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.

[Roy Karrde]

4. This is a complete misrepresentation. Good luck finding a credible source that supports this claim.

"The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday.

“They stood, and they watched, and our people died,” former CIA commander Gary Berntsen told CBS News.

The network reported that the drone and other reconnaissance aircraft observed the final hours of the hours-long siege on Sept. 11 — obtaining information that should have spurred swift action.

But as Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three colleagues were killed by terrorists armed with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Defense Department officials were too slow to send in the troops, Berntsen said.

The Pentagon said it moved a team of special operators from Central Europe to Sigonella, Italy — about an hour flight from Libya — but gave no other details.

Fighter jets and Specter AC-130 gunships — which could have been used to help disperse the bloodthirsty mob — were also stationed at three nearby bases, sources told the network."

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/interna...OK23rPf7Z5BHWO

[Plantae]

"The United States had an unmanned Predator drone over its consulate in Benghazi during the attack that slaughtered four Americans — which should have led to a quicker military response, it was revealed yesterday...

I'm not talking about the claim that the government stood by. I'm talking about the claim that they did it without motive, and that the reason Americans died in Libya was because Barack Obama somehow wanted them to. That argument is unconscionable and not based on any evidence.

[Roy Karrde]

I'm not talking about the claim that the government stood by. I'm talking about the claim that they did it without motive, and that the reason Americans died in Libya was because Barack Obama somehow wanted them to. That argument is unconscionable and not based on any evidence.

Obama had final authority to order troops in or aircraft in, which they were clearly ready. He did not. The evidence seems to point that Obama believed or wanted to believe the Libyans could take care of the situation. As we know now, road blocks had been set up and were making it hard for Libyan security to reach the consulate. Road blocks mind you, that Jets would have had no trouble with.

[Plantae]

Obama had final authority to order troops in or aircraft in, which they were clearly ready. He did not. The evidence seems to point that Obama believed or wanted to believe the Libyans could take care of the situation. As we know now, road blocks had been set up and were making it hard for Libyan security to reach the consulate. Road blocks mind you, that Jets would have had no trouble with.

This would have been a violation of Libyan airspace.

[Roy Karrde]

This would have been a violation of Libyan airspace.

It would have, but then one has to ask which is more important, violating Libyan Airspace, or saving American lives.

[Plantae]

It would have, but then one has to ask which is more important, violating Libyan Airspace, or saving American lives.

If you think that decision is as clear-cut as it first appears, then one must ask, how much do you really know about foreign policy?

[mr_pikachu]

As with your views on social media that were published in the book of yours we got at the wedding (I read it :3) you managed to sum up my opinions and said it better than I ever could, bravo sir Thank you for posting this!

Haha, thanks, Asi! I'm even more honored that you liked the book. I was hoping that people would appreciate the unconventional wedding favor.

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.

I take no offense whatsoever. After all, I love impassioned debate -- I used to tangle with The Rusted One quite a bit back in the day -- and if I couldn't handle criticism of my opinions, this would definitely be the wrong place for me. But your tactfulness is nonetheless appreciated. ^_^

1. He didn't "hold" the rate above 8%. It wasn't an intention. Don't suggest that it was.

Sloppy wording on my part, and you're right to call me out for it. I was trying to say that Obama's policies held the rate above 8%, as I believe that his policies stagnated and weakened the recovery instead of accelerating and strengthening it. But I didn't mean to suggest that his goal was to hurt America (even if that's what the conspiracy theorists would say).

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.

The biggest problem I've had with Romney throughout the campaign is that he was very vague about exactly what economic policies he would enact. "I know what it takes to make business succeed" isn't a plan -- he should have explained more about exactly what he would have done. If nothing else, though, even if we presume that the deficit would have increased a bit under a Romney presidency for the past four years (since I think that's what you were asking about), I highly doubt it would have inflated quite so much. Perhaps more importantly, I firmly believe that we would have gotten some growth out of that (smaller) debt increase, too. I'd rather increase the deficit to spur growth than increase the deficit and still have a stagnant economy.

3. The president has almost no control over this.

That's another crime of imprecise argumentation on my part. It's certainly true that OPEC and its ilk currently exert a great deal of control over oil and gas prices in the U.S., but that's largely because we're relying so heavily on importing. If we were to make use of our own reserves, or at least import from friendlier neighbors (see: Canada), then OPEC wouldn't be able to play games with gas prices in the U.S. We'd control them ourselves.

In short, the president has minimal control over gas prices, but that's by design. He could have taken control with a few choice policy changes. He just didn't do so.

4. This is a complete misrepresentation. Good luck finding a credible source that supports this claim.

I'm mostly going to leave this one alone, because I see that Roy's been arguing that point for the past two pages or so. If nothing else, I think it's clear that there are some sources which support this claim. You could debate their veracity, but at the end of the day, that's a judgment call at best.

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.

I'm not totally sure what spawned the first paragraph. There are radicals in every religion (al Qaida, anyone?), but if that's Obama's justification for slandering an entire region and an entire religion, then he's more prone to stereotyping others than anyone I've ever seen.

