Romney VS Obama: The Megathread

[Ashmoria]

the US election is less than 5 months away.

obama.

im not voting to return to the policies of george bush.

[Soviet Russia Republic]

In my opinion, they both suck. However, Romney considers Russia to be his number one foe, Obama doesn't. So. I guess Obama.

[Ashmoria]

Been listening to a lot of U.S radio talk shows recently onyoutube because I have too much time on my hands at home. Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin all seem to hate Obama's guts, and Howard Stern disapproves as well. I haven't been able to really form my own opinion about Obama before, but after listening to not only the news but also both conservative and liberal media commentary, I really dislike what Obama's doing at present. In the past, I thought that Mitt Romney was just some kind of idiot who's only been successful so far because of his charisma, but after listening to commentary on radio shows instead of just watching and reading news on tv and in the paper, I'm leaning towards Romney.

...But hey, I can't even vote. I'm just a Korean guy in Melbourne who's an Australian citizen.

well then you might ought to try listening to progressive radio for a while to balance out the bullshit.

stephanie miller, randi rhodes, ed shultz all have radio shows.

[Second Korean Empire]

Been listening to a lot of U.S radio talk shows recently onyoutube because I have too much time on my hands at home. Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin all seem to hate Obama's guts, and Howard Stern disapproves as well. I haven't been able to really form my own opinion about Obama before, but after listening to not only the news but also both conservative and liberal media commentary, I really dislike what Obama's doing at present. In the past, I thought that Mitt Romney was just some kind of idiot who's only been successful so far because of his charisma, but after listening to commentary on radio shows instead of just watching and reading news on tv and in the paper, I'm leaning towards Romney.

...But hey, I can't even vote. I'm just a Korean guy in Melbourne who's an Australian citizen.

well then you might ought to try listening to progressive radio for a while to balance out the bullshit.

stephanie miller, randi rhodes, ed shultz all have radio shows.

What's bullshit to me is good for you; what's good for me is bullshit for you: let's leave it at that.

[Farnhamia]

Since the USA general election is in less then three months, I decided a thread of general debate and discussion of the election between Romney and Obama was needed. So NSG? Who is your president, Romney or Obama? Me? I prefer Romney, I dont like his Free Market ideals, but slashing spending, having a conservative social policy, an interventsionist policy, I agree with him on every point but Free Market. He might even be better than John McCain. But since the thread isnt just for my opinion, what is YOUR opinion on the USA election NSG?

What Ash said.

[Ashmoria]

well then you might ought to try listening to progressive radio for a while to balance out the bullshit.

stephanie miller, randi rhodes, ed shultz all have radio shows.

What's bullshit to me is good for you; what's good for me is bullshit for you: let's leave it at that.

uhhuh

you are a korean guy in australia who is listening to conservative talk radio out of the US and thinking that what they say is TRUE.

its not. its bullshit.

since you enjoy talk radio i suggested that you balance out your view of US politics by listening to an alternative viewpoint.

i didnt even suggest that you slog through THE FACTS to find out where you have been led astray.

[Divair]

Stewart Alexander.

But since he won't make it far, Obama. The other choices are too horrible for my taste.

[Zonolia]

Stewart Alexander has my vote, ah no one knows who he is D:

[Zonolia]

Stewart Alexander has my vote, ah no one knows who he is D:

Stewart Alexander.

But since he won't make it far, Obama. The other choices are too horrible for my taste.

WOW, I posted literally a minute after you did, glad to see someone else who knows about Mr. Alexander's campaign.

[Second Korean Empire]

What's bullshit to me is good for you; what's good for me is bullshit for you: let's leave it at that.

uhhuh

you are a korean guy in australia who is listening to conservative talk radio out of the US and thinking that what they say is TRUE.

its not. its bullshit.

since you enjoy talk radio i suggested that you balance out your view of US politics by listening to an alternative viewpoint.

i didnt even suggest that you slog through THE FACTS to find out where you have been led astray.

If you're accusing me of thinking that what conservative talk radio hosts say are true when they're not, then what makes you so certain that your own liberal viewpoints are undoubtedly correct? If you work under the logic that you shouldn't take what talk show hosts say for granted, then why are you so quick to dismiss conservative hosts while seemingly condoning and lauding the messages put out by liberal commentators and talk show hosts?

I've already seen some videos by liberal talk show hosts and other media personalities, Stephanie Miller and TheYoungTurks being two of them. I absolutely disdain the method through which they attempt to persuade viewers to agree with their point of view. While conservative hosts such as Savage and Boortz attack liberals' IDEAS, I can't help but notice that Miller and YougTurks seem to be sometimes fixated on attacking the personal character of specific individuals based on what they're recorded as saying in short segments that are sometimes, or even often, overblown way out of the context. TheYoungTurks is especially culpable for such acts.

Over here in Australia, I couldn't help but feel curious and uneasy as I was shown news footage about Obama that hardly ever seriously criticized him. His sudden change in stance on the issue of gay marriage; his use of drone strikes; his handling of the economy; the establishment of a civilian national security force; his foreign policies on Iran, Syria and North Korea - I've very rarely seen footage or heard commentary that was outright critical of him until I tuned in to conservative US talk radio. A reasonable person could automatically assume from my statement regarding my changing position regarding Mitt Romney, that I had indeed balanced out "the bullshit" and am now more all-round informed than I was in the past about the current political circumstances in the United States. In this case, the "bullshit" that had been balanced out is that of the liberal media.

I don't know why, but you seem to be flipping over and behaving in an enraged manner, going as far as to using capitals, simply because a person like me just happens to not silently obey and adhere to your point of view. You tell me to "slog through the facts" in an incomprehensibly exasperated way, even though you yourself haven't even taken steps as to suggest to what the "facts" may be. The only other notable contribution I've seen you make in this thread is stating that, quote, "the US election is less than 5 months away. obama. im not voting to return to the policies of george bush" . Now tell me how that isn't bullshit, when it clearly shows to the average person that you yourself are a rather ignorant individual who did not take adequate and reasonable steps to acquaint yourself with Romney's actual position and policies before making such a conclusion about what his potential presidency would lead to? How do you know that electing Romney as president will invariably lead to a return to the policies of George Bush? Have you personally and carefully read each and every policy of George Bush and compared them to Romney's propositions? Would you kindly list at least ten or twenty of them here and provide detailed statements which reinforce your view? You seem to be rather certain that a Romney administration will undoubtedly lead to a return to Bush's policies, so why not? What have you got to lose by proving that you're right? Please do go on. I'd love to read how I've been lead "astray" by the conservative media.

Even when I had put forward a reasonable suggestion to you that we leave each other alone and let each other believe in what we want to believe, you seem to be fixated - hellbent, rather - on converting all others like me to universally accept your point of view. You act as if you're an all-knowing being who is so well-informed of all the facts there are to know regarding the upcoming election, and yet you seek to rebut my arguments not through counter-argument and civilized debate which discusses individual policies one by one that a normal and reasonable human being would do, but through unnecessarily emotion-fueled angst. I don't know about you, but I think that it would be more appropriate to actually discuss the "facts", as you've described them, instead of making sweeping statements that have no actual weight whatsoever. Why are your "facts" right? Why are my arguments wrong? If you're so convinced that you're right, then why don't you apply reason and logic and provide statistical, historical and empirical evidence to support your views? WHY THE UNNECESSARY CAPITALS?

As much as I would like to debate such matters with you further, I personally do not believe that a debate with you would result in any particular outcome other than you continuing to level discrete personal attacks against me and my views, while avoiding a deep and constructive discussion about the actual issues. As entertaining an internet forum flame argument as this may turn out to be, since I am a gentleman who values things such as mutual respect, courtesy, dignity and civilized behavior, and also sees internet forum debates as being something more than just a shouting match between people who take respite in the fact that they are sitting behind the safety and security of their computer monitors, I must decline to engage in such an act.

Good day to you.

[Farnhamia]

uhhuh

you are a korean guy in australia who is listening to conservative talk radio out of the US and thinking that what they say is TRUE.

its not. its bullshit.

since you enjoy talk radio i suggested that you balance out your view of US politics by listening to an alternative viewpoint.

i didnt even suggest that you slog through THE FACTS to find out where you have been led astray.

If you're accusing me of thinking that what conservative talk radio hosts say are true when they're not, then what makes you so certain that your own liberal viewpoints are undoubtedly correct? If you work under the logic that you shouldn't take what talk show hosts say for granted, then why are you so quick to dismiss conservative hosts while seemingly condoning and lauding the messages put out by liberal commentators and talk show hosts?

