Election Day 2012

[Panda-chan]

Same-sex marriage is not right, and opposing it doesn't mean we are are bigoted. It just means we have morals.

Alright, this is by far THE most stupid racist ignorant comment on this whole website. You don't even know what you are saying. People don't even have valid reasons to ban gay marriage other than some proposterous text in the bible. You sound like one of those people standing next to the road with those signs "god hates fags" (yes those people are quite ignorant). Denying someone the freedom to love someone of the same sex = Morality...? it's the opposite of morality!

And people still wonder why religion is hated by some people. THIS is why. You do not have the right to deny other people happiness. Somehow moronic stupidity overrules personal freedom.

You know why gay marriage is banned in a lot of states? Not because it's wrong. But because the people there are undereducated intolerant zealots.


Oh and anyone saying "yeah with the republicans we are free" no this is the opposite of freedom.


BTW, yes I am replying. I just can't resist... XD

No personal offence, but I find Azdgari's arguments very ill-informed. Here's why:

Don't make yourself look strong by saying something that's not true

Not really: Bush fights back invades after 9/11, and Obama finishes the job, therefore taking all the credit. Bush deserves the real credit, because all Obama did was order the last mission that actually got Osama. Bush actually started the search. If we wen't in the Middle East already, Osama would still be around. Say you are building a tower: Bush starts and gets to the second to last floor. Obama takes over and completes the last two floors. Clearly he built the entire tower! Not quite...

Yes Bush, good job! thousands and thousands of deaths on both sides are written on your name. Obama didn't finish it. He just killed Osama when he got the change. He is makin plans to get everyone back to the US, to stop this stupidity. Just to add on, The US had no valid reason to invade Iraq, they have no right to interfere in other countries when it's not their problem. It is idiots like Bush who call out to terrorists and that causes madness under which 9/11.

If Obamacare was in place, I would be dead. THANK YOU. 2 months in the hospital? Try 8 years of fighting back against a disease that took you right up to death's door.

Personal arguments AKA emotional arguments are the weakest of all. One case does not mean that Obama is an idiot. It is the republicans who side with the small groups, not the democrats so this is contradictory as well. Also I don't see how state-sponsored healthcare would kill you. It would finally help all those people who still can't pay for it and die of aids or malaria when they don't even need to die.

With everything war related, all Obama did was the clean up. The real work was done in the first half- aka, the Bush years. That's when we swept away Saddam, made the Taliban run, and finally allowed those nations to start getting around to fixing themselves. All Obama had to do was continue the plan and leave as scheduled. See the tower analogy for the first part.

Yes he cleans up, and why? Because he does not want to risk any more on this useless and never-ending war. Look how many countries had to go to Afghanistan because of you and your war obsession. You didn't make the Taliban run, you made them even more active! And no you did not help them fix themselves, the only thing you did is destroy the entire country. Somehow you Americans can't stand countries who live by different standards. There is no universal term for ''normal''. Somehow you must show that you are the worlds big papa. Sad thing is you care for nonfamily instead of your own. You killed Osama, now get out of there. You have no further business in any of those countries.

So changing a nation full of individuals into a statistic will save the economy? I would much rather have the option to choose for myself than have some who "cares for me" (There is no possible way that they can) choose my life for me. I want to live as a free person, not as a slave. This means going republican, because they want us to choose for ourselves instead of deciding what is best for us.

Since the republicans AKA bush destroyed the economy... Yes we get it that you want to choose whether you get healthcare by state or not, but do NOT say that is freedom. Republicans are NOT freedom. Having no state sponsored healthcare does NOT outweigh no gay marriage, wars half of the population doesn't even want, men above women, and racism. Have you even read the word ''Liberal''? you know here it comes from? The word ''LIBERTY'' aka ''FREEDOM''! The only freedom you get is the freedom to starve an discriminate. They are against abortion and euthanasia but pro-death penalty. Call that freedom, call that freedom? even the most stupid person on earth can not call that freedom. People who are in excruciating pain because of e.g. cancer do not have the right to end their lives. What if that person is not religious? He still has to live by this idea introduced by religion (the bible?). So that person is forced to live by religious standards even though he doesn't want to. Again: Freedom?

