General Stuff #1
Election is around the corner.
Archive: 169 posts
| Predictions? Thoughts? Personal preferences? Just a general discussion for this event. Please, let's try and keep it civil and keep things from getting heated. My personal thoughts: Vote Gary Johnson. All he needs is 5% of the vote to break this dreaded two party system. | 2012-10-19 08:59:00 Author: bigMoose_  Posts: 183 |
| Mykola Azarov has been polling ahead of Arseniy Yatsenyuk consistently, so I would expect him to win the Ukrainian elections in the next few days. | 2012-10-19 11:37:00 Author: Ayneh  Posts: 2454 |
| If we're talking about Anerica, I wish for Romney to win the election, but I think Obama has too much support in his debt-heightening ideas. | 2012-10-19 12:30:00 Author: Unknown User  |
| If we're talking about America, I wish for Romney to win the election, but I think Obama has too much support in his debt-heightening ideas. That because most Americans are getting tired of the Free Enterprise system. Actually, that was a lie; a hyperbole, but what I'm trying to say is that Obama's platform and cabinet is a threat to the free enterprise system, and people prefer Obama more. I understand why people voted him in 2008, but why do they really want him re-elected when he failed on his first term? Why would they actually want him in for another four years if they don't like his policies? I don't think Obama should qualify for presidency. Yes, we are ready for a president of any race, and I think Obama is natural-born to our country, but he shouldn't qualify, because of what he has done to our country. People who support socialism and surpressing religion shouldn't qualify. Anyway, I prefer Romney, even though I don't approve of him either. The state of Texas hates Romney too, but he's the only option other than Obama. Also, I got the other topic locked by request, so why bring the subject back up? | 2012-10-19 19:47:00 Author: Apple2012  Posts: 1408 |
| Also, I got the other topic locked by request, so why bring the subject back up? You got your topic locked, but maybe he wanted to discuss it further. | 2012-10-19 19:56:00 Author: nysudyrgh  Posts: 5482 |
| This is a thread about politics, Let's keep it that way. | 2012-10-19 21:09:00 Author: Frinklebumper  Posts: 941 |
| Meh, changed comment because I don't want this to go any deeper. | 2012-10-19 21:11:00 Author: VenemoX  Posts: 197 |
| What does someones personal brand of religion or non religion have to do with the topic? No no... don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question. Almost like saying I would or would not vote for someone because they were a vegan or something. Seems there are quite a few here that don't believe in anything, so not sure why a particular flavor of religion means anything. Heck.. if some group stood out in the field doing the Hokey Pokey awaiting space ships... ok with me as long as they are not harming anyone. In my book, who I vote for is who I feel can do the job. | 2012-10-19 21:20:00 Author: jwwphotos  Posts: 11383 |
| What does someones personal brand of religion or non religion have to do with the topic? No no... don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question. Almost like saying I would or would not vote for someone because they were a vegan or something. Seems there are quite a few here that don't believe in anything, so not sure why a particular flavor of religion means anything. Heck.. if some group stood out in the field doing the Hokey Pokey awaiting space ships... ok with me as long as they are not harming anyone. In my book, who I vote for is who I feel can do the job. I'm just leaving this here and will never come back to this thread because I don't want this thread to go anymore off topic. | 2012-10-19 21:24:00 Author: VenemoX Posts: 197 |
| Actually, that was a lie; a hyperbole, but what I'm trying to say is that Obama's platform and cabinet is a threat to the free enterprise system, and people prefer Obama more. I understand why people voted him in 2008, but why do they really want him re-elected when he failed on his first term? Why would they actually want him in for another four years if they don't like his policies? I don't think Obama should qualify for presidency. Yes, we are ready for a president of any race, and I think Obama is natural-born to our country, but he shouldn't qualify, because of what he has done to our country. People who support socialism and surpressing religion shouldn't qualify. Anyway, I prefer Romney, even though I don't approve of him either. The state of Texas hates Romney too, but he's the only option other than Obama. You answered your own question. A lot of people don't like Obama, but Romney is no prize either. In fact, Texas might actually vote for Obama out of spite of Mitt Romney. It's really a choice between a plate of crap and a plate of crap sprinkled with sugar. Personally, I like Obama and his ideas, but he's terrible at executing them. Romney on the other hand looks like the kind of guy who'll get things done, but I'm afraid his bad social skills and multiple mishaps like in the 2nd debate prevents me from voting for him. Either way, I never liked these elections: two men bickering at each other always finds a way to make me uncomfortable for some reason. | 2012-10-19 21:30:00 Author: CyberSora  Posts: 5551 |
| I'm just leaving this here and will never come back to this thread. That's kinda lame.. toss a bit of bacon on the floor and run out? lol "Oh.. this is the real stuff. You will be sorry!" No.. not watching.. don't care.  | 2012-10-19 21:30:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| In fact, Texas might actually vote for Obama out of spite of Mitt Romney. Actually no. Ever since Obama totally messed up on the nation, Texas has no respect for him. In fact, Texas never leans left. The reason why they don't like Romney is because he's too liberal of a Republican. I really hope Obama doesn't win Texas, but it would be nice if Romney wins California. I think the Dems had California for long enough. | 2012-10-19 22:06:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| In home country there are no elections. | 2012-10-19 22:44:00 Author: bonner123  Posts: 1487 |
| Well, next election in Ireland for President (not Taoiseach), is in... what, 7 years? I've never considered this right around the corner | 2012-10-19 23:14:00 Author: Valeview  Posts: 1581 |
| Are there more than two political parties in the US? I only hear about Republicans and Democrats. In my country I can never keep track of all the parties fighting for public attention. Also, you guys seem to take a lot ot time getting over with it. The elections have been the main topic of discussion for what, half a year now? | 2012-10-19 23:55:00 Author: SnipySev  Posts: 2452 |
| Actually no. Ever since Obama totally messed up on the nation, Texas has no respect for him. In fact, Texas never leans left. The reason why they don't like Romney is because he's too liberal of a Republican. I really hope Obama doesn't win Texas, but it would be nice if Romney wins California. I think the Dems had California for long enough. @VenemoX: Your posts about Mormonism sounds very racist. Ah, but you forget that a lot of immigrants live in Texas. Not only that, but many people who'll vote for Romney only want to vote for him because of their loyalty to their party. In reality, Obama is catering to the immigrants, so they'll vote for him. The rest of Texas will have a choice between choosing Romney, someone they don't see very fit as a President, or Obama, their opponent from a different party and who they consider a failed President. By the way, I fail to see how Obama "messed up" the nation since it was already in bad shape to begin with. He's been doing some good things, but he's been hitting too many snares to complete all his promises (i.e. Congress and poor timing). Still, it's understandable being frustrated with him. I'm sort of disappointed he's managed to get little done despite coming off as a really nice guy. Are there more than two political parties in the US? I only hear about Republicans and Democrats. In my country I can never keep track of all the parties fighting for public attention. Also, you guys seem to take a lot ot time getting over with it. The elections have been the main topic of discussion for what, half a year now? There's more parties, and you can actually make your own party. Democrats and Republicans get more attention though. Also, elections are considered important since we play a major role in the world; well that and a lot of people hate us, and the last thing we need now is to make more enemies, so voting for a guy who won't get us killed is proving to be difficult. | 2012-10-20 01:12:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| Obama's current plan for fixing all issues at hand. "We're going to fix it." I personally dislike his class war fare-ish approach. It also bugs he has spent the past 4 years campaigning instead of you know, doing his job. And how he constantly blames the Bush administration for this financial crisis. Fun fact: Democrats had the house and senate when Bush left office and when Obama entered. He could have accomplished a lot but he didn't. Counter intuitive much? With no record to run on, he's simply campaigning off of the same ideas. | 2012-10-20 05:48:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| I'm going to vote Romney, but here's a step-by-step process: 1. Let Obama win re-election and keep him in office for four more years. 2. Watch what happens to our country. He could mess up once again. 3. If he does mess up again, people will completely lose respect in liberalism and will avoid voting Democrat for a while. I am more right-leaning, and I like Coulter's books about the Dems. Obama didn't do anything successful. The only thing he did that was successful turned out to be a horrible thing. At least Obama did something something good: Announcing bin Laden's death to the public. And why are people editing their posts a lot on this thread? | 2012-10-20 06:25:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| Holy off-topic discussions Batman! Looks like things got a little out of hand here. Against my better judgement, I've done some surgery on this thread and removed everything not related to the topic at hand, which of course is politics. As long as we can all just have a friendly chat and keep things civil, I see no reason why we can't leave this thread open. Don't make me regret my decision everyone.  And why are people editing their posts a lot on this thread?They aren't. I am. | 2012-10-20 06:52:00 Author: Taffey  Posts: 3187 |
| Holy off-topic discussions Batman! Looks like things got a little out of hand here. Against my better judgement, I've done some surgery on this thread and removed everything not related to the topic at hand, which of course is politics. As long as we can all just have a friendly chat and keep things civil, I see no reason why we can't leave this thread open. Actually, even if we stay on-topic, the thread should be locked. Why? It's because politics is a very taboo subject. It's something people talk about all the time, and they fight over it. | 2012-10-20 07:20:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I hate both Obama and Romney equally. To me, Obama's gonna run the U.S. into a third-world economic status, not by failing to restore jobs, but failing to get rid of the $17,000,000,000,000 deficit we owe China as we currently speak (and it's really unlikely that Romney would be able to as well). Romney, on the other hand, seeing that he is not culturally inclined, will most likely trigger a war on the Korean peninsula and a possible confrontation between Iran and Israel, resulting in World War III (but it's gonna happen eventually, amirite?). However... Romney's letting me keep my gun, and I like Paul Ryan a heckavuh lot more than Joe Biden. | 2012-10-20 07:26:00 Author: Outlaw-Jack  Posts: 5757 |
| Actually, even if we stay on-topic, the thread should be locked. Why? It's because politics is a very taboo subject. It's something people talk about all the time, and they fight over it. ...Not every thread needs to be locked Anyway, on topic: I'm not sure about anything for this. Is it mainly a Two-party system in the US? | 2012-10-20 12:56:00 Author: Valeview Posts: 1581 |
| ...Not every thread needs to be locked Anyway, on topic: I'm not sure about anything for this. Is it mainly a Two-party system in the US? Basically. There is the Libertarian party which is the party I primarily stand for. But no one takes them seriously. There are also hundreds of minor political parties that are somewhat ridiculous. (Shout out to Green Party.) | 2012-10-20 13:56:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| ...Not every thread needs to be locked Wait, wait, wait. WHAT? Since when? *pouts in a corner*  There are also hundreds of minor political parties that are somewhat ridiculous. (Shout out to Green Party.)My personal favorite is the Guns and Dope Party. | 2012-10-20 15:10:00 Author: Taffey Posts: 3187 |
| Wait, wait, wait. WHAT? Since when? *pouts in a corner* Don't worry Tom. *Throws cookie* | 2012-10-20 15:33:00 Author: Valeview Posts: 1581 |
| It appears Mr Romney has Pakistan's support (just)..... but nobody else's. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687 | 2012-10-24 11:47:00 Author: Ali_Star  Posts: 4085 |
| I disagree completely with practically all of Obama's ideology. I believe in less government and more personal responsibility. Thus I'm voting for Romney. | 2012-10-24 13:54:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| well that and a lot of people hate us, and the last thing we need now is to make more enemies, so voting for a guy who won't get us killed is proving to be difficult. I think it's time you guys elected Toortle/Testudini | 2012-10-24 16:33:00 Author: Valeview Posts: 1581 |
| I think it's time you guys elected Toortle/Testudini I thought the whole idea of the United States of America was to get AWAY from British rule... | 2012-10-25 07:34:00 Author: Outlaw-Jack Posts: 5757 |
| Both the Democrats and the Republicans are the bad guys. The Republicans are aggressive and worry about the same thing while the Democrats support limited freedom. What's worse than the socialist measures passed by the Democrats was the political accuracy and censorship of many things. I can understand the BCE and CE in replacement to the BC and AD, as well as using the word "holidays" rather than "Christmas", but the "partner 1, partner 2" thing rather than "mother and father", California is doing this in textbooks, and that is extremely rediculous. New York City banned the uses of the words "dinosaur", "birthday", and "Halloween" on school papers. Banning words to avoid offending people is rediculous, especially to avoid offending the minority. FYI, please avoid censoring things that aren't inappropriate. The majority should always win, and censoring words that aren't bad words would let the minority win. | 2012-10-25 08:00:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| Both the Democrats and the Republicans are the bad guys. The Republicans are aggressive and worry about the same thing while the Democrats support limited freedom. What's worse than the socialist measures passed by the Democrats was the political accuracy and censorship of many things. I can understand the BCE and CE in replacement to the BC and AD, as well as using the word "holidays" rather than "Christmas", but the "partner 1, partner 2" thing rather than "mother and father", California is doing this in textbooks, and that is extremely rediculous. New York City banned the uses of the words "dinosaur", "birthday", and "Halloween" on school papers. Banning words to avoid offending people is rediculous, especially to avoid offending the minority. FYI, please avoid censoring things that aren't inappropriate. The majority should always win, and censoring words that aren't bad words would let the minority win. Source? I'd like to know more about this. | 2012-10-25 08:51:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| Source? I'd like to know more about this. This is one source (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/03/26/new-york-city-bans-refere_n_1380991.html) I think this is the partner 1 and partner 2 thing (http://www.aproundtable.org/news/newsindividual.cfm?news_ID=1815&issuecode=abortion) I got both of them off the mobile sites. | 2012-10-25 10:12:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I know it's off topic, but the fact that the word "dinosaurs" is banned is outrageous! I'm guessing this is because of the fact that it goes against what's in the bible? You can't just pull the wool over people's eyes, these things existed, as evidenced by the big-*** skeletons that people keep digging up! | 2012-10-25 11:13:00 Author: Ali_Star Posts: 4085 |
| I'm guessing this is because of the fact that it goes against what's in the bible? You can't just pull the wool over people's eyes, these things existed, as evidenced by the big-*** skeletons that people keep digging up! I have the greatest yo mama joke... | 2012-10-25 23:50:00 Author: Kalawishis  Posts: 928 |
| Apple, while I agree with your statements on censorship, the idea that the majority should always win is not necessarily true in the US. Its not a pure democracy. There are many aspects of law and the constitution formulated specifically to protect the minority from iron majority control. As for the election itself. I feel meh. Im more likely to have an opinion on state laws on the ballot than any of th people. For any office. | 2012-10-26 00:39:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx  Posts: 1787 |
| I kinda want Obama to win. Romney talks a crapload about China, and was being a pain at one of the debates. He doesn't even answer the questions. He just says he will improve. That just admits how Romney could be a bad president. It's like he's hiding something. PS: Sorry if this is hurtful to anyone. | 2012-10-27 00:21:00 Author: amoney1999  Posts: 1202 |
