So if I vote Obama, I'm going to be kicked out of my grandparents house...

[Deleted member]

@vk: It's going to take a lot more than religion for me to not to vote a candidate.

If you want to learn more use wiki and google. They are great resources, but you have to be careful to check the sources and be skeptical about anything you find until you can be sure it makes sense. I suggest doing research, using those resources, on the debt, deficits/surpluses, government spending, the healthcare system, the 2008 economic crisis, Bush's economic plan, Obama's economic plan, Romney's economic plan, compare those to former presidents like Reagan and Clinton, Trickle down economics vs. Keynesian economics, as well as reading a transcript of the debates (as they lay of both parties platforms fairly well) and thinking logically about whether they make sense or not, and see how their views line up with what you learned through research.

I'll make sure to check that out. Haven't really had much time to do so, but now seems like a good time.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Obamacare Granny Death Panels is one of the Big Lies of this election year. Good on Mediocre and CK for schooling y'all.

by the way

Are you allowed to vote? Like, seriously? Is there a way we can get that privilege revoked? Cus like, holy ****, you're incredibly stupid.

I hope this guy got infracted like I did.

 

[Mediocre]

I hope this guy got infracted like I did.

No need to worry about that.

Please, no matter how stupid other posters may be, resist the urge to tell them about it. It's either that or get infracted.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Are you allowed to vote? Like, seriously? Is there a way we can get that privilege revoked? Cus like, holy ****, you're incredibly stupid.

Pretty sure he was joking.

 

[Gold Dart]

Ugh...this is why I hate polotics...
Super Smash Bros. Fan, I hope that no matter how you vote things work out for you and your family.

 

[Luco]

Umm, there's a lot to talk about here but the thing that keeps sticking out at me is how everyone is shooting ZIO in the face for mentioning a propaganda film. He doesn't mention it in his reasoning for voting Romney and people bring random things up sometimes. Deal with it... -_-

By the by, he doesn't mention why he disagrees with it except for 'Obama had the chance to prove himself to me and he didn't'... and that's fine. He doesn't have to go in to that especially seeing as that is off topic. If you're going to flame someone for a different reason, don't do it here where it's not needed.

I'm not a mod or anything but seriously that's just common sense. Stop reading in between the lines where there is nothing.

And I don't really wanna get involved or start a flame war. I'm just saying.

Sorry if i'm overstepping my bounds here mods. Tell me if that's the case... I just wanted to point out the elephant in the room.

 

[Raziek]

Thank heavens Mediocre laid the smack down on that "death panels" crap, I was about to choke someone.

There's a very simple bottom line with Medicare in general that I really feel needs to be emphasized:

If you are not insured, and become afflicted with something that is not IMMEDIATELY life threatening (and thus is not eligible for ER treatment, you are screwed. You will bleed dry or die clutching a fistful of money.

I haven't even touched on how ludicrous it is that you can be denied or dropped by insurance companies for pre-existing conditions.

That is the equivalent of them telling you that you should have gotten insured BEFORE you got ****ed by something beyond your control.

I'm with EE here. Canada's healthcare isn't perfect. Wait times are probably the biggest issue, if it's a non-essential surgery or something.

But I'll be damned, having the mental security of knowing that no matter what happens, I have my healthcare card in my wallet, that's something.

Everyone is covered, and yeah, we pay higher taxes to cover it. But not once have I ever said, "jeez, I'm so mad we have universal healthcare."

Maybe it's because my family would be bankrupt or living in constant pain without it, but I think opposing global healthcare is sheer insanity. My dad has like 6 different pills he has to take 3 times daily just to not want to kill himself from the pain alone, which is causing depression on top of that.

If I did not have our Canadian healthcare system, I would not have my father right now. And I am proud to stand up for my country and support that concept in almost all its forms.

Edit: Additional random thought: I pay TWO DOLLARS for my Adderall XR, and that's it. $2 dispensing fee. I'm completely covered through our healthcare.

 

[Jon Farron]

Man, what?

First of all, if somebody's going to die, they can go to the emergency room and get treatment, period. You ever heard people say that illegal immigrants are a drain on our economy because they don't pay taxes and get free medical care? Well, the don't pay taxes bit is only somewhat true, but illegal immigrants do get treated at the emergency room, whether or not they can pay or provide proof of citizenship. They can't even ask if you can pay.

