2012 Election Thread

Christ reading yahoo comments can make someones brain melt.
Apparently Sansata is laying off all those workers and moving to China because Illinois' taxes are too high.
Problem: Taxes too high. Solution : No taxes at all.

Then you've got those commie protesters all wanting to keep their 17 dollar and hour jobs... So UnAmerican of them.....
People exercise some patriotism and move to China already!:roll:
 
[quote name='Richard Kain']You have no farther to look than the current Presidential campaign for confirmation. Neither candidate is a protestant. In past decades this would be unheard-of.[/QUOTE]

Except that Obama is a Protestant and there is no viably evidence to the contrary.

[quote name='4thHorseman']Jesus, I'm reading through the Yahoo Comments from the Trump article. Who do people think Obama is, a Scooby Doo villain? He's the "most mysterious president ever" and whatnot because he won't release his college transcripts.

It's funny at first, and then just gets more and more depressing...[/QUOTE]

I have a feeling even if Obama was fully willing to release all of this stuff, it really wouldn't make a difference. Certain people are so convinced that he wasn't born in this country, that they will be completely unwilling to accept any evidence to the contrary. You only have to look at what happened when he released his long-form birth certificate. It didn't take long before people started claiming it was doctored or a fake. The same thing would happen with his transcripts. "Oh, Harvard is a liberal elite university. Of course they were willing to fake his transcripts!"
 
[quote name='dohdough']And I was referring to it as being anything but simple.[/QUOTE]
A 15 year old girl gets shot in the head by the Taliban, she's a hero and they're the monsters. Simple.

The US launches a drone strike on a group of boys accused of no crime, including a 16 year old American citizen, in a country where we are not at war, and we're the heroes? I don't think so. This is wrong. For all the talk of friction between Obama and Israel, he has adopted Israel's approach towards war. They're not human beings anymore and anyone with even a tangential association to terrorism is the enemy, those around them are guilty by association.

At the very least we're at the point of diminishing returns with assassination by drone strike, on those who are not actively engaged in hostilities well outside of any battlefield. Once we've worked through lists of high value targets, leaders, is there any value in killing a low level player that exceeds the collateral damage? Does each attack not create more potential terrorists than it kills?

There needs to be a thorough re-examination of the role of drone strikes outside of the battlefield, the kill list, who gets to decide the names on it and why, what legal justification we have, and where we draw the line as far as the importance of the target. No one in Congress has the courage to do it.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']A 15 year old girl gets shot in the head by the Taliban, she's a hero and they're the monsters. Simple.

The US launches a drone strike on a group of boys accused of no crime, including a 16 year old American citizen, in a country where we are not at war, and we're the heroes? I don't think so. This is wrong. For all the talk of friction between Obama and Israel, he has adopted Israel's approach towards war. They're not human beings anymore and anyone with even a tangential association to terrorism is the enemy, those around them are guilty by association.

At the very least we're at the point of diminishing returns with assassination by drone strike, on those who are not actively engaged in hostilities well outside of any battlefield. Once we've worked through lists of high value targets, leaders, is there any value in killing a low level player that exceeds the collateral damage? Does each attack not create more potential terrorists than it kills?

There needs to be a thorough re-examination of the role of drone strikes outside of the battlefield, the kill list, who gets to decide the names on it and why, what legal justification we have, and where we draw the line as far as the importance of the target. No one in Congress has the courage to do it.[/QUOTE]

There are a few in Congress, but they're marginalized by their party leadership, and Kucinich was redistricted out of Congress.

Can't take much of an issue with the rest of what you said. I'd say it more radically, but I'm a nutball.
 
Even if they did, I doubt many would hear about it. It'd get flushed away, like so many other things due to how the 24-hour media cycle works now.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']A 15 year old girl gets shot in the head by the Taliban, she's a hero and they're the monsters. Simple.[/QUOTE]
It's only simple because you absolutely refuse to think more critically about it. Things like narrative, implications, effects, causes, and repercussions. All you're doing is looking at it as if it occurs in a vacuum.

