US presidential election

[NeoSupaMario]

Note the lol at the end of that statement.

 

[Lacius]

Note the lol at the end of that statement.

The poll says you're a Gingrich supporter. I assumed you were serious.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

I was but he's fallen too far behind to win... *sigh* time to go with second best.

 

[Lacius]

I was but he's fallen too far behind to win... *sigh* time to go with second best.

In your opinion, who is the second best?

 

[NeoSupaMario]

I don't mean to offend you, Lacius,, but... Anyone except Paul or Obama.

 

[Lacius]

I don't mean to offend you, Lacius,, but... Anyone except Paul or Obama.

I don't take offense. I don't mean to offend you either, but why do you want Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum when their plans are just to slash taxes for the rich and hope for the best? Since Gingrich is essentially out, I'll hold off on my criticisms of Gingrich's problems with ethics. But Romney appears to be an out-of-touch multimillionaire, and Santorum appears to want to return us to the 19th century. They're also against contraception, people having health care, etc. In all honesty, Obama appears to be the only adult among the lot.

 

[Libertarian94]

1. Actually, No.
Science would get taken care of by the free market, making it impossible for government to lobby the food and drug industry, since the government no longer took care of scientific decisions.
But yes, it would allow the market to push their products out legally, no matter what they contain.
And if a corporation decided to put, for instance, Mercury in their soft drinks, people wouldn't buy it, and then the company would collapse.
Compare that to what there is now, where large corporations gets different dangourus chemicals approved as being safe, due to lobbying.

The FDA prevents companies from selling you harmful things. Without the FDA, they could put whatever they want into your products. You argue that the free market would take care of that, but even with the FDA, you argue that harmful things are getting through, and yet the free market does not do anything about it either. By your logic, the free market system does not work when it comes to protecting the consumer. Here in Missouri, we had a ballot issue about banning puppy mills. Many conservatives argued that the free market would get rid of puppy mills. If people don't like what puppy mills do, they can just not buy from them and they would go out of business. However, without the government stepping in and putting restrictions on puppy mills, the free market wasn't doing anything about it. Time and time again, we have seen that the free market often times does not work when it comes to protecting the interests of those without lobbyists (middle class citizens, the environment, puppies, etc).

2. Thats how the free market functions.
If i have a desire to tax some people because of their buisness or how much income they get, i can't ignore the fact that people will try to work around it.
My country for instance has lost a lot of jobs to neighboor-countries, due to our taxation.
If i make a dime more than 68.917.41 USD a year, i have to pay 60% in taxes.
Its only natural that it would want me to move to another country, from a logical perspective.

When it comes to taxing the rich, the United States taxes are some of the lowest in the world. One of the things Obama wants to do is make it so people making more than $250,000 a year pay a little more in taxes. It's definitely not unreasonable. It's pretty much the same tax rate they paid during the Clinton administration. The Republicans, however, want to drop taxes without paying for them. However, while they want to cut middle class taxes a wee bit, they want to cut the taxes of the super rich substantially. Ron Paul wants to get rid of middle class taxes completely and have the super rich pay very little, which is highly impractical, unless you have a powerless government that doesn't do anything.

That state of taxes in your country and the state of taxes if Obama and the Democrats got their way are two completely different things. The system proposed by Obama is extremely fair. In fact, when polled, roughly 60-70% of citizens think the rich should pay slightly higher taxes.

3. Watch this short 30-minute documentary and tell me that the Fed isn't a large issue:
[*snip*]

Sorry, that's too long. I'll pass.

4. When you start going down the taxation road, you will eventually hurt the middle class.
And lets not forget that the Fed's prints money like it were toilet paper, and that means that the middle class gets poorer, and the thus, gets punished.

I agree that inflation is an issue, but not so much an issue that we need to switch over to gold. We've got more pressing issues. Besides, the value of gold is more unstable than one might think. Likewise, Ron Paul exaggerates the percent inflation of the US dollar and flat-out lies.

And when you start taxing all corporations that make a lot of money to finance your public sector (whether its health care, military etc.) some of the people will move their buisness to another country,
And thats when you'll end up at crossroads, because, you can then either A: Tax the buisness owners further, B: Tax both the middle class, the poor, and the rich trough taxes on food etc. or
C: you can start cutting spending to get the corporations back (And JOBS!).

Corporations benefit from being in the United States. They use the roads to transport goods. They benefit from living in a society where crooks aren't allowed to just walk in and steal from them, using the protection of the police and whatnot. Suffice it to say, corporations benefit greatly from the federal government and are allowed to be prosperous. It is only fair that they pay taxes. Corporate taxes are extremely low in the United States. The latest proposal from the Obama administration actually lowers that rate even further while also getting rid of a few loopholes. Tax cuts have also been proposed as an inventive to keep corporations hiring workers in the United States. It's not like the federal government wants to take all of the profits from corporations. Just a fair amount. They will still make record profits like they have been. No one really has the right to complain.

