go back and read the transcript from 09/12. The President never really referred to the Benghazi incident the day before as an act of terror, but there was this sentence near the end of the speech, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for." It was a general statement, in reference to generic, hypothetical acts of terror, but the words are there. His claim to labeling the Benghazi incident as a terror attack on 09/12, particularly in light of all the administrations commentary for the next 9 days or so after that, is iffy at best. But, he was ready with the gotcha, and Romney bit.

What I find really interesting though, is the moderator was ready for that gotcha, too. Very ready.

It was certainly a more interesting debate than the last. And Obama certainly did better this time around. I guess you can see it your way, I can see it mine. I think Romney came away with the strongest and most persuasive pitch to the public on the economy.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 17, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> So, what exactly is it that you want to ban? And again, what difference does it make whether anyone "needs" it?


I think you're being a little disingenuous here. They made it clear in the debate what they meant by "assault weapons" were things like AK47, weapons that soldiers on the battlefield would use. And "need" makes a world of difference, actually, because a weapon that's capable of mass destruction is potentially dangerous to everyone around it.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > So, what exactly is it that you want to ban? And again, what difference does it make whether anyone "needs" it?
> ...




Lacius' original comment about assault weapons was before the debate. And soldiers in combat use fully automatic Ak47's, M-16's, and other full auto rifles. The AR-15 (civilian version of the M16) and the AK-47's available to the public in the USA are semi-automatic, the same as most hunting rifles.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 17, 2012)

Alright, guys, I know these political tumbles get heated and all, but we should probably stay away from the direct personal insults here.


We can keep it civil, right?


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> By that definition, practically any semi-automatic firearm is an 'assault weapon.' Even some not semi-automatic weapons can meet that definition ... pump shotguns, lever action rifles, and revolvers, for example.


I gave a general definition in order to make a general point about the lack of need for assault weapons that cause mass damage. The text of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban does a better job defining assault weapons than my brief definition from Wikipedia, so I refer you to that or what was said during the debate.



Hanafuda said:


> And, not that it really matters to the issue that much, but (also from wikipedia) ...
> 
> 
> > The United States Department of JusticeNational Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.


No, you're right; it doesn't matter that much. That source is from 2004 when, in Miami for example, assault weapons were used in only about 4% of all homicides, probably due in part to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Now in Miami, for example, assault weapons are used in about 12% of all homicides.

Did I say that banning assault weapons would substantially decrease gun violence in the United States? No, a lot of gun violence is unavoidable without outright banning guns in the United States, which I do not advocate. However, there is no reason for someone to have an assault weapon other than to commit crime and cause mass damage, and banning assault weapons would have a significant affect on violence caused by assault weapons.



Hanafuda said:


> So, what exactly is it that you want to ban? And again, what difference does it make whether anyone "needs" it?


See leic7's post. But suffice it to say, if the only purpose of X (assault weapons) is Y (mass damage), and Y is the thing that we want to prevent, then it is only logical to ban X.



Hanafuda said:


> It was a general statement, in reference to generic, hypothetical acts of terror, but the words are there.


No, it was in reference to the violence in Benghazi. That's what he was talking about. Why would he talk about the attack in Benghazi only to talk about something completely unrelated?



> No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.


It's pretty self-explanatory.



Hanafuda said:


> What I find really interesting though, is the moderator was ready for that gotcha, too. Very ready.


It's arguably the moderator's job to fact-check what's said on stage. It also takes seconds to CTRL+F the word "terror," the specific claim Romney made.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2012)

I disagree that it's the moderator's job to provide on-the-spot fact checking. The job is to moderate. In this case, there was a specific and limiting description of what the moderator would do, agreed to by the campaigns _and_ Ms. Crowley:

"The moderator will not ... intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or to enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period"

Clearly, by interjecting the way she did, she didn't follow that. That didn't surprise me. What did surprise me is that after the debate, she said that Romney was correct on the point he was trying to make, that the administration did blame the youtube video for the attack for 2 weeks after it happened (and, BTW, that guy who made that video - still sitting in jail). She just says what I said above ... Obama had a gotcha ready for this, focused on the fact that he did use the word 'terror' in the speech on Sept 12, and Romney walked into it.

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


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I disagree that it's the moderator's job to provide on-the-spot fact checking. The job is to moderate. In this case, there was a specific and limiting description of what the moderator would do, agreed to by the campaigns _and_ Ms. Crowley:
> 
> "The moderator will not ... intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or to enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period"


That's exactly why I said it's "arguably" the moderator's job to fact-check, especially when it's something that's a matter of record (a transcript) and the moderator is explicitly asked to check the transcript by one of the candidates.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 17, 2012)

Well, here the whole video.



This doesn't have a misleading title or cut off too early.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 17, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Lacius said:
> 
> 
> > DiscostewSM said:
> ...


* Obama Takes Responsibility for Libya*

* http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443624204578061050764229738.html*


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 17, 2012)

The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.


----------



## emigre (Oct 17, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.









He's just making sure the dish was clean.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 17, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.



Well, let's be fair here: he's a fan of Ayn Rand. The Soup Kitchen isn't exactly his natural environment.


----------



## Valwin (Oct 17, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.



he seem like a good guy


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 17, 2012)

Gahars said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.
> ...



I'm still not sure how the GOP can square the circle of worshiping both Jesus and Ayn Rand, religion hating atheist who called religious faith the "worst curse of mankind"


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 17, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> * Obama Takes Responsibility for Libya*
> 
> * http://online.wsj.co...0764229738.html*



Glad to hear it. I had enough of him blaming other people. But seriously, this is good. Him willing to admit to this makes him more trustworthy imo.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2012)

emigre said:


> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> > The video of Ryan barging in to a soup kitchen, pretending to wash a clean dish for a photo op and then fucking off again is one of the cringe-making things I've seen.
> ...




He did wash dirty dishes.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/16/14485409-ryan-did-wash-dirty-dishes-during-soup-kitchen-visit?lite



> Amid questions and criticisms related to Paul Ryan’s visit this weekend to an Ohio soup kitchen, the charity’s president said the Republican vice presidential candidate did, in fact, scrub dirty dishes though his visit wasn’t officially sanctioned.





1) pretty pitiful forced photo-op. not as bad as Biden with the biker skank though.
2) all politicians pull these stunts for the camera. Sometimes looks good, sometimes not, almost always fake either way. Yes, Obama too.
3) is this the most important thing the news media can come up with to report on? How about Obama claiming the other day that, "We got back every dime" of the financial system bailout, but CBO reported the same day that the end cost to the government (i.e. the taxpayers who funded the bailouts) will be $24 billion, and that as of now a total $65 billion of the funds needing to be repaid are still outstanding. I keep hearing about how Romney lies, but when Obama blows one out of the park, all we hear is crickets from NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, etc.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-we-got-back-every-dime-bailout-cbo-bailout-will-lose-24-billion


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 17, 2012)

Well the one in the video doesn't look like it's been used for cooking - the guy quoted wasn't there and was passing on what a member of staff told him, now he's going back on it.  Sounds very much like he's been leaned on to me.

But you're right, there are much more important things to concentrate on that his PR stunts, such as Ryan's abhorrent political positions.



> , "We got back every dime" of the financial system bailout, but CBO reported the same day that the end cost to the government (i.e. the taxpayers who funded the bailouts) will be $24 billion, and that as of now a total $65 billion of the funds needing to be repaid are still outstanding. I keep hearing about how Romney lies, but when Obama blows one out of the park, all we hear is crickets from NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, etc.




Wait a second



> “The cost to the federal government of the TARP’s transactions (also referred to as the subsidy cost), including grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made, will amount to $24 billion,” said the CBO report, which was released on the same day Obama spoke.



Isn't this just looking at TARP, a Bush project started in 2008? ie, not the bailout that Obama is responsible for?

http://en.wikipedia...._Relief_Program

Isn't the Obama bail out this one, which is reported to be actually making money?

http://finance.fortu...-is-paying-off/


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> How about Obama claiming the other day that, "We got back every dime" of the financial system bailout, but CBO reported the same day that the end cost to the government (i.e. the taxpayers who funded the bailouts) will be $24 billion


The $24 billion you're talking about refers to the subsidy costs, which includes grants for mortgage programs that have not yet been made (to help homeowners restructure their mortgages, for example); it's also $8 billion less than previously estimated. Suffice it to say, it is correct that we got back "every dime" of the actual financial bailouts, and that's why you don't see this news outside (more or less) conservative conspiracy theory websites. However, I'd like to look at the bigger point you tried to make:



Hanafuda said:


> I keep hearing about how Romney lies, but when Obama blows one out of the park, all we hear is crickets from NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, etc.


Am I claiming that President Obama never fudges the truth? No, I'm not claiming that. For example, President Obama embellished the truth by exaggerating Mitt Romney's position to strip federal funding for PBS and saying Romney would "fire Big Bird." However, there is a very big difference between sometimes embellishing the truth, something every political candidate in history is likely guilty of doing, and flat-out lying, something Romney has been shown to be guilty of again and again. When it comes to lies, the two candidates are incomparable. Governor Romney's campaign is based on lies:

Romney claims he would lower the deficit, which is a lie.
Romney claims Obama has doubled the deficit, which is a lie.
Romney claims he would create 12 million jobs, which is a lie.
Romney claims the economy hasn't gotten better under Obama, which is a lie.
Romney claims his health care plan would still, among other things, cover people with pre-existing conditions after repealing Obamacare, which is a lie.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2012)

Interesting reading in Bluestar's link to the CNNMoney analysis of the overall bailouts picture. But where it interprets the whole of the bailouts to be profitable in the long run, that's inclusive of all the bailouts going back to 2007, so it is fair to include TARP in the mix. Still, its new information that I wasn't aware of ... although I don't see how you can call interest payments made by the treasury to the fed on loans the fed made to the treasury as pure profit. 

Lacius, I wasn't directing that specifically at you. I know you'll acknowledge a lying politician when its plain to see, regardless of who said it. That said though, if all you're gonna use as sources for  supporting your accusations re: Romney is barackobama.com and rachel maddow's blog, you're not likely to convince me. That whole "5 trillion dollar tax cut" thing, for instance, is flat bogus, but Obama's campaign keeps beating on it like a drum. Besides the fact that the 5 trillion number is based on extending his proposed tax cuts over 10 years (he can only be president a max of 8 years), the offset resulting from closing off deductions and loopholes currently enjoyed by the wealthy gets ignored. When Stephanie Cutter was confronted by this on CNN, she admitted the 5 trillion number was not accurate. She ended up conceding that the offsets still fell 1 trillion short - and that's over 10 years. Is it not possible that the positive effects on the economy over 10 years time couldn't offset that remaining 1 trillion??? It's debatable, but what is sure is that it's the Obama campaign that's lying with that 5 trillion baloney, over and over again. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTL9PB1oiF0

Most of what I see called "Romney's lies" turn out to be disagreements over campaign promises and the expected effects of one policy vs. another, or mild distortions of statements he's made. The 47 percent thing, for instance, is a glaring example - Romney said he wasn't going to worry about the 47% _in his campaign strategy_ because his message of lower taxes and reducing dependency on government wasn't going to be received well by the segment of the population (47%) that are currently receiving government benefits and paying no income taxes, and so there was no point in campaigning to those people to get them to change their vote. That's very  different from saying he "writes them off" or "doesn't give a shit" about that segment of the population - he says he wants the number of Americans who are dependent on the government to shrink, but acknowledged that for this election cycle, there was no point in putting effort into persuading those people to vote for him. I think he's mostly right about that. He also made some general remarks about the 'dependent class' type of people who abuse the generosity of the various entitlement programs to avoid taking "personal responsibility and care for their lives." He's right that such people exist, and in large numbers, but it was wrong to attribute those general arguments against the whole of the "47%" and he came back afterwards and said so.   

I'm sure they're both lying, quite a large percentage of the time, depending on your perspective and what you consider a lie. It's like a choice between a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with lots of ketchup.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 17, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> That said though, if all you're gonna use as sources for  supporting your accusations re: Romney is barackobama.com and rachel maddow's blog, you're not likely to convince me.


Most, if not all, of the numerical data my sources provide that support the idea that Mitt Romney is a liar comes from nonpartisan sources like the Congressional Budget Office, a source you were perfectly willing to cite when you thought it supported your point of view. If you remain unconvinced, it's either because a.) You have nonpartisan evidence to the contrary that I (and people like me) have yet to see, or b.) You aren't being objective. Sorry to be blunt, bro.



Hanafuda said:


> That whole "5 trillion dollar tax cut" thing, for instance, is flat bogus, but Obama's campaign keeps beating on it like a drum. Besides the fact that the 5 trillion number is based on extending his proposed tax cuts over 10 years (he can only be president a max of 8 years)


Ignoring what you claim would offset that $5 trillion in tax breaks for a moment, it is accurate to say that Romney's tax plan would cut taxes by $5 trillion over ten years. While picking ten years to look at might be an arbitrary decision, it's still accurate. It doesn't matter if you pick four years, eight years, ten years, twenty years, etc. Romney's tax plan, if taken by percentages (20% tax rate decrease across the board) and what kinds of taxes he'd repeal (Alternative Minimum Tax, high-income payroll tax, estate tax, etc), causes a substantial decrease in yearly revenue. It just so happens that when you choose to look at it as ten years, it's a $5 trillion decrease in revenue, and these numbers are all from nonpartisan sources like the TPC.

You seem to be arguing that ten years is an unfair time span to look at since Romney can only be president for a maximum of eight years. Are you saying now that Romney's tax plan (a plan Republicans claim would work to both strengthen the economy and reduce the deficit) should only be temporary? You can argue one of two things: a.) That Romney's tax plan is a temporary stop-gap measure to help the economy that also worsens the deficit, which is why it would be temporary, or b.) That Romney's tax plan is something that both reduces the deficit and helps the economy, which is why it would be permanent. If you argue that ten years is an unfair time-span to look at, then you're arguing that it actually increases the deficit and that's why it's temporary.



Hanafuda said:


> the offset resulting from closing off deductions and loopholes currently enjoyed by the wealthy gets ignored.


You're absolutely correct that the topic of loopholes and deductions is ignored; it's ignored by Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney has not offered a single loophole/deduction he would close. In fact, each specific loophole/deduction he's been asked about (as far as I'm aware) he's said he would not eliminate.

Using ten years as an example, because it's convenient for the math, Romney's tax cuts would decrease revenue by $5 trillion. This is a fact according to every reputable nonpartisan group that has looked into the matter, such as the TPC. Even if Romney eliminates all tax benefits for the wealthy, corporate tax benefits, and middle class tax benefits, he still has a net reduction in revenue of $1 trillion, and this is ignoring the fact that he's already said that he wouldn't end many of these deductions.

So for those of you keeping track at home: $5 trillion - $4 trillion = $1 trillion in revenue loss, and that involves Romney going back on deductions he's said he wouldn't end. It should also be noted that without specifying a single loophole or deduction that he would close, it's unfair to take anything away from that $5 trillion in revenue reduction for the time being. But moving on:



Hanafuda said:


> Is it not possible that the positive effects on the economy over 10 years time couldn't offset that remaining 1 trillion???


There are a few problems with this. First of all, Romney arbitrarily claims that he would create 7 million jobs from the tax breaks, but there is no evidence to back this up. In fact, the study Romney cites assumes that the tax breaks are already completely paid for and that the tax breaks are enacted when the economy is already at full employment. Economists agree that in a perfect economy, tax breaks are good for the economy; in a perfect supply-demand environment, tax breaks have the potential to allow businesses to increase product and labor, thus stimulating the economy more. However, in a poor economy, tax breaks for the wealthy do not do much to stimulate the economy, as I've already mentioned more times than I think I should have needed to. If you're a businessman and the poor economy has caused demand for your product to go down, your tax breaks are not going to incentivize you to hire more workers or buy more product when demand for the product is still low due to the poor economy; to stimulate a poor economy, you need to give money to people who need to spend it (like giving food stamps to people who are going to use that money ASAP) and increase employment through infrastructure spending like bridge-building, etc. This is the same principle that helped us get out of the Great Depression (World War II was one of the best forms of stimulus spending).

You're second problem is that we already have a deficit due to existing Bush tax cuts, less revenue coming in due to the recession, etc. Hypothetically, if there were any economic gains from Romney's tax cuts, which all the evidence says would be minimal at best, the increased revenue from people now having jobs or getting paid more would just go to fill in that part of the deficit that appeared when the recession hit in the first place and is irrelevant when talking about Romney's new additions to the deficit. It should also be noted that the economy is already on track to create around as many jobs Romney is claiming to be able to create anyway, which means that portion of the deficit we're talking about caused by people being out of work and not paying as many taxes is irrelevant when talking about Romney's policies.

Your third problem is that Romney wants to increase military spending by $2 trillion without paying for it.

So for those of you still keeping track at home: $5 trillion - $4 trillion - $0 (something inconsequential) + $2 trillion = $3 trillion deficit increase, and that's giving Romney the benefit of the doubt when assuming a lot about the deductions/loopholes Romney would allegedly close. If, instead, you use the loopholes/deductions that Romney has specific said he would close:

$5 trillion - $0 (no loopholes/deductions mentioned) - $0 (no foreseeable affect on a poor economy, although it might have a minimal positive effect) + $2 trillion = $7 trillion added to the deficit.



Hanafuda said:


> Most of what I see called "Romney's lies" turn out to be disagreements over campaign promises and the expected effects of one policy vs. another, or mild distortions of statements he's made.


I think you might want to reread the pages I linked to, because saying things like that Obama has doubled the deficit, that Obamacare increases the deficit, or that Romney would create 12 million jobs in four years are blatant lies, not disagreements over campaign promises or expected effects of policies.



Hanafuda said:


> The 47 percent thing, for instance, is a glaring example - Romney said he wasn't going to worry about the 47% _in his campaign strategy_ because his message of lower taxes and reducing dependency on government wasn't going to be received well by the segment of the population (47%) that are currently receiving government benefits and paying no income taxes, and so there was no point in campaigning to those people to get them to change their vote. That's very  different from saying he "writes them off" or "doesn't give a shit" about that segment of the population


First of all, I don't think anyone significant has said that Romney used the words "doesn't give a shit."

Second, Romney said, "Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax," and that his role "is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." Ignoring for a second that I have no idea what you're getting at, have fun attempting to spin that.



Hanafuda said:


> I'm sure they're both lying, quite a large percentage of the time, depending on your perspective and what you consider a lie. It's like a choice between a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with lots of ketchup.


As I've already mentioned, there's a huge difference between embellishment and lying, and there is overwhelming evidence showing that Romney is a boldfaced liar. I refer you to my previous posts.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 17, 2012)

But I like ketchup.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 17, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> But I like ketchup.




Then vote for change, cuz the last 4 years all you've gotten on that bread is shit.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 17, 2012)

LMAO at the people who actually waste their time trying to disect each candidate's every word...

Politics is a sport, and shitty one at that.  It's like taking the shit talking before a boxing match or mma fight and naming the winner the person you think might actually be able to do what they claim they're going to do...without there actually being a fight...  All they do is nitpick at each other like smarmy douchebags and you people fall for it.  Are you Team Edward or Team Jacob?  Silly humans...

Vote for your party, not your "candidate".  Vote based on your economical beliefs or even, I can't believe I'm saying this, your stances on social issues.

One person didn't fuck up the economy on their own and it's not on one person to fix it.  It's just easier to say "Bush/Obama ruined American" than it is to take any responsibility on yourself or recognize that blame falls on the ones who live outside their means and the trash that abuse government programs because they're too lazy to get off their asses and do something for themselves.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 18, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > But I like ketchup.
> ...


I prefer voting for progress instead of voting to send America backwards. Change shouldn't be about using the same tactics that have been tried over and over again and never worked, it should be about progression.
Mitt's campaign only promises to bring back the same crap that got us into this mess. That's not change, that's just the same shit different day. Not to mention attempting drag our culture back into the dark ages. 
Obama may not be the best president we've had, but look what he as left with? He was left with Bush's mess, which is appears no one seems to remember just how bad that really was. The man has brought us forward though and has helped our country the best he can in those 4 years, there is no need to go right back to the same thing that brought us into that mess.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 18, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> DiscostewSM said:
> 
> 
> > But I like ketchup.
> ...



I think your metaphor got messed up somewhere along the way.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 18, 2012)

So, not only is he trying say Romney numerous on the whim lies is comparable to Obama, but he trying to defend the 47% comment?
Wow...just...wow...


----------



## leic7 (Oct 18, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I'm sure they're both lying, quite a large percentage of the time, depending on your perspective and what you consider a lie. It's like a choice between a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with lots of ketchup.


Well, not all opinions are created equal. When two sides disagree with each other, both sides don't necessarily have equally valid points. The problem with Romney's tax plan (one of the more memorable "lies") is this: one side says "1-1=1 and yes, the math absolutely works", and the other side says "No, the math doesn't work". That's not just a disagreement...one of them is actually more right than the other.

Since neither Romney nor Ryan could offer any specifics about their tax plan, I'd like to pose this question to you (or someone like you), someone who apparently supports the plan (and presumably knows what exactly they're supporting): Will the *effective* tax rates for the wealthy be higher, lower, or the same, after the 20% tax cut and the closing of loopholes and deductions?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 18, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Hanafuda said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure they're both lying, quite a large percentage of the time, depending on your perspective and what you consider a lie. It's like a choice between a shit sandwich, and a shit sandwich with lots of ketchup.
> ...




Dude, I would in all seriousness cast my vote for Vermin Supreme before I voted to re-elect Obama. And as for "specifics" I know better than get all twisted up over such things because once any "plan" gets run through the congressional meat grinder it's not even recognizable anymore. So, I'm just going with the "dark ages", apparently.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 18, 2012)

At least Obama has a plan, so when it goes through the "meat grinder", it can actually be used unlike Mitt's "plan".


----------



## Jan1tor (Oct 18, 2012)

Though I do not agree with everything Romney says I'll be voting for him. The company I work for has been in business since 1917 and we have had our ups and downs. I have been there 35 years myself. We just laid off 8 people and reduced the others hours to 32 hours. The last time we had a layoff was hmmm 4 years ago. Things got a little better in the hopes of better government, but we are on the slide back down. The economy isn't getting any better, it is getting worse. The oil pipe line helps our business and we are tired of waiting. We are a tooling manufacture and have been forced to buy overseas steel because with the unfair trade we can't afford to buy American steel anymore. (the overseas steel is crap compared to the U.S. steel we used to use). This also hurts us because then our product isn't as good as it shoud be. We can say the raises we have gotten over the last 3 years is really a bust because insurance, gas, and the general economy have risen more than the wage. The current system ISN'T working. They asked for change, they got it. If I could change halfway back I'd be happy. As for GM the only reason they are doing better is because the Government buys a significant amount of their cars.  I drove an American car all my life till 4 years ago. I'd never buy another American car again after buying my Toyota Camry Hybrid. Best car I ever owned and I have owned a LOT of American cars. So sorry if annoys anyone, I'm giving Romney a shot.


----------



## leic7 (Oct 18, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> leic7 said:
> 
> 
> > Hanafuda said:
> ...


You don't know whether the proposed tax plan intends to raise or lower the effective tax rate for the wealthy?


----------



## notmeanymore (Oct 18, 2012)

I really don't want Obama to win, I don't like Romney either though.
If America is still a place by 2016, we need a proper Republican president, hopefully Mike Huckabee will run.

Edit: I do have to stick up for Romney's "controversial" PBS/Big Bird comment from the first debate. PBS is not worth borrowing from China for, along with God only knows what else. That sounds like a method of bringing down the debt that I could fully stand behind.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 18, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> If America is still a place by 2016, we need a proper Republican president, hopefully Mike Huckabee will run.



It won't. David Blaine's been perfecting his disappearing act.



> Edit: I do have to stick up for Romney's "controversial" PBS/Big Bird comment from the first debate. PBS is not worth borrowing from China for, along with God only knows what else. That sounds like a method of bringing down the debt that I could fully stand behind.



Eh, a few things on that. The whole "borrowing from China" bit is misleading at best, and the amount of money diverted towards PBS is, proportionately, minuscule  especially compared to the defense cuts that Romney refuses to consider. Not to mention, it's money well spent. Funding for PBS, NPR, etc. is an investment that yields a better educated, more informed, and more culturally enriched populace.

Plus, there's the example of "The Learning Channel" to consider...


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 18, 2012)

How much is PBS getting from the US budget? 0.014%? Their actual funding from the government is only about 15% from all the money they get total, and they get contributions "from viewers like you". Sesame Street in particular also does merchandising with their learning toys and material.


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 18, 2012)

Interesting. I'm open to there being more to this, don't mind admitting I don't know much about PP.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 18, 2012)

http://youtu.be/j_05XN5VejM

Bah, dunno why it won't embed.  Does demonstrate, however, how the media are so terrified of saying anything bad about Romney.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_05XN5VejM


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 18, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Interesting. I'm open to there being more to this, don't mind admitting I don't know much about PP.



The other side of the argument



> Following the controversy surrounding Susan G. Komen for the Cure's initial announcement that it would end its relationship with Planned Parenthood, right-wing media have tried to downplay Planned Parenthood's efforts to fight cancer, claiming that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms and does "nothing to prevent breast cancer." But this ignores the numerous cancer-related services Planned Parenthood annually provides to women -- including more than 1.5 million cancer screenings and preventative services in 2010 -- such as breast exams, mammogram referrals, and screenings for other types of cancer; moreover, contrary to right-wing claims, some Planned Parenthood clinics do indeed provide mammograms.



Full article
http://mediamatters....-types-o/184820


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 18, 2012)

So for the most part, they don't do mammograms.

edit: found this http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mammograms.asp


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 18, 2012)

As Snopes says, true in a literal sense that they don't do it there, but they do "offer comprehensive breast care" including beast exams, and they play a major part in the supply of mammograms by referring people and using grant money to reimburse the providers who perform them.

In short, planned parenthood provides access to mammograms.  I don't think the PP clinics where abortions are not actually carried out get a free pass from pro-lifers because they 'don't do abortions' because the procedure is carried out on a different site, or do they?

Did Obama actually say that PP performs mammograms?  I can only see him saying that women rely on PP for mammograms.  People rely on auto insurance companies to get their car fixed, but that doesn't mean your insurance salesman has your car jacked up in his office with a spanner and an oily rag.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 18, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> http://youtu.be/j_05XN5VejM
> 
> Bah, dunno why it won't embed.  Does demonstrate, however, how the media are so terrified of saying anything bad about Romney.
> 
> http://www.youtube.c...h?v=j_05XN5VejM



That doesn't surprise m about CNN. They have been leaning Right a lot lately. They used to be centrist with Fox being for Righties and MSNBC being for Lefties like myself but now CNN is just Right but not wacko far right.


----------



## dickfour (Oct 18, 2012)

I was looking at this poll and I hate to disappoint all you kiddies but no candidate with Obama's numbers has ever gone on to win the presidency


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Dude, I would in all seriousness cast my vote for Vermin Supreme before I voted to re-elect Obama.


Based on everything that's been covered in this thread, why?



Hanafuda said:


> And as for "specifics" I know better than get all twisted up over such things because once any "plan" gets run through the congressional meat grinder it's not even recognizable anymore.


Well, without specifics, your guy's plan raises the deficit by $7 trillion, so it's kind of important. Romney can't claim the math works when he doesn't provide the numbers. On the opposite side, the Obama campaign has provided the nonpartisan numbers that show Romney cannot accomplish what he's claiming without exploding the deficit or increasing taxes on the middle class.



Jan1tor said:


> The economy isn't getting any better, it is getting worse.


Except the economy is getting better.



LightyKD said:


> That doesn't surprise m about CNN. They have been leaning Right a lot lately. They used to be centrist with Fox being for Righties and MSNBC being for Lefties like myself but now CNN is just Right but not wacko far right.


I have no evidence to back it up, but I get the feeling CNN tries so hard to be in the center that they avoid saying anything that would cause the right-wingers to scream "liberal bias," even if the thing they're not saying is true. CNN tries so hard not to be controversial that it's controversial.



dickfour said:


> I was looking at this poll and I hate to disappoint all you kiddies but no candidate with Obama's numbers has ever gone on to win the presidency


What numbers are you referring to? Because according to the polls, it's more likely than not that President Obama will win.


----------



## notmeanymore (Oct 18, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> How much is PBS getting from the US budget? 0.014%? Their actual funding from the government is only about 15% from all the money they get total, and they get contributions "from viewers like you". Sesame Street in particular also does merchandising with their learning toys and material.



Exactly, if 85% of PBS is funded by us, I think we can come up with the Government's 15%. I've no objections to that.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> Exactly, if 85% of PBS is funded by us, I think we can come up with the Government's 15%. I've no objections to that.


Two problems:

1. You're missing the point that funding to PBS is practically irrelevant when talking about America's budget problems.
2. Funding for PBS represents our country's valuing of educational programs.

Conservatives are basically arguing that educational programs like funding for PBS (which highly benefits rural and poor areas), other programs that benefit the poor (food stamps, for example), etc. should be cut in order to pay for tax breaks for the rich, oil subsidies, etc. This makes no sense, particularly when there's no evidence that tax cuts for the rich and oil subsidies, for example, would have any substantive effect on the economy. It also makes no sense in that it barely begins to cover the costs of things like these tax breaks for the wealthy.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 18, 2012)

dickfour said:


> I was looking at this poll and I hate to disappoint all you kiddies but no candidate with Obama's numbers has ever gone on to win the presidency



Lacius already addressed this pretty well, but I just want to add one thing: FDR.

Sure, we didn't keep track of economic data the same way we do today, but the man went on to get reelected three times throughout the calamities of the Great Depression and World War II. You can cite the economic recovery as a weakness for Obama's reelection campaign, but it is by no means an insurmountable obstacle.


----------



## notmeanymore (Oct 18, 2012)

Lacius said:


> TehSkull said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, if 85% of PBS is funded by us, I think we can come up with the Government's 15%. I've no objections to that.
> ...


It's not like PBS is the only thing being cut. I'm okay with temporarily cutting funding to different areas until we're not so deep in debt.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 18, 2012)

TehSkull said:


> It's not like PBS is the only thing being cut. I'm okay with temporarily cutting funding to different areas until we're not so deep in debt.


I'm not arguing that there shouldn't be any spending cuts; in fact, I think President Obama's deficit-reduction plan includes $2 in spending cuts for every $1 in revenue gains. The problem is that conservatives are asking the poor, elderly, and other vulnerable populations to pay with cuts to food stamps, PBS, Medicare, etc. when our debt primarily comes from two wars and tax cuts that were both put on the nation's credit card. The Bush tax cuts and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan caused our debt problem, and Romney wants to enact more tax cuts and more military spending. As mentioned in the most recent debate, Bush caused our debt problem, and there is very little difference between Bush's policies and Romney's policies.

Spending cuts are part of the equation, but so is asking higher income Americans to pay their fair share. And I'm not even going to get started on how Grover Norquist's Republican Party couldn't realistically balance the budget to save their lives.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 18, 2012)

The Wii is better than Obama


----------



## chyyran (Oct 18, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> The Wii is better than Obama


I shall tell all my American friends to vote for Reggie this year.

Because his body is ready.

EDIT:

I read that whole article, I just romnied when I saw that Muscle March video.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 19, 2012)

Looks like Mitt just cut his first Hip Hop album.







LMFAO!!!!


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 19, 2012)

Jan1tor said:


> Things got a little better in the hopes of better government, but we are on the slide back down. The economy isn't getting any better, it is getting worse. The oil pipe line helps our business and we are tired of waiting. We are a tooling manufacture and have been forced to buy overseas steel because with the unfair trade we can't afford to buy American steel anymore. (the overseas steel is crap compared to the U.S. steel we used to use). This also hurts us because then our product isn't as good as it shoud be. We can say the raises we have gotten over the last 3 years is really a bust because insurance, gas, and the general economy have risen more than the wage. The current system ISN'T working. They asked for change, they got it. If I could change halfway back I'd be happy.


As someone pointed out it is working, if that really the case, then you really can't say it isn't just because it hasn't reach you yet.
Obama wants to keep jobs in the US by giving more benefits to the ones keeping jobs here and less to outsourcing like getting rid of tax cuts for outing business. Romney is planning to "crack down on China" (how he is going to do that idk) without doing what Obama trying to do. Not sure if Romney would actually do so or even can crack down on China even more then we already are without receiving some kind of negative backlash.

About the gas, not saying if it is his fault or not, but it about time we stop relying on it so much. If was can get enough cleaner/green energy resources to run then wouldn't need to rely on outside gas and would be less damaging of the environment.

So, you want to go back to when it was worse?



Jan1tor said:


> As for GM the only reason they are doing better is because the Government buys a significant amount of their cars.


Proof?



Jan1tor said:


> I drove an American car all my life till 4 years ago. I'd never buy another American car again after buying my Toyota Camry Hybrid. Best car I ever owned and I have owned a LOT of American cars.


So, you talk about unfair trade and yet, you are buying cars not from America?



Jan1tor said:


> Though I do not agree with everything Romney says I'll be voting for him.  I'm giving Romney a shot.


How can you agree with him on anything and vote for him when he flip flops and lies so much?



LightyKD said:


> Looks like Mitt just cut his first Hip Hop album.
> LMFAO!!!!


I got binders full of women and women hands full of binders!  


Sabotage and blackmail?


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 19, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Jan1tor said:
> 
> 
> > I drove an American car all my life till 4 years ago. I'd never buy another American car again after buying my Toyota Camry Hybrid. Best car I ever owned and I have owned a LOT of American cars.
> ...



Unless it's one of the very first Camry Hybrids (made before Oct 2006), his car was made in America, just not by UAW.


Just backtracking a bit, I suppose I'll surprise some here by coming down on the side of funding PBS. As others have noted it's not even a drop in the bucket of the federal budget, and serves a worthy purpose. On the other hand, trying to make it out as "killing Big Bird" is ridiculous - Sesame Street hauls in millions a year on licensed toys, clothing, etc. The CEO of Sesame Workshop makes about a million a year. The guy in the Big Bird suit makes over $300k a year, and other "puppeteers" for Sesame Street make more than that, some over a half million. Sesame Street takes only a token amount of PBS' federal funding and could easily make it in private broadcasting (and a few years back, a Sesame Street themed show was one of the most popular programs on Noggin, before it turned into Nick Jr., so they've already played around with it some).


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 19, 2012)

Naughty naughty

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/colin_small_virginia_gop_voter_registration_fraud.php


----------



## Lacius (Oct 19, 2012)

Wait, Hanafuda and I agree on something?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 19, 2012)

If anyone wanted a good watch, Barack Obama on the Daily Show. Funny stuff and good conversation.


----------



## BORTZ (Oct 19, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Looks like Mitt just cut his first Hip Hop album.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sneak peak from the rap battle music video




_"Ive got money in a trash bag, and binders full o' women"_


----------



## Hanafuda (Oct 19, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> If anyone wanted a good watch, Barack Obama on the Daily Show. Funny stuff and good conversation.




I'll try to find time to watch it later after work. I assume that's the interview where Obama's use of "not optimal" is being used by Republicans to generate faux outrage, just like the Democrats are using "binders full of women" against Romney.

I enjoyed both of these clips from the Al Smith dinner last night. They both did well, both made me laugh a lot. I don't know if the clips will embed correctly but if not you can find them at mediaite. (edit: nvm, mediaite clips are better quality but I found the same on YT)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBelIMrKll8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6g2YkTAYQ4


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 19, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> I'll try to find time to watch it later after work. I assume that's the interview where Obama's use of "not optimal" is being used by Republicans to generate faux outrage, just like the Democrats are using "binders full of women" against Romney.



No it's the actual Barack Obama talking to Jon Stewart. Stewart is a really good interviewer and it's quite interesting.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 19, 2012)

If you start to see the term "Romnesia" pop up over the internet, well, here's why:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BBEXB1Wf9c


----------



## Jan1tor (Oct 20, 2012)

Unless it's one of the very first Camry Hybrids (made before Oct 2006), his car was made in America, just not by UAW.


It was a 2009 model but it was made in West Virginia. I had plenty of time to research before I bought it. Toyota uses American steel to build these. They use more American steel than the American car companies do. They even built a whole learning facility down there for the families in the factories to educate their kids as well. And the 2 main reasons I bought it is one because it is a hybrid and I drive about 300 miles a week for work (cut my gas bill in half compared to the 17mpg I was getting on my Lincoln Town Car), and the second reason was the quality of the car was better than any other American car I have had in the past (This was my First foreign car.) And even now 75 thousand miles later I have had ZERO problems with the car from purchasing NEW.


----------



## geishroy (Oct 20, 2012)

Gahars said:


> If you start to see the term "Romnesia" pop up over the internet, well, here's why:





lolol black people in the white house make me laugh ;S

but mitt romney makes me laugh even harder.

and black people talking about mitt romney...


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 20, 2012)

Gahars said:


> If you start to see the term "Romnesia" pop up over the internet, well, here's why:




[yt]g8QkKNRr5j4[/yt]


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 20, 2012)

I almost died.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 20, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> I almost died.



Ok, I lol'ed. I admit it!


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 20, 2012)

Romney is being crucified for his comment.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 20, 2012)

This thread is now a meme thread.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 20, 2012)




----------



## KingVamp (Oct 20, 2012)

You guys do know this isn't the EOF, right?


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 20, 2012)

geishroy said:


> Gahars said:
> 
> 
> > If you start to see the term "Romnesia" pop up over the internet, well, here's why:
> ...




Excuse you but, what's wrong with black people in the White House? Please tell me that was sarcasm.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Oct 20, 2012)

'Magic: The Gathering' binder full of women


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 20, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> 'Magic: The Gathering' binder full of women



LMFAO   , I had a great giggle reading some of these! I wish these were done in Pokemon TCG style. I'm used to that game and would actually print the cards out so that my Wife and I could play!


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 30, 2012)

It's CRUNCH TIME people! What are your predictions now that we are a little over a week away from Election Day?!


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 30, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> It's CRUNCH TIME people! What are your predictions now that we are a little over a week away from Election Day?!


Honesty, I think Obama going to win despite if I want him to or not. (I do.)


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 30, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Honesty, I think Obama going to win despite if I want him to or not. (I do.)


 
Sadly I can't be as confident. As much as I want Obama to win (and trust me really do. I got up at 5am last Thursday to see the man @ roughly noon ish), the polls are flip flopping like crazy and like I said earlier, stupid people en-mass can do crazy things.

Here's a nice little shot from last Thursday!


----------



## Gahars (Oct 30, 2012)

Nate Silver, over at 538, has been keeping it steady with his number crunching analysis of the polls.

Right now, Obama has a 72.9% chance of winning the election. There's still the 27.1% chance that Romney could win, and the state of the race can still change dramatically over the course of the week, so anybody rooting for the President shouldn't take this as an excuse for complacency.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 30, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Sadly I can't be as confident. As much as I want Obama to win (and trust me really do. I got up at 5am last Thursday to see the man @ roughly noon ish), the polls are flip flopping like crazy and like I said earlier, stupid people en-mass cam do crazy things.
> 
> Here's a nice little shot from last Thursday!


To be clear, you seem him in person! Did you had a chance or try to speak with him?


If he can get Florida, chances would be great then.


----------



## LightyKD (Oct 30, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> To be clear, you seem him in person! Did you had a chance or try to speak with him?
> 
> 
> If he can get Florida, chances would be great then.


 
Last Thursday was the second time my Wife and I saw him in person. Back in September we also got the chance to see the Fist Lady (Michelle) speak. Sadly we were not able to have a conversation with either the President or his Wife. Either way it was a lot of fun!


----------



## Lemmy Koopa (Oct 30, 2012)

I've passed through 2 neighborhoods in Ohio scattered with Romney signs. No offense, but it really made my stomach hurt.


----------



## GammaGeorgeX (Oct 30, 2012)

I believe that the votes are just modified through governmental conspiracies. But it doesn't mean I'm a crazy just because I think that.


----------



## Judas18 (Oct 30, 2012)

I really hope Romney doesn't win. He seems crazy enough to start World War 3. That guy scares me.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 30, 2012)

GammaGeorgeX said:


> I believe that the votes are just modified through governmental conspiracies. But it doesn't mean I'm a crazy just because I think that.


 
Do you have evidence to back up that assertion? Do you have proof of these conspiracies?

Or is it just a "hunch"?


----------



## GammaGeorgeX (Oct 30, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Do you have evidence to back up that assertion? Do you have proof of these conspiracies?
> 
> Or is it just a "hunch"?


Oh, of course I don't think it for a fact, but It's a reasonable thought. Perhaps the debates decide most of it, so whoever wins would at least be who looks like someone who would win, but you have of course a point.


----------



## suppow (Oct 30, 2012)

coke vs pepsi


----------



## Gahars (Oct 30, 2012)

GammaGeorgeX said:


> Oh, of course I don't think it for a fact, but It's a reasonable thought. Perhaps the debates decide most of it, so whoever wins would at least be who looks like someone who would win, but you have of course a point.


 
The government is far less capable of orchestrating the covert rigging of elections than you might think. To paraphrase Penn Jillette, we're talking about the same government that couldn't cover up a hotel break in. If they couldn't manage that, how would they pull off a massive operation like this AND manage to keep it a secret?

Proposing stuff like this without anything to support it doesn't necessarily make you crazy, but it certainly doesn't make you look credible.



suppow said:


> coke vs pepsi


 
That's not fair - Mitt can't drink either!


----------



## GammaGeorgeX (Oct 30, 2012)

Well, no point in arguing, so if I were to choose one, it would be Obama, mainly because Romney is a total ass for so many reasons that random people just remember the fact that he is a horrible politic xd.

But of course I know WHY he's bad personally.


----------



## suppow (Oct 30, 2012)

Gahars said:


> That's not fair - Mitt can't drink either!


then snort maybe? 



Gahars said:


> The government is far less capable of orchestrating the covert rigging of elections than you might think. To paraphrase Penn Jillette, we're talking about the same government that couldn't cover up a hotel break in. If they couldn't manage that, how would they pull off a massive operation like this AND manage to keep it a secret?
> 
> Proposing stuff like this without anything to support it doesn't necessarily make you crazy, but it certainly doesn't make you look credible.



you seriously think they couldnt do that? not that they'd *need* to.
they've been doing that in south america and other places for _ages_, and they've got far less resources than these people do.
i mean, come on, i know this is gbatemp and not abovetopsecret, but take a look a (at least) recent world history,
they've got far more than enough capabilities of doing that, remember the cold war? (though who said it was over? =P)


----------



## Gahars (Oct 30, 2012)

suppow said:


> you seriously think they couldnt do that? not that they'd *need* to.
> they've been doing that in south america and other places for _ages_, and they've got far less resources than these people do.
> i mean, come on, i know this is gbatemp and not abovetopsecret, but take a look a (at least) recent world history,
> they've got far more than enough capabilities of doing that, remember the cold war? (though who said it was over? =P)


 


> The government is far less capable of orchestrating the *covert* rigging of elections than you might think.


 
I think you overlooked the key word there.

Obviously, election rigging happens in some countries. However, these nations make little attempts to hide the fact that their elections are shams, that their presses are not free and open, etc. etc. They're basically DINOS - Democracies In Name Only... and sometimes, they don't even bother with the name. Plus, their poverty actually aids them - power and wealth is concentrated in the ruling body absolutely, leaving the citizens with little power to resist or seek reform.

Hiding such a thing, though?  Especially in the United States? So you're telling me the government is completely able to rig the ballots while going through all the motions of a campaign (which doesn't come cheap, I might add) and keeping the press completely in the dark at the same time? Not only that, the government is also making sure that absolutely no one involved in this massive operation at any level says a word?

Yes, your honor, I'd like to call Bull and Shit to the stand.

Come on, just think this through. If there's rigging really going on here... why would incumbents lose? Why throw away so much money on campaigns that don't even mean anything? Does this mean that the government is capable of pulling off an operation of this magnitude without a hitch, but just can't hide a break in or a BJ from the intern? 

Face it, Occam's Razor just cuts this to shreds.


----------



## suppow (Oct 30, 2012)

i really dont wanna turn this into a conspiracy thread, *specially* in gbatemp =/



Gahars said:


> I think you overlooked the key word there.


no, i didnt, i did mean covert. actually if you're gonna fake elections without hiding it, just make it a coup.
actually, it could even be said that the us did a cover coup. but i'm *really* not gonna go there  



Gahars said:


> Obviously, election rigging happens in some countries.


true



Gahars said:


> However, these nations make little attempts to hide the fact that their elections are shams, that their presses are not free and open, etc. etc.


note true, not always, not most times. true sometimes, like china.



Gahars said:


> They're basically DINOS - Democracies In Name Only... and sometimes, they don't even bother with the name.


again, note always, and the *same* could be said about the us, but like you said above, the difference between that and china, is one trying to cover it up and the other not even bothering.



Gahars said:


> Plus, their poverty actually aids them - power and wealth is concentrated in the ruling body absolutely, leaving the citizens with little power to resist or seek reform.


that's pretty biased, i'm sure you could better than that. 



Gahars said:


> Hiding such a thing, though? Especially in the United States? So you're telling me the government is completely able to rig the ballots while going through all the motions of a campaign (which doesn't come cheap, I might add) and keeping the press completely in the dark at the same time? Not only that, the government is also making sure that absolutely no one involved in this massive operation at any level says a word?


yes, yes, yes. seriously, in all honesty, are you questioning the ability of covering things up in the states? and wasting money in a place like the sates?
come on, anyone should be able to see that. i've studied as a history major, so from *my* point of you, i could tell you, yes. but you dont have to even do that to be able to see those things.

occam's razor is usually a fallacy. =/

again, i'm not necessarily saying it is actually happening, i'll just say that it is possible for the sake of argument.
i'm not even gonna go into saying that most media is collectively owned, or bring up more possibilities, 
but i'll maintain that if they wanted whoever was in power in the sates, would have the capabilities to do that.

i'll just spare the other people in gbatemp this whole discussion.
so if you ask me if i think it's possible, i answer yes, i think it is.

but like i said, coke vs pepsi


----------



## Sterling (Oct 30, 2012)

I'm hitting Gary Johnson in the polls myself. I wish more people didn't have the mentality of "Oh, I agree with this guy the most, but I won't vote for him because he doesn't have a chance." That's why we keep getting the idiots in office. People have their heads so far up their asses sometimes that they don't even consider the 3rd choice. If more people decided to vote for the choice the agree with most then that 3rd choice might actually matter.

My parents are prime examples. They vote strictly Republican just to cockblock the other party without ever considering the ideas of merit that the other party has, or because that independent choice they agree with the most doesn't have a chance. It's fucking dumb.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 30, 2012)

Gahars said:


> That's not fair - Mitt can't drink either!


*neither?

I heard he said he can drink both. He must have flip flop again. smh 



Sterling said:


> I'm hitting Gary Johnson in the polls myself. I wish more people didn't have the mentality of "Oh, I agree with this guy the most, but I won't vote for him because he doesn't have a chance." That's why we keep getting the idiots in office. People have their heads so far up their asses sometimes that they don't even consider the 3rd choice. If more people decided to vote for the choice the agree with most then that 3rd choice might actually matter.


Well at this point it's pretty much true. All the people who are voting late for him is not really going to
do much other then risk the worst of all candidates making a come back because you are taking
votes from Obama. 

It like saying, I'm voting for a 3rd party in the last second because it's there and risk the one you didn't
like most to possibly win.

Plus iirc, he wants to get rid of most if not all government support, which is pretty crazy because
some people need that help. When I mean support, I mean like the welfare stuff.


That said, more choices the merrier.


Sterling said:


> My parents are prime examples. They vote strictly Republican just to cockblock the other party without ever considering the ideas of merit that the other party has


Agree.




Sterling said:


> because that independent choice they agree with the most doesn't have a chance. It's fucking dumb.


I think people waited to long due to time and votes already cast to worry about a 3rd party.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 30, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Well at this point it's pretty much true. All the people who are voting late for him is not really going to
> do much other then risk the worst of all candidates making a come back because you are taking
> votes from Obama.
> 
> ...


 
First of all, that's the kind of mentality people have. I say it's horse crap. Just because you perceive I'm taking away votes, doesn't mean I'm giving them to Romney. I'm voting for Gary and against Romney and Obama. Because I'm voting for who I want to win, I'm somehow a bad person because I could have voted for someone who "will" win. That "will" part would be debatable if more people would vote for the candidate that's best and not the one that's most likely to win. It's a 3 party system, not a two party one, yet people still refuse to vote for that 3rd candidate because "he has no chance", yet it's us who give him that chance because we're the ones that ultimately decide.

That second part is still horse crap. I'm not voting at the last second. I'm voting with an informed and carefully weighed decision. It's not just you who thinks this way either. Almost everyone I've talked to think like this and I'm sick of it. People with this "screw the other party" line of thought are the ones who consistently let people into office that screw this country up.

This last statement is complete bull. Check this, Gary is very liberal on social issues. He supports reform, but most definitely not complete removal of stateside welfare. I know I don't support the massive foreign help packages we give out like Halloween candy. It's a waste of resources we could be using now to pick our own asses off the ground.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 30, 2012)

suppow said:


> i really dont wanna turn this into a conspiracy thread, *specially* in gbatemp =/ * Derailing arguments, in my GBAtemp? It's more likely than you think.*
> 
> 
> no, i didnt, i did mean covert. actually if you're gonna fake elections without hiding it, just make it a coup.
> ...


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 30, 2012)

Sterling said:


> First of all, that's the kind of mentality people have. I say it's horse crap. Just because you perceive I'm taking away votes, doesn't mean I'm giving them to Romney. I'm voting for Gary and against Romney and Obama. Because I'm voting for who I want to win, I'm somehow a *(*bad person*)<-no one said* that because I could have voted for someone who "will" win. That "will" part would be debatable if more people would vote for the candidate that's best and not the one that's most likely to win. It's a 3 party system, not a two party one, yet people still refuse to vote for that 3rd candidate because "he has no chance", yet it's us who give him that chance because we're the ones that ultimately decide.


