Obama v Romney 1st debate - who won ?

[Apone]

Or what if the land isn't privately owned, but someone takes more blueberries than they need so that they can sell the extras to people who are now starving because all of the blueberries are gone? I guess it takes a lot of 'hard work' to take all of the blueberries before anyone else can get them, but at the same time, it's not exactly fair to other people or the environment now is it?

And no one with a such a ridiculously biased pro-right view has any place talking about 'zombified' people.

 

[muir]

The political process is just theatre....these guys are actors; their job is to hide the real powerbrokers who don't dissapear from power with the election cycle. Its all DISTRACTION

here's some text from avaaz about a pact between certain countries to protect the global investors from the legislation of governments even if it is in the best interests of the public:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_the_corporate_death_star/?fp
Details are leaking of a top-secret, global corporate power grab of breathtaking scope -- attacking everything from a free Internet to health and environmental regulations. It’s up to us to stop it.

Big business has a new plan to fatten their pockets: a giant global pact, with an international tribunal to enforce it, that is kept top secret for years (even from our lawmakers!) and then brought down like a Death Star on our democracies. Big Tobacco, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Walmart and almost 600 other corporate lobbyists are all in on the final draft -- including limits on smoking laws, affordable medicines and free speech on the Net.

Information about the corporate Death Star has been leaking, and now outcries in each of our countries could shake the confidence of negotiators and scuttle the talks forever. Let's get to a million against the global corporate takeover. Sign the petition on the right, then forward this campaign to help us reach one million!

*The deal, called the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is a pact that the United States is negotiating with 8 other countries including Australia, Malaysia and Vietnam. Labelled as a "free trade" agreement, much of it is written to protect investors from government regulation, even if that regulation is passed in the public interest. You can read more about it here: https://en.avaaz.org/760/tpp-secret-talks-free-trade-agreement

 

[gd65h8as7]

Romney is like the Little Red Hen in the story. He wants people who work hard to keep their profits. Obama represents the lazier animals the ones who just say, hey, you didn't invent bread, you didn't invent ovens, give us our fair share, when in fact they've done nothing. Obama can't come out and be a communist, which he is. Romney can come out and be a capitalist, because most Americans still believe in private property as being that with which they've legitimately mixed their labor. If you go into the woods and come out with a gallon of blueberries, there's Obama, saying, give me half, you didn't invent the woods, you didn't invent blueberries. We are the 99%, give us at least that much! Romney represents the people who are fed up with the post-colonial viewpoint. Most of us just want the poor to figure out how to work for themselves, and stop using guilt to try to even things up. Romney won because his ideas are sound, and he will help us all get back to work. Obama only has some freebies. Here, you can have some foam and an abortion if it doesn't work out. Or, here, you don't have to work we will just give you foodstamps and an apartment for free in exchange for your vote. I think Romney will be better for the country in the long run as Obama's viewpoint isn't sustainable. Communism isn't sustainable. I'm for the Little Red Hen. She's a prick, I guess, but she has a point.

Woahhh!!!!! Time out!!! Are you serious? Do you know who Mitt Romney's foreign policy advisors are? 17 out of 24 of them are ex Bush officials, including 4 people who were writing policy papers about going to war with Iraq and Afghanistan in the 90's, one of the criminals from Iran Contra (Elliot Abrams) who would be in jail if he didn't get a pardoned by Bush Sr, Cofer Black, one of the main architects of the Bush torture policies and ex Blackwater Vice-Chairman....are you insane? Do you really want to go back to the Bush era foreign policy? Lying to go to wars (Iraq, Afghanistan) wasting trillions of dollars, killing tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of Americans in the process?! And having those same foreign policy advisors cheerlead for imperial escapades because they either directly profit or serve the interests of war profiteers?



Listen, BOTH of these candidates suck. Obama is a war criminal, and Mitt Romney, as Ralph Nader so aptly put it, is basically a corporation masquerading as a human being. No point in really arguing who will suck more than who (even though imo Romney's worse than Obama), your main focus should be on not giving any of them your vote because a vote for them is essentially voting for illegal military intervention, war profiteering, corporate malfeasance and capital cronyism.

