| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:44 aksfjh wrote: Parallel is my homeboy. Also, seems like that Intrade nonsense is finally rebounding. Obama is back into the 60s. Nate Silver's articles are pretty powerful (and informative). I love that guy. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On October 25 2012 05:39 Protoss-Bah wrote: I'm not an American but OBAMA. O-B-A-M-A. Obamas plan is the most economically consistent and I am an economist myself. Debt of ~16 trillion will not be saved by Romneys tax cut for the middle class (although Mitt Romney is a respectable finance man from Bain Capital). It will be saved through slow tax increases just like Buffett and B.Gates agrees around, I agree, and Obama wants to implement. Tax raises too fast can explode unemployment further which is atm around 8%-ish in the US. But my professor in macroeconomics agree that if you raise them slowly, unemployment wont be hit hard. And the economy can absolutely collapse should US fail to pay their 16 trillion dollar debt which is above their total GDP on about 14-15 trillion. On foreign policy, I think they both fail. The U.S. has absolutely no moral right or authority in my opinion to dictate to the world what/how they should run their countries. Iran cannot have nuclear weapons Obama and Romney say, hey wait a second, last time I checked, the US had nukes themselves. So US spend billions to enhance their nuclear weapons with more accurate launch systems etc, while nobody else can have nukes? No that is wrong if you ask me, you can disagree its fine but for me, that is absolutely wrong. Bringing this back after a few pages because I thought it was both interesting and important (and this Swazi bullshit I've been reading for a few pages is tiring). Iran can't have nukes because noone should have nukes. We're (The west, US included) looking to decrease the amounts of nukes in the world, and decrease the potential threat of nuclear wars. We're looking to decrease or stop both horizontal spread (between countries) and vertical spread (more nukes per country who has them). So that's number one. Number two, which relates a bit to the first point, is the problems with security it creates in the region. If Iran gets nukes then everyone around them will want them aswell and Israel will have to brandish the nukes that everyone already knows that they have. So while Iran would gain power versus the big powers of the world (Russia, China, US, which all have major interests in the area) they would create a serious security dilemma. One that would destabilize the region. And we don't want more instability in the region, even if it would be to the (potential) benefit of Iran. And thirdly, and this is what you complained about, the US (along with most other western countries, if not all of them) don't want Iran to get such power simply from a geopolitical standpoint. But that's really not the major issue here. In fact in the bigger picture it's quite irrelevant if they get a nuke geopolitically compared to the first two points, although I think a lot of the US political debate and foreign policy is indeed based on the geopolitical issue of Iran attaining power. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: methinks you read what you wanted me to have said, not what I said. I'm not sure where you got anything specific about what "help" would be offered from what I said, since I certainly offfered no specifics. nor did I make any assertion about how a rape victim should be treated, or whether rape victims should be listened to or not. I would ask what it is you are suggesting that we should "listen" to them about and how is that relevant to my statement? Ideologues love strawmen. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
Lincoln elegantly sums up my views on this election. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On October 25 2012 05:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: so from now on, can anyone who is looking to ask a conservative/Republican a question about abortion and rape please refer that question to me so that I can answer it? Because apparently Republican politicians are having a hard time answering this question without sounding like misogynist asses. I mean how hard is this: "Rape is one of the most heinous and terrible things that can happen to someone. We as a society have a moral duty to protect the victims and to pursue justice against the perpetrators, and it is my firm belief that we have a further obligation to provide the victims with as much help as humanly possible. As a {insert political/religious philosophy here}, I believe that all life is sacred, and I believe that the rights of the unborn child should be protected with every bit as much dedication and fervor as the rights of the mother." but noooooooo... we can't be fucking politically savvy to save our gddamn lives. no way, Republicans have to start trying to redefine rape and wondering if maybe God didn't want the rape to happen or whatever the fuck that retard was saying. I mean, these are grown men and they can't even fucking get it right. someone get them the hell out of my party because they make me look bad, and that's fucking saying something right there. Which is why you're taking away the mother's right to choose what to do with her body. | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:08 mynameisgreat11 wrote: Which is why you're taking away the mother's right to choose what to do with her body. I hate it when people arguing in favor of abortion reduce every argument down to this. You evil rights hater! Woman hater! People disagree on the value of fetuses. That is it. THAT IS IT. If you think fetuses are parasites and deserve no consideration you're fine with women killing them. If you think fetuses are much more valuable, even on the level of a born baby, you don't want people to be legally allowed to kill them. It is really simple. Oh and yes the government routinely regulates peoples' lives down to the tiniest details. Funny how libertarian some people sound, but only in the context of aborting fetuses.. | ||
