2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Plantae]

Before I launch into an argument about this, I'd just like to note that mr_pikachu, Asilynne, I respect both of you, even if I disagree. I don't mean to offend you. If anything, you seem to be the only voices of compassionate conservatism in this thread. And I appreciate that. And oh, congrats on the wedding, Asi!

Actually, the reason why there's no money in the U.S. right now is because the government is taxing the daylights out of the people who have worked for decades to make a living. This not only punishes hard work, but it also keeps them from hiring others and allowing them to climb the economic ladder in the same way.

Emphasis mine. If you're referring here to so-called "job creators," this argument has no merit. Even if you're referring to the poor or the middle class, this argument still doesn't work. All groups of people receive benefits for what they pass in taxes; some groups more so than others. Some don't pay taxes at all, but there's a reason for that. If they did, they'd never have the chance to climb the "economic ladder," as you suggest.

Trickle-down economics is fallacious. It has been tried throughout history, disguised as both horse-and-sparrow theory in the 1890's and Reaganomics later on. No credible evidence suggests that tax cuts to the wealthy create jobs; because no matter how much taxes are cut, the rich are more eager to amass their money in tax havens, which ultimately damage the economy, than to invest the money in the way you suggest. The idea that we should feed the wealth of the rich, in vain hope that they might give some of it to the poor and the middle class, is completely senseless, and needlessly indirect. Why wouldn't it be wiser to cut the taxes of the poor and middle class directly?

Even Ross Perot called trickle-down economics "political voodoo." The few of the nation's privileged who actually understand their duty as citizens are eager to give more, to be taxed more, because they understand that this theory is completely bogus. Because they've lived it. Because once you have that much money, it's almost impossible to avoid indulging yourself, and to avoid doing whatever you want.

1) holding the unemployment rate above 8% for the majority of his presidency,
2) adding several trillion to the already sky-high national debt,
3) doubling gas prices,
4) literally watching a U.S. ambassador die live on closed-circuit television while refusing troops' pleas to let them go and save lives, and
5) explicitly insulting voters in the key states of Ohio and Pennsylvania -- both of which he won -- by saying that they just inexplicably "cling to guns or religion," then putting them at the same level of illogic as blind xenophobia.

1. He didn't "hold" the rate above 8%. It wasn't an intention. Don't suggest that it was.
2. Fair enough. But if you can explain how Romney would have done better, with tax cuts and defense spending that could not have been paid for, do tell.
3. The president has almost no control over this.
4. This is a complete misrepresentation. Good luck finding a credible source that supports this claim.
5. Many more extreme Christians regard homosexuals with blind hatred, based on an ancient text that also suggests that slavery is acceptable and that stoning is the proper punishment for various minor sins. As someone who was raised Catholic, I think the Bible has some good ideas; but many people seem to cherry-pick the "fire and brimstone" that supports their own, prejudiced views.

And as much as there may be validity to the suggestion that allowing civilians to keep their guns may prevent certain crimes, it should be noted that the only reason many violent crimes occur is because of the proliferation of guns that occurred in the first place. People who believe unequivocally in unrestricted gun rights are trying to fight fire with fire. There's a reason that nations with very restrictive gun rights also have extremely low rates of violent crime.

This isn't the wild west anymore. People need to realize that you can't clean up the streets with a gun. We need to address the social disparities that have led to crime in the first place. But I agree that these are discussions we need to have without the application of partisan rhetoric.

disparaging categorization of mental disability as a negative term of insult

disparaging categorization of racial group as defined by negative characteristics

So you have given up on it being "Bigotry" and merely noting I was negative or disparaging in both.... Yeah. What's next "They were both posts at Pokemasters.net"?

You really just don't get it, do you? This is exactly why you're a bigot. Because you apply generally negative, disparaging characteristics to groups of people who have done nothing to deserve such prejudice. Because no one deserves such prejudice. And the sad thing is, you'll probably never learn.

I've been glad to try and debate you on the principles of logic. And I think you've made a number of reasonable, even insightful points. But why would anyone ever think your political arguments have merit, when it's clear that the policies you suggest are not guided by conventional morality? Instead, you base your designs for society on relative principles unbound by notions of right and wrong, which even you don't hold internally consistent. Anyone that thinks there is nothing wrong with indiscriminately applying the word "retard" or suggesting that African-Americans are prone to "racial violence" makes me sick. Please, take your ideals, and go back to whatever backward century you came from.

I know this argument is ad hominem. But it was necessary. And hopefully, it will encourage someone to close this thread.