- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,239
- Reputation score
- 1,016
The Ranting/Debate Thread
- Thread starter Obeliskos
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 16,468
- Reputation score
- 430
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I personally plan to vote Libertarian this election, but if I had to choose between Obama and Romney, it really isn't a difficult choice. Also, some clarifications on above statements:
I called Republicans anti-choice, meaning anti-abortion and which some people call pro-life. I refuse to call any group that's outspokenly pro-war, anti-gun-control, against free and universal healthcare, against support for the mentally ill, and who would cut funding to education and orphanages if given any opportunity to do so pro-life. Because they aren't pro-life. At all. I'm not saying that abortions are always morally right, because they aren't. But this country was allegedly based on freedom, and if it's ambiguous on whether or not a fetus technically counts as a living thing, then giving women the free choice on whether or not they want to have a child falls under freedom, which I would argue is far more important for a government to enforce in this case. Also, Republicans like to deny women more standard birth control, including things as simple as condoms, for fundamentalist (read: stupid) reasons, but for some reason have no problem with erectile dysfunction medications being covered by insurance. While it would be nice to live in a world in which having abortions available if needed wasn't necessary because everyone practiced safe sex and there was no more rape, we do not live in that ideal world, and until we do I'll go for freedom of choice thank you very much.
On deregulation: You more observant types may consider my above point and my distaste for deregulation somewhat inconsistent. And they would be, until you consider that a completely deregulated or "free market" is anything but a free market. The only thing that a completely free economic system without any mediating body would create is a form of corporate feudalism in which the "job creators" controlled the majority of the wealth while divvying out just enough to keep their serfs alive. Media bombardment and entertainment would be used to prevent uprising.
On that note, my take on the economy as a whole is thus: We are reaching a point in technology at which we could make energy completely free. I've heard a lot of people at my uni talking about the energy crisis, and the one conversation that really stuck with me was two guys on a bus talking about the next source of energy after oil. The one was really pushing nuclear, and when the other guy brought up renewable sources he dismissed it outright.
Do you know what oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear all have in common? They're all finite, and they all destroy everything around them in both the extraction and burning processes. Relying on them is effectively locking ourselves into a zero sum game, and we're at the point where we could finally get away from that. Once energy is free, soon enough everything else would be too, particularly given how much the shift to digital would reduce the cost of production for a lot of things. It's depressing to see people pushing against that change. But maybe I'd just rather see our future look like Star Trek than I'd like to see it resemble Deus Ex or Shadowrun, which our world is increasingly resembling. (Minus monsters, mutants, superhumans, magic, and all of the other fun things that come with those two settings of course.)
In the US, the choice between Obama and Romney (or Democrat vs Republican as a whole for that matter) is largely a choice between the lesser of two evils at this point. In this instance, the choice is fairly easy to make for me: Romney and his running mate are proven liars, and extremely bad at it. They support economic policies that have hastened the systematic dissolution of productive industry not based on intellectual property (deregulation,) Social Policies directly contradicting my beliefs (anti gay marriage, anti choice, anti welfare,) and represent a continuation of the Bush years, and all the wonders that they bring. Combine that with the fact that Mitt and Ryan are supported by religious extremists and bigots (though I don't intend to suggest that such people make up a majority of their supporters) and their policies seem largely to be based on opposing whatever the other party says and you've got my basic opinion of the Republican party as a whole. Democrats are only marginally better given that both parties are essentially corporate puppets, but it's essentially the choice between supporting more intellectual organizations like Hollywood and Microsoft vs supporting big oil and defense contractors.
