Post: #101

(09-10-2012 02:22 PM)Tbone Wrote:  If Romney is elected and we have a divided government, and the other side refuses to work with him, do you think he's going to be an effective President? It's impossible. No cooperation, no results.

In fact, precisely because he's such a flip-flopper, I figured he'd be good at working with a Democratic congress.

Post: #102

(09-10-2012 02:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 05:46 PM)Sentrix Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 05:20 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  I think this forum is a bit left leaning. Just read the threads.

I'm a little surprised by this, given that we're all men.
I've found the manosphere to be right-leaning, as am I.

Edit: Someone above me posted the same thing. I wouldn't say far-right like he did, though. The problem with liberals is that to them, there is no standard right. Everything they may not agree with is "far right".

This is a very International forum. I suspect many of the voters are not American. Obama would definitely be preferred over Romney in a world poll. Also, Obama would be considered center right by global standards. Only in America would you have crackpots calling him a socialist.

I don't think a person is a "crackpot" for thinking Obama is a socialist. When you consider many of the views on which he ran in 2008 and the unscripted comments he made (spread the wealth around, etc), I can see why someone in small town America would think he is a Socialist.

However, the way he has actually governed as President is far from socialism. A socialist would not have intervened and saved wall st; he would have let capitalism fail. But apparently Obama believes in a free-market economy (except when it's in trouble). I'd argue that most socialists would not keep open Guantanamo Bay, use drone strikes like he's racking up points in a video game, and intervene in every other country's business.

But Obama HAS created new agency after new agency and essentially declared government as the solution to people's problems. The problem is that government is funded with our fucking money. So taxpayers have to pay unproductive people (i.e. government workers) to solve problems for other unproductive people (i.e. unemployed and welfare). So the Conservatives slam the table and quote Reagan "Government isn't the solution, it's the problem!" And they all suck each others dicks and feel good about declaring Obama a Kenyan Socialist.

Here's the rub, and one point about Conservatives that really pisses me off - where the fuck were these neocons from 2001-2008 when the Bush/Cheney ticket was creating a new agency every other day?

Most of the inconveniences U.S. citizens have today - incompetent and invasive security at airports, increased scrutiny of your financial records, enormous growth (and a metric fuck-ton of waste) in Defense spending, a generation of "wounded warriors" from a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism against the U.S., no child left behind - all came under Bush the Conservative. And it was all approved by a bi-partisan Congress. Bush and his pet Congress grew government far more than Obama. But Obama's not done. Give him another term and watch the damage he does.

But I just don't get all the hatred for Romney without equal disappointment in Obama. Who can say life has gotten better under Obama? If you're a liberal, Obama has ruled like a Republican with his foreign policy, defense spending and war machine. If you're a Conservative, Obama has increased the debt, increased government even beyond what Bush did, and put the taxpayers on the line to pay for programs that we will never, ever be able to pay off.

Meanwhile, as we make the argument "Obama is the lesser of two evils," your civil liberties are disappearing before your eyes and the U.S. is spiraling into an irrecoverable debt hole. Obama has done nothing to intervene and restore rights back to the people and he's done nothing to try and put this country back on a fiscally sustainable path. Another war president, just like his predecessor and just like his successor will be if Romney wins in November.

Post: #103

I'm shocked by the result of this poll.

How on Earth can any self-proclaimed red-pill man vote left?

Shocking. And this is coming from a French Canadian.

Post: #104

Post: #105

(09-10-2012 03:02 PM)captaingeneric Wrote:  I'm shocked by the result of this poll.

How on Earth can any self-proclaimed red-pill man vote left?

Shocking. And this is coming from a French Canadian.

Keep in mind that our "left" is still VERY far to the right of your "right".

Post: #106

(09-10-2012 02:03 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 05:46 PM)Sentrix Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 05:20 PM)The Texas Prophet Wrote:  I think this forum is a bit left leaning. Just read the threads.

I'm a little surprised by this, given that we're all men.
I've found the manosphere to be right-leaning, as am I.

