DVDizzy Forum

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 4:56 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote:I don't think that any of you are listening and evaluating both sides of this election.

You accuse us of being biased yet you conveniently refuse to address any arguments we present.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:10 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote: Here's something from Neal Boortz that perked my attention:

Is there any part of the world that ISN'T outraged at America? Thanks, Obama, for resetting our image in the world. Good job stud.

Another pearl of wisdom from Boortz, huh? I suppose the world absolutely adored us when George Bush was in charge; all we need is for Mitt Romney to give them a big F You to set things back to 0.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 5:21 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote:I don't think that any of you are listening and evaluating both sides of this election. It is your future and if you are in the age group of 18-35, you have been duped by that despot in office today. You need to pull your head out of your arse and get the facts as they are presented - not just by one news source but by several sources - and then dig deep into what concerns you have and then make your decision.

Uhhh we have. Way more so than you ever have in this thread. Every article I've read from all sources indicate Romney is not the president meant for people like you or me. That should be clear and obvious.

dvdjunkie wrote:I just don't understand what you people see in this President.

Not so much we adore him but that he's way better of a choice, even if he a "meh" president, than Romney ever is. Romney is the type who would and will support the mega rich way over the majority middle class like you and me. It doesn't take a monkey's brain to figure that out. Let's not forget Paul Ryan either.

Also tax cuts slows down the economy despite what GOP wants you to believe. Romney want to add even more tax cuts which obviously will plunder the economy down even further. You should know this.

Analysis of six decades of data found that top tax rates "have had little association with saving, investment, or productivity growth." However, the study found that reductions of capital gains taxes and top marginal rate taxes have led to greater income inequality. Past studies cited in the report have suggested that a broad-based tax rate reduction can have "a small to modest, positive effect on economic growth" or "no effect on economic growth."

Well into the 1950s, the top marginal tax rate was above 90%. Today it's 35%. But both real GDP and real per capita GDP were growing more than twice as fast in the 1950s as in the 2000s. At the same time, the average tax rate paid by the top tenth of a percent fell from about 50% to 25% in the last 60 years, while their share of income increased from 4.2% in 1945 to 12.3% before the recession.

In short, the study found that top tax rates don't appear to determine the size of the economic pie but they can affect how the pie is sliced, especially for the richest households.

source: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ds/262438/

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/news/busin ... conomy.pdf

Surprise Surprise!

There have been reports that even some republicans are starting to be turned off by Romney like this article:

