ChaoticCJ Wrote:All I got from that is that Obama hasn't kept his promises, I already know this, as do most Americans. In all reality, what politician does keep all their promises? I really don't think Romney will keep all of them.
Mitt Romney's statement are half and half, but the pool of samples are much smaller. Romney uses technicalities, so it makes sense.
Sorry did you even bother clicking my links or is this just you refusing simple math?
Sure does feel like a bunch of reiteration of campaign ads in here. It's amusing to me that people think Obama did nothing but put us further into debt throughout his first term. Amazing how few of you actually pay attention. And on the note of Obama always being portrayed in the media as a hero; apparently you've never watched Fox News. They have a 24 hour news cycle dedicated to pointing out his shortcomings and failures.
ChaoticCJ Wrote:To your first point, Romney may or may not make the same mistakes. The point is we don't know, no one know. We vote to see who we believe is capable of handling the country for 4 years. Most people feel that Obama hasn't handled the country with great care. He promised so much and we got so little of this "change" that he promised. In his defense, most people didn't know what change was, the expectations were so high I really don't think any president could have met them.
To your second point: I don't think any American would disagree with that. It is one of those things that everyone supports.
Yo most of what I was going to say Jared summed up well:
ImagineAll Wrote:Sure does feel like a bunch of reiteration of campaign ads in here. It's amusing to me that people think Obama did nothing but put us further into debt throughout his first term. Amazing how few of you actually pay attention. And on the note of Obama always being portrayed in the media as a hero; apparently you've never watched Fox News. They have a 24 hour news cycle dedicated to pointing out his shortcomings and failures.
But just to add, people need to remember that Obama did an amazing job given the circumstances, circumstances which many fail to remember. Mind you that the nation was entering the worst recession since the Great Depression when Obama took office, all of that the fault of Republican policies from the Bush Administration era. So of course he's not going to be able to accomplish all of his promises in four years when he had a massive mess to clean up in the first place.
But wait, he didn't actually have four years! Because the 2010 midterm elections swung congressional power back into the hands of the Republican Party, and because the Republicans with that power have notably, over the past two years, done EVERYTHING they can to sit on their hands and refuse to work with anyone else, the lame duck past two years have further inhibited Obama's ability to realize various promises.
The take home lesson, kids, is that Obama has continuously been blamed over the course of this campaign for things that are glaringly Republican faults, which quite frankly pisses me off more than most for this slanderous misrepresentation of recent actions.
ImagineAll Wrote:Sure does feel like a bunch of reiteration of campaign ads in here. It's amusing to me that people think Obama did nothing but put us further into debt throughout his first term. Amazing how few of you actually pay attention. And on the note of Obama always being portrayed in the media as a hero; apparently you've never watched Fox News. They have a 24 hour news cycle dedicated to pointing out his shortcomings and failures.
Someone oughta have a 24/7 hour news cycle of the failure of Fox News.
Just curious, has anyone else here read Senate Bill 6464?
Not just the first page, the whole thing? I'm curious to see how an online community would react to a 1% tax on all electronic transactions (including withdrawing/depositing from bank, cashing paycheck, all online purchases/sales, et cetera). I'm debating on posting a wall of text on why I am 100% sure of how and even when Obama is going to start World War 3 if he is re-elected; if you all promise me you will actually read my sources and go into it without an opinion already formed on it, I might still do so!
Flonne Wrote:Just curious, has anyone else here read Senate Bill 6464?
Not just the first page, the whole thing? I'm curious to see how an online community would react to a 1% tax on all electronic transactions (including withdrawing/depositing from bank, cashing paycheck, all online purchases/sales, et cetera). I'm debating on posting a wall of text on why I am 100% sure of how and even when Obama is going to start World War 3 if he is re-elected; if you all promise me you will actually read my sources and go into it without an opinion already formed on it, I might still do so!
It really depends on the source...
It's difficult to fathom what reputable journal would make such a speculation.
Quote: I'm debating on posting a wall of text on why I am 100% sure of how and even when Obama is going to start World War 3 if he is re-elected; if you all promise me you will actually read my sources and go into it without an opinion already formed on it, I might still do so!
Please don't. You're only going to make yourself look stupid when it doesn't happen.
It's difficult to fathom what reputable journal would make such a speculation.
None. This is a collaboration of data and expected conclusions of those events when they occur in unison done by myself. A personal conspiracy theory, with the added bonus of a decent amount of facts to back it! I'll have to figure out how to properly portray the idea, first; if I just type it straight up without any solid references or if I embellish it ANY, it will look like the rantings of the insane even to myself.
Lozmaster Wrote:Please don't. You're only going to make yourself look stupid when it doesn't happen.
So you aren't even open to the possibility I may be right, so don't even want to read it?
Flonne Wrote:So you aren't even open to the possibility I may be right, so don't even want to read it?
