Indecision 2012

[50 Volt Phantom]

If Romney doesn't win then god help us all.

LittleMonkey, Obama and his crew totally care about bullying, that's why Dan Savage is their bullying expert.

[littlemonkey613]

Welcome to politics. It has only just begun. By the way, Romney won't win. He's the Republican equivalence of John Kerry's 2004 Presidential bid.

I think Romney has a great chance at winning. Swing states are what matters and its going to be very close I think.

50 your right the Obama camp hasn't stepped up on the bullying issue, however, thats not exactly the same as making light of your own bullying....

[Tiz]

Every one of his potential VP candidates has refused the role. I think they smell the taint. Mind you, I would love it to be a close competition. American politics are as fun (and guilty) to watch as reality television.

[littlemonkey613]

I wasn't aware of that but I still think its going to be an extremely close race. Still good news for Obama this week concerning the Latino and women's vote. Hopefully his gay marriage stance brings in some youth (doubt it tho). Also isn't the healthcare ruling soon? Pretty certain it will get torn down and that will hurt Obama significantly. Also would hurt me since I will no longer have guaranteed coverage for 7 more years :(.

[PooPooMeowChow]

Ben Swann killin' it as always.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN43FFqmtvI&feature=relmfu

[Jinsai]

How is it in any way a revelation that Obama changed his stance?

I won't hold it against Ron Paul if he changes his opinion on evolution.

[orestes]

Ben Swann killin' it as always.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN43FFqmtvI&feature=relmfu

Dude, quit posting from the same source. It only weakens your argument.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Is that the best they've got? Like, I don't understand what they're trying to accomplish. "Pundits" have been talking about both candidates' positions on marriage since Obama made his announcement! All of this has been addressed in so-called mainstream media, and addressed without the sort of self-righteous tone that tells viewers they're getting something exclusive.

[Magtig]

Romney Busted for Being Key Investor in Aborted Fetus Disposal Firm Stericycle
(http://jezebel.com/5922811/romney-blatantly-lies-about-investment-in-aborted-fetus-disposal-firm?comment=50575524)
The user comment at the bottom of the this is gold:
"Romeybot 2000 may have participated in this investment deal but his firmware was updated in mid 2001. Romneybot 3000 disavows all knowledge of Romneybot2000's actions. Romneybot 3000 loves fetuses, aborted or otherwise."

[allegro]

This election, I'M GOING GREEN!!

http://www.jillstein.org/

[DF118]

Romney's such a classy guy. He called the leader of the Labour party in the UK Mr Leader (it's Ed Miliband). What a perfect ambassador to represent the USA during this olympic season.



Romney said: "Like you, Mr Leader, I look forward to our conversations this morning ... and recognise, of course, the unique relationship that exists between our nations, our commitment to common values, our commitment to peace in the world and our desire to see a stronger and growing economy.


^ wut

[theruiner]

That's because nobody had inputted the guy's name into Romney's programming, so he had to go with the default.

[orestes]

Muahahaha. (http://stfuconservatives.net/post/28355595947)

[Jinsai]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5NZ4

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say we must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom

[Magtig]

I don't know why you liberal fascists are always bagging on Romney, he's not so bad. Look, he's pro-choice all the way, has been since 1970:



http://youtu.be/lNDsyKnQIes

[allegro]

Romney's such a classy guy. He called the leader of the Labour party in the UK Mr Leader (it's Ed Miliband). What a perfect ambassador to represent the USA during this olympic season.
^ wut
In the U.S., the Speaker of the House is called Mister or Madam Speaker, so maybe that's what he assumed?

[Goldfoot]

In the U.S., the Speaker of the House is called Mister or Madam Speaker, so maybe that's what he assumed?

This also works for President, Vice President (?), Dean, and probably some others. Not that I want to defend Romney, but that's a hell of a nitpick.

[Fixer808]

"I'm Mr. Manager!"
"You can just say manager."

[halloween]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHaMqHh5NZ4

As a young boy, I dreamed of being a baseball, but tonight I say we must move forward, not backward, upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom
what the fuck is he going on about.

[Torgo]

I like... trees! Lakes! Cars! Lamp!

[orestes]

Oh lawd, news is coming fast and furious that Mitt's nomination announcement for vice president will be Paul Ryan.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Great pick, can't wait for Obama to start claiming he killed people and doesn't pay taxes.

[allegro]

Oh lawd, news is coming fast and furious that Mitt's nomination announcement for vice president will be Paul Ryan.
Ryan = Social Darwinist. Romney just committed political suicide. Romney is WAY dumber than I thought.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Ha, he's already re-energized the conservative base and he's a great asset for Romney, they compliment each other well. Ryan is tough and smart, he's schooled Obama before, he'll do it again. I can't wait to see him take on that imbecile Biden in debates.

[orestes]

Oh, you mean how Palin took on Biden? *flirty wink*

It's funny how Ryan has suddenly "re-energized" the ticket when all through the primaries the GOP was trying out so many suitors before accepting the inevitable candidacy of Romney.

[50 Volt Phantom]

People are happy with Romney, Ryan just brings the GOP and Tea Party together. Oh and Sarah Palin is infinitely better in every way then Biden, seriously, Biden is so embarrassing that even Obama has locked his team out of senior meetings.

[Torgo]

So this Ryan guy:

Is against gay and lesbian marriage / equality, against gay and lesbian adoption, against helping fight gay and lesbian hate crimes, is majorly pro-life, wants to privatize medicare, medicaid, and social security, decrease taxes on the rich... (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm)


What decade are we in again?

EDIT:

"He believes ending a pregnancy should be illegal even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health."

Good lord. Who the fuck is this monster?

Besides all of his dreadful social right beliefs, why would any middle class American citizen want to vote for someone like this? I'm honestly curious - I know that Ryan's appeal for Romney's campaign is for economic reconstruction, but why would someone who is not rich vote for him? Can anyone provide an honest answer?

[Jinsai]

People are happy with Romney

I'm happy with Romney, because he's going to fucking lose.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Ya, I really don't think so...

[Frozen Beach]

If Romney wins, I'll shave my head and eat my hair on youtube.

[50 Volt Phantom]

So this Ryan guy:

Is against gay and lesbian marriage / equality, against gay and lesbian adoption, against helping fight gay and lesbian hate crimes, is majorly pro-life, wants to privatize medicare, medicaid, and social security, decrease taxes on the rich... (http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan.htm)


What decade are we in again?

EDIT:

"He believes ending a pregnancy should be illegal even when it results from rape or incest, or endangers a woman’s health."

Good lord. Who the fuck is this monster?

Besides all of his dreadful social right beliefs, why would any middle class American citizen want to vote for someone like this? I'm honestly curious - I know that Ryan's appeal for Romney's campaign is for economic reconstruction, but why would someone who is not rich vote for him? Can anyone provide an honest answer?
His budget plan is tremendously better than Obama's "let's just spend until national bankruptcy" plan, he's a staunch small government and less taxation guy, I like his position on entitlement programs and he's a smart and tough personality. The Romney/Ryan ticket now has job creation and business expertise as well as economic expertise, all of which Obama and Biden lack.

[Wretchedest]

Phantom, I honestly can't see how you think Romney would win. I understand he's the candidate you support, and that's one thing, but in all objectiveness it just seems insanely unlikely to me. I don't say that because Obama is my vote for the lesser of two evils. In plenty of situations I've known I was going to lose. It's not favoritism and oppurtunism.

Even the strongest supporters of Romney I know will concede that this guy is very difficult to relate to. As a person, he altogether lacks charisma. In this race that's what matters the most. Its not your views on social issues or the economy, its not your experience, it's your ability to appear like an enjoyable human being.

Granted all politicians are robotic, so I guess its a competition to see who's the least robotic, and Mitt Romney comes off like fucking C-3PO.

[50 Volt Phantom]

You think Obama comes off as an enjoyable person? Wow, sorry, I find arrogant, whiny, mean spirited, and thin skinned people to be anything but enjoyable. Obama has zero charisma, he is a fraud, a man trying to fake any kind of real care for this country and it's people. I personally find Romney to be a much more charismatic and approachable person than his opponent.

[Jinsai]

I personally find Romney to be a much more charismatic and approachable person than his opponent.

Romney is basically the bad guy from that movie Wall Street. And maybe it's just me, but I don't consider someone who would posthumously baptize his dead atheist father-in-law into the Mormon church "approachable."

At least you didn't mention "consistency" as one of his virtues:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHSfnqho2jw

Romney is a fucking joke

[Elke]

I don't get how Romney even manages to have one supporter. Just look at how Ann Coulter roars (http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/08/08/ann-coulter-says-romney-spokesperson-andrea-saul-should-be-fired-for-citing-massachusetts-health-care-in-response-to-super-pac-ad/)at Andrea Saul's reference to MITT'S OWN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. I'm sorry, but WHAT?! From what I can tell, that was actually a very good system, that wasn't as expensive as the republicans usually want to make public health care out to be and that benefited a great deal of people. It was a succes. But of course, he can't be running on that so let's by all means pretend he never ever even had a public healthcare system.
The hypocrisy is baffling. Here's a man who was known for being remarkably progressive ethically, especially given his own position in the Church and his political background, and who's now on a double-bill with frankly the lowest kind of human being imaginable.

Because let's talk Paul Ryan. I am a woman. Granted, not an American one, but still a woman. What would Paul Ryan do for me?
- He would take away my right to choose over what happens to my own body. I'm sorry, but however pro-life any person is (and I am, and I'm even morally against abortion in most cases) you cannot bypass the integrity of a person. It's the foundation of a democratic society.
- He would force me to carry a child that I clearly didn't want and might not be able to care for. If I chose to give it up for adoption, there's a fairly good (or, if you're the child, bad) chance that it would end up in the foster system, costing the state money. If I chose to keep it, as a single working mother my child would have a larger-than-average chance of going to prison and becoming unemployed, both costing the government money and not contributing to it at all. [The effects of Roe v. Wade on crime statistics are widely acknowledged now, and its impact on government spending is only debated because it really doesn't benefit the GOP that abortion could support the minimal state and reduce costs.)
- He would take away my right to live. MY RIGHT TO LIVE. If I had cancer and needed urgent treatment, but I was pregnant, he would favour my child.
- If I had a child, and met a loving partner who would want to adopt that child with me, then that partner couldn't be a woman. If I died, my child would go into foster care or to live with relatives I might not even have liked, before my partner who helped raise this child could adopt.

Moreover, he helped repeal laws that controlled banking (setting the U.S. and subsequently the world up for a crisis that still hasn't been controlled), helped raise the US military budget (even though he's all about cutting costs everywhere else) and is, frankly, a disgrace to the human race.

The worst of it, to me at least, is that he's catholic. He's exactly what I don't want to be associated with, some anti-Vaticanum II, anti-personalist fuckwit traditionalist who thinks catholicism is just like protestantism only with popes and saints. Fuck his retarded disregard of tradition (Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of scholars and philosophers and one of the Church Fathers, argued IN FAVOR of medical abortion and it's the Church's official stance on medicial abortion), and fuck his holier than though attitude.
A politician should care about the nation. Social policy, to me, is usually a clear indicator of that care and this guy does. not. care.

If Romney can be on the ticket with this guy, he has absolutely no morality, no integrity and no credibility.

So who would vote for that guy?

[orestes]

His budget plan is tremendously better than Obama's "let's just spend until national bankruptcy" plan, he's a staunch small government and less taxation guy, I like his position on entitlement programs and he's a smart and tough personality. The Romney/Ryan ticket now has job creation and business expertise as well as economic expertise, all of which Obama and Biden lack.

We've been bankrupt since Bush sent us to war in 2001, but since you want to crunch numbers, Obama has actually spent the least (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/).

Also, please explain to me how being a corporate headhunter makes you an exemplary candidate for president. You know what the majority of past presidents majored in at college? Law. Same with members of Congress. So if we're to follow your line of argument then a scant few individuals in government are actually qualified to hold their position.

[slave2thewage]

Dear America, just letting you know that if that Romney fellow is elected, we'll side-eye the fuck out of you.

Love, Europe.

[littlemonkey613]

(Im with 50 on Romney's chances. You guys look at the polls in the swing states (actually generally). The majority of Americans are completely uninformed about what Obama has accomplished. It's going to be a close race and Romney has a very high chance to take the win me thinks. Every time I list things off I'm met with blank stares and "really?". It's interesting that Romney chose a more conservative and batshit insane candidate. That means they had conversations about being concerned with the women vote and decided "it doesn't matter" which is scary. Rather than trying to convince moderates they are going to try to get conservatives to the polls who have never voted before. 50 I'm still perplexed as to how you can shrug off social issues like they are nothing as if women and gays don't exist. We are more than half the population. Also 20% of women are raped so Idk how you can just shrug off this pro life nonsense.

Responsible economic platform? How can it not matter to you that someone is a bigot and wants to take away women's most important rights? It's absolute sociopathy. Their whole platform is based on the idea that the underprivileged (economically, racially, gender-wise and concerning sexual orientation) should just hang tight on the whims of those in a more powerful position. It's responsible if you don't give a damn about anyone but majority and those who already have the most power.

Also anyone who is serious about cutting spending and does not propose HUGE cuts to the military is a joke.

If the numbers are "balanced" enough for you to be happy with but those who aren't already in power don't benefit at all then WHAT IS THE POINT?! If the well being of the people is not on their minds then WHAT IS THE POINT? Also all of the tax revenue that his plan would depend on would come from closing tax loopholes. It's all good except he hasn't listed which ones or even begun to talk about the specifics. Seriously it can't be that hard to name one obvious loop hole.....Nope the most important thing is that the rich face a tax decrease and obviously how that will be paid for is irrelevant to these people. Not to worry! Seniors and the poor can pick up the check! They're just leeches anyways.

Also what happened to the health care debate? Do you realize as long as we don't have universal healthcare we are barbarians don't you? What the fuck is evil if not letting people die and continue being sick when treatment is in their grasp geographically? If you don't have proper funds you don't deserve to live. How can you just accept that? A government should not be sociopathic. A litmus test for how good a government is SHOULD have something to do with how the underprivileged are aided and how much of a priority they are in a platform.

[halloween]

The worst of it, to me at least, is that he's catholic. He's exactly what I don't want to be associated with, some anti-Vaticanum II, anti-personalist fuckwit traditionalist who thinks catholicism is just like protestantism only with popes and saints. Fuck his retarded disregard of tradition (Thomas Aquinas, patron saint of scholars and philosophers and one of the Church Fathers, argued IN FAVOR of medical abortion and it's the Church's official stance on medicial abortion), and fuck his holier than though attitude.
A politician should care about the nation. Social policy, to me, is usually a clear indicator of that care and this guy does. not. care.


More specifically- Mormon, which is a whole new ballgame of scary. That's where the holier than thou attitude comes from, Mormon's are brought up thinking they are very, very special. My friend did a photographic project on the single aspect of marriage and gender roles in this religion- it was something I never really saw coming, did I already mention it's scary?

PS. Apparently he's LDS Mormon, which, as far as I'm informed, is the more extreme brand of Mormonism. He is not someone who's going to be separating his faith from his actions as president, as I see it.

[allegro]

You know what the majority of past presidents majored in at college? Law. Same with members of Congress. So if we're to follow your line of argument then a scant few individuals in government are actually qualified to hold their position.
A law degree should be a REQUIREMENT of running for any office. These non-lawyer idiots in Congress write laws that are TOTAL PIECES OF SHIT with GIANT loopholes because the dumbasses have stupid clerks do the work and they forget to do Law 101 things like DEFINE TERMS for Christ sake, so we have to rely on Courts to DEFINE what the law should have defined in the first place.

[Jinsai]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMv28sYQzCY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IMv28sYQzCY)

Ugh...
While we're quoting religious figures from the late 70s, why don't we look into the fact that it wasn't until 1978 that the Mormon church finally changed its stance against allowing black people to join the religion... and not because they realized that discrimination was wrong, but because god sent them a special message that it was the right time.

[Elke]

I meant Ryan, halloween, he's a Roman Catholic. Or at least, he says he is.

But I read a bit about Romney's stance on women and women's rights, and it's nothing if not appalling.

[50 Volt Phantom]

We've been bankrupt since Bush sent us to war in 2001, but since you want to crunch numbers, Obama has actually spent the least (http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/who-is-the-smallest-government-spender-since-eisenhower-would-you-believe-its-barack-obama/).

Also, please explain to me how being a corporate headhunter makes you an exemplary candidate for president. You know what the majority of past presidents majored in at college? Law. Same with members of Congress. So if we're to follow your line of argument then a scant few individuals in government are actually qualified to hold their position.
First problem is that you posted an article from the self proclaimed "token lefty" of Forbes, so there's the first red flag, second red flag is the reliance on CBO numbers that are usually off and require adjustments by the CBO itself over and over, third red flag is putting the 2009 budget solely on Bush's back, when in reality Bush's budget was passed by a Congress run by Pelosi and Reid, of which Obama himself voted for, and by the time Obama signed it into law in March of 2009 the budget cost had actually increased from Bush's initial proposal.

If you want to boil down what Romney has done to being a corporate headhunter, go for it, but being CEO of something like Bain Capital gave him a complex insight into the business world, into job creation, the risks and rewards of running a business, investing in a business and a lot more. He also did a hell of a job overseeing and managing the Salt Lake City Olympics, whom most agree was one of the best put together Olympics of recent time. Oh ya and there's that executive experience as governor in Massachusetts.

Considering unemployment has been above 8% for what, 40 months, thanks in part to Obama's wonderful knowledge of all the small businesses he believes the government built, I'd say Romney's real experience with real business is incredibly valuable. What exactly did Obama do to make him an exemplary candidate for president? Vote present a lot in the Illinois Senate? Get handed almost everything in his life to him for free? Be an unremarkable college professor who came from one of the worst classes to go through Columbia and likely made it into Harvard off the coattails of affirmative action? Be hoisted up by a corrupt and destructive Chicago political machine? Buddy up with extremists like Bill Ayers, Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright?

[50 Volt Phantom]

(Im with 50 on Romney's chances. You guys look at the polls in the swing states (actually generally). The majority of Americans are completely uninformed about what Obama has accomplished. It's going to be a close race and Romney has a very high chance to take the win me thinks. Every time I list things off I'm met with blank stares and "really?". It's interesting that Romney chose a more conservative and batshit insane candidate. That means they had conversations about being concerned with the women vote and decided "it doesn't matter" which is scary. Rather than trying to convince moderates they are going to try to get conservatives to the polls who have never voted before. 50 I'm still perplexed as to how you can shrug off social issues like they are nothing as if women and gays don't exist. We are more than half the population. Also 20% of women are raped so Idk how you can just shrug off this pro life nonsense.

Responsible economic platform? How can it not matter to you that someone is a bigot and wants to take away women's most important rights? It's absolute sociopathy. Their whole platform is based on the idea that the underprivileged (economically, racially, gender-wise and concerning sexual orientation) should just hang tight on the whims of those in a more powerful position. It's responsible if you don't give a damn about anyone but majority and those who already have the most power.

Also anyone who is serious about cutting spending and does not propose HUGE cuts to the military is a joke.

If the numbers are "balanced" enough for you to be happy with but those who aren't already in power don't benefit at all then WHAT IS THE POINT?! If the well being of the people is not on their minds then WHAT IS THE POINT? Also all of the tax revenue that his plan would depend on would come from closing tax loopholes. It's all good except he hasn't listed which ones or even begun to talk about the specifics. Seriously it can't be that hard to name one obvious loop hole.....Nope the most important thing is that the rich face a tax decrease and obviously how that will be paid for is irrelevant to these people. Not to worry! Seniors and the poor can pick up the check! They're just leeches anyways.

Also what happened to the health care debate? Do you realize as long as we don't have universal healthcare we are barbarians don't you? What the fuck is evil if not letting people die and continue being sick when treatment is in their grasp geographically? If you don't have proper funds you don't deserve to live. How can you just accept that? A government should not be sociopathic. A litmus test for how good a government is SHOULD have something to do with how the underprivileged are aided and how much of a priority they are in a platform.
Your whole post reads like a Chris Matthews monologue of fearmongering and sensationalism.

EDIT: By the way, I'm tired of all this moderate bullshit, I'm glad Romney didn't fall for that trap and did go with a real conservative. The GOP needs to stop trying to reach across the aisle and appease, because it is a dead end.

[halloween]

I meant Ryan, halloween, he's a Roman Catholic. Or at least, he says he is.

But I read a bit about Romney's stance on women and women's rights, and it's nothing if not appalling.

Oh- Oops, I didn't read carefully enough.

[littlemonkey613]

Your whole post reads like a Chris Matthews monologue of fearmongering and sensationalism.

