Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Columbo

Obama vs Romney 2012 - CDC Election

Obama vs Romney  

327 members have voted

  1. 1. Who would you vote for?

    • Obama
      279
    • Romney
      48


Recommended Posts

Without all the influx of money, to the banks, and the auto industry, the US of A would be in far worse condition now than it was in '07/'08. The stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed. Rome was crumbling and the heads of AIG were worried about severance packages. The Auto makers CEO's flew to Washington in their Lear Jets. One part of me was saying let them fail, but overall, that would have been a much worse disaster. Even still these greedy ***tards are still reaping in bonuses, salary packages, and severance that are equal to or more than before. This is why you are in trouble. They don't get it!, and you don't get it! Regulating banks would be a start. But to Americans, that's socialism.

How many Canadian banks needed stimulus money? NONE! They are regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, if the "stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed" what message is that sending to businesses who are either corrupt or simply run themselves into the ground fully expecting a bailout? Come get some money! Too big to fail! Because the fat cheques first and foremost went to those very people who ran the businesses/financials into the ground either for their jets or their golden parachutes, if not both.. the workers were still screwed.

In no way shape or form is it a good idea for government to bail out businesses who cannot compete in the market because it both sends a message that encourages bad business decisions and encourages too close a relationship between private enterprise and government, much like that with the past several administrations with the auto industry, Goldman Sachs and the other financials, etc. If the corruption with PAC money, campaign financing, and tit-for-tat government rewards/subsidies/bailouts etc. isn't a clue enough as to why this is a bad thing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without all the influx of money, to the banks, and the auto industry, the US of A would be in far worse condition now than it was in '07/'08. The stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed. Rome was crumbling and the heads of AIG were worried about severance packages. The Auto makers CEO's flew to Washington in their Lear Jets. One part of me was saying let them fail, but overall, that would have been a much worse disaster. Even still these greedy ***tards are still reaping in bonuses, salary packages, and severance that are equal to or more than before. This is why you are in trouble. They don't get it!, and you don't get it! Regulating banks would be a start. But to Americans, that's socialism.

How many Canadian banks needed stimulus money? NONE! They are regulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, if the "stimulus saved those very same institutions from themselves and their greed" what message is that sending to businesses who are either corrupt or simply run themselves into the ground fully expecting a bailout? Come get some money! Too big to fail! Because the fat cheques first and foremost went to those very people who ran the businesses/financials into the ground either for their jets or their golden parachutes, if not both.. the workers were still screwed.

In no way shape or form is it a good idea for government to bail out businesses who cannot compete in the market because it both sends a message that encourages bad business decisions and encourages too close a relationship between private enterprise and government, much like that with the past several administrations with the auto industry, Goldman Sachs and the other financials, etc. If the corruption with PAC money, campaign financing, and tit-for-tat government rewards/subsidies/bailouts etc. isn't a clue enough as to why this is a bad thing..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You talk in circles. Now all those banks and auto manufacturers are corrupt, more reason for regulating them. You still don't think that giving the auto industry a hand wasn't a good thing? They saved, I believe 100k related auto industry jobs, and the big three, have paid their debts. Actually Ford didn't need any, or so it was said. If you think this is "a bad thing", I guess there is no way to change your view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I criticized both Obama and Bush for their bailouts of the auto industry and the financials. You Obama sycophants seem to forget it wasn't Obama who started the bailouts.

2. The economy and unemployment situations would be immediately worse and they should be because the economy needed to normalise from the effects of an enormous bubble created by government to artificially grow the economy. You really should take a couple economics courses to understand what effects government intervention has on an economy.

3. No bailouts would have resulted in those people losing their jobs, but that's okay too. Why? Because an economy that can sustain itself without government holding it up is a far better scenario for the long run than what you see now, where government is so up to their eyeballs in debt the amount of interest payments per fiscal year is going to, in a few years, be higher than inflated defense spending, and debt will be surpassing GDP, hence why the US's credit is plummeting on fears it won't be able to pay back it's debts it continues to accumulate in the long run for your so cheered on government sustained economy. So no, the bailouts have not been proven whatsoever to be the right thing to do. :lol: The stupidity and sheer ignorance of your statement almost knocked me out of my chair laughing.

4. Your spiel about job creation and the bailout makes zero sense, and likely you failed to read what I was responding to to get an idea of what I was posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that; condescension and name-calling from zaibatsu....

Tell me were you born arrogant and unable to participate in a debate without being insulting, or is it something that you've cultivated over the years?

1) I don't care who started the bailouts. I stand by my assertion that it was necessary. I consider it one of the very few things that Dubya did right over his two terms.

2) I disagree that the US economy needed to "normalize" and from what I've read, so does everyone else in the thread, plus the last two American administrations. But of course, you have all the insight into what should have happened and the rest of the continent is wrong... :rolleyes:

3) It would have been "okay" for 100 thousand people to lose their jobs, according to you, but you'd still be here criticizing Obama on his jobs record.

"Take some economics courses"?, "Stupidity and sheer ignorance"?, and of course, the ubiquitous lol emoticon? The suggestion of expertise, condescension, topped off with a suspendable personal attack. It looks like you hit the arrogant, know-it-all trifecta. Nice work.

BTW: No-one here believes that you were "knocked out of your chair laughing". It's silly comments like that, plus your attempts at belittlement of other posters, that make it hard for anyone to take for anything but a troll.

