Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Obama vs Romney 2012 - CDC Election


  • Please log in to reply
2022 replies to this topic

Poll: Obama vs Romney (329 member(s) have cast votes)

Who would you vote for?

  1. Obama (279 votes [85.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 85.32%

  2. Romney (48 votes [14.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.68%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31 Hobbes!!!

Hobbes!!!

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,990 posts
  • Joined: 07-May 03

Posted 28 August 2012 - 07:24 PM

Obama. Because I'd rather have a root canal than vote republican.
  • 0


#32 Squirrels.Gone.Wild

Squirrels.Gone.Wild

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 432 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 09

Posted 28 August 2012 - 07:29 PM

Gary Johnson. His beliefs are the closest to my own and I suggest anyone else google the guy and be astounded that independents like him are out there but the main parties continue to offer Americans more of the same crap.


This.
  • 0

#33 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,282 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:03 PM

At the rate Obama's been "fixing" things I expect the federal deficit to reach $20 trillion. :lol:


At the current pace the US is going $3.5B into debt every day. Keeping that up, and there is no sign they will stop. Their own budget projections confirm this and the end result looks a bit like this. ..............
  • $17 trillion on June 10, 2013;
  • $18 trillion on March 23, 2014;
  • $19 trillion on January 3, 2015; and
  • $20 trillion on October 16, 2015
They will be $20,000,000,000,000 in debt in a little over 3 years.

Edited by nuckin_futz, 28 August 2012 - 08:04 PM.

  • 0

#34 Trelane42

Trelane42

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:14 PM

/\/\ Quite right. Financial collapse is a mathematical certainty and US will not be alone in experiencing it. When is the only unknown. How many more creative ways to go for Obama (or Romney) to capitalize the banks at the the expense of taxpayers?

Point 1: Believing there are meaningful differences between the major governing parties in US or Canada is suggestive of a politically immature mind.

On the truly important issues like immigration, wars, central banking, free trade (otherwise known as transferring manufacturing to the 3rd world) and restricting domestic freedoms the so-called right and left are one and the same. Such few differences as there may be are usually confined to pre election rhetoric and when there is a ‘change’ in power it is still business as usual, media dressing notwithstanding.

Speaking from a strict (proper) interpretation of the US constitution nearly every sitting president beginning with Woodrow Wilson ought to have been tried, convicted, and shot for treason.


Point 2: Believing that casting a vote for the magic, affirmative action man is evidence of superior intelligence, as frequently suggested in the other thread, is naïve in the extreme. Here is something gentle to get you started and be sure to scroll down far enough to see what an IQ weighed election would yield.

Edited by Trelane42, 28 August 2012 - 08:20 PM.

  • 1

#35 Lillooet_Hillbilly

Lillooet_Hillbilly

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 695 posts
  • Joined: 04-July 11

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:46 PM

its just like flipping a loonie, heads or tails it doesn't matter because its still only a buck
  • 1

#36 nuckin_futz

nuckin_futz

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,282 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 12

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:47 PM

/\/\ Quite right. Financial collapse is a mathematical certainty and US will not be alone in experiencing it. When is the only unknown. How many more creative ways to go for Obama (or Romney) to capitalize the banks at the the expense of taxpayers?

Point 1: Believing there are meaningful differences between the major governing parties in US or Canada is suggestive of a politically immature mind.

On the truly important issues like immigration, wars, central banking, free trade (otherwise known as transferring manufacturing to the 3rd world) and restricting domestic freedoms the so-called right and left are one and the same. Such few differences as there may be are usually confined to pre election rhetoric and when there is a ‘change’ in power it is still business as usual, media dressing notwithstanding.

Speaking from a strict (proper) interpretation of the US constitution nearly every sitting president beginning with Woodrow Wilson ought to have been tried, convicted, and shot for treason.


Point 2: Believing that casting a vote for the magic, affirmative action man is evidence of superior intelligence, as frequently suggested in the other thread, is naïve in the extreme. Here is something gentle to get you started and be sure to scroll down far enough to see what an IQ weighed election would yield.


Can't argue with anything you've posted here. It's just a crying shame that so many people have willfully put their heads in the sand. I guess they will eventually wise up when the real financial tsunami hits. When it does it will make the last one seem like a walk in the park.

The link you posted certainly had some interesting stats. If there was a minimum IQ of 101 required to vote, 44% of the voting public would be disqualified from casting a ballot. Was shocked to see that 84% of the black vote would be eliminated. I suspected it would be the highest of all the groups but damn that's a big %.
  • 0

#37 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 28 August 2012 - 08:58 PM

Deficit was never the issue, always borrow in times of financial hurt. Not raising the debt ceiling, that sound more like your people - which was btw the real reason you defaulted.

The two you aforementioned wouldn't cut defense spending or tax the rich, so explain to me how you cut the deficit when you don't have a revenue stream?

Whoever "your people" are..

