DVDizzy Forum

Super Aurora wrote:

ajmrowland wrote:you're right, jp, it is about the issues and not just the character of the canditates or whether or not they're evil.

so I'm gonna link this. Enjoy!

http://secure.therumble2012.com/f/watch

Note: I had to pay $5.00 for this so the link will have to be confirmed to work by one of you.

It's on Youtube for free.

And yes that was a good debate. From both sides. But I think Stewart gave more valid and better points than O'reilly did.

yeah, I didnt really know that. After all, I went to the official site and got a good quality version.

disneyboy20022 wrote:

Super Aurora wrote: Lex Luthor DID become president in the comic.

AND that is what the scary part is.

Romney is like a real life Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor, cheats, he lies, he's a kiss up, he has a huge ego, he's insanely rich, he puts on an act that he's a changed man, while behind closed doors he's a power hungry person who doesn't care about anyone but himself, even though he'll put up an act that he's for Americans and understands people. He'll twist peoples words, buys people off, flip flops his mind and decision if it depending on what would benefit Lex Luthor for the moment. He'll also get people that should be smart or know better than to trust him that work for him.


Man, Lex Luthor does sound like Mitt Romney

the real tragic thing is lex luthor also performs inhumane experiments, killings, and other shady deals. Sounds like the whole government.

http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2 ... university

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

I still think it will be a closer result than that (not sure who will win).

DarthPrime wrote:http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2 ... university

According to their updated analysis, Romney is projected to receive 330 of the total 538 Electoral College votes. President Barack Obama is expected to receive 208 votes -- down five votes from their initial prediction -- and short of the 270 needed to win.

I still think it will be a closer result than that (not sure who will win).

I agree with that. If Romney wins, it will be because of the hatred some Americans have towards Obama, not the favor of Romney is better.

Sotiris wrote:

Heartless wrote:Another thing I don't understand is why people use the fact that Romney is wealthy as a negative.

They don't. The negative is the he favors the upper class and panders to the rich while screwing the working class in the process. Clearly, you haven't been paying attention to the political scene nor to the countless evidence that have posted in this thread.

They don't? "He's insanely rich" was just used as a negative on this page. Clearly, you didn't read how I just said I didn't feel I was as informed (although this may not be the correct word..) as many of you. But even so, I can recognize patterns, have followed the election, done research to a lesser extent and can recognize general problems when I see them.

My main point to begin with was that for every thousand insults to Romney as a politician (liar, hypocrite, kiss-up, etc.) there are a thousand more insults for Obama. So what's the use in arguing over things like this.

Sotiris wrote:

Heartless wrote:Most of the people I *personally* have talked to have only given selfish reasons as to why they'd vote for Obama, and what Obama will do or give to them.

That's not only untrue but absurd as well. Is wanting to find a job selfish? Is wanting equal rights selfish? Don't these issues extend to a national level and not just a personal one?

Sorry, but these sorts of things weren't what people have given me as reasons to vote for Obama. Specifically, they want free healthcare, medicare, etc... they feel that social security is structurally secure (which it isn't, and young people who are paying for social security won't be able to collect any of it in the future), entitlements, etc. On the opposite end of this, Romney supporters have been seemingly looking more into the future instead of the now, and seeing that social security, Obamacare, and these continued entitlement programs are going to fall through in the future. And all these programs Obama proposes on keeping, which will fail in the long term, continue to drive up the deficit in the short term.

Like I said, it was a pattern I had noticed talking to friends, etc. and I already made it clear I wasn't applying it universally. But using the "wanting to find a job" as a reason to vote for Obama confounds me. This chart shows the unemployment rate from 2001 - 2012. Please note the drastic spike in unemployment begins once Obama takes office in 2008. (And this was taking from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so its unbiased)



Why are you convinced keeping Obama in office will increase your chances of finding a job, based on this chart? Currently, I feel like under Obama's leadership, finding work is actually discouraged (of course this doesn't apply to everyone, but the trend is there). There are enough hand-outs, unemployment compensation, SNAP/food stamps (Obama allowed unemployed people to benefit from the SNAP program), and other unemployment benefits to sustain some people from worrying about finding a job.. This is in turn being paid for by people who are working and paying taxes.