Honestly, as it stands now, do you really think he has a chance? I see if he had momentum from the get go. I just worry that we could get the worst of them all, 'cause of votes that seem like it's a shot in the dark (very unlikely) of the chance of them getting elected.



Sterling said:


> First of all, that's the kind of mentality people have. I
> That second part is still horse crap. I'm not voting at the last second. I'm voting with an informed and carefully weighed decision. It's not just you who thinks this way either. Almost everyone I've talked to think like this and I'm sick of it. People with this "screw the other party" line of thought are the ones who consistently let people into office that screw this country up.


Look man, I'm just trying to be realistic here and work on the best, most likely possibility.



Sterling said:


> This last statement is complete bull. Check this, Gary is very liberal on social issues. He supports reform, but most definitely not complete removal of stateside welfare. I know I don't support the massive foreign help packages we give out like Halloween candy. It's a waste of resources we could be using now to pick our own asses off the ground.


Ok, you got me.   I need to do more research on him.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 30, 2012)

The whole reason he doesn't have a chance is because of the stigma the Independent Party has attached to it. Basically "They can't win because the Democrats and the Republicans exist". This 3rd party barely has any sway in the voting process because nobody believes they can win. Even if they're the best for the job, all I hear from people in my circle is, "Oh, he can't win because no one will vote for him. I want to vote for him, but since no one else is, I won't." It's infuriating how unbelievably stupid pack mentalities make people. It'll reduce even the most sane and intelligent person to a drooling Romenytard, or Obamahound.

If people would change this silly sentiment, then we'd have a valid 3rd option instead of this pile that's reminiscent of the British Royal Family. It's like that token black guy you see in every movie. It's there to satisfy the people who want it there, even if it's only a figurehead.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Oct 30, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Honestly, as it stands now, do you really think he has a chance? I see if he had momentum from the get go. I just worry that we could get the worst of them all, 'cause of votes that seem like it's a shot in the dark (very unlikely) of the chance of them getting elected.
> 
> Look man, I'm just trying to be realistic here and work on the best, most likely possibility


I don't live in America, but it even sickens me how often people won't vote for people who "don't stand a chance".

You're the reason they "don't stand a chance". Quit being a coward, vote for the person you trust and actually believe in, and you'll start seeing real changes. Why are you piggy-backing off other people's decisions? That's not how democracy should work. By not voting who you actually want in office, you're effectively turning your own country into a dictatorship, and only then are you actually *wasting* your vote.

Want your real choice of candidate to have a chance of winning? Start telling everyone you know about your choice, and tell them why they're a better choice, and tell them they have an excellent chance of winning, so long as you vote for them. The only way the two-party system will be beaten is if the voters stop being so negative and stop letting themselves be bullied into thinking their votes only count if it's for one of the two big parties.

I wish people were more informed about politics sometimes. If I was able to vote there, I'd also vote for Gary Johnson, because while I don't agree with all of his policies, I agree with most, and he definitely seems far more trustworthy and consistent than both Romney or Obama. I can't trust people who flip flop constantly on issues or who betrayed me with bills that give them to right to kill me whenever they want.


----------



## suppow (Oct 30, 2012)

lol, you just made me notice all my tipos ^^;

btw, i wouldnt consider it an argument since i'm not trying to convince you,
or win anything. my effort was in trying to explain my answer since i thought you were asking something.
you're obviously pretty conviced in what you think, and personally i dont like telling others what to think and etc.

i thought you were asking if someone could think that was possible, i do so i said so,
and then i was just trying to explain why (i do),
and honestly not trying to get you to think i'm right and you're wrong, and for you to think like me, that's up to you on your own.
and if you wanna think you won whatever argument and that makes you happy,
then be my guest you wouldnt be taking anything from me.

if you're actually interested in the subject, and whether it's plausible or not,
i know a few things and have been a few places and maybe i could have something interesting to say from my own point of view for you tu judge,
if you're on a debunking mindest however, and not that interested on the matter, then it's just a waste of time
and i'd suggest finding something more fun and productive to do (yes it can be both at the same time)


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 30, 2012)

So, does your vote really count? Well, some might think otherwise when you've got news organizations declaring who the winner of the 2012 election is with 99% of the precincts having reported, 2 weeks prior to any of them actually doing so.


----------



## BlueStar (Oct 30, 2012)

What's more likely?  That they're testing their election graphics with dummy data and accidentally put them on network rather than a test server, or that there's a vast Illuminati conspiracy that includes the graphics guy?

They're not very bright these conspiracy people are they, they slip up on a daily basis that allows paranoid basement dwellers to OBVIOUSLY see what they're doing.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 30, 2012)

Sterling said:


> I wish more people didn't have the mentality of "Oh, I agree with this guy the most, but I won't vote for him because he doesn't have a chance."


Actually, if one wishes to actually have a say in who wins the presidential election, this is the logical mentality to have. Voting for Gary Johnson has about as much of an influence on who wins the presidential election as writing in "Mickey Mouse."



Sterling said:


> If more people decided to vote for the choice the agree with most then that 3rd choice might actually matter.


You're making the bold assumption that if you made everyone in the United States aware of Gary Johnson and other third-party candidates, a significant number of them would agree with their positions and change their votes; I'd like to see evidence of this, because I think you're underestimating how many people legitimately align with one of the two major political parties.

Don't get me wrong; I think we should have a multi-round voting system, which would actually make it possible for more third-party candidates to win. However, you're assuming a lot if you think the majority of people actually agree with Gary Johnson and just aren't voting for him because it's impossible for him to win. I have a feeling that if we were to even the playing field and implement a multi-round voting system, you'd still mostly see Democrats and Republicans in office.

Suffice it to say, you're deluding yourself if you think Gary Johnson hasn't already lost the election, and you're throwing your vote away if you're not voting for one of the two viable candidates.



Sterling said:


> My parents are prime examples. They vote strictly Republican just to cockblock the other party without ever considering the ideas of merit that the other party has, or because that independent choice they agree with the most doesn't have a chance. It's fucking dumb.


My political views aside, if your parents completely disagree with the Democrats and at least somewhat agree with the Republicans, then what they do is logical. Again, this is why we should have a multi-round system.



Sterling said:


> Just because you perceive I'm taking away votes, doesn't mean I'm giving them to Romney. I'm voting for Gary and against Romney and Obama.


If a significant number of people vote for a third-party candidate but they agree more with Obama than Romney, then these people voting for a third-party candidate are helping Romney by removing likely Obama voters from the electorate.

If you have an election between Candidate A and Candidate B, and you're somehow able to get Candidate B's supporters to divide their votes between Candidate B and Candidate C, then people voting for Candidate C benefits Candidate A.



Sterling said:


> Because I'm voting for who I want to win, I'm somehow a bad person because I could have voted for someone who "will" win. That "will" part would be debatable if more people would vote for the candidate that's best and not the one that's most likely to win.


No, it's not immoral to vote for Gary Johnshon. However, if your preferential order of presidential candidates, for example, is 1. Gary Johnson, 2. Barack Obama, and 3. Mitt Romney, then it is illogical for you to vote for Gary Johnson when your #1 choice is impossible and you prefer #2 to #3.



Sterling said:


> It's a 3 party system, not a two party one, yet people still refuse to vote for that 3rd candidate because "he has no chance", yet it's us who give him that chance because we're the ones that ultimately decide.


It's a two-party system because ~99% of the electorate vote for someone in one of the two political parties. You're lying to yourself if you think it's a three-party system.



Sterling said:


> The whole reason he doesn't have a chance is because of the stigma the Independent Party has attached to it. Basically "They can't win because the Democrats and the Republicans exist". This 3rd party barely has any sway in the voting process because nobody believes they can win.


Again, that's a bold assumption to say that the whole reason third-party candidates don't have a chance is because people don't think they can win and that if everyone who supports Gary Johnson were to vote for Gary Johnson despite this mentality, he would come close to winning. I'd like to see some evidence of this.

My whole point is that your single vote for Gary Johnson is not going to change the fact that ~99% of people who vote are going to vote for Obama or Romney. No offense, but if your goal is to throw your vote away in defiance because you're angry your guy can't win, then you will accomplish this goal by voting for Gary Johnson. If, however, your goal is to make your preferential order of presidential candidates heard, voting for Gary Johnson will not accomplish this goal.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 30, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Actually, if one wishes to actually have a say in who wins the presidential election, this is the logical mentality to have. Voting for Gary Johnson has about as much of an influence on who wins the presidential election as writing in "Mickey Mouse."
> 
> 
> You're making the bold assumption that if you made everyone in the United States aware of Gary Johnson and other third-party candidates, a significant number of them would agree with their positions and change their votes; I'd like to see evidence of this, because I think you're underestimating how many people legitimately align with one of the two major political parties.
> ...


 
Maybe I am a little angry. At the same time though, I hear all these people whining and complaining about one party or the other. Yet nobody does anything to change their minds. We haven't had a good president with an honest plan since Clinton. People keep wanting things to get better and yet they're about to put the same person in office when I've only seen a marginal improvement over the last 4 years. Romney is going to fuck us all over. I can practically hear my parents excusing Romney because he took over "Obama's mess" (which also just so happens to be a typical Republican thing from what I've seen). Obama isn't going to do much better than he has over the last 4 years (though I doubt we'll see much bad happen *crosses fingers*). People keep putting the same mistakes into office because they:

A) Don't like the other party and try to cockblock.
B) Don't even consider the other potential choice.
C) In these cases, they actually like the candidate.
D) Some combination of the above.

My parents are the types of people who refer to Obama as a socialist fuck if that's any indication. Heads stuck up their asses in the most literal way possible.

As for my preferred candidate, I'd say screw the big two and go all in on GJ. I can't stand either of them and I'd rather not vote if I had to mark them on the ticket.

Honestly, my problem is the fact that no one considers him, more than that he'd have a chance of winning. When I get blank stares from people that are in to politics who have no idea who he is I know that something is wrong there.

My whole entire argument is that tossing your vote at one of the big two because that 3rd party candidate you agree with the most "can't win" is a cowardly mentality. If you agree with Obama or Romney, then vote for them. If you don't and you haven't considered the 3rd possibility because he "can't win" then it's most certainly going to be over before its starts. You'd be surprised at how many people here in Texas can get behind the 3rd party. I witnessed it when I went to a Ron Paul rally here. There are so many disgruntled people that continue to vote for either party because "it's better than the alternative" even though they just don't like either one that boggles me. It's not going to change anything if we keep it up.


----------



## Coltonamore (Oct 30, 2012)

Obama is better then Romney, because Romney is stupid in his way to get us to vote for him.
and two Obama is better even if hes pissed off people in the past.
All I have to say is Obama shod be in again because Romney sucks.


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 30, 2012)

Sweet, can I throw my two cents in here too?



> Romney is better then Obama, because Obama is stupid in his way to get us to vote for him.
> and two Romney is better even if hes pissed off people in the past.
> All I have to say is Romney shod be in because Obama sucks.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 30, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> Sweet, can I throw my two cents in here too?


You made this clear a few pages back... >.>


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 30, 2012)

Bill Clinton was not a good president. The only reason he was elected was because ross perot stole votes away from daddy bush. billy bob was the most corrupt US president in history.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 30, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> Bill Clinton was not a good president. The only reason he was elected was because ross perot stole votes away from daddy bush. billy bob was the most corrupt US president in history.


Yeah, no. I was much younger at the time, so I had to accept such nonsense like this from my parents, but now that I'm older, I can see that this is complete BS. Try harder please.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Oct 31, 2012)

It's unfortunate that the media focuses on only those 2 groups, the Democrats and Republicans, and since people get the most informed about politics by the media, the remaining candidates don't get any spotlight when they probably should.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Oct 31, 2012)

For a country that touts itself as the "land of opportunities", it's quite disgraceful to read defeatist attitudes.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Maybe I am a little angry. At the same time though, I hear all these people whining and complaining about one party or the other. Yet nobody does anything to change their minds.


Actually, there are plenty of changes going on within both parties. For example, I've been critical of the Democratic Party in the past because it didn't take a hard-line position on same-sex marriage; however, that's changed as more Democrats have taken pro-gay marriage positions. You also see Democrats taking more lenient positions on drugs these days. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say, "Both parties suck and they aren't going to change."



Sterling said:


> We haven't had a good president with an honest plan since Clinton.


I respectfully disagree; I believe President Obama has been a good President with an honest plan for this country. Could you show me specifically how you think that's not the case?



Sterling said:


> People keep wanting things to get better and yet they're about to put the same person in office when I've only seen a marginal improvement over the last 4 years.


I'm assuming you're referring to the economy, and I think it's incorrect to call the Stimulus' effect on the economy a "marginal improvement." Keep in mind five things:

1. The economy was in a worse place than we thought when the Stimulus was enacted. Most people, even Obama and the Democrats, agree in hindsight that the Stimulus should have been more.

2. The economy was so bad when President Obama took office that it's going to take time to fully recover. Anyone who claims otherwise is just silly.

3. Regardless, the Stimulus worked.

4. Romney's jobs plan is to decreases taxes, disproportionately for the rich, which isn't a very good form of economic stimulus.

5. What's Gary Johnson's jobs plan? Because last time I checked, he was against stimulus.



Sterling said:


> I can't stand either of them and I'd rather not vote if I had to mark them on the ticket.


Good, because that's essentially what you're doing when you vote for Gary Johnson.



Sterling said:


> Honestly, my problem is the fact that no one considers him, more than that he'd have a chance of winning. When I get blank stares from people that are in to politics who have no idea who he is I know that something is wrong there.


Plenty of people, myself included, consider Gary Johnson and decide they don't agree with him on policy. But when making an informed decision on whom to vote for, the fact that Gary Johnson has a 0% chance of winning is something worth taking into consideration.



Sterling said:


> My whole entire argument is that tossing your vote at one of the big two because that 3rd party candidate you agree with the most "can't win" is a cowardly mentality.


For the reasons I outlined in my last post, it's not a cowardly mentality; it's a logical one.



Sterling said:


> You'd be surprised at how many people here in Texas can get behind the 3rd party. I witnessed it when I went to a Ron Paul rally here. There are so many disgruntled people that continue to vote for either party because "it's better than the alternative" even though they just don't like either one that boggles me. It's not going to change anything if we keep it up.


Roughly 99% of people are never going to vote for a third-party candidate, whether it's because they align with one of the two major parties, because they don't see the third-party candidates as viable, or some combination of the two. This means the only solution to the problem you've outlined is a multi-round voting system, not throwing one's vote away by voting for Gary Johnson. Again, you'd accomplish the same thing by writing in "Mickey Mouse."


----------



## Sterling (Oct 31, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Actually, there are plenty of changes going on within both parties. For example, I've been critical of the Democratic Party in the past because it didn't take a hard-line position on same-sex marriage; however, that's changed as more Democrats have taken pro-gay marriage positions. You also see Democrats taking more lenient positions on drugs these days. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say, "Both parties suck and they aren't going to change."
> 
> 
> I respectfully disagree; I believe President Obama has been a good President with an honest plan for this country. Could you show me specifically how you think that's not the case?
> ...


 
Yeah, I'm not referring to the economy. That's improved beyond what I can see. You've done enough to convince me that Obama hasn't exactly left Bush's shit to rot. He's done a great clean-up. TBH, I'd much rather have Obama in office than Romney.

If that's what I'm doing, then I guess that's what I'm doing. I don't see it that way though. I see it as taking a stand for what I believe in.

Yeah, I got ya'. It's worth something, but at the same time, I don't believe either of the big two are worth my time. So it's either toss my vote in behind something I believe in, or give up. Any way you look at it, the former is a much better candidate for my time.

You'd be surprised by how many logical things I consider to be cowardly. Just because it's the logical thing to do, doesn't make it any better in my eyes.

I'm not sure if I can believe or agree with that percentage you posted. I understand that too. Most of the people I've talked to who agree with GJ are about my age. The younger generation will ultimately decide, and I do hope that system you've proposed is implemented. That sounds like a nice compromise.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2012)

Sterling said:


> I'm not sure if I can believe or agree with that percentage you posted.


In 2008, votes for Obama and McCain accounted for 98.59% of the electorate. The percentage is accurate.


----------



## Lemmy Koopa (Oct 31, 2012)

The only problem I had with Obama is passing the NDAA. So far it seems they won't abuse it, but they can, but even after that, I still think Obama is less threatening than Romney. I don't want someone with bent attributes to be in office. It's either let America ride out the next 4 years, or hand it to a flip floppy liar with jaded views.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 31, 2012)

Lacius said:


> In 2008, votes for Obama and McCain accounted for 98.59% of the electorate. The percentage is accurate.


Okay, I see. I wish it weren't the case though.


----------



## SickPuppy (Oct 31, 2012)

Lemmy Koopa said:


> The only problem I had with Obama is passing the NDAA. So far it seems they won't abuse it, but they can, but even after that, I still think Obama is less threatening than Romney. I don't want someone with bent attributes to be in office. It's either let America ride out the next 4 years, or hand it to a flip floppy liar with jaded views.


 
You must have missed the issue of Time that was published after the third debate. Time (a liberals publication) did some fact finding and found that neither of the candidates told the full truth to any question, it was all half thruths, or no truth at all. So both of them are liars.



Sterling said:


> Yeah, no. I was much younger at the time, so I had to accept such nonsense like this from my parents, but now that I'm older, I can see that this is complete BS. Try harder please.


 
You're right, you just don't know, you even admit it.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> You must have missed the issue of Time that was published after the third debate. Time (a liberals publication) did some fact finding and found that neither of the candidates told the full truth to any question, it was all half thruths, or no truth at all. So both of them are liars.


That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Mitt Romney has a long history of flat-out lying, while I have yet to see an instance when President Obama did more than embellish the truth. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 31, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> You're right, you just don't know, you even admit it.


Shall we draw straws? You'll get the short one I'll bet.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Oct 31, 2012)

From what I've been seeing, the Libertarian mindset is growing rapidly in popularity among voters, because quite frankly, it's common sense. Why start wars when there's no reason to and will only cause those countries to retaliate? Why give companies financial security when that will just encourage them to start taking stupid risks again? Why should harmless drugs be illegal when you can drastically reduce drug-related crimes, deaths and introduce a new form of taxation? Why be worried about one country potentially having a nuclear weapon, when you have hundreds? Why should the federal government dictate social issues for every single state when cultures vary?

Unfortunately, the people who like to believe they're "informed", most likely only listen to the mainstream media, and don't bother doing actual research into the candidates they're voting for. Do you honestly think informed people would vote for someone who flip-flops constantly on issues and isn't at all trustworthy? I would hope not, but that's at least 40% of voters. Let's not forget that a lot of people hate talking about politics anyways, and will probably just flip a coin at the end of the day, or will just vote for whoever their friends and families are voting for. Mainstream media also likes to paint Libertarian-minded candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson poorly, stating that they're crazy for not wanting to start wars and have young men and women heading into a pointless and endless battle.

Who cares if they have a "0% chance of winning"? At least by voting for someone I actually trusted, I'm sticking to my words and actually making an attempt to get things fixed. The most logical thing to do is voting for who you actually want to handle the job. The Republicans and Democrats are only powerful because of their voters, and without them, they're powerless. Nobody said that it would be an easy task, but it is possible, it has happened before, and it can happen again.

It's counter-productive to vote for someone who has a higher chance of winning, and it's completely illogical if you disagree with them. If you actually agree with them, fair enough, although I'm completely baffled as to how you can trust people who have betrayed you.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2012)

Peps said:


> Why start wars when there's no reason to and will only cause those countries to retaliate?


President Obama and the Democrats agree.



Peps said:


> Why give companies financial security when that will just encourage them to start taking stupid risks again?


Dodd-Frank ends bailouts and acts as a disincentive to take stupid risks.



Peps said:


> Why should harmless drugs be illegal when you can drastically reduce drug-related crimes, deaths and introduce a new form of taxation?


I agree with you on this one, but it should be noted that many Democrats are starting to come around on this issue.



Peps said:


> Why be worried about one country potentially having a nuclear weapon, when you have hundreds?


A nuclear Iran is kind of a big deal and something worth preventing if possible, and President Obama has been able to do so with things like diplomacy.



Peps said:


> Why should the federal government dictate social issues for every single state when cultures vary?


So by your logic, individual states should have the ability to have anti-sodomy laws, ban gay and/or interracial marriage, have their own civil rights laws (or lack thereof), etc?



Peps said:


> Unfortunately, the people who like to believe they're "informed", most likely only listen to the mainstream media, and don't bother doing actual research into the candidates they're voting for. Do you honestly think informed people would vote for someone who flip-flops constantly on issues and isn't at all trustworthy? I would hope not, but that's at least 40% of voters.


I agree that it's illogical for someone to vote for a flip-flopper like Mitt Romney. I would even go as far as to say it's illogical in most cases for someone to vote for a member of the Republican Party.



Peps said:


> Mainstream media also likes to paint Libertarian-minded candidates like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson poorly, stating that they're crazy for not wanting to start wars and have young men and women heading into a pointless and endless battle.


Ron Paul is the perfect example of how the media paints someone as crazy because they're actually crazy, and it has little or nothing to do with foreign policy. There are plenty of posts in this thread that go into detail about how Ron Paul holds crazy policy positions. It should also be noted that the media reports on people like Ron Paul by stating his policy positions or by stating how unpopular he is or how unlikely his candidacy is; they seldom outright say, "He's crazy." If the media reports on Ron Paul's policy positions and people think Ron Paul is crazy, then it's likely because they think those policy positions are crazy and has little to do with media bias.



Peps said:


> Who cares if they have a "0% chance of winning"?


Logical voters who want to have a say in this election and not throw their votes away care. By your logic, I should just vote for myself if the likelihood of a candidate's success is irrelevant.



Peps said:


> At least by voting for someone I actually trusted, I'm sticking to my words and actually making an attempt to get things fixed.


Sure, I understand that, but you already know that your vote isn't going to change the fact that ~99% of people are going to vote for President Obama or Governor Romney, so you're sending as much a message as you would by writing in "Mickey Mouse" or by just not voting; in fact, I would argue that you would be sending more of a message against the two major parties by not voting at all (you'd be contributing to a significantly large number of people who do not vote). Like I've already told Sterling, if your goal is to throw your vote away, go ahead and vote for Gary Johnson. If your goal is to have a say in who wins the presidential election, vote for one of the two major-party candidates.



Peps said:


> The most logical thing to do is voting for who you actually want to handle the job.


If the person you're voting for is guaranteed to lose, it's not at all logical to vote for him or her.



Peps said:


> The Republicans and Democrats are only powerful because of their voters, and without them, they're powerless. Nobody said that it would be an easy task, but it is possible, it has happened before, and it can happen again.


If your intention is to change the system, that's great, but voting for someone who is guaranteed not to get ~99% of the vote is not how you go about doing so.



Peps said:


> It's counter-productive to vote for someone who has a higher chance of winning


If you only have two candidates who can possibly win, then it's the very definition of "productive" to vote for one of them. If your goal is to influence the results of the presidential election, voting for Gary Johnson, by definition, is counter-productive.



Peps said:


> and it's completely illogical if you disagree with them.


If you absolutely have no preference between the two major-party candidates, which I find unlikely, then you're probably right. However, if you prefer one candidate over the other, than it's completely logical to do what you can to make sure your preferred candidate of the two wins.

I've mentioned multi-round voting numerous times during this conversation about third-party candidates. Multi-round voting means a voter lists his or her choices in preferential order and everyone's #1 choices are tallied; if none of the candidates has an absolute majority, the candidate with the least number of votes is dropped and anyone who voted for that candidate is moved to their #2 choice. This is the scenario that's essentially playing out right now, and you're arguing for writing "Gary Johnson," a candidate who for all intents and purposes has been dropped because he cannot win, as all of your choices rather than voting for your #2 preferential choice. That's illogical.



Peps said:


> If you actually agree with them, fair enough, although I'm completely baffled as to how you can trust people who have betrayed you.


If you're implying that President Obama has somehow betrayed the American people, I'd like to see some evidence of that.


----------



## Sterling (Oct 31, 2012)

One of the reasons 3rd party platforms never get far off the ground is the fact that their ideas get integrated into the Big Two's campaign platforms. This effectively integrates the 3rd parties supporters into one party or the other. I just so happen to want to make a statement this presidential election. I don't really care at this point in time whether or not my vote makes a lick of difference. All that matters to me is that I did not give in to a defeatist mentality (by voting for who I want and not putting stock into Romney or Obama), and I put my money where my mouth was so to speak.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 31, 2012)

Peps said:


> Why be worried about one country potentially having a nuclear weapon, when you have hundreds?


 
Lacius had a great reply, but I just wanted to respond to this because I've heard other people ask the same thing.

The problem is complicated. The main concern isn't just that Iran will have a nuclear weapon - that's bad enough, sure, but that alone isn't a catastrophe. The worry comes from fears that a nuclear armed Iran will spur an arms race in the Middle East, as other nations begin (or accelerate already existing) programs to create their own nuclear stockpiles. The Middle East is already an extremely volatile and unstable region; adding nuclear weapons to the mix would only exacerbate the situation.

The other major concern is that Iran hasn't exactly shied away from supporting terrorist organizations or making its opposition to the United States and Israel clear. Now, if Iran decides to hand one of these groups a nuclear weapon (or just the materials needed to create one), we could be looking at an attack that dwarfs 9/11.

With this much at stake, we can't exactly just throw our hands in the air and shout, "Welp, not our problem!"

It's not all bleak, though. The sanctions we've placed on Iran have clearly been working, and as their economy is beginning to crumble, the nation's leaders are signalling that they're willing to talk and negotiate. There's no guarantees, but there's still hope that we can resolve this issue peacefully.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Oct 31, 2012)

Lacius said:


> A nuclear Iran is kind of a big deal and something worth preventing if possible, and President Obama has been able to do so with things like diplomacy.
> 
> So by your logic, individual states should have the ability to have anti-sodomy laws, ban gay and/or interracial marriage, have their own civil rights laws (or lack thereof), etc?
> 
> ...


 
Don't tear down a post sentence by sentence as it completely ignores the primary point I'm trying to make.

Let's just tackle three statements you've made very briefly even though they're off-topic from this particular discussion (just because it really annoys me how out of touch people can be with understanding others). Iran and the Middle East problems is not your problem. Israel have already stated they can handle their problems themselves, and you're risking your own national security by getting involved in a problem that isn't yours. Do you honestly want to send young children to die for a meaningless cause? The only reason you're being attacked is because you're getting yourself involved in problems that don't concern you.

As for social issues, I live in Europe, which is effectively the equivalent of the United States. France has its own culture, Ireland has its culture, Italy has its own culture, Spain has its own culture, and so on. Our laws reflect our cultures and the wishes of that country/states's people. Who's to say that the federal government wouldn't ban gay marriage throughout the entire United States? Let states decide how their laws reflect their culture. Do people really have that little faith in the states? If you're not satisfied with your local government, vote them out, get people you trust in.

Obama betrayed the trust of the American people when he signed the NDAA into law. If you signed a bill into law that will give you the right to be judge, jury and executioner on me without any shred of evidence, you don't have my trust.

Now back to the main point. You're contradicting yourself. You're stating that your vote doesn't matter if you vote for a third party, yet entirely matters if you vote for Republicans or Democrats. It doesn't matter who you vote for, your vote *always* counts. Nobody is "guaranteed to lose" until the election day occurs. You have no idea who people are going to vote for, and you can only make an assumption. Yes, the odds certainly aren't in a third party candidate's favour, nobody is saying the opposite. But you're certainly not going to help those odds if you don't go vote for them. 

What do you think will happen if everyone decided to go "waste" their vote on a third-party candidate? Oh right, their votes don't matter because it's not a Republican or Democrat. I guess we're still stuck with a Republican/Democrat even if we don't vote for them.


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2012)

Peps said:


> Iran and the Middle East problems is not your problem. Israel have already stated they can handle their problems themselves, and you're risking your own national security by getting involved in a problem that isn't yours.


I agree that the United States should have less to do with the Middle East, but you're inaccurately painting a black and white picture. I refer you back to Gahars' excellent post on a nuclear Iran, for starters.



Peps said:


> Do you honestly want to send young children to die for a meaningless cause?


It goes without saying, but no, I don't. Nice logical fallacy though.



Peps said:


> The only reason you're being attacked is because you're getting yourself involved in problems that don't concern you.


Again, depending on what you're referring to, that's not entirely true.



Peps said:


> As for social issues, I live in Europe, which is effectively the equivalent of the United States. France has its own culture, Ireland has its culture, Italy has its own culture, Spain has its own culture, and so on. Our laws reflect our cultures and the wishes of that country/states's people.


Are you saying that, for example, it's moral for a society to ban interracial marriage because it has a culture of racial segregation? The United States used to have a culture and economy based around slavery, but that doesn't mean slavery was ever moral. You're also talking about different countries and not different states within the same country.



Peps said:


> Who's to say that the federal government wouldn't ban gay marriage throughout the entire United States?


You're right; that could feasibly happen. However, that says nothing about the morality of the federal government banning or granting gay marriage throughout the entire United States.



Peps said:


> Let states decide how their laws reflect their culture. Do people really have that little faith in the states?


Considering that the federal government and/or judicial branch has had to step in for issues like anti-sodomy laws, interracial marriage, civil rights, probably gay marriage in the future, etc, you're correct; I don't have faith in the states' ability to get it right. I've already explained how something being part of one's culture doesn't inherently make that something morally right.

It should also be noted that many of the things above arguably violate the Constitution (separation of church and state, for example), which adds a legality component on top of the moral issues.



Peps said:


> If you're not satisfied with your local government, vote them out, get people you trust in.


Have you tried telling that to a proponent of gay rights in the Deep South? And again, that says nothing about the morality of the specific issue.



Peps said:


> Obama betrayed the trust of the American people when he signed the NDAA into law. If you signed a bill into law that will give you the right to be judge, jury and executioner on me without any shred of evidence, you don't have my trust.


You're forgetting two things:

1. President Obama issued a signing statement against the controversial part of the law because he and the Democrats are against it.

2. The controversial part of the law is a Republican addition.

That's not to say that I think the President should have signed it, but I want to point out that you're leaving out important information in order to make your point.



Peps said:


> Now back to the main point. You're contradicting yourself. You're stating that your vote doesn't matter if you vote for a third party, yet entirely matters if you vote for Republicans or Democrats. It doesn't matter who you vote for, your vote *always* counts. Nobody is "guaranteed to lose" until the election day occurs. You have no idea who people are going to vote for, and you can only make an assumption. Yes, the odds certainly aren't in a third party candidate's favour, nobody is saying the opposite. But you're certainly not going to help those odds if you don't go vote for them.
> 
> What do you think will happen if everyone decided to go "waste" their vote on a third-party candidate? Oh right, their votes don't matter because it's not a Republican or Democrat. I guess we're still stuck with a Republican/Democrat even if we don't vote for them.


First of all, just because you disagree with what I said doesn't mean I contradicted myself, so please don't say that I did.

Second, we know from precedent and polling that no more than ~1% of people are going to vote for candidates other than President Obama and Governor Romney, and it is accurate to say that, statistically, Gary Johnson has a 0% chance of winning the presidential election. As far as talking about who is going to win the presidential election, it is factually accurate to say Gary Johnson cannot win. You seem to be confusing "If everyone just votes for Gary Johnson, Gary Johnson will win," with "It is possible for Gary Johnson to win." Although it's a poor example for other reasons, that's like me saying it's possible for Mickey Mouse to win because Mickey Mouse will win if everyone just votes for Mickey Mouse; that doesn't mean it's actually possible. You're ignoring a very important variable: the electorate. You can't just make up your own electorate for the purposes of saying something is possible.


----------



## KingVamp (Oct 31, 2012)

Lacius said:


> President Obama and the Democrats agree
> If you're implying that President Obama has somehow betrayed the American people, I'd like to see some evidence of that.


To be fair he did signed the NDAA, but it not being misused ... yet. Don't get me wrong, I didn't like it, but
he didn't actually use to betray us, the possibility is quite high with it in place.

I want that gone, not the whole President's views and plans.We can get rid of that without getting rid of
President would be ideal.


Sterling said:


> One of the reasons 3rd party platforms never get far off the ground is the fact that their ideas get integrated into the Big Two's campaign platforms.


Your point is ingratiation of the views you like is a bad thing or...?




Sterling said:


> I just so happen to want to make a statement this presidential election. I don't really care at this point in time whether or not my vote makes a lick of difference. All that matters to me is that I did not give in to a defeatist mentality (by voting for who I want and not putting stock into Romney or Obama), and I put my money where my mouth was so to speak.


So, throwing away your vote by choosing the greatly unlikely 3rd party with the biggest reason is just to make a statement rather than the 2nd choice (who has a big chance in winning) for the best of the Country who might lose due to your missing vote is a better mentality then "defeatist mentality"? A mentality which may not even be valid under this circumstances.

I see if you didn't like not even one of the two most likely (nearly) at all (which doesn't seem like the case for you since you seem mostly towards Obama) for reasons other then because what party their in then fine, but if you mostly like one of the most likely (lol) too win then choice that person.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 31, 2012)

@Peps

Alright. I know it's a peeve of yours, so sorry, but I'm just going to break this down to make for easier reading. Anyway...

1) You can't just say that something "isn't our problem". We live in an interconnected world now; what happens in one region (especially the Middle East) will impact everyone else. Instability and violence in the region_ is_ our problem; it's everyone's problem. Turning to isolationist policies won't make it all go away; that's a lesson we've learned before.

Ignoring Iran's nuclear belligerence, and allowing it to continue unchecked, would be extremely shortsighted. Working together with the international community to dissuade them (as we are now), however, can prevent bloodshed. We can make it sure this doesn't have to come to war, but only if we stay involved.

(And do note, that involvement and military interventionism aren't one and the same here.)

Plus, that's a pretty huge oversimplification at the end there. You don't honestly think that's all there is to the motivations behind terrorist groups, do you?

2) Side note, but whatever. While I don't agree with the amount of aid we give to Israel, I have no problem with aiding them in general. They're a key alley in the region, one surrounded by hostile nations, so offering assistance is sensible. Also, unless I'm missing something, when has Israel asked for less US aid or involvement?

3) Alright, your analogy has a major flaw. France, Italy, etc. are all separate nations. The states are not separate, sovereign entities. They do not have separate cultures; there may be distinct subcultures, sure, but that's where it ends.

States don't get to deny people of their rights, to go against the spirit of the Constitution (whether or not that bigotry and injustice is voted in), just because "it's their culture". They tried that argument before; we had to have a Civil War to settle it.

The best way to think of it is that the states are administrative units of the Federal Government. They get some autonomy in how they handle their affairs, but at the end of the day, they still answer to a higher body. (If you want a more in depth discussion with Foxi4 on this subject a while back, you may want to read that since it goes into more detail).

4) The backlash over the NDAA is overblown. Needless to say, the controversial provisions were misrepresented. Even if that wasn't the case, though, the President had no choice but to sign the bill; the controversial sections were amendments tacked on to a budget. If he hadn't signed it, our military would have no funding, effectively abandoning our troops overseas.

You could imagine what a disaster that would've been.

5) On this last point, I think it's just worth noting that there's a difference between defeatism and pragmatism. Americans are more than willing to vote for third party candidates if they present themselves as viable (Ross Perot received 20% of the vote in 1992, after all, and the Republican Party started its life as a third party), but our current third parties seem to be more interested in catering to political fringes than offering a comprehensive vision that could appeal to voters.


----------



## Jan1tor (Oct 31, 2012)

Lacius said:


> That's a bit of a stretch, don't you think? Mitt Romney has a long history of flat-out lying, while I have yet to see an instance when President Obama did more than embellish the truth. Feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken.


 
Here on this site http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies  is a whole list of lies with the articles to back them up.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Oct 31, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I agree that the United States should have less to do with the Middle East, but you're inaccurately painting a black and white picture. I refer you back to Gahars' excellent post on a nuclear Iran, for starters.
> 
> It goes without saying, but no, I don't. Nice logical fallacy though.
> 
> ...



Again, breaking down a post into multiple discussions is annoying and makes your arguments hard and boring to read.

Unfortunately the situation with the US and Iran is simple. Don't get involved in situations that don't concern you, and quit trying to be the policemen of the world. You're broke. Get out and fix your own problems at home first, and quit making enemies. Slash the defense budget because there's simply no need to be spending that much money on defense. Neither Obama nor Romney are talking about cutting the amount of defense spending.

I'm not leaving out any important information when it comes to the NDAA, it shouldn't have been signed. He should not assume he's going to be in office for another 4 years, and should be spending time ensuring that piece of legislation is removed. He isn't and he clearly wants that power. Just because he's making a promise not to use it, doesn't mean he's not going to use it. It's law, he's allowed to, and that quite simply is betrayal. If Obama didn't want that power or wasn't going to use it, why on earth would his administration fight so hard against the ruling stating that it was unconstitutional? If he actually was true to his promise, they would have never appealed.

Your morals are not the same as everyone else's morals. Just because you believe it's perfectly fine for gay marriage to be allowed, it doesn't mean you're right, and it doesn't mean that other people are comfortable with it. The majority of Irish people believe that abortion should be illegal, and it is illegal, because it reflects the morals of the majority of the country. Other countries in Europe on the other hand, might feel differently. However, does the EU have the right to disrespect our culture and wishes and force their culture on us? Absolutely not. Social issues are local issues, and federal government is not local. If you're not comfortable in the culture you're living in, move to a different culture where you do feel more comfortable. And if you hate your local government, you have a vote that you can use on any candidate you want. Now bare in mind, if it's against the constitution, that's a different matter, and I'm not arguing that states are allowed to go against it. However, if it's a social issue, and it's not against the constitution, then the states should be allowed to do whatever they want.

You're stating our votes don't matter, and you're saying they do matter. That's a contradiction. You're also saying there's no point voting for a third party candidate to campaign so hard, because others have failed in the past. You've given up, that's disgraceful. You come from the "land of opportunities", and you're already admitting defeat so easily. People's opinions can change over time. The candidates of the past are not the same candidates of the present, and they won't be the candidates of the future. The current voters are not the same voters from several years ago, and won't be the same voters voting soon, and won't be the same voters in the future. If you've been paying attention outside of mainstream media, you would notice that the Libertarian mindset is growing immensely in popularity, and younger people in particular are becoming heavily more politically active. If you've paid attention to the Republican caucuses at all, you'll notice there was a huge reform going on, where biased chairpersons have been removed for liberty-minded chairpersons who fully respect an individual's vote.

Times are changing, voters are changing, and the two-party system can be broken if you stop being negative, and stop wasting your vote on the "better of two evils". Odds will change slowly, but they will change. As Gahars said, the Republican party was a third-party before, but that changed didn't it. Yet according to you, nobody should have wasted their vote on them.



Gahars said:


> @Peps
> 
> Alright. I know it's a peeve of yours, so sorry, but I'm just going to break this down to make for easier reading. Anyway...
> 
> ...



You've already just debunked your own argument using the word "isolationist" policies, implying that third party candidates want to turn the US into another North Korea, which is far from the truth. All third party candidates are saying, like the majority of countries in the world, that the US should stop nation-building, stop getting involved in problems that doesn't concern it, and instead of threatening to bomb other countries, start trying to understand their problems and listening to them. 9/11 didn't happen because other countries hated your "freedoms", you were invading their country and disrespecting their holy lands. You're getting yourself into bigger trouble, and are making more unnecessary enemies.

What gives the US the right to have several hundred nuclear weapons and to dictate whether or not another country can research into nuclear material? Iran isn't planning on making a weapon, and even if they did, they're not suicidal. They're not going to attack the largest country in the world when it clearly means their doom. Get some goddamn common sense and start understanding other people. You know what? Why is the rest of the world not going at war with America? You're the biggest threat in the world. The number of nuclear weapons you have, and the fact you have war-mongering presidential candidates absolutely terrifies me.



As the above video proves, Israel is pretty much repeating what third party candidates have been saying for a long time.

As for the rest, read above.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 31, 2012)

Peps, I have no idea where you got the impression that my points on isolationism and third parties are connected. Sure, there are some third parties that promote isolationist agendas, but that had nothing to do with what I was saying. And no where did I argue against diplomatic solutions or make any claim that the terrorists "hated our freedoms". Projecting much?

Look, you evidently have not read my post regarding the Iran situation... or much of either of our posts. You continue to deliberately misconstrue or flat out ignore our points and then respond with insults and condescension. I'm all for a respectful debate, but that's evidently not what you're after.

If you want to fight straw men, fine, but don't waste our time.


----------



## constantgamer247 (Oct 31, 2012)

already casted my absentee ballot.  Perk of being a US citizen


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Oct 31, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Peps, I have no idea where you got the impression that my points on isolationism and third parties are connected. Sure, there are some third parties that promote isolationist agendas, but that had nothing to do with what I was saying. And no where did I argue against diplomatic solutions or make any claim that the terrorists "hated our freedoms". Projecting much?
> 
> Look, you evidently have not read my post regarding the Iran situation... or much of either of our posts. You continue to deliberately misconstrue or flat out ignore our points and then respond with insults and condescension. I'm all for a respectful debate, but that's evidently not what you're after.
> 
> If you want to fight straw men, fine, but don't waste our time.


It has everything to do with your statements, because it shows a clear misunderstanding of what the options are. Nothing is being ignored at all, unless you can show me something vital that was missed and you're wanting a counter for. Besides, when I write I speak to everyone, not just you.

There isn't a single popular third party candidate promoting "isolationist agendas". Your points suggest that the only option, is for the US to get involved, or to close itself off from the world. Let's look at every single other country in the world, like here in Ireland. We don't get involved in foreign affairs. Why should we? Is it a threat to our national security if we let Middle East countries deal with their problems themselves? Not that I'm aware of. Israel said they can handle the problem themselves. You wanted evidence of that, you got it.


----------



## Coltonamore (Oct 31, 2012)

SickPuppy said:


> Sweet, can I throw my two cents in here too?


YOU SUCK I,LL KICK YOUR *** IF YOU DO THAT AGAIN


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2012)

Jan1tor said:


> Here on this site http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies is a whole list of lies with the articles to back them up.


I'm not going to go through each and every one, but most of the ones I see on this website are embellishments or even true statements. Just a few off the top of my head:

The website claims "Planned Parenthood provides mammograms" is a lie. While Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms on site, they are heavily involved in setting up mammograms for patients.

The website claims "You didn't build that" is one of Obama's lies. Wikipedia does a good job explaining why that's both out of context and not a lie.

The website claims "Under Gov. Romney’s definition … Donald Trump is a small business" is a lie, but Politifact calls this a lie based entirely on the fact that "any tax cuts Trump would get from Romney would have nothing to do with whether he’s a small business or not," but Obama's claim was in response to Romney's claim that taxes on small businesses would go up under Obama's plan, and that's only because it includes people like Donald Trump in that figure (something like 97% of small businesses are unaffected by Obama's tax plan, and the other 3% include people like Donald Trump).

I can't take a website seriously when it claims "You didn't build that" as an Obama lie. This website also heavily relies on Politifact, a website that said "Ryan's plan would end Medicare" was the lie of the year because it left out the qualifier "Medicare *as we know it*."



Peps said:


> Again, breaking down a post into multiple discussions is annoying and makes your arguments hard and boring to read.


Respectfully, if you don't want me to have to break down your post to highlight the multitude of individual problems, don't post a response with so many fallacies.

Also, as long as I'm presenting what I think is factual information, I don't care how boring my posts are.



Peps said:


> Neither Obama nor Romney are talking about cutting the amount of defense spending.


You're right that Mitt Romney only talks about increasing defense spending (specifically, by $2 trillion). However, President Obama has ended the war in Iraq and has provided a timetable for ending the war in Afghanistan, for starters.



Peps said:


> I'm not leaving out any important information when it comes to the NDAA, it shouldn't have been signed. He should not assume he's going to be in office for another 4 years, and should be spending time ensuring that piece of legislation is removed. He isn't and he clearly wants that power. Just because he's making a promise not to use it, doesn't mean he's not going to use it. It's law, he's allowed to, and that quite simply is betrayal. If Obama didn't want that power or wasn't going to use it, why on earth would his administration fight so hard against the ruling stating that it was unconstitutional? If he actually was true to his promise, they would have never appealed.


Gahars already explained why the NDAA needed to be signed.



Peps said:


> Your morals are not the same as everyone else's morals. Just because you believe it's perfectly fine for gay marriage to be allowed, it doesn't mean you're right, and it doesn't mean that other people are comfortable with it.


You're right that the fact that I think gay marriage should be legal doesn't inherently make it right; there are a thousand other reasons why gay marriage should be legal and zero reasons why it should be illegal. My personal opinions on the subject are irrelevant.

You also seem to be arguing that because some people are uncomfortable with something means it should be illegal in that area. You can't say that states should have the right to criminalize gay marriage if you don't think they also have the right to criminalize, for example, interracial marriage. You're essentially arguing that states' rights to make the laws they want outweigh the rights of individuals to marry, that states' rights to make the laws they want outweigh the rights of individuals not to be discriminated against on the basis of skin color, etc.

We could have a lengthy discussion on why gay marriage should be legal across the country, but I'm more interested in why you think it's okay for states to implement immoral laws just because the majority of people in that state wrongfully think it's okay. Where do you draw the line? Gay marriage? Interracial marriage? Drug decriminalization? Civil rights? Abortion? Slavery? Again, you seem to think it's okay to take rights away from the individual as long as the states' rights to take away your rights aren't violated.



Peps said:


> If you're not comfortable in the culture you're living in, move to a different culture where you do feel more comfortable.


That says nothing about whether or not what a state is doing is morally acceptable.



Peps said:


> You're stating our votes don't matter, and you're saying they do matter. That's a contradiction.


I was very specific in saying that if your goal is to influence who wins the presidential election, a vote for Gary Johnson is the same as throwing your vote away. There is no contradiction. Please do not take out all of my qualifiers and say that I said, "Your votes don't matter but actually they matter."



Peps said:


> You're also saying there's no point voting for a third party candidate to campaign so hard, because others have failed in the past.


That's not at all what I said. I'm saying there's no point in voting for a third-party candidate like Gary Johnson when we know specifically that all the third-party candidates won't get more than a combined ~1% in this election. Please don't say I said things I didn't.



Peps said:


> You come from the "land of opportunities", and you're already admitting defeat so easily. People's opinions can change over time. The candidates of the past are not the same candidates of the present, and they won't be the candidates of the future. The current voters are not the same voters from several years ago, and won't be the same voters voting soon, and won't be the same voters in the future.


First of all, I'm not admitting any sort of defeat. Second, I don't disagree with anything you've said.

However, we do have a fairly good understanding of how many people are going to vote for third-party candidates, and it's insignificant. If anyone thinks a third-party candidate like Gary Johnson has a chance at winning the 2012 presidential election, they're lying to themselves.



Peps said:


> If you've been paying attention outside of mainstream media, you would notice that the Libertarian mindset is growing immensely in popularity, and younger people in particular are becoming heavily more politically active. If you've paid attention to the Republican caucuses at all, you'll notice there was a huge reform going on, where biased chairpersons have been removed for liberty-minded chairpersons who fully respect an individual's vote.


If you had been paying attention to the Republican primary season, you would know that Ron Paul didn't win the popular vote of a single state. It's also an overstatement to say the libertarian mindset is "growing immensely in popularity."



Peps said:


> Times are changing, voters are changing, and the two-party system can be broken if you stop being negative, and stop wasting your vote on the "better of two evils". Odds will change slowly, but they will change. As Gahars said, the Republican party was a third-party before, but that changed didn't it. Yet according to you, nobody should have wasted their vote on them.


Had you actually read my posts, you would know that I said it's possible to change the system. In fact, I even advocated a multi-round system to help accomplish this. All I've said is that voting as part of the ~1% is not going to accomplish anything as far as helping to pick who wins the election or sending any kind of message. It only makes sense to vote for a candidate who has a chance among the electorate, regardless of party. If Gary Johnson were actually polling well, I'd say that Gary Johnson is a completely logical choice as far as potentiality to win goes.

All of my points seem to have gone over your head (or you're just ignoring me). Without public support of Gary Johnson, there is no logical reason to vote for him if you're plan is to help decide who wins the election. If you're upset about it, help to increase public support of him so he becomes a viable candidate (again, as far as potentiality to win goes). I disagree with a lot of Gary Johnson's policy positions.

Most of Gahars' points seem to have gone over your head as well.


----------



## Valwin (Oct 31, 2012)

trumpet-205 said:


> If I have to pick, Obama because he did bring a closure to 911 (bin Laden).
> 
> However, everyone knows that regardless who win the race, there will be no significant difference. Both are backed by political parties; contrary to what George Washington wanted.


 
actually he did not he happen to be president at the time they got him but bush is the one that started this


----------



## Lacius (Oct 31, 2012)

Valwin said:


> actually he did not he happen to be president at the time they got him but bush is the one that started this


There are major differences between President Bush's policies and President Obama's policies, and President Obama's policies were what got the job done. In fact, both President Bush and Governor Romney implied that capturing and/or killing Osama bin Laden wasn't that important.


----------



## Valwin (Oct 31, 2012)

Lacius said:


> There are major differences between President Bush's policies and President Obama's policies, and President Obama's policies were what got the job done. In fact, both President Bush and Governor Romney implied that capturing and/or killing Osama bin Laden wasn't that important.


 
they were after him for years obama did no add to it


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Oct 31, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Respectfully, if you don't want me to have to break down your post to highlight the multitude of individual problems, don't post a response with so many fallacies.
> 
> Also, as long as I'm presenting what I think is factual information, I don't care how boring my posts are.
> 
> ...



You're missing the point about the NDAA. The fact of the matter is, Obama betrayed his people by fighting for that clause to be kept intact after it was removed. Are you saying that was necessary? How was that necessary? Why was it necessary for him to keep a law that allows him to kill you without trial? Do you not feel frightened by that? Why would he ask for an appeal? I want an explanation for that.

