• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

Furry election 2012.

2012 Election.

  • Obama, duh!

    Votes: 118 45.2%
  • Romney of course!

    Votes: 42 16.1%
  • Can't vote (not in US, under 18, ect)

    Votes: 60 23.0%
  • Why should I care again?

    Votes: 41 15.7%

  • Total voters
    261

CodArk2

Annoyed dragon
Very true. Just talked to a republican today. WAAAA OBAMA IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING SOCIALIST. Socialism really isn't a bad thing, sorry bitch :p

Most republicans don't like obamas policies, but few actually call him a socialist. To me, most democrats sound like WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.

And considering how many wars it started and how many people it killed int he 20th century, socialism IS a bad thing. Its up there with hitler the list of bad things. Anyone who says socialism is "not that bad" has obviously never studied the nations it operated in. Obama isnt a socialist, but Romney isn't a lot of the crap the left spews out about him either. Both parties try to paint the others candidate as an extremist to scare their bases away from voting for the other guy.
 
Last edited:

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
Most republicans don't like obamas policies, but few actually cal him a socialist. To be fair, to me, most democrats sound like WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.

And considering how many wars it started and how many people it killed int he 20th century, socialism ins a bad thing. Its up their with hitler in the top 5 bad things. Anyone who says socialism is "not that bad" has obviously never studied the nations it operated in. Obama isnt a socialist, but Romney isn't a lot of the crap the left spews out about him either. Both parties try to paint the others candidate as an extremist to scare their bases away from voting for the other guy.
I wondered how long until someone godwin'ed this thread.
 

Iudicium_86

Just another artist
Most republicans don't like obamas policies, but few actually call him a socialist. To me, most democrats sound like WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.

And considering how many wars it started and how many people it killed int he 20th century, socialism IS a bad thing. Its up there with hitler the list of bad things. Anyone who says socialism is "not that bad" has obviously never studied the nations it operated in. Obama isnt a socialist, but Romney isn't a lot of the crap the left spews out about him either. Both parties try to paint the others candidate as an extremist to scare their bases away from voting for the other guy.

Or maybe one should now start looking at current models of [Democratic] Socialism and various elements of it being practiced in many EU countries with great success and rate with high qualities of life. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, etc.
 

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
Most republicans don't like obamas policies, but few actually call him a socialist. To me, most democrats sound like WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.

And considering how many wars it started and how many people it killed int he 20th century, socialism IS a bad thing. Its up there with hitler the list of bad things. Anyone who says socialism is "not that bad" has obviously never studied the nations it operated in. Obama isnt a socialist, but Romney isn't a lot of the crap the left spews out about him either. Both parties try to paint the others candidate as an extremist to scare their bases away from voting for the other guy.
Do you like your basic education? Having emergency services? Defense from foreign invasion? Roads, bridges, and rail systems? Yes?
All of these things are publicly funded, which is all 'socialism' necessarily implies.
 
Last edited:

CodArk2

Annoyed dragon
Or maybe one should now start looking at current models of [Democratic] Socialism and various elements of it being practiced in many EU countries with great success and rate with high qualities of life. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, etc.

That might be good, but i dont really see thos enations as being 'socialist". The government does not own the facotries and farms, and socialism is government ownership or control of methods of production. They have more social welfare, but that is not socialism.

Do you like your basic education? Having emergency services? Defense from foreign invasion? Roads, bridges, and rail systems? Yes?
All of these things are publicly funded, which is all 'socialism' necessarily implies.

That is not what socialism is. Socialism is an economic system with "social" (usually government)ownership of the means of production and management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. I am not anti-government. That is anarchism. Some government is necessary for social order.Public education in the US mostly is paid for by state and local taxes, not federal taxes. Most roads and bridges are also likewise locally funded, only the interstates are maintained by the feds.

Socialism inplies the central voernment should own all the roads, all the schools in the country, all the facotries and refineries, all the farms, all the railroads, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc. Government should own everything, but especially farms and factories. Socialism is not the same as saying "some people should pay for things that are the common good". That is not socialism. Government taking over the economy is socialism. Obama is not a socialist by that standard, and it is not really even that widespread and accusation among republicans, though some say the healthcare thing is socialist like. i do not agree with them, but i see where they are coming from.

What's with the American right and 'evil socialism' that'll destroy the world? :V Especially since many nations get along just fine with it.

