United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
2,907 replies, posted
[QUOTE=yawmwen;38361434]If "liberals" want to use violence to help the poor, capitalists have been using violence to keep people poor for centuries.[/QUOTE]
The threat of violence, not usually violence itself.
What the fuck are you guys even talking about. What does liberalism have to do with violence helping the poor? what? and capitalism isnt conservatism.
[editline]7th November 2012[/editline]
Election is over, can you guys shutup and agree to hate eachother for another four years?
[QUOTE=laserguided;38361456]What the fuck are you guys even talking about. What does liberalism have to do with violence helping the poor? what? and capitalism isnt conservatism.[/QUOTE]
Capitalism isn't conservatism, but it certainly does play a major role in American conservatism.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38361411]I always hear liberals talking about "helping the poor," yet they always want to use violence to coerce everyone else into "helping the poor," instead of actually helping them personally.
I've volunteered for three different charities over the past few years. One was to help the homeless and poor, another was to help those without health insurance receive kidney transplants, and another was to help sick and injured animals.
If you really want to "help the poor" donate your time and money to "helping" them, but don't try to force other people to do it and think that you're helping just because you voted for a left-wing politician.[/QUOTE]
Was it "violence" when FDR put in social security to "force" everyone to help old people?
[QUOTE=laserguided;38361456]What the fuck are you guys even talking about. What does liberalism have to do with violence helping the poor? what? and capitalism isnt conservatism.
[editline]7th November 2012[/editline]
Election is over, can you guys shutup and agree to hate eachother for another four years?[/QUOTE]
It's not even about the election anymore, it's just about our positions.
[QUOTE=patq911;38361538]Was it "violence" when FDR put in social security to "force" everyone to help old people?[/QUOTE]
State coercion is always backed by a threat of violence.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38361456]What does liberalism have to do with violence helping the poor? what?[/QUOTE]
obama sanctioned death panels led by robin hood
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38361453]The threat of violence, not usually violence itself.[/QUOTE]
My point still stands. Capitalism is a series of threats used to coerce and control.
[QUOTE=patq911;38361538]Was it "violence" when FDR put in social security to "force" everyone to help old people?
It's not even about the election anymore, it's just about our positions.[/QUOTE]
The collective positions I've just seen here are stupid as fuck.
Embrace socialism you fucking idiots.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38361553]State coercion is always backed by a threat of violence.[/QUOTE]
If you don't like it you can go live on an island by yourself. And provide everything for yourself. No government coercion or services. No being forced to help other human beings or *euhg* be friends with them.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38361553]State coercion is always backed by a threat of violence.[/QUOTE]
So is everything in the world if you're going to take it that far.
Florida
29 electoral votes
Barack Obama
4,143,362 votes
49.9%
Mitt Romney
4,096,346
49.3
Others
71,247
0.9
100% of precincts reporting
Well it looks like there wont be a automatic recount in Florida and Romney cant win so it looks like Florida goes to Obama
So it is Obama 332 to Romney's 206.
Also nobody fucking cares about the Falkland islands it is dick measuring on both sides.
Any English guy who complains about Obama being neutral on the issue is just as bad as the President of Argentina saying she wants to "take the Falkland Islands back".
It is political posturing over an archipelago known for sheep.
[QUOTE=person11;38362781]So it is Obama 332 to Romney's 206.
Also nobody fucking cares about the Falkland islands it is dick measuring on both sides.
Any English guy who complains about Obama being neutral on the issue is just as bad as the President of Argentina saying she wants to "take the Falkland Islands back".
It is political posturing over an archipelago known for sheep.[/QUOTE]
And a large amount of offshore oil.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360295]Seeing as how a good chunk (if not the majority) of Obama's base are welfare dependents and/or stoners.[/QUOTE]
Oh totally.
Even though this is totally not true and you're a lunatic.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360831]In addition, Obama has made several anti-gun rights statements in the past[/quote]
When? He may not be a gun nut, but I don't recall him being against them either.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360831]and sided against two of our closest allies (Israel and the United Kingdom). He sided with Argentina in the Falklands dispute and with Palestine on the Israel-Palestine dispute.[/QUOTE]
1. Last I checked, he was offering to lend some of our Aircraft Carriers to the British for use against Argentina, because they only have one and we have eleven.
2. A position popular with the entire world [I]except[/I] the USA, because we're Israel's bitch. He wants to change that and honestly I'd support it. Israel's methods won't see peace in the middle-east until they wipe out everyone else.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360831]Never mind TARP, which is straight out of the socialist playbook.[/QUOTE]
Bush signed TARP. Bush was a socialist?
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360831]Obama even said that he wants to nationalize other industries in the same way.[/QUOTE]
When?
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360831]Also, don't forget his creating of a universal healthcare system.[/QUOTE]
Because God forbid people have access to healthcare, right? Only the financially healthy have earned the right to be physically healthy as well, apparently.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38363117]Oh totally.
