2012 Presidential Debates

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by Barkingturtle [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Copping out by adopting an unrealistic ethos like libertarianism is just self-perpetuating your disenfranchisement. Yes, the current cycle is dominated by an unprecedented amount of money from corporate and private interests--but it is all we've got. Removing yourself from relevance through libertarianism is self-indulgent, Pyrrhic masturbation--at best.

There isn't always a perfect option. That's kinda life.

“The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy; <--- you are here
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.”

As far as libertarianism being an unrealistic ethos, I think it's just a tad better than totalitarianism don't you? We've seen that 1 play out over and over again, but never a true libertarianesque government that I can think of (I'd argue America has never been a truly free society, because as consequence of freeing the slaves Lincoln started a monolithic federal government with himself as tyrant). The debate 100+ years ago was never left vs. right (which is completely meaningless), it was liberty vs. tyranny.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From the picture posted by dredge, I doubt you will disagree with me that companies like Harvard Uni, M$, and Google have a completely different financial stance than that of B.O.A, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. Bill Gates has said that he should be paying more taxes even after he donated billions of dollars to charities. I am sure we all heard about the big financial scandal that Goldman Sachs did, but what big financial scandal has Harvard U. done? How can you not see the dichotomy between the two sides?

Now correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your argument is that since both parties received the most money from entities with larger disposable income, they are in bed with their campaign backers and answer to them. Now, I am going to ignore the giant leap in conclusive reasoning and instead offer a counter. Could it be that those big corporations backed the parties because they like their fiscal stances? This would then lead to the whole thing just receiving money for doing a good job.

All those same big banks backed Obama in 2008. In fact, Goldman Sachs was his 2nd largest donor. He still owes them all favors. They're just putting their chips on Romney this time, so they have all bases covered no matter the outcome.

Like I said, 2 masks 1 face.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by hatelore [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

truth.

Romney is not what any conservative wanted, but Obama is past the point of just being a failure. What he has done since taking office is nothing short of treason.

Which of the other GOP candidates would you have preferred over Romney?

[Lucky]

in other news NDAA upheld oman i am so shocked no1 cud have seen this comin even hitler didnt go so far to legislate this much tyranny oh but the cowboys vs redskins game is on and id rather watch tmz to keep up with the problems in lindsay lohan's life so who cares long as i got ppl cuttin my grass and cold domestics and football on TV how bad could this socalled "tyranny" be

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

As far as libertarianism being an unrealistic ethos, I think it's just a tad better than totalitarianism don't you? We've seen that 1 play out over and over again, but never a true libertarianesque government that I can think of

Look into the early days of the U.S. with the articles of confederation. That way failed almost directly after the revolutionary war. It just isn't stable.

Originally Posted by Lucky [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

All those same big banks backed Obama in 2008. In fact, Goldman Sachs was his 2nd largest donor. He still owes them all favors. They're just putting their chips on Romney this time, so they have all bases covered no matter the outcome.

Like I said, 2 masks 1 face.

This is still staying with a conspiratorial mentality and I refute it again. Although Obama did bail all those big banks out (let's be honest, letting them fail would have been a bigger disaster than more deficit spending), but he proposed a lot of new legislature that pretty much made the business model of Goldman Sachs illegal and so they would no longer be federally insured if they wanted to continue. Dat sauce: http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...dman_plan.html

Because of this, it would be only rational to conclude that Goldman Sachs switched to backing Romney since such legislation threatens the majority of their business model which should have been criminal in the first place.

[Lucky]

Obama and Romney are literally financed by the same people. They're both for infinite war. Erosion of civil liberties. Romneycare = Obamacare. List goes on and on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JSBhI_0at0

[hatelore]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Which of the other GOP candidates would you have preferred over Romney?

Sadly I didn't see any on the horizon, tex gubner= retarded, santoram = on the fence with him, blacky ( not being racist,this was how the media portrayed him) never stood a chance with our acidic media, although I'd have happily accepted him over Obama. At least he was a successful businessman.

So to be honest sadly none! The gop base itself is so corrupt and rhino now that I don't even see myself as a Republican anymore, I am a conservative. look at the speaker beuner(spelled that wrong i think) he's a blithering crybaby and looks drunk 100% of the time, and he's the gop leader lol.

In my opinion both parties are one and the same, until the American people (won't happen) wake up, we will continue to be controlled and overtaxed by our corrupt government.

They both wish to cater to a group of people who snuck in the country illegally just to garner there vote.

[hatelore]

And I shouldn't have got in this thread [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] politics can make you a lot of enemies. Heh

[Lucky]

Democrats and Republicans both serve big banks, big pharma, and big oil. Democrats are arguably worse since they spend more and want to turn us all into slaves with gun control.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Vote for nobody, cuz nobody cares

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

From the picture posted by dredge, I doubt you will disagree with me that companies like Harvard Uni, M$, and Google have a completely different financial stance than that of B.O.A, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup. Bill Gates has said that he should be paying more taxes even after he donated billions of dollars to charities. I am sure we all heard about the big financial scandal that Goldman Sachs did, but what big financial scandal has Harvard U. done? How can you not see the dichotomy between the two sides?

Now correct me if I am wrong, but the basis of your argument is that since both parties received the most money from entities with larger disposable income, they are in bed with their campaign backers and answer to them. Now, I am going to ignore the giant leap in conclusive reasoning and instead offer a counter. Could it be that those big corporations backed the parties because they like their fiscal stances? This would then lead to the whole thing just receiving money for doing a good job.

Harvard - Robert Rubin, Ben Bernanke and more importantly Lloyd Blankfein(aka GS CEO), see what I did there linking GS to Harvard.

And holy shit no way about backing Fiscal stance. So you mean major corporations and endowment funds that rely on an endless Keynesian money orgy of expanding debt to stay solvent are supporting candidates that want to keep the faucet turned on full blast because its all they know? The same process that is merely bending savers over, rewarding those under mountains of debt, and blowing up the largest bubble in human history (UST bubble gonna blow big someday).

I hope I'm wrong and everything works out great and like Barkingturtle (whose posts I find really funny) has said, those of us not choosing Repub or Dem and trying to effect change within the system are just nut jobs. If any of us nut jobs are right though...

[Kraftwerk]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

(let's be honest, letting them fail would have been a bigger disaster than more deficit spending).

I'm being honest in saying, we will never know. Because instead of letting capitalism play out and letting a failing entity do just that, we said no its okay your poor decisions are now rewarded. And the single regulation that might have made a difference still stands repealed - Glass Steagell.