2012 Presidential Election -Who are you voting for?

[LiberalAvenger]

First Mitt never said to cut Fema. He did propose to reorganize it to turn it from the huge inefficient bureaucracy that it is into something that actually works as it was intended.

Second Mitt was never a corporate raider--not even his most ardent opponents suggest that he was. And he saved and helped create far more jobs than any lost in the failing businesses that he didn't waste resources trying to save.

As much as the haters want to demonize him any way they can--and they will distort the facts and lie to do it--he is likely the most above reproach candidate we have ever had run for President since Harry Truman.

Mittie and his supporters lie more than a red horse can fly!

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Like you can provide proof to that accusation you just pulled out of your asterisk...

Sure I can.

 

[lefty_rosenthal]

Obama "I will cut the deficit in half"

lol. He only missed by 11 trillion:doh

 

[avery45]

Obama will win. When people go vote they would rather be called unemployed than to be called a racist.

 

[Ontologuy]

So nobody here's voting for Rosanne Barr?

Well that's just perfect.

Look at all we're gonna miss ..

.. Harmonious gender relationships: "the quickest way to a man's heart is through his chest" ..

.. A more honest state of the union address: "excuse the mess but we live here" ..

.. Support of traditional marriage: "take this marriage thing seriously -- it has to last all the way to divorce" ..

.. Parenting skills progress for stay-at-home moms: "as a housewife, I feel that if the kids are still alive when my husband gets home from work, then hey, I've done my job" ..

.. World peace and sexual orientation equality: "my hope is that gays will be running the world, because then there'd be no war, just a greater emphasis on millitary apparel" ..

.. National self-acceptance for women: "women complain about PMS, but I think of it as the only time of the month I can be myself" ..

.. State-of-the-art breakthroughs in birth control: "every night before we go to bed, we spend an hour with the kids -- that's birth control that really works" ..

.. A sensible approach to national obesity: "people should try to increase their size rather than decrease it, because the bigger we are the more space we'll take up, and the more we'll have to be reckoned with" ..

.. Advancements in electronics: "I'm not going to vacuum until Sears makes one you can ride on" ..

.. And, of course, alternative thought styles: "So I'm fat, I thought I'd point that out. Have you ever noticed that fat people don't think like skinny people... We have our own way of thinking. And have you ever asked a fat person for directions? Cause that is when the difference in thinking really shows y'know. Cause you got up to them on the street and ask them where something is and they tell you this "Well... go down here to Arby's... And go right past Wendy's, Mcdonalds, Burger King and it's that chocolate brown building down there. But it's good that I'm fat, cause I'm a mom and fat mom's are better than skinny moms. Cause what do you want when you're depressed? Some skinny mom "Well why don't you joke around a while and that'll release adrenaline in your blood and you'll better cope with stress". Or some fat mom "Well lets have pudding, Oreos and marshmallows. When you wake up from that sugar coma, It'll be a brand new week."

Roseanne Barr Quotes - BrainyQuote

Roseanne Barr quotes

Roseanne Barr on Fat Moms - Comedy-Quotes.com

 

[azgreg]

Not everyone likes Romney.

 

[Panopticon]

So, judging by the results of the poll, DP has a bias towards the right, in comparison to the USA

 

[LiberalAvenger]

It's time to close this thread.

 

[mac]

So, judging by the results of the poll, DP has a bias towards the right, in comparison to the USA

Which is why so many have responded about the outcome of this poll being so surprising.

:lamo

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Florida
Florida
Chad, chad, chad.:2wave:

 

[Ontologuy]

So, judging by the results of the poll, DP has a bias towards the right, in comparison to the USA

It also implies there's a ton more libertarians here percentage-wise than in the general population.

There are indeed a lot of economic-fiscal issue right-leaners here.

But there are also a lot more politically focused people here, and fewer people here likely to succumb to Obama's race-baiting.

If the population at large had voted the way DP did, our next four years wouldn't have been so likely fatal to America.

Still, for all general political boards, it's important to remember that they do not reflect the population at large.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

It also implies there's a ton more libertarians here percentage-wise than in the general population.

There are indeed a lot of economic-fiscal issue right-leaners here.

But there are also a lot more politically focused people here, and fewer people here likely to succumb to Obama's race-baiting.

If the population at large had voted the way DP did, our next four years wouldn't have been so likely fatal to America.

Still, for all general political boards, it's important to remember that they do not reflect the population at large.

Obma's race baiting? Explain please. I don't think I heard the race card played by any canidate.

 

[Ontologuy]

Obma's race baiting? Explain please. I don't think I heard the race card played by any canidate.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-us-presidential-election/142118-obama-race-baited-all-american-citizens-now-pay-price.html

 

[LiberalAvenger]

http://www.debatepolitics.com/2012-us-presidential-election/142118-obama-race-baited-all-american-citizens-now-pay-price.html

A link to a link. Latinos are not a race.lol

btw, what is wrong with lobbying? Corportions spend billions doing it. Now it's wrong if citizens do it?

 

[MSgt]

War spending for Iraq was wasted money......

Not....the....point. Complain simply about Iraq all you want, but complaining will never change that we did do it, nor will it explain away the vast majority of the entire debt.