I personally plan to vote Libertarian this election, but if I had to choose between Obama and Romney, it really isn't a difficult choice. Also, some clarifications on above statements:
I called Republicans anti-choice, meaning anti-abortion and which some people call pro-life. I refuse to call any group that's outspokenly pro-war, anti-gun-control, against free and universal healthcare, against support for the mentally ill, and who would cut funding to education and orphanages if given any opportunity to do so pro-life. Because they aren't pro-life. At all. I'm not saying that abortions are always morally right, because they aren't. But this country was allegedly based on freedom, and if it's ambiguous on whether or not a fetus technically counts as a living thing, then giving women the free choice on whether or not they want to have a child falls under freedom, which I would argue is far more important for a government to enforce in this case. Also, Republicans like to deny women more standard birth control, including things as simple as condoms, for fundamentalist (read: stupid) reasons, but for some reason have no problem with erectile dysfunction medications being covered by insurance. While it would be nice to live in a world in which having abortions available if needed wasn't necessary because everyone practiced safe sex and there was no more rape, we do not live in that ideal world, and until we do I'll go for freedom of choice thank you very much.
On deregulation: You more observant types may consider my above point and my distaste for deregulation somewhat inconsistent. And they would be, until you consider that a completely deregulated or "free market" is anything but a free market. The only thing that a completely free economic system without any mediating body would create is a form of corporate feudalism in which the "job creators" controlled the majority of the wealth while divvying out just enough to keep their serfs alive. Media bombardment and entertainment would be used to prevent uprising.
On that note, my take on the economy as a whole is thus: We are reaching a point in technology at which we could make energy completely free. I've heard a lot of people at my uni talking about the energy crisis, and the one conversation that really stuck with me was two guys on a bus talking about the next source of energy after oil. The one was really pushing nuclear, and when the other guy brought up renewable sources he dismissed it outright.
Do you know what oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear all have in common? They're all finite, and they all destroy everything around them in both the extraction and burning processes. Relying on them is effectively locking ourselves into a zero sum game, and we're at the point where we could finally get away from that. Once energy is free, soon enough everything else would be too, particularly given how much the shift to digital would reduce the cost of production for a lot of things. It's depressing to see people pushing against that change. But maybe I'd just rather see our future look like Star Trek than I'd like to see it resemble Deus Ex or Shadowrun, which our world is increasingly resembling. (Minus monsters, mutants, superhumans, magic, and all of the other fun things that come with those two settings of course.)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,806
- Reputation score
- 312
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Gonna have to disagree with you on parts of the nuclear thing.
I'm not informed about uranium mining so i wont speak on that but one thing i do know is that a nuclear powerplant built today is one of the cleanest and greenest forms of power we have access to (large scale wind and solar farms sound green and for the most part they are but due to the manufacturing process and space taken i would rate nuclear above them despite their waste). They are also far more economical than solar or wind farms (I dont really have any numbers on hydro so i've not mentioned it).
A lot of people complain about chernoble, three mile island and more recently the tokyo earthquake. what all three of these have in common is that they were shoddy reactors maintained baddly and in the case of chernoble, being pushed way past their limits on purpose.
The waste is a serious concern but we've basicaly got it handeld.
So yeah, in short, nuclear power plants dont actualy destroy everything around them.
Free energy though is some kind of fusion plant i assume... well it probably won't be quite free (just super cheap or possibly govornment subsidised) and i'd be shocked if wide spread usage was closer than 50 years.
Also some of you might be wondering why free energy will help our cars run? free energy makes hydrogen fuel cells dramaticaly more economical.
Gonna have to disagree with you on parts of the nuclear thing.
I'm not informed about uranium mining so i wont speak on that but one thing i do know is that a nuclear powerplant built today is one of the cleanest and greenest forms of power we have access to (large scale wind and solar farms sound green and for the most part they are but due to the manufacturing process and space taken i would rate nuclear above them despite their waste). They are also far more economical than solar or wind farms (I dont really have any numbers on hydro so i've not mentioned it).
A lot of people complain about chernoble, three mile island and more recently the tokyo earthquake. what all three of these have in common is that they were shoddy reactors maintained baddly and in the case of chernoble, being pushed way past their limits on purpose.
The waste is a serious concern but we've basicaly got it handeld.
So yeah, in short, nuclear power plants dont actualy destroy everything around them.