Socialism has caused wars? I haven't heard of that one before.

That's extremely debatable, depending upon the context your looking at.

Speaking of which....

Because socialism gave rise to communism, which killed between 80 and 150 million people. it IS an evil ideology. Fascism killed about 20 million, when both are evil ideologies but socialism death count is much higher.

Under the banner of socialism thre have been many many civil wars, and quote a few international wars, the most famous of which were the korean and vietnam wars. The soviet war in afghanistan in the 80s was anther, because they were trying to make afghanistans government communist. The civil wars that happened when communists and socialists took power are many, especially in africa and asia, but also in Europe and latin america. Millions died in those, then if they took power, in purges that followed.

Socialism and communism (I use the term interchangeably because they did. It was the Union of Soviet *Socialist* Republics, after all, not the Union of Soviet Communist Republics) are up there with hitler on the list of bad things in terms of the number of people killed, though the ruin it brought to many nations is also a factor in why I say its bad.
 
Last edited:

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
That might be good, but I dont think moving toward that type of socialism is a good thing. The US has a much larger population tha is much more ethnically diverse than those nations.. None of those nations are renowned for their economic growth or power either. Many european nations are having riots because the government has cut government programs because of massive debts rung up from the social welfare programs.



That is not what socialism is. Socialism is an economic system with "social" (usually government)ownership of the means of production and management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. I am not anti-government. That is anarchism. Some government is necessary for social order.Public education in the US mostly is paid for by state and local taxes, not federal taxes. Most roads and bridges are also likewise locally funded, only the interstates are maintained by the feds.

Socialism inplies the central voernment should own all the roads, all the schoosl in the country, all the facotries and refineries, all the farms, all the railroads, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc. Government should own everything, but expecially farms and factories. Socialism is not the same as saying "some people should pay for things that are the common good". That is not socialism. Government taking over the economy is socialism. Obama is not a socialist by that standard, and it is not really even that widespread and accusation among republicans, though some say the healthcare thing is socialist like. i do not agree with them, but i see where they are coming from.
The reason why europe is in the shitter is because of greece and the euro. Greece should have never been allowed into the EU in the first place.


As for the second part someone really needs to retake government 101.
 

CodArk2

Annoyed dragon
The reason why europe is in the shitter is because of greece and the euro. Greece should have never been allowed into the EU in the first place.


As for the second part someone really needs to retake government 101.

That is partly it. Spain, Italy, Potugal and Ireland are also ahving issues. It is not entirely because of their socialized programs, but those do not help the situation. It gives us the lesson that natiosn that spend beyond their means will have major problems in the future.. the idea of america ending up like greece would be an international nightmare, and one that should be avoided if it can be. Of course, americas debt is a bit different than Europe.

explains it fairly well.


As for what socialism is, what i just said it was is broadly accepted as what it is. Socialism is government control of means of production, like factories and farms. That is the basic idea of socialism. If your definition of socialism is different then argue with those same textbooks because they say the same thing.

As for things like what anarchy is: its no government. Where school funding and roads come from is fairly easy. Most does NOT come from the federal government. The feds own the interstates, they dont own the road in front of your house or do any work on it, the local government or state government does that. Same with the schools. None of that is really federal.
 
Last edited:

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
As for what socialism is, what i just said it was is broadly accepted as what it is. Socialism is government control of means of production, like factories and farms. That is the basic idea of socialism. If your definition of socialism is different then argue with those same textbooks because they say the same thing.
These wouldn't happen to be from Abeka, would they ?
:V
 

CodArk2

Annoyed dragon
These wouldn't happen to be from Abeka, would they ?
:V

No, they were actually from when I took economics in college. Govenrment control of means of production is THE deinfition of socialism.

Even the dictionary says so.

www.merriam-webster.com: Definition of SOCIALISM
so·cial·ism noun \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Definition of SOCIALISM

1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
See socialism defined for English-language learners »
See socialism defined for kids »

Note defintion 1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

And what I said:
As for what socialism is, what i just said it was is broadly accepted as what it is. Socialism is government control of means of production, like factories and farms. That is the basic idea of socialism. If your definition of socialism is different then argue with those same textbooks because they say the same thing.

Has nothing to do with some radical right wing philosophy, socialism is what it is.
 