EDIT: By the way, I'm tired of all this moderate bullshit, I'm glad Romney didn't fall for that trap and did go with a real conservative. The GOP needs to stop trying to reach across the aisle and appease, because it is a dead end.

I don't even watch a news station! I just read a shit ton. I actually read conservative news more because its more entertaining (Christian news blogs are preferable) You still have nothing to say for anything I'm asking? It's not that hard. How do you not care about the rights of anyone whose interest isn't business? Fear mongering? It's a fact that people die because they can't get treatment. It's a fact that people don't have healthcare and so don't get any treatment. How is this sensational? How is it sensational to point that Paul Ryan actually IS against women's rights? How could one possibly even exaggerate detest when he actually is against abortion when a mother's life is at risk. The reality is scarier than anything I can come up with. Also he actually hasn't suggested which loop holes he'd be closing....

Also the rest of the western world has abandoned conservatism as an ideal mode of policy because they aren't as obsessed with unpragmatic mythos. Health and well being and education of their people are actually important to them.

[Jinsai]

Your whole post reads like a Chris Matthews monologue of fearmongering and sensationalism.

And you sound like a Rush Limbaugh monologue without the intentional misrepresentation of facts. I think you actually believe this shit.


being CEO of something like Bain Capital gave him a complex insight into the business world, into job creation

Holy shit. Bain capital is now identified with "job creation?" They're notorious for swallowing businesses and firing the employees after bleeding them dry. Where do you get this? I don't think that even the most hard line neo con dipshit would go where you're going here. Being CEO of Bain Capital gave Romney a complex insight into how to destroy American jobs and personally profit from it.

sometimes the best response is to just laugh at it (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-tears-into-romneys-weak-bain-capital-tax-return-defense/)

[Torgo]

50 Volt, we've heard your opinions on "economic reform" - but what about these:

What are your stances/opinions on each of these subjects -

A.) Banning birth control
B.) Abortion
C.) Abortion in the cases of rape and/or serious health risks to the mother
D.) Gay and lesbian marriages
E.) Gay and lesbian adoptions

[Elke]

Considering unemployment has been above 8% for what, 40 months, thanks in part to Obama's wonderful knowledge of all the small businesses he believes the government built, I'd say Romney's real experience with real business is incredibly valuable.

In 2011 Eurostat lists unemployment amongst under-25 for the 27 EU countries as 21.4% and 8.3% in over-25. The employment growth in total in the EU countries in 2011 was 0.2%, almost completely amongst women. 10.7% of all European children live in jobless households and 4.1% of all EU citizens have been unemployed for upwards of 12 months.

Noteable factors in the rise of youth unemployment and the general higher unemployment figures have been companies cutting down costs by flushing out temps and older (more expensive) workers, relocations and outsourcing, an oversaturation of certain types of higher education degrees, an alarming number of bankrupcies in smaller bussinesses due to the economic crises and a lack of new starters / investments in certain types of labour-intensive economies and the production of luxury items like suitcases and high quality towels.

Now please, do me the infinte pleasure of telling me this:
a) Why should the president of the USA be able to do what a great number of European leaders have not been able to do? And yes, some members of the EU (like Belgium, Germany, Italy and The Netherlands) have managed to keep their unemployment rates rather low. They didn't do this by getting more people active, though, it's all a statistic trick.
b) How would Obama have been able to tackle any of the issues I listed in a better and more effective way?
c) How is Romney planning to tackle any of the issues I listed in a better and more effective way?
And finally, not wholly unimportantly:
d) If there is a better and more effective way, why the fuck isn't anybody doing it?

Here's what really gets me in your post: the U.S. may have caused a global economic crisis by deregulating its banking system allowing for rogue traders to crash a significant part of the financial market, but it's not the only country in the world and like all of us little fish in the big pond it's going to have to face this very simple fact - that there is a financial crisis, that it isn't over yet and that what happens in Greece, Tunesia and China actually does effect the U.S. to quite some effect. And that when economy becomes a game of Giant Octopus vs. Megashark, countries don't matter and their politicians only matter to the effect that they can manipulate legislation to benifit certain industries.

What Obama had on offer was the idea that diversity could be a positive factor, and that the many individuals in the U.S. could make a solid one. And an idea, when it takes root in peoples' minds, can be a much more powerful catlayst for change, growth and progress than any number of tax cuts or government programs. But not when the idea is one of individuals in a divide-and-conquer scenario where there is an inherent divide across the nation - which seems to be the republican idea.
[Affirmative action isn't necessarily a bad thing, but that's a different discussion so I'll leave it undiscussed.]

[orestes]

First problem is that you posted an article from the self proclaimed "token lefty" of Forbes, so there's the first red flag, second red flag is the reliance on CBO numbers that are usually off and require adjustments by the CBO itself over and over, third red flag is putting the 2009 budget solely on Bush's back, when in reality Bush's budget was passed by a Congress run by Pelosi and Reid, of which Obama himself voted for, and by the time Obama signed it into law in March of 2009 the budget cost had actually increased from Bush's initial proposal.

If you want to boil down what Romney has done to being a corporate headhunter, go for it, but being CEO of something like Bain Capital gave him a complex insight into the business world, into job creation, the risks and rewards of running a business, investing in a business and a lot more. He also did a hell of a job overseeing and managing the Salt Lake City Olympics, whom most agree was one of the best put together Olympics of recent time. Oh ya and there's that executive experience as governor in Massachusetts.

Considering unemployment has been above 8% for what, 40 months, thanks in part to Obama's wonderful knowledge of all the small businesses he believes the government built, I'd say Romney's real experience with real business is incredibly valuable. What exactly did Obama do to make him an exemplary candidate for president? Vote present a lot in the Illinois Senate? Get handed almost everything in his life to him for free? Be an unremarkable college professor who came from one of the worst classes to go through Columbia and likely made it into Harvard off the coattails of affirmative action? Be hoisted up by a corrupt and destructive Chicago political machine? Buddy up with extremists like Bill Ayers, Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright?

You know, I could quote statistics from the Office of Budget and Management and you would still derail it as a liberal source. But whatever, all your posts are a straw-man argument.

[sublimaze]

You know, I could quote statistics from the Office of Budget and Management and you would still derail it as a liberal source. But whatever, all your posts are a straw-man argument.

You could quote stats from the National Review and they'd still be disbelieved if they don't fit in to a nice little tiny package with a ribbon saying "tea party" on it.

Hey, Fifty (just read the book, weirdly enough?), guess what? You're a sore loser still smarting from being smacked in 2008. Get over it. Your one-term Governor gets trumped by the first-term President on the "executive experience in government" issue.

Romney was going to get the far-right vote regardless, because they'd vote against Obama if their candidate was a bag of lettuce (an improvement over Sarah). He just killed his chance with independents, especially the elderly. Best quote I've read so far was from Paul Begala, that Paul Ryan wants to "fix" Medicare kinda like the vet wanted to "fix" his dog. The dog wasn't happy, and you don't fuck around with old people, who have a powerful lobby and vote reliably. Other focus groups aren't going to swing much in either direction IMO.

On the other hand, Americans are morons, so he still has a chance. Take some comfort in that Fifty.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Ha, Paul Begala, I am SHOCKED he's not into Paul Ryan.

[sublimaze]

Being a liberal doesn't make his point/analogy less valid.

[50 Volt Phantom]

50 Volt, we've heard your opinions on "economic reform" - but what about these:

What are your stances/opinions on each of these subjects -

A.) Banning birth control
B.) Abortion
C.) Abortion in the cases of rape and/or serious health risks to the mother
D.) Gay and lesbian marriages
E.) Gay and lesbian adoptions
A.) Against it, and you're fucking crazy if you think there's a risk of this happening.
B.) I do not support third trimester abortion, I would rather see people choose other options than abortion overall.
C.) Rape does not result in a high number of pregnancies, I believe single digit percentiles, so I've never really understood the huge outcry about this particular issue, and I really have no stance on abortion in health risk situations.
D.) Not for or against, we've been through this discussion before, I'd rather not do it again, no one is changing eachother's minds.
E.) See answer for D.


Elke, I would say massive amounts of spending, entitlement programs and socialism has led to permanently high unemployment in Europe, Obama wants us to be more like Europe and so we're seeing the same results here. Also, if you think that the republicans are the ones dividing this country than you are horribly misled, Obama and his lapdogs in the media have done nothing but divide this country since he was elected in every possible way they can. Furthermore affirmative action is almost always a bad thing.

Sublimaze, Paul Begala is a hitman, he is a political assassin, his entire job is to destroy people's lives, all one has to do is look at his role in the Lewinsky scandal to know that what he says isn't worth shit. Obamacare is a disaster, same with Medicare and Social Security, sure healthcare needs to be fixed, but Obamacare basically fucks it up even more and in 2014 when it fully kicks in and the real taxes start the already unpopular legislation will be truly reviled. Medicare and Social Security are unsustainable, which is really surprising because I thought the government did everything right.

Obama won because Bush did a bad enough job near the end and the media did everything in their power to make the US at large hate his guts, anyone could have beat him. The amazing thing is Obama has the entire media behind him, he has Hollywood behind him and he can't seem to gain any traction, in fact he's losing more ground thanks in part to his Chicago style attacks on Romney. I guess when you feel you have nothing of value to say about yourself and what you've done for the country you need to just start making up lies about your opponent to cover your butt.

[theruiner]

The amazing thing is Obama has the entire media behind him, he has Hollywood behind him and he can't seem to gain any traction, in fact he's losing more ground thanks in part to his Chicago style attacks on Romney.Obama leads Romney by nine points (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/fox-news-poll-obama-leads-romney-by-nine/1#.UChgO6DAxT0)

[sublimaze]

Obamacare can't possibly be a disaster, since almost none of the major provisions have gone into effect. Social Security was designed to keep the elderly out of poverty and has done exactly that. Medicare, while flawed, does a decent job.

Paul Begala, seriously, a political assassin? Where the fuck do you get this shit from? He's a liberal pundit but hardly toxic. What he said just took my thoughts to a more articulate level. Fifty, you're being awfully hostile.

There are personal reasons why I'm strongly opposed to cutting social programs. My son has autism, and while I have health insurance to cover some therapies and income to cover the rest, most families are not as fortunate. All the bootstrap-pulling in the universe could not provide enough for them and government resources fill in the gap. People like you would gut those resources under the guise of fiscal responsibility, but the truth is that you don't personally know anyone in those dire straights and just don't give a shit about those less fortunate.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Don't assume I don't know people in dire straights, you don't know anything about me other than what I've posted here, I just happen to think dire straights can be aided in ways other than massive entitlement and social programs. I think what Paul Ryan has proposed for Medicare makes sense, Bill Clinton was caught backstage basically saying he liked what Paul Ryan was doing with it, and Bill Clinton is the god of the Democrat party. In fact, for all the Paul Ryan wants to destroy Medicare talk, it's actually Obama who has stripped out massive amounts of money for it to try to pay for Obamacare.

Like it or not, Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable, period, we need to find a way to fix them, I lean towards a conservative method and you don't, we both feel that the other person is wrong. I think that we will find Obamacare to be equally as troubling when it's hidden taxes hit everyone and businesses already struggling are forced to decide between paying the fine or insuring their employees. I for one am worried about losing my employer provided health insurance thanks to Obamacare. With healthcare costs rising and the economy still stuck thanks to the failed stimulus and lots of spending that fine may look like the more appealing route. Then there is the fact that there is going to be a doctor shortage, there are going to be European and Canadian style wait times, there will be rationing, and the keeping your current healthcare and doctor ruse. Sure, you can in theory, the question is will your employer keep you on the same plan, will you be able to afford it after Obamacare hits, and will your doctor even be there to see you.

[sublimaze]

How do you think, then, someone who is physically or mentally disabled should pay basic living expenses or buy food, much less for needed health care? What if their family has abandoned them and private charities don't have enough resources (which they don't).

How? Where does the aid come from?

[50 Volt Phantom]

There is a big difference between people who need some sort of welfare system aid and someone who simply rides on it out of ease, I've seen plenty of people do the latter so they can drink all day or spend more time selling and using drugs. There is welfare for the lazy and welfare for the truly needy. Now that entitlement programs are quite ingrained into our society we will never truly get rid of them, so we must do what we can to make them as efficient as they can be and cut down on people playing the system to their advantage.

[sublimaze]

There is a big difference between people who need some sort of welfare system aid and someone who simply rides on it out of ease, I've seen plenty of people do the latter so they can drink all day or spend more time selling and using drugs. There is welfare for the lazy and welfare for the truly needy. Now that entitlement programs are quite ingrained into our society we will never truly get rid of them, so we must do what we can to make them as efficient as they can be and cut down on people playing the system to their advantage.

Nobody wants people on the dole if they don't have to be. Where to draw the line is an issue up for grabs. Right now, Medicaid is available to families making "x" amount (differs between states, but about $30K here in TX), otherwise you're not eligible. Social security is basically a pension fund (and is solvent for another 50 years at least). Medicare works like a very inefficient single-payer plan. Could be better, but vouchers that benefit for-profit insurance companies isn't a "fix," it's a handout to corporations. I personally think it's horrible to make a profit providing health care, whether you're a hospital system or insurance company. For many people, their life is on the line, not the bottom line.

Forgot to mention before, doctors aren't going to quit, just whine and moan a lot about any possibility of loss of income, autonomy, etc. Docs have invested a lot of blood, sweat, tears, time, and money into their training, so the potential for lost salary is a big deal. I don't think Obamacare will hurt them much to be honest.

I do know that my sister and many others, who aren't offered health benefits from their employers, have pre-existing conditions, and not much money, stand to benefit a TON from the proposed exchanges in Obamacare.

[Elke]

C.) Rape does not result in a high number of pregnancies, I believe single digit percentiles, so I've never really understood the huge outcry about this particular issue,

Maybe you lack empathy?


Elke, I would say massive amounts of spending, entitlement programs and socialism has led to permanently high unemployment in Europe, Obama wants us to be more like Europe and so we're seeing the same results here.

You would say that, as do many European right wingers and fiscal conservatives but oddly enough, there's no actual research supporting this thesis. In fact, the countries with the strongest social security network and the most socialist government (though don't make the mistake of thinking any country in Europe is truly socialist, not even te Scandinavians) like Belgium, Denmark, The Netherlands, the Scandinavian countries or pre-Sarkozy France, don't have the highest unemployment rates or poverty rates. In fact, unemployment over 25 is highest in Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, Greece, Spain (a staggering 19.4%), Latvia, Lithuania, Portugal, Slovakia and Croatia. None of these are classical welfare states with strong government support systems, yet they all have upwards of 10% +25 unemployment rates. In fact, the main problem in Spain and Greece seems to be that the governments were simply bloody corrupt.
If you compare that to those classic welfare states, the numbers are rather clear: Belgium (6%), Denmark (6.3%), Germany (5.6%), The Netherlands (3.8%), Finland (6.1%), Sweden (5.2%), UK (5.8%), Iceland (5.5%) and Norway (2.4%) are models of wellfare states (or: Socialist Terror Realms, in your lingo) that do remarkable better in terms of unemployment than the U.S, in a year in which the EU was in an economic crisis worse than the global one the U.S. banks created.
One can see why Obama would look to those countries for solutions, no?
What's more, most of those countries have seen employment growth in 2011, with Norway even raising employment rates by 1.4% and Sweden managing 2.2%.
Again, one can see why economists might look at those countries to see what can be done.


Also, if you think that the republicans are the ones dividing this country than you are horribly misled, Obama and his lapdogs in the media have done nothing but divide this country since he was elected in every possible way they can.

Okay, give me some research to support your claim, or some things the Obama administration has done that was divisive.


Furthermore affirmative action is almost always a bad thing.

No, it isn't. This (http://www.balancedpolitics.org/affirmative_action.htm) is a short and easy list to start your research with.

I also noticed that you haven't responed to a single one of my main arguments, or answered any of my questions.

So let me try again: barring the traditional tools of the welfare state, what would Mitt Romney do that Obama didn't and how would it work?

[Jinsai]

Obama won because Bush did a bad enough job near the end

Yeah, that small part towards the end where the economy collapsed... due to 8 years of his bullshit leadership where he steadily drove our economy into the ground.

[ambergris]

I'm very mentally invested in US politics (also I am writing my thesis about US fiscal policy), and I have to say that the Ryan pick is even worse than the Palin pick at first sight. With Palin, I was very sceptical but her first impression was not THAT bad. She was fierce and mostly unknown, and she delivered her speeches well (Even now, she is good when she's scripted). Also, she was able to focus a lot of resentment against the black, educated, liberal Obama. But Ryan... there is no question. He is a symbol of right-wing politics taken to the ultimate extreme. I get the feeling that a lot of liberals are even more convinced of an Obama win than before. Romney was already a weak candidate, weaker than McCain was, but now he's just running for his base. Maybe he knows he's going to lose and simply wants to get the conservative 45% of the voting population to the polls to prevent a total collapse.

[Jinsai]

I'm very mentally invested in US politics (also I am writing my thesis about US fiscal policy), and I have to say that the Ryan pick is even worse than the Palin pick at first sight. With Palin, I was very sceptical but her first impression was not THAT bad. She was fierce and mostly unknown, and she delivered her speeches well (Even now, she is good when she's scripted). Also, she was able to focus a lot of resentment against the black, educated, liberal Obama. But Ryan... there is no question. He is a symbol of right-wing politics taken to the ultimate extreme. I get the feeling that a lot of liberals are even more convinced of an Obama win than before. Romney was already a weak candidate, weaker than McCain was, but now he's just running for his base. Maybe he knows he's going to lose and simply wants to get the conservative 45% of the voting population to the polls to prevent a total collapse.

The one difference is that Ryan will not falter without a teleprompter. Palin was a flat out idiot. All signs point towards Ryan being a very smart bigot. Unlike palin, he'll actually read the script. Comparisons to palin are flattering and should be avoided.

[ambergris]

The one difference is that Ryan will not falter without a teleprompter. Palin was a flat out idiot. All signs point towards Ryan being a very smart bigot. Unlike palin, he'll actually read the script. Comparisons to palin are flattering and should be avoided.

Well, I was talking about the first impression. And for about two weeks, Palin looked not as bad as she turned out to be. It was probably that Katie Couric interview that sealed the deal. With Ryan however, we know what we have.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Yeah, that small part towards the end where the economy collapsed... due to 8 years of his bullshit leadership where he steadily drove our economy into the ground.

But don't you know, all true American Conservatives 'were never fans of Bush.' Go ahead and ask any one of them. It remains a mystery as to why he did so well in the 04 elections, seeing as no one, not even conservatives, ever supported or liked him. Same thing applies to the two wars he began. It must have been some kind of liberal plot.


Pre-Sarkozy France
Yep. Painting Europe with the same strong-government / public-spending brush is to ignore the last 20 years. Sarkozy US-style deregulation and dismantlement has taken hold in quite a few places. That and quite a few leaders still insist on austerity measures. If anything, I think the issues that persist in the EU are evidence of the need to build and KEEP a strong social safety net.

[Elke]

Absolutely. The countries I listed as doing rather well all refused to implement the strict EU cirsis-guidelines, and with positive results. Cutting back expenses can never be the only option when facing a monetary or financial crisis.

[Wretchedest]

You know what republicans are most afraid of right now? The tea party. It sounds a bit crazy, but all of the traditional republicans I know are concerned about the schisn created by them and the bad rap they get from being associated with them. At the same time, they have to appeal to them. I think Ryan's a fix on that. I know quite a few people whos passions are now ignited hy this pick. As far as conservative nut jobs go, hes a clever choice.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Nobody wants people on the dole if they don't have to be. Where to draw the line is an issue up for grabs. Right now, Medicaid is available to families making "x" amount (differs between states, but about $30K here in TX), otherwise you're not eligible. Social security is basically a pension fund (and is solvent for another 50 years at least). Medicare works like a very inefficient single-payer plan. Could be better, but vouchers that benefit for-profit insurance companies isn't a "fix," it's a handout to corporations. I personally think it's horrible to make a profit providing health care, whether you're a hospital system or insurance company. For many people, their life is on the line, not the bottom line.

Forgot to mention before, doctors aren't going to quit, just whine and moan a lot about any possibility of loss of income, autonomy, etc. Docs have invested a lot of blood, sweat, tears, time, and money into their training, so the potential for lost salary is a big deal. I don't think Obamacare will hurt them much to be honest.

I do know that my sister and many others, who aren't offered health benefits from their employers, have pre-existing conditions, and not much money, stand to benefit a TON from the proposed exchanges in Obamacare.
The very idea that insurance companies and hospitals shouldn't make a profit is ludicrous, it is yet another example of liberal ideals that I find ridiculous. I don't know how so many people have grasped onto this profit = bad meme, but it seems to be showing up all over. How are hospitals supposed to expand, hire more people, essentially grow, without profit? Same to insurance companies. Why is profit such a reviled thing these days? On the subject of profits and wealth, it really bothers me when the Obama is caught talking about a so-called new America where prosperity is shared, other than the hard left and the socialists out there that should feel people with a small dose of anxiety.