Free energy though is some kind of fusion plant i assume... well it probably won't be quite free (just super cheap or possibly govornment subsidised) and i'd be shocked if wide spread usage was closer than 50 years.
Also some of you might be wondering why free energy will help our cars run? free energy makes hydrogen fuel cells dramaticaly more economical.
lurker
Hentai Master
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 5,002
- Reputation score
- 202
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
We do have the monsters, they just disguise themselves as the 'hate on me' group of the week to keep us on our toes. Well-discussed comments either way though.
Unknown Squid
Aurani's Wife
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,256
- Reputation score
- 314
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Commenting purely on the engery issue mentioned...
Part of the issue with the nuclear debate, is that there really isn't much of an alternative at present. The various renewable energy sources simply won't meet demand, more or less regardless of any governments policy on them. For the time being at least, they can't be more than supplements. And so barring a sudden unrealistic advance perfecting fusion energy overnight, a conventional energy source has to be selected. And with the state of oil, gas and coal, nuclear fission really stands as the only realistic option. Also, *copypasta-everything-Nunu-said-here*.
Speaking more locally, the UK currently has a very strong reliance on both coal and natural gas. Over two thirds of our entire power grid between them. The majority of that gas comes from Russia, and both supplies are exponentially becoming more expensive/scarcer. It's not a good situation. Windmills are nice and all, but they're not a primary source. (As a side note of all this talk of what's viable or efficient enough, the types of people that protest against even the wind turbines purely on the basis of them not being pretty enough for their ideal countryside can sod right off. They look better than Bacton, which is 2% town, and 98% sprawling miles of natural gas refinery.)
I can't find the video my brother showed me, but there are lots of little bits throughout history where the way technology is driven by economies and politics gets in the way. And it's a real shame. Something about how in the early days of nuclear power development, the choice to focus research on the family of reactors we use today, was actually based on it's relation to producing nuclear weapons. Where one variant nuclear technology,
Whilst this is little more than third person amateur techno gossip coming from me, the old guy in the video seemed both convincing, and quite disappointed about it all.
Commenting purely on the engery issue mentioned...
Part of the issue with the nuclear debate, is that there really isn't much of an alternative at present. The various renewable energy sources simply won't meet demand, more or less regardless of any governments policy on them. For the time being at least, they can't be more than supplements. And so barring a sudden unrealistic advance perfecting fusion energy overnight, a conventional energy source has to be selected. And with the state of oil, gas and coal, nuclear fission really stands as the only realistic option. Also, *copypasta-everything-Nunu-said-here*.
Speaking more locally, the UK currently has a very strong reliance on both coal and natural gas. Over two thirds of our entire power grid between them. The majority of that gas comes from Russia, and both supplies are exponentially becoming more expensive/scarcer. It's not a good situation. Windmills are nice and all, but they're not a primary source. (As a side note of all this talk of what's viable or efficient enough, the types of people that protest against even the wind turbines purely on the basis of them not being pretty enough for their ideal countryside can sod right off. They look better than Bacton, which is 2% town, and 98% sprawling miles of natural gas refinery.)
I can't find the video my brother showed me, but there are lots of little bits throughout history where the way technology is driven by economies and politics gets in the way. And it's a real shame. Something about how in the early days of nuclear power development, the choice to focus research on the family of reactors we use today, was actually based on it's relation to producing nuclear weapons. Where one variant nuclear technology,
You must be registered to see the links
, was sidelined specifically because it was not compatible with nuclear arms production. The stuff is three times more common than tin, and several hundred times more abundant than Uranium. The nuclear technology used today is not used because it is the best, cleanest or most sustainable form of fission possible, but because it is the one that had the most early development and currently has the most established infrastructure. It stuck. The thorium fuel reactors are no more advanced, just under developed and lacking an existing industry to make them financially viable. They're finally being investigated now as potential new "Generation IV" rated reactors, over sixty years after the initial technology was conceived.Whilst this is little more than third person amateur techno gossip coming from me, the old guy in the video seemed both convincing, and quite disappointed about it all.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,806
- Reputation score
- 312
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Melbourne uses a lot of brown coal. We've got shit loads of the brown coal right near by but what most people dont realise is that burning all that coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere per year than a moderate nuclear disaster.