As for gun rights, I agree with you in theory. For the record, I don't own a gun. They scare me. A close friend wanted to go to a shooting range for his bachelor party, and he naturally wanted me to shoot as well. I complied since it was his bachelor party, but I was terrified holding it, knowing that with the tiny block of metal and the miniscule fragments that went into it, I could have gone on a rampage. I could have turned around and killed a half-dozen people in seconds if I felt like it.

That's a scary thought, especially since I'm a martial artist. I went through many years of training, practicing steadfast discipline, and honed the abilities necessary to respond to a deadly threat with equally deadly force. The rigorous training instilled me with an appreciation of the power I wield and the responsibility I carry with me every day. On the other hand, I was allowed to take to the shooting range, holding a deadly weapon with live ammunition, after watching a video that was something like 20 minutes long. That contrast made it very hard for me to sleep that night.

And yet, you can't undo the past. If I had my way, there would be no guns and no technology to make them. (Provided that we could still get food, of course.) I'd be fine with that. But the fact is that guns do exist, and a lot of people have them. While I'm echoing others' arguments here, I firmly believe that if you took away gun rights in this country (or severely restricted them), the only people who would still have them would be law enforcement and criminals. That puts honest citizens in a real jam. The way things are now, at least your common criminals have to think twice before coming after you. I readily acknowledge that tightening restrictions on guns might prevent major incidents like the Dark Knight massacre in Colorado earlier this year, but I also believe that we would see far more criminal activity, murders included, on a day-to-day basis, and that this would more than compensate for the massacres.

Regarding less severe restrictions, I don't have much of an opinion, because gun advocacy isn't a core issue of mine. I'm more of a moderate here -- for instance, I have little problem with a three-day waiting period (as long as that didn't open the floodgates to far more serious restrictions). After all, what is someone planning to do with their gun that would make them need it the day after tomorrow? If you have a dire need to get a gun in two days, it sounds to me like you're planning something. That's not to say that we should have six-month waiting periods for guns, though. If I have any opposition to a three-day period, it's that such a policy would open the discussion to extend it a little further, then a little further....

You're also right to note that some other countries with tighter gun restrictions have less violent crime, and that's a fair counterpoint to some of my above claims. However, many of those countries are also more restrictive of freedoms in general, and law enforcement has a much tighter grip in some of those places -- perhaps approaching the point of control that would prompt rebellion in America.

Not to mention that you don't see police officers in the U.S. walking down the street with automatic rifles. That's a common sight in countries like Italy, which I visited several years ago. I'd argue that firepower cuts the crime rate there, too. More guns in the hands of non-criminals acts as a deterrent, whether it's citizens with permits in the U.S. or military-grade firearms in Italy. But we probably wouldn't want our police officers to be packing Uzis in America. I could see that generating a major public outcry across the political spectrum.

Now, we could get into a debate on whether the presence of more guns turns people who would otherwise be peaceful into offenders, because they're tempted to break the law when they have tantalizing power in their hands. I'll be frank: I don't have the background to speak on that topic, so I wouldn't be able to do much more than speculate in response. But it's a fair point to acknowledge.

As for the social disparities, I wholeheartedly agree about that. For me, that largely gets back to some of the economic issues at hand, like the disintegrating middle class. That's creating a massive canyon between the classes in America, and it's a major problem. I've already spoken to the economy in this post, so there's no reason for me to rehash my thoughts there.

There are also underlying tensions that go far beyond dollars and cents. For instance, as much as we might like to deny it, there are still racial prejudices in America. Some of those are lingering from bygone eras of overt oppression and segregation, and they're despicable.

Others are more reactionary. For instance, it frustrates me to know that in a hiring situation, if I come up against someone whose credentials rival my own, I'm probably at a disadvantage. Why? Because I'm a white male. We can argue all day long about whether I had more access to education, resources, etc., etc. But to be blunt, that devalues the work that I put into my own work and my own education. I didn't choose to be born a certain gender or race, so it's troubling that there are policies in place which could punish me for that. Even earlier today, I argued with myself over whether to conveniently forget to submit a additional disclosure form for my recent job applications that would note my race, because it can only hurt me. That's troubling, that being honest about my gender (which they probably already know from the name "Brian") and race could put me at a disadvantage in this day and age. But it's the truth. I've personally seen it happen more than once.

Anyway, I don't want to get into an argument over the presence or absence of "reverse racism," because that's just an aside. I only meant to give what I see as an example of a social divide, to agree with your last overall point (if not the details). Perhaps it's noteworthy that, according to a recent study -- I can track down the citation if necessary to back up this claim -- racist attitudes in the U.S. have increased over the past four years, not declined. I'm not saying that Obama intentionally or unintentionally contributed to that. I'm just saying that you're right -- we're not magically "over" these problems, and there will still be some traces of them for quite some time to come.

*looks back at the quantity of text* Whew!