| This thread is why I rely on the Onion for information. Truly America's finest news source. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLMww8V4IUU&feature=g-all-u http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07-V3jTy38o | 2012-10-27 02:59:00 Author: bonner123 Posts: 1487 |
| I kinda want Obama to win. Romney talks a crapload about China, and was being a pain at one of the debates. He doesn't even answer the questions. He just says he will improve. That just admits how Romney could be a bad president. It's like he's hiding something. PS: Sorry if this is hurtful to anyone. No offense, but this is what really bothers me about elections. I'm alright with you supporting Obama, but I take offense that you would vote based on such superficial things. You should know who stands where on the issues, and with the candidates so diametrically opposed as they are this year, you are almost certain to agree with one side more than the other. If you support Obama, you should be supporting him because you agree with his policies and his ideology that government needs to play a more active role in the lives of citizens. If you support Romney you should believe in his ideology that lower taxes and smaller government will help to stimulate the economy or because you agree with some of his other positions. | 2012-10-28 05:34:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| No offense, but this is what really bothers me about elections. I'm alright with you supporting Obama, but I take offense that you would vote based on such superficial things. You should know who stands where on the issues, and with the candidates so diametrically opposed as they are this year, you are almost certain to agree with one side more than the other. If you support Obama, you should be supporting him because you agree with his policies and his ideology that government needs to play a more active role in the lives of citizens. If you support Romney you should believe in his ideology that lower taxes and smaller government will help to stimulate the economy or because you agree with some of his other positions. What's more important than the election is getting rid of Obamacare. Like I said before, the only thing Obama really did is to pass Obamacare, which is the biggest mistake anybody would have made. Now doctors are getting paid less to work more, which is unfair. Only the people under age 65 will be accepted, and people will have to wait longer for a surgery than ever before, just like Canada. It's also a federal thing, not a state option. If it is a state option, then I agree that it's constitutional, but it's not a state option. What's even worse is that the Supreme Court made another wrong turn, which was upholding Obamacare, including the fact that doctors have to work more for less money and the requirement of holding birth control. But at least people don't get fined for not having insurance. There is a penalty for not having insurance though, but the Medicaid Expansion is overturned as a federal thing. What we need to do is to repeal what's left of Obamacare. We have two options: 1. Just simply vote to repeal Obamacare. 28 out of 50 states want it repealed, as well as 67% of all of our voters and 9 out of 11 courts overturned it. Or 2. Defy Obamacare. That means, if Obama wins and if it takes effect by 2014, we have to ignore what Obamacare wants. Not only it's a communist enforcement, but it's also expensive. | 2012-10-29 20:16:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| 1. Just simply vote to repeal Obamacare. 28 out of 50 states want it repealed, as well as 67% of all of our voters and 9 out of 11 courts overturned it. To be honest I don't really care about the political opinions (to a certain extent... i mean some a genuinly balanced but others are heavily biased) in this thread, but as a student of history I get suspicious when somebody trys to make an argument and fails to back up statistics... so can you prove your not exaggerating by providing a peer reviewed source of where you got the statistics. Because I've checked a number of academic journals and none of which have statistics like yours. From an outsider point of view this thread is interesting... but claims without proof is only going to derail the thread through arguments and nobody wants that. I'd hate to see my interest in this thread die due to people stating opinion as fact. | 2012-10-29 21:41:00 Author: ForgottenEnigma  Posts: 1414 |
| To be honest I don't really care about the political opinions in this thread, but as a student of history I get suspicious when somebody trys to make an argument and fails to back up statistics... so can you prove your not exaggerating by providing a peer reviewed source of where you got the statistics. Because I've checked a number of academic journals and none of which have statistics like yours. From an outsider point of view this thread is interesting... but claims without proof is only going to derail the thread through arguments and nobody wants that. I'd hate to see my interest in this thread die due to people stating opinion as fact. How are these statistics opinions? I agree saying that Obamacare is bad is an opinion, but when I said that 9 out of 11 lower courts overturned Obamacare, as well as the 67% and the 28 states, I saw multiple news sites talking about that. Even Wikipedia had a map of US where the states in red support the lawsuit against Obamacare. I'm also not exaggerating. I hate it people lie about me like that. Whatever I typed down is true. I'm using statistics that came from news sites. I'm a son of a doctor, and I come from a very conservative state. | 2012-10-29 22:12:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I'm using statistics that came from news sites. Always cite your sources. Don't say news sites post the links to the information. | 2012-10-29 22:23:00 Author: Rabid-Coot  Posts: 6728 |
| but when I said that 9 out of 11 lower courts overturned Obamacare, as well as the 67% and the 28 states, I saw multiple news sites talking about that. Even Wikipedia had a map of US where the states in red support the lawsuit against Obamacare. I'm also not exaggerating. I hate it people lie about me like that. Whatever I typed down is true. I'm using statistics that came from news sites. I'm a son of a doctor, and I come from a very conservative state. A. it's an opinion because you can't provide a source for your information, you might of well just chosen random numbers. B. you honestly just tried to use wikipedia as a trusted source? you argument just lost all credibility with me. C. Your background is irrelevant and nobody is lying about you, I asked if you could prove it... I didn't say it wasn't true. but meh, I don't live in the U.S. so you guys can vote in whoever you want and I won't have to live the result. I'll just sit back and observe and one day I'll write about it from an outsiders point of view, but to do that I need to base my studies on facts and then once those are established opinions can be formed. To everyone else I'm sorry about this sidetrack, but please continue. Your opinions and facts (when backed up with sources) are incredibly interesting to me. For sake of avoiding an argument (and to save the mods some trouble) I'll keep in the shadows here from now on. | 2012-10-29 22:28:00 Author: ForgottenEnigma Posts: 1414 |
| I'm also not exaggerating. I hate it people lie about me like that. Whatever I typed down is true. I'm using statistics that came from news sites. I'm a son of a doctor, and I come from a very conservative state. And undoubtedly your views on this subject were heavily influenced by your father (or mother, whichever one's a doctor), since you mention the working conditions of doctors as one of the main reasons why Obamacare should be repealed. What if your parent wasn't a doctor, though? What if you had an accident or one of your relatives was diagnosed with a grave disease and couldn't pay the crushing medical bills? This is the kind of debt that could permanently ruin the financial situation of an entire family. Would you still have the same opinion if you were in such a situation, I wonder? The salary of a few doctors would seem much less important, I bet. And please, think before using the term "communist". Loads of developed countries have universal healthcare and there's nothing communist about them. Besides, the Cold War is long over, so conservatives can stop throwing that label around. America wouldn't become communist in a million years, not even if it tried. | 2012-10-30 01:29:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| And undoubtedly your views on this subject were heavily influenced by your father (or mother, whichever one's a doctor), since you mention the working conditions of doctors as one of the main reasons why Obamacare should be repealed. What if your parent wasn't a doctor, though? What if you had an accident or one of your relatives was diagnosed with a grave disease and couldn't pay the crushing medical bills? This is the kind of debt that could permanently ruin the financial situation of an entire family. Would you still have the same opinion if you were in such a situation, I wonder? The salary of a few doctors would seem much less important, I bet. And please, think before using the term "communist". Loads of developed countries have universal healthcare and there's nothing communist about them. Besides, the Cold War is long over, so conservatives can stop throwing that label around. America wouldn't become communist in a million years, not even if it tried. You're right about the word "communist" is a strong word, but it's socialist. Either way, they're not giving the freedom people need. And there's no way to convince me to support obamacare, no matter what. @Rabid-coot: can you please leave me alone for now on? I'm sick of you quoting my posts just to give me a lesson. Back on subject: I'm still not voting Obama. He messed up on his first term. In fact, we didn't even approve of him in 2008. And with the Bush/Kerry debate, we tried to ignore Kerry and go for Bush. | 2012-10-30 02:13:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| @Rabid-coot: can you please leave me alone for now on? I'm sick of you quoting my posts just to give me a lesson. No . | 2012-10-30 02:20:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| @Rabid-coot: can you please leave me alone for now on? I'm sick of you quoting my posts just to give me a lesson. That irony. | 2012-10-30 18:58:00 Author: CyberSora Posts: 5551 |
| Apple, please actually learn what socialism and communism are. Please realize that there is a very real difference between democratic socialism (like in Scandinavia) and Marxist socialism, and just because [INSERT RIGHT WING PUNDIT] says they are the same doesn't make it so. I don't care whether someone's left wing, right wing, libertarian, whatever. What I care about is how they back up their opinions. If you have incorrect information your entire argument crumbles, so please actually know what you're talking about before, you know, you talk about it. | 2012-10-30 20:26:00 Author: bonner123 Posts: 1487 |
| @bonner123: can you please stop harassing me? I'm tired of you eavesdropping on my posts, and everywhere I go, you always quote me and jump on me for everything. In fact, I'm tired of everybody trying to jump on me for stating opinions. You may look at the info as opinions, but that is very ignorant. I posted the obamacare thing on this topic to explain how much I hate it. I'm just not going to support Obama or his socialist obamacare thing. | 2012-10-30 22:39:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I'm tired of you eavesdropping on my posts Then don't post in a public forum? I really don't hope you think people are having a go at you, if you take part in a heavy debate you are going to find people who will try to destroy your argument, for many debating is a great source of entertainment and you should expect every statement to be countered by the same users... just as you try to counter their statements. --------------------------------------- I'm not sure I understand your logic though so please enlighten me... you want to get rid of Obamacare because it is stopping personal freedom as you can't choose exactly what to pay for... yet you have tried to silence people on this thread for disagreeing with you and even suggested that the thread gets locked... surely your not respecting their freedom? Isn't the first ammendment on the American constitution freedom of speech? If you invalidate that why shouldn't national healthcare also happen? As an outsider Obamacare seems to be a great solution to an old problem, it liberates more people than it condemns and the only obvious reason (based on your posts) you personally object is that it affects one of your parents and by extension you. Why shouldn't the poor be free to live their lives instead of being controlled and suppressed by the rich? Why should the rich choose who lives and who dies? Many countries have national health services and everyone suffers the taxes for them... but you know what? it's worth it to know that we are not abandoning our fellow countrymen and women to their demise. I'm not sure about America, but here in Scotland we stand together as a united people... and it's worked out pretty well so far. So since we know Apple's point of view, any other Americans (or anyone else) want to try and counter it? Keep it civil though. Disclaimer: all of the above is my own opinion and i do not claim any of the stuff relating to America to be fact. --------------------------------------- you may look at the info as opinions, but that is very ignorant no more ignorant than failing to question the statistics or providing a source to where you got them. --------------------------------------- Always a pleasure when a debate gets interesting, no doubt you'll have realized they are a great way to get to know people... but your on a lbp forum, so please can we have no more public shaming and pointing out peoples flaws, don't tell people not to post... you are more than welcome to counter the post, but they have every right to make it. I'll re-iterate what I said in the other thread, if you truely believe you are being harrassed contact the mods in private, but once again from an outsider point of view it seems they are just having friendly jabs at some of your points. | 2012-10-30 22:54:00 Author: ForgottenEnigma Posts: 1414 |
| @bonner123: can you please stop harassing me? I'm tired of you eavesdropping on my posts, and everywhere I go, you always quote me and jump on me for everything. I responded to you what, maybe three times? Maybe I wouldn't 'jump' on you if you weren't being silly. In fact, I'm tired of everybody trying to jump on me for stating opinions. It's because your opinions are frequently silly and aren't backed up by reality. Get your facts right and understand what you're talking about. You may look at the info as opinions, but that is very ignorant. No, facts back up opinions and make arguments stronger. I posted the obamacare thing on this topic to explain how much I hate it. What's wrong with diI'm just not going to support Obama or his socialist obamacare thing. And people want to understand why and they also disagree with you. Were you expecting a reddit style [rude thing that's better left unsaid]? Out of curiosity, are all of your opinions regurgitated from your parents? Doctors still make a hell of a lot of money in Canada and we have universal healthcare. If the working conditions are worse under Obamacare, how are they? | 2012-10-31 00:18:00 Author: bonner123 Posts: 1487 |
| http://www.techi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/The-Internet-is-Serious-Business.jpg | 2012-10-31 15:20:00 Author: Ali_Star Posts: 4085 |