That's all due to a law Congress passed in 1986, which requires all hospitals which are part of the Medicare program (which is most hospitals in the US) to provide emergency room service to anybody who needs it. If you're curious, here's my source. So no, unless Obamacare actually repeals that law, then patients will not die while doctors wait to receive federal approval. But emergency care treatment is extremely expensive and it's generally better to get treatment earlier, for both health and financial reasons. So with that in mind, let's look at some of the other claims you made.

You say that she has to submit paperwork before she can administer treatment, and then will not be able to administer treatment if her request is denied. What you are talking about is death panels. They are a myth. (Source 1, Source 2, Source 3) What's actually going to be created under Obamacare is panels to examine the effectiveness of various treatments, and make changes so that Medicare is more cost efficient. Not insurance, because that's privately controlled. Just Medicare. Medicare doesn't cover everything currently, and it still won't under Obamacare. But you know what's in the mandate of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the board that's being set up to reduce the cost of Medicare to the government?



That quote is directly from the bill that established Obamacare. And you know what it says? That the IPAB will not "ration health care", "restrict benefits" or "modify eligibility criteria". In other words, it's not allowed to deny treatments that are currently covered under Medicare. (Source, page 428 (or page 409, according to the page numbers in the bill itself))



I'm sorry. My grandmother died a little over a year ago.



Who is this quote from? The doctors? Did they say that? If so, they are horrible doctors.

But unless Obama or one of the lawmakers who supported his health care plan said that your grandmother "wasn't worth it", I'm not sure how that quote has anything to do with Obamacare.



If they pressured your grandfather, then that's wrong, and that's not what's supposed to happen under either the current system or Obamacare. But again, that's an issue with the doctors, not with the laws. And obviously, when your grandmother was saying that she said she wasn't ready to die, she was still able to express her own wishes. When your grandfather was making the decisions, she wasn't. Something had changed with regards to her health. I have no idea what the right decision for your grandmother, but the circumstances clearly changed.

In any case, whether under Obamacare or under current law, if your grandmother did not have a living will, it would be up to your grandfather to make the ultimate decision. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.



As I've said before, this is patently false. No coverage is being cut from Medicare. No coverage is being cut from private insurance providers, because they're private. No paperwork needs to be submitted to the government. Who would have denied your grandmother treatment?



Again, the government doesn't control what private insurers cover, and still won't under Obamacare. Medicare is a program for seniors, and what it covers won't be changed anyway. I doubt seniors often need braces, and if they do, they'd be just as able to get them under the current law or Obamacare.



Oh boy.



I read this whole article. First of all, it says nothing that supports anything you've been saying. Second, I don't even like the Huffington Post because it's too biased towards the left. The Huffington Post is super liberal, and rather sensationalist.

So your source is supporting Obamacare, making the opposite of the point you're making, and it's a bad source anyway.



The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. Think tanks are simply not trustworthy, ever.



Your sources are a forum post, a news site founded by Tucker Carlson (a conservative commentator) and Neil Patel (former adviser to **** Cheney), a conservative media watchdog group, and a conservative online newspaper. These are not unbiased sources. These are not even necessarily reliable sources.

And moreover, alright, Obama was friends or at least acquaintances with a communist. Frank Davis was not violent. He did not advocate violence. Being friends with somebody with fringe views on certain subjects, who tries to promote those views through peaceful means... alright. Not a problem for me. As long as Davis isn't violent or a bigot, I don't see why I should bothered.

I'm just saying what I've been told by people working in the medical field. My Aunt is a HUGE liberal, and isn't voting for Obama because she fears Obamacare will destroy her practice.

I could be way off here, but you never know.

 

[Claire Diviner]

I'm just saying what I've been told by people working in the medical field. My Aunt is a HUGE liberal, and isn't voting for Obama because she fears Obamacare will destroy her practice.

I could be way off here, but you never know.

Rather than taking what people say at face value, you're better off researching things before posting, as it will give you a clearer understanding of what it is you want to post about, and also prevent possible "smack downs" as they call it. Just a little advice for the future.

That said, I currently owe 3000+ dollars to a hospital, and despite that, they still offer me care, simply because legally, they cannot deny healthcare to any patient. If they do, they're simply *****y doctors.