Last edited:

Glitch

SLUDGE FACE
Oh God, great. Come back after months and within five minutes I see this cluster.

Go Obama, screw Romney and pretty much the entire right wing. I try to see some good in people but when it comes to Ryan, Romney, Akin, Mourdock, Bachmann... You should get the picture.

I'd rather have a president that is so-so in office but a good person (Obama) than possibly ok/decent in office and a shitty person (Romney). Plus I am not self-loathing enough to vote my rights away.
 
Romney is so greasy even a bucket of oil would drown...does that even make sense? Anyways, you get the picture. Anyone who votes for him has their head far...far....far up their ass.

Or maybe one should now start looking at current models of [Democratic] Socialism and various elements of it being practiced in many EU countries with great success and rate with high qualities of life. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, etc.

yay someone with a brain!
 
Last edited:
WAAAA ROMNEY IS GONNA RUIN THIS COUNTRY HE'S SO FUCKING STUPID/GREEDY/RICH.

Well he's not stupid. He's incredibly smart, or at least, business smart.

He's also very greedy.

And rich.

And a decepticon.
 

CodArk2

Annoyed dragon
Well he's not stupid. He's incredibly smart, or at least, business smart.

He's also very greedy.

And rich.

And a decepticon.

The one I responded to is very...juvenile about politics, tending to view it more like a football game than a philosophical discussion, so he likely does think that about Romney. Both sides like to think they come across as logical and mature, but to the other side they come across as idiots. But on both sides many people seem to think "Oh my gosh, I am so closed-minded and I disagree with them because my affiliation is the best. The others want to destroy america!"

Both Obama and Romney are smart, though both are also greedy, greedy for power. both want power. Both are rich, Obama is also a millionaire. Both call the other a deception and in some areas they are right. Its odd to me how everything people from one party say can easily be said about the other, yet people think the parties are so different.
 
Last edited:

BouncyOtter

Member
Anyone who votes for him has their head far...far....far up their ass.

I'll preface this by saying I already voted, and I didn't vote for Romney. However, you are saying nearly half of the country has its head up its ass. I know this is not the case for a lot people, but I dare say that many people that vote for Obama also have their heads up their asses. They don't really understand what his full plans are. They think Obama will provide them magical solutions to their lives and immediately side with him. Clearly, a large chunk of people vote for the candidate that they believe will help them personally, not necessarily the country as a whole. Romney's platform is appealing to certain populations of people and not just the stereotypical extreme right wing conservatives because Romney really isn't extreme. I just don't think its fair to say only people voting for Romney are "idiots".

As a side note, I still can't see this being a very close election.
 

Fernin

6150 rpm and spinning.
@ BouncyOtter

Ah,but half this nation DOES have its head up its ass. Hell according to a national poll last year 51% of Americans still believe in god for goodness sake. Of course, that discussion is for a whole 'nother thread. =0
 
The one I responded to is very...juvenile about politics, so he likely does think that about Romney. Both sides like to think they come across as logical and mature, but to the other side they come across as idiots. But on both sides many people seem to think "Oh my gosh, I am so closed-minded and I disagree with them because my affiliation is the best. The others want to destroy america!"

Both Obama and Romney are smart, though both are also greedy, greedy for power. both want power. Both are rich, Obama is also a millionaire. Both call the other a deception and in some areas they are right. Its odd to me how everything people from one party say can easily be said about the other, yet people think the parties are so different.

I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not saying I'm 'adult', and I'm not saying I'm logical or mature. I'm not calling Romney-voters stupid, because it makes sense to vote for Romney if you're making 6 figures a year or more - He will benefit those people. I never said the other side was closed-minded, but I can say that your overdramatization isn't far off, and it's somewhat correct, even if you don't like it.

Romney is greedy for money, and probably power, because that can get him more money. Obama is less rich that Romney, but has proven to some extent that he actually wants to help America. As versus Romney, who says that, but his policies and previous voting record shows he does not want to help America, or that he flip-flops on things. Which is what greedy liars do.

I'm pretty sure most people aren't calling each other decepticons (not deceptions), y'know, the Transformers?