Thank you Heartless for sounding like the voice of reason.

I have been trying to get someone to name four things they are better off, personally, from Obama's rule (he is NOT a President, he's a ruler, just ask him and his followers) than before 2008. And guess what, no one has been able to do it.

They use Romney's millions as a comparison, but I notice how they never talk about the Obama millions, and how much they have made the American public pay for frivolous vacations and clothes for the Mrs. and the kids.

Chicago-style rule is not how the United States is seen, but given another four years it will be shocking in place and we will all be paying the price.

The color of a man's skin, or his religion should have nothing to do with whether or not he should get your vote. Take off the blinders and listen to "the other side" openly and you will find that "Voting for the Mormon, NOT the Moron" is more fact than fiction.

How many of you are aware that ObaMao sent a committee over to the Philippine Islands, at a cost of $150 million to us taxpayers, to see how they physically count their ballots. This is another waste of money that we shouldn't have to be paying for.

What about all this trouble in Mid-East with Libya and such, and he won't even tell the truth about that. He intends blames it on Hilary Clinton who has to gather a committee to appear before a congressional committee to answer questions and is having a hard time trying to tell the truth. Had the warnings be paid attention to, there are four Americans who would not be 6-feet under at this time.

And what about the Obama-phones that the federal government has been and is going to be handing out to those lackeys who should be working for a living.

It's time to smarten up people. You aren't a racist just because you won't vote for Obama. You will be among the smart people who vote his reign of terror to come to an end abruptly and for the better of the country as a whole.

Be sure and watch the Debates between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden tomorrow night, and then next week the next Presidential debates will be held in the form of a Town Hall Meeting and should be another forum to make Obama very uncomfortable.

I still would like someone to show me how he or she is better off with ObaMao in office for another four years. And, also, if you won't listen to me, put all your prejudices aside and see "2016: The Obama Years" and if you are still set on voting this tyrant in for another term, then do so, in a losing fashion.

"Vote For a Leader - NOT for Ruler!" - in other words "Vote for the Mormon, NOT the Moron!" and we will all be a whole lot better off.

Heartless wrote: Most of the people I *personally* have talked to have only given selfish reasons as to why they'd vote for Obama, and what Obama will do or give to them - and most of the people who said they'd vote Romney gave reasons for what he'd do for the country as a whole and its future. By no means am I saying this is universal or anything, it's just something I found interesting.

Should I really be responding in this thread, no. I admit I don't know enough to have a political discussion. Just throwing out some things I noticed.

It’s funny that some of those things “you noticed” happen to condemn one side over another. Coincidental, I’m sure--you seem completely unbiased.

By the way, I’ve no doubt Obama lies, but I don’t consider him to have an ego. As far as Romney being rich…well, the difference is--he was born rich. That doesn’t show any inclination to business acumen on his part, just that he came out of a million-dollar uterus. Obama, on the other hand, actually had to work his way to where he is.

The thing about Romney isn't that he is rich, it's how he far removed from understanding the middle class people because he grew up in a wealthy environment. If you notice, many of his speeches including the infamous 47% line, mostly tells us how much lack of knowledge he has for the rest of the people besides the the wealthy. He may been an excellent business, and has more knowledge on economic than Obama, however it's how he will use those talents he has for the nation's sake. Judging from the way he associate himself more with the wealthy than the rest of us, if he is to win the election, I have strong no doubt that he will use that to help benefit only the wealthy as oppose to entire American citizens. His flip-flopping also give many a uncertainty and question where does he really align with. For instance way back he pretty clearly address he would cut taxes only for the wealthy. And then much later says especially at the debate, that he will cut taxes for middle class too.

So being rich isn't really the turn-off but how he will use his status and talents for the people.
If someone like Warren Buffet was running for president, I'd no doubt would vote him way over Obama as I know that he would actually would help improve the economy and does try to connect with the people outside his class.

As I said before, Obama no saint as some make him out to be, but I don't think he would be as selfish and could affect the American people worse than what Romney could possibly do. If there is a reason due to the problem we have now, It isn't because of Obama as it is because of a number of other factors.



also this:

dvdjunkie wrote: The color of a man's skin, or his religion should have nothing to do with whether or not he should get your vote.

Maybe race doesn't matter when you have the privileges that come along with being a white cis man.

Where do you get the idea that people are voting for obama because he's black? Did you just.. make that up? Let me assure you, MUCH more are voting for Romney only because he's white. There is still so much racism in this country it's unbelievable.

And yeah, race does matter. Black people have to fear going out for a walk, because they are the victims of hate crimes all the time. It seems like I hear about another black trans women is killed every other week. I don't think having a white cis man in office is going to make things better. In fact, from what he even shows us of his policy, he will make it much worse.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/ndaa-bigges ... ing-about/

I'm just gonna leave this here... *tiptoes away*

Disney's Divinity wrote:It’s funny that some of those things “you noticed” happen to condemn one side over another. Coincidental, I’m sure--you seem completely unbiased.

Really, what good is it to make personal attacks like this. I never said I was unbiased. All of you have as much bias as I do. I've heard things (on a much lesser scale) that contradict what I posted as well, but for the sake of argument I've left that out... After all, my intention is to help balance out the Romney hate.

Disney's Divinity wrote:By the way, I’ve no doubt Obama lies, but I don’t consider him to have an ego. As far as Romney being rich…well, the difference is--he was born rich. That doesn’t show any inclination to business acumen on his part, just that he came out of a million-dollar uterus. Obama, on the other hand, actually had to work his way to where he is.

Ooh, definitely will have to disagree with you there. It's clear to me Obama has just as much as an ego as Romney, if not a greater one. He has an over abundance of self-confidence... he constantly is talking about himself. If you want, here are some quotes from Obama at conventions and such:

"It is very rare I come to an event where I’m like the fifth or sixth most interesting person."

"Usually the folks want to take a picture with me, sit next to me, talk to me — that has not been the case at this event, and I completely understand."

He sounds pretty narcissistic on a lot of occasions. But to me, this isn't even important. Not nearly as important as bigger issues like economy, deficit, health care, stances on entitlements, etc. I'm pointing these things out simply to combat the Romney hate. Similar things can be applied to Obama.. so let's just drop that. You guys are spending too much time focusing on personal attacks on each candidates character which, while isn't meaningless, isn't nearly as important as their stances. And in the case of Obama, what he has proven in his history as president.

As for Romney being "born wealthy" or whatever, that's beside the point. He is around money, and can manage money. He has proven this time and time again. For example, he turned a 400 million dollar deficit after the 2002 Olympics, and turned that into a 100 million dollar surplus. He has a much greater knowledge of the economy than Obama does. The way I've seen it, Romney can manage money while Obama can spend it. I'd rather have a businessman like that as president than one who has used our money in the ways we have seen in the last four years.

Super Aurora, if 3.9 million private sector jobs have been created, why is the unemployment rate rising and has continued to rise since Obama took office... Something doesn't add up there.

One big difference between making decisions as voters on Obama's stances and Romney's stances is that we have already seen what Obama's plans are and have been first hand. We've seen what he's accomplished in office (and there hasn't been much of value).. We also see what he came through on based on what he promised he'd do during his first election. And he left alot of promises unanswered.. It's easier for me to decide between the two based on that fact alone. I'm already not starting out with much faith in Obama during this election based on his history.

I'd also like to say that while he makes some valid points, dvdjunkie also seems to be focusing on the wrong things.. Personal attacks to both the members here and to Obama, I find a bit distasteful. I also find it hard to believe that anyone here thinks they'll be considered a racist if they don't vote for Obama.. They have expressed many reasons why they'd be supporting Obama. Mostly negatives about Romney as "the lesser of evils".. I do agree with him that I'd like to hear a list of things Obama has done that has been beneficial to the country as a whole.. Because the list of good outweighs the bad (and I've already listed the bad, but no one has commented), in my opinion.

Alphapanchito wrote:And yeah, race does matter. Black people have to fear going out for a walk, because they are the victims of hate crimes all the time. It seems like I hear about another black trans women is killed every other week. I don't think having a white cis man in office is going to make things better. In fact, from what he even shows us of his policy, he will make it much worse.

Yawn. Do not even begin to use things like this as an excuse. Race doesn't even belong in this discussion, in my opinion. But for the sake of combatting your "black people fear going out for a walk," black homicide is exponentially higher than white homicide. Why even make comments like this? Here's a graph to prove my point:



Oh, and none of you have responded to anything I said that actually mattered in my previous post. Ok.

Heartless wrote:Really, what good is it to make personal attacks like this. I never said I was unbiased. All of you have as much bias as I do. I've heard things (on a much lesser scale) that contradict what I posted as well, but for the sake of argument I've left that out... After all, my intention is to help balance out the Romney hate.

The fact that you can say you "noticed" that most Obama supporters care only about their own interest while most Romney supporters care about the good of the "whole country" is a pretty blatant personal attack on every Obama supporter there is, so let's not draw straws here. There's nothing worse than someone who acts neutral to dish out subtle criticisms to support the side they're really on.

Ooh, definitely will have to disagree with you there. It's clear to me Obama has just as much as an ego as Romney, if not a greater one. He has an over abundance of self-confidence...

What you take for narcissicism I take as exactly that--self-confidence, or charisma. Mitt Romney doesn't care about pissing off the entire world because he's rich enough that he'll never have to suffer for it like the ants below him; main reason he'd be as horrible with international affairs as he would be here.

As for Romney being "born wealthy" or whatever, that's beside the point.

Except it isn't. Obama actually comes from a background of normal people, and so his interests are much more sincere than someone who claims to have the interests of people he doesn't even understand.

Btw, if you think anyone's opinion here hasn't already been set in stone at least 4 months ago, regardless of what side they're on, you're wasting your time. Political threads here have no substance; the only reason I post here is to annoy junkie who does the same in nearly every thread he posts in on the forum, not because I plan to have a serious debate over politics with people on the Internet. (That doesn't even happen in real life, where people are much more likely to be calm.) And that’s mostly due to the fact that I don’t take seriously “the facts” as presented by Republicans, which I’ve always been pretty upfront with.

Heartless wrote:They don't? "He's insanely rich" was just used as a negative on this page.

It was merely used to denote a similarity between Romney and Lex Luthor. Besides, what matters is that this hasn't been used against him in political discourse.

Heartless wrote:My main point to begin with was that for every thousand insults to Romney as a politician (liar, hypocrite, kiss-up, etc.) there are a thousand more insults for Obama.

How did you form this perception? Care to give a few example why you consider Obama worse than Romney? 'Cause for Romney there are plenty of evidence of what a liar and a hypocrite he really is. From claiming that he will create jobs when his policies involve outsourcing millions of jobs to China, when changing his position on abortion so as to please Republicans, from saying that he doesn't care about the 47% of the population but later claiming he cares for the 100%. He even claims that he won't raise taxes and "loves" jobs when in fact during his time as a governor he raised taxes and Massachusetts was 47th in the nation in job creation. And these are just the ones off the top of my head.

Heartless wrote:Specifically, they want free healthcare, medicare, etc... they feel that social security is structurally secure (which it isn't, and young people who are paying for social security won't be able to collect any of it in the future), entitlements, etc. On the opposite end of this, Romney supporters have been seemingly looking more into the future instead of the now, and seeing that social security, Obamacare, and these continued entitlement programs are going to fall through in the future.

First of all, access to free healthcare should be a right to every citizen despite financial status. Aside from the moral justification, let's talk pragmatics:

One of the main political arguments against Obamacare is that we are moving to government care. Not true. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (its real name) aims to decrease the number of uninsured Americans and reduce the overall costs of health care. Some of the main provisions include:

• Requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs, purchase and comply with an approved private insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service, or waived in cases of financial hardship.

• Minimum standards for health insurance policies are to be established and annual and lifetime coverage caps will be banned.

• The creation of health insurance exchanges that will commence operation in each state, offering a marketplace where individuals and small businesses can compare policies and premiums, and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible). In most cases, income eligible families will pay no more than $50 a month for a family of four. Very small businesses will be able to get subsidies if they purchase insurance through an exchange.

• Co-payments, co-insurance, and deductibles are to be eliminated for select health care insurance benefits considered to be part of an “essential benefits package.”

The Congressional Budget Office actually projects that PPACA will lower both future deficits and Medicare spending.

Heartless wrote:But using the "wanting to find a job" as a reason to vote for Obama confounds me. This chart shows the unemployment rate from 2001 - 2012. Please note the drastic spike in unemployment begins once Obama takes office in 2008.

American unemployment has taken a drop to 7.8% - below the 8.2% Barack Obama inherited in 2009.

For more info, take a look at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... yment-data

Heartless wrote:There are enough hand-outs, unemployment compensation, SNAP/food stamps (Obama allowed unemployed people to benefit from the SNAP program), and other unemployment benefits to sustain some people from worrying about finding a job. This is in turn being paid for by people who are working and paying taxes.

This position is so ridiculous is not even worthy of a response. If the government helps out the unemployed with the bare essentials and doesn't let them die, it will make them lazy and they'll never want to work again.

Heartless wrote:
Super Aurora, if 3.9 million private sector jobs have been created, why is the unemployment rate rising and has continued to rise since Obama took office... Something doesn't add up there.

Last time I check, it's going down, or at the least being neutralized(not going up).

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2012/ted_20121010.htm
or
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united- ... yment-rate

or
http://labor.ny.gov/stats/pressreleases/pruistat.shtm


It rose at the beginning of Obama's year in office but could also be that it was more of transition from the unemployment rate during bush's.

Also it took 15 years for America to get out of the depression. You honestly think that a recession could be solved within a mere 4 years?

Heartless wrote:Like I said, it was a pattern I had noticed talking to friends, etc. and I already made it clear I wasn't applying it universally. But using the "wanting to find a job" as a reason to vote for Obama confounds me. This chart shows the unemployment rate from 2001 - 2012. Please note the drastic spike in unemployment begins once Obama takes office in 2008. (And this was taking from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, so its unbiased)

That rise in unemployment would have happened regardless of whoever took office because it was just as the worldwide recession and crisis was taking hold. You can't blame it on Obama, it's complete coincidence imo. What IS important is that the level has dropped ever since, which shows people are getting back on their feet. Whether that's directly related to Government policy is entirely another debate.

Don't forget the Debate is on tonight, not that any of you will watch it and make your own decision. If it is on when one YOUR favorite programs is on, then record it to watch it later, or even Friday morning after you have angered yourself about all the falsehoods the Dems are preaching. Even Joe Biden with a closed mouth is dangerous when given open air time.

Saw this and thought of all you bleeding-heart Democrats who think that Obama is going to save your sorry asses in the next four years. (By the way, he won't, you can count on it!)

http://www.caintv.com/MichaelTomaskyCom ... Romney-549

Read and weep. Now we need more of this kind of reporting. Looking forward to all the snide remarks toward me for this one. But I am a Man and I can take all the stones thrown my way. Just trying to open those uneducated eyes to the truth, once again.

Sorry couldn't resist this one.

The truth really hurts, doesn't it!


“Any fourth grade history student knows socialism has failed in every country, at every time in history,” said Putin. “President Obama and his fellow Democrats are either idiots or deliberately trying to destroy their own economy.”

Vladimir Putin

I agree with a lot of you on Obamacare, but would to know how many of you can afford, or whose parents can afford the costly bill that it will take to implement this Healthcare issue.

We do need a National reform on Healthcare and the whole Medicare system, but I don't think this is the way to go. I don't happen to have an extra abundance of cash on hand that the Government will want me to pay for this program. There has to be a better way, and I truly believe that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have the right "direction" to "repeal Obamacare" and work on getting a less costly plan into effect. I don't think it can happen if they don't get Obamacare repealed, but should they be able to do this, then it will be a step in the right direction for our country and your future.