So calling republicans freedomfighters is quite... uhm... stupid.

You do know that no non-religious president will ever be voted in? It's easy to on the internet that religious people are morons, but it's those morons who will be deciding your future for you...

Yes and that is exactly the problem, and what's even worse, people vote for them.

F*** THE WORLD, WE'RE GONNA BOMB IRAN. THEY DAMN AFRICANS GOTTA LIVE LIKE US CAUSE WE ARE THE SUPERIOR CULTURE, OUR VIEWS ARE THE BEST. HOW DARE IRAN HAVE A NUCLEAR PROGRAM.
nuclear programs USA: a gazillion
Nuclear programs Iran: 2

Damn, that reminds me of someone? What was he called again? oh right, Adolf Hitler.

Advisor: But sir, what about the human rights?
Romney: Human Rights? What are those?
Advisor: Nevermind, I'll tell you another time. They're hilarious!

You vote Romney, fine! But don't deny and/or twist the truth! Because really, you sound like a chauvinistic ignorant racist beast with sharp claws and teeth but no brain (and no money)

Also, inb4 internet [censored]

[Azdgari]

No personal offence, but I find Azdgari's arguments very ill-informed. Here's why:

Touché, my partner in crime!

"The damage done to Al Qaeda by the Obama administration represents America’s greatest national security success since the fall of the Soviet Union and the peaceful integration of Eastern European countries in the 1990s." - Americanprogress.org. Pretty much only one Al-Qaeda leader remains, the military under Obama has eliminated all other major Al Qaeda players. That in itself is a remarkable legacy.

Not really: Bush fights back invades after 9/11, and Obama finishes the job, therefore taking all the credit. Bush deserves the real credit, because all Obama did was order the last mission that actually got Osama. Bush actually started the search. If we wen't in the Middle East already, Osama would still be around. Say you are building a tower: Bush starts and gets to the second to last floor. Obama takes over and completes the last two floors. Clearly he built the entire tower! Not quite...

He started the job by completely botching it. First of all, do you think the Iraq was moral or a success? If you answer yes, we will have to disagree. I believe, as do many, it was a war started for unethical and inaccurate reasons (WMD's that did not exist) whose costs in finance and lives (both american and Iraqi) and negligible payoff (toppling of a regime that did not end up presenting a national security threat) are cause to call it an abominable failure. As for the war in Afghanistan, your analogy is inaccurate. If anything, it's 50/50, as they both spent four years on it. The military under Obama, at any rate, was much more effective and gutsy in drone striking Pakistan with more purpose. In any event, that was just to quell the inevitable "Obama has done nothing to fight terrorists." argument. I don't have enough military knowledge to say who was more accomplished in middle east militaristically. Neither, I suspect, do you, though I suppose I could be wrong...

Also, if Obamacare is eliminated, working class people out of college like my brother will be forced out of apartments back home, seeing as most low end jobs do not offer health care and the cost of it is too high to allow young people to also pay rent. Before someone says "well don't make it mandatory", just don't say that. I'm a perfectly healthy, athletic teenager who recently spent 2 months in the hospital and racked up over $750,000 in medical bills. If I didn't have insurance, my life and my family's life would be destroyed.

If Obamacare was in place, I would be dead. THANK YOU. 2 months in the hospital? Try 8 years of fighting back against a disease that took you right up to death's door.

I have yet to understand exactly what happened with you and how it reflects dysfunction in the healthcare system. Can you PM me or perhaps link me to where you explained? Sorry. ;3

Now that he has ended the Iraq war (like he promised) and has accomplished most of what America needs done in terms of foreign policy, he can focus on the economy.

With everything war related, all Obama did was the clean up. The real work was done in the first half- aka, the Bush years. That's when we swept away Saddam, made the Taliban run, and finally allowed those nations to start getting around to fixing themselves. All Obama had to do was continue the plan and leave as scheduled. See the tower analogy for the first part.

