Romney VS Obama: The Megathread

[Wikkiwallana]

Speaking of space flight, we should really spend less time and money on the greenhouse effect and more on missions into the black void and the moon.

And die before we get anything useful accomplished? No thanks.

[Wikkiwallana]

Seems kind of odd that a Republican of all things would bash capitalism. Maybe he's a deep cover commie?

Most Republicans aren't true capitalistsScotsmen.

Fixed.

[Wikkiwallana]

Yeah, what exactly is the point of saying that?

Maybe he's using it as a mantra. I personally like saying "Antonio Banderrrrrrrrrrrrrras."

But can you roll the R as well as he can?

[Wikkiwallana]

Two questions:
Why on earth do you want Paul? Why do you think Romney is going to win?

The current polls appear neck and neck. Though, it's uncertain who will win imo. Spritalia is most likely making an assumption as it all depends on whose theory you listen to.

We don't use a direct vote system, so popularity numbers are only good on a state by state basis. And his popularity edge is because he has insane, but ultimately meaningless, leads in certain states. ASB has it explained pretty well in his thread.

[Wikkiwallana]

How many times do I have to link this?

You should probably label those, I've seen that several times and I have no real interest in sifting through each link to find which one is relevant.

Thread is locked. I can't edit the post any more.

[Wikkiwallana]

Do I need to make a long, drawn out post about the horrors of the Fed. Bank? Or do you all have some grasp that they are not /good/ but /bad/?

/Lazy-ass Kid

Make your long ass post. It will get torn to shreds.

[Wikkiwallana]

Either you actually don't, or you are one of those people that scare the hell out of me with their callous disregard for others.

I'm thinking of counting how many times that has been linked in this thread. Anyone want to place bets before I actually do it?

Gimme $20 on "a hojillion".

[Wikkiwallana]

Got any evidence of a causal link?

He sighed Executive Order 11110. That is a fact.

And?

[North California]

How I feel right now.

Yes oh yes!

Thought you might like that

[Wikkiwallana]

Uhm, no we don't. I certainly disagree.

How do you think that the Federal Bank is not bad?

Because I've looked into what they actually do, and don't have a "Government = bad" reflex.

Which is not to say Alan Greenspan had any business running it.

[Wikkiwallana]

That's being unfair. They could meet a good man.

You're not taking this thing seriously are you?

On the contrary, I seriously think Farnhamia of all people should have known better than to limit potential attraction to a single gender.

[Wikkiwallana]

In that case, fuck him.

What a convincing argument.

That wasn't an argument. That was a declaration of my feelings regarding his position. If it had been an argument, there would have been a explanation of why I feel that way.

[Wikkiwallana]

Enjoy your social democracy.

It's very nice there! You should join us.

I don't feel like living somewhere you have to prove your new construction won't displace fairies to get a permit.

[Spritalia]

Yes oh yes!

Thought you might like that

I love it, baby

[Wikkiwallana]

No. That was Bush.

Bush again.

I find it interesting that "Christians" would object to caring for the sick.

I wish we would.

Christians object to having to pay for the birth control pills of snooty college coeds, remember?

I'm Christian, and I don't object…

[Wikkiwallana]

I agree with Wikki's dissagreement. In fact, better the federal bank control our currency than any private

The Fed is "owned" by private banks...

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/federal-reserve-bank-ownership/

Did you not read the part called "Full Answer"?

[Wikkiwallana]

I think this article should help: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

Can't tell if serious.

What's wrong with it?

[Wikkiwallana]

Romney will win, I've done the electoral calculations, run over 30 possible scenarios based on the most recent poll data.

Then show us your math.

[AuSable River]

You're indulging in the same error that many American foreign policy "experts" have fallen into ever since 1979: Believing that there is a large, pro-American "centrist" movement in Iran, when in truth there is not the slightest proof that such a thing exists.

Iran is a deeply nationalist country, and religious sentiment runs strong in its rural hinterland; it is in the countryside where the current regime enjoys its greatest strength. In the cities - and especially in Tehran - there are a growing number of people who have become disaffected, largely as a consequence of the cronyism and corruption that has beset the current regime; yet even this demographic is deeply suspicious of the United States, which has a long history of interfering in Iranian politics to the detriment of Iran and its interests. Worse, a lot of these people are political leftists; progressive forces probably represent the strongest and best organized opposition to the political establishment, even though they are in fact still a minority overall.