 

[CindyLou]

Listen, BOTH of these candidates suck. Obama is a war criminal, and Mitt Romney, as Ralph Nader so aptly put it, is basically a corporation masquerading as a human being. No point in really arguing who will suck more than who (even though imo Romney's worse than Obama), your main focus should be on not giving any of them your vote because a vote for them is essentially voting for illegal military intervention, war profiteering, corporate malfeasance and capital cronyism.

THIS!

And I love how this thread turned into blueberries. It's as if wealth grew on a bush. Or a tree.

 

[the]

America is pretty fucked because we (not me, but Americans) seem to be under the impression that:

1. Checking a box is somehow speech. Go do something productive. Go and meet your poor/old/disabled neighbor and bake him a cake. Use your speech to have a conversation with him.
2. Picking between two people we dont like is free speech. It isnt freedom to be forced by society to choose between two outcomes you dislike.
3. We are not free to use our voice to pick someone we do like because no one else is going to vote for them so they will lose anyway.

On top of that there is an absurd notion that if I dont vote then I am not allowed to criticize the one who wins. WTF?

Better just choose the lesser of two evils. What a joke. I get to pick between someone who will kill me slowly or someone who will kill me quickly.

And I love how this thread turned into blueberries. It's as if wealth grew on a bush. Or a tree.

Wealth does grow on trees. It is money that doesnt grow on trees.

 

[CindyLou]

America is pretty fucked because we (not me, but Americans) seem to be under the impression that:

1. Checking a box is somehow speech. Go do something productive. Go and meet your poor/old/disabled neighbor and bake him a cake. Use your speech to have a conversation with him.
2. Picking between two people we dont like is free speech. It isnt freedom to be forced by society to choose between two outcomes you dislike.
3. We are not free to use our voice to pick someone we do like because no one else is going to vote for them so they will lose anyway.

On top of that there is an absurd notion that if I dont vote then I am not allowed to criticize the one who wins. WTF?

Better just choose the lesser of two evils. What a joke. I get to pick between someone who will kill me slowly or someone who will kill me quickly.



Wealth does grow on trees. It is money that doesnt grow on trees.

my mistake

You're right it can. It doesn't really work the way described though.

 

[the]

my mistake

You're right it can. It doesn't really work the way described though.

'It' is referring to what ?

 

[problemz]

Of Blueberries and World-Wide Economic freedom

America was built on the concept of private property. That said, John Locke, who had originated the notion of the four God-given freedoms (life, health, liberty and property) also said that there should be some limitations on who can own what. You shouldn't own all the blueberries because you can't eat them all and they will rot before you can eat them, and plus it's injurious to own all of them -- other people want them on their cereal, too. Private property is the only hedge we have against a totalitarian state. Try to imagine a hypothetical in which government instead of private corporations own all the land and all the property, as they do in the communist systems (think of North Korea, perhaps?). Private property allows each person to own a blueberry bush, or a tomato plant. You don't have to sell it if you don't want to. You can do what you like on your property. When the state owns everything, they can force you to do what they want with it. Think of the Soviet Union and how they killd the Aral Sea (once the fourth largest inland lake) because they had a scheme to increase cotton production. There were once 10 million tons of fish harvested from the lake per annum. Then it was turned into a mud puddle by the state. When there are many owners there is a dilution of power, and you have to form enormous coalitions. This country is largely under private ownership. It's only Obama who has attempted to consolidate government power by forcing insurance companies (one-sixth of the economy) to knuckle under. Private property is an important hedge against the totalitarian power of the state. Private property should be widely distributed. Even when one person gets very rich they still need butlers and servants. Servants and butlers get paid. This means property is redistributed many times. Servants and butlers have to be treated well or else they steal the silver. This means power is always being divided, since private property must be redistributed, and so the power is redistributed. Once the state owns all, the power is consolidated. Think of Stalin, or Kim Jung-Il, or Pol Pot, or whoever you have in your image bank. Blueberries are only good for about a week. So it's not a permanent consolidation of power to take a few gallons of them out of the woods. You largely share them because how many blueberries can you stand to eat in a week any way? Likewise with fish. They only last about a day. Everyone should be for private property as a hedge against the totalitarian state. Vote against Obama, in other words. He's a consolidator. What we want is someone who divides and shrinks the power of the state and multiplies factional interests against the state. We need more individual centers of power: this means more entrepreneurs, and thus more workers, and more productivity. This means Romney. Locke and Smith are the theoreticians of this radical libertarianism. Step out of the statist prison mentality and throw away the Keynes. America first!