Exactly, he cleaned up. "Swept away Saddam?" Ummm, what? At the cost of thousands and thousands of lives and nearly a trillion dollars he took down a regime that ended up being no threat to the USA. He set up a puppet democracy that's failing, and left all the US troops out to dry in Iraq for the next president with no mind to get them out. Great work. Made the Taliban run? In what the heck way did he do that? The Taliban were not (and, unfortunately, are not) running, and to say that represents a complete lack of knowledge of the war over there, or perhaps you just used a poor metaphor, in which case ignore the following explanation. The Taliban is not a cohesive army that can "retreat." The Taliban presence is in every village in Afghanistan. The extent to which that presence coerces villagers into climbing up the mountain, shooting off twenty rounds at a US base, and then climbing back down to pick up their $1 pay and use that to buy food for their family, that is the Taliban. And to say that Afghanistan is fixing itself, again, is just not accurate. If they ever accept democracy, which is extremely unlikely given their history and their native hate for rule induced by occupiers, aka us, it will be a long, long time from now. And what place does the United States have forcing our way of life on other people anyway? If they choose to be a backwards country, it's not our business to go and be their big brother. We don't have the moral obligation and we sure as hell don't have the means to.

In the coming term, Obama will have to focus on the economy.

So changing a nation full of individuals into a statistic will save the economy? I would much rather have the option to choose for myself than have some who "cares for me" (There is no possible way that they can) choose my life for me. I want to live as a free person, not as a slave. This means going republican, because they want us to choose for ourselves instead of deciding what is best for us.

Again, I don't get what you're arguing. From that logic shouldn't we just have no government? And... if you want people to choose their own lives, why do you support a presidential candidate against gay marriage?

It's time for America to move past bigotry and religious ignorance into an age of freedom and tolerance.

You do know that no non-religious president will ever be voted in? It's easy to on the internet that religious people are morons, but it's those morons who will be deciding your future for you...

I didn't say I wanted a non religious president, I said I wanted a president who wasn't ignorant and intolerant because his religion (may or may not have) dictated it. Is a president's religion automatically our religion? Is America a theocracy where only Christianity is allowed?

I don't think all religious people are morons. I just don't think it should be an excuse for intolerance. And now the Catholic church is denouncing nuns because they spend too much time helping the poor and not enough protesting gay marriage. Jesus would be proud.

Perhaps we should get off of George Bush, lovely as the topic is, and back to Romney and Obama's respective merits and candidates? I didn't mean to derail us like that.


@Nicholas, point taken. Thanks for the perspective. +1

@Woeler: Easy tiger. No need to be hostile, we're just having a debate. We don't want to have a moderator sweep in and shut this down do we? I'd like to continue sparring with DF--I'm genuinely interested in his perspective. C:



@moderators: chillax. we got this. let the boys play.
@people that don't like gay marriage

#howwillyoulookinfiftyyears

[Noah]

This world is so f..ked up that people don't even need a reason to hate each other or certain type of people these days

Ain't that the truth

And let's not be so rough on TheLionPrince. You can say it's a flawed and "ignorant" point of view but it's a (very) widespread point of view. Just because we keep repeating how insane these people must be, doesn't help our side and certainly doesn't help them change their minds. We could all use a point-of-view gun if you know what I mean ^^

@Woeler Why should Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons? The country is dangerous and the very liberal New York Times seems to agree.

-----------

Ah yes, I forgot this was an election thread

I personally think Mitt Romney should be running as a democrat. His views are very similar and with his knowledge and experience (combined with his stances, if he was liberal) would be great. If only the country operated like that =/ Instead, the only democrat we can get is Obama. Anyways, still deciding atm, but lawl, I have until November x)

[SlayerOfLight]

@Woeler The U.S seems more likely to be trusted with nuclear weapons then Iran. You probally have no clue how insane the iranian President is.

[SlayerOfLight]

@Woeler The U.S seems more likely to be trusted with nuclear weapons then Iran. You probally have no clue how insane the iranian President is.