Again, those decisions are immoral to *you*, not to the states who consist of fairly elected individuals(I don't know what the term you use for local government is). You're accusing others of being wrong and you're attempting to enforce your beliefs on other people who don't agree with you. Would you not find it disrespectful if the majority of your state wanted to legalise gay marriage, but the federal government wanted to ban it? Answer that.

None of Gahar's points have gone over my head. He's just doesn't have a point. He's saying this is what the situation is in Iran. I'm saying that the US should not get involved because there's no reason to. What's your argument there? Are you saying that it makes perfect sense for the US, when it's bankrupt, to continue invading other countries and to make more enemies? Answer that one too.

Unfortunately you're not going to change the system if you're only going to vote for the same type of candidates over and over. You're voting for the people with the resources to be popular in the current system. If you want to change the system, start by promoting third party candidates, and make a dent in the current system. The popular vote was irrelevant during the Republican primaries, it was who was politically active that was determining the outcomes. That's increasing like wildfire, and that's what counts.


----------



## Daemauroa (Oct 31, 2012)

I'll probably choose Obama. just he seems nicer to me than Mitt Romney does. but anyway, I may not legally vote in my country even, and don't even know what viewpoints they all have.
and actually I agree with the part of what he said about Obama, ''because he is the least worse option''
I think that is a pretty good and humorous way of describing democracy, and it's actually true.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2012)

Valwin said:


> they were after him for years obama did no add to it


I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but please remember that shortly after Obama took office that he made finding Osama bin Laden a top military priority and exhibited extensive leadership in finding and killing him. If you're going to claim that President Obama had nothing to do with it, please back that up with evidence.



Peps said:


> You're missing the point about the NDAA. The fact of the matter is, Obama betrayed his people by fighting for that clause to be kept intact after it was removed. Are you saying that was necessary? How was that necessary? Why was it necessary for him to keep a law that allows him to kill you without trial? Do you not feel frightened by that? Why would he ask for an appeal? I want an explanation for that.


I'm going to let someone else answer this if they can, because I have no idea why he appealed it. However, I wouldn't go as far as to say President Obama "betrayed his people."

It's worth noting that there are legal arguments that the legislation does not allow for indefinite detention. It's also worth noting that it's already allowed for Americans to be killed without trial if they pose some kind of threat. For example, if I were to take a bunch of hostages and threaten their lives, there's nothing in the law stopping the use of deadly force against me.



Peps said:


> Again, those decisions are immoral to you, not to the states who consist of fairly elected individuals(I don't know what the term you use for local government is).


Are you taking the moral relativist point of view that something is automatically moral as long as the majority agrees that it's moral? If not, then your point about allowing the states to do whatever they want doesn't make sense. If so, then tell me why it wasn't okay to let the Holocaust happen or let slavery in the United States continue.



Peps said:


> You're accusing others of being wrong and you're attempting to enforce your beliefs on other people who don't agree with you.


Those who disagree with the position that gay marriage should be illegal do so because of bigoted and/or religious views. Bigotry is immoral, we live in a secular nation where not everyone holds the same religious beliefs, and legalizing gay marriage in no way violates anyone's rights. No matter which side one takes, beliefs are going to be enforced on people don't agree with them, whether it's making gay marriage legal or illegal, so whether or not people agree is irrelevant in terms of whether or not the position is moral.



Peps said:


> Would you not find it disrespectful if the majority of your state wanted to legalise gay marriage, but the federal government wanted to ban it?


It would be disrespectful because the federal government banning gay marriage is immoral; the federal government banning something the majority of a state legalized is not inherently immoral nor disrespectful.



Peps said:


> None of Gahar's points have gone over my head. He's just doesn't have a point. He's saying this is what the situation is in Iran. I'm saying that the US should not get involved because there's no reason to. What's your argument there? Are you saying that it makes perfect sense for the US, when it's bankrupt, to continue invading other countries and to make more enemies? Answer that one too.


It sounds like you didn't read Gahars' points on the repercussions of a nuclear Iran, why it sounds isolationist to say "X isn't your problem," or how the United States is dealing with Iran without invading it, making more enemies, nor contributing to our financial problems. Just because you failed to read and/or understand Gahars' points doesn't mean he didn't have any. Most, if not all, of what you just mentioned concerning foreign policy has been touched upon.

Also, you should look up what it means to be bankrupt, because despite our debt problems, the United States is not bankrupt.



Peps said:


> Unfortunately you're not going to change the system if you're only going to vote for the same type of candidates over and over. You're voting for the people with the resources to be popular in the current system. If you want to change the system, start by promoting third party candidates, and make a dent in the current system.


You're not going to change the system unless you sway public opinion. If ~99% of people say, "I'm going to vote for one of the two major-party candidates," then your third-party candidate has lost and the logical thing to do is to vote for your second choice if you want your voice to be heard as far as choosing the winner of the election goes. As I've said numerous times already, if your goal is to stubbornly vote for your third-party candidate until public opinion shifts towards your candidate (if that happens), that's totally fine, but the fact remains that your vote doesn't count towards the election anymore than writing in "Mickey Mouse" until that public opinion shift. Period.



Peps said:


> The popular vote was irrelevant during the Republican primaries, it was who was politically active that was determining the outcomes.


You're right that for Ron Paul, the popular vote was irrelevant when he, for lack of a better word, "cheated" by hijacking the unbound delegates. However, that's far from being able to say that the popular vote was completely "irrelevant;" Mitt Romney eventually became the Republican nominee because more people voted for him and he got more delegates "legitimately."

You also can't argue that the popular vote is irrelevant when you're argument is that there's a significant increase in people who hold libertarian views and voted for Ron Paul.



Peps said:


> That's increasing like wildfire, and that's what counts.


I disagree that it's "increasing like wildfire," but analogies are difficult to argue against.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 1, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I'm going to let someone else answer this if they can, because I have no idea why he appealed it. However, I wouldn't go as far as to say President Obama "betrayed his people."
> 
> It's worth noting that there are legal arguments that the legislation does not allow for indefinite detention. It's also worth noting that it's already allowed for Americans to be killed without trial if they pose some kind of threat. For example, if I were to take a bunch of hostages and threaten their lives, there's nothing in the law stopping the use of deadly force against me.
> 
> ...



If the law to kill US citizens already existed, they would not have fought or appealed to keep that clause intact. Simple as. 

You seem to be refusing to acknowledge that morals are purely dependent on the person. Everyone has different sets of morals. We all have different opinions on what is moral and what isn't. You're again forcing your opinion onto others, stating that if something doesn't go your way, it's immoral. Let's take piracy as an example, some people might think it's fine, others will disagree. Your morals are yours, not everyone's.

There's no repercussions to Iran having a nuclear weapon as I've already stated. They're not suicidal, and they're not going to start a war with a country that has hundreds of nuclears weapons. Not to mention, they don't have the resources to even make a nuclear weapon. Your points have been read, and you're both just repeating war-mongering nonsense that has no genuine basis whatsoever. 

I know public opinion needs to be changed in order to bring about a change. Why do you think I'm trying to convince you that no matter who you vote for, it's worth something? If 99% of people don't vote for the third party candidate, then clearly the candidate needs to campaign better and get his name out there. You're just outright refusing to vote for them and claiming they're always a "waste" of a vote. That's the public opinion I want to change. So why not help make a start with that eh?

The people who want to bring change are those who get themselves politically involved. The number of those people is increasing, and they're mostly libertarian minded as the Republican caucases have shown. It's fact. Compare this year to 2008, and you'll see the huge changes that have been happening.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 1, 2012)

Chris Christie (R) praises Obama (D) about the Hurricane Sandy situation on Fox News of all stations...



(I'll give my opinion after a few posts) And...GO!


----------



## trumpet-205 (Nov 1, 2012)

Valwin said:


> actually he did not he happen to be president at the time they got him but bush is the one that started this


 
Bush did start this, but it was Obama who authorized the operation (although CIA wasn't sure it was bin Laden hiding there at that time). Regardless of who bring 911 to closure. I mostly am referring to George Washington's Farewell Address, where Washington specifically stated that political parties,

* Only sought political power and revenge against opposing parties
* Biggest enemies of the government.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 1, 2012)

I'm not a big fan of my governor, but I can certainly commend him for his response to the storm. In the midst of disasters like this, it's great to see politicians put aside partisan squabbles to get down to work.

Considering we're in the midst of election season, this hurricane has been something of a nice little breather in that respect. Only 6 more days to go...


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2012)

Peps said:


> If the law to kill US citizens already existed, they would not have fought or appealed to keep that clause intact. Simple as.


I think you need to reread what I said, because I conceded that I don't understand why it was appealed. I'm also having trouble understanding what you're trying to say here.


Peps said:


> You seem to be refusing to acknowledge that morals are purely dependent on the person. Everyone has different sets of morals. We all have different opinions on what is moral and what isn't. You're again forcing your opinion onto others, stating that if something doesn't go your way, it's immoral. Let's take piracy as an example, some people might think it's fine, others will disagree. Your morals are yours, not everyone's.


Everything you just said supports my hypothesis that you're a moral relativist who thinks something is automatically moral as long as the majority of a group says it's moral, which means you're arguing that slavery in the South was moral and should have been left alone. Instead of me making the same points over and over for you to ignore, I recommend you actually read my posts.
On a quick side note, I should also point out that by your moral relativist logic, if a group (like the United States, for example) comes together and decides that the federal government should intervene in the case of social issues (such as slavery or civil rights, for example), then the idea that the federal government should be able to dictate social policy country-wide automatically becomes moral and debunks your entire argument for states' rights.


Peps said:


> There's no repercussions to Iran having a nuclear weapon as I've already stated.


Had you read Gahars' post, you would understand that the evidence and precedent show that there probably would be negative repercussions from a nuclear Iran. Don't expect to be taken seriously by saying it's all "war-mongering nonsense" when you haven't done anything to respond to either of our individual points on the subject; you're basically putting your fingers in your ears and saying, "Nope, there are no repercussions." It's looking likely that you're not interested in having an actual discussion.


Peps said:


> I know public opinion needs to be changed in order to bring about a change. Why do you think I'm trying to convince you that no matter who you vote for, it's worth something?


As far as helping to pick who wins the 2012 presidential election, a vote for someone like Gary Johnson (or Mickey Mouse) who doesn't have a chance at winning the election is a waste of a vote; the vote literally becomes as worthless as if it hadn't been cast. However, as I've said more times than I've cared to, if your goal is something other than helping to elect the winner of the presidential election (like symbolically making some sort of statement), then by all means, vote for whomever you want, but it's not going to be much of a statement when a combined total of ~1% of people are going to vote for someone other than the two major-party candidates.


Peps said:


> You're just outright refusing to vote for them and claiming they're always a "waste" of a vote.


I haven't claimed anything more than the fact that voting for a third-party candidate like Gary Johnson in this particular election is a waste of a vote since he can't possibly win, so again, please don't say I said things I didn't when I never used the word "always." With all due respect, your habit of saying I said things that I didn't is making it difficult for me to take you seriously.


Peps said:


> That's the public opinion I want to change.


Assuming I understand what you mean by the "public opinion you want to change," I think you're deluding yourself if you think Gary Johnson would have a chance at winning the election if everyone who knowingly agreed with Gary Johnson just voted for him instead of a major-party candidate. I'd like to see some evidence that Gary Johnson's support is that significant.


Peps said:


> So why not help make a start with that eh?


Because being a part of the combined ~1% of people who vote for a third-party candidate does nothing to change public opinion, nor does it do anything to elect the winner of the presidential race.
On the off chance you're asking me why I specifically don't "help make a start with that," it's because many of Gary Johnson's policy positions are illogical.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 1, 2012)

Is this accurate/trustworthy?
http://electoral-vote.com/
Or this.
http://unskewedpolls.com/


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Is this accurate/trustworthy?
> http://electoral-vote.com/


It's accurate in that it's making predictions about what's likely based on the evidence. The FiveThirtyEight blog is my go-to place for election predictions, and I think it's more thorough. However, the two websites tend to corroborate one another.

Edit: unskewedpolls.com is neither accurate nor trustworthy. It operates under the assumption that all the polls are disproportionately polling more self-identified Democrats than Republicans, but that says nothing about polling accuracy when it's a random sample; all that says is there are more people who happen to identify as Democrats. That's like me taking a classroom full of students, polling a random sample of them to see if they support Obama or Romney, 80% of them saying they identify as Democrats, and me throwing out the numbers because all the polls have to include 50% self-identified Democrats and 50% self-identified Republicans. No pollster takes unskewedpolls.com seriously.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 1, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Edit: unskewedpolls.com is neither accurate nor trustworthy. It operates under the assumption that all the polls are disproportionately polling more self-identified Democrats than Republicans, but that says nothing about polling accuracy when it's a random sample; all that says is there are more people who happen to identify as Democrats. That's like me taking a classroom full of students, polling a random sample of them to see if they support Obama or Romney, 80% of them saying they identify as Democrats, and me throwing out the numbers because all the polls have to include 50% self-identified Democrats and 50% self-identified Republicans. No pollster takes unskewedpolls.com seriously.


I thought so, I keep seeing people from Romney side on other sites saying these are one the real polls and Obama has no chance.
I felt that was ridiculous, but I wanted confirmation.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 1, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I think you need to reread what I said, because I conceded that I don't understand why it was appealed. I'm also having trouble understanding here what you're trying to say.
> 
> Everything you just said supports my hypothesis that you're a moral relativist who thinks something is automatically moral as long as the majority of a group says it's moral, which means you're arguing that slavery in the South was moral and should have been left alone. Instead of me making the same points over and over for you to ignore, I recommend you actually read my posts.
> On a quick side note, I should also point out that by your moral relativist logic, if a group (like the United States, for example) comes together and decides that the federal government should intervene in the case of social issues (such as slavery or civil rights, for example), then the idea that the federal government should be able to dictate social policy country-wide automatically becomes moral and debunks your entire argument for states' rights.
> ...


 
You said the law already existed, hence, there shouldn't be a need to appeal. It clearly doesn't. That's my point. Now more importantly, why on earth do you still trust Obama?

Your posts are being read, you're just trying to state that your morals are the only correct ones. You're completely ignoring the point I'm trying to present to you. Your morals are not necessarily right. What is right and what is wrong? You have your definition of what is right and wrong, I have mine, and everyone else has their own. You can argue as much as you want, but it's disrespectful to others to state that their morals are plain wrong. I'm going to use your words here, you're "putting your fingers in your ears". Let's take my earlier example, piracy, is it right or is it wrong? Everyone is going to have a different opinion on it. Your effectively stating that your opinion is the only opinion that matters. It doesn't matter what logic you're using, that's what you're saying.

You haven't proven that there are negative repercussions from Iran having a nuclear weapon. You haven't proven that they're capable of having a nuclear weapon. You haven't given any reason why the US is allowed to have multiple nuclear weapons and not be considered a threat. You're clearly not interested in having an actual discussion if you're not going to provide me any evidence or proof. Perhaps counter the argument that Israel have stated that they're clearly capable of handling the situation themselves and don't want the US to be involved? All both of you have just stated is "oh look you're ignoring what he said", when all he effectively said is that we shouldn't ignore the problem because the world is connected. That's not a reason. Give me facts, give me some logic.

I never said I believed that Gary Johnson has a perfect chance of winning. What I did say however, is that your vote always counts no matter who you vote for. You keep trying to tie it to Gary Johnson for some reason, when my statements are applying to every single candidate, no matter who it is. Perhaps Gary Johnson didn't campaign hard enough, and perhaps he should have pressed harder to get into the presidential debates. Nobody is arguing against that at all. You're ignoring what I'm saying, which is that your vote always counts. You can't compare voting for a real person with voting for a fictional character. And if you read my arguments, you would have read that I'm trying to change your opinion about the fact that your vote always counts. I'm not telling you to vote for Gary Johnson, I'm telling you your vote counts, even if it's not for a Republican or Democrat, and if people want to start making a difference, start voting for other people, and start telling everyone you know to vote for those people.

Before you start accusing others of not reading, perhaps you should start reading yourself. I can't take you seriously at all if that's all you're going to be doing, instead of having real discussions.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> I thought so, I keep seeing people from Romney side on other sites saying these are one the real polls and Obama has no chance.
> I felt that was ridiculous, but I wanted confirmation.


Rachel Maddow did a really good segment condemning the website.



Peps said:


> You said the law already existed, hence, there shouldn't be a need to appeal.


I didn't say the law in that specific form already existed; I gave an example of precedent for the use of deadly force against Americans without trial; they're two completely different laws, and it was more of a side-note than anything else.



Peps said:


> Now more importantly, why on earth do you still trust Obama?


Because I agree with President Obama's policy positions ~90% of the time, and he's been mostly consistent and honest with those positions.



Peps said:


> Your posts are being read, you're just trying to state that your morals are the only correct ones.


I never once said that.



Peps said:


> Your morals are not necessarily right.


I never said that either. I also never said that something is inherently moral just because I think it's moral; that would make me a god.



Peps said:


> What is right and what is wrong? You have your definition of what is right and wrong, I have mine, and everyone else has their own.


You're failing to understand that you're arguing that in any particular case, something like murder is only immoral because a particular culture says it's immoral, and you're arguing that states should be left to do blatantly immoral things because morality is relative. You can't seem to wrap your head around the fact that you're arguing Hitler's moral views are just as logically valid as your own moral views. If we establish a definition of "moral," then it's possible to logically quantify what's moral and what's immoral in a way that's not relative, and that's ignoring for now all the biological predispositions to objective morality. For example, we can logically establish that legalizing gay marriage a.) Does not violate anyone's rights, b.) Stops a particular group from having their rights from being violated, c.) Has no more negative consequences than heterosexual marriage, and d.) Has known positive consequences like psychological health.

When it comes down to it, any moral question can be summarized by asking whose rights are more important. For example, in the completely obvious moral question of whether or not murder should be legal, we can logically deduce that the rights of Person A not to be murdered outweighs Person B's right to murder Person A. There's nothing relative about it once we've established a definition to what it means to be moral. Although I disagree with Sam Harris on a number of things, I highly recommend his book The Moral Landscape, because you're basically arguing that morality does not exist, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't find that unsettling.

As I've already noted once before, your entire premise (that it's immoral for the federal government to dictate social policy to the states) is completely debunked by your view that morality is completely subjective. Now let's see if you actually offer a rebuttal to my points or completely ignore them again.



Peps said:


> Everyone is going to have a different opinion on it.


That doesn't mean everyone is right.



Peps said:


> Your effectively stating that your opinion is the only opinion that matters.


Nope, I never said that. Do I think my opinions on morality are right? Yes, I do. Do I think my opinions on morality are right because my opinion is the only opinion that matters? No, not at all. Are my moral views subject to change based on the evidence? Absolutely, but just because my moral views are subject to change based on evidence doesn't mean morality is subjective; there's a difference between being right or wrong about something and that something being relative.



Peps said:


> You haven't proven that there are negative repercussions from Iran having a nuclear weapon.


Based on what we know about Iran, it's difficult to argue that the potential and the likelihood for negative repercussions aren't there. We know about Iran's relationships with terrorism, for example, and that's enough to be cautious. Are you arguing that we should throw caution to the wind?



Peps said:


> You haven't proven that they're capable of having a nuclear weapon.


Nor am I arguing that they're capable of having a nuclear weapon right now.



Peps said:


> You haven't given any reason why the US is allowed to have multiple nuclear weapons and not be considered a threat.


You're going to have to be more specific when you say "threat," because unlike morality, whether or not X is a threat is relative depending on what you're saying X is a threat to. If you're arguing that the United States has the power to cause destruction with nuclear weapons, I don't think anyone is arguing against that. Haha.



Peps said:


> You're clearly not interested in having an actual discussion if you're not going to provide me any evidence or proof.


Proof of what, that a nuclear Iran has potential negative consequences? See my post above about Iran and the Middle East. Please keep in mind that I merely have to demonstrate the potentiality for negative consequences in order to be justified in saying we should be cautious/strategic regarding a nuclear Iran.



Peps said:


> Perhaps counter the argument that Israel have stated that they're clearly capable of handling the situation themselves and don't want the US to be involved?


Could you please show me what you're specifically referring to? Because the fact that Israel is concerned about a nuclear Iran is reason enough for the United States to be concerned about it as well.



Peps said:


> All both of you have just stated is "oh look you're ignoring what he said", when all he effectively said is that we shouldn't ignore the problem because the world is connected. That's not a reason. Give me facts, give me some logic.


You're deluding yourself if you think that's all we've said about the subject. Pretending for a second that all we said was, "We live in an international world so we should at least look at the issue of a nuclear Iran and weigh our options," that would be a completely logical statement.



Peps said:


> I never said I believed that Gary Johnson has a perfect chance of winning.


Nor did I claim that you made that claim. So what?



Peps said:


> What I did say however, is that your vote always counts no matter who you vote for.


When you consider the electorate in your calculations of what counts and what doesn't count, a vote for someone who isn't one of the two major-party candidates counts about as much as a write-in for "Mickey Mouse."



Peps said:


> You can't compare voting for a real person with voting for a fictional character.


Of course I can, especially when they each have an equal change of winning the election.



Peps said:


> And if you read my arguments, you would have read that I'm trying to change your opinion about the fact that your vote always counts.


And as I've stated numerous times, as far as a vote counting towards who wins the presidential election, a vote for someone who cannot win is a vote that doesn't count towards who wins the presidential election. That's not to say that the vote doesn't literally count towards the numerical total of votes cast.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 1, 2012)

Wasn't Maddow confirmed to be lying on at least one issue when she was on Letterman?


----------



## Lacius (Nov 1, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Wasn't Maddow confirmed to be lying on at least one issue when she was on Letterman?


That's entirely possible, but you're going to have to be more specific because I have no idea what you're talking about, and as far as I'm aware, Rachel has a history of reporting things fairly. Forgive me if I'm skeptical.

Edit: Regardless, that says nothing about the validity of the segment I posted above.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 1, 2012)

Peps said:


> You said the law already existed, hence, there shouldn't be a need to appeal. It clearly doesn't. That's my point. Now more importantly, why on earth do you still trust Obama?


Because we normally judge people as a whole and not by one act,which he may not even have a choice in the matter, because we know humans aren't perfect.




Peps said:


> Your posts are being read, you're just trying to state that your morals are the only correct ones. You're completely ignoring the point I'm trying to present to you. Your morals are not necessarily right. What is right and what is wrong? You have your definition of what is right and wrong, I have mine, and everyone else has their own. You can argue as much as you want, but it's disrespectful to others to state that their morals are plain wrong. I'm going to use your words here, you're "putting your fingers in your ears". Let's take my earlier example, piracy, is it right or is it wrong? Everyone is going to have a different opinion on it. Your effectively stating that your opinion is the only opinion that matters. It doesn't matter what logic you're using, that's what you're saying.


So, if the majority state or even states declares killing a certain group is moral, then they have the right to reflected that in law because law should be base out relative morality. What about people rights?



Peps said:


> You haven't proven that there are negative repercussions from Iran having a nuclear weapon. You haven't proven that they're capable of having a nuclear weapon.


Have you disprove those statements, if not, I don't think we should take that risk by being too hasty to leave and not help at all.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 1, 2012)

Peps said:


> Your posts are being read, you're just trying to state that your morals are the only correct ones. You're completely ignoring the point I'm trying to present to you. Your morals are not necessarily right. What is right and what is wrong? You have your definition of what is right and wrong, I have mine, and everyone else has their own. You can argue as much as you want, but it's disrespectful to others to state that their morals are plain wrong. I'm going to use your words here, you're "putting your fingers in your ears". Let's take my earlier example, piracy, is it right or is it wrong? Everyone is going to have a different opinion on it. Your effectively stating that your opinion is the only opinion that matters. It doesn't matter what logic you're using, that's what you're saying.


Piracy isn't clearly right, or wrong. But just because there is something in sort of a murky moral territory, doesn't mean everything is just like that. Is ra.pe right or is it wrong? I might have my own opinion and my own morality about ra.pe, and someone else might have theirs, but do you honestly believe every single opinion/morality is just as valid and worth just as much as any other, including those that think ra.pe is totally fabulous and morally right? Can opinions/morality truly never ever be judged? I've for a very long time believed that to be the case, but not anymore; there is actually some objectivity in judging opinions/morality based on logical reasoning, and not all of them are equally valid.


----------



## JPhantom (Nov 1, 2012)

the point in voting for a 3rd party candidate is of course not to cause that candidate to win the election that would be absurd. The point is to help that candidate gain a significant enough support that one or both of the parties decide to adopt the candidates positions into their party platform to entice the candidate's supporters to vote for them in a future election

the most significant and important change to the election process that is desperately needed would be to implement a None of The Above option on the ballot for all elections.  Those of you familiar with the movie Brewster's Millions know what I am talking about(great movie by the way watch it if you hadn't seen it).  If None of the Above were to win the election then a new election would have to be held in a timely manner and none of the people who had run in the previous election would be able to run in the new one.  To prevent an indefinite gridlock where no one is elected we might gradually raise the percentage required for None of the Above to win.  What do you guys think?


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 1, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Piracy isn't clearly right, or wrong.


Yeah, it is. You're acquiring software/multimedia without owning the license for it, and you're doing so over an unofficial channel without paying royalties to the creator. It's not theft per se, but it is a felony. There's no "grey area" here to speak of - it's wrong, point. It's a minor offense, but it's an offense none the less.





> Is ra.pe right or is it wrong? I might have my own opinion and my own morality about ra.pe, and someone else might have theirs, but do you honestly believe every single opinion/morality is just as valid and worth just as much as any other, including those that think ra.pe is totally fabulous and morally right?


Nobody asks you about your personal morality - those things are regulated by law, which in turn is created to reflect the moral standards of the majority and is made to protect citizens.





> Can opinions/morality truly never ever be judged?


Anything can be judged.





> I've for a very long time believed that to be the case, but not anymore; there is actually some objectivity in judging opinions/morality based on logical reasoning, and not all of them are equally valid.


Morality isn't necessarily logical - it's a social construct. For example, beheading a fellow human being is a felony, beheading a dog is a felony, but beheading a chicken is simply a part of preparing it for consumption. Similarily, eating pork is perfectly fine, however eating a cat would be considered animal cruelty even though they're both animals, hell, they're even both mammals. Morality isn't and never was logical - our rules of morality are constructed by the society we live in, and the laws which govern said society should reflect that.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 2, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, it is. You're acquiring software/multimedia without owning the license for it, and you're doing so over an unofficial channel without paying royalties to the creator. It's not theft per se, but it is a felony. There's no "grey area" here to speak of - it's wrong, point. It's a minor offense, but it's an offense none the less.Nobody asks you about your personal morality - those things are regulated by law, which in turn is created to reflect the moral standards of the majority and is made to protect citizens.Anything can be judged.Morality isn't necessarily logical - it's a social construct. For example, beheading a fellow human being is a felony, beheading a dog is a felony, but beheading a chicken is simply a part of preparing it for consumption. Similarily, eating pork is perfectly fine, however eating a cat would be considered animal cruelty even though they're both animals, hell, they're even both mammals. Morality isn't and never was logical - our rules of morality are constructed by the society we live in, and the laws which govern said society should reflect that.


Er, are you aware that there has been an exchange on the subject of morality in the last few posts, before I posted my reply to the quoted piece from the exchange? The incoherence in your response makes it seem like you've no clue about what the person I quoted had said, nor about the line of thought I was deliberating.

On what basis do we consider something "right" and "wrong"? If you would answer "the law" then please say so right now. Or if you'd answer "whatever the majority says", say so too.

Morality is a social construct, but what kind of social construct is it, exactly? Are there no right or wrong answers to the question, Is this good for the well-being of society? Is everything equally good (or equally bad) for the well-being of society? Is there absolutely no logical, objective basis, by which social constructs such as these can be judged and valued, even partially?

This is the fallacy:
A and B are both social constructs, A is arbitrary/illogical/invalid; therefore, B is equally artibrary/illogical/invalid.
Some social constructs are arbitrary/illogical/invalid; therefore, all social constructs are arbitrary/illogical/invalid.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 2, 2012)

My university held a debate tonight between Karl Rove and Robert Gibbs on the presidential campaign, the state of the race, the impact of Super PACs, and so on. It was pretty interesting to take in, and the two had a pretty good back-and-forth chemistry going on.

Unfortunately, Delaware is far from a battleground state, so we won't be seeing any campaign stops from either camp.

Dems, you've got a 25% lead right now, fine, but you can never be too sure, right?


----------



## Vinnymac (Nov 2, 2012)

What about the other parties or not voting? This poll sucks.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 2, 2012)

Check this out.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 2, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I never once said that.
> 
> I never said that either. I also never said that something is inherently moral just because I think it's moral; that would make me a god.
> 
> ...


 
You're still trying to enforce your moral opinions. You're entitled to try prove that your moral point is correct, but like I've already explained, you're not necessarily correct, and other people are entitled to their opinions. There's no set definition of what is moral, that's the whole point of morals. They're personal, and always will be personal. Yet, you want to promote a dictatorship using your moral standards. It doesn't matter what you've said directly, that's what you're implying. Let's take Foxi4's example, we have moral issues with killing humans, yet we have no issues about killing small creatures. Why is that? Don't small little creatures have their rights as well? Obviously a lot of people are going to say yes they do, you might say they don't. By the way, the NDAA violates the person's right to a trial, yet that has been signed into federal law.

So letting the states do what they please is the perfect solution. You're allowing social issues to be dealt with locally. Should Ireland deal with the French social issues? Should Italy deal with the German social issues? One state lives miles away from another state, and therefore will have grown up differently and therefore will have different morals, just like two different countries in the EU. You're saying, we should hope that the federal government is moral. But what if they're not? There's no evidence to suggest that they're moral, and that the states aren't. Is the Irish government immoral while the EU is moral? The Irish people should deal with our local social issues, while the states should deal with their local state issues. Like I said before, if you have that little faith in your state's government, vote them out. As the NDAA proved, the federal government is immoral and not at all trustworthy.

Democracy can be a funny thing sometimes. If democracy demanded that something should be illegal, then we should respect democracy. Nobody said that democracy was perfect, but if that's what the majority of people want, that's what they'll get. If democracy demands Mitt Romney to be president, then let the people have their backlash from Mitt Romney's insane foreign policy.

For Iran, you still haven't given a reason as to why they're a threat. You haven't stated what negative repercussions there are from leaving them be, and you just proved you haven't been reading my posts at all if you haven't seen the video I linked earlier in the discussion. Israel may be concerned, but they've clearly stated that they don't need the US to be involved. Give me real evidence or logic that states otherwise. Why are you not respecting Israel's wishes? You're pretty much implying they they're not a threat, so why not leave them alone?

Now, what if someone was doing well in polls, do you still think it's silly to vote for them because they're not a Republican or a Democrat? Do you know who everyone is going to vote for? Do you know what everyone's mindset is? Did you know that these polls that organisations run are a bunch of nonsense since they don't provide all options? Did you know that if you replace Mitt Romney with Ron Paul, he actually does better. Polls mean nothing, and we won't know what the real story is until election day. Perhaps Johnson will get a significant portion of the vote, probably 15%, and make a huge dent in how future presidential candidates will behave in the future. Perhaps Obama will get 99% of the vote. We don't know, but if someone was to campaign heavily, and get their name out there and become well known, then there's no reason you shouldn't vote for them.

You're acting as if it's simply impossible for a third party candidate to ever succeed. The Republicans have succeeded before when they were a third party candidate. Everyone decided to not vote for the major parties, and voted for them. That will easily happen again once the right candidate comes along, and once even more people start becoming politically active. You're promoting this mentality: "I want to vote for them, but I know that everyone else will vote for that other guy, so I'll vote for that other guy too". You're bad-mouthing people who are not afraid to fall for that mentality, and you're bad-mouthing those who want to vote their conscience. Votes are always the same value. 1 vote for Person A is the same as 1 vote for Person B, which is the same as 1 vote for Person C. It's a vote, and it always counts. A vote for a fictional character can't count because it's 1 vote for no gain.

You're a disrespectful man who can't take other people's opinions seriously, who can't respect other people's morals, who can't respect other another country's demands, who can't respect democracy and wants to promote a dictatorship and most importantly, who can't respect the value of a vote.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 2, 2012)

Peps said:


> You're still trying to enforce your moral opinions. You're entitled to try prove that your moral point is correct, but like I've already explained, you're not necessarily correct, and other people are entitled to their opinions. There's no set definition of what is moral, that's the whole point of morals. They're personal, and always will be personal.


I've already explained how your relativist point of view on morals doesn't work.



Peps said:


> Yet, you want to promote a dictatorship using your moral standards.


I think you need to look up what "dictatorship" means, because I'm in no way advocating a dictatorship.



Peps said:


> It doesn't matter what you've said directly, that's what you're implying.


No, it's not. Please pay attention to my words rather than your poorly constructed straw man argument.



Peps said:


> Let's take Foxi4's example, we have moral issues with killing humans, yet we have no issues about killing small creatures. Why is that? Don't small little creatures have their rights as well? Obviously a lot of people are going to say yes they do, you might say they don't.


Once again, you're taking the relativist approach and saying one society's laws allowing human murder and one's society's laws allowing the killing of animals are perfectly equal. Do you agree with this? If not, why not? You're still seemingly ignoring all of my points.

As for your animal death example, I never said morality was easy or that humans weren't still talking about specific issues. It wasn't long ago that we were still figuring out as a nation whether or not slavery was moral. However, you seem to be having a difficult time understanding that there's a difference between figuring out if something's moral and deciding if something's moral, and you're apparently saying it's the latter and that whether or not something is moral is arbitrarily chosen; the fact that I can logically quantify morality and that there are biological predispositions to morality (like altruistic behavior, for example) is evidence against your point of view.

You'll notice that a lot of the moral debates we're having (animal death, abortion, etc.) have to deal with definitions (for example, the definition of human life) rather than whether something is arbitrarily moral or not.



Peps said:


> By the way, the NDAA violates the person's right to a trial, yet that has been signed into federal law.


A lot of things violate a person's right to trial (for example, someone being shot by police forces so he or she can't shoot someone else), so I don't exactly see your point. Don't get me wrong; I'm not defending the controversial part of the NDAA. But you're not even providing a valid argument in this specific instance. If you're arguing that violating someone's right to trial automatically makes something inherently immoral, then I have debunked that.

Also, according to you, morality is relative anyway so you have no case. It sounds to me like you're "imposing your moral views on the rest of us" by saying everyone should have the right to trial even if it means we let murderers kill their last victims, hostages, etc. 



Peps said:


> So letting the states do what they please is the perfect solution.


Because that worked so well for slavery.



Peps said:


> One state lives miles away from another state, and therefore will have grown up differently and therefore will have different morals, just like two different countries in the EU.


No, not just like two different countries in the EU. For example, they're not two different countries.



Peps said:


> You're saying, we should hope that the federal government is moral.


I'm saying the federal government, for example, should be able to intervene when a state does or allows for something immoral. Are you saying we should have just let slavery continue to be a thing?



Peps said:


> But what if they're not?


I never said the federal government is always going to get it right. I never even said I always get it right. So what?



Peps said:


> There's no evidence to suggest that they're moral, and that the states aren't.


I've already listed off plenty of examples in which the federal government or courts had to step in to correct what the states were doing. Am I saying the states are inherently less moral because they're states? No. I'm saying not everyone gets it right all the time. But it's my impression that you're saying we should allow states to legalize murder if they so chose.



Peps said:


> As the NDAA proved, the federal government is immoral and not at all trustworthy.


That's another logical fallacy.



Peps said:


> Democracy can be a funny thing sometimes. If democracy demanded that something should be illegal, then we should respect democracy. Nobody said that democracy was perfect, but if that's what the majority of people want, that's what they'll get. If democracy demands Mitt Romney to be president, then let the people have their backlash from Mitt Romney's insane foreign policy.


As you already conceded, democracy doesn't always get it right, particularly at the state level where slavery was legal, interracial marriage was illegal, etc. That doesn't mean those things are moral. Just because a majority of people think something is right doesn't mean they're right. That's another logical fallacy. For example, just because most people once said the Earth was flat didn't make the Earth flat. And just because a majority of people in a state say something should be illegal doesn't mean it's logically/morally valid. If you think it does, then you don't understand logical fallacies and I'm wasting my time.



Peps said:


> For Iran, you still haven't given a reason as to why they're a threat.


Yes, numerous reasons have been given. Nice try though.



Peps said:


> You haven't stated what negative repercussions there are from leaving them be, and you just proved you haven't been reading my posts at all if you haven't seen the video I linked earlier in the discussion. Israel may be concerned, but they've clearly stated that they don't need the US to be involved.


Israel's "wishes," as you call them, in that video are that the United States doesn't invade Israel and nation-build in Israel (because they're already a democracy and don't need it). Benjamin Netanyahu isn't talking about Iran at all, and, respectfully, you apparently have no idea what you're talking about. You're saying X and then pointing to a video where someone says Y. I've avoided responding to your video because it's awkward to respond to something so irrelevant.



Peps said:


> Now, what if someone was doing well in polls, do you still think it's silly to vote for them because they're not a Republican or a Democrat?


If someone has a chance at winning the election, it's not at all silly to vote for him or her. That's exactly my point, so what's yours?



Peps said:


> Do you know who everyone is going to vote for? Do you know what everyone's mindset is?


Nope, but the polls and the statistics give me a fairly good idea.



Peps said:


> Did you know that these polls that organisations run are a bunch of nonsense since they don't provide all options?


 
Did you know that many of them provide Gary Johnson as an option? Did you know that even more of them provide the option of "Other"? Did you know that it's acceptable in statistics to exclude outliers when it's already known that ~99% of people are going to vote for one of the two major-party candidates?



Peps said:


> Did you know that if you replace Mitt Romney with Ron Paul, he actually does better.


I suppose that's possible, but forgive me if I remain skeptical until I'm provided the actual numbers that demonstrate this to be true. Until then, so what?



Peps said:


> Polls mean nothing, and we won't know what the real story is until election day.


 
I find it odd that when someone doesn't like the polls, as with the conservatives lately, that they scoff at the numbers and say they're wrong.



Peps said:


> Perhaps Johnson will get a significant portion of the vote, probably 15%, and make a huge dent in how future presidential candidates will behave in the future. Perhaps Obama will get 99% of the vote.


Both of the things you mentioned are statistically impossible. It's like saying it's possible 100% of voters are going to vote for me by writing me in.



Peps said:


> We don't know, but if someone was to campaign heavily, and get their name out there and become well known, then there's no reason you shouldn't vote for them.


If someone were to campaign well enough that he or she polled well and could possibly win the election, then yes, it's logical to vote for him or her. Your point?



Peps said:


> You're acting as if it's simply impossible for a third party candidate to ever succeed.


Impossible for a third-party candidate to ever succeed? I never said that. Impossible in the 2012 election for a third-party candidate to succeed? That's correct.



Peps said:


> The Republicans have succeeded before when they were a third party candidate. Everyone decided to not vote for the major parties, and voted for them. That will easily happen again once the right candidate comes along, and once even more people start becoming politically active.


It was public opinion that allowed for that candidate to have a statistical chance at winning, and that kind of public opinion does not exist during this election.



Peps said:


> You're promoting this mentality: "I want to vote for them, but I know that everyone else will vote for that other guy, so I'll vote for that other guy too".


Close, but not quite. I'm promoting the mentality: "I want to vote for C, but I know that everyone else will vote for A or B, so I'll vote for my preference between A and B instead since a vote for C has now become worthless as far as choosing the winner goes."



Peps said:


> You're bad-mouthing people who are not afraid to fall for that mentality, and you're bad-mouthing those who want to vote their conscience.


I'm not bad-mouthing anyone. I'm merely pointing out that if your goal is to help decide who wins this presidential election, you should vote for one of the major-party candidates because they are who it's down to. If your goal is anything other than helping decide who wins the election, then it's logical to vote for whomever you want.



Peps said:


> Votes are always the same value. 1 vote for Person A is the same as 1 vote for Person B, which is the same as 1 vote for Person C. It's a vote, and it always counts. A vote for a fictional character can't count because it's 1 vote for no gain.


If you think all votes are the same value, you're delusional. The way the presidential election is setup in the United States with the Electoral College, the value of your vote is even determined by which state you live in. A vote in Ohio, for example, is over 100 times the value of a vote in, say, Michigan because of the partisan environments of states.

As for the value of one's vote and whom someone votes for, voting for someone who cannot win is the same thing as throwing your vote away.

If you're talking purely numbers, then you're right that each vote = 1, but that says nothing about the likelihood of a single vote helping to decide an election, which is why this is going over your head.



Peps said:


> You're a disrespectful man who can't take other people's opinions seriously, who can't respect other people's morals, who can't respect other another country's demands, who can't respect democracy and wants to promote a dictatorship and most importantly, who can't respect the value of a vote.


Just because I disagree with a lot of what you've said doesn't mean I've been disrespectful or haven't taken peoples' opinions seriously. I'm sorry if I've upset you, but when someone says something I think is false, I am going to call him or her out on it.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 2, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I've already explained how your relativist point of view on morals doesn't work.
> 
> I think you need to look up what "dictatorship" means, because I'm in no way advocating a dictatorship.
> 
> ...


 
You take figures of speech far too literally.

Again, feel free to try connect morals to logic, it's not fully possible, because it's based on what people are comfortable with and what they feel iffy about. It's trying to tie emotions to logic. I'm paying perfect attention to everything you are saying, but you are being arrogant and stating that your opinion is right because it seems logical to you. That might not necessarily be the case for other people, what's so hard to accept about that? Besides, we're steering away from the original point which is that the states should be allowed to do whatever they want. The federal government can recommend something no problem to a state, but to force that's state into doing something is ridiculous. But like I keep telling you, if you're not satisfied with how the state is dealing with things, *vote them out*, and get people you trust into office. Pretty simple stuff.

Slavery was an acceptable social norm several years ago, but it's no longer an accepted social norm now. Thousands of years ago, it was perfectly acceptable for a human to kill another human for food and shelter etc. Birth outside of marriage was considered immoral, still is by some, but by the majority people it's perfectly acceptable nowadays. I think the states are perfectly capable of not making stupid decisions like slavery nowadays. I guarantee you, if the federal government hasn't gotten itself involved, the morality of people in that state would have changed naturally to where slavery wasn't moral. Let's take another example, drug usage, still considered immoral by the majority of people, yet the states want to legalise some drugs because the majority of people's morality in that state have changed. People change, you're acting as if they don't, and that the voters are still untrustworthy. Your morality obviously developed over time as well. If the majority of those people are happy with their decisions, what gives you the right to be "heroic" and forcefully change their ways? 

You're stating that violating someone's right is logically immoral, and now you're stating that violating someone's right to trial with the NDAA is not immoral. I don't think I need to explain any more than that on that point.

States and countries in Europe are perfectly equal in terms of population and area. That's why they're comparable. You're taking statements far too literally and not looking outside the box at all.

About Iran, feel free to copy/paste points which explain why it's necessary for the US to get involved, and why Iran is a threat. You haven't done so, and I've already debunked the points given earlier. "Oh there's repercussions", *what repercussions?*

Israel are basically stating they don't want the US to be involved and that they're perfectly capable of defending themselves. I think that's as clear as it gets. It actually doesn't really matter too much if he was referring to Iran directly, they said they can take care of themselves, so let them take care of themselves.

Your mentality of _"I want to vote for C, but I know that everyone else will vote for A or B, so I'll vote for my preference between A and B instead since a vote for C has now become worthless as far as choosing the winner goes."_ is exactly the same as the mentality I have posted. That's the problem with you, and the large majority of voters. A lot of people are thinking the same thing, because they're scared that everyone else is going to vote for the worst of them all. A lot of people don't want Romney to win, so they'll vote for Obama because they think he might prevent Romney from winning, even though they might actually want to vote for a third-party candidate. That's disrespecting the value of a vote. A vote isn't for "cockblocking". A vote is meant to representing what you believe, and that "cockblocking" mentality needs to be eliminated.

As for my last statement, I'm not talking about my opinions, I'm talking about everyone else's opinions. It's nothing to do with this discussion, it's to do with the fact you don't respect people's votes and think they're being illogical, when in fact, they want to vote for someone they can agree with the most. People who vote for third-party candidates aren't making a "statement", they're doing what they're *suppose to be doing with a vote*, which is voting for someone they trust and believe in. Voting for someone you actually trust, is far more logical than "cockblocking".

(side note: won't be online till Monday probably)


----------



## someonewhodied (Nov 2, 2012)

"If Romney wins, I'm leaving the US. If Obama wins, I'm still leaving the US. I just want to travel"
Saw that somewhere but don't remember where lol.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 2, 2012)

Peps said:


> You take figures of speech far too literally.
> 
> Again, feel free to try connect morals to logic, it's not fully possible, because it's based on what people are comfortable with and what they feel iffy about. It's trying to tie emotions to logic. I'm paying perfect attention to everything you are saying, but you are being arrogant and stating that your opinion is right because it seems logical to you. That might not necessarily be the case for other people, what's so hard to accept about that? Besides, we're steering away from the original point which is that the states should be allowed to do whatever they want. The federal government can recommend something no problem to a state, but to force that's state into doing something is ridiculous. But like I keep telling you, if you're not satisfied with how the state is dealing with things, *vote them out*, and get people you trust into office. Pretty simple stuff.
> 
> ...


Almost all of the moral questions can be deduced to the form of "Is ______ good(/evil)?", or "Is _______ better than ______?". In the arena of public policy and legislation, those questions take on a reasonably more specific form:
"Is ______ good(/evil), for the well-being of society?"
or
"Is ______ better than _______, for the well-being of society?"

Now those moral questions start to resemble scientific questions, don't they? The sort of questions whose answers can be derived from facts, experimentation, analyses, and reasoning. The sort of questions to which there can be right answers and wrong answers and anything in between. The sort of questions where not every single proposition and conclusion in existence are valued equally. There can be right and wrong answers to moral questions. Morality can evolve just as science can evolve, as our understanding gets better. It's no more disrespectful to say the belief "slavery is good for society" is wrong, than it is to say the belief "earth is flat" is wrong. If the entire culture believes those things, then the entire culture is wrong.

Let me play devil's advocate. A country has its own culture different from other countries', a state has its own culture apart from the cultures of other states in the same country, sure. But within the same state there can be many distinct subcultures too, urban culture is different from rural culture, Christians have their own culture different from Muslims, high-income families have their own culture different from low-income families, gay couples have their own culture different from heterosexual couples, women have their own culture different from men, etc. etc. each person has their own "culture" that's different from other people's. Would you say, then, that the choice to grant control of "local" social issues to the state/country level is rather arbitrary? If it's not okay for Germany to interfere with Irish matters that don't concern Germany, why would it be okay for Irish individuals who are not pregnant to interfere with pregnancy matters of other Irish individuals? If all the pregnant Irish individuals should simply respect majority-rule democracy on this matter which doesn't legitimately concern the Irish majority, then why can't the other Irish individuals also respect the same democracy in the EU on the same matter? Is majority-rule democracy good for the well-being of the Irish society, on this particular matter? Now that's a moral question that sounds kind of like a scientific question.

Everyone's entitled to hanging on to whatever beliefs they feel comfortable with, but that doesn't mean every single one of those beliefs deserves equal air time in the public sphere.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 3, 2012)

Peps said:


> Again, feel free to try connect morals to logic, it's not fully possible, because it's based on what people are comfortable with and what they feel iffy about.


The fact that I can (and have) logically demonstrated why something is or is not moral demonstrates that morality is dependent on logic. If you can answer the questions "Why is X moral?" or "Why isn't X moral?" then that means you're dealing with logic rather than arbitrary feeling. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.



Peps said:


> It's trying to tie emotions to logic.


Except that morals aren't emotions.

On an unrelated side note, people sometimes have logical reasons for why they feel particular emotions.



Peps said:


> but you are being arrogant and *stating that your opinion is right because it seems logical to you*.


Isn't that the nature of an argument? Thinking I'm right or you're wrong about a particular subject and showing the logical steps I used to reach that conclusion doesn't make me arrogant. I'm more than willing to admit that I'm wrong about, for example, a moral subject if I'm presented with the evidence.

And consequently, aren't you doing the same thing when you argue that it's immoral for a federal government to dictate social policy to the states?



Peps said:


> Besides, we're steering away from the original point which is that the states should be allowed to do whatever they want.


I'm not steering away from that point at all; your entire argument is that there's nothing wrong with letting a state legalize murder or slavery if its wants to. In fact, you're arguing that it's immoral not to let them do so, and that's what I find scary.



Peps said:


> But like I keep telling you, if you're not satisfied with how the state is dealing with things, *vote them out*, and get people you trust into office. Pretty simple stuff.


Majorities have a habit of voting against the interests of minorities, even when it doesn't affect the majorities. Ballot measures banning gay marriage are perfect examples. As you've already conceded, democracy doesn't always work.



Peps said:


> Slavery was an acceptable social norm several years ago, but it's no longer an accepted social norm now. Thousands of years ago, it was perfectly acceptable for a human to kill another human for food and shelter etc.


And during the Holocaust, it was a social norm to round up people and commit genocide. So what? The fact that you can demonstrate that people used to do bad things and called them "good" doesn't say anything about morality; if anything, all it shows is that what a society says is okay isn't automatically moral.



Peps said:


> I think the states are perfectly capable of not making stupid decisions like slavery nowadays.


First of all, I don't concede that states aren't capable of making stupid decisions. As for the fact that states don't advocate for slavery anymore, that's because they were dragged kicking and screaming into having a more moral position and is irrelevant.



Peps said:


> I guarantee you, if the federal government hasn't gotten itself involved, the morality of people in that state would have changed naturally to where slavery wasn't moral.


If you can guarantee this, then you can demonstratively show this. Have at it.

Regardless, that says nothing about states' rights or the inherent immorality of slavery.



Peps said:


> Let's take another example, drug usage, still considered immoral by the majority of people, yet the states want to legalise some drugs because the majority of people's morality in that state have changed.


Drug laws in the United States are more complicated than the morality of doing drugs.



Peps said:


> People change, you're acting as if they don't, and that the voters are still untrustworthy.