As for Bush's wars in the Middle East: 9 million women can now read in Afghanistan. One third of Iraq's government is now female by law. This spreads the wealth and spreads the power. This was quite costly but it led to a complete revamping of Islamic societies which will take a century or more to finally change over. Bush 2 was a visionary. Vision costs a lot. Compare Lincoln's visionary revamping of the American South. It cost the country A LOT to banish slavery. There were 30,000 northern dead in one weekend: Gettysburg. Was it worth it? You bet it was. It saved the world from slavery. We need to do the same thing with Islam... A whole religion holding women down and making them into slaves? It's an abomination. Islam must stop doing this, and we are the only ones who care. Get with the program -- we need to spread radical democratic freedoms around the world. It's going to be costly, but the alternative is slavery for half the world's populations. It isn't right. We must not accept slavery as one of the "multiculturalisms." There has to be universal human rights and we must be willing to lay down American lives, even our own lives, to make that possible.

Meanwhile, have some blueberries. The season is nearly over, even in the deep south. As you eat them, think of American freedom! It's the most delicious thing in the world.

 

[Rferraris]

[MENTION=4235]problemz[/MENTION]
There are a few categories I maintain should be regulated and maybe provided to all. Because as a nation we can and should take care of each other. It's a basic moral tenant. We all live in this house. Just cause you are bigger and fatter doesn't give you the right to turn the heat on to whatever you want. And since we all live here, the roof protects me the same as it does you.

The idea that Obama is a socialist and communist and wants to destroy America is a really fucked up concision. Not even sure how much you have to exaggerate to get there.

The medical system is broken. Was broken. Private for profit business shouldn't even be a part of the medical system. That there are laws regulations them doesn't bother me even a little.
And as a nation we have decided not to throw your sorry ass in the street to die when you can't pay for it. So given that we have to pay for your stupid ass because you run around uninsured at the expense of everyone else, we changed it so you have to buy insurance. Now please explain how this is a bad idea.

 

[gd65h8as7]

The idea that Obama is a socialist and communist and wants to destroy America is a really fucked up concision. Not even sure how much you have to exaggerate to get there.

Lmao, seriously

As for Bush's wars in the Middle East: 9 million women can now read in Afghanistan. One third of Iraq's government is now female by law. This spreads the wealth and spreads the power. This was quite costly but it led to a complete revamping of Islamic societies which will take a century or more to finally change over. Bush 2 was a visionary.

I don't even know where to start. Lol I don't think I have it in me for this one.

We need to do the same thing with Islam... A whole religion holding women down and making them into slaves? It's an abomination. Islam must stop doing this, and we are the only ones who care. Get with the program -- we need to spread radical democratic freedoms around the world. It's going to be costly, but the alternative is slavery for half the world's populations.

This idea of Islam as this, backwards savage religion and their followers being belligerent, zealous crazies is a total misconception and is actually offensive. The Qu'ran preaches peace, love, harmony, truth, understanding...the countries (Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Balochistan) that has/had the oppressive, irrational zealous dictators are the ones who either have dictatorships propped up and supported by the US or had to have a radical sect of the population overthrow a radical dictator propped up by the US, as the case with the Iranian Revolution in '79 or Egyptian Revolution during the Arab Spring. Afghanistan was actually pretty advanced before the whole country was terrorized when we backed al-Qaeda to fight against the soviets.



That's a picture of Afghanistan......in the 1950's.

Here's the thing problemz, I actually completely get where you're coming from. Only question is, if you're a truly embrace the libertarian philosophy, wouldn't you have been supporting Ron Paul? Or at least Gary Johnson now instead of Mitt Romney? When I read your posts, I think of a quote by this author named Thomas Pynchon, "get them asking the wrong questions, you don't have to worry about answers." A few years ago Wall Street got away with literally the biggest crime in the country.....why did they get bailed out and trillions from the Federal Reserve, why weren't there any indictments despite overwhelming evidence for them shitting all over the law, and what are the relationships between them and our government officials? Why does the US have a for profit health care system despite it being more expensive and less effective than universal health care, and what are the relationships between the health care industry and our elected officials? Why do we go to war, who does it benefit, and what are the relationships between the people who push for war and the defense industry? You have to look at the bigger picture, and when you do, you'll realize that both Obama and Romney dance to the tune of entities that don't have our interests at heart at all.


PS: Lincoln did not to go war with the South to "free the slaves," he wanted to send them back to Africa before he became President. The "slaves being free" talk came up once the North realized that they would have to turn the slaves against the South during the war. And regarding the Civil War, when the South produced cotton, they realized that they'd be better off trading their cotton off for manufactured goods in Europe, but the oligarchs from the North (manufacturing, railroad industries etc) had enough influence over Congress to raise the tariff prices so that they could have a monopoly and have the South only buy manufactured goods from them. The first shots of the war went off at a tariff agency at North Carolina.

 

[problemz]

I can't answer in entirety because I am busy. I think we have to be practical and sensible. You are kids so don't have to be so. I do, because I have kids. The thing is that we have to be sensible. Obamacare claims to be cost-effective. But all the people showing up at the emergency rooms across the nation cost about 35 billion per year. Google it. Obamacare will cost trillions of dollars. For what? For nationalization of industry. It's an immoral model that takes individual responsibility away and makes us government's slaves.

 

[gd65h8as7]

I can't answer in entirety because I am busy. I think we have to be practical and sensible. You are kids so don't have to be so. I do, because I have kids. The thing is that we have to be sensible. Obamacare claims to be cost-effective. But all the people showing up at the emergency rooms across the nation cost about 35 billion per year. Google it. Obamacare will cost trillions of dollars. For what? For nationalization of industry. It's an immoral model that takes individual responsibility away and makes us government's slaves.

Lol, I know. Obamacare sucks. But this is the thing, Obamacare and the health care plan Romney had in Massachusetts are virtually the same thing. A think tank (Heritage Foundation) wrote up Romneycare, gave it to Romney to implement in his state, then Obama implemented it on the national level. I totally symphatize with you being pissed, all of us posting on this thread are pissed just the same way you are. You just have to remember to point your anger towards the actual problems, and not the two figureheads we're being made to choose between in this election. I get the stigma of the youth being naive and too idealistic, but with the way the country has been going, not voting for Romney or Obama is us being "practical and sensible."

 

[Vicarious]

[MENTION=4235]problemz[/MENTION], most of the people who have posted in this thread are not "kids". Several are in their late 20s/early 30s and beyond. Just saying.

 

[jyrffw54]

COMEDIC RElIEF TIME : )

[video=youtube;bxch-yi14BE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE&feature=related[/video]

 

[knight in battle]

@problemz, most of the people who have posted in this thread are not "kids". Several are in their late 20s/early 30s and beyond. Just saying.

And voters.

 

[Rferraris]

I can't answer in entirety because I am busy. I think we have to be practical and sensible. You are kids so don't have to be so. I do, because I have kids. The thing is that we have to be sensible. Obamacare claims to be cost-effective. But all the people showing up at the emergency rooms across the nation cost about 35 billion per year. Google it. Obamacare will cost trillions of dollars. For what? For nationalization of industry. It's an immoral model that takes individual responsibility away and makes us government's slaves.

Well here is my thing. I think Obama, or anyone trying to get this type of legislation through, would be happy for just getting past and then the expectation is it would be ratified, improved upon. But a perfect the first try, never expected it.

Per-existing conditions, lifetime maximums, etc. all good changes.

I know a guy whose wife is diagnosed with cancer. He was a manager of a decent size IT dept. has two boys.
Wife started a tanning business.

She got sick and couldn't work the business.
The insurance they have declined her claims. He lost his job. I'd guess part because of the post bush error economy, but the other part cause he maybe wasn't as focused with his wife sick.

So they are bankrupt and ripped everyone off. (Not a fan of bankruptcy)
But what was/is he to do?

The American dream.
Job making a couple hundred k.
Start a business. Couple kids.
Just sounds wonderful right.

