Who do you want to win this election?

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

Who do you want to win this election?

  • Obama-Biden

    Votes: 69 65.7%
  • McCain-Palin

    Votes: 14 13.3%
  • Jackal

    Votes: 10 9.5%
  • The People

    Votes: 11 10.5%
  • Ron Paul

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Bob Barr

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ralph Nader

    Votes: 1 1.0%
  • Cynthia McKinney

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Pat Paulsen

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    105
  • Poll closed .

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
1) Obama wants to expand Roe V. Wade and completely deregulate Abortion. I simply can't stand behind someone that wants that.

And I simply cannot understand why someone would think government has the right to make that decision for women.

Conservatives always seem to favor regulation of moral issues and deregulation of economy. If you think about it, that's some of the most backwards sh*t imaginable. Make personal decisions for people but let everything else run wild?

Moral issues belong to the individual and their family and health concerns. The fact that anyone thinks abortion should be regulated (regardless of your petty religious beliefs) blows my mind.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
What really creeps me out is that this is the first election where republicans have sent me death threats for being 'un-American' and supporting Obama, 'the communist anti-American Muslim terrorist'.
Yep, no Obama supporter has ever done that!
There was already an Illinois state law in place that provided the same protection. The bill he voted against was just a poor rewrite with some added chance of trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. There was also a third bill in Congress that he did not vote against. You can't determine his intentions from these unless you can read his mind.
Actually, no, there wasn't. And the bill had wording that prevented it from overruling Roe. Did you actually read the bill instead of blindly believing what the Obama campaign says about it?
Since they both suck on the issues, I thought intelligence and signs of steady leadership might be good electing points. I've seen a little bit of both from Obama, but I haven't seen either of these from McCain. He's just all over the place, and visibly frustrated. Obama actually put some work into his plans, and he has Harvard teams that do the math.
I don't really see how you've seen that from Obama. Being able to speak well does not qualify you for the presidency.
You forgot the eastern world too.
No, I didn't. Most of the Eastern world doesn't elect their leaders.
And I simply cannot understand why someone would think government has the right to make that decision for women.

Conservatives always seem to favor regulation of moral issues and deregulation of economy. If you think about it, that's some of the most backwards sh*t imaginable. Make personal decisions for people but let everything else run wild?

Moral issues belong to the individual and their family and health concerns. The fact that anyone thinks abortion should be regulated (regardless of your petty religious beliefs) blows my mind.
You're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The government's RESPONSIBILITY is the well-being of human life. Our country was founded on the precept that all human life has value and equal inalienable rights. Why do you think the question of when a baby is "alive" comes up so often in this discussion?

It has nothing to do with "making a choice for a woman". FFS, they have a choice: keep it in your pants.

I can't see any reason for Abortions to be legal after the first trimester of pregnancy. That is 3 months to find out you are pregnant and decide you don't want the baby. Do you somehow find that unreasonable?

Deregulating abortion could just as well mean that a woman could decide 5 minutes before they had the baby that they didn't want it and the doctor would be required to murder it. As far as I'm concerned, if a baby can be born and survive (with or without medical help), it has the right to be alive. At any rate, it's clear you don't really understand this issue at all.

Apparently, Obama doesn't agree with me and I have a very serious moral problem with that.

edit: as a side note, I don't think deregulating the economy is a correct course of action.
 

Gambit84

New Member
Oct 17, 2004
427
0
0
I guess I would have to ask, do you think other democrats would want to deregulate abortion on Obama's scale?
Of course, if you do not share that belief you should feel obligated to vote against him. I find late term abortions to be a horrific concept.

How much of that is spin? What are the facts that he has such a strong abortion stance?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeeperShade

Banned
Dec 8, 2000
9,621
0
0
43
www.tar-valon.com
I can't see any reason for Abortions to be legal after the first trimester of pregnancy. That is 3 months to find out you are pregnant and decide you don't want the baby. Do you somehow find that unreasonable?

Yes. What about the poor sod who doesn't find out within those 3 months?

Anyway, hark at you with your 'he doesnt agree to me, im now morally raped'. Grow some nuts.
 

oosyxxx

teh3vilspa7ula
Jan 4, 2000
3,178
71
48
The government's RESPONSIBILITY is the well-being of human life. Our country was founded on the precept that all human life has value and equal inalienable rights. Why do you think the question of when a baby is "alive" comes up so often in this discussion?