1. Regulation works as well as prohibition.
Meaning that it don't. But yes, of course there would be dangerous substances in the free market, but people would be told and become aware of the dangers there are to using those different
substances, whereas FDA lobbyies and claims that dangerous substances not only are safe, but healthy too.
We must remember that even if people became of aware the dangers of aspartame, there would still be someone who would buy it, and prefer it, since it doesn't contain sugar.
I can personally advocate against the use, but i can't prohibit people from it.
I myself am a vegetarian, but does that mean, that i should protect you from eating meat, because its linked to a lot of different cancers?
- No, right?

2. I however believe Pauls plan would work.
You remove the taxes from the middle class = They get more for themselves = People would work more, and harder.
At the same cutting the taxes for the rich would mean the different buisnesses/factories etc would get into the U.S, if you of course at the same time cut some of the federal regulation, that is incredibly
corrupt anyway.

3. It's cool, I'll just post a Jefferson quote then:
''I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then
by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.
The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.''

4: I guess you'll win this one..
I'll agree immediatly, that it does not seem to be a large tax raise, unless you are a really really huge american brand.
But i don't know what Coca Cola, Converse, Levis´, McDonalds etc. makes a year, so i can't really, argue against your point... yet that is .
- I off course still find the gold standard an important issue which is explained detailed in the documentary i linked to earlier.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

I don't mean to offend you, Lacius,, but... Anyone except Paul or Obama.

I don't take offense. I don't mean to offend you either, but why do you want Gingrich, Romney, or Santorum when their plans are just to slash taxes for the rich and hope for the best? Since Gingrich is essentially out, I'll hold off on my criticisms of Gingrich's problems with ethics. But Romney appears to be an out-of-touch multimillionaire, and Santorum appears to want to return us to the 19th century. They're also against contraception, people having health care, etc. In all honesty, Obama appears to be the only adult among the lot.

Actually I think Romneys the second best. I don't like some of his ideas, but what I really want to have happen is that he can get rid of Americas debt. I like some of Santorums ideas better, but I think he lacks experience. Just like pokemon, if you don't have enough experience, you can't do well against opponets or issues. And just in case anybody's wondering why I don't go for Paul, it's cause he's to isolationist and some of his ideas are pretty wack-o. What happened the last few times we went with isolationist presidents? The world wars broke out.

 

[Lacius]

1. Regulation works as well as prohibition.
Meaning that it don't. But yes, of course there would be dangerous substances in the free market, but people would be told and become aware of the dangers there are to using those different
substances, whereas FDA lobbyies and claims that dangerous substances not only are safe, but healthy too.
We must remember that even if people became of aware the dangers of aspartame, there would still be someone who would buy it, and prefer it, since it doesn't contain sugar.
I can personally advocate against the use, but i can't prohibit people from it.
I myself am a vegetarian, but does that mean, that i should protect you from eating meat, because its linked to a lot of different cancers?
- No, right?

No. It is the role of the government to, for example, prohibit things that are detrimental to the environment. It has been proposed that hydraulic fracturing has been linked to flammable water supplies. If these companies had it their way, they would use the most toxic of chemicals for their hydraulic fracturing. The free market is not going to stop that because most people don't know or don't care. The small number of citizens who now have flammable water are the ones who suffer, and their voice is not strong enough to do anything about it. That's where the federal government comes in.

2. I however believe Pauls plan would work.
You remove the taxes from the middle class = They get more for themselves = People would work more, and harder.
At the same cutting the taxes for the rich would mean the different buisnesses/factories etc would get into the U.S, if you of course at the same time cut some of the federal regulation, that is incredibly
corrupt anyway.

Again, the cuts proposed by Ron Paul would reduce GDP by 7% and cause another recession. Likewise, it would hurt the poor (getting rid of food stamps and aid for feeding children), he would cripple medicare, etc. The federal government also invests in new technologies, and Ron Paul would cut that as well. He would argue that the private sector is where new technologies come from, and he's right, but government funding has led to many innovations throughout history, but Ron Paul is too senile to care. Ron Paul is also too senile to understand that invasive government mandated sonograms for women seeking abortions is big government, not small government.

