There are no follow-up questions allowed and the candidates cannot ask questions of the audience.
Did Romney really just say he wants to make sure women are able to make dinner? Really?Yes, yes he did.
Obama's strengths are at least showing this time. When they get questions about reproductive rights and equal pay, Obama wins hands down. Also nice shots at Rmoney for being a corporate vulture.Did Romney really just say he wants to make sure women are able to make dinner? Really?Yes, yes he did.
My impressions so far:
• Obama found his balls
• Romney is a fucking whiner and is flip-flopping like a dying fish while giving no specifics
"Governor, the question was....""Governor, please stop dancing in Rabbit's sig..."
"Governor, the topic was on...."
My dad is drooling over Romney's wagging mandible because he hates Obama so much....I am so glad you said mandible.
http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/ (http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/)I loled.
...how did they make this so quickly? ???http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/ (http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/)I loled.
...how did they make this so quickly? ???http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/ (http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/)I loled.
...and this is what it does!The internet....how did they make this so quickly? ???http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/ (http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/)I loled.
(http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/247/728/fc4.jpg)...and this is what it does!The internet....how did they make this so quickly? ???http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/ (http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/)I loled.
CNN-ORC poll has it 46 Obama 39 Romney with +- 5 point error.
Rmoney
PJ Media says (http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/10/16/mitt-romney-wins-debate-on-smooth-presidential-performance-obama%e2%80%99s-ignorance/) Rmoney won the debate on "smooth Presidential performance". ::)
Yes.Rmoney
Was that intentional?
I can't find a good video of the debate, can anybody be a bro and link it?
Originally it wasn't.Yes.Rmoney
Was that intentional?
Originally it wasn't.Yes.Rmoney
Was that intentional?
(http://0.tqn.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/y/8/1/romney-money-picture-c.jpg)
Well that's a shopped (http://www.snopes.com/politics/romney/money.asp) image but still funny.Originally it wasn't.Yes.Rmoney
Was that intentional?
(http://0.tqn.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/y/8/1/romney-money-picture-c.jpg)
Police arrested Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate, Cheri Honkala, after they tried to enter the site of tonight’s presidential debate at Hofstra University.
The two were protesting against the exclusion of all but the two major political parties from taking part in the debate.
Well, those two candidates weren't the only ones involved.Pathetic. Extra incentive for me to vote for her.QuotePolice arrested Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate, Cheri Honkala, after they tried to enter the site of tonight’s presidential debate at Hofstra University.
The two were protesting against the exclusion of all but the two major political parties from taking part in the debate.
http://rt.com/usa/news/police-jill-stein-debate-589/
Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.
Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.
Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.
That too--I fully expect voter intimidation and disenfranchisement, especially in Pennsylvania and Ohio.Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.
Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.
And don't forget the steps that Katherine Harris took to illegally disenfranchise likely Gore voters in the run up to the election.
If 500 people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if he (Nader) wasn't on the ticket, then blaming Nader is fair and square.Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.
Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.
It's fair but what I was saying is that the blame is shared by more than just the Nader voters.If 500 people who voted for Nader would have voted for Gore if he (Nader) wasn't on the ticket, then blaming Nader is fair and square.Not to mention that voting for Jill Stein is effectively the same as voting for Mitt Romney. Remember what happened with Ralph Nader in 2000.Well first of all there were plenty of Democrats in Florida who voted Bush in that election--some 250,000 if I recall correctly. Whereas Bush won Florida by just over 500 votes. So I suppose you can blame Nader but I think the blame is higher on the Bush-Democrats in FL.
Second of all, since I'm personally in a dyed-in-the-wool Blue state, I doubt my casting a vote for Jill Stein will harm anyone.
