Disregard previous post. For some reason I thought jimbo's post was made by Gen lee. My mistake guys. -hides head in shame-

I think we should close the loopholes.

Am i allowed to stay now?

Put up an argument for your side that we can civilly discuss with fact, talking points, and a tad bit of sarcasm just to keep me entertained and you can stay.

I vote yes. You have been granted admission to the thread!

Okay, a) I never said I was on a side. So rage a little harder on a poor ole independent.
b) I don't actually know of any loopholes and I think both sides look like morons just trying to cue a buzzword. There is tax evaision and there is tax avoidance and there is a huge difference.

Of course you're welcome to say anything you want, all I was pointing out is that people will not respect your opinions unless you show you fully understand what you're talking about. I understand people don't agree with me, what bothers me is when they disagree out of ignorance. If you disagree with what I say while fully understanding the facts then all the power to you. Of course, I'm disappointed when people don't give me the same chance to explain my views, but that's the nature of the internet.

@Munchkin This is actually pretty tame for a political debate on here. Great to hear Biden is doing well. Sorry can't stand Romney/Ryan. Though Obama/Biden aren't much better.

>mfw you people actually think there's a serious difference between Romney/Ryan and Obama/Biden
http://i.imgur.com/E6T72.gif

Well could always vote Libertarian or Green. I know my husband is probably voting Green. I'm undecided to which way I'll vote atm.

um, if you watched the debates and don't think there is a serious difference, than the Louisiana school district didn't learn you good.

It's been 13 minutes, I kind of expected 5 different posts persuading me about which loopholes Obama wants to close...

It might be valid to say "neither of them speaks for me or my issues" but the differences in policy that they focus on are apparent.

the only loophole I want you to close is your dumbshit mouth.

Meanwhile the Orioles and Yankees are in a good extra-inning playoff game...

But I'd definitely score this a win for Biden, Ryan had a few good moments, but overall, this was one of Biden's better moments, using Ryan's voting record, his own record, the facts, and some good rhetoric all in tandem...

And a MUCH better job by the moderator this time!

I was driving so didn't watch, and only heard the last half hour or so on the radio. I thought it was another good debate where the contrast between the two sides was made very clear and the discussion was basically all policy-based.

From what I heard, it seemed like a tie. Biden did more than well enough to allay Democrat fears that the wheels are coming off, and Ryan did a good job too. Maybe there was a zinger before I could listen, but it all struck me as very competent and forgettable by both sides here.

Santa - Of course you're welcome to say anything you want, all I will point out is that people will not respect your opinions unless you show you fully understand what you're talking about. Get with the party line, your brothers in arms aren't into throwing out insults.

If this was a tie, Obama Romney was a tie, and Obama Romney was not a tie. Biden won this one, but it was closer than the presidential debate. Then again Romney won the presidential debate with a Regan impression. Biden won this debate with a torrent of facts and firm positions

"And a MUCH better job by the moderator this time!"

Again, I didn't hear all of this one. But I didn't hear any difference between what the lady whose name escapes me did and what Jim Lehrer did. The difference was that Biden presented his side effectively and Obama didn't. The last debate was structurally the best I've ever seen and I hope the rest (or at least the one that isn't in the ridiculous town-hall style) are just like it, regardless of who comeso ut ahead. These things ought to be real, back and forth exchanges, not glorified press conferences.

Romney won his debate with a multitude of lying.

"Santa - Of course you're welcome to say anything you want, all I will point out is that people will not respect your opinions unless you show you fully understand what you're talking about. Get with the party line, your brothers in arms aren't into throwing out insults. "

I'm talking about shutting the loophole your words come out of and I fully understand that is what I am talking about.

I only heard the last half hour, SantaClausowitz. Biden certainly was soft on his Afghan facts there. I think the candidates both played to the party faithful rather than independents. No one's gonna vote Democrat because of Joe Biden, they'll do it because of Obama. Same with the GOP. So each side will claim victory and each side will sort of be right.

And it's not like the VP ones matter anyway.

"um, if you watched the debates and don't think there is a serious difference, than the Louisiana school district didn't learn you good."

>implying that what politicians say can possibly equate to what they will actually do

They're both going to be chickenhawks using the coercive power of the state to force me and others to shell out hard-earned money to bomb innocent people into the Stone Age in the name of somehow making me and others safer from terrorists who get motivated to be terrorists by having their friends and loved ones blown up. That is, when they're not selectively handing out foreign aid to dictators while siding tenuously with democratic movements to overthrow the same dictators this country has backed for decades.

So no, they're not terribly different on foreign policy. They are however terrible on foreign policy. /thread

"chickenhawks"

A chicken-hawk, by definition, does not have a son in a combat zone.

"
They're both going to be chickenhawks using the coercive power of the state to force me and others to shell out hard-earned money to bomb innocent people into the Stone Age in the name of somehow making me and others safer from terrorists who get motivated to be terrorists by having their friends and loved ones blown up. That is, when they're not selectively handing out foreign aid to dictators while siding tenuously with democratic movements to overthrow the same dictators this country has backed for decades."

So what I read is, correct me if I am wrong,

"neither of them speaks for me or my issues"

Not

"They are both the same"

because, one, you know, implies that your issues aren't discussed, the other implies that you are an arrogant prick telling us, as usual, that we are manipulated mindless sheep. I hope you see the contrast here...

I didn't call any of you manipulated mindless sheep. Go back and point out where I said that. I said they're not substantively different, because they aren't. The number of areas of foreign policy on which they agree far outweigh the number of areas on which they disagree. That's not some opinion. That is fact. That's the full extent of what I said in here.

You are correct in asserting that I think those areas I outlined are wrong, and so fundamentally wrong that they are dealbreakers in a voting process. But you know this from my other postings, not what I said in here. If you think either of them are acceptable, so be it, I'm going to disagree rather vehemently but not in this thread. But it's just not arguable that they're substantially different on foreign policy.

I think the same can be said for domestic policy as well; though there's more differences in the details of what they're doing, substantially more in fact, the policies where they're the same are more numerous and [subjective here, granted] more important than the policies where they differ. Neither one, for instance, opposes indefinite detention under the NDAA or wiretapping and surveillance under the PATRIOT ACT. I can go on.

Again, you can find one adequately good (or better) to be worth supporting, sure, whatever. That's why I posted the NOPE .gif - I think both are horribly unacceptable and don't anticipate much progress either way on any discussion I could have here. But it's a fact to say they're substantially more similar than they are different, considering all the issues, and it's most obvious to me in foreign policy.

And it's definitely not a fact to say that I called everyone here manipulated mindless sheep or that I'm an arrogant prick.

Don't listen to Santa, PE...

He just likes to antagonize and start fights under the false assumption that he actually has a working brain and a functioning morality...

Ryan did well enough, I think the first foreign policy segment went to him, and he finished strong as well, but I'd say Biden edged out the rest and won a minor victory overall.

^How, when Biden pointed out over and over that 1. He didn't give concrete answers and, maybe more devastating, 2. He voted to cut spending for embassy security just after Ryan harped on and on about how there wasn't enough embassy security and how that was an alleged failure of Obama's...

I always hear this "so and so voted for or against such and such" bullshit. Honestly, as long as legislature includes completely unrelated issues to get pet projects through or sneak a spending increase or cut in with someting far more important, our politicians will he forced to cast votes that can be misconstrued by their opponents. And it doesn't matter which side the politician is on. They are all subject to this unfair "damned if you do" cause you voted against the popular item or "damned if you don't" because the popular item had an unpopular one hidden in it criticism.