I've already seen some videos by liberal talk show hosts and other media personalities, Stephanie Miller and TheYoungTurks being two of them. I absolutely disdain the method through which they attempt to persuade viewers to agree with their point of view. While conservative hosts such as Savage and Boortz attack liberals' IDEAS, I can't help but notice that Miller and YougTurks seem to be sometimes fixated on attacking the personal character of specific individuals based on what they're recorded as saying in short segments that are sometimes, or even often, overblown way out of the context. TheYoungTurks is especially culpable for such acts.

Over here in Australia, I couldn't help but feel curious and uneasy as I was shown news footage about Obama that hardly ever seriously criticized him. His sudden change in stance on the issue of gay marriage; his use of drone strikes; his handling of the economy; the establishment of a civilian national security force; his foreign policies on Iran, Syria and North Korea - I've very rarely seen footage or heard commentary that was outright critical of him until I tuned in to conservative US talk radio. A reasonable person could automatically assume from my statement regarding my changing position regarding Mitt Romney, that I had indeed balanced out "the bullshit" and am now more all-round informed than I was in the past about the current political circumstances in the United States. In this case, the "bullshit" that had been balanced out is that of the liberal media.

I don't know why, but you seem to be flipping over and behaving in an enraged manner, going as far as to using capitals, simply because a person like me just happens to not silently obey and adhere to your point of view. You tell me to "slog through the facts" in an incomprehensibly exasperated way, even though you yourself haven't even taken steps as to suggest to what the "facts" may be. The only other notable contribution I've seen you make in this thread is stating that, quote, "the US election is less than 5 months away. obama. im not voting to return to the policies of george bush" . Now tell me how that isn't bullshit, when it clearly shows to the average person that you yourself are a rather ignorant individual who did not take adequate and reasonable steps to acquaint yourself with Romney's actual position and policies before making such a conclusion about what his potential presidency would lead to? How do you know that electing Romney as president will invariably lead to a return to the policies of George Bush? Have you personally and carefully read each and every policy of George Bush and compared them to Romney's propositions? Would you kindly list at least ten or twenty of them here and provide detailed statements which reinforce your view? You seem to be rather certain that a Romney administration will undoubtedly lead to a return to Bush's policies, so why not? What have you got to lose by proving that you're right? Please do go on. I'd love to read how I've been lead "astray" by the conservative media.

Even when I had put forward a reasonable suggestion to you that we leave each other alone and let each other believe in what we want to believe, you seem to be fixated - hellbent, rather - on converting all others like me to universally accept your point of view. You act as if you're an all-knowing being who is so well-informed of all the facts there are to know regarding the upcoming election, and yet you seek to rebut my arguments not through counter-argument and civilized debate which discusses individual policies one by one that a normal and reasonable human being would do, but through unnecessarily emotion-fueled angst. I don't know about you, but I think that it would be more appropriate to actually discuss the "facts", as you've described them, instead of making sweeping statements that have no actual weight whatsoever. Why are your "facts" right? Why are my arguments wrong? If you're so convinced that you're right, then why don't you apply reason and logic and provide statistical, historical and empirical evidence to support your views? WHY THE UNNECESSARY CAPITALS?

As much as I would like to debate such matters with you further, I personally do not believe that a debate with you would result in any particular outcome other than you continuing to level discrete personal attacks against me and my views, while avoiding a deep and constructive discussion about the actual issues. As entertaining an internet forum flame argument as this may turn out to be, since I am a gentleman who values things such as mutual respect, courtesy, dignity and civilized behavior, and also sees internet forum debates as being something more than just a shouting match between people who take respite in the fact that they are sitting behind the safety and security of their computer monitors, I must decline to engage in such an act.

Good day to you.

You didn't present any arguments, you simply said you had been listening to conservative talk radio and that you agreed with them on Obama's handling of things. You listed a few issues without saying why you agreed that he was doing a bad job or what he should be doing differently. Ash suggested you balance the conservatives with some liberals and used exactly eight capital letters in one sentence while doing so. And for this you're having a fit and refusing to debate?

[Ashmoria]

uhhuh

you are a korean guy in australia who is listening to conservative talk radio out of the US and thinking that what they say is TRUE.

its not. its bullshit.

since you enjoy talk radio i suggested that you balance out your view of US politics by listening to an alternative viewpoint.

i didnt even suggest that you slog through THE FACTS to find out where you have been led astray.