By all means, write it up. Southperry has a notoriously bad reception to conspiracy theorys though (admittedly, me included). I just don't think it's likely that anyone has the balls to declare wars on the scale that would risk people seriously considering using large scale nuclear weapons again / no-one truely wants a war of that scale again, regardless of motivation.
Obama certainly isn't going to do it (and even if he was, the American government is set up in such a way that he'd be cockblocked long before he could get his way if he tried)
Well guys, apparently I've never watched Fox News and I should have because they are the pinnacle of media trustworthiness. GUESS IT'S MY FAULT I'M SO MISINFORMED.
Locked Wrote:Well guys, apparently I've never watched Fox News and I should have because they are the pinnacle of media trustworthiness. GUESS IT'S MY FAULT I'M SO MISINFORMED.
lol obama is god bow before him you mortal
To be honest I wrote in Eos, I'm in maryland who will default to democrat no matter who I vote for.
Obama isn't perfect, but he's the only guy actually suitable for winning next to Romney. Why would I vote for third party when they'll never win? It's unfortunate our party system works like that, so I'll be left with the two main parties and on one side I have Romney, who can't make up his own political agenda and changes it up every other day, and then I have Obama, who seems to enjoy doing stupid things like extending the PATRIOT Act and the infinite detention of Americans but managed to get out economy going decently. So out of both of those which one would anyone pick? Hell, I'm honestly surprised anyone is even willing to give Romney a shot given all the sh`it he's been talking about, especially now with his current Mormonism talk and the previous 47% chat.
Locked Wrote:Obama isn't perfect, but he's the only guy actually suitable for winning next to Romney. Why would I vote for third party when they'll never win? It's unfortunate our party system works like that, so I'll be left with the two main parties and on one side I have Romney, who can't make up his own political agenda and changes it up every other day, and then I have Obama, who seems to enjoy doing stupid things like extending the PATRIOT Act and the infinite detention of Americans but managed to get out economy going decently. So out of both of those which one would anyone pick? Hell, I'm honestly surprised anyone is even willing to give Romney a shot given all the sh`it he's been talking about, especially now with his current Mormonism talk and the previous 47% chat.
Ironically "Lincoln" is coming out november 16th. Civil war round 2?
Edit: [MENTION=279]Jon[/MENTION]; they took the machine offline, it in fact "malfunctioned".
Locked Wrote:Obama isn't perfect, but he's the only guy actually suitable for winning next to Romney. Why would I vote for third party when they'll never win? It's unfortunate our party system works like that, so I'll be left with the two main parties and on one side I have Romney, who can't make up his own political agenda and changes it up every other day, and then I have Obama, who seems to enjoy doing stupid things like extending the PATRIOT Act and the infinite detention of Americans but managed to get out economy going decently. So out of both of those which one would anyone pick? Hell, I'm honestly surprised anyone is even willing to give Romney a shot given all the sh`it he's been talking about, especially now with his current Mormonism talk and the previous 47% chat.
This was basically my thinking. Though I shoulda done what KhainiWest did, AL always defaults to Rep. anyway.
Just got back from voting. Found out that when I registered to vote here a couple weeks back, they spelled my last name rather wrong. I don't have the best hand writing but I made sure it was legible when I wrote it, but somehow they still got "Wilson" out of "Nilsen". :|
FoolsLove Wrote:This was basically my thinking. Though I shoulda done what KhainiWest did, AL always defaults to Rep. anyway.
Just got back from voting. Found out that when I registered to vote here a couple weeks back, they spelled my last name rather wrong. I don't have the best hand writing but I made sure it was legible when I wrote it, but somehow they still got "Wilson" out of "Nilsen". :|
Whelp, I am really glad that some people shared my views for me in this thread because I was pretty worried when I saw how it started.
[MENTION=2088]Flonne[/MENTION];
I'd love to see your theory of how and why Obama is going to start WWIII, I am really in for a laugh.
[MENTION=1697]FrozNlite[/MENTION]; put it best imo. Have you guys ever heard of a filibuster? Bipartisan bulls'hit is a pretty big part of why Obama has gotten "nothing done" as so many people say.
To add onto what Dan and Crazy were saying, you have to realize that most of Obama's term he was going against a Republican house who on multiple occasions blatantly said their primary objective was to be sure Obama did not get elected. How do you think they accomplish that? By swatting down everything he wanted to do.
He was a first term president seeking a second term. He had the forethought to realize certain things were better to put off for a second term where presidents can put their agendas into overdrive since they no longer have to worry about re-election and can adopt an "I don't give a pineapple" attitude. We'll see him more aggressively pursue his primary objective in a second term than the first because his chance of success increases significantly.
Romney is to back-and-forth on his primary objectives and his sole message can basically be summed up as, "I was successful in business, therefore I'll be successful as president." His tax plan is poorly thought out and criticized by most economist, his foreign policy stance has changed since the primaries, and his stance on civil liberties is a joke at best. I can't even fathom the thought process that goes into voting for a man who basically dismisses half of the country as lazy and incompetent simply because they aren't "successful" financially.