Always borrow in times of financial hurt? ROFL :lol:

Clinton tripled the national debt during his Presidency. George Bush added a few trillion more.. during times of non-financial hurt. That excuse doesn't fly.

It's hard to imagine you've ever watched a debate with Paul or Johnson or at least are playing dumb by acknowledging one facet of their monetary policy but ignoring the rest. If you haven't figured out what Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would cut, I'd advise Youtube and one of the countless caucus debates that cropped Ron Paul's and/or Gary Johnson's portions.


At the current pace the US is going $3.5B into debt every day. Keeping that up, and there is no sign they will stop. Their own budget projections confirm this and the end result looks a bit like this. ..............

  • $17 trillion on June 10, 2013;
  • $18 trillion on March 23, 2014;
  • $19 trillion on January 3, 2015; and
  • $20 trillion on October 16, 2015
They will be $20,000,000,000,000 in debt in a little over 3 years.

Sounds about right.. and I was being conservative.

Although that would be 2 years and 9 months roughly, giving Obama a full term with that rate is looking more like $22 trillion, which would mean Obama was President over a deficit increase of $12 trillion, in 8 years more than the entire US federal debt preceding him. Ridiculous.
  • 0

#38 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:41 AM

To all Obama voters: He signed the National Defense Authorization Act.
That is all.


Ha, and you really don't think Romney would have?
  • 0

#39 Columbo

Columbo

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,901 posts
  • Joined: 04-May 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 12:44 AM

I'm generally more right wing than virtually all of CDC, but this isn't even a question in my mind.

Obama.


The way American politics is these days, the Democrats are about as far right as Canada's Conservative Party, and the Republicans are somewhere on the border of fascism.
  • 4

#40 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,567 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:01 AM

Obama, but I'd rather just not vote at all or vote for Ron Paul. Neither seems to have the balls to fix the real issues in that country. The problem is with the government itself. Wars, corruption, loss of basic rights etc.

Edited by etsen3, 29 August 2012 - 01:04 AM.

  • 0

#41 Ossi Vaananen

Ossi Vaananen

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,878 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 12

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:34 AM

Whoever "your people" are..

Always borrow in times of financial hurt? ROFL :lol:

Clinton tripled the national debt during his Presidency. George Bush added a few trillion more.. during times of non-financial hurt. That excuse doesn't fly.

It's hard to imagine you've ever watched a debate with Paul or Johnson or at least are playing dumb by acknowledging one facet of their monetary policy but ignoring the rest. If you haven't figured out what Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would cut, I'd advise Youtube and one of the countless caucus debates that cropped Ron Paul's and/or Gary Johnson's portions.



Sounds about right.. and I was being conservative.

Although that would be 2 years and 9 months roughly, giving Obama a full term with that rate is looking more like $22 trillion, which would mean Obama was President over a deficit increase of $12 trillion, in 8 years more than the entire US federal debt preceding him. Ridiculous.


It's late here and I'm tired so I'm not going to provided the statistic I should to shut your kind up.

Clinton's years led to economic boom and a mainstay for your economy in the NAFTA signing. And yes, borrow, keep the money flowing through the economy, keep building roads and having people work. Bush tanked the economy through 2 wars one of which was completely unnecessary. He also led the campaign for less economic regulations leading to the housing crisis which effected the world as more than 8 trillion was tied up in equity.

By borrowing Obama has prevented the American economy from tanking even further. He has kept the American auto industry a float, as Ford, Chrysler and GM reported highs this last quarter. I shouldn't have to explain to you why an industry that big is vital to the American economy. The stimulus plan worked, and has seen job growth every term.

Ron Paul and his tea party crackheads led the campaign to prevent the debt ceiling from rising. To their narrow minded uneducated selves, lowering the debt ceiling would prevent further economic backslide. In reality, or to anyone who remotely understands economics, raising the debt ceiling would have prevented the default of Aug 2011 and ensure that American currency wouldn't be devalued. Ron Paul's answer is to cut social programs - which in a recession means further damage towards the middle and lower class.

Throw in your current nominee, Mitt Romney. The man without policy as he refuses to talk about anything of substance, and instead panders to the American population with the Republican National Convention themed after "American Exceptionalism" - a smokescreen if I've ever seen one. We don't know how Romney would run a government because he refuses to take a stand on anything. We know that he wants a smaller government but that says very little as to how it would be implemented in terms of policy. Instead the media attempts to determine how he does business in Bain capital, a corporation guilty of slave labour and buying up failing companies only to liquidate all assets into a profit. But now Bain capital is off side so we can't explore as to how he would run a government as he claims to have successfully run a business. Oh not to mention, religion and social views are off side as well - my assumption because Mormonism defiles women and Romney has stated he believes only blacks require welfare. Add to all this Romney doesn't pay his taxes and keeps his money offshore, clearly a guy who cares about his fellow Americans...
McCain was a guy I could respect - what happened?

