The Political Discussion Thread

[The Flyattractor]

Yeah. Its always the craps when Truth and Democracy go together.

[SoulReaver]

'more money, more ease, more security, more living fatly at the expense of the industrious.'

like those overbloated billion-heirs living on the backs of their workers?

[DigiFluid]

Looks like Florida's finally done; went Obama. Final count -- 332 Obama, Romney 206.

In other news, Hank the Cat is currently in 3rd place in the Virginia Senate race

[Goose]

krzQu.jpg

I think they misspelt "polls" in the top right.

[The Flyattractor]

Of course thats how it went. People aint gonna vote against Santa Clause....well certain kinds of people.

Spoiler:

and those people are Lazy Uneducated and Greedy

[Seastallion]

Looks like Florida's finally done; went Obama. Final count -- 332 Obama, Romney 206.

In other news, Hank the Cat is currently in 3rd place in the Virginia Senate race

Actually, Florida hasn't resolved its vote status yet. It doesn't matter though, because it wouldn't change anything.

[mad_gater]

The Bloomin' Idiot Strikes Again

[SoulReaver]

Looks like Florida's finally done; went Obama. Final count -- 332 Obama, Romney 206.

Mrs Romney must be relieved

Spoiler:

she won't have to move into a smaller house

[Rudy Pena]

The issue of Benghazi goes towards Obama's competence in general, or lack thereof. It isn't JUST a 'military' issue. The Benghazi issue was a bungled management every step of the way. Before, during, and after, all in a major way. There was a cornucopia of warning to increase security there, and they refused to do so. There was sufficient time to get forces in theater in time to at least save some of the lives, but they refused to do so. Afterwards, they should've just told the truth (or at least that they "didn't know"), but instead they promoted a lie, telling people it was the result of a protest due to a film.

With all due respect, you ARE correct that there IS no comparison, but for a different reason than you suggest. Romney was right about the Auto Industry. Obama DID take them through a Bankruptcy (as Romney suggested all along), but then interfered further and overstepped the bounds of government by spending Billions of taxpayer dollars to do so. Note, that only the union members benefited. The Non-Union members lost their pensions anyway. In addition, it wasn't fair to those auto industries which DID play by the rules, and DID go through a bankruptcy, but then came out stronger on the other end. They didn't die, they just had to tighten their belts, but came back as a success on their own.

In contrast, with Benghazi, you're left with 4 dead people, including an American Ambassador which is a MAJOR international embarrassment.



She DIDN'T get fed any information. Also she WASN'T acting as a media commentator, she was supposed to be acting as a Moderator. She had a free reign, and only used a teleprompter at the beginning and end of the debate. That is usually how it works. The job of the moderator is to ask the questions, and then get out of the way. She had NO business interjecting herself into the debate like that, especially when she was WRONG with her so-called 'fact check', and she later back-pedaled from what she had said. By then it was too late, since very few people saw that.



He might have been advised to, but in the end HE made the decision.



You say that, but had 9-11 NOT happened, he probably would've had a very different legacy. Did you know that under Bush, the U.S. government was taking in more revenue than at any other time in history? I absolutely agree that borrowing from China to pay the war bills was wrong, and certainly contributed to the hole we're in now. However, Obama has spent as much as Bush did with 2 wars and 2 terms, in only ONE term. I very much fear the economic damage coming our way as a result.



Your right in general here, but wrong about healthcare. They DO see their healthcare choices as personal, and don't want some group of bureaucrats locked up in some room deciding what care they can have or not have. Who would?



There are many Republicans who would rather that we all just mind our own business and stop giving billions of dollars in 'foreign aid', having our military spread out all over the world unnecessarily, and certainly no more nation building. More than just Libertarians feel that way, although they take it a little further sometimes. Republicans generally believe in Peace through Strength, and 'Speak softly, but carry a Big Stick'. Our Founders warned us about foreign entanglements, and we should've listened more closely.



There may be a handful of people with Libertarian leanings in the Democratic party, but in general, they don't tend to lean in that direction. Libertarians are generally very fiscally conservative.



Limited Government means SMALLER government, and NON-Intrusive government.

The SOCIAL issues of some of the Republicans might be, but NOT the MAJOR issues of the Rep. Party. However, the majority of Americans ARE pro-life in general. This has been proven in extensive polling over several years. The problem is when you get morons like Akin and Mourdock making idiotic statements, that are offensive in ways that have NOTHING to do with pro-life issues. Suggesting rape is somehow 'legitimate' in ANY way is completely stupid, and it is little wonder those two lost. Idiots. (On a personal note, I messaged Akin and BEGGED him to drop out of the race. He sent a message back apologizing, but refusing to do so. IDIOT..!)



His '5 Point Plan' was his message. Sure, it could've been more extensively explained (his website did go into a little more detail than his stump speeches), but those were the broad strokes. He didn't change his economic ideas 'all the time'. You might argue the other things, but not really his economic ideas.



Akin was rejected by the GOP the MOMENT he voiced his idiotic statements. They even refused to give him ANY funding, and many members asked him to resign. He stubbornly refused to, although he did apologize, but the damage was already done. The 'finger pointing' didn't JUST begin suddenly.

Akin and Mourdock's views were NOT shared by the majority of the GOP, and they were both soundly rebuffed after they made such fools of them selves. Still, when you have a media that is against you anyway, it becomes VERY hard to distance yourself from such morons. The GOP did, but it wasn't widely reported, and the liberal pundits jumped up and down, pointing their fingers and screaming, "See? See? See? ALL Republicans think rape is OKAY, and they want to FORCE you to carry rape babies..!!! See? See? See?" None of which, is true at all. Morons.



