Romney vs. Obama

[Valwin]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

Gahars already explained why the NDAA needed to be signed.

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.

That says nothing about whether or not what a state is doing is morally acceptable.

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."

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.

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.

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."

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I disagree that it's "increasing like wildfire," but analogies are difficult to argue against.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

Is this accurate/trustworthy?
http://electoral-vote.com/
Or this.
http://unskewedpolls.com/

 

[Lacius]

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]

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]

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.

Had you read Gahars' post, you would understand that the evidence and precedent shows 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 more and more likely that you're not interested in having an actual discussion.

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 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.

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 more and more difficult for me to take you seriously.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

Your posts are being read, you're just trying to state that your morals are the only correct ones.

I never once said that.

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.

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.

Everyone is going to have a different opinion on it.

That doesn't mean everyone is right.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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."

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.

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]

Wasn't Maddow confirmed to be lying on at least one issue when she was on Letterman?

 

[Lacius]

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.