I openly admitted that peoples' and societies' moral views change. That's far from being able to say X was once moral but now X is immoral. Just because we used to think slavery was moral doesn't mean it ever was; it means we were wrong.



Peps said:


> If the majority of those people are happy with their decisions, what gives you the right to be "heroic" and forcefully change their ways?


Because these people often times do things that are detrimental to society in the name of morality, and that in itself is immoral. For example, some people want to ban the teaching of evolution in the name of God and morality, and that's detrimental to society. Is it moral to allow some states to be in a scientific dark age? No.

And according to you, if most people in the United States say "Yeah, the federal government should be able to dictate social policy across the country," then that position is automatically moral and you're wrong. You're arguing two mutually exclusive things:

1. Morality is relative and something is only moral if a society says it is; as societies change their minds, what's inherently moral changes.

2. It's inherently immoral to allow the federal government to dictate social policy across the states.

Since this discussion on morality and states' rights has gone on much longer than it needed to (mostly because you aren't responding to my individual points or defending the logical fallacies I point out in your arguments), I have two questions I'd like you to answer before we move on, and I refuse to move on until you either respond to or concede these two points:

1. How do you reconcile the above contradiction between moral relativism and the question of the morality/immorality of states' rights? Isn't your position that it's immoral for the federal government to dictate social policy across the country in itself an example of you using your morality to dictate policy others might not agree with?

2. Do you think we should allow states to be able to legalize slavery if the majority in a state were to choose to do so? If the answer is no, then you don't believe in states' rights in the form you've been arguing for. If the answer is yes, then you're saying the rights of states to make whatever silly laws they want outweighs the rights of people not to be enslaved, and I don't know how to nicely say what that says about you.



Peps said:


> You're stating that violating someone's right is logically immoral, and now you're stating that violating someone's right to trial with the NDAA is not immoral.


I never said either of those things. Violating someone's right to do X isn't inherently immoral. For example, in the case of laws against murder, Person A's right not to be murdered outweighs Person B's right to murder. Person B's rights are being violated with anti-murdering laws. So what?

I also never said that violating someone's right to trial with the NDAA is not immoral (in fact, I said that I was against the NDAA); all I said was that there is precedent for violating someone's right to trial in specific circumstances such as the need for the use of deadly force. I'm starting to think you're not taking this discussion seriously, because, respectfully, that entire statement was a joke.



Peps said:


> States and countries in Europe are perfectly equal in terms of population and area. That's why they're comparable.


Even if I were to concede your points about population and area, that says nothing about intricate differences between separate countries and separate states as far as government is concerned. The fact that the United States has things like the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution shows why they're incomparable in the way you're trying to compare them.



Peps said:


> About Iran, feel free to copy/paste points which explain why it's necessary for the US to get involved, and why Iran is a threat. You haven't done so, and I've already debunked the points given earlier. "Oh there's repercussions", *what repercussions?*


I already talked about Iran's ties with terrorists, for starters. Are you saying these potential ties don't exist? If you aren't saying that, then you concede there's reason for concern. If you are saying that, then please show me evidence.

It's also not my job to copy/paste points you've ignored or failed to understand.



Peps said:


> Israel are basically stating they don't want the US to be involved and that they're perfectly capable of defending themselves.


Saying they don't want the United States to send troops to occupy Israel is different from saying they don't want the United States to be involved when it comes to Iran's nuclear program.



Peps said:


> It actually doesn't really matter too much if he was referring to Iran directly


Actually, it does, especially when you're claiming someone said something that he didn't actually say, and the thing you're claiming isn't true. Israel wants the United States to be involved in preventing a nuclear Iran, and you have no idea what you're talking about.



Peps said:


> Your mentality of "I want to vote for C, but I know that everyone else will vote for A or B, so I'll vote for my preference between A and B instead since a vote for C has now become worthless as far as choosing the winner goes." is exactly the same as the mentality I have posted. That's the problem with you, and the large majority of voters. A lot of people are thinking the same thing, because they're scared that everyone else is going to vote for the worst of them all. A lot of people don't want Romney to win, so they'll vote for Obama because they think he might prevent Romney from winning, even though they might actually want to vote for a third-party candidate. That's disrespecting the value of a vote. A vote isn't for "cockblocking". A vote is meant to representing what you believe, and that "cockblocking" mentality needs to be eliminated.
> 
> As for my last statement, I'm not talking about my opinions, I'm talking about everyone else's opinions. It's nothing to do with this discussion, it's to do with the fact you don't respect people's votes and think they're being illogical, when in fact, they want to vote for someone they can agree with the most. People who vote for third-party candidates aren't making a "statement", they're doing what they're*suppose to be doing with a vote*, which is voting for someone they trust and believe in. Voting for someone you actually trust, is far more logical than "cockblocking".


When one's preferred candidate cannot win, "cockblocking" the candidate one strongly disagrees with is perfectly logical.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 3, 2012)

Peps is going to have USA going back years of progress under his scary ideals. Throwing equal rights out of the window for the favor of moral relativism.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 4, 2012)

The Bidens (Vice President, Joe and his Wife, Jill) are coming to my town with a special guest ( John Mellencamp). Got off work yesterday, drove up seven streets to park and ran back five of those and scored tickets for my Wife and me! Let's go over my political check list...

_[X] = Have had a chance to see person (in person obviously) at some event_


Barack Obama [X]
Michelle Obama [X]
Tim Kaine [X]
Mark Warner [X]
Joe Biden [Monday]
Jill Biden [Monday]
Bill Clinton [ ]
Hillary Clinton [ ]
Jill Stein [ ]
Al Sharpton [ ] (Apparently I missed out on this opportunity a few weeks ago) 


I would REALLY love to see the Clintons one day. This year has been a lovely ride of meeting famous people! Between all the political rallies and the visit this past summer from Impact Wrestling (those guys really know about fan service!) I have had so many awesome pictures and videos to post to Facebook.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

So, folks, we're in the home stretch for this election. According to the most recent update to Nate Silver's 538 prediction model, Obama is currently looking at an 85% chance of victory on Tuesday. 

Here's what the map looks like so far.

You might have heard on the news that this election is a "toss up", but that doesn't seem to be the case. No matter what the polls say, however, just make sure to go out vote for the candidate of your choice.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> No matter what the polls say, however, just make sure to go out vote for the candidate of your choice.


Which is to say, vote for Obama.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> So, folks, we're in the home stretch for this election. According to the most recent update to Nate Silver's 538 prediction model, Obama is currently looking at an 85% chance of victory on Tuesday.
> 
> Here's what the map looks like so far.
> 
> You might have heard on the news that this election is a "toss up", but that doesn't seem to be the case. No matter what the polls say, however, just make sure to go out vote for the candidate of your choice.


 
Wasn't his prediction model in 2008 based on the disappointment of Americans towards the Republican Party? It was during Bush's lowest popularity margin at the time. People wanted change, so they voted in a man who would do that. Now it is 2012, and are those same people satisfied with what Obama has done? Unless he's made a new one, Silver's prediction model wouldn't exactly work for this election year because the situation is different from the last one.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> Wasn't his prediction model in 2008 based on the disappointment of Americans towards the Republican Party? It was during Bush's lowest popularity margin at the time. People wanted change, so they voted in a man who would do that. Now it is 2012, and are those same people satisfied with what Obama has done? Unless he's made a new one, Silver's prediction model wouldn't exactly work for this election year because the situation is different from the last one.


 
That might have fueled people to vote for Obama in the election, but that wasn't the basis for his prediction model... at all. He draws his conclusions from statistical analysis and number crunching, not guesswork.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 4, 2012)

**turns away from his game**

I'll just be glad once this election is over. Maybe then we can get back to the important stuff.

**turns back to his game**


----------



## Gahars (Nov 4, 2012)

And for those who are unsure...

Find Your Fucking Polling Place.


----------



## Daemauroa (Nov 4, 2012)

just a question, but are there people who think for not-voting? it could be the 3rd option in this poll if you'd ask me.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 4, 2012)

Gahars said:


> And for those who are unsure...
> 
> Find Your Fucking Polling Place.


 
Funny that they don't know my polling place (but I do). I even put in a random (but valid) address to test if it was working, and it found one for that place.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Nov 4, 2012)

government heavy, giant douche or a turd sandwich? 

you gotta vote for someone though...and the giant douche in office right now hasn't done shit for the working class. In fact he has done something for the working class...take more of their money


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2012)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> you gotta vote for someone though...and the giant douche in office right now hasn't done shit for the working class.


For starters, fixing the economy has indeed helped the working class. Without a functioning economy, people don't have jobs, and when people don't have jobs, by definition, you don't have much of a working class.



stanleyopar2000 said:


> In fact he has done something for the working class...take more of their money


President Obama has lowered taxes for the working class, including but not limited to the Stimulus, the 2010 tax deal, and the payroll tax cuts.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 4, 2012)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> government heavy, giant douche or a turd sandwich?
> 
> you gotta vote for someone though...and the giant douche in office right now hasn't done shit for the working class. In fact he has done something for the working class...take more of their money


Let me guess, you got your info from lying Mitt Robme?


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 4, 2012)

My wife and I are not voting...



...only because our votes would cancel each other out anyway.


----------



## dgwillia (Nov 4, 2012)

Obama, because Romney would just fuck everything up even worse. Plus, the guy is just a giant habitual liar, and is so rich that he is pretty much out of touch with any common person. Do we need to start mentioning that Soup Kitchen fiasco again?

If Romney wins, I'm giving up all hope in this country.

All in all, the Republican party just seems batshit crazy as of lately. Theres a few people on that side I still admire, and could possibly consider voting for if they ran for office. But right now it just seems like your either a liberal youngster minority voting for Obama, or a bible thumping homophobic rich person voting for Romney.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 4, 2012)

dgwillia said:


> Obama, because Romney would just fuck everything up even worse. Plus, the guy is just a giant habitual liar, and is so rich that he is pretty much out of touch with any common person. Do we need to start mentioning that Soup Kitchen fiasco again?
> 
> If Romney wins, I'm giving up all hope in this country.
> 
> All in all, the Republican party just seems batshit crazy as of lately. Theres a few people on that side I still admire, and could possibly consider voting for if they ran for office. But right now it just seems like your either a liberal youngster minority voting for Obama, or a bible thumping homophobic rich person voting for Romney.


 
that's a pretty gross over-simplification...

it's sad to see everyone discussing Obama vs. Romney as if that one person is capable of shaping policy and reform for the entire nation.  the president is a figure-head.  vote your party, not what some dude claims he can do...

Are you better or worse off than you were 4 years ago?  Do you believe in current economic policy as it's being enforced right now?  Foreign and domestic affairs?  These are the questions that should determine who you're voting for.  Not "which dude you like better"...


----------



## Lacius (Nov 4, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> it's sad to see everyone discussing Obama vs. Romney as if that one person is capable of shaping policy and reform for the entire nation.


The President is arguably capable of shaping policy and reform for the entire nation.



Old8oy said:


> the president is a figure-head. vote your party, not what some dude claims he can do...
> 
> Are you better or worse off than you were 4 years ago? Do you believe in current economic policy as it's being enforced right now? Foreign and domestic affairs? These are the questions that should determine who you're voting for. Not "which dude you like better"...


When your figurehead has to, for example, consistently lie in order to sell his or her party's ideology (or you consistently have representatives of one party claiming untrue and/or controversial things about rape), then it becomes a matter of policy and not a matter of "which dude you like better."

In fact, the two are often times used interchangeably.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 4, 2012)

Lacius said:


> The President is arguably capable of shaping policy and reform for the entire nation.
> 
> 
> When your figurehead has to, for example, consistently lie in order to sell his or her party's ideology (or you consistently have representatives of one party claiming untrue and/or controversial things about rape), then it becomes a matter of policy and not a matter of "which dude you like better."
> ...


 
Fairly certain that both dudes are spewing a fair amount of bullshit in an effort to convince the public one is better than the other.

Political races are nothing more than sporting events.  It's a boxing match where two fighters merely have to convince the audience they could kick their opponent's ass rather than actually throw a punch.  And that's exactly how most people in this thread are discussing it.  This is much bigger than a "who lies the most" debate.

Claiming that the president is capable of shaping policy and reform is horseshit.  These people are cultivated by their respective political parties.  Vote the party, not the man.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Fairly certain that both dudes are spewing a fair amount of bullshit in an effort to convince the public one is better than the other.


Are both candidates guilty of at least embellishing the truth at times? Sure. However, I think one can demonstratively show that Governor Romney is blatantly lying so much more than President Obama that they're incomparable.



Old8oy said:


> Political races are nothing more than sporting events. It's a boxing match where two fighters merely have to convince the audience they could kick their opponent's ass rather than actually throw a punch.


It's less a competition where two fighters try to convince the audience he or she could win and more a competition where two opponents try to convince the audience he or she would make the best president, so I'm not sure I agree with your analogy. Regardless, are you suggesting we make presidential elections physical fights?

It should also be noted that I can't think of a sporting event in which the results had any substantive effects.



Old8oy said:


> This is much bigger than a "who lies the most" debate.


I don't think anyone disagrees with you, but it's fair to say that these lies that are disproportionately coming from one side are relevant to the discussion.



Old8oy said:


> Claiming that the president is capable of shaping policy and reform is horseshit. These people are cultivated by their respective political parties. Vote the party, not the man.


I agree with you for the most part, but it's difficult to argue that a specific president and his or her vision are irrelevant when it comes to shaping policy, working across the aisle, etc. It's possible to have a good or bad president regardless of party affiliation.

It's also difficult to argue that a candidate's shortcomings aren't at all reflective of those who typically hold particular policy positions, especially when those shortcomings and policy positions are intimately tied together.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 5, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> the president is a figure-head.


 
Sorry if this is nitpicking, but this is one thing that annoys me to no end.

The President is as far away from a figurehead as you can get. The President has veto power over legislation passed by Congress; while it can be overruled, more often than not he's going to have the final say. Presidents are the head of the nation's Executive Branch, the portion of the government responsible for implementing and enforcing these pieces of legislation. The President is responsible for appointing judges to the federal court system, including the Supreme Court - determining how the Constitution will be interpreted by the Federal Government. The President is also the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, holding the final word on how and where our military will be deployed (not to mention, a figurehead would not have the nuclear launch codes).

I could go on and on, but needless to say, while the President is not all-powerful, he is by no means a simple figurehead. That's a dangerous assumption to make when casting your vote.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 5, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Sorry if this is nitpicking, but this is one thing that annoys me to no end.
> 
> The President is as far away from a figurehead as you can get. The President has veto power over legislation passed by Congress; while it can be overruled, more often than not he's going to have the final say. Presidents are the head of the nation's Executive Branch, the portion of the government responsible for implementing and enforcing these pieces of legislation. The President is responsible for appointing judges to the federal court system, including the Supreme Court - determining how the Constitution will be interpreted by the Federal Government. The President is also the Commander in Chief of our armed forces, holding the final word on how and where our military will be deployed (not to mention, a figurehead would not have the nuclear launch codes).
> 
> I could go on and on, but needless to say, while the President is not all-powerful, he is by no means a simple figurehead. That's a dangerous assumption to make when casting your vote.



I truly hope you don't think the President uses any of this power without at least some party approval/backing...  There are many things the president is in charge of, but suggesting policy is formed or even shaped by one man is kind of silly.  Do you think Obama or Romney sat down with a pen and paper and drew up their entire platforms and plans?


----------



## Gahars (Nov 5, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> I truly hope you don't think the President uses any of this power without at least some party approval/backing... There are many things the president is in charge of, but suggesting policy is formed or even shaped by one man is kind of silly. Do you think Obama or Romney sat down with a pen and paper and drew up their entire platforms and plans?


 
I never said that wasn't the case, though it's fair to keep in mind that it works both ways - the party influences the President and the President influences the party.

There is, however, a huge difference between "the President and his party work together" and "the President is a figurehead".


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> I truly hope you don't think the President uses any of this power without at least some party approval/backing...


I never claimed this, but what you said isn't necessarily true.



Old8oy said:


> There are many things the president is in charge of, but suggesting policy is formed or even shaped by one man is kind of silly.


Referring to law, yeah, one person can make a big difference in what becomes law and what doesn't. One person can make a big difference, for example, in how he or she chooses to work with the other party. One person can veto bills. One person can issue executive orders. One person can appoint people to the Supreme Court of the United States. One person is Commander in Chief. Regardless, it's entirely fair to be critical of a candidate because he or she lies, particularly when it's about policy. In fact, I also argue that Romney's lies are reflective of the Republican Party.

I live in Missouri and am fortunate enough to get to vote for Claire McCaskill this Tuesday. Considering what Todd Akin said about "legitimate rape," are Republicans still going to vote party? The polling says they aren't, and that's because Akin's comments deal directly with his policy positions and cast doubt on his "legitimacy" as a candidate. Missouri is a fairly red state this year, so I see a lot of yards full of Republican political signs, and it's funny how many of them don't put out Akin signs while they have signs for all the other Republicans running for something.

Please don't get me wrong; I pretty much vote party. All I'm arguing is that the a.) individuals of a party are a good indicator for what that party believes in, b.) a candidate's shortcomings are important in predicting how well he or she will do at the job, and c.) sometimes a candidate's positions differ from his or her party's positions (for example, I don't think the "legitimate rape" thing is part of the Republican platform, but it might as well be).



Old8oy said:


> Do you think Obama or Romney sat down with a pen and paper and drew up their entire platforms and plans?


I never claimed this either, but it sounds like you're trying to argue that candidates somehow aren't responsible for the policy positions they take.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 5, 2012)

Wanna know what's funny, no matter who's President, there are some things that are still out of their control, like some aspects of Area 51 are out way out of their league.

Anyways, this thread doesn't really affect me, but I do have to say, if I was to vote, I'd vote for Obama. Mainly because the last 4 years, with the mess he's been handed from Bush, he's slowly, but surely turning the country around. It takes time, and he has plans for the future that seem possible. While, from videos I've just watched and nothing more, Romney doesn't seem like he has any idea what the hell to do or say. But that's just my opinion, and it's worth a grain of salt if anything at all, as I don't really know, nor care much for politics.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 5, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Almost all of the moral questions can be deduced to the form of "Is ______ good(/evil)?", or "Is _______ better than ______?". In the arena of public policy and legislation, those questions take on a reasonably more specific form:
> "Is ______ good(/evil), for the well-being of society?"
> or
> "Is ______ better than _______, for the well-being of society?"
> ...


Facts and social beliefs are two entirely different matters and are not comparable at all. 

As you have stated, there is a perfect possibility of sub-cultures to exist, and that is the case for sure. That's why you try and localise these issues as much as possible. Granted, it's not going to be a perfect system, and it's not going to make everyone happy, but it's a far better option than letting several other countries decide what should be the law. Does it make sense to ask a random Spanish stranger for advice on how you should solve a dispute between you and your friends, over asking an independent friend? Does it make sense to ask a random Ohio citizen to decide on drug legalisation in California when they don't live in California, probably don't know anything about what the drug situation is like there, and therefore can't make an informed decision? Does Ireland get social information on Germany on a daily basis? Does Nevada get social news on Alaska on a daily basis? 

It's not perfect, but at least by reducing the amount of power a federal government has, citizens have more options. You're giving the citizens a greater voice and greater power to change things. From the sounds of the arguments here, that's apparently a terrible thing to allow, and you'd rather force yourselves into a dictatorship who is "logically moral". Bare in mind, sometimes I'd actually rather a "moral and logical dictator" myself, because seeing the stupid decisions governments make worldwide is frustrating. But despite how much I'd think that could sometimes be better, I believe it's more acceptable to let the people decide what they want. Look at the flip side, what if the federal government legalised slavery? What if the federal government decided to outlaw teaching evolution? At least if you kept these issues locally, you have options and you have more power to change things.

If you think people are going to make stupid decisions, then educate them about politics. The biggest issue at the moment, is that people have no real interest in politics, and don't understand other people or human behaviour. Fix that, and you'll see drastic changes in the world.



Lacius said:


> The fact that I can (and have) logically demonstrated why something is or is not moral demonstrates that morality is dependent on logic. If you can answer the questions "Why is X moral?" or "Why isn't X moral?" then that means you're dealing with logic rather than arbitrary feeling. It's not a difficult concept to grasp.
> 
> Except that morals aren't emotions.
> 
> ...


 
Let's keep this one short:

1) Morals are entirely based on emotions. I feel like there's nothing wrong with piracy. People feel sickened by piracy. That's an emotion. People feel like 13 year old having sex is sickening, others think it's fine. People think it's sickening for loli manga to exist, while logically no children are harmed in its production. Sounds like you're confusing ethics with morals. I actually agree that every single emotion is logical in nature, by trust me, that attitude is not going to get you appreciated by others. You're showing a clear lack of understanding of people and social skills.

If we're going to in-depth debates about whether or not something should be legal or illegal, you'll get your evidence then, and we can have a lengthy discussion about those issues, but the issue here is, is whether or not states should have more power. You don't want to give citizens more options, I do. You don't want citizens to have a chance of changing immoral laws the federal governments imposes, I do. You don't want states to have a chance of tailoring and optimising federal laws towards their local society and economy, I do. The states are trustworthy, and if the states aren't trustworthy, it's hard to imagine the federal government being more trustworthy. They vote without reading the bills, and are heavily influenced by lobbyists, and you want those people to decide how every single state is ran?

What if the federal government legalises slavery? What if the federal government bans evolution teachings? What if the federal government bans gay marriage? You clearly don't want options judging from what you've been saying. I want options, and I want citizens to have options. I like the way some people describe the states, you have "50 laboratories", and best practices and rules will spread naturally.

2) Ties with terrorists? So what if a few citizens are a bit rebelious? Here's an idea: Stop invading their country, stop imposing restrictions, talk with them fairly, and perhaps they won't want to attack you with force. The only reason people resort to terrorism, is when you're refusing to talk to them or understand them. Most of the time, their demands are simple, which is to stop invading them. If the US starts to invade Ireland, thinking we're a threat, of course I'm going to hate the US. The US government has the same issue that you have, which is not understanding others or human nature.

Give me proof that Israel wants the US to be involved.

3) Using a vote to "cockblock" is not logical at all. And that's the major reason why third party candidates struggle to get votes. If that mentality was gone, you'd see third party candidates standing a better chance. People should be voting for what they actually want. People shouldn't be childish or immature, as that would just leave the country in a mess.

Using your vote on someone who you think will actually be good for the country, as opposed to voting for the better of two evils, is the most logical thing you can do. Voting for the better of two evils is not logical, and will only continue to put the country into further debt. If you don't want people to vote for that party you hate so much, educate them.



KingVamp said:


> Peps is going to have USA going back years of progress under his scary ideals. Throwing equal rights out of the window for the favor of moral relativism.


 
If you think that's the case, then you haven't been reading my points properly at all. Giving people more options is "scary"? Really? Giving a state's government of fairly elected individuals is "scary"? Nobody said anything about throwing rights away. Violating rights, and allowing the states to have a greater say in how they run their state, are two entirely different things. 

Ireland has its own laws, and we haven't done anything stupid like legalise slavery. Granted I still think the country is a bit backwards from my moral perspective, but the only way I'll change that is if I discuss my moral viewpoint with others, or perhaps participate in politics myself. The UK, while nearby, has a different set of morals and viewpoints, and they're doing fine. Same with every other country in Europe.

Now, what you're saying is, is that state governments are untrustworthy, while the federal government are perfectly trustworthy. To me, that's scary. It's scary to let an entity like that have so much control. It's scary to think that people who don't even read the bills they're voting for to decide how every state is ran. It's scary to think that these same people who barely work as it is, are deciding on how my life is ran. It's scary to think how small I'd be, and how I'd be barely able to influence what goes on there.

Your ideals are terrifying.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2012)

Peps said:


> Morals are entirely based on emotions. I feel like there's nothing wrong with piracy.


Just because you can say "I feel like X" doesn't mean it's rooted "entirely in emotion." I can say "I feel like Y is guilty of murder," but that doesn't mean I came to the conclusion because of emotions; I came to the conclusion that Y is guilty because of logical reasoning. If I can ask you why you believe there's nothing wrong with piracy and you can walk me through the logical steps you used to come to that conclusion, it's a matter of logic; if it were arbitrarily based entirely on emotion, the only answer you could provide is "because I feel like it," and if that were the case, no one would take your views on the morality of piracy seriously.



Peps said:


> People feel sickened by piracy. That's an emotion. People feel like 13 year old having sex is sickening, others think it's fine.


I've already argued for biological predispositions to morality; for example, people tend to have negative physiological responses if they commit murder. That's not to say morality is illogical, which is what you're arguing.



Peps said:


> Sounds like you're confusing ethics with morals.


The words "ethics" and "morals" are synonymous.



Peps said:


> You don't want to give citizens more options, I do. You don't want citizens to have a chance of changing immoral laws the federal governments imposes, I do. You don't want states to have a chance of tailoring and optimising federal laws towards their local society and economy, I do.


All of this comes with the fact that you also have to allow states to do immoral things like legalize slavery. You can't accept the good things about allowing states to do whatever they want but not the bad things. That's called cherry-picking.

I also said I wouldn't move on until you've either answered my two questions or conceded my points, and it appears you're unable to do either.



Peps said:


> What if the federal government legalises slavery? What if the federal government bans evolution teachings? What if the federal government bans gay marriage?


And the federal government would be wrong to do so, just like any state would be wrong to do so. So what?



Peps said:


> You clearly don't want options judging from what you've been saying. I want options, and I want citizens to have options.


You're arguing for the option of legalized slavery?



Peps said:


> I like the way some people describe the states, you have "50 laboratories", and best practices and rules will spread naturally.


If history is any indication, the "best practices and rules" do not spread naturally. Abolishing slavery, for example, was only accomplished by dragging the South kicking and screaming.

Am I arguing that states should have no rights? Of course not. I am, however, arguing that the federal government, courts, etc. have a right and obligation to step in when a state has gotten it wrong.



Peps said:


> Ties with terrorists? So what if a few citizens are a bit rebelious?


Reread the Wikipedia article, because it clearly talks about the Iranian government's ties with terrorism.



Peps said:


> Give me proof that Israel wants the US to be involved.


I've already pasted a link.



Peps said:


> Using a vote to "cockblock" is not logical at all.


Why not?



Peps said:


> And that's the major reason why third party candidates struggle to get votes. If that mentality was gone, you'd see third party candidates standing a better chance.


No, the major reason why third-party candidates struggle to get votes is because they aren't popular enough among the electorate. Show me evidence that third-party candidates have a significant amount of support that's only circumvented by the fact that people are voting for major-party candidates when they'd rather have a third-party candidate.



Peps said:


> People should be voting for what they actually want.


Except when ~99% of the electorate disagrees with them; if the goal is to help choose the winner of the election, then the logical thing to do is vote for your preferred candidate of the ones who have a chance at winning. Otherwise, one's vote is going to someone who cannot win.



Peps said:


> Using your vote on someone who you think will actually be good for the country, as opposed to voting for the better of two evils, is the most logical thing you can do.


If I hated all of the candidates and thought I was the only person who would be good for the country, it would still be illogical for me to write myself in because I cannot possibly win, and that's why your argument is flawed.



Peps said:


> Voting for the better of two evils is not logical, and will only continue to put the country into further debt.


Except that President Obama has offered a bipartisan plan that reduces the deficit, and we only have a deficit problem because of President George W. Bush's policies. You're right, however, that a vote for Governor Romney would "put the country into further debt."


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 5, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Just because you can say "I feel like X" doesn't mean it's rooted "entirely in emotion." I can say "I feel like Y is guilty of murder," but that doesn't mean I came to the conclusion because of emotions; I came to the conclusion that Y is guilty because of logical reasoning. If I can ask you why you believe there's nothing wrong with piracy and you can walk me through the logical steps you used to come to that conclusion, it's a matter of logic; if it were arbitrarily based entirely on emotion, the only answer you could provide is "because I feel like it," and if that were the case, no one would take your views on the morality of piracy seriously.
> 
> I've already argued for biological predispositions to morality; for example, people tend to have negative physiological responses if they commit murder. That's not to say morality is illogical, which is what you're arguing.
> 
> ...


 
We can both construct a logical path as to how we come about to our morals, but it's still an emotion that's tied to that moral. People may feel like it's horribly wrong to "steal" from a developer regardless of the circumstances, even if they understand the logic behind it. Your spouse may cheat on you, yet you might not feel too bothered by it and will give them an opportunity to regain your trust, whereas others will be shocked and refuse to provide an opportunity. Feeling comfortable with something isn't necessarily completely tied to logic. But again, if you're going to take the approach that everything is tied to a logic response (which I do agree to now and then), then you're going to get on the wrong side of people very easily. You're not understanding human behaviour at all.

You've crushed your entire credibility about morals by stating that ethics and morals are the same. They're not. Morals are personal, ethics are more like rules that a society follows. In any company, you have a code of ethics, and if you breach those ethics, you could potentially put yourself into trouble. However, your morals may not coincide with that company's ethics, yet you have to follow them anyways. Let's tie it again to the piracy argument, I don't see a problem with it, which is my morals, yet the company's code of ethics state that I can't use their network to download illegal material. I don't see the problem with accepting a gift from a client, but some company's code of ethics will frown upon it because it can be considered a bribe. They're two very different things. (something else from college actually paid off, hurray!)

Your questions are completely meaningless because they don't prove that the federal government should be allowed to have control over issues either. But let's answer something here: What's so wrong with people having more options, and more power to get issues they want solved? You keep bringing back a ridiculous notion that states are immediately going to allow slavery should they get their way. I don't think any modern first world society is ever going to legalise slavery again. How long ago was slavery abolished? A very long time ago right? Don't you think people's morality would have changed since? If the federal government were to legalise slavery, states have no choice but to follow that ruling, even if they disagree with it. You're restricting people's options, and restricting their voice. You're restricting their ability to change things, and that's why it's better for states to have control. Honestly, I don't get why you states are going to resort back to the dark ages if they had more control over their social issues. You're going to have some unfortunate issues here and there, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons. Seems logical.

What's the big deal with having ties to terrorist organisations? The US is providing assistance to terrorist organisations, isn't that a tie? The US has hundreds of nuclear weapons, and are quite frankly terrifying. If you don't give people a reason to resort to force, then you and nobody else have nothing to fear. People don't take huge risks, unless they feel like it's their only option. You're going to have to re-post those links, and preferably not links to Wikipedia articles, but instead to credible sources.

As for the "cockblocking", easily proven, by the fact that everyone else keeps spreading that such and such a person is a waste of a vote. By stating someone is a waste of a vote, you're influencing people not to vote for that person. You see it all of the time in media. Majority of voters are not that politically interested, are easily influenced by media, and probably aren't even aware of all of their options. Opinions are very diverse amongst people, and the two-party system implies that there are only two types of voters. If voters were aware of all of their options and weren't influenced at all by media, the story would be very different. If a voter was told that a third-party candidate has a good chance of winning, do you think they're going to be influenced by that?

You're part of the problem, attempting to disenfranchise voters, when in fact, a vote for Obama is the same as a vote for Romney, which is the same as a vote for Johnson, which is the same as a vote for yourself, which is not the same as a vote for Pikachu. Your probability calculations may be correct, but it doesn't change the value of a vote, which is 1.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2012)

Peps said:


> If you think that's the case, then you haven't been reading my points properly at all. Giving people more options is "scary"? Really? Giving a state's government of fairly elected individuals is "scary"? Nobody said anything about throwing rights away. Violating rights, and allowing the states to have a greater say in how they run their state, are two entirely different things.


Giving states even more room to violate the rights of others rather then giving more of a push to give
equal rights to everyone is scary.



Peps said:


> Ireland has its own laws, and we haven't done anything stupid like legalise slavery. Granted I still think the country is a bit backwards from my moral perspective, but the only way I'll change that is if I discuss my moral viewpoint with others, or perhaps participate in politics myself. The UK, while nearby, has a different set of morals and viewpoints, and they're doing fine. Same with every other country in Europe.


Didn't happen here therefor , surely, none of the 50 states of America wouldn't do something to violate rights. Do you know how big USA is?

What's to stop slavery or the killing of a group, if the majority of the state wants that and the federal nor other states can't step in to stop such violating of rights?




Peps said:


> Now, what you're saying is, is that state governments are untrustworthy, while the federal government are perfectly trustworthy. To me, that's scary. It's scary to let an entity like that have so much control. It's scary to think that people who don't even read the bills they're voting for to decide how every state is ran. It's scary to think that these same people who barely work as it is, are deciding on how my life is ran. It's scary to think how small I'd be, and how I'd be barely able to influence what goes on there.
> 
> Your ideals are terrifying.


 
The ideals of state governments being untrustworthy, while the federal government are perfectly trustworthy is terrifying, it's a good thing that isn't my ideal.

It scary how all that can happen in a state and no one out of that state can do anything about it.

It's funny that you say "how small I'd be in making a influence, and how I'd be barely able to influence what goes on there" when you are welling to throw away your vote for a statement rather vote for the best of the Country. When you want push away federal government when it is a way to get outside help from other states when you are a minority in a state that want to take away your rights.




No, federal government isn't perfect, but when it works it works well.


Not completely related,but...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 5, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Giving states even more room to violate the rights of others rather then giving more of a push to give
> equal rights to everyone is scary.
> 
> 
> ...



Why on earth do you think states want to take away human rights, when recent activities prove that they want to enhance people's freedoms (eg. drug legalisation)? Has any state recently said anything about wanting to legalise slavery again? On the other hand, how many times have states wanted to do something positive, yet are being held back by the federal government? I'd say quite a lot. Let's not forget, the federal government is known to be composed of idiots who don't even read what they're voting on, and barely work as it is.

Your reasons against states having control is the same reason to not let federal government have control. However, at least on a state level, if you're not satisfied, you can easily vote out your state government through relatively simple state-level campaigning, rather than having to campaign across all 50 states. And if that fails, at least you can just move to a different state, whereas if the federal government had control, you'd have no choice but the leave the US completely. Feel free to come up with a fair list of pros and cons though that prove that a federal government is superior over letting states do as they please. Oh, let's not try to refer to ridiculous nonsense like slavery, as the federal government can do the same damage, if not worse.

And if you haven't been reading, nobody is making a statement when they "throw away their vote". You're voting for the best of the country when you're using your vote, no matter who it's for (so long as it's a real person). If you believe you're the right person for the job, vote for yourself. 1 vote is 1 vote. It's like you've all completely forgotten what the definition of a vote is.


----------



## BlueStar (Nov 5, 2012)

I also don't get this idea that the tyrrany of the state is less oppressive than the tyrrany of the federal government. How long would it have taken to end racial segregation if every state had to decide separately? 

Seems a lot of support for candidates like Ron Paul comes from people who don't give a fuck if teenagers g et arrested for abortion or blasphemy in Kansas as long as they can smoke weed in California.


----------



## emigre (Nov 5, 2012)

American politics, you are just so bi-polar and so unnecessarily difficult. I will never truly understand you. And I have a fucking politics degree.

Anyhows the polls are suggesting Obama albeit by a photo finish. One thing that interests me is the varying mood from four years ago. In 2008 it seemed America ( or at to be more precise Obama voters) were drunk on change and hope. Now in 2012, everyone has sobered up and trying to be pragmatic with Obama seemingly going from "change we need," to "change we need but."


----------



## dickfour (Nov 5, 2012)

The last four yeas have sucked economically so I voted for Romny with great enthusiasm because I know this isn't as good as it gets. There's huge differences between statism and free markets. I think Romny wins because I haven't met one enthusiastic Obama supporter. They are all saying "oh well the other guy Os just as bad". You don't win if that's your attitude


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2012)

Peps said:


> We can both construct a logical path as to how we come about to our morals, but it's still an emotion that's tied to that moral.


I've already explained how morality is logically defined, and you've already conceded that emotions are also tied to logic.



Peps said:


> You've crushed your entire credibility about morals by stating that ethics and morals are the same.


Even if I were wrong that "morals" and "ethics" are synonymous, which they are, it wouldn't "crush my entire credibility about morals." Nice try though.



Peps said:


> Morals are personal, ethics are more like rules that a society follows.


"Morals" don't just pertain to the personal, and "ethics" don't just pertain just to specific company or societal rules. You can use them that way, but that's not what they necessarily always mean.



Peps said:


> In any company, you have a code of ethics, and if you breach those ethics, you could potentially put yourself into trouble. However, your morals may not coincide with that company's ethics, yet you have to follow them anyways. Let's tie it again to the piracy argument, I don't see a problem with it, which is my morals, yet the company's code of ethics state that I can't use their network to download illegal material. I don't see the problem with accepting a gift from a client, but some company's code of ethics will frown upon it because it can be considered a bribe. They're two very different things.


You're only distinguishing between the two in your example by talking about "ethics" as "company ethics," using the word synonymously with "rules;" I am not arguing that morals are necessarily the same thing as an established set of rules by a group of people (in fact, that has been my whole point). In the general sense, saying something is or is not "moral" is the same thing as saying something is or is not "ethical." Again, nice try.

I'm not arguing that people don't have varying views on morality; for example, I think piracy is immoral and some people think piracy is moral. However, I've already shown that morality can be quantified if we establish a definition of "morality," and unless you're arguing that objective logic doesn't exist, then your argument falls apart and piracy is or is not objectively moral.



Peps said:


> Your questions are completely meaningless because they don't prove that the federal government should be allowed to have control over issues either.


Depending on how you answer the questions, they actually do show that the federal government, courts, etc. should be allowed to intervene when a state gets it wrong. Answer my questions or concede my points. Otherwise, it's apparent that you're not interested in having a conversation.



Peps said:


> But let's answer something here: What's so wrong with people having more options, and more power to get issues they want solved?


Because then you would have had states where slavery was legal with there being no course of action other than to wait and hope the states criminalize slavery. You realize you're arguing against the abolition of slavery, yes?



Peps said:


> You keep bringing back a ridiculous notion that states are immediately going to allow slavery should they get their way.


That's not at all what I'm arguing.



Peps said:


> You're going to have some unfortunate issues here and there, but the pros definitely outweigh the cons. Seems logical.


Allowing slavery to be legal in some states is illogical because slavery is immoral, just like it would be illogical to allow murder to be legal in some states.



Peps said:


> What's the big deal with having ties to terrorist organisations?


As a matter of national security, it's an important consideration that Iran has ties with terrorist groups that would use nuclear weapons against us if they had the chance.



Peps said:


> As for the "cockblocking", easily proven, by the fact that everyone else keeps spreading that such and such a person is a waste of a vote.


What's proven?



Peps said:


> By stating someone is a waste of a vote, you're influencing people not to vote for that person.


People are stating that third-party candidates are a waste of a vote because not enough people are voting for those candidates in order for them to be politically viable; it's not the other way around. If it is the other way around, I'd like to see some evidence of that.



Peps said:


> If a voter was told that a third-party candidate has a good chance of winning, do you think they're going to be influenced by that?


Yes, but it has got to be true for it to mean anything. If it's not true, then you're just tricking someone into throwing his or her vote away.



Peps said:


> You're part of the problem, attempting to disenfranchise voters, when in fact, a vote for Obama is the same as a vote for Romney, which is the same as a vote for Johnson, which is the same as a vote for yourself, which is not the same as a vote for Pikachu. Your probability calculations may be correct, but it doesn't change the value of a vote, which is 1.


No, a write-in vote for me, despite the fact that it's worth 1 vote, does not have as much of an influence on the results of the election as a vote for Romney or Obama.



dickfour said:


> The last four yeas have sucked economically so I voted for Romny with great enthusiasm because I know this isn't as good as it gets.


No one claims this is as good as it gets. The economy has improved under President Obama, but we were in a pretty deep hole.



dickfour said:


> I think Romny wins because I haven't met one enthusiastic Obama supporter.


Hi.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2012)

Peps said:


> Why on earth do you think states want to take away human rights, when recent activities prove that they want to enhance people's freedoms (eg. drug legalisation)? Has any state recently said anything about wanting to legalise slavery again? On the other hand, how many times have states wanted to do something positive, yet are being held back by the federal government? I'd say quite a lot. Let's not forget, the federal government is known to be composed of idiots who don't even read what they're voting on, and barely work as it is.


Just because there isn't out spoken support of it now, doesn't mean that they wouldn't want it.
"Quite a lot"? Examples?



Peps said:


> Your reasons against states having control is the same reason to not let federal government have control. However, at least on a state level, if you're not satisfied, you can easily vote out your state government through relatively simple state-level campaigning, rather than having to campaign across all 50 states. And if that fails, at least you can just move to a different state, whereas if the federal government had control, you'd have no choice but the leave the US completely. Feel free to come up with a fair list of pros and cons though that prove that a federal government is superior over letting states do as they please. Oh, let's not try to refer to ridiculous nonsense like slavery, as the federal government can do the same damage, if not worse.


So, it possibly, give up you rights or move? I shouldn't have to give up my rights or move.
That no better then telling someone to leave the USA.

So, you can't accept that possibly, so let's just throw that out of the window?


Also, states do work together when things like SOPA, try to pass. So, isn't like the federal government
doesn't get check too.




Peps said:


> And if you haven't been reading, nobody is making a statement when they "throw away their vote". You're voting for the best of the country when you're using your vote, no matter who it's for (so long as it's a real person). If you believe you're the right person for the job, vote for yourself. 1 vote is 1 vote. It's like you've all completely forgotten what the definition of a vote is.


I have been reading.
I rather vote for the best of what we got for the Country than waste my vote for
someone isn't going to decide the election. Thought Obama was mine #1 choice anyway,so...
yeah.


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Nov 5, 2012)

dickfour said:


> The last four yeas have sucked economically so I voted for Romny with great enthusiasm because I know this isn't as good as it gets. There's huge differences between statism and free markets. I think Romny wins because I haven't met one enthusiastic Obama supporter. They are all saying "oh well the other guy Os just as bad". You don't win if that's your attitude


 
You can't even correctly spell the name of the guy you voted for.

And nice to meet you, I'm an enthusiastic Obama supporter


----------



## chavosaur (Nov 5, 2012)

I cant wait for this election to be over so all these campaign ads can go away -.- To me it doesn't really matter who wins. As long as the man in charge tries to the best of his ability to provide for the people, and represent our nation, Im fine.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 5, 2012)

chavosaur said:


> As long as the man in charge tries to the best of his ability to provide for the people, and represent our nation, Im fine.


Just because a candidate has good intentions doesn't say much about the validity of his or her policy positions.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 5, 2012)

dickfour said:


> The last four yeas have sucked economically so I voted for Romny with great enthusiasm because I know this isn't as good as it gets. There's huge differences between statism and free markets. I think Romny wins because I haven't met one enthusiastic Obama supporter. They are all saying "oh well the other guy Os just as bad". You don't win if that's your attitude


Congrats on voting on the worse it can get.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 5, 2012)

dickfour said:


> The last four yeas have sucked economically so I voted for *Romny* with great enthusiasm because I know this isn't as good as it gets. There's huge differences between statism and free markets. I think *Romny* wins because I haven't met one enthusiastic Obama supporter. They are all saying "oh well the other guy Os just as bad". You don't win if that's your attitude


You spelled Mitt's name wrong, it's *Romney*.
Also the economy has improved since Obama has been in office. Not to mention Mitt promises to fix the economy with the same plan that got us into this problem. I strongly doubt using the same plan over and over again will show different results. 
Also hello, I am an enthusiastic Obama supporter!


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 6, 2012)

Was it the policies that were bad, or the execution of the policies?


----------



## leic7 (Nov 6, 2012)

Peps said:


> Facts and social beliefs are two entirely different matters and are not comparable at all.


This statement is inaccurate. Oftentimes social beliefs are factual claims, such as, "_______ is bad for society." That's a factual claim that can be tested and evaluated much like a scientific hypothesis can. There's a whole faculty dedicated to the study of such "social beliefs", and it's called "social science". If you disagree that social beliefs can be factual claims, provide an actual counter-argument, please.

Localise local issues as much as possible... I can definitely agree with that. In case you missed it, I was specifically referring to the Irish law re: abortion. In order to "localise" this issue, the issue should be dealt with at the individual level, for it's a private matter concerning only the individual person. It's absolutely not a national issue, and a pregnant Irish woman's pregnancy concerns a random Irish man just as much as it concerns a random German man. If you're for "localisation" then I presume you'd support shifting the responsibilities of making abortion laws and decisions from the national government to the municipalities, for instance?

I think you've mistaken what others have said about the relationship between federal and state governments on morality. The larger government is not inherently more moral, neither is the smaller government inherently more moral; and by "moral" I mean "right" in their decisions. Both levels of government have the capacity to make wrong decisions. But it appears to me, you've been arguing, that it's *always* better to leave the responsibilities of decision making to the smaller government, as a rule with no exceptions, even when those decisions are clearly wrong.

When a government made a clearly wrong decision, that decision should be overturned, regardless of the level of government it is. What if the federal government legalised slavery? Either the states and the people overturn it, or the international community would have an obligation to get involved to reverse that decision. What if the state government legalised slavery? Same thing. Either the people overturned it, or the federal government would be obliged to step in.

Should states (or the federal government, for that matter) always have unchallenged control over issues of human rights? Because 9 out of 10 times when I hear the "state rights Vs. federal rights" debate, it's over some issue concerning human rights, eg. same-sex marriage, abortion, health care, slavery, etc. How much "tailoring" can you really do to those human right issues, I wonder, without flat out breaking the human right? It seems to me you can either honour the human right, or...well, not honour it?


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2012)

Last thing I'll be posting in this thread, at least till after tomorrow's over ... just to point out to you guys, polls are bullshit. So don't get cocky over the results of recent polls if you think they're good, or worry much if you think they're bad. Just vote your conscience (even if that means you choose not to vote, which is a valid alternative, given the choices available to us this time around).

This is from the day before the 1980 election, and according to the AP, national polls were 'too close to call.' Turned out to be the 2nd biggest blowout ever. Something about the pollsters' methods, perhaps? I'm not posting this to suggest what tomorrow's outcome will be -- only that the polls aren't as accurate as many believe.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Last thing I'll be posting in this thread, at least till after tomorrow's over ... just to point out to you guys, polls are bullshit. So don't get cocky over the results of recent polls if you think they're good, or worry much if you think they're bad. Just vote your conscience (even if that means you choose not to vote, which is a valid alternative, given the choices available to us this time around).
> 
> This is from the day before the 1980 election, and according to the AP, national polls were 'too close to call.' Turned out to be the 2nd biggest blowout ever. Something about the pollsters' methods, perhaps? I'm not posting this to suggest what tomorrow's outcome will be -- only that the polls aren't as accurate as many believe.


It's a myth that Reagan didn't lead the polls in that election. Even if he hadn't, there are many reasons why polling is more reliable in 2012 than it was in 1980.

Speaking of polls, Nate Silver has updated his forecast to give President Obama a 91.4% chance of winning the election.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2012)

Lacius said:


> It's a myth that Reagan didn't lead the polls in that election. Even if he hadn't, there are many reasons why polling is more reliable in 2012 than it was in 1980.
> 
> Speaking of polls, Nate Silver has updated his forecast to give President Obama a 91.4% chance of winning the election.


http://electoral-vote.com/
I know it's too close to tell, but I'm a bit worry with Florida going to the other side.


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 6, 2012)

Lacius said:


> It's a myth that Reagan didn't lead the polls in that election. Even if he hadn't, there are many reasons why polling is more reliable in 2012 than it was in 1980.
> 
> Speaking of polls, Nate Silver has updated his forecast to give President Obama a 91.4% chance of winning the election.


 

That's not the point ... whether Carter or Reagan were leading at any certain point, or whether polling is more reliable now than then (we always are susceptible to that conceit, aren't we ... people of the past were idiots, but we are very intelligent ... sure) .... no, the point is, the day before the 1980 election, which was an absolute, certain win for Reagan and everyone knew it ... the MEDIA was still trying to tell the public that it was neck and neck.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2012)

Hanafuda said:


> Last thing I'll be posting in this thread, at least till after tomorrow's over ...


Whoops.



Hanafuda said:


> (we always are susceptible to that conceit, aren't we ... people of the past were idiots, but we are very intelligent ... sure)


I linked to very specific reasons why we should trust polls more now than back then, and they have nothing to do with anyone having been an idiot.



Hanafuda said:


> no, the point is, the day before the 1980 election, which was an absolute, certain win for Reagan and everyone knew it ... the MEDIA was still trying to tell the public that it was neck and neck.


If your point is about the media and not about the polls, then I'd agree with you that the media usually paints a picture of a race being closer than it actually is, and 2012 is arguably an example of this. In no way am I arguing that Governor Romney can't win, but the odds are in President Obama's favor.



KingVamp said:


> http://electoral-vote.com/
> I know it's too close to tell, but I'm a bit worry with Florida going to the other side.


The likelihood is very small that Florida will provide the deciding electoral vote. While Florida is way too close to call, it doesn't look like President Obama needs it.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 6, 2012)

Also, it's worth noting that the problem sometimes lies with those reporting the polling, rather than the poll takers themselves.

Tight election races draw more interest from viewers, so there's an incentive to portray a race as close when it might not actually be that way. Poll results may be cherry picked, or outright misconstrued, to aid this narrative. It's something that Nate Silver has written about extensively.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 6, 2012)

Lacius said:


> I've already explained how morality is logically defined, and you've already conceded that emotions are also tied to logic.
> 
> 
> Even if I were wrong that "morals" and "ethics" are synonymous, which they are, it wouldn't "crush my entire credibility about morals." Nice try though.
> ...


 
Morals and ethics are still not going to change in definition just because you disagree with those definitions. Morals are personal, ethics involve a society. A company society is just one example of where ethics apply, but it's not the only example. Ethics apply to any form of community. The fact you don't know such basic definitions show that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to morals or ethics. That is what they always mean, research into them further if you must. Most of the time, yes, they are very similar, but that's because people's morals just happen to match the society's ethics, but it's not necessarily always the case. That's pretty much summarising what I've been taught in college during my Law and Ethics module in college.