 

[SharkAttack]

As already stated by many in this thread, vote for the candidate you personally feel is right for the USA. All votes are confidential so nobody is going to know who you vote for anyways.

I'm just looking for this election to be over. Living in the swing state of Ohio has lead to soo many political phone calls and television ads over the past month, and it is annoying. I've already been set basically on who I've been wanting to vote for since January/February. No vague commercial or mail advertisement that uses the Forer effect is going to change my mind either.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I thought Romney said at the presidential debate that he isn't again universal healthcare, he just wanted there to be more options than just that? Obama argued that wasn't practical, but yeah throwing that out there in case that is what he said.

 

[Raziek]

Romney changes his stances so often that he has a goddamn flip-flop montage.

Man changes his stance as soon as he starts getting heat for something.

 

[Chronodiver Lokii]

Also, you could look into a 3rd party candidate like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. You might end up agreeing more with one of them, eliminating the issue.

THISSSS
There are a lot of great 3rd party candidates that are overlooked.
Lots of good to say

Raziek, sounds like Dennis Kucinich. After living in is district for YEARS.....you learn that the man flip flops on everything. Also he says he saved the steel industry? crazy old kucinich....

 

[Mediocre]

I'm just saying what I've been told by people working in the medical field.

Then why did you say that you'd done research on Obama's policies?

I have done a lot of research on Obama's policies, and I strongly disagree with the majority of it.

You say you've done a lot of research, and then you say you're just repeating what you've been told. Which is it?

And even if you're just repeating what you've heard people in the medical field say, judging from what you've said those medical professionals were either deluded or lying to you. Because a lot of what you've claimed in this thread is flat out false.

My Aunt is a HUGE liberal, and isn't voting for Obama because she fears Obamacare will destroy her practice.

How? I've already disproved what she said about the government deciding who can get treated for what. I proved it by citing the actual legislation. She obviously does not know what she's talking about. I'm sorry, but her fears are nonsensical.

I could be way off here, but you never know.

I do know, because I have looked it up.



I don't know what the hell this is. You think it's okay to repeat blatant lies (whether you knew they were lies or not), and then when presented with evidence that they are lies, just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, that's what I heard!" No. That is not okay. That is inexcusable, willful ignorance. If you intend to vote, you owe it to yourself and the country to be accurately informed.

If you care about this issue, which you apparently do given the effort you put into posting about it, do some actual research, using reliable sources. Stuff like real newspapers, because they do actually cover this stuff. Use sites like FactCheck.org to look into claims made about a party or candidate that seem too bad to be true.

I suspect you had a bias (not a racial bias) against Barack Obama from the start, and chose to believe any bad things you heard about him. It's fine if you don't like Obama. It's fine if he's too liberal for you. But don't allow yourself to be misinformed about him, and please don't misinform others. Get your facts straight so that if do choose to oppose Obama, you're doing it for the right reasons.

 

[Jon Farron]

You say you've done a lot of research, and then you say you're just repeating what you've been told. Which is it?

I have done quite a bit of research, because it was an assignment for my Speech and Debate class. Part of the research assignment was to get interviews with people working in the field that would be affected (if possible).

And even if you're just repeating what you've heard people in the medical field say, judging from what you've said those medical professionals were either deluded or lying to you. Because a lot of what you've claimed in this thread is flat out false.

They may be deluded or misinformed, but they weren't lying. I was to ask their opinion on the subject, and how it has already affected their business, and how it will affect their business in the future.

Doctor says she will not be able to treat patients until the insurance (Obamacare) allows her. Her funds will also become limited, because she would now be working for the Government and receive pay from them, and not her patients and private insurance. (The reason why my Aunt fears it will kill her business, along with the $2000 fine per worker for not offering insurance)

How? I've already disproved what she said about the government deciding who can get treated for what. I proved it by citing the actual legislation. She obviously does not know what she's talking about. I'm sorry, but her fears are nonsensical.

See above.

I don't know what the hell this is. You think it's okay to repeat blatant lies (whether you knew they were lies or not), and then when presented with evidence that they are lies, just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, that's what I heard!" No. That is not okay. That is inexcusable, willful ignorance. If you intend to vote, you owe it to yourself and the country to be accurately informed.