It has nothing to do with "making a choice for a woman". FFS, they have a choice: keep it in your pants.

Your statement about governmental responsibility is oversimplified to the point of nigh-on-meaninglessness. Do the two major political parties not wage political war time and again over what each group feels the government should and should not be responsible for in terms of creating and preserving any number of facets of the "well-being" of human life? Some feel the well-being of human life is promoted by protecting the right of humans to own and use weapons that are at least partially antithetical to the preservation of well-being of human life. A large number of Americans would instantly feel less well if guns were banned, and such a ban would have the opposite effect on others. What constitutes well-being? Is well-being objectively defineable and identifiable or is it as subjective as how we individually perceive our own moment-to-moment experiences?

Additionally, whether or not the country was founded on the precept that all human life has value and equal, inalienable rights, reality has not at all played out in a way that resonates with the romantic nature of that sentence, and I must say I'm more than a bit dumbstruck by the fact that the sentences I quoted above happened to end up in each other's vicinity and in cahoots of a common cause, particularly in light of your having impliedly advocated the notion of preservation of well-being by denying rape victims the option of abortion.
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
Your statement about governmental responsibility is oversimplified to the point of nigh-on-meaninglessness. Do the two major political parties not wage political war time and again over what each group feels the government should and should not be responsible for in terms of creating and preserving any number of facets of the "well-being" of human life? Some feel the well-being of human life is promoted by protecting the right of humans to own and use weapons that are at least partially antithetical to the preservation of well-being of human life. A large number of Americans would instantly feel less well if guns were banned, and such a ban would have the opposite effect on others. What constitutes well-being? Is well-being objectively defineable and identifiable or is it as subjective as how we individually perceive our own moment-to-moment experiences?

Additionally, whether or not the country was founded on the precept that all human life has value and equal, inalienable rights, reality has not at all played out in a way that resonates with the romantic nature of that sentence, and I must say I'm more than a bit dumbstruck by the fact that the sentences I quoted above happened to end up in each other's vicinity and in cahoots of a common cause, particularly in light of your having impliedly advocated the notion of preservation of well-being by denying rape victims the option of abortion.
Considering how eloquent your statement is, it misses the mark. The alleged romantic nature of "well-being" notwithstanding, I believe our laws on abortion are a mensuration of the quality of our society. The more we need laws to protect such acts as abortion, the more it shows a decline in overall responsibility.

Do you know what the most prominent difference is between conservative and liberal ideals here in the US? Responsibility. Conservatives believe in more personal responsibility which leads to less governmental responsibility, and thus, less government involvement. Liberals, on the other hand, believe that government is responsible for society's well-being.

Your commentary on "the notion of preservation of well-being by denying rape victims the option of abortion" is misplaced. Brizz appears to be stating that first-trimester abortions being accepted, any rape victim, for example, should know within that first three months she is pregnant whether or not she wants to keep the baby. According to the NYT, rape and incest account for less than 1% of all abortions in the US. Wikipedia has it falling in the "other" category which makes up about 2% combined. Basing an argument on such an extremely small portion of our society is ridiculous.

A key difference between Republicans and Democrats is the issue of state vs federal rights and control. Republicans prefer to have less federal control over the states and that each state should have its own individual rights and control. Democrats believe in federal control trumping the states' individual rights.
 

Twisted Metal

Anfractuous Aluminum
Jul 28, 2001
7,122
3
38
39
Long Island, NY
It has nothing to do with "making a choice for a woman". FFS, they have a choice: keep it in your pants.

What about pregnancy caused by rape? I think a woman has every right to get an abortion after that. I'm not gonna expand upon my thoughts just to avoid another 20 page argument that goes nowhere.
 
Mar 19, 2002
8,616
1
0
Denver Co. USA
Visit site
A key difference between Republicans and Democrats is the issue of state vs federal rights and control. Republicans prefer to have less federal control over the states and that each state should have its own individual rights and control. Democrats believe in federal control trumping the states' individual rights.
I've been hearing that for years, but it's not true.

Both parties use the government on a federal level to achieve agendas throughout the country.

Whether it's for good or not is up to the voter to decide.
________
Mariposa
 
Last edited:

unbecoming

The Money U Could Be Saving W/out Barry
Jan 21, 2008
266
0
0
St.Louis,MO
nice......
I personally think if McCain wasnt running against Obama, peoples views wouldn't be so slanted against him.