Make sure you understand what your insurance will cover, and if you aren't we'll versed in legalese hire a lawyer.
Cause that what you have to do to make sure. Just paying 2k a month in premiums doesn't mean you bought anything in return. They took everything he had to cover his dieing wife.

I just don't think a for profit medical industry is the right thing for the most of us. I bought special cancer insurance because I couldn't wait to give the insurance companies more money.
But the truth is if my wife or I ever need this crap, I'm still not clear on what it will cover. Never had cancer. Don't know what kind of expenses are involved.

But here's a little point about what you said. 35billion a year to cover the indigent. Obama care trillions.

I think it's estimated to cost maybe a trillion over ten years. Which is less than what it would have been if we did nothing. You have to factor the Medicare and medicare numbers into this. You statements don't hold water.

"It's an immoral model that takes individual responsibility away and makes us government's slaves"

Medicare, SS, Medicaid are all programs. Social programs and a lot of people would be dead without them.
I guess that doesn't bother you. But it does me. I don't think everyone has an opportunity to help themselves.
Spend the time finding the people that beat or abuse the system. Don't dismantle the system for the ones that need it.

If you care so little about the lives that need saving, then I'm sure you don't support the wars we fought trying to help librate and save the lives in Iraq, Afganistan, Libya. We seem to spend a lot of money, lives saving these people.
Not that for a second I think that's why we are there. But saving and liberating is the justification we give ourselves.
So we care do much about them and so little about our own?

I'm not sure how the changes make medical insurance anymore government regulated. The medical industry has always been regulated. It hardly nationalizing. A complete takeover of the industry so the were no insurance companies any longer sounds awesome to me. But that's not what we got. So it's not nationalizes. And taking away individual responsibility? Not even sure what you're saying. Running around without insurance is irresponsible.
Is forcing you to buy insurance ribbing you of your personal responsibility. Well at the cost of everyone else, I guess so.
By the way, you aren't allowed to drive drunk either. Cause at the cost of everyone else, we kinda said you couldn't do that. We took your personal responsibility away again.

 

[problemz]

There are a lot more facts and fine-tuning to be done before you guys understand the difference between Romney and Obama and their respective healthcare plans.

First of all, Romney's plan allows for a catastrophic simple purchase, which means that you pay for the worst-case scenario instead of a Cadillac plan. This means that the youth don't pick up the tab for the elderly. As youth, you need to be aware you are being asked to pay for the indigent, the homeless, the illegals, and many others, whereas your own health is likely to be good for another forty years unless you are heavily involved in drugs or anal sex.

Secondly, Obama's plan's cost has varied from about a trillion over ten years to about a trillion in the first year. The CBO (Congressional Budget Office) has revised its estimate at least four times. You need to do research on this and listen as well as you can to oppositional voices. Obama pulled a fast one with the CBO when this first came out. Right after it was passed the CBO changed their estimate upwards.

In addition, this plan has caused immense unemployment. Because of it, very few employers wish to employ anyone. It's 2700 pages of laws that have yet to be tested, and no one wants to end up in court for years and years. So already the law has cost trillions. Romney's plan is far simpler and already has had its legality tested and clarified.

Forcing insurance companies to take pre-existing conditions sounds great for the uninsured who just wait until they have a catastrophic health problem and then sign on. Brilliant. But who's then taking the risk? It's the insurance companies. This means all of our insurance costs are likely to double, to take up for this.

You have to realize that this world is finite but that the problems in it are infinite. We cannot control the costs for all without paying exorbitant sums. Romney is a businessman. He has a sense of cost overruns and how to keep them down.

Obama is an idealist with no sense of reality. As a result we are 16 trillion in debt and he's holding back. In his second term he will do so many dumb things that you young people will be saddled with Chinese debt until you are elderly.

As idealists I can understand how appealing Obama is. But he doesn't have his feet on the ground. His vague and airy ideas are mind-numbing. Keep your feet on the ground and keep asking: who's going to pay for this? It's you.

He's picking not only your pocket but the pocket of your grandchildren.

