Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Obama or Romney

Posted Jul 7, '12 at 11:20pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

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.

 

Posted Jul 8, '12 at 12:27pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,971 posts

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.

 

Posted Jul 8, '12 at 2:30pm

loloynage2

loloynage2

3,106 posts

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.

 

Posted Jul 8, '12 at 2:40pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

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.

 

Posted Jul 8, '12 at 9:18pm

loloynage2

loloynage2

3,106 posts

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?

 

Posted Jul 9, '12 at 11:17pm

DemonicIllusions

DemonicIllusions

13 posts

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

 

Posted Jul 10, '12 at 1:28am

bigfatkitty

bigfatkitty

333 posts

They both have their downfalls.

But I look at experience. That last Republican president took a powerful America and got it into a war and an economic crisis. Obama took this and the country has been recovering.

While Obama has been in power though, the Republicans have opposed everything he has said. The filibuster rule has been invoked more times in the past four years by the Republicans than it had in the previous eight by the Democrats. This causes me to lose respect for the Republican party, for opposing policies simply because they came from the other party.

Now Romney might not be as bad as Bush and the other Republicans, and Obama has had his weaknesses over the course of his first term.
However, Obama actually seems to know what he's doing. He has policies he will push. Romney keeps saying he'll be better than Obama, but doesn't have any good ideas of his own. Which leads me to believe that his sole purpose, as with much of the Republican party right now, is obstructing Obama.

So I think Obama would be a better choice. I might be wrong (Romney might come up with something good, or Obama could get caught doing something illegal), but I'd say it'd be a much better bet to keep our current president.

 

Posted Jul 10, '12 at 1:36am

Salvidian

Salvidian

3,950 posts

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?

It was a horrible example. It was all I could think of at the time. We have war, illness, famine, poverty, and I could really go on.

 

Posted Jul 10, '12 at 1:30pm

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,948 posts

Knight

It was a horrible example. It was all I could think of at the time. We have war, illness, famine, poverty, and I could really go on.

With stem cells you could make big progresses in the medicine, thus decreasing the number of patients you have to pump up with medicaments all their life, thus decreasing the medical expenses by a bit, freeing beds for more people in hospitals and increasing the number of working people, thus helping against many of the things you just mentioned.

I think Obama is doing well and needs more time to be even more effective, people also need time to realize that he's actually doing stuff and simply inherited of a lot of problems.

 

Posted Jul 10, '12 at 2:33pm

BRAAINZz

BRAAINZz

600 posts

I am for Obama, I haven't seen much of the slandering that goes on in American media, being in Canada and all, so I won't go near that topic.

Obama knows what he's doing, after four years in office already he should have a solid plan of what he'll do with the next four. Of course, as most people supporting him agree, he needs more time. I disagree, what is more needed is a Majority. With a majority he will be able to implement many more bills without being stonewalled by thick-headed Senators.

Romney might be good for reducing the national spending, but only by raising taxes.

That doesn't reduce spending. And That would be backwards thinking going against everything that the party stands for. The Republican party is generally against high taxes, they lower them. The Republicans take a more aggressive stance on the economy, in other words, trying to spend instead of saving, cutting spending, and raising taxes. (Something that the Democrats are known for, and feared/Severely disliked for in some peoples' minds.

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

A few weeks ago I also heard that some scientists in Isreal have been able to use stem cells to grow bones.

Bones

We have war,

Obama successfully solved that. Or at least your countries involvement.

illness,

That's what stem cells are for.

famine, poverty,

Famine will drive your country a bit under no matter what you do, America is a very urbanized country with (relatively) little amount of farmland. And, like Japan, buys most of it from other countries, like Canada for example. Poverty is another problem being tackled by Obama currently, with Obamacare allowing people to pay less on healthcare, thus moving their money to other standard resources, like food, shelter, electricity, and water.

 
Reply to Obama or Romney

You must be logged in to post a reply!