The claim that Nader spoiled the election for Gore is not true. In the year 2000, exit polls reported that the majority of Nader's voters would not have voted at all had he not been in the race.There is no doubt that Nader was a spoiler in that election. The number of people who voted for Nader in Florida in 2000 was 97,421, and the margin between Bush and Gore in Florida was 537. No matter how many who might have abstained of people who voted for Nader had he not been on the ballot, only 537 more people had to vote for Gore than for Bush. Since Gore was favored over Bush by about 66% among Nader voters in Florida, only about 900 or so of the people who voted for Nader would have had to vote otherwise for Gore to win the election. That is, if Nader had not run, more than 99% of his supporters could have abstained from voting and Gore would nevertheless have won Florida and the election. Voting across major party lines and losses in other states are irrelevant to the determination of Nader's status as a spoiler as those votes would have been cast whether Nader was running or not and other states did not have enough Nader votes for him to have influenced the outcome.
If you want to blame somebody for the 2000 election, blame the quarter of a million Democrats who voted for Bush. The number of Florida Dems who voted for Bush is several times larger than the total number of people who voted for Nader.
Also, in my opinion, Nader was the only candidate in 2000 that deserved to be president.
Yep, it sure is a problem when more left-wing tickets try to pose a real alternative to the Democrats.
Oh goodie, it's 3rd party beat up time, and this is why we can't have anything nice in this country...because the status quo must be retained at all costs.
Also, I'm quite frankly getting tired of this idea that democrats are as bad as republicans when the evidence doesn't point to that. Obama stopped the defense of DOMA, ended DADT, improved the economy, reduced the deficit, is pulling us out of that stupid war as soon as he can, and so forth. His ideas are actually doing good. Granted, he's a politician and has also done some bad things, like the drone strikes. No one is saying he's perfect or a messiah.
On the other hand, Romney is most certainly bad for this country, economically and socially speaking.
I'd rather take the man who has actually given me more rights and passed a law that allowed me to actually stay insured, as well as started a process that would give us an approximation of UHC, than take the man who wants to take those away.
So, please, stop this passive aggressive silliness :-/
Republicans have grasped that it is a contest not about issues but the relative positives of the two parties, then they are free to move ever rightward, dragging the center with them, always keeping a few inches away from the president's anxious, conciliatory grasp.
He stopped support for DOMA because queer people have been pushing for rights for decades, not because he is a nice guy.
Getting rid of DADT was necessary considering that the US military is having a recruitment crisis. Don't forget Obama voted for the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq, and after pulling out of the latter increased troops in the former.
$288 billion of the stimulus (just the one) was made of tax breaks. But anyway, what do you expect? A chunk of the administration is made up of ex-Clinton hacks. Also, Timothy Geithner, Bush's president of the New York Fed and architect of the AIG bailout.
Both Obama and Romney will be good for some of the country and bad for the rest. A country isn't some monolithic beast.
Sure, vote for the guy who has attacked workers, sided with the banks, increased drone strikes, increased domestic surveillance and pledged to cut Medicare and Social Security. It doesn't matter that the cuts are less than Romney's, cuts are still cuts.
Sure, vote for the guy who has attacked workers, sided with the banks,
... and pledged to cut Medicare and Social Security. It doesn't matter that the cuts are less than Romney's, cuts are still cuts.
However, it doesn't change the fact that it is not set up for it. Voting for a third party really is throwing away your vote right now. No amount of whining on the internet that people aren't voting third party will change this simple fact.
Don't forget Obama voted for the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq
Republicans are moving farther and farther to the right and dragging the center behind them, so the best immediate course of action is to... help them get elected by throwing your vote away?Actually, the quote he posted is saying that the Democrats keep reaching to the center, allowing the Republicans to redefine the center as the Democratic position, and then shift to the right. The Democrats accept this, and reach to the new center. The Democrats are shifting to the right as well.
... and pledged to cut Medicare and Social Security. It doesn't matter that the cuts are less than Romney's, cuts are still cuts.
Cuts? Really when did Obama do that. Before you answer you should make sure you understand how the funding for those programs work.
However, it doesn't change the fact that it is not set up for it. Voting for a third party really is throwing away your vote right now. No amount of whining on the internet that people aren't voting third party will change this simple fact.
