[dolphin13 OT Vice MVP]

ECUgirl

Do you think George Bush cozied up to Hamas??

[p00pymcp00perton]

 

Originally Posted by ECUgirl

**I wonder how many of you would watch "2016: Obama's America" and actually be open to what it says without dismissing it outright?

I've seen it. It's cute. Funny. And really awesomely far fetched. Everything is a conspiracy with modern conservatives:

- poll numbers suck for Romney? it's a conspiracy!
- good economic news good for Obama? it's a conspiracy!
- Sara Palin looks like a complete moron in a TV interview? it's a conspiracy!
- Obama's father has African rather than European roots? it's a conspiracy!

ECU, on the subject of an open mind and watching things you may disagree with - Would you have an open mind if I had you watch Atheist videos that not only claim God doesn't exist, but specifically that people who believe in Jesus Christ are intellectually inferior beings? Just like the movie Obama 2016, the arguments are presented in a coherent fashion and plenty of evidence is presented leading you to the conclusion. Care to sit though a few hours of movies?

[risingsum]

 

Originally Posted by ECUgirl

I mean, imo, Obama is taking us in one direction (socialism and massive increase in gov't intervention in our lives) and Romney would at least keep things closer to the system that's been working for America for quite a long time. I understand if others don't see it that way.

ECUgirl (and anyone else who believes we are on the brink of full blown socialism and "massive" increases in govt intervention into our lives),

I was wondering if you would rank some presidents on how much you believe they increased the size, scope, and cost of the federal government. We can go back to 1980 so we can include "the man" if you want, or even further although that seems unnecessary. So you have Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and Obama. How would you rank them based on increases in the size/scope/cost of government? With #1 being the guy who increased it the most and #5 the least.

To me, #1 and #5 seems pretty obvious but 2-4 is something I need to put more thought into.

Anyway, I would just like to hear where you rank them, as well as anyone else who wants to chime in. I'll probably add my list later once I figure out where I would put 2-4.

[saxman]

Sasha asks her father why he was acting like such a pussy during the debate:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/sas...ike-suc,29795/

[Cooker]

 

Originally Posted by Jaybone2315

I took a quiz online and it said i agreed with GJ 90%. Thats got to be as close as ill ever get without voting for myself lol.

i took that quiz and got a 98% with GJ, da fuck?

[Cooker]

 

Originally Posted by 36crazyfists

Mitt's other policies being unlimited defense spending on unneccesary wars and nation building, commitment to the immoral war on drugs, ridic immigration policy, the NDAA, internet regulation, and the perpetuation of crony capitalism.

 

Originally Posted by Shaaarrrp

Do you honestly believe Romney will reduce the national debt or the power of the federal government? Or do anything to minimize the fact that corporate interests run our country?

I see both candidates going to the same place using different roads.

 

Originally Posted by 36crazyfists

If you were truly a conservative you wouldn't even consider a vote for Romney but by all means keep buying what they're selling!

we're all in the same area. when is blunt time?

[Shaaarrrp]

 

Originally Posted by SCooker

we're all in the same area. when is blunt time?

I've been trying to get 36 to hit me up when he's in the Arlington area (I have hung out with him a number of times but he lives in bumf now)....maybe before/after a Nats playoff game? I should be at most of them and 36 said he'd try to get tix.

You ever go to Charles Town? I'm out there a decent amount Edited By: Shaaarrrp Oct 5th, 2012 at 10:02 PM

[Cooker]

 

Originally Posted by Shaaarrrp

I've been trying to get 36 to hit me up when he's in the Arlington area (I have hung out with him a number of times but he lives in bumf now)....maybe before/after a Nats playoff game? I should be at most of them and 36 said he'd try to get tix.

You ever go to Charles Town? I'm out there a decent amount

all that sounds good. ill pm you my number. i was playing up there pretty much everyday after black friday, got a job for a year, then quit the job 4-5 months ago and been playing about 90% bovada/10% charles town. i wish they had some tournaments that were worth playing. Edited By: Cooker Oct 5th, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Reason: teh grammarz

[ohiogary]

 

Free and Equal Elections Foundation announced today that four candidates have confirmed their participation in the 2012 Presidential Debate at the University Club of Chicago on October 23: Libertarian party candidate Gary Johnson, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode, and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson.

This debate is the only 2012 Presidential Debate featuring four candidates. The top six candidates were invited to participate. Democratic Party candidate and incumbent Barack Obama and Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney are welcome to participate in this historic debate. The moderator will be announced shortly.

“The four candidates participating represent a nice balance of right and left leaning candidates,” stated Christina Tobin, chair of Free and Equal. “This debate will cover the real issues facing our country such as foreign policy, the economy, and civil rights, rather than topics that further divide us.”

http://freeandequal.org/debates/four...dential-debate

[Pghfan987]

 

Originally Posted by Realbigfish4

I'll use Pgh as an example again. He simply doesnt like Obama, and doesnt truly agree with Romney on anything, yet he might vote for him just due to his dislike of Obama. That's retarded.