Of course because Dems are taught class and race warfare.Slowly trying to push us into a civil war.This way you will need your government mommy more than ever-forever.


The best thing that would happen if Obama wins, is that the UK will have a tough time portraying us all as slack jawed racist southerners. That stereotype will fade.


Like that matters.Vote for him someone in the world will like us more.Some of the stuff I hear and read just reminds me of elementary school drama.We should do what's best for the U.S. and that's that.

My opinion of the Obama phenomenon is likened to the story of the Pied Piper. I would have to say that the majority of His followers are nothing more than sheeple. He speaks of ideals and policies most Americans collectively want to hear and they will blindly follow Him where ever it is He is going. They follow Him because He is not Bush. They follow Him because they have been told that He is The Messiah. He will bring peace to our world and will make the rich pay for their transgressions. It is almost comical the way that so many very wealthy and influential Americans have come to His aid; the more common folk are betting on McCain. Oh, what strange times we live in, my friends.

In my opinion, Obama is the antithesis of a hero. He has done nothing heroic, yet he has gathered more followers than any American hero ever has. On the other hand, we have McCain. He is a real and bonafide American hero. It does not make him a better choice for President, but he is a better choice than Obama. It isn't that I think Obama is a bad person; he just does not align himself with my ideals, whereas McCain's are closer to my own. I believe in less taxes for ALL Americans, not just the wealthiest or the poorest of us. While issues such as health care and education are important, I believe it is up to the individual states to work solutions to these issues, not the Federal Government. Obama wants to federalize more; McCain wants less federal intrusion.

Yay someone else who gets it.Why they are like this can really only be one of a few things.The attitude for Bush and the republicans has grown from dislike to blind hatred that they are going to the darkside regardless of facts or consequences.They could just be lazy and want free cookies.Many are also just easy manipulated.They actually believe everything he says,even when he changes his speeches and policies to suit the current situation.If the MSM was actually doing their job unbiased this poor excuse for a man would not have even made through the primaries.

"He speaks of ideals and policies most Americans collectively want to hear and they will blindly follow Him where ever it is He is going."

I'm sorry that a canidate is actually going for the people and not the big business.
We're not following blindly, his policies are actually good. I can't say the same for McCain.

You are clueless.Government is a business.The biggest that there is.Your messiah is wanting to double that.That means less control for you.You may very want people to take more responsibility for your life as it may easier than doing it yourself.You sure have a lot of trust in government which tells me all I need to know about your thought process.You have a big disappointment coming.It may not be in 2 days,but it will be within four years.

What a crock. How is giving more money to the poorest of Americans going to help the economy as a whole? Those who have the real money to invest will be even less inclined to re-invest back into our economy with Obama's tax hikes.

His policies sound good to many, but that does not mean they actually are good for America as a whole. I'm not saying that all of McCain's policies necessarily sound much better, but a few of Obama's alleged policies scare the hell outta me.


I easily agree.

The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." - Norman Thomas, for many years the U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of Socialism, until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism." - Nikita Kruschev, Premiere of the former Soviet Union, 3-1/2 months before his first visit to the United States.


Abraham Licoln said: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they COULD and SHOULD do for themselves.





What about pregnancy caused by rape? I think a woman has every right to get an abortion after that. I'm not gonna expand upon my thoughts just to avoid another 20 page argument that goes nowhere.

Rape and IF it's for certain that the woman's life is jeopardy.It's all murder anyway.Allowing abortions to expand more and just become everyday business like a fast food drive through is not right imho.There are so many methods of birth control,but those require responsibility and that's why abortion will always be around.Too many people will not even be responsible for themselves.
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
I've been hearing that for years, but it's not true.

Both parties use the government on a federal level to achieve agendas throughout the country.

Whether it's for good or not is up to the voter to decide.
You saying it isn't true does not make it false. The assertion that since the Federal Government maintains our national security and basic infrastructure does not mean that it all issues within the governmental process are federalized. It is MY belief that as a conservative Republican, most issues should be handled at the state and local levels. The problem as I see it is that since the early 20th century, America has become closer and closer to a federally controlled state. We need to put more of that control back into the states where it belongs. Obama wants to go in the opposite direction and I do not approve his message.
 

GG-Xtreme

You are a pirate!
Mar 12, 2008
332
0
0
Yep, no Obama supporter has ever done that!
I believe that is correct.