I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I cannot stomach this assertion.
What makes voting for somebody who has no chance of winning "throwing away" your vote? Would I be throwing my vote away if I voted for Obama (down 12 points in my state) or John Gregg (the Democratic candidate for Governor, who is down by more than 10 as well)? They have no chance of winning here. Would I be throwing away my vote by voting for Stein or Imaginary Green Gubernatorial candidate?
How is it not "throwing away" your vote to cast your ballot for a candidate who candidate who you fundamentally and seriously disagree with, just because you find the other major one to be even more objectionable? Jill Stein has the right to run for office. I have the right to vote for her (if I choose to do so).
That being said, again people are free to vote how they want. They shouldn't let me or anyone else tell them otherwise. But to say that democrats and republicans are equal evils? And to imply that anyone who votes for Obama and doesn't want to vote third party due to valid concerns is a tool?
That's not even close to reality.
Also, on the subject, haven't there been cases where third party candidates that were actually capable of winning were invited to the debate?
I mean, I can sorta understand the limitations. If you didn't draw the line somewhere, you'd have 20 presidential candidates on stage all trying to answer questions over each other, and it'd be pretty much chaos and hard to keep track of.
I never said that anybody who doesn't want to vote third party is a tool, nor did I intend to imply it.
Nor did I say that the Democrats and Republicans are equal. I have argued (and will continue to argue) that, of all of the possible political philosophies out there, the Democrats and the Republicans are very close together (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012), and very conservative.
That being said, again people are free to vote how they want. They shouldn't let me or anyone else tell them otherwise. But to say that democrats and republicans are equal evils? And to imply that anyone who votes for Obama and doesn't want to vote third party due to valid concerns is a tool?
That's not even close to reality.
I never said that anybody who doesn't want to vote third party is a tool, nor did I intend to imply it.
Nor did I say that the Democrats and Republicans are equal. I have argued (and will continue to argue) that, of all of the possible political philosophies out there, the Democrats and the Republicans are very close together (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012), and very conservative.
That being said, again people are free to vote how they want. They shouldn't let me or anyone else tell them otherwise. But to say that democrats and republicans are equal evils? And to imply that anyone who votes for Obama and doesn't want to vote third party due to valid concerns is a tool?
That's not even close to reality.
I never said that anybody who doesn't want to vote third party is a tool, nor did I intend to imply it.
Nor did I say that the Democrats and Republicans are equal. I have argued (and will continue to argue) that, of all of the possible political philosophies out there, the Democrats and the Republicans are very close together (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012), and very conservative.
Oh Noses, you can't say that you'll make certain members here pissed off, because it can't be true, the Democrats and Republicans are totally different. And rememeber we can't have any real change here because liberal ideas are too complex to translate into sound bites for the avenge joe to understand. :P
I don't think anyone is bashing third parties. We're just trying to be realistic about what voting for them does (not much).That being said, again people are free to vote how they want. They shouldn't let me or anyone else tell them otherwise. But to say that democrats and republicans are equal evils? And to imply that anyone who votes for Obama and doesn't want to vote third party due to valid concerns is a tool?
That's not even close to reality.
I never said that anybody who doesn't want to vote third party is a tool, nor did I intend to imply it.
Nor did I say that the Democrats and Republicans are equal. I have argued (and will continue to argue) that, of all of the possible political philosophies out there, the Democrats and the Republicans are very close together (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012), and very conservative.
Oh Noses, you can't say that you'll make certain members here pissed off, because it can't be true, the Democrats and Republicans are totally different. And rememeber we can't have any real change here because liberal ideas are too complex to translate into sound bites for the avenge joe to understand. :P
Also Zack, I'm just sick of third party bashing. The problem is that we have 2 parties that don't want any give up power, and won't in the near future, I'll be shocked if they do in my life time. And the Democrats are more than happy to bend over backwards for the Republicans, but god forbid they try moving a little to the left, and stop sucking on that corporate teet, that's all I ask. I would personally love for Democrats to try not name calling Greens, and try working together, but that won't anytime soon either. But, I'm also more than willing to meet Libertarians half way, they can have their economic and tax system, if they would be willing to let people have some sort universal healthcare, and social safety net(other than private charity).