|
Swazi Spring
United States415 Posts
On October 25 2012 08:32 slappy wrote: is this thread about the election or atheism/christianity? :s I hope we're not stuck with another 4 years of Obama in office Cheers This thread gets derailed every few pages or so. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:33 Romantic wrote: I hate it when people arguing in favor of abortion reduce every argument down to this. You evil rights hater! Woman hater! People disagree on the value of fetuses. That is it. THAT IS IT. If you think fetuses are parasites and deserve no consideration you're fine with women killing them. If you think fetuses are much more valuable, even on the level of a born baby, you don't want people to be legally allowed to kill them. It is really simple. Oh and yes the government routinely regulates peoples' lives down to the tiniest details. Funny how libertarian some people sound, but only in the context of aborting fetuses.. It's a catch 22. In order to preserve the rights of the fetus you have to strip the woman of hers. Lol, rights of a fetus.... | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:37 mynameisgreat11 wrote: It's a catch 22. In order to preserve the rights of the fetus you have to strip the woman of hers. Lol, rights of a fetus.... you presume there is a right for the woman. | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:33 Romantic wrote: I hate it when people arguing in favor of abortion reduce every argument down to this. You evil rights hater! Woman hater! People disagree on the value of fetuses. That is it. THAT IS IT. If you think fetuses are parasites and deserve no consideration you're fine with women killing them. If you think fetuses are much more valuable, even on the level of a born baby, you don't want people to be legally allowed to kill them. It is really simple. Oh and yes the government routinely regulates peoples' lives down to the tiniest details. Funny how libertarian some people sound, but only in the context of aborting fetuses.. I would argue that even if you consider a fetus to have the same value as a sentient human being, it is still a violation of the mother's rights to force her to carry the fetus to term. Just as we wouldn't force you to donate blood to save another human being, we shouldn't force women to be incubators if they choose not to. | ||
|
mynameisgreat11
599 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:41 BluePanther wrote: you presume there is a right for the woman. You presume there is a right for a fetus. Roe v Wade supports my side. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada698 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:15 sc2superfan101 wrote: methinks you read what you wanted me to have said, not what I said. I'm not sure where you got anything specific about what "help" would be offered from what I said, since I certainly offfered no specifics. nor did I make any assertion about how a rape victim should be treated, or whether rape victims should be listened to or not. I would ask what it is you are suggesting that we should "listen" to them about and how is that relevant to my statement? What should we listen to?? How about, "Golly, I've just been raped and I've found out I'm pregnant, this sucks, I don't want to carry this pregnancy to term. I don't want to have to give birth. I want to get my life back together, and that will begin by terminating the pregnancy." Try listening to that. You're fundamentally incapable of listening to that because you're on a holy war against abortion and you think that your judgement can "provide the victims with as much help as humanly possible." You have no right to try to convince the nation that abortion wouldn't help a woman in that position put her life back together, or that it would hurt her emotionally (she's just been raped bud) or other such nonsense I hear so often from people on the right. You haven't ever been in a position like that. Yeah, you left your proposed oratory deliberately political and vague, but it's not vague enough to keep me from nailing it to a cross. You're against abortion. Period. You believe it's honorable of you to "provide the victims with as much help as humanly possible," but that's just a platitude to make it sound like you're committed to their plight. Unless you're willing to stand behind their desire and their right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy following a rape you simply aren't committed to their plight in any meaningful way. You haven't been impregnated via rape, so who really gives a damn what "help" you've decided you're prepared to offer or what "help" you even believe is meaningful to offer? I mean honestly, can you answer that question? Fundamentally, you're not helping; you're prepared to ignore their voices, desires, and rights for self determination, you're prepared to force them to carry a baby from a rape to term, and you're prepared to force them to give birth to it. This is deeply misogynistic, but it's also hypocritical of you since the right wing doesn't even seem to want to fund programs to care for the baby and the single mother should she decide to keep it now that she's