On doctors, there have time and time again been polls showing dissatisfaction amongst doctors in regard to Obamacare, the health industry that seemed to support Obamacare is now openly concerned about this dissatisfaction and the looming likelihood of doctor shortages. If you don't think we'll see quite a few doctors retire because of Obamacare you are nuts. The system as it is set up now is difficult enough for doctors to work with, much like car dealerships found themselves waiting to be reimbursed after the "Cash for Clunkers" program, doctors jump through hoops and wait for the government to reimburse them. It's no wonder some simply opt out of the program outright, I wouldn't be shocked to see similar results with Obamacare.

Now onto you Elke. First of all, I do not lack empathy, not by a longshot, I just find that the drama made about the subject of pregnancy by rape far outweighs the reality of the situation. To quell any further drama you should know that I support abortion in this matter, but again believe other options should be considered first.

As for Europe, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the so-called social net much greater there? Meaning that unemployment and similar nanny systems are much larger and more prevalent? Our own numbers here, above 8% tell only part of the story, when including those that have given up looking the number is far more substantial, I assume the same or more likely worse for Europe.

As for divisiveness, I guess you weren't paying attention during the summer Obama tried to sell the country on Obamacare, you know when unions stepped up their nastiness, when opposition to Obamacare was shut out of townhall meetings, when union thugs were assaulting people, etc. The manner in which he and his cronies pushed that legislation sharply divided this country, because he got nasty about it and so did his union army. His administration has used the race card at every instance to protect him from criticism. His immediate remarks in support of Prof. Gates back in 2010 when he didn't know the full story created even more racial division. He has completely politicized Arizona trying to figure out it's illegal immigration problem to create a stir amongs the latino community. His Department of Justice has been caught up in yet another racial issue when refusing to prosecute the Black Panther members participating in voter intimidation in Philadelphia I believe, and that scandal continues to evolve. He has at all opportunities slighted Wall Street, the well off, investors, etc. while happily taking their campaign dollars. More recently he took the stance that business owners didn't build their own businesses, that government did, that the people did. The man who promised to unify has deeply divided this country amongst partisan lines, class lines, and race lines, he has not once attempted to truly unify us as a nation.

Your link on affirmative action is opinion, and I disagree with it. You are either better qualified for the job than the other person or you are not, losing out to someone not as qualified as you in the name of fairness is the exact opposite of fairness.

Wretchedest, you must have some pretty flimsy Republican friends, most Republicans/conservatives I know find a lot to enjoy about the Tea Party, including myself. It's about time we have true conservatism again and not the Bush style conservatism that occurred for 8 years.

Finally, Romney being weaker than McCain is hilarious, I mean really? McCain was an absolute moron, a pushover moderate, if that, trying to play as a Republican, too happy to try to play the nice guy while the liberals tore him to shreds. I like that Romney/Ryan are going to be mean, they should be, especially in light of this unbelievable cancer SuperPAC ad and the equally vile "Romney didn't pay taxes" crap. You all can pretend to be happy about the pick, but it's Romney/Ryan packing in huge numbers wherever they go, it's certainly not Obama anymore, all he has is his hypocritical Hollywood shindigs.

[littlemonkey613]

The very idea that insurance companies and hospitals shouldn't make a profit is ludicrous, it is yet another example of liberal ideals that I find ridiculous. I don't know how so many people have grasped onto this profit = bad meme, but it seems to be showing up all over. How are hospitals supposed to expand, hire more people, essentially grow, without profit? Same to insurance companies. Why is profit such a reviled thing these days?

Profit is not bad inherently. I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to understand. Health is life and death. As in death of people. As in people's existences (as far as we know) are being wiped out just because they can't get treatment. As in the actual lives of all people are in the hands of insurance companies whom cannot have health as a priority when profit DEPENDS on people being sick. Our lives should not be dependent on the mere hope that insurance companies aren't run by sociopaths (which they are) whose main priority is to make profits. I literally cannot think of a more blatant example of a conflict of interest that leaves more room for evil. Are you serious?

Unnecessary death should upset you more than unbalanced numbers. The deficit is not directly correlated to the death and sickness of thousands. We are not ignorant and care free when it comes to the deficit, debt and budget. The difference is that we are not willing to sacrifice the lives and health of people in order to balance those numbers because they it defeats the purpose in our eyes. If we are not starting with the idea that the well being of the PEOPLE is most important then who the fuck cares if spending is cut astronomically? What is the point if the people (mainly the poor) are not in a better place. Comprendo?

That is why we want to cut things that do not mean less food for people, less healthcare for people and the like (when its possible). Again Ryan cannot be taken seriously for the mere fact that he hasn't put military spending on the table. It proves he is no more logical than the "libtards" you hate so much. If there was a call for a collective sacrifice from both parties to cut increase revenue (higher taxes for the rich) and decrease spending (the poor making sacrifices in terms of benefits and healthcare) then maybe we'd understand. But Ryan wants the sacrifices to come from the people who literally cannot afford them and that is unacceptable while richer Americans have to give up NOTHING.

[Jinsai]

Now onto you Elke. First of all, I do not lack empathy, not by a longshot, I just find that the drama made about the subject of pregnancy by rape far outweighs the reality of the situation. To quell any further drama you should know that I support abortion in this matter, but again believe other options should be considered first.



No, you just think politicians who openly lack empathy for pregnant rape victims are "charismatic and approachable."

[orestes]

Now onto you Elke. First of all, I do not lack empathy, not by a longshot, I just find that the drama made about the subject of pregnancy by rape far outweighs the reality of the situation. To quell any further drama you should know that I support abortion in this matter, but again believe other options should be considered first.

"Blah, blah, blah quit being hysterical, woman."

Fuck you and your male privilege.

[littlemonkey613]

Now onto you Elke. First of all, I do not lack empathy, not by a longshot, I just find that the drama made about the subject of pregnancy by rape far outweighs the reality of the situation. To quell any further drama you should know that I support abortion in this matter, but again believe other options should be considered first.
.

So you admit that people get pregnant from rape whom don't have access to abortions but you don't understand our anger...This shouldn't be happening at all! 85% of women in this country don't have proper access to abortion clinics. 20% of women get raped in their life time. And you have the nerve to say were overreacting? That can't possibly have anything to do with the fact that you can't relate can it?

[50 Volt Phantom]

Profit is not bad inherently. I don't know why this concept is so hard for you to understand. Health is life and death. As in death of people. As in people's existences (as far as we know) are being wiped out just because they can't get treatment. As in the actual lives of all people are in the hands of insurance companies whom cannot have health as a priority when profit DEPENDS on people being sick. Our lives should not be dependent on the mere hope that insurance companies aren't run by sociopaths (which they are) whose main priority is to make profits. I literally cannot think of a more blatant example of a conflict of interest that leaves more room for evil. Are you serious?

Unnecessary death should upset you more than unbalanced numbers. The deficit is not directly correlated to the death and sickness of thousands. We are not ignorant and care free when it comes to the deficit, debt and budget. The difference is that we are not willing to sacrifice the lives and health of people in order to balance those numbers because they it defeats the purpose in our eyes. If we are not starting with the idea that the well being of the PEOPLE is most important then who the fuck cares if spending is cut astronomically? What is the point if the people (mainly the poor) are not in a better place. Comprendo?

That is why we want to cut things that do not mean less food for people, less healthcare for people and the like (when its possible). Again Ryan cannot be taken seriously for the mere fact that he hasn't put military spending on the table. It proves he is no more logical than the "libtards" you hate so much. If there was a call for a collective sacrifice from both parties to cut increase revenue (higher taxes for the rich) and decrease spending (the poor making sacrifices in terms of benefits and healthcare) then maybe we'd understand. But Ryan wants the sacrifices to come from the people who literally cannot afford them and that is unacceptable while richer Americans have to give up NOTHING.
Obviously you believe that insurance companies should take extraordinary risks, and not put an emphasis on profit, so that they risk paying out more money then they take in, that is not sustainable. Basically idealism is nice, but it's not realistic.

Taxing the rich isn't going to solve all the world's problems, sorry, it's not, and when you do you'll find that they will make adjustments to their own life that have further negative effects.

As for Ryan, Medicare and Social Security are on the track towards disaster, rather than gut Medicare like Obama did for Obamacare, atleast Ryan proposed trying to fix it. He and Romney are also not going to raise anyone's taxes and in fact give tax breaks on capital gains and dividends to those making under 200,000 a year, this message that they will kill the elderly and make the rich richer is distortion and/or outright lying.

[50 Volt Phantom]

"Blah, blah, blah quit being hysterical, woman."

Fuck you and your male privilege.
I know, it's a real shame I think someone should try to save a human being rather than kill it, I'm a pretty awful person.

[orestes]

Yeah, man, fuck the mother, I mean if she wasn't a fucking slut, she wouldn't have been raped.


I'm a pretty awful person.

Yes, you are. The fact that you would trump an adult woman's right to life is galling.

(FYI: biologically speaking, a fetus isn't a human.)

[littlemonkey613]

Obviously you believe that insurance companies should take extraordinary risks, and not put an emphasis on profit, so that they risk paying out more money then they take in, that is not sustainable. Basically idealism is nice, but it's not realistic.

Taxing the rich isn't going to solve all the world's problems, sorry, it's not, and when you do you'll find that they will make adjustments to their own life that have further negative effects.

As for Ryan, Medicare and Social Security are on the track towards disaster, rather than gut Medicare like Obama did for Obamacare, atleast Ryan proposed trying to fix it. He and Romney are also not going to raise anyone's taxes and in fact give tax breaks on capital gains and dividends to those making under 200,000 a year, this message that they will kill the elderly and make the rich richer is distortion and/or outright lying.

That is why we wanted single payer! That way insurance companies can make a profit while the people are insured health insurance and universally covered. (the horror) W/e problems you can point out in successful single-payer systems in Canada, Britain and the like do not even come close to the batshit insanity that is our system right now and does not cancel out the fact that everyone in those nations have access to healthcare. Again Romney has no plan on the table that would cover 30 million americans virtually overnight like the Affordable Health Care act does. All the cons you listed are minuscule in impact when you think about those 30 million whom had NO insurance before.

How is it lying that the rich will get richer? The rich have been getting exponentially richer the last few decades. The top 400 wealthy in the nation have more money than the bottom 150 million and Ryan does not even see this as a problem. Where is the lie?

We know taxing the rich does not solve the world's problems. My point is the fact that that and military spending aren't even on the table means that they are no more serious about being pragmatic than anyone you can criticize.

And holy shit there is NO EXCUSE for this man's stances on social issues. It would be different if you would at least criticize these two for social stances that are completely inexcusable. But you've admitted you don't give much a damn about bigotry and inequality (as if they don't affect the majority of Americans).

[Wretchedest]

You guys are making Phantom out to be so much more extreme than he is. He's a moderate conservative by all comparisons to republican party people judging by a lot of the things he's said...

[50 Volt Phantom]

Yeah, man, fuck the mother, I mean if she wasn't a fucking slut, she wouldn't have been raped.



Yes, you are. The fact that you would trump an adult woman's right to life is galling.

(FYI: biologically speaking, a fetus isn't a human.)
You are being ridiculous right now, I hope you know that.

[sublimaze]

^^^"Moderate" conservative means something a bit different nowadays. By 1950-60's standards, he would be extreme.^^^ (to Wretchedest)

[Elke]

First of all, I do not lack empathy, not by a longshot, I just find that the drama made about the subject of pregnancy by rape far outweighs the reality of the situation.

Ethical laws are made not by looking at majority situations but by looking at exceptions. Just like euthanasia laws aren't meant for every person over 65 who's having a bad day, or gay adoption rights mostly focus on the problem of long-term partners adopting a child from a previous relationship or marriage.
The drama is because while most people would say abortion as a means to end a pregnancy in general isn't favourable, there are some pretty easy to spot exceptions to that rule, rape and incest being amongst them, as well as medical abortion or teen pregnancies.
Like I said earlier, the social cost of not having abortions would be rather high.


As for Europe, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the so-called social net much greater there? Meaning that unemployment and similar nanny systems are much larger and more prevalent? Our own numbers here, above 8% tell only part of the story, when including those that have given up looking the number is far more substantial, I assume the same or more likely worse for Europe.

Because the social net is greater, anyone who is counted amongst the statistics is actively looking for a job or temporarily disabled (people who develop a back problem for instance, can get social benefit pay-outs, but if they're considered to be amongst those who can still re-enter the work place,
In other words: people who don't actively look for a job, don't get unemployment benefits and thus aren't counted amongst the statistics. I only know the number for Belgium, but over here it's estimated that 60% of the population could be working and only 40% actually do. Amongst those 20% are houseparents, disabled people, nuns and monks, students and people who are on some form of earlier retirement, as well as the chronically unemployed.
8% of the 40% of the population that works is currently unemployed. That's actually a pretty good statistic, all things considered.
Also, very few Belgians work more than one job, which I gather is not the case for a lot of U.S. citizens.

Unemployment, by the way, isn't a nanny system. While it's definitely true that it creates the opportunity for some people to not actively contribute to government funds while still benefitting from it, the system does guarantee that people have money to buy decent clothes for job interviews, pay for a driver's license and - if necessary - provide for their family.
I pay 30% taxes, and part of my money goes to unemployed parents of children in my class rooms. I consider that money well spent.


As for divisiveness, I guess you weren't paying attention during the summer Obama tried to sell the country on Obamacare, you know when unions stepped up their nastiness, when opposition to Obamacare was shut out of townhall meetings, when union thugs were assaulting people, etc.

Unions 'stepped up their nastiness' because long standing rights of government employees were about to be abolished. I never understood the problem liberals (in the original sense) and libertarians have with unions: they are a normal part of any free market capitalist system. In fact, they are at the root of it: instead of governments interfering in employment rights, people organize themselves and barter their rights. Seems like an ideal libertarian solution.
Even so, it wasn't anything Obama said or did that sparked 'union nastiness', it was a Republican governor.
So that's zero examples.

As for Obamacare: the point of the system was to equalize health care chances for the entire population, so more money wouldn't automatically buy you better or faster health care. I don't see how that is divisive? Yes, people disagreed with him, sure. I still don't quite understand why, but I suppose it's again a big governemt/small goverment thing. But making policies that not everyone agrees with, isn't divisive. Again: the point was to give everyone equal opportunities.

As for the manner in which he pushed the legislation: do you even remember the Patriot Act? Were you around for that? THAT was nasty. This was politics, and someone standing up for what he believed in.
(Also, calling people 'cronies' doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look biased - lowering the inherent value and persuasiveness of your argument - and sort of dumb.)


His administration has used the race card at every instance to protect him from criticism.

When?


His immediate remarks in support of Prof. Gates back in 2010 when he didn't know the full story created even more racial division.

Yes, I've noticed a couple of racists rear their head. I remember Limbaugh, Beck, Hanity... Can you point me to people who have a less smudged track record?


He has completely politicized Arizona trying to figure out it's illegal immigration problem to create a stir amongs the latino community.

Arizona wasn't trying to figure out its illegal immigration problem (which you cannot politicize because it is inherently a political problem), it was trying to abolish it by making sure there were no illegal immigrants anymore. It was fasttracking to Apartheid, and as far as I can tell a president does have the right to comment on state legislation as long as he doesn't interfere. Which, again as far as I can tell, is what he did. If I'm wrong, point me in the right direction for background info.


His Department of Justice has been caught up in yet another racial issue when refusing to prosecute the Black Panther members participating in voter intimidation in Philadelphia I believe, and that scandal continues to evolve.

While I agree that it seems this case was not dealt with properly, I believe the political powers accused of pushing to drop the case was in fact David Ogden, who was only DAG for half a year, during the time the charges against some of the accused were dropped - perhaps because they simply couldn't be prosecuted?
And I think, rather than a race issue, this might be a political one: the New Black Panthers aren't quite as influential as the old movement, but they still hold some (moral) authority.
Just as the GOP seems unwilling to alienate even the most disgustingly WASP strands of its electorate.
I can see how you would consider this divisive, but I'm not convinced that it actually did much dividing, except maybe in Fox HQ.


He has at all opportunities slighted Wall Street, the well off, investors, etc. while happily taking their campaign dollars.

He hasn't. Every speech I've seen of him on the subject, he's been very careful to point at bankers and investors who were careless with other people's money and/or fucked around with the system, rather than generalize. If you can point me to an UNEDITED speech of his where he does generalize like that, I'm keen to hear it.


More recently he took the stance that business owners didn't build their own businesses, that government did, that the people did.

Again, he didn't. In the unedited version of that speech it was very clear he meant to say that the wealthy (the so-called job-creators) aren't solely responsible for their wealth: the people who work within his business, top to bottom, everyday - whether they are actually rich job creators or lowly cleaning ladies - help make that business work and they deserve some of the credit. That was his point, and I'm interested to hear how you can contradict what he said.


The man who promised to unify has deeply divided this country amongst partisan lines, class lines, and race lines, he has not once attempted to truly unify us as a nation.

See, the funny thing is that in all of your examples what I see is not the actions of Obama himself, but the light in which his actions are interpreted. The lines he supposedly created were already there: the McCain campaign stuttered a couple of times when audience members and supporters became a little too enthusiastic in putting Obama (his skin colour, his supposed religion, his birth certificate) down, the 'liberals are communists' line is as old as the Clinton administration (and probably older), the race lines were already there and have become increasingly worrying since 9/11 (because black & white aren't the only colours) and the class lines are simply there, in every modern western society.

What I see is an administration that tries to strengthen the middle class, which is always a very good idea because capitalist societies are built on and carried by the middle class; who's trying to redistribute resources and equalize the odds for every child born in the U.S.
And yes, he's made mistakes, it's politics: you have to compromize your ideals if you want to get anywhere. But I don't see the great divider, and your examples (save one) manage to miss that mark completely.


Your link on affirmative action is opinion, and I disagree with it. You are either better qualified for the job than the other person or you are not, losing out to someone not as qualified as you in the name of fairness is the exact opposite of fairness.

And if you'd bothered to research it further, as I said you should, you would've known that affirmative action means that if you have two candidates of equal merrit, you pick the minority one. That's it. How is that unfair?

[littlemonkey613]

You guys are making Phantom out to be so much more extreme than he is. He's a moderate conservative by all comparisons to republican party people judging by a lot of the things he's said...
He once argued that white people should be able to celebrate their "whiteness" without criticism or scorn since black people are able to come together because of their struggles.......I've honestly never heard someone whose not 12 or an idiot meme suggest this. You literally have to believe privilege doesn't exist. Oh wait he did insinuate that and told me I was blinded by hatred for stating facts concerning race and gender. Oop.

[Elke]

I don't think he's particularly extreme, just misinformed.

[littlemonkey613]

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/mitt-romney-would-pay-082-percent-in-taxes-under-paul-ryans-plan/261027/

"Ryan would cut the top marginal tax rate from 35 to 25 percent and get rid of the Alternative Minimum Tax -- saving Romney another $292,389 or so on his 2010 tax bill. Now, Romney would still owe self-employment taxes on his author and speaking fees, but that only amounts to $29,151. Add it all up, and Romney would have paid $177,650 out of a taxable income of $21,661,344, for a cool effective rate of 0.82 percent."

What in the fucking hell is this bullshit?

So dis be their proposed policy. http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l102/littlemonk3y613/Screenshot2012-08-14at53719PM.png


Yeah take a look at the bottom earners and their change in % points......How are we lying about them raising taxes on the poor again?

[Deus Ex Machina]

I know, it's a real shame I think someone should try to save a human being rather than kill it, I'm a pretty awful person.

No, you and those who are like-minded would not and are not 'saving' anything. Quite the opposite. You would force that woman to carry that fetus to term, then, you would dismantle any state or federal aid she might receive (the baby is the product of a rape, so essentially has no father to help with the financial and practical aspects of child rearing). You would dismantle/underfund any state or federal orphanages. You would dismantle the public school system in which the child might be educated. At every step, you make the life of this child and the adult they would become harder and harder. This is why no one really takes you seriously when you play the compassion card. As much as you may feel that you are a compassionate person, or as much as you may actually be a compassionate person in your day to day interactions, the policies you support hurt people. Full stop. As a former conservative, I understand your point of view. But when you support that kind of hostility towards people, you get hostility in return, and it is, more or less, warranted.


And I'm surprised that you've not yet learned by osmosis, or simply adopted our habit of finding sources for our information, doing math, and sticking to a single issue while debating out of the sheer force of observation.