They may or may not be lies, the government never tells you everything. I am simply trusting the people I know that have experience in that field for several years, and know what they're talking about. (The Doctor has had her practice for 27 years)

If you care about this issue, which you apparently do given the effort you put into posting about it, do some actual research, using reliable sources. Stuff like real newspapers, because they do actually cover this stuff. Use sites like FactCheck.org to look into claims made about a party or candidate that seem too bad to be true.

FactCheck.org is liberal biased.

The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. When Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left and has ties to people like Bill Ayers and his friend and collegue Barack Obama. (Who was also in the Foundation)

It's impossible for a source to be unbiased.

I suspect you had a bias (not a racial bias) against Barack Obama from the start, and chose to believe any bad things you heard about him. It's fine if you don't like Obama. It's fine if he's too liberal for you. But don't allow yourself to be misinformed about him, and please don't misinform others. Get your facts straight so that if do choose to oppose Obama, you're doing it for the right reasons.

Everybody has a bias against someone based on their personal beliefs and morals. What I mentioned about Obamacare earlier may or may not be facts but have been talked about by doctors (and not just the ones I know)and are at least rumors that need to be taken into consideration.

Now for the FACTS THAT ARE IN IT THAT ARE BAD:

Pg 241, line 6-8 mandates that all doctors receive the same pay, regardless of specialty. This will vastly reduce the number of specialists available in the United States, a common problem where medicine is socialized like Canada.

PG 265, Sec 1131 mandates and controls the productivity of all health care providers including surgeons!

Pg 30, Sec 123 states that there will be a government committee that decides what treatments you are allowed and what your overall benefits are.

Pg 42 recognizes the power of the Health Choices Commissioner to determine your health benefits. You will have no choice.

PG 50, section 152 states that free, taxpayer-paid health care will be given to the 30 million non-citizens in the USA, even illegal aliens.
Pg 170, lines 1-3 exempts non-resident aliens from the individual health care taxes, so Americans citizens will pay for these aliens, legal and illegal alike.

Pg 72, lines 8-14 creates a Health Care Exchange to bring private health insurance plans under government control. This reveals Obama’s lies about being able to keep your plan if you like it. The government will now be able to change it to what THEY decide is best for you.

PG 91, lines 4-7 mandates that doctor’s offices, clinics and hospitals provide language-appropriate services, basically ordering them to hire translators at the expense of the American taxpayer.

PG 102, lines 12-18 mandates that all Medicaid eligible will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid based upon income and insurance status. No choice.

Pg 126, lines 22-25 mandates that employers must pay for health insurance even for part-time workers and their families, which will certainly lead to massive layoffs.

PG 253, line 10-18 allows the federal government to set the value of doctor’s time, professional judgment.

Pg 298, lines 9-11 mandates that if a doctor treats a patient during initial admission and that result in a re-admission, the doctor will be subject to federal penalties.

Pg335, lines 16-25, Pg 336-339 mandates the establishment of outcome based health care and insidious idea that actually limits the treatment choices made by patients with their doctors, based upon the patient’s health and condition.
Which is what I was talking about earlier.

Pg 317-318, lines 21-25, and 1-3 will prohibit the expansion of all hospitals.
pg 321, lines 2-13 allows hospitals apply for an exception to the expansion rule but they must seek community input first!

Pg 195 officers & employees of the new Health Care Administration will have access to all Americans personal financial records and accounts.

Pg 429, lines 13-25 will only allow certain doctors, not necessarily your own physician, to write an end of life order.

Pg 354, Sec 1177 will arbitrarily restrict the enrollment of special needs children and adults.

PG 489, Sec 1308 force taxpayers to pay for Marriage & Family therapy under the public insurance plan.

Some of those sound like the "lies" I was saying earlier don't they?


And let's not forget about this forcing Catholic Hospitals to perform things they don't agree with. (Abortion) That is a violation of religious freedom.

 

[Evil Eye]

 

[Isatis]

Everybody has a bias against someone based on their personal beliefs and morals. What I mentioned about Obamacare earlier may or may not be facts but have been talked about by doctors (and not just the ones I know)and are at least rumors that need to be taken into consideration.

sort of looks like a copy and paste to me...

 

[Jon Farron]

sort of looks like a copy and paste to me...

So....? I went and read the bill myself to see if what was there was true or taken out of context, and it was all in the bill, and not taken out of context.