Abolishing DADT and getting DOMA put into a position where it can be eradicated isn't significant change already?
Seriously, I hear enough of "You vote democrat, therefore you're evil and lazy" from the right, I don't need to hear "You vote democrat, therefore you're a tool" from here.
...Don't tell me the republican strategy of making Obama look like he's doing nothing by blocking everything he has tried to do is actually working god dammit.
After all we can't frame liberal ideas, because they're "too complex" for to make into soundbites that John Q Public can understand.
And would Bush, Romney or McCain would have done the same?
The answer is no, they would have obstinately stood against it no matter how hard queers pushed for their rights.
Oh please. Gay people were already joining the military before DADT was abolished.
You're acting like Obama pushed for drafting gay people, but these are people who want to join the military for one reason or another.
It was still a push towards equal rights and he had a hand in it. I'm not about to say "Oh, it was really the people" when Obama was the key person in the key position to make it happen.
Obama's been good for the country so far. He'll continue to be good for it in the future.
Actually, it does matter.
Things are not as black and white as you seem to believe. What little harm Obama has done is nowhere compared to the potential harm that Romney could cause. The good that Obama has caused far surpasses what little good Romney could bring to the nation.
Obama is just flat-out the better president than Romney.
EDIT: Here's the thing.
I have to face losing rights if Romney gets in office, both as a gay man and as a lower middle class individual, and as someone who is still on his parents' insurance.
There are women here that will lose rights if Romney accomplishes even half of what he promised to the extreme right.
Hell, as it stands, in Wisconsin the unions got absolutely neutered by Walker. The recall failed and we're stuck with him. I don't want that happening country-wide.
Wow, it's almost as if largeham has absolutely nothing to lose by Romney being elected president
Pretty sure when you post arguments in another thread and they are shown to be BS, they would also be BS here as well.
Cuts? Really when did Obama do that. Before you answer you should make sure you understand how the funding for those programs work.
Seriously, I hear enough of "You vote democrat, therefore you're evil and lazy" from the right, I don't need to hear "You vote democrat, therefore you're a tool" from here.
I don't think people are as right wing in this country as the MSM likes to make it out to be, it's just the Republicans have controlled the debate for decades, and I see very few Democrats with backbone standing up to them. More often than not, they're willing to lean more and more to the right, in order to appease to them.
I just want to add, that I'm sorry about coming off as somewhat of a bitch tonight...
snip
What do you mean by good for the country? People within a country have wildly diverging interests, nothing is ever 'good for the country'.Good, as in Obama's policies make more economic sense. As in, mathematically possible. We'd have a stronger overall economy than with the Romney Magic Mystery plan.
Running on the local level is fine, but the problem is that they can't go any higher than that given our electoral system is winner take all, which is greatly unfair to third parties. And neither of the mainstream parties seem all that interested in any kind of electoral reform.
And would Bush, Romney or McCain would have done the same?
The answer is no, they would have obstinately stood against it no matter how hard queers pushed for their rights.
Doesn't change the fact that Obama didn't do this out of the goodness of his own heart.
Of course gay people were joining the military, but then we might as well keep DADT? But then of course, Obama is so nice and humane, tell that to the people in Pakistan killed by drone strikes.
What do you mean by good for the country? People within a country have wildly diverging interests, nothing is ever 'good for the country'.
The unions have neutered themselves over the decades with their craven support for the democrats.
Also, look at all the women, queers and poor people who will vote for Romney.
Not directly, no. I would rather not see the left in America chase after a party that has since th 90s been the nice, smiling side of neo-liberalism.