A few things:

1) I can vote for whatever reason I want. If I hate both candidates, and the only thing I want out of the federal government is to build a bridge to my island home, then it's not irrational to vote for the candidate who supports that cause. It may be selfish, but retarded? Obviously not. I'm well-informed and rational.

2) You misremembered what I said. All I said was that I mostly agree with Mitt Romney's economic views, but I think that the US spends far too much on defense. I said I will likely be grossed out by what Romney says during the FP debate, enough to lose my vote, but I will watch it and keep an open mind. The only issue I said that I disagree with Romney on is defense spending. So while that may be a FP and economic issue, it's still just one fucking issue. There are other things that I disagree with him about, but I don't appreciate you pulling a Romney and lying about my record.

3) I do "like" Obama. Just like I "like" some of the liberals of OT. But I won't vote for him because I appreciate his stances on the crucial issues even less than Romney's.

[36crazyfists]

 

Originally Posted by Shaaarrrp

I've been trying to get 36 to hit me up when he's in the Arlington area (I have hung out with him a number of times but he lives in bumf now)....maybe before/after a Nats playoff game? I should be at most of them and 36 said he'd try to get tix.

You ever go to Charles Town? I'm out there a decent amount

Im hopin to meet up with Jeff in Falls Church tomorrow. If you're around Im down to grab a few beers and/or hit up the volcano....

Cooker, what you doin tomorrow? Shaaarp's always got the fire haha

Is Manasshole more bumfuck than Leesburg? Edited By: 36crazyfists Oct 6th, 2012 at 04:02 AM

[Realbigfish4]

 

Originally Posted by Pghfan987

A few things:

1) I can vote for whatever reason I want. If I hate both candidates, and the only thing I want out of the federal government is to build a bridge to my island home, then it's not irrational to vote for the candidate who supports that cause. It may be selfish, but retarded? Obviously not. I'm well-informed and rational.

2) You misremembered what I said. All I said was that I mostly agree with Mitt Romney's economic views, but I think that the US spends far too much on defense. I said I will likely be grossed out by what Romney says during the FP debate, enough to lose my vote, but I will watch it and keep an open mind. The only issue I said that I disagree with Romney on is defense spending. So while that may be a FP and economic issue, it's still just one fucking issue. There are other things that I disagree with him about, but I don't appreciate you pulling a Romney and lying about my record.

3) I do "like" Obama. Just like I "like" some of the liberals of OT. But I won't vote for him because I appreciate his stances on the crucial issues even less than Romney's.

1) Yes you can, but if that reason is doltish and archaic you should be told so. Your statement shows lost you are in the political realm. "If I hate both candidates", solid job of limiting yourself to the flawed two party system, and two shit bird candidates.

2) Did I pull a Romney? Or did you by forgetting the stance you had just a short while ago?

 

Originally Posted by Pghfan987

I can't remember the exact, quote, but last night Romney said something like "the easiest way to close the deficit is _____". I forget his exact response, but I remember I blurted out "No it's not, the easiest way to close the deficit is to drastically reduce defense spending, you dolt."

 

Originally Posted by Pghfan987

What's so hard to understand the fact that I like one aspect of Romney (his economic views and expertise) that was the center of the debate last night

It's rather evident you dont fully support his economic views, and thats the only area you seem to fancy him.

3) I have never, and will never, ask for you to vote for someone, especially Obama. Im simply pointing out your approach to voting only feeds a lot of whats wrong with the current state of our nation.

[Cooker]

 

Originally Posted by 36crazyfists

Im hopin to meet up with Jeff in Falls Church tomorrow. If you're around Im down to grab a few beers and/or hit up the volcano....

Cooker, what you doin tomorrow? Shaaarp's always got the fire haha

Is Manasshole more bumfuck than Leesburg?

only thing i've got planned for tomorrow is the wvu game and procrastinating from playing sngs on bovada all day. manasshole and leesburg are pretty = bumfuck territory in relation to arlington. leesburg might be a little farther of a drive from there. ill pm you my number. text me when you get going tomorrow.

[FouTight international super spy]

[warden]

 

Originally Posted by time4badbeat

If people continue with the mindset of voting for the lessor of two evils, we will never be able to get a 3rd party candidate in.-

might be true but it has nothing to do with what RBF said

[warden]

 

Originally Posted by Realbigfish4

If they believed Nader was the best fit, then yes, they had flawed logic. The only reason your logic has any merit at all is b/c what our system has become, and only holds merit as long as that system is in place. Which your line of thinking only perpetuates, until you break from the "lesser of two evils" mindset we'll be stuck voting between a turd sandwich and giant douche. I have hope that this nation will break this flawed way of choosing our leaders, and believe that eventually people will vote for the candidate they want to see govern, rather than vote to simply keep the person they like the least out of power. I honestly believe very few Americans who watched that debate thought to themselves, "I really love (insert derp here)." It's a sad day in history when the majority of voters are going to the polls with the mindset that they are simply voting to keep some one out of office, rather than too put some one in it.

seriously, no.