| Yay for the existence of vote by mail! Now to just avoid the people calling to find out how I voted. Not yay for alternative exit polling!  | 2012-10-31 16:43:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx Posts: 1787 |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue6xzPAyJxY 'Merica. | 2012-11-02 00:42:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| That video is hilarious. Too bad she's running in Illinois and has no chance to win in that state. | 2012-11-02 05:37:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| Then don't post in a public forum? I really don't hope you think people are having a go at you, if you take part in a heavy debate you are going to find people who will try to destroy your argument, for many debating is a great source of entertainment and you should expect every statement to be countered by the same users... just as you try to counter their statements. --------------------------------------- I'm not sure I understand your logic though so please enlighten me... you want to get rid of Obamacare because it is stopping personal freedom as you can't choose exactly what to pay for... yet you have tried to silence people on this thread for disagreeing with you and even suggested that the thread gets locked... surely your not respecting their freedom? Isn't the first ammendment on the American constitution freedom of speech? If you invalidate that why shouldn't national healthcare also happen? As an outsider Obamacare seems to be a great solution to an old problem, it liberates more people than it condemns and the only obvious reason (based on your posts) you personally object is that it affects one of your parents and by extension you. Why shouldn't the poor be free to live their lives instead of being controlled and suppressed by the rich? Why should the rich choose who lives and who dies? Many countries have national health services and everyone suffers the taxes for them... but you know what? it's worth it to know that we are not abandoning our fellow countrymen and women to their demise. I'm not sure about America, but here in Scotland we stand together as a united people... and it's worked out pretty well so far. So since we know Apple's point of view, any other Americans (or anyone else) want to try and counter it? Keep it civil though. Disclaimer: all of the above is my own opinion and i do not claim any of the stuff relating to America to be fact. --------------------------------------- no more ignorant than failing to question the statistics or providing a source to where you got them. --------------------------------------- Always a pleasure when a debate gets interesting, no doubt you'll have realized they are a great way to get to know people... but your on a lbp forum, so please can we have no more public shaming and pointing out peoples flaws, don't tell people not to post... you are more than welcome to counter the post, but they have every right to make it. I'll re-iterate what I said in the other thread, if you truely believe you are being harrassed contact the mods in private, but once again from an outsider point of view it seems they are just having friendly jabs at some of your points. A short way of quoting this message. First of all: Because of this whole message, I have lost respect in you. It's even crazy that whole bunch of people gave you positive reputation (which you don't deserve if you're posting against me). Yes, we have the freedom of speech, which also protects over-reacting and posting opposing opinions against socialism. Next: When you said that "I'm not letting others post their opinions or respecting others' freedom," you lied. I won't prevent others from posting their opinions about this. I'm not silencing people from posting their opinions. I'm trying to tell people to stop teaching me lessons. I hate lessons. Third: Back from that first post of yours, you seem to say that "I'm posting my opinions as facts." If you say that they aren't facts because I didn't back up info, then guess what: I'm not posting opinions as facts. Also, Wikipedia is getting stricter about posting false information, so it's becoming reliable. @bonner123: Answer to your questions: Yes, being under a family of doctors (and Republicans) is what influenced me to have these opinions, but I'm also having them on my own. As for the second, I just read from this site titled "blog.heritage.org" under the article "5 effects obamacare will have on working americans". It could give an answer. Anyway, the reason why it doesn't work well is because we didn't start America as socialist. We lived over 200 years with freedom. One more thing: I will forgive you if you explain what you mean by "I take posting seriously". Back on topic: Election is in 4 days from now. Predictions should close soon. | 2012-11-03 01:46:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| We lived over 200 years with freedom. I was trying really hard not to inject myself into this, but seriously? I guess that long history of institutionalized prejudice we're still working to shake off and ideals we're still trying to live up to was all just figments of our collective imagination. | 2012-11-03 02:29:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka  Posts: 512 |
| I'm trying to tell people to stop teaching me lessons. I hate lessons. That's too bad, because if you paid attention once in a while, you might learn a thing or two. Have you wondered why so many people try and teach you those lessons? Maybe they're not trying to nag you and force you to change your opinion. Maybe, just maybe, they want you to get your facts straight. Because as bonner said, democratic socialism has nothing to do with communism or marxist socialism. If you want your opinions on politics to have any validity, you need to know the difference. Anyone's free to have an opinion, but it's a worthless opinion if you get your facts wrong. | 2012-11-03 03:51:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| Freedom as an idealism, not necessarily practice. Actually, you could argue that those that the rights supposedly applied to exercised their "freedom" to take advantage of others, so in some contexts....yeah. I predict that all predictions will be false, including this one. | 2012-11-03 03:53:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx Posts: 1787 |
| That's too bad, because if you paid attention once in a while, you might learn a thing or two. Have you wondered why so many people try and teach you those lessons? Maybe they're not trying to nag you and force you to change your opinion. Maybe, just maybe, they want you to get your facts straight. Because as bonner said, democratic socialism has nothing to do with communism or marxist socialism. If you want your opinions on politics to have any validity, you need to know the difference. Anyone's free to have an opinion, but it's a worthless opinion if you get your facts wrong. I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at Dav1d0 for scolding me. Yes, I know that communism has to do nothing with socialism, but anything that isn't capitalistic is bad. We believe in capitalistic health care. | 2012-11-03 04:12:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| On a forum anything you post is up for discussion. If you are that bothered by people "correcting you" then perhaps you shouldn't post. No offense. | 2012-11-03 05:11:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| On a forum anything you post is up for discussion. If you are that bothered by people "correcting you" then perhaps you shouldn't post. No offense. I am actually sorry for ruining the topic by bringing up the obamacare thing. Let's just drop the whole thing and continue on with the election predictions and election. | 2012-11-03 05:24:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| Romney will win. | 2012-11-03 07:06:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| Romney will win. I hope Romney even wins 300 electoral votes (or moar). | 2012-11-03 07:09:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| To lighten this thread up a bit: (Attention: the following video contains strong language, so don't watch it kiddies... or the mods will have my head) Video removed- Bypassing language filters Edit by SnipySev: I've seen gameplay videos posted on this site containing extreme violence. Games where people get shot, stabbed, punched, kicked, slashed, maimed, beheaded, crushed or blown to smithereens. None of them is deleted. None. It makes perfect sense. Because as we all know, gore and violence are very family friendly, right? But a hilarious parody video with one F-word... Goshdarnit SnipySev, won't you think of the children? | 2012-11-03 10:53:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| A short way of quoting this message. First of all: Because of this whole message, I have lost respect in you. It's even crazy that whole bunch of people gave you positive reputation (which you don't deserve if you're posting against me). Yes, we have the freedom of speech, which also protects over-reacting and posting opposing opinions against socialism. What? You need to lighten up. You take yourself far too seriously. It's a Little Big Planet forum for crying out loud. Oh, and I sincerely hope Obama wins, as I suspect most people do outside the US, as implied by this (which I posted earlier in the thread): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20008687 | 2012-11-03 12:58:00 Author: Ali_Star Posts: 4085 |
| Romney will win. I wish you're right. I mean, of the two who still have a chance. | 2012-11-03 14:40:00 Author: Dragonvarsity  Posts: 5208 |
| I have lost respect in you. It's even crazy that whole bunch of people gave you positive reputation (which you don't deserve if you're posting against me). oh no... what have i done... I argued with Apple in a debate and now I don't deserve reputation because I came up with points against his argument. The fact that 'a whole bunch of people' as you call them... I call them friends because we are suppose to be a community, gave me support only shows they trust in me enough to pledge support to my argument... democracy no? I'm not mad at you. I'm mad at Dav1d0 for scolding me. Scold you? No... not worth my time. Defending my fellow community members from you telling them to stop countering your posts.... sure, I'd sacrifce a lot for them. Attacking posts in one thing... attacking others is quite another, a difference your posts never seem to convey. All I did was question your logic and your source material... so for you to be mad at me for that only shows insecurity in your argument. Now normally I'd just report these hurtful posts to the mods and be done with it but: I'm trying to tell people to stop teaching me lessons. I hate lessons. I honestly believe that route to be a lost cause with you. But hey... I'm done, I've tried to be friendly towards you, I tried to give you advice with your 'bullying issue' (but after recent posts towards me and others I don't even believe there was an issue there)... so yeah... welcome to my ignore list.... population 1 ---------------------- and for the record my opinion on the matter is Obama is the best choice for America, he wants to equalise a country dominated by a rich minority.... his racial status in combination with his rank is a beacon of inspiration to those around the world who have been suppressed and enslaved by others, he accepted power as the country fell... he couldn't do much other than slow the fall, it fell, 4 more years under his rule will be enough to make her stand strong again. Regards a very angry Dave | 2012-11-03 14:45:00 Author: ForgottenEnigma Posts: 1414 |
| What? You need to lighten up. You take yourself far too seriously. It's a Little Big Planet forum for crying out loud. I have been like this since I have been joining forums. I don't engage in opinion wars or criticize people for backing up opinions, but the way Dav1d0 said sounded really harsh. You probably remembered when I acted out back when we were talking about the cool pages and copied levels (which are still big today). I'll try to follow your suggestion. It should take some time. | 2012-11-03 17:02:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltCIEbLMaQg&feature=related | 2012-11-03 17:35:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| oh no... what have i done... I argued with Apple in a debate and now I don't deserve reputation because I came up with points against his argument. The fact that 'a whole bunch of people' as you call them... I call them friends because we are suppose to be a community, gave me support only shows they trust in me enough to pledge support to my argument... democracy no? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur5g0l93F2g | 2012-11-03 22:19:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| http://i45.tinypic.com/2qntsau.jpg | 2012-11-04 09:28:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| His logo spells רוי with each character inverted. There are a few other things going on so it's diabolically clever, I like it. Obama's logo is the rising sun. They should hire me to make their logos, I'd be more subtle. Please tell me Mittens hasn't been wearing those shoes the entire time. They're really ugly. | 2012-11-04 15:43:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| oh no... what have i done... I argued with Apple in a debate and now I don't deserve reputation because I came up with points against his argument. The fact that 'a whole bunch of people' as you call them... I call them friends because we are suppose to be a community, gave me support only shows they trust in me enough to pledge support to my argument... democracy no? Scold you? No... not worth my time. Defending my fellow community members from you telling them to stop countering your posts.... sure, I'd sacrifce a lot for them. Attacking posts in one thing... attacking others is quite another, a difference your posts never seem to convey. All I did was question your logic and your source material... so for you to be mad at me for that only shows insecurity in your argument. Now normally I'd just report these hurtful posts to the mods and be done with it but: I honestly believe that route to be a lost cause with you. But hey... I'm done, I've tried to be friendly towards you, I tried to give you advice with your 'bullying issue' (but after recent posts towards me and others I don't even believe there was an issue there)... so yeah... welcome to my ignore list.... population 1 ---------------------- and for the record my opinion on the matter is Obama is the best choice for America, he wants to equalise a country dominated by a rich minority.... his racial status in combination with his rank is a beacon of inspiration to those around the world who have been suppressed and enslaved by others, he accepted power as the country fell... he couldn't do much other than slow the fall, it fell, 4 more years under his rule will be enough to make her stand strong again. Regards a very angry Dave I thought you were trying to be mean from that one post, and I thought that all of the people who are agreeing with your post agree that I should get hurt, but no. You were trying to counteract, telling me that I shouldn't be posting anything without backing up sources or prevent others from posting their opinions, and people are agreeing with you on that. I didn't really care if people have different opinions. All I wanted is for people to stop being rude to me about how I post. But hey, since you blocked me, that's fine. I'm done talking about my view of the election, but I can return back to the cool pages topic and the copied levels topic. | 2012-11-04 19:05:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| Bookie paying out to Obama punters With just over two days to go before the USA goes to the polls, one bookmaker is already paying out to punters who backed Barack Obama to win the election.Despite national polls still showing an extremely tight race with Republican challenger Mitt Romney, Paddy Power believe it is a done deal and that the incumbent President is a certainty to win. The bookmakers have risked paying out ?400,000 if Romney wins but a spokeswoman said because Mr Obama remains ahead in the state polls, Paddy Power was "sticking their neck out". Betting has been "one way traffic" for Mr Obama, according to the bookmakers. Prior to paying out, Obama's odds fell to a low 2/9 and over the past months Paddy Power has seen 75% of money staked go the Democrat's way. The spokeswoman said: "Romney gave it a good shot and is doing well in the popular vote, but we suspect he's had his moment in the sun and is likely to be remembered more for his legendary gaffes than Presidential potential. "The overall betting trend has shown one way traffic for Obama and punters seem to have called it 100% correct." The bookmakers continue to offer betting right up to and including Election Day. One of the most popular bets currently on offer is predicting the winning margin of the successful nominee on November 6. http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/bookie-paying-out-to-obama-punters-16233802.html | 2012-11-04 21:41:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| Democrats like to talk about taxing the rich, but it is the rich who are the people who create jobs in this country. By taxing the rich and forcing companies to pay higher taxes, all they do is lay off workers. The first people to be layed off are, of course, the lower rung workers who are not essential to the company. The classic Democrat class warfare line is nothing but a sham to gather votes from those who are jealous of those with more money, as everyone is hurt by taxing the "greedy rich" and "greedy corporations." Obama has pushed this as this line of divisive and misleading attack is the only thing he has left. He cannot run on his record, as it only shows year after year of miserable growth in jobs and massive growth in foodstamps and disillusioned workers. Obama has also increased the debt by trillions, running a deficit of about 1.6 (uncited yes, but it's about this, correct me if I'm way off) trillion dollars a year, far more than any other president in history. I honestly believe that in the next four years he will run America into bankruptcy. He has given us no reason to believe that he has any intention of changing his spending habits, and without such change, the country will be unable to sustain its entitlement programs such as Medicare. Clearly I'm voting for Romney; under Obama, I only see the country spending itself into the ground. I'm curious to hear reasons why you believe that Obama is the correct choice, and why you think four more years can fix the country. What has he done to show you that? | 2012-11-05 07:27:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio Keep Obama in president. Ya know. | 2012-11-05 07:37:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| I'm not sure if anything could be more simultaneously hilarious and scary at the same as that video. | 2012-11-05 07:41:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| Clearly I'm voting for Romney; under Obama, I only see the country spending itself into the ground. I'm curious to hear reasons why you believe that Obama is the correct choice, and why you think four more years can fix the country. What has he done to show you that? I don't think he did anything that succeeded, but he did pass Obamacare (which is the biggest mistake he ever made). I'm against anything that isn't capitalistic or a threat to capitalism, and that's what Obamacare is. People think Bush is the worst president because of that war, but I think he's not the worst president, nor is he the worst president of his party. After the ruling, people are supporting Obamacare more. I can assume that a lot of people would leave America as refugees if Obamacare does get repealed after the ruling. One time, Romney said at an NAACP convention that he will return capitalistic health care and got loudly booed at. I'll surf the web for sources so I can post them, but I hope Dav1d0 doesn't harass me for sources. | 2012-11-05 18:46:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I'm curious to hear reasons why you believe that Obama is the correct choice, and why you think four more years can fix the country. I think rationally, some people can agree, Obama can't "fix the country" in four more years. With that said, neither can Romney, or any other individual really. I personally have low expectations on this front. Also, while, like every election, there's quite a bit about why one candidate is terrible,there is a proportional lack of what makes the others good. Essentially my question is, How is Romney a good choice, without just saying Obama sucks. Otherwise we assume people simply view him as the lesser of two evils at best, which while valid, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Of course this also applies to Obama supporters as well. | 2012-11-05 19:19:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx Posts: 1787 |
