The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Christianlady
I never said that there are no Democrat business owners. I personally only know Republican small business owners. My personal experience is valid in my decision making as to who I will vote for in the coming election.


Then you should have known then that your statement that Republicans understand business better because they operate the businesses was completely biased. You should have realized how limited your personal experiences are, and how what you said does not follow from your experiences.
I think Obama will win, but only just and only because the Republican candidate is so poor. If we had, say, another Regan or Nixon (before the Watergate obvs!) then Obama would be packing his bags now,
Original post by heyhey922
We already know he dodges taxes (not evasion)


Many rich people dodge taxes. I recently read Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. He briefly explained how and why, which infuriated me but made sense at the same time.

It is also important to note that many rich people are experts at influencing politicians. For example, both President Obama and Romney have many rich supporters. Why do they support and donate thousands of dollars to their favorite politician's respective cause? It is because it is a give and take scenario. The old "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." is prevalent in politics and can be seen in how lobbyists work as well.
I hope so.

I really am not comfortable with (arguably) the most powerful man in the world thinking that Jesus visited America and that Evolution "is a nice theory"
Original post by Christianlady
Many rich people dodge taxes. I recently read Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki. He briefly explained how and why, which infuriated me but made sense at the same time.

It is also important to note that many rich people are experts at influencing politicians. For example, both President Obama and Romney have many rich supporters. Why do they support and donate thousands of dollars to their favorite politician's respective cause? It is because it is a give and take scenario. The old "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine." is prevalent in politics and can be seen in how lobbyists work as well.


This I can agree is a major problem. Right now the US lobbying system is so greatly stacked in favor of the wealthy, and corporations. The average person seems to have little leverage and power in the making of laws.
Reply 85
I do hope so, best of a bad bunch but anything is better than a republican
Reply 86
Yeah probably. He has a good personality which many people in the US respect (whilst he is focusing on degrading the other candidate in his ads).
Original post by Christianlady
x


Since apparently you aren't going to respond to me anymore I will say a few final things.
1. Your reason for voting republican is that it is for 'small government'. Now the Republican party is all for dictating people's lives (what they can and cannot do) and want to increase military spending and 'share' how great America is with the world. Sounds like a really small government huh?
2. Your idea that Democrats must therefore be for small government is wrong. Neither party is for a small government, they just want the power to be used differently.
3. You don't seem to have anything against Obama, you have said it many times now. He hasn't done anything really bad. He has actually helped the country recover from a difficult time. You acknowledge that he inherited a lot of s*** and yet you want to elect someone who wants to undue all that he's done into office now? I understand you may have concerns about Obamacare, but that is one law, and is hardly a deal breaker, not to mention that it seems to do more good to people than bad. If you read the law it has many good things. As Romney has said, he wants to repeal Obamacare and put something essentially the same in its place, but without the mandate. So he wants to put another program in place without funding. That sounds smart.
4. You should not feel insulted by my use of the words ignorant and naive. Ignorant is to be lacking in knowledge. Which you demonstrated and I pointed out. Naive similarly means a lack of experience which you also demonstrated, and I pointed out. I apologize if you took them as offensive but they were properly used and not used to insult you but rather to make a point. If you wish to remain ignorant fine, but don't whine that people were insulting you when they weren't.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Since apparently you aren't going to respond to me anymore I will say a few final things.
1. Your reason for voting republican is that it is for 'small government'. Now the Republican party is all for dictating people's lives (what they can and cannot do) and want to increase military spending and 'share' how great America is with the world. Sounds like a really small government huh?
2. Your idea that Democrats must therefore be for small government is wrong. Neither party is for a small government, they just want the power to be used differently.
3. You don't seem to have anything against Obama, you have said it many times now. He hasn't done anything really bad. He has actually helped the country recover from a difficult time. You acknowledge that he inherited a lot of s*** and yet you want to elect someone who wants to undue all that he's done into office now? I understand you may have concerns about Obamacare, but that is one law, and is hardly a deal breaker, not to mention that it seems to do more good to people than bad. If you read the law it has many good things. As Romney has said, he wants to repeal Obamacare and put something essentially the same in its place, but without the mandate. So he wants to put another program in place without funding. That sounds smart.
4. You should not feel insulted by my use of the words ignorant and naive. Ignorant is to be lacking in knowledge. Which you demonstrated and I pointed out. Naive similarly means a lack of experience which you also demonstrated, and I pointed out. I apologize if you took them as offensive but they were properly used and not used to insult you but rather to make a point. If you wish to remain ignorant fine, but don't whine that people were insulting you when they weren't.


I am not sure why you insist on writing me. However, please do not tell me what I should or should not feel insulted about, ok? I will not tell you what you "should" or "should not" feel insulted about! If it does not offend you to be called "naive" or "ignorant", that is fine. However, I have never called you either one nor do I think calling people negative adjectives is productive to a good conversation. Do you understand this concept?

As for your apology, thanks. I forgive you. Frankly I don't have a choice, since Jesus says to forgive. However, since you now know what insults me, are you still going to continue to label me negatively, or will you stay on subject and merely address the issues at hand? Forgiving does not mean I have to respond to people whose remarks I feel are offensive. By the way, if I ever offend you in my writings, please let me know. I do try to be kind to everyone I write, even though obviously I disagree with many people on this forum.

P.S. And no I'm not PMSing, just in case that thought crossed your mind. I am merely "speaking" my mind about how I feel concerning your description of me.

Peace and God bless you
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Christianlady
I am not sure why you insist on writing me. However, please do not tell me what I should or should not feel insulted about, ok? I will not tell you what you "should" or "should not" feel insulted about! If it does not offend you to be called "naive" or "ignorant", that is fine. However, I have never called you either one nor do I think calling people negative adjectives is productive to a good conversation. Do you understand this concept?


I will merely point out that you only take offense because you perceive them as negative.

As for your apology, thanks. I forgive you. Frankly I don't have a choