Why you are voting for Obama.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

No the govt. is the problem. Corruption runs rampant. Read this That book caused 60 minutes to do a story which caused laws to be changed. But how much of that kind of stuff do we not hear about? I am not necessarily for deregulating anything. Neither is Paul, he is for deregulating at the federal level and letting the states regulate their own. With different populations comes different sets of circumstances. While of course the fed. govt. should still have the power its suppose to have according to the constitution, the rest is suppose to be left up to the states. You can almost even use your speed limit example for that.

You dont have to convince me on the corruption of corporations. Good god, I believe that 100%. However its the corruption in the govt. offices that are helping the big fat rich businessmen get richer and richer. With a smaller elected govt. comes less waste and less corruption.

And wait have you addressed the purpose of this thread? because I just wanted to know about why people wanted to vote for Obama, not why you think I shouldnt vote for Ron Paul. We have gone in circles over these same things and I dont think Ive really learned anything I didnt know or changed my mind on anything.

The government is not a person, it is served by the people we elect, the majority being business oriented. You say the government is corrupted but it can't be, it's an entity. Are you saying that its power and laws are corrupt? If so, who got it there? Certainly, it didnt do it itself.

If you think a smaller government is better, what makes them immune to corruption? What is the failsafe he will not abuse his/her power? If anything, you've shrunken responsibilities to less people, making them work harder. How is that efficient? If a corporation breaks a law, how is the government suppose to pursue action? What makes you think states arent susceptible to abusing their power for business interests? Ron Paul follows the austrian school of economics, how can you not know that he believes in deregulation and the free market? I dont think you've looked into Ron Paul's version of libertarianism such as this old story.

I subtlety have addressed the purpose of the thread in the two videos about voting. I, like many people, will vote for Obama because we have no choice but it is the best choice given.

Here's a bonus video about reality.

Link to original page on YouTube.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

The government is not a person, it is served by the people we elect, the majority being business oriented. You say the government is corrupted but it can't be, it's an entity. Are you saying that its power and laws are corrupt? If so, who got it there? Certainly, it didnt do it itself.

If you think a smaller government is better, what makes them immune to corruption? What is the failsafe he will not abuse his/her power? If anything, you've shrunken responsibilities to less people, making them work harder. How is that efficient? If a corporation breaks a law, how is the government suppose to pursue action? What makes you think states arent susceptible to abusing their power for business interests? Ron Paul follows the austrian school of economics, how can you not know that he believes in deregulation and the free market? I dont think you've looked into Ron Paul's version of libertarianism such as this old story.

I subtlety have addressed the purpose of the thread in the two videos about voting. I, like many people, will vote for Obama because we have no choice but it is the best choice given.

Here's a bonus video about reality.

Link to original page on YouTube.

Unfortunetly that is only partially correct. Do we elect judges? no. One example of the many offices we do not actually elect. There is corruption in the govt. because of corrupt people who are in and make rules that benefit their selfish interests. Im not sure if you are just being a smartass or actually dont understand any of that? Yes there are laws that are unfair and there to benefit some.

Smaller govt. doesnt mean that there will necessarily be less corruption however with more state control we can monitor what your elected officials are doing easier. And with a smaller federal govt. it will be a lot easier for them to be transparent. Obama promised to be more transparent but apparently decided that, that promise wasnt important.

Again its about a smaller govt. being easier to watch and keep track of. There are tons of govt. offices I cant believe exist and most of the public doesnt know exists.

Your videos about how our election system is bad is your response? And youll vote for Obama because its between two parties and he is the best choice in your eyes of the two? Its unfortunate when we have to come to that.

[ator]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Detroit is alive because of a bail-out. Reward those who are irresponsible... great life lesson right? I dont care about GM, Im glad the workers got to keep their jobs, but.. [insert anti-union rant here] I blame a lot of the trouble they had on irresponsible CEOs, bad cars, and unions.

