130010 cr points
Send Message:   24 / F / Georgia
 Offline
|
So many funny comments. Sucks I finished my pancakes earlier, would've had something to eat while reading some of these replies. >:3
|
31030 cr points
Send Message:
Offline
|
Huzzah, finally I can ignore non-political ads again, and don't have to decide which roleplay I'm gonna do with a phone campaigner for a few more years. And the lesser of two evils made it thru, go him.
That said, I want to get a few final things off, just one last time this cycle...its ranty
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide
1) the president can't really 'do' anything they promise, its part of our whole checks and balances system. See when it comes to laws, taxes and the like, congress has to pass something first so he can either sign or veto it. Beyond that, he oversees our military and foreign diplomacy. No jobs button, no gas button, nada. I do hear of a very nice big red button though...
2) govt doesn't have a 'flip the switch' control of the economy, just minor influences, and last I checked oil is sold globally. See when other nations decide to imitate us and buy a lot of cars or burn more oil, that increases demand, and following keynesian economics(disproven i know, it's science so if a part of it seems to have failed it is all wrong), increased demand results in increased costs when supply is kept relatively constant.
sidenote: oil production is up the past few years domestically, more permits are out, and more oil rigs are operating than in the past decade, it was in decline during bush.
3) oh dear god no we do not need to increase military spending. In any given year we outspend the next dozen combined with ease. we have a majority of the worlds active aircraft carriers(and are currently building a new class of them), 1800ish ready to use nukes with several times that in storage, a state of the art stealth fighter that we havent yet used and is unmatched elsewhere(and that's what we know about, recall the blackbird? only publicly admitted years after they retired the dang thing) and ridiculous amounts more. Rest assured if there is any conventional nation v nation war, our weapons will end it. Also, last i checked, a couple dozen more subs tanks n choppas wont stop a terrorist attack, that would be dependent on intelligence, police, security, luck and a stupid enemy(for be honest, any sufficiently intelligent enemy would be able to perform terror: underwear bomber=stupid, bin laden=sufficiently smart).
4) ok, logical disconnect. The guy who ordered a seal team to perform a black op into a foreign nation w/o their knowledge and then announce to the world about it afterwards won't have the balls to stop iran from using a nuclear weapon when they eventually get to a bomb? seems to me if we truly discovered they had that capability and INTENT, we would summarily neutralize that capability. We should not be in the habit of bombing and invading for what someone might do, but rather be prepared to act. While I am annoyed at the level of arrogance our nation sometimes displays in such regards, I have no fear that if a real threat of weapons of mass destruction should arise, Obama will likely take care of it, while simultaneously choosing an option that omits an invasion/occupation.
As for myself, I try to be optimisticly pessimistic about the whole thing. See it is going to be alright, cus their politics are just like our: the talking heads are always going off about all the great and wonderful things that they will do, just you wait! only they can't as there are other powers in play, along with the will of the 'people'. (it's in quotes because really, when is any national people really united in its own politics outside tragedy?)
5) yes, i know, it defies reason: them dems had majority in congress and the presidency yet didn't just go ramrod in a cherryfield passing democrat holy writs? man, what tossers, not abusing their power. Oh wait, i forgot, that silly thing, a filibuster. See, in the senate, they, the senators, each get an unlimited amount of time on the floor to 'talk' about a bill if they so wish to. There is no rule on content or reason, and if someone wishes to read the dictionary for 30 hours aloud they can. Only three ways can end this: A) nobody wishes to speak/keep speaking, aka what normally happens B ) a motion to end the session, thus dropping the bill and stopping any vote, or C ) making a motion to end all talks and proceed to voting on the bill itself, but in order for this to pass you need (iirc) 60 votes in the affirmative to end talks on a bill. The filibuster is one or more senators talking endlessly on a bill hoping for event B to occur. So while it is true that the dems have 'control' of the senate, that's in the traditional sense of having at least 51 votes to pass a bill. In order to have total control that can blow past any filibuster attempts, you'd need at least a solid block of 60 votes.
*yawn* well, that was ranty. Anyways, seems like ima have to accept my buds offer at some point now, seeing as weed is now state legal. Something tells me that "The Everweed State" is going to become an unofficial slogan. Too bad I'm gonna have to turn down his now legal marriage proposal to me. And there's a not funny joke in weed legalization gettin more votes than gay marriage, but i can't bother with it. ahwell. |
37270 cr points
Send Message: 26 / M / Cardiff, UK
Offline
|
Well done America... ya did good
|
9318 cr points
Send Message: 34 / M / Northern California
Offline
|
superluccix wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide Spazticus wrote:
I'm fine with him having a second term. I voted for him in 2008, too. The country's survived a lot of harrowing events in its past, and while politics seem more divisive now than ever, it takes time to bounce back from a near economic collapse. To expect it to happen so soon, then predict instant doom if it doesn't, just seems paranoid and short sighted to me. Meanwhile, we had certain Republicans voting against any stimulus measures. But then they were present to happily pose for photo ops with the big checks when the measures passed anyway...as if they wanted to make it seem they supported them all along. I'd have more respect for them if they were at least consistent about it. Such as it is, I can't take what they have to say seriously. I really wish that I could, but taking the standpoint that the worse the country gets, the better they look as an "alternative" to the incumbent is not a respectable mindset for me.
One point regarding Fox News. Aside from the fact they were officially reclassified as "entertainment news" and not a news outlet...
One great example of "the other side of the story" they presented was in the case of so-called "death panels".
The fact: This was to allow patients to speak with their doctor regarding possible end of life care, and bill their private insurance for the cost of the consultation, rather than pay out of pocket. Nothing other than a conversation between a patient and their doctor, in the case they become incapacitated, and incapable of directing their own care.
How do you spin advanced care directives into something sounding malicious?
Cue "the other side of the story": On Fox News, as well as other conservative media outlets, this concept was presented as "death panels" being formed by the government, arbitrarily deciding whether or not to pull the plug on Grandma. Never mind the facts; the phrase "death panels" was repeated so often, certain conservatives believed the lie to be the truth. Of course, insurance companies don't want to pay, so this is the spin they wanted to put out there. This wasn't "the other side of the story", it was a blatant lie, and an appeal to fear-based politics.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide " To expect it to happen so soon, then predict instant doom if it doesn't, just seems paranoid and short sighted to me." Nobody expects a recovery to happen in the fastest way possible, its just the people who disagree with what Obama is doing is because they understand that they wont work.
"Meanwhile, we had certain Republicans voting against any stimulus measures." But they got passed anyway since Obama had a complete Dem control in House and Senate right?
" But then they were present to happily pose for photo ops with the big checks when the measures passed anyway...as if they wanted to make it seem they supported them all along. " The majority of Repubs were against the stimulus. Obviously as a Representative, if you are going to have money spent, they would like to bring some back to their state, but they would rather have not spent the money at all.
"One great example of "the other side of the story" they presented was in the case of so-called "death panels".
The fact: This was to allow patients to speak with their doctor regarding possible end of life care, and bill their private insurance for the cost of the consultation, rather than pay out of pocket. Nothing other than a conversation between a patient and their doctor, in the case they become incapacitated, and incapable of directing their own care."
They are death panels. Thegovernment gets to decide who gets the care and who does not. Thats the definition of a death panel.
The government would decide if you could get the care or not, because they have to ration costs. Rationing is essentially a nice coded word for death panels. In a market, you could decide which healthcare plan to get on, instead of the government deciding for you.
"
Cue "the other side of the story": On Fox News, as well as other conservative media outlets, this concept was presented as "death panels" being formed by the government, arbitrarily deciding whether or not to pull the plug on Grandma. Never mind the facts; the phrase "death panels" was repeated so often, certain conservatives believed the lie to be the truth. Of course, insurance companies don't want to pay, so this is the spin they wanted to put out there. This wasn't "the other side of the story", it was a blatant lie, and an appeal to fear-based politics"
Except they were entirely correct. When the government can ration your care and if you disagree you cant not get penalized in some sort of way and freely choose another plan without punishment, that is a death panel.
So it's fine if they vote against something that will benefit their constituents, take any and every measure to delay or block its passing, then take credit for it when it passes anyway? (EDIT: After thinking about that for a while, it seems incredibly tsundere-like. That's a scary thought...  ) It's akin to taking a sledgehammer to construction work on your own house, then taking pride in the fact it got completed. That's my issue with the obstructionist mindset. Why should we accept that childish mentality? I want our politicians to work together, for the benefit of all of us, regardless of party affiliation. Not just for their wealthy friends' tax breaks, not just so they'll have guaranteed speaking engagements after they leave office, but for the good of the country, and because it's their damn job.
They often won't; or they'll move the goalposts back repeatedly, then claim the other side didn't "compromise enough". Enough of that bullshit. One can't legitimately argue that obstruction at any cost is making this country better. It's not increasing the minimum wage, or lowering the cost of living, or reducing the income disparity. It's not providing jobs for much of anyone other than lobbyists and ad agencies. Meanwhile, superPACs are free to throw unlimited amounts of money around, with no real accountability for where that money is coming from, and even less accountability for truth in advertising. This is not the sort of job creation we need right now, because it's not sustainable.