No, I didn't cover Gary Johnson as he's not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter. Libertarian government essentially means no government at all. A broad theme with little substantive plausibility.

Oh and you didn't answer my question - how do you reduce the deficit if you refuse to cut defense spending (the largest form of spending) or increase revenue (tax the rich). Instead the republican side has attempted tax cut after tax cut and plans to juggle two wars while possibly starting a 3rd in Iran.

Obama has had four years to deal with 2 wars (he has a noble peace prize I might add), the worst economic depression since the 1930s as well as dealing with a tea party congress which refuses compromise on anything substantive. Obama has achieved a lot despite these set backs, and I believe he can do much more with a 2nd term without the pressure of having to pander to the far right.

Edited by Ossi Vaanenen, 29 August 2012 - 01:36 AM.

  • 0

2d7ye0p.jpg

 

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#42 Buddhas Hand

Buddhas Hand

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,197 posts
  • Joined: 19-December 11

Posted 29 August 2012 - 01:47 AM

/\/\ Quite right. Financial collapse is a mathematical certainty and US will not be alone in experiencing it. When is the only unknown. How many more creative ways to go for Obama (or Romney) to capitalize the banks at the the expense of taxpayers?

Point 1: Believing there are meaningful differences between the major governing parties in US or Canada is suggestive of a politically immature mind.

On the truly important issues like immigration, wars, central banking, free trade (otherwise known as transferring manufacturing to the 3rd world) and restricting domestic freedoms the so-called right and left are one and the same. Such few differences as there may be are usually confined to pre election rhetoric and when there is a ‘change’ in power it is still business as usual, media dressing notwithstanding.

Speaking from a strict (proper) interpretation of the US constitution nearly every sitting president beginning with Woodrow Wilson ought to have been tried, convicted, and shot for treason.


Point 2: Believing that casting a vote for the magic, affirmative action man is evidence of superior intelligence, as frequently suggested in the other thread, is naïve in the extreme. Here is something gentle to get you started and be sure to scroll down far enough to see what an IQ weighed election would yield.


thats not quite as bad as compulsory sterilising people because of a supposedly low IQ ,

Canada

Although far less well-known than the Nazi eugenics and American eugenic sterilization programs, two Canadian provinces performed involuntary sterilization programs with eugenic aims. Canadian compulsory sterilization operated via the same overall mechanisms of institutionalization, judgement, and surgery as the American system, One notable difference is in the treatment of non-insane criminals. Canadian legislation never allowed for punitive sterilization of inmates.
Targeted Sterilization?

The eugenic programs of Nazi Germany and the United States are strongly suggestive of racial, religious, and cultural targeting in their victims. Not surprisingly, a statistical study done on sterilization victims in Alberta has yielded data supporting the theory that its sterilization program was biased as well. Minors, because of their legal dependency on adults, were almost always assigned as "mental defectives", thus bypassing the parental consent requirement. Albertan aboriginals and métis, regardless of age, were also targeted. Aboriginal people represented only 2.5% of the general population in Alberta, but made up 6% of the institutionalized population. Towards the end of Alberta's sterilization program, aboriginals and métis made up 25% of the sterilizations performed. Furthermore, those of aboriginal ancestry were disproportionately assigned the "mentally deficient" rating, which denied them their legal rights and made them eligible to sterilization without consent. Women were another disproportionately represented group. Those women who were young, poor, and unmarried were thought to be at high risk for prostitution or at the very least promiscuity, activities suspected of breeding further immorality. If sterilized, it was conceded that although the behavior of the woman sterilized would not change, she would not be able to bear defective progeny. Leilani Muir, a former inmate of the Michener Centre(also known as the Provincial Training School for Mental Defectives, PTS), discovered in 1971 that she had been sterilized. After being admitted to the PTS at age 10 as an unwanted and abused child, Leilani was given a substandard education. She was inaccurately designated a mentally defective moron (an individual with an IQ between 51 and 70), effectively nullifying her human rights. She was administered powerful antipsychotic agents without any due cause, as she had not manifested any symptoms of psychosis during her residency at the PTS. Eventually she was given an impromptu IQ test on which she scored a 64. Shortly thereafter, she was taken before the Eugenics Board, and sterilization was authorized pending her mother's consent (which was readily given). In 1995, Leilani was awarded $750,000CDN and $230,000CDN for legal fees for her wrongful and humiliating labeling as a moron, and her subsequent sterilization. Since the victory, another 1300 cases have been opened, several of them concerning inviduals who may have actual mental disabilities. It is unlikely they will be awarded any settlements based on stigmatization, but they may win suits based on involuntary sterilization, which is now considered battery under Canadian law.
xenophobia among the Anglo-Saxon, Protestant, educated elite of British Columbia. Slavic immigrants in particular were accused of having very high incidence of undesired characteristics, all of which can be attributed to culture shock and language barriers. The aversion to "abnormal" or "strange" people coupled with the perceived societal drain caused by immigrants, the deformed, mentally ill, and mentally disabled created an environment conducive to the enactment of a sexual sterilization act. Indeed, the prospect of improving Canada's genetic stock by breeding out unwanted elements was looked upon with enthusiasm.
It is no surprise that in July 1933, 5 years after Alberta, British Columbia passed its own sexual sterilization act. A three member Eugenics Board comprised of a psychiatrist, a social worker, and a judge was given the duty of authorizing the sterilization of any institutionalized person who was deemed capable of propagating undesirable social characteristics. Since such social problems as criminality, prostitution, and addiction/alcoholism were believed to have a biological (and thus heritable) cause, almost any institutionalized individual could be found eligible, in one way or another. Although the records concerning BC's Sexual Sterilization Act were lost or destroyed, it is thought that only a few hundred individuals were operated upon before the law was silently repealed in 1973.
That sterilization laws were only enacted in Alberta and B.C., and that they endured so long is strange, but not outright perplexing. The religious makeup of the Western provinces was primarily Protestant, in contrast with the strong Catholic presence in Eastern Canada. Pope Pius XI of the Catholic Church denounced surgical intervention in reproductive matters, making any Catholic stronghold (such as Ontario or Quebec) an inhospitable place to lobby for eugenic sterilization of the disabled. The introduction of progressive, left-leaning governments in Alberta and B.C. also had a hand in strengthening eugenic legislation. Left-leaning parties were eager to embrace new ideas, especially those that held a promise of economic turnaround. Additionally, it has been suggested that a Westernist attitude of self reliance resulted in the provinces hanging on to these policies in order to "stick to their guns" and appear strong and defiant in the face of the East.