Those nukes are made for one thing: War. If the US threatens Iran, then Iran will get nukes as well. And the other way around of course. North Korea has nuclear weapons too, even Russia has them. Just because half of the world has this stereotypical idea that all those people are terrorists, doesn't mean they are. They have just as much a right to have weapons, jets and whatever as any other country. Besides, they have no reason not to do it. If the US will attack them (very, very stupid) we will sure have something like WWIII with the middle-east.

Just because people think he is an idiot doesn't magically prevent him from building nuclear weapons. He is free to do whatever he wants and there is really NOBODY who can stop him. The fact that he can build them is there. If we didn't want it we should have prevented it. Now we're too late.

Oh and if you think he is a coldblooded douche, you should have seen Europe and by extension the Pope 500 years ago.

Those countries are behind on development and are going through the same stages we once went through, only difference is there are more advanced weapons now. There is nothing we can do, really nothing. We better get that money to proper education and care for the old and the poor. They need it much more.

People who follow insane and dangerous idealogies like Ahmadinejad does, shouldn't be allowed to have nuclear weapons. As much as I despise the American government, they at least don't threaten to destroy a whole nation like Ahmadinejad does. He has already said plenty of times that he wants Israel to be destroyed completely, and as well threatend the West so he'd probally abuse the freedom to have nuclear weapons. It's also about time that the iranian people are delivered from their damned ruling system that has gays, adulterers, faith-offenders and deniers, christians, and atheists sentenced to the death penalty. So I'd say If the U.S wants to do one usefull thing at once, they should free Iran from it's misery and as well prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad also seems to look exactly like some insane idiot who wouldn't be afraid to threaten to nuke ANY country that crosses him, once he has nukes. I also doubt invading Iran would trigger a third world war anyway. Alot of people thought a ww3 would happen if America would invade Libya.

''We better get that money to proper education and care for the old and the poor. They need it much more''

Agreed on that, but almost everyone seems not to give a crap anymore about the poor. So your hopes of the poor getting money and proper education, is a fairytale. Welcome in 2012.

[SlayerOfLight]

@woeler the U.S doesn't destroy Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. They only fight terrorists there and try to maintain peace. (something which they don't do a good job at). With destruction I mean, that Ahmadinejad literally wants Israel to be whiped off the map, including all jews allong. Huge diffrence. The only reason the Iranian president would get nuclear weapons is to carry out his sick idealogy of destroying Israel and fighting the jews, while America does not. That's why idiots like Ahmadinejad should NOT be allowed to have nuclear weapons, even though the U.S and many other countries have them.

And you are only half right about Israel and Iran fighting over a ''friend in the sky''. Israel just wants to defend themselves and keep their country, while Iran is all about destroying Israel and its citizens and giving Jerusalem to the palestines.

[SlayerOfLight]

We act -> War. We don't act -> Probably nothing

There would be war anyway, either if we'd act or not. Acting means trying to prevent an insane psychopath from rising in power, while NOT acting means allowing an insane psychopath to rise in power.

[Azdgari]

I'm tired of talking ideologies. Let's talk specifics.

The more I educate myself about the candidates, the more turned off I am about Romney. And me of all people, living in MA? I'm surprised I didn't realize how poor his economic reputation really is. People talk about his success with Bain capital, but it's not the kind of success or economic know how the American people need, not even close! "I never thought of what I do for a living as job creation. … The primary goal of private equity is to create wealth for your investors." –Marc B. Wolpow, former managing partner at Bain Capital. His legacy in massachusetts was awful (apart from the mandatory healthcare bill he championed and passed, which now to conform to party lines, he has condemned as "socialist." Seriously, this guy has no integrity. It's his own damn policy for god's sake). He championed the outsourcing of jobs (a regular practice and Bain capital to cut costs and increase profit for the higher ups while laying off American workers and sending jobs to India and China. He also vetoed a bill that would make shipping state contracting jobs overseas illegal), he raised the taxes by 750 million, increased debt by over 2.5 billion dollars, and saw a decline in employment faster than the national average.