So even if a strong resistance to the regime were to emerge, it would still be fundamentally anti-American, due to its largely leftist bent.--Alien Space Bats

this notion that it is not possible for the USA to align with anti-government elements in iran is not supported by fact or logic.

Indeed, the leftwing talking point that the iranian opposition didn't want US help is debunked:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/3 ... s.facebook

http://news.investors.com/article/60260 ... n-2009.htm

Moreover, obama actually acted as an impediment to iranian opposition groups

http://www.e-ir.info/2012/07/21/why-isn ... n-iphones/

In all seriousness, the Islamic Republic has more legitimacy in the eyes of Iranians than you imagine. -- alein space bat

rigged elections and tens of thousands of innocents murdered by the mullahs since 1979 may be the Leftist definition of a 'legitimate' government. INdeed, the mullahs control WHO can run for office -- that is the definition of an illegitimate government.

it is manifestly absurd that anyone would assert that a government that rigs elections AND murders and imprisons its own citizens without due process is 'legitimate'

Indeed, this 'legitimate' regime is on level 5 of 8 by genocide watch (http://www.genocidewatch.org/iran.html)

One has to wonder if those on the left have any moral compass at all -- they are forever making excuses and rationalizing the brutality of dictatorships, so long as these dictatorships are opposed to the USA.

most Iranians support their system of government, and would be willing to make sacrifices for it - indeed, would even be willing to die to defend it - were it attacked.--alein space bat

this statement is not supported by fact or logic considering the fact that the iranians rigged the last elections --- and the mullahs hold power by coercive means.

If iran's government is supported by the people as you absurdly state - then why the iron fist ???

Indeed, iran is rated "NOT FREE" by the non-partisan freedom house along with the likes of other 'legitimate' regimes like syria, cuba, burma, north korea, et al

In sum, any government that maintains power by armed force is under no circumstances 'legitimate'.

First, America doesn't have a long history of interference in Syrian internal affairs to live down as it does in Iran; we didn't prop up the regime that preceded the current one in Syria, turning a blind eye while the secret police tortured, mutilated, and murdered dissidents by the tens of thousands, the way we did in Iran. Nor do we have a history of fomenting war against Syria by its neighbors, thereby plunging them into a conflict lasting nearly a decade, with the resulting loss of hundreds of thousands more lives, the way we urged Iraq to invade Iran. --alien space bat

your misstatement shows a serious lack of knowledge and understanding regarding Middle eastern history --- for example you make the absurd assertion that the US has not had a history undermining syria when in fact the USA has been a stalwart military, political and economic supporter of syria's mortal enemy israel !!!

Yet, despite decades of support for israel -- the syrian opposition (like the iranian opposition) is begging for US help

We didn't shoot down Syrian airliners by accident, or repeatedly engage the Syrian navy in hostilities, as we did with Iran; we haven't been ready to go to war with Syria for virtually every minute of the last 30 years at the slightest provocation, the way we did with Iran between 1979-2009.-- alien space bat

again, we didnt have to do this directly -- we had a liberal democracy acting as our proxy (israel) to protect US interests in the region.

And you apparently are the only person in the civilized world who thinks that the syrians didnt know that America was giving the israelis billions of dollars in military aid.

you stand corrected.

Now, beyond that there are good reasons for being careful in Syria. I find it comical that the very same conservatives who criticize Obama for standing by and letting Mubarak get toppled in Egypt, and who fret and tear their hair out over the prospect of seeing the Muslim Brotherhood take over there in the wake of last year's "Jasmine Revolution" - and the very same people who say that in toppling Qaddafi, we handed Libya to Islamic fundamentalists - are so eager to see us arm the Syrian resistance and propel them to power. The odds of a fundamentalist takeover in Syria are many times greater than they were in Libya (or might be going forward in Egypt); I am prompted to recall the old adage about fools running in where angels fear to tread.

Then, too, we need to walk carefully around Syria's relationship with Russia, especially in light of Turkey's membership in NATO. It would not be wise for us (or for Russia) to allow war to break out between Turkey and Syria, given that such a conflict could quickly escalate into a head-on fight between Washington and Moscow.