Beyond Alberta and British Columbia

Although eugenic sterilization was never instituted in Ontario, the issue saw considerable debate concurrent with the enactment of sterilization laws in Alberta and British Columbia. The formation of the Eugenics Society of Canada (ESC) in 1930 sought to organize supporters of eugenics into a coherent group in order to make their lobbying to government more effective. Founded in Ontario, the ESC boasted a large number of physicians in its ranks, including Clarence Hincks, one of the most devoted proponents of the Alberta Sexual Sterilization Act. Other notable members included the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario Dr. H. A. Bruce, and eminent psychiatrist Clarence B. Farrar, who had been head of the Toronto Psychiatric Hospital since 1925. As social traits like criminality and promiscuity began to edge off the list of heritable traits, the ESC found itself adapting its strategy to that of birth control, while maintaining a focus on economic benefit. It garnered consierable support, but was never able to table eugenic sterilization effectively in the political arena. the ESC met its end shortly after a public relations blunder in 1938, when a representative implied the ESC and the Nazi party sought to achieve similar goals through similar means. It is not surprising then, that when World War II broke out in 1939, the ESC lost nearly all of its support.
Recent court discussions in Manitoba have investigated the legality and ethical permissibility of involuntary sterilization of the mentally disabled. Focusing on those individuals found legally incompetent, the 1990 and 1992 reports outlined the scenarios where an involuntary sterilization could be warranted. As stated by the 1990 discussion, three conditions are necessary for an individual to undergo any medical procedure.
  • The individual must be informed of both the nature, and risks/benefits of the procedure.
  • The consent must be voluntary, not the product of coercion, threat, or fraud.
  • The individual must be competent* enough to give the above consent.
Individuals who are legally incompetent include minors and sufficiently-disabled adults.
The discussion reached a consensus that involuntary sterilization (or sterilization with substituted consent) is only permissible if it has an explicit positive effect on the physical or mental health of the individual: this is called therapeutic sterilization. One such case involved was a seriously disabled girl with an aversive phobia to blood, who was scheduled to undergo a hysterectomy. The rationale of the surgery was not eugenic, but rather to protect the girl from the direct mental trauma that would likely arise upon initiation of menses. This judgement was seen to be on the very threshold between therapeutic and nontherapeutic surgical intervention. This discussion also cits a landmark case in substituted consent known as the Mrs. E. vs. Eve case. In it, a mother, "Mrs. E.", wished to have her moderately intellectually disabled daughted "Eve" sterilized to save her the emotional distress potentially caused by pregnancy and childbirth. Additionally, it was argued that Eve would neither be capable of using any other methof of contraception, nor caring for a child should she become pregnant. Since the sterilization was not explicitly therapeutic and carried grave physical harm and an intrusion on Eve's rights, Mrs. E. could not be given the authority to have her daughter sterilized. It was then explored whether or not the government itself could make the decision, using parens patriae jurisdiction. Parens patriae allows the government to make authorizations in the "best interests" where no other source of consent can be attained; this includes children, and mentally disabled persons. In the Eve case, the risks were deemed too high and the benefits too obscure to authorize a nontherapeutic sterilization via parens patriae juristiction, since a surgical sterilization is an irreversible procedure.
  • 0

The Real war is not between the east and the west. The real war is between intelligent and stupid people.