Detroit is not alive because of a "Bailout" Chrysler and GM recieved government LOANS! AIG, BOA, Citibank, Merril Lynch and others, all recieved BAILOUTS, huge difference. Chrysler and GM have to pay it back, and the Government took some ownership of GM.

These loans were made to prevent the loss of hundred of thousands of jobs (primary, secondary, and trickle down) all across the country.

Blame it on whatever you want, unions etc... but those had to be done

[kyrider]

Do you think a President Romney would allow this?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/want...e-obama-admin/

[Stamatos]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Why?

I dont want to flame anyone, I just really want to understand your reasoning. There are intelligent people voting for him, so id love to hear your reasoning.


*please if you are going to bash on anyone stay out of the thread, I really just want to understand. Ill post clarification posts, but I dont want to necessarily argue...

I always vote Turd Sandwich
Actually, I don't vote for president because I honestly do not think it matters. The one with the most money or clout will cheat if the vote does not go their way anyway.
"Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."
Turd Sandwich 2012!

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Stamatos

"Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil."

QFT

Originally Posted by ator

Detroit is not alive because of a "Bailout" Chrysler and GM recieved government LOANS! AIG, BOA, Citibank, Merril Lynch and others, all recieved BAILOUTS, huge difference. Chrysler and GM have to pay it back, and the Government took some ownership of GM.

These loans were made to prevent the loss of hundred of thousands of jobs (primary, secondary, and trickle down) all across the country.

Blame it on whatever you want, unions etc... but those had to be done

did it? You reap what you sow. The govt. shouldn't take any ownership of any private company. Nor should it being giving loans. Big Brother needs to stay out of the private sector.

Originally Posted by kyrider

Do you think a President Romney would allow this?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/want...e-obama-admin/

No because he is Mormon. Listen I understand you don't like Obama, and neither do I, but my conscience doesn't compromise.

[ator]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

did it? You reap what you sow. The govt. shouldn't take any ownership of any private company. Nor should it being giving loans. Big Brother needs to stay out of the private sector.

Then I guess they should have let those big investment banks fail.

FYI: It's not the first time the govenment has given out loans to save an American business. Of course, they could take Japan's stance on supporting their own country's busnesses, which would you prefer.........

[kyrider]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

No because he is Mormon. Listen I understand you don't like Obama, and neither do I, but my conscience doesn't compromise.

I can respect that but I am going to vote for who has the best chance at defeating President Obama in the Nov and that is Romney. If I did not think it would matter between the two I would vote for Johnson running as a Libertarian. I wish Paul had won the nomination but he did not.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by ator

Then I guess they should have let those big investment banks fail.

FYI: It's not the first time the govenment has given out loans to save an American business. Of course, they could take Japan's stance on supporting their own country's busnesses, which would you prefer.........

Probably. But they probably shouldn't have required them to give loans to unfit individuals.

Just because its not the first time, doesn't mean its the best choice.

Im not familiar with what you are referring on Japans business stance.

[ator]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Probably. But they probably shouldn't have required them to give loans to unfit individuals.

Just because its not the first time, doesn't mean its the best choice.

Im not familiar with what you are referring on Japans business stance.

The investment banks didn't get into trouble by simply giving loans to unfit individuals. The de-regulation of the banking industry allowed these banks to do some pretty crazy things. BOTH major parties are responsible for that!!


As far as Japan goes: For starters they limit the quantities of imported items (including automobiles) they have huge tariffs on imported items, (including automobiles) and they also keep the yen artificially undervalued.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Unfortunetly that is only partially correct. Do we elect judges? no. One example of the many offices we do not actually elect. There is corruption in the govt. because of corrupt people who are in and make rules that benefit their selfish interests. Im not sure if you are just being a smartass or actually dont understand any of that? Yes there are laws that are unfair and there to benefit some.

Smaller govt. doesnt mean that there will necessarily be less corruption however with more state control we can monitor what your elected officials are doing easier. And with a smaller federal govt. it will be a lot easier for them to be transparent. Obama promised to be more transparent but apparently decided that, that promise wasnt important.