So you show an inability to appreciate the problems and possibilities inherent in not just one nation's unrest, but two; I have to say I'm impressed, because that sort of misperception takes more that the usual effort to achieve.-- alien space bat

In sum, the leftwing 'solution' is to react to events -- pushing strings and leading from behind -- while events spiral out of control.

moreover, since we haven't gained any leverage by intervening with any kind of substance political or economic support we leave the void to potentially anti-western extremist groups.

In sum, obama and his leftist polices are a joke -- indeed, obama has a lower approval rating in the middle east then even bush (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/201 ... lteri.html). this effectively debunks the leftwing nonsense that indecisive sitting on the sidelines while genocide is ongoing non-policy is somehow going to increase American popularity and influence in the region.

That's a rather bald statement. My response is simple: Why wouldn't we? The Gulf is crucial to our interests; our committment to defending the region has been visible for decades. Why assume that committment would fall short of offering a nuclear umbrella, especially when the alternative would be proliferation, something we don't want?--alien space bat

your all over the map dude -- in a previous paragraph you say we must tread lightly for myriad ridiculous anecdotal and circumstantial reasons and NOW you are saying that we need to provide the 'mother of all alliances and commitments' that of nuclear protection!?!?!

Indeed, your bizarre paradoxical reasoning seems to be a recurring theme among leftist ideologues. That is why obama and his confused economic and geopolitical rabble must be removed from power in the next election.

But none of the potential proliferators named presents any kind of serious threat in that direction, especially if the U.S. (with or without the support of the rest of the U.N. Security Council) chooses to act. --alein space bat

there is a palpable lack of logic in this statement.

for example --- Using your logic, an Iranian nuke is of no concern because the rest of the region because these states can rely on the USA to protect them from Iran despite the fact that the USA didnt have the wherewithal to prevent iran from developing a nuclear bomb in the first place ??!!!

Moreover, if an iranian nuke is of no geopolitical consequences to iranian designs on regional hegemony -- then why are the iranians going to considerable sacrifice and risk to build it !!!!

In sum, your all over the map dude -- you make up stuff and rationalize stuff without a shred of substantive empirical or logical evidence.

India and Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT); that sets them apart from both Iran and the various prospective Middle Eastern proliferators people frequently mention--alien space bat

absurd -- iran signed the treaty and it is in FACT building a nuclear weapon. disturbingly, these leftists will put their unquestioned trust into a piece of paper (north korea broke their nuke treaty with carter before the ink dried) and a brutal regime that doesnt even trust their own citizenry (rigged elections and routine detention/murder).

Pakistan refused to sign when India did, and the rest is history.-alien space bat

when the expanisionist terrorist exporting iranian regimes gets their bomb, then turkey, saudi arabia, syria, egypt, et al will get theirs irrespective of any piece of paper or diplomatic hot air from a superpower that couldnt stop the iranians in the first place. hence American leverage and prestige in the region of 70% of the globe's most accessible oil reserves will be nil.

Yet look at what happened when Pakistan moved to develop nuclear weapons in response to India's nuclear armament program: Pakistan got hammered with cuts in military and economic aid by the U.S., cuts that stung Pakistan rather badly. The example of Pakistan's problems in acquiring nuclear weapons stands as a cautionary tale for any Middle Eastern nation that might want to follow in their footsteps; pressure from hostile neighboring nuclear powers aside, Turkey, Egypt, and Syria all have a lot to lose in the way of external aid and support if they were to decide to follow in Pakistan's footsteps (and this doesn't even begin to address the cost to Turkey of pissing off either NATO or the European Community; Turkey simply does not want to go there).--alien space bat

If this nonsense was true -- then pakistan wouldnt be doubling their own nuclear arsenal (http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/det ... -to-rever/)

No, I don't see the Indo-Pakistani dynamic being played out in the Middle East; the situations are radically different, as are the possible costs and rewards.---alien space bat

of course you dont, you've demonstrate a complete lack of understanding regarding geopolitics.

there is no fundamental difference between the US getting a nuke and russia acquiring one --- or russia getting a nuke and china acquiring one --- of russia getting a nuke and britain and france acquiring one -- of india getting one and pakistan acquiring one --- of israel getting a nuke and iran wanting one............

