Quantcast
Why are you voting or not voting for Barack Obama?

Forums - General Discussion - Why are you voting or not voting for Barack Obama?

akuma587 said:
I will never in my entire life vote for someone with a predominantly conservative stance towards social issues. The religious right has enough power as it is.

I am not a democrat or republican, but I always vote republican, and here is why.

In a nut shell:

Democrats what to take away your financial freedoms, and give you your personal freedoms.

Republicans want to take away your personal freedoms and give you your financial freedoms.

Personally, I think they are all my freedoms, and the government has no right to take any of them away. I vote republican because the government sucks at taking away personal freedoms, but is is VERY good at taking away your financial ones.

I currently don't break any laws, but if I did, I am sure I can get away with drug use a lot easier then I can tax evasion.

 

 



Around the Network
rocketpig said:
I'm writing in Lieberman because his fish mouth makes me laugh.

Plus, he switched parties. I appreciate that kind of confusion.

At this point, does anyone other than Harry Shearer play Lieberman in his biopic? The guy looks like a character straight out of a Christopher Guest mockumentary about politics.



The dedication you show to any particular console or company is inversely proportional to the number of times you have gotten laid. If you get laid enough, even if you prefer a certain brand, you just don't give enough of a shit to argue about it on the internet.

TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
I will never in my entire life vote for someone with a predominantly conservative stance towards social issues. The religious right has enough power as it is.

I am not a democrat or republican, but I always vote republican, and here is why.

In a nut shell:

Democrats what to take away your financial freedoms, and give you your personal freedoms.

Republicans want to take away your personal freedoms and give you your financial freedoms.

Personally, I think they are all my freedoms, and the government has no right to take any of them away. I vote republican because the government sucks at taking away personal freedoms, but is is VERY good at taking away your financial ones.

I currently don't break any laws, but if I did, I am sure I can get away with drug use a lot easier then I can tax evasion.

 

 

I like the way you laid out that logic

 



Here's a video from my band's last show Check out more (bigger) videos here http://www.youtube.com/user/icemanout

Im not voting for him because I am a conservative, I just don't believe in his policies at all. He is also very inexperienced but that comes in a distant second to his policies in my opinion.



 

Proud member of the Sonic Support Squad

PSN ID: smj1860

- Mostly, because I don't believe in extreme leftist policies

Broken down a bit-

- Because I don't believe his vapid and vague message about "change" and "hope" (when in reality he's for the same things every single Democrat before him has been for...nothing new here, except good PR/image people...

- Because a bunch of friggin' windmills strewn about the landscape and tire gauges are not the answer to an "energy crisis"...nuclear power and drilling while continuing to look into new technologies is the answer...(also, NOT grinding the economy to a halt through strangling the oil supply with more vague promises about researching "renewable energy", etc.)

also,

- Because I don't care what race he is.  A fool is a fool, no matter what color skin he has or where he's from.

I'm tired..have to go to bed.



Around the Network
epsilon72 said:

- Mostly, because I don't believe in extreme leftist policies

Broken down a bit-

- Because I don't believe his vapid and vague message about "change" and "hope" (when in reality he's for the same things every single Democrat before him has been for...nothing new here, except good PR/image people...

- Because a bunch of friggin' windmills strewn about the landscape and tire gauges are not the answer to an "energy crisis"...nuclear power and drilling while continuing to look into new technologies is the answer...(also, NOT grinding the economy to a halt through strangling the oil supply with more vague promises about researching "renewable energy", etc.)

also,

- Because I don't care what race he is.  A fool is a fool, no matter what color skin he has or where he's from.

I'm tired..have to go to bed.

He doesn't plan to grind the economy to a halt. 

He plans to replace oil with coal gas and ethanol gas... to give a bunch of money to his lobbyist buddies.

Not that a lot of Republicans weren't doing the same thing for the oil companies... who are the ones currently spearheading the initative to make renewable energy.

Those "evil" Oil companies are going to get the last laugh when they turn into the Evil "Cell Ethanol and Solar" companies.

