EPTPresident Obama Re-Elected - Page 1389
| 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 | ||
|
mono_regio
Germany77 Posts
| ||
|
Cybren
United States206 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:06 leveller wrote: So its bad to have more information? Its bad to tell someone, "there is GMO in this"? they are not saying anything crazy, just the truth... if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it? | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:12 Souma wrote: Don't we have labels for high fructose corn syrup? Pretty sure we do it's called the ingredients label, anyways it's not like consuming massive amounts of sugar from sugar cane or sugar beets is at all better. | ||
|
MasterMonkey
United States96 Posts
| ||
|
maxroach
United States3 Posts
 ) are not critical thinkers - this doesn't change the fact that I work hard and hope to successful enough be able to give back monetarily and more - which will necessarily mean that I will hopefully donate/get taxed money that will go to hard working people who won't make enough to cover what I consider services that they deserve - *AS WELL* as a smaller group of people who are just leeching the system. For example some who strove for and achieved lifetime disability when they are not fully disabled.It's just that I have certain moral values and find people like Mitt Romney very impressive intellectually and in terms of capabilities, however I find him morally and spiritually repugnant and self serving. Someone who proclaimed that his life goal was to be rich and famous. His prerogative, yet my judgement I can't help and do hold. And finally, I think that if any self-proclaimed capitalist believes that a libertarian free for all system will benefit more people *rather* than reflect the diversity of human aggression and acquisition of leverage, then they fall into the group of people that I haven't mentioned yet - being the group of *below average* intelligence. | ||
|
zerglingrodeo
United States910 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:14 Cybren wrote: if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it? There are legitimate reasons besides direct threat to individual health to want to avoid supporting the use of GMOs (e.g. ecological concerns). Consumers have the right to know. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:06 StarStrider wrote: Keynesian and NeoKeynesian economic policies have left us 18 trillion dollars in debt, just like Austrian economics says they will and should. Age of an idea and applicability to society is not an exlusively inverse relationship. To be fair, Keynes advocated deficit spending only in a recession to kick-start demand. The problem with our debt is we have an obsession with low taxes, especially on the rich. Raise revenue and end government inefficiency. | ||
|
ImAbstracT
519 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:14 Cybren wrote: if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it? There is risks associated with GMO food. Many studies have found this. | ||
|
silynxer
Germany439 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:11 oneofthem wrote: i think it's better to have labels like "HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP" etc. There are legitimate issues with gen manipulated crops that are not related to health. For example the practice of making the crops infertile and needing special treatment combined with monopoly situations and contamination of adjacent fields. It's a bit like people wanting to know which cosmetics are tested in rabbit eyes (although the main concerns here are more about morals) just to give them the power to decide whether they want to support this practice or not. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On November 08 2012 02:31 cLAN.Anax wrote: I agree, that's the opposite of what they should do if they want the Latino vote. But they're more afraid of what the negative consequences would be if they didn't lay down a strict law on illegal immigration. They're in a pretty rough pickle on that issue. I doubt you're still around to read this but it isn't a tough pickle at all. People want to come to America and have a better life. Some of those people are Asian. Some are European. But if they're Latino they're not welcome. Why? Why do we have backwards and often times bigoted policies to exclude peaceful but determined individuals from becoming US citizens? It conflicts with our mantra, our code as Americans. It's horseshit is what it is. On November 08 2012 07:15 MasterMonkey wrote: Whew Gobama!!!!! I didn't vote for him for his economic reasons, but his social equality and foreign policy is where it's at!!!! He started so many things 4 years ago and I think he deserves these next 4 years to finish what he started. Backup plan: if our economy falters under Obama, move to China!! go go go Didn't you see the Romney commercials? You know the ones. China will own America now (literally own, not pwn) because Obama won. WELCOME TO OUR FUTURE AMERICA IS OVER WE LOST Fucking political ads. Racism like that should be punishable. | ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:14 Cybren wrote: if there's no health risk to "GMO", but putting "GMO" on a label hurts profits for those companies.... isn't it a little unethical to do it? What's unethical is making people eat stuff they think is bad for them lol. Regardless of whether it's true or not. It's on the companies to shape public perception of their product (and from what I've seen, the majority of people in America agree that GMOs are fine). However, there are consumers who are not very accepting as to how GMO producers such as Monsanto etc. run their business, so it's very likely their sales would take a hit. On November 08 2012 07:19 Probe1 wrote: I doubt you're still around to read this but it isn't a tough pickle at all. People want to come to America and have a better life. Some of those people are Asian. Some are European. But if they're Latino they're not welcome. Why? Why do we have backwards and often times bigoted policies to exclude peaceful but determined individuals from becoming US citizens? It conflicts with our mantra, our code as Americans. It's horseshit is what it is. The problem is with illegal immigration, not immigration itself. There are tons of people who wait in line and follow troublesome procedures to migrate here legally. Illegal immigration scoffs at those efforts (and makes it hard to keep track of people). | ||
|
Antyee