4) In your opinion. (such as it is) Most reasonable people don't believe that it's necessary for hundreds of thousands of people to be out of work, just so things can normalize. Last I checked, feeding your family with food stamps is not "normal". YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that; condescension and name-calling from zaibatsu....

Tell me were you born arrogant and unable to participate in a debate without being insulting, or is it something that you've cultivated over the years?

1) I don't care who started the bailouts. I stand by my assertion that it was necessary. I consider it one of the very few things that Dubya did right over his two terms.

2) I disagree that the US economy needed to "normalize" and from what I've read, so does everyone else in the thread, plus the last two American administrations. But of course, you have all the insight into what should have happened and the rest of the continent is wrong... :rolleyes:

3) It would have been "okay" for 100 thousand people to lose their jobs, according to you, but you'd still be here criticizing Obama on his jobs record.

"Take some economics courses"?, "Stupidity and sheer ignorance"?, and of course, the ubiquitous lol emoticon? The suggestion of expertise, condescension, topped off with a suspendable personal attack. It looks like you hit the arrogant, know-it-all trifecta. Nice work.

BTW: No-one here believes that you were "knocked out of your chair laughing". It's silly comments like that, plus your attempts at belittlement of other posters, that make it hard for anyone to take for anything but a troll.

4) In your opinion. (such as it is) Most reasonable people don't believe that it's necessary for hundreds of thousands of people to be out of work, just so things can normalize. Last I checked, feeding your family with food stamps is not "normal". YMMV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine that, condescension followed by psychoanalysis of poster criticizing supposed condescension, hardly anything relating to the subject whatsoever besides repeating generalities, unlike what you quoted.. besides "everyone here on the Canucks board, North America, and world agrees with me therefore i r right", is there a reason to read any more of your posts going forward?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as long as he does not use that "Sanford as Burke in a Boat" avatar .. that one is TOO much .. besides, he has half the Forum on ignore, so he misses half the retort to his trolling .. ::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, show me where this was said? Wow! The only people that believe and agree with anything you post, are tea party members and the far right Republican wing. As a Canadian, I don't believe anything coming from those wing-nuts. How are you enjoying our medical system, by the way? One more piece of legislation the Obama promised, but, is being stonewalled by the Republican controlled house. Why is it wrong that every American can't have affordable medical? Why aren't your banks regulated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please, show me where this was said? Wow! The only people that believe and agree with anything you post, are tea party members and the far right Republican wing. As a Canadian, I don't believe anything coming from those wing-nuts. How are you enjoying our medical system, by the way? One more piece of legislation the Obama promised, but, is being stonewalled by the Republican controlled house. Why is it wrong that every American can't have affordable medical? Why aren't your banks regulated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the election season officially underway, this deserves an official poll. No 3rd options, no "Ron Paul 2016!", just a simple 2-way vote. Would you go Democrat with Obama and Biden, or Republican with Romney and Ryan? And most importantly, WHY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is only one choice in this election. Think about it, that other party... You know the one. The one with all of the lemming followers who mindlessly regurgitate party talking points and can't recognize such things as facts and reality... It's not even an option to vote for them. Not only are they crazy but they also must also be heartless to advocate the things they do. They are so blind not to be able to see that their precious party leaders are only pandering to them, promising them the world by telling them what they want to hear when the truth is that they are only interested in buffering their own power and lining the pockets of their campaign contributors. If only it were simple. if only these people could see the light of reason. But the truth is that they have no interest in truth. They are way to caught up in group-think to admit that they're arguments are easily destroyed, and that anyone with eyes to see knows exactly which side SHOULD be in power. Yes, it seems these misled sheeple are a lost cause. And it will be a dark day for humanity indeed if their party were to win this election. There is too much at stake to throw votes away and personally I have no interest living in a dream world. I know EXACTLY where my vote is going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very nicely said. I agree, even though the OP wanted a 2 person vote. I really don't want to vote for either of them. I think the best option for America is a third party candidate. Specifically Gary Johnson. If people actually want rights and a say in their own life, they should vote for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people should stop thinking in terms of "vote for change" and should start thinking in terms of "be the change you want to see in the world". Politics brings out the absolute worst in people and yet it is supposed to be the branch of philosophy that allows us to figure out how to come together and co-exist peacefully. Even re-reading what I wrote yesterday it seemed like my words were overly sarcastic and bitter even though the intention was satire. I don't know how to communicate my frustration with politics in a way that isn't going to exacerbate the tension and alienate myself even further from the discussion.

If people really believe in a candidate than all the power to them should they get the outcome they desire, but it just seems to me like the narrative of reality everyone wants to write is whichever one is favorable to their tribal loyalties. And the reason for this is obvious if you read what the studies, like those written about in George Lakoff's book "The Political Mind", or "The Myth of the Rational Voter" by Bryan Caplan, show about the unconscious biases that ideology produces.

In this particular election both sides are pro-Imperialism, pro-SOPA, pro-NDAA, pro-Bail Outs, Pro-Stimulus, and pro-Patriot Act, and for all intents and purposes pro-status quo in all the ways that matter. Now, maybe people genuinely believe in all or most of these things but I do not. Yet if it were even possible to vote for a candidate who could legitimately end these policies than the only thing it would prove is not that government is responsive and efficacious, but that it has already crossed the rubicon and become way too powerful than it should be for anyones comfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since there's no reason for Obama to end policies Bush began, and how people like him and Romney have so many lemmings to cheer them on like their favourite hockey team, I'm pretty sure that signifies where the power lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.