You keep pretending like you're some Romney-leaning innocent Centrist. But you're not. I don't care about your ideology. I've refuted your points time and time again on both politics and religion. I just don't want to see you keep spreading the same stupid shit like all the Fox News/Tea-Bagger/Extreme-Right GOP-tards. Everybody knows that politicians are parasites. Everybody knows they lie. Everybody knows that they are generally bad people because of this, and everybody knows that both sides of politics are generally fucking stupid, but we have to deal with it.

And last but not least; when your team is doing X, pointing out that the other team is kinda doing it too doesn't change the fact that your team is still doing it. It doesn't lessen the blow, it doesn't change a damn thing. The right-wingers love pointing and wagging fingers, but it doesn't change that they are still doing the deed.

Now I'm sure you're going to reply to all of that, but take time for this as well:
As an average American, a person within the large majority of people who live in this country, where the 4-person Nuclear-family household is making less than 35k a year, how is Romney going to help us? How is Romney going to lessen the debt? How is Romney going to get our soldiers back home, getall of our schools properly funded, get our jobless jobs, and overall benefit the middle class, the working class, and all of those whom make up most of America?

You seem so quick to defend him, or at least try to 'spread the blame' so it appears less on him, so lets hear it.
 
Last edited:

CodArk2

Annoyed dragon
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. I'm not saying I'm 'adult', and I'm not saying I'm logical or mature. I'm not calling Romney-voters stupid, because it makes sense to vote for Romney if you're making 6 figures a year or more - He will benefit those people. I never said the other side was closed-minded, but I can say that your overdramatization isn't far off, and it's somewhat correct, even if you don't like it.

None of that was leveled specifically at you, more at politics in general. Both sides tend to see the other as being stupid, ignorant and closed minded. Romney will benefit others besides the rich , no one would vote for him if he was only going to help the rich.

Romney is greedy for money, and probably power, because that can get him more money. Obama is less rich that Romney, but has proven to some extent that he actually wants to help America. As versus Romney, who says that, but his policies and previous voting record shows he does not want to help America, or that he flip-flops on things. Which is what greedy liars do.

Being less rich doesn't mean he isn't rich. If he has over a million, he is rich. Obama wants money as well, just for different things than Romney does. Obama didn't really have a voting record before he became president, since he hadnt even finished one term as a senator. I would say both want to help america, just in different ways

m pretty sure most people aren't calling each other decepticons (not deceptions), y'know, the Transformers?.

That was an odd autocorrect.

I'
You keep pretending like you're some Romney-leaning innocent Centrist. But you're not. I don't care about your ideology. I've refuted your points time and time again on both politics and religion. I just don't want to see you keep spreading the same stupid shit like all the Fox News/Tea-Bagger/Extreme-Right GOP-tards. Everybody knows that politicians are parasites. Everybody knows they lie. Everybody knows that they are generally bad people because of this, and everybody knows that both sides of politics are generally fucking stupid, but we have to deal with it.

I never said I was innocent, but I am a centrist that leans right. i am not from the far right. I have never brought up religion so no idea where that is coming from. i am agnostic, and i never really entered into a religious discussion. Some points of mine you have refuted, some of yours I have refuted as well. I am not part of the tea party of extreme right wing, nor do i watch fox. My thinking is usually different from theirs.

And last but not least; when your team is doing X, pointing out that the other team is kinda doing it too doesn't change the fact that your team is still doing it. It doesn't lessen the blow, it doesn't change a damn thing. The right-wingers love pointing and wagging fingers, but it doesn't change that they are still doing the deed.

Most of the time its not 'the other team is kinda doing it" , the other team is often doing it just as much. Pointing out hypocrisy does lessen the blow, well maybe not to people already set in their ways... The left wing also likes pointing and wagging fingers, both sides do it because both ant to call out the others while making themselves seem better. Its how politics works.

Now I'm sure you're going to reply to all of that, but take time for this as well:
As an average American, a person within the large majority of people who live in this country, where the 4-person Nuclear-family household is making less than 35k a year, how is Romney going to help us? How is Romney going to lessen the debt? How is Romney going to get our soldiers back home, getall of our schools properly funded, get our jobless jobs, and overall benefit the middle class, the working class, and all of those whom make up most of America?

You seem so quick to defend him, or at least try to 'spread the blame' so it appears less on him, so lets hear it.

Its actually because i am tired of the liberal circle jerk this thread pretty much seems to be. I just stated I was voting romney and got attacked for it. So its less defending him, more I made a decision and was attacked for it.