Actually I think Romneys the second best. I don't like some of his ideas, but what I really want to have happen is that he can get rid of Americas debt. I like some of Santorums ideas better, but I think he lacks experience. Just like pokemon, if you don't have enough experience, you can't do well against opponets or issues. And just in case anybody's wondering why I don't go for Paul, it's cause he's to isolationist and some of his ideas are pretty wack-o. What happened the last few times we went with isolationist presidents? The world wars broke out.

The tax plans of Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich would all increase the federal debt by trillions. That's what happens when you slash taxes for the very wealthy without paying for them. While they propose spending cuts, they're aren't even enough to offset even the tax cuts they propose.

If you are worried about the federal debt, Obama and Paul are your only viable options, and we know what Ron Paul's economic policies would do to the federal government and the economy.

 

[Lacius]

Edit: Double post.

 

[NeoSupaMario]

I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.

 

[Libertarian94]

1. Regulation works as well as prohibition.
Meaning that it don't. But yes, of course there would be dangerous substances in the free market, but people would be told and become aware of the dangers there are to using those different
substances, whereas FDA lobbyies and claims that dangerous substances not only are safe, but healthy too.
We must remember that even if people became of aware the dangers of aspartame, there would still be someone who would buy it, and prefer it, since it doesn't contain sugar.
I can personally advocate against the use, but i can't prohibit people from it.
I myself am a vegetarian, but does that mean, that i should protect you from eating meat, because its linked to a lot of different cancers?
- No, right?

No. It is the role of the government to, for example, prohibit things that are detrimental to the environment. It has been proposed that hydraulic fracturing has been linked to flammable water supplies. If these companies had it their way, they would use the most toxic of chemicals for their hydraulic fracturing. The free market is not going to stop that because most people don't know or don't care. The small number of citizens who now have flammable water are the ones who suffer, and their voice is not strong enough to do anything about it. That's where the federal government comes in.

2. I however believe Pauls plan would work.
You remove the taxes from the middle class = They get more for themselves = People would work more, and harder.
At the same cutting the taxes for the rich would mean the different buisnesses/factories etc would get into the U.S, if you of course at the same time cut some of the federal regulation, that is incredibly
corrupt anyway.

Again, the cuts proposed by Ron Paul would reduce GDP by 7% and cause another recession. Likewise, it would hurt the poor (getting rid of food stamps and aid for feeding children), he would cripple medicare, etc. The federal government also invests in new technologies, and Ron Paul would cut that as well. He would argue that the private sector is where new technologies come from, and he's right, but government funding has led to many innovations throughout history, but Ron Paul is too senile to care. Ron Paul is also too senile to understand that invasive government mandated sonograms for women seeking abortions is big government, not small government.

1. Thats a question about private property.
As long the buisness does it within its own land, and makes sure it doesn't spread to others pieces of land, there is no case.

2. If government spending/borrowing held the economy above water, the Soviet Union would not have collapsed, and countries like Italy and Greece wouldn't be in trouble.
Government spending does not create any profit, because the money comes from the taxpayers.
So if Paul cutted the spending/taxes, that very money that he cutted would end up in the american peoples pocket.
And then the people would spend the money in the private sector.

 

[yuyuyup]

I'm still on the Cain Train
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68TX9LpOrco

 

[Libertarian94]

I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.

Romney: Flip-flopper who does not know if he's for or against abortion, and the one who created the blueprint for Obamacare .

And Paul's idea is not isolationism, He wants to trade with countries and be friends with countries, he does not however want to interviene in countries and tell them how they're supposed to live .

 

[Lacius]

I also don't want the space program to be cut either.

You and me both, but other than Gingrich's silly "moon colony as the 51st state" business, I don't think you're going to find anyone willing to leave NASA alone during this "fix the deficit" period. And honestly, if the deficit is as big a problem as you say, you should be okay with sacrificing some space cuts.

And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all.

The United States military is disgustingly big. Obama's cuts to defense are minimal. The federal government does three big things: medicare, social security, and defense. If you want to talk about trimming the deficit, you're going to have to cut defense, especially with it being as wasteful as it is. Even with Obama's proposed cuts, it is still disgustingly big. Don't feel vulnerable.

Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.

Let me amend that for you:

Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas some really bad ideas.

Santorum: not enough experience, wants to add trillions to the debt, and wants contraception to be illegal.

Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls, isn't electable, has ethics issues, wants to add trillions to the debt, and has crazy ideas such as child janitors and states on the moon.

Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship. Obama is not a dictator nor a communist. Please support those points if you want me to respond to them, because they're baseless and I don't know where to begin other than to say that he's just not.

Romney is the last one standing wants to add trillions to the debt, flip-flops on every major issue, doesn't sit well with most voters (most consider him out of touch), has a very low approval rating, conservatives might not like that he basically invented RomneyCare/ObamaCare, and doesn't care about the poor and thinks they're already well-off due to safety nets.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

Obama because he would do the least worst job.