Actually, no, there wasn't. And the bill had wording that prevented it from overruling Roe. Did you actually read the bill instead of blindly believing what the Obama campaign says about it?
Yes, and once again it doesn't matter. There were two other bills he did not or could not have voted against that protected babies of failed abortions.

I don't really see how you've seen that from Obama. Being able to speak well does not qualify you for the presidency.
He doesn't become angry and erratic when cornered.

No, I didn't. Most of the Eastern world doesn't elect their leaders.
What does that have to do with what I said? Only 2 countries in the world support McCain, the rest support Obama or don't care.

The government's RESPONSIBILITY is the well-being of human life.
1221321548539.png


edit: as a side note, I don't think deregulating the economy is a correct course of action.
So you still support the conservative economic policy? Don't you admit that deregulation got us into this mess? Why should those big Wall Street crooks get more tax cuts?

A key difference between Republicans and Democrats is the issue of state vs federal rights and control. Republicans prefer to have less federal control over the states and that each state should have its own individual rights and control. Democrats believe in federal control trumping the states' individual rights.
Because segregation should be allowed in South Carolina.

Abraham Licoln said: "You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they COULD and SHOULD do for themselves.
Lincoln was a tax-and-spend liberal. Republicans weren't conservatives until much later.
 

KaiserWarrior

Flyin' High
Aug 5, 2008
800
0
0
Rape and IF it's for certain that the woman's life is jeopardy.It's all murder anyway.Allowing abortions to expand more and just become everyday business like a fast food drive through is not right imho.There are so many methods of birth control,but those require responsibility and that's why abortion will always be around.Too many people will not even be responsible for themselves.

Comparing the process of abortion to a drive through is so incredibly hyperbolic it's hardly worth addressing. Needless to say, slippery slope is not a valid rhetorical device.

Just as a little FYI here, birth control methods are not 100% effective. There is always a small freak chance that cannot be eliminated. Condoms break, pills don't quite tweak the chemistry enough, etc.

Abortion isn't a fun thing to do, nobody enjoys getting an abortion or actively supports doing as many as possible. Sometimes, however, there are situations where a pregnancy occurs and was not desired or is not healthy, and there needs to be an option to terminate it. Not all pregnancies are the result of conscious choice, and not all unwanted pregnancies are due to irresponsibility and negligence.

Also, abortions will never be gotten rid of. Sure, you can make them illegal, but then they'll just happen in back alleys with rusty coat hangers instead of in clean, sterilized, safe medical offices.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
What about pregnancy caused by rape? I think a woman has every right to get an abortion after that. I'm not gonna expand upon my thoughts just to avoid another 20 page argument that goes nowhere.
I think you need to both read my post again and then read Crotale's post above yours. You clearly missed the point of everything I said.

First of all, I think there are only very, very rare cases where Abortion is appropriate. However, I'm not interested in forcing what I believe on other people really.

Second, I am talking about a PRACTICAL MATTER. How many women do you know that have become pregnant and STILL DIDN'T KNOW after 3 months?

I am not arguing against abortion at all, I'm saying there is a reasonable line across which people should not be allowed to go. I believe that line is at the end of the first trimester. At the very least, we should all agree that if a baby can be born and survive, it deserves to live.
I believe that is correct.
Out of touch much?
Yes, and once again it doesn't matter. There were two other bills he did not or could not have voted against that protected babies of failed abortions.
What difference does that make? We are inspecting Obama's record here, not what actually happened with specific proposals.
He doesn't become angry and erratic when cornered.
What candidates do? At the very least, he becomes apathetic and non-responsive when he is asked something that's not in his script.
What does that have to do with what I said? Only 2 countries in the world support McCain, the rest support Obama or don't care.
Do you even remember what that is in response to?
Sir_Brizz said:
Oh, and one last thing. Everyone who says we should vote for Obama just because he will make us look better to the rest of the Western world, GTFO. If I told you you should vote in some complete asshat that I know nothing about because he would look better to America, what would you say?
And you replied:
You forgot the eastern world too.
In which case, redirecting my point made absolutely no sense whatsoever. And, honestly, do we want to "look better" to most of the eastern world?
So you still support the conservative economic policy? Don't you admit that deregulation got us into this mess? Why should those big Wall Street crooks get more tax cuts?
I didn't say whose viewpoint I supported. Deregulation didn't really get us into this mess anyway, it was the fact that the regulators didn't do their jobs.
 