 

[Boo Radley]

Not....the....point. Complain simply about Iraq all you want, but complaining will never change that we did do it, nor will it explain away the vast majority of the entire debt.

It holds a part. And it did go up most under Bush.

However, nearly all recent presidents have contributed to it and so would have Romney. What's being called for now is the proper approach. Raise taxes where it is most easily handled, and cut spending.

 

[MSgt]

Top, I have never understood the "logic" in $XXX spent on war. I understand there is some extra cost in fighting a war, however, the service members are going to be paid regardless of where they are stationed/deployed to. They have not increased the size of the military to fight these wars nor have they given the military an adequate raise during the past 3+ years. I realize that there is some logistical expense that "may" normally not be spent on training, but I would really like to see the expenditures that are strickly war driven vice those that are "normal" defense spending. It would be interesting to see how much is actually spent above and beyond for war fighting and how much is not.

It's a basic trick used by both sides of the political aisle. Clinton got blasted for his missions of humanitarianism during the 90s and the Republicans used $XXX to do it. Democrats did it for Iraq being careful to stray away from $XXX in regards to Afghanistan. You are right...it is a bit senseless, especially in regards to the manner in which they protest.

Anti-Iraq War protestors would have been far better off pointing how we did Iraq rather than the simpleton's whine that we did it at all and trying to attach dollar signs to it. Instead they chose to deny the entire work up to this war since 1991 and pretend that the whole thing hinged on some rediculous notion of WMD. Bush screwed up and gave them this excuse and the protestors ran with it pretending that they had no more intelligence than the picket sign in their hands. Granted, plenty weren't and are still not pretending. Their complaint should have been how Rumsfeld ignored the advice and demands of the Generals in 2003 and how Bush and Co. turned the whole event into an international orgy for corporate assholes that caused more harm than good. Of course, such things would require protestors to think beyond their bumper sticker like whining. Iraq should have never cost what it did. But this has nothing to do with what needed to happen according the events throughout the 1990s and what happened on 9/11.

But "Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11" they will point out. This is another issue where protestors pretend to be ignorant (though plenty really are). In Bin Laden's letter to the West, specifically Americans, he justified 9/11 because of the starving children of Iraq. He was referrig to the UN mission of containment throughout the 1990s. He also justified 9/11 by pointing out the foreign troops in the holy land. He was referring to the escallating build up of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia since 1991, which was a response to Saddam Hussein's repeated games of rushing borders, flying jets over Saudi and Jordanian air space, and waving his ass at the UN. Obviously, to anybody with half a brain and doesn't pretend otherwise, the UN mission to contain Saddam Hussein for 12 years had every bit to do with a large piece of 9/11.

We put ourselves into this mess in 1991. In 2003, we dug ourselves out. And now with Arab nations everywhere rejecting their dictators on their own and experimenting with the very thing we have been pushing since 2003, hopefully Muslims are diggig themselves out of the mess their civilization is. But regardless, troops receive pay checks and equipment needs maintenance. The extra bit that got injected is to deal with the wounded of the war. But notice when politicians and people talk about cutting back the military they never say Lockheed Martin or Boeing. Cutting troops, denying armor, and denying base facility maintenace always trumps cutting from the Defense Industry that supplies civilian jobs in states that politicians protect. This is why we don't like hearing people that we need to "cut the military." It literally means us and not the jobs that the Defense Industry creates.

For a clear revelation, ask yourself why troops had tape on their NBC suits in 2001 and little to no armor (vehicle and body) in 2003.....but the F/A-22 Program had all the money in the world. Deemed to expensive to risk, no F/A-22 did a thing for any troop in Iraq or Afghanstan to this day. This was Clitnon's idea of "cutting the military." But democrats dared to pretend to be shocked in 2001 when they used our status to blame Bush? And when it came for Obama to halt the F/A-22 Program in 2009, Republicans dared to preach about military readiness despite the fact that none flew over combat airspace? I guess as long as the Defense Industry continues to offer civilians their jobs in the plethora of states across the country so that they can continue to make toys the military doesn't need, "military cuts" is wonderful.

The whole thing is a joke, especially when they try to bring up $XXX as some sort of actual argument.

 

[MSgt]

It holds a part. And it did go up most under Bush.

It doesn't really matter. Erase Iraq and we are still sitting almost towards 13 trillion in debt. Erase Afghanistan and we are still sitting at well over 10 trillion in debt. Why? Nobody seems to even want to touch anything with this debt unless they can wrap it up into a bow and say "war." It's mindless ignorance and this is the point. It's a slight of hand trick. Liberals and Demcrats will use the war and Bush for why we are in the mess (ignoring the Glass-Steagal issue of 1998 that actually started it). Conservatives and Republicans will declare Obama a Muslim. I see ignorance in both.

However, nearly all recent presidents have contributed to it and so would have Romney. What's being called for now is the proper approach. Raise taxes where it is most easily handled, and cut spending.