Marjane Satrapi

tony-abbott-and-stephen-harper-custom-da

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.

Aldous Huxley.


#43 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 04:49 AM

It's late here and I'm tired so I'm not going to provided the statistic I should to shut your kind up.

Clinton's years led to economic boom and a mainstay for your economy in the NAFTA signing. And yes, borrow, keep the money flowing through the economy, keep building roads and having people work. Bush tanked the economy through 2 wars one of which was completely unnecessary. He also led the campaign for less economic regulations leading to the housing crisis which effected the world as more than 8 trillion was tied up in equity.

By borrowing Obama has prevented the American economy from tanking even further. He has kept the American auto industry a float, as Ford, Chrysler and GM reported highs this last quarter. I shouldn't have to explain to you why an industry that big is vital to the American economy. The stimulus plan worked, and has seen job growth every term.

Ron Paul and his tea party crackheads led the campaign to prevent the debt ceiling from rising. To their narrow minded uneducated selves, lowering the debt ceiling would prevent further economic backslide. In reality, or to anyone who remotely understands economics, raising the debt ceiling would have prevented the default of Aug 2011 and ensure that American currency wouldn't be devalued. Ron Paul's answer is to cut social programs - which in a recession means further damage towards the middle and lower class.

Throw in your current nominee, Mitt Romney. The man without policy as he refuses to talk about anything of substance, and instead panders to the American population with the Republican National Convention themed after "American Exceptionalism" - a smokescreen if I've ever seen one. We don't know how Romney would run a government because he refuses to take a stand on anything. We know that he wants a smaller government but that says very little as to how it would be implemented in terms of policy. Instead the media attempts to determine how he does business in Bain capital, a corporation guilty of slave labour and buying up failing companies only to liquidate all assets into a profit. But now Bain capital is off side so we can't explore as to how he would run a government as he claims to have successfully run a business. Oh not to mention, religion and social views are off side as well - my assumption because Mormonism defiles women and Romney has stated he believes only blacks require welfare. Add to all this Romney doesn't pay his taxes and keeps his money offshore, clearly a guy who cares about his fellow Americans...
McCain was a guy I could respect - what happened?


No, I didn't cover Gary Johnson as he's not worth my time, or anyone else's for that matter. Libertarian government essentially means no government at all. A broad theme with little substantive plausibility.

Oh and you didn't answer my question - how do you reduce the deficit if you refuse to cut defense spending (the largest form of spending) or increase revenue (tax the rich). Instead the republican side has attempted tax cut after tax cut and plans to juggle two wars while possibly starting a 3rd in Iran.

Obama has had four years to deal with 2 wars (he has a noble peace prize I might add), the worst economic depression since the 1930s as well as dealing with a tea party congress which refuses compromise on anything substantive. Obama has achieved a lot despite these set backs, and I believe he can do much more with a 2nd term without the pressure of having to pander to the far right.

The Clinton years started the very same problem that now affects the European continent.. borrowing money when you're already doing well to do better. It's extremely sad, but not in the least bit surprising you failed to recognize an artificial economic bubble when you see one, but given your Republican-Democrat crap lines, you are in serious need of an education.

First off, there is no arguing with me, which is why you didn't, that Clinton borrowed an assload to finance this economic prosperity, it's called an artificial bubble. An artificial bubble has to pop at some point. Keynes originally intended on government's intervention in economic issues to be limited. This has obviously gone well beyond the scope of that.

The economic bubble began to drop during the Bush years, and rather than George Bush's administration letting the economy slide to normalise itself from years of government debt spending, Bush just borrows twice as much to create an even bigger bubble which pops in 2005-2007, never mind his spending on a war. Then, once again, he borrows trillions in the latter years of his presidency to keep the economy from a complete collapse, holding economy up on government's back.

Then, to make matters even worse, Bush bails out the banks and the auto industry, a bad thing because it both signals government saving businesses from crapty decisions and giving their decision making execs a golden parachute, and government absorbing toxic debt form the financials/banks and housing industry.. then Obama adds his own bailout on top of it, and now in order to prevent an economic collapse, which should happen anyways, Obama has to incur well over a trillion in debt per year. All that's doing is exacerbating the problem and going to make the inevitable economic collapse that much larger and devastating. Government should not be keeping private business afloat just because it would hurt the economy. The economy is normalising, that's what it does when you spend too much money that's not yours.

Obama borrowing the US into insolvency isn't a good thing, it's a BAD thing, especially for the US's economic future. Obama and his economic+political advisers know for the sake of him being President for a second term he cannot let the economy normalise because Romney, who would do the exact same thing, would attain many Obama drones.