As for the wars in the Middle East: I can understand not wanting to go there. But think again about costs. The hit on the Twin Towers cost us one trillion in one day. This was the price of the two towers and the consequent loss of aviation passengers over the first six months (no one wanted to fly). Plus there was a perceived sense that we were vulnerable. Bush hit back and crippled the Taliban and crippled Saddam Hussein, both of whom were exporting terror. It's hard to understand why it was necessary to introduce wide reforms throughout Iraq and Afghanistan while not going into Iran itself. But the entire Islamic world is now going through a huge movement toward democracy. We can't exterminate Islam. There are almost 2 billion Muslims. All we can do is introduce pluralistic societies in which women have a stake and in which other religions have equal rights.

We haven't succeeded by any means and in some ways have gone back. But 9 million women who can now read and write in Afghanistan? This is huge.

I know that many of you young people got indoctrinated by the multicultural thing when you went through college. But there is another idea afoot: universal human rights. These are important problems and can't be straightened out in a single post to a web page for INFJs.

It will take a hundred years to work out all the contradictions and internal logical errors. Suffice it to say that Obama hasn't got a better plan. He just has a plan with which you are more familiar. Listen to Romney's plan and be open-minded through the next month. His plans will cost you less, and they are more streamlined, and will not put us in hock to China. In addition, read papers like the Wall Street Journal in addition to the New York TImes and your local papers. They often have a different perspective. If you're thinking about costs try to get to the bottom of what things will really cost.

Most of your professors were not very cost-conscious and were idealists who never had to think about costs. Most professors could never run a business and don't know what things cost, and are very engaged in a race, gender, class Marxism, whether they know it or not. Far more functional is the Lockean liberal viewpoint. It's also a lot more fair and -- dare I say it? -- balanced.

Ha, your minds just went shut again.

Try to stay open to alternative news sources. Try to stay open to Romney and the Republicans. I realize most of you won't do this, and you will believe what is most convenient. That's normal.

But really do research on Obamacare from all angles and on Romneycare. They're like night and day. Many will have you believe there is no difference between the parties or between candidates. This is just not true.

Personally I'd like every bug and snake and bird to have healthcare. But I'm not willing to pay for it. I don't want to pay for a triple heart bypass in a grasshopper. Am I heartless? Perhaps. I just prefer to take care of my own children. It's hard enough as it is without taking care of all the people who refuse to think things out and live for today. (I'm referring to the Aesop's fable The Grasshopper and the Ant.)

Problemz are infinite. Let's at least keep the costs finite.

The biggest cost right now at the Center for Disease Control is sexual. Those costs are eating up 60% of the CDC budget. This means that there is no money almost being spent on Lyme Disease, or heart disease, or the hundreds of other major diseases so that we can all pick up the tab for the AIDS patients. If you have a sick child, you might wonder about priorities. Romney is more realistic on the costs of things and how to keep them down and fair for all so that you young people can find work, and the economy get going again.

 

[MindYourHead]

I was out of town over the weekend, and while I checked in using my phone, I didn't follow this very closely.
Is there an App better than Tapatalk for this forum?

I wasn't calling you a racist.
What I mean is people will vote for one or the other regardless of what they say.
If Romney came our and confessed to killing babies, the right would still blindly vote for him. First, do you not agree.
And assuming you do, don't you find it strange that they do ardently and blindly follow party lines. My only conclusion is the hate is so strong, I can't figure what drives it other than they want a pretty white guy and can't stand this xxgger.

Sorry if I misread you.

I don't understand the blind loyalty on either side.
I can't get my head around people that agree with everything their chosen party represents. I don't believe them. How could you possibly be in agreement 100% of the time on 100% of the issues?

The hate is strong on both sides.
As an example. My Sister who lives in Illinois, is a die hard liberal democrat, and would fall on a sword for Obama. Volunteers in a phone bank for him etc. That's cool.
But, she froths at the mouth in hate when talking about the Republicans.

Where I will vote for some Republicans, and some Democrats, even an Independent or two on the same ballot, she has told me point blank there is no way in hell she would ever vote for any Republican. Ever!
So, in her case, I can assume if it came out that Obama was killing babies on the South side of Chicago years ago, I doubt it would sway her opinion of him. That's some strong Kool-Aid he is serving I guess.