There is NO chance that the Republicans are going to loose anyone over that. Those same people would NEVER go to the Democrats, because they are just as stridently opposed to them. They might not like it, but in the end they would be forced to accept it.



That wasn't the ONLY reason we lost. It was a factor, but definitely NOT the only reason. The Democrats had a better ground game (they always did), a better 'get out the message' machine, and they successfully reached out to the minorities. The Democratic policies aren't somehow inherently more appealing to minorities, it is just that the Republicans have NOT made the effort that the Democrats have. The Democrats ARE the party of segregation, the KKK, and black suppression. They just re-invented themselves to make themselves more appealing. There is NO reason Republicans can't do the same thing, WITHOUT compromising their primary principles. Republicans WERE the party that promoted civil rights. How history has been forgotten. The principles of fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets have NEVER changed in all that.

Fun facts... Al Gore's father was a MAJOR supporter of segregation and voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act. Even further, he attempted to remove the teeth from the Act by attempting to get rid of any penalty's for schools that did NOT comply to desegregation.

In contrast... Mitt Romney's father was a champion of the Civil Rights movement, and forged bonds with Martin L. King Jr. He was aggressive in his support of Civil Rights, and well known for it.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]35939[/ATTACH]



We don't need to. That is PRECISELY what the U.S. Constitution does, so long as it isn't ignored, as Obama has been doing repeatedly... (He hasn't been the only one, not by a long shot...)

I REALLY like Judge Napolitano... He is totally awesome. He calls out EVERYONE that goes against the Constitution, even some of the Founders themselves. If you really want the scoop of what is wrong in this country, HE is the man to talk to.

For all your talk about how good the Republicans are and how they are pro military. You fail to talk about how they are against veterans. All but five Senate Republicans voted to kill a bill that will help veterans get a job and stuff, 48 days before a national election.

Senator John Boozman, Senator Mike Johanns, Senator Richard Burr, Senator Pat Toomey(all republicans). They all co-wrote the Veterans job bill and then votes against it.

And why did they vote against it? Why did the co-write it, if they were going to vote against it.

Please try to explain what happened? No Bull**** answer.

[Goose]

Small government! Government off our backs! No to communism!

[Rudy Pena]

http://uaw.org/articles/unions-good-...sclose-big-aut

[Col.Foley]

For all your talk about how good the Republicans are and how they are pro military. You fail to talk about how they are against veterans. All but five Senate Republicans voted to kill a bill that will help veterans get a job and stuff, 48 days before a national election.

Senator John Boozman, Senator Mike Johanns, Senator Richard Burr, Senator Pat Toomey(all republicans). They all co-wrote the Veterans job bill and then votes against it.

And why did they vote against it? Why did the co-write it, if they were going to vote against it.

Please try to explain what happened? No Bull**** answer.

Easy. because someone else added an ammendment to the bill after the fact...after they wrote it. Or that someone else added something to the bill they do not like...hence the 'co writing' bit. This happens in politics all the time that people addd stupid stuff to other bills. The current NDAA is a perfect example of that. Or better yet. Obama care.

[Seastallion]

Easy. because someone else added an ammendment to the bill after the fact...after they wrote it. Or that someone else added something to the bill they do not like...hence the 'co writing' bit. This happens in politics all the time that people addd stupid stuff to other bills. The current NDAA is a perfect example of that. Or better yet. Obama care.

This is quite true. I personally find the practice of adding unrelated resolutions to bills, to be abhorrent. It ought to be illegal, because more fraud and waste happens by that means than pretty much any other in congress. The practice is dangerous to the well being of the nation, and allows politicians to hide their own underhanded schemes.

@ Rudy Pena... I wouldn't give much weight to the Union article you shared the link too. Talk about conflict of interests on a topic. Delphi certainly didn't benefit from the auto bailout, because they weren't Union...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/07/...workers-maybe/

[Gatefan1976]

This is quite true. I personally find the practice of adding unrelated resolutions to bills, to be abhorrent. It ought to be illegal, because more fraud and waste happens by that means than pretty much any other in congress. The practice is dangerous to the well being of the nation, and allows politicians to hide their own underhanded schemes.

Let me quote someone here

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights or conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.

Not enough?
Lets look a bit closer at the Treaty of Tripoli, shall we?

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Sound familiar at all?

The short version, how much fraud and waste has occoured due to Churches (ALL, not just "greater Christianity" ones) breaking these constitutianal tenants and most importantly, WHY should anyone in politics listen to them when it is expressly dis-allowed by the constitution of the US?

@ Rudy Pena... I wouldn't give much weight to the Union article you shared the link too. Talk about conflict of interests on a topic. Delphi certainly didn't benefit from the auto bailout, because they weren't Union...

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/09/07/...workers-maybe/

It's got STUFF ALL to do with the workers, its got to do with the corp. Delphi workers may have suffered, lost jobs, homes, families and so on, the question (in this instance) pertains to the *corperation*, and it profited, therefore it's OWNERS profited.
Should Obama have done more?
In theory, of course.
COULD he have done more?
I just don't know.

[Naonak]

Not so long ago, it was Democrats that were the ones imposing segregation, NOT the Republicans. It was Republicans that fought for equal rights for all races, NOT the Democrats. Did you even know that? I wonder...

It doesn't really matter what the parties were, only what they are now.