You can read the Bill for yourself here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

 

[Claire Diviner]

White Mage: I don't see anything about tax-payer's money being used to fund health care for illegal aliens. In fact, section 152 mentions nothing about that; all it says is that there will be no discrimination against anyone seeking health care. I think you're either reading these completely differently, or you're taking these things way out of context.

 

[Jon Farron]

There is no discrimination, meaning everyone can get health care. However, some are not American citizens and are not having to pay the same taxes that we do, so we're basically paying for their health care. That's not exactly a big issue, it's just more of a nausiance knowing they aren't paying.

 

[Smooth Criminal]

Emphatically.

Smooth Criminal

 

[Melomaniacal]

It's impossible for a source to be unbiased.

I just need to stop you there. Facts are not biased. Facts are facts. Just because a fact makes a party or person look bad doesn't make it biased; it's the truth. You can't scream "THAT'S LIBERALLY BIASED" every time someone points out a negative fact about your party.

Though, facts literally don't matter in politics anymore. Mostly because of this bull**** mindset. Now, republicans will call any fact that makes them look bad a "liberal bias," as if liberal is a dirty word. It's utter nonsense and I'm sick of it.

Facts are facts. Things can be true. Accept that.

 

[Jon Farron]

Edit: Nevermind, this will just go on forever -.- Although I have to agree with Republicans acting like Liberal is a dirty word.


Anyway, back to the original topic, just do your own research and form your own opinion. As you can see from all these arguments, everyone has a different opinion on the matter. Your grandparents can't tell you who to vote for, that's your individual right. You could go vote, and then just say you didn't vote because you didn't wanna get kicked out, lol.

Spoiler

But I seriously doubt they would really kick you out

 

[Firus]

I just need to stop you there. Facts are not biased. Facts are facts. Just because a fact makes a party or person look bad doesn't make it biased; it's the truth. You can't scream "THAT'S LIBERALLY BIASED" every time someone points out a negative fact about your party.

Though, facts literally don't matter in politics anymore. Mostly because of this bull**** mindset. Now, republicans will call any fact that makes them look bad a "liberal bias," as if liberal is a dirty word. It's utter nonsense and I'm sick of it.

Facts are facts. Things can be true. Accept that.

In the context of a source, there is always going to be bias. I don't care if we're talking a liberal bias, a conservative bias, or some completely other bias, I don't bloody well care. Just because people abuse the term for one party or another doesn't change that.

And yes, a fact is a fact, but it doesn't mean that a fact can always be taken at face value. Like the unemployment rate. The statistic that politicians (republican or democrat) cite is the U3 Unemployment Rate, which doesn't include people who are not actively seeking employment. The U6 Unemployment Rate, on the other hand, includes people not actively seeking employment and part-time workers who want to work full time and can't. Of course, this rate is about twice as large as the commonly-cited statistic. (Presently, 14.7% as opposed to 7.8%.)

So while it's not a good idea to be shooting off claims of bias every time somebody cites a fact against your candidate, it's absolutely foolish to not question every source, no matter how many statistics they have. Maybe they're absolutely right, maybe their statistics are completely sound, but they may also be leaving something off or using faulty statistics.

 

[Melomaniacal]

In the context of a source, there is always going to be bias. I don't care if we're talking a liberal bias, a conservative bias, or some completely other bias, I don't bloody well care. Just because people abuse the term for one party or another doesn't change that.

And yes, a fact is a fact, but it doesn't mean that a fact can always be taken at face value. Like the unemployment rate. The statistic that politicians (republican or democrat) cite is the U3 Unemployment Rate, which doesn't include people who are not actively seeking employment. The U6 Unemployment Rate, on the other hand, includes people not actively seeking employment and part-time workers who want to work full time and can't. Of course, this rate is about twice as large as the commonly-cited statistic. (Presently, 14.7% as opposed to 7.8%.)

So while it's not a good idea to be shooting off claims of bias every time somebody cites a fact against your candidate, it's absolutely foolish to not question every source, no matter how many statistics they have. Maybe they're absolutely right, maybe their statistics are completely sound, but they may also be leaving something off or using faulty statistics.

That is fair enough.

I guess my point is that I'm tired of the general view being that no politician can be trusted and nothing in politics can be a fact. That's simply not true. There are facts, and facts can be proven, and they can be proven by a democrat or a republican.

 

[Jon Farron]

Firus basically said a super long version of what I originally said in my post before I edited it...