Hungary1011 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:18 ImAbstracT wrote: There is risks associated with GMO food. Many studies have found this. All of those studies being terribly done and written. There have been quite some topics about this. Noone knows whether they are harmful or not. | ||
|
AT_Tack
Germany435 Posts
He is not the president the people deserve, but the President they need. Now that Romney has lost the election and his life is in ashes, he has my permission to die! | ||
|
BlueLanterna
291 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:16 maxroach wrote: TwoPac falls into the category of people I have known, usually above average and higher intelligence, who generally have morally repugnant elitist ideas on how the world should work. While I admit that I am an elitist (in fact it has been proven for example that most Americans, and surely non-Germans, Swiss, and Japanese people ) are not critical thinkers - this doesn't change the fact that I work hard and hope to successful enough be able to give back monetarily and more - which will necessarily mean that I will hopefully donate/get taxed money that will go to hard working people who won't make enough to cover what I consider services that they deserve - *AS WELL* as a smaller group of people who are just leeching the system. For example some who strove for and achieved lifetime disability when they are not fully disabled.It's just that I have certain moral values and find people like Mitt Romney very impressive intellectually and in terms of capabilities, however I find him morally and spiritually repugnant and self serving. Someone who proclaimed that his life goal was to be rich and famous. His prerogative, yet my judgement I can't help and do hold. And finally, I think that if any self-proclaimed capitalist believes that a libertarian free for all system will benefit more people *rather* than reflect the diversity of human aggression and acquisition of leverage, then they fall into the group of people that I haven't mentioned yet - being the group of *below average* intelligence. I'm curious about what you found very impressive about Mitt Romney during this election in terms of his intellect. | ||
tree.hugger
Philadelphia, PA10406 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + For Americans: Poll: Did you vote? Yes! (266) No. (79) 345 total votes Your vote: Did you vote? These others can be answered by anyone, I guess! Poll: What was the biggest reason Obama won? Romney failed to connect with minorities, women and youth (Self-deportation, Rape-y Republicans) (120) A combination of factors. Neither of these was decisive. (50) Systematic media bias (39) Obama earned a mandate through steady economic recovery and foreign policy leadership (29) Romney failed to connect with middle class and poor people (47%, Bain Capital ads) (28) I am Donald Trump, and voter fraud (14) None of these popular explanations express my view (Explain!) (12) Obama's election day GOTV was too strong (6) Obama's leadership during Hurricane Sandy (6) 304 total votes Your vote: What was the biggest reason Obama won? (Vote): Obama's election day GOTV was too strong Poll: Are you optimistic about America's future? Yes! (143) Not really, but I hope I'm wrong. (134) Nope. We're fucked. (115) Somewhat. (53) I don't know what to think anymore. (12) 457 total votes Your vote: Are you optimistic about America's future? (Vote): Yes! Poll: What happens now in Washington? More gridlock. Near debt ceiling default again. Country falls over the fiscal cliff. (157) New spirit of cooperation. Obama doesn't have a mandate, and Republicans pivot to center. (29) Obama whips congress into shape, a second term Democratic agenda takes shape. (26) Chaos. Anarchy. Cubs win the World Series. (20) The House holds the President and Senate hostage, a Conservative agenda holds sway. (18) 250 total votes Your vote: What happens now in Washington? (Vote): More gridlock. Near debt ceiling default again. Country falls over the fiscal cliff. Poll: What major issue is your top priority for the next four years? The Economy, The Economy, The Economy, Stupid. (166) Comprehensive Tax Reform (24) Climate Change (21) Immigration Reform (12) Comprehensive Entitlement Reform (10) The 51st State in the Union, Puerto Rico (9) Election Reform (8) 250 total votes Your vote: What major issue is your top priority for the next four years? (Vote): The Economy, The Economy, The Economy, Stupid. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:18 silynxer wrote: There are legitimate issues with gen manipulated crops that are not related to health. For example the practice of making the crops infertile and needing special treatment combined with monopoly situations and contamination of adjacent fields. It's a bit like people wanting to know which cosmetics are tested in rabbit eyes (although the main concerns here are more about morals) just to give them the power to decide whether they want to support this practice or not. problem is, it relies on an irrational consumer fear to achieve those effects. you could for instance subject GM consequences to more regulatory examination. that seems like a huge concern with invasive species and such, not merely crops. for instance, disallow certain kinds of GM modifications. or abolish the IP scheme that allows monopolistic control of the basic technology so farmers can have the seeds for cheaper eventually without so many 'features' disabled. | ||
|
StarStrider
United States689 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:17 ImAbstracT wrote: To be fair, Keynes advocated deficit spending only in a recession to kick-start demand. The problem with our debt is we have an obsession with low taxes, especially on the rich. Raise revenue and end government inefficiency. We live in a big world. No reason to think the rich at higher tax brackets would keep that money here or taxable. Nor do they already. | ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:17 ImAbstracT wrote: To be fair, Keynes advocated deficit spending only in a recession to kick-start demand. The problem with our debt is we have an obsession with low taxes, especially on the rich. Raise revenue and end government inefficiency. Agreed. The problem is that most countries run deficits in the good times. You can't constantly pump money into the economy or the economy gets used to it, and when it crashes you have no room to move. | ||
|
uiCk
Canada1925 Posts
On November 08 2012 07:20 Antyee wrote: All of those studies being terribly done and written. There have been quite some topics about this. Noone knows whether they are harmful or not. thus the term "risk". | ||
| ||