These three Presidents took Keynesian economics and blew it up media-style. I'd suggest an extensive macroeconomics course to figure out what that means, and maybe pull your head out of Obama's ass.

I don't take issue with your assertions about Romney because he is one shady mother fracker but these attacks are practically verbatim stuff that comes out from the Democratic party's campaign. It's obvious who you take your cues from. And that's exactly why I'm arguing with a child over larger issues. When you don't need your hand held by the Democratic party as to what to think about candidates, let me know.

Cannot make an argument without straw man. Gary Johnson.. anarchy.. lol? Yeah no wonder you didn't go into anything of "plausibility".

Actually your question was how would Paul or Johnson cut spending, because I can't cut anything, but nice attempt in re-wording your question to try and make me do your research for you anyways, plus adding the spin to make them out to be Bush/Romney clones while at the same time Johnson is an anarchist now. :lol:

Obama has taken an economy left in terrible shape primarily because of the Bush administration (also partly due to both the Republican and Democrat Congresses who write spending bills Bush wouldn't have been able to effectively veto) and it's terrible monetary policy and just did the exact same thing making it twice as bad. Obama stayed for a few years in Iraq, maintains heavy presence in Afghanistan, keeps taxes low, spends excessively high.. he's a ???? Bush clone, differentiating himself by the private insurance corporatist legislation of Obamacare? Hah. I sure hope I'm alive to see the reckoning from these people who believe spending yourself into a spiral toward insolvency is a good thing. These Presidents had a chance to allow the economy to take a dive but it wouldn't have been nearly as bad as the inevitable one that's coming due to a fiscal policy that exacerbates the problem.

Oh, and to shut me up, you'll have to troll a lot harder. Or maybe perform a miracle and learn a few things about economics.

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 August 2012 - 04:55 AM.

  • 0

#44 Hobble

Hobble

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,664 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 07

Posted 29 August 2012 - 06:57 AM

Posted Image
  • 0

#45 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 07:10 AM

Gary Johnson. His beliefs are the closest to my own and I suggest anyone else google the guy and be astounded that independents like him are out there but the main parties continue to offer Americans more of the same crap.

Voting for either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

I voted RON PAUL!!!

I must have misread the OP....

I could have sworn the question was Obama or Romney. :unsure: In fact, I was pretty sure that it specifically said no third options....
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#46 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 07:16 AM

for some reason this post make me really miss playing hockey .
gonna go for a skate at docklands this weekend :)

Unfortunately for me, I have to wait at least an extra month this year. The ice plant at our local arena is down and won't be back on line until early November. :sadno:

What if you had to play D or goalie? :P

Actually, I play D a lot these days. In Alzheimer's, we have a lot of guys with limited skating ability, (especially skating backwards) so it falls on those of us with a lot of years of playing behind us to man the blueline...

I pretty much only get to play my natural position (center) in tournaments now.
  • 0
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#47 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 07:46 AM

I must have misread the OP....

I could have sworn the question was Obama or Romney. :unsure: In fact, I was pretty sure that it specifically said no third options....

I could have sworn OP is the one who writes what candidates go on the Presidential ballot.. oh, snap.. :picard:

But I will note next time OP puts two options and tells you no third one, especially if those options are "jump off a bridge" and "blow yourself up", you'll religiously follow his instructions. :bigblush:

Obviously we don't care if he doesn't want to include anyone besides Obama or Romney. I'm also not going to vote on the poll because it doesn't include anyone I'm actually voting for.

As long as Ron Paul doesn't endorse Mitt Romney or back out from the race I'm voting for him. If he does, then I vote for Gary Johnson come October.

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 August 2012 - 07:48 AM.

  • 0

#48 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 07:52 AM

I could have sworn OP is the one who writes what candidates go on the Presidential ballot.. oh, snap.. :picard:

But I will note next time OP puts two options and tells you no third one, especially if those options are "jump off a bridge" and "blow yourself up", you'll religiously follow his instructions. :bigblush:

Obviously we don't care if he doesn't want to include anyone besides Obama or Romney. I'm also not going to vote on the poll because it doesn't include anyone I'm actually voting for.



Obviously, nobody particularly cares whom you're voting for.

The fact is, either Romney or Obama will be the next President. The question was, "which of these two would you prefer?" In your case (and a few others) it would be essentially, "Which of the two do you consider to be the lesser of two evils?"
  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#49 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 07:57 AM

Obviously, nobody particularly cares whom you're voting for.

The fact is, either Romney or Obama will be the next President. The question was, "which of these two would you prefer?" In your case (and a few others) it would be essentially, "Which of the two do you consider to be the lesser of two evils?"

Obviously someone who doesn't care shouldn't respond.. else they show they do care.. quite a bit more than others, in fact.

Whether that's a fact or not about one of them winning has nothing to do with who I'm voting for. I don't prefer either because both of them are the same and would suck just as badly.