Edit: Someone above me posted the same thing. I wouldn't say far-right like he did, though. The problem with liberals is that to them, there is no standard right. Everything they may not agree with is "far right".

This is a very International forum. I suspect many of the voters are not American. Obama would definitely be preferred over Romney in a world poll. Also, Obama would be considered center right by global standards. Only in America would you have crackpots calling him a socialist.

Yeah, I was thinking the same. Also, we're a lot younger here than the average voter as well. As for the last point, it's difficult to even call Obama or Clinton as being on the left when you compare them to other developed countries. America is much much more conservative both fiscally and socially then all of its Western peers. For example just today in Australia a Senator for the main right wing/conservative party here resigned after saying that legalizing homosexual marriage would lead to legalized polygamous marriages and bestiality, and the party leader who basically made him resign is actually a strict Catholic who once trained to be a priest.

This sort of thing never could have happened in the States, and the reaction probably would've been even worse than it was if he had talked about "legitimate rape" like that American senator did. Hell, one of two factions within the main left wing party which is currently in government is literally called "Socialist Left" and our Prime Minister is a member of that faction, and they're not even the furthest left party that actually gets seats in our Parliament.

Post: #107

(09-10-2012 03:02 PM)captaingeneric Wrote:  I'm shocked by the result of this poll.

How on Earth can any self-proclaimed red-pill man vote left?

Shocking. And this is coming from a French Canadian.

Agreed. I'm surprised as well. And like you I'm an outside observer.

Perhaps you guys are not that political? I don't blame you, politics is killing all there is good about this world.

However I've been a US politics geek for a number of years now, read National Review and similar sources daily, and think I've got a good grasp on what's what.

If you're American: obviously it's your country and your decision alone.

Still - Obama is ideologically aligned with the same malign forces that have brought America to the brink of economic and cultural destruction. His mentors were outspoken Marxists. His governing philosophy is redistributionist and he's said so himself especially when he went off the teleprompter ("You didn't build that!")

Or to bring the argument a little closer to home: what kind of record does Obama and his party have in bringing about legislation that is not hostile to men?

Just saying.

Post: #108

You have a "grasp" on what's going on... Really? One thing I've learned from watching politics. Reading papers and watching programs does not guarantee that one's perception of reality is going to be accurate.

(09-19-2012 03:29 AM)Teekay Wrote:  

(09-10-2012 03:02 PM)captaingeneric Wrote:  I'm shocked by the result of this poll.

How on Earth can any self-proclaimed red-pill man vote left?

Shocking. And this is coming from a French Canadian.

Agreed. I'm surprised as well. And like you I'm an outside observer.

Perhaps you guys are not that political? I don't blame you, politics is killing all there is good about this world.

However I've been a US politics geek for a number of years now, read National Review and similar sources daily, and think I've got a good grasp on what's what.

If you're American: obviously it's your country and your decision alone.

Still - Obama is ideologically aligned with the same malign forces that have brought America to the brink of economic and cultural destruction. His mentors were outspoken Marxists. His governing philosophy is redistributionist and he's said so himself especially when he went off the teleprompter ("You didn't build that!")

Or to bring the argument a little closer to home: what kind of record does Obama and his party have in bringing about legislation that is not hostile to men?

Just saying.

Post: #109

I don't live in the US so opinion doesn't matter, but I don't think any European would every vote Republican.
The American left is the like the European right! haha
I have my problems with big government, but considering Romney's views on Palestine, I'd go with the other guy.

Post: #110

The more I analyze the recent comments he made, the more damning they seem.

He's basically managed to confirm nearly all of the attacking stereotypes thrown against him regarding his being out of touch and inconsiderate. He's written off and insulted half of the country's electorate (essentially saying that they are irrelevant and he will not work for them), including much of his own base (military vets, the elderly), implying that they don't care about their lives or take personal responsibility for themselves.

How on Earth does he come back from this? And to those who still support him: why?

Post: #111

(09-20-2012 04:39 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  How on Earth does he come back from this? And to those who still support him: why?