| I think rationally, some people can agree, Obama can't "fix the country" in four more years. With that said, neither can Romney, or any other individual really. I personally have low expectations on this front. Also, while, like every election, there's quite a bit about why one candidate is terrible,there is a proportional lack of what makes the others good. Essentially my question is, How is Romney a good choice, without just saying Obama sucks. Otherwise we assume people simply view him as the lesser of two evils at best, which while valid, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Of course this also applies to Obama supporters as well. The thing is, both parties are diametrically opposed on almost every major issue, so the negatives for one candidate are the positives for another. But onto my reasoning. As opposed to Obama, Romney has shown himself to be someone who can succeed in turning around failing endeavors, and his plans to fix the economy are far more sensible than Obama's. Romney plans an across the board tax cut; this helps stimulate the economy by giving people more money to spend in the private sector. I believe that he stated it would be 20% for everyone. These tax cuts will help to make American companies more competitive with their foreign counterparts, where labor is much cheaper. Obama's plan is to tax the rich and corporations, increasing their overhead and forcing them to cut costs which will only result in layoffs. Romney plans on moving America towards energy independence by utilizing our natural resources, while Obama plans to spend more tax money on green energy. Romney wants to cut government spending, Obama wants to increase it. The list goes on and on, and I won't regale you with a summary of every issue. The most important thing to understand is that democrats don't believe in the power of free enterprise, and believe that the government can spend your money better than you can. This is seen in their buying of General Motors. After buying GM, they forced the Volt into production against the will of the company as it pushed their green energy agenda, and it has since flopped, losing us billions in taxpayer dollars. The government does not understand the free market, and should not be acting as though it does. I suppose what I am trying to say is that the government should not be picking winners and losers in the economy. The free market should control that. People should buy a product when it makes sense, not when the government wants it and subsidizes it. As such, I don't believe that green energy should receive any subsidy, and instead research should be done to make it cost effective so it can stand in the market on its own. I am voting for Romney because he stands in alignment with me on these issues, while Obama advocates the opposite of what I believe. | 2012-11-06 00:50:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| As opposed to Obama, Romney has shown himself to be someone who can succeed in turning around failing endeavors, and his plans to fix the economy are far more sensible than Obama's. Romney plans an across the board tax cut; this helps stimulate the economy by giving people more money to spend in the private sector. I believe that he stated it would be 20% for everyone. These tax cuts will help to make American companies more competitive with their foreign counterparts, where labor is much cheaper. Obama's plan is to tax the rich and corporations, increasing their overhead and forcing them to cut costs which will only result in layoffs. You talk about lost of jobs that are not essential to the companies, but what about the lost of important jobs such as teachers, firefighters, police etc? That will be lost due to lack of funding by the massive 20% tax cut? Those large amount of workers lost will have to go on lost of income payments provided by the government as finding a job with their previously specialize skills will be difficult and take awhile. The only way green energy is going to become affordable is if you put money towards it not let it deal with itself (or let other countries do it), then innovation comes from companies putting their own money. You'll have to understand that natural resources are limited, there will be one day that to meet demand you'll have to look elsewhere, being at the mercy of foreign countries. Your country struggles to put in universal healthcare and you expect it'd will easily accept green energy down the line? Obama is taking the right steps putting in the effort early. | 2012-11-07 03:53:00 Author: PPp_Killer  Posts: 449 |
| You talk about lost of jobs that are not essential to the companies, but what about the lost of important jobs such as teachers, firefighters, police etc? That will be lost due to lack of funding by the massive 20% tax cut? Those large amount of workers lost will have to go on lost of income payments provided by the government as finding a job with their previously specialize skills will be difficult and take awhile. The only way green energy is going to become affordable is if you put money towards it not let it deal with itself (or let other countries do it), then innovation comes from companies putting their own money. You'll have to understand that natural resources are limited, there will be one day that to meet demand you'll have to look elsewhere, being at the mercy of foreign countries. Your country struggles to put in universal healthcare and you expect it'd will easily accept green energy down the line? Obama is taking the right steps putting in the effort early. I agree with some of the general points, but touting government jobs as reason to increase government spending is pure ignorance. If that were the case, why would we not all just work for the government? And I don't remember anyone suggesting massively laying off teachers and police officers. What was suggested was cutting government programs to help balance the budget. I agree with you about green energy, to a point. Research is necessary, but what the government has spent much of it's money is subsidizing green energy and trying to implement these non competitive technologies now through subsidies. If the government is going to spend money on green energy, spend it on research. In the meantime, I still maintain that America should utilize the resources that we have inside our borders to benefit the American people. As it appears that Obama will win, I'd just like to thank everyone on this thread for remaining relatively civil, and I sincerely hope that I'm wrong about Obama and the way America is going. | 2012-11-07 05:00:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| Romney will win. Oops. | 2012-11-07 05:29:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| I agree with some of the general points, but touting government jobs as reason to increase government spending is pure ignorance. If that were the case, why would we not all just work for the government? And I don't remember anyone suggesting massively laying off teachers and police officers. What was suggested was cutting government programs to help balance the budget. I agree with you about green energy, to a point. Research is necessary, but what the government has spent much of it's money is subsidizing green energy and trying to implement these non competitive technologies now through subsidies. If the government is going to spend money on green energy, spend it on research. In the meantime, I still maintain that America should utilize the resources that we have inside our borders to benefit the American people. As it appears that Obama will win, I'd just like to thank everyone on this thread for remaining relatively civil, and I sincerely hope that I'm wrong about Obama and the way America is going. Obama actually did win the election. I didn't want him to win, but I showed no emotion when I found out that he won. My final opinion on Obamacare: I do think people should have insurance, but it should not have the right to require carrying birth control or affect businesses. | 2012-11-07 05:39:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| Well, I guess the world won't end in 2012! At least my world anyway lol. I honestly would've moved to Canada if Mitt Romney won. He's lied way to much this whole election, who knows what he would've "actually" done to this country. Was he actually pro life because of his Mormonism? Seriously? Thank god for Obama! At least he's absolutely straightforward about his policies and doesn't have a plan based on apparently "trusting him". I think this was too easy an election for Obama lol. Obeezy! Woo! LOL! P.S: Don't take this too seriously... | 2012-11-07 16:15:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Well, I guess the world won't end in 2012! At least my world anyway lol. I honestly would've moved to Canada if Mitt Romney won. He's lied way to much this whole election, who knows what he would've "actually" done to this country. I take it you don't understand Obama's policies. Obama Care is a disaster waiting to happen and he thinks taxing the rich will solve everything. You could tax the rich of this nation 100% of their income and it would do nothing to help us. But it's okay, as long as he and his friends in power are having fun that's all that matters to him. | 2012-11-07 22:57:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| If they want to have a chance at winning an election, the Republicans need to ditch the far-right conservative lunatics. They won't get them anywhere. | 2012-11-08 15:32:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| I take it you don't understand Obama's policies. Obama Care is a disaster waiting to happen and he thinks taxing the rich will solve everything. You could tax the rich of this nation 100% of their income and it would do nothing to help us. But it's okay, as long as he and his friends in power are having fun that's all that matters to him. I'm not sure why what you quoted of my post indicates to you that I don't understand Obama's policies. Obama has a plan and he sticks to it. He doesn't keep changing his mind every 5 second to get voters. Obama: a balanced approach, Romney: tax cuts that will eventually burden middle class Americans. (Like Me!) Neither plan is that great, but I'd rather have someone in office who won't make it hard for me. Call me selfish all you want. | 2012-11-08 15:51:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| If they want to have a chance at winning an election, the Republicans need to ditch the far-right conservative lunatics. They won't get them anywhere. No, conservatives just need to get their message out in a way that makes sense to more people. I think that most people simply don't understand what conservatives really believe or the ideology behind the policies they create, especially in larger cities and among minority voters. A lot of Republican's problems stem from the fact that it's more difficult to get a conservative message through to people than to get a liberal one. Liberals say, "tax the rich, they have enough already!" which appeals to many people on an emotional level, while conservatives saying "lower taxes, that will help the economy!" needs a bit more explaining. | 2012-11-08 15:52:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| No, conservatives just need to get their message out in a way that makes sense to more people. I think that most people simply don't understand what conservatives really believe or the ideology behind the policies they create, especially in larger cities and among minority voters. A lot of Republican's problems stem from the fact that it's more difficult to get a conservative message through to people than to get a liberal one. Liberals say, "tax the rich, they have enough already!" which appeals to many people on an emotional level, while conservatives saying "lower taxes, that will help the economy!" needs a bit more explaining. OK, so explain to me in detail, how lowering taxes will help the economy grow? | 2012-11-08 16:21:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| OK, so explain to me in detail, how lowering taxes will help the economy grow? By allowing people to keep more of their money by lowering taxes, more money is put into the economy, as people have more discretionary money. More money in the economy means that businesses have higher profits, which allows them to expand, hiring more people. More people working means more people paying taxes, meaning more revenue for the federal government. Concerning your first post, Obama is anything but balanced. He is one of the most partisan presidents ever. And if you voted for Obama because you thought he wasn't going to raise your taxes, you voted for the wrong guy. | 2012-11-08 17:53:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| I just wanted to add to that because it came up in conversation recently. It is sort of related to the tax returns a whirl back, where people were essentially receiving money to help stimulate spending. The problem was that not only did people realize this was not going to happen often, but that taxes would actually increase to pay it back, so people saved it instead and the needed spending boost never happened. Speaking in general of course. I suppose I should cite this but I'm typing from my phone and am llazy. I just thought this was somewhat related to the tax | 2012-11-08 21:51:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx Posts: 1787 |
| No, conservatives just need to get their message out in a way that makes sense to more people. I think that most people simply don't understand what conservatives really believe or the ideology behind the policies they create, especially in larger cities and among minority voters. A lot of Republican's problems stem from the fact that it's more difficult to get a conservative message through to people than to get a liberal one. Liberals say, "tax the rich, they have enough already!" which appeals to many people on an emotional level, while conservatives saying "lower taxes, that will help the economy!" needs a bit more explaining. Those are the fiscal conservatives, there's nothing inherently wrong with them. I'm talking about the far-right, ultra-religious social conservatives. | 2012-11-09 00:18:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| By allowing people to keep more of their money by lowering taxes, more money is put into the economy, as people have more discretionary money. More money in the economy means that businesses have higher profits, which allows them to expand, hiring more people. More people working means more people paying taxes, meaning more revenue for the federal government. Concerning your first post, Obama is anything but balanced. He is one of the most partisan presidents ever. And if you voted for Obama because you thought he wasn't going to raise your taxes, you voted for the wrong guy. I'm sorry, but that just won't work. Here's why: A. There are already tons of loopholes in America's tax law that rich people can exploit. Example: Mitt Romney only paid 13.9 percent of his earnings in income tax. It's not just him. Warren Buffet actually one complained that he, a billionaire, paid less taxes than his secretary. Corporations do this too. Lower taxes on the rich and big corporations will do nothing since they are already paying very low taxes by the loopholes. B. Our taxes are already pretty darn low as it is. In general, our taxes have been the lowest in decades. And even then, we have a bunch of benefits, credits, deductions, etc. to make that even lower. Here's a quote: Average Americans may indeed be "struggling to get by," but it surely isn't due to federal income taxes. They are at their lowest point as a share of the national economy in 60 years. And not just for the rich. Nearly half of Americans either pay zero income taxes or get tax credits. Link to the article. http://seattletimes.com/html/dannywestneat/2017324261_danny25.html It's a column but the facts in it are true. | 2012-11-09 01:34:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928 |