Besides, getting back to the main point on morals, let's take more examples. Loli manga as I mentioned earlier, is logically fine, but yet is deemed immoral, while other societies deem it as morally acceptable. Why do people logically care about others, when it's sometimes far more logically not to? If someone breaks your heart, why is it logical to feel heartbroken, when it's more logically to feel happier? Like I said earlier, if you're going to keep up that attitude, you're not going to get on well with people at all. Consider that as a warning from someone who made the same mistake. Nobody is arguing that some morals can't be derived logically, but not all of them can be.

Feel free to answer your own questions that prove that the federal government is allowed to have full control over the country. However, when answering that question, prove that the European Union should also not be allowed to take control over all of the countries in Europe, because you're implying that the situations are different. Though I still have no idea why you keep referencing to slavery, because it makes perfect sense for a state to re-introduce dark age concepts? Why would slavery be legal again if states were allowed to make their own decisions? You haven't answered that question at all, and you can use the slavery argument as a reason to not have a federal government. You say you're not arguing that the states are going to re-introduce slavery should they get their way, yet that's your argument for not allowing states to have control over their own land.

Besides, just because one state might do something that you deem wrong, why should all of the other states be guilty? America seems to like using the concept of "guilty before proven innocent". If one state does something stupid, every state should pay the price. If a few citizens of a random country decide to rebel against the invaders, then every citizen should pay the price. If a few citizens are pirating, then every citizen should pay the price and be spied on. It's a sickening concept, and in my views, very immoral.

You're being absolutely ignorant about Iran, and you're refusing to understand that if you leave them alone, *they'll have no reason to use these imaginative nuclear weapons against you*. None at all. Why would they bomb you for no reason whatsoever? Feel free to try answer that one. By claiming that they'll bomb you if you leave them alone, clearly shows that you have no clue why terrorism occurs, and shows that you refuse to try understand other people. The majority of other countries don't invade other countries, and don't get attacked. Besides, you're talking about war here, where innocent people are going to die on both sides. I don't think either side wants that, but if you continue to push, and claim that other countries are going to attack you for no reason, well that's exactly what's going to happen.

Time and time again, you always hear people how they want to vote for third-party candidates, yet won't because they don't think other people will. Yet, what happens if those people didn't think that, and voted for the third-party candidate anyways? People sometimes don't vote, because they're not happy with either the Republicans or Democrats, so what happens if they become aware that there's more than two choices, and use their vote on a third-party candidate? Did you know people are often completely unaware of the third choice? Your vote for you strongly influences the results of the election. A vote for you isn't a vote for Romney or Obama. They've both lost one vote. It annoys me when people say a vote for a third-party is a vote for Romney, when it's not, it's a vote that a third-party gains, and it's a vote that Romney and Obama both don't gain.

I'm just going to bring in some food for thought here. Fianna Fáil, for a long time, they've been the biggest party in Ireland, often winning the general election. People always thought that everyone else was going to vote Fianna Fáil. However, when Fianna Fáil betrayed the country and brought the country into debt, everyone felt the same way about them, and then started voting other parties. Fianna Fáil did absolutely terrible in the previous general election as a result, and Fine Gael won instead by a huge portion of the vote. Bare in mind, support for more left-wing parties like Sinn Féin has also been drastically increasing. Unfortunately, come budget in December last year, Fine Gael betrayed everyone, especially the students who they largely depended on to get them into office. What do you think is going to happen next general election?



KingVamp said:


> Just because there isn't out spoken support of it now, doesn't mean that they wouldn't want it.
> "Quite a lot"? Examples?
> 
> 
> ...


 
Drug legalisation is an example. Health care reforms are another example. As said earlier, you have "50 laboratories" who are experimenting, trying to come up with the best way of going about doing things. When people are left to their own devices, competition rises, which encourages innovation. Legalising drugs for example is highly innovative, because it'll save a hell of a lot of money, while also introducing a new source of income, via taxation and tourism. The federal government doesn't seem too keen on the idea, and are stifling innovation.

Moving a few hundred kilometres is far better and more realistic than moving a few thousand kilometres. You're not giving up any rights by allowing the states to do what they please, you're in fact enhancing your rights and options. By letting the federal government take control, you're limiting your options, thus limiting your rights. But like I said, if you're not happy with the decisions your state government makes, vote them out. That's what we've done with Fianna Fáil here. We weren't happy with them, so we voted for other parties instead. Pretty simple stuff.

So why do you think you have to give up your rights if a state gets control? Why do you think states will try to get rid of your rights? Do you not trust the people you've voted to be governor (is that the term?) of your state?

If Obama is your main choice that's fine. But if I was a citizen of the US, and voted for a third-party, that's not a vote for either Romney or Obama, so that reduces their chances of winning by 1 vote. Again, simple stuff.



leic7 said:


> This statement is inaccurate. Oftentimes social beliefs are factual claims, such as, "_______ is bad for society." That's a factual claim that can be tested and evaluated much like a scientific hypothesis can. There's a whole faculty dedicated to the study of such "social beliefs", and it's called "social science". If you disagree that social beliefs can be factual claims, provide an actual counter-argument, please.
> 
> Localise local issues as much as possible... I can definitely agree with that. In case you missed it, I was specifically referring to the Irish law re: abortion. In order to "localise" this issue, the issue should be dealt with at the individual level, for it's a private matter concerning only the individual person. It's absolutely not a national issue, and a pregnant Irish woman's pregnancy concerns a random Irish man just as much as it concerns a random German man. If you're for "localisation" then I presume you'd support shifting the responsibilities of making abortion laws and decisions from the national government to the municipalities, for instance?
> 
> ...


 
Beliefs and facts are never the same. A fact is a fact, a belief is something that hasn't been proven, yet you believe is true. Beliefs can turn into facts, but beliefs and facts are never the same. Believing there's a God is a belief, but the big bang is a fact. As much as I hate religion, it's the fault to your argument. You people really need to look up the dictionary and study the differences between morals, ethics, beliefs, and facts.

I know exactly what you were referring to. I personally believe that people should be given as much freedom as possible, but of course while it's unrealistic to make the situation perfect, we can at least get as close as we can to that ideal scenario. Should abortion laws be reduce to an even more local level? Quite possibly. Even though we're a small country, cultures do vary quite a bit between Connaught, Leinster, Munster and Ulster. A lot of western citizens despise the fact that political power is in the east, because the east hardly cares about the problems in the west. However, why does that mean we should let the EU decide on how to solve these issues? It doesn't, we may as well localise these issues as much as we can. The next level after federal is state. So why not start there? The EU is already one step ahead of the matter. Germany have proven itself to be quite knowledgable when it comes to creating a strong economy, but if they were restricted by the decisions of every other country, innovation would have been stifled.

You keep thinking states are going to make wrong decisions. They're not going to, you have no evidence that they're going to, and if anything, the fact that they want to do stuff like legalising drugs, or improve health care, shows that they want to be innovative, yet are being restricted by federal law. The federal government is lazy, and don't read what they're voting on. But of course, nobody is perfect, and the option to overturn decisions can still be there quite easily by pressure from the other states, but why should the other states give up their rights to the federal government, just because someone might make a mistake?

Nobody said anything about being unable to challenge. Federal government can advise, federal government can pressure, just as easily as any company can lobby the federal government to pass any stuff they want passed. Social pressure is more powerful than people think it is. But again, remember that the state governments represent what the citizens of that state want. If the majority of that state want a law passed, then they should get it. By suggesting that the federal government should have full control over states, you're suggesting that democracy should not be allowed.

The only way the state can remove human rights, is if the citizens of that state want their human rights removed.

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

So to summarise (this goes to everyone):

- You think that states and citizens are guilty before proven innocent
- You think that the citizens of states want to remove their human rights
- You think that restricting your rights and options is far superior to having more options and more rights
- You think that people will bomb you for no good reason whatsoever
- You think that a vote for a third-party, regardless of their popularity, is a vote for Romney


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 6, 2012)

PEOPLE, WAKE UP! GET OFF YOUR ASSES AND GO VOTE!

I just finished voting and I'm ashamed at the voter turnout so far. 2008 had a very long line BEFORE 5am. This morning there was a little over 20 of us at first thing in the morning. Even worse most of them seem to be of the Romney persuasion. BTW I live in the battleground of Virginia. Seriously people, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND VOTE!


----------



## Gahars (Nov 6, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> PEOPLE, WAKE UP! GET OFF YOU ASSES AND GO VOTE!
> 
> I just finished voting and I'm ashamed at the voter turnout so far. 2008 had a very long line BEFORE 5am. This morning there was a little over 20 of us at first thing in the morning. Even worse most of them seem to be of the Romney persuasion. BTW I live in the battleground of Virginia. Seriously people, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND VOTE!


 
Well, remember, there's been a whole lot of early voting in pretty much all of the states (especially the swing states); I'm sure Virginia is no exception. That would explain why the turnout today might seem lackluster.

Anyway, I'm driving an hour and a half just to cast my vote. Come on, guys, no excuses here!


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 6, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> PEOPLE, WAKE UP! GET OFF YOU ASSES AND GO VOTE!
> 
> I just finished voting and I'm ashamed at the voter turnout so far. 2008 had a very long line *BEFORE 5am*. This morning there was a little over 20 of us at first thing in the morning. Even worse most of them seem to be of the Romney persuasion. BTW I live in the battleground of Virginia. Seriously people, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND VOTE!


 
I was about to throw my cat outside the door for trying to wake me up at 5am this morning. It was my time to sleep!


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2012)

What do you guys think about this?
http://www.facebookstories.com/vote


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> What do you guys think about this?
> http://www.facebookstories.com/vote


 
I would love to know how that could possibly be accurate.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 6, 2012)

Ah Satire.


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2012)

Peps said:


> Morals and ethics are still not going to change in definition just because you disagree with those definitions. Morals are personal, ethics involve a society. A company society is just one example of where ethics apply, but it's not the only example. Ethics apply to any form of community. The fact you don't know such basic definitions show that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to morals or ethics. That is what they always mean, research into them further if you must. Most of the time, yes, they are very similar, but that's because people's morals just happen to match the society's ethics, but it's not necessarily always the case. That's pretty much summarising what I've been taught in college during my Law and Ethics module in college.


Moral and ethical. You're free to talk about morals and ethics they way you're doing, but those definitions aren't necessarily the case, and in no way am I confusing the two; I've been talking about your definition of "moral" this whole time, so I don't see how any of this is relevant to the conversation.



Peps said:


> Besides, getting back to the main point on morals, let's take more examples. Loli manga as I mentioned earlier, is logically fine, but yet is deemed immoral, while other societies deem it as morally acceptable.


You're arguing that someone who thinks "loli manga" is immoral cannot logically explain his or her position?



Peps said:


> Why do people logically care about others, when it's sometimes far more logically not to?


Are you arguing it's illogical to take care of one another?



Peps said:


> If someone breaks your heart, why is it logical to feel heartbroken, when it's more logically to feel happier?


Are you arguing it's illogical to be heartbroken?



Peps said:


> Nobody is arguing that some morals can't be derived logically, but not all of them can be.


If someone claims that X is moral or immoral but cannot logically explain why X should be considered moral or immoral, then that person should not be taken seriously in considering whether or not X is moral.

This is all quite beside the point, by the way.



Peps said:


> Feel free to answer your own questions that prove that the federal government is allowed to have full control over the country. However, when answering that question, prove that the European Union should also not be allowed to take control over all of the countries in Europe, because you're implying that the situations are different. Though I still have no idea why you keep referencing to slavery, because it makes perfect sense for a state to re-introduce dark age concepts? Why would slavery be legal again if states were allowed to make their own decisions? You haven't answered that question at all, and you can use the slavery argument as a reason to not have a federal government. You say you're not arguing that the states are going to re-introduce slavery should they get their way, yet that's your argument for not allowing states to have control over their own land.


You're arguing that the federal government and courts do not have the right to intervene when the states get it wrong, which means you're arguing that the federal government should not have intervened in the case of abolishing slavery. It does not matter that the states would not re-legalize slavery today if they had the chance; the above is still what you're arguing, and I cannot make it simpler than that.



Peps said:


> Besides, just because one state might do something that you deem wrong, why should all of the other states be guilty? America seems to like using the concept of "guilty before proven innocent". If one state does something stupid, every state should pay the price. If a few citizens of a random country decide to rebel against the invaders, then every citizen should pay the price. If a few citizens are pirating, then every citizen should pay the price and be spied on. It's a sickening concept, and in my views, very immoral.


It doesn't look like you even understand what I'm arguing, and it doesn't look like you understand what "guilty before proven innocent" means or how the question of who has the burden of proof in a situation has nothing to do with this discussion. Wow. Just wow.



Peps said:


> You're being absolutely ignorant about Iran, and you're refusing to understand that if you leave them alone, they'll have no reason to use these imaginative nuclear weapons against you. None at all. Why would they bomb you for no reason whatsoever? Feel free to try answer that one. By claiming that they'll bomb you if you leave them alone, clearly shows that you have no clue why terrorism occurs, and shows that you refuse to try understand other people. The majority of other countries don't invade other countries, and don't get attacked. Besides, you're talking about war here, where innocent people are going to die on both sides. I don't think either side wants that, but if you continue to push, and claim that other countries are going to attack you for no reason, well that's exactly what's going to happen.


All I've argued is that there's cause for concern over a nuclear Iran, and it has nothing to do with not "leaving them alone." I've done my part in showing you evidence for why there's cause for concern over a nuclear Iran; it's your turn.



Peps said:


> Time and time again, you always hear people how they want to vote for third-party candidates, yet won't because they don't think other people will. Yet, what happens if those people didn't think that, and voted for the third-party candidate anyways? People sometimes don't vote, because they're not happy with either the Republicans or Democrats, so what happens if they become aware that there's more than two choices, and use their vote on a third-party candidate? Did you know people are often completely unaware of the third choice?


You have yet to provide me with any evidence that any third-party candidate has any significant support, and all of the data says that no third-party candidate does. You're just giving me a bunch of baseless hypothetical situations.



Peps said:


> Your vote for you strongly influences the results of the election.


No, it doesn't.



Peps said:


> A vote for you isn't a vote for Romney or Obama. They've both lost one vote. It annoys me when people say a vote for a third-party is a vote for Romney, when it's not, it's a vote that a third-party gains, and it's a vote that Romney and Obama both don't gain.


I agree, which is exactly why a vote for a third-party candidate doesn't affect the outcome of who wins the election when the third-party candidate cannot win. A vote for a third-party candidate is like a vote for Mickey Mouse, not a vote for Romney.



Peps said:


> I'm just going to bring in some food for thought here. Fianna Fáil, for a long time, they've been the biggest party in Ireland, often winning the general election. People always thought that everyone else was going to vote Fianna Fáil. However, when Fianna Fáil betrayed the country and brought the country into debt, everyone felt the same way about them, and then started voting other parties. Fianna Fáil did absolutely terrible in the previous general election as a result, and Fine Gael won instead by a huge portion of the vote. Bare in mind, support for more left-wing parties like Sinn Féin has also been drastically increasing. Unfortunately, come budget in December last year, Fine Gael betrayed everyone, especially the students who they largely depended on to get them into office. What do you think is going to happen next general election?


If there's significant support for a candidate, then he or she has a chance at winning the election; if a candidate isn't going to get more than ~1% of the votes, then that candidate cannot win the election and there's no reason to vote for him or her. Get back to me with your example when you have some numbers.



Peps said:


> You think that states and citizens are guilty before proven innocent


Our judicial system is setup so the burden of proof is on those claiming someone is guilty of a crime, AKA "not guilty before proven guilty." As for states' rights, no one is advocating a shift in the burden of proof, and you apparently have no idea what you're talking about.



Peps said:


> You think that the citizens of states want to remove their human rights


Some states want to take away the rights of certain groups of people, and there is historical precedent for this. Slavery, civil rights, gay rights, reproductive rights, etc.



Peps said:


> You think that restricting your rights and options is far superior to having more options and more rights


I'm advocating more rights, not fewer rights. As for options, you're right that I'm against letting states have specific options (like legalizing slavery, for example). So what?



Peps said:


> You think that people will bomb you for no good reason whatsoever


Well, it has happened before, and we have at least cause for concern that it could potentially happen again.



Peps said:


> You think that a vote for a third-party, regardless of their popularity, is a vote for Romney


I never argued this. In fact, I said a vote for a third-party candidate, as far as choosing the winner of the election, is as inconsequential as throwing one's vote away.

I've had this lingering suspicion that you're not actually serious about what you say you believe.

On an unrelated note, I voted.


----------



## AlanJohn (Nov 6, 2012)

Fuck yeah, just came back from voting.
Is your body ready for Romney?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> I would love to know how that could possibly be accurate.


It's all the people who have click "I voted/I'm voting" , but it's probably not that accurate.
Just wanted opinions. 



Lacius said:


> I never argued this. In fact, I said a vote for a third-party candidate, as far as choosing the winner of the election, is as inconsequential as throwing one's vote away.


I still think it would be better to vote for someone (Obama ) that will actually decide a winner.




Lacius said:


> On an unrelated note, I voted.


Cool! Who did you voted for?


Spoiler














AlanJohn said:


> Fuck yeah, just came back from voting.
> Is your body ready for Romney?


 
Not sure if troll or...


----------



## Sterling (Nov 6, 2012)

Just cast my inconsequential vote. I can happily say that I followed my words to the 't'.

Well well, on that map King Vamp posted, Texas looks like a beehive of activity if you zoom in on it on the full screen map.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Holy fucking snip


 

If I had the time write posts like yours in this thead, I've probably spend it having sex with my wife and then playing video games...or having sex with my wife _while_ playing video games...


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> If I had the time write posts like yours in this thead, I've probably spend it having sex with my wife and then playing video games...or having sex with my wife _while_ playing video games...


Most of what I said in my last post are couple-sentence responses to big parts of Peps' post. I type at around 80-100 WPM and I typed ~600 words (as opposed to Peps' ~1,800 words), so it didn't take me more than a combined 10 minutes.

Not that it's any of your business, but my sex life and my video game life are fine.


----------



## Sterling (Nov 6, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> If I had the time write posts like yours in this thread [Lacius], I've probably spend it having sex with my wife and then playing video games...or having sex with my wife _while_ playing video games...




He takes his posts very seriously. You ought to see some of the replies I make on certain writing sites. They can get freaking huge!

EDIT: 80 WPM minimum? Holy crap. The most I can get up to is 30 - 35 with my hybrid hunt n' peck method.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2012)

Sterling said:


> Just cast my inconsequential vote. I can happily say that I followed my words to the 't'.


Well then, since you took a vote that could have gone to Obama (seems to be your secondary choice), if Romney somehow wins then you are part of the reason why.

If Obama still wins then it all cool.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Most of what I said in my last post are couple-sentence responses to big parts of Peps' post. I type at around 80-100 WPM and I typed ~600 words (as opposed to Peps' ~1,800 words), so it didn't take me more than a combined 10 minutes.
> 
> Not that it's any of your business, but my sex life and my video game life are fine.


 
No one is questioning the existence of your sex life.  I was merely pointing out that were I to have ten minutes to devote to a single post, I'd probably prefer to devote that time to some booty.  10 minutes is like 3 rounds...

I've yet to meet someone here that is worth 600 words at a time (not counting PMs of course  )...


----------



## Lacius (Nov 6, 2012)

Sterling said:


> EDIT: 80 WPM minimum? Holy crap. The most I can get up to is 30 - 35 with my hybrid hunt n' peck method.


I just finished a typing speed test with an average of 100 WPM with 97% accuracy.



Old8oy said:


> I've yet to meet someone here that is worth 600 words at a time


You're probably right.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 6, 2012)

I'm glad he writes a lot here. He elaborates what I'm trying to say and how I feel pretty well.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 6, 2012)

I went and cast my vote. At this point, I want it to be over. The people will choose who they want as the next President, and that person will have the country on their shoulders for the next 4 years. If whoever that is can do a good job in the next 4 years, then there's no problem.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> I went and cast my vote. At this point, I want it to be over. The people will choose who they want as the next President, and that person will have the country on their shoulders for the next 4 years. If whoever that is can do a good job in the next 4 years, then there's no problem.


 
Thank you John Madden.


----------



## NightsOwl (Nov 6, 2012)

Obamer. 

Why? I'd rather go with a guy who didn't do too much bad his first 4 years. 

With Romney I'm not so sure what he'll goof up.


----------



## emigre (Nov 6, 2012)

I would like to reaffirm this:



emigre said:


> Obama because he's the least worst option.


----------



## Naridar (Nov 6, 2012)

If as a foreigner, I can have my 2 cents:

In my country (Hungary), as well as the greater part of Europe, Obama is vastly more popular (in today's papers, there was an article about how people of the world would vote: Obama won 80% to Romney's 8%), and that's more due to foreign policy: under Bush's reign, it was all about "war on terror", and most of the European countries were coerced into joining those efforts, and it got us 7/7/2005 London and 11/3/2004 Madrid. If a significant power like the U.S. follows an agressive policy, it sets a dangerous example.

The other significant part of Obama's popularity over here that the U.S. laws are pretty ridiculous to european eyes, and republicans in general cite these laws as the cornerstone of the U.S.. Here in Europe, healthcare is mostly free and no life-saving procedures are denied because the patient can't pay for it (it's significant for me since I'm a medical student and pay lot of attention to healthcare policies of all politicians). Guns are tightly regulated and require a serious and through background-check - simplified, if you commited some crime like theft, you can't get a gun. And in general, the state's more in control here - I personally find it good because it gives people safety, but that's just my opinion.


----------



## Engert (Nov 6, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> Who do you think will win/who will you vote for and why?


Tough to say but maybe Obama again. 
I am voting independent this year because the two-party system is very intertwined with the corporations and the special interests


Naridar said:


> If as a foreigner, I can have my 2 cents:
> In my country (Hungary), as well as the greater part of Europe, Obama is vastly more popular (in today's papers, there was an article about how people of the world would vote: Obama won 80% to Romney's 8%), and that's more due to foreign policy: under Bush's reign, it was all about "war on terror", and most of the European countries were coerced into joining those efforts, and it got us 7/7/2005 London and 11/3/2004 Madrid. If a significant power like the U.S. follows an agressive policy, it sets a dangerous example.


True, but you don't have to follow the aggressive policy of another country. Unfortunately that's what most of the politicians in Europe did after 9/11.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 6, 2012)

I'll be honest and say I'm not voting. I'm sure I'll get my ass chewed for this but I think a system where you're basically voting for the "least bad" candidate is absolutely fucking retarded and I'd rather my vote be towards nothing than a candidate I truly believe in.

Also I see all these "GO OUT AND VOTE!" or "PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE SO YOU SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT YOU HAVE!" and all that and it feels so stupid. "Your vote counts!" is especially the worst. Your vote counts... if it's for one of two candidates. If you like the Green Party or NSA Did 911 or something it's about as important as not voting.

My whole thing is that I don't really like either candidate. I like Obama more than Romney surely but I don't agree with him on everything. I just really don't want to be part of a system where your choices are essentially two things you don't like, just one thing you don't dislike as much as the other.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Nov 6, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'll be honest and say I'm not voting. I'm sure I'll get my ass chewed for this but I think a system where you're basically voting for the "least bad" candidate is absolutely fucking retarded and I'd rather my vote be towards nothing than a candidate I truly believe in.
> 
> Also I see all these "GO OUT AND VOTE!" or "PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE SO YOU SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT YOU HAVE!" and all that and it feels so stupid. "Your vote counts!" is especially the worst. Your vote counts... if it's for one of two candidates. If you like the Green Party or NSA Did 911 or something it's about as important as not voting.
> 
> My whole thing is that I don't really like either candidate. I like Obama more than Romney surely but I don't agree with him on everything. I just really don't want to be part of a system where your choices are essentially two things you don't like, just one thing you don't dislike as much as the other.


 

Oh and don't forget "REAL Americans VOTE" and "A vote for a third party is a vote for Obama/Romney"


----------



## BORTZ (Nov 6, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I'll be honest and say I'm not voting. I'm sure I'll get my ass chewed for this but I think a system where you're basically voting for the "least bad" candidate is absolutely fucking retarded and I'd rather my vote be towards nothing than a candidate I truly believe in.
> 
> Also I see all these "GO OUT AND VOTE!" or "PEOPLE ALL OVER THE WORLD DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE SO YOU SHOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT YOU HAVE!" and all that and it feels so stupid. "Your vote counts!" is especially the worst. Your vote counts... if it's for one of two candidates. If you like the Green Party or NSA Did 911 or something it's about as important as not voting.
> 
> My whole thing is that I don't really like either candidate. I like Obama more than Romney surely but I don't agree with him on everything. I just really don't want to be part of a system where your choices are essentially two things you don't like, just one thing you don't dislike as much as the other.


I would like to agree with what you have to say. But because i am living with my parents and they require me to vote (im paying no rent/food/anything) i feel like its probably a good idea. 

Anyways yeah i voted, but im not sure if im proud of it. 





But CANDY


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 6, 2012)

Actually, a vote for a third party is a vote for Obama.  At least from my experience, and especially this election season, the vast majority of people claiming they're voting third party were conservatives who wanted Ron Paul rather than Romney.


----------



## Sanoblue (Nov 7, 2012)

Wow 75% vs 25%

                                                                       Barack Obama   142 vote(s) 74.7%
  Mitt Romney   48 vote(s) 
25.3%


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 7, 2012)

BortzANATOR said:


> Anyways yeah i voted, but im not sure if im proud of it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I was gypped! I didn't get any candy when I voted!


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Nov 7, 2012)

Just voted.
I *personally*(as in my opinion) don't enjoy complaining about the economy, Romney, how hard it is to find a job, get in school, or anything if I know I could do something about it. Just made me feel like a whiny brat who cries but won't do anything. So I did 

I couldn't be assed to look at the ads outside of the Will Ferrell and Mass Effect ones. Other than that, I checked some facts and went with my gut.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

I really didn't understand people not voting even if they think Obama better. Why risk getting the one you dislike the most?
I just didn't... :/


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> I really didn't understand people not voting even if they think Obama better. Why risk getting the one you dislike the most?
> I just didn't... :/


 
It's more of a matter of principle. It hardly feels like you have a voice in the election process if the voice is voting for someone whose "less bad".

A "voice" should entail you being able to insert your opinion into politics, not settling because you have to.

I'd honestly rather my vote go to no one than candidates I don't entirely believe in. Not that I have a huge amount of contrasting views between Obama (he would be my vote if I went) but he wasn't my ideal candidate in '08 and he still isn't.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> It's more of a matter of principle. It hardly feels like you have a voice in the election process if the voice is voting for someone whose "less bad".
> 
> A "voice" should entail you being able to insert your opinion into politics, not settling because you have to.
> 
> I'd honestly rather my vote go to no one than candidates I don't entirely believe in. Not that I have a huge amount of contrasting views between Obama (he would be my vote if I went) but he wasn't my ideal candidate in '08 and he still isn't.


 

My principle is voting for the best for the country. To not vote because my biggest pick isn't 100%
with my ideals doesn't sit well with me when the other side is just outright cheating and lying.



Except you are giving your opinion when you vote. Not voting at all is not inserting your opinion.
You didn't have to, since you not voting, but when you see the worst of your picks win then
all you can do is blame yourself for not voting.

http://tvpc.com/Channel.php?ChannelID=8766
http://tinychat.com/tytlive
Coverage.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> My principle is voting for the best for the country. To not vote because my biggest pick isn't 100%
> with my ideals.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Neither person is honestly the "best for the country", I'm basically just choosing which is "less bad" for the country. If I wanted to vote for someone who I honestly thought was "best for the country" then it'd be about the same as throwing my vote out the window since it's either one of two candidates. Third party candidates are essentially the same as not voting.

Voting is like a relationship. If you're lucky you'll end up with your soul mate and you have everything in common and never fight and always get along. But that never happens. Most of the time you just settle with whoever is the most tolerable person who can play tunnel snake with deal with it.

But my point is that I feel my voice is misrepresented if I'm forced into voting for a candidate I don't wholly believe in or if it's considered a waste voting for a candidate I do believe in.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 7, 2012)

A shit sandwich is still a shit sandwich, even if there is less shit in it than another.

I understand Guild's PoV on this, and he is actually voicing his opinion by not voting. If more people thought as he did and didn't vote, it would clearly be shown in the numbers at the end of hte elections, that there are many people who don't approve of either of the main candidates.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

Also my brother's car got a flat so I lent him mine and I can't get to the voting place. If you wanted an excuse.

EDIT: Additionally on the whole "A vote for a third party is a vote for Romney/Obama", a vote for no candidate is just a vote against Romney/Obama. A vote for a third party would be detracting vote for one of the candidates while a vote for a candidate would be a two-point swing between the candidates (+1 vote for one and -1 vote for the other). So technically voting for no one is a -1 vote to each candidate.

So in the end I did vote by not voting. Fuck yeah America!


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Nov 7, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Neither person is honestly the "best for the country", I'm basically just choosing which is "less bad" for the country. *If I wanted to vote for someone who I honestly thought was "best for the country" then it'd be about the same as throwing my vote out the window since it's either one of two candidates. Third party candidates are essentially the same as not voting.*
> 
> Voting is like a relationship. If you're lucky you'll end up with your soul mate and you have everything in common and never fight and always get along. But that never happens. Most of the time you just settle with whoever is the most tolerable person who can play tunnel snake with deal with it.
> 
> But my point is that I feel my voice is misrepresented if I'm forced into voting for a candidate I don't wholly believe in or if it's considered a waste voting for a candidate I do believe in.


 
It's the effort that counts.

If you sit on your ass bitching about the country's many issues, but won't get up to at least _try_ to make the smallest difference, you can only blame yourself. Simply throwing your hands up and saying, "It won't matter anyway." isn't exactly standing up for what you believe in, either. At least if you stand up for what you believe, you can say you've tried.

I don't believe in _forcing_ someone to vote, though.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

Phoenix Goddess said:


> It's the effort that counts.
> 
> If you sit on your ass bitching about the country's many issues, but won't get up to at least _try_ to make the smallest difference, you can only blame yourself. Simply throwing your hands up and saying, "It won't matter anyway." isn't exactly standing up for what you believe in, either. At least if you stand up for what you believe, you can at least say you've tried.
> 
> I don't believe in _forcing_ someone to vote, though.


 
Well I'm not really saying "it doesn't matter either way", I'm more so saying "I don't want to vote for anyone one I don't believe in." I don't feel I'm standing up for what I believe in if I'm voting for a candidate I don't because I'm strongarmed into settling.

I do think not voting because it "doesn't matter either way" is silly but not voting because you think all the candidates are incorrect is a bit more noble.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 7, 2012)

Enough votes for no one is a statement saying "give us someone worthy of our vote." It'll take 4 years to do so, and even then such a person may not run, but the statement still stands.


----------



## Zarcon (Nov 7, 2012)

DiscostewSM said:


> If more people thought as he did and didn't vote, it would clearly be shown in the numbers at the end of hte elections, that there are many people who don't approve of either of the main candidates.


Alternatively, if all those people voted for the candidate they wanted maybe the numbers for third parties wouldn't look so abysmal.
The system is broken since it might as well be 2 parties, but if everyone who would vote for a third party remains apathetic and chooses not to vote at all then it'll just remain broken since those third parties won't ever get anywhere.

If you're going to "throw your vote away" then it might as well be for someone you support.
If more people did this instead of not voting maybe we'd get somewhere.
If there's absolutely no one at all running that you support then by all means, don't vote...though personally I'd rather vote for least terrible. It'd be a shame if the candidate I disagreed with the most won because I decided not to vote.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

Zarcon said:


> Alternatively, if all those people voted for the candidate they wanted maybe the numbers for third parties wouldn't look so abysmal.
> The system is broken since it might as well be 2 parties, but if everyone who would vote for a third party remains apathetic and chooses not to vote at all then it'll just remain broken since those third parties won't ever get anywhere.
> 
> If you're going to "throw your vote away" then it might as well be for someone you support.
> ...


 
I'll be honest and you can cough this up to ignorance but I really haven't bothered looking into the third parties. The sad realization though is that it's still a vote of no confidence essentially. I mean I'd vote on principle but not genuinely because I believe in them.

Since this is the case I'd rather not vote for candidates I don't believe in or know about than voting because I should.


----------



## Devin (Nov 7, 2012)

Figured I'd link this here since it was linked to me.

http://election2012.npr.org/results-map.html


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

Saw this on reddit and laughed thoroughly. The title was "How I felt voting for a third party candidate"


----------



## mthrnite (Nov 7, 2012)

This may be academic for most of you, but here's a nice little vid on the reasons why we're a 2 party system, with very little chance of a 3rd party getting anywhere.
However I do think the Libertarians have a chance of changing this up.. maybe.
Instead of not voting back in 1996, I voted for Ralph Nader, because I was pissed at Clinton's first term, but there was no way I was gonna vote for Bob Dole or Ross Perot. Clinton won anyway. Perot was the actual viable 3rd party (he got 8%) and drew votes away from both Clinton and Dole, pretty much equally.

Anyway, here's the vid.


----------



## Devin (Nov 7, 2012)

Abraham Lincoln reminded me of Guild.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 7, 2012)




----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

They are calling it for Obama!


----------



## yuyuyup (Nov 7, 2012)

It's done.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 7, 2012)

How? He only has 234. Isn't it too soon to call?

EDIT: Nevermind. My source was outdated.


----------



## dgwillia (Nov 7, 2012)

Time to indulge in the victory dance. And feast upon the sweet robotic tears of Romney supporters


----------



## Rogue_Syst3m (Nov 7, 2012)

yeaaaa buddy go obama!!!!


----------



## Phoenix Goddess (Nov 7, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> How? He only has 234. Isn't it too soon to call?


 
He has 274.

Time to dance and throw a party with more dancing!


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 7, 2012)

Obama wins! Haters gonna hate! I don't give a fuuuuuuu! I'm gonna have a drink or two and just be happy! _Team_ _Obama 2012 FTW!_


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> How? He only has 234. Isn't it too soon to call?


 
Varies from new source to news source, but Ohio has been called for Obama along with a few other states. It seems pretty locked in at this point.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 7, 2012)

Watch Fox news. It's quite pathetic. The reporters are literally going insane.


----------



## dgwillia (Nov 7, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> Watch Fox news. It's quite pathetic. The reporters are literally going insane.


You know Obama won when people are already calling shenanigans on the election


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 7, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Varies from new source to news source, but Ohio has been called for Obama along with a few other states. It seems pretty locked in at this point.


 
I saw. My source was outdated. Everyone's calling it for Obama except Fox News. They've decided to "wait for all the votes to be counted".


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 7, 2012)

Even Faux News is reporting this!!

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...7.177486166274&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

Obama whipped dat ass!


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

BREAKING NEWS: Mitt Romney makes concession speech to crowd of supporters


----------



## loco365 (Nov 7, 2012)

My response:

PRAISE THE NON-MORMON LORD HE WON


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 7, 2012)

Team Fail said:


> My response:
> 
> PRAISE ALLAH HE WON


 
fixed it for you.

Now that the elections are over, shall we get back to what's important? Time for games!!!


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 7, 2012)

I think I speak for everyone when I say, the best part of Obama winning is tomorrow's episode of South Park.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

*removed*


----------



## DrOctapu (Nov 7, 2012)

YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS, INTERNET?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 7, 2012)

I can't believe it, Romney won the popular vote but got screwed over by the electoral vote.  It doesn't matter that more people wanted him as President, all that matters is the number of points your state is worth.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

JoostinOnline said:


> I can't believe it, Romney won the popular vote but got screwed over by the electoral vote. It doesn't matter that more people wanted him as President, all that matters is the number of points your state is worth.


They're pretty close in popular votes, but I didn't think all votes are in anyway.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

*removed*


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

JoostinOnline said:


> I can't believe it, Romney won the popular vote but got screwed over by the electoral vote. It doesn't matter that more people wanted him as President, all that matters is the number of points your state is worth.


 
To be fair, it's going to take awhile for the Popular Vote to be tallied. The votes from states like California, Washington, and Oregon are still being counted, and they all went big for Obama.

Once all the counting is done, that bump will probably see Obama in the lead. It might not be by a huge margin, but it should still be there all the same.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2012)

You know what? This is great! Finally people will _shut up about the election_. Besides, don't say it like you didn't expect it - it was kinda clear that the U.S is in trouble, but not desperate enough to pick Romney.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 7, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> They're pretty close in popular votes, but I didn't think all votes are in anyway.


True, but Romney has stayed in the lead on popular vote for hours.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Bloody hell, I'm defecting to either Australia or Japan. Sure, they're socialist, too, but guess what? There's no Nancy Pelosi, no Harry Reid, no Obama, so that's good enough for me. Yes, I know that either outcome would have it's pluses and minuses, but I don't agree with Obama's handling of the economy, one cannot explain how 6,000,000,000,000 dollars can be spent in four years where Bush never spent that much in his eight-year presidency. Say what you will, I'm entitled to my opinion as you are yours. Yes, I will be verbally emasculated while experiencing a vasectomy for my conservative views (such as the case with the internet), but I wanted voice my piece. I don't agree with the direction Congress and all the other goons (either party extreme) are headed, all the spending, all the executive orders, all the pet projects, government-enforced healthcare mandates. the whole Benghazi fiasco (face it, it was terrorism, there's no way in Hell that could have been by coincidence, attacking American soil is terrorism).


 
If you do actually move and leave the states because of a stupid reason, I will gladly give you my 3DS XL and PS3 with all of my games free of charge. Also, don't come to Canada because we don't want any more retards.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2012)

ShadowSoldier said:


> If you do actually move and leave the states because of a stupid reason, I will gladly give you my 3DS XL and PS3 with all of my games free of charge. Also, don't come to Canada because we don't want any more retards.


I think the average American would choose death over traveling to Canada, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

*removed*


----------



## Hanafuda (Nov 7, 2012)

Que Sera Sera ....


It'll be interesting to see how the Obama Mk.2 administration handles legalized marijuana.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

Looks like Obama just took popular vote as well.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I think the average American would choose death over traveling to Canada, regardless of the circumstances.


Then the average American is pretty stupid.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Why do we have that f***ing piece of s**t Electoral College again?


 
Because the Founding Fathers wanted to filter the votes of the unwashed masses.

The Electoral College actually serves a good purpose, though. If the elections were decided entirely by popular vote, then you'd see candidates only really focusing on getting out the vote in big population centers (NYC, LA, etc.). Smaller states would be completely irrelevant.

In the Electoral College system, though, these smaller states have something of a presence. Wyoming's 3 electors may seem like a pitiful amount, but it beats what they'd get with the alternative. Plus, there's the swing states. States flow between being "swing" and "solid" (give or take a few mainstays) every few election cycles, which changes things up and gives smaller ones a chance to shine. Take the example of New Hampshire. It's tiny, and only has 4 electors, but it's status made it hugely important for both candidates.

I wouldn't say the Electoral College is perfect, but it's hardly worthless. While it could be spruced up a bit, scrapping it entirely probably wouldn't be a good idea.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

*removed*


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Piss off. Stay in Canada, we don't want you down here anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Speak for yourself. After all, Canada gave us John Candy, Nathan Fillion, Michael J. Fox, Mike Myers, Rick Moranis, and William Shatner (amongst many, many others).

Though you guys can keep Celine Dion. No, really.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Piss off. Stay in Canada, we don't want you down here anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Few things before I get tired of you:

a) Anti-American? Coming from the person who said he's leaving the states right?
b) I don't want to go to the States anyways. What am I missing out on? A few shopping deals? I'm happy in Canada and have no intent on leaving it.
c) Just because I say the average American is retarded, doesn't make me anti-american. Hell, a lot of canadians are stupid, I guess that makes me Anti-Canadian?
d) Bye


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Piss off. Stay in Canada, we don't want you down here anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I’m sorry, were you insulting Canada? I couldn’t hear you over my free health care.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 7, 2012)

Colin Mockery is from Canada. Anyone who rejects Canada also rejects him.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

*Removed*


----------



## Jiehfeng (Nov 7, 2012)

Obama is leading


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I knew this would happen. *He called Americans retards,* and no, I'm not Anti-American. So, not agreeing with my president's policies equates and Anti-American? Wow, I guess that would mean not agreeing with other peoples' alternative sexual orientations would make me bigoted, homophic intolerant person.
> 
> disagreeing ≠ hatred
> 
> I don't hate Obama, I don't hate America. I hate the direction this country is headed, and I hate the decisions our leaders have made. I don't want to be around Obama during his second term, living in another country until his presidency is over is not hatred; it's avoiding dealing with arrogant people.


 
No I didn't. I said the average American. HUGE difference. About as huge as you being anti-american because you dont want to live in a country for 4 years because of one person.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

?????


----------



## Westside (Nov 7, 2012)

No matter who wins, we lose...

Why can't we vote for Bill Clinton?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 7, 2012)

I think there's something we can all take away from this night.

Don't sleep on Barry O. Don't *ever *sleep on Barry O.


----------



## BlueStar (Nov 7, 2012)

Excellent news for America and the world. Also, Donald Trump's twitter meltdown is hilarious. I think in the GOP post mortem they're going to look at how they faired with female voters and realise they're never going to get into the White House on the kind of platform Mitt was running on. I think we'll see a much more moderate nominee in 2016. Hey, Obama'a your leader till 2016


----------



## Jiehfeng (Nov 7, 2012)

Obama Won


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 7, 2012)

Okay, let's just all stop arguing about the politics and agree that France sucks.  Common ground FTW!


----------



## emigre (Nov 7, 2012)

I think the_randomizer is suffering from a breakdown right in front if our eyes.


----------



## Xenirina (Nov 7, 2012)

So, who's winning?
Australia has pathetic coverage.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 7, 2012)

Xenirina said:


> So, who's winning?
> Australia has pathetic coverage.


Obama won


----------



## Xenirina (Nov 7, 2012)

JoostinOnline said:


> Obama won


 
Really? Nice.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Nov 7, 2012)

Xenirina said:


> Really? Nice.


Joostin flies to Australia and keys Xenirina's car kangaroo.


----------



## Xenirina (Nov 7, 2012)

JoostinOnline said:


> Joostin flies to Australia and keys Xenirina's car kangaroo.


 
I don't have a kangaroo (yet). It's only a baby


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

emigre said:


> I think the_randomizer is suffering from a breakdown right in front if our eyes.


TBH, I probably would myself if it was the other way around. Maybe not in his manner...


----------



## BlueStar (Nov 7, 2012)

I see Trump has deleted his furious tweet about how the electoral college is evil dictatorship once Obama overtook Romney in the popular vote.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

Florida hasn't even came in yet, but they even expect it to go Obama way.


----------



## BlueStar (Nov 7, 2012)

dickfour said:


> I was looking at this poll and I hate to disappoint all you kiddies but no candidate with Obama's numbers has ever gone on to win the presidency


 


> I think Romny wins because I haven't met one enthusiastic Obama supporter. They are all saying "oh well the other guy Os just as bad". You don't win if that's your attitude


----------



## tatripp (Nov 7, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Excellent news for America and the world. Also, Donald Trump's twitter meltdown is hilarious. I think in the GOP post mortem they're going to look at how they faired with female voters and realize they're never going to get into the White House on the kind of platform Mitt was running on. I think we'll see a much more moderate nominee in 2016. Hey, Obama'a your leader till 2016


Seriously??? A more moderate nominee??? Romney was super moderate. He once supported abortion, created the blue prints for obamacare, and supported lots of spending. The GOP needs to select a conservative candidate for once. Bush talked like one but spent way too much. McCain was too busy trying to be a Maverick instead of sanding up for his beliefs. We need someone who will actually make cuts to government waste instead of encouraging it.


----------



## emigre (Nov 7, 2012)

tatripp said:


> Seriously??? A more moderate nominee??? Romney was super moderate. He once supported abortion, created the blue prints for obamacare, and supported lots of spending. The GOP needs to select a conservative candidate for once. Bush talked like one but spent way too much. McCain was too busy trying to be a Maverick instead of sanding up for his beliefs. We need someone who will actually make cuts to government waste instead of encouraging it.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Nov 7, 2012)




----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

*removed*


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Nov 7, 2012)

I understand that there might be a lot of hurt feelings tonight, but that's no reason to get malicious. 

People are entitled to their opinions, so..instead of telling someone to fuck off, you might just try *not replying*.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

I was getting pissed off at peoples' posts on Facebook and YouTube praising Obama like he's some kind of savior who will magically neutralize all our problems in four years.



Spoiler



offending posts removed. I know people are entitled, people just piss me off when it comes to politics)


 
"Insanity is repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results" - Anonymous


----------



## BlueStar (Nov 7, 2012)

Are people still going on about Obama'a executive orders? 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/executiveorders.asp


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I was getting pissed off at peoples' posts on Facebook and YouTube praising Obama like he's some kind of savior who will magically neutralize all our problems in four years.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

I believe you are referring to the tried and true Trickle-down economics, yeah?

And if talking about politics piss you off that much, maybe it's a topic that you should avoid.


----------



## BlueStar (Nov 7, 2012)

Repeating the same mistakes would be voting for Romney, running on the same policies that caused worldwide economic meltdown.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Repeating the same mistakes would be voting for Romney, running on the same policies that caused worldwide economic meltdown.


 
Right, Obama will take care of the economy, just like he did the past four years. Care to explain the 6,000,000,000,000 dollars more in debt we're in? What about unemployment? Still more than 8 percent. Obamacare? Not a chance in hell it'll work perfectly as Congress hoped it would. Trying to insure 300 million plus people is near-impossible without major economic repercussions. Bailouts for large corporations like GM or large banking companies?  Smart move, I must say, smart move indeed.  Bankruptcy is for cowards.


----------



## BlueStar (Nov 7, 2012)

Yes I can explain it, it's because of the world wide economic crisis and would be considerably worse with far right policies stifling growth. Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. This is why Obama has been given the vote of confidence by the people.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Yes I can explain it, it's because of the world wide economic crisis and would be considerably worse with far right policies stifling growth. Bin Laden is dead, GM is alive. This is why Obama has been given the vote of confidence by the people.


 
No one cares about GM anyway. The US economy affects a majority of the world, but I cannot accept his healthcare plan. I want to buy my own effing plan, at a price I can afford with no degradation in quality. Is that too much to ask? Why are there people who voted for him last time regretting doing so now? Either extreme on either party is bad, the Democrats I know are good people and I don't hate them for their political views, in fact, I agree with some of them. Politics never justifies hatred. Disagreement and possible annoyance, but hatred is too far. In fact, political discussions often lead to rifts between people (GBA Temp being no exception) where people can't agree on one simple thing, it's sickening that they cause so much contention. Granted, I didn't help to negate the animosity, I only added fuel to the fire and royally pissed people off to the point of causing them to despise and have antipathy towards me, (having/expressing one's conservative Republican views almost seems like an unpardonable crime on GBATemp). So yeah.....time for me to curl in a fetal position.



Spoiler



why am I douchebag to everyone?


----------



## emigre (Nov 7, 2012)

Here's Donald Trump's twitter breakdown.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 7, 2012)

Lacius said:


> Moral and ethical. You're free to talk about morals and ethics they way you're doing, but those definitions aren't necessarily the case, and in no way am I confusing the two; I've been talking about your definition of "moral" this whole time, so I don't see how any of this is relevant to the conversation.
> 
> 
> You're arguing that someone who thinks "loli manga" is immoral cannot logically explain his or her position?
> ...


The subtle difference between the two terms is still there. The reason I'm bringing up the topic is because you're attempting to enforce your morals on everyone, despite not realising that morals are personal, and always will be personal. Instead, what you're probably trying to promote are societal ethics, which is a completely different matter. It's merely trying to get the correct definition into the discussion.

I haven't seen a single logical argument as to why loli manga is immoral, yet it is apparently. I haven't seen a single argument that explains why people should be heartbroken when logic states it's far better not to feel heartbroken. Simple stuff really. Why care about someone who was quite frankly, horrible to you? That's not logically sound. Even I'm still wondering why I still care a lot about one of my ex's, even though she got rid of me. Logic tells me not to. Remember, that the majority of debates never have any clear decisive winner. People have to choose a side which they feel is more logical. If the correct path was always that simple, world peace would be a reality.

The federal government has no right to force people to change their ways. They have a right to use peer pressure, but they can't force people to change things. Peer pressure most of the time is probably sufficient. How do you know that the states which promoted slavery wouldn't have changed their ways like the rest of the world did? You're implying that people don't change at all, and that morals don't grow over time. I can't make it any simpler than that. 

You're stating that because people are human and occasionally make mistakes, you want to punish them for the rest of time, as well as the innocent states who want the rights to innovate and benefit the country. Why is it wrong to let states innovate? You're using the past to justify restricting the future. The federal government made several stupid mistakes in the past, and they still do. You're saying that the mistakes of governments consisting of people who are long dead, should determine what the modern generation, and the future generations should be able to do. That's sickening. That's illogical. That's immoral.

The fact you're stating that 9/11 attacks happened for no reason, actually proves you have no idea what you're talking about and you fall for biased mainstream media for no good reason. People don't attack others for no good reason. They don't attack others because of their "freedoms". They attacked because they want something. In this case, 9/11 occurred because American troops were invading the attacker's holy lands, and disrespecting them completely. The attackers wanted you to leave them alone. You weren't listening, so they resorted to physical attacks. And you know what you're doing now? The exact same thing. You're not listening to other countries, you're not leaving them alone, and you're just creating more enemies for yourself. You're endangering your national security by creating more enemies, not enhancing it. Same story with Iran. You're just going to end up making them hate you, and as a result, they'll feel pressured into resorting to physical attacks.

In one of the Republican presidential debates, Ron Paul stated the golden rule, a common biblical teaching. Despite being a biblical teaching, it's one of the few things in the novel that makes logical sense. Basically, treat others the same way that you like to be treated. The audience responded by boo'ing. It was honestly quite sickening to hear the cheers the audience gave when the other candidates talked about killing people and entering wars. If you don't want to be attacked, don't invade other countries and start attacking them. There's always a clear motive for every single terrorist attack, but the majority of you dismiss those reasons, and just claim they attacked for no good reason. You're childish and pathetic if you truly believe that. It's sickening people keep wanting to ignore the real reasons why people want to do something. You're just plugging your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalala". Pathetic.