We also have far too many single issue voters, which is in itself a huge problem. Ignorant of or apathetic to most other issues, anyone who appeals to that wedge issue, particularly using fear-based tactics, will likely get their vote. The more polarized the population is about certain issues, the less likely they'll work together, even on the issues in which they do agree. Sadly, it also makes the population much easier to control through propaganda, which is ultimately the reason for this divisiveness to exist.
As for the death panels issue, you're arguing against the public option, i.e. socialized medicine, while the term "death panels" was used initially for exactly what I described. As we are arguing two related, but separate concepts in context, this part of the discussion will not foster any mutual understanding.
|
47716 cr points
Send Message: 30 / M / Hell Paso
Offline
|
Khaltazar wrote:
The current national debt is around $16,500,000,000,000 (16.5 Trillion Dollars) once it gets past 18 Trillion we are all screwed. Don't act like this has nothing to do with you. If the debt gets any more out of hand we will be paying 100% tax and the government will redistribute the wealth as they see fit. Not long ago we were at arms with communists about this very issue. I cannot believe it. If he turns around and gets the country back in order and reduces the national debt than I will gladly say he did a good job, until then he has failed and the debt shows that.
i'm amazed at all the baseless assumptions all of you are making.
inform yourselves first then form your opinions, don't be like a parrot repeating things and taking them out of context. and then spewing so much crap.
if you want to argue then argue with facts not baseless assumptions or emotions.
FACT. Bush was the worst president we have ever had. he alone effed up our economy. before bush came into office we had zero debt. you can thank clinton for that... once bush took the office, we started a few wars. the first was meaningless. going to war with iraq was worthless. and we lost a lot of soldiers and wasted too much money on it. afganistan was also worthless. when we could have just done what obama did. send a special ops team to kill osama and be done with it.
also remember that the market crash happened under the bush administration and the republicans controlled the congress after the first year effectively obstruction 90% of the things obama wanted to do and make good on his word. after obama took office we started recovering from the market crash. if you know anything about stocks you would know that the dow jones is now at almost completely recovered and on its way to reaching the record maximum.
if you know anything about economics then you should know that in order for the economy to start flowing again you need to put money in. Bailout comes in, but the economy did not start working immediately because after the crash people were fearful of losing even more money or their livelihood.
if you say that romney was the best choice. you should really consider going back to middle school and study more and raise your way up the education ladder. romney outsourced 100's of thousands of jobs to china and india... there is your true capitalist. what do a capitalistic wants? money but not for this country, but for himself.
A capitalist economy - is basically just an economic system based on private ownership of capital. with 0 government involvement. for this refer to bush's terms in office. he deregulated many things and let the business owners and corporations make their own decisions...
guess what? that did not work and he had the market crash and went into a depression (yes depression not a recession) we are finally out of that depression and have finally started to see the light at the end of the tunnel. while i do not think obama is the best president we have ever had, i do believe that currently he is the only man able to completely get us out of the mess bush got us into.
now i know all of you romney sheeps will hate my post and try to retaliate. thats fine i welcome any and all arguments and specially constructive criticism.
but before you speak (write) go and familiarize yourself with how the government and the economy works. then give facts and not hearsay or fallacies. make sound arguments, not emotional ones.
and just to make something clear I did vote for obama and he was not my main choice but out of the ones that actually had a chance of winning he is the one that aligns itself more to my own beliefs. my main choice would have been the green party. but she obviously had no real chance of winning.
and now with a democratic congress and senate you all can expect to see a bit more changes but don't expect miracles.
|
26954 cr points
Send Message: 28 / M / La La Land ;o
Offline
|
zarkoviss wrote:
meipurushiroppu wrote:
hush184 wrote:
I voted for the Obama team, so "YAY!". Personally his views are similar if not the same as mine at the moment. Plus he hasn't pissed me off yet with anything he has done.
so basically ur ok with abortion?
so basically ur ok with telling people what they can and can't do with their bodies, especially concerning it can easily change the fabric of their life forever?
If so, you're not the kind of person I like talking to.
You have beliefs? Fine, keep to them, do whatever you want, just don't try to force them on people you don't even know.
This isn't the middle east.
Why shouldn't we? There's a thing called STUPIDITY. You don't go shack up with someone and do it knowing the risks. There's a thing called protection. Don't want a baby? Try using the precautions put there for you. That or don't do it at all. Problem solved.
No one reaps what they sow anymore, that's why this world is so friggin messed up. You can burglarize a home, get shot, sue the home owner, and even win. No one is held accountable or bears the responsibility anymore, it's just shoved off onto someone else.