 



By the way anyone interested in judging him for himself can watch his full nomination acceptance speech here:



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

TheRealMafoo said:

I worked with NASA, and at the Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles division (there satellite division). And yes, they have done some great things. But 9 out of 10 of the bright minds that have come up with these things, have been contractors from the private sector. Companies like CSC, Ball Aerospace, LockMart, Boeing, IBM, and a dozen other major government contractors. The private sector does things better... always.

Healthcare. How come when it's totally a capitalist endeavor, like elective surgery, I can get it done faster, cheaper, better. let's take eye surgery for example. I can use the best equipment in the world, top doctors, incredible comfort, and customer service for $800 an eye. A simple MRI is a pain in the ass to schedule, I was treated ruddily, and it cost me $2,000.

You need governent funding for advanced technology.  The free market cannot realize that satellites would be a good investment, so they would never be the first to develop satellites by themselves without government assistance.  NASA may hire the private sector to build or do research through public funding, but this is still government involvement in the economy because the free market can not provide such technology or goods by itself.

Healthcare is done more efficiently in a public system.  This is do to healthcare's nature as a public good and a regional monopoly, resulting in market failure.  America pays three times more for healthcare than Great Britain, do you think America's healthcare system is three times greater?  It cant be, if Britain paid as much as we do they would have three times as many hospitals, three times as many doctors, and so forth.  Below links are figures on healthcare funding (private and public).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita

Your opinions are incompatiable with economics.  I'll introduce you to market failure:

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=M#marketfailure

Thats right, a very rightwing site suggests taxes and subsidies to provide things that the market is unable to provide efficiently.  That is why you should be thankful that the government put a computer in your room, gave you the internet, and gave you satellites to communicate with.  If the government did not research and develop these areas, you'd probably be reading a book right now.



ManusJustus said:
TheRealMafoo said:

I worked with NASA, and at the Air Force Research Laboratory Space Vehicles division (there satellite division). And yes, they have done some great things. But 9 out of 10 of the bright minds that have come up with these things, have been contractors from the private sector. Companies like CSC, Ball Aerospace, LockMart, Boeing, IBM, and a dozen other major government contractors. The private sector does things better... always.

Healthcare. How come when it's totally a capitalist endeavor, like elective surgery, I can get it done faster, cheaper, better. let's take eye surgery for example. I can use the best equipment in the world, top doctors, incredible comfort, and customer service for $800 an eye. A simple MRI is a pain in the ass to schedule, I was treated ruddily, and it cost me $2,000.

You need governent funding for advanced technology.  The free market cannot realize that satellites would be a good investment, so they would never be the first to develop satellites by themselves without government assistance.  NASA may hire the private sector to build or do research through public funding, but this is still government involvement in the economy because the free market can not provide such technology or goods by itself.

Healthcare is done more efficiently in a public system.  This is do to healthcare's nature as a public good and a regional monopoly, resulting in market failure.  America pays three times more for healthcare than Great Britain, do you think America's healthcare system is three times greater?  It cant be, if Britain paid as much as we do they would have three times as many hospitals, three times as many doctors, and so forth.  Below links are figures on healthcare funding (private and public).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_car_fun_tot_per_cap-care-funding-total-per-capita

Your opinions are incompatiable with economics.  I'll introduce you to market failure:

http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=M#marketfailure

Thats right, a very rightwing site suggests taxes and subsidies to provide things that the market is unable to provide efficiently.  That is why you should be thankful that the government put a computer in your room, gave you the internet, and gave you satellites to communicate with.  If the government did not research and develop these areas, you'd probably be reading a book right now.

I just want to add.

http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=40506&start=0

Here you can see how well the "private sector" has done.


I agree, a free market Health Care system would be best for the U.S.  But politicians won't allow it.

Democrats want to socialize it, which I don't like.

Republicans want to keep out competition and fix prices, which is why (as you'll see in that thread) U.S. cost are higher and there is less coverage.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

I need to watch the debates before I chose who I'm voting for