If you're accusing me of thinking that what conservative talk radio hosts say are true when they're not, then what makes you so certain that your own liberal viewpoints are undoubtedly correct? If you work under the logic that you shouldn't take what talk show hosts say for granted, then why are you so quick to dismiss conservative hosts while seemingly condoning and lauding the messages put out by liberal commentators and talk show hosts?

I've already seen some videos by liberal talk show hosts and other media personalities, Stephanie Miller and TheYoungTurks being two of them. I absolutely disdain the method through which they attempt to persuade viewers to agree with their point of view. While conservative hosts such as Savage and Boortz attack liberals' IDEAS, I can't help but notice that Miller and YougTurks seem to be sometimes fixated on attacking the personal character of specific individuals based on what they're recorded as saying in short segments that are sometimes, or even often, overblown way out of the context. TheYoungTurks is especially culpable for such acts.

Over here in Australia, I couldn't help but feel curious and uneasy as I was shown news footage about Obama that hardly ever seriously criticized him. His sudden change in stance on the issue of gay marriage; his use of drone strikes; his handling of the economy; the establishment of a civilian national security force; his foreign policies on Iran, Syria and North Korea - I've very rarely seen footage or heard commentary that was outright critical of him until I tuned in to conservative US talk radio. A reasonable person could automatically assume from my statement regarding my changing position regarding Mitt Romney, that I had indeed balanced out "the bullshit" and am now more all-round informed than I was in the past about the current political circumstances in the United States. In this case, the "bullshit" that had been balanced out is that of the liberal media.

I don't know why, but you seem to be flipping over and behaving in an enraged manner, going as far as to using capitals, simply because a person like me just happens to not silently obey and adhere to your point of view. You tell me to "slog through the facts" in an incomprehensibly exasperated way, even though you yourself haven't even taken steps as to suggest to what the "facts" may be. The only other notable contribution I've seen you make in this thread is stating that, quote, "the US election is less than 5 months away. obama. im not voting to return to the policies of george bush" . Now tell me how that isn't bullshit, when it clearly shows to the average person that you yourself are a rather ignorant individual who did not take adequate and reasonable steps to acquaint yourself with Romney's actual position and policies before making such a conclusion about what his potential presidency would lead to? How do you know that electing Romney as president will invariably lead to a return to the policies of George Bush? Have you personally and carefully read each and every policy of George Bush and compared them to Romney's propositions? Would you kindly list at least ten or twenty of them here and provide detailed statements which reinforce your view? You seem to be rather certain that a Romney administration will undoubtedly lead to a return to Bush's policies, so why not? What have you got to lose by proving that you're right? Please do go on. I'd love to read how I've been lead "astray" by the conservative media.

Even when I had put forward a reasonable suggestion to you that we leave each other alone and let each other believe in what we want to believe, you seem to be fixated - hellbent, rather - on converting all others like me to universally accept your point of view. You act as if you're an all-knowing being who is so well-informed of all the facts there are to know regarding the upcoming election, and yet you seek to rebut my arguments not through counter-argument and civilized debate which discusses individual policies one by one that a normal and reasonable human being would do, but through unnecessarily emotion-fueled angst. I don't know about you, but I think that it would be more appropriate to actually discuss the "facts", as you've described them, instead of making sweeping statements that have no actual weight whatsoever. Why are your "facts" right? Why are my arguments wrong? If you're so convinced that you're right, then why don't you apply reason and logic and provide statistical, historical and empirical evidence to support your views? WHY THE UNNECESSARY CAPITALS?

As much as I would like to debate such matters with you further, I personally do not believe that a debate with you would result in any particular outcome other than you continuing to level discrete personal attacks against me and my views, while avoiding a deep and constructive discussion about the actual issues. As entertaining an internet forum flame argument as this may turn out to be, since I am a gentleman who values things such as mutual respect, courtesy, dignity and civilized behavior, and also sees internet forum debates as being something more than just a shouting match between people who take respite in the fact that they are sitting behind the safety and security of their computer monitors, I must decline to engage in such an act.

Good day to you.

i did not say that my or progressive radio hosts opinions were more correct. i said you need balance.

what you really need to do, if you want to have a truth based understanding of the US and its president, is to leave partisan radio behind and start reading up on fact based sites. i suggest progressive radio not because it is an excellent source of "just the facts" but because you seem to like radio more than reading up on investigative pieces by nonpartisan researchers.

in your quest to find criticism of president obama you have made the mistake of focusing on those who criticize with lies and distortions. they make up bald faced lies to use against the president. maybe it makes you feel good to see that someone in the US is harsh in criticizing the president but ..... there is plenty of harsh fact based criticism out there is you want to look for it. believing conservative US radio talking points only makes you more ignorant.

we can discuss any of the criticisms you might have of the president (for the next hour). i dont have a problem with that.

