ForumsWEPRObama or Romney

214 22661
ethan3300
offline
ethan3300
100 posts
1,475

Please debate here.

  • 214 Replies
Pieguyme
offline
Pieguyme
1,018 posts
1,890

Romany has the best chance I think. He has much more money for ads and media connections, he has more government experience, as well.

On the other hand though, Obama has more ads running and bribes the media with money so that we, the citizens, know only the bad things about Romany and the good things about him and his party.

Romany also helped get the U.S. Olympic team out of debt. Here's a site that helped my group and I on a school project. USE ALL TABS. http://www.livebinders.com/play/play/364282

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

On the other hand though, Obama has more ads running and bribes the media with money so that we, the citizens, know only the bad things about Romany and the good things about him and his party.


I'm sorry, but I fail to see how a candidate who has constantly outspent others on ads in the media is actually not the one who is bribing the media with the money. Both candidates use their money to besmear each other, don't be a narrow minded fool and think only Obama does it.

he has more government experience, as well.


Disagree whole-heartedly. Obama already has a whole term behind him; Romney has no Presidential experience whatsoever.
ethan3300
offline
ethan3300
100 posts
1,475

The both could be good but they both have there downfalls

Pieguyme
offline
Pieguyme
1,018 posts
1,890

nichodemus, I mis-said that first statement. I know both candidates do it. However, yes now that he has four years behind him, Obama has more experience. But, before the presidency was given to him in '08, he was a Senator who hardly showed up on time for any thing. Romany was a Governor before he ran for president.

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

But, before the presidency was given to him in '08, he was a Senator who hardly showed up on time for any thing. Romany was a Governor before he ran for president.


Excuse me, but if you're going to claim Obama ''hardly showed up on time for anything'', you better be there with solid evidence to prove so, unless you want to be known as someone who likes to pull random, unproven arguments from your behind, just to wildly and illogically justify a hyperbolic statement.
Pieguyme
offline
Pieguyme
1,018 posts
1,890

OCTOBER 30TH 2008. READ IT AND WEEP FOOL.


http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/video_obama_shows_up_late_again_and_again_for_senate_committee_on_foreign_r/

loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,240 posts
1,000

The fact that you use Obama's late arrival at meetings as an excuse/argument is really pathetic, but then again, so is pretty much everyone that supports Romney. Rather have a average late president then a horrible on time president.

nichodemus
online
nichodemus
14,327 posts
24,170

Whilst you use tardiness as an excuse to slam Obama, how about we use the fact that Romney is a hypocrite (Hires illegals), can't connect to the people (Repeatedly and insensitively flaunts his wealth), forgetful (Can't even remember his own first name)?

Also, since almost everyone has been late before, we're all going to be condemned.

Read, weep, and maybe weep a little more.

Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

I don't really like either candidate. It's times like these I want a true democracy, where we don't have a true leader, or president. I don't pay much attention to politics, so I can't really give you many specifics on the two. I am, however, pretty fluent with the two main presidential parties so I guess I can base a little bit off of that.

Obama being a democrat is split right down the middle for me. We need immigrants to come to America, because that's one of the reasons why it was formed. I'm Catholic, but I'm for gay marriage. Most republicans need to realize that this is not the 1800's and same-sex marriage doesn't deliver any negativity. It's against the Bible, but I'm with "Don't ask, don't tell, don't look, don't yell." I'm pretty indifferent about the topic. I hate the idea of abortion because it is deliberate murder of a fetus. I'm with stem-cell research, but only until a way to do it without sacrificing fetuses is found. I live by the Bible for the most part, but during the times it isn't helping us, it can be ignored. Besides, there aren't any deliberate teachings of homosexuality, stem-cell research, etc. Health care sin't a good idea because it violates our civil liberties by disallowing our choice of medicinal junk. On the other hand, it helps the poor, so, meh.

Romney might be good for reducing the national spending, but only by raising taxes. Sometimes a sacrifice must be made for the good of the people, but only when it is most necessary. Stem-cell research isn't necessary, so it doesn't follow this pattern. Sending troops away... Well... No idea there. I don't see anything else he good do that will help the country.

I'm kind of split down the middle, but Romney might be better now to clean up, with a president like Obama to come in and take over.

Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

My previous post has grammar fail all over it.

Health care sin't a good idea


Should be,

Health care isn't a good idea


And...

I don't see anything else he good do that will help the country.


Should be,

I don't see anything else he can do that will help the good of the country.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,403 posts
2,630

I'd probably vote for Obama just so he has no excuse about needing more time to get things done and can remain focused instead of worrying about campaigning.

It's times like these I want a true democracy, where we don't have a true leader, or president.

I assume you mean a true republic, because it would be nearly impossible to have everyone in the country vote on stuff at the local, state, and federal levels every day. And I seriously doubt that the average person would read through bills containing over 200,000 words to make sure they contained nothing sneaky. Most people would just look at the titles and agree or disagree.

I'm with stem-cell research, but only until a way to do it without sacrificing fetuses is found.

The umbilical cord and placenta, which were usually thrown out in the past, hold blood that contains a lot of usable stem cells.
loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,240 posts
1,000

I live by the Bible for the most part,

That's quite an interesting statement.

I hate the idea of abortion because it is deliberate murder of a fetus.

Doesn't it murder a child mentally if he/she is raised in a unloved family?

Stem-cell research isn't necessary, so it doesn't follow this pattern.

Isn't necessary to what? The survival of the human race? Or is it not necessary for the good of the people? Hmmm, let's see what steam cells could cure in the future:
-Cancer
-Brain Damage
-Spinal Cord injury
-Heart Damage
-Baldness
-Deafness
-Blindness
-Missing teeth
-Diabetes

And much more.
Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

I assume you mean a true republic


Whatever the term is.

Doesn't it murder a child mentally if he/she is raised in a unloved family?


'Tis better to have loved and lost than to have not loved at all.

Besides, everyone has something they enjoy in life. Everyone has some sort of hobby, fun, or enjoyment. Don't start about "unloved" stuff. I mean, how unloved does a person have to be to want to die? That would be incredibly extreme.

Isn't necessary to what? The survival of the human race? Or is it not necessary for the good of the people? Hmmm, let's see what steam cells could cure in the future:


It isn't necessary right now. We have bigger problems, like global warming for example. The earth's greenhouse is extremely sensitive. I think Venus, maybe, was once like earth but due to carbon monoxide building up and up, everything just toppled over. It wasn't like earth, with trees and everything, but it did have a working ozone layer.
loloynage2
offline
loloynage2
4,240 posts
1,000

Besides, everyone has something they enjoy in life. Everyone has some sort of hobby, fun, or enjoyment. Don't start about "unloved" stuff. I mean, how unloved does a person have to be to want to die? That would be incredibly extreme.

I did not mean like the child wants to die and I did not mean unloved like hate, but rather a lack of love. I could also go into how it's not really murdering a foetus, but that would just go out of the subject of this thread, so let's stop

It isn't necessary right now. We have bigger problems, like global warming for example.

That's a horrible example. Global warming is a procedure that takes a lot of time and we can make plans to stop it gradually. Illness kills people, everyday or at least makes their lives horrible. Please define necessary. And why can't we tackle both problems at the same time?
DemonicIllusions
offline
DemonicIllusions
13 posts
210

Well the fact that Romney said our teachers are giving a third world education, must have lost himself a lot of votes. But Obama hasn't done so well either the past four years.Our years candidates haven't been the best either. I just at least hope the citizens of America don't let cheap advertisements or their stupidity* overcome the best choice.

*Republican and Democratic conflicts

Showing 1-15 of 214