[Deus Ex Machina]

He once argued that white people should be able to celebrate their "whiteness" without criticism or scorn since black people are able to come together because of their struggles.......I've honestly never heard someone whose not 12 or an idiot meme suggest this. You literally have to believe privilege doesn't exist. Oh wait he did insinuate that and told me I was blinded by hatred for stating facts concerning race and gender. Oop.

There are still many many people who are blind to or reject the idea of privilege. And really, that's what's so sinister about privilege, it's designed or has become something that's not all that easy to see unless you're confronted with it over and over. Hard to miss once you learn to recognize it, but not until.

And as he has already demonstrated, his worldview and ideology are perfectly consistent and sustainable (mentally), as long as you know little enough about the world in general.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Ethical laws are made not by looking at majority situations but by looking at exceptions. Just like euthanasia laws aren't meant for every person over 65 who's having a bad day, or gay adoption rights mostly focus on the problem of long-term partners adopting a child from a previous relationship or marriage.
The drama is because while most people would say abortion as a means to end a pregnancy in general isn't favourable, there are some pretty easy to spot exceptions to that rule, rape and incest being amongst them, as well as medical abortion or teen pregnancies.
Like I said earlier, the social cost of not having abortions would be rather high.



Because the social net is greater, anyone who is counted amongst the statistics is actively looking for a job or temporarily disabled (people who develop a back problem for instance, can get social benefit pay-outs, but if they're considered to be amongst those who can still re-enter the work place,
In other words: people who don't actively look for a job, don't get unemployment benefits and thus aren't counted amongst the statistics. I only know the number for Belgium, but over here it's estimated that 60% of the population could be working and only 40% actually do. Amongst those 20% are houseparents, disabled people, nuns and monks, students and people who are on some form of earlier retirement, as well as the chronically unemployed.
8% of the 40% of the population that works is currently unemployed. That's actually a pretty good statistic, all things considered.
Also, very few Belgians work more than one job, which I gather is not the case for a lot of U.S. citizens.

Unemployment, by the way, isn't a nanny system. While it's definitely true that it creates the opportunity for some people to not actively contribute to government funds while still benefitting from it, the system does guarantee that people have money to buy decent clothes for job interviews, pay for a driver's license and - if necessary - provide for their family.
I pay 30% taxes, and part of my money goes to unemployed parents of children in my class rooms. I consider that money well spent.



Unions 'stepped up their nastiness' because long standing rights of government employees were about to be abolished. I never understood the problem liberals (in the original sense) and libertarians have with unions: they are a normal part of any free market capitalist system. In fact, they are at the root of it: instead of governments interfering in employment rights, people organize themselves and barter their rights. Seems like an ideal libertarian solution.
Even so, it wasn't anything Obama said or did that sparked 'union nastiness', it was a Republican governor.
So that's zero examples.

As for Obamacare: the point of the system was to equalize health care chances for the entire population, so more money wouldn't automatically buy you better or faster health care. I don't see how that is divisive? Yes, people disagreed with him, sure. I still don't quite understand why, but I suppose it's again a big governemt/small goverment thing. But making policies that not everyone agrees with, isn't divisive. Again: the point was to give everyone equal opportunities.

As for the manner in which he pushed the legislation: do you even remember the Patriot Act? Were you around for that? THAT was nasty. This was politics, and someone standing up for what he believed in.
(Also, calling people 'cronies' doesn't help your argument, it just makes you look biased - lowering the inherent value and persuasiveness of your argument - and sort of dumb.)



When?



Yes, I've noticed a couple of racists rear their head. I remember Limbaugh, Beck, Hanity... Can you point me to people who have a less smudged track record?



Arizona wasn't trying to figure out its illegal immigration problem (which you cannot politicize because it is inherently a political problem), it was trying to abolish it by making sure there were no illegal immigrants anymore. It was fasttracking to Apartheid, and as far as I can tell a president does have the right to comment on state legislation as long as he doesn't interfere. Which, again as far as I can tell, is what he did. If I'm wrong, point me in the right direction for background info.



While I agree that it seems this case was not dealt with properly, I believe the political powers accused of pushing to drop the case was in fact David Ogden, who was only DAG for half a year, during the time the charges against some of the accused were dropped - perhaps because they simply couldn't be prosecuted?
And I think, rather than a race issue, this might be a political one: the New Black Panthers aren't quite as influential as the old movement, but they still hold some (moral) authority.
Just as the GOP seems unwilling to alienate even the most disgustingly WASP strands of its electorate.
I can see how you would consider this divisive, but I'm not convinced that it actually did much dividing, except maybe in Fox HQ.



He hasn't. Every speech I've seen of him on the subject, he's been very careful to point at bankers and investors who were careless with other people's money and/or fucked around with the system, rather than generalize. If you can point me to an UNEDITED speech of his where he does generalize like that, I'm keen to hear it.



Again, he didn't. In the unedited version of that speech it was very clear he meant to say that the wealthy (the so-called job-creators) aren't solely responsible for their wealth: the people who work within his business, top to bottom, everyday - whether they are actually rich job creators or lowly cleaning ladies - help make that business work and they deserve some of the credit. That was his point, and I'm interested to hear how you can contradict what he said.



See, the funny thing is that in all of your examples what I see is not the actions of Obama himself, but the light in which his actions are interpreted. The lines he supposedly created were already there: the McCain campaign stuttered a couple of times when audience members and supporters became a little too enthusiastic in putting Obama (his skin colour, his supposed religion, his birth certificate) down, the 'liberals are communists' line is as old as the Clinton administration (and probably older), the race lines were already there and have become increasingly worrying since 9/11 (because black & white aren't the only colours) and the class lines are simply there, in every modern western society.

What I see is an administration that tries to strengthen the middle class, which is always a very good idea because capitalist societies are built on and carried by the middle class; who's trying to redistribute resources and equalize the odds for every child born in the U.S.
And yes, he's made mistakes, it's politics: you have to compromize your ideals if you want to get anywhere. But I don't see the great divider, and your examples (save one) manage to miss that mark completely.



And if you'd bothered to research it further, as I said you should, you would've known that affirmative action means that if you have two candidates of equal merrit, you pick the minority one. That's it. How is that unfair?
I feel like neither one of us is going to gain any traction here, because I simply don't see eye to eye with you on most of this, period, and that's just the nature of this site and how I feel about things. If you don't think that Obama's handlers and the media have been very quick to pull the "racism" card in regard to criticism towards him, then I don't know what to tell you, not a day goes by that we don't hear about the Tea Party being racist, when in reality it's a rather diverse group. It was also plainly obvious that in making the "you didn't build that" remark he had absolutely no regard for the amount of risk and personal investment a business takes to get off the ground, sure the workers are important, but it is the creator of the business that takes the absolute risk, not the employees. I thought the context of the remark made this even more apparent. Even the manner in which you simply scoff of the New Black Panther incident just leads me to the conclusion that we're not going to get anywhere here. I'm curious though, what did you think of Biden's "they gonna put y'all in chains" remark? Are you going to find a way to explain that that was actually a reasonable comment? As for Arizona, it's just sad that they can't seem to get any federal support to solve their issues, amnesty doesn't solve it, but if you face Obama head on he will make you pay.

I'm still not supportive of affirmative action overall because it does resort to people getting screwed in the name of fairness, just look at the New Haven fire department promotion incident. Nothing will ever be fair, life is unfair.

[Deus Ex Machina]

It was also plainly obvious that in making the "you didn't build that" remark he had absolutely no regard for the amount of risk and personal investment a business takes to get off the ground.

"You didn't build that" in full context, refers explicitly to the roads and civil services that businesses (and consumers) did not build but rely upon to build communities and form a marketplace:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."

- President Obama, 7/13/2012

So here, Obama makes the simple point that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. How do I know that was his point? He says so explicitly:

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

- President Obama, in the next goddamn breath

Again, based on the past history of debate on this particular thread, what motivated you to include 'you didn't build that' as evidence that Obama believes the government is directly responsible for all successful business without looking up the entire quote? Alternately, given that perhaps you did know the context, what made you think that someone would not include the full context of the quote?

[orestes]

BOOM! Roasted.

[Elke]

I feel like neither one of us is going to gain any traction here, because I simply don't see eye to eye with you on most of this, period, and that's just the nature of this site and how I feel about things.

And if this was one of the endless back-and-forths in the religious thread, or even on an ethical matter or a political theory, I'd agree with you. But we've been discussing facts, namely: your lack of facts. Your opinions are supported by your gut-feeling and hear-say. I've replied to your claims point by point, as have many people here, and refuted most of your claims, yet you merrily ignore that in favour of 'let's agree to disagree'.
I'm curious: are you a creationist? Because with that mindset, you should really consider taking up a carreer as one.


If you don't think that Obama's handlers and the media have been very quick to pull the "racism" card in regard to criticism towards him, then I don't know what to tell you, not a day goes by that we don't hear about the Tea Party being racist, when in reality it's a rather diverse group.

I can make such statements too. I can't believe you can't see that Mitt Romney is a racist! There's not a day that goes by that his handlers and the media don't accuse Obama of being prejudiced against white people! That would never happen if the president were white! It's disgusting!
Ahum.

And since when are we holding a U.S. politician accountable for what the media says and does? (Unless it's something to do with Fox)? You're not in Italy.


Even the manner in which you simply scoff of the New Black Panther incident just leads me to the conclusion that we're not going to get anywhere here.

At least I took the time to research your point properly and respond to it. Did you?

Source 1
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party_voter_intimidation_case)So urce 2
(http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0924/New-Black-Panther-Party-voter-intimidation-case-Bombshell-for-Obama)Source 3
(http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/07/17/bipartisan-agreement-fox-hyped-new-black-panthe/167847)Source 4

(http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html)
I'm curious though, what did you think of Biden's "they gonna put y'all in chains" remark? Are you going to find a way to explain that that was actually a reasonable comment?

No, Protagoras, I'm going to play this by your rules and ask you what you make of Paul Ryan's following quote: Marriage is not simply a legal arrangement between individuals. The institution of marriage is an integral part of our civil society and its significance goes well beyond eligibility for benefits and similar considerations. Its future should not be left to a few overreaching judges or local officials to decide. [Source] (http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Wisconsin/Paul_Ryan/Views/Gay_Marriage/)

Doesn't it bother you that a man presenting himself as a principled libertarian is actually in favour of government dictating people how they should live and which choices they should make? Isn't the essence of the minimal state (with the minimal budget) to give individuals the maximum amount of freedom? Why would you want to vote for a man who - at the first sign of something he disagrees with - suddenly changes principles?
At least Obama is a racist communist to the core.
As for Arizona, it's just sad that they can't seem to get any federal support to solve their issues, amnesty doesn't solve it, but if you face Obama head on he will make you pay.

Again: WHAT?!
1) Either you want federal support, in which case you want a strong federal government, in which case you have to accept that that strong federal government is going to have a say in what you do with that support. In which case you're a Democrat.
2) OR you're opposed to a strong central federal government and think the president should stay the fuck out of state's affairs.
You cannot have it both.

Do you at least see how you're contradicting yourself here? Or are you not going to reply to this because it's just a different mindset to mine (you know, where I use my head and you think with your feelings or something)?


I'm still not supportive of affirmative action overall because it does resort to people getting screwed in the name of fairness, just look at the New Haven fire department promotion incident. Nothing will ever be fair, life is unfair.

In which case it doesn't matter if affermative action is unfair, because everything is unfair. Your blasé attitude to this is astounding.

I'll give you a very simple example: at my school, which used to be a girl's school, we have 212 teachers and when I started only 11 of those were men. The school, in the name of diversity, has adopted a policy where - given to candidates of equal merrit - they'll pick the guy. I can tell you that it's a breath of fresh air to have some more men in the school. It's not an easy option, because men tend to have different attitudes towards teaching and discipline in general (as several studies have confirmed) and it requires some change on the part of the female majority to accomodate the men, but in general it's a win-win. Is this fair to young women who want a job at my school? Not particularly. But it's fair to the students, the school and the men. So in the end, it's a very good decision.

See how that works? Now: oppose that. (Or ignore it, because that's apparently how you argue your point.)

[Elke]

Since I've been reading up on the U.S. presidential campaigns a lot, I figured I might as well share some links I thought were pretty interesting.

Pew Preference Poll by Religion, July (http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-detailed_tables/7-12-12 Detailed Tables.pdf): I doubt picking Ryan can convince more catholics to swing to Romney, but it'll be interesting to see the August/September polls. There are other factors worth noticing, like sex and education.

Pew also has a short religious autobiography (http://projects.pewforum.org/rp2012/paul-ryan/) on Ryan, most noteable because it only lists Church officials openly disagreeing with him on his budget plans. Not on his social issues stance, obviously (fuckers). Salon's Sarah Amandolare discusses those criticisms slightly more in-depth here (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/13/paul_ryans_religion_problem/). (Personally, I think he's a poor catholic all-round, but whatever.)

The Atlantic has a short article (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/08/are-republicans-worried-about-paul-ryan-bedwetters-or-realists/55752/)on whether or not Republicans are justified in being worried by the VP pick, and it's best reason why there's absolutely no reason to worry is because "Ryan Paul shirtless" has apparently become a very popular search term. No idea why. But it also looks into the term 'bedwetting', which I find far more interesting because it's not only used by supporters of Ryan - even liberal voices describe internal dissent in the GOP with that term, as if there's something weak about not following the party line. It does say something about US politics that political ideas and worries are measured in terms of seeming cool, confident and composed, instead of airing concerns.
On a side-note, this article (http://www.salon.com/2012/08/13/paul_ryan_the_new_dan_quayle/) from Salon, referring back to Gallup polls, seems to support the bedwetters.

Two posts on freakonomics that are related to the platform Romney/Ryan is running on: a short excerpt from a study on the costs of increased primary care (http://Does More Primary Care Increase Healthcare Costs Instead of Lowering Them?) and on the impact of zoning laws on the decrease of the income gap (http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/08/03/inequality-across-u-s-states/). As per usual on freakonomics, the articles themselves point towards a more liberatarian/capitalist mindset, while the comments offer an array of interesting and thoughtful responses. The example of zoning laws skyrocketing housing prices and cutting off access to lower-educated / low-income workers to rich cities, is a particularly interesting one, I thought. But maybe that's just me.
Both examples do show how even semi-objective reports on semi-objective studies force people to show their colours: political views do colour your interpretation of facts, apparently.

This Slate article (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/07/mitt_romney_s_campaign_found_itself_out_of_step_wi th_the_republican_party_on_the_supreme_court_s_hea lth_care_ruling_.html)from early July offers a bit more insight in why Ryan was picked (before he was picked! Go Slate!):

question is how to characterize the animal that both he and Obama have relied on to bring about health care reform. That's not a question of authority but of truth in advertising. If two men hold a shotgun, one may do so by right of a hunting license and another may do so because he is a police officer. Their authorities are different, but when we seek to describe what they hold in their hands, we can all agree it is a shotgun.
What President Obama and Mitt Romney have supported are functionally equivalent, which means that whether Romney is going to label Obama's provision a tax or a grapefruit, the label should apply to his law as well.

Politico had a rather insightful (if not altogether fair) article on why Medicare has to change (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79725.html?hp=t1), no matter who wins. The Atlantic has this - I found it to be quite shocking, but maybe it isn't - article on Paul Ryan's Medicaid plans (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79725.html?hp=t1).

This article on Romney's tax plans (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/08/mitt_romney_s_middle_class_tax_hike_and_how_he_can _get_out_of_it.html)was specifically interesting because of this bit, I thought:

“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” was the watchword of George W. Bush-era economic policy. And in political terms, it worked great. Rather than yoking tax cuts for the rich to unpopular, offsetting cutbacks in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, they were yoked to a smaller but still meaningful—and politically appealing— reduction in middle-class tax rates.But then came the great crash of 2008, the inauguration of President Obama, and the 2009 stimulus bill. Ever since, Republicans have embraced the rhetoric of debt reduction with the fervor of converts. High deficits is the aspect of Obama-era economic policy that has the most in common with the policies the past two generations of Republicans have espoused, but the current generation has assailed Obama for it with a breathtaking level of hypocrisy.
It goes on to deal with Romney's plan to tax the middle-class.

Democratic governor Jack Markell's opinion piece 'Is what's good for Bain good the nation?' (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79692.html)takes a different spin on Romney's private sector experience. This quote was particularly telling:



Romney’s focus as a private equity executive was on the bottom line. His constituents were his investors — not teachers, small business owners, senior citizens or middle-class families.


This Dutch opinion piece (http://www.knack.be/opinie/columns/johan-van-overtveldt/paul-ryan-radicale-tegenstander-van-ben-bernanke/opinie-4000161595443.htm)talks about Ryan's ideas about limiting the scope of the Fed's responsiblities, and its possible impact on the international financial markets. Apparently, Ryan wants to cut full unemployment from the factors the Fed has to keep in account, and reduce the Fed's task to price stability. I'm not quite sure how it would impact financial markets, but I can see how it would play out on the stock exchange.

On Romney/Ryan's foreign policy ideas (makes you nostalgic for Herman Cain, really): how dangerous Romney's Russian gaffes (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/07/06/making_enemies_from_friends_0)are, and Paul Ryan's exceptionalism (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79698.html).

And finally, another book on my must-read-list: The New Deal: The Hidden Story of Change in the Obama Era, about how the stimulus was actually a big, brilliant succes. An interview with author Michael Grunwald here (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2012/08/the_new_new_deal_a_book_argues_that_president_obam a_s_stimulus_has_been_an_astonishing_success.html) , and a must-read-article by Grunwald here (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/think_again_obamas_new_deal).

[50 Volt Phantom]

"You didn't build that" in full context, refers explicitly to the roads and civil services that businesses (and consumers) did not build but rely upon to build communities and form a marketplace:

"If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that."

- President Obama, 7/13/2012

So here, Obama makes the simple point that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. How do I know that was his point? He says so explicitly:

"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

- President Obama, in the next goddamn breath

Again, based on the past history of debate on this particular thread, what motivated you to include 'you didn't build that' as evidence that Obama believes the government is directly responsible for all successful business without looking up the entire quote? Alternately, given that perhaps you did know the context, what made you think that someone would not include the full context of the quote?
Oh so you actually fell for Obama's ridiculous panicked attempt at trying to defend his comment. It's good to know that roads make a business successful. All you have to do is listen to the audio, listen to hiss off the cuff delivery of the line, and it's pretty clear he's not talking about roads. Seriously, his attempt to explain away the comment has been some of the most stupid stuff I've ever heard him say, it's amazing that people are such mindless followers of his that they would actually go with his hilarious attempt to explain away his comment.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Oh so you actually fell for Obama's ridiculous panicked attempt at trying to defend his comment. It's good to know that roads make a business successful. All you have to do is listen to the audio, listen to hiss off the cuff delivery of the line, and it's pretty clear he's not talking about roads. Seriously, his attempt to explain away the comment has been some of the most stupid stuff I've ever heard him say, it's amazing that people are such mindless followers of his that they would actually go with his hilarious attempt to explain away his comment.


So those words do not mean what they mean? That's where you are right now: Up means down. Black means white. If this is not some kind of experiment, you need help. At least take a break or something.

Edit: You know, it wouldn't be wrong, or weak to just say 'I guess he did not say that exactly, but given what I believe his attitude to be, it's a little off-putting'. That's an ok thing to do. Then you wouldn't have to rewrite the English language or redefine traditional sentence and paragraph structure.

[theruiner]

So those words do not mean what they mean?It doesn't fit with his uber-right-wing narrative, so he doesn't buy it.

I mean, come on, Deus. Let's not let facts get in the way of preconveived notions here.

[Sutekh]

"You can prove anything with facts!"

[PooPooMeowChow]

Haven't been in this thread for a few months.

You guys have lost it.

:D

[sick among the pure]

Oh so you actually fell for Obama's ridiculous panicked attempt at trying to defend his comment. It's good to know that roads make a business successful. All you have to do is listen to the audio, listen to hiss off the cuff delivery of the line, and it's pretty clear he's not talking about roads. Seriously, his attempt to explain away the comment has been some of the most stupid stuff I've ever heard him say, it's amazing that people are such mindless followers of his that they would actually go with his hilarious attempt to explain away his comment.

Considering that's what I knew he was saying before he had to explain it to people who heard his quote out of context, I was totally mindless and fell for his explanation too. But, you know, that's because I listened to the whole peach after Fox got a hold of a few sound bites to plant a different narrative in my mind.

[halloween]

Even the manner in which you simply scoff of the New Black Panther incident just leads me to the conclusion that we're not going to get anywhere here.
I love it when a debate gets cut short because someone wants to "get somewhere", when clearly it's going somewhere- just not the path they deem worthy. Don't you think it's stimulating to be able to flesh out and explain your ideas and where you're coming from? Why don't you stop assuming everyone "knows what you know" and just put more information (sources) that explains your words? Unless you're brain is getting frustrated and tired...(I suggest nap time for that.)