Again its about a smaller govt. being easier to watch and keep track of. There are tons of govt. offices I cant believe exist and most of the public doesnt know exists.

Your videos about how our election system is bad is your response? And youll vote for Obama because its between two parties and he is the best choice in your eyes of the two? Its unfortunate when we have to come to that.

That is called cronyism. Would you not reward your supporters with jobs? Would you install into office someone who contrasted with your opinion? If you want to apply it to today political climate, I like how Bill Moyers does a bit on capital cronyism. You can contrast that link with the Frontline series I linked before. I'm going to quote Barney Frank in an interview with NY magazine.

But some people in the media act like Washington is some autonomous entity that’s operating with no connection to the public. I had a woman stop me the other day, she said, “I’m very angry about Congress. What are you guys doing?” I said, “Who’s your congressman?” “Oh, I don’t know,” she said. “Well, see, I vote for me,” I said. “I’m happy with me. Why are you blaming me for the people you vote for?”

Just because something is smaller doesnt mean it's not complex. Remember my talk about that whole common sense thing there? Your primary concern with government is transparency through smaller government. So if people cant monitor what their state elected officials are doing shown in the above quote, what makes you think they can monitor it when it's smaller?. Also can you list the problems of a smaller government since we all know the problems with big bloated government.

No comment with FEMA and Ron Paul huh? Nothing on the glided age? Nothing about the poor in America?

Let me know when you catch up those links or is that too much to absorb? They aren't political links, they're mainly economic except the FEMA and Barny Frank link.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by ator

The investment banks didn't get into trouble by simply giving loans to unfit individuals. The deregulation of the banking industry allowed these banks to do some pretty crazy things. BOTH major parties are responsible for that!!


As far as Japan goes: For starters they limit the quantities of imported items (including automobiles) they have hug tariffs on imported items, (including automobiles) and they also keep the yen artificially undervalued.

Not denying that.

cool. I think there are other ways then follow their example.

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

That is called cronyism. Would you not reward your supporters with jobs? Would you install into office someone who contrasted with your opinion? If you want to apply it to today political climate, I like how Bill Moyers does a bit on capital cronyism. You can contrast that link with the Frontline series I linked before. I'm going to quote Barney Frank in an interview with NY magazine.

Youre gonna have to start summing stuff up because im not going to read 15 articles. Im sorry I just dont have the time or patience for that.

No.
Yes, but I dont like the whole un-elected officials thing

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Just because something is smaller doesnt mean it's not complex. Remember my talk about that whole common sense thing there? Your primary concern with government is transparency through smaller government. So if people cant monitor what their state elected officials are doing shown in the above quote, what makes you think they can monitor it when it's smaller?. Also can you list the problems of a smaller government since we all know the problems with big bloated government.

Seriously? When are talking about smaller not just in "size" but offices and people. A small engine could have a ton of small parts and super complex and hard to work on. But an engine with few mechanical parts would generally be easier as less parts generally = more simple. Why would I list problems with smaller govt.? There will be less problems with a smaller govt. than a large one. Not sure what you are trying to get at there.

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

No comment with FEMA and Ron Paul huh? Nothing on the glided age? Nothing about the poor in America?

Let me know when you catch up those links or is that too much to absorb? They aren't political links, they're mainly economic except the FEMA and Barny Frank link.

Im probably not going to catch up on the links, I can only handle so many liberal bloggers a week.

At this point I dont even remember what you wrote about FEMA and Ron Paul...


*edit Found the Ron Paul part.
So you think that with less govt. intervention businesses will rule the world? ha. They already do so thats a moot point.

Link to original page on YouTube.

I have lots of fun links for that kind of stuff.

Remember I already said the "big" businesses already have their influence in the govt. creating a smaller govt. with purists is really the only saving us when it comes to that.

[Dave313]

Ron Paul is right...on just about everything.