LYNCHBURG, Virginia (Reuters) - Sheryl Harris, a voluble 52-year-old with a Virginia drawl, voted twice for George W. Bush. Raised Baptist, she is convinced -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- that President Barack Obama, a practicing Christian, is Muslim.
So in this year's presidential election, will she support Mitt Romney? Not a chance.
"Romney's going to help the upper class," said Harris, who earns $28,000 a year as activities director of a Lynchburg senior center. "He doesn't know everyday people, except maybe the person who cleans his house."
She'll vote for Obama, she said: "At least he wasn't brought up filthy rich."
White lower- and middle-income voters such as Harris are wild cards in this vituperative presidential campaign. With only a sliver of the electorate in play nationwide, they could be a deciding factor in two southern swing states, Virginia and North Carolina.
Reuters/Ipsos polling data compiled over the past several months shows that, across the Bible Belt, 38 percent of these voters said they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is "very wealthy" than one who isn't. This is well above the 20 percent who said they would be less likely to vote for an African-American.
In Lynchburg, many haven't forgotten Romney's casual offer to bet Texas Governor Rick Perry $10,000 or his mention of his wife's "couple of Cadillacs." Virginia airwaves are saturated with Democratic ads hammering Romney's Cayman Islands investments and his refusal to release more than two years of tax returns.
At the Democratic convention last week, Obama mocked the GOP's "tax breaks for millionaires" as "the same prescription they've had for the last 30 years."
A former private equity executive with a net worth of some $250 million, Romney vehemently disputes insinuations that he has paid less taxes than required by law. He calls the attacks an effort "to divert attention from the fact that the president has been a failure when it comes to reigniting the American economy."
The GOP nominee's lucrative business career, which he touts far more than his record as governor of Massachusetts, does resonate with many Southern conservatives. "I don't like to see the wealthy punished for their success," said Cory Beaver, 26, as he waited on customers at a Lynchburg restaurant. "Obama leans toward socialism."
Romney's opposition to gay marriage and his commitment to reversing the Supreme Court's decision granting women the right to abortion also gain him more support in the Bible Belt than in other regions of the country.
WHERE OLD AND NEW SOUTH COLLIDE
Focusing on 11 states from Virginia and North Carolina to Texas and Oklahoma, the Reuters/Ipsos polling project canvassed 8,690 people in households with incomes under $55,000 a year -- just above the U.S. median.
Non-Hispanic whites in this bracket have skewed Republican for more than three decades, and they prefer the GOP nominee to Obama by 46 percent to 29 percent. However, as Romney launches a post-convention ad blitz, those numbers could signal trouble for his campaign. Strategists in both parties figure that to offset the president's expected landslide among an expanding electorate of blacks and Hispanics -- Obama won 80 percent of minority votes in 2008 -- Romney must garner more than 60 percent of the white vote overall.
In Virginia, polls show the candidates virtually tied. The state's 5.9 percent unemployment rate, well below the 8.1 percent national average, works in Obama's favor. Overall, 35 percent of the electorate is black, Hispanic or Asian.
Large swaths of northern Virginia, which includes Washington, D.C. suburbs, and the Tidewater region, with its heavy military presence, see the federal government as more friend than enemy.
In Lynchburg, a city of 76,000 in south central Virginia, Old and New South collide as downtown's Victorian gingerbread homes yield to high-tech suburban factories. On Main Street, a pawnbroker displays racks of shotguns across from a marble-and-stainless steel bakery offering creme brulée cupcakes. Several times a day, Appalachian coal trains, more than 100 cars long, wind through town.
The city is best known as headquarters of an evangelical empire: Thomas Road Baptist Church, with 25,000 members, founded by the late Reverend Jerry Falwell, and its fast-growing offshoot, Liberty University.
At Liberty's May commencement, Romney, a Mormon, sought to stake out common ground with fundamentalist Christians. Without directly mentioning the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, as the Mormon church is formally known, he told the crowd of 34,000: "People of different faiths, like yours and mine ... can meet in service, in shared moral convictions about our nation stemming from a common worldview."
According to Reuters/Ipsos polling data, however, 35 percent of voters overall, and the same proportion of lower- and middle-income white Bible Belt voters, say they would be less likely to vote for a candidate who is Mormon.
Many evangelicals who would normally vote Republican say they view Mormonism as a cult.
Several of those interviewed in Lynchburg were devotees of the TV series "Big Love" and "Sister Wives," about polygamous Mormon families. They were unaware that the Mormon Church long ago renounced polygamy.
"Mormons don't believe like we believe," said Dianna McCullough, a retired factory worker, as she tossed salad in a Tree of Life Ministries soup kitchen. "Like the wives -- Romney's probably got more than one."
Still, she is undecided in the election. "The gay marriage thing hurts Obama," she said. "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve."
The president has said he supports gay marriage, whereas Romney, in his speech at Liberty, drew his biggest applause with the line, "Marriage is a relationship between one man and one woman."
ENTHUSIASM GAP
Four years ago, almost a quarter of voters identified themselves as white Protestant evangelicals in exit polls. Obama won only a quarter of them. This year, many passionately want to defeat him.
In a survey conducted this summer by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion and Public Life, almost a third of Republicans said they believe Obama is Muslim, compared with 16 percent of independents and 8 percent of Democrats. The falsehood is a frequent theme of conservative talk radio.
Still, the challenge for the GOP is to ensure that white evangelicals, most of whom voted for other candidates in the primary, are sufficiently enthusiastic about Romney to make it to the polls.
On a humid evening at the Thomas Road church, the weekly "Hands Stitching 4 Jesus" group was crocheting teddy bears for children in Mexico. Middle-school teacher Stephanie Parrish, 27, was setting up a slide show from her recent mission to Guatemala with Campus Crusade for Christ.
Her thoughts on the presidential election?
"Abortion and gay marriage -- where they stand on morality, that's big for me," she said.
In 2008, Parrish was a fan of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who was defeated in the GOP primary. She counts him as a Facebook friend. She has yet to "friend" Romney, although she plans to vote for him.
"I'm not extremely excited," she confessed. "I'd prefer not to have a Mormon."
Nonetheless, she added, "Romney seems to align himself with conservative values."
Among low- and middle-income white Bible Belt voters, 21 percent in the Reuters/Ipsos polling data said they are uncertain they will vote in the presidential election. That's not much more than the 17 percent of other respondents who were uncertain. But in a group that leans Republican, it could be enough to hurt Romney.
Democratic TV spots in Virginia and other battleground states portray Romney as outsourcing jobs to China and Mexico when he was chief executive officer of Bain Capital -- a charge he calls "deceptive and dishonest."
The GOP nominee's attacks on "big government" as "hostile and "remote" appeal more strongly to white low- and median-income Southerners than to the nation as a whole. The deep cuts in the federal government's domestic program pushed by his vice-presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, reinforce the message.
In the Reuters/Ipsos poll, these Bible Belt voters blame Washington more than Wall Street for the recent recession by a margin of 30 points. Overall, Americans blame Washington, too, but by only six points.
"Other than the military, everything that's government-controlled is screwed up," said William Clarkson, a retired postman who was rooting for the Lynchburg Hillcats, the city's minor league baseball team, on a sweltering afternoon.
"Romney took a lot of businesses that were failing and turned them around," he said, adding: "I don't see big business as evil. Obama is using class warfare with his ads about Romney wanting to give tax breaks to millionaires."
Obama's plan is to extend Bush-era tax cuts for families with incomes under $250,000 a year, while Romney and congressional Republicans support an across-the-board extension.
According to the Reuters/Ipsos data, 35 percent of the white Southern group saw Romney as having a "better approach" to taxes, while 25 percent thought Obama does.
Paradoxically, the same group agreed by more than 4 to 1 with the statement: "The wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes," which is Obama's campaign theme.
SOUTHERN DISCOMFORT
The apparent contradiction in public attitudes about tax policy mirrors widespread confusion over the Affordable Healthcare Act, which Romney has promised to repeal.