I could give multiple ways romney would benefit the middle and working classes, and you woudl say"Oh thats BS" then give me things Obama has said he would do in a second term. Most of the middle class is NOT better off after 4 years under Obama. I could just as easily flip the question and ask what is Obama doing to get us jobs, or fix schools , or bring soldiers home, orlessen the debt. And unlike with romney, i can compare what he is saying now to what he promised in 2008 and how many of those promises he did and didn't keep. I could go into all of what Romney has said he would do, but I dont work for the romney campaign, that and his plans on all those things have been talked about and are fairly easy to find, just most here seem to not to want to read them and get all info about romney from the Obama campaign , which has a vested interest in making romney look as bad as possible. Why should we re-elect obama? As someone in the middle class, I dont really see anything obama is offering that is better. of course others will disagree, btu these are opiniosn, and as hard as it is to believe, there is no wrong or right in those.
 
I would say both want to help america, just in different ways

I never said I was innocent, but I am a centrist that leans right. i am not from the far right. I have never brought up religion so no idea where that is coming from. i am agnostic, and i never really entered into a religious discussion. Some points of mine you have refuted, some of yours I have refuted as well.

Pointing out hypocrisy does lessen the blow, well maybe not to people already set in their ways... The left wing also likes pointing and wagging fingers, both sides do it because both ant to call out the others while making themselves seem better. Its how politics works.

I could give multiple ways romney would benefit the middle and working classes, and you woudl say"Oh thats BS" then give me things Obama has said he would do in a second term. Most of the middle class is NOT better off after 4 years under Obama. I could just as easily flip the question and ask what is Obama doing to get us jobs, or fix schools , or bring soldiers home, orlessen the debt. And unlike with romney, i can compare what he is saying now to what he promised in 2008 and how many of those promises he did and didn't keep. I could go into all of what Romney has said he would do, but I dont work for the romney campaign, that and his plans on all those things have been talked about and are fairly easy to find, just most here seem to not to want to read them and get all info about romney from the Obama campaign , which has a vested interest in making romney look as bad as possible. Why should we re-elect obama? As someone in the middle class, I dont really see anything obama is offering that is better. of course others will disagree, btu these are opiniosn, and as hard as it is to believe, there is no wrong or right in those.

Romney doesn't want to help America, he wants to help out America's rich.

I never said you were, I said you were acting like it, and that you're more like a far-right pretending to be centrist.

I'm pretty sure we've have our back-and-forths on religion, and you've replied, but rarely refuted. That is more of your 'everyone is doing it, so it's cool that I do it too' style.

Pointing out hypocrisy that typically isn't there, is what you're doing, so it doesn't lessen the blow. It just makes those whom you're defending look worse.

It's not how politics work, it's how right-winger politics work. They try to show that there are liars, cheats, and thieves elsewhere, to make themselves appear less criminal. Who are the ones touting the 'sanctity of marriage' (but have mistresses, and/or multiple divorces), or the ones who thinly veil their hatred of gays (yet get caught with male escorts), or even the ones who are all for individual freedoms (except for women's right to choose, adoption, immigrants, religion, drugs, healthcare, and all those other talking-points)?
(Yes I know Liberals are terrible people too, but jeesh, come on)

And finally, to last laughable little paragraph there. You aren't even going to try? You're just going to give an idiotic round-about non-answer to an otherwise direct series of questions. You could flip the question, but I've already answered most of why Romney would be a terrible president before in this thread - I vote for the lesser of two evils, that being Obama, and I've shown enough reason before on why he's a good pick if you're say, middle class. He's not done as much as he should have, but he'll at least not completely screw us over like Romney would (who fully plans on tacking on several more trillion first-day as POTUS). We're already seeing education rising, a jobless rate that is getting better, our troops are due back, so on and on. Mediocre little wins that all accumulate. Obama is slow, but steady, and mostly predictable.

Good job, though. You might be a politician yourself one day.
 
Last edited:

CodArk2

Annoyed dragon
Romney doesn't want to help America, he wants to help out America's rich.

That is more a campaign slogan of obamas. Which is said more becuase it is a politically rousing thing to say than because of accuracy. Romney has middle class plans, as does Obama.


I never said you were, I said you were acting like it, and that you're more like a far-right pretending to be centrist.