GG-Xtreme

You are a pirate!
Mar 12, 2008
332
0
0
Out of touch much?
Show me one person that has called McCain a 'communist anti-American Muslim terrorist' in public.

What difference does that make? We are inspecting Obama's record here, not what actually happened with specific proposals.
You can not infer from that information the actual reason he voted against the bill, or what he would have voted on the other 2 bills.

What candidates do? At the very least, he becomes apathetic and non-responsive when he is asked something that's not in his script.
Did you see the McCain interview on Fox news? When a republican candidate can make his or herself look bad on Fox news, you know there's a problem.

Do you even remember what that is in response to?
Yes.

In which case, redirecting my point made absolutely no sense whatsoever. And, honestly, do we want to "look better" to most of the eastern world?
Why not? You sound like every Asian nation is out to get us.

I didn't say whose viewpoint I supported. Deregulation didn't really get us into this mess anyway, it was the fact that the regulators didn't do their jobs.
But McCain wants regulators to do less of a job.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
Show me one person that has called McCain a 'communist anti-American Muslim terrorist' in public.
I can find one of someone calling him an anti-American racist. Is that close enough? :p
You can not infer from that information the actual reason he voted against the bill, or what he would have voted on the other 2 bills.
Would you just stop already? you have obviously not done any research on this at all. Obama "explained" why he voted against it, and his reasons were completely inaccurate. If he was misinformed on the bill, that's a problem for me. If he really thought the bill said what he said that it said, that is also a problem for me.
Did you see the McCain interview on Fox news? When a republican candidate can make his or herself look bad on Fox news, you know there's a problem.
I'm not even going to follow this road. :)
Why not? You sound like every Asian nation is out to get us.
The Asian nations that "matter" have governmental ideologies that are in opposition to our own. That's all I was saying.
But McCain wants regulators to do less of a job.
As evidenced by.... what? What you think Republicans want? Or did you already forget that McCain isn't really very Conservative?
 

Peavey

Rattus Norvegicus
Jul 17, 2001
2,935
1
38
98.2% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Want to provide some sort of citation for that, or are you content making things up that make you feel better about yourself without having to challenge your ideas?

I don't see any numbers anywhere. If all statistics are made up anyway, what use is a source? Especially in the midst of the election, the biggest media-blitz clusterf*ck of all time.

I'm not using the term "Liberal" to mean "Democrat" anyway; I already said that. I'm using the literal definition of it. Don't flatter yourself, you're not a challenge at all. I was merely making an observation, so don't try to goad me into your petty bullsh*t. I transcend every aspect of your amusing little merry-go-round of political hotcarling, so you can't even touch me. Have fun throwing **** at each other. You all lose.
 

GG-Xtreme

You are a pirate!
Mar 12, 2008
332
0
0
I can find one of someone calling him an anti-American racist. Is that close enough? :p
No. A racist is not necessarily a terrorist.

Would you just stop already? you have obviously not done any research on this at all. Obama "explained" why he voted against it, and his reasons were completely inaccurate. If he was misinformed on the bill, that's a problem for me. If he really thought the bill said what he said that it said, that is also a problem for me.
So what about all the other people who voted against the bill for the same reasons?

I'm not even going to follow this road. :)
Of course not. The instant someone pulls out the clips on McCain, we should just shut our eyes.

The Asian nations that "matter" have governmental ideologies that are in opposition to our own. That's all I was saying.
But I don't see how it's better for any nation to dislike us.

As evidenced by.... what? What you think Republicans want? Or did you already forget that McCain isn't really very Conservative?
McCain is more moderate, but he has still shown support for deregulation.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mccain+deregulation&search_type=&aq=f
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
No. A racist is not necessarily a terrorist.
It's all insubstantiated name calling. That's kind of my point.
Of course not. The instant someone pulls out the clips on McCain, we should just shut our eyes.
It has nothing to do with McCain. It has to do with the fact that both candidates have essentially done the same thing countless times.
But I don't see how it's better for any nation to dislike us.
It's not, necessarily. But we aren't going to get every country to like us, if we do then we have a serious problem.
McCain is more moderate, but he has still shown support for deregulation.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mccain+deregulation&search_type=&aq=f
I find it interesting that most of those clips are less than a minute long, which is problematic.

McCain's record seems to show he is for less government regulation of day to day businesses and for more regulation of government funded and sponsored organizations like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. I don't see any problem with that, the crisis we are in right now has been due to under regulation of the latter and over regulation of the former.