Because we're $16T in the hole and counting and we have a president who couldnt care less, and despite his campaign promises has done absolutely nothing to stop the massive deficit from growing. The debt is up 60% in his term and another 60% increase in the next 4 years puts us at approximately $25T. If we lose our ability to borrow we hit a massive depression instantly. Look at the clusterfuck in Greece, or Spain. The debt is far and away the biggest problem facing the country and after 4 years he's done nothing to change it, so we need someone else.

Post: #112

(09-20-2012 07:25 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 04:39 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  How on Earth does he come back from this? And to those who still support him: why?

Because we're $16T in the hole and counting and we have a president who couldnt care less, and despite his campaign promises has done absolutely nothing to stop the massive deficit from growing. The debt is up 60% in his term and another 60% increase in the next 4 years puts us at approximately $25T. If we lose our ability to borrow we hit a massive depression instantly. Look at the clusterfuck in Greece, or Spain. The debt is far and away the biggest problem facing the country and after 4 years he's done nothing to change it, so we need someone else.

It's too simplistic to lay all blame at Obama's feet. You should read this to get a more complete perspective: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact..._blog.html

Now, the problem with having "someone else" in office is that republicans aren't serious about tackling the deficit. We can't just "cut" our way out of it.

Obama's idea makes way more sense - a certain ratio of cuts to revenues. It's a more balanced approach.

The Bush tax cuts were never budgeted for. The country sure as hell can't fit them into a budget now. They should be repealed, more cuts should be made and spending needs to be controlled.

If you found yourself deep in debt in your personal finances, you wouldn't just cut expenses. You would also get a second job for additional revenue.

Post: #113

4 years, 60% increase in deficit, Senate that cant pass a budget, and a president that cant even get a single vote on his budget = massive fiscal failure.

Post: #114

(09-20-2012 08:03 PM)Brian Wrote:  4 years, 60% increase in deficit, Senate that cant pass a budget, and a president that cant even get a single vote on his budget = massive fiscal failure.

4 years of Republicans being antogonistic for the sake of being antoginistic and not caring about making things better over those 4 years = failure.

Mitt Romney being un-charismatic = failure. I don't trust a party that would put someone with no charisma as their figurehead. It's creepy.

Post: #115

(09-20-2012 08:13 PM)soup Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 08:03 PM)Brian Wrote:  4 years, 60% increase in deficit, Senate that cant pass a budget, and a president that cant even get a single vote on his budget = massive fiscal failure.

4 years of Republicans being antogonistic for the sake of being antoginistic and not caring about making things better over those 4 years = failure.

Mitt Romney being un-charismatic = failure. I don't trust a party that would put someone with no charisma as their figurehead. It's creepy.

and this is why America is going to be bankrupt and ruined - because the voting public would rather have a charismatic leader who hangs w/Jay Z but has no fucking idea how to run anything then one was has built and run successful companies. if you were to break up the US into two countries, one full of Romney supporters and one full of Obama supporters the one w/Obama voters would be a complete bankrupt clusterfuck whose themes centered on government control and wealth redistribution while Romney's half would be a thriving world power based on the principles of capitalism and the free market. it amazes me that the overwhelming majority of people i meet who support Romney are successful in what they do while the overwhelming number of Obama supporters I meet are at best low level office drones who count on the Romney supporters for their paychecks.

Post: #116

I wanted to hear Romney out before making a choice in the election. I'm not a faithful supporter of anybody.

But his appearance recently on Meet The Press made up my mind. I watched the show, and here's an excerpt on what happened:

"In Mitt Romney's appearance on NBC's Meet the Press on September 9, he reiterated his promise of an across-the-board income tax cut for all Americans including those like himself in the top 1%. The Romney-Ryan tax plan actually would cut taxes on income from capital, as opposed to labor, from 15% to 0%.

Romney said those tax cuts would not add to the deficit because they would be offset by eliminating loopholes and deductions. But when asked by NBC's David Gregory which loopholes and deductions he would cut, Romney was unable to name a single one."

So Mitt tells us he won't add to the deficit while cutting taxes for everybody. But he can't tell us how he's going to offset those cuts...?

I'll take my chances with Obama over another Bush.