Obviously this isn't good and recently the green party managed to pass legislation about removing the plants...
of course you cant transport brown coal because its ignition temperature is like 60 degrees c or something crazy like that. They also aren't planning on building any new power plants... so yeah they are having us replace our brown coal plants with brown outs.
The greens will never say yes to nuclear plants either because they're super bad for the environment or what if they explode and irradiate everything and dont they produce waste that is crazy dangerous for millions of years? I mean none of these points are true and the concerns they address are easily solvable but... yeah...
Melbourne uses a lot of brown coal. We've got shit loads of the brown coal right near by but what most people dont realise is that burning all that coal releases more radiation into the atmosphere per year than a moderate nuclear disaster.
Obviously this isn't good and recently the green party managed to pass legislation about removing the plants...
of course you cant transport brown coal because its ignition temperature is like 60 degrees c or something crazy like that. They also aren't planning on building any new power plants... so yeah they are having us replace our brown coal plants with brown outs.
The greens will never say yes to nuclear plants either because they're super bad for the environment or what if they explode and irradiate everything and dont they produce waste that is crazy dangerous for millions of years? I mean none of these points are true and the concerns they address are easily solvable but... yeah...
Newbie
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reputation score
- 180
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Both parties are fielding liars. I don't think Romney's worse at it per say, I just think he's got to lie to more people about more things. The fact that no one seems to give a shit tends to prove he's a very effective liar. But since there is no way to know what his policies are as they change to fit the audience, I can't in good conscience vote for him.
Obama's also a liar. He hasn't taken care of great good deal of his campaign promises from '08, and has broken promises e made in office. He signed the NDAA, which he specifically promised he'd veto. He has taken steps to defend the NDAA from legal challenges. That is the most flagrant foul to me, and there are many, many more. And his supporters refuse to acknowledge that he can fail, attributing it to outside circumstances and political pressures.
People tell me not voting for one is as good as voting for the other. I'm not going to vote for either of them, and in doing so vote twice. Then I'm going to get drunk. Happy fuckin' election day.
Both parties are fielding liars. I don't think Romney's worse at it per say, I just think he's got to lie to more people about more things. The fact that no one seems to give a shit tends to prove he's a very effective liar. But since there is no way to know what his policies are as they change to fit the audience, I can't in good conscience vote for him.
Obama's also a liar. He hasn't taken care of great good deal of his campaign promises from '08, and has broken promises e made in office. He signed the NDAA, which he specifically promised he'd veto. He has taken steps to defend the NDAA from legal challenges. That is the most flagrant foul to me, and there are many, many more. And his supporters refuse to acknowledge that he can fail, attributing it to outside circumstances and political pressures.
People tell me not voting for one is as good as voting for the other. I'm not going to vote for either of them, and in doing so vote twice. Then I'm going to get drunk. Happy fuckin' election day.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,536
- Reputation score
- 30,602
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Actually as far as nuclear reactors go, there's a type of radioactive material (it may in fact be the Throium squid mentioned) that's ungodly awesome. It produces more energy than what is used currently, almost no waste, and you'd have to be TRYING to cause a meltdown to actually make the reactor explode, and even then you might fail...
The reason why we don't use it, in the USA at least? It's weapons grade, and god fucking forbid we don't have enough weapons grade nuclear material to vaporize our planet.
As far as voting... I can't stand either party. Reds want to stop anything the bible says is wrong, believe in trickle-down economics*, let buisnesses do whatever the please, and let the poor rot. Blues want to take away my guns, make me stop smoking, force me to pay for healthcare that I won't use and can't afford, and sneakily raise the price of gas so high that no-one can afford it (in the cities this is fine, fuck you you've got a shit-ton of public transportation, but I live miles from the nearest town).