Running on the local level is fine, but the problem is that they can't go any higher than that given our electoral system is winner take all, which is greatly unfair to third parties. And neither of the mainstream parties seem all that interested in any kind of electoral reform.As others said, it takes time to build up a party. You work your way up bit by bit, year after year. That's how political parties and movement within established parties get a foothold. You can't just jump into the race at the top and expect to be taken seriously. And from what I've seen (though I could be wrong), that's pretty much what third parties do. They need to change their strategy if they want to make any real difference.
Running on the local level is fine, but the problem is that they can't go any higher than that given our electoral system is winner take all, which is greatly unfair to third parties. And neither of the mainstream parties seem all that interested in any kind of electoral reform.As others said, it takes time to build up a party. You work your way up bit by bit, year after year. That's how political parties and movement within established parties get a foothold. You can't just jump into the race at the top and expect to be taken seriously. And from what I've seen (though I could be wrong), that's pretty much what third parties do. They need to change their strategy if they want to make any real difference.
But let's say you're right and it's pretty much impossible to get a third party candidate elected to a high office even if you build up a base for years, and that neither party is interested in election reform that would make it easier for third parties to get in the game (which I agree with), what's the solution? What can/should Joe and Jane AverageCitizen do make things better?
But let's say you're right and it's pretty much impossible to get a third party candidate elected to a high office even if you build up a base for years, and that neither party is interested in election reform that would make it easier for third parties to get in the game (which I agree with), what's the solution? What can/should Joe and Jane AverageCitizen do make things better?
There's not much that can be done. The systemic bias against third parties goes well beyond first past the post elections. For example, ballot access is attained by getting petitions from eligible voters in a district/state/whatever. The laws in most states require more signatures for third party candidates than they do for Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats and the Republicans have wealth and power, and they get to write the rules of the game. They make damn sure to write them in a way that ensures that the wealth and power stays exactly where it is.
Well, they don't have to suck the corporate teet, like they do
We could of at least tried to keep the public opition in the healthcare bill, but I forgot that's too liberal of an idea, especially with the bill being written by the insurance companies. We could have have some real education reform, not just having for profit charters being push on the public, while public schools only get this Race to the Top, with it's teach the test steaming pile of shit.
After all we can't frame liberal ideas, because they're "too complex" for to make into soundbites that John Q Public can understand.
So, Obama has been a great friend to the poor?
If you want to ignore all the evidence I presented earlier, be my guest.
Running on the local level is fine, but the problem is that they can't go any higher than that given our electoral system is winner take all, which is greatly unfair to third parties. And neither of the mainstream parties seem all that interested in any kind of electoral reform.
You should realize that the winner take all laws regarding the electoral college are state laws. That means enough support in a few states could vastly change the system.
Very practical.But let's say you're right and it's pretty much impossible to get a third party candidate elected to a high office even if you build up a base for years, and that neither party is interested in election reform that would make it easier for third parties to get in the game (which I agree with), what's the solution? What can/should Joe and Jane AverageCitizen do make things better?
There's not much that can be done. The systemic bias against third parties goes well beyond first past the post elections. For example, ballot access is attained by getting petitions from eligible voters in a district/state/whatever. The laws in most states require more signatures for third party candidates than they do for Democrats and Republicans. The Democrats and the Republicans have wealth and power, and they get to write the rules of the game. They make damn sure to write them in a way that ensures that the wealth and power stays exactly where it is.
And this why I'm a proponent for starting over from scratch with this country, personally I'm in favor of burning the shit down.
Running on the local level is fine, but the problem is that they can't go any higher than that given our electoral system is winner take all, which is greatly unfair to third parties. And neither of the mainstream parties seem all that interested in any kind of electoral reform.Personally I'd rather avoid the special interest clusterfuck known as third parties. At least now the various lobbies have to compete with eachother over which of the sides they get to do their bidding. If they could just start their own parties and be taken seriously we'd never accomplish a damn thing.