[The Black Forrest]

Stewart Alexander has my vote, ah no one knows who he is D:

Is he related to Jason Alexander?

[Wikkiwallana]

Been listening to a lot of U.S radio talk shows recently onyoutube because I have too much time on my hands at home. Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Sean Hannity and Michelle Malkin all seem to hate Obama's guts, and Howard Stern disapproves as well. I haven't been able to really form my own opinion about Obama before, but after listening to not only the news but also both conservative and liberal media commentary, I really dislike what Obama's doing at present. In the past, I thought that Mitt Romney was just some kind of idiot who's only been successful so far because of his charisma, but after listening to commentary on radio shows instead of just watching and reading news on tv and in the paper, I'm leaning towards Romney.

...But hey, I can't even vote. I'm just a Korean guy in Melbourne who's an Australian citizen.

American talk radio is almost exclusively conservative, and the vast majority of those conservative hosts are total wingnuts. It is not a good way to get informed, at all.


My vote is going to Obama, barring some major change in what I know about him.

[Wikkiwallana]

While conservative hosts such as Savage and Boortz attack liberals' IDEAS, I can't help but notice that Miller and YougTurks seem to be sometimes fixated on attacking the personal character of specific individuals based on what they're recorded as saying in short segments that are sometimes, or even often, overblown way out of the context.

Wow, that is some selective perception.

[Corrian]

I'm having a hard time deciding between Gary Johnson or Barack Obama to select as my option.

^This.

I honestly want to see what Barack Obama will do in his last 4 years. He doesn't have the worry of re-election anymore, and who knows, that might mean he does more of what he WANTS to do and doesn't compromise so much. He might just go "Fuck it" and do more. Who knows. I'm partly curious to see what he does, but at the same time, from what I've seen, I think Gary Johnson would be a better candidate. AND at the same time, I want to keep Mitt Romney out of office. So it's a toss up.

[Farnhamia]

^This.

I honestly want to see what Barack Obama will do in his last 4 years. He doesn't have the worry of re-election anymore, and who knows, that might mean he does more of what he WANTS to do and doesn't compromise so much. He might just go "Fuck it" and do more. Who knows. I'm partly curious to see what he does, but at the same time, from what I've seen, I think Gary Johnson would be a better candidate. AND at the same time, I want to keep Mitt Romney out of office. So it's a toss up.

Gary Johnson has no chance of getting to the White House unless Obama invites him over. It's not a toss-up at all. A vote for Johnson is a vote for Romney.

[Inis Arglidd]

Eugh, not a fan of either but Obama's better.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Stewart Alexander has my vote, ah no one knows who he is D:

He be the Socialist candidate.

[Ende]

They both suck.

I'm voting for Aleister Crowley.

[Farnhamia]

They both suck.

I'm voting for Aleister Crowley.

The Romney camapign thanks you.

[New Belhavia]

Mitt Romney. I'm a mainstream conservative and a strong Republican, and I can't stand Obama. (And yes, I know there are alot of liberals and leftists on here, so I expect the majority on this thread to support Obama, but I'm posting because not everyone on NS is in his camp, and I want to represent some of Romney's support. It exists ).

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

They both suck.

I'm voting for Aleister Crowley.

Who?

[Western cuba]

While I do not support Romney, it would be interesting to see how he handles the current situation in Washington. However though no progress will be made by both presidents if congress remains split over every dang decision they make.

[Farnhamia]

They both suck.

I'm voting for Aleister Crowley.

Who?

"Aleister Crowley (/ˈkroʊli/ KROH-lee; 12 October 1875–1 December 1947), born Edward Alexander Crowley, and also known as both Frater Perdurabo and The Great Beast, was an English occultist, mystic, ceremonial magician, poet and mountaineer, who was responsible for founding the religious philosophy of Thelema. In his role as the founder of the Thelemite philosophy, he came to see himself as the prophet who was entrusted with informing humanity that it was entering the new Aeon of Horus in the early 20th century."

Come on, I know you know how to use Wiki.