I don't allow the "lesser of two evils" nonsense to sway my vote. This is just like the religious belief that you should play it safe and believe in [insert religion here] or else you go to hell. Sad that for so many that this manipulative thought process works.. to both Romney and Obama's pleasure.

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 August 2012 - 07:58 AM.

  • 2

#50 Satan's Evil Twin

Satan's Evil Twin

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,028 posts
  • Joined: 02-September 06

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:06 AM

Obviously someone who doesn't care shouldn't respond.. else they show they do care.. quite a bit more than others, in fact.

Whether that's a fact or not about one of them winning has nothing to do with who I'm voting for. I don't prefer either because both of them are the same and would suck just as badly.

I don't allow the "lesser of two evils" nonsense to sway my vote. This is just like the religious belief that you should play it safe and believe in [insert religion here] or else you go to hell. Sad that for so many that this manipulative thought process works.. to both Romney and Obama's pleasure.


Right on. Voting for the lesser evil only means you're stuck in slightly less crap than you would be with the other guy. WHY AREN'T PEOPLE TIRED OF BEING IN crap AT ALL!?
  • 2

Posted Image


Father (Peace be upon You) Satan (Peace be upon You), I call to you (Peace be upon You) from the deepest parts of my heart, I praise your (Peace be upon You) name with every breath of my body, I worship you (Peace be upon You) with every fiber of my being. You (Peace be upon You) shown me what true strength is. You (Peace be upon You) have shown me what true love is. Out of the darkness you (Peace be upon You) came to show me the true light.


My master (Peace be upon You), my father (Peace be upon You) and my friend (Peace be upon You) what a great gift that is.


Posted Image Hail to the King (PBUH)! Posted Image


#51 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 08:51 AM

Right on. Voting for the lesser evil only means you're stuck in slightly less crap than you would be with the other guy. WHY AREN'T PEOPLE TIRED OF BEING IN crap AT ALL!?

Interesting scenario:

- What situation do you think the US would be with John Kerry 2005-2009 rather than Bush?
- What situation do you think the US would be in with John McCain 2009-2013 rather than Obama?

I see:

- Same War on Terror joke.
- No universal healthcare.
- Astronomical debt.
- Clandestine government.
- DOMA (Clinton's baby) not repealed.

When will these idiots finally realise that the differences between the two parties lie with the bottomfeeders fighting amongst each other? At the end of the day these two guys are golfing together and enjoying the royal screwing of the US they and their buddies who financed their campaigns will reap the benefits of. The most comical part is people think that there's some huge difference in voting for Obama or McCain, Obama or Romney, Bush or Obama.. ooooh I just voted Democrat, I'm a rebel this election, I fell for Obama's "change" gimmick, oooh I voted for Bush he represents change to limited government and compassionate conservatism. Oh right, nothing changed. That's why guys like Ron Paul sound crazy, because people have seen how he works in Congress for decades.. he actually would change the way the US handles fiscal policy, foreign conflict, etc., and the only change people obviously want is of the non-existent type. It's like Americans are in a relationship where they're getting fracked over but too scared to ditch their significant other due to the logic suppressing, alluring comfort of familiarity. More choices = better, fewer choices = they know you pick one or the other and work together to frack you over.

One day people might figure it out. Doesn't appear in my lifetime.

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 August 2012 - 08:53 AM.

  • 0

#52 Trelane42

Trelane42

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 435 posts
  • Joined: 08-July 10

Posted 29 August 2012 - 09:55 AM

Any discussion of the "Clinton economic boom" is incomplete without mentioning the internet revolution. Corporations, governments and other businesses were adding IT departments all throughout the decade. Support industries sprung up all around and did their part to offset the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs to Asia and thus save Clinton's ample posterior.

That revolution is over and even continued improvement in telecommunications will not significantly impact the labor force from now.

Also, the Clinton administration was responsible for much of the deregulation that allowed for expanded derivative banking, increase in commodities speculation, and easy mortgage financing. The chickens came home to roost on Bush II watch, who, at the bidding of his corporate and Central Bank masters, shifted the liability on to taxpayers.
  • 0

#53 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:05 AM

Any discussion of the "Clinton economic boom" is incomplete without mentioning the internet revolution. Corporations, governments and other businesses were adding IT departments all throughout the decade. Support industries sprung up all around and did their part to offset the hemorrhaging of manufacturing jobs to Asia and thus save Clinton's ample posterior.

That revolution is over and even continued improvement in telecommunications will not significantly impact the labor force from now.

Also, the Clinton administration was responsible for much of the deregulation that allowed for expanded derivative banking, increase in commodities speculation, and easy mortgage financing. The chickens came home to roost on Bush II watch, who, at the bidding of his corporate and Central Bank masters, shifted the liability on to taxpayers.

The praise for Clinton is a veiled compliment of his character, not his accomplishments. Clinton is like a messiah for Democrats, even more-so than Reagan is for Republicans. His debt, deregulation, signing of the DOMA.. there wasn't much he did whatsoever that was good, but much like Bush his character got him two useless (at best) terms.