been raped and forced to carry the baby to term. She's a "draw on the system", one of the 47% who "doesn't take responsibility" etc. In short, the right wing is prepared to throw this woman under the bus from start to finish and run over her with every single tire. So yeah, you say you wanna protect the rights of the "unborn child" (FYI it isn't a child), but you're not even willing to support the rights of the woman, you're fully prepared to force her to carry forward the unwanted pregnancy and give birth while offering little more than platitudes about "help," and gutting social programs and complaining about the 47%. Have you considered the possibility that she isn't interested in your "help?" Shouldn't she be able to help herself and decide her future for herself? Let me make this perfectly clear. Your position is hypocritical and it is misogynistic, and it is deeply unfortunate that the American political scene is currently validating such a stance as "conservative." You don't appear to care one iota for women or their rights, and for you to espouse a position where you'd look at a devastated young girl who has just been impregnated via a violent rape and wants to pick up the pieces of her life by saying "As a {insert political/religious philosophy here}, I believe that all life is sacred, and I believe that the rights of the unborn child should be protected with every bit as much dedication and fervor as the rights of the mother" is unbelievably offensive and ridiculous. If you wouldn't look a young girl who's just been raped in the eye and say it then it's just bullshit political rhetoric nonsense and shouldn't be trumpeted as a "reasonable" party platform. | ||
|
nevermindthebollocks
United States116 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:19 TheTenthDoc wrote: Nate Silver's articles are pretty powerful (and informative). I love that guy. i like how people were all talking about the polls when romney went up because of some bad days and now that it is almost back to even or obama is back ahead in all of them the polls no longer matter. now we are back to demanding college transcripts | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:46 nevermindthebollocks wrote: i like how people were all talking about the polls when romney went up because of some bad days and now that it is almost back to even or obama is back ahead in all of them the polls no longer matter. now we are back to demanding college transcripts Eh, I'm just happy that the InTrade flux was revealed to mostly be one guy buying a bajillion shares. | ||
|
nevermindthebollocks
United States116 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:42 sunprince wrote: I would argue that even if you consider a fetus to have the same value as a sentient human being, it is still a violation of the mother's rights to force her to carry the fetus to term. Just as we wouldn't force you to donate blood to save another human being, we shouldn't force women to be incubators if they choose not to. i think politicians should all be asked if a 14 yr old girl wants an abortion should she get it and anyone who denises her that right is automatically dq'd. and none of this maybe if she pays $5000 or only if her parents say it is okay. if you wont protect freedom and dignity then you dont understand america | ||
|
nevermindthebollocks
United States116 Posts
On October 25 2012 10:51 TheTenthDoc wrote: Eh, I'm just happy that the InTrade flux was revealed to mostly be one guy buying a bajillion shares. who was it? romney? lol | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Probably some middle-upper income Joe Schmoe who discovered Intrade for the first time. If it's someone "famous" it's more likely to be Trump than Romney in my opinion. Especially since it showed a remarkable inability to understand prediction markets. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On October 25 2012 09:59 sunprince wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX_1B0w7Hzc Lincoln elegantly sums up my views on this election. both kind of suck, but go obama anyways | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Foster McCollum White Baydoun (FMW)B, a national public opinion polling and voter analytics consulting firm based in Michigan and representing the combined resources of Foster McCollum White & Associates (Troy Michigan) and Baydoun Consulting (Dearborn Michigan) conducted a telephone-automated polling random survey of Michigan registered and most likely November 2012 General election voters for Fox 2 News Detroit to determine their voting and issue preferences for the presidential election. An initial qualifying statement was read to respondents asking them to participate only if they were very likely to vote in the November General Election. Thirty five thousand (35,000) calls were placed, and 1,122 respondents fully participated in the survey. The margin of error for this total polling sample is 2.93% with a confidence level of 95%. The 2012 United States Presidential election will be held on November 6, 2012. Who are you most likely to vote for in the election? President Barack Obama 46.92% Republican Nominee Mitt Romney 46.56% another candidate 2.30% Undecided 4.23% Source. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 RotterdaM StarCraft: Brood War 1493FunKaTv   646IndyStarCraft  369SteadfastSC  308UpATreeSC 175BRAT_OK  148PiGStarcraft132 Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g8874 Grubby7524 FrodaN1942 Livibee594 B2W.Neo481 elazer474 shahzam363 syndereN280 Pyrionflax255 KnowMe117 Trikslyr61 ToD59 ZombieGrub36 trigger2 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