A fact is a fact, yes, but when somebody writes an article about the fact, it is going to be biased towards their own personal beliefs if they are inserting their opinion on the matter.

An example of an unbiased fact would be straight up news reporting. "Syria bombs Iraq after Iraq does blah blah blah"

Biased report favoring Iraq: "Syria bombs Iraq because they did blah blah blah, Syria didn't have a right to bomb Iraq, they took things too far"

Another biased report favoring Syria: "Syria bombs Iraq because they did blah blah blah. Iraq got what they deserved!"

Those are just examples, I'm not saying they actually happened lol. When it comes to politics, it's very controversial. People will twist the truth to fit their mold on what THEY want it to appear to be. You really just have to check multiple sources and form your own opinion on the issue, which will be, again, biased to your view. Lol

 

[Veetaak]

Lying is a sin, but lying is fine when your well being is at stake.

**** sins
Just do w/e

 

[Jon Farron]

Omg, ok my best friend forwarded this to me, and I couldn't stop laughing because of how true it was. It's somewhat off-topic, but might give people second thoughts.

Might be offensive to some:

Spoiler

This is one of the better emails I have received. It gently explains the difference in thinking between people with opposite outlooks.


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

 

[Evil Eye]

I see you really prefer partisan thinking, nonsensical analogies, and made up rumors to those pesky annoying facts

Not too surprising, really

 

[Jon Farron]

I'm not prefering any sort of thinking. I'm very wiling to look at both sides, and was actually Pro-Obama the last election, but after him doing absolutely nothing to help, it's time for someone else...

@The Analogy,
It's still the same concept. Sharing what you worked hard for with those who haven't done anything or shown any sign of trying to work for something. Now if you're sharing it because you care and really want to, that's fine. Forcing everyone to is not fine.

The girl in the analogy was all pro-liberal/socialism, until it got personal.

 

[LLDL]

Obama all day, err day

 

[Raziek]

Absolutely nothing? Really?!

The man inherited an economic apocalypse from the Republicans and you expect him to magically fix it in one term?

 

[Crimson King]

I see you really prefer partisan thinking, nonsensical analogies, and made up rumors to those pesky annoying facts

Not too surprising, really

This is going on a t-shirt.

I'm not prefering any sort of thinking. I'm very wiling to look at both sides, and was actually Pro-Obama the last election, but after him doing absolutely nothing to help, it's time for someone else...

Yeah, I agree. He has done absolutely nothing.

Except he has reduced the uninsured youths rate by a sixth.

Except by providing free birth control through Obamacare, abortion rates have dropped.

Except private sector jobs increased more in 2010 than during all of the Bush years.

Except by creating Serve.org which is a collection of volunteer opportunities.

There's many more. If you cover your ears, close your eyes, and shout Obama has done nothing, but really he has done a lot. This is just political rhetoric that the GOP loves to back. The GOP also ignores the fact that they were part of a stalemate in Congress that refused to budge on the budget until the last minute, which would have dissolved the US had they not eventually moved.

 

[kataklysm336]

I have done quite a bit of research, because it was an assignment for my Speech and Debate class. Part of the research assignment was to get interviews with people working in the field that would be affected (if possible).

They may be deluded or misinformed, but they weren't lying. I was to ask their opinion on the subject, and how it has already affected their business, and how it will affect their business in the future.

Doctor says she will not be able to treat patients until the insurance (Obamacare) allows her. Her funds will also become limited, because she would now be working for the Government and receive pay from them, and not her patients and private insurance. (The reason why my Aunt fears it will kill her business, along with the $2000 fine per worker for not offering insurance)

First of all the type of research you did is called a survey and it gauges people opinions on a topic. They are not the facts, they are opinions. The doctor told you her opinion on Obamacare, and not what is actually in the document. If you want the facts, you need the document for that.

It's impossible for a source to be unbiased.

So how is this source biased?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:

Everybody has a bias against someone based on their personal beliefs and morals. What I mentioned about Obamacare earlier may or may not be facts but have been talked about by doctors (and not just the ones I know)and are at least rumors that need to be taken into consideration.

...seriously?