The US launches a drone strike on a group of boys accused of no crime, including a 16 year old American citizen, in a country where we are not at war, and we're the heroes? I don't think so. This is wrong. For all the talk of friction between Obama and Israel, he has adopted Israel's approach towards war. They're not human beings anymore and anyone with even a tangential association to terrorism is the enemy, those around them are guilty by association.

At the very least we're at the point of diminishing returns with assassination by drone strike, on those who are not actively engaged in hostilities well outside of any battlefield. Once we've worked through lists of high value targets, leaders, is there any value in killing a low level player that exceeds the collateral damage? Does each attack not create more potential terrorists than it kills?

There needs to be a thorough re-examination of the role of drone strikes outside of the battlefield, the kill list, who gets to decide the names on it and why, what legal justification we have, and where we draw the line as far as the importance of the target. No one in Congress has the courage to do it.
Click to expand...
The US government has been at this type of game for a long time going as far back as the founding of the country. Today, it's terrorists and 30+ years ago, it was the commies in Central and South America. The places and names change, but the reasons don't. You're naive if you think that kill lists like these are anything new. Do you think the FBI and CIA were just sitting around with their thumbs up their asses in the 50's and 60's?

Here's a huge hint: this has absolutely nothing to do with "terrorism" as you know it.

Believe me, I wish it was that simple because it'd be easier to name and fix.
 
It's amazing how they use such sensitive near field mics for broadcasts live broadcasts in a room like that. That there's barely any bleed or crossover is just shocking.
 
[quote name='Clak']http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-policy-center-spotlight-romney-173604062.html

Lots of things in that article, but what I liked most was the idea that since Romney has been so vague on his tax reform proposal, you can't analyze it. Gee, ya think that was the idea all along? Can't be attacked on something you haven't yet figured out, and the attacks about his vagueness don't seem to have much effect.[/QUOTE]

I love how yahoo comments span the entire field of (D) and (R) as well as ridiculously stupid and somewhat errudite.
 
I'm sure some of you have seen this already, but playwright Doug Wright wrote a little blurb on his Facebook that I think should make the rounds:

I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they're voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say," My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood." It's like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You're still complicit. You're still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don't get to walk away clean, because you say you "disagree" with your candidate on these issues.
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='dafoomie']But we're the ones that refuse to think critically about this issue, right.[/QUOTE]
Says the guy that characterizes Obama as a Jacksonian Democrat: someone that simply enjoyed killing people.

FtA gets some credit for talking about imperialism and so does t-scars for posting that blog post, but you don't get shit.
 
Says the guy that characterizes Obama as a Jacksonian Democrat: someone that simply enjoyed killing people.
Click to expand...
We pretty much have drone operators dropping people like they are playing an xbox game, and it is all A OK by both retards running for President.
 
CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...gleNewsEditorsPicks&google_editors_picks=true

Those who denied request for help at consulate 'murderers of my son'
He said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- despite signs early on that militants were behind the attack -- pledged to him at that event that she would pursue the maker of an anti-Islam film that had been linked to other protests.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/
 
[quote name='dohdough']FtA gets some credit for talking about imperialism and so does t-scars for posting that blog post, but you don't get shit.[/QUOTE]
Any other wisdom you'd like to dispense down on us from the mountaintop?
 
Sources also said Tyrone Woods and others, who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate, ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and not go to the consulate to help. Woods went to the consulate, and hours later he was killed back at the annex.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like he got himself killed. His father rather obviously has an agenda.
 
Sounds to me like you have the agenda. Read your quote again and tell me what you did wrong there. Just kidding, I'm not Dohdough. I'll actually tell you where I disagree with you.

Sources also said Tyrone Woods and others, who were at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate, ignored orders by their superiors to stand down and not go to the consulate to help. Woods went to the consulate, and hours later he was killed back at the annex.
Click to expand...

So, they're ordered not to assist a US Ambassador who is under attack when they're in the area and outside help is not coming. This in and of itself is utter lunacy.

They go in, evacuate the survivors to the annex and save their lives. At this point, everyone is alive except for the Ambassador and Sean Smith who was killed in the initial attack. Nobody died during the rescue. All the while they are asking for help, and hours later they come under a mortar attack at the annex where their requests for help are still being denied despite having a laser pointed at the mortar team.