I understand that, but don't you feel that it is a little irresponsible to focus in on such irrelevance when there is so much more to talk about? It kind of detracts away from the meat of the issues when we focus on such shallow perceptions like how the candidate "looks"... its a major flaw of American culture IMO that we do this. Its embarrassing for me as an American for non-Americans to see us judging our candidates on such ridiculous qualities as "who would you prefer to have a beer with" or "who looks the most presidential" I mean, egads! This is not me talking shit about you, I am just asking.

This is true Billy. It really is a shallow perception, and isn't what should be used as a basis for making a decision as to who should be the leader of our country. I found the whole "who would you rather have a beer with" thing ridiculous back then, and here I went and did basically the same thing.
So, it's cool you called me out on it.
It's kind of human nature though to judge based on appearance before giving thought to substance.

 

[problemz]

I've actually kind of enjoyed this discussion. I don't think it will go anywhere, but that doesn't matter. It's nice to get opinions and find the facts on which they appear to rest. I suppose that in weighing in I was only trying to open the suppressed Romney side of the debate. I was a lifelong Democrat until Kerry. I didn't like his hair. It's true: I couldn't stand his hair. His wife's hair irritated me even more. So I voted for Bush 2. I liked his hair and his confident walk. I then started to back up this aesthetic impression by actually listening. Mitt's a bit stiff. But I can't stand Obama's fake preacher accent. He's from Hawaii and his step-parents were white (his grandparents ended up as his step-parents because both parents had flown the coop for various reasons). Mitt just strikes me as a bit more sound. I'm trying out the libertarian arguments because they seem fun. I want to try to make them more imaginative if I can amplify them in that way. The left has had such a terrible century. Always arresting poets. That bugs me. The right doesn't care about the arts but they should. Beginning with haircuts and shoes and just a tad of style. It would help them a lot. We need something aside from country music. Good lord. But there is also the horror of the bottom line. If we're going to last, it would be nice to have someone who could make the country fiscally responsible again, and not tie us down in centuries of legal problemz.

I know, I know, I shouldn't have voted on the hair.

But I hated Kerry's haircut, what can I say? Who did he think he was going around with scratchy messy hair like that.

Obama's hair was ok but it's now turned all white and he looks bad and wornout.

Obamagirl won't do him any more. She said as much.

Obama doesn't care, but he will lose the youth now due to the white hair. Mitt's hair is blacker.

It's too slick for my taste, but it doesn't make me sick.

I can also handle his voice and his intonations.

I feel I am going to throw up when Obama talks. And then there's what he says: which indicates he doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Do you think we could talk about relative styles, as opposed to content? The content part seems to confuse everybody anyways.

 

[Apone]

Alright problemz, then let's talk about issues.

-Romney wants to arm Syrian rebels... of course, arming rebels, even pro-western rebels in a country is always a good idea, and never ends up creating terrorist organizations.

-Romney wants to make higher education less affordable for average citizens. He has no problems with letting student loan interest rates skyrocket-- as far as I can tell, the point is to help the rich profit from the middle class, while also letting all of the bankrupt young people serve as a warning for the commoners to not try to get into these exclusive white collar clubs anymore-- or at the very least not to try to get ridiculous useless degrees in arts or anything that won't lead to a high-paying job which will of course exist in his amazing society. So yeah, I guess you'd better hope that his plan to make life easier for the rich actually does lead to the creation of blue collar jobs and they don't just spend all of the money on private jets, factories abroad (but not in China, of course), or robots.

-Romney doesn't think that class size has any sort of effect on student learning. He's going to fire teachers all over to cut costs. Every single teacher who has ever had a class with 30 students and a class with 15 will tell you that this is ridiculous, but of course, he knows better. Students can obviously get all of the attention that they need when they're forced to compete with 30 other kids-- I mean, it only makes sense. No one will ever be ignored or passed over, problems/disorders will always be identified and diagnosed in time.

-let's stop wasting money trying to regulate the gd stock market. We all know that increasing deregulation hasn't led to the biggest financial scandals ever in the past 30 years, because of course we can trust the CEOs and traders to always be honest.

Romney is a nightmare.
He is a selfish, stupid, evil prick.