The Official 2012 Presidential Election Obama v. Romney Thread

[CBWx2]

I suppose it depends on what your definition of freedom is. During the late 1800's when there was virtually no regulations on business, or anything for that matter, and nothing in place to protect workers or consumers from corporate greed and exploitation, I'd venture to guess that the common folk didn't feel too free. That's probably why they rioted and formed unions and forced the federal government into actively creating all of these regulations and safeguards that Libertarians want to do away with in the first place.

Or the moved to a place where they could be free, a place funny enough called America!

You should do some research about America in the late-1800's. Particularly, how immigrants were were chief among those who rioted due to poor work conditions and the fact that they were largely denied higher paying, skilled jobs due to discriminatory hiring practices.

I tend to vote for candidates that aren't plutocrats, which immediately disqualifies about 99.9% of the Republican Party.

And seeing as most Democrat National politicians are lawyers and/or independently wealthy, this jives how?

Simply being rich does not make one a plutocrat.

So what you are saying is that Wealthy Republicans are driven by their own self interest and greed, but wealthy Democrats are some kind of benevolent force for good?

I wouldn't go that far with it, but to some degree, yes. Democrats typically don't champion policies that favor the wealthy. If they did, more wealthy people would be Democrats.

[CBWx2]

You are free to go build your own little super-regulated utopia . You can even build walls around yourself , like you socialists are so fond of doing , to keep me from partaking in all your "wonderful" social engineering .

All I ask is that you kindly leave me the hell out of it.

Hey, you don't have to wait for a wall to be built. Why not just pack up and move to that Libertarian paradise known as Somalia. You can be as free as your little heart desires there.

[spartan]

I suppose it depends on what your definition of freedom is. During the late 1800's when there was virtually no regulations on business, or anything for that matter, and nothing in place to protect workers or consumers from corporate greed and exploitation, I'd venture to guess that the common folk didn't feel too free. That's probably why they rioted and formed unions and forced the federal government into actively creating all of these regulations and safeguards that Libertarians want to do away with in the first place.

Or the moved to a place where they could be free, a place funny enough called America!

You should do some research about America in the late-1800's. Particularly, how immigrants were were chief among those who rioted due to poor work conditions and the fact that they were largely denied higher paying, skilled jobs due to discriminatory hiring practices.

I tend to vote for candidates that aren't plutocrats, which immediately disqualifies about 99.9% of the Republican Party.

And seeing as most Democrat National politicians are lawyers and/or independently wealthy, this jives how?

Simply being rich does not make one a plutocrat.

So what you are saying is that Wealthy Republicans are driven by their own self interest and greed, but wealthy Democrats are some kind of benevolent force for good?

I wouldn't go that far with it, but to some degree, yes. Democrats typically don't champion policies that favor the wealthy. If they did, more wealthy people would be Democrats.

Or I could do some research how thousands of Americans moved out west because they felt they could build better life. Or how millions of people moved from Europe to have a better life?

Here is where we differ. You think that Govt is the answer, but, if you actually know your history you will know that it was Govt that defended and propagated the systematic abuse back in those days. It was people standing up for their rights that forced Govt to change their stance and policies.

Now, this might shock you a bit, but I think Unions have their purpose, because that is what we are really referencing. In fact I like, and would be a huge fan of Unions if they did union type things. But they don't. They abuse their position and focus more on politics than they do about the general welfare of their members. Referring back to a previous comment, I am a lot less of a "right winger" extremist than you tend to think. I just think that when we think as things as a collective we run into problems, when we think of things as a bunch of individuals banding together for a common purpose we get things done.

[dbucfan]

You are free to go build your own little super-regulated utopia . You can even build walls around yourself , like you socialists are so fond of doing , to keep me from partaking in all your "wonderful" social engineering .

All I ask is that you kindly leave me the hell out of it.

The Utopia - Greece? Spain? France? 

[CBWx2]

I suppose it depends on what your definition of freedom is. During the late 1800's when there was virtually no regulations on business, or anything for that matter, and nothing in place to protect workers or consumers from corporate greed and exploitation, I'd venture to guess that the common folk didn't feel too free. That's probably why they rioted and formed unions and forced the federal government into actively creating all of these regulations and safeguards that Libertarians want to do away with in the first place.