FEMA should not exist. If you live in a tornado alley, you should have insurance for it. If you choose to risk it and not purchase the coverage, then you have to live with the results. Why/How is it fair that the federal governement forces me to pay to re-build someone elses home? Especially someone who knew of the risk and choose to ignore it. When a disaster strikes the american people through non-profits, major companies and on their own will sacrifice and help those in need. (6.5 BILLION donated to Katrina relief in private donations from americans)

One of the biggest misconceptions about the smaller government that Ron Paul advocates is the notion that the corporations would then be "in-charge". This was touched on in one of the earlier posts which I dont care to find right now. Anyway, this is just the opposite of the effect that the change to a smaller government would have. In a small government, corporations wouldn't want to spend money on lobbying. There wouldn't be a point. A lobbyist works by getting the government to change laws to benefit the company or industry they work for. In a small government, they don't make these types of laws/regulations anymore and the money would dry up.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Not denying that.

Youre gonna have to start summing stuff up because im not going to read 15 articles. Im sorry I just dont have the time or patience for that.

Im probably not going to catch up on the links, I can only handle so many liberal bloggers a week.

You can't be bothered to learn about the issues, yet you expect to have credibility on your stances on those issues with others?

The only word I can think of I don't want to say here out loud, but it starts with L and ends with Y and has a western state abbreviation in the middle of it.

Honestly, how can you consider yourself a functional voting citizen if you deliberately keep yourself ignorant on the issues that you should be thinking about when you decide how to vote? You might as well go into the voting booth and vote at random with your eyes closed for all the effort you're putting into being an American voter.

There are basically two kinds of voters in this country, those told how to vote and those who make their own voting decisions after spending real time and effort to learn about the issues at hand. Frankly, I think this country would be better off if we got rid of the former, they're just pointless dead weight on the system and IMHO are the main reason we're in this mess to begin with.

Adding this as an edit because I don't want to bump what has become a nasty thread:

I see that folks who can't provide an intelligent rebuttal to shiroganeshinobi's post have resorted instead to character assassination and innuendo, why am I surprised? That's the go-to strategy for those too stupid or lazy to actually do any work on their own to learn about issues. Honestly, I don't get why folks are so adamant to let others think for them. Really...

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

You can't be bothered to learn about the issues, yet you expect to have credibility on your stances on those issues with others?

The only word I can think of I don't want to say here out loud, but it starts with L and ends with Y and has a western state abbreviation in the middle of it.

Honestly, how can you consider yourself a functional voting citizen if you deliberately keep yourself ignorant on the issues that you should be thinking about when you decide how to vote? You might as well go into the voting booth and vote at random with your eyes closed for all the effort you're putting into being an American voter.

There are basically two kinds of voters in this country, those told how to vote and those who make their own voting decisions after spending real time and effort to learn about the issues at hand. Frankly, I think this country would be better off if we got rid of the former, they're just pointless dead weight on the system and IMHO are the main reason we're in this mess to begin with.

No. I have educated myself. I think you missed the part where I said I was tired of reading his links to liberal bloggers. I am a more educated voter than 90% of the country.

biggest reason I would never vote for Obama.

http://uruknet.com/?p=m87569&hd&size=1&l=e

why I dont trust the media
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-39tR0-km9D...ediamoguls.jpg

Perhaps you should do some reading? Or you dont care about your civil liberties and the constitution? Yeah I think we should get rid of those voters too, only problem in your scenario is I am far from one of them.

Originally Posted by Dave313

Ron Paul is right...on just about everything.

FEMA should not exist. If you live in a tornado alley, you should have insurance for it. If you choose to risk it and not purchase the coverage, then you have to live with the results. Why/How is it fair that the federal governement forces me to pay to re-build someone elses home? Especially someone who knew of the risk and choose to ignore it. When a disaster strikes the american people through non-profits, major companies and on their own will sacrifice and help those in need. (6.5 BILLION donated to Katrina relief in private donations from americans)

One of the biggest misconceptions about the smaller government that Ron Paul advocates is the notion that the corporations would then be "in-charge". This was touched on in one of the earlier posts which I dont care to find right now. Anyway, this is just the opposite of the effect that the change to a smaller government would have. In a small government, corporations wouldn't want to spend money on lobbying. There wouldn't be a point. A lobbyist works by getting the government to change laws to benefit the company or industry they work for. In a small government, they don't make these types of laws/regulations anymore and the money would dry up.

