Romney vs. Obama

[DiscostewSM]

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]

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.

Crystal balls are not allowed here!

There's a difference between soothsaying and understanding how policy positions would affect the United States economy.

 

[stomp_442]

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]

I gotta learn to stay out of threads like this.

No one is asking you to debate.

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?

with all the campaign donations he's taken from that guy over the years.

So what?

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]

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]

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]

ZOMG! The debate tonight was amazing!

 

[Lacius]

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%.

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]

Let's just all agreed that Romney got "murked" tonight!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1H6SanVXcM

...Epic Pwnage!

 

[Hanafuda]

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%.

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]

Let's just all agreed that Romney got "murked" tonight!

(youtube)


...Epic Pwnage!

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

Well, here the whole video.



This doesn't have a misleading title or cut off too early.

 

[BlueStar]

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?

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.

Obama Takes Responsibility for Libya

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443624204578061050764229738.html

 

[BlueStar]

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.