Or the moved to a place where they could be free, a place funny enough called America!

You should do some research about America in the late-1800's. Particularly, how immigrants were were chief among those who rioted due to poor work conditions and the fact that they were largely denied higher paying, skilled jobs due to discriminatory hiring practices.

I tend to vote for candidates that aren't plutocrats, which immediately disqualifies about 99.9% of the Republican Party.

And seeing as most Democrat National politicians are lawyers and/or independently wealthy, this jives how?

Simply being rich does not make one a plutocrat.

So what you are saying is that Wealthy Republicans are driven by their own self interest and greed, but wealthy Democrats are some kind of benevolent force for good?

I wouldn't go that far with it, but to some degree, yes. Democrats typically don't champion policies that favor the wealthy. If they did, more wealthy people would be Democrats.

Or I could do some research how thousands of Americans moved out west because they felt they could build better life. Or how millions of people moved from Europe to have a better life?

I suspect you have a rather romanticized view of why people migrated west. The number one reason wasn't to be liberated. To put it simply, the east had become quite crowded. There was less and less space to farm, and less and less opportunity for work as the labor market had become saturated due to overpopulation. People moved west to have more room to operate and less competition.

Now many people did migrate to the US to seek more economic opportunities and freedom from oppression, but just because the US was better than other countries doesn't mean it was a perfect utopia. Many European immigrants left persecution in their countries of origin only to see a different kind of persecution once they arrived here.

Here is where we differ. You think that Govt is the answer, but, if you actually know your history you will know that it was Govt that defended and propagated the systematic abuse back in those days. It was people standing up for their rights that forced Govt to change their stance and policies.

I do know my history, and it was the lack of government intervention that was what the people were standing up for. I'll cede to you your narrative that government was the problem, and not unimpeded capitalism. I happen to agree that government was the problem, mainly because it allowed unimpeded capitalism. But that still doesn't change the fact that in both your narrative and mine, government ultimately was the solution.

Now, this might shock you a bit, but I think Unions have their purpose, because that is what we are really referencing. In fact I like, and would be a huge fan of Unions if they did union type things. But they don't. They abuse their position and focus more on politics than they do about the general welfare of their members.

You might also be shocked to know that on this, we kinda, sorta agree.

Referring back to a previous comment, I am a lot less of a "right winger" extremist than you tend to think. I just think that when we think as things as a collective we run into problems, when we think of things as a bunch of individuals banding together for a common purpose we get things done.

That is a collective.

[Dolorous Jason]

Hey, you don't have to wait for a wall to be built. Why not just pack up and move to that Libertarian paradise known as Somalia. You can be as free as your little heart desires there.

Anarchy and thug rule by warlords is not Libertarian. Not even close.

For someone who loves to parse as much as you do , you are quick to paint with a ridiculously broad brush when it suits you.


Go build that wall , leftie . You know you want to. Problem is you want it to lock the rest of us in .

[Morgan]

Odd, you'd think he would be against Obama just because of the Health Care Reform Act.

Starbucks CEO will support Obama for another term

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who waged a high-profile campaign last year against partisan gridlock in Washington, said Thursday he will once again vote for President Obama.

Schultz said in an interview with CNBC that Obama has shown "significant leadership" and the "kind of stewardship of the economy in the country and in world affairs" that deserves a second term.

[spartan]

Here is where we differ. You think that Govt is the answer, but, if you actually know your history you will know that it was Govt that defended and propagated the systematic abuse back in those days. It was people standing up for their rights that forced Govt to change their stance and policies.

I do know my history, and it was the lack of government intervention that was what the people were standing up for. I'll cede to you your narrative that government was the problem, and not unimpeded capitalism. I happen to agree that government was the problem, mainly because it allowed unimpeded capitalism. But that still doesn't change the fact that in both your narrative and mine, government ultimately was the solution.

Now, this might shock you a bit, but I think Unions have their purpose, because that is what we are really referencing. In fact I like, and would be a huge fan of Unions if they did union type things. But they don't. They abuse their position and focus more on politics than they do about the general welfare of their members.

You might also be shocked to know that on this, we kinda, sorta agree.