I actually am centrist. A far right person wouldn't be on a furry website, nor would they be in favor of legalizing gay marriage or weed. Really the only thing I am more to the right on is abortion and gun control, neither of which I like much. I might be far right in the context of this particular board, but in the sphere of american politics I am just a bit right of center or moderate conservative.

I'm pretty sure we've have our back-and-forths on religion, and you've replied, but rarely refuted. That is more of your 'everyone is doing it, so it's cool that I do it too' style.

I dont really recall having talked of religion, not in the recnt past. I am agnostic, which is a fancy way of saying "I don't know". I don't really talk much about it so posting in a thread about it, that turned into an argument , is unlike me. My points are refuted sometimes, but ore often they are debated and disagreed with, but not really refuted. Most of what I post on these is in fact, opinion, opinions are hard to refute. For facts, some have been refuted on both sides.


It's not how politics work, it's how right-winger politics work. They try to show that there are liars, cheats, and thieves elsewhere, to make themselves appear less criminal. Who are the ones touting the 'sanctity of marriage' (but have mistresses, and/or multiple divorces), or the ones who thinly veil their hatred of gays (yet get caught with male escorts), or even the ones who are all for individual freedoms (except for women's right to choose, adoption, immigrants, religion, drugs, healthcare, and all those other talking-points)?
(Yes I know Liberals are terrible people too, but jeesh, come on)

Its in large part because liberals tend to like using individual conservatives failings to discredit conservatism in general. Instead of rightly calling out the individual for wrongdoing they call out everyone like him and act like they are the same way. The ones doing the bad stuff should be called out on it.

Individual freedoms are iffy, because some have different definitions of what an individual freedom is. I might consider it my personal freedom to stab someone or steal a TV but its not. On all those issues you listed republicans are not a monolith. I dont like abortion much but some republicans are ok with it.Asoption, I am fine with gay couples adopting, some social conservatives are not. Immigrants, pretty much all are fine with *legal* immigration, we disagree with the massive hordesof illegal immigrants coming in from mexico, which was bad in the mid 2000s, some are ok with amnesty, others want to kick them all out, most don't care. Living in a border state thats something I hear a lot about and its hardly the same thing. Religion? The republican party does NOT have an official religion so I dunno why it even comes up. Drugs? I am for legalizing weed if its taxed like cigarettes and stuff, but harder drugs should still be illegal. which is far different than the social conservatives, who want cigarettes and beer banned too. Healthcare? I dont see how the republicans deny personal freedom in it, its not like they stand over you screaming 'you arent getting that heart surgery!".

I also fail to see why any of it has anything to do with Romney though. does anyone seriously believe Romney is seething with hate at gay people? Mormon jokes aside, has Romney been found to have is tresses or any divorces. I question how much is attacks on romney himself, and attacks against the republican party as a platform, or the stereotypes about it. It is relatively common for both sides to make strawnmen of the other then tear them down and act liek they won. Liek arguing all republicans are against all abortions, when they are not. Or republicans only care about the rich. etc. These are straw men. It is better to tear down what he is running on, not strawmen of republicans in general.



And finally, to last laughable little paragraph there. You aren't even going to try? You're just going to give an idiotic round-about non-answer to an otherwise direct series of questions. You could flip the question, but I've already answered most of why Romney would be a terrible president before in this thread - I vote for the lesser of two evils, that being Obama, and I've shown enough reason before on why he's a good pick if you're say, middle class. He's not done as much as he should have, but he'll at least not completely screw us over like Romney would (who fully plans on tacking on several more trillion first-day as POTUS). We're already seeing education rising, a jobless rate that is getting better, our troops are due back, so on and on. Mediocre little wins that all accumulate. Obama is slow, but steady, and mostly predictable.

Good job, though. You might be a politician yourself one day.

I know why *I* voted Romney, but others have different opinions. ROmney has plans and proposals for helping the middle class, btu those are ignored on the left in favor of the "romeny wants to lower taxes on the rich" spiel. many of his claims about the middle class being hurt by Romneys plans were found false, like : http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-romney-could-take-away-middle-class-tax/ . On the debt, I dont see obama cutting it, romney has a plan to start cutting it, though its long term and largely involves spending cuts, which is whats horrifying liberals.Romney has also discussed plans to create jobs, though I know that that is unlikely, because presidents dont create jobs directly, they set policy that lets the economy grow. Schools are more state and local issue than presidential. We are getting out of the war in afghanistan by 2014, both agreed to it.. Saying "Romney wall screw us" sounds more like scremongering to meme, amny said the same when Obama took office and we are still here. I cant find any proof that educate n is better under obama, the jobless rate is around 8 percent, it went up last month to 7.9 percent, and both will take troops out of Afghanistan. Obama is not terrible as a president, but i still think we can do better.
 