[Jinsai]

Haven't been in this thread for a few months.

You guys have lost it.

:D

I know right? Let's be sensible. Ron Paul 2012!!!!

:p

[Wretchedest]

I actually have friends who still think Ron Paul stands a reasonable chance of winning.

His running mate is Denial.

[PooPooMeowChow]

I know right? Let's be sensible. Ron Paul 2012!!!!

:p

I just happened to agree with Dr. Paul on a lot of shit and posted it here. (and happened to be the only one, kinda like 50 Volt)
You guys are being complete unreasonable with each other.



Debating abortion is useless. It's so entrenched into some ones belief system you'll never change their view unless they have some great life changing realization.

I can understand how some one can view a fetus as a living thing or human. And I can understand a woman's right to choose.
Personally I don't care if it's a human or not. Having the choice is more important. If a mother doesn't feel like she can or just plain doesn't want to raise a child, abort it.
Better than one more fucked up person walking around..........You know shootin' up your Batman's and stuff.

[Elke]

Debating abortion is useless. It's so entrenched into some ones belief system you'll never change their view unless they have some great life changing realization.
I can understand how some one can view a fetus as a living thing or human. And I can understand a woman's right to choose.


You just made the point that would contradict your own first statement: if you can make people see that both ideas are valid regardless of their own position, you can change legislation. Personally I'm opposed to abortion except in certain well-defined cases - I think it's unethical to pretend it's not murder, as well as hypocritical. However, the argument of personal integrity and a woman's choice is an important and a compelling one, which makes me a very avid supporter of a liberal but regulated (and well-funded) abortion policy, combined with easy-to-obtain cheap anticonceptives and proper sex ed in schools.
So debating it is well worth it, because people can be persuaded intellectually to follow a political route that is different from their own moral beliefs.

And, like with anything, I think national discussions on any subject are a democratic duty of every citizen.

[Jinsai]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/486489_10151006726051121_969609617_n.jpg

Somebody's a bad ass....

[Sutekh]

/\ what on Earth?

America, you really do have my sympathies... It must be so hard to not just give up and move somewhere else. The uninformed hysteria must wear you down. Also the fact that America is an alternate political universe where words like "liberal" have a totally different meaning... You have to pretend to be stupid - or at least, mirror the ignorant use of terminology, just to be able to communicate... With people who are incapable of listening anyway! Aaargh

Regarding abortion... Am I the only one without a polar opinion? If my mrs fell pregnant, she'd terminate it, I'd support her and I would sigh in relief at having dodged a bullet. But it's really not a clear cut issue... I mean let's take this all the way, a newborn baby is not really a person... People talk about a foetus (although they often mean zygote) being a collection of cells, not really a person etc... But honestly, from a purely clinical point of view... A newborn baby is pretty much the same thing, the brain hasn't finished growing, it is incapable of learning for some time, etc. Often this debate comes down to discerning at what point in utero the foetus becomes a "person" that can be murdered (as opposed to cellular matter that can be excised), but if we're going to be sensible about this, it's not really a "person" until a few months after birth, the only real difference is that it breathes air and makes noise (to the best of my knowledge).

Of course, I find the idea of infanticide absolutely repellant, and even if I cannot rationalise/explain it, for me there is somehow a difference between early term abortions and anything later. I only say these things to point out the folly of dealing in totalities regarding this issue - I truly think it is almost impossible to say whether abortion as a whole is right or wrong. But the reality we can grasp is that people certainly seek abortions, making them illegal will not stop them from occurring, and so if there is a "right" thing to do, it is make sure they are done to exacting standards and that the women are cared for appropriately.

[Jinsai]

every stance that's a contentious point in American politics is a hardline all/nothing stance. There's no gray area anymore.
I'm not going to point the finger. But this is how it's been... since forever.

And everyone is stupider for it.

[Elke]

Jon Stewart did a piece on the divisive accusation (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-august-15-2012/democalypse-2012---the-new-new-low-edition)

[Deus Ex Machina]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/486489_10151006726051121_969609617_n.jpg

Somebody's a bad ass....

Wow, that is an unbelievable amount of chutzpah on display right there.

[littlemonkey613]

/\
Regarding abortion... Am I the only one without a polar opinion? If my mrs fell pregnant, she'd terminate it, I'd support her and I would sigh in relief at having dodged a bullet.

You have taken a clear cut political stance. You are pro-choice.

Now in my reasoning whether the fetus is a "person" is irrelevant. Abortion inherently is not murder. If someone was attached to you via life support and you wanted to severe that attachment is that murder? (Just to humor people who say a fetus is definitely a person). What right does the public or the government have to force you to keep another person on life support when it risks your life (mother mortality rates are staggering in America for a Western nation), changes your body forever, weakens you on a daily basis, inhibits how you can move, and IS INSIDE OF YOUR BODY? Not to mention the inevitable torture that comes at birth. I think forcing people to go through with that is barbarianism. I think one day we will be able to severe the ties with the mother without killing the fetus and put it in a fake womb and on that day I'll be celebrating.

Most people are against high taxes because they believe they are not responsible for the well being of others inherently so Idk why the same logic isn't applied here when the person whose being forced to give is actually hindered physically, mentally, and health-wise directly.

Do people seriously think this would even be a debate if the under-privileged sex wasn't the only one who could get pregnant? That's one of the most disgusting things about this. We aren't even starting this debate in the realm of an equal society concerning the sexes. The implications are terrifying. *shivers

[allegro]

Wow, that is an unbelievable amount of chutzpah on display right there.
It's also REALLY insulting to Chicagoans. Wtf. "Chicago Machine Politics" died with the first Mayor Daley, idiots. Plus, Obama was a SENATOR elected by the entire STATE OF ILLINOIS which includes mostly FARMLAND.

[PooPooMeowChow]

You just made the point that would contradict your own first statement: if you can make people see that both ideas are valid regardless of their own position, you can change legislation. Personally I'm opposed to abortion except in certain well-defined cases - I think it's unethical to pretend it's not murder, as well as hypocritical. However, the argument of personal integrity and a woman's choice is an important and a compelling one, which makes me a very avid supporter of a liberal but regulated (and well-funded) abortion policy, combined with easy-to-obtain cheap anticonceptives and proper sex ed in schools.
So debating it is well worth it, because people can be persuaded intellectually to follow a political route that is different from their own moral beliefs.

And, like with anything, I think national discussions on any subject are a democratic duty of every citizen.

I'm probably not into debating thinks like abortion and gay marriage because I'm Canadian. They're not issues up here.(or haven't been for a while)
I also don't like how we do things country wide. If I lived in America I'd be more inclined to argue the let the states decide position. Which is a short argument anyway.

I just wanna say one thing about "well-funded". I don't want my tax dollars going to some chick that didn't remember to use a rubber.
I don't even know her name and here I am paying for her abortion, seems weird to me.

EDIT:

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/486489_10151006726051121_969609617_n.jpg
Mr. Romney take your campaign of
.......
......
........
What is it you wanna do anyway?:confused:

So far the whole election has been Romney defending his shit record and Obama fundraisin', havin' a good time.

[Elke]

Well, you're also paying for an old widowed diddy whose kids don't want to pay for her spot in the old folk's home, the paper used to marry off your ex who broke your heart to some low life who doesn't deserve them, a whole army of teachers that might never even come close to teaching your kids anything (especially if you never have them), bridges you may never cross and the sandwiches in the fire station canteen (that you'll never eat).

Welcome to living in a society. Back in the old days, when we didn't have things like generalized taxes and redistribution of wealth, every year some soliders would ride onto your land and leave just about enough of your harvest that you wouldn't starve. And if it was your lucky day, they'd already raped your neighbour's wife and left yours alone.
Just saying.
Taxes: not all bad.

[sweeterthan]

Abortion is a faux issue. the republicans use it to motivate their voting base. it should be up to the individual not the old white men in congress who don't have a uterus.

I can't believe how many people think it's about a chick "who forgot the rubber". sure, that does happen but it's much more than that. women sometimes face unknown circumstances during pregnancy in which an abortion would be a peaceful way to end a pregnancy that isn't going to result in a living, breathing baby. the alternative is giving birth to a stillborn (dead) baby.

[Magtig]

every stance that's a contentious point in American politics is a hardline all/nothing stance. There's no gray area anymore.
I'm not going to point the finger. But this is how it's been... since forever.

And everyone is stupider for it.
At this point, literally everything, is a contentious point (see Oreos, Chick-Fil-A, Popa Johns, JC Penny, condoms and birth control in general, women's rights, [non-existent] voter fraud, reminding people that they probably didn't personally build bridges and highways, CRITICAL THINKING (!!!ARRRRRRRGHH!!!) (http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/1012974/texas_republicans_seek_to_ban_critical_thinking_in _public_schools/), to infinity and beyond).

We're having conversations about Paul Ryan's workout while ignoring extremely pressing problems with global warming, economy, massive education cuts, and you can just forget about funding for the arts and space exploration, it's considered 3rd rail by a public whose brains have been scooped out by a system that continues to denigrate the quality of education.

America is stupid as fuck, but it's not necessarily her fault.

[Torgo]

At this point, literally everything, is a contentious point (see Oreos, Chick-Fil-A, Popa Johns, JC Penny, condoms and birth control in general, women's rights, [non-existent] voter fraud, reminding people that they probably didn't personally build bridges and highways, CRITICAL THINKING (!!!ARRRRRRRGHH!!!) (http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/1012974/texas_republicans_seek_to_ban_critical_thinking_in _public_schools/), to infinity and beyond).

We're having conversations about Paul Ryan's workout while ignoring extremely pressing problems with global warming, economy, massive education cuts, and you can just forget about funding for the arts and space exploration, it's considered 3rd rail by a public whose brains have been scooped out by a system that continues to denigrate the quality of education.

America is stupid as fuck, but it's not necessarily her fault.

Amen.

(ten fucking characters)

[PooPooMeowChow]

Taxes: not all bad.

Not sayin they are, just after getting sick this summer and going to the hospital a few times I'm not so stoked on Socialized Healthcare.



I can't believe how many people think it's about a chick "who forgot the rubber".

I just used that as an example to not pay for her abortion, not an argument against it all together.

[littlemonkey613]

I don't want my tax dollars going to some chick that didn't remember to use a rubber.
I don't even know her name and here I am paying for her abortion, seems weird to me.



This is such a ridiculously ignorant statement.

1. Abstinence only education is still the only sex education millions of teens and kids are given access to.
2. These kids literally do not know how their bodies work.
3. The Christian ideal of sex before marriage and purity is inherently sexist, inherently patriarchal and shames the masses into thinking their bodies are shameful. The outcome? We don't talk about or teach sex. Do you understand the vast implications of this?

(don't even get me started on the real role of patriarchy in all of this. most women don't even get that much pleasure out of vaginal sex and thrusting as other forms of sex. if we educated girls about how their own bodies worked opportunities for pregnancy in that regard would go down. O wait that would involve an equal society where women's needs were of equal priority in the bedroom, the media, and society. Our ideas of sex and what standard sex is are even defined by penis worship. You lose your virginity when you complete an act that is so statistically lop-sided towards men's pleasure its ridiculous. Oh god now im getting into the social construction of virginity lol. this shit runs deep) Also I like your use of the wording in "the chick" as if it doesn't take two, the condom is totally her responsibility, and the biggest problem is her trifling memory. How hard is it to use the word "woman" seriously.

Your opinion is based on the idea that everyone knows as much as you and is educated well on the subject of sex. We brainwash our kids based on insane mythos, then basically leave them to navigate their bodies and sexuality totally on their own. It is absolutely ridiculous to expect total responsibility of people who are stuck in a system that is so batshit insane. To expect these people to magically turn into sex educated and sexually responsible adults once they turn 18 is ludicrous.

For example. Mississippi has the highest teen pregnancy rate in the nation. the highest poverty rate. Is one of the worst in health care, AND most school districts opt for Abstinence only education. The kicker? They have ONE abortion clinic and its shut down is threatened by legislatures on the daily.

This nation deserves to pay for the outcome of a systematic issue we refuse to correct and subject our young people to. It is honestly the least we could do. We hate our women.

On healthcare again can we please stop ignoring how dire the need is to just GET PEOPLE COVERED. That should be priority. You cannot argue that the system is better now than under the new Obama plan when 30 million new people will be covered. End of story. You have to openly admit that you judge the system based on how much the most privileged (people who have healthcare already) are benefitting and that those 10's of millions of people do not matter in comparison. The virtually purely capitalistic healthcare system in place right now is already dystopian, is already horrible and unfair and one of America's greatest sins. Socialized healthcare when done correctly (as it has been done in many countries) will not be worse for most people because everyone will have access to treatment. Just ask Mitt how Massachusetts is doing. Now ask Rick Perry how Texans are doing healthwise and how many of them need to be covered. These Republican governors are literally fighting for the right of their people to be more sick in the name of "freedom". But Texas does get to brag about how wonderful business opportunities are there so it must be the best state for people's interests ever. It's not like we are mortals or anything. Its appalling.

[Elke]

*applause*

I'm just going to quote this post from now on when talking about the issue. Seriously.

[Jinsai]

Are there guys out there who actually think something like "damn, that girl forgot to put the condom on when she fucked me."

Really? I just think it's strange that at least twice here it's been the "chick who forgot the rubber." Not to veer into sex ed classes or anything, but it's the guy who puts the rubber on. Maybe it's semantics, but I thought it was worth saying.

[Elke]

I had a discussion about this with two of my classes last year and both times the girls thought both members of the couple had to take responsibility in terms of birth control (one girl said: No condom, no entry; and another said: Better too many condoms than one baby) but the boys generally figured that they liked it better without, so if a girl wanted it with, she should bring the condom. Which is... well. I yelled at them a bit, I'm afraid :) These students are between 15 and 19, and roughly 60% of them are sexually active, so it's depressing. Especially because they do get sex ed every single year from their 11th year on, which shows that certain cultural prejudices are apparently a lot stronger than factual information. Suprise, surprise.

(Also, in case you're wondering which course would allow a teacher to debate the finer points of sexual ettiquette with students so you can take it: catholic religion. BOOYAH!)

edit: Jon Stewart again, on Pennsylvania (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-16-2012/daily-show--democalypse-2012---cockblock-the-vote) and Ohio (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-august-16-2012/democalypse-2012---cockblock-the-vote---ohio-s-voting-laws) voting laws.

[allegro]

And no mention of disease prevention? Despite the Pope's recent endorsement of the use of condoms to prevent death?

Anyway, these pro choice people who think they can get rid of abortion by making it illegal are stupid and dreaming. I'm old enough to remember when it was illegal in the U.S. and women were still aborting back then. Lots and lots of them. You will NEVER get rid of abortion. It's been around since ancient Rome.

[botley]

I had a discussion about this with two of my classes last year and both times the girls thought both members of the couple had to take responsibility in terms of birth control (one girl said: No condom, no entry; and another said: Better too many condoms than one baby) but the boys generally figured that they liked it better without, so if a girl wanted it with, she should bring the condom. Which is... well. I yelled at them a bit, I'm afraid :) These students are between 15 and 19, and roughly 60% of them are sexually active, so it's depressing. Especially because they do get sex ed every single year from their 11th year on, which shows that certain cultural prejudices are apparently a lot stronger than factual information. Suprise, surprise.Shit, when I was that age I'd have put TWO rubbers on if it meant a girl would be more willing to fuck me. Why are young men permitted to be so ludicrously, outlandishly dumb while still getting laid?

[Elke]

And no mention of disease prevention? Despite the Pope's recent endorsement of the use of condoms to prevent death?

We slap them around the ears with disease prevention, but the little sods think they're immune because they're... oh, I don't know. I once had an incredibly heated debate with a lesbian students who insisted she didn't need to know about ways to protect herself because - as a lesbian you see - she couldn't catch anything. So after shouting at eachother for a good 10 minutes (with her going 'What do you know, you're not gay'), I let it lie, and the next class she had with me I whipped out paaaaaaages of statistics. She never tried to contradict me on sex issues again, I tell you. They never do. I'm like the doctor Phil of sex in my school: every group of students I've had has been traumatized by me answering their supposedly daring and shocking questions.
Also: are you referring to the 2010 male prostitutes comment, or did I miss something epic while I was hybernating?

[Kodiak33]

You sound like a great teacher Elke. I'm being serious, most wouldn't even care.

[allegro]

Are you referring to the 2010 male prostitutes comment, or did I miss something epic while I was hybernating?
no, same one. relatively recent.

not only are kids stupid, their hormones are in control.

[Deus Ex Machina]

I just wanna say one thing about "well-funded". I don't want my tax dollars going to some chick that didn't remember to use a rubber.
I don't even know her name and here I am paying for her abortion, seems weird to me.

Two things:

First, this is wildly sexist. Contraception is not entirely the responsibility of the female, and should one or both parties fail in their responsibility both should be held accountable. If you're going to blame someone, the only reasonable target would be the couple. You don't want your tax dollars going to a couple who did not use protection. A couple, not 'some chick'.

Second, it shouldn't be weird at all. As a Canadian, your healthcare needs are entirely paid for by people who do not know your name. Even if you were privately insured in the US, your coverage pool are strangers. Paying for people you don't know is how insurance in general and healthcare specifically have worked for decades, and probably the span of your natural life. Alternately If she had the baby (and was part of your single payer or privately insured coverage pool) you'd be covering those expenses.


edit: And BTFW . . . what part of Mitt Romney's insistence that birth control is somehow unnecessary does ANYONE believe. "Hi, I'm Mitt Romney and my Dad was the fucking Governor of MA, and I was really well off and good looking in my youth and even went on to run a fucking high flying venture capital firm BUT NO I totally DID NOT POUND MY WAY THROUGH COPIOUS AMOUNTS OF ASS WHILE USING PROTECTION OF SOME KIND. THAT IS TOTALLY SOMETHING SOMEONE LIKE ME WOULD NEVER DO EVER!"

Jesus.

[Elke]

You sound like a great teacher Elke. I'm being serious, most wouldn't even care.

Well, thank you for the compliment, but it's in the curriculum for catholic religion, so we're all forced to give it. I might be slightly more enthusiastic than some of my colleagues :)
But in all seriousness: I am there to teach them about things like values and virtues and whatnot, so why not have the conversation? I'm always deeply frustrated when Belgian conservatives point to the U.S. to promote abstinance-only sex ed, because they feel talk of sex (and drugs and rock'n'roll) in catholic schools is inappropriate. If seven bishops can think it's appropriate and necessary to talk about condoms in class, I don't see why we shouldn't. And I've always felt that it's a bit like making the forbidden fruit a little less attractive, and thereby a little less dangerous.

Which is why, to bring this thread back on-topic, I think it's quite dangerous when people brush off a candidate's ideas on social issues because they like their economic or fiscal policies. The impact of social policy on the economy is huge, but the impact on individual lives is even bigger.

Sometimes I think all countries should have a happiness index, instead of an income one. It would force politicians to be smarter about the social issues.

[PooPooMeowChow]

Two things:

First, this is wildly sexist. Contraception is not entirely the responsibility of the female, and should one or both parties fail in their responsibility both should be held accountable. If you're going to blame someone, the only reasonable target would be the couple. You don't want your tax dollars going to a couple who did not use protection. A couple, not 'some chick'.


I said that because most of the time the guy just doesn't give a fuck, SHE'S getting pregnant, SHE'S getting the abortion. or if SHE decides to have the baby he'll probably run off. Women usually get the short end of the stick here so I expect they are a little more careful when it comes to this.
Obviously men have a responsibility here too, but rarely do they live up to it.
and since you people like to nick-pick
Yes, I know there are other reasons for abortion. I'm talking about the drunken nights of hit and run which account for most abortion.
Yes, I know some guys decides to stick with the baby(I know some)

[Elke]

Almost all the women I know who had a baby 'by accident' and considered abortion (19) were in a longtime relationship, over 18 and definetely drunk. The three abortions that did happen out of those 19, had nothing to do with not wanting to take up responsibility. Also: all of those women were on the pill, and in most of the cases they used a condom.
So when you make a comment about 'some chick', which sounds derogatory in itself, expect people to throw a bit of a fit.

[Sutekh]

You have taken a clear cut political stance. You are pro-choice.



Sigh. The rest of the post makes it pretty clear that I really have no idea whether it's right or wrong. You need to discern between personal and political. My advocating an abortion for my girlfriend is a personal choice, a political stance is when you voice an opinion on what direction policy should go in - ie, how other people should live their lives. I made it abundantly clear that it's really to hard to assume ethical authority on the issue. Sorry for underlining the key words, but I made myself clear.