Post: #117

(09-20-2012 09:42 PM)Tbone Wrote:  I'll take my chances with Obama over another Bush.

thats idiotic, because Obama is much worse then Bush fiscally

Post: #118

(09-20-2012 09:54 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 09:42 PM)Tbone Wrote:  I'll take my chances with Obama over another Bush.

thats idiotic, because Obama is much worse then Bush fiscally

Apparently, you didn't click the link that I posted earlier. Being uninformed is idiotic.

Post: #119

(09-20-2012 10:27 PM)Tbone Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 09:54 PM)Brian Wrote:  

(09-20-2012 09:42 PM)Tbone Wrote:  I'll take my chances with Obama over another Bush.

thats idiotic, because Obama is much worse then Bush fiscally

Apparently, you didn't click the link that I posted earlier. Being uninformed is idiotic.

Yes, and those of us w/half a clue know that the Washington Post is just another liberal mouthpiece

Post: #120

You can't have that much of a clue if a man tells you that he's going to cut taxes across the board, not add to the deficit, but can't explain how, and you still buy what he's selling.

For the record, the Post article admitted that Obama added to the deficit. Just not to the level that republicans want us to believe.

Independents will decide the election. If Romney is going to convince us that he's a better choice, he can't just tell us what he's going to do with no explanation on how he's going to do it. The right is going to drink his kool aid, but we won't.

Post: #121

(09-20-2012 08:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  and this is why America is going to be bankrupt and ruined - because the voting public would rather have a charismatic leader who hangs w/Jay Z but has no fucking idea how to run anything then one was has built and run successful companies.

Because America is best run as a corporation?

I'm not sure that analogy is as direct as you seem to think. Conservatives point out the different natures of the public and private spheres all the time.

Quote:if you were to break up the US into two countries, one full of Romney supporters and one full of Obama supporters the one w/Obama voters would be a complete bankrupt clusterfuck whose themes centered on government control and wealth redistribution while Romney's half would be a thriving world power based on the principles of capitalism and the free market.

Implying that all (or, at least, most) Obama voters are of a more negative, clusterfuck creating ilk.
I don't think that holds up, but I'd be curious to know how you came to that conclusion...

Quote:it amazes me that the overwhelming majority of people i meet who support Romney are successful in what they do while the overwhelming number of Obama supporters I meet are at best low level office drones who count on the Romney supporters for their paychecks.

...and now I do.

You do understand that your anecdotes by no means provide a valid justification for making the massive generalization you just made, right? You've met at best a sliver of each electorate-their support (or lack thereof) cannot logically be used to affirm a candiadates worth, especially in light of the many valid criticisms said candidate is receiving with regards to his actual ability.

Secondly, the correlation you've tried to establish here between conservatism and economic success (implying that a nation full of Romney-supporting conservatives would be far more successful overall) doesn't hold internationally.

Also, the placement of your faith is rather interesting given the following, quite well articulated by Tbone:

Quote:You can't have that much of a clue if a man tells you that he's going to cut taxes across the board, not add to the deficit, but can't explain how, and you still buy what he's selling.

You're quite sure Romney and his supporters would bring you a capitalist world power, even when they cannot tell you how.
Interesting.

Post: #122

Post: #123

Maybe Brian and Tenderman will join Ted Nugent in revolution when the socialist dictator Obama is re-elected.






What really irks me is all these conservatives who are trying to crucify Obama voted for George W. Bush and didn't say a damn thing when he was driving our country into a ditch.

Post: #124

Post: #125

(09-20-2012 08:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  if you were to break up the US into two countries, one full of Romney supporters and one full of Obama supporters the one w/Obama voters would be a complete bankrupt clusterfuck whose themes centered on government control and wealth redistribution while Romney's half would be a thriving world power based on the principles of capitalism and the free market.

(09-20-2012 08:53 PM)Brian Wrote:  ]it amazes me that the overwhelming majority of people i meet who support Romney are successful in what they do while the overwhelming number of Obama supporters I meet are at best low level office drones who count on the Romney supporters for their paychecks.

Do you see a correlation here?



The darker it is, the more government benefits they recieve