After I was told a few things today and I researched them to be sure they were in fact real (because they sounded so absurd that I almost couldn't believe it, in most of the cases), I find that I'm more vested in this election than I thought I would be. If Romney loses, there will be a revolution, followed by a World War, and a lot of people are going to die. I'm basing this on a few key things, that alone are terrible, but together amplify each other exponentially.
The first and foremost is the firing of Admiral Gaouette and General Ham; I would be willing to bet you haven't heard of them. They were fired for disobeying direct orders from the Secretary of Defense. They were told to "not escalate the conflict in Benghazi in any way", which included going to the aid of our embassy. That alone is atrocious, but the underlying point I'm making is, this is the straw that broke the military's back, in a sense. If Obama is re-elected and the inevitable civil uprising occurs, they will NOT side with the current administration. And even if the commanding officers are forced into it...
The second part is the current policy that Democrats in general are pushing; they obviously can't get any support behind their absurd idea that absentee ballots from the military overseas can't be counted for being "too easy to manipulate", so they went with the next best thing, in their eyes; all overseas absentee ballots are now being considered as "classified documentation", which in and of itself is perfectly within the law, but this next part is not. ALL absentee ballots will be, before being polled, be REVIEWED by a commanding officer, in the presence of a "specialized government employee". All of the rank and file know this, and NONE of them are happy about it, because what it boils down to is, they are taking this as the administration saying, "we don't trust you to make the right decision, so we will help you do it". I won't go into a huge conspiracy theory about them throwing out all the votes except those for Obama like my friend did, but it's still insulting to say at the very least to the people we are supposed to be supporting. Not to mention to the commanding officers; they are also getting the same message, that they are not to be trusted with things of "such importance" as electoral data.
These two things are the start of the issue; if there is an uprising against the Obama administration in his next term, the military will side with the citizens, not with him. Which wouldn't be a problem in my eyes in the least, except...
The THIRD of the major contributors to an eventual World War if Obama is re-elected is the United Nations. For two reasons. The first is this; if our military will not step in while our government is being overthrown, the United Nations, being the only organization large enough to actually quell an uprising here, WILL. He might even ask for their help, but that's just my own speculation so you can disregard it. I wish they wouldn't, but you know they will, and that's why this is such a big issue; not because they step in, but because of this final piece. The final nail in the coffin is a Bill. You should know of it by now, as it has been an issue of some (not anywhere near enough) debate in the past couple of weeks, and I'm pretty sure it was mentioned even in the presidental debates, though it was summarily ignored by Obama, for obvious reasons. The Bill will allow the U.N. to confiscate guns from Americans. It's obviously more complicated than that, as all Bills are, but that's what it boils down to, and that's the important part for this, not because it's feasible, but because of it's relation to the rest of this argument. You should see the connection, yes? Civil unrest occurs, the U.N. steps in to "help us", but they don't stop at attempting to quell the rebellion, why would they when we've been a thorn in their side for so long? If the Bill saying they can confiscate our guns passes, and they are in essence in control of our entire country, their once laughable attempts to take our weapons becomes an actual threat, a REAL threat, not just a fake one made to scare gun nuts. They can actually come directly to people's homes and take them by force.
How does this all come together, you ask?
The South. I live here, I know these people, I know what they will do to keep their guns. They WILL start a war, they WILL kill EVERY PERSON that attempts to take their guns away. The U.N. is an international organization. Killing members of a foreign military is an act of war. They WILL kill them. In all likelihood, I will take part in this; I have a concealed carry permit, I own guns, and they will not take them from me, at least not alive. If you think that mentality is strange, just remember, the vast majority of the people down here feel the exact same as I do, and regardless of whether or not you agree with it, the fact remains that we would rather commit an international crime than lose our weapons en masse.
Just do the math and put the pieces together. This does not end well, not for anyone.
If you think I'm just talking out of my ass and making these things up, I'll give you the names (if valid) of each argument and you can research them yourself.
-Admiral Gaouette and General Ham are the names of the two men that were fired over Benghazi, as I stated before. Try to read more than one article. Also, have a laugh at the article created by the Iranian government stating that the two generals were working with the Israelis to overthrow the American government.
-Military absentee ballots (sadly, you won't find the part about the post-review, it hasn't been reported on anywhere outside of the military and has a top secret classification still (person I know is a member of DoD, if you are wondering why he would know about it), so if you wish to disregard that small segment of part two based on lack of evidence, go for it; it will still just be commanding officers giving orders and none of the rank and file listening, in that case.)
That being said, the upper levels will not support him either in any case, as was made abundantly clear when this came out a couple of days ago; they even started running an ad against him today for election day, funded entirely by retired generals and admirals of the military.
-United Nations Arms Trade Treaty is the name of the act allowing the United Nations to step in and confiscate guns from us.