I know what I'd do, but I'm not sure it's right & the choices I make are not standards I hold other people to, and I find people who do the opposite to be morally suspect.




Now in my reasoning whether the fetus is a "person" is irrelevant. Abortion inherently is not murder.


Eh? Why is it innately not murder? Murder is when you kill a person who isn't a direct threat to you. So in my kill-the-newborn scenario, you would not consider that murder? You do not consider the organism that existed a few weeks earlier to be a person that can be murdered, so where is your cutoff point?

Whether or/and when the Foetus can be classified as a person is pretty much the central dilemma when it comes to whether abortion (or abortions at certain stages) could be considered murder, so to be honest I think it's pretty dodgy to just sweep it aside like that...



If someone was attached to you via life support and you wanted to severe that attachment is that murder? (Just to humor people who say a fetus is definitely a person). What right does the public or the government have to force you to keep another person on life support when it risks your life (mother mortality rates are staggering in America for a Western nation), changes your body forever, weakens you on a daily basis, inhibits how you can move, and IS INSIDE OF YOUR BODY? Not to mention the inevitable torture that comes at birth. I think forcing people to go through with that is barbarianism. I think one day we will be able to severe the ties with the mother without killing the fetus and put it in a fake womb and on that day I'll be celebrating.


The trouble with that analogy is that it is a bizarre situation that doesn't actually happen in real life, so drawing analogues as evidence of some obvious ethical standard doesn't make sense. I could say what if everytime you didn't smoke a joint, god killed a kitten? Therefore not smoking weed is wrong.

Illness & Rape aside... how about biological responsiblity? If there is a chance that a person could occur in your uterus that you either have to raise or kill, why not exercise a bit of responsibility and just make sure you don't get pregnant

Again, I have no answers, but I can't resist challenging peoples' opinions on this issue because it can go on and on and on like pretty much no other topic

[allegro]

BTFW . . . what part of Mitt Romney's insistence that birth control is somehow unnecessary does ANYONE believe. "Hi, I'm Mitt Romney and my Dad was the fucking Governor of MA ...
Michigan. His dad was Governor of Michigan. Has Mitt really said he's against birth control? I've never seen that one.

[sublimaze]

Michigan. His dad was Governor of Michigan. Has Mitt really said he's against birth control? I've never seen that one.

I've known plenty of Mormons, and while they like big families, I haven't heard anything prohibiting birth control.

Mitt was Governor of Massachusetts (MA).

[allegro]

yeah, Mitt was. George wasn't. I only stress this because George was Governor of Michigan when I was a kid, I remember it.

George was Governor of Michigan during the '67 Detroit race riots.

[littlemonkey613]

Eh? Why is it innately not murder? Murder is when you kill a person who isn't a direct threat to you. So in my kill-the-newborn scenario, you would not consider that murder? You do not consider the organism that existed a few weeks earlier to be a person that can be murdered, so where is your cutoff point?

How is a person growing inside you WHEN YOU DON'T WANT THEM IN YOUR BODY not a direct threat? You need to think about this from the perspective of someone who has something unwanted inside of them, and changing everything about their day and body. Your missing the basis of my argument.



Illness & Rape aside... how about biological responsiblity? If there is a chance that a person could occur in your uterus that you either have to raise or kill, why not exercise a bit of responsibility and just make sure you don't get pregnant



Well I wrote a long ass post about why this kind of statement is ignorant as fuck and I don't feel like repeating myself.

Also can we stop ignoring that Patriarchy exists? Holy shit. People need to start thinking about that and how it affects the politics of the bedroom. Men have most control of sexual society and women for the most part deal with all the consequences. Idk how you can ignore that when framing an argument around abortion. (That's why I was talking about most women statistically not even claiming vaginal thrusting sex feels "great". And that's what gets you pregnant! Just think about what that means in a societal context.) We literally have a society where relationships are formed around sexual contracts in which you have to consistently give in order to keep the relationship alive. This plus my former point = one of the scariest systematic hidden and not talked about inequalities in our society today. Add the stereotype of husbands, and boyfriends saying "please" and "why not" when women don't want to have sex into the mix and you get a bowl of shit show conglomerate sexism that is completely ignored. "Rape aside", I'm talking about systematic coercion as a result of having the right to a second ask because you are in a relationship. Vaginal thrusting sex does not feel as good for most women as it does for men! Think about what all this means for the abortion debate o.O. Your argument only makes sense if it took place in the context of an equal society. ITS NOT. You have to ignore all these things in order to come to the conclusion that the main problem here is women not taking responsibility.

If your cynical about my point. Start asking the women in your life if they've ever had sex in order to appease some expectation or as a compromise in order to make sure their relationship stayed stable. Think about what this means.

You want women to take full responsibility in a world where we are still second class without addressing the inequality and realities that makes unwanted pregnancy so prevalent to begin with!

[Jinsai]

So... a conservative family member on my facebook feed just shared this picture from the Tea Party

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/185462_393534330702058_1768245019_n.jpg

I'm not sure if they're implying that Mitt Romney is a child or a robot

[orestes]

Hey, since news of Missouri Representative Todd Akin is making the rounds today, now would be a good time to remind people of the bill he co-sponsored with Paul Ryan that would limit the definition of rape (http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/08/todd-akin-paul-ryan-redefining-rape?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Motherjones%2Fmojoblog+%28Mot herJones.com+%7C+MoJoBlog%29) for abortion funding.

[Jinsai]

Given that the discussion here has been occasionally centered around the issue of pregnancy as a result of rape, I guess it's only fitting that the issue has come to a head in the most insane way possible. Thank you for weighing in, rep. Todd Akin from Missouri. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-rep-todd-akin-no-pregnancy-from-legitimate-rape-20120819,0,7447581.story)

I mean holy shit. This guy actually said "If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down. But let's assume that maybe that didn't work or something, I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be of the rapist, and not attacking the child."

The female body goes into birth-control mode while being legitimately raped?!

Obama's response today has been pretty epic and awesome though:

"Rape is rape and the idea that we should be parsing and qualifying and slicing what types of rape we’re talking about doesn’t make sense to the American people and it certainly doesn’t make sense to me...What I think these comments do underscore is why we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, the majority of whom are men, making health care decisions on behalf of women."

[Kodiak33]

Which is why, to bring this thread back on-topic, I think it's quite dangerous when people brush off a candidate's ideas on social issues because they like their economic or fiscal policies. The impact of social policy on the economy is huge, but the impact on individual lives is even bigger.


So true, and as a libertarian it pisses me off when most of the libertarian press, and people that are supposed libertarians (Ron Paul who is pro-life)only make comments about how corporations are getting screwed...not individual private citizens. Individual rights should be the primary focus, and it's clearly not. Most talk more shit about Obama than these ridiculous social conservatives that are definitely going against the first amendment when it comes to religious freedom (both ways) and equal protection. The president was on point with his comments.

[sweeterthan]

I can't talk about Akin's comments without cursing up a storm. I agree that Obama's comments are awesome and appropriate in the wake of Akin's media shaming.

It does make me happy that so many on both sides of the political spectrum are outraged by the "legitimate" comment.

[Jinsai]

It does make me happy that so many on both sides of the political spectrum are outraged by the "legitimate" comment.

I would agree, but it's hard not to be cynical about the republican outrage. They just don't want to lose Missouri to the democrats.

Then again, you have Mike Huckabee actually playing the apologist for Akin... and if you go a bit further, you have people like this douchebag:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4ZhaBHNoro

[Kodiak33]

Yeah I knew Huckabee and I assume Santorum are on the same page. Fischer is awful.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

So true, and as a libertarian it pisses me off when most of the libertarian press, and people that are supposed libertarians (Ron Paul who is pro-life)
What libertarian sources have you been following?

[Kodiak33]

Mainly Reason, Cato, Stossel as well on Fox Business. Volkh Conspiracy is pretty good too.

[slave2thewage]

Who are these awful men and when can they be executed in public?

[Kodiak33]

Fischer may be just as bad as Pat Robertson...maybe even worse. I don't understand how people like that are taken seriously.

[halloween]

Just learned Mitt Romney used to be an over seas missionary? Is this really what we need as a president?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/26/politics/romney-borger-doc-faith-family/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29

hah...?

Describing his mission in France, he talked about how he would walk the streets of Bordeaux up to 60 hours a week trying to convince people why they should convert -- in French. Often he would have doors slammed in his face.

[Jinsai]

Just learned Mitt Romney used to be an over seas missionary? Is this really what we need as a president?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/26/politics/romney-borger-doc-faith-family/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+(RSS%3A+ Top+Stories)

hah...?

Yep... going door to door, badgering strangers about why they should join a cult that at the time considered dark skinned people to be flawed and sinful, and prohibited black people from becoming priests.

[allegro]

Just learned Mitt Romney used to be an over seas missionary? Is this really what we need as a president?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/26/politics/romney-borger-doc-faith-family/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3 A+Top+Stories%29

hah...?
Mormons often do at least two years of foreign missionary work, usually just after they graduate from high school.

http://mormon.org/faq/serve-missions

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=299&sid=8108202

[Wretchedest]

Yeah, they all do that, and most of them come away with a respect for other cultures too. If anything thats would speak pretty great to foreign policy experience if he was an otherwise likable guy. Mormon's just get a bad rep based on stereotypes...

[Jinsai]

Mormon's just get a bad rep based on stereotypes...

The stereotypes...

The mormon faith is riddled with a batshit racist history.

The actual belief system is borderline insane and transparently created by a con artist... and they knock on your door and tell you you're going to hell if you don't buy into it. At least the fucking scientologists (mostly) leave me alone.

They fund homophobic causes... because they're homophobes.

They have a habit of ostracizing family members who leave the faith.

I'm excluding the silly stuff like the magic underwear because that's just... well, whatever that is. But the things above aren't really "stereotypes," and it's why they get a bad rep from me. That, and the whole thing about baptizing dead people, which is just kinda disgusting.

[allegro]

Jehovah's Witnesses mostly do the door-knocking. It's easy to get rid of an LDS missionary; Jehovah's are like flies at a picnic.



Mormons baptize dead people to make Heaven more full of Mormons. And let's not even start re that Moroni and the buried tablets thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel_Moroni

But, the Catholics are pretty fucking nutty, too.

And Christian Missionaries have a pretty awful history.

However as much as I think Romney is a puppet, I'm not going to count his LDS missionary work against him.

[Elke]

All religions include batshit insanity and fucking nutters. To reduce the entirety of followers to a handful of characteristics and beliefs, is stereotyping, Jinsai. And mostly, the batshit insanity and nuttiness are thoroughly human. I'm sure Mormon penguins are all kinds of nice (if they're not raping the corpses of their offspring, that is).

[Wretchedest]

Jinsai those are DEFINITELY stereotypes, and they certainly dont apply to any mormon ive met. I spent my entire high school career surrounded by mormons at a few boarding schools in Utah. Some of the students were gay and a lot of the students had varied ethnic identities, and there were never problems with any of them. They treated everyone fairly amd equally and none of them were trying to convert us or anything like that. They made a point not to speak about their faith unless asked.

Their attitude was very live and let live, and the many of them had a deep understanding and appreciation for other cultures. As with anything there are probably some bad apples out there, maybe in the more conservative and fringe parts of southern Utah, especially.

I also know a lot of people who have left their families mormon faith, and they are still embraced by said family, ive never seen the kond of ostricism your talking about, its a fringe, extreme part of that religion, and since its the only part a lot of people hear about it, they make a sweeping generalization that thats how it goes...

[Jinsai]

I'm aware that the Mormon church has tried to shuffle its racist past under the carpet. But just because they ran this ad in the 80s...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/38/MormonAdFamilyPhoto.jpg

...doesn't change the fact that they had exclusionary rules against black people up until 1978. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Racism)

And this isn't fringe behavior when we're talking about the Mormon attitudes regarding homosexuality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_La tter-day_Saints). They may seem accepting of homosexuality, as long as the person never actually acts on his/her homosexual feelings. The Mormons raised over 20 million dollars to support and pass prop 8, and I think it'd be a stretch to call that sum the product of some small, fringe element.

Regarding the ostracizing issue, the act of excommunication and "disfellowship" actually carries societal stigma... and apostasy isn't the only reason you can be excommunicated and shunned. You could have undergone a transsexual operation... or engaged in homosexual behavior (http://www.pbs.org/mormons/faqs/controversies.html).

[Wretchedest]

Yeah one of my friends became a pornstar, and the other had a huge drug habit, in and out of rehab. Neither were disowned. Both remain close with their families.

One mormon at the boarding school took us to a buddhist temple on a field trip. This wasnt some fiery field trip of hate, he wanted us to learn about buddhism as part of a class. A lot of the parents would put kids in thatat school essentially for being gay, but the schools never huumored those parents. They instead tried to get the parents to understand and be more acfepting of their child. This was a school with a majority mormon staff essentially being paid to reprenand someone for beig gay, and they didnt do it. So i understand its easy to see them a certain way because thats how theyre portrayed in the media, on tv etc. But my experience with them is very contradictory to that.

[Elke]

Nobody's saying those things aren't true, Jinsai. Just that they're generalizations so broad that they become meaningless when discussing a specific person's beliefs and ideals.
It's like saying All Americans are fat antisocial racist misogynist homophobic bible-thumping fundamentalist semi-illiterate morons.

[Jinsai]

Nobody's saying those things aren't true, Jinsai. Just that they're generalizations so broad that they become meaningless when discussing a specific person's beliefs and ideals.
It's like saying All Americans are fat antisocial racist misogynist homophobic bible-thumping fundamentalist semi-illiterate morons.

The problem for me comes more with the idea of electing a president who strongly identifies himself as a mormon, and then you look at what beliefs the mormons espouse. It's impossible to debate the topic with arguments from personal experience which would seem to defy the common perception, especially when these examples seem to run directly in the face of how the church identifies its own beliefs. On a more stripped down note, it's hard to detach the church from their political involvement in anti-gay political campaigns.

None of my complaint is even centered around how ludicrous I think their beliefs are. After all, I'm not a big fan of organized religion anyway, but Mormonism and Scientology hold a special designation where they seem transparently manufactured and cultish. I guess I'm resigned to the fact that all our politicians are going to be affiliated with some religious belief (we still have some states with laws prohibiting atheists from taking political office), but still, it worries me when we're talking about handing the keys over to someone who believes something so outrageous.

I guess that's a separate issue though

[Elke]

Well, I think if there are interviews with him where he states things he believes that are outrageous or possibly undemocratic, I'm all there with you. But speaking from experience: you can't tell all that much about a religious follower by the religion he claims to follow. Considering that I've been regularly called a closet atheist, I should be living proof of that.
I see your point, but you were a bit lazy in making it :)

[Jinsai]

Well, I think if there are interviews with him where he states things he believes that are outrageous or possibly undemocratic, I'm all there with you.

That's the problem isn't it? In general it seems to be a very difficult thing to get Mitt Romney to specify what he believes about anything. His religious convictions are even more off the table (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-mitt-romneys-mormonism-fair-game/2012/06/01/gJQAhDo56U_story.html)

[littlemonkey613]

I guess it just comes down to criticizing an institution, rather than individuals (unless you know that specific person's specific beliefs). I think institutions like the LDS and the Vatican deserve every ounce of criticism they ever receive. God knows they don't receive enough considering how much political and monetary clout they have. I actually think that the systematic pedophelia has eliminated the Vatican's right to exist but anyways.....

As for Romney, I'm more concerned with his lack of opinion or belief in anything (I don't mean God). Seriously I wouldn't bet 10 dollars in either direction about his actual belief in god, whether he is actually a homophobe in mind or whether he is actually for or against ANYTHING he talks about. I mean does anyone here seriously have a handle on how the guy thinks politically and socially? My sneaking suspicion is that he truly doesn't give a fuck. Which is odd. I've never heard of or seen a President run on a platform of win for the sake of winning but I truly get that vibe from this guy.

At least when Obama changes his opinion you kind of know intuitively where the guy actually stands. He's always been for gay marriage, he doesn't really care about pot etc. At the end of the day its fairly obvious what Obama does for political gain and when it goes against what he actually thinks. Obama does have somewhat of a consistent narrative in platform reaching back to his earlier political days. With Romney I'm literally like wow shit I actually have no idea....he does true 180's depending on the political climate and not just on a few issues.....not even on a handful......its virtually all of them.

Also this is from Romney's website. I like cannot even. Is this the Onion? Is this the 80s? Someone pinch me. An American fucking century. I advise you all to sift through his main campaign website. It's amazing.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l102/littlemonk3y613/Screenshot2012-08-27at34026PM.png

[allegro]

Of aaaaaaaaaall the things going on in the world, his puppet masters think the voters believe we're still with JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis. wtf. Sure, Putin sucks, but haven't we been in enough wars in the last 10 years? (<--- rhetorical question)

The reason why Romney has done an apparent 180 on issues is simple: his management team, during doughnut-fueled marketing meetings, (erroneously) detemined that the majority of American voters are extreme social, fiscal and religious conservatives. So they had to find a way to make Romney's moderate centrist past (in MA) go away.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/28/us/politics/mitt-romney-pulled-in-2-directions-over-economy.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto

[littlemonkey613]

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l102/littlemonk3y613/Screenshot2012-08-28at114024AM.png
Another glorious screenshot from the official Mittens website. YOU GUYS! Like can they at least hide our messiah complex behind less on the nose rhetoric? No shame at all these people.
The best....ally...world peace has ever known... is America having the world by the balls......
They literally think we are God appointed and inherently sovereign. I've never really thought about how annoying and scary this is for people not from America. How do you all not from the U.S react emotionally to this bullshit? I can't imagine since I want to tear my own hair out.

[Jinsai]

I love you women!!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y06jAnRDWco

Is this a joke?

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

What the hell is that Jinsai I don't even

[Torgo]

"We are mothers! We're the wives! We are grandmothers! We are the big sisters! We are the littler sisters! And we are the daughters! You know it's true, don't you?"

We are humans! The sky is blue! I am blinking! There is air going into my mouth!

[allegro]

ugh. Ann Romney seems like a really nice lady, and she has my respect for her brave battle against MS (and cancer), but she's a terrible public speaker. My blood sugar count just went up so high, I'm gonna go inject my cat's insulin. Into my eyeballs.

[Kodiak33]

I really hate when rich people complain about how rough they had it. It must've been really hard for her and Mitt to live through his graduate years on stock options. What a fucking joke.

[Deus Ex Machina]

None of my complaint is even centered around how ludicrous I think their beliefs are. After all, I'm not a big fan of organized religion anyway, but Mormonism and Scientology hold a special designation where they seem transparently manufactured and cultish. I guess I'm resigned to the fact that all our politicians are going to be affiliated with some religious belief (we still have some states with laws prohibiting atheists from taking political office), but still, it worries me when we're talking about handing the keys over to someone who believes something so outrageous.

I guess that's a separate issue though

So this is horribly cynical, but it's kind of natural that a lot of those involved in organized religion a can't be counted on to support or act in a way that reflects the nastier parts of their religion. You just have to remember the type of person you're dealing with. Mitt Romney is the type of person who, after looking at the whole of the Mormon religion in all it's absurdity and awfulness, can't say no to it. It's fitting, in a way, that also lacks the spine to adopt/support the more controversial aspects of his faith. I'm not sure there ever comes a time for Mitt or people like him where he tries to reconcile his words with his actions.

[Elke]

God, Deus, you do realize how incredibly insulting that is, don't you? I mean, I understand what you're saying, but that only makes me feel even less respected.

[Deus Ex Machina]

God, Deus, you do realize how incredibly insulting that is, don't you? I mean, I understand what you're saying, but that only makes me feel even less respected.


Whoa, that's not directed at you, or all believers. What I meant to say was that there are a lot of people who think about and take seriously their religion (and I consider you a prime example of that). And then there are people who just don't really take it seriously at all. I've just seen so many people not give their 'beliefs' a second thought. Bearing the label of Christian or Mormon and then doing whatever you were going to do in the first place is kind of a proud American tradition; of which I'd argue that many of our conservative politicians are a result. They're not going to take any particularly hardline stand on anything, they just need the merit badge.

[littlemonkey613]

"We are mothers! We're the wives! We are grandmothers! We are the big sisters! We are the littler sisters! And we are the daughters! You know it's true, don't you?"

We are humans! The sky is blue! I am blinking! There is air going into my mouth!

Im also really annoyed by the fact that they absolutely refuse to refer to women in a way that doesn't attach us to other individuals. How about WE ARE FUCKING CITIZENS AND HALF THE POPULATION OF AMERICA? Literally every definition of "women" that they have comes down to involvement of some sort in the American "family". We can't just be women. We have to be serving someone else, raising someone else, or aiding a sibling. And that is our place, our accepted role and our destiny. It's just telling and interesting rhetoric. I know the other side is guilty as well however at least they actually have a Women's Issues section of their fucking platform and acknowledge that women actually aren't having their needs met in comparison to men in this country. Fuck you Romney. Oh yes Russia is such a bigger impending problem than sexism in America.