Referring back to a previous comment, I am a lot less of a "right winger" extremist than you tend to think. I just think that when we think as things as a collective we run into problems, when we think of things as a bunch of individuals banding together for a common purpose we get things done.

That is a collective.

This is where our mindset is different. History will show, and you believe that Government acted, passed laws etc and the people were saved from a life of misery. A tad facetious but you get my drift. Yet, it was that same Govt that passed employment, voting and other civil laws that precluded the dissatisfaction in the first place. it wasn't until the general populace voiced their dissatisfaction, stood up for their liberty and essentially changed the Govt that those regulations that you speak of were implemented. The problems back then are exactly the same problems we are facing right now, and that is crony capitalism. Back then it was a few rich businesmen, today it is a few large corporations and labor unions.

You think of a collective as a group, I think of them as a bunch of citizens, each with individual rights. Protect the rights of the individual and they in turn will look after the group. If you look after the pennies the pounds will look after themselves. Much like the virtue of selfishness I guess. What is the difference at the end of the day I hear you ask? My thought process is based on liberty and protects the weakest among us, yours inevitably purges the weak for the greater good of the group because they don't fit in.

[Morgan]

7.9%**


















------------
last job report before the election

[Biggs3535]

Trust me, I am not at all confused as to what a Libertarian is. I suspect I know more about Libertarianism than a good number of self-proclaimed Libertarians do.

Libertarians want to eliminate the Fed, because they are smarter than most of the world's economists and know what's best. Libertarians want to eliminate Social Security and entitlements, because they are smarter than the vast majority of Americans that favor them and know what's best. Libertarians want to eliminate all regulations on pretty much everything, from food and medications to the environment, to health care and more because they know what's best for us because they are smarter than us.

Do Democrat/Socialists/Progressives/Liberals have their political views because they "know best" too, or is that something that is just characterized by Libertarians?

Your hypocrisy knows absolutely no bounds.

[Bayfisher]

Biden is quite convincing.

[Durango 95]

For a guy that claims to see beyond the duopoly you sure post a lot of pedestrian-level nickel and dime political stuff.

As far as I can tell all of it w/ a one sided slant.

Hmmmm.

You talk the talk but don't seem to walk the walk.

That seems to be a trend on this board many proclaiming to be above it all but none fully internalizing it.

Still clinging to the meme and afraid to fully release.

[Bayfisher]

It was a joke, guy.  Not sure what to tell you if you can't laugh at that..  It's not like he told a guy in a wheelchair to stand up and walk up here or anything. 

And if I was going to be critical I would have posted this one.
And he revealed that at the ceremony for the return of Tyrone's body, the Vice President approached his family and asked, 'Did your son always have balls the size of cue balls?'

Mr Woods added that the President seemed cold and distant at the time, saying: 'Shaking hands with him, quite frankly, was like shaking hands with a dead fish.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223554/Did-son-balls-size-cue-balls-Bidens-bizarre-question-father-Navy-SEAL-died-Benghazi-attack.html

[wreck ship]

7.9%**

















------------
last job report before the election

Another great stat for Obama

[Morgan]

Reid pulls a Mitch McConnell.......

---------------------------------------------------
Reid says he can't work with Romney


Five days before the election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ruled out trying to work with Mitt Romney should he win next week.

"Mitt Romney's fantasy that Senate Democrats will work with him to pass his 'severely conservative' agenda is laughable," Mr. Reid said in a statement on Friday, trying to puncture Mr. Romney's closing election argument that he'll be able to deliver on the bipartisanship President Obama promised in 2008 but has struggled to live up to.

Mr. Reid, a Nevada Democrat and a Mormon, like Mr. Romney, has become the Republican presidential nominee's chief critic this campaign, at one point accusing him of failing to pay taxes — a charge that Mr. Romney has refuted.

With Democrats appearing poised to keep control of the Senate, a President Romney would have to be prepared to work with Mr. Reid, who would set the upper chamber's schedule and determine what bills make it to the floor.

Mr. Reid flatly ruled out following Mr. Romney's agenda, saying he and his colleagues have already voted down many of those proposals, including House Republicans' budget, written by Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan.

Read more: Reid says he can't work with Romney - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/nov/2/reid-says-he-cant-work-romney/#ixzz2B6ZvdLli
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter