we have these things called "aircraft carriers"

[Order 66]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

if Obama was running against Kucinich, yes, I would vote against Obama

:/

[redbreegull]

also by your logic, I assume Gary Johnson stands for your personal beliefs 100% of the way, right?

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

yeah but you're an all or nothing libertarian nut, you are quoting some list of evils Obama has committed and some of them are blatant lies

There you go again with the name calling. You're starting to act a little unhinged. I mean, you started all this... and you didn't like my response. Then you drag it to another forum and insult me there.

Man, I honestly don't give a shit about who you or anyone else votes for. You don't see me running all over the forums bitching people out about their choices. I don't see what the point of this discussion is. You're the one who wants to look the other way on what Obama has done to strengthen Bush's policies, and NDAA (which is scary by the way). If anyone else had pulled such a thing, you'd be all crazy about that.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

i am absolutely concerned about obama. i'm really disappointed. but that doesn't change the fact that romney would be much worse. period. end of fucking discussion.

I never said Romney would be better, but I still feel they are equally as bad on many issues.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

if Obama was running against Kucinich, yes, I would vote against Obama. But no, I am not going to vote against Obama because I have major problems with him when the alternative is a woman-hating, poor-hating, rich, white privilege piece of shit who embodies everything that is sinking this goddamn country, and the parts he doesn't embody he brought along Paul Ryan just to cover his bases. He will be worse than Obama on all the things I dislike Obama for, plus he's a shit eating used car salesman opportunist who will go as far right as necessary to gain political capital, plus he's going to wreck the Supreme Court for decades, plus if spending is your issue, HE WILL SPEND MORE than Obama (who actually has increased spending in literal dollars at a slower pace than any pres. in 6 decades and has been subject to a vicious pack of lies about his spending habits) while crippling government tax income, so if you ever wanted the deficit solved, you can kiss that dream goodbye as well. Also doesn't believe in civil rights for LGBT people, also doesn't believe women have the right to an abortion. I mean what the fucking fuck makes Obama equally as bad? You can piss your vote away on a third party candidate, but as long as the electoral college exists, the system has already decided that's the same as not voting.

Well, I don't believe in the two party system anymore. I did when I was young like you. I want changes, and I'm starting with my vote. I want there to be more options than just dem or republican. Nothing will change when we keep doing the same thing.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

also by your logic, I assume Gary Johnson stands for your personal beliefs 100% of the way, right?

He stands for a good deal of what I support. And he also supports the LGBT community and women's rights, both of which are important to me among other things.

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Starla

Well, I don't believe in the two party system anymore. I did when I was young like you. I want changes, and I'm starting with my vote. I want there to be more options than just dem or republican. Nothing will change when we keep doing the same thing.

why johnson over stein

[TuralyonW3]

Abortion

Gary Johnson supports "a woman's right to choose up until the point of viability"[36] and wants to keep abortion legal.[37] He has been very vocal in his beliefs.[38] He supports legislation banning late-term abortions and mandating parental notification for minors seeking an abortion.[39] Johnson believes Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overturned because it "expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution." He believes that laws regarding abortion should "be decided by the individual states."[35]

[TuralyonW3]

sounds like bullshit to me

[TuralyonW3]

pretty sure your state would make abortion illegal Starla

[TuralyonW3]

Education

On the state level, Johnson believes in "school choice." As governor of New Mexico, he sought to implement a school voucher system, which he believes would transform public education into a more "effective" system.[7]

On the federal level, Johnson believes the Department of Education should be abolished because federal control of state education funding negatively impacts the states: he claims that 11 cents out of every dollar states spent on education comes from the Department of Education, but accepting the money comes with 16 cents of "strings attached." Johnson believes that block-granting education funds to the states without strings, thereby returning all control of education to the states, is the best choice, because it would create "50 laboratories of innovation" from which best practices would emerge. He believes that the No Child Left Behind Act and other "federal mandates" create a "terrible" system of education, and believes they should be repealed. He says that a "homogenous" national education system does not work.[7]

Johnson believes there is a higher education bubble, and blames it on federal student loan programs. He believes the government should not be "in the student loan business." Instead, he supports a free market in education as a remedy to the bubble.[7]

[TuralyonW3]

super bullshit

[TuralyonW3]

Stem cell research

Johnson opposes public funding of stem cell research, and instead "should only be completed by private laboratories that operate without federal funding."[33]

[TuralyonW3]

sounds like a fucking idiot to me

[TuralyonW3]

Jill Stein:

Birth control should not be up to your employer. (Oct 2012)
Federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. (May 2012)
Maintain abortion rights & provide free birth control. (May 2012)
Give women easy access to “morning after” pill. (Oct 2002)
Protect a woman’s right to choose. (Nov 2001)

Pay equity for women remains critical, despite some programs. (Oct 2012)
First pro-gay-marriage candidate in first gay marriage state. (Dec 2011)
Economy that is not fully inclusive is inherently unstable. (Dec 2011)
Legalize gay marriage. (Nov 2001)

[TuralyonW3]

she's pretty righteous on everything:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm

[Order 66]

i agree with her except for the gay marriage part

[TuralyonW3]

Originally Posted by Order 66

i agree with her except for the gay marriage part

one day you'll wanna get gay married and you'll be sorry

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Starla

You Do Not Have The Right To Remain Silent - The Obama Administration actually had the gall to ask "the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights."

Originally Posted by Eulogy

also this is just flat out false.

The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one, unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.

Anything police learn through such questioning cannot be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.

The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.

The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.

At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."

The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.

The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.

"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."


http://seattletimes.com/html/politic...ntsrights.html

what am I missing that makes this false

[Future Boy]

Why does her vote for someone else bother you guys so much.

Its not like shes voting Ron Paul.

Also, scotty you're a joke-heres some Greenwald http://www.salon.com/2012/02/08/repu...ive_hypocrisy/

[TuralyonW3]

I was just challenging her on johnson vs. stein

I'm curious to see if she'll actually respond

i'd vote stein if I wasn't in Florida

[reprise85]

i would as well.

[Future Boy]

floridas lost, vote stein anyway

[TuralyonW3]

current FL polls are neck and neck

already voted anyway

had to vote NO on every single goddamn state amendment...stupid fucking republicans.

[pavementtune]

I really don't get O's pro-drones shit. But I doubt Romney would decide differently.

[Order 66]

i don't want to wade into the same argument i've gotten into time and time again... but i think the main misconception about drones is its strictly some obama thing. the main reason there are more drones is because the technology is cheaper and advanced than it was in the bush or clinton era. the first drone was tested in 1996 and that really wasn't too long ago.

its just analogous to flying a war plane or sending troops to a certain location. but what they're used for is another can of worms i'll leave alone

[pavementtune]

I know it's not an Obama thing. It's exactly the how he uses it can of worms I fail to understand.
On rescue workers and mourners for example - if those reports are true.

[Future Boy]

[Starla]

Originally Posted by TuralyonW3

pretty sure your state would make abortion illegal Starla

My state is Ca. I have an apt there, still living there, up in Montana off and on. I doubt they would make abortion illegal in Mt though. My concerns are for South Dakota. It's hard for a native woman to get an abortion on the rez, or plan B. She has to travel far in order to do this. Most women on the rez who conceive out of rape have to go through with the pregnancy because they can't afford to travel to get an abortion.

[Starla]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

Why does her vote for someone else bother you guys so much.

They think I'm throwing my vote away. It felt so good to not register as a dem this year. Kind of liberating