If you call that trying, it's hardly trying, but the Democrats don't know how to try at anything. If they really wanted to try, they won't be so right leaning as they are and know how to get the message across, which they don't. Why?? Because they don't want to, and a good deal of them are in bed with Wall Street, and the insurance companies, and could care less about the little people. Here's a news flash, not everyone wants to wait 5 generations for real reform, and if anyone wants any real reform they have to demand it, and not wait around for it to happen.We need someone in congress that would keep on demanding it until the cows come home, shutting up about it up and forgetting about isn't going to change anything. Heck, this is why I'm for starting over from scratch, since I little faith in the current system as it stands now.
Simplest solution: Just vote your conscience. If your political positions align with Barack Obama, vote for him. If you agree more with a third party candidate, as I do, vote for that person.Unfortunately, that's picking a side, not proposing a solution. The choice between voting tactically and voting sincerely is actually one of the key points of contention. Your decision to vote for a minor party candidate means that the major party candidate who you dislike more is just as likely to win as if you had not voted at all. Conversely, if you vote for the major party candidate you most prefer (or least dislike), then your preferences are not accurately reflected in the final tally. You've picked your poison, and I've picked mine.
M52nickerson, you need to stop being condesending, otherwise your point is null and void. I get what you are saying, and I do know how the political process works, I'm not a moron. You're the one that comes across as someone who thinks if we follow the book everything will be fine and dandy. Guess what, we have been following the book and everything isn't fine and dandy. We're at a point where both parties are more than happy to whore themselves out to the highest bidder, and are controlled by the special interests. And until the boat is rocked in some way(it'll take way more than just following the book and going through the system), nothing will ever change, because I doubt that the asshats in DC will do it out of the goodness of their hearts. Also when you have an electoral system that doesn't allow for other voices to be heard, and elections that are governed by money, is any wonder the public is jaded as fuck when it comes to politics??
I'm sorry but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the "lesser of two evils". I cannot vote for a man who has a kill list, murders Americans via drone strike and signed away Americans' right to trial via the NDAA. Nor can I vote for a man who, I'm certain, would continue all those policies and clearly also holds half our country in contempt.Simplest solution: Just vote your conscience. If your political positions align with Barack Obama, vote for him. If you agree more with a third party candidate, as I do, vote for that person.Unfortunately, that's picking a side, not proposing a solution. The choice between voting tactically and voting sincerely is actually one of the key points of contention. Your decision to vote for a minor party candidate means that the major party candidate who you dislike more is just as likely to win as if you had not voted at all.
I'm sorry but I cannot, in good conscience, vote for the "lesser of two evils". I cannot vote for a man who has a kill list, murders Americans via drone strike and signed away Americans' right to trial via the NDAA. Nor can I vote for a man who, I'm certain, would continue all those policies and clearly also holds half our country in contempt.Simplest solution: Just vote your conscience. If your political positions align with Barack Obama, vote for him. If you agree more with a third party candidate, as I do, vote for that person.Unfortunately, that's picking a side, not proposing a solution. The choice between voting tactically and voting sincerely is actually one of the key points of contention. Your decision to vote for a minor party candidate means that the major party candidate who you dislike more is just as likely to win as if you had not voted at all.
Doesn't change the fact that it was he who did it where other presidents and potential presidents wouldn't
Seriously, this is a massive deflection on your part.
You act like I'm for the drone strikes, but seriously, I condemn those, too.
I'm not about to throw the baby out with the bathwater over this, though.
...What.
No, seriously, what. What is this crap?
Are you even paying attention to what you're saying anymore? Or are you typing anything that comes to mind without any thought?
Oh joy, more buzzwords that have little to no meaning.
I'm not even going to address the rest of your post. You rely on sources that are factually incorrect (such as Obama supporting the war, as was disproved earlier-- which you conveniently ignored), you take any source that says what you want to say, and quite frankly, nothing is to be gained from arguing with you.
Good day.
Right largeham I asked you for sources for your points earlier now let's go to the other side. Convince me to vote for Romney. Tell me why he's better for the country then Obama ever would be.
Ironbite-cite your sources please.
