There's more Obama supporters on ATS than I thought. Interesting...

Originally posted by EvenParanoidsHaveEnemies
Obama supporters do not debate with facts, or logic. Obama supporters debate simply with emotion.

Asking what you are asking is like asking a zebra to have spots instead of stripes - it won't happen... it isn't natural for them.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Emotional people debate with emotions.

People that care about facts debate with facts.

Which party or non - - - they belong to has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by Echo3Foxtrot

You've still completely ignored everything I've written and tried to focus on one thing to make me look bad.

Emotions are internal. The only person that can make you feel or look bad is you. I am not making you take anything personal. That is your choosing.

You could simply look at it as having a different opinion.

If I were a conservative minded fool I would go on about how you're so much a liberal, blah, blah, blah. But I don't worship corrupt men.

Obama is a jerk. An arrogant jerk.

I am a Social Liberal - - who believes in Equal Rights. Other then that I do not discuss my politics on ATS. So you have no clue if I am Liberal or Conservative or something else - - - beyond Social Equality issues.

Obama supports Marriage Equality. Obama supports eliminating DOMA. etc etc

I'm voting for that "jerk".

Originally posted by cornucopia
i voted early for obama


for the win!


thanks yall who are like minded and wish to see us progress instead of go back in time...lol, you know what i'm talking about.

No, I have no idea what you're talking about. Please elaborate, sir.

Lima-1, out.

There probably won't be any major differences no matter who wins.

Internationally, there will be more drone strikes while in America the amount of drones will also increase along with one's which can hover over cities and residential areas with their cameras.

Either way, there probably will be more intervention in the Middle East with heavier weapons provided to the terrorists in Syria while still supporting all the absolute monarchies who haven't a shred of democracy but are Western allies so can carry on as usual.

Both options will be backed by the Openheimers and the usual global elites pushing for one-world government and continue to be hypocrites that destablise the world for their nations own advantage in the name of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Killing millions and mass-suffering will all continue to be fine as long as there's 'democracy'....and new military bases, oil or other useful resources involved.

Not just the US, but most of the Western states who are backed by the same banks, corporations and elites.

Originally posted by Dante2117
There probably won't be any major differences no matter who wins.

To a degree, yes, but there are still hundreds of thousands of decisions to be made that WILL affect the lives of ordinary Americans over the next four years.

There are certain things that are beyond your control, and it is a case of voting for the lesser of two evils to a degree.

Either way, the president will have to work to provide security and stability within the USA, and when the € collapses, austerity measures are needed, or when the stock market implodes, you'll need a president able to deal with that.

Cuts have to be made to save money, and those cuts have to be made carefully so that they are long-term benefits, not short-term savings. Capitalists choose short-term gain over long-term prosperity. Romney believes that he can cut all kinds of things now and save a lot of money, and it will, for a year or two, then he'll be spending double fixing the mess that those cuts have created.

Romney is going to make short-term cuts in spending because he thinks a national budget is the same a state budget, or a domestic budget. It's not that simple.

I've said it before in other threads, but I'll say it again...

Example, the police are cut and you save ten million. That's great, for now.
But in a year you're paying officers double in overtime because of the increase in crime that they cannot deal with. Judges are working extra hours to process more cases - judges cost a lot of money. Prison numbers swell so you need to spend another 30 million on a couple more cell blocks. Those prisoners need more guards, food, health care. Meanwhile communities are up in arms because their policing is ineffective, drug use and domestic violence are on the rise. Protests increase and more police are needed...

Before you know it, that ten million saving has become a 50 million expense, communities are now out of control because of the year without adequate policing, drug lords and gangs have taken over, people and businesses have fled the area so tax revenue is slashed in half.

This same thing can happen on a national level when services are cut. The above scenario is just as a result of policing being cut, but imagine the same playing out in education, health care, outreach services...

People who think Romney is on the right path need to consider more than immediate savings. All of these things will affect you, and while a saving now might look good, you have to follow the effects of that cut all the way down the line as far as possible.

That's why, despite not liking or trusting either man, I believe Obama is the better of these two evils. He has kept things stable over the last four years, and I truly believe that Romney's naive approach to the budget will not benefit America.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Umm, you pass a negative judgement on my mental capacity, while posting ad homs and red herring all in one place.

YOU were the one passing judgement on EVERYONE who disagrees with you, or do you forget your own post?...

Originally posted by buddhasystem
Bush may have called for bailouts. So what? It doesn't prevent the GOP from attacking Obama for doing same, showing what kind of hypocrites they are. Hey, Romney never denounced Bush for that, for whatever reasons.

And no, I'm not a fan of Obama, I just need to vote against Romney. Obama did OK, barely. Romney? Sheesh.

Because now leftwingers are claiming that "Obama saved the economy" when he wasn't the one to call for bailouts, which btw I think, and thought when Bush made that announcement that it was/is a BAD IDEA...

All they did with the bailouts was to give money to ceos for bankrupting their companies... They were given money for destroying not only their companies but the U.S. economy...

Not only that, but as I wrote before all this is doing, by raising the Federal deficit ceiling, and printing PAPER money like there is no tomorrow is only DEVALUATING/MAKING WEAKER the U.S. dollar and the U.S. economy...

Tell me, for those who can't comprehend what the bailouts have done to us, is it easier to pay a debt of $5,000 U.S.D. or a debt of $500,000 U.S.D.?...

What the bailout did, as well as the raising of the Federal deficit and the never ending printing of PAPER money, was to put us in more debt than ever before and when the crash comes, get ready because it will be a brick wall hitting you in the face at 200mph...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Umm, you pass a negative judgement on my mental capacity, while posting ad homs and red herring all in one place.

YOU were the one passing judgement on EVERYONE who disagrees with you, or do you forget your own post?...

Fair enough, your point is taken.

Because now leftwingers are claiming that "Obama saved the economy" when he wasn't the one to call for bailouts, which btw I think, and thought when Bush made that announcement that it was/is a BAD IDEA...

And maybe it was at the time. It was Obama who saw this business through when the S hit the F.

All they did with the bailouts was to give money to ceos for bankrupting their companies...

I'm just as mad as you are that quite a few people went unaccountable for their bad decisions and greed. In the end, though, the workers have a huge stake in what happens to the enterprise. A lot of people have a stake in keeping the insurance on their house. It all stinks, the way some rich people got away with it, but that's capitalism for you. If a factory goes bust, wealthy shareholders will still be able to go to the Greek Isles, while the workers will go to the food bank. I just don't know what decision should have been made. But a nuclear option for Detroit would have been quite disastrous.