The mortar shell that killed Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods struck 7 hours after the initial attack. This is a level of incompetence not seen since Rumsfeld.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dafoomie']Sounds to me like you have the agenda. Read your quote again and tell me what you did wrong there. Just kidding, I'm not Dohdough. I'll actually tell you where I disagree with you.



So, they're ordered not to assist a US Ambassador who is under attack when they're in the area and outside help is not coming. This in and of itself is utter lunacy.

They go in, evacuate the survivors to the annex and save their lives. At this point, everyone is alive except for the Ambassador and Sean Smith who was killed in the initial attack. Nobody died during the rescue. All the while they are asking for help, and hours later they come under a mortar attack at the annex where their requests for help are still being denied despite having a laser pointed at the mortar team.

The mortar shell that killed Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods struck 7 hours after the initial attack. This is a level of incompetence not seen since Rumsfeld.[/QUOTE]

you know how hard that is to go up there and accept those bodies for the parents and then have whatever president or whoever come up and want to shake your hand.... Im shock noone ever punched them in the face
 
[quote name='slidecage']you know how hard that is to go up there and accept those bodies for the parents and then have whatever president or whoever come up and want to shake your hand.... Im shock noone ever punched them in the face[/QUOTE]
I didn't even get to that part. Hillary looked those parents in the eye at the ceremony and told them, "we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted". The balls of these people!
 
[quote name='dafoomie']I didn't even get to that part. Hillary looked those parents in the eye at the ceremony and told them, "we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted". The balls of these people![/QUOTE]

am not only talking about this am talking about anyone who gets killed anywhere overseas and not just this year ,, any year
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']I'm sure some of you have seen this already, but playwright Doug Wright wrote a little blurb on his Facebook that I think should make the rounds:
I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they're voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say," My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your dignity as a citizen of this country, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood." It's like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You're still complicit. You're still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don't get to walk away clean, because you say you "disagree" with your candidate on these issues.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

And, likewise, voting for Obama is saying that civil rights or free health care mean more than the lives of innocent people who don't matter because they live in foreign countries.

You don't get to walk away clean, because you say you "disagree" with your candidate on these issues.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']CIA operators were denied request for help during Benghazi attack
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...gleNewsEditorsPicks&google_editors_picks=true

Those who denied request for help at consulate 'murderers of my son'
He said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton -- despite signs early on that militants were behind the attack -- pledged to him at that event that she would pursue the maker of an anti-Islam film that had been linked to other protests.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...a-says-clinton-vowed-to-arrest-and-prosecute/[/QUOTE]

Love this quote from that story:
In a separate interview with radio host Lars Larson, Woods said shaking Obama's hand was "like shaking hands with a dead fish."

I have no idea why people put so much stock into a handshake.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']I'm sure some of you have seen this already, but playwright Doug Wright wrote a little blurb on his Facebook that I think should make the rounds:

[/I][/QUOTE]
Who was the Governor of Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal there?
 
[quote name='soulvengeance']Love this quote from that story:
In a separate interview with radio host Lars Larson, Woods said shaking Obama's hand was "like shaking hands with a dead fish."

I have no idea why people put so much stock into a handshake.[/QUOTE]

Power, basically.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Colin Powell just endorsed Obama again. He must be racist!:rofl:[/QUOTE]

Of course he endorsed him. Obama is Bush III.
 
[quote name='dafoomie']Who was the Governor of Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal there?[/QUOTE]

The same governor who overstepped his legislative boundary by signing gay marriage because the Supreme Judicial Court deemed it unconstitutional to not allow them to be married? The same governor who then, not even a year later, flipped his decision and fought against gay marriage much like he did in previous years and currently is? I believe that governor would be Romney.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']And, likewise, voting for Obama is saying that civil rights or free health care mean more than the lives of innocent people who don't matter because they live in foreign countries.