Perhaps you missed those extension of unemployment benefits, or the GOP harping on the number of people receiving food stamps now.
Alright since you want to be a little bitch about this....convince me to vote for you whatever candidate you support.Vote for Emperor Kang.
Ironbite-cite your sources please.
The GOP crying about people on food stamps says nothing about the Democrats.
Oh dear (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/19/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120219), pension cuts (http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/12760/senate_democrat_says_obama_caused_pension_cut_on_federal_workers/) and pay freezes (http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/22/news/economy/federal-worker-pay-freeze/index.html) for federal workers, (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-extends-federal-pay-freeze/2012/08/21/d8087966-ebf2-11e1-9ddc-340d5efb1e9c_story.html) but not for prisons. (http://solitarywatch.com/2010/02/22/no-budget-freeze-for-incarceration-nation-obama-proposes-increased-prison-spending/)
No, vote for Kodos!Alright since you want to be a little bitch about this....convince me to vote for you whatever candidate you support.Vote for Emperor Kang.
Ironbite-cite your sources please.
If you think that any economic policy based around a free market is right wing you will always be disappointed.
Right now in this country the economy sucks.
The public education system needs help.
Thing is Americans still have a ridiculously high standard of living.
You seem to ignore the progress that has been made
If you think that any economic policy based around a free market is right wing you will always be disappointed.
At one point in thread or the other you complained about the people on Wall Street not being arrested, when asked for what you did not have an answer.
need to stop lying.
And the Democrats have no done what they could to help. In fact, they have made things worse.
And the Democrats will only make it worse.
A standard of living paid for with debt.
Negative progress. The US has gone backwards since 1968.
Which, of course, he doesn't.
Fraud will do.
No, vote for Kodos!Alright since you want to be a little bitch about this....convince me to vote for you whatever candidate you support.Vote for Emperor Kang.
Ironbite-cite your sources please.
It [the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] was the only way to end the war in the pacific without catastrophic casualities on both sides.
I hate the argument that if a president actually kills our enemies they are seen as a terrible person. If you are a american citizen you are apart of a government that decided the best way to end a war was to unleash the worst weapon of mankind upon non-combatants. Twice. It was on par with what the jews got in the gas chambers in which we made the japanese citizens suffer with radiation. Horrible, horrible, slow, agonizing death.(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/281/752/0fb.jpg)
Yet it's justifable. It was the only way to end the war in the pacific without catastrophic casualities on both sides. The citizens of our OWN country will always, ALWAYS be more important then the citizens of another country(and if you commit treason? Oh boy, you hope we don't find you motherfucker, I fully support torture on that issue), sorry, that's how it works.
Drone strikes give us zero casualities on our side, minimal casualities of civilians, and our enemies dead. I rather have our enemies dead then them alive and be able to plan out something in the future to kill more of OUR citizens. The bleedinghearts can squak all they want but they won't change reality.
I hate the argument that if a president actually kills our enemies they are seen as a terrible person.
I hate the argument that if a president actually kills our enemies they are seen as a terrible person.
Because civilians of a country we are invading are "enemies" now.
That is not true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary).
This conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population.
Just watch South Park's "Raising the Bar" episode.I hate the argument that if a president actually kills our enemies they are seen as a terrible person.
Because civilians of a country we are invading are "enemies" now.(click to show/hide)
I hate the argument that if a president actually kills our enemies they are seen as a terrible person.
Because civilians of a country we are invading are "enemies" now.
We haven't had a modern conflict with an enemy who did not try to purposely hide in civilian populated areas as a way of either ambushing our troops or trying to say along the lines "see how terrible these people are harming people?" even though it's THEIR being there that makes them in harms way. WW1 was probably the last conflict in which the two armies were in a proper place outside of civilian zones. (trench warfare). This changed by WW2 with the mass production of bombing air warfare, speaking of which:
Yet even if we didn't drop the bombs this would have happened:QuoteThis conclusion assumed conventional fire bombing would have continued, with ever-increasing numbers of B-29s, and a greater level of destruction to Japan's cities and population.