An example of an unbiased fact would be straight up news reporting. "Syria bombs Iraq after Iraq does blah blah blah"

Biased report favoring Iraq: "Syria bombs Iraq because they did blah blah blah, Syria didn't have a right to bomb Iraq, they took things too far"

Another biased report favoring Syria: "Syria bombs Iraq because they did blah blah blah. Iraq got what they deserved!"

Those are just examples, I'm not saying they actually happened lol. When it comes to politics, it's very controversial. People will twist the truth to fit their mold on what THEY want it to appear to be. You really just have to check multiple sources and form your own opinion on the issue, which will be, again, biased to your view. Lol

Those are the worst examples ever. They are so unrealistic they basically don't apply at all.

Omg, ok my best friend forwarded this to me, and I couldn't stop laughing because of how true it was. It's somewhat off-topic, but might give people second thoughts.

Might be offensive to some:

Spoiler

This is one of the better emails I have received. It gently explains the difference in thinking between people with opposite outlooks.


A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

This isn't offensive, it's just stupid.

It's still the same concept. Sharing what you worked hard for with those who haven't done anything or shown any sign of trying to work for something. Now if you're sharing it because you care and really want to, that's fine. Forcing everyone to is not fine.

The girl in the analogy was all pro-liberal/socialism, until it got personal.

It isn't the same concept at all, and the analogy is incredibly weak. The differences are so vast it would honestly take days to outline all of them, but they mostly lay in why people are poor/disadvantaged as opposed to wealthy/privileged. In the example you posted it is of Audrey's own free will not to go to class. In other words, she is doing poorly because she hasn't applied herself. If you think everyone in America who is poor/disadvantaged is that way because they are lazy, and all the wealthy people are that way because they worked hard then you are way off.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

In the presidential and vice debates the republican side always said that Obama has made things worse. The internet blew up with anger at how wrong that was. Biden in the debate was laughing the entire time (to the annoyance of some and pleasure of others) because of all the things Paul Ryan was saying. I'm not politics savvy, but even I have to say that Obama is doing at least a pretty decent job with what he was handed to fix. May or may not be the best, but yeah. The very fact that the big hook that Mitt and Ryan use is how Obama is failing hardcore doesn't make me like them. In fact I'd say almost all of his followers are just people who don't want Obama in, how else could you consistently follow a guy who isn't consistent himself. They don't care what policies the dude supports, if they did his fan base would be changing constantly, and that I highly doubt.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Man, remember when arguments on UB were fun and had some kind of conclusion, usually one that ended with me laughing at someone?

But seriously what the **** are we debating here and at one point do both sides go "oh that's right we're never going anywhere with this ever because this is the internet."

 

[Jon Farron]

Lol, nobody is convincing the other of anything. Everyone is obviously just going to believe what they want to. This isn't going anywhere... I personally am not completely sold on either tbh. Both candidates have their pros and cons respectively.

Lol looking back at these posts it's basically been me looking like a nutcase. :s

So...

Edit: Nevermind, this will just go on forever -.-


Anyway, back to the original topic, just do your own research and form your own opinion. As you can see from all these arguments, everyone has a different opinion on the matter. Your grandparents can't tell you who to vote for, that's your individual right. You could go vote, and then just say you didn't vote because you didn't wanna get kicked out, lol.

Spoiler

But I seriously doubt they would really kick you out

 

[Falconv1.0]

The OP was answered on page 1. So this thread is effectively pointless now.

I hate everyone.

 

[Crimson King]

In the presidential and vice debates the republican side always said that Obama has made things worse. The internet blew up with anger at how wrong that was. Biden in the debate was laughing the entire time (to the annoyance of some and pleasure of others) because of all the things Paul Ryan was saying. I'm not politics savvy, but even I have to say that Obama is doing at least a pretty decent job with what he was handed to fix. May or may not be the best, but yeah. The very fact that the big hook that Mitt and Ryan use is how Obama is failing hardcore doesn't make me like them. In fact I'd say almost all of his followers are just people who don't want Obama in, how else could you consistently follow a guy who isn't consistent himself. They don't care what policies the dude supports, if they did his fan base would be changing constantly, and that I highly doubt.

Obama's first debate was atrocious. Biden's debate was much better, but you are totally correct: in the first debate, the Republicans called Obama timid and lazy, but when Biden did exactly the opposite they called him mean and a bully.

 

[Jon Farron]

You have to admit, Biden came off as a little arrogant. I hope tonight's debate goes well, for BOTH sides.