I totally agree Dave.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Not denying that.

cool. I think there are other ways then follow their example.

Youre gonna have to start summing stuff up because im not going to read 15 articles. Im sorry I just dont have the time or patience for that.

No.
Yes, but I dont like the whole un-elected officials thing

Seriously? When are talking about smaller not just in "size" but offices and people. A small engine could have a ton of small parts and super complex and hard to work on. But an engine with few mechanical parts would generally be easier as less parts generally = more simple. Why would I list problems with smaller govt.? There will be less problems with a smaller govt. than a large one. Not sure what you are trying to get at there.

Im probably not going to catch up on the links, I can only handle so many liberal bloggers a week.

At this point I dont even remember what you wrote about FEMA and Ron Paul...

*edit Found the Ron Paul part.
So you think that with less govt. intervention businesses will rule the world? ha. They already do so thats a moot point.

I have lots of fun links for that kind of stuff.

Remember I already said the "big" businesses already have their influence in the govt. creating a smaller govt. with purists is really the only saving us when it comes to that.

Confirm with me, that we the people, elect either the corrupted into the office or they can become corrupted while in office. Government and its abuse of power is subject to the people we give power to. Government isnt to blame, people are. We're human and we make mistakes. A small government doesn't exempt that, it concentrates the power and fail points.

How do you simplify government? What is the purpose? Ron Paul conflates small government with simple government. My point is the downside of that.

The difference with less government intervention is the degree. The government answers to the people. Who does corporations answer to? Certainly not you. They are driven to make money, it's the nature of capitalism. Cut costs where you can which could mean pay the lowest you can, or change a law to help you cut it. That's what lobbying is.

So if you dont want to take it from me, because you think my links are liberally biased. Most of the links are objective economical links, they seem liberal to you because remember what I said about reality? I tied videos in there because I realizes sometimes, people cant handle the reading. So tell me how do you fight confirmation bias? Remember that link? If you're too busy to selectively confirming what you think is right how do you confirm what is wrong? You can start trying by figuring out the flaws to your beliefs.

How about this opinion piece placed in the Wapo by two fellows from the AEI and Brookings institution then? You do know what their affiliation is right?

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

Confirm with me, that we the people, elect either the corrupted into the office or they can become corrupted while in office. Government and its abuse of power is subject to the people we give power to. Government isnt to blame, people are. We're human and we make mistakes. A small government doesn't exempt that, it concentrates the power and fail points.

Some yes. We are to blame for some of the corrupted officials we elect. There is corruption on both sides of the isle. Selfishness and greed do not care about party lines. Is it easier to watch and keep track of what 10 people are doing or 100? 10 right? of course 10 people would be easier to keep track of. Same principle applies to a smaller govt. Corrupted officials will be easier to weed out.

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

How do you simplify government? What is the purpose? Ron Paul conflates small government with simple government. My point is the downside of that.

I believe I just told you the purpose other than reducing wasteful spending.

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

The difference with less government intervention is the degree. The government answers to the people. Who does corporations answer to? Certainly not you. They are driven to make money, it's the nature of capitalism. Cut costs where you can which could mean pay the lowest you can, or change a law to help you cut it. That's what lobbying is.

apprently you didnt read what Dave said, he said how Ron Paul answered that and it seems pretty logical

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

So if you dont want to take it from me, because you think my links are liberally biased. Most of the links are objective economical links, they seem liberal to you because remember what I said about reality? I tied videos in there because I realizes sometimes, people cant handle the reading. So tell me how do you fight

I watch your videos and read some of your links. When they start to turn into an obvious bias I stop trusting them as a source.

Our worldviews are different.

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

confirmation bias? Remember that link? If you're too busy to selectively confirming what you think is right how do you confirm what is wrong? You can start trying by figuring out the flaws to your beliefs.