As far as abortions go, that should be the sole right to rape victims, they DIDN'T ask for that, nor (in a lot if not most cases) could they prevent it. More than half the people getting abortions are teen queens and, to be blunt, whores who are just too lazy to use protection and take responsibility for stupidity.
|
37270 cr points
Send Message: 26 / M / Cardiff, UK
Offline
|
I'm in the pro-abortion corner to be quite honest. Of course, I wish people would use protection and not have it get to the point where an abortion is needed, but if you're young or ill prepared to raise a child plus the whole range of other problems then I believe you do have a right to an abortion. I don't think anyone looks at it as something to be taken lightly.
|
7676 cr points
Send Message: 20 / M / England
 Online
|
It really makes no difference who won.
With the economy the way it is people will hate anyone who is elected at this time.
Nobody who is elected can come up with a magical solution, being in a position of power at this time means making difficult and unpopular decisions no matter who won.
It's exactly the same over here with the prime minister.
|
9318 cr points
Send Message: 34 / M / Northern California
Offline
|
AZFox wrote:
As far as abortions go, that should be the sole right to rape victims, they DIDN'T ask for that, nor (in a lot if not most cases) could they prevent it. More than half the people getting abortions are teen queens and, to be blunt, whores who are just too lazy to use protection and take responsibility for stupidity.
Really? The sole right, huh? Women who have ectopic pregnancies didn't ask for those, nor could they prevent them, either. Those are literally a death sentence to the mother, unless an abortion is performed. (If you didn't know, it's when the egg implants inside the fallopian tube.) There are other medical complications that go beyond your sweeping generalizations here, as well. And any of those can threaten the life of the mother, which will kill them both. Also, by strict definition, a miscarriage is an abortion, albeit undesired, and not artificially induced. Are you intending to investigate every woman who has one for murder? (For the record, legislation to do just that has been brought up before.)
While I may be personally against abortion in my own life, and I would hate to be in a situation where it was the only option to save the woman I love...I sure as hell am not so arrogant as to take that choice away from someone else, so that they might have to watch the woman they love die. My personal morals don't trump the woman's right to keep living, and neither do yours, thankfully.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. There is a difference between the two.
It saddens me that there are people who talk about women who get abortions as "teen queens and whores", insist that they have to carry the child to term, but probably wouldn't lift a goddamn finger to help the child once it's been born. More likely, they just keep referring to those women as just "sucking on the public teat." I hate that phrase, but it's on topic. Yeah, that's just compassionate conservatism for you. Let's completely defund Planned Parenthood while you're at it, and really fulfill the conditions of the phrase, "The rich get richer, and the poor get children."
|
56254 cr points
Send Message: 23 / M / UofL; Louisville, KY
Offline
|
jer5500 wrote:
Khaltazar wrote:
The current national debt is around $16,500,000,000,000 (16.5 Trillion Dollars) once it gets past 18 Trillion we are all screwed. Don't act like this has nothing to do with you. If the debt gets any more out of hand we will be paying 100% tax and the government will redistribute the wealth as they see fit. Not long ago we were at arms with communists about this very issue. I cannot believe it. If he turns around and gets the country back in order and reduces the national debt than I will gladly say he did a good job, until then he has failed and the debt shows that.
i'm amazed at all the baseless assumptions all of you are making.
inform yourselves first then form your opinions, don't be like a parrot repeating things and taking them out of context. and then spewing so much crap.
if you want to argue then argue with facts not baseless assumptions or emotions.
FACT. Bush was the worst president we have ever had. he alone effed up our economy. before bush came into office we had zero debt. you can thank clinton for that... once bush took the office, we started a few wars. the first was meaningless. going to war with iraq was worthless. and we lost a lot of soldiers and wasted too much money on it. afganistan was also worthless. when we could have just done what obama did. send a special ops team to kill osama and be done with it.
also remember that the market crash happened under the bush administration and the republicans controlled the congress after the first year effectively obstruction 90% of the things obama wanted to do and make good on his word. after obama took office we started recovering from the market crash. if you know anything about stocks you would know that the dow jones is now at almost completely recovered and on its way to reaching the record maximum.
if you know anything about economics then you should know that in order for the economy to start flowing again you need to put money in. Bailout comes in, but the economy did not start working immediately because after the crash people were fearful of losing even more money or their livelihood.
if you say that romney was the best choice. you should really consider going back to middle school and study more and raise your way up the education ladder. romney outsourced 100's of thousands of jobs to china and india... there is your true capitalist. what do a capitalistic wants? money but not for this country, but for himself.
