Next best thing for the US (and perhaps the world)

[nimbonius]

Sooo.... How 'bout that 3rd Debate? :tongue:

 

I'll say this about Obama (again just my opinion) - he's definitely a more responsible president (especially in contrast to the last administration, lol). I can't imagine Romney being such.

[colourwheel]

Sooo.... How 'bout that 3rd Debate? :tongue:

 

I'll say this about Obama (again just my opinion) - he's definitely a more responsible president (especially in contrast to the last administration, lol). I can't imagine Romney being such.

 

The 3rd debate was supposed to be about foreign policy, yet Romney kept trying to bring back Economic policy in his arguements. Just shows Romney either doesn't know enough about foreign policy or his lack of experience on foreign policy made him to keep going back to Economic policy. If Romeny is elected I personally don't think he will make a good commander in chief. Pretty much during the whole debate he just seems to agree what Obama was already doing as pressident with the exception of minor details.

 

I think the greatest arguement that Obama made was when he mentioned about horses and bayonets. We don't need to have the most ships in the world to be a strong military. Times have changed. Technologies have changed. Having a strong Military is not about who has the most of what...

 

Historically looking back at the vietnam war we had more troops and more weapons yet we still lost the war.

 

Romney lost to Obama on this debate hands down. Romney represents the republican party yet is desperately trying to say anything to anyone just to get more votes regaurdless if he is already on the record from the past saying he would do exactly the opposite or contrary to views has hes had in the last year.

 

I think romney is too politically bipolar.

 

With Romney's inexperience with foreign policy a majority of america might not realize this but most of his staff that will be advising him if he is president will be exactly the same people from the bush administration.

 

I don't think people want a repeat of the bush years from Romneys Economic plan which is exactly the same thing every republican President has done and has historically never worked. Now having the exact same people from the bush administration back into office that got us into wars we shouldnt even have been invovled in, people who vote for romney will just be voting to go back to the way the Bush years were.

Edited October 23, 2012 by colourwheel

[nimbonius]

I don't think people want a repeat of the bush years from Romneys Economic plan which is exactly the same thing every republican President has done and has historically never worked. Now having the exact same people from the bush administration back into office that got us into wars we shouldn't even have been invovled in, people who vote for romney will just be voting to go back to the way the Bush years were.

Where I'm from, this is exactly what people want haha

Bias News media and other outlets with political agendas will dupe the public no matter what

This is why I avoid anchoring down to just one station. Hell, I wouldn't trust a "station" to begin with seeing as most networks are mainly for whats in their best interest whether its views, profit, or manipulation to acquire such things. But in an age of technology, where information can be presented by simply searching the web and opinions are so broad and diverse, well-- they don't quite stand a chance anymore :biggrin:

 

I will admit, I do watch Fox News.

But only to see Jon Stewart and Colbert tear 'em a new hole.

[colourwheel]

One thing for sure that I fear if Romney becomes president is that the republican party has become very extreme in their core beliefs in the past decade. Despite the fact that the economy is the main issue for many people, this presidency will have a chance to empower a new supreme court justice which could mean the difference for decades to come for female rights.

 

I beleive that "Roe vs Wade" will be over turned if the republican party tries to empower someone who is extremely pro-life in the supreme court. This would mean even if a 13 year old daughter is brutally raped by her father, the governmant would make it illegal for that child to get an abortion even if it means giving birth to that child would kill her.

 

To live in a country where womens right would be turned back so far to the past is more scary than dealing with a slow growing economy or slowly dying economy to me. because it only takes at most 8 years for a new president to come up with a plan and administration to help and fix our nation. a new supreme court justice is for the term of their natural life or career till they decide to retire.

 

This is just one reason why The republican party scares me so much these days.

Edited October 25, 2012 by colourwheel

[juderodney]

Romney previously supported a woman’s right to decide, but he is now adamantly opposed to abortions, unless it involves cases of rape, incest or if the mother’s life is in mortal danger.

 

http://2012.republican-candidates.org/Romney/Abortion.php

 

 

Not exactly what you're accusing him of, Colourwheel. Oh, and when exactly did any Republican this electon cycle actively make a plan that would destroy women's rights so much? And before you say it, having them pay for their own contraception isn't one of those plans.

 

Also, the reason Mitt kept harping on the economy is because $16,000,000,000,000 in debt (more than $1,000,000,000,000 is owed to China) is not good for dealing with foreign interests. A sound economy means a stronger foreign policy position.

[ginnyfizz]

I think what is being referred to is the Republican Platform Panel

 

Republican Platform Panel Backs Blanket Ban

 

On the face of it, that certainly looks very scary. But as I said before, platforms, manifestos, call them what you will, are one thing, and are usually a form of political grandstanding. What gets into law is frequently another thing entirely.

[Dan3345]

Sooo.... How 'bout that 3rd Debate? :tongue:

 

I'll say this about Obama (again just my opinion) - he's definitely a more responsible president (especially in contrast to the last administration, lol). I can't imagine Romney being such.

 

The 3rd debate was supposed to be about foreign policy, yet Romney kept trying to bring back Economic policy in his arguements. Just shows Romney either doesn't know enough about foreign policy or his lack of experience on foreign policy made him to keep going back to Economic policy. If Romeny is elected I personally don't think he will make a good commander in chief. Pretty much during the whole debate he just seems to agree what Obama was already doing as pressident with the exception of minor details.