Even though this is totally not true and you're a lunatic.[/QUOTE]
Underneath that ignorant attitude he has, I think the point he's attempting to make is the majority of Obama's electoral votes came from large cities and coastal regions. It just to happens to be that there's a lot of stoners in the cities. But most stoners I hang out with still talk about Bush causing 9/11 so...I'd count them out.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38363137]When? He may not be a gun nut, but I don't recall him being against them either.[/QUOTE]
Apparently, he's come out for support on the ban of "assault weapons". It's worrying because he uses the term to describe any semi-automatic weapon that basically looks like military-grade hardware, not automatic weapons or actual military weaponry. If it goes through, he's effectively banning hunting rifles that look menacing, nothing more.
I'm very happy about the gay marriage proposals passing, and the statewide marijuana legalization in CO and WA.
[QUOTE=Fhenexx;38363252]Apparently, he's come out for support on the ban of "assault weapons". It's worrying because he uses the term to describe any semi-automatic weapon that basically looks like military-grade hardware, not automatic weapons or actual military weaponry. If it goes through, he's effectively banning hunting rifles that look menacing, nothing more.[/QUOTE]
high caliber weapons have no place in hunting
we do not have large game, [sp]unless you include blacks[/sp]
[QUOTE=Insulator;38363225]Underneath that ignorant attitude he has, I think the point he's attempting to make is the majority of Obama's electoral votes came from large cities and coastal regions. It just to happens to be that there's a lot of stoners in the cities. But most stoners I hang out with still talk about Bush causing 9/11 so...I'd count them out.[/QUOTE]
But most of those people also don't vote. I guarantee you most, if not all the stoners you hang out with didn't vote.
I know the type of people, they're not Democrats, they think they're political revolutionaries because they hate the man.
[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;38363276]But most of those people also don't vote. I guarantee you most, if not all the stoners you hang out with didn't vote.
I know the type of people, they're not Democrats, they think they're political revolutionaries because they hate the man.[/QUOTE]
They would have voted Ron Paul.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;38363282]They would have voted Ron Paul.[/QUOTE]
This as well
[QUOTE=Killerjc;38363271]high caliber weapons have no place in hunting
we do not have large game, [sp]unless you include blacks[/sp][/QUOTE]
Define "high caliber." I agree you shouldn't need a .50 caliber rifle to take down a deer or something (yes, they actually make .50 caliber rifles for civilians, it boggles my mind, too :V), but common calibers you see used often in the military (e.g. 5.56x45 NATO and 7.62x51 NATO, the latter of which I will represent using .308 Winchester which is basically its civilian equivalent) are used much more often in hunting than you may think. 5.56 is used often in small game hunting, like squirrels, and .308 is used in some big game hunting but is actually overshadowed by other larger calibers (I think, I don't know much about big game hunting to be honest). 12 gauges, which are often used in the military as well, are also used in big game hunting, too.
And yes, we do have a lot of large game in America. Just in my neck of the woods, we have a bunch of deer and black bears. Moose, elk, brown bears, and a bunch of others are also congregating around the U.S., so they're not nonexistent!
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38363137]When? He may not be a gun nut, but I don't recall him being against them either.[/quote]
You're joking, right? He's the most anti-gun president we've ever had (and hopefully ever will have).
[url]http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm[/url]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38363137]1. Last I checked, he was offering to lend some of our Aircraft Carriers to the British for use against Argentina, because they only have one and we have eleven.[/quote]
Citation needed.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38363137]2. A position popular with the entire world [I]except[/I] the USA, because we're Israel's bitch. He wants to change that and honestly I'd support it. Israel's methods won't see peace in the middle-east until they wipe out everyone else.[/quote]
Oh really? Yes, I know a lot of European lefties absolutely HATE Israel, but are they the vast majority or just a very vocal minority? The only study I could find on it was published by the European Muslim Research Center, which I take with a grain of salt. Even if it were true, why should it matter? We're not going to have our policy dictated to us by European socialists.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38363137]Bush signed TARP. Bush was a socialist?[/quote]
At least partially, yes.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38363137]When?[/quote]
[url]http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/08/obama-lets-repeat-auto-rescue-with-every-manufacturing-131566.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;38363137]Because God forbid people have access to healthcare, right? Only the financially healthy have earned the right to be physically healthy as well, apparently.[/QUOTE]
Because everyone would just die if they were forced to get jobs, right?
Swazi Spring sits in his dark fallout shelter, gently caressing his gun, whispering "Obongo won't hurt you"
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38363381]Because everyone would just die if they were forced to get jobs, right?[/QUOTE]
Sure. Just pluck one out from the magical job tree! Anyway, jobs people would get probably wont provide, let alone pay you enough to pay for your own health care
Why do you guys act like being a conservative is one of the seven deadly sins?
Not every republican is an insane redneck who despises gays and is obsessed with guns.
k but republicans have a strong tendency to vote in insane rednecks who despise gays and obsess about guns
[QUOTE=theaceattourney;38364488]Why do you guys act like being a conservative is one of the seven deadly sins?
Not every republican is an insane redneck who despises gays and is obsessed with guns.[/QUOTE]
Because there's literally not a single good conservative policy that A: works or B: is good for humanity.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.