A capitalist economy - is basically just an economic system based on private ownership of capital. with 0 government involvement. for this refer to bush's terms in office. he deregulated many things and let the business owners and corporations make their own decisions...
guess what? that did not work and he had the market crash and went into a depression (yes depression not a recession) we are finally out of that depression and have finally started to see the light at the end of the tunnel. while i do not think obama is the best president we have ever had, i do believe that currently he is the only man able to completely get us out of the mess bush got us into.
now i know all of you romney sheeps will hate my post and try to retaliate. thats fine i welcome any and all arguments and specially constructive criticism.
but before you speak (write) go and familiarize yourself with how the government and the economy works. then give facts and not hearsay or fallacies. make sound arguments, not emotional ones.
and just to make something clear I did vote for obama and he was not my main choice but out of the ones that actually had a chance of winning he is the one that aligns itself more to my own beliefs. my main choice would have been the green party. but she obviously had no real chance of winning.
and now with a democratic congress and senate you all can expect to see a bit more changes but don't expect miracles.
You're seriously not concerned if we dip past 18 Trillion Dollars in debt? How do you think we as a country will pay for that? That is not a baseless claim. If Obama does well for the country during his second term I will be the first to congratulate him, until then we are not doing so well.
|
698 cr points
Send Message: 27 / F / Lost
Offline
|
As a foreigner, all I say is... Thank you USA for electing the least of two evils.
|
9603 cr points
Send Message: 25 / M / 12,000' MSL
Offline
|
SakiAiza wrote:
As a foreigner, all I say is... Thank you USA for electing the least of two evils.
No problem! It was tough, but we did our best.
|
|
Banned
28235 cr points
Send Message: 16 / M / Stoke, England
Online
|
I hope David Cameron doesn't get another term over here.
|
26954 cr points
Send Message: 28 / M / La La Land ;o
Offline
|
Spazticus wrote:
AZFox wrote:
As far as abortions go, that should be the sole right to rape victims, they DIDN'T ask for that, nor (in a lot if not most cases) could they prevent it. More than half the people getting abortions are teen queens and, to be blunt, whores who are just too lazy to use protection and take responsibility for stupidity.
Really? The sole right, huh? Women who have ectopic pregnancies didn't ask for those, nor could they prevent them, either. Those are literally a death sentence to the mother, unless an abortion is performed. (If you didn't know, it's when the egg implants inside the fallopian tube.) There are other medical complications that go beyond your sweeping generalizations here, as well. And any of those can threaten the life of the mother, which will kill them both. Also, by strict definition, a miscarriage is an abortion, albeit undesired, and not artificially induced. Are you intending to investigate every woman who has one for murder? (For the record, legislation to do just that has been brought up before.)
While I may be personally against abortion in my own life, and I would hate to be in a situation where it was the only option to save the woman I love...I sure as hell am not so arrogant as to take that choice away from someone else, so that they might have to watch the woman they love die. My personal morals don't trump the woman's right to keep living, and neither do yours, thankfully.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. There is a difference between the two.
It saddens me that there are people who talk about women who get abortions as "teen queens and whores", insist that they have to carry the child to term, but probably wouldn't lift a goddamn finger to help the child once it's been born. More likely, they just keep referring to those women as just "sucking on the public teat." I hate that phrase, but it's on topic. Yeah, that's just compassionate conservatism for you. Let's completely defund Planned Parenthood while you're at it, and really fulfill the conditions of the phrase, "The rich get richer, and the poor get children."
Pardon me, I was caught up in the other particular end of the spectrum that I did fail to include abortion due to various health risk factors along with rape victims. I obviously don't expect someone to die rather than get an abortion to prevent their death. That would be an entirely obscene ideal. With that inlcuded, I do think it's their sole right in those cases.
Back to other things.
I may or may not lift a finger to raise said child but, like I said, responsibility always gets shoved off onto someone else. Why should I pay for someone else's stupid mistake? You don't bite off more than you can chew from the start. If you can't handle the responsibility then there is protection and abstinence. Protection can only do so much, so unless you are willing to accept the responsibility if it happens, then you shouldn't be doing it.
More importantly than abortions themselves, stop the problem before it starts. Sure, you could say it's their choice to do what they want, but you certainly don't go cut yourself knowing it causes undesired results such as pain and possible death. It works the same way. If you don't want it to happen, you do everything to prevent it.
Touching on another item here, The rich are rich because of whatever reason they are, the poor not everyone has a choice in that or that they can even make it better. But one thing you don't do, you don't go adding to your bills. Not to say that someone poor can't have a child, should they be able to provide the bare necessities.
|
|
|
BARAK OBAMAAAAAAAAAA >:D
Foreigners are stoked also (;
|