We would still be firebombing the shit out of their cities, even harder then eariler, before they would surrender. So either way, you had a large number of civilian casualities.
Yet it's justifable. It was the only way to end the war in the pacific without catastrophic casualities on both sides.
No, vote for Kodos!Alright since you want to be a little bitch about this....convince me to vote for you whatever candidate you support.Vote for Emperor Kang.
Ironbite-cite your sources please.
Vermin Supreme 2012, bitches.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how voting third party is viable in the system we currently have and won't make me into a second-class citizen by virtue of being a woman and queer.
Alright since you want to be a little bitch about this....convince me to vote for you whatever candidate you support.
Ironbite-cite your sources please.
Says nothing about the Dems? Really I guess that is why the GOP is using it as an attack line.
First regarding social security. Yes the reduction of payroll taxes reduces the amount going to the SS trust fund right now. That reduction had written into the law that any short fall must be made up by general revenue. It has not cause any loss in benefits.
Now as far as the freezes in salary for federal employees, again welcome to reality. There is not a lot of pay increases for workers going on right now for anyone. It is really hard for the government to justify increase in federal employees salaries when we are still running large deficits and the economy is still in the tank.
Of course the rest of your arguments ignore any type of reality as well. Yes the President send more troops to Afghanistan. He could have just pulled out and left all people high and dry and at the mercy of the Taliban or what ever group came along. I guess you think if we would have just picked up and left Afghanistan would have become a land of milk, honey, and rainbow shitting unicorns!
Perhaps the people on the left that support the Dems do so because they have basis in reality. Seems you don't.
Oh, so you think that any economic policy based around a free market is right wing?
Not done what they could? Have you missed them pushing for more stimulus ans for job bills? How have they made it worse?
I had to stop laughing before I could respond to this. Backwards? How about you giver some examples of how that is.
This derail is annoying as shit and I hate you all. Shut the fuck up.
The GOP calls Obama a socialist, it doesn't make it any more true.
But it will make it harder for SS to remain secure.
Yeah, austerity is working well. Anyway, so I guess banks and car companies can get bail out (the banks got hundreds of billions of dollars with no repercussions, car manufacturing workers had to increase productivity and take pay cuts) but public servants have to tighten their belts.
Or you know, maybe the US should not have gone in the first place. Poppy production has risen since the US invasion, thousands of civilian deaths and a new generation of kids growing up seeing their country being destroyed. America should stop meddling in other people's affairs. It is due to American involvement that Afghanistan is in this predicament in the first place. And guess what, drone strikes just piss people off more.
A problem is the definition of free market. After how much government interference does a market become 'not free'.
Yup, stimulus that involves huge tax breaks. But hey, demand has nothing to do with discretionary income, am I right?
Well, real wages have fallen since 1971 or so.
"Democrats are always right because reality" isn't a sentence, let alone an argument.
Or you know, maybe the US should not have gone in the first place. Poppy production has risen since the US invasion, thousands of civilian deaths and a new generation of kids growing up seeing their country being destroyed. America should stop meddling in other people's affairs. It is due to American involvement that Afghanistan is in this predicament in the first place. And guess what, drone strikes just piss people off more.
Or you know, maybe the US should not have gone in the first place. Poppy production has risen since the US invasion, thousands of civilian deaths and a new generation of kids growing up seeing their country being destroyed. America should stop meddling in other people's affairs. It is due to American involvement that Afghanistan is in this predicament in the first place. And guess what, drone strikes just piss people off more.
You have no idea how much I hate this there. We should have done this, we shouldn't have done that. Guess what, we went in. And right now it doesn't matter one damn bit of difference what we should have done. We're there. And we have to deal with ourselves being there.
Couldn't help but comment on this; The flag is backwards tooOriginally it wasn't.Yes.Rmoney
Was that intentional?
(http://0.tqn.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/y/8/1/romney-money-picture-c.jpg)