In what way does that sort of record make him eligible to take over an economy in our shape? I have no doubt he could trim our deficit---at the expense of American people. He is a person who has expertise in creating great profit for the highest tier of a company at the expense of lower level workers. His vague plan for returning Healthcare to the states, while not necessarily a great evil, doesn't have any information on how it plans to save money except for the vague idea that states will be more efficient than the federal government: possible but not necessarily true, and the belief that healthcare shouldn't be mandated is wrong in my opinion. You have to pay for police, you have to pay for firefighters, you have to pay for medical insurance. Do you think you shouldn't have to pay for firefighters because you don't think your house will burn down? I think that state managed healthcare could cut costs and be more efficient--it's hard to say because Romney has nothing to support that theory except that it seems like it might work. For all we know some states will end up more corrupt than others and end up costing more money than a federally managed program. I just don't know, and until Romney comes up with a concrete plan that proves that his program will be more efficient, I don't support him. Then again, I can't support him because he doesn't think it should be mandated.

His recent stance on immigration, that he opposes the idea of children of immigrants being allowed to pursue an education, strikes me as little less than heartless unless he comes up with an alternative. He claims to want a better one, but until he actually comes up with a plan then I will consider him to be failing on the issue of immigration.

His stance on gay marriage is either cowardice or bigotry, pick your poison.

His foreign policy? Very worrying, I think. We already touched on his stance that "we will do what is necessary in Iran" and that "To do anything less than win in Afghanistan is traitorous" (paraphrasing) represents gross lack of knowledge of that area, aggression that will destroy the progress we have made in that region, and of course the fiscal irresponsibility of throwing another trillion dollars at the middle east and the security irresponsibility of antagonizing that region. What does a venture capitalist know about foreign policy, other than sending jobs that America needs overseas? Does he know more than a president of four years of experience in the middle east? I do not want to trust Romney with sensitive national security and diplomatic issues abroad. Period.

People argue against Obama's spending--compare his spending with Bush's! What many people cite as "increases" are actually decreases from the trend that was in place before he was elected. If I'm losing ten dollars a month and then the next person comes in and trims the loss to five dollars a month, is it very fair for the opposition to say "he's costing us five dollars a month!" Hate on the bailout--it was set in motion by Bush, not Obama. It's a republican championed program until a Democrat became president. Then it was an abomination.

So, ultimately, I disagree with most of his policies. And really, I'm starting to disagree with him as a person. I don't think he has very much integrity. He condemns a policy he championed for years in order to align himself with the Republican party. He outsourced American jobs. Bain capital cannibalized some companies in a major way, and it's hard to argue their goal wasn't to create more wealth for the already wealthy in the short term at the cost of middle workers. (Maybe in the long term, when the company was more profitable it would have paid off, but that wasn't really Bain capital's issue, was it? They were just about jacking up profits.) I think that it's very wrong that he opposes gay marriage. I don't like the amount that he panders to different audiences and flip flops. All politicians do it, but he's made an art out of it during this election. He is an incredibly wealthy man who owns six multi million dollars houses; what does that say about personal character? I don't like that much myself.


I'm voting, this is my first election. I'm trying to be as knowledgeable about this as I can be, so please, let me know how you respond to this and support Romney. I'm not leering, I'm genuinely trying to understand. Half of our country isn't stupid, this isn't good versus evil. I think there must be extremely valid reasons to believe that Romney should be president. I just can't seem to find them.


Respond to my wall of text, if you dare...

[Azdgari]

Y'know, I fact checked a lot of stuff and I just want to abandon american politics. There's so much BS on both sides it's impossible to figure out what either of them really stand for.

[DGFone]

Y'know, I fact checked a lot of stuff and I just want to abandon american politics. There's so much BS on both sides it's impossible to figure out what either of them really stand for.

The money. Don't you know?

But basically, my parents summarized my household's view of the political race very nicely:
For some reason, Romney thinks that by not voting for Obama, we like him. We really don't. But we would rather have someone incompetent in charge making bad decisions, versus someone incompetent in charge making horrible decisions.