They will raise taxes in the wrong class and they will cut military spending in the wrong system. After all, adding jobs to the nation contradicts laying off thousands of Lockheed Martin employees doesn't it?. Much easier to stop making body armor, supply less vehicle parts and admin supplies. That way everybody can look the other way until the military is needed again for America's wars of revenge (Afghanistan) and blame each other for the state it is in. In the mean time the Defense Industry will still be throwing themselves a party on the Middle Class' dime. The Pentagon wants and needs a lighter more specialized military (they are talking about the re-organization of the Army) and Obama is all for that logic. It's cheaper and it makes our military better suited to fight today's wars. But this won;t do for the Defense contractors who supply hundreds of thousands of jobs to Ameeican civilians. So guess who wins?

"Raise taxes where it is most easily handled, and cut spending" is more slight of hand.

 

[Boo Radley]

It doesn't really matter. Erase Iraq and we are still sitting almost towards 13 trillion in debt. Erase Afghanistan and we are still sitting at well over 10 trillion in debt. Why? Nobody seems to even want to touch anything with this debt unless they can wrap it up into a bow and say "war." It's mindless ignorance and this is the point. It's a slight of hand trick. Liberals and Demcrats will use the war and Bush for why we are in the mess (ignoring the Glass-Steagal issue of 1998 that actually started it). Conservatives and Republicans will declare Obama a Muslim. I see ignorance in both.

The debt talk was big in the 80s when democrats were in power. Then republicans took over and forgot most of it until Clinton won, then the worked together to move it down. It took republican pressure, but also democrat willingness to work, regardless of the reason either party had. Bush forgot all about it. And republicans argued that the debt didn't matter. No tea party. No angry republicans.

The point is, everyone shares blame. And If democrats weren't in charge, there would only be a few voices sounding the alarm.

They will raise taxes in the wrong class and they will cut military spending in the wrong system. After all, adding jobs to the nation contradicts laying off thousands of Lockheed Martin employees doesn't it?. Much easier to stop making body armor, supply less vehicle parts and admin supplies. That way everybody can look the other way until the military is needed again for America's wars of revenge (Afghanistan) and blame each other for the state it is in. In the mean time the Defense Industry will still be throwing themselves a party on the Middle Class' dime. The Pentagon wants and needs a lighter more specialized military (they are talking about the re-organization of the Army) and Obama is all for that logic. It's cheaper and it makes our military better suited to fight today's wars. But this won;t do for the Defense contractors who supply hundreds of thousands of jobs to Ameeican civilians. So guess who wins?

"Raise taxes where it is most easily handled, and cut spending" is more slight of hand.

Maybe. But no effort means no answer and nothing down. We fall of he cliff. The answer has to include an increase in taxes and a cut in spending.

 

[haymarket]

It also implies there's a ton more libertarians here percentage-wise than in the general population.

There are indeed a lot of economic-fiscal issue right-leaners here.

The numbers show the obvious: this site is dominated in far disproportionate numbers by conservatives and those on the right. Only 32% here voted for Obama who got over 50% of the national popular vote. Basically, two out of every three here are on the right.

And libertarians - especially right libertarians - are represented in far greater numbers than their corresponding numbers in the real world.

This confirms what I have always said especially about right libertarians - they somehow believe that an effective strategy for political advancement is to dominate and even try to control sites like this one. I have been on many debate sites - and regardless if the main focus is auto maintenance, a particular movie with a serious following, or a particular book - if they allow political discussion there will be the inevitable rightists who attempt to do their ideological missionary work to ensnare the unwary to their own particular belief system. Its like the internet version of the Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

The numbers show the obvious: this site is dominated in far disproportionate numbers by conservatives and those on the right. Only 32% here voted for Obama who got over 50% of the national popular vote. Basically, two out of every three here are on the right.

And libertarians - especially right libertarians - are represented in far greater numbers than their corresponding numbers in the real world.

This confirms what I have always said especially about right libertarians - they somehow believe that an effective strategy for political advancement is to dominate and even try to control sites like this one. I have been on many debate sites - and regardless if the main focus is auto maintenance, a particular movie with a serious following, or a particular book - if they allow political discussion there will be the inevitable rightists who attempt to do their ideological missionary work to ensnare the unwary to their own particular belief system. Its like the internet version of the Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door.

Atlas shrugged!:shrug:

 

[mertex]

The numbers show the obvious: this site is dominated in far disproportionate numbers by conservatives and those on the right. Only 32% here voted for Obama who got over 50% of the national popular vote. Basically, two out of every three here are on the right.

And libertarians - especially right libertarians - are represented in far greater numbers than their corresponding numbers in the real world.

This confirms what I have always said especially about right libertarians - they somehow believe that an effective strategy for political advancement is to dominate and even try to control sites like this one. I have been on many debate sites - and regardless if the main focus is auto maintenance, a particular movie with a serious following, or a particular book - if they allow political discussion there will be the inevitable rightists who attempt to do their ideological missionary work to ensnare the unwary to their own particular belief system. Its like the internet version of the Jehovah's Witnesses going door to door.

It's almost like "if you believe a lie long enough, it will become true". The right was being conned into thinking that the Rasmussen and other right-wing polls were the right ones, that the ones on the left were skewed, and they really believed they were right. What a rude awakening.