How many times do you hear of people wanting to vote third party, yet are being told that it's a waste of a vote? How many times do you hear of people not wanting to vote at all, because they think their options are only Republicans and Democrats? In fact, we have a poster in this very thread who claims they didn't even bother doing research. If everyone stopped being so cowardly, and stopped being peer pressured, researched into what they're voting for, then I guarantee you, the results will greatly change. Unfortunately, you're not going to find any data on these issues, because the majority of that data come from mainstream sources, which the majority of more open-minded voters don't pay attention to. Similarly, non-mainstream media is unreliable because Republican/Democrat supporters don't pay attention to those sources. Instead, use your common sense. Use your eyes and ears. The majority of people I speak to locally here in Ireland, are actually completely shocked that Americans whine and complain about the top two parties, yet don't have the balls to vote their conscience and vote for other parties. You're driving yourself into a mess.

Voting for third party, regardless of their chances of winning, always affects the outcome. Like I said, it's not a vote for either Romney or Obama. Neither candidates gets your vote, and someone else does. That's called affecting the outcome, no matter how you look at it. Romney's or Obama's chances of winning are reduced, while another person's chances of winning have increased. Sure according to probability, it's similar to voting for a fictional character, and is similar to not voting at all. Probability states that, but at least I'd be getting off my ass and actually trying to fix the problems. If you hate both the Republicans or Democrats, voted for them, you have no right to complain. A wasted vote is voting for someone you don't believe in and can't trust at all. By voting for someone you hated, you wasted your vote. Every other country realises that, and don't let themselves get bullied into voting for the big parties, and as a result we've been seeing great changes. Why can't you?

The fact you refuse to acknowledge the value of a vote, and the fact that you think you got attacked for no good reason, proves to me that I can't take you seriously at all. I wish I could, because you seem to be one of the more intelligent members on the forums, but seriously, stating such ridiculous nonsense really damages your reputation.

To the person who thinks we spend a long time writing these posts: These posts only take like 15 minutes, and most of the time I'm writing them when I have nothing else to do. Instead of doing something like watching TV for 15 minutes, I like to participate in debates for those 15 minutes because it's more engaging and fun and educational.


----------



## Black-Ice (Nov 7, 2012)

I feel better in the UK knowing Romney can't start a fight with China and lose.


----------



## chavosaur (Nov 7, 2012)

Gonna be a lot of butt hurtness today  and I wonder if anyones gonna make.good on their promises of leaving the country since obama has been re-elected. 
Ah well, its like I said, it doesnt matter to me whose in office. As long as he does whatever he can for the u.s im satisfied, and iif he doesnt, then so be it.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Right, Obama will take care of the economy, just like he did the past four years. Care to explain the 6,000,000,000,000 dollars more in debt we're in? What about unemployment? Still more than 8 percent. Obamacare? Not a chance in hell it'll work perfectly as Congress hoped it would. Trying to insure 300 million plus people is near-impossible without major economic repercussions. Bailouts for large corporations like GM or large banking companies? Smart move, I must say, smart move indeed. Bankruptcy is for cowards.


Maybe because he was spending them in the right places to get out?

He's creating jobs.

Except he made it less than 8%.

Proof Obamacare isn't going to work? You got the wrong idea about Obamacare anyway. First you can
still choose your own insurance and two it already help some people who were denied/lost their
own.

Which is creating jobs, but then you turn back around and say no one cares?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

Am I the only one who finds it funny that this thread is slowly starting to unravel now but we've literally been able to keep it running well right up until the election?

Also I'm not entirely sure this is needed now that the election is done. Maybe change it to a general American politics debate or something. Guild McRepurposing.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 7, 2012)

Congratulations, everyone. Four years ago I was not a fan of Obama's speeches, but last night's acceptance speech was amazing! His "we believe in a generous America, in a compassionate America, in a tolerant America" threw me right back to our Jack Layton's "a more inclusive and generous Canada".

@Peps

"Factual claims" can be factually inaccurate... But never mind that now, maybe there's a regional difference in the meaning of words. I should just call them "claims" so there's no misunderstanding of what I meant. "There's a God" and "there's a big bang" are both claims. "_________ is bad for society" is a claim that can be verified and evaluated, and is relevant to policy; it's what you'd call a "social belief", I think.

On your premise of "morality" meaning what you say it means (i.e. something that strictly doesn't involve a society), what role does it play in public policy then? Are you still talking about public policy? Did you ever talk about public policy in connection with "morality"?

Just for the record, are you implicitly saying that the US federal government should not get involved in the slavery issue with the states, 150 years ago? In hindsight and with the knowledge we've gained since then, do you think it would be better if they had not gotten involved? Would you support the federal government's involvement in settling the slavery issue some 150 years ago?

Also for the record, picking up on your human rights comment: suppose the majority of citizens of a state wanted to remove the slaves' human rights, and they're 9:1 in favour of slavery, 9 being the slaveholders and 1 the slaves. This scenario is actually fairly typical of most of the human rights issues. Do you think these issues should be left to the majority to decide?

I don't know how exactly you differentiate "pressure from other states" from "giving up their rights to federal government"... Did the southern states abolish slavery because of "pressure", or because they "gave up their rights"? It seems like they were "pressured into giving up their rights" lol. Call it what you will. The fact that a bad decision should be overturned is something you do agree with, correct? States shouldn't give up their rights, so long as they could be pressured into giving up their rights? Mmkay.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 7, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Am I the only one who finds it funny that this thread is slowly starting to unravel now but we've literally been able to keep it running well right up until the election?
> 
> Also I'm not entirely sure this is needed now that the election is done. Maybe change it to a general American politics debate or something. Guild McRepurposing.


Well, people are mad, that all it is too it. :/ I actually agree.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Well, people are mad, that all it is too it. :/ I actually agree.


 
Well in all honesty I don't think Romney supporters could honestly believe he'd win. Like no offense but his campaign was dubbed a "rolling calamity" by many people the candidate seemed personally rather unlikeable. I mean the clown car of Republican candidates this year was rather weak and I couldn't see any of them winning.


----------



## Engert (Nov 7, 2012)

I am proud of our Electoral College voting system. It's a solid 250+ years old system which confuses everyone.


----------



## Fear Zoa (Nov 7, 2012)

I'll be honest and say I voted for Obama simply because I couldn't stand the idea of Romney winning. My state finally passed same sex marriage (So did Maine) and Colorado and Washington passed the legalization of weed (creating a interesting conflict between the state government and the national government). Some things I didn't want got passed but I'm quite happy with the turnout all things considered.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

I wish I never posted in this bloody thread in the first place. All I did was get more people to hate me for what I said and for my political views.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I wish I never posted in this bloody thread in the first place. All I did was get more people to hate me for what I said and for my political views.


 
Nobody "hates" you for your political views. The way you express them makes all the difference.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

Gahars said:


> Nobody "hates" you for your political views. The way you express them makes all the difference.


 
Then how should one express these views? In what manner should these be written? I'm not exactly acclimated to writing political posts (again, due to the reactions I see on the internet), I don't know why the hell I do it in the first place. No one can seem to agree on any issue.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Then how should one express these views? In what manner should these be written?


 
With tact and respect for the other side. There's a world of difference between, "I disagree with Democrat policies because..." and "Fuck Democrats and Obama, they don't know shit!" (just using hypothetical examples here).

Is that so difficult?


----------



## Black-Ice (Nov 7, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> I wish I never posted in this bloody thread in the first place. All I did was get more people to hate me for what I said and for my political views.


Have you tried reading your posts?
Its like you are trying to tie people up and force your politics into them because every political view that isnt yours is wrong and there are a gazzilion facts and statistics to prove it. Noone hates you, you're just too damn dramatic and close minded.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

Gahars said:


> With tact and respect for the other side. There's a world of difference between, "I disagree with Democrat policies because..." and "Fuck Democrats and Obama, they don't know shit!" (just using hypothetical examples here).
> 
> Is that so difficult?


 
No, it's not difficult, as I said before, I'm not one to usually join in a debate, but yes, I know it got way too out of hand. So, I will post how I really feel about the current political situation. I don't agree with Obama's handling of the economy and his constant spending, I don't believe for a minute that he will be able to fix the economy, especially if he didn't during the last four years. But hey, maybe this second term will be the charm, maybe it's just time for people like me to be more positive about the whole situation. Jumping down peoples' throats not only is a negative thing to do, it's detrimental to my health and everyone else's, and it makes me look like an idiot. I don't know if I can undo what I've already done, but from here on out, I will attempt to actually back up any claim I made about Obama and the direction this country is headed. I said my piece, I hope we can agree to disagree.

As for his healthcare program, I don't believe it's being handled in the best way it can. Granted, there are no perfect systems, and the one we have no isn't perfect either. I agree that those uninsured should get coverage...in fact, I'm one of those 47,000,000 or so people who don't have any and I have to pay a crapload of money every time I go see a doctor. I agree that people need healthcare, but what I don't agree with it the fact that it should be mandated. If people don't want insurance for one reason or another, they should not be forced or penalized for personal choices they make.

The same could be said of car insurance, if you own a car, insurance is mandatory. That's true, if you have a car, you should get insurance. But then again, no one is forced to own a car, as many cities rely on mass transportation. If no one is forced to own a car, no one should be forced to buy healthcare.



Spoiler



I hope that I at least said something that wasn't giving me the impression of being an overbearing douche this time around


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm sure that we will see another music video from Baraka Flocka Flames! I await the release


----------



## Engert (Nov 7, 2012)

http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/420956


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't wish to direct any ill feelings or hatred towards on our current president, as doing so would be asinine. But I will continue to stand for what I believe and what I may or may not agree with.


----------



## jonesman99 (Nov 7, 2012)

I'm so glad that Romney did not win last night, because if he did get elected, he was going to cut financial aid... I for one could not stand for that. It's hard as hell now trying to validate every year with the money I DO get.


----------



## The Catboy (Nov 7, 2012)

The election is over! Now I am off to do something productive, like play video games and watching anime


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 7, 2012)

leic7 said:


> @Peps
> 
> "Factual claims" can be factually inaccurate... But never mind that now, maybe there's a regional difference in the meaning of words. I should just call them "claims" so there's no misunderstanding of what I meant. "There's a God" and "there's a big bang" are both claims. "_________ is bad for society" is a claim that can be verified and evaluated, and is relevant to policy; it's what you'd call a "social belief", I think.
> 
> ...


 
Like I mentioned already, laws are determined by the morality of the citizens in that country/state. Laws are merely there to enforce what people feel so strongly about. Some morals never make it into law, because citizens never feel like it's not necessary to have authorities enforce it. Determining right/wrong will always be a matter of opinion, and not fact. Sure, the majority of stuff we can easily determine, but ultimately it's down to what the citizens feel like. Ireland feels like abortion is disgusting and threatens the right of the child. Other people feel like anti-abortion laws hurt the rights of the mother. Both sides are perfectly logical, so how do we decide what should be the "right" answer? We can't, thus we let the majority of people decide based on their morals to determine what should be the law.

The issues of 150 years ago, are the issues of 150 years ago, and have little to no relevance to modern issues or modern morals. Just because some people made a stupid mistake 150 years ago, or were slow to modernise, doesn't mean you should continue punishing innocent states who are better than that. It's disgusting. It's guilty until proven innocent, and it's highly logical to let the states experiment with their laws and policies so that they can come up with a real solution to the country's problems. You want to promote innovation, and restricting the states abilities to do what they please is not a good idea at all. Give them room, let innovation flourish, and what the federal government should do after that, is promote those good innovation to other states.

How do you determine what a bad decision is these days? In your opinion, it's a bad decision, to the citizens of that country, it's probably a great decision, and if the majority of them are happy with it, then so be it. You're implying that you hate democracy, and you'd rather have a dictatorship. You'd rather a higher up authority determine what's right and wrong, as opposed to letting democracy decide what it wants. Sometimes I want the same thing, sometimes I think it's better to have a single highly logical person to take control over things, rather than letting ill-informed voters voting for the guy who's able to advertise the most. But obviously I respect the right of a citizen to have their voice heard.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

I was also having the weirdest dreams last night. Like I was dreaming that I read Romney won. I then woke up at around midnight and heard my brother's girlfriend shout "Woohoo!" and her say to my brother "Obama won!" I went back to sleep and dreamed I was reading the newspaper and that Romney won.

Needless to say I was a bit confused and had to check it when I woke up.


----------



## Valwin (Nov 7, 2012)

*Puerto Rico approves statehood*


obama better fucking deliver


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 7, 2012)

Valwin said:


> *Puerto Rico approves statehood*
> 
> 
> obama better fucking deliver


 
I just bought a new flag and you're telling me that it could be out of date soon?  If I wanted to deal with this bullshit I would have bought an iPhone...


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Nov 7, 2012)

Go ahead and get your gripes in. There's not much further use for this thread, and the last thing we want is another to pop up as soon as this one is closed simply because somebody needs to vent.


----------



## Fear Zoa (Nov 7, 2012)

Well in that case I disliked all the candidates, I only voted for Obama because I believe he was the lesser of the evils. 
We need some decent candidates next time, would it be too hard to get someone I actually like?


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 7, 2012)

Vulpes Abnocto said:


> Go ahead and get your gripes in. There's not much further use for this thread, and the last thing we want is another to pop up as soon as this one is closed simply because somebody needs to vent.


----------



## Valwin (Nov 7, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> I just bought a new flag and you're telling me that it could be out of date soon? If I wanted to deal with this bullshit I would have bought an iPhone...


 
lest see if Obama delivers he say a clear majority and 61% voters say statehood


----------



## Gahars (Nov 7, 2012)

Valwin said:


> *Puerto Rico approves statehood*
> 
> 
> obama better fucking deliver


 
From what I understand, that's in Congress' hands; they'll have to vote to approve Puerto Rico's statehood.

So yeah, we'll have to see how this goes. Who knows; we might be the 51 states soon enough.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 7, 2012)

Gahars said:


> From what I understand, that's in Congress' hands; they'll have to vote to approve Puerto Rico's statehood.
> 
> So yeah, we'll have to see how this goes. Who knows; we might be the 51 states soon enough.


 
If Puerto Rico is the 51st state, does that make it Area 51?


----------



## tatripp (Nov 7, 2012)

emigre said:


>



I'm dealing with it. I just had to throw in my two cents. nice gif btw.


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> If Puerto Rico is the 51st state, does that make it Area 51?


Valwin is a Roswell survivor. No joke.


----------



## Valwin (Nov 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Valwin is a Roswell survivor. No joke.


you jelly cyz you only vote for Stalin


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2012)

Valwin said:


> you jelly cyz you only vote for Stalin


Valwin is a Socialist Alien Spy who crashed in Roswell - don't trust him, he has no credibility!


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> Valwin is an Socialist Alien Spy who crashed in Roswell - don't trust him, he has no credibility!


 
and the traitor owns a vita!


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> and the traitor owns a vita!


He's owned a Vita _for the past 60 years_ - aliens have _technology of the future y'know_, and _Sony stole it and replicated it_.

That's how Valwin knows that it's _not_ gonna get any _gaems_ - _he's been through this once already_.

;O;


----------



## bradzx (Nov 7, 2012)

I read everyone said.  I don't know how to say about Obama because only I know that he is trying fix the damage what ex-president Bush does for Iraq war.  He just have one thing already lying to people.   There is no massive dangerous weapon.  It is just false alarm.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

Gahars said:


> From what I understand, that's in Congress' hands; they'll have to vote to approve Puerto Rico's statehood.
> 
> So yeah, we'll have to see how this goes. Who knows; we might be the 51 states soon enough.


 
Don't you mean 57 states?


----------



## Latiken (Nov 7, 2012)

It would be 51 states no?


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 7, 2012)

bradzx said:


> I read everyone said. I don't know how to say about Obama because only I know that he is trying fix the damage what ex-president Bush does for Iraq war. He just have one thing already lying to people. There is no massive dangerous weapon. It is just false alarm.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Nov 7, 2012)

It is official; Obama has won the Presidency for the next four years. Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Nov 7, 2012)

NeoSupaMario said:


> It is official; Obama has won the Presidency for the next four years. Thoughts? Comments? Concerns?


 
You're kinda late.


----------



## NeoSupaMario (Nov 7, 2012)

Hyro-Sama said:


> You're kinda late.


 Sorry; I was solving some problems back on Asguard.


----------



## bradzx (Nov 7, 2012)

Oldboy, chill out.  I just saying because I just confuse what people said to me.


----------



## chavosaur (Nov 7, 2012)

bradzx said:


> Oldboy, chill out. I just saying because I just confuse what people said to me.


Im pretty sure you confuse everyone else with what you say...


----------



## Foxi4 (Nov 7, 2012)

I think that bradx's point is that Obama's "high spending rate" displayed by his previous term was the result of him fixing the mistakes made by the previous administration.

I personally think it's a tad excessive and recession is not the perfect time to work with social reform and that he should focus on how to improve the financial situation of the country rather than on projects like Obamacare which by proxy are all about giving the nation a service which has zero chances of a "financial return". I'd know - Poland has free healthcare and guess what? It's a bottomless pit, mainly because no matter how much you spend on healthcare, people will always be sick. Even if every single citizen is insured, the treasury still has to chip in and in the grand scheme of things, it merely improves the morale, not the situation.

Now, don't get me wrong - free healthcare is *great*, every citizen should be taken care of by the country, the citizen's well-being is one of the administration's duties, it's simply not the best time to introduce such a system. Social reform should be introduced in times of prosperity, not crisis.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 7, 2012)

bradzx said:


> Oldboy, chill out. I just saying because I just confuse what people said to me.


 
chillax duder. just givin the ol' nips a tweak


on a lighter note...


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 7, 2012)

Foxi4 said:


> I think that bradx's point is that Obama's "high spending rate" displayed by his previous term was the result of him fixing the mistakes made by the previous administration.
> 
> I personally think it's a tad excessive and recession is not the perfect time to work with social reform and that he should focus on how to improve the financial situation of the country rather than on projects like Obamacare which by proxy are all about giving the nation a service which has zero chances of a "financial return". I'd know - Poland has free healthcare and guess what? It's a bottomless pot, mainly because no matter how much you spend on healthcare, people will always be sick. Even if every single citizen in insured, the treasury still has to chip in and in the grand scheme of things, it merely improves the morale, not the situation.
> 
> Now, don't get me wrong - free healthcare is *great*, every citizen should be taken care of by the country, the citizen's well-being is one of the administration's duties, it's simply not the best time to introduce such a system. Social reform should be introduced in times of prosperity, not crisis.


 
My sentiments exactly. The timing for Obamacare is atrocious to say the least.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 8, 2012)

For conservatives, you can take solace in the fact that Obama will definitely lose the next election.


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 8, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> For conservatives, you can take solace in the fact that Obama will definitely lose the next election.


 
Oh, I'm sure he'll find a loophole.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 8, 2012)

the_randomizer said:


> Oh, I'm sure he'll find a loophole.


 
Does getting polio count as a loophole?


----------



## the_randomizer (Nov 8, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Does getting polio count as a loophole?


Sure, if you want it to be one.


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 8, 2012)

Still worrisome that Romney got the votes he did. Anyway...


----------



## leic7 (Nov 8, 2012)

Peps said:


> Like I mentioned already, laws are determined by the morality of the citizens in that country/state. Laws are merely there to enforce what people feel so strongly about. Some morals never make it into law, because citizens never feel like it's not necessary to have authorities enforce it. Determining right/wrong will always be a matter of opinion, and not fact. Sure, the majority of stuff we can easily determine, but ultimately it's down to what the citizens feel like. Ireland feels like abortion is disgusting and threatens the right of the child. Other people feel like anti-abortion laws hurt the rights of the mother. Both sides are perfectly logical, so how do we decide what should be the "right" answer? We can't, thus we let the majority of people decide based on their morals to determine what should be the law.
> 
> The issues of 150 years ago, are the issues of 150 years ago, and have little to no relevance to modern issues or modern morals. Just because some people made a stupid mistake 150 years ago, or were slow to modernise, doesn't mean you should continue punishing innocent states who are better than that. It's disgusting. It's guilty until proven innocent, and it's highly logical to let the states experiment with their laws and policies so that they can come up with a real solution to the country's problems. You want to promote innovation, and restricting the states abilities to do what they please is not a good idea at all. Give them room, let innovation flourish, and what the federal government should do after that, is promote those good innovation to other states.
> 
> How do you determine what a bad decision is these days? In your opinion, it's a bad decision, to the citizens of that country, it's probably a great decision, and if the majority of them are happy with it, then so be it. You're implying that you hate democracy, and you'd rather have a dictatorship. You'd rather a higher up authority determine what's right and wrong, as opposed to letting democracy decide what it wants. Sometimes I want the same thing, sometimes I think it's better to have a single highly logical person to take control over things, rather than letting ill-informed voters voting for the guy who's able to advertise the most. But obviously I respect the right of a citizen to have their voice heard.


Yes, issues of the past are issues of the past, and that's what I was asking you: did the federal government do the wrong thing intervening the slavery issue in the past? *Yes*, or *no*?

I'll show you how your reasoning is flawed and address every single one of your points, once I have your own answer to that question, but I need a straight answer from you first.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 8, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> Still worrisome that Romney got the votes he did. Anyway...




It's a good video. Not as good as the one he made when Obama announced that Bin laden was dead but still a good one!


----------



## nando (Nov 8, 2012)




----------



## Densetsu (Nov 8, 2012)

nando said:


>


奥巴马和罗姆尼的区别是...

Oh, those silly Chinese and their condom ads


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 8, 2012)

Densetsu said:


> Oh, those silly Chinese and their condom ads


And after that, I think I understand the picture...


ShadowSoldier said:


> I think I speak for everyone when I say, the best part of Obama winning is tomorrow's episode of South Park.


Haven't watch it for a while, but this episode was pretty entertaining.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 8, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Yes, issues of the past are issues of the past, and that's what I was asking you: did the federal government do the wrong thing intervening the slavery issue in the past? *Yes*, or *no*?
> 
> I'll show you how your reasoning is flawed and address every single one of your points, once I have your own answer to that question, but I need a straight answer from you first.


 
That question is not answerable, because our moral values are different from the moral values of the people back then. In my moral view, obviously slavery is wrong, and if I was a citizen of that state, I would have voted against slavery. However, I still believe it's immoral for the federal government to force states to follow its own morals. 100 years from now, perhaps citizens will be calling you idiots for wanting the federal government to have full control over your laws. Do I believe it's moral for a human being to kill another human being for survival a few thousand years ago? Do I believe it's moral for a human to kill wild dogs for food? If I was a citizen back then, perhaps I could give you a more suitable answer. Regardless however, I still believe that state would have modernised and removed the slavery laws itself, just like the rest of the world has.

Like I said earlier, it would be immoral for the EU to force Ireland to change its abortion laws. You keep using the slavery example, when it's a highly outdated dark age concept. Use a modern debatable concept such as abortion if you want to prove your point. Why should the EU force Ireland to change its abortion laws to meet the abortion laws of the rest of the EU member states? Why should the EU force Ireland to change its corporation tax when keeping our corporation tax at a very competitive rate has helped our economy grow strongly? We keep getting pressured by the EU to change it, but we believe it's better for our economy to keep the rate we have, so we're refusing to budge on it.

So let's rephrase your question and pose a hypothetical here: "did the federal government do the wrong thing intervening the abortion issue in the past?"

I would answer yes, that's immoral. Let's pose more hypothetical questions here:

"Did the federal government do the wrong thing allowing slavery?"
"Did the federal government do the wrong thing by banning gay marriage?"
"Did the federal government do the wrong thing by banning medical use of drugs?"
"Did the federal government do the wrong thing by banning drug usage in the privacy of homes?"
"Did the federal government do the wrong thing by implementing SOPA?"
"Did the federal government do the wrong thing by killing innocent civilians in Iraq?"
"Did the federal government do the wrong thing allowing the killing of innocent US civilians via the NDAA?"
"Did the federal government do the wrong thing by banning cigarettes?"
"Did the federal government do the wrong thing by banning alcohol?"

You're only looking at the bright side of the federal government, while completely ignoring the downsides. While the states share similar downsides, the fact of the matter is, their power is on a far smaller scale, and that makes it easier for the citizens to get what they want from their states, and to promote changes. If the citizens are not trustworthy to vote for suitable representatives for their local state government, then citizens are not trustworthy to vote for suitable representatives on a federal level. However, at least by providing more opportunities, you're promoting innovation, which is a great thing.


----------



## Fazermint (Nov 8, 2012)

I think Obama is the best thing that ever happened to that country. /flameshield up


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 8, 2012)

Fazermint said:


> I think Obama is the best thing that ever happened to that country. /flameshield up


Do you know how backwards we would have gone if the republicans would have won?  At least he is making progress.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Nov 8, 2012)

I voted for Romney, but I am happy Obama won. I wasn't completely happy with both of the choices.


----------



## Black-Ice (Nov 8, 2012)

UK NHS FREE HEALTH CARE FTW
;O;


----------



## leic7 (Nov 8, 2012)

Peps said:


> That question is not answerable, because our moral values are different from the moral values of the people back then. In my moral view, obviously slavery is wrong, and if I was a citizen of that state, I would have voted against slavery. However, I still believe it's immoral for the federal government to force states to follow its own morals. 100 years from now, perhaps citizens will be calling you idiots for wanting the federal government to have full control over your laws. Do I believe it's moral for a human being to kill another human being for survival a few thousand years ago? Do I believe it's moral for a human to kill wild dogs for food? If I was a citizen back then, perhaps I could give you a more suitable answer. Regardless however, I still believe that state would have modernised and removed the slavery laws itself, just like the rest of the world has.
> 
> Like I said earlier, it would be immoral for the EU to force Ireland to change its abortion laws. You keep using the slavery example, when it's a highly outdated dark age concept. Use a modern debatable concept such as abortion if you want to prove your point. Why should the EU force Ireland to change its abortion laws to meet the abortion laws of the rest of the EU member states? Why should the EU force Ireland to change its corporation tax when keeping our corporation tax at a very competitive rate has helped our economy grow strongly? We keep getting pressured by the EU to change it, but we believe it's better for our economy to keep the rate we have, so we're refusing to budge on it.
> 
> ...


Since the question I posed is "not answerable" because moral views of today are different from those of the past, let me re-frame my question under the context of the moral views of today:

_IF a state in present-day America has a law sanctioning slavery, supported by the majority of citizens in that state. The federal government steps in and strikes down that law. Did the federal government do the wrong thing intervening the slavery issue, in 2012?_

A hypothetical question, and one that I'm hoping would be more "answerable".

The reason I keep using the slavery example is because it's a clear example with few confounding factors. It's easier to expose the flaws in our own reasoning with clear examples, because we're not distracted by other confounding variables at the same time when we're trying to pick apart the arguments that matter. I'm trying to help you see the flaw in your reasoning, and I need you to work with me.


----------



## Joe88 (Nov 9, 2012)




----------



## Gahars (Nov 9, 2012)

I figured you guys might appreciate this...

Obama addressing campaign staff: "I'm really proud of all of you."

Agree with his politics or not, that's a pretty touching moment of humility and humanity from the guy.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 10, 2012)

Just wanted to share these two videos with you all. They come from the Joe Biden campaign speech my Wife and I went to this past Monday. We even had a five song concert from John Mellencamp! The whole event was full of energy and just downright fun!


*John Mellncamp singing "Life Goes On" at the event*


*Vice President Joe Biden speaking at the event*


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 12, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Since the question I posed is "not answerable" because moral views of today are different from those of the past, let me re-frame my question under the context of the moral views of today:
> 
> _IF a state in present-day America has a law sanctioning slavery, supported by the majority of citizens in that state. The federal government steps in and strikes down that law. Did the federal government do the wrong thing intervening the slavery issue, in 2012?_
> 
> ...


The question still isn't answerable because you're trying to force a dark age concept into the modern era. The "flaw" you're trying to point out, if it does exist, is the exact same "flaw" for having a federal government take control over everything.

Therefore, your argument is not valid, as it doesn't provide any reason why a federal government is far superior over letting states take control of their issues. In the hypotheticals I presented, they show realistic scenarios as to why a federal government dictating social issues is a disastrous thing. The federal government is banning the use of harmless drugs. The federal government did try to introduce SOPA and other spying legislation. The federal government did pass the NDAA which allows the killing of innocent US civilians at the president's order.

However, if we let the states decide how to take control of things, several states could much more easily reject those horrendous laws for the benefit of their community. On the other hand, if the federal government had full control, they'd have to struggle to abolish all of these ridiculous laws. Of course you're going to have the oddball states that might do something silly (though they're not going to re-introduce slavery, dark age concept after all), but you're suggesting that the federal government isn't capable of making the same mistakes, when recent history has proven that they're far more idiotic than the local state governments.

If your argument can be flipped around so easily, it's not a valid argument.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 12, 2012)

Just thought I'd leave this here...


----------



## Sterling (Nov 12, 2012)

I know zero people in Texas that wants a return to slavery. Absolutely zero. I'm sick of people suggesting that people would be willing to go back at the drop of a hat. It's insulting to say the least. Please, stop making these comparisons.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 12, 2012)

Sterling said:


> I know zero people in Texas that wants a return to slavery. Absolutely zero. I'm sick of people suggesting that people would be willing to go back at the drop of a hat. It's insulting to say the least. Please, stop making these comparisons.


 
Except, despite slavery being the example, it isn't about slavery.  It's about "conservativism" and where it's most prevelant...

What I get from that image isn't that red states are full of rednecks, it's that the most densely populated areas in the country (with the exception of Texas for some reason...) seem to be the most liberal and tolerant.  Is that a correlation you're not seeing?


----------



## Sterling (Nov 12, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> Except, despite slavery being the example, it isn't about slavery.  It's about "conservativism" and where it's most prevelant...
> 
> What I get from that image isn't that red states are full of rednecks, it's that the most densely populated areas in the country (with the exception of Texas for some reason...) seem to be the most liberal and tolerant.  Is that a correlation you're not seeing?


That's not the idea picture conveys. I think you need a new one that doesn't sensationalize conservatives as racist bigots.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 12, 2012)

Sterling said:


> That's not the idea picture conveys. I think you need a new one that doesn't sensationalize conservatives as racist bigots.


 
wait, so you're saying conservatives aren't racial bigots?

and before you rage...I'm kidding...


but seriously though, is there something in that picture that's inaccurate?  is there no correlation there?  purely coincedence then, huh?


----------



## Sterling (Nov 12, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> wait, so you're saying conservatives aren't racial bigots?


I'm  saying your blanket statements are wrong. Get a new picture, it isn't helping you.


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Nov 12, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> wait, so you're saying conservatives aren't racial bigots?
> 
> and before you rage...I'm kidding...
> 
> ...


 

Playing the devil's advocate, correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 12, 2012)

TwinRetro said:


> Playing the devil's advocate, correlation does not imply causation.


 
so it's coincedence then.  got it.


----------



## Sterling (Nov 12, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> so it's coincedence then.  got it.


So you're saying the same ideas of yesteryear are still deeply rooted in society? Specifically mainly conservative areas. Is that it? Because I have a huge beef with that because it's very wrong. Don't just lump everyone in these areas into a single minded entity.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 12, 2012)

You're "lumping everyone" in.  Where did I say that "every single person in a red state is a bigot"?  I live in Michigan.  Does that mean I drive a GM built car?  Michigan is a blue state.  Does that mean everyone here voted for Obama?  Go ahead and take anything stated about Texas personally though.


----------



## Sterling (Nov 12, 2012)

Old8oy said:


> You're "lumping everyone" in.  Where did I say that "every single person in a red state is a bigot"?  I live in Michigan.  Does that mean I drive a GM built car?  Michigan is a blue state.  Does that mean everyone here voted for Obama?  Go ahead and take anything stated about Texas personally though.


What does this mean:



> wait, so you're saying conservatives aren't racial bigots?



"Just kidding" does not excuse it either. You've already shown that you make huge blanket statements. Oh, and I will. Texas is very dear to me and I take great offense when it and its people are so blatantly insulted. I am not conservative (very far from it), but your statements are very much wrong. My professional opinion of you is also dropping quickly. You've yet to back your statements and honestly you're approaching the "flame bait" pitfall.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 12, 2012)

Sterling said:


> "Just kidding" does not excuse it either. You've already shown that you make huge blanket statements. Oh, and I will. Texas is very dear to me and I take great offense when it and its people are so blatantly insulted. I am not conservative (very far from it), but your statements are very much wrong. My professional opinion of you is also dropping quickly. You've yet to back your statements and honestly you're approaching the "flame bait" pitfall.


 
Right.  I'm making blanket statements by posting a picture that has been making its rounds on the internet for a week now.  Again, you're getting butthert over nothing.  My family is from Texas and most currently live there.  One of my best friends lives in Texas.  I'm sure that friend would be one of the first to point out that there are numerous bigots in Texas.  And I'll be the first to point out that there are numerous bigots within a two block radius of my house.  There are bigots in California and New York.  There are bigots in Florida and Maine.  Yet you're taking offense to the fact that I suggested there are bigots in Texas?

And your professional opinion of me?  What profession is that, exactly?  What statements have I made that need "backing"?  This isn't a debate.  There are bigots in Texas.  Just as there are weeaboos on gbatemp.  Neither of those are debatable.


----------



## Sterling (Nov 13, 2012)

I'd appreciate it if you'd back up whatever correlation you were trying to prove with that picture. I wasn't debating that there aren't any bigots, I was calling bull shit on that photo. As for my professional (meant personal) opinion, I used to think ofyou as a swell guy who is considerate, which now I do not.


----------



## smile72 (Nov 13, 2012)

@Sterling, what I think he's trying to say was Texas (and many other red states) were deep Blue state until Lyndon B.Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 13, 2012)

Peps said:


> The question still isn't answerable because you're trying to force a dark age concept into the modern era. The "flaw" you're trying to point out, if it does exist, is the exact same "flaw" for having a federal government take control over everything.
> 
> Therefore, your argument is not valid, as it doesn't provide any reason why a federal government is far superior over letting states take control of their issues. In the hypotheticals I presented, they show realistic scenarios as to why a federal government dictating social issues is a disastrous thing. The federal government is banning the use of harmless drugs. The federal government did try to introduce SOPA and other spying legislation. The federal government did pass the NDAA which allows the killing of innocent US civilians at the president's order.
> 
> ...


So... Is this "dark age concept" a.k.a. slavery *wrong* in the modern era? Or is that not answerable? I can't believe how you have been dodging a simple question such as this over and over just to avoid examining your own position.

My position has never been that the federal government should take control over everything, every time. If that's the "argument" you think I was making, you're wrong. My position is that the state government should have the control *sometimes*, and the federal government should have control *sometimes*; when and who should have more control depend on the issue and on who's right and who's wrong. Because in the end what really matters is that we get the right decisions made, and the wrong decisions righted, who's making those decisions doesn't matter as much as the decisions being right.

Take a minute to absorb this: sometimes =/= always. You've wasted enough energy chasing a Straw Man in this thread, don't you think?

On that note, let me triple check if I understand your position correctly and am not chasing a Straw Man of my own: do you believe the state government should *always* have control over issues pertaining to the state, and that it would *always* be wrong for the federal government to intervene, no matter what the decision at the state level is?


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 13, 2012)

Sterling said:


> I'd appreciate it if you'd back up whatever correlation you were trying to prove with that picture. I wasn't debating that there aren't any bigots, I was calling bull shit on that photo. As for my professional (meant personal) opinion, I used to think ofyou as a swell guy who is considerate, which now I do not.




Point out the inaccuracies in that picture and I'll "back up" what ever it is you think I'm saying.  There are three separate images in the picture that depict different periods in the nation's history.  Which one of those is false?


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 13, 2012)

leic7 said:


> So... Is this "dark age concept" a.k.a. slavery *wrong* in the modern era? Or is that not answerable? I can't believe how you have been dodging a simple question such as this over and over just to avoid examining your own position.
> 
> My position has never been that the federal government should take control over everything, every time. If that's the "argument" you think I was making, you're wrong. My position is that the state government should have the control *sometimes*, and the federal government should have control *sometimes*; when and who should have more control depend on the issue and on who's right and who's wrong. Because in the end what really matters is that we get the right decisions made, and the wrong decisions righted, who's making those decisions doesn't matter as much as the decisions being right.
> 
> ...


 
*In my opinion*, in the modern era, yes of course it's wrong, which I've already stated. But of course, that's just my opinion of a old age concept in the modern era. In the old days, perhaps I would have seen things very differently. I don't know how I would have felt back then, and neither do you. Hence why that earlier question was unanswerable. Nobody is avoiding anything here, you already got an answer to this particular question ages ago, but the concept of trying to force dark age concepts into the modern era is not a realistic scenario. It's not going to happen again, because morals have changed to where slavery isn't acceptable.

The problem of federal government making decisions sometimes, is determining which issues to have control over. I of course already stated that social issues should be localised as much as possible, because it's perfectly logical. When it comes to determining what to do with the single currency, that should probably be left to the federal government. Everyone shares the same currency, so a government that everyone shares should make the decisions with it. But like I've been arguing all along, just because you think something is wrong, doesn't mean that other people think it's wrong. Slavery is a ridiculous example, so try use other examples I've mentioned such as drug legalisation. I don't think drug usage is wrong in the privacy of one's home, yet the federal government says even possessing is wrong. Is forcing a state who's happy with their citizens using drugs to ban drugs acceptable?

If you think I'm purposely chasing a straw-man, then you're not good at clarifying your stance. 

The state government should deal with social issues, and local expenditure. The federal government should be responsible for issues regarding the single currency, for determining national security decisions, and for handling agreements between states. The federal government should not be responsible for determining what to do with drug legalisation, gay marriage, abortion, and so on, as those are social issues. Remember, if they make the wrong decision with regarding a social issue, you're going to have a hard time changing it. It's not about who makes the right or wrong decisions, it's about what decisions each government should be responsible for.

Let's assume you wanted to legally marry someone of the same sex. Let's assume the federal government banned same-sex marriage (which is a realistic scenario, as they've done worse). In that scenario, you'd pretty much have no options, other than attempting to make a country-wide campaign to try to get the federal government to change their mind. On the other hand, if on a state level, the amount of campaigning you have to do is significantly reduced, and you have a higher chance of getting gay marriage legalised. Alternatively, you could travel a few hundred miles and live in a state where you feel more socially accepted. By reducing the power of the federal government, you're enhancing citizen's rights, you're enhancing their options, and you're enhancing their political power. 

Ignore right or wrong here, because the federal government frequently writes laws that are morally wrong. Instead, think about providing options for citizens.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 14, 2012)

Peps said:


> *In my opinion*, in the modern era, yes of course it's wrong, which I've already stated. But of course, that's just my opinion of a old age concept in the modern era. In the old days, perhaps I would have seen things very differently. I don't know how I would have felt back then, and neither do you. Hence why that earlier question was unanswerable. Nobody is avoiding anything here, you already got an answer to this particular question ages ago, but the concept of trying to force dark age concepts into the modern era is not a realistic scenario. It's not going to happen again, because morals have changed to where slavery isn't acceptable.
> 
> The problem of federal government making decisions sometimes, is determining which issues to have control over. I of course already stated that social issues should be localised as much as possible, because it's perfectly logical. When it comes to determining what to do with the single currency, that should probably be left to the federal government. Everyone shares the same currency, so a government that everyone shares should make the decisions with it. But like I've been arguing all along, just because you think something is wrong, doesn't mean that other people think it's wrong. Slavery is a ridiculous example, so try use other examples I've mentioned such as drug legalisation. I don't think drug usage is wrong in the privacy of one's home, yet the federal government says even possessing is wrong. Is forcing a state who's happy with their citizens using drugs to ban drugs acceptable?
> 
> ...


So, *in your opinion*, slavery is wrong? But that's just your opinion, there's nothing objectively wrong about slavery?


I'm sure there are still people in 2012 who would say *in their opinion*, slavery is right, if you ask enough people.

Consider the following thought experiment: *In my opinion*, slavery is right. In fact, my whole family think slavery is right. Can we trust you to respect our opinion on this? Is it still your position that social issues should always be localised as much as possible, regardless of right or wrong? I ask this because my family's currently fighting against the state government on the slavery issue, and we totally believe the decision should be each family's responsibility. State vs. family, the family's clearly more local. The more you localise it, the more options each citizen would have, right? Would you sign our petition and help us condemn the state government for intervening in this local issue?


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 14, 2012)

leic7 said:


> So, *in your opinion*, slavery is wrong? But that's just your opinion, there's nothing objectively wrong about slavery?
> 
> I'm sure there are still people in 2012 who would say *in their opinion*, slavery is right, if you ask enough people.
> 
> Consider the following thought experiment: *In my opinion*, slavery is right. In fact, my whole family think slavery is right. Can we trust you to respect our opinion on this? Is it still your position that social issues should always be localised as much as possible, regardless of right or wrong? I ask this because my family's currently fighting against the state government on the slavery issue, and we totally believe the decision should be each family's responsibility. State vs. family, the family's clearly more local. The more you localise it, the more options each citizen would have, right? Would you sign our petition and help us condemn the state government for intervening in this local issue?


 
Like I said, in my opinion it is wrong for reason X and reason Y. I'd find it hard to believe some people might find it acceptable, but if people find it acceptable, then unfortunately the only thing I can do is try convince them that it should be deemed morally wrong.

In the scenario you've presented below, we know for a fact your family is in a severe minority. I'd entirely respect any opinion you have, as that's what people should be doing anyways. I might not agree with your thoughts on abortion, but I'd respect your opinion on it. I might not agree with your thoughts on creation/evolution, but I'd respect your opinion on it. It doesn't matter if you think someone's opinion is right or wrong, but regardless of what that opinion is, you should always respect other people's opinions. While I'm not religious, I strongly stick to "treat others the same way as you like to be treated". It's why I always say, if you don't want to get attacked again, then don't invade other countries. 

Unfortunately because you're involving other citizens who aren't apart of your family, it's no longer a family issue here, and therefore has to taken a step higher. If a parent thinks their child should face a 9pm curfew, then that's a family matter, and it's not the state government's responsibility. Drug usage in the home affects only that individual, therefore should be left up the individual to decide whether or not they find drug usage acceptable in their home. However, drug usage outside of the home involves other individuals, and therefore should be taken a step higher. Do you not find that logical or more morally acceptable at all? Why should the federal government decide the outcome here?

In short, depending on what parties something affects, that's what should determine who should have the power to decide the outcome. You're going to have to use a better example than slavery, cause again, the moral of the majority of people in any given state has changed. Also, you still haven't given a single reason as to why the federal government should control pretty much everything other than "oh the federal government done something potentially positive over 100 years ago".


----------



## CCNaru (Nov 14, 2012)

We have technology advanced enough now to not need slaves to do most of the grunt work. Southerners needed farmers and that was one of the reasons that they needed slavery way back when to keep their farming business efficient, and combined with the rich white folks' propaganda - to lead the poor white peoples' anger not unto themselves but to another target - blacks - to unite and lead over the uneducated...well...everyone.

it was never about the 'morals'. it's pure business. for personal profit, moral will never be the main deciding factor to topics like these. there will always be something to be gained by taking the route.

also, don't liberals/democrats/northerners tend to categorize/stereotype all southerners as uneducated, brainwashed racist inbred hicks that all look like Honey Boo Boo family too?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 14, 2012)

Can we stop using slavery as an example? It's not really an accurate example considering how dated it is.

Back when it was an issue it wasn't so one sided as it is today. Nowadays we consider it morally wrong but back then it wasn't. It's antiquated thinking and an antiquated example. I'm sure in a hundred years we'll look back on some of the things we do today and see them as incredibly barbaric and wrong. I mean denying certain people the right to marry based on sexual orientation? That's disgusting!

So don't use slavery as an example because you're about 150 years outdated. Saying "If you support state government's rights then YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY!" is childish as well. There's plenty of examples of state rights vs. federal government, don't use one that's 150 years old and that was a moral issue that was met with heavy division back then but considered entirely one sided nowadays.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 14, 2012)

Peps said:


> Like I said, in my opinion it is wrong for reason X and reason Y. I'd find it hard to believe some people might find it acceptable, but if people find it acceptable, then unfortunately the only thing I can do is try convince them that it should be deemed morally wrong.
> 
> In the scenario you've presented below, we know for a fact your family is in a severe minority. I'd entirely respect any opinion you have, as that's what people should be doing anyways. I might not agree with your thoughts on abortion, but I'd respect your opinion on it. I might not agree with your thoughts on creation/evolution, but I'd respect your opinion on it. It doesn't matter if you think someone's opinion is right or wrong, but regardless of what that opinion is, you should always respect other people's opinions. While I'm not religious, I strongly stick to "treat others the same way as you like to be treated". It's why I always say, if you don't want to get attacked again, then don't invade other countries.
> 
> ...


Oh, I know the majority of people in my state are against slavery... that's why my family is fighting the issue! My family is for slavery and we definitely do *not* involve other citizens who aren't a part of our family, we believe in using only family members as slaves. We have a super democratic vote on the issue in the family every year, and the result's always 9:1 in favour of slavery. Of course, that one vote against it always comes from the family slave, but this is still only a family issue, right? Would you support our fight against the state government's intervention?

My position isn't "the federal government should control pretty much everything", please don't relapse into the Straw Man fallacy.


----------



## Black-Ice (Nov 14, 2012)

Obama wins and the topic goes to slavery.
Interesting,


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 14, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Can we stop using slavery as an example? It's not really an accurate example considering how dated it is.
> 
> Back when it was an issue it wasn't so one sided as it is today. Nowadays we consider it morally wrong but back then it wasn't. It's antiquated thinking and an antiquated example. I'm sure in a hundred years we'll look back on some of the things we do today and see them as incredibly barbaric and wrong. I mean denying certain people the right to marry based on sexual orientation? That's disgusting!
> 
> So don't use slavery as an example because you're about 150 years outdated. Saying "If you support state government's rights then YOU SUPPORT SLAVERY!" is childish as well. There's plenty of examples of state rights vs. federal government, don't use one that's 150 years old and that was a moral issue that was met with heavy division back then but considered entirely one sided nowadays.


 
Not so much a comment on slavery as a practice, but...

Come to America to escape persecution and tyranny
Take land by force
Build a country and infrastructure on the backs of slaves and "foreigners"
Get pissed at government for giving handouts to people who sit on their asses or come here illegally (among other things, obviously)
Antiquated or not, you have to appreciate the irony...


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 14, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Oh, I know the majority of people in my state are against slavery... that's why my family is fighting the issue! My family is for slavery and we definitely do *not* involve other citizens who aren't a part of our family, we believe in using only family members as slaves. We have a super democratic vote on the issue in the family every year, and the result's always 9:1 in favour of slavery. Of course, that one vote against it always comes from the family slave, but this is still only a family issue, right? Would you support our fight against the state government's intervention?
> 
> My position isn't "the federal government should control pretty much everything", please don't relapse into the Straw Man fallacy.


 
Your examples are just getting more and more unrealistic and ridiculous, and really don't help prove your point at all. Use modern examples, not outdated examples. That way, we probably understand your point of view a bit more clearly. I could probably argue that even turning a family member into a slave doesn't help prove your point, as ultimately that kid will become a full member of society, and the rest of local society is impacted by the mental health of that individual, thus turning it into a state matter. But at that point we're debating something that's nowhere near realistic whatsoever. So use a modern example if you want to prove that the federal government should have control over everything.

You've never clarified what role the federal government should have. You say they should control "some" stuff, and you're implying that the states and its citizens are untrustworthy. Being vague leads to a complete mess, and effectively leads the federal government to having control over everything. Be precise if you think you're being straw-manned. From my understanding of your posts, you're basically saying that the federal government is always morally correct, and should impose its morals onto the states. If the federal government morally disagrees with a state's decision, then you're saying that they should be allowed to force that state to change its laws. What's the point of even having state governments in that case if states can't make a decision that goes against the norm?

What if the rest of the world thinks America is being stupid by invading other countries? Should the rest of the world (including neutral countries) force you to change your ways? According to your arguments, we should.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 15, 2012)

Peps said:


> Your examples are just getting more and more unrealistic and ridiculous, and really don't help prove your point at all. Use modern examples, not outdated examples. That way, we probably understand your point of view a bit more clearly. I could probably argue that even turning a family member into a slave doesn't help prove your point, as ultimately that kid will become a full member of society, and the rest of local society is impacted by the mental health of that individual, thus turning it into a state matter. But at that point we're debating something that's nowhere near realistic whatsoever. So use a modern example if you want to prove that the federal government should have control over everything.
> 
> You've never clarified what role the federal government should have. You say they should control "some" stuff, and you're implying that the states and its citizens are untrustworthy. Being vague leads to a complete mess, and effectively leads the federal government to having control over everything. Be precise if you think you're being straw-manned. From my understanding of your posts, you're basically saying that the federal government is always morally correct, and should impose its morals onto the states. If the federal government morally disagrees with a state's decision, then you're saying that they should be allowed to force that state to change its laws. What's the point of even having state governments in that case if states can't make a decision that goes against the norm?
> 
> What if the rest of the world thinks America is being stupid by invading other countries? Should the rest of the world (including neutral countries) force you to change your ways? According to your arguments, we should.


My example is what's commonly known as a "thought experiment", or a "hypothetical scenario", it's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be extreme, but true to the core principles in question...in order to test the boundaries of one's reasoning. That's the first thing any student should've learned in a philosophy or a law class.


The core principle that I'm testing is this: it is *always* better to let a smaller governing body (vs. a larger governing body) make decisions on issues concerning individuals within the group, regardless of right or wrong.

Can you please confirm or deny the above is indeed your position? What I challenge is specifically the adverb "always" in that position, and if that wasn't even your position to begin with, then I would have no reason to be doing this.

IF you believe the smaller group (of the two) should *always* have control over their own social issues -- logically, it follows that you would believe my family (the smaller group compared to the state) should be able to enslave our own family members, provided we would never let our slaves set foot outside the house, ever. So, do you believe my family should have control over this issue? Yes or no?