/thread

Really, this is practically the only point that needs to be made.

If you want a nation ran by complete asshats then vote for one of the Republicans. It's too bad that Huntsman had to quit because the Republican party is full of retards.

Although, it could be said that in the past month or so, Obama has been doing a fantastic job.

I'm looking forward to the presidential debates this year. I've heard that Obama ran LAPS around McCain, who is a great speaker. Any of the current candidates will surely be destroyed. It should be entertaining for me.

EDIT: I'm quite aware of the ad-hominems here, but when there are still a huge number of people who refuse to believe Obama was born here, despite the evidence, that's a sign of party idiocy. If one truly thinks Obama is a socialist, that person is probably an idiot. Obama is basically Eisenhower when compared to FDR, a true progressive.

 

[yuyuyup]

I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.

Romney: Flip-flopper who does not know if he's for or against abortion, and the one who created the blueprint for Obamacare .

And Paul's idea is not isolationism, He wants to trade with countries and be friends with countries, he does not however want to interviene in countries and tell them how they're supposed to live .

Yeah, Paul wants to trade free market slave labor goods for shiny gold. I sure do love all my Chinese shit. God bless leaders like Ron Paul. Just let the slave children bodies pile up to the sky, and we can sled down them with products made from the next wave of slave kids

 

[Libertarian94]

I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.

Romney: Flip-flopper who does not know if he's for or against abortion, and the one who created the blueprint for Obamacare .

And Paul's idea is not isolationism, He wants to trade with countries and be friends with countries, he does not however want to interviene in countries and tell them how they're supposed to live .

Yeah, Paul wants to trade free market slave labor goods for shiny gold. I sure do love all my Chinese shit. God bless leaders like Ron Paul. Just let the slave children bodies pile up to the sky, and we can sled down them with products made from the next wave of slave kids

If you send money to china, they don't put it in a shoebox.
They're going to spend it.
Unfortunately they are buying america's debt and consumerism.
But there's a benefit, because those dollars come back.
Also, when you get products, and buy products cheaper from China.
Lets say a computer costs 100 dollars instead of 1000 dollars.
A person would then spare 900 dollars, and that helps the economy, because the last 900 dollars stays in that persons pocket.

 

[yuyuyup]

I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.

Romney: Flip-flopper who does not know if he's for or against abortion, and the one who created the blueprint for Obamacare .

And Paul's idea is not isolationism, He wants to trade with countries and be friends with countries, he does not however want to interviene in countries and tell them how they're supposed to live .

Yeah, Paul wants to trade free market slave labor goods for shiny gold. I sure do love all my Chinese shit. God bless leaders like Ron Paul. Just let the slave children bodies pile up to the sky, and we can sled down them with products made from the next wave of slave kids

If you send money to china, they don't put it in a shoebox.
They're going to spend it.
Unfortunately they are buying america's debt and consumerism.
But there's a benefit, because those dollars come back.
Also, when you get products, and buy products cheaper from China.
Lets say a computer costs 100 dollars instead of 1000 dollars.
A person would then spare 900 dollars, and that helps the economy, because the last 900 dollars stays in that persons pocket.

Exactly, that's some good ol' fashioned slave labor. As long as it helps out the USA, those Chinese can tough out the lax workplace regulations, etc. It's all about the American dream. I wonder if I should threaten suicide to get a raise, like when those Chinese Foxxconn workers threatened mass suicide to improve work conditions. I mean, it's only fair, right ? That's free trade.

 

[Uncle FEFL]

I also don't want the space program to be cut either. And wasn't Obama talking about defense cuts? Well, that won't make us vulnerable at all. I basically did a process of elimination.
Paul: isolationist with some bad ideas
Santorum: not enough experience
Gingrich: not far enough ahead in the polls (both America's and GBAtemp's)
Obama: wants to make america communist or dictatorship.
Romney is the last one standing.

I think I'll reply to this one in particular.

Paul: Proof of isolationism? Removing the military threat we have on the world is not isolationism. Check out his anti-war ad, and pay attention to his point when he starts saying he's not an isolationist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjK0YNBBTaQ

Santorum: Really. This is his flaw. This is what's holding you back from voting for him.

What about his support of Christian ideology becoming law? His anti-intellectualism? His anti-China feelings? His jingoism? Basically, Santorum himself?

Gingrich: I really don't want to get into Gingrich.

Obama: [citation needed][critical thought required]

Romney: Flip-flopper. Dishonest. Unrepresentative of the people. Anti-intellectual (for the masses).