[Highly Psychological]

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l102/littlemonk3y613/Screenshot2012-08-28at114024AM.png
Another glorious screenshot from the official Mittens website. YOU GUYS! Like can they at least hide our messiah complex behind less on the nose rhetoric? No shame at all these people.
The best....ally...world peace has ever known... is America having the world by the balls......
They literally think we are God appointed and inherently sovereign. I've never really thought about how annoying and scary this is for people not from America. How do you all not from the U.S react emotionally to this bullshit? I can't imagine since I want to tear my own hair out.


The other 95 per cent of the world the 6.7 Billion citizens who are not citizens of the United States either do a severe facepalm, sit with their jaws open or burst out in hysterics.
I hope China does not make those type of messiah statements in a few decades time.

[allegro]

I hope China does not make those type of messiah statements in a few decades time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianxia (roughly "chyen shaw")

To China, China is the center of the universe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQUGPzZJx0

See also: http://www.artofwarsuntzu.com/Art%20of%20War%20PDF.pdf

[Magtig]

All this talk of religion. As a former Mormon I say, "eh" to Romney's religion. If Romney's policy and rhetoric are directly tied to Mormon doctrine, fair game, but if it's just a chance to bash the Republican nominee then we're dealing with religious discrimination. What do you think they said about JFK's religion back when? What do you think Obama faced when getting elected (and still does*)? What do you think an atheist running for office would face?

Mormons believe god is a flesh and blood man who rules from a planet called, Kolob. They believe that "lamenites" are a people (Native Americans) cursed with dark skin for the sins of their ancestors while simultaneously believing that we have been granted the agency to act and do as we see fit on this planet and that we won't be punished for the sins of our fathers. They believe that the garden of eden is in Nauvoo, Illinois. Christians believe that women are rib-men with a vagina, and that the human species was kicked out of God's happy happy fun time garden for being convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple (WHOREZ!). They believe that God died for us in flesh and blood form in order to pay off a system of sin-debt that he created himself (does that come with frequent flier miles?). Three days later he rose from the dead just so he could say, "SEE BITCHEZ!?" before bailing again.

It's all fuckin crazy people. It might as well be Egyptian or Greek gods, who the fuck cares? Both religions in present day are founded on family and charity (on paper, at any rate), and hating the fuck out of faggots (who obviously have no charity or family, which is the price you pay for enjoying analingus). Voting according to which flavor of crazy is more crazy is crazy!

How is Romney's religion MORE relevant than Obama's, McCain's, Bush's, Al Gore's, Clinton's, etc? Religious discrimination is wrong when liberals do it too.



*As I was writing this Mike Huckabee was at the RNC saying some bullshit about Obama lying about his religion

[Jinsai]

What do you think they said about JFK's religion back when?

This is a good question, and it's important to note that JFK made a speech where he openly said that his religious convictions and possible allegiance to the pope would take a backseat to the constitution and the wellbeing of the American people... a statement that Rick Santorum remembered as a moment that "made [him] want to puke."

With Romney, he won't even engage the discussion. It's far from my biggest issue with him, but with the Mormons recently launching a 20 million dollar political campaign against gay marriage, it's part of my issue with him, especially with regards to where he stands in general with the church. Maybe it's better to aim elsewhere... but for me the issue is relevant.

And yes, I had a problem with Bush's born again pandering to evangelicals as well. I understand your point about "religious discrimination," but that doesn't mean we should take a candidate's (possibly?) most deeply held beliefs off the table.

[Magtig]

EDIT: [Almost] every president has been Christian, so it's back to the same issue. Again, Romney's voting record is more relevant than his beliefs. This also brings up an interesting point where we run into a contradiction: saying Romney believes in nothing and will say anything, and then turning around and saying that since his religion did "X" he will do the same because that's what he believes.

Romney isn't Rick Santorum, and if he panders to Mormons like Bush did to evangelicals then religion becomes a problem. So far though, the only thing I really see is people using it as a cudgel. If you're going to beat up on Romney, why not do it for the right reasons? Lord knows there are plenty of them.

[Jinsai]

Again, Romney's voting record is more relevant than his beliefs.

Of course, but his beliefs are important too aren't they?


This also brings up an interesting point where we run into a contradiction: saying Romney believes in nothing and will say anything, and then turning around and saying that since his religion did "X" he will do the same because that's what he believes.

I don't think I've heard the argument that he doesn't truly affiliate himself with anything or really believe or have an agenda, it's that it's uncertain exactly what that is.... because he's a dodgy evasive fuck about everything.


Romney isn't Rick Santorum

Exactly... we knew what Rick Santorum was all about, and I think we all agree that Santorum's religious convictions were a little disturbing. The religious issue is a blank with Romney. We really don't know where he stands here either.


if he panders to Mormons like Bush did to evangelicals then religion becomes a problem.

That's pretty much my issue with it.


So far though, the only thing I really see is people using it as a cudgel. If you're going to beat up on Romney, why not do it for the right reasons? Lord knows there are plenty of them.

Sure... but it's not all or nothing right? I mean, Romney is cagey and defensive when asked about his religion, and that's being excused by "religious tolerance."
But you did ask earlier how I'd feel about a hypothetical atheist candidate being vetted for his beliefs. I would have no problem with it, and I don't think an atheist politician would either. This is beside the fact that atheism isn't a religion, but I think deeply seated beliefs should be discussed, especially when people are evasive about it while running for office.

I understand where you're coming from, and I agree it's definitely not the biggest issue on the table here, but I don't think we should shy away from it in the name of religious tolerance.

[allegro]

Every president has been Christian
whoa, wait a second ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism#Deism_in_the_United_States

[ambergris]

Again, Romney's voting record is more relevant than his beliefs.

Romney has no voting record, lulz.

His mormonism, so far, should only matter insofar as he once said that he paid 13% in income taxes, but with charity, he gave away 20%. However, since the mormon church requires a tithe on income, he probably gave nothing to charity voluntarily at all.

[Jinsai]

Romney has no voting record, lulz.

He still took a stance on issues in the past... that's the strange thing though. He's against the stimulus plan in hindsight now, but before he was vocally supportive. He once said that Roe v Wade was something we shouldn't mess with, and that abortions should remain "safe and legal." Now, he's taking a hard line pro life stance (along with picking Paul Ryan as his running mate). If you go back far enough, you can hear him rant about how they should ban super PACs. As governor, he supported banning assault weapons, and now he says the US doesn't need any new gun laws.

Since he seems so completely opposed to everything he was formerly in support of (and vice versa), do we just assume that he will back the hardline neo-con party line at this point? Is he truly just a scripted puppet, and if so, who's pulling the strings? Or do we assume that by picking Paul Ryan as his running mate, Romney endorses his stances on issues?

It's so strange to be this close to the election and to be so uncertain exactly what Romney is about. So yes, I want full disclosure from him. I want to know as much as I can about the guy's history and beliefs. I want to know if he tormented some kid in college as a "prank," I want to know if he drove around with his dog strapped to the roof of his car, and I want to know where he stands on the issue of the planet Kolob.

I would rather see his tax returns, but since it seems like we're not going to get that...

on a somewhat unrelated note, this is an interesting read (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829)

[onthewall2983]

I feel bad for Clint. The party he believes in no longer exists.

[allegro]

Clint isn't a hard line party platform Republican.

Neither is a Romney. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/08/27/mitt-romney-abortion_n_1834888.html

Neither the Democratic nor Republican parties are "the same." I'm reading a book about Antietam, when the Republicans were against slavery and the Democrats were pro slavery and against big government.

The first national presidential conventions I watched were in 1968, just after Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. I don't see a whole lot of differences between Democrats and Republicans, now.

[onthewall2983]

My fellow Lefties are going to bitch and joke about his appearance tonight. But my lifetime pass for him just makes tonight a little sad.

[allegro]

Any true "Leftie" is less concerned about Clint Eastwood and more concerned about Jill Stein.

[jessamineny]

Clint should introduce Mitt at every single upcoming campaign appearance.

[Jinsai]

The strangest part was where Eastwood placed the blame for the war in Afghanistan squarely on Obama's shoulders, and then said that Mitt wants us to "bring the troops home tomorrow."

What kind of strange madness is this? Someone says (at the RNC) that we need to bring our troops home NOW, and the statement is greeted with riotous, overwhelming applause... from Republicans?

When did the republicans decide to start "hating the troops?"

[Magtig]

You may have heard that even Fox News took issue with Paul Ryan's blatant lies, but did you read the actual article? They called him out way more than you heard. Take this, for example:

"The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated."

Nice work, Fox.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/08/30/paul-ryans-speech-in-three-words/?intcmp=related

[Elke]

We built it?

Are they fucking kidding? How can anyone with half a brain and a functioning access to YouTube take this campaign seriously?

[M1ke]

The one thing nobody in this campaign is talking about is the ugly reality of what really needs to happen to fix the USA.

Just like a business, when times are tough, cuts need to be made, portions of a company get sold off, people get laid off.

Lets either sell texas or just shut it down completely. I mean it's really not been performing lately anyways, and we need to save some cash. Maybe we can bring it back when things are better, but for now it's just dragging everyone else down.

Maybe we should look at a few other states too. One might not be enough, I wonder how much money could be saved if the USA was downsized by 25% of its states?

I think it's been a while since Utah has turned in a TPS report on time.

[ambergris]

I don't see a whole lot of differences between Democrats and Republicans, now.

Wow.... The differences between them are probably starker than they were since maybe 1932. Tax policy, social policy, foreign policy, judicial nominations, health care...

[Magtig]

The one thing nobody in this campaign is talking about is the ugly reality of what really needs to happen to fix the USA.

Just like a business, when times are tough, cuts need to be made, portions of a company get sold off, people get laid off.

Lets either sell texas or just shut it down completely. I mean it's really not been performing lately anyways, and we need to save some cash. Maybe we can bring it back when things are better, but for now it's just dragging everyone else down.
I love Austin and Houston, but let's face it: Texas has been trying to get itself fired (http://www.secedekilgore.com/) from the US for some time now.

[Blackbookpress1984]

The one thing nobody in this campaign is talking about is the ugly reality of what really needs to happen to fix the USA.

Just like a business, when times are tough, cuts need to be made, portions of a company get sold off, people get laid off.

Lets either sell texas or just shut it down completely. I mean it's really not been performing lately anyways, and we need to save some cash. Maybe we can bring it back when things are better, but for now it's just dragging everyone else down.

Maybe we should look at a few other states too. One might not be enough, I wonder how much money could be saved if the USA was downsized by 25% of its states?

I think it's been a while since Utah has turned in a TPS report on time.


We can safely loose Texas, and therefore cut out a ton of illegal imigrants living of the money of others. We can also sell North Dakota to Canada (there's nothign thers anyways)

Thats two states we can do without. :)

[Deus Ex Machina]

The strangest part was where Eastwood placed the blame for the war in Afghanistan squarely on Obama's shoulders, and then said that Mitt wants us to "bring the troops home tomorrow."

What kind of strange madness is this? Someone says (at the RNC) that we need to bring our troops home NOW, and the statement is greeted with riotous, overwhelming applause... from Republicans?

This more than anything reveals how the Right have adopted textbook doublethink. Ask ANY self identified conservative and they will tell you that they never supported either war. Let them keep going and they'll tell you they never really liked Bush II and that he wasn't a real Conservative.

"You don't think I have the right to criticize the president for not closing Guantanamo?"

No. No you fucking don't, thank you very much.

[poinoup]

Eastwood sounded senile...seriously.

I'm reminded of the Simpsons..."Old Man Yells at Cloud".

Romney is getting desperate now...and yet you still can't count him out. American politics is weird like that.

[Pillfred]

We can safely loose Texas, and therefore cut out a ton of illegal imigrants living of the money of others. We can also sell North Dakota to Canada (there's nothign thers anyways)

Thats two states we can do without. :)

Oh, really (http://www.businessinsider.com/youve-never-seen-anything-like-the-williston-oil-boom-2012-3?op=1)? That and I happen to generally like living in Fargo.

I have yet to watch Eastwood's hopefully senile rant but it still breaks my heart.

This too may be old hat but the fat blowhard (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/30/michael-moore-mitt-romney_n_1843824.html) brings up a good point. Specifically the age demographic bit on Obama's supporters the first time around, it seems this same demographic are a lot of the naive people who thought he really was gonna change the world overnight, "Change we can believe in," kids. Fuck.

[Kid Charlemagne]

I love Austin and Houston, but let's face it: Texas has been trying to get itself fired (http://www.secedekilgore.com/) from the US for some time now.
I take great offense to this. Granted we're a red state, but the biggest metropolitan areas in Texas all voted for Obama in 2008 and will likely do the same in November. All the small counties and cities are the ones that that are your typical "Proud to be American" types, but San Antonio, many parts of Dallas, Houston, Austin, and Corpus all tend to swing to the left, myself included. This whole notion and stereotype of everyone from Texas being a gun-toting, truck driving racist couldn't be further from the truth from where I stand. Don't let figures like Rick Perry give you the slightest idea of who we are. For every red blood there is here, you'll run into someone like myself who doesn't agree in part with anything the GOP sells. I'm not the proudest Texan and would move if I could, but I'm really fucking sick of people acting like one state represents a whole country, much less one group of people representing a state.

[redshoewearer]

For every red blood there is here, you'll run into someone like myself who doesn't agree in part with anything the GOP sells. I'm not the proudest Texan and would move if I could, but I'm really fucking sick of people acting like one state represents a whole country, much less one group of people representing a state.

Totally agree - my 5th generation Houstonian dad was a yellow dog Democrat, active in the arts scene in Houston, wrote for the local opera magazine, AND once he came out, participated in the gay pride Houston parade every year. Not all Texans (and I'm one too, though transplanted for many years) are Republicans and/or Conservatives.

[allegro]

Wow.... The differences between them are probably starker than they were since maybe 1932. Tax policy, social policy, foreign policy, judicial nominations, health care...
That's all a load of crap that they feed to the masses. Up until the time they're all bending over for the same big businesses and lobbyists.

DOMA? Signed into law by Clinton. Welfare reform? Clinton. Don't Ask Don't Tell? Clinton. Graham-Leach-Bliley? Clinton.

I voted straight Democratic ticket for many years. But now I'm voting Green Party.

[Deus Ex Machina]

That's all a load of crap that they feed to the masses. Up until the time they're all bending over for the same big businesses and lobbyists.

DOMA? Signed into law by Clinton. Welfare reform? Clinton. Don't Ask Don't Tell? Clinton. Graham-Leach-Bliley? Clinton.

DOMA - Signed after it passed the Republican controlled house and senate by a large margin.

Welfare Reform - Signed after he vetoed two even shittier versions of the law. Passed by Republican controlled house and senate

DADT - a compromise between full integration of homosexuals in the military (which Clinton ran on) and an outright fucking ban and policy of summary court martial of any and all gays in the military. Sorry, but holy crap is this a bad example for the argument you're making.

Graham-Leach-Bliley - named for it's three sponsors, Sen. Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), signed into law after it passed the Republican controlled house and senate.

Some Democrats are complicit in the shit policies of the past 15 years, some deliberately, most due to the shit compromises that were required during the whole Contract with America nonsense. Whether we like it or not, we live in a country that packed the legislature full of conservatives, so no, Clinton and the rest of the Democratic party did not and could not simply wave a magic wand and undo what had been done by a Republican majority.

Big business and Lobbyists want very much for people to believe that both parties are equally at fault; but examination of the details tells a pretty consistent story.


I voted straight Democratic ticket for many years. But now I'm voting Green Party.

You are fully capable of understanding the math behind presidential elections and are fully aware that you will be voting for Romney. Please don't do that.

[Jinsai]

You are fully capable of understanding the math behind presidential elections and are fully aware that you will be voting for Romney. Please don't do that.

To be fair she lives in a blue state that's going to go for Obama regardless. The election is going to be won by a handful of swing states... which is so fucked up, but what can you do about it.

I live in California, so I might as well write in "Louis CK"
I'll be voting for Obama, but I know my vote means nothing at all when I consider the math behind presidential elections.

[ambergris]

That's all a load of crap that they feed to the masses. Up until the time they're all bending over for the same big businesses and lobbyists.

DOMA? Signed into law by Clinton. Welfare reform? Clinton. Don't Ask Don't Tell? Clinton. Graham-Leach-Bliley? Clinton.

I voted straight Democratic ticket for many years. But now I'm voting Green Party.

I agree with a lot of what Deus Ex Machina said and to be fair to Clinton, he was president when movement conservatism was at the peak of its power. They really believed in the free-markets-solve-everything ideology that created Graham-Leach-Bliley and welfare reform. However, the big difference between the parties is that the Democrats learned their lessons after the Iraq War disaster and the Financial Crash. That`s why there is Dodd-Frank (which the republicans want to repeal) and a possible expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Also, the republicans, right now, are campaigning on complete lies about Obama`s execution of the welfare reform bill - because they decided to double-down.
Of course, in Illinois it doesn`t really matter who one votes for. But, for example, the 2010 Senate Race Mark Kirk vs. Alexi Giannoulias. They were only 1,4% apart in the end, so a vote for a green candidate could eventually lead to a republican senate majority in 2013 and that means more Scalias, Thomas' and vacancies on various posts.

[allegro]

I unapologetically voted for Mark Kirk. He'd been the US Rep in my district for many years and did a great job, particularly his work to help clean up Lake Michigan and his strong support of air traffic controllers.

http://campaignline.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-current-senators-voted-on-clarence.html?m=1

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=56922

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html

I'm not convinced that Democrats have learned any lessons at all.

Re Jill Stein, and the politics of fear:
http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/143167-yet-another-jill-stein-puff-piece/

[Deus Ex Machina]

I unapologetically voted for Mark Kirk. He'd been the US Rep in my district for many years and did a great job, particularly his work to help clean up Lake Michigan and his strong support of air traffic controllers.

http://campaignline.blogspot.com/2004/11/how-current-senators-voted-on-clarence.html?m=1

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=56922

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html

I'm not convinced that Democrats have learned any lessons at all.

Re Jill Stein, and the politics of fear:
http://thephoenix.com/boston/news/143167-yet-another-jill-stein-puff-piece/

Kirk huh? Take a look at his record and he's hit or miss, supporting Air Traffic controllers but ani-Union in general. He was also part of the debt ceiling debalce, did not vote for the ACA, pretty much a textbook Republican. You have to actually watch what these people do.



That's a great piece and completely right about how great Stein is. I'd like nothing more than to have her as president. But I don't get to pick the president and neither does any other one person. I see this election, and many more elections in the future, as opportunites to throw my support behind a candidate that, while not perfect, could possibly win and deliver policies that I can live with. One important thing to remember is that conservative voters don't suffer from this level of discrimination. They aren't really capable of splitting their vote because they aren't capable of knowing the difference between candidates. They vote for the Republican in front of them.

It's not a choice between Democrats and the Green party, it's a choice between Democrats and Republicans. Just like it's a choice between Ford and Toyota, and not a choice between Toyota and AwesomeHoverCarCo. If you're really committed to Stein's platform, which is fantastic, you should be focused on the long term goal of ending the reign of the those that designed and were the most complicit in the dismantling of our government. Only then will a platform like Stein's really have a chance.


Bleah, probably does not matter in your state like Jinsai said. But I've got a liberal father inlaw who's planning on voting for the Green party IN WISCONSIN. I want to strangle him.

[allegro]

But how the fuck is this shit two-party system EVER going to change if we don't have the BALLS to vote for whom we really WANT? Rather than voting based on fear of "the other guy." Or, in my husband's case, fear of Paul Ryan (whom he calls the antichrist)? How the fuck will things EVER change when we sit around saying, "Bah, things will never change. And if you vote for THAT person, you're gonna fuck things up even worse, so you'd better vote for whom EVERYBODY ELSE wants you to vote for or you're gonna FUCK THINGS UP." Nevermind about voting for the person YOU WANT; that's illogical, and you're not going with the plan, damn it!

I thought voting was a solemn and very private right, one that FEMALES couldn't exercise until relatively recently. I'll be fucking damned if anybody tells me how to vote. I vote based on my own criteria, and not any god damned political party.

Re "watching what Mark Kirk" does or did. Um, yeah, I know that. I'm not an idiot. But I don't vote party lines, anymore. Giannoulias was and is a fucking asshole. Mark Kirk did so much for NATCA, they sent him PAC money. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2035561,00.html

http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/April-2012/The-Political-Consequences-of-Mark-Kirks-Stroke/

What we REALLY need is a full-blown revolution. If it takes that to dismantle this stupid system, then so be it.