Another question I hope to get a straightforward answer from you is: should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority within a given community on moral issues that make their way into public policy? Yes or no?

I've no idea how you got "the states and its citizens are untrustworthy" from reading my posts, without at least also getting "the federal government and its citizens are untrustworthy"? What I said was, whoever should have more control over which issue depends on who's right and who's wrong. Wouldn't a more sensible interpretation of that be I was implying they're both fallible, hence the need to check who's right and who's wrong? Where's the logic in your interpretation? Is it because I've used one (1) example of an issue about which the state government was wrong and the federal government was right? Did that example confuse you so much that you started to imagine when I said the state government's wrong that one time on that one issue it automatically means I was saying the state government's wrong all the time on all issues?

If a government (of any level) makes a wrong decision, that decision ought to be reversed, either through the powers from inside, or outside. So, if America (or any other country) makes a terribly wrong decision, either the American people would have to fight to change it, or the international community would be compelled to get involved. That's what I said in an earlier post.

A wrong decision in the context of public policy, is a decision with consequences that evaluate to a "yes" to the question: "Is [outcome of policy] bad for the well-being of our society?"


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 15, 2012)

leic7 said:


> My example is what's commonly known as a "thought experiment", or a "hypothetical scenario", it's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be extreme, but true to the core principles in question...in order to test the boundaries of one's reasoning. That's the first thing any student should've learned in a philosophy or a law class.
> 
> 
> The core principle that I'm testing is this: it is *always* better to let a smaller governing body (vs. a larger governing body) make decisions on issues concerning individuals within the group, regardless of right or wrong.
> ...


 
There's no point discussing extreme situations because it's highly unrealistic, and there's always going to be flaws with any position. Even in your example, if that slave was to never set foot outside the house, how would the federal government be able to know that you're turning your family member into a slave? Hence, it's a silly example, hardly applicable, not going to happen, and would not be because of the policies I'd promote. We're trying to discuss what is realistically the best option, and using unrealistic examples doesn't help prove a point to be incorrect. It just proves you have no serious counter-argument. In terms of morals, of course I think the state government was wrong, and that the federal government was correct in its moral thinking. However, I don't think it's moral for the federal government to forcefully change the morals of other people. Not to mention, neither of us lived back then, so neither of us truly know what was morally acceptable.

My position is, is that social issues should be localised as much as possible, depending on the people the issue involves. Take a child's curfew for example. It's not the federal government's responsibility to be your child's parents. It's the parent's responsibility to enforce family policies onto their child. Besides, a parent may want to raise their child much differently than another parent, because everyone grows up differently and have different opinions on what the correct approach is. Some parents think it's immoral to spank your child's bottom when they misbehave. Other people think it's perfectly fine, because it doesn't actually physically hurt the child at all. Those are times when the federal government, nor state governments, need to be involved unless the family member is not being given their rights. Remember, nobody is arguing that human rights should be abolished. But if were to talk about human rights, I have the right to my privacy, yet the federal government is trying to bring in policies to remove my right to privacy. Food for thought there.

Anywho, we're back to the topic of how do we determine whether or not someone is morally right or morally wrong. We all grow up differently, so all of our opinions are different. You have different opinions and morals to me. Let's take gay marriage. The concept of seeing same-sex couples might be sickening to some people. It's not to me, but I completely respect their moral views. Let's take internet privacy, the federal government have no issues with spying on their citizens, yet you and me may feel very differently. I think it's sickening that your country think it's alright to invade other countries, yet you might feel differently. You think it's right to invade other countries and to enforce your policies onto them. I think it's wrong. Right/Wrong isn't clear, and is purely subjective.

But you did say, that if anyone makes an incorrect decision, the American people would have to fight to change it. I agree, but if you keep it to the federal level, you're significantly reducing their chances of actually making a change. Unless you're extremely wealthy, trying to get your message across to enough people nation-wide is difficult. A lot of people also have no real interest in politics, which makes it even more challenging. However, but reducing social issues to the state level, you're at least providing a stronger opportunity to allow people to change things.

More food for thought, the reason terrorists exist is because they're trying to fight against the people invading their country.


----------



## LightyKD (Nov 15, 2012)

Has anyone noticed the change in the President's hair.

A few weeks ago during is interview on the Daily Show...






Yesterday...





I guess "Barry O" was like "Fuq dat $#!+. It's the 21st century, we got Just for Men!" Maybe he didn't want to look old when it comes time for his Presidential picture to join the others  Either way, I just find the situation funny because, for months, reporters talked about how the Presidency is so stressful that many Presidents go in with color and come out grey. Eventually, when Obama stated to turn grey, most of them were like, "See, we told ya so!"


----------



## dickfour (Nov 15, 2012)

Congratulations the people that supported Obama won four more yeas of a bad economy.


----------



## BlueStar (Nov 15, 2012)

Four more years of Republicans crying every time there's good economic news.


----------



## Engert (Nov 15, 2012)

Welcome to U.S.A.
United States of Amnesia.


----------



## Coltonamore (Nov 15, 2012)

Engert said:


> Welcome to U.S.A.
> United States of Amarica.


fixed


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 16, 2012)

Engert said:


> Welcome to U.S.A.
> United States of Amnesia.


Didn't worry, ObamaCare covers that. 


Look at this.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Nov 16, 2012)

LightyKD said:


> Has anyone noticed the change in the President's hair.
> 
> A few weeks ago during is interview on the Daily Show...
> *snip*
> ...


 
Stress, man. It's a killer.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 16, 2012)

Peps said:


> There's no point discussing extreme situations because it's highly unrealistic, and there's always going to be flaws with any position. Even in your example, if that slave was to never set foot outside the house, how would the federal government be able to know that you're turning your family member into a slave? Hence, it's a silly example, hardly applicable, not going to happen, and would not be because of the policies I'd promote. We're trying to discuss what is realistically the best option, and using unrealistic examples doesn't help prove a point to be incorrect. It just proves you have no serious counter-argument. In terms of morals, of course I think the state government was wrong, and that the federal government was correct in its moral thinking. However, I don't think it's moral for the federal government to forcefully change the morals of other people. Not to mention, neither of us lived back then, so neither of us truly know what was morally acceptable.
> 
> My position is, is that social issues should be localised as much as possible, depending on the people the issue involves. Take a child's curfew for example. It's not the federal government's responsibility to be your child's parents. It's the parent's responsibility to enforce family policies onto their child. Besides, a parent may want to raise their child much differently than another parent, because everyone grows up differently and have different opinions on what the correct approach is. Some parents think it's immoral to spank your child's bottom when they misbehave. Other people think it's perfectly fine, because it doesn't actually physically hurt the child at all. Those are times when the federal government, nor state governments, need to be involved unless the family member is not being given their rights. Remember, nobody is arguing that human rights should be abolished. But if were to talk about human rights, I have the right to my privacy, yet the federal government is trying to bring in policies to remove my right to privacy. Food for thought there.
> 
> ...


You mean, there's no point using thought experiments, except to show the flaws in your position, right? Do you want a critique of your position, or do you already know it's flawed thus no need for further scrutiny?

What constitutes "the federal government forcefully changing the morals of other people"?

Right/wrong decisions *in the context of public policy* have a specific form:
"right" = good for the well-being of society;
"wrong" = bad for the well-being of society;
Agree or disagree?

Yes, everyone has their own opinions/views/feelings/intuitions on stuff. If you ask people, "Are Omega-3 fatty acids supplements good for our health?" or "Is premium gasoline better for our cars?" or "Can we trisect a 60-degree angle using only a compass and a straightedge?", you'll get all sorts of different answers. The fact that there are different opinions is never in question, the question is, how do we prioritize them? If we, collectively, have to act on something, which opinion should we take? If we ask, "Does the legalisation of same-sex marriage improve the quality of life for people in our society?" and have to act on it, which opinion should we take? If we get a class of students to write reports on those questions, should all of them be getting "A" grades for their reports?

I ask again: should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority within a given community on moral issues that make their way into public policy?

re: proximity making it easier for someone to exert influence on a smaller group (state government) than a larger group (federal government), I agree. But I disagree that that influence necessarily translates directly into a greater prospect of change. While it's easier for someone to excert their influence to promote change in a smaller group, it is also easier for this person to excert their influence to resist change in the same group. The powerful force that enables change is also the very powerful force that impedes change. That's why we see relatively small pockets of the population hold on to century-old ideas looooong after the larger population have moved on with theirs. Sometimes, it's easier to have a smaller group change their mind; but sometimes, it's actually more difficult to change smaller groups than it is to change the larger group.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 16, 2012)

leic7 said:


> You mean, there's no point using thought experiments, except to show the flaws in your position, right? Do you want a critique of your position, or do you already know it's flawed thus no need for further scrutiny?
> 
> What constitutes "the federal government forcefully changing the morals of other people"?
> 
> ...


 
Your highly unrealistic example only shows a potential flaw in an extreme scenario, which quite frankly will probably never happen. Therefore, there's no point discussing it, because it's not going to be a realistic critique. Your example not only potentially shows a flaw in my ideals, but it also shows the exact same flaw in your ideals. I repeat my question from earlier: How would the federal government know that a family has a slave that has never set foot outside a property, and never will set foot outside that property? Besides, I still stand by my earlier argument that the slave's mental health would be potentially dangerous to the surrounding society, and therefore should be up to the state to decide. After all, you state that the slave will never set foot, but that doesn't mean they definitely won't. So you see, we're getting into a pointless unrealistic scenario that can go in circles because it's unrealistic. It proves nothing, and only shows a potential flaw in both sides.

As I keep trying to tell you, your definition of what's good for society is not the same as mine. Your definitions of what's good for the society is not the same as the people's definition of over 100 years ago. I agree that "right" is good for society, and "wrong" is bad for society, but we're going to have different beliefs on what is correct. I believe drug legalisation would be very good for society, as it means we're not arresting people for possessing and recreational use in the privacy of their homes, while also able to tax drugs and use them for medical purposes. But of course, you'll have the opposite side saying that the legalisation of drugs might encourage more people to take drugs and could endanger the lives of people. There's no right or wrong here, and that's why I'd rather use a modern example where there are clear divides, as that will help you understand my position.

Should the moral minority always accept the rulings of the moral majority? Absolutely not. If that moral minority absolutely believes what they're doing is the correct thing, then by all means they should do what they want. But of course, as I explained before with family issues, we still have to acknowledge scope when it comes to various issues. If you're a citizen who lives in a completely different state, the social issues of another state should not impact you at all due to the distance. However, if you were a citizen of that state, then you should have the right to be heard, because the odds are the social issues may be more of a frequent sight for you, and you are therefore involved (obviously this depends on the issue, but it's to explain scope). Remember, states can be very innovative, and we want to encourage innovation, especially if you want to get your country out of an economic mess. Drug legalisation for example is one innovative example, but because the federal government has the final say, the states are constricted. 

Your last point about creating change, again, doesn't help prove that the federal government should have the final say about everything. The federal government has introduced a lot of negative things, and because the vocal minority who care about these things don't have the resources to advertise heavily and to create awareness about these issues nation-wide, nothing will be sorted. Remember, a lot of people don't care about politics at all, and will shut off instantly when talking about politices. By letting the federal government have the final say, you're placing a huge burden on the people who care about these issues. Besides, what if the majority of US citizens wanted to re-introduce slavery? Should the federal government go ahead and re-introduce it, and force it on states? You're saying they should.

So getting to my point, you haven't stated a single reason why the federal government should have the final say on everything. The reasons you've given also work as reasons as to why the federal government shouldn't have control. Maybe try give me a list of pros and cons, like so:

States having the final say:
+ Encourages innovation to try get the country out of the mess
+ Encourages people to become more politically active as their chances of changing things improve
+ Encourages the state to implement policies they feel fits their morals
- States might make a decision that other states might not feel is correct

Federal Government having final say:
+ Can override any potential mistake that the states make for the benefit of everyone
- Disrespects the citizens of states, as their laws and morals have to comply with the rest of the nation
- Stifles innovation, as now only 1 entity instead of 50 entities can truly make decisions, as they have the final say
- Discourages people from becoming involved in politics, as they now need 50 times the resources to make any real change


----------



## GeekyGuy (Nov 16, 2012)

Peps said:


> Like I said, in my opinion it is wrong for reason X and reason Y. *I'd find it hard to believe some people might find it acceptable*...


 
You're obviously unfamiliar with the foreign policy of the U.S. government and colonies under our rule. We very much, as a collective people, find slavery quite acceptable. You don't have to look far to see it. Heck, the prison system within our own sovereign states is based upon a slave system. We just choose to ignore it exists. That doesn't mean we aren't responsible for it as a nation.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 16, 2012)

BlueStar said:


> Four more years of Republicans crying every time there's good economic news.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 17, 2012)

Peps said:


> Your highly unrealistic example only shows a potential flaw in an extreme scenario, which quite frankly will probably never happen. Therefore, there's no point discussing it, because it's not going to be a realistic critique. Your example not only potentially shows a flaw in my ideals, but it also shows the exact same flaw in your ideals. I repeat my question from earlier: How would the federal government know that a family has a slave that has never set foot outside a property, and never will set foot outside that property? Besides, I still stand by my earlier argument that the slave's mental health would be potentially dangerous to the surrounding society, and therefore should be up to the state to decide. After all, you state that the slave will never set foot, but that doesn't mean they definitely won't. So you see, we're getting into a pointless unrealistic scenario that can go in circles because it's unrealistic. It proves nothing, and only shows a potential flaw in both sides.
> 
> As I keep trying to tell you, your definition of what's good for society is not the same as mine. Your definitions of what's good for the society is not the same as the people's definition of over 100 years ago. I agree that "right" is good for society, and "wrong" is bad for society, but we're going to have different beliefs on what is correct. I believe drug legalisation would be very good for society, as it means we're not arresting people for possessing and recreational use in the privacy of their homes, while also able to tax drugs and use them for medical purposes. But of course, you'll have the opposite side saying that the legalisation of drugs might encourage more people to take drugs and could endanger the lives of people. There's no right or wrong here, and that's why I'd rather use a modern example where there are clear divides, as that will help you understand my position.
> 
> ...


I know you've been saying everyone has different "definitions of what's good for society", I acknowledged that. Individuals having different individual opinions is a *given*. As a society, we sometimes have to choose to act on *only one* of the opinions, that's also a given. The question is, *how to choose*?

I thought your suggestion was for the moral minority to always accept the rulings of the moral majority, when we can only choose one opinion for policy. Now you've clarified that's not what you meant. Then, how do you propose we should choose the *one opinion*?

lol If this information is important, sure, I'll tell you how my state government knows my family owns slaves: I suspect a grudging neighbour must've reported us to the authorities! And no, I can guarantee that our slave will definitely NOT be able to get out. _*wink*_ So, can you finally help us condemn the state's intervention?

The "potential flaw" I was trying to show, is a logical destination from the logical foundation of your chain of reasoning. Because you're using "the smaller group of the two should always have control over their own social issues" as a foundation for "states (not federal gov.) should always have control over their own social issues", it follows that "towns (not the state) should always have control over their own social issues", and that "families (not the town) should always have control over their own social issues", and that "individuals (not family) should always have control over their own social issues". These are logical destinations derived directly from your logical origin. It's basic logic. To uphold your logical foundation means you accept those logical consequences; to not accept all of those consequences means you have to abandon that logical foundation. Which is it?

I've rejected the notion that "the federal government, or any level government, should have the final say on everything" over and over. Heck, even you can remember the reasons I've given "also work as reasons as to why the federal government shouldn't have control", why then, do you still turn around and think that I would secretly believe "the federal government should have the final say about everything"?


----------



## KingVamp (Nov 17, 2012)

You guys are still going at it? Gees...


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 17, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> You guys are still going at it? Gees...


----------



## leic7 (Nov 18, 2012)

KingVamp said:


> You guys are still going at it? Gees...


hey, election campaigns might be over, but the campaign to promote critical thinking isn't. :|


----------



## ComeTurismO (Nov 18, 2012)

Well, I got to agree with KingVamp, Obama won, so Romney lovers, go cry  End of TOPIC

/LOCKED
/LOL not really
XD


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 18, 2012)

leic7 said:


> I know you've been saying everyone has different "definitions of what's good for society", I acknowledged that. Individuals having different individual opinions is a *given*. As a society, we sometimes have to choose to act on *only one* of the opinions, that's also a given. The question is, *how to choose*?
> 
> I thought your suggestion was for the moral minority to always accept the rulings of the moral majority, when we can only choose one opinion for policy. Now you've clarified that's not what you meant. Then, how do you propose we should choose the *one opinion*?
> 
> ...


 
First off, to everyone else, absolutely we should continue to discuss politics. Politics always affects us, every single day of the year, not just for elections. If you think that elections is the only time when politics matter, then you need to change your thinking about politics immediately. Personally I believe that's one of the biggest issues when it comes to politics, the fact that people aren't genuinely interested in politics, and don't do any real research into their vote. People are easily mislead and think that they have no real choice when it comes to politics. If people were to get more involved in politics, the world would be a far different place than what it currently is. I don't believe protests are useful at making changes. I believe the first step is to make people more politically aware, and to make them more politically active.

The only problem is, I don't know how to accomplish that. People love to shut off instantly when discussing anything to do with politics. People love to get angry when people have opposing opinions. People refuse to respect and try to understand where the other person is coming from when it comes to any form of discussion. Ever noticed when people discuss something on a forum, people will start flaming users for having an odd opinion, rather than trying to understand them? It's the overall attitude to discussions and politics that need to change first, but again, I have no idea how to accomplish that. We used to have no problem discussing politics and taking action when needed centuries ago, what changed? When did the right to bare arms change from being to right to fight against tyranny, to being the right to hunt and defend your home?

Back to the response, I agree that the question is "how do we choose which is the correct opinion", which is where my stance of letting the states choose comes from. The easiest rule I can think of to explain my point of view, is to consider what people are affected by the issue. At least by taking this into consideration and localising the amount of power required, you're actually not stating that any view is the correct view. The federal government isn't choosing which is the right approach, but instead, you have people implementing what they feel is the correct approach. Although again, human rights should still be respected.

You're correct in thinking that I would want town councils should also have a right to decide how town issues should be resolved. If a town council feels some of their expenditure should be focused on renovating their roads, by all means they should renovate them. If a town feels like they want to ban smoking in certain areas, by all means they should be allowed to.  It's all about who's involved. Are people outside of a town affected by an smoking ban in some town park? This isn't a flaw in my reasoning, it's precisely what I'm promoting. I'm promoting the concept that issues should be localised where possible. Of course, it's highly debatable as to how to decide how large of a scope an issue is. We can go into much more in-depth discussion if we were to focus on a particular issue. However, I don't think many issues have such a massive scope, that it requires the federal government to make the final decision. Economic issues yes, social issues never.

The reason I state that you're implying that the federal government should have the final say about everything, is because you're stating that the federal government were correct to get themselves involved in slavery issues in a state. Unless I'm wrong, you're also arguing that the federal government should always get involved when the moral majority of other states feel like another state is doing wrong. You're effectively saying as a result, that what the federal government says goes, and that's that.

Of course slavery would no longer be an issue, so do you agree that the states should have the right to ignore federal law, and still legalise drugs if their citizens feel it's alright? Do you agree states should have the right to legalise gay marriage, even though the federal government might have it banned? Do you feel it's wrong for the federal government to force a state to ban gay marriage because the moral majority feels otherwise? Now here's the kicker, if you agree with those statements, is that because it just so happens those states made decisions that aligned with your morals?

Please clarify your position anyways, I don't think I'm understanding it properly. The whole reason I participate in discussions is because I want to understand where other people are coming from, so that we can both enhance our knowledge of a particular topic.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Nov 18, 2012)

EDIT NOW A 2016 CAMPAIGN THREAD.

So, Clinton vs. Pailin, catfight of the century. Thoughts?


----------



## wrettcaughn (Nov 18, 2012)

Guild McCommunist said:


> EDIT NOW A 2016 CAMPAIGN THREAD.
> 
> So, Clinton vs. Pailin, catfight of the century. Thoughts?


The republicans would have to be retarded to even consider Palin at this point... I wouldn't be surprised though if she rallied teapartiers to "create a third party"...

Not necessarily a better choice, but a more popular choice would be Condoleeza Rice.  It looks like they might be pandering to Hispanics with Marco Rubio though...


----------



## leic7 (Nov 20, 2012)

Wouldn't the "Hillary Clinton vs. Jeb Bush" speculation be more entertaining, with all the "back to the future" jokes you could tell with it?



Peps said:


> First off, to everyone else, absolutely we should continue to discuss politics. Politics always affects us, every single day of the year, not just for elections. If you think that elections is the only time when politics matter, then you need to change your thinking about politics immediately. Personally I believe that's one of the biggest issues when it comes to politics, the fact that people aren't genuinely interested in politics, and don't do any real research into their vote. People are easily mislead and think that they have no real choice when it comes to politics. If people were to get more involved in politics, the world would be a far different place than what it currently is. I don't believe protests are useful at making changes. I believe the first step is to make people more politically aware, and to make them more politically active.
> 
> The only problem is, I don't know how to accomplish that. People love to shut off instantly when discussing anything to do with politics. People love to get angry when people have opposing opinions. People refuse to respect and try to understand where the other person is coming from when it comes to any form of discussion. Ever noticed when people discuss something on a forum, people will start flaming users for having an odd opinion, rather than trying to understand them? It's the overall attitude to discussions and politics that need to change first, but again, I have no idea how to accomplish that. We used to have no problem discussing politics and taking action when needed centuries ago, what changed? When did the right to bare arms change from being to right to fight against tyranny, to being the right to hunt and defend your home?
> 
> ...


The problem with your arguments is, you don't have a solid logical foundation for them, instead, your arguments are based on little fragments borrowed from other arguments such as "no view is the correct view" and "human rights should be respected". You don't seem to actually understand the logical basis for the arguments you've borrowed, you just use the phrases that sound good to you, and the result is, different phrases you end up using actually contradicting each other logically.


So, who is involved in slavery? Should my family be allowed slavery? You still haven't answered that question.

Who is involved in abortion? Who should be allowed to decide whether or not to have an abortion?

Who is involved in same-sex marriage? Whose views should be counted and whose views shouldn't be counted?

Do you know why I said the federal government was correct to get involved in the slavery issue in states? No, "because they're the majority" is not the reason. The reason is, "slavery is wrong". So the federal government would be correct to tell the state to abolish slavery, *when the state was sanctioning slavery*. By the same token, the federal government would be *incorrect* to tell the state to sanction slavery, when the state had abolished it; the state should rightfully ignore any such federal request. When it would be correct for the federal government to get involved depends on who's right and who's wrong.

I've used many examples in which "right" and "wrong" can be determined in another discipline, namely science. But it seems the connections have gone over your head. Individuals have different individual realities about how the physical world works, but beyond these individual realities, there's an objective reality. In sciences, we can evaluate who's right and who's wrong, based on what we know of the objective reality. In social sciences, we can do the same. We can evaluate who's right and who's wrong, based on what we know of the objective reality.

"Omega-3 supplements are good for our health" is *wrong*, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human health, the benefits of Omega-3 supplements do not outweigh the costs of Omega-3 supplements.

Likewise:

"Slavery is good for our society" is *wrong*, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of slavery do not outweigh the costs of slavery.

"A ban on abortion is good for our society" is *wrong*, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of abortion ban do not outweigh the costs of abortion ban.

"A ban on same-sex marriage is good for our society" is *wrong*, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of marriage inequality do not outweigh the costs of marriage inequality.

"A ban on marijuana is good for our society" is *wrong*, not because a large group "feel like" it's wrong, but because when evaluated against the objective reality of human flourishing, the benefits of marijuana ban do not outweigh the costs of marijuana ban.

Etc. etc. etc.

What's right and what's wrong in public policy, is independent of the size of the group promoting the policy, but dependent on the *objective reality of human flourishing*. I don't care who's promoting a wrong policy, or how strongly they "feel" about the wrong policy they're promoting, a wrong policy is a wrong policy. If the federal government has a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, the federal government is wrong. If a state has a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, the state is wrong. If I advocate a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, I am wrong. If you advocate a policy that flies in the opposite direction of evidence from the objective reality, you are wrong. etc. etc. The only sensible way forward, is to guide our policy-making by the objective reality. Much like what we do in science.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 20, 2012)

leic7 said:


> The problem with your arguments is, you don't have a solid logical foundation for them, instead, your arguments are based on little fragments borrowed from other arguments such as "no view is the correct view" and "human rights should be respected". You don't seem to actually understand the logical basis for the arguments you've borrowed, you just use the phrases that sound good to you, and the result is, different phrases you end up using actually contradicting each other logically.
> 
> 
> So, who is involved in slavery? Should my family be allowed slavery? You still haven't answered that question.
> ...


 
There's no contradiction when an explicit exception is made. Exceptions aren't illogical at all, and they reinforce logical reasoning most of the time. My views are to me, far more logical than your views are, but I'm making no claim that my views are the correct views. Similarly, there's nothing contradictory about the view that states (just like countries in the EU), should have the right to determine their laws, unless it involves human rights, as human rights should also trump laws. That's not illogical nor contradictory. It's again a view, but that doesn't mean that view is correct.

I'm not going to entertain your slavery example as there's no point, as I've already admitted that there are potential flaws to my views. But the fact you have to resort to a ridiculous example actually proves my point that my views are logical, and most of the time work perfectly. The fact is, is that you're not able to provide a modern realistic everyday scenario to prove that social issues shouldn't be localised as much as possible. As for the other topics, they're highly debatable, so there's no point discussing them here. But again, how does that prove that the states at minimum shouldn't be allowed to determine whether or not something should be deemed right or wrong?

As for determining what is right or wrong, you're still missing the point. You can use a logical path to determine what you think is right or wrong, but another person can use a different path entirely to arrive at a different conclusion. You're arguing that to any debate, only one side is correct. But then what's the point of debating if only one side is correct? Are you of the opinion that your view is the only correct view? If these issues were that simple, you would never see a clear divide anywhere.

Have you never been in a position where you were undecided about something because you felt both sides put up a strong argument?


----------



## leic7 (Nov 21, 2012)

Peps said:


> There's no contradiction when an explicit exception is made. Exceptions aren't illogical at all, and they reinforce logical reasoning most of the time. My views are to me, far more logical than your views are, but I'm making no claim that my views are the correct views. Similarly, there's nothing contradictory about the view that states (just like countries in the EU), should have the right to determine their laws, unless it involves human rights, as human rights should also trump laws. That's not illogical nor contradictory. It's again a view, but that doesn't mean that view is correct.
> 
> I'm not going to entertain your slavery example as there's no point, as I've already admitted that there are potential flaws to my views. But the fact you have to resort to a ridiculous example actually proves my point that my views are logical, and most of the time work perfectly. The fact is, is that you're not able to provide a modern realistic everyday scenario to prove that social issues shouldn't be localised as much as possible. As for the other topics, they're highly debatable, so there's no point discussing them here. But again, how does that prove that the states at minimum shouldn't be allowed to determine whether or not something should be deemed right or wrong?
> 
> ...


Does your explicit exception itself have a logical basis, though? When the logical basis of an exception contradicts the logical basis of the general rule, you have a contradiction. To reconcile such differences, you need to revise the logical basis of either the rule, or the exception, or both. I don't know if you've already revised your earlier position that "states should *always* make their own laws"?

Or is "states (just like countries in the EU), should have the right to determine their laws, *unless it involves human rights*, as human rights should also trump laws" you _new_ position now?

What's a "modern realistic everyday" example that's also not "highly debatable"? lol You're right, that's tough. The only thing I can think of that fits the bill is...rape. So, exchange the word "slavery" for the word "rape" in my example, then. Would you support my family's decision to rape our own family members?

It's really too bad that you won't discuss the abortion issue in the context of "state authority vs. federal authority", because that is another good example to show the logical inconsistencies among your arguments.

As for different people taking different logical pathways and arriving at different conclusions, that depends on what the problem is, and what their conclusions are. For example,

2 + _____ + _____ = 4

2 + 1 + 1 = 4
2 + 0 + 2 = 4
2 + 3 + (-1) = 4

...as well as many others, are *correct* answers. But, there can be incorrect answers:

2 + 1 + 2 = 4
2 + 2 + 2 = 4

are *incorrect*.

I am not arguing to any debate, only one side is correct. I'm also not saying that my view is the only correct view. What I said was, there's an objective reality, that we can use to evaluate different individual subjective realities with. What this means is the view that can be backed up by the objective reality is the correct view. There can be _infinitely many_ correct views to a given problem, but that does NOT mean all views are equally correct, as shown in the above example.

I have seen debates where both sides gave compelling arguments, of course. Social issues are not the only area where you find strong arguments from different sides of a dispute. This happens in medicine, biology, ecology, psychology, genetics, physics, mathematics, engineering, astronomy, etc. How do people resolve their differences of opinion in those disciplines? They research, check results against objective reality, revise opinion accordingly, rinse and repeat. That's the attitude for doing sciences, and that should be the attitude for "doing" governments, as well.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 21, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Does your explicit exception itself have a logical basis, though? When the logical basis of an exception contradicts the logical basis of the general rule, you have a contradiction. To reconcile such differences, you need to revise the logical basis of either the rule, or the exception, or both. I don't know if you've already revised your earlier position that "states should *always* make their own laws"?
> 
> Or is "states (just like countries in the EU), should have the right to determine their laws, *unless it involves human rights*, as human rights should also trump laws" you _new_ position now?
> 
> ...


 
My position was never "states should always have the right to decide their laws". It's that political issues should be localised as much as possible, depending on the people that issue involves. It's very rare for a social issue to have such a wide scope, that it requires every single state to get involved in the issue. If you're disgusted by the idea of same-sex marriage and have the opinion that it's going to warp the children's minds, same-sex marriage in a far away state is not going to affect you or your children. Determining scope is the real issue here.

So there's no new position at all. I've always been of the opinion that human-rights should trump any law, federal or state. The federal government have introduced laws that goes against human rights, and human-rights should still trump those laws. It's immoral for the federal government to kill people without trial, it's immoral for the federal government to lock people up indefinitely without trial, it's immoral for the federal government to keep track of their citizen's online activity. I'm sure we can both agree there? If your reasoning for states to not have the right to manage their own people is because they can ignore human rights, then that very same argument can be used against a federal government.

What you need to present, is evidence that the federal government respects human rights more than the state governments do, and that of course, is impossible. At the end of the day, it's still people in federal government and in state government.

You're again trying to use ridiculous dark-age examples that nobody is ever going to vote for. Nobody is going to legalise violence. Nobody is going to legalise rape. Nobody is going to legalise slavery. Give me an example that has a clear division of opinion. You mention how the abortion discussion could reveal flaws, so tell me what those flaws are. What if the federal government banned abortion, yet a state wants it legalised? What if the federal government allowed abortion yet a state wants to ban it because they feel it's sickening?

Here's the question for you, would you rather have choices, or no choice? With federal government having control over issues, you have no choice, end of story. When states have control, you have 50 variations of how society could be ran. If you feel that abortion and drugs should be legal, you might feel comfortable living in state A. If you feel that abortion is horrible, but drugs are okay, then you might feel comfortable in state B. If you feel that both are horrible, then you might feel comfortable in state C. It provides choice. If the federal government has control, the options of the citizens are limited, even if the majority of the citizens in that state feel otherwise and have strong evidence to suggest that their opinion is superior.

You're promoting the concept that there should be only one single path, and everyone has to take it no matter what. You don't want there to be multiple paths for which citizens can choose from. You want to limit choice and innovation. You want a small group of idiots who hardly work as it is, to decide how the whole country should be ran, instead of the smaller guys who most likely work harder, and have a better idea of what they need solved. You want people who have no real understanding about issues in one state, to make decisions for that state, even though that state probably has a far superior understanding as to what they need.

And on the final point, there wouldn't be divided opinions on anything even if you adopted such a process. Take abortion, some people will feel sick at the idea of removing a bunch of cells close shortly after conception. Others might think it's okay. Both sides can make perfectly logical arguments, but at the end of the day, emotions do affect opinions, and issues like abortion cannot be objectively tested. To assume so, is to imply that having different opinions is impossible in the long-run.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 22, 2012)

Peps said:


> My position was never "states should always have the right to decide their laws". It's that political issues should be localised as much as possible, depending on the people that issue involves. It's very rare for a social issue to have such a wide scope, that it requires every single state to get involved in the issue. If you're disgusted by the idea of same-sex marriage and have the opinion that it's going to warp the children's minds, same-sex marriage in a far away state is not going to affect you or your children. Determining scope is the real issue here.
> 
> So there's no new position at all. I've always been of the opinion that human-rights should trump any law, federal or state. The federal government have introduced laws that goes against human rights, and human-rights should still trump those laws. It's immoral for the federal government to kill people without trial, it's immoral for the federal government to lock people up indefinitely without trial, it's immoral for the federal government to keep track of their citizen's online activity. I'm sure we can both agree there? If your reasoning for states to not have the right to manage their own people is because they can ignore human rights, then that very same argument can be used against a federal government.
> 
> ...


I thought your position was initially "it's always immoral for the federal government to get involved in legislation made by the state" because "states should always have the right to decide their laws". Now you're finally saying that was *not* your position?

So, is it alright for the federal government to get involved, when a state introduced a law that goes against human rights?

For abortion, the only ones involved are the individuals, i.e. the mother and the fetus. If the Irish majority can force their moral views on the Irish minority, i.e. the mother who wishes for an abortion and her fetus, then the EU majority can force their moral views on the EU minority, i.e. this mother and her fetus. If a pro-choice man can be forced to live under the majority rule of the moral majority within the boundaries of Ireland, a pro-life man can be forced to live under the majority rule of the moral majority within the boundaries of EU.

Since you're against that kind of moral majority rule, you are against the Irish moral majority rule on abortion, right? I don't mean the decision itself, but I mean you would be against allowing the Irish majority the right to decide for the minority, correct?

Both federal and state governments can make immoral decisions. The same argument against letting a federal government always have the right to make those decisions is the same argument against letting a state government always have the right to make those decisions. Please explain why I "need to present evidence that the federal government respects human rights more than the state governments do"?

_What if the federal government banned abortion, yet a state wants it legalised?_ The federal government is wrong, the state should have the right to legalise abortion. _What if the federal government allowed abortion yet a state wants to ban it because they feel it's sickening?_ The state is wrong, and the federal government should step in.

About "choice": specify what kind of choice you're talking about? If it's about the choice to rape, the choice to torture, the choice to let poor people die if they cannot afford to pay? Then no, I would rather not have the choice. If the federal government bans those things, so that states don't have the choice to do those things, it's a good thing, actually. However, if it's about the choice to do wonderful things, then yeah, sure.

I clearly demonstrated there could be infinitely many correct answers to a problem, only to have you turn around and repeat I'm "promoting the concept that there should be only one single path, and everyone has to take it no matter what." This is awesome. *sigh* I don't have time to spoon-feed you anymore. Sit in on an introductory logic course, if you wish.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 22, 2012)

leic7 said:


> I thought your position was initially "it's always immoral for the federal government to get involved in legislation made by the state" because "states should always have the right to decide their laws". Now you're finally saying that was *not* your position?
> 
> So, is it alright for the federal government to get involved, when a state introduced a law that goes against human rights?
> 
> ...


 

That was never my position as I've stated. I've stated that issues should be localised as much as possible. If something for example involves the future of the dollar, then obviously the federal government should have the strongest say on what should happen to it. If it comes to gay marriage, the federal government has no right to force it's morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation. And of course, human rights should always trump any law. So your original assumption is indeed incorrect.

Was it alright for the federal government to intervene on slavery? Did human rights actually state that slavery wasn't acceptable back then? I honestly don't know off the top of my head what the human rights were back then, if they even existed that is. But if you want to provide that data, feel free to. But of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate of defining what the role of the federal government should be.

If the federal government is just as immoral as every single other government in existence, then why do you trust them with so much power? Why do you trust them so much that you'll give up your options? Why do you trust them so much that you'll give up your ability to change political issues? Personally, I wouldn't trust the European Union at all with so much power. We barely trust them with our country's finances as it is. Why would we trust essentially complete strangers bar from one individual to determine our social issues? 

You are promoting the concept of "there's only one correct answer" when you blatantly stated that the federal government would be wrong to ban abortion.

Let's take a completely different direction here. If we were to let the EU decide what our social laws should be, should the EU be allowed to decide what laws the American people should follow? According to your arguments, yes we should be allowed to run your country. You have no clear definition of who should have control over what. If the federal government should have the right to decide what laws the states should follow, subsequently that means that the EU and Asia and so on should have the right to determine what laws America should follow. After all, if that's what the majority of other countries believe, it should be perfectly fine right? You specifically won't fight back or give out to the other countries for forcing their beliefs onto you though right? Would you be happy with a world government that determines absolutely everything for everyone, and will force you to change your ways if it doesn't meet with theirs?


----------



## leic7 (Nov 23, 2012)

Peps said:


> That was never my position as I've stated. I've stated that issues should be localised as much as possible. If something for example involves the future of the dollar, then obviously the federal government should have the strongest say on what should happen to it. If it comes to gay marriage, the federal government has no right to force it's morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation. And of course, human rights should always trump any law. So your original assumption is indeed incorrect.
> 
> Was it alright for the federal government to intervene on slavery? Did human rights actually state that slavery wasn't acceptable back then? I honestly don't know off the top of my head what the human rights were back then, if they even existed that is. But if you want to provide that data, feel free to. But of course, it has absolutely nothing to do with the debate of defining what the role of the federal government should be.
> 
> ...


It seems that you're referring to "human rights" strictly in its legal sense? Since those "rights" are usually defined and enforced by a very large governing body, such as the federal government; the "human rights" in the federal legislations are essentially the "morals and beliefs" of the federal government, aren't they? Yet, you're okay with the federal government "forcing its morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation" with that piece of legislation?

Are you of the opinion that it's alright for the federal government to intervene in state laws, so long as such intervention is prescribed by a federal law? I just can't tell what exactly you mean by the federal government "forcing its morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation".

Just in case my question still isn't clear, let me ask again: is it alright for the federal government to get involved, when a state introduced a law that goes against the "human rights" spelled out and protected by federal law? If not, what do you mean by "human rights should always trump any law"?

You've placed yourself in a rather awkward position when you chose to defend the Irish law on abortion. The Irish abortion law was based on the results of a general referendum, which means the ban was essentially "a moral majority ruling", which is something you rejected. So, to both defend the Irish abortion law and reject "a moral majority ruling" would be a contradiction. If you were to make an exception for the "abortion" issue to allow "a moral majority ruling" on, then that would mean you would accept the EU's "moral majority ruling" on "abortion", but you've rejected that already, so it can't be done. If you were to make an exception for "Ireland" to allow "a moral majority ruling" in Ireland, but no exception for "EU", because "local issues should be localised as much as possible" and Ireland is more "local" than the EU, then you would be against the Irish abortion ban, because the Irish individuals should have their own "moral majority ruling" on abortion instead of the Irish government as the individual is more "local" than the government; but you aren't against the Irish abortion ban, another contradiction.

If by "trust", you mean "to let go of all control and to put blind faith in their ability to never do wrong", then no, I don't "trust" any government at all. Neither should any Irish pregnant woman. A government (of any level) should not be allowed the power to uphold a wrong decision. And yes, banning abortion is wrong. It's objectively wrong. I basically treat it like a scientific problem: the outcome of a total ban on abortion produces more tangible harm than tangible good to our society. A policy that overall tangibly harms the society is a wrong policy.

I did say that the international community would have an obligation to get involved when a country's government had made a horribly wrong mistake, did I not? It's either the people in that country fight for justice; or in the case where the balance of power is so skewed in one way within the country that there's no hope of justice for the people, the international community should step in. Justice knows no national boundaries, or state boundaries. Justice has *no* in-group loyalty. Inviting the international community to pitch in to help correct a single mistake, is a far cry from asking them to run the country for us 24/7 and to make every current and future decision for us. I will not be the person that stands in the way of help that will clearly benefit my people, just because the helpers themselves don't wear the same colour jersey.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 23, 2012)

leic7 said:


> It seems that you're referring to "human rights" strictly in its legal sense? Since those "rights" are usually defined and enforced by a very large governing body, such as the federal government; the "human rights" in the federal legislations are essentially the "morals and beliefs" of the federal government, aren't they? Yet, you're okay with the federal government "forcing its morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation" with that piece of legislation?
> 
> Are you of the opinion that it's alright for the federal government to intervene in state laws, so long as such intervention is prescribed by a federal law? I just can't tell what exactly you mean by the federal government "forcing its morals and beliefs onto the rest of the nation".
> 
> ...


 
Throughout your entire argument, you have yet to state a reason why we can't let the states do as they please when it comes to issues with no clear right/wrong. There's no clear right or wrong answer for drug legalisation. There's no clear right/wrong for abortion. There's no clear right/wrong for gay marriage, and so on and so forth. If there was, again, there would never be such heavy divide on the topics. The arguments you've presented are circular. You're trying to nit-pick someone else's arguments, without providing any real reason as to why federal government should have control. Your attacking one side without giving your side any strength.

I'm not sure who decides on human rights from the American approach, so perhaps it works differently there. Either way, regardless of how you look at it, no state is ever going to implement a law that violates an individual's human rights. That's really the point I was trying to bring across anyways. Is it alright for the federal government to force a state to change its ways if it violates human rights? Who knows, no state has introduced a law doing so yet, and I don't see that happening. We'll see what the violation is, what the topic is, and perhaps we'll see what will happen then. It's why the earlier example of slavery is unanswerable. I wasn't around back then, so I have no idea if it was appropriate or not.

You do realise abortion also involves other local citizens as well, and not just the mother and child? It also involves the surgeon who will be performing the abortion, as well as citizens who would have to dispose of the cells and so on and so forth. Abortions involve far more than just the mother. That's why when determining the scope for abortion, it's far larger than just the mother and the child. However, the rest of the EU is not impacted by the abortion of a child in Ireland. Therefore, the scope should be no higher than state level. There's no contradiction. You're not considering the actual scope in an abortion issue.

You have your *opinion* that abortion is perfectly fine, when there's logical evidence to suggest it's not fine. You're stating that someone is wrong, rather than stating that you disagree with their opinion. It's a subtle difference, but it's an important one. You have to accept that people will have different opinions that are just as logical as yours. You might not understand where another person is coming from, but to state that they're wrong about a subjective topic is logically wrong in itself. I honestly don't get what's so hard for people to understand about that. Again, if issues were that easily resolved logically, you'd never see a huge divide. The fact that huge divides exist, clearly prove that there is no right/wrong. The fact that these issues have been going on for ages and ages clearly again show there is no right/wrong. The fact that these issues have strong logic on both sides clearly show there is no right/wrong. To state that your opinion is correct is ignorant and highly disrespectful to others. If someone was strongly pro-life, while I might be pro-choice, I would listen to their opinion, try to understand it, and then give them my perspective. I would never however tell them they are wrong unless there's a fact they've misunderstood. 

Your sense of "justice" is what got your country attacked, and will continue to be attacked in the near future. You have one opinion on what is justice, and another person have their own. Heck, there's logical arguments as to why having a dictatorship can be a good thing, and why democracy is a load of nonsense. If the country's people or state are happy with their decision, you really have no moral right to jump in and tell them what to do.

How would you feel if the EU and Asia decided to attack the US, and take control over your government, because they felt that the US government made the wrong decision with <insert decision you approve of here>?


----------



## leic7 (Nov 23, 2012)

Peps said:


> Throughout your entire argument, you have yet to state a reason why we can't let the states do as they please when it comes to issues with no clear right/wrong. There's no clear right or wrong answer for drug legalisation. There's no clear right/wrong for abortion. There's no clear right/wrong for gay marriage, and so on and so forth. If there was, again, there would never be such heavy divide on the topics. The arguments you've presented are circular. You're trying to nit-pick someone else's arguments, without providing any real reason as to why federal government should have control. Your attacking one side without giving your side any strength.
> 
> I'm not sure who decides on human rights from the American approach, so perhaps it works differently there. Either way, regardless of how you look at it, no state is ever going to implement a law that violates an individual's human rights. That's really the point I was trying to bring across anyways. Is it alright for the federal government to force a state to change its ways if it violates human rights? Who knows, no state has introduced a law doing so yet, and I don't see that happening. We'll see what the violation is, what the topic is, and perhaps we'll see what will happen then. It's why the earlier example of slavery is unanswerable. I wasn't around back then, so I have no idea if it was appropriate or not.
> 
> ...


Maybe I "have yet to state a reason why we can't let the states do as they please when it comes to issues with no clear right/wrong", because I don't actually disagree that states should have their autonomy when they aren't clearly wrong? The reason why the federal government should have control *when* the state is wrong and the federal government is right, is because...the state is wrong and the federal government is right. Ain't that pretty self-explanatory?

I don't know what you consider a human rights issue? Abortion is not a human rights issue? So, you're not sure how the American approach works for human rights, yet, you're pretty sure that "no state is ever going to implement a law that violates an individual's human rights"? Hm.

If you must get into the specifics of what other parties are potentially involved in an abortion, and count all of those who can potentially be impacted by an abortion, even if the potential impact of the abortion on those people is on the *periphery* of the effects of their usual activities -- currently, that list of people comprises of Irish individuals and non-Irish individuals, as Irish women who are forced to seek abortions in other countries would inevitably come into contact with medical facilities in other countries. If that list of individuals make up your "scope", then you'd need to set the "scope" higher than the state level, because the list of individuals involved protrudes from the borders of Ireland. If you wish to take that route, you can say the rest of the EU is impacted as well by the lack of abortion options in Ireland.

If you wish to take that route, the number of Irish people involved is still the minority. The doctors are individuals who can decide whether or not they're willing to perform the procedure, the medical staff can decide whether they're willing to take part. A general referendum on this issue is a majority rule that forces the majority's morality on the minority, so that the minority, e.g. the doctor who's willing to do the procedure, the staff who's willing to do the procedure, and the woman who needs one, *can't* express their own morality. If you actually support this, then you're contradicting yourself on moral minority not being forced by the moral majority into adopting the moral expressions of the majority.

If you're still confused about this minority-majority relationship, consider the simple case of self-induced abortion, which technically only involves the mother and the fetus. The Irish law bans even self-induced abortion.

And please don't put words in my mouth, I've never said "abortion is perfectly fine". It's not. Abortion is generally a difficult decision for the woman to make, but sometimes it's just the "best" option she has among all the other more terrible options. And I do accept that other people will have different opinions that are just as logical as mine, and oftentimes, others DO have different opinions that are more logical than mine. But I also know that, sometimes, the other person's opinion _just isn't that good_. From my experience, it's rare to see a valid argument from the anti-abortion camp, let alone a sound argument.

I totally respect whatever personal view someone might hold in private, they can think whatever thought they want to themselves, live in a parallel subjective reality in their head, and it'd be none of my business. But the moment the discussion enters the domain of public policy, everything need to be grounded by the objective reality, because public policy operates on it and the success of human society depends on it.

When someone gives a different answer, I call it a different answer; when someone gives a wrong answer, I call it a wrong answer. Just because they might feel very strongly about the validity of their answer doesn't mean a wrong answer isn't a wrong answer. And just because there exist huge divides on a topic doesn't mean there can be no right/wrong. "Can you trisect a 60-degree angle with only a compass and an unmarked straightedge?" People have different opinions on this, sometimes strong opinions and confident answers, and there's a huge divide on the solutions. Does that _prove_ that there's no right/wrong solutions? Don't be ridiculous.

You misunderstood what I meant by "justice"... "correcting a wrong decision made by a government" was what I meant, and if you need an example of a wrong decision, how about the ban on abortion?  Not everything has to involve the army. And I'm just a Canadian. How would I feel if other countries..."attack"(?)...attack?! As in, cyber attack? Nuclear attack? Why? I would feel...very puzzled. I mean, if my country's government started slaughtering everyone, and there's a humanitarian crysis in the country, then the international community would have an obligation to get involved militarily. But why "attack"?


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 25, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Maybe I "have yet to state a reason why we can't let the states do as they please when it comes to issues with no clear right/wrong", because I don't actually disagree that states should have their autonomy when they aren't clearly wrong? The reason why the federal government should have control *when* the state is wrong and the federal government is right, is because...the state is wrong and the federal government is right. Ain't that pretty self-explanatory?
> 
> I don't know what you consider a human rights issue? Abortion is not a human rights issue? So, you're not sure how the American approach works for human rights, yet, you're pretty sure that "no state is ever going to implement a law that violates an individual's human rights"? Hm.
> 
> ...


 
You still seem to be of the opinion that the majority of issues are black and white, when they really aren't. Check the video out below. Stumbled across it this morning, and it basically explains how the Republican's feel about states and their rights. If a state does something which aligns to their moral positions, then states are in the right. Yet, if a state does something the Republican's are morally against, then states are in the wrong. Sounds pretty familiar doesn't it?



You need to have consistency and logic in your policy. You might think that determining laws via right/wrong might be a good idea, but it's a very simplistic and naive view of the world. At the moment, your policy seems to be "well it doesn't matter who controls what, and it doesn't matter if their's a chaotic and confusing politic system with no real boundaries defined, as long as people follow what I believe is right/wrong". Here's some food for thought: Would you be happy if America was a dictatorship who had the exact same opinions as you had about everything? After all, he'd be implementing everything you feel is right/wrong (except removing everyone's right to vote), sounds like utopia right?

I'm not getting into the abortion debate, as we could argue forever about scope. But the fact of the matter is, an abortion in America does not affect Ireland in the least. Gun laws in America don't affect Germany in the least. Mandatory healthcare in America doesn't affect Italy in the least. A state introducing a law that gives its citizens the right to use drugs for recreational purposes, does not affect any other state. I'm sure even you can admit that all of that is true. And if you do agree, then that's how scope works. Why does it matter if one country is doing the wrong thing when it doesn't affect you in the least? Why do you feel obliged to butt in and force those people to follow your way? While it is possible in theory for an abortion in America to partially affect Ireland, the amount is negligible and can be regarded as 0.