| A. There are already tons of loopholes in America's tax law that rich people can exploit. Example: Mitt Romney only paid 13.9 percent of his earnings in income tax. It's not just him. Warren Buffet actually one complained that he, a billionaire, paid less taxes than his secretary. Corporations do this too. Lower taxes on the rich and big corporations will do nothing since they are already paying very low taxes by the loopholes. True, but not really a loophole. That is capital gains tax which is to my understanding what Buffet and Romney make / made most of their money. Capitol Gains tax I believe have always been much lower than income tax as it is money made off of investments. Investments work a bit different as there is a risk they will fail, unlike income. ..well unless you lose your job. Edit: Just a minor addition.. So to your point that Warren paid less taxes is really incorrect. His tax rate may have been lower since most, if not all of his money is made off of investments, but I assure you his total tax, much like Romney's, was WAAAAAAY more than his secretary. | 2012-11-09 02:41:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Those are the fiscal conservatives, there's nothing inherently wrong with them. I'm talking about the far-right, ultra-religious social conservatives. That's called the libertarian party, but they have some crazy views as well. Anyways, Romney was certainly not on the ultra far right socially. I'm sorry, but that just won't work. Here's why: A. There are already tons of loopholes in America's tax law that rich people can exploit. Example: Mitt Romney only paid 13.9 percent of his earnings in income tax. It's not just him. Warren Buffet actually one complained that he, a billionaire, paid less taxes than his secretary. Corporations do this too. Lower taxes on the rich and big corporations will do nothing since they are already paying very low taxes by the loopholes. B. Our taxes are already pretty darn low as it is. In general, our taxes have been the lowest in decades. And even then, we have a bunch of benefits, credits, deductions, etc. to make that even lower. To be honest, our tax rates have fluctuated little over the past years. I found this site, which I actually thought was pretty interesting (the top tax bracket was 94% in WWII!) http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/history-of-federal-individual-1.html I don't see how 35% couldn't be lower, especially since Romney suggested closing loopholes. And besides, just saying that taxes are already low doesn't debunk my logic in any way. | 2012-11-09 03:15:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| By allowing people to keep more of their money by lowering taxes, more money is put into the economy, as people have more discretionary money. More money in the economy means that businesses have higher profits, which allows them to expand, hiring more people. More people working means more people paying taxes, meaning more revenue for the federal government. Concerning your first post, Obama is anything but balanced. He is one of the most partisan presidents ever. And if you voted for Obama because you thought he wasn't going to raise your taxes, you voted for the wrong guy. What exactly warrants you to say he'll raise taxes? Speaking on Republican policies, cutting taxes is exactly what Ronald Regan and George Bush did when they were elected president. George Bush alone raised the public debt from 3 to 6 trillion dollars from frivolous tax cutting and millitary spending, which contributed to the global financial crisis that was dumped on Obama when he was elected president. (Which Republicans actually use against him regarding his handling of things) You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_public_debt Not to mention all the loopholes that allows big companies to avoid paying taxes, which Mitt Romney "says" he will stop, but this is where his (and the GOPs) trustworthiness becomes a factor. Mitt is of course rich you know... You say people will have more "discretionary" money? Most people (nowadays) will probably end up saving all the extra money they get from tax cuts, limiting their spending to essential things. (maybe even things produced in china?) The point is you can't just cut taxes and expect money to come out of nowhere. What ever jobs people get won't be able to help pay off the deficit in any manageable way. You'll just end up having to raise taxes to pay off the cost of cutting taxes! Obama's plan is the same one that Bill Clinton had when he was president, which lowered the deficit caused by the GOP. Obama said he would be more bipartisan too BTW. Which is smart given the condition of the economy. As I've said before, it's not the best plan, but it's probably a better plan overall. | 2012-11-09 13:23:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Mitt is of course rich you know... So is President Obama, what's your point? Would you want an incompetent pauper to lead the country...what sort of resume is that? You say people will have more "discretionary" money? Most people (nowadays) will probably end up saving all the extra money they get from tax cuts, limiting their spending to essential things. (maybe even things produced in china?) The point is you can't just cut taxes and expect money to come out of nowhere. No, you reduce the burden on small business...they become more successful/competitive and create jobs. People with good jobs who are optimistic about the future spend money stimulating the economy. Your average Joe isn't getting his discretionary spending money from tax cuts...it's from being employed in a good paying profession. The goal isn't to punish the widely successful...it's totally ok for there to be uber rich people. Tax the rich isn't a plan...it's pandering. Obama said he would be more bipartisan too BTW. Which is smart given the condition of the economy. Yeah...and I totally believe him and Harry Reid when they say that. Welcome to 4 more years of grid-lock and stagnation. This country has a spending problem not a revenue problem. | 2012-11-09 15:00:00 Author: fullofwin  Posts: 1214 |
| So is President Obama, what's your point? Would you want an incompetent pauper to lead the country...what sort of resume is that? Mitt isn't raising his own taxes...and given all that Obama has had to deal with, he handled his position well. Would you want and pathologically lying, Mormon, disrespectful, arrogant, puppet to lead the country? No, you reduce the burden on small business...they become more successful/competitive and create jobs. People with good jobs who are optimistic about the future spend money stimulating the economy. Your average Joe isn't getting his discretionary spending money from tax cuts...it's from being employed in a good paying profession. The goal isn't to punish the widely successful...it's totally ok for there to be uber rich people. Tax the rich isn't a plan...it's pandering. Taxing the rich reduces the deficit WHILE small businesses get tax cuts to help them grow. It's really the same thing...I think you are too stanch a conservative that you oppose anything anti-capitalist. There's no reason why a person who makes billions of dollars should have the same tax rates as a middle class worker. All this has been tried and tested before. History tells me that GOPs plan does nothing for the economy but make it worse. | 2012-11-09 16:21:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| Mitt isn't raising his own taxes...and given all that Obama has had to deal with, he handled his position well. Would you want and pathologically lying, Mormon, disrespectful, arrogant, puppet to lead the country? Disrespectful? Wow... lol Quite amazing since you not only disrespect an entire religion in America as well as another human that almost half the country voted for and obviously respected. If you don't like the man fine, you have a right to your opinion, but calling him names isn't really arguing your point. Many could probably say similar things about most politicians across the world, however I suggest sticking to facts to make your point. Otherwise this thread will turn into simply name calling and quickly be locked. | 2012-11-09 16:34:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Would you want and pathologically lying, Mormon, disrespectful, arrogant, puppet to lead the country? That's uncalled for... Taxing the rich reduces the deficit WHILE small businesses get tax cuts to help them grow. No...it does virtually nothing to address the major drivers of our debt, that is why it is wrong-headed and is only meant to appeal to the masses as this foolish notion of "fairness". I'm also not a convervative, I disagree with the Republicans on almost everything except fiscal policy (what they say...not what they actually do/don't do)...please don't try to label me. You take money out of the system and redistribute it in the most inefficient way imaginable and it's a downward spiral. Whatever happens in the next 4 years, I'll be just fine...I feel bad for the young people currently graduating. | 2012-11-09 16:46:00 Author: fullofwin Posts: 1214 |
| Mitt isn't raising his own taxes...and given all that Obama has had to deal with, he handled his position well. Would you want and pathologically lying, Mormon, disrespectful, arrogant, puppet to lead the country? There are two sides to that coin. Obama has been lying from the start; first about Libya, now he just happened to not tell the American people about we were attacked by Iran over international waters a couple days before the election. That's not to mention how he has failed on practically all of his promises that he made when he was trying to get elected in 2008 (halve the deficit, bring the country together, etc.). To be honest, your entire statement just sounds like you watched a marathon of Obama campaign commercials, then topped it off with some good old fashioned anti-religious hate. Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but don't try to demonize someone who is clearly not a demon. Fun note: the president's response to the attack by Iran was to tell the Swedish ambassador to tell the Iranians that we will continue to fly there; strong foreign policy eh? Taxing the rich reduces the deficit WHILE small businesses get tax cuts to help them grow. It's really the same thing...I think you are too stanch a conservative that you oppose anything anti-capitalist. There's no reason why a person who makes billions of dollars should have the same tax rates as a middle class worker. All this has been tried and tested before. History tells me that GOPs plan does nothing for the economy but make it worse. First off, I must state that thinking that taxing the rich will solve all the budgetary problems this country has is a fallacy. Even confiscating all money from the rich would not cover the deficit we are currently running. Besides, taxing the rich is just another way of saying that you are taxing companies and their profits, as many small companies file their taxes as individuals. The second part of your argument lapses into emotion, and has no real evidence behind it. Why shouldn't they make the same money? Why should the rich pay a higher rate because they are successful? Now, perhaps a flat rate is a little extreme, but I don't just don't see your reasoning besides "It's not fair!" And that part about history, I can't respond to it since it isn't even an argument. It honestly just makes you sound as though you don't have a logical response. Get a source, perhaps? | 2012-11-09 17:29:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| Disrespectful? Wow... lol Quite amazing since you not only disrespect an entire religion in America as well as another human that almost half the country voted for and obviously respected. If you don't like the man fine, you have a right to your opinion, but calling him names isn't really arguing your point. Many could probably say similar things about most politicians across the world, however I suggest sticking to facts to make your point. Otherwise this thread will turn into simply name calling and quickly be locked. I'm sorry...I didn't mean anything by the Mormon comment other than Mitt Romney might've dictated his policies based on his Mormanism (the pro-life; pro-choice) About him being a pathological liar is all but true. He's lied more than any other president in the history of U.S. About him being disrespectful? Did you see the way he cut off the president during the debates and completely ignored the rules? How arrogant can you be to do something like that...And the way he had that sick smug look on his face...how can you support someone like this?! Regardless of your positions, you can't deny that this guy was just...off...his own state voted him off... Anyway, don't take any of that too seriously. I was only trying to make a point that Romney will never be a better choice over Obama. PS. fullofwin did kinda start it by calling Obama incompetent....just saying lol There are two sides to that coin. Obama has been lying from the start; first about Libya, now he just happened to not tell the American people about we were attacked by Iran over international waters a couple days before the election. That's not to mention how he has failed on practically all of his promises that he made when he was trying to get elected in 2008 (halve the deficit, bring the country together, etc.). To be honest, your entire statement just sounds like you watched a marathon of Obama campaign commercials, then topped it off with some good old fashioned anti-religious hate. Perhaps that's a bit harsh, but don't try to demonize someone who is clearly not a demon. Obama doesn't lie nearly as much as Romney. And a lot of that isn't exactly in Obama's control you know...and I have nothing against Mormons or any religions for that matter. But when you bring your religion into your policies, it becomes a problem. The second part of your argument lapses into emotion, and has no real evidence behind it. Why shouldn't they make the same money? Why should the rich pay a higher rate because they are successful? Now, perhaps a flat rate is a little extreme, but I don't just don't see your reasoning besides "It's not fair!" This just reminded me why I try not to visit this forum... And that part about history, I can't respond to it since it isn't even an argument. It honestly just makes you sound as though you don't have a logical response. Get a source, perhaps? Read my previous post, or better yet here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt See how tax cuts cause the economy to worsen | 2012-11-09 17:46:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| In summary everyone in politics is crap. | 2012-11-09 17:58:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| PS. fullofwin did kinda start it by calling Obama incompetent....just saying lol I did no such thing. You are clearly reading some of your own doubts and misgivings into something I wrote... | 2012-11-09 18:03:00 Author: fullofwin Posts: 1214 |
| I did no such thing. You are clearly reading some of your own doubts and misgivings into something I wrote... O rly? Well I guess I misread you. Clearly... | 2012-11-09 18:39:00 Author: comishguy67 Posts: 849 |
| O rly? Well I guess I misread you. Yup, let's look at what was actually written, shall we? So in response to: Mitt is of course rich you know... I wrote: So is President Obama, what's your point? Would you want an incompetent pauper to lead the country...what sort of resume is that? Yes, President Obama is mentioned in sentence #1...and yes, the word incompetent does appear in sentence #2. But you see, sentence #2 also contains the word "pauper" and since sentence #1 just established that our President is a person of means sentence #2 is clearly not referring to him. Sentence #2 poses a rhetorical question, suggesting that viable presidential candidates should be demonstrably successful. Also as President Obama has been the president and ?leading? the country for 4 years now your interpretation of sentence #2 is just bizarre. Citing bad behavior to justify other bad behavior is also no excuse?that?s what the politicians do?you?re better than that, lol. As for politicians lying, sadly things have gotten to the point where telling the truth and not pandering to constituents makes you un-electable. | 2012-11-09 19:16:00 Author: fullofwin Posts: 1214 |
| About him being a pathological liar is all but true. He's lied more than any other president in the history of U.S. About him being disrespectful? Did you see the way he cut off the president during the debates and completely ignored the rules? How arrogant can you be to do something like that...And the way he had that sick smug look on his face... You've said that pathological liar thing twice now and have not yet produced any evidence it's true. Let's try to keep this grounded in facts. About your point on the debate, that's how debates the debates are, and you are being very one sided if you think that only Romney was ignoring rules and cutting off the other candidate. And if you are mentioning smugness, how about Biden with that smile? Obama doesn't lie nearly as much as Romney. And a lot of that isn't exactly in Obama's control you know...and I have nothing against Mormons or any religions for that matter. But when you bring your religion into your policies, it becomes a problem. The coverup in Libya was well within Obama's control, as was releasing the information about Iran's attack on the US. Furthermore, Obama knew none of the things he promised were going to get done; he never even made an effort to do them. He nearly doubled the debt in just four years, apparently you missed that part of the Wikipedia article you posted the link to. You mentioned Bush, Obama has doubled the debt Bush racked up over two terms in his first term. Read my previous post, or better yet here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt See how tax cuts cause the economy to worsen If you are using the debt as an indicator, Obama has been the worst president the country has ever had, as I mentioned above. | 2012-11-09 20:40:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| Those are the fiscal conservatives, there's nothing inherently wrong with them. I'm talking about the far-right, ultra-religious social conservatives. The problem is, I agree with their beliefs, especially on abortion. In my personal view, human life begins at conception, and I don't think it's fair to force all 50 states to legalize it for birth control. I see that you view people being "ultra-religious" as a problem. Yes, radicals are bad, but they're not very radical. They aren't trying to force their beliefs on other people. So you were trying to say that in order to win, the Republicans have to be more supportive to the social liberal values like abortion and separation between church and state. I am pretty biased with my opinions. And by the way, since the election is over, can we lock this thread? | 2012-11-09 21:46:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| And by the way, since the election is over, can we lock this thread? Why do you want to kill this thread so much? ;_; (And why do I use that smiley so much? <---) | 2012-11-09 22:07:00 Author: nysudyrgh Posts: 5482 |
And by the way, since the election is over, can we lock this thread?And miss out on all this epic debating? Nah.  | 2012-11-09 22:14:00 Author: Taffey Posts: 3187 |