*In case you're not familiar with this, there is no data whatsoever to support it, and it's also retarded. Give the rich MORE and MORE money, hoping that somehow the money they spend will magically make it's way down to the lower classes. Problem with that is, they only spend their money on expensive shit, which the lower classes don't really have a hand in anymore. Art? no, yachts? no, gourmet food? nope, expensive cars/clothes/furniture/ etc? nada. I don't know where the money goes but it certainly doesn't make it down the low class.
Actually as far as nuclear reactors go, there's a type of radioactive material (it may in fact be the Throium squid mentioned) that's ungodly awesome. It produces more energy than what is used currently, almost no waste, and you'd have to be TRYING to cause a meltdown to actually make the reactor explode, and even then you might fail...
The reason why we don't use it, in the USA at least? It's weapons grade, and god fucking forbid we don't have enough weapons grade nuclear material to vaporize our planet.
As far as voting... I can't stand either party. Reds want to stop anything the bible says is wrong, believe in trickle-down economics*, let buisnesses do whatever the please, and let the poor rot. Blues want to take away my guns, make me stop smoking, force me to pay for healthcare that I won't use and can't afford, and sneakily raise the price of gas so high that no-one can afford it (in the cities this is fine, fuck you you've got a shit-ton of public transportation, but I live miles from the nearest town).
*In case you're not familiar with this, there is no data whatsoever to support it, and it's also retarded. Give the rich MORE and MORE money, hoping that somehow the money they spend will magically make it's way down to the lower classes. Problem with that is, they only spend their money on expensive shit, which the lower classes don't really have a hand in anymore. Art? no, yachts? no, gourmet food? nope, expensive cars/clothes/furniture/ etc? nada. I don't know where the money goes but it certainly doesn't make it down the low class.
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I am curious as to the "Free energy" mentioned earlier, could someone elaborate?
I am impressed, though a little disappointed, by how much your opinions mirror mine, great minds and all that I guess.
Just to pitch in a few pointers on the reactor things. We have the technology to make extremely safe, extremely efficient reactors that "produce" their own fuel from less fissile materials. These reactors have a theoretical efficiency of around 98% whereas our current reactors have a theoretical efficiency of around 3%. I think these might be what you are referring to Slicer. These reactors can run on plutonium, thorium, depleted uranium and a whole host of other fissile materials. They are called breeder reactors. A special subclass called "fast breeder reactors" look very promising. Among the reasons they haven't been built are:
1. The countries that have the technology to make a fast breeder reactor are largely not the ones with large deposits of Thorium and other ideal fuels for this.
2. Because the reactor makes fissile material, it could potentially be used to make weapons grade fissile materials, and so the US has been running around tying up as many of these projects as they can.
3. The initial investment of a fast breeder reactor is about 25-50% higher, but many current designs already have a fuel to power output that makes that back in less than 3 years.
Oh, and you guys know those fuel rods from current reactors, fast breeders can burn those too.
I am curious as to the "Free energy" mentioned earlier, could someone elaborate?
I am impressed, though a little disappointed, by how much your opinions mirror mine, great minds and all that I guess.
Just to pitch in a few pointers on the reactor things. We have the technology to make extremely safe, extremely efficient reactors that "produce" their own fuel from less fissile materials. These reactors have a theoretical efficiency of around 98% whereas our current reactors have a theoretical efficiency of around 3%. I think these might be what you are referring to Slicer. These reactors can run on plutonium, thorium, depleted uranium and a whole host of other fissile materials. They are called breeder reactors. A special subclass called "fast breeder reactors" look very promising. Among the reasons they haven't been built are:
1. The countries that have the technology to make a fast breeder reactor are largely not the ones with large deposits of Thorium and other ideal fuels for this.
2. Because the reactor makes fissile material, it could potentially be used to make weapons grade fissile materials, and so the US has been running around tying up as many of these projects as they can.