The fact that the US has tried to force its morals onto other countries, and to force countries to obey its rules, has lead the US to getting attacked and hated by those countries. People are entitled to their beliefs, and are entitled to live the way they want to live. I personally don't concern myself with other people's business, unless it personally affects me. I'll never force anyone to change their ways if they are perfectly happy with their lives. It's a good moral to live by, and it's a moral that politics should be governed by.


----------



## Gahars (Nov 27, 2012)

Well, now that's a stinging bit of irony: It looks like Romney's final share of the popular vote will be 47%.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 27, 2012)

Peps said:


> You still seem to be of the opinion that the majority of issues are black and white, when they really aren't. Check the video out below. Stumbled across it this morning, and it basically explains how the Republican's feel about states and their rights. If a state does something which aligns to their moral positions, then states are in the right. Yet, if a state does something the Republican's are morally against, then states are in the wrong. Sounds pretty familiar doesn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm just of the opinion that policies should be based on reality, on what _actually_ works in reality, and not on what someone _imagines_ in their head might work. That "someone" includes myself. If my beliefs or opinions of what's good are shown to be false, then I am wrong. I don't know about you, but it just doesn't make sense to me that we should promote a policy that not only does not work in reality, but actually harms our society. That we should not allow such a policy, regardless of who promotes it, is a principle. That our decision making should be guided by science and research and reality, regardless of how (un)popular it might be, is a principle.

If the outcome of a "dictatorship" in America was an actually, observably _better_ America, compared to what a "democratic" America can produce, then yes, I would support such "dictatorship". There are a lot of objective measures of what's good or what's better for a society, e.g. the physical, the emotional, the social well-being of its citizens.

An abortion in Ireland would affect a random Irish local flowershop owner just as much as it would affect a random British flowershop owner -- that is to say, not very much. You can't use your "scope" argument to fix the issue of abortion to precisely the Irish national borders, I'm sorry. I'm not arguing for Britain's involvement in the abortion issue, I'm just arguing *against* the Irish government's involvement. I argue against the random Irish flowershop owner's right to have a say in this issue, just as much as I argue against the random British flowershop owner's right to have a say in the issue. However, your position seems to be that an abortion doesn't concern the British shop owner, but it concerns the Irish shop owner just as much as it would the pregnant woman herself, and therefore any random Irish shop owner deserves an equal say in the woman's pregnancy.

I wouldn't feel obliged to "butt in" if all Irish individuals were indeed happy about their abortion ban, and believed that's the right thing to do. The reality is, Ireland *doesn't* just have one single opinion on abortion, some Irish are against it, other Irish are not. A lot of Irish individuals actually want that option, and are forced to go underground because of the ruling of the majority. You think it's bad to be forced to follow a certain way that you don't personally believe in? You think people should be entitled to their own beliefs, and to live the way they want to live? Well, then you can empathize with these people who live in the same country as you: they are being forced to follow a certain way that they *don't* believe in. I hope you're at least against the Irish anti-abortion laws.

And why would I bother if it doesn't affect me? It's basic human compassion. I'm not sure what kind of person you are, but if I hear someone cry for "help", I would feel compelled to help (or to investigate at least). Right this very moment, there are women in Ireland who feel they have no other options, desperate, and will risk their own lives to get an abortion illegally, because some other Irish individuals felt *they* had the right to make the decision to not have an abortion for, no, to FORCE the decision to not have an abortion on these women. Can you hear these women's cries for help? Are you aware that these women exist in Ireland?


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 28, 2012)

leic7 said:


> I'm just of the opinion that policies should be based on reality, on what _actually_ works in reality, and not on what someone _imagines_ in their head might work. That "someone" includes myself. If my beliefs or opinions of what's good are shown to be false, then I am wrong. I don't know about you, but it just doesn't make sense to me that we should promote a policy that not only does not work in reality, but actually harms our society. That we should not allow such a policy, regardless of who promotes it, is a principle. That our decision making should be guided by science and research and reality, regardless of how (un)popular it might be, is a principle.
> 
> If the outcome of a "dictatorship" in America was an actually, observably _better_ America, compared to what a "democratic" America can produce, then yes, I would support such "dictatorship". There are a lot of objective measures of what's good or what's better for a society, e.g. the physical, the emotional, the social well-being of its citizens.
> 
> ...


 
Finally understanding your point of view now. But just to note, the fact we both have logical arguments and unique beliefs prove that right/wrong isn't as black and white as some people are making it out to be. Just getting that out there. We have a very different set of morals with their own logic, and neither can be scientifically tested. Just getting that out there.

You say that we should introduce rulings that benefit society. I agree with that completely. However, I believe people are always going to vote for what they believe is best. I can't imagine the majority of voters voting for something they don't approve of. Why would they? Do you believe that people should be free to choose what they feel is the correct approach? There are people out there who probably have the exact same policy of "if it's beneficial for citizens, it doesn't matter who enforces it", yet probably have a different set of policies from you and other people who have the same approach. What if all of the opinions are logically sound? How do you then decide what path to take? Do you let the concerned citizens vote? Do you let the whole world vote?

For the abortion issue, Irish doctors are concerned, and other citizens who might want an abortion will be consulting those Irish doctors. An Irish local flowershop owner may be one of those patients who need an abortion, and since they would most likely use an Irish doctor for the operation, they're concerned. A British flowershop owner on the other hand, would most likely use British doctors for an abortion. The scope is different, and they're completely isolated from each other. So you're correct, the random Irish shop owner does have a say, because they'll also probably use an Irish doctor for the service. Therefore, we can consider it as a state/country issue, but definitely not an EU issue, nor an issue that the American people should intervene on. Like I said, we could argue for ages on the topic.

You state that you wouldn't feel obliged to "butt in" if the citizens were happy with their decision, yet you just earlier stated you didn't disapprove of the federal government imposing its laws and forcing states to change laws that those states were happy with. You also didn't disapprove of other countries forcing the US to change its laws and morals to match the rest of the world. You also in the very same post approved of the idea of a dictator with good policies. I agree there isn't just a single opinion on how to go about certain issues, that's my entire point. It's how we decide which path to take that's the issue. By localising issues as much as possible, we're not stating that any opinion is the right opinion, and we're providing freedom to other people so that they can take their own path. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's much better than having unconcerned people deciding. Do you not agree that we should be providing more options and more freedom for people?

I listen to cries for help, but I take other factors into consideration as well. Are we bankrupt and do we have the funds to actually provide the help? How are our own citizens firstly? Is it a minority that's crying for help? Are the majority happy? If the majority are happy with their decision, why should we disrespect them and force them to change their ways? What if we did overturn the decision so that the minority are happy, wouldn't that in turn make the majority cry out for help? Would that not then cause an endless cycle?


----------



## leic7 (Nov 29, 2012)

Peps said:


> By localising issues as much as possible, we're not stating that any opinion is the right opinion, and we're providing freedom to other people so that they can take their own path. It's nowhere near perfect, but it's much better than having unconcerned people deciding. Do you not agree that we should be providing more options and more freedom for people?


I do agree, that's why I am pro-choice. So, you're also pro-choice on abortion?

Just in case that question somehow isn't clear enough, I'll try again, imagine this: I am an Irish woman and I am pregnant. I want an abortion. My doctor is willing to do the termination that I've requested. You don't think, that a random flowershop owner whom I've never known or met, should have a say in whether or not **I** should have **my** abortion, right?

You don't actually have a "logical argument" in your post, what you have are logical fallacies, but you don't seem to be aware of them. The benefits of a policy to society, and its harms to society, don't just exist inside our imagination, people have been doing tests on these benefits and harms in social science and medical science for ages. Surely we can "scientifically" test whether a policy _actually_ does more harm than good to our wellbeing.

Sometimes the results may be inconclusive, but other times it's fairly "black and white". For example, slavery, rape, a ban on abortion, a ban on same-sex marriage, those policies we can _objectively_ test whether they benefit society more, or whether they actually harm society more. The existence of different personal views on a specific topic does not "prove" the facts aren't clear, it only "proves" that small pockets of populations can remain selectively ignorant for a very long time.

But that's okay, as long as these ignorant views aren't enshrined in policy. NASA wouldn't ask the general public to vote on what type of fuel their next spacecraft should have, despite the passionate view a Joe Public might have on the issue and how happy it would've made him if they would use the ineffective fuel that he'd proposed. NASA as an organisation have the responsibility to make policies grounded in the objective reality, the same applies to governments, they too have a responsibility to make policies that actually work in reality. What this means in practical terms is that not every issue would be suitable material for voting on by everyone, that certain views would not be counted, that the government has a "leadership" role and not just a "representation" role, that those of us who aren't ignorant of the facts should employ any and all political apparatus to press for the correct things for society, and be part of the forces of history that will erode the strangleholds failed "beliefs" have on small populations.

A state is a *group* consisting of many individuals. When you say states are "happy" with certain laws, you really mean _many_ individuals in those states are happy with those laws, right? You don't actually think _every_ individual in those states is happy with those laws? If the majority of individuals in a group are the oppressors who deny the minority their basic rights, whether or not these oppressors are "happy" is irrelevant, it's whether or not their victims want change that matters. It wouldn't be right to stop a group's BDSM session if the sex is consensual, but it would be wrong not to stop a group rape, whether or not the majority of the rapists feel "happy" means absolutely nothing, because overall, rape does more tangible harm than good to the group. On abortion, overall, the Irish ban does more _tangible_ harm than good to the Irish people. Or do you "believe" that to be untrue?


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Nov 30, 2012)

leic7 said:


> I do agree, that's why I am pro-choice. So, you're also pro-choice on abortion?
> 
> Just in case that question somehow isn't clear enough, I'll try again, imagine this: I am an Irish woman and I am pregnant. I want an abortion. My doctor is willing to do the termination that I've requested. You don't think, that a random flowershop owner whom I've never known or met, should have a say in whether or not **I** should have **my** abortion, right?
> 
> ...


 
My personal view is abortion should be legal when the fetus isn't viable or during the first few weeks of conception (I forget the exact time interval). If the mother's life is in danger, and the child won't survive, then the mother should be allowed an abortion. If the child would survive, well, haven't made a decision on that one yet. That's my personal view of the topic if you were curious. Am I stating my view is the correct view? Nope. It just seems the most logical to me, yet to other people, other views may feel far more logical to them. Some people might say that you should never get rid of the fetus because it has its rights upon conception. Are they wrong? Well personally I don't feel sick at the idea of removing a clump of cells with no consciousness, yet another group might feel sick by it.

Other people may be using that doctor's services still, and then there's the unborn child's opinion we have to take into account as well. It's highly debatable, and you're ignoring the points I'm trying to make to you. An abortion in one state in the US does not affect any citizen in another state. You argue that state's are a "group" of individuals, and if that was the case, it's a pretty large group. Ireland in that case is just a tiny "group" of people who should be subject to everything that the rest of the world says we should do. The better equivalent of a state is an EU country, since physical size and population are very similar, if not identical. Similarly the US is comparable to the EU. California apparently has a population of around 37.5 million people. Ireland only has a population of 4.5 million. Are you seriously suggesting that the states are insignificant and don't have enough people to consider themselves as countries?

There's logic to my posts, you're just not understanding the logic. Your logic barely makes any sense to me because there's you're arguing that there should be no structure to law, and that there's only one correct way of doing things. You can try do scientific testing on social issues, but the results will always vary on the pool of people you've selected. Look at how elections work. Note how one state might vote very differently to another state. People living in different areas always grow up with different opinions. It's not like the whole world speaks English, nor does the whole world have the same taste in food or music. You can try scientifically test what music people like the most, and if you selected a pool of people from Japan, and another pool from Ireland, the results are going to drastically differ.

The majority of social issues these days are not black or white, just like music taste isn't black or white. Something that might not harm one society might harm another society. People are not the same. You grew up with one way of thinking, and I grew up with another way of thinking.


----------



## leic7 (Nov 30, 2012)

Peps said:


> My personal view is abortion should be legal when the fetus isn't viable or during the first few weeks of conception (I forget the exact time interval). If the mother's life is in danger, and the child won't survive, then the mother should be allowed an abortion. If the child would survive, well, haven't made a decision on that one yet. That's my personal view of the topic if you were curious. Am I stating my view is the correct view? Nope. It just seems the most logical to me, yet to other people, other views may feel far more logical to them. Some people might say that you should never get rid of the fetus because it has its rights upon conception. Are they wrong? Well personally I don't feel sick at the idea of removing a clump of cells with no consciousness, yet another group might feel sick by it.
> 
> Other people may be using that doctor's services still, and then there's the unborn child's opinion we have to take into account as well. It's highly debatable, and you're ignoring the points I'm trying to make to you. An abortion in one state in the US does not affect any citizen in another state. You argue that state's are a "group" of individuals, and if that was the case, it's a pretty large group. Ireland in that case is just a tiny "group" of people who should be subject to everything that the rest of the world says we should do. The better equivalent of a state is an EU country, since physical size and population are very similar, if not identical. Similarly the US is comparable to the EU. California apparently has a population of around 37.5 million people. Ireland only has a population of 4.5 million. Are you seriously suggesting that the states are insignificant and don't have enough people to consider themselves as countries?
> 
> ...


What does "other people may be using that doctor's services still", have to do with whether or not *I* should be able to choose abortion for myself?

Should you have a say in whether I can or cannot have my abortion? Should I have a say in whether you can or cannot have your abortion?

An abortion, let's say *my* abortion, in one state, doesn't affect most citizens in another state, you say? And you use that to deny most citizens in the other state the ability to have a say in *my* abortion? Well, *my* abortion doesn't affect most citizens in my state, either. So you should use that to also deny most citizens in my state the ability to have a say in *my* abortion. Do you deny the strangers in my state the right to vote on *my* abortion decision?

There's only one Irish reality, I didn't ask a general question about "something" that might not harm one society but might harm another society, I asked a very specific question about the Irish reality: Do you believe the Irish ban on abortion does more _practical_ good than harm to the Irish society?

Btw, your personal view on abortion is even more stringent than the currect Irish ban on abortion, lol, it would be funny if it weren't so darn tragic that views like that can cause women to die needlessly, e.g. Savita Halappanavar.

Dunno why you got the "insignificant" connotation from the word "group"; the entire world's human population is a group consisting of many individuals, a country is a group of many individuals, a state is a group of many individuals, etc. Another thing I've noticed is words such as "country" and "state" seem to have some sort of magical effects on you... forgive me I must've missed the lesson on "Tribal Mentality" in kindergarten.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Dec 3, 2012)

leic7 said:


> What does "other people may be using that doctor's services still", have to do with whether or not I should be able to choose abortion for myself?
> 
> Should you have a say in whether I can or cannot have my abortion? Should I have a say in whether you can or cannot have your abortion?
> 
> ...


 
Your abortion affects a local third party, namely the child. Therefore, you have to go a step higher in terms of scope. Your argument isn't as simple as "it's my abortion". Now it's up to the citizens to vote on whether or not the state should have the right to legalise abortion, or the US federal government, or the rest of the world to decide for the US.

I told you my position on abortion. I have no evidence to suggest that an abortion ban significantly saves more lives, nor do I have evidence to suggest that a lack of abortion law significantly saves more lives. There are situations where an abortion ban prevents some stupid idiot from killing a perfectly self-aware child, and there are situations where an abortion ban unnecessarily kills the life of the mother and the child. There's pros and cons to both sides of the argument.

Although please explain to me how my view on abortion would have caused the Savita incident to happen? I clearly told you that "If the mother's life is in danger, and the child won't survive, then the mother should be allowed an abortion". The issue with Savita wasn't that she died as a result of not getting an abortion. The issue was that everyone knew that the child wouldn't survive, so the mother had to die unnecessarily. The current Irish abortion laws don't allow any abortion, period. My views allows a woman to remove a clump of cells from their body in the first period of pregnancy (again, I forget the exact conditions), and tries to ensure we save as many lives as possible, prioritising the life of the newborn. I fail to see how that's more strict.

Besides, this whole debate on abortion has nothing to do with whether or not Ireland should get to decide its abortion laws, or if America should decide what Ireland's abortion laws are. Your arguments are still suggesting that Ireland should have the right to force America to change its abortion laws. Your arguments are suggesting that America should force the EU to change its abortion laws. Your arguments are suggesting that Japan should be able to force your state to change its abortion laws. After all, the world is just a "group" of individuals. Therefore it shouldn't matter if the rest of the world is allowed to decide what laws to impose on you. What you're suggesting is chaos. You seem to think the world is a simple matter of black and white and that "justice" has a clear definition. Forgive me I must have missed the lesson on "reality" in kindergarten.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 3, 2012)

Christ you guys have been tossing your salads for the past like page with these walls of text.

I'm gonna start taking bets on how long this will go.


----------



## lovewiibrew (Dec 4, 2012)

So I'm not gonna read 45 pages of posts, but all I have to say is Ron Paul was the only hope this country had to really change things for the better, and instead, the American people chose increased government control and the continuation of the welfare state. When things finally come tumbling down, I can at least say I saw it coming.


----------



## leic7 (Dec 5, 2012)

Peps said:


> Your abortion affects a local third party, namely the child. Therefore, you have to go a step higher in terms of scope. Your argument isn't as simple as "it's my abortion". Now it's up to the citizens to vote on whether or not the state should have the right to legalise abortion, or the US federal government, or the rest of the world to decide for the US.
> 
> I told you my position on abortion. I have no evidence to suggest that an abortion ban significantly saves more lives, nor do I have evidence to suggest that a lack of abortion law significantly saves more lives. There are situations where an abortion ban prevents some stupid idiot from killing a perfectly self-aware child, and there are situations where an abortion ban unnecessarily kills the life of the mother and the child. There's pros and cons to both sides of the argument.
> 
> ...


Wait, so now you've dropped the "random flowershop owner could be affected therefore random flowershop owner should have a say in Sarah's abortion" line of reasoning, and are opting instead for, "every citizen in the state should have a say in Sarah's abortion because there are 2 or 3 parties involved in Sarah's abortion"?

Current Irish laws do allow abortion, if the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide. That limited right to abortion was established in 1992 by the Irish Supreme Court case "the X Case", your parliament just never made new legislation to reflect (or override) that Supreme Court decision, resulting in the lack of legal clarity as to when and how a woman can obtain an abortion if her life is at risk. Your view is more strict than what the current law would allow, because you include more prerequisites for when a woman can be "allowed" an abortion: "the child won't survive" isn't a condition in the law, but it is in yours.

Views like that could cause women to die needlessly, because no clear distinction between when a mother's "_life_" is at risk, and when her "_health_" is at risk, can be drawn. To artificially impose an imaginary distinction that makes no medical sense whatsoever, will make doctors wait until the very last minute to perform a termination that should've happened a long time ago but didn't, because of fears of potential prosecution for a termination when the risk wasn't deemed great "enough". When the risk is deemed great "enough", it could very well be already too late.

Actually, the debate on abortion has much to do with whether or not other people should get involved in helping organisations such as Choice Ireland to achieve policy changes in Ireland. This is a matter about right and wrong. The Irish ban on abortion overall has harmed the Irish society more than it has benefited it. You see "no evidence" of it? You *believe* the Irish ban could do both harm and good equally in some imaginary society? Well, that's not reality. Talk with some real people who have experienced and been affected by the ban, learn from people who know more about this topic than you, google it, then maybe you'll see plenty evidence of actual human suffering, with none of the imaginary "benefits". The reality of the abortion issue is actually "a simple matter of black and white" in this regard. What I'm suggesting is the wrong policy should be corrected, by members of the in-group or members of an out-group, or both. There being a *wrong* policy is my premise, don't forget that; with that premise, "it shouldn't matter if the rest of the world is allowed to decide what laws to impose on us" as long as those laws *actually* benefit our society. As I've said, right and wrong have no in-group loyalty. There's only the reality of whether a society is actually harmed by something.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Dec 5, 2012)

leic7 said:


> Wait, so now you've dropped the "random flowershop owner could be affected therefore random flowershop owner should have a say in Sarah's abortion" line of reasoning, and are opting instead for, "every citizen in the state should have a say in Sarah's abortion because there are 2 or 3 parties involved in Sarah's abortion"?
> 
> Current Irish laws do allow abortion, if the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide. That limited right to abortion was established in 1992 by the Irish Supreme Court case "the X Case", your parliament just never made new legislation to reflect (or override) that Supreme Court decision, resulting in the lack of legal clarity as to when and how a woman can obtain an abortion if her life is at risk. Your view is more strict than what the current law would allow, because you include more prerequisites for when a woman can be "allowed" an abortion: "the child won't survive" isn't a condition in the law, but it is in yours.
> 
> ...


 
You're missing the point of what I'm trying to tell you. It's highly debatable as to what scope an abortion law should affect. We could argue for ages on it, but I'm pretty sure we both agree that the EU should have no say in it because it doesn't affect other EU members in the least. Why should it? The more remote you get, the less the impact. Hence, if we were to compare the EU to the US which in terms of population and landscape and control are very similar, it makes no sense why other "foreign" states should have a say on a ruling in another state, especially for issues where there is no clear right or wrong. I'm not making any final say on what I think the scope should be. I'm just trying to make you recognise that there's simply no reason for the federal government to impose a ruling. If the federal government is allowed to impose a ruling, then the rest of the world should be allowed to force you to stop your silly laws, without any refusal of course.

In regards to Irish abortion, again, you're missing the point entirely. Everyone knew the child wouldn't survive, so rather than try to save the mother's life, the doctors involved decided that "we're a catholic country", and decided to let the mother die unnecessarily along with the child. In my views, the mother would still be allowed to live. I fail to see how that's more strict. If only one individual would survive, it makes more logical sense to allow the child to live over the mother, as the child never had a chance to live. Children are always the priority when it comes to saving lives. And of course, if there is no child to save or the child has a huge risk of dying, you might as save as many lives as possible. Again, explain properly how is that more strict? The Irish law as written, doesn't allow for any abortion, period. There has been exception cases before as you've noted, but that hasn't affected anything. Also I'm pretty sure doctors are capable enough to determine whether or not the mother's life is at risk well before the child is due.

I'm only playing devil's advocate in this next part. You're only looking at one side of the coin. You could alternatively look at the flip side, and look at the number children that have been saved that could have unnecessarily been killed. Is it right to unnecessarily kill innocent children that never had the opportunity to live? Have you ever looked at the sickening images that the "pro-life" people have presented of the reality of abortions? Children with clearly human features have been killed. That's why these topics are not black and white. Why should someone who had a whole life, be prioritised over someone who was killed before they had a chance to even live a single day? That's why my stance is that abortions should only be restricted to the first few weeks of a pregnancy (again, I forget the exact time period, but regardless current Irish law does not allow it), and if it's discovered at any point that lives are at risk (which again, current Irish law does not allow). 

To summarise our view points: I believe that laws should be localised as much as possible. If it's something like social issues, social issues are inherently local in nature, thus there's simply no reason for the US federal government or the European Union to get involved. The only things they should be getting involved in are laws to do with the single currency and trade, and foreign affairs. I believe in a logical structure to law, and with current modern issues, I don't believe there is a such thing as right/wrong when it comes to them. All sides are logical, and to maximise the citizens options, it makes no sense for federal-like governments to get involved.

Your views of right/wrong is very naive in my opinion. If thinks were that simple, there would be no such thing as debates, and there would be no such thing as politicians. You're suggesting that we shouldn't have a rule of law. You're suggesting that we should have a "righteous" world dictator, and citizens shouldn't be allowed to have their say. You're suggesting that only one way is the right way. It's a chaotic and worrying point of view.


----------



## Engert (Dec 5, 2012)

I have a question for Peps and Leic. I have been reading your discussion and it's kind of complicated to find the fine line between Local and Federal law. Peps you make the case that Federal law is not healthy. But you do support the rule of law. A case where Federal Government should step in is the case of the Second Amendment. Currently that's up to the local town or states to grant you a firearm license. Now, what happens if the Police Chief is a tree hugging liberal and hates the second amendment? This is the case where Federal Government should step in. 
But my question was more on the abortion topic.
Why is abortion important to both of you and how does it affect you on a personal level?
Thanks.


----------



## leic7 (Dec 6, 2012)

What exactly is "highly debatable" about the "scope"? Should Mary's neighbour have a say in her abortion? Is that "debatable"? Should my neighbour have a say in Mary's abortion? Is that "debatable"?

If you believe laws should be localised as much as possible, then you would reject any restrictions on abortion imposed by a large group of individuals (the state) on the smaller localised group of individuals (mother, fetus, doctor & a few others), and support the smaller group of individuals making their own laws. Since all sides are logical, to maximise the citizens "options", it makes no sense for federal-like *and state-like* governments to get involved...right?

Disregard the EU for a moment and focus on Ireland, every John, Paul, and Matthew in Ireland shouldn't have a say in Mary's abortion to begin with, yes or no?

By "law" I didn't just mean what's written in legislation, the precedents set by the courts and the courts' interpretations of the legislation, are also a part of the "law". An abortion is legal in Ireland if the mother's life is at real and substantial risk from the pregnancy. A legal abortion takes into no account the status of the fetus, whether the fetus can survive or not is not a condition that must be satisfied in order for the legal abortion to occur. In other words, a woman can have an abortion legally even if her fetus can survive. The trouble for the last 20 years for the women and the doctors seeking legal abortions is in determining exactly when a mother's life is considered at risk _enough_ by law. There isn't a 'litmus test' for whether or not someone's life is at risk. Is a 0.1% estimated risk of death _enough_ risk? What about a 1% risk? 10%? 20%? 50%? 90%?



Peps said:


> If only one individual would survive, it makes more logical sense to allow the child to live over the mother, as the child never had a chance to live.


... *What?*

If the goal is simply to give the "child" who never had a chance to live, a chance to live, wouldn't it be slightly more charitable to save the mother's life, so her future "children" can have that chance? I presume you would also be against the use of condoms? Because condoms prevent all the potential little "children" who never had a chance to live from ever getting that chance. Just imagine all the lives "saved" if contraception was banned.

Imagine all the lives "saved" when women are forced to carry their pregnancies to full term, against their will. I can imagine that, along with the cost. At the minimum, it will cost these women's right to autonomy of their own bodies for the duration of their pregnancy. That's far too great a cost. We generally don't demand people give up their right to autonomy, just to "save" lives. But perhaps you have a different vision? Just think of all the lives that could have been saved if we forced people to donate their organs, and forced them to work for the benefit of others?

Certain issues are in fact quite simple. The reason there are "debates" about these simple issues is because the ignorant can't see that they are ignorant, and remain in perpetual delusion by their own ignorance, all the while fantasizing that the problem at hand is truly, _truly_ open.

Maybe I did miss your point... are you trying to tell me, there is "no reason" the EU should impose a ruling on a human right issue, and it makes "no sense" the federal government in the US should have a say in a human right issue? Like, an outsider would have no reason to stop a rape, since it doesn't affect them? Or, it wouldn't make sense for a bystander to stop bullying, as long as they're not the victim themselves? Or, it doesn't make sense for others to stop the human rights violations by the ban on abortion, so long as their own human rights aren't violated?

I don't agree that the EU should have no say in its member states' domestic laws, if those laws violate the fundamental rights of the EU citizens within the states. One of the main functions of the Union is to "harmonise" differences across its member states, and one of the main areas the Union plays the "harmonising" role in is human rights protection. Member states are bounded by the treaties of the Union, so legally, the EU does have some say in this.

Meanwhile, the federal government of the US is already "allowed to impose a ruling" on the abortion issue on the states, _Roe v. Wade_ is an example of that. Has the sky fallen?


----------



## leic7 (Dec 6, 2012)

Engert said:


> I have a question for Peps and Leic. I have been reading your discussion and it's kind of complicated to find the fine line between Local and Federal law. Peps you make the case that Federal law is not healthy. But you do support the rule of law. A case where Federal Government should step in is the case of the Second Amendment. Currently that's up to the local town or states to grant you a firearm license. Now, what happens if the Police Chief is a tree hugging liberal and hates the second amendment? This is the case where Federal Government should step in.
> But my question was more on the abortion topic.
> Why is abortion important to both of you and how does it affect you on a personal level?
> Thanks.


It doesn't affect me on a personal level. I care, however, because abortion really shouldn't still be an "issue" in this day and age, but it still is. Why this issue in particular? I suppose all those women's struggles and suffering in getting an abortion must have touched a chord with me.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Dec 6, 2012)

Engert said:


> I have a question for Peps and Leic. I have been reading your discussion and it's kind of complicated to find the fine line between Local and Federal law. Peps you make the case that Federal law is not healthy. But you do support the rule of law. A case where Federal Government should step in is the case of the Second Amendment. Currently that's up to the local town or states to grant you a firearm license. Now, what happens if the Police Chief is a tree hugging liberal and hates the second amendment? This is the case where Federal Government should step in.
> But my question was more on the abortion topic.
> Why is abortion important to both of you and how does it affect you on a personal level?
> Thanks.


 
The issue of a corrupt police officer really has nothing to do with the federal government, but really is a police issue that should be resolved internally. If the citizens of a state voted to have firearms legalised, then their votes should be respected. While it is a constitutional issue, there's no reason for the federal government to step in when the issue can easily be resolved internally first. Having said that, if the citizens voted to ban guns, I don't see the issue, even if it goes against federal law.

But remember, the right to bear arms really has nothing to do with having a license to use a weapon. It's in the constitution to basically tell the federal government that the citizens are entitled to kick them out whenever they want, in order to prevent tyranny. It's to ensure that citizens always maintain control. 

I'm not understanding your abortion question. On a personal level, since I'm male it can never be personal. But in my viewpoint, I care about the rights of the mother and of the unborn child. Murder isn't legal, so we should be consistent with the law. The right to abort a perfectly viable child with a heartbeat is akin to murder, and implies that the mother is entitled to end the life of their child even after birth. It might not affect me personally, but I care about my country and its citizens. I want to ensure that all citizens have a fair chance, and prematurely ending the life of an innocent child should not be allowed.



leic7 said:


> What exactly is "highly debatable" about the "scope"? Should Mary's neighbour have a say in her abortion? Is that "debatable"? Should my neighbour have a say in Mary's abortion? Is that "debatable"?
> 
> If you believe laws should be localised as much as possible, then you would reject any restrictions on abortion imposed by a large group of individuals (the state) on the smaller localised group of individuals (mother, fetus, doctor & a few others), and support the smaller group of individuals making their own laws. Since all sides are logical, to maximise the citizens "options", it makes no sense for federal-like *and state-like* governments to get involved...right?
> 
> ...


 
If you want to prevent chaos, you have to have "levels" with scope. First you have the individual, and an individual is entitled to do whatever they want with their own body. If they want to damage their body with excessive alcohol consumption, they should be allowed to. Next level after that is family, then town, then county, then state, and then finally federal. Pretty simple stuff really. You need to maintain structure in order to prevent chaos. The problem here, is determining what the scope is. Abortion is clearly not an individual issue or family issue. It's at minimum a town issue, but the odds are, the doctor providing the service lives in an entirely different county, therefore, we use the state level of voting. Your views don't promote structure, and instead promotes conflict and chaos.

Court rulings are naturally an unwritten part of law, but the fact of the matter is, the Savita case is huge because it was known that neither the mother nor child would survive. If the condition of the fetus is never taken into account, then you might as well allow a mother to kill her child (with a perfectly normal heartbeat) to kill her child whenever she wants, born or not. And again, good laws would take the opinion of qualified professionals, as opposed to using measurements. If a doctor feels their patient has a death risk, and they feel the child is not going to survive, then I'm sure their opinion is good enough. Nobody has suggested using a percentage test, as that would be outright silly. 



> ... *What?*
> 
> If the goal is simply to give the "child" who never had a chance to live, a chance to live, wouldn't it be slightly more charitable to save the mother's life, so her future "children" can have that chance? I presume you would also be against the use of condoms? Because condoms prevent all the potential little "children" who never had a chance to live from ever getting that chance. Just imagine all the lives "saved" if contraception was banned.
> 
> ...


 
Why would I be against the use of condoms? You're completely misunderstanding my argument. There's a period of time into the pregnancy when a fetus can be considered as a human that's alive. While it may still be highly dependent on the mother, the fact is, it's alive. I forget the period of time, but before that occurs, any abortion is fine with me, as the fetus is not conscious and isn't alive. It's only after that that abortions can be considered the same as murder. You're killing something that's alive, and that's just sick. You're meant to be the "land of opportunities". So it makes more sense to provide opportunities to everything that's alive.

We have plenty of systems in place now where women can give their children to other families to take care of. There's simply no reason for the first option to be aborting the child. If a mother never wished to have a child, they should have either used protection, or have aborted the child much sooner in the pregnancy. At worst, they can proceed with their pregnancy and the child can live in peace with different parents. There are couples out there who want kids, yet are unable to give birth themselves. Shouldn't we save the lives of these children, and ensure they go to loving families? You state that women shouldn't lose the right to control one's body, but why does that give her the right to determine whether or not an alive child should have the right to live or die?

Hence, it's not a simple issue. It's unfair to call other opinions ignorant when they have perfectly valid reasonings.

Abortion has nothing to do with human rights, and if it does, then you have to consider the child's human rights. No state is going to legalise rape. No state is going to legalise bullying. I don't see why you're attempting to raise them as valid points.

The EU can no doubt try to recommend and convince member states to change laws. But if a state feels like their law is superior, they should be allowed to implement that law. After all, perhaps that state sees something potentially innovative and amazing with their implementation that the EU might have overseen. Not to mention, why should a member state purposely damage their own country for the benefit of other countries? The EU has cosntantly been trying to convince Ireland to raise its corporation tax levels. However, our low corporation tax makes Ireland an attractive location for foreign businesses to set up, and helps boost our economy. If we were to follow the EU and get rid of it, our economy would take a heavy impact. Remember, a treaty is not a law, it's a non-binding agreement.

Structure is what I want, I don't really care about right/wrong, as long as people get what they voted for.


----------



## leic7 (Dec 8, 2012)

Peps said:


> The issue of a corrupt police officer really has nothing to do with the federal government, but really is a police issue that should be resolved internally. If the citizens of a state voted to have firearms legalised, then their votes should be respected. While it is a constitutional issue, there's no reason for the federal government to step in when the issue can easily be resolved internally first. Having said that, if the citizens voted to ban guns, I don't see the issue, even if it goes against federal law.
> 
> But remember, the right to bear arms really has nothing to do with having a license to use a weapon. It's in the constitution to basically tell the federal government that the citizens are entitled to kick them out whenever they want, in order to prevent tyranny. It's to ensure that citizens always maintain control.
> 
> ...


 
"Abortion is clearly not an individual issue or family issue" and it's "at minimum a town issue"... because why?

Because the individuals affected might come from different families and different places of the town? And *suddenly*, everyone else, who isn't affected by Jennifer's abortion, in every other family throughout the whole town gets to have a say in Jennifer's abortion? I'm not following the leap of logic here. Please justify why everyone else automatically gets a say in the termination of Jennifer's pregnancy, but not in the termination of Jennifer's sexual relationship with Peter, who lives in an entirely different county or a different part of the town.

Are you really that ignorant of the Irish reality? Even _I_ know that the Irish law permits abortion if the pregnancy threatens the woman's life. The condition of the fetus isn't taken into account, but whether or not the woman could die _is_ taken into account. In the judgment in the _X Case_, Finlay C.J. wrote: "... if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40,s.3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution." (1)

It's not that the doctors can't tell when a woman's life is at risk in medical terms, they always publish those percentages in medical literature, so the doctors know something carries a ___% risk to a person's life. These "qualified professionals" don't use "feelings" to do their work, they use "measurements", this is a scientific discipline after all. If you want a strictly medical opinion, then a 0.1% risk of death is a risk of death, a 1% risk of death is a higher risk of death, a 10% risk of death is an even higher risk of death. That's what a doctor can tell you in their professional capacity.

What they can't tell you, however, is at what point exactly, does the medical risk become "a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk" *in legal terms*. They can't tell whether a termination performed when there's a 1/100 chance the mother could die from continued pregnancy, would cause themselves legal troubles later on, should somebody else lodge a complaint that 1/100 isn't real and substantial enough for the termination. So naturally, many doctors would hesitate, when they're uncertain about the legal implications of a certain procedure. And they would procrastinate, until the woman's condition has deteriorated to such a point that no one would think of complaining the risk isn't great enough; then and only then, would they do the procedure. At that point, not only does the pregnancy pose a greater risk to the mother's life, the termination itself carries a greater risk too, due to the more advanced pregnancy. As all odds are stacked against the woman, it's only a matter of time before tragedy strikes.

It's nice that you're "sure" a doctor's own opinion is "good enough" to prevent them from falling victim to any potential legal issues surrounding abortion, I'm afraid the doctors themselves and most people in Ireland aren't so sure about this. As observed in the judgment of _A, B and C v. Ireland_: "While a constitutional provision of this scope is not unusual, no criteria or procedures have been subsequently laid down in Irish law, whether in legislation, case law or otherwise, by which that risk is to be measured or determined, leading to uncertainty as to its precise application." (2) The resonance of that sentiment can be heard in most discussions on this topic: here, here, here, here, here, etc. And, of course, once again in the report of the "expert group" on the issue that was published recently: here.

International treaties such as The European Convention on Human Rights, The Treaties of the European Union, The Treaty of Lisbon, are binding agreements. Rulings of the European courts are binding on the states. They're all part of international law.


Define what you mean by "alive". Perhaps I'll know which "period" you're talking about then.

Also, do you support abortion (on demand) all the way up to the point where the fetus is "alive"?


You seem to think that "getting born" should be treated like some sort of "equal opportunity pony ride", where everyone "alive" should get a chance at being born, but once they've had that chance, they should be willing to give up their seat for someone else. Which begs the question: *why* should "getting born" be treated as an "equal opportunity pony ride" to begin with?


No clue what you're even thinking when you say "abortion has nothing to do with human rights". Again, what on earth do you think human rights are? Take a read at the court documents from various countries regarding the abortion debate, the central arguments have always been about human rights.

In case you've forgotten, before other families can take care of the children, the women would have to actually _complete_ their pregnancies, first. Abortion takes place during that time, when the pregnancy hasn't completed, and other families can't just take care of the "children". If a woman can be *compelled* by threat of arrest & imprisonment, to loan her body for others (e.g. fetus, adoptive family) to use for *their* own benefits, which are unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations -- that's in effect (reproductive) *slavery*.

The mother has always been the one who "determines" whether or not her fetus lives or dies: abortion isn't the only time a mother makes a choice on its behalf, childbirth is another time a mother makes a choice that's solely her own, without consultation whatsoever with the fetus. The fetus *never* chose to live, or die. Either way, that decision is made by someone else.

No state _in the modern era_ is going to legalise rape, or bullying, and no state _in the modern era_ is going to legalise (reproductive) slavery. Do you see the point of those examples, *now*?  This has dragged on much longer than I had anticipated, when I first brought up the slavery example. The Irish ban on abortion is in fact what you've called a "dark age" concept, the page of history has already turned on this issue, yet some people seem completely oblivious of that reality. Just like the Creationists who sincerely believe their opinions on evolution aren't ignorant.


There's no such thing as "people get what they voted for" on abortion, there's only "the majority get what they voted for"; the Irish people who voted against the ban did *not* get what they voted for, and they are the ones who will suffer as a result of the ban, not the majority. If you truly want structure, then perhaps you should start caring about right/wrong, because an unadaptive majority rule that is wrong can lead to the destruction of your precious "structure".


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Dec 10, 2012)

leic7 said:


> "Abortion is clearly not an individual issue or family issue" and it's "at minimum a town issue"... because why?
> 
> Because the individuals affected might come from different families and different places of the town? And *suddenly*, everyone else, who isn't affected by Jennifer's abortion, in every other family throughout the whole town gets to have a say in Jennifer's abortion? I'm not following the leap of logic here. Please justify why everyone else automatically gets a say in the termination of Jennifer's pregnancy, but not in the termination of Jennifer's sexual relationship with Peter, who lives in an entirely different county or a different part of the town.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not turning this debate into a debate about abortion, because there's no point to debating it and its an entirely different topic. We clearly have entirely different views on who should be allowed to live or die. There is a such thing as dealing with the consequences, and we shouldn't be giving women an opportunity to kill an innocent child, just because they don't feel like having a child. I'm not going to start going into circumstances like rape as we could start going on for ages. The point is however, is that you're failing to recognise that the child is allowed to have his say as well. There are consequences to life, and immaturely allowing murder is not the way to go. I have no idea why you're comparing it to slavery either, because the woman put herself into an unfavourable position. If the woman didn't want to face of the consequences of pregnancy (again, ignoring rape otherwise we could go on forever), then she shouldn't have had sex. It's a potential consequence that everyone should always have in the back of the heads whenever they engage in sexual activity. We should not be promoting immaturity.

Although I will note, that all percentages doctors give are based on their experiences, thus is based on how they "feel" about the circumstances. Majority of estimates people make are based on how they feel something will play out. They're arbitrary values, similar to stuff like review scores. While you could apply some measurements, arbitrary percentages and review scores and so on, are ultimately based on how the individual feels about the action or the media. In software development, I always have to give estimates on how long I feel something will take. While I could probably give more accurate measurements, the idea of agile is that people give estimates on how long they feel something will take so that business can be done quicker. It's all logical still, but you're going to have plenty of unanswered questions. My professional opinion may be sometimes wrong, but you're going to have situations like that a lot. But again, good laws would not never use arbitrary measurements, and would use the advice of professionals. It would be outright silly for law to determine something it knows nothing about, and that is often circumstantial.

Anywho, you clearly believe right/wrong is a clear as black/white. It's fundamentally an entirely different approach to law, and one I cannot approve of as it doesn't give individuals the right to voice their opinion. You want to completely ignore their opinions, while only listening to one that you believe is right. If people want to change law and are unhappy with how a vote played out, they shouldn't hope that someone more powerful than them would come in and save the day. The people should instead, get off their rear ends and start getting politically active. They should start debating, and start getting their message heard. Structure comes first, right/wrong comes second. You can't implement right/wrong unless you have the structure in place to do so. Again, you're stating that it's perfectly fine for law and politics to be abolished, as long as everyone follows your views of "right/wrong".

You do understand why different political parties exist? Do you honestly think people would fight for something "wrong" that they can't back up? People have their own right/wrong beliefs, just like you have your own that you're trying to make me follow. I understand your point of view perfectly fine, but I believe its fundamentally wrong. You don't believe voting should exist, I do.


----------



## leic7 (Dec 11, 2012)

Peps said:


> I'm not turning this debate into a debate about abortion, because there's no point to debating it and its an entirely different topic. We clearly have entirely different views on who should be allowed to live or die. There is a such thing as dealing with the consequences, and we shouldn't be giving women an opportunity to kill an innocent child, just because they don't feel like having a child. I'm not going to start going into circumstances like rape as we could start going on for ages. The point is however, is that you're failing to recognise that the child is allowed to have his say as well. There are consequences to life, and immaturely allowing murder is not the way to go. I have no idea why you're comparing it to slavery either, because the woman put herself into an unfavourable position. If the woman didn't want to face of the consequences of pregnancy (again, ignoring rape otherwise we could go on forever), then she shouldn't have had sex. It's a potential consequence that everyone should always have in the back of the heads whenever they engage in sexual activity. We should not be promoting immaturity.
> 
> Although I will note, that all percentages doctors give are based on their experiences, thus is based on how they "feel" about the circumstances. Majority of estimates people make are based on how they feel something will play out. They're arbitrary values, similar to stuff like review scores. While you could apply some measurements, arbitrary percentages and review scores and so on, are ultimately based on how the individual feels about the action or the media. In software development, I always have to give estimates on how long I feel something will take. While I could probably give more accurate measurements, the idea of agile is that people give estimates on how long they feel something will take so that business can be done quicker. It's all logical still, but you're going to have plenty of unanswered questions. My professional opinion may be sometimes wrong, but you're going to have situations like that a lot. But again, good laws would not never use arbitrary measurements, and would use the advice of professionals. It would be outright silly for law to determine something it knows nothing about, and that is often circumstantial.
> 
> ...


So, I take it you've (again) shifted your argument from "this is all about _scope_", to "this is about dealing with the _consequences_"? lol Do you still want to hold on to the "scope" argument for a while longer, or are you strictly hanging from the "consequences" one, now? And nope, we can't start going on for "ages" if you start going into circumstances like rape, because you know you've *lost* that argument before it even started. Just let me ask you this: should a rape victim be allowed to have an abortion, or not?

I completely agree it's silly for law to determine something it knows nothing about... I suppose you would support a clear legislation that aims to protect doctors from any potential prosecution for the abortions they perform, as long as they personally feel the abortion's warranted?

Again, are you "pro-choice" up to the point where the fetus is "alive"? Define "alive" while you're at it.

The legal "structure" of the federal government, and of the European Union, is already in place... Are you advocating it should be abolished, modified, or what?

Accepting that not all answers are equally "right", is the first step to any policy discussion. Otherwise, we should simply flip a coin, or roll a dice, to determine which policy to enforce. It would serve no purpose to discuss the policies before a decision's announced, other than to satisfy some people's curiosity, which does not need to be satisfied right *before* the decision's made.

So I don't know how accepting that some answers can be objectively wrong, is equivalent to "it doesn't give individuals the right to 'voice' their opinion"? Everyone certainly has the right to "think" about it and "talk" about it, however wrong their opinion may be. But you don't just mean "thinking" and "talking" about it, do you? You want a certain opinion -- the majority's opinion -- enshrined in law, so that everyone else who disagrees with it, will be forced into submission. You see how utterly contradictory the things you want to achieve are? Does the woman who wants to have an abortion have the right to "voice" her opinion, or not?

And yes, I do honestly think people would fight for something "wrong" that they can't back up. Creationists, god-worshipers, and the like aren't really just a figment of my imagination, or are they?

They're wrong; however, I don't make them follow my beliefs, they can *think* that way, and *talk* that way, all day every day. I've never tried to make _you_ follow my beliefs, either. I fully support your right to follow your own beliefs. I also fully support Jenny's right to follow her own beliefs. And my right to follow mine. You're personally against abortion? Cool, then don't have one, I won't force you to have an abortion. Jenny wants to get an abortion? Do it safely, I'll do whatever I can to help, I won't force her to not get it. I want an abortion? I should be able to get one without harassment from people like you. Sound fair? So, follow your beliefs in your own conduct, and let others do the same.


----------



## Deleted-185407 (Dec 11, 2012)

leic7 said:


> So, I take it you've (again) shifted your argument from "this is all about _scope_", to "this is about dealing with the _consequences_"? lol Do you still want to hold on to the "scope" argument for a while longer, or are you strictly hanging from the "consequences" one, now? And nope, we can't start going on for "ages" if you start going into circumstances like rape, because you know you've *lost* that argument before it even started. Just let me ask you this: should a rape victim be allowed to have an abortion, or not?
> 
> I completely agree it's silly for law to determine something it knows nothing about... I suppose you would support a clear legislation that aims to protect doctors from any potential prosecution for the abortions they perform, as long as they personally feel the abortion's warranted?
> 
> ...


 
No. Scope still applies. You've turned the debate into a debate about abortion, which is not what I want to debate about. And I don't actually want to argue about the scope for abortion either, other than you should acknowledge that it exists, and that you should acknowledge that an abortion in Ireland has nothing to do with the people of America. I still firmly with my point of views, and believe my point of views are far more justified than your views of allowing murder, and are FAR more flexible than current Irish law. This is about who should have control over what, that's what I'm more concerned over, and I'm stopping the abortion discussion here because we've gone WAY off track. Besides, you've completely misunderstood my point of views on abortion, and you seem to think my views would have caused the Savita incident to occur, which is entirely *false*. You seem to misunderstand that the concerns you have would be the primary focuses of my abortion policies, yet you're refusing to acknowledge that, and you seem to be thinking that my views don't allow abortions period. Again, *false*. However, to close off the abortion debate, I'm pretty sure we can both agree that we should not be allowing irresponsible women to get "get out of jail for free" card? That's what my views aim to stop, which you seem to be ignoring entirely, whereas your views don't seem to care about women killing innocent children because they weren't responsible enough to not have sex. So not only is it off-topic, but unless you actually try to properly understand my point of view, there's no point continuing that track.

The legal structure between US federal government and the European Union is entirely different. The European Union structure I believe is excellent. The EU does not have the right to dictate to us what our social laws should be, and can only make recommendations as to how we should manage our finances. If we don't want to change our corporate tax rate, we shouldn't be forced to. We shouldn't be forced to risk our economy so that other economies may grow. We might lend and contribute to a bail-out, but we'll be expecting that money back. That's a good system, unlike the American system where it's chaotic, full of contradictions, and doesn't have any clear boundaries as to where power stops. That's my problem. Again, take the recent change on marijuana laws, which some states highly approve of. Why should the federal government force them to change their law? Why should the federal government be allowed to sue that state for listening to its people? It's silly. Citizens outside the state of Colorado and other states are not affected by the marijuana legislation laws. It makes no sense why they should have a say.

The extremist people you're talking about are in a severe minority. But again, if you want that to change, you're taking the wrong stance. Taking the top-down approach of forcing these people to follow a particular belief set only causes hatred and war. It's a dangerous view to have. The better approach is to instead to try argue your opposing point of view, and to try be as convincing as possible. Of course, it's not an easy battle, but it's the only way you're ever going to have a change that you desire without causing any party to hate each other, while still maintaining a structured rule of law. At the moment, you don't seem to care what the system is, and you're just as bad as Republicans who can't decide whether or not they're for state rights. You're either for state rights, or you're not. You can't pick and choose your battles, as it's inconsistent, and doesn't respect structure and order.

I will ask you one thing though, if you believe your views are correct and believe strongly in them, why aren't you a politician with a strong party to back them up?


----------



## BORTZ (Dec 11, 2012)

how is this...


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 11, 2012)

This thread is seriously still going on?


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Dec 12, 2012)

The Catboy said:


> This thread is seriously still going on?


 

It was allowed to continue because it's been a good discussion.
However, the topic has been outlived, and the thread has served it's purpose.


----------