Right now, however, we're looking to retire in France.

[Deus Ex Machina]

But how the fuck is this shit two-party system EVER going to change if we don't have the BALLS to vote for whom we really WANT? Rather than voting based on fear of "the other guy." Or, in my husband's case, fear of Paul Ryan (whom he calls the antichrist)? How the fuck will things EVER change when we sit around saying, "Bah, things will never change. And if you vote for THAT person, you're gonna fuck things up even worse, so you'd better vote for whom EVERYBODY ELSE wants you to vote for or you're gonna FUCK THINGS UP." Nevermind about voting for the person YOU WANT; that's illogical, and you're not going with the plan, damn it!

I thought voting was a solemn and very private right, one that FEMALES couldn't exercise until relatively recently. I'll be fucking damned if anybody tells me how to vote. I vote based on my own criteria, and not any god damned political party.

Well, fending off what you know with break the system is still a change. We have to do that consistently before we have any hope of real progressivism. I'm not voting out of 'fear of the other guy' I'm putting my support behind a candidate that can win and who's policies do more good than the other, and protect against policies I don't care for to the degree possible. That's perfectly fine because it still counts even if you don't get everything you want. National elections are big, messy things. You're not choosing a pizza topping with your friends. There are thousands of little variables and reasons to support this or that candidate but you still need X amount of electoral votes. By the time you reach the end of the candidate selection process, their platform will be watered down because it HAS to be. They have to cater to a certain amount of people, period. There's no grand conspiracy holding together the two party system. It's math. They need 50% of the vote. So you shore up your base when you drop below that number, and stop compromising once you get past it. You could fracture the system tomorrow into 5 parties and in 6 months, there would be two again.

No one is telling you how to vote. I'm just telling you the likely consequences of your vote.

[allegro]

No one is telling you how to vote. I'm just telling you the likely consequences of your vote.
Gee, thanks. Did you read the article (above) about Clarence Thomas? See how many Dems voted him in? That worked out great, didn't it? But the hypocrite coward Democrats forgot that they helped get that asshole on the bench.

http://www.celsias.com/article/ex-monsanto-lawyer-clarence-thomas-hear-major-mons/

Where was the outrage? Oh, wait, I know; we had an election to worry about (like we always do), not the right time.

Meanwhile, http://current.com/shows/the-war-room/blog/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-jill-stein-green-party-candidate-for-president

That really dumb guy, Noam Chomky, said: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/03/10/18709079.php

A certain former ETS regular in Virginia is voting for Jill Stein. (<--- oh, and said former ETS regular's senior citizen dad and his senior citizen girlfriend in FLORIDA, both Republicans, are voting for Stein, too)

[Elke]

I'm having flashbacks to this exact same argument four years ago. I think it was about Ron Paul back then, no?

I don't understand the two-party system. It's the biggest bullshit there is: how do you discern a left-wing Republican and a conservative Democrate?

[Deus Ex Machina]

Gee, thanks. Did you read the article (above) about Clarence Thomas? See how many Dems voted him in? That worked out great, didn't it? But the hypocrite coward Democrats forgot that they helped get that asshole on the bench.

http://www.celsias.com/article/ex-monsanto-lawyer-clarence-thomas-hear-major-mons/

Where was the outrage? Oh, wait, I know; we had an election to worry about (like we always do), not the right time.

The outrage was everywhere. The Anita Hill scandal, for one. That and Clarence Thomas was voted into the Supreme Court by one of the narrowest margins in history. 11 Democrats voted yes, 46 voted no. This is as unpersuasive as your DADT example. If I didn't know any better, I'd say you were serving up examples of just how hollow the 'they're all crooks' line really is to get people to vote the straight D ticket come November.


Meanwhile, http://current.com/shows/the-war-room/blog/7-things-you-didnt-know-about-jill-stein-green-party-candidate-for-president

That really dumb guy, Noam Chomky, said: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/03/10/18709079.php

Stein would make an excellent President. Because I would like her, or someone like her to be the president some day, I'm going to vote for the party that tried and failed to block Clarence Thomas' appointment to the supreme court. I'd vote for Stein, but due to her lack of support, I would be indirectly aiding the party that selected and appointed him.


A certain former ETS regular in Virginia is voting for Jill Stein. (<--- oh, and said former ETS regular's senior citizen dad and his senior citizen girlfriend in FLORIDA, both Republicans, are voting for Stein, too) All votes for Romney, by default.

Edit: Elke: The US has many many parties, but only two end up getting elected due to the nature of our democracy. You need 50+% of the vote to get legislation enacted. Smaller parties would just end up allying with the larger. Any party that can't get around 50% will try to absorb more members, any party that can get 50+ has no incentive to reach across the isle. It's a lot less nefarious than it's made out to be. The liberal Rebublican is a figment of the American imagination, and the Conservative Democrat is just a regular democrat trying to survive in a hyper conservative culture. That or just a conservative taking advantage of the D to get elected. I suppose theres the whole dixie-crat holdover phenomenon.

[Magtig]

I take great offense to this. Granted we're a red state, but the biggest metropolitan areas in Texas all voted for Obama in 2008 and will likely do the same in November. All the small counties and cities are the ones that that are your typical "Proud to be American" types, but San Antonio, many parts of Dallas, Houston, Austin, and Corpus all tend to swing to the left, myself included. This whole notion and stereotype of everyone from Texas being a gun-toting, truck driving racist couldn't be further from the truth from where I stand. Don't let figures like Rick Perry give you the slightest idea of who we are. For every red blood there is here, you'll run into someone like myself who doesn't agree in part with anything the GOP sells. I'm not the proudest Texan and would move if I could, but I'm really fucking sick of people acting like one state represents a whole country, much less one group of people representing a state.
I'm pretty sure I said all of nothing about all the stereo-types you just mentioned, but Rick Perry, considering he was democratically elected, DOES give a person an idea of the mindset of many of the people in Texas. And the joke I was making about secession is hardly an anomaly; I've heard that kind of talk coming out of Texan leaders for years. You can be offended all you want, but Texas has such a fucking horrible track record of doing things that are shitty -often for this entire country when you consider they dictate the content of high school text books- that it should come as little surprise when people pick on it. For fuck sake, they were just trying to ban critical thinking courses! Who the fuck does that!?

It's a shame, actually. I really do like Texas, and I feel for you, redshoewearer, and other forward thinking people having to put up with leaders that keep doing incredibly stupid shit, but Texas keeps electing people like George Bush and Rick Perry. If you don't like that stereotype maybe you ought to run for office or volunteer for a campaign.

[PooPooMeowChow]

Funny seeing them try to conduct a convention with out using the other candidates name.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B39W91O-rUg

[allegro]

^^ That is amazing and more people need to see that bullshit.

We need a revolution.

But, Americans are pretty stupid and lazy. And the MEAN spirited people right now, wow, they're everywhere. I mean, I have seen some of the meanest, most awful things said about Obama online that goes WAY beyond general politics. It's different than just "I hate Democrats" or "I hate Republicans" -- it's a personal attack on the President's character that is so vicious and based on lies. "Go back to Africa where you were born" and "BBQ Obama" wtf.

I am so disgusted with both Democrats and Republicans right now, I've decided to stay as far away from this election stuff as possible. It's all anxiety-inducing and I know that I can't do a damned thing about it, so I'm going to ignore it as much as I can. I'm just not on board with any of it, not even the Green party, honestly. I'm exhausted. I can't totally get behind any of it. I'm gonna go do my yoga.

[allegro]

I'm having flashbacks to this exact same argument four years ago. I think it was about Ron Paul back then, no?

I don't understand the two-party system. It's the biggest bullshit there is: how do you discern a left-wing Republican and a conservative Democrate?
Doesn't matter; they all eventually evolve into people who aren't very good people.

[Kid Charlemagne]

I'm pretty sure I said all of nothing about all the stereo-types you just mentioned, but Rick Perry, considering he was democratically elected, DOES give a person an idea of the mindset of many of the people in Texas. And the joke I was making about secession is hardly an anomaly; I've heard that kind of talk coming out of Texan leaders for years. You can be offended all you want, but Texas has such a fucking horrible track record of doing things that are shitty -often for this entire country when you consider they dictate the content of high school text books- that it should come as little surprise when people pick on it. For fuck sake, they were just trying to ban critical thinking courses! Who the fuck does that!?

It's a shame, actually. I really do like Texas, and I feel for you, redshoewearer, and other forward thinking people having to put up with leaders that keep doing incredibly stupid shit, but Texas keeps electing people like George Bush and Rick Perry. If you don't like that stereotype maybe you ought to run for office or volunteer for a campaign.
I volunteered to work for the Democratic party in 2008 and 2010, and hope to do it again this year. Like I said, the leaders don't speak for everyone. I could easily say that you being in California, you and everyone else in that state are probably as dense and moronic as Gov. Conan the Barbarian, but I know that's not true, because I know you and everyone that I've hung out from California isn't gay, money spending, laid back, surfer, conservative or anything. Just as not everyone from Utah is a Mormon or everyone from Arizona is a racist. I just think it's unfair for you to pick on it and try to justify it because I know you're better than that. Every state has its set of problems, some more than others, but I won't hold it against anyone or said state. And as for someone like Rick Perry, you wouldn't believe the amount of people (Republican and Democrat) that distanced themselves from him in the past year. Obviously he didn't catch on with the rest of the country because he burned out pretty quickly within his own party.

[M1ke]

The two-party system (while flawed) isn't the worst thing in the world. In Canada we don't have a 2-party system and it produces some pretty messed up results here too.

For example, in our last federal election the majority of citizens voted for left-wing parties, but the results led to a majority government for a right-wing party. We have multiple left-wing parties, but the right is united in just 1. So the left-wing votes end up split and a party that received only 39% of the popular vote ended up winning the election with a majority government.

[allegro]

Really? Wow, that's kinda fucked up. What's more fucked up is how little I know about Canadian elections.

[M1ke]

Well, a very broad strokes summary goes kind of like this:

Each riding elects 1 person to the House of Commons, with 308 ridings across the country. One way to win is with votes going something like this:
40% Conservative (right-wing)
30% Liberal (left-wing)
30% NDP (further left-wing)

And then that riding gets represented by a right-wing party even though it's made up of 60% left-wing voters.

Not saying that this isn't better than the 2-party system, just that it has its own flaws too.

[Elke]

We have similar problems in Belgium, which explains breaking the Iraqi formation record.

[Jinsai]

and here's why that whole "Chuck Norris facts meme always sucked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ud3pK5Wa90&list=UU9gCY-9tBmZLXrjj6b87EWg&index=1&feature=plcp)

oooooo... if you vote for Obama, you'll be sending the world into a thousand years of darkness! see? This is why that "Chuck Norris facts" meme was fucking stupid. Derpy derp derp, when Chuck Norris does a pushup, he's not pushing himself up, he's derpy derp derp derp. Yeah, so fucking funny.

[allegro]

How can we take him seriously when he's wearing that shirt tucked in like that?

Our country could go the way of socialism ... or SOMETHING MUCH WORSE.

If people keep invoking that asshole RONALD REAGAN (a/k/a the Antichrist), I'm gonna go postal.

[aggroculture]

So the GOP's electoral theme is former action hero movie stars? OK good luck with that.

[Sallos]

Speaking about third parties, how's Gary Johnson doing? Will he be eligible for debates?

[Sutekh]

You probably need more parties... You have a federal system and yet only 2 real parties and one overall premier speaking for 330 million... Something went wrong. It might be better to treat your politicians with a bit more contempt, they seem to be viewed as leaders, whereas in the UK we see them as faciliators of public life who are pushing their luck. Very few people in the UK would put a poster of a candidate in their window. People seem to express their identity through politicians in America, which isn't a good idea IMO

I can imagine how annoying it is when Euros tell you how you should take a dump, apologies!

[orestes]

Congress has an 8% approval rating so it has very few admirers at the moment, other than corporations and lobbies.

[PooPooMeowChow]

Speaking about third parties, how's Gary Johnson doing? Will he be eligible for debates?

This depends on what Ron Paul does. Dr. Paul will be on Leno tonight "making a big announcement". Rumors are he's gunna run 3rd party, be Gary Johnsons VP, Johnson gives up the Libertarian spot to Paul and becomes his VP or Paul simply announces his retirement.

I think you something like 20% to get in the debates. With Pauls supporters that will happen, (unless some one changes some rule last second). If Dr. Paul retires, Johnson will get some of the Paul supporter but not all so it's be close in that scenario.

Keep in mind Johnson had the required percentage for a lot of the republican debates they just didn't let him in.

[Deus Ex Machina]

You probably need more parties... You have a federal system and yet only 2 real parties and one overall premier speaking for 330 million... Something went wrong. It might be better to treat your politicians with a bit more contempt, they seem to be viewed as leaders, whereas in the UK we see them as faciliators of public life who are pushing their luck. Very few people in the UK would put a poster of a candidate in their window. People seem to express their identity through politicians in America, which isn't a good idea IMO

I can imagine how annoying it is when Euros tell you how you should take a dump, apologies!

We have quite a few parties, but only two manage to get elected with regularity. This used to upset me, but doesn't really anymore. It makes sense due to the math of the thing. If you need 50%+ percent of the vote, a party that can get it has no incentive to get smaller. A party that can't has every incentive to get bigger. Someone that would otherwise start and support a new party has every incentive to pick one of the already existing two for those same reasons. We'd have more successful parties if we 'formed a government' euro style where a small majority (not 50%+ but the most) got to pack their parliament.

If you ask me that 'contempt' is part of the problem. Most Americans hate 'the government'. Ask them what they think of Congress as a whole and they'll shit all over them.

Ask them who the representative in their district is, or who their two senators are, or how any of them voted on any given issue, and you'll be met with silence.

[littlemonkey613]

Congress has an 8% approval rating so it has very few admirers at the moment, other than corporations and lobbies.

Congress's approval is always extremely low but the problem is that people tend to favor their own Congressman. That's why incumbency rates are so high.

[Magtig]

Watching the DNC live on youtube.

"Americans Coming Together"

*snicker*


edit: btw, www.youtube.com/politics (http://www.youtube.com/politics) has live coverage from four different sources; some even have different camera angles.

[Hazekiah]

From the new "Rolling Stone":




http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/7800/tommorellovspaulryaninr.jpg

[allegro]

Ask them who the representative in their district is, or who their two senators are, or how any of them voted on any given issue, and you'll be met with silence.
Very true. It's frustrating.

People only seem to give a shit when there's a Presidential election, but many rarely get involved in local or state elections or politics.


On another note, I am *totally* sucked into this Democratic National Convention. I'm drunk on democracy.

[Magtig]

If Obama really wants to promote equal treatment of women maybe he should institute pay for all first ladies from this day forward.

[Jinsai]

really Ted Strickland? Really?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjqHN7bMNUU

[littlemonkey613]

They didn't want to lose by THAT MUCH to the RNC in the categories of batshit and childishness.

[Magtig]

Wasn't that the same guy who was basically saying that Mitt Romney wanted children to go hungry, and no one getting a degree in college? What a gunt.

[allegro]

Here's a fascinating interview of Jonathan Turley, constitutional law professor at The George Washington University Law School:

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution

(Disregard anything in that article written by John Cusack; he's a TERRIBLE writer and he is way too over-the-top. Plus, he's fucking John Cusack, fer Christ sake.)

[littlemonkey613]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTPdKUA9Ipg

compared to Ann Romney though AHHA. Michelle do WERK <3

[Jinsai]

I really wish speakers would drop the whole "Mitt Romney said he liked being able to fire people" sound byte. It's almost as bad the GOP harping on the "you didn't build that" sound byte.

[littlemonkey613]

President Bill uses Fact Checker! Its SUPER EFFECTIVE!

Seriously I thought the Democrats would have no way off effectively combatting the specific lies about Obama and welfare, medicare, and taxes without sounding too dry to reach the American people. Who would have thought FACTS + Bill's charisma = the perfect antidote. Wow thank god.

[orestes]

It got a bit wonky near the end and for some, was probably too long, but I thought it was a good speech.

[Magtig]

CBS fact checked Clinton, and a surprisingly large amount of what he said checks out (with a few half truths thrown in here and there).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57507626/fact-checking-7-claims-in-bill-clintons-convention-speech/?tag=contentMain;contentBody

[50 Volt Phantom]

Oh yeah?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/06/Fact-Check-Top-Ten-Clinton-Lies

[Magtig]

I'm sorry but reading any kind of fact checking from anything Breitbart created is purely a waste of time (what?! you mean they don't like Clinton!? I'm floored. no really). It would be like asking you to consider a fact checking article written by Arriana Huffington or Bill Maher as a credible source.

[littlemonkey613]

http://factcheck.org/2012/09/our-clinton-nightmare/

factcheck.org is actually non partisan. SO BLAMMMOOOOO

"Former President Bill Clinton’s stem-winding nomination speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-2012-bill-clintons-speech-at-the-democratic-national-convention-excerpt/2012/09/05/f208865e-f7a4-11e1-8253-3f495ae70650_print.html) was a fact-checker’s nightmare: lots of effort required to run down his many statistics and factual claims, producing little for us to write about.Republicans will find plenty of Clinton’s scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out."

Also

He also accused Republicans of blocking 1 million potential new jobs, but that checked out, too:
"Two independent economists — Mark Zandi of Moody’s Analytics and Joel Prakken of Macroeconomics Advisers — had estimated that Obama’s proposed American Jobs Act would add more than 1 million jobs. Zandi claimed it would add 1.9 million jobs (http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/An-Analysis-of-the-Obama-Jobs-Plan.pdfwww.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63069.html); Prakken 1.3 million (http://macroadvisers.blogspot.com/2011/09/american-jobs-act-significant-boost-to.html). Senate Republicans blocked the $447 billion measure (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-jobs-bill-stalled-in-senate/2011/10/11/gIQAIoJmdL_story.html), and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell denounced it as “a charade that’s meant to give Democrats a political edge” in 2012"

[50 Volt Phantom]

Ah yes, Factcheck.org, whose director's choice of media appearances and co-authored books and whose connection through the Annenberg Foundation to one Bill Ayers doesn't at all raise a red flag on bias.

[littlemonkey613]

It's a non partisan organization... its obviously not run by non partisan people b/c there's no such thing.....
There's nothing wrong with looking into your red flags but if you look at their fact checking record its very clean in respect to actually remaining non partisan. Go ahead and check it out. It's not a fucking liberal journal, blog or newspaper.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

Ah yes, Factcheck.org, whose director's choice of media appearances and co-authored books and whose connection through the Annenberg Foundation to one Bill Ayers doesn't at all raise a red flag on bias.
Ah, yes, character assassination through guilt by association. Because fact-checking is an opaque business, a web of information ruled by elites confirming or denying statements that cannot otherwise be confirmed nor denied; behind their dark veil they pull the strings, commanding that we kneel; we, who may disagree, we have no means of proposing substantive challenge to their claims.

Factcheckers Über Alles

[allegro]

Any time somebody trots out positive stuff about Ronald Reagan, I know anything else they're saying is bullshit.

I got LAID OFF during Reagan's reign. Houses were boarded up, mortgage interest rates were the highest in history, etc etc. If they canonize Reagan, I know they weren't born yet, or they're fucking senile.

[littlemonkey613]

Don't forget AIDS! Or as Reagan liked to call it, ________________.

[Magtig]

Politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/05/Bill-Clinton-Democratic-convention/), although it has less comprehensive coverage, also rates most of Bill Clinton's speech as factual. So let's see, on the one side we have Breitbart, on the other we have ABC, Fact Check, and Politifact.

[Dra508]

Any time somebody trots out positive stuff about Ronald Reagan, I know anything else they're saying is bullshit.

I got LAID OFF during Reagan's reign. Houses were boarded up, mortgage interest rates were the highest in history, etc etc. If they canonize Reagan, I know they weren't born yet, or they're fucking senile.I'm pretty sure they blamed all that on Carter.

My grandma thought Nancy Reagan was the anti-christ.

And if anyone thinks Bubba went long, go find his nomination speech for Mike Dukakis back in 1988. You'd have thought for sure his political career was O-V-E-R before it got really started.

[50 Volt Phantom]

Politifact.com (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/sep/05/Bill-Clinton-Democratic-convention/), although it has less comprehensive coverage, also rates most of Bill Clinton's speech as factual. So let's see, on the one side we have Breitbart, on the other we have ABC, Fact Check, and Politifact.
So one totally biased source and two questionable ones, I'll stick with Breitbart.

[Corvus T. Cosmonaut]

We never doubted that you would, Phantom.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/upload/2008/01/do_schools_matter/head%20in%20sand.gif