 

I think the greatest arguement that Obama made was when he mentioned about horses and bayonets. We don't need to have the most ships in the world to be a strong military. Times have changed. Technologies have changed. Having a strong Military is not about who has the most of what...

 

First of all, of course he kept bringing back the economy. He has no foreign policy experience. If we look back to 08 we can see Obama the community organizer/absent senator also had little to zero foreign policy experience.

 

As for Obama's little statement. I am not even gunning for Romney and I found it incredibly condescending and arrogant. It's very obvious to me that Obama has only misplaced hatred for Romney. And I would like to point out, in Afghanistan much of the terrain is traversed by horse. The army rides horses between villages in canyons because Humvee's are too big and clunky, not to mention an easy target. And Marines are trained too use bayonets as they are every single weapon on the planet.

 

I would also like to say, I am a Libertarian. I believe in a woman's right to choice and that the government should keep out of the bedroom. But one thing right now that I absolutely cannot stand (something which I can see is going to force me to leave this debate or get banned from this site) is people, woman, or men complaining about a politicians stance on abortion. Fist of all, they may say they would ban it, but its never going to happen. Ever. Even if they got away with it for one term, eventually enough Congressman and Senators would replace them and repeal the damage. Second of all, is this really what matters right now? 16 trillion in debt, and you're worried about whether or not you can execute your unborn child? Which I would like to add Democrats are all for unrestricted abortion but are happy to pass a law which makes it so that if a man or a woman kicks a pregnant woman in the stomach killing the fetus they are guilty of first degree murder. But wait, I thought a fetus wasn't technically a Human? So it's not a human, but if I am responsible for killing an unborn child in a mothers womb I can be prosecuted for murder? Does this make sense to anyone or is it just me?

 

Back to the debt though, Jefferson warned us against having a debt, something about the nation being unable to chart its own future.. No big deal.. He also warned us about having a federal bank. Which I will add is directly against Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution. It is against it as Jefferson argued to Hamilton because the constitution does not directly enumerate the need or the want of a federal reserve. I realize this is up for debate (although it was settled in 1913..) but my standing is, it should not exist and should be dismantled.

 

As for our little party system which I myself take part in...Washington warned us of these as well. Saying; and I am paraphrasing here: "The party system makes people loyal first and foremost to the party which they are aligned with and not the flag in which they were born under."

 

I hope all of you see what has happened to this country. Democrats and Republicans can't (at least where I live) have a civil debate without screaming at each other and name calling. Have we forgotten we are all Americans? That we are all people, sane and aware, capable of forming our own opinions and thoughts? Opinions should be heard and respected, not silenced and scorned.

Edited October 26, 2012 by Dan3345

[ginnyfizz]

Wow, that law about the injuring of a pregnant woman such that the foetus dies = murder would be ripe for a roughing up by the courts if they tried to operate it at the same time as a policy of unrestricted abortion. I can hear the lawyers laughing all the way to the bank right now, and no, it most certainly is not a laughing matter.

 

But I am with Dan3345 on this. Despite my own religious beliefs I am a Libertarian and support a woman's choice (so kindly don't tell my priest if you don't mind, hehe), although the use of abortion as a routine form of contraception, as happens where I am in the UK, bothers me. But this outsider looking in is totally bemused at the zoning in on the abortion issue and the, to be frank, scaremongering that is happening in this thread, when the economic situation is the really scary thing (as indeed it is here in the UK.)

[colourwheel]

This years election is more than just about the economy to me.

 

Yes the economy is bad yet the Republican party wants to limit government but some reason want government to control womans rights. Mitt Romney recently fully endorced Richard Mourdock recently for Senate. Just google what Richard Mourdock has to say about women being raped. With todd akin "legitimate rape" comment just makes me sick.

 

These people who are running for office this year in the republican party make me sick. Romney has not endorced lilly ledbetter pay act, he wants to get rid of planned parenthood, and He totally supports the blunt act. Just those three things alone show me how sexist Romney is. On top of just this he wants to give tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country thinking wealthy people who get tax cuts will some how magically hire more people and create jobs. You look at history when government gives tax cut to the rich they dont necessary take what they've saved in taxes just for the purpose of creating new jobs. There is a reason why a majority of the wealthy are greedy. It's because a majority of wealthy got rich being greedy.

 

This is where mitt Romneys plan fails cutting taxes for the rich.

[ginnyfizz]

I think if you feel like that you would have been really happy in the Britain of the 1970's. The rich were well and truly soaked with tax rates of up to about 98%. So off they toddled and left for tax havens. Nationalised industries kept up the levels of employment. It must have been paradise...

 

Er...no. The trade unions ran roughshod over governments and ran the country, spending more time on strike than they did at work. At one point the trash piled up when the dustmen went on strike, and so did the bodies of the dead when cemetery and crematorium workers joined in the fun. So much money was spent on shoring up the nationalised industries that we had to go and crawl to the IMF. We were a basket case, the laughing stock of the Western World.

 

And then along came Saint Margaret Hilda and the rest, as they say, is history. So do not rush so much to swallow the socialist line. What happened in the UK is proof enough of what happens when you drive away your wealth creators. These days, the wealthy from high tax countries elsewhere in Europe come here - we must have almost every billionaire from Sweden or Russia domiciled here in the UK (and thus paying their taxes here...) Funny that.

 

No-one will have any rights much if the country goes bust.