CannonFodder

Resistance is futile! If 0 ohm
I gotta ask, why is Romney even trying to run anymore? The guy has barely above a one in ten chance of winning and he's still acting like he's for certain going to get it.
 

Kit H. Ruppell

Exterminieren! Exterminieren!
I gotta ask, why is Romney even trying to run anymore? The guy has barely above a one in ten chance of winning and he's still acting like he's for certain going to get it.
He must attain the status of US President as a stepping stone to godhood!
 
Last edited:

Bliss

Member
That might be good, but i dont really see thos enations as being 'socialist". The government does not own the facotries and farms, and socialism is government ownership or control of methods of production. They have more social welfare, but that is not socialism.
Maybe you don't understand because you aren't Norwegian/Swedish/Danish/Finnish/Dutch. The government here does very much own factories and farms. Public ownership of means of production is the greatest method to create wealth for benefit of all citizens. Many of the largest manufacturing corporations are either wholly, majority or plurality-owned by the government.

Socialism inplies the central voernment should own all the roads, all the schoosl in the country, all the facotries and refineries, all the farms, all the railroads, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc.
It implies that as much as capitalism implies private individuals should own all the roads, all the schools in the country, all the factories and refineries, all the farms, all the railroads, all the healthcare, all the housing, etc.

Because socialism gave rise to communism, which killed between 80 and 150 million people. it IS an evil ideology. Fascism killed about 20 million, when both are evil ideologies but socialism death count is much higher.
Capitalism gave rise to colonialism, imperialism, slavery, violence against and exploitation of workers and has led to mass slaughter in the name of 'freedom' to accumulate capital to the hands of a few private individuals. Sweatshops and child labour exist to this day to create cheap goods to be sold to wealthy capitalist countries. Capitalism IS an evil ideology. Death count and suffering are unimaginable and incalculable in historical context.

Yeah. We can play this game.

Under the banner of socialism thre have been many many civil wars, and quote a few international wars, the most famous of which were the korean and vietnam wars. The soviet war in afghanistan in the 80s was anther, because they were trying to make afghanistans government communist. The civil wars that happened when communists and socialists took power are many, especially in africa and asia, but also in Europe and latin america.
This statement is ridiculously biased. It takes two to tango; under the banner of capitalism there have been many civil wars and a few international wars.

The civil wars happened when capitalists took power as a puppet government of, say, the US and couldn't accept that the people didn't want to become a neocolony of another great power or continue to be abused as a colony of the original one. No matter how brutal these administrations were, the US & pals continued to support them in name of the right ideology (pun intended).
 
That is more a campaign slogan of obamas.

I dont really recall having talked of religion

Its in large part because liberals tend to like using individual conservatives failings to discredit conservatism in general. Instead of rightly calling out the individual for wrongdoing they call out everyone like him and act like they are the same way. The ones doing the bad stuff should be called out on it.

I also fail to see why any of it has anything to do with Romney though. does anyone seriously believe Romney is seething with hate at gay people? Mormon jokes aside, has Romney been found to have is tresses or any divorces. I question how much is attacks on romney himself, and attacks against the republican party as a platform

Liek arguing all republicans are against all abortions, when they are not. Or republicans only care about the rich. etc. These are straw men. It is better to tear down what he is running on, not strawmen of republicans in general.

ROmney has plans and proposals for helping the middle class

many of his claims about the middle class being hurt by Romneys plans were found false, like : http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...says-romney-could-take-away-middle-class-tax/ .

On the debt, I dont see obama cutting it, romney has a plan to start cutting it, though its long term and largely involves spending cuts, which is whats horrifying liberals.

Romney has also discussed plans to create jobs, though I know that that is unlikely, because presidents dont create jobs directly, they set policy that lets the economy grow.

Saying "Romney wall screw us" sounds more like scremongering to meme, amny said the same when Obama took office and we are still here.