| The problem is, I agree with their beliefs, especially on abortion. In my personal view, human life begins at conception, and I don't think it's fair to force all 50 states to legalize it for birth control. I see that you view people being "ultra-religious" as a problem. Yes, radicals are bad, but they're not very radical. They aren't trying to force their beliefs on other people. So you were trying to say that in order to win, the Republicans have to be more supportive to the social liberal values like abortion and separation between church and state. I agree with you completely about abortion. I believe that abortion is inherently evil, and that it practically constitutes murder of an innocent unable to defend themselves. The question of separation of church and state is a good one, and is a legitimate criticism of conservative social policies. However, in the case of abortion, I see it as no different than laws stating you cannot murder one another. Not everything is a morally relative, there must be some absolute moral code. Although I don't necessarily think that the country should enforce a moral code that is directly from religion, I believe that religion got this is one right. On the opposite side, I don't really oppose those who are *** getting married, even though I have misgivings about any children they would raise, as it has been shown that children with mother and father are more likely to do well in school, and have more productive lives. But really, it can't be any worse than living with a single divorced parent. Whether or not you agree with some of the social policies, I still believe the economy trumps these in importance, and I definitely believe that conservative thinking is more sound in that area. Edit: I definitely think that this has been about as civil as a discussion of politics can be, and I'm still having some fun with this thread, so I don't think it needs to get shut down yet. | 2012-11-09 22:24:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| And miss out on all this epic debating? Nah. Cool... as long as folks stay civil, there really isn't an issue. | 2012-11-09 22:48:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Never voted and likely never will. I want a selfless leader who knows they've ceased to be a person, who will live and die with the nation like the old kings did... all these guys are just cowards. I will drown and die in the sea of apathy and the endless tedium of meaningless posturing and bileful words will still fill the sails of the ship called Politics. | 2012-11-09 23:43:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| Why do you want to kill this thread so much? ;_; (And why do I use that smiley so much? <---) I can't answer the second question, but I can answer the first one. When something big is over, there is no need to talk about it. It's like if we kept creating threads about Latin_Player_10 on LBP Central since he is IP banned. It's also like continuing to talk about the trial of Casey Anthony, the Watergate Scandal, or even the Salem Witch Trials. Those are old news, and we don't want to keep talking about it over and over again. So generally speaking, since the election is over, there's no need to talk about it. But if you enjoy debating, I'll change my mind and let this thread live until something goes wrong. @ChrisF2112: I gave you reputation because I support same-sex marriage, but oppose abortion. Here are some beliefs on mine (besides the whole Obamacare thing, abortion, and same sex marriage): The death penalty is the appropriate punishment for murder. The US should be a free market economy (capitalism). Lower taxes and a limited government is best for our country. Less government funding is good for the economy. Drugs (marijuana, cocaine, and heroin) should remain illegalized. Political Accuracy Censorship (such as the ban on the words "dinosaur", "birthday", and "Halloween") should be forbidden. Solar and Wind energy is better for our energy resources (besides, Santa Claus is giving out oil and natural gas to naughty kids). And... I support Moderator Appreciation Day for LBP Central. | 2012-11-09 23:46:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I can't answer the second question, but I can answer the first one. LOOOL! But if you enjoy debating, I don't, since I'm poor at debating. I do however enjoy seeing other's debate. :3 I'll change my mind and let this thread live until something goes wrong. I didn't know you were a mod. | 2012-11-10 00:22:00 Author: nysudyrgh Posts: 5482 |
| It's also like continuing to talk about the trial of Casey Anthony, the Watergate Scandal, or even the Salem Witch Trials. Those are old news, and we don't want to keep talking about it over and over again. Things being in the past should never exclude them from being discussed. Is history part of your hatred of lessons | 2012-11-10 00:39:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| I didn't know you were a mod. I'm not a moderator. I was saying that I shouldn't tell the mods to lock this thread when it's not going wrong. It's becoming more of a Moire thread, a thread that doesn't look acceptable, but it is acceptable. I once had moderator priveleges back on TV.com, but since I abused my power, I shouldn't be a moderator. @Rabid-Coot: I read the spoiler, and it's a no. And I was looking at your new signature. What show is that from? | 2012-11-10 01:18:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| And I was looking at your new signature. What show is that from? Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog. | 2012-11-10 02:04:00 Author: Rabid-Coot Posts: 6728 |
| Those are old news, and we don't want to keep talking about it over and over again. So generally speaking, since the election is over, there's no need to talk about it. But if you enjoy debating, I'll change my mind and let this thread live until something goes wrong. Aren't you normally the thing that goes wrong in a thread? But seriously, people are exchanging ideas here...don't worry so much about relevancy it is and just enjoy the discussion. Let the mods worry about the hairy details. | 2012-11-10 02:14:00 Author: Chazprime  Posts: 587 |
| Never voted and likely never will. I want a selfless leader who knows they've ceased to be a person, who will live and die with the nation like the old kings did... all these guys are just cowards. I will drown and die in the sea of apathy and the endless tedium of meaningless posturing and bileful words will still fill the sails of the ship called Politics. Well.. I can understand a bit of that, but some of the old kings were pretty selfish in their actions. Chopping off heads of those that opposed them and in the case Henry VIII that created his own church so he could divorce his wife and thus himself the head of the church. ..and isn't it nice to be back on topic? | 2012-11-10 02:26:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| The problem is, I agree with their beliefs, especially on abortion. In my personal view, human life begins at conception, and I don't think it's fair to force all 50 states to legalize it for birth control. I see that you view people being "ultra-religious" as a problem. Yes, radicals are bad, but they're not very radical. They aren't trying to force their beliefs on other people. So you were trying to say that in order to win, the Republicans have to be more supportive to the social liberal values like abortion and separation between church and state. Yes they are in fact, trying to force their beliefs on other people. They believe that an embryo that doesn't even have a conscience yet is somehow equal to a person's life. So they're trying to force people not to have abortions because of it. That's the very definition of trying to force your beliefs on others. Instead of letting people decide for themselves, they're saying "NO. You can't do it because I don't agree with this, and that's it". Forget the fact that other methods of birth control may have failed and the pregnancy isn't the couple's fault. Even worse, the couple may have gotten pregnant because they had a retarded abstinence-only sex education taught by religious fanatics, instead of being informed on the actual methods of birth control. Forget the fact that if the child is born and the parents aren't ready for it, it could ruin their financial situation for years and by that, make the child's life miserable. Forget the fact that people will do abortions anyway even if it's forbidden by law, and will probably harm themselves without the proper medical attention. Social conservatives want to outlaw abortion to protect a fetus, but don't want any universal healthcare for the sick and poor. It's a funny thing about republicans: they'll do anything to "protect" you when you're just an inanimate bunch of cells... but once you're born, you're on your own, pal. Ironic, isn't it? | 2012-11-10 04:26:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| It's a funny thing about republicans: they'll do anything to "protect" you when you're just an inanimate bunch of cells... but once you're born, you're on your own, pal. Ironic, isn't it? I suppose you could say thats because people should be perfectly capable of caring for themselves whereas cells (not inatimate though) cannot and therefore "need" protection. Just saiyan. Note: This comment in no way means I disagree... | 2012-11-10 04:47:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx Posts: 1787 |
| Yes they are in fact, trying to force their beliefs on other people. They believe that an embryo that doesn't even have a conscience yet is somehow equal to a person's life. So they're trying to force people not to have abortions because of it. That's the very definition of trying to force your beliefs on others. Instead of letting people decide for themselves, they're saying "NO. You can't do it because I don't agree with this, and that's it". Forget the fact that other methods of birth control may have failed and the pregnancy isn't the couple's fault. Even worse, the couple may have gotten pregnant because they had a retarded abstinence-only sex education taught by religious fanatics, instead of being informed on the actual methods of birth control. Forget the fact that if the child is born and the parents aren't ready for it, it could ruin their financial situation for years and by that, make the child's life miserable. Forget the fact that people will do abortions anyway even if it's forbidden by law, and will probably harm themselves without the proper medical attention. Social conservatives want to outlaw abortion to protect a fetus, but don't want any universal healthcare for the sick and poor. It's a funny thing about republicans: they'll do anything to "protect" you when you're just an inanimate bunch of cells... but once you're born, you're on your own, pal. Ironic, isn't it? It's not like abortion is the only option. Adoption is a perfectly fine option that does not involve destroying human life. Laws "force" beliefs on you all the time- it's nothing new. You are forced to believe that running around with drugs is bad, murder is bad, and so on. Those are all forced beliefs as well. I believe that abortion is much a crime as any one of those. You can say it in any terms you want, but the fact that you are cutting short a life is practically not debatable. And it's not as though conservatives don't want universal healthcare; we do. We just don't think that the government is the best provider of it, as the government has no reason to better their services or even work hard, as there is no competition. This has been shown time and time again: the one that comes to mind first is the post office. | 2012-11-10 04:53:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| It's not like abortion is the only option. Adoption is a perfectly fine option that does not involve destroying human life. I doubt most people who grew up in that system would call it "perfectly fine". Laws "force" beliefs on you all the time- it's nothing new. You are forced to believe that running around with drugs is bad, murder is bad, and so on. Those are all forced beliefs as well. Eh. That's rather reaching for your argument. But nevertheless that was a very smooth sidestep of what he was trying to get at. I believe that abortion is much a crime as any one of those. You can say it in any terms you want, but the fact that you are cutting short a life is practically not debatable. Well if semantics is an ok tool to use in this: Depends when you say life begins. If the life hasn't begun yet then there was never any life to cut short. By your definition then yes you're right, otherwise no. And it's not as though conservatives don't want universal healthcare; we do. We just don't think that the government is the best provider of it, as the government has no reason to better their services or even work hard, as there is no competition. This has been shown time and time again: the one that comes to mind first is the post office. I realize that people as a whole tend to be self-centered, habitual beings, but you do realize that there are plenty of people who want to work hard and provide the best service they can just because of the intrinsic value of it, right? Besides, competition doesn't always work as we see in today's health insurance companies, and the telecom industry to name a couple. The big movie studios are also a bit shady but I think that might be a bit tangential. Unfortunately the problem with your "this has been shown time and time again" argument is that for any service you can name that the government has failed at I can easily name another which it has excelled at. The problem isn't that government is intrinsically bad, it's in the execution. Also, who else is supposed to provide free universal healthcare? I realize that it's not technically free since government pays for a lot of things through the revenue it gets in taxes, but I know enough about the healthcare industry to know that the taxes people will be paying is a far better alternative than the hospital bills they'll get. | 2012-11-10 05:12:00 Author: Patronus21  Posts: 266 |
| Yes they are in fact, trying to force their beliefs on other people. They believe that an embryo that doesn't even have a conscience yet is somehow equal to a person's life. So they're trying to force people not to have abortions because of it. That's the very definition of trying to force your beliefs on others. Instead of letting people decide for themselves, they're saying "NO. You can't do it because I don't agree with this, and that's it". Forget the fact that other methods of birth control may have failed and the pregnancy isn't the couple's fault. Even worse, the couple may have gotten pregnant because they had a retarded abstinence-only sex education taught by religious fanatics, instead of being informed on the actual methods of birth control. Forget the fact that if the child is born and the parents aren't ready for it, it could ruin their financial situation for years and by that, make the child's life miserable. Forget the fact that people will do abortions anyway even if it's forbidden by law, and will probably harm themselves without the proper medical attention. Social conservatives want to outlaw abortion to protect a fetus, but don't want any universal healthcare for the sick and poor. It's a funny thing about republicans: they'll do anything to "protect" you when you're just an inanimate bunch of cells... but once you're born, you're on your own, pal. Ironic, isn't it? It's a lie when people say that all Republicans are forcing their beliefs on others. They aren't trying to punish people for not agreeing with their opinions. That's what forcing your beliefs are. I know it sounds rediculous to ban things just to protect something small, but a fetus is a living thing, and killing a human fetus is murder of a human being. They used to be completely against it, but now, they only support it for emergencies only. As for the universal healthcare, those are fiscal conservatives that want to get rid of Obamacare, not social ones. The main reason why Republicans want it repealed is because they support a capitalistic health care, and Obamacare is not capitalistic. It also costs a lot of money around this time, and fiscal conservatives are all about making money. Fiscal Conservatism: Support of capitalism (few or no limits in business), less taxes, less government funding, smaller government. Social Conservatism: Support of the death penalty, less strict gun laws, keeping religious mentions up in public, limiting abortion rights, banning same-sex marriage, and banning teaching evolution in schools. You think that "all Republicans hate people who don't agree with others because they don't agree with others". If you want to know someone who really hates people who don't agree with his or her opinions, take a look at the ex-speaker of the house (2007-2010). She is very hateful, and she hates anybody who don't agree with her opinions, and that is a Democrat. EDIT: I'm actually not sure if Pelosi is hateful like what I said, but that's what I hear and how I was raised - to believe that Pelosi is full of hate. | 2012-11-10 05:17:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| It's not like abortion is the only option. Adoption is a perfectly fine option that does not involve destroying human life. Laws "force" beliefs on you all the time- it's nothing new. You are forced to believe that running around with drugs is bad, murder is bad, and so on. Those are all forced beliefs as well. I believe that abortion is much a crime as any one of those. You can say it in any terms you want, but the fact that you are cutting short a life is practically not debatable. The abortion issue isn't black and white. If it happens soon enough, the embryo doesn't even have a conscience yet, no awareness, no sentience. It's practically still a part of the woman's body. Comparing that to the murder of a developed person, a being who has a conscience, a mind and personality is just idiotic. Funny though, weren't you the one who said Obama won over the poor because he appealed to them on an emotional level? What is this twisted "abortion equals murder" argument if not an appeal to emotion? | 2012-11-10 05:26:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| I doubt most people who grew up in that system would call it "perfectly fine". I've never heard of a person saying they'd rather be aborted than adopted, have you? Well if semantics is an ok tool to use in this: Depends when you say life begins. If the life hasn't begun yet then there was never any life to cut short. By your definition then yes you're right, otherwise no. I agree, it's a tough