You don't get to walk away clean, because you say you "disagree" with your candidate on these issues.[/QUOTE]

And what issues is this exactly? I dont see him selling killing innocents to the public as a voting tipping point the way Romney is using gay rights.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']The same governor who overstepped his legislative boundary by signing gay marriage because the Supreme Judicial Court deemed it unconstitutional to not allow them to be married? The same governor who then, not even a year later, flipped his decision and fought against gay marriage much like he did in previous years and currently is? I believe that governor would be Romney.[/QUOTE]
And who was the President that defended DOMA for 3 years?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']And who was the President that defended DOMA for 3 years?[/QUOTE]

The executive's charge of defending federal legislation in court is not their implicit and all encompassing endorsement of the legislation. It's much more abnormal and rare for a President to declare their discontinuation of defending a piece of legislation than it is for their administration to defend legislation they disagree with.
 
Mitt's position as Governor was that same sex couples should have domestic partnership rights. What was Obama's position at that time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhaThnPWB0A

"What I believe is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But what I also believe is that we have an obligation to make sure that gays and lesbians have the rights of citizenship... "
"What I believe in my faith is that a man and a woman when they get married, are performing something before God."
"We have a set of traditions in place that I think need to be preserved, but I think we have to make sure that gays and lesbians have the same set of basic rights"
"I don't think marriage is a civil right."


Lets go ahead to 2008:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. For me as a Christian it's also a sacred union."
"I do believe in civil unions."

Obama didn't embrace gay marriage until May after Biden pretty much shamed him into it by giving it his support.
 
So, Obama's views on gay marriage evolved to be progressive and inclusive? Romney's has regressed into one that seeks to take away civil rights he was seemingly in favor of just a few years ago?

Tell me more about how these are equivalent.
 
The point is that Obama has flip flopped on issues also. I like it when he alluded to Bush as being unpatriotic for running up the debt ceiling, then doing the same thing himself.
 
Again, I don't see evolving views as "flip-flopping." *De*-volving views? Perhaps, but in Romney's case it fits well with the "I will say absolutely *anything* to get elected" aspect of his (void of) character.

If we continue to cast negative aspersions anytime a candidate changes or evolves their position on something, we'll create a culture in which intellectual growth and reacting to a changing world by modifying perspectives is frowned upon. We will elect only ideologically rigid, unchanging demagogues. Like those on the right who look at Britain and Spain, or the US in the 1980's and say "austerity is what we need." That couldn't be further from the truth, and is empirically demonstrably true.

But since we would cast into exile any Republican who doesn't shy from revenue increases like a vampire to garlic, we can't get politicians who react in real time.

Romney is a different character, not because he flip-flops, but because he stands on every side of every issue, with one exception: tax reductions. And on that end, he has offered up nothing in specifics regarding how he will increase revenues to offset the billions lost due to tax cuts. Yet those of you who think the deficit and debt matter think he'll be the more fiscally responsible of the two.

I'm not sure how you can rationalize that in your heads. Help me understand how you think Romney won't blow up the debt *worse* than Obama. Feel free to use mathematics and/or specific policy proposals of Romney's where available.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']And what issues is this exactly? I dont see him selling killing innocents to the public as a voting tipping point the way Romney is using gay rights.[/QUOTE]

See, I don't worry as much about what folks say compared to what they have a history of doing.

A president who starts up two additional wars and uses drone strikes to kill innocents is a warmongering president no matter how much he preaches about peace and love.
 
There's a big difference between views shifting over time, and someone who just panders to whatever audience they're talking to at the time.

That said, I'm not sure I believe that Obama's views on gay marriage changed. I think he was always for it, and just opposed it when running for national office since it was political suicide in the past. So I think he, like all politicians, has done some pandering.

But Romney is far worse with things like talking about how he's all for the middle class and helping the lower classes to one audience, and talking about how 47% are leeches behind close doors or saying he isn't very concerned about the poor in interviews etc.

Plus just all the things he's switched on just since the spring when he had to go far right for the primary and then realized he had to go more moderate to have any chance of winning the general election etc. He's pandered more than any presidential candidate that I can recall since I started following pretty closely during the '96 election.
 
[quote name='eldergamer']It almost seems to boil down to: "Vote for me, I'm not that other guy."[/QUOTE]

Huh? Surely not, they'd never be that simplisticly stupid.... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top