3. The initial investment of a fast breeder reactor is about 25-50% higher, but many current designs already have a fuel to power output that makes that back in less than 3 years.
Oh, and you guys know those fuel rods from current reactors, fast breeders can burn those too.
Newbie
Lurker
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reputation score
- 180
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Did you know Walmart employees are striking in five states? Tangentially related, could be the start of something interesting.
You're half right. See, the general idea is that the people who are rich got that way by running businesses. So you give them the money to invest in their business, and they have more money with which to pay more and better employees, provide better benefits to them, and create a higher quality of product. It was less about it trickling down from all rich people to all poor people and more about it turning from venture capital into wage and benefits for workers. However, many rich people today have nothing to do with business. Stock brokers and the like, lawyers, politicians, athletes, and so on. On top of that, there is this drive in capitalism to constantly improve profit while lowering cost. So we get money coming in at the top and being saved at the bottom, by having less workers do the same amount or more work, and many companies posting record profits, and still we're in recession.
Did you know Walmart employees are striking in five states? Tangentially related, could be the start of something interesting.
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Trickle down economy, like anarchism and communism are all beautiful ideas that fail to factor in humanity's lack of humanity...
The funny thing is that for me, as a science student, the current economic situation in the US makes sense.
I'm sure you've all had that presentation at some point during school with the population of the rabbits and the foxes. Or bacteria for that matter. And how, in the beginning, unlimited growth is good, but if you do not put in place safeguards as it is nearing the level of sustainability, it all collapses.
This goes for fusion, cellular development, population numbers...
Anyways, I think (sadly) that the Swiss system of government is one of the better ones out there. Granted, they have a massive influx of capital from their "black" bank accounts, so maybe that messes things up...
On an interesting note, if you were to cut the US defense budget in half, in 4 years, you'd have saved up more than. 1.2 trillion dollars.
But of course as it is now, the deficit is increasing at a rate of 3.89 billion a day, which is 1.4 trillion a year... So... Yah.
Trickle down economy, like anarchism and communism are all beautiful ideas that fail to factor in humanity's lack of humanity...
The funny thing is that for me, as a science student, the current economic situation in the US makes sense.
I'm sure you've all had that presentation at some point during school with the population of the rabbits and the foxes. Or bacteria for that matter. And how, in the beginning, unlimited growth is good, but if you do not put in place safeguards as it is nearing the level of sustainability, it all collapses.
This goes for fusion, cellular development, population numbers...
Anyways, I think (sadly) that the Swiss system of government is one of the better ones out there. Granted, they have a massive influx of capital from their "black" bank accounts, so maybe that messes things up...
On an interesting note, if you were to cut the US defense budget in half, in 4 years, you'd have saved up more than. 1.2 trillion dollars.
But of course as it is now, the deficit is increasing at a rate of 3.89 billion a day, which is 1.4 trillion a year... So... Yah.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2008
- Messages
- 3,806
- Reputation score
- 312
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
also the economic fallout of cutting the defence budget in half... sure there might be other ways to spend that money to offset that but that still doesn't solve the defficit problem.
also the economic fallout of cutting the defence budget in half... sure there might be other ways to spend that money to offset that but that still doesn't solve the defficit problem.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,536
- Reputation score
- 30,602
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
IF the government would just secretly take over the illegal drug trade at home and in central/south america... and then once we've got a bit of a surplus, we get to be the heroes for "cleaning up" that problem.
Though honestly, who do we owe all this money to? China? Can they really come to collect?
IF the government would just secretly take over the illegal drug trade at home and in central/south america... and then once we've got a bit of a surplus, we get to be the heroes for "cleaning up" that problem.
Though honestly, who do we owe all this money to? China? Can they really come to collect?
B
Blagtastic88
Guest
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Odd thing about the United States debt is that China is the largest foreign owner with Japan in a close second, but most of the debt is held by the domestic entities including the Treasury Department, state/local governments, and private investors.