question to answer, as there are several ways to interpret what life actually is. My point is, and I perhaps I should have better stated it, despite the semantics, that mass of cells will grow into a human. It already has all the DNA needed, and it's just a matter of time. Destroying that is cutting short a life, or at the very least preventing an imminent life from happening. Even though you can argue over semantics, is preventing or cutting short a life something that's an acceptable thing for anyone to decide to do? I definitely don't think so. I realize that people as a whole tend to be self-centered, habitual beings, but you do realize that there are plenty of people who want to work hard and provide the best service they can just because of the intrinsic value of it, right? I don't deny there are wonderful people out there (I know several), but I am not stupid enough to believe that government healthcare is going to be chock full of them. In any endeavor, there needs to be some reason to do well, and in government healthcare that reason just does not exist. Unfortunately the problem with your "this has been shown time and time again" argument is that for any service you can name that the government has failed at I can easily name another which it has excelled at. The problem isn't that government is intrinsically bad, it's in the execution. Perhaps you misunderstood. Government does have its uses, and I'm by no means an anarchist, but most government programs are inherently wasteful and poorly run. I'd love to hear all your examples though. Also, who else is supposed to provide free universal healthcare? I realize that it's not technically free since government pays for a lot of things through the revenue it gets in taxes, but I know enough about the healthcare industry to know that the taxes people will be paying is a far better alternative than the hospital bills they'll get. The government would have a hand in it, but only to help provide money to buy private insurance plans. And we've debated extensively about higher taxes in this thread. Edit Below: Funny though, weren't you the one who said Obama won over the poor because he appealed to them on an emotional level? What is this twisted "abortion equals murder" argument if not an appeal to emotion? Not in those words exactly, what I said was more a blanket statement on liberal ad campaigns if I remember correctly. Anyways, I would consider it a moral dilemma rather than an emotional appeal. It's not as though one side is on the side of reason and one is not, it's merely a question of right or wrong. | 2012-11-10 05:57:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| It's a lie when people say that all Republicans are forcing their beliefs on others. True. Hopefully we can all avoid generalities like that. You think that "all Republicans hate people who don't agree with others because they don't agree with others". If you want to know someone who really hates people who don't agree with his or her opinions, take a look at the ex-speaker of the house (2007-2010). She is very hateful, and she hates anybody who don't agree with her opinions, and that is a Democrat. While I suppose she can be quite irritating in her partisan-ness, I'm not so sure she's that far. EDIT: I'm actually not sure if Pelosi is hateful like what I said, but that's what I hear and how I was raised - to believe that Pelosi is full of hate. That seems rather twisted. Surely it doesn't make much sense to hate someone so much without better data than that? Also why bring it up to support your argument if you're "actually not sure" how accurate it is? The abortion issue isn't black and white. If it happens soon enough, the embryo doesn't even have a conscience yet, no awareness, no sentience. It's practically still a part of the woman's body. Comparing that to the murder of a developed person, a being who has a conscience, a mind and personality is just idiotic. Is that really the way we're going with this? If someone holds the belief that a human life begins at conception, then it's not exactly a huge logical leap to say when that human life dies by the purposeful hands of another human then it is murder or some other similar crime that comes with many years of jail time normally. Funny though, weren't you the one who said Obama won over the poor because he appealed to them on an emotional level? What is this twisted "abortion equals murder" argument if not an appeal to emotion? I wasn't here for that part, but based on this I'm going off the assumption that the appeal to emotion was perceived as a negative thing by ChrisF2112. Though as Chris is currently inadvertently finding out, emotion can often be a large chunk of an argument depending on the topic. Anyway, it is true that "abortion = murder" is extremely dense with bad emotion, but the topic as a whole is extremely dense with bad emotion. Unfortunately for a discussion like this, someone on Chris' side of the debate tends to have an extremely emotionally charged argument (and let's face it, if your argument is, in your mind at least, "People shouldn't kill babies", it's going to be rather emotional and understandably so). @Chris: Given that though, I would be interested to see if you could not be so emotionally charged on this. I understand if you feel you can't, it would just be a rare opportunity for this discussion if you could and I think it would be worthwhile. | 2012-11-10 06:08:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| @Chris: Given that though, I would be interested to see if you could not be so emotionally charged on this. I understand if you feel you can't, it would just be a rare opportunity for this discussion if you could and I think it would be worthwhile. I'm trying to remain reasonable while stating my points. I don't think I've gone too far yet, but if I have, just point where. | 2012-11-10 06:12:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| Concerning your comment that a mass of cells will grow into a human... While I can understand the decision against personal abortion based on that mass of ccells being alive, its another thing to say it's wrong based on what it will be eventually. Something that will have consciousness someday doesn't qualify by those standards until that happens. It is loosely similar to arresting someone for a crime they may commit someday. (That may border logical fallacy for some but I'll let it stand for the heck of it . Which also begs the question if birth control also amount to the same thing, just a few steps removed. | 2012-11-10 06:14:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx Posts: 1787 |
| I'm trying to remain reasonable while stating my points. I don't think I've gone too far yet, but if I have, just point where. Fair enough thanks. The main concern is just to not dive too far into the "you're murdering babies" argument even though I realize that that's essentially the anti-abortion argument in a blunt manner. EDIT: To be fair I can't find the comment I was thinking of in your posts, so I may have been thinking of someone else. Also, sorry I didn't reply to your other post. One major point was already successfully countered by xxMATEOSxx right above this post, and the other major one is that actually yes, government has a good reason to maintain a solid healthcare system. While I can understand the decision against personal abortion based on that mass of ccells being alive, its another thing to say it's wrong based on what it will be eventually. Something that will have consciousness someday doesn't qualify by those standards until that happens. It is loosely similar to arresting someone for a crime they may commit someday. (That may border logical fallacy for some but I'll let it stand for the heck of it.) I agree that your analogy may not be the best, but I can't think of a better one and I see what you're trying to say and I think it's a good argument. | 2012-11-10 06:25:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| @Patronus21: I wasn't raised to hate. In fact, I was raised to not hate. I just hear many things about Pelosi being hateful. The reason why I brought up Pelosi is because the Republicans aren't the only party to have people who hate others based on their opinions. I threw in an example from the Democrats. Every group has people who hate those who are different to them. Another interesting abortion-related topic is on the "unwanted pregnancies" thing. I should take a look at that subject somewhere else and post a link. | 2012-11-10 06:29:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| @Patronus21: I wasn't raised to hate. In fact, I was raised to not hate. I just hear many things about Pelosi being hateful. The reason why I brought up Pelosi is because the Republicans aren't the only party to have people who hate others based on their opinions. I threw in an example from the Democrats. Every group has people who hate those who are different to them. Ah ok. Well yes there are those types of people in every group and they have a high tendency to be wrong because of that hate. Sorry I'm used to assuming that's a given. | 2012-11-10 06:34:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| Whether you're for or against abortion, just keep in mind that there's always the often ignored option of lawfully required abortions for all. So whichever side loses in the long run, keep in mind that the side that won was only the second worst option. | 2012-11-10 06:44:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx Posts: 1787 |
| To be honest, there isn't that much you can debate on the topic of abortion. You can talk about all the fringe cases (rape/harm to mother), but otherwise people either believe it's murder or believe that it's just tissue, and there's little people can do to persuade you either way as every argument is simply a rehash of another argument stated 1000 times before. | 2012-11-10 06:52:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| Obama: a balanced approach. Allow me to repeat myself. I take it you don't understand Obama's policies. | 2012-11-10 11:00:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| Thanks everyone for keeping things civil so far. The topic of abortion is an especially touchy one, however, and one that is best left out of this particular political discussion. If you'd like to share your thoughts and feelings with one another on the subject, it would be best to create a private group to do so. Going forward, let's try to keep things more focused on the election and politics as a whole, otherwise this thread will be sleeping with the fishes. | 2012-11-10 16:11:00 Author: Taffey Posts: 3187 |
| It's a lie when people say that all Republicans are forcing their beliefs on others. They aren't trying to punish people for not agreeing with their opinions. That's what forcing your beliefs are. Yes, they really are. They don't agree with something, so they try and outlaw it regardless of what other people think. It's really simple. Let's say a group of dudes thinks eating meat is immoral, because it involves the death of animals. So they vote to outlaw the consumption of meat. They're not punishing you directly, but it affects your freedom. They're forcing their beliefs on you. That's far-right conservatives in a nutshell. And if you disagree with them, they'll label you an anti-american, a muslim, a communist, an atheist, a liberal or whatever term they consider a clever insult that'll turn the public against you. | 2012-11-10 20:33:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| Well. I don't think eating meat is wrong. And I'm a far-right conservative... I won't call you something, except for what you are. You are a SnipySev!!! And Obama IS a Muslim, because he said so... I don't hate him or Muslims either, because hating people is considered murder of the heart according to the Bible. | 2012-11-10 21:42:00 Author: unc92sax  Posts: 928 |
| Yes, they really are. They don't agree with something, so they try and outlaw it regardless of what other people think. It's really simple. Let's say a group of dudes thinks eating meat is immoral, because it involves the death of animals. So they vote to outlaw the consumption of meat. They're not punishing you directly, but it affects your freedom. They're forcing their beliefs on you. That's far-right conservatives in a nutshell. And if you disagree with them, they'll label you an anti-american, a muslim, a communist, an atheist, a liberal or whatever term they consider a clever insult that'll turn the public against you. I guess I am a bit confused... do you have any examples of what has been outlawed "regardless of what others think"? Usually laws take a majority to pass. To be honest, your example of eating meat sounds pretty much like PETA and I never thought them on the far right before. Not that they can outlaw the consumption of meat, but I'm sure they wish they could. lol Just seems a bit out there to me. Also some of what you suggest as far as "weapons of the right" remind me of the tools used by the far left. Calling those that don't agree with them haters, disenfranchising etc. So if you could come up with real examples or some links, it might make your argument a bit more clear. | 2012-11-10 21:55:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Yes, they really are. They don't agree with something, so they try and outlaw it regardless of what other people think. It's really simple. Let's say a group of dudes thinks eating meat is immoral, because it involves the death of animals. So they vote to outlaw the consumption of meat. They're not punishing you directly, but it affects your freedom. They're forcing their beliefs on you. That's far-right conservatives in a nutshell. And if you disagree with them, they'll label you an anti-american, a muslim, a communist, an atheist, a liberal or whatever term they consider a clever insult that'll turn the public against you. I agree with their opinions, but that's not to avoid insults. You keep insulting the Republican Party. A lot of people would disagree with your lies about the Republicans, and I am appalled at your use of stereotypes. @jwwPhotos: The PETA as a whole wouldn't ban meat consumption. There's a part of PETA that is radical. They would ban eating meat or owning animals. They are also extreme left. | 2012-11-10 23:00:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I agree with their opinions, but that's not to avoid insults. You keep insulting the Republican Party. A lot of people would disagree with your lies about the Republicans, and I am appalled at your use of stereotypes. Please calm down.. There is a nicer way of going about it and that wasn't it at all. Maybe you should just go back to reading rather than posting in this thread. I found his statements a bit confusing and already asked for clarification. Don't make matters worse mmm' kay? I was thinking further back than that, where the king would die at the end of his term of if the crops failed. Oh wow.. really? I don't recall that bit of history. For the most part a king dying was the end of his term unless overthrown and killed. Could you show an example please? | 2012-11-10 23:14:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Yes, they really are. They don't agree with something, so they try and outlaw it regardless of what other people think. It's really simple. I'm sorry, the Liberals are no better. Both parties are corrupt and a complete mess anymore. To sit here and say only the Republicans force their beliefs on people is not even remotely accurate. | 2012-11-10 23:20:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| Oh wow.. really? I don't recall that bit of history. Could you show an example please? Sure, there are hundreds of examples cited in The Golden Bough alone. The old Prussian kings would self immolate when they or their country began to shows signs of weakness. This was the case throughout most of northern Europe In the southern provinces of India kings would reign 12 years before being killed by their own people The kings of Calicut would ritually slash their throats at the end of their 12 year reign If the Chitome of the Congo was to die a natural death his successor would kill him, since the kingdom would otherwise die with the king The Ethiopian kings of Meroe would be ordered to die by their priests. This lasted until Ergamenes who was a contemporary of Ptolemy II The Zulu kings were put to death as soon as they showed signs of old age Semitic kings would give up their eldest son in times of national crisis for their people, as would the Phonecians and Carthaginians Every year in Babylon a mock king was crowned and killed 3 days later, which is also true for Cambodia, Siam, Egypt and Bilaspur. Likely reminiscence from the real custom The death and rebirth of a leader or god is apparent in a large number of religions | 2012-11-11 00:03:00 Author: Ayneh Posts: 2454 |
| i dont agrree lol no good mitt romny spagehtti oh god | 2012-11-11 00:07:00 Author: Alec  Posts: 3871 |