I cant find any proof that educate n is better under obama,

the jobless rate is around 8 percent, it went up last month to 7.9 percent, and both will take troops out of Afghanistan. Obama is not terrible as a president, but i still think we can do better.

Calling it a campaign slogan of Obama's doesn't negate the fact that it's true.

We haven't talked recently on religion, last year and the year before that though, phew.

When so many conservatives act like morally holy rollers, it stops becoming 'calling out the individual' and turns into 'wow, maybe this group is a bunch of assholes'. If it was just a handful of conservatives, then yes it'd be unfair to label them that, but it's not a handful, it's dozens upon dozens over the years.

That paragraph was attacking conservatives in general, but Romney isn't too far off of that whole thing - He's just done a better job at saying less about all of his opinions.

"Like arguing all republicans are against abortions" - That is a Strawman argument. You're putting words into my mouth, Strawmanning my argument, while claiming I'm making a Strawman argument.
5kmvj8.png


I mean, I guess if we're going to start throwing around logical fallacies, your last two posts have been largely red herrings or strawman arguments in-and-of-themselves. You bring up irrelephant stuff that I didn't say, or add more to what I'm saying and then counter those point - Rather than my actual points.

In case you didn't read that whole politifact article, let me point out this part for you:
"Romney has said he would not reduce the mortgage deduction and has promised not to increase taxes on the middle class. However, he has failed to provide enough details for analysts to model what his plan would actually do.

There are reasonable concerns that the numbers in Romney’s plan don’t add up. The ad assumes that to get the numbers right, the worst possible outcomes for the middle class are likely. It says some major deductions could be taken away."


So what we can extract from that is: he promises not to raise taxes on the middle class (which is not the same as helping, or lowering taxes), but he hasn't given enough details about his plan - So all we have is promises and numbers that don't add up, if I'm to be so bold. Get it?

Like said above, Romney has given vague details on how he plans on cutting the deficit. He's not going to cut taxes on the rich, and he promises not to raise taxes on the middle class, but he's going to "cut out underbrush of deductions and loopholes in the tax code" - Which he has yet to expand upon. He wants to cut income tax rates, but hasn't proposed how he's going to pay for it. Though what I do know for certain, is that Romney wants to add 2 trillion to the deficit by literally feeding 2 trillion into the defense budget, and has offered no way to pay for it. So we can only assume it's going to add to the deficit, or he's going to be cutting somethings important.

Romney on jobs though, is somewhat laughable, due to his personal investments in companies that outsource jobs and investing in foreign companies. Romney has stated that he wants to create 12 million jobs, which is partially assuming what you're talking about, but that has already been rated as null and void. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/16/fact-check-romneys-12-million-jobs/ because 12 million jobs are estimated to be created by 2016 anyways, with or without him. He hasn't promised jobs on top of that, so if all he wants is 12 million - That's likely what we're going to get, regardless.

"Romney will screw us" is a personal opinion, and partially scarey, I do admit....Though it's based in likelihoods and numbers, even if it is an opinion.

Obama passed Race to the Top, which is a 4.35 billion investment into the education system to give less-funded schools more funds and higher quality teachers, improving the graduation rate of high-schoolers, and basically doing a mini-recovery of Bush's No Child Left Behind act.

Obama has managed to keep the unemployment rate from exploding nationally, even if some states were hit harder than others. It was 7.3% when Bush left, and it's 7.9% now, after one of the largest economic melt-downs in US history. It is still high, it was only 5.7 when Bush entered, but it's been only been steadily dropping month by month since the rate reached its peak - Not quickly, but the actual numbers are there. If you follow the average rate, it'll be 6.7 by this time next year, and 5.5 by 2014 - Thought that's merely based on the -.1%/month.

I agree that we can definitely do better, but Romney is not the answer.
 
Last edited:

Bliss

Member
Soviet Union in comparison to Hitler. Alright that makes a lot of sense.
Because it's not like both were totalitarian regimes that were responsible for millions of deaths. Even ignoring the fact that former lasted for much longer to plague us. :3c

Why do you guys only use us as an example?
Because you guys created communism.

Especially since the Soviet Union was not "true communism" as there has never been a true communist country.
There has probably never been any 'true [paste an -ism]' country. We have to do with have we have.
 
Last edited:
Top