say that you have three choices for president. one is adolph hitler, one is john f. kennedy, and the other is george w. bush.

you really want to vote for JFK, but GWB and hitler are literally TIED. you are the last vote to decide the election. if hitler and GWB tie, hitelr wins. JFK has no chance of winning.

are you saying that it is "flawed logic" to vote for GWB instead of JFK? because if that's "flawed logic," then regular logic seems really stupid.

it's not about a "line of thinking." it's about the way the voting system is set up. if we had something like instant run-off elections, then i agree that it would be flawed to not vote for your favorite candidate first.

but you just come across as stupid and insulting when you claim others have "flawed logic" when they make perfectly legitimate decisions with voting

[Pghfan987]

 

Originally Posted by Realbigfish4

1) Yes you can, but if that reason is doltish and archaic you should be told so. Your statement shows lost you are in the political realm. "If I hate both candidates", solid job of limiting yourself to the flawed two party system, and two shit bird candidates.

2) Did I pull a Romney? Or did you by forgetting the stance you had just a short while ago?

It's rather evident you dont fully support his economic views, and thats the only area you seem to fancy him.

3) I have never, and will never, ask for you to vote for someone, especially Obama. Im simply pointing out your approach to voting only feeds a lot of whats wrong with the current state of our nation.

It's kind of annoying that I have to repeat myself because you suck at reading.

The ONE problem I mentioned with Romney's policy views is that he promotes too much spending for defense. This can be interpreted as both a FP and an economic issue, but it's still just one issue.

[Pghfan987]

 

Originally Posted by Realbigfish4

It's rather evident you dont fully support his economic views, and thats the only area you seem tofancy him.

How many "views" would Romney have on the economy? 10? 100? No, I don't agree with 100% of them, but I agree with the majority of them. And I agree with very few of Obama's views.

So what the fuck is your point?

[SmokeyCasinos]

[krispycream]

RBF is taking his frustration out on the system, on the voters. I dont think the system is going to change based on the voters.. as long as 3rd parties cant get air time, debate time, and are dismissed too easily by MSM, theyre never going to get enough votes nationally to be viable.

A better solution than showing voters thats its dumb to vote for either of these two wall-street clowns, is to change the system itself. Voters sure as hell aren't going to do it by maybe waking up once every 4 years for a couple of months, then going back to sleep for 3 and a half.

Cue Equilibrium... we need to hire Christian Bale.

[killingbird]

So I don't care that much, because let's face it Obama should be able to beat Romney even when Romney is cheating. But it is a little funny that they caught Romney with a cheat sheet.

[SmokeyCasinos]

[TheWacoKidd haters gonna hate]

so was that a hanky or a cheat sheet? last few comments convinced it was a hanky, and that makes sense. he looked real sly about it tho lol

[Nothingmaker]

what's wrong w/ them having notes or a piece of paper to write on to prepare a rebuttal (edit: i think this is std) while the other dude talks? they cover a lot of shit in those debates. Edited By: Nothingmaker Oct 6th, 2012 at 06:23 PM

[TheWacoKidd haters gonna hate]

they aren't allowed to have notes or props braj

EDIT: in the past, the rules haven't been released for 2012 but no reason to think it would be different Edited By: TheWacoKidd Oct 6th, 2012 at 06:27 PM

[Realbigfish4]

 

Originally Posted by warden

seriously, no.

say that you have three choices for president. one is adolph hitler, one is john f. kennedy, and the other is george w. bush.

you really want to vote for JFK, but GWB and hitler are literally TIED. you are the last vote to decide the election. if hitler and GWB tie, hitelr wins. JFK has no chance of winning.

are you saying that it is "flawed logic" to vote for GWB instead of JFK? because if that's "flawed logic," then regular logic seems really stupid.

it's not about a "line of thinking." it's about the way the voting system is set up. if we had something like instant run-off elections, then i agree that it would be flawed to not vote for your favorite candidate first.

but you just come across as stupid and insulting when you claim others have "flawed logic" when they make perfectly legitimate decisions with voting

Yes, b/c the American public has ever, and will ever, be faced with a situation like this... Nothing like grasping at straws to defend stupid logic.

[Realbigfish4]

 

Originally Posted by Pghfan987

It's kind of annoying that I have to repeat myself because you suck at reading.

The ONE problem I mentioned with Romney's policy views is that he promotes too much spending for defense. This can be interpreted as both a FP and an economic issue, but it's still just one issue.

Saying "What's so hard to understand the fact that I like one aspect of Romney that was the center of the debate last night" and " The ONE problem I mentioned with Romney's policy views is that he promotes too much spending for defense." are VERY VERY different things. You do get that right?

[Nothingmaker]

 

Originally Posted by TheWacoKidd

they aren't allowed to have notes or props braj

EDIT: in the past, the rules haven't been released for 2012 but no reason to think it would be different

i guess that makes sense. i mean where would you draw the line.... ross perot would roll out there w/ a poster board.

[Milo]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/05...be-debated-the

[saxman]

 

Originally Posted by Milo

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/05...be-debated-the

meh - the author is Michael Coren.