Overall, 54 percent of Americans -- and a decisive 69 percent of white low- and median-income Southerners -- opposed Obamacare, according to the Reuters/Ipsos data. But when asked about specific parts of the law, the results largely favored the president.
Both groups opposed the provision that would require them to buy health insurance. However, by more than 2 to 1, both supported making businesses with more than 50 employees offer insurance and forcing insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions.
Almost two-thirds of both groups supported a central element of Obamacare: extending Medicaid -- the federal-state program that covers healthcare for the poor -- to families earning less than $30,000 a year. Romney and Ryan seek to cut the growth of Medicaid by capping federal contributions and shifting responsibility to the states.
If Obama has fed class resentment with attacks on Romney's taxes and his mixed record at Bain Capital, the GOP is tapping into a different strain of white middle-class rancor -- one directed toward low-income recipients of government aid.
A Romney ad asserts that "Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job. They just send you a welfare check." Independent fact-checkers say the ad distorts the administration's plan to give states more flexibility on work rules -- a request that came from Republican governors.
In Lynchburg, however, it resonates with some white conservatives. At the Modern Barber Shop on Main Street, where the Ten Commandments are displayed in the window, a group of retirees chatted about the election on a recent morning.
"I don't believe in free handouts," said Robert McCanna, a former accountant. "Obama is pitting blacks against whites."
Retired truck driver Lyle Campbell interjected, "If I was black, I would get anything I want."
Just up the street, however, Sheryl Harris, the senior center activities director, sees the election through the lens of class, not race. "Romney didn't get to the top of the pile by being a nice guy," she said. "To make the money he makes you have to step on a lot of people ... Democrats are more interested in helping the lower and middle classes"

source: http://news.yahoo.com/southern-whites-t ... 12040.html

Also like sotris says, You accuse us of being biased yet you conveniently refuse to address any arguments we present.

That's why we can tell and call BS out on you. Bottom line, Obama is not fantastic but he's a hell of a better choice than Romney is.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 8:20 pm**

^Yeah, I think for many people, this election is a "lesser of two evils" kind of deal, with Obama being the lesser evil.

So I saw this article today, where Josh Barro predicts that a leaked recording is the straw that broke the camels back for Romney. And you can see the video of mittens saying how 47% of Americans will vote for the president because they think they are entitled to food, housing, and government help below.

<object width="560" height="315"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/XnB0NZzl5HA?ve ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XnB0NZzl5HA?ve ... n_US&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="560" height="315" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

God i really don't like mittens.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:00 pm**

Disney's Divinity wrote:
dvdjunkie wrote: Here's something from Neal Boortz that perked my attention:

Is there any part of the world that ISN'T outraged at America? Thanks, Obama, for resetting our image in the world. Good job stud.
Another pearl of wisdom from Boortz, huh? I suppose the world absolutely adored us when George Bush was in charge; all we need is for Mitt Romney to give them a big F You to set things back to 0.

yeah, that global view of America has been around for a lot longer than, well, since before bush was in office. I mean a "we're the greatest nation in the world!" attitude is not gonna go over well with some people. It doesnt even with me, and I live in America.

And Romney has completely lost touch with America. Well, he never had it. There was a time when his fellow Republicans wouldnt've elected him, so he started flip-flopping, and eventually sold what little soul he had 2 years ago to become the bland, manufactured, lying Republican robot he is today. And I'm not being hateful; he let other people in his party mold his public image. Effectively, that's a form of manufacturing.

Obama at least has the balls to say he's not perfect. Sure, he still has to sell himself, but I would want the public to know my flaws if ever I became a public figure(i'm not one for celebrityism).

And what is constantly being ignored? Congress has more power than the president in a significant number of issues that are on display during elections, especially the economy.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:10 pm**

Until someone here can reason from both sides why one is better than the other, I will continue posting what I think are eye-openers for you who think that the President is truthful and honest (he isn't, wake up!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

There is a ton more to back this up.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:47 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote:Until someone here can reason from both sides why one is better than the other, I will continue posting what I think are eye-openers for you who think that the President is truthful and honest (he isn't, wake up!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

There is a ton more to back this up.

I wonder what your psyche must be like. Pretty bad state, I’m guessing, if you’ve convinced yourself that you “reason from both sides.”

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:01 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote:Until someone here can reason from both sides why one is better than the other, I will continue posting what I think are eye-openers for you who think that the President is truthful and honest (he isn't, wake up!!)

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:01 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote:Until someone here can reason from both sides why one is better than the other, I will continue posting what I think are eye-openers for you who think that the President is truthful and honest (he isn't, wake up!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

There is a ton more to back this up.

Wow, that was awesome! How.. how is this bad? I might be missing something? He believes in a certain amount of redistribution to keep things fair. That sounds pretty darn awesome to me.

At the republican convention, they were handing out packages of legos that said "We Built It" on it. But to me it was just a metaphor for republican's flawed logic.

So they sit there proud of their little house they just built out of their legos they were just given. I did it all myself. What they fail to realize, is that they were just handed these legos. Not to mention the fact that so many people were involved in the making of that house, from the people who molded the bricks, to the people who made the machines to help mold the bricks, to the shippers, to the people who supplied the oil for the plastic, and so on forever. But no, the person who worked so hard to put that little house together in the last 2 minutes gets to keep the house, and everything that comes with it. While the people who helped make this possible end up with so little.

Why are the large majority of multi billionaire business leaders white, cis men? Maybe it's because they were given more legos to work with.

i.e. There needs to be a leveling of the playing field. People who need government help aren't lazy. People shouldn't be making billions of dollars a year. Not when people who work just as hard are making minimum wage, or less. It's not a fair system, so redistribution is necessary to try to make it that much more fair.

edit: I really wish Obama really was this extremely left sided socialist that republicans seem to be afraid of.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:42 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote:Until someone here can reason from both sides why one is better than the other, I will continue posting what I think are eye-openers for you who think that the President is truthful and honest (he isn't, wake up!!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ge3aGJfDSg4

There is a ton more to back this up.

what part of "lesser of two evils" involves reasoning from one side?

you look at all our posts and see Obama-lovers, but you never post anything that says you're looking at both sides-as you claim- and then you go ahead and ignore us simply for not sharing your view.

I could say a few other things, but I challenge you. Post a reply to this post, and I will listen to your argument, then I will judge it the way a Justice judges a case: By looking at both sides logically.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 9:21 am**

Great bumper sticker and I want one!!!!!.........:

Vote For the Mormon, NOT the Moron!!

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 2:21 pm**

ajmrowland wrote: I could say a few other things, but I challenge you. Post a reply to this post, and I will listen to your argument, then I will judge it the way a Justice judges a case: By looking at both sides logically.

Why would he do that when he would rather pretend to understand things we lesser people couldn’t possibly understand. He might as well be talking about time travel.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 3:53 pm**

It seems like I am talking to a brick wall on this forum. There isn't one of you who could list Four (4) things that you have benefited from with the current President.

I have been challenged to present both sides of the coin here, but you all have your mind made up by listening to all the lies that the Democratic National Committee and media want you to listen to.

I am just presenting the Fair and Balanced information that I follow through people like Sean Hannity, Herman Cain, Neal Boortz and others. Listening to them as they present both sides of each story, I am say that I am well-informed and know who the enemy is - and he currently resides in the White House.

Everyone here seems to be afraid of the truths that these gentlemen report, and if you followed up on their accusations you would find that the trail leads right to the White House.

I don't want to live in a Socialist country and that is the direction we are headed in with this despot in power. A change is needed and needed soon and that will come in November.

Have you noticed how Obama has reneged on his accusations that the attacks in Libya were not the act of terror and just some people letting off steam. He has now retracted that story and says that the embassy new about things that were going to happen around the celebration of 9/11 but the White House did nothing about it, and four innocent people lost their lives. Explain that to me how Obama is right and has our best interests at heart while he appears on the Letterman show to show us how he brews his own beer in the White House.

Who pays for these expensive trips (called vacations) that the First Lady takes. We do, as taxpayers.

And the coal industry is losing over 1200 jobs because Obama wants to 'try going greener', without thinking about what those who will not be employed are to do.

Sure I look at both sides, but as long as lies keep coming from the media supporting Obama I will only listen to what I believe to be the truth and fair and balanced news.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:58 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote:It seems like I am talking to a brick wall on this forum. There isn't one of you who could list Four (4) things that you have benefited from with the current President.

Stating things that are helped me personally has no meaning to the country, and is a very self-centered way to think about things. I already posted a list of stuff he did for trans people, which effects me because of my friends and family. In addition to that list, Obamacare has also stopped medical discrimination against trans people in the whole country. Trans people could be legally turned down for medical care just because they were trans before obamacare. That matters a lot in my personal life.

It doesn't matter what obama did to help me personally. But I care about what he did to help the people who need it. This is a list of promises obama kept. It's ten pages long, and it's obviously just a tiny bit of what he has accomplished. Just skimming through the list, the things that stick out at me are all the things that his administration did from minorities. For women. Again, for the people who need it. Not for rich, white, cis men who are upset that they might get treated like a normal citizen.

dvdjunkie wrote:I don't want to live in a Socialist country and that is the direction we are headed in with this despot in power. A change is needed and needed soon and that will come in November.

I'd much rather live in a socialist country than one ran by mittens. And Obama is nowhere near being a socialist. He is way too far right politically. And you seem really confident. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it seems like a really difficult thing to predict right now, with obama with a slight lead (which makes sense, because he is the incumbent).

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 5:28 pm**

Since you brought up Obamacare, let's take a look at it and see if it really isn't just a great big disaster waiting to happen!

This is from the desk of Mark Levin:

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/article ... 99890.html

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 7:57 pm**

Hi there everyone. I saw this thread and just said to myself, "Hey, you got to add your two cents!" What a great idea!

In full disclosure, I posted a version of this on another site but I think it works here as well:

The problem is this: This is what happens every four years.

Over and over again, and the American people never seem to wake up. No matter who wins, we lose. Voters are disenfranchised, people vote for the lesser of two evils.

People who have been blinded by their political parties are being tricked into believing that their guys is the one who will change things. Every guy we vote in, people eventually get frustrated with.

The two party system is dividing this country. Liberals hating Conservatives, Conservatives hating Liberals. None of this helps our situation. But they keep the fight going because it keeps us busy and distracted.

We need to get the money out of politics. Not every President and politician should be a millionaire. We don't need a government of the 1% but of the 100%. Everyone needs equal representation.

We, the Amercian people need to learn that we deserve better and the only way we will get it is if we fight for it. Stop with the 'parties' and think about the people. All people! We need to demand better candidates, a better government and until we do, nothing will change. The American people have to want it so bad that it will get to the point where it has to happen.

So, there it is. Copy it, spread it, talk about it, ignore it, whatever. But that's my opinion.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 8:34 pm**

^Beleive me, I totally totally agree.

My beleifs fall with neither obama nor romney. I am much much more liberal and more extreme than obama. Yet he is the lesser of two evils. Both candidates definitely don't think of all the people. I know that.

But we can't do anything about it. At least not this election. If we don't vote for obama because we don't like either candidate, it's pretty much a vote for romney. It's a sad fact, but it really is true.

I have thought about what you are saying a lot. But I don't think it's ever going to happen, at least not unless something BIG happens as a catalyst (think The Girl on Fire), it's not going to happen. It would take years of political turmoil to get rid of the two party system and things would probably be really bad during that time. I do think it is necessary, and I do wish it would happen, but I just don't see it happening unless a large amount of people have a BIG reason/rallying call to reject the two party policy.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:14 pm**

For those who say that I don't read anything positive about our Prez, here's is one for you, and it is good news (and the truth, fair and balanced):

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09 ... nd-states/

Now let's get on with the Debates in October.

There is no one person on this board or that I know of who is more liberal and extreme as Obama. That is his problem. He writes checks that there is no money for. He is the typical "blonde" when it comes to that - 'I must have money I still have checks!!'.

With over 16 trillion dollars in National Debt, something needs to be done to stop this senseless spending. Supporting countries that dislike us is not going to make them like us, and Obama needs to understand that, and I don't think he does or even cares.

Remember, if you have a successful small or large business that Obama said "You Didn't Build That!" and I think we should all read into that a lot more than even the liberal media is doing.

Anyway read about the 'battleground' states and Obama, and then go back and truly read my other links. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't give you the right to ignore it.

Posted: **Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:02 pm**

dvdjunkie wrote: There is no one person on this board or that I know of who is more liberal and extreme as Obama.

Then you need to meet me and the people I hang out with.

Hint: This is probably going to get me in trouble. I believe the only system that could work and have the least discrimination against minorities is a collective anarchist society. I DO NOT mean any other type of anarchy, to make that clear (some forms are REALLY messed up). I truly believe collective anarchy would be the most fair society, but I know that isn't going to happen in America for a LONG time (probably never ever unless Yellowstone explodes and a small number us start over or something crazy). Yeah, it's a LOT more extreme than obama. Which is why in today's politics, when not in extreme social circles, I have to side with whatever I agree most with. In this case, that's Obama (when the choice is Obama or Mittens). He really isn't as liberal as you think. I'll have to find some examples of him being really not liberal at all with sources for you later.

dvdjunkie wrote:Remember, if you have a successful small or large business that Obama said "You Didn't Build That!" and I think we should all read into that a lot more than even the liberal media is doing.

I agree with him. See my post about the legos above.

Even in the rare rare case that someone does build something totally from scratch (I'm not sure that could even happen in today's society), they still had and upper hand due to class, race, and/or gender. Again, the most successful businessmen making billions a year are almost all white cis men. Are white cis men genetically hardwired to be savvy businessmen? No. It's not a fair market, and never will be under capitalism without some redistribution. Even if they did build it themselves *somehow*, the wealth should be spread to a degree to make it more fair. And then there is the argument that there is no was a business owner can be doing enough work to be earning billions a year, while a person earning minimum wage works just as hard (or harder). I'm pretty sure i'm repeating myself now. That seems to happen whenever I talk about politics or social issues on this forum. Probably my fault.

dvdjunkie wrote:Anyway read about the 'battleground' states and Obama, and then go back and truly read my other links. Just because you don't like the truth doesn't give you the right to ignore it.

I *tried* to read them, but honestly, the people who wrote most of those articles annoy me a lot. And I usually enjoy reading about politics and social justice. But ugh the way they were talking was just annoying. The voice in the article is either really boring, or, more often, it seems like they are making a mountain out of a molehill, to a point where I really don't care for the issues they bring up. They are unimportant to the real issues (PEOPLE) and I feel the points they were trying to make are very unlikely to become real issues anyway.

Posted: **Thu Sep 20, 2012 4:04 am**

Disney's Divinity wrote:
ajmrowland wrote: I could say a few other things, but I challenge you. Post a reply to this post, and I will listen to your argument, then I will judge it the way a Justice judges a case: By looking at both sides logically.
Why would he do that when he would rather pretend to understand things we lesser people couldn’t possibly understand. He might as well be talking about time travel.

meh, I was tired.

DVDizzy Forum

Elections thread