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 August 2012 - 10:09 AM.

  • 0

#54 RUPERTKBD

RUPERTKBD

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,409 posts
  • Joined: 23-July 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:05 AM

Obviously someone who doesn't care shouldn't respond.. else they show they do care.. quite a bit more than others, in fact.

Whether that's a fact or not about one of them winning has nothing to do with who I'm voting for. I don't prefer either because both of them are the same and would suck just as badly.

I don't allow the "lesser of two evils" nonsense to sway my vote. This is just like the religious belief that you should play it safe and believe in [insert religion here] or else you go to hell. Sad that for so many that this manipulative thought process works.. to both Romney and Obama's pleasure.



It's all beside the point.

The fact is, whether you or S.E.T. want to admit it, either Obama or Romney will be the next President of the United States. The OP's question was, knowing that one of them is going to win, which do you prefer.

If the thread were entitled "Who are you voting for?" then you'd have a point. However, in this case, throwing out a third (or 4th) option is tantamount to chiming in on a thread that asked "Who would you rather sign, Doan or Arnott", and saying "I'd rather sign Weber...".

Maybe you would, but it's not germane to the topic at hand, nor is it anywhere within the realm of possibility.
  • 1
Orland Kurtenbach and Dennis Kearns had just been torched 8-1 by the Habs, but they still took time to come out to meet us, some fellow BC boys who were playing hockey in Montreal. THAT"S what being a Canuck is!

#55 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:19 AM

It's all beside the point.

The fact is, whether you or S.E.T. want to admit it, either Obama or Romney will be the next President of the United States. The OP's question was, knowing that one of them is going to win, which do you prefer.

If the thread were entitled "Who are you voting for?" then you'd have a point. However, in this case, throwing out a third (or 4th) option is tantamount to chiming in on a thread that asked "Who would you rather sign, Doan or Arnott", and saying "I'd rather sign Weber...".

Maybe you would, but it's not germane to the topic at hand, nor is it anywhere within the realm of possibility.

Uh, someone would be justified saying they'd prefer Weber in that type of discussion too.. this is a discussion board not basic training. Try and relax, corporal.
  • 0

#56 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:31 AM

Uh, someone would be justified saying they'd prefer Weber in that type of discussion too.. this is a discussion board not basic training. Try and relax, corporal.


Try to stay on topic then. All you've done so far from what i've read, is try to derail the thread with talk of Clinton, Bush, Paul, Johnson.

The OP gave you two choices to choose from and asked you why you'd choose either. You've made your point about not wanting to choose either. Fair enough. So why now incessantly argue with others in the thread who choose either of the two main candidates?

Go start your own thread about comparative political ideologies, Clinton's record as POTUS, or whatever other tangent you're trying to introduce.
  • 1

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff


#57 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:38 AM

Try to stay on topic then. All you've done so far from what i've read, is try to derail the thread with talk of Clinton, Bush, Paul, Johnson.

The OP gave you two choices to choose from and asked you why you'd choose either. You've made your point about not wanting to choose either. Fair enough. So why now incessantly argue with others in the thread who choose either of the two main candidates?

Go start your own thread about comparative political ideologies, Clinton's record as POTUS, or whatever other tangent you're trying to introduce.


Still smarting I see. Your perpetual butt-hurt makes me happy. ::D


:bigblush:

Edited by zaibatsu, 29 August 2012 - 10:38 AM.

  • 1

#58 Mr. Ambien

Mr. Ambien

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,300 posts
  • Joined: 07-April 03

Posted 29 August 2012 - 10:53 AM

Can't argue with anything you've posted here. It's just a crying shame that so many people have willfully put their heads in the sand. I guess they will eventually wise up when the real financial tsunami hits. When it does it will make the last one seem like a walk in the park.

The link you posted certainly had some interesting stats. If there was a minimum IQ of 101 required to vote, 44% of the voting public would be disqualified from casting a ballot. Was shocked to see that 84% of the black vote would be eliminated. I suspected it would be the highest of all the groups but damn that's a big %.

That's unfortunately fairly similar in it's own way to a poll tax and that'll never fly (I know you're being theoretical).. besides, IQ is a terrible thing to test intelligence with anyways.
  • 0

#59 Dittohead

Dittohead

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: 13-August 04

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:08 AM

No surprise in the results.
  • 0

#60 Sharpshooter

Sharpshooter

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,379 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 07

Posted 29 August 2012 - 11:21 AM

No surprise in the results.


And there shouldn't be much surprise with the results, this November. ;)
  • 0

Posted Image Pittsburgh Penguins - CDC GML Posted Image


"My goal is to win the Stanley Cup, and after the offer I received from Buffalo, I believe this is the best place to make it happen." - Christian Ehrhoff





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.