The First US Presidential Debate Discussion

[snubs]

DIRTY LIBERALS.



My own personal thoughts on the debates are...well, kind of neutral. I won't pretend to be the political junkie, because I'm certainly not, but I will say that this election seems more and more to me like "pick your poison" than anything else. I think both candidates have good ideas to bring to the table, but I'm not sure how new many of these ideas are, nor am I entirely sure how either of them will implement them. Personally, I would choose Mittens if I could vote because he's my least unfavorite--I like his stance on foreign policy and I think his Five Point Plan is, if nothing else, a viable solution.

(I will say that it feels like some of the undecideds will probably be voting for Romney simply because his running mate isn't Biden, giving Biden's apparently jerky performance during the debates this past Thursday, but whatever.)

^This.

[Laurie]

I wouldn't vote for Biden simply because he's a complete and total idiot who can't seem to say one intelligent thing any time he opens his mouth. Not that Obama or Biden have much they can say these days.

[snubs]

At first I thought you said you WOULD vote for Biden because he's an idiot. xD

[Laurie]

At first I thought you said you WOULD vote for Biden because he's an idiot. xD

Note the word wouldn't in my post.

[Arkán Dreamwalker]

At first I thought you said you WOULD vote for Biden because he's an idiot. xD

Note the word wouldn't in my post.

Note the words At first in her post.

[Kait]

Why do you abuse your husband Kait?

Because I'm a feminist.

[bookworm]

[TigerintheShadows]

Wow...how sad is that? Just goes to show you how informed most Americans' decisions are.

[snubs]

Oh. My. Word. What is America coming to?

*Goes to live under a rock*

[Laurie]

I for one firmly believe that men are perfectly capable of doing things for themselves and should do things for themselves.

[Jeremy]

What Republicans are against is unnecessarily expansive and invasive government, regardless of whether it is under Republican or Democrat leadership.

You mean like the PATRIOT Act, the TSA, the NDAA, drones, Internet control, raw milk bans, etc., etc.? Oh wait, Romney and the Republicans support all of those unconstitutional invasions into our lives...

[bookworm]

Again, it depends on where you draw the line of invasiveness. And not all Republicans support those.

[Jeremy]

Again, it depends on where you draw the line of invasiveness. And not all Republicans support those.

Not all, but most do. And I'm just saying that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, they both support the same expansive and invasive government actions, and government only continues to grow no matter which party is in charge.

[EK]

"Republicans want smaller government for the same reason crooks want fewer cops: it's easier to get away with murder." - James Carville

[The Top Crusader]

question about something said: why was Romney upset that Obama had put 90 million into green jobs?

Because they all went bankrupt after we wasted monies on them. >_>

...actually, they didn't all go bankrupt.

Not literally, but they aren't all doing well.

[Sherlock]

Again, it depends on where you draw the line of invasiveness. And not all Republicans support those.

Not all, but most do. And I'm just saying that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats, they both support the same expansive and invasive government actions, and government only continues to grow no matter which party is in charge.

Precisely. The only real difference is that the two parties disagree on how and where to expand said government growth, and even then they often agree. The fact that Republicans choose to campaign under the auspices of limited government is laughable (See, e.g. the adoption of the Patriot Act, TSA expansion, TARP (which Romney supported), the 2001 bankruptcy code revision which allowed the banks to rewrite the law backed by federal enforcement, etc under GWB) just as is the Democratic party's choice to campaign under the banner of non-interventionist policy (See, e.g. Executive order drone strikes/Obama's "kill list", the expansion of Executive power to execute American citizens without any due process or congressional oversight on suspicion of terrorism, Egypt/Libya and the attitude towards Iran post-Obama).

The elite in both parties have bamboozled the American people with the game of a so-called two-party system. I think there is way more collusion between the two than any of us would be comfortable to admit. Sadly, most of the policies have been created to benefit the Wall St. and government elite, at the expense of the American people and the country itself.

/end rant.

[Dr. Watson]

Aaaannnd....I vote Sherlock for President.

[Sherlock]

If that is the case, I will, of course, be requiring Watson and Jeremy in my Cabinet.

[Kait]

If that is the case, I will, of course, be requiring Watson and Jeremy in my Cabinet.

You'll need more women than that.

BRING IN THE BINDERS.

[bookworm]

I can’t find this on Youtube so I can’t embed it, but this video is pretty funny.