| Sure, there are hundreds of examples cited in The Golden Bough alone. The old Prussian kings would self immolate when they or their country began to shows signs of weakness. This was the case throughout most of northern Europe In the southern provinces of India kings would reign 12 years before being killed by their own people The kings of Calicut would ritually slash their throats at the end of their 12 year reign If the Chitome of the Congo was to die a natural death his successor would kill him, since the kingdom would otherwise die with the king The Ethiopian kings of Meroe would be ordered to die by their priests. This lasted until Ergamenes who was a contemporary of Ptolemy II The Zulu kings were put to death as soon as they showed signs of old age Semitic kings would give up their eldest son in times of national crisis for their people, as would the Phonecians and Carthaginians Every year in Babylon a mock king was crowned and killed 3 days later, which is also true for Cambodia, Siam, Egypt and Bilaspur. Likely reminiscence from the real custom The death and rebirth of a leader or god is apparent in a large number of religions Thanks for that! Looks like some cool stuff to do some reading up on! i dont agrree lol no good mitt romny spagehtti oh god Say what? You don't like spaghetti? You ok? lol | 2012-11-11 00:10:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Please calm down.. There is a nicer way of going about it and that wasn't it at all. Maybe you should just go back to reading rather than posting in this thread. I found his statements a bit confusing and already asked for clarification. Don't make matters worse mmm' kay? Thank you. I know it's okay to be a Republican, but there's no need to infringe on others' opinions. When you said that I should go back to reading, I should probably look back at the topics I started in the past and read for fun. | 2012-11-11 00:24:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| Yes, they really are. They don't agree with something, so they try and outlaw it regardless of what other people think. It's really simple. I know other people have already responded to this, but dude what? It's really not that simple. Please don't stereotype all Republicans like that. Or you've just done a poor job of differentiating between normal Republicans and the far-right conservatives. Either way the entire party is not defined by what the more extreme section of their group says. | 2012-11-11 01:17:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| I know other people have already responded to this, but dude what? It's really not that simple. Please don't stereotype all Republicans like that. Or you've just done a poor job of differentiating between normal Republicans and the far-right conservatives. Either way the entire party is not defined by what the more extreme section of their group says. I agree with this, and I believe that SnipySev is overlooking the liberal forms of this. Liberals right now are attempting to force the Catholic church to disobey key tenets of its religion, by providing contraceptives at their hospitals. That's certainly forcing beliefs on another group, and trampling on a constitutional right to practice religion. That's far-right conservatives in a nutshell. And if you disagree with them, they'll label you an anti-american, a muslim, a communist, an atheist, a liberal or whatever term they consider a clever insult that'll turn the public against you. I don't think I've ever heard anyone called these (besides liberal, but is that really derogatory?) merely because they had a different opinion that conservatives. On the other hand, liberals were mighty ready to pull the race card if you didn't vote for Barack. | 2012-11-11 02:01:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| I agree with this, and I believe that SnipySev is overlooking the liberal forms of this. Liberals right now are attempting to force the Catholic church to disobey key tenets of its religion, by providing contraceptives at their hospitals. That's certainly forcing beliefs on another group, and trampling on a constitutional right to practice religion. I agree. The platform and cabinet Obama is from is trying to supress Christianity when they are the dominant religion. It's like passing a law limiting rights to white people in a city that is 90% white. I'm not trying to be racist, but I'm just trying to convince the liberals to not supress Christianity. Also, can you pull up a source to back up evidence? I don't think I've ever heard anyone called these (besides liberal, but is that really derogatory?) merely because they had a different opinion that conservatives. On the other hand, liberals were mighty ready to pull the race card if you didn't vote for Barack. That reminds me. People who supported Obama accused those who don't support him for being racist. Here's some advice: If you do pull a race card like what the liberals did, then you are a racist. A person who doesn't care about race or doesn't look at people differently based on race is not a racist. I can come up with a list of people that count as racists and don't count as racists (there's no specific naming; just categories). | 2012-11-11 02:45:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I know other people have already responded to this, but dude what? It's really not that simple. Please don't stereotype all Republicans like that. Or you've just done a poor job of differentiating between normal Republicans and the far-right conservatives. Either way the entire party is not defined by what the more extreme section of their group says. Perhaps I should clarify, before Apple rages even harder. I am referring to far-right social conservatives. It just so happens that they're also Republican. As I've said before, I don't see any inherent problems with moderates and fiscal conservatives. Edit: By the way, a hospital isn't much of a hospital if it puts religion above medicine. Just saying. | 2012-11-11 03:11:00 Author: SnipySev Posts: 2452 |
| Perhaps I should clarify, before Apple rages even harder. I am referring to far-right social conservatives. It just so happens that they're also Republican. As I've said before, I don't see any inherent problems with moderates and fiscal conservatives. Ah ok. That wasn't clear from that post since you said "all Republicans". Edit: By the way, a hospital isn't much of a hospital if it puts religion above medicine. Just saying. Also an interesting point whether people like it or not. They're providing medical care to a much wider audience than Christians. Freedom of religion covers the practice of one's religion yes, but ends when it affects others who do not share the faith. Laws and practices that discriminate against those with one faith or another is wrong, but discriminating against those without faith or of a faith different from yours is also wrong, and this is a case of that. If a medical professional chooses not to use contraceptives in their personal lives that's fine, but they cannot force that practice on others. | 2012-11-11 03:51:00 Author: Patronus21 Posts: 266 |
| I'm joining this debate. I agree with this, and I believe that SnipySev is overlooking the liberal forms of this. Liberals right now are attempting to force the Catholic church to disobey key tenets of its religion, by providing contraceptives at their hospitals. That's certainly forcing beliefs on another group, and trampling on a constitutional right to practice religion. I think this actually might be necessary. Since abstinence education largely doesn't work, unless we institute some sort of extremely draconian sex laws, then contraceptives are necessary to help prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Henceforth, they should be given out. So, logically, you should give them out. Religiously (I know this is a terrible choice of words but bear with me), you shouldn't, because it goes against your religion. If the issue is medical, then to be honest I think you should shed the tenets for this moment for the greater good. When you're handling really serious issues I really don't think you should let religion influence your judgement (unless it is influencing it in a benevolent way that agrees with general morality). When you're dealing with something like medicine, then the only thing considered should be science. Religion will just cost lives if it stands in the way. Although to be honest, I do think it is unfair to force your beliefs on someone else so I'm a little unsure on this. I agree. The platform and cabinet Obama is from is trying to supress Christianity when they are the dominant religion...I'm not trying to be racist, but I'm just trying to convince the liberals to not supress Christianity. Also, can you pull up a source to back up evidence? If it's for the greater good, then by all means do. | 2012-11-11 03:54:00 Author: Kalawishis Posts: 928 |
| I'm joining this debate. I think this actually might be necessary. Since abstinence education largely doesn't work, unless we institute some sort of extremely draconian sex laws, then contraceptives are necessary to help prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Henceforth, they should be given out. So, logically, you should give them out. Religiously (I know this is a terrible choice of words but bear with me), you shouldn't, because it goes against your religion. If the issue is medical, then to be honest I think you should shed the tenets for this moment for the greater good. When you're handling really serious issues I really don't think you should let religion influence your judgement. When you're dealing with something like medicine, then the only thing considered should be science. Religion will just cost lives if it stands in the way. Although to be honest, I do think it is unfair to force your beliefs on someone else so I'm a little unsure on this. If it's for the greater good, then by all means do. Welcome to the club. I remember when you started that one large thread back in March. Now you are here for a bigger one. As for the religion thing, religion is more important than the government, but nobody let religion dominate the government. | 2012-11-11 03:59:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| Government should not ignore the religious beliefs of the people, but needs to be able to function for the overall good despite what one religioUS group practices. This is why the two must be separated in many ways, because a government cannot help "all" people by remaining chained to one group. Again, just because one religion is the mmajority does not mean their doctrine should be law. So religion is not more powerful than government in that sense. True, people can have a greater hold on their faith than their ties to a nation, but when everyone has a different belies, common element is more important. | 2012-11-11 05:19:00 Author: xxMATEOSxx Posts: 1787 |
| I think this actually might be necessary. Since abstinence education largely doesn't work, unless we institute some sort of extremely draconian sex laws, then contraceptives are necessary to help prevent STD's and unwanted pregnancies. Henceforth, they should be given out. So, logically, you should give them out. Religiously (I know this is a terrible choice of words but bear with me), you shouldn't, because it goes against your religion. If the issue is medical, then to be honest I think you should shed the tenets for this moment for the greater good. When you're handling really serious issues I really don't think you should let religion influence your judgement (unless it is influencing it in a benevolent way that agrees with general morality). When you're dealing with something like medicine, then the only thing considered should be science. Religion will just cost lives if it stands in the way. Although to be honest, I do think it is unfair to force your beliefs on someone else so I'm a little unsure on this. If it's for the greater good, then by all means do. The HHS Mandate forces faith based hospitals to provide procedures and medications (sterilizations, abortion inducing drugs, contraception) that are against their religious tenets, unless that religious institution only serves people of its own faith. Catholicism has never held that they should only care for their own, so they cannot bar non Catholics from the hospital. The only other option is to provide services that they fundamentally disagree with. It's not as though these services and medications can't be gotten elsewhere. Forcing a religious institution to comply with a controversial moral code against their religious tenets (I'm straying dangerously close to the abortion topic again) is interfering with the constitutional right to practice their faith. | 2012-11-11 05:27:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| The HHS Mandate forces faith based hospitals to provide procedures and medications (sterilizations, abortion inducing drugs, contraception) that are against their religious tenets, unless that religious institution only serves people of its own faith. Catholicism has never held that they should only care for their own, so they cannot bar non Catholics from the hospital. The only other option is to provide services that they fundamentally disagree with. It's not as though these services and medications can't be gotten elsewhere. Forcing a religious institution to comply with a controversial moral code against their religious tenets (I'm straying dangerously close to the abortion topic again) is interfering with the constitutional right to practice their faith. You're right. 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion, and passing laws that may interfere with religion would violate the religious beliefs and the 1st Amendment. Even the Bible likes freedom of religion, despite being a Christian exclusive holy book. Just to start a new subject related to this thread, would you like to see my list of what counts as racism? I'm not trying to be racist; I'm trying to prevent it. | 2012-11-11 05:56:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| You're right. 1st Amendment protects freedom of religion, and passing laws that may interfere with religion would violate the religious beliefs and the 1st Amendment. Even the Bible likes freedom of religion, despite being a Christian exclusive holy book. Just to start a new subject related to this thread, would you like to see my list of what counts as racism? I'm not trying to be racist; I'm trying to prevent it. The same book who says god killed non believers? Religion should be kept out of the politics. Like the founding fathers of america did with the constitution. | 2012-11-11 09:58:00 Author: PPp_Killer Posts: 449 |
| Perhaps I should clarify, before Apple rages even harder. It's like you're trying to start a flame war or something. | 2012-11-11 11:16:00 Author: bigMoose_ Posts: 183 |
| The same book who says god killed non believers? Religion should be kept out of the politics. Like the founding fathers of america did with the constitution. I don't care what you believe or don't believe religiously, but protecting freedom of religion is an integral part of government, and dismissing this issue is not a proper response. | 2012-11-11 15:44:00 Author: ChrisF2112 Posts: 265 |
| The same book who says god killed non believers? Religion should be kept out of the politics. Like the founding fathers of america did with the constitution. God did not tell the followers to kill the non-believers. You're thinking of the Dark Ages, where religion dominates science. You see, the sixth commandment says "thou shall not kill". Killing people who don't believe in Christianity would violate this rule from the Ten Commandments. | 2012-11-11 16:34:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| God did not tell the followers to kill the non-believers. You're thinking of the Dark Ages, where religion dominates science. You see, the sixth commandment says "thou shall not kill". Killing people who don't believe in Christianity would violate this rule from the Ten Commandments. Wow... way off topic again... Can we please get back to politics or I fear the mods will come a calling to shut this down. I really don't want that. If you want to discuss something with others that is off topic, create a group, start a new thread or use PM's. Thank 'ya kindly. | 2012-11-11 16:57:00 Author: jwwphotos Posts: 11383 |
| Just to start a new subject related to this thread, would you like to see my list of what counts as racism?No. | 2012-11-11 17:39:00 Author: Taffey Posts: 3187 |
| Wow... way off topic again... Can we please get back to politics or I fear the mods will come a calling to shut this down. I really don't want that. If you want to discuss something with others that is off topic, create a group, start a new thread or use PM's. Thank 'ya kindly. VERY good advice. We would prefer to not have to lock threads. Please stay on topic or we may have to consider taking actions that allow those who wish to debate in a civil manner, on topic, to do so. | 2012-11-11 17:40:00 Author: Lady_Luck__777  Posts: 3458 |
| God did not tell the followers to kill the non-believers. You're thinking of the Dark Ages, where religion dominates science. You see, the sixth commandment says "thou shall not kill". Killing people who don't believe in Christianity would violate this rule from the Ten Commandments. But the very 1st commandment says "Thou shalt have no other gods before me." That shows no religious freedom in any right and the bible also says it's punishable by death. The commandments are directly made by yahweh so there's no jumping around it. Also it does say to kill non-believers and to burn down their villages too, but there's no need to argue about what's plainly written in the bible (yahweh's words) as nothing will come from it. I don't care what you believe or don't believe religiously, but protecting freedom of religion is an integral part of government, and dismissing this issue is not a proper response. A tolerance to others beliefs should be strived for, as the original constitution intended. The government should not have any influence over religion and it's also important in the same respect that religion should not have any influence over government. If one religion started influencing the government and started playing apart of it's law making then it violates the constitution itself and the right of it's citizens to have their own religious beliefs not interfered with. In some sense this HAS occurred, the "In God We Trust" motto could be classed as a violation, as it excludes people who don't believe in a god and believer of many gods. | 2012-11-11 18:06:00 Author: PPp_Killer Posts: 449 |
| No. Ok, I won't on this thread, but when blogs return, I'll post there. @PPp_Killer: I know that just because one's a Christian doesn't mean he or she is good. However, it doesn't mean they're all bad either. Also, should we return to politics rather than religion? The mods would lock if we continue to stay off topic, and creating another thread like this after locking is forbidden. | 2012-11-11 18:33:00 Author: Apple2012 Posts: 1408 |
| I think we're done here. | 2012-11-11 18:54:00 Author: Taffey Posts: 3187 |
LBPCentral Archive Statistics
Posts: 1077139
Threads: 69970
Members: 9661
Archive-Date: 2019-01-19
Datenschutz
Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.