Here's something I found this morning that I think is pretty accurate in its subject matter, and yes it is from Fox News, but those of you who choose to read it, might find it as troubling as I did.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10 ... troubling/

For those of you who read this, I would like your honest opinion on the way Obama has handled this Libyan affair. It has been a big cover-up in my eyes. With all the notices he had received prior to the events on September 11, 2012, to dismiss this as an unorganized mob situation is so wrong. He still hasn't answered the question "Why Did Four Americans Have to Die" because of his ignorance. What did Obama do - he blamed Hilary Clinton and made her appear in front of the Congressional Committee that was concerned about Obama's lack of concern over what was going to happen. This alone scares the --------- out of me. We have a President who doesn't care about anything but what will benefit him and his family. We don't know whether he was born in Kenya or Hawaii, because he puts the 'big thumb' down on any revelations that may come up. He would rather make appearances on the biased "David Letterman" late night show or on the equally biased "The View" with all his gal-pals.

Someone needs to explain to me why we have to put up with this man's lack of concern for the country he says he loves and has been grinding it into the ground since he took office. Why do we need to put up with so many people out of work and collecting food stamps or other support, when he could have created jobs instead of uncertainty among those of us employable people who want to work. There are over 22 million people who don't have a job, and no matter what reports you read, they don't tell the whole story, even if it is on Fox News. There are other sources out there, which I read pretty thoroughly even though they are left-oriented, but I want to get the whole picture.

As a proud Registered Democrat of over 50 years, it makes me very sad to see people getting lead around by a ring in their nose by a man who doesn't care about them in the least.

Our direction is not a good one, and we need to have a lot of changes made in the way Government gets into our lives. I truly believe in small Government rather than "big brother" Government. Chicago-style spending and spending is not the answer for our country and I don't think that Barry or his staff understand this in one bit. You can't buy a countries friendship. You have to earn it, by showing them results in your programs. Mr. Obama can't do this, because he has failed on most of them.

Don't forget tonight's Debate and then on Tuesday the second of the Presidential Debates will be held in an open Town Hall setting. It should be very interesting to watch and dissect both of these events, leading up to the final debate on Foreign Policy (which, in passing, Obama has none).

Obamacare is a mess. I'll agree with that. I'm sure there are some good things in there, but there are bad ones too. We need healthcare reform, but I don't think this was the answer. I'm not sold on Romney/Ryan's plan yet either.

The problem I'm having with Romney is I feel he is a weak candidate. Obama hasn't done a good job in my opinion, but I don't feel like Romney will do any better. That's why I seriously have no clue who to even vote for... I've always had a clear choice picked, even before the debates, but not this year.

Food stamp usage is up, and so are other things like gas prices, etc... People are so easy to point fingers saying those using these government programs are just doing it because Obama has made it easier, etc... Wrong. Most are not happy to rely on the government for these things, but have no choice. With everything skyrocketing in price, and most people's paychecks frozen (no pay raises, new benefits, etc...) its impossible to make ends meet anymore. Also its really sad to see a lot of our older citizens draining their retirement accounts just to survive.

I don't know... The more I think about it, maybe we should give Romney a chance? If Obama does get re-elected he needs to change some of his policies. We need to focus on getting the housing market going again, job creation, and get gas/food prices down. Instead of focusing on what will help us in the future, we need solutions now, and fast.

I will be watching the debate tonight, and the other Romney/Obama ones. As an undecided voter I hope I get the answers I'm looking for, or something that gives me hope that one side, or the other will be able to America back on track.

http://www.examiner.com/article/red-lob ... -obamacare

The survey, which was conducted by national insurance brokerage Mercer, found that 67 percent of retail and hospitality employers are inclined to change their workforce strategy in some way so that fewer employees meet the 30 hours a week threshold for being insured.

Also saw this article recently, and to quote E.T., "Ouch". Its really nothing new, but with increased costs more companies will do this, and its not right.

DarthPrime wrote:The problem I'm having with Romney is I feel he is a weak candidate.

Exactly.