I dont believe you have even offered a substantive or logical explanation of why an iranian bomb wouldnt spur an arms race other than jibberish that assumes that middle eastern states and actors are apparently more stable than the US, USSR, China, England, France, et al....

ANd we all know that the middle east is anything but stable and predictable -- yet inexplicably you seem to put your trust in the fantasy that those concerned about middle eastern WMD proliferation and its consequences are unwarranted concerns??!!

Proliferation requires very specific circumstances. I just don't see those circumstances emerging in the Middle East; I think people who do are being alarmist.-- alien space bat

essentially you are putting you trust in a regime that doesnt trust its own people and imprisons and kills them by the tens of thousands. AND obviously doesnt trust any Western actors and with respect to Israel is engaging in an ongoing campaign of terrorism against jewish civilians AND has made public pronouncements to 'wipe israel from the face of the Earth" ??!

and you are putting your trust in the absurd notion that trust, stability and moderation will be the result in the middle east ??!!!

Oh, please. Our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were never sustainable. The invasion of Iraq itself was foolish,--alien space bat

using your 'logic' --- an iraq with either (1) sanctions that were killing tens of thousands of innocent iraqis or (2) no sanctions and a nuclear armed saddam is considered preferable to the present situation. INdeed, until obama was unceremoniously forced out by the iraqi regime -- the nation was being pacified and stabilized.

With respect to afghanistan, obama has squandered and failed utterly -- indeed, I believe more Americans have died fighting under obama than bush -- and for what long term benefit to US security ????

Indeed, whether it is the economy or foreign policy -- the left and obama have three 'solutions' (1) blame bush or (2) claim the problem is unsolvable or (3) claim that the problem would have been worse.

the best possible outcome would be for us to negotiate a settlement in which the Taliban agree to lay down their arms and return to the Afghan political matrix as regular players so that we can wash our hands of the place and move on.--alien space bat

it doesnt get any worse than this example of grand appeasement and naivete

this is the best possible outcome for the enemies of stability, peace, and freedom.

even an average high school history student wouldnt put much faith in the belief that the taliban would honor any agreement to lay down their arms.

LOL! Did you actually read your own article? It says that our diminishing popularity stems from the fact that we'ev continued to hunt down al-Qaeda while failing to pressure Israel into concessions vis-à-vis Palestine. So you want me to believe that Mitt Romney - who's even more belligerent than Obama when it comes to Islamic fundamentalists and who's even more strongly committed to Israel - is going to be more popular with Arabs?-- alien space bat

not only is al-qaeda expanding in syria, afghanistan and iraq --- the situation in israel and palestine is deteriorating. The USA is a spectator to the potentially destabilizing and anti-Western developments of the Arab "Spring" and obama has no political capital or leverage to show for it.

Indeed, his policies are a failure to both the arabs, iraqis, afghanis, israelis, et al... If you read any source in the middle east they all disrespect obama.

also, Obama has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by getting his ass kicked out of iraq by the corrupt leadership -- he is about to surrender in afghanistan despite his empty pledge to win that war.

compared to 15% REAL unemployment, record numbers on welfare and food stamps, poverty levels dating back to 1965, $5 Trillion in added debt, et al. obama's middle east 'policy' is something to be 'proud' of.

what are YOU smoking -- or perhaps more appropriately what is obama smoking ?

[Farnhamia]

You're not taking this thing seriously are you?

On the contrary, I seriously think Farnhamia of all people should have known better than to limit potential attraction to a single gender.

I suppose that was a tad short-sighted of me.

[Minnysota]

this statement is not supported by fact or logic

Doesn't this pretty much describe your entire argument?

[Wikkiwallana]

On the contrary, I seriously think Farnhamia of all people should have known better than to limit potential attraction to a single gender.

I suppose that was a tad short-sighted of me.

[Mavorpen]

I suppose that was a tad short-sighted of me.

Now kiss.

[Wikkiwallana]

Now kiss.

But she's lesbian and I'm a guy, I'm not sure she'd appreciate it.

[AuSable River]

this statement is not supported by fact or logic

Doesn't this pretty much describe your entire argument?

Amusingly, mine previous post was chock full of logic, facts, and empirical evidence and sources.

IN contrast, yours is the very definition of an argument devoid of fact, logic, substance, intelligence, and empirical evidence.

Your just the only one who cant see the ridiculous contradiction in your absurd post.