Also, the
Odd thing about the United States debt is that China is the largest foreign owner with Japan in a close second, but most of the debt is held by the domestic entities including the Treasury Department, state/local governments, and private investors.
You must be registered to see the links
has a good introductory article. Also, the
You must be registered to see the links
has a fair amount of information as well on the topic.
Ranger Princess
Tentacle God
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,030
- Reputation score
- 342
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
That being said, even though Obama hasn't been great, he's done some good things during his term that John McCain NEVER would have done (see ending DADT, making it easier for women to file equal-pay suits). But as for this election, the biggest reason not to vote for Romney is because the Republican House leadership thinks he'll be a rubberstamp for them. While Romney might not appear outrageously conservative, the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives ARE. They are the biggest reason why our government is accomplishing nothing and appearing like a massive joke to the global financial community.
The House has almost zero chance of swinging Democratic this election, so electing Mitt Romney would mean giving John "The Crying Orange" Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the Tea Party even more power than they already have. No thank you.
I don't know. I can't speak for anyone except myself, but I constantly bemoan Obama's failures despite voting for him. I knew he wouldn't be a great president (had no experience), and that's one of the many reasons why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary. I feel like he spent all of his political capital on a few things and left many of the reasons why I voted for him in the dust.
That being said, even though Obama hasn't been great, he's done some good things during his term that John McCain NEVER would have done (see ending DADT, making it easier for women to file equal-pay suits). But as for this election, the biggest reason not to vote for Romney is because the Republican House leadership thinks he'll be a rubberstamp for them. While Romney might not appear outrageously conservative, the Republicans in control of the House of Representatives ARE. They are the biggest reason why our government is accomplishing nothing and appearing like a massive joke to the global financial community.
The House has almost zero chance of swinging Democratic this election, so electing Mitt Romney would mean giving John "The Crying Orange" Boehner, Eric Cantor, and the Tea Party even more power than they already have. No thank you.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 16,468
- Reputation score
- 430
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
That's pretty much my opinion of this year's election as well, though Obama lost a good deal of points in my book when he signed the NDAA. Like I said, lesser of two evils.
Ranger Princess
Tentacle God
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,030
- Reputation score
- 342
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2010
- Messages
- 12,536
- Reputation score
- 30,602
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I see these anti-romeny pics and laugh heartily, but then I think "Where are the pics of Obama blowing granny away with a shotgun?".
I see these anti-romeny pics and laugh heartily, but then I think "Where are the pics of Obama blowing granny away with a shotgun?".
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 11,239
- Reputation score
- 1,016
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
I'll take the piss out of things like that myself, but honestly, the SECOND he made the big bird comment, and the SECOND he made the binder comment, we knew that he would just get destroyed by the media, because that's what the media is about, and it's really fucking annoying.
..but still, these things are funny
I'll take the piss out of things like that myself, but honestly, the SECOND he made the big bird comment, and the SECOND he made the binder comment, we knew that he would just get destroyed by the media, because that's what the media is about, and it's really fucking annoying.
..but still, these things are funny
Ranger Princess
Tentacle God
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 2,030
- Reputation score
- 342
Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread
Haha yeah they are pretty funny. I mean I watched the debate and heard the binders comment, and I didn't even think anything of it until I heard people freaking out the next day. I still don't think he meant anything bad by it. The comment about women needing to get home to make dinner annoyed me more, but the thing is, a lot of women probably agreed with him. x.x
But yeah the picture definitely made me laugh. I guess some people have a lot of time on their hands!
Haha yeah they are pretty funny. I mean I watched the debate and heard the binders comment, and I didn't even think anything of it until I heard people freaking out the next day. I still don't think he meant anything bad by it. The comment about women needing to get home to make dinner annoyed me more, but the thing is, a lot of women probably agreed with him. x.x
But yeah the picture definitely made me laugh. I guess some people have a lot of time on their hands!