I love finding out flaws in my beliefs. I found a major flaw in the flat tax proposal being fair. I am not so sure on that anymore. I do not have a problem seeing other sides of things. I dont selectively confirm anything. Economic issues while I do care about them, they come number two to civil liberties issues. Which Ive mentioned MULTIPLE times

Originally Posted by shiroganeshinobi

How about this opinion piece placed in the Wapo by two fellows from the AEI and Brookings institution then? You do know what their affiliation is right?

Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

I do not, and how am I suppose to take a link like that seriously? Do you want me to find a op ed about how Dems. say extreme things and they are the problem?

[Jiggles]

I call bullshit!

[massacremasses]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

I call bullshit!

about?

and has anyone seen any actual motorcycle related threads @shiroganeshinobi has commented on? Does anyone find that odd or is that just me?

[Jiggles]

He posted something about someones ankle breaking

I also call shenanigans!

[massacremasses]

yeah I guess he is posted in a few I just looked. Still funny though.

[shiroganeshinobi]

Originally Posted by massacremasses

Some yes. We are to blame for some of the corrupted officials we elect. There is corruption on both sides of the isle. Selfishness and greed do not care about party lines. Is it easier to watch and keep track of what 10 people are doing or 100? 10 right? of course 10 people would be easier to keep track of. Same principle applies to a smaller govt. Corrupted officials will be easier to weed out.

I believe I just told you the purpose other than reducing wasteful spending.

apprently you didnt read what Dave said, he said how Ron Paul answered that and it seems pretty logical

I watch your videos and read some of your links. When they start to turn into an obvious bias I stop trusting them as a source.

Our worldviews are different.

I love finding out flaws in my beliefs. I found a major flaw in the flat tax proposal being fair. I am not so sure on that anymore. I do not have a problem seeing other sides of things. I dont selectively confirm anything. Economic issues while I do care about them, they come number two to civil liberties issues. Which Ive mentioned MULTIPLE times

I do not, and how am I suppose to take a link like that seriously? Do you want me to find a op ed about how Dems. say extreme things and they are the problem?

Ad Hominem attacks really? I usually post to be informative, that is my own prerogative. If something has been said, I normally dont need to add to it. I already know I may not be able to change your mind. I post for the people lurking around. Tell me what evidence you have, what Dave said below, will happen.

In a small government, corporations wouldn't want to spend money on lobbying. There wouldn't be a point. A lobbyist works by getting the government to change laws to benefit the company or industry they work for. In a small government, they don't make these types of laws/regulations anymore and the money would dry up.

Corporations are driven to make profit, because that's the nature of capitalism. If I can bend or get rid of this law to increase my bottom line, pay the small price for the lobby. If I can get rid of a minimum wage or law or better yet pay cheaper someone close to production, I'll do it. Mexico/Walmart corruption scandal is another example or did that fly past the radar?

Your logic is sound with regards to tracking less people is simple only in vacuum of complexity. If I had to track 10 things per 1 person for 10 people did compared to one thing 100 people did, is it easier or the same? The above quote is just a reflection of what Ron Paul's libertarianism is. Logically sound, lacking in reality.

Why seek to catch corruption post event when it's too late? Why not prevent it when possible? You still see the government as the problem. The true problem is, those with wealth who seek to influence those with power. Your civil liberties are undermined by the very same people but you don't see it.

So what changed your mind on the flat tax? What was that flaw? Maybe someone else has it too. How can you know, you are not selectively confirming? It's an unconscious act.

Can't read the op/ed at all? So you can't tell me what's wrong with the arguments he makes? Based upon that disaster of a Republican primary and the refusal of the republican congress to compromise, I think it's a good argument.

Finally, I'm going to leave one of my favorite quotes here by Howard Zinn.

History is important. If you don't know history it is as if you were born yesterday. And if you were born yesterday, anybody up there in a position of power can tell you anything, and you have no way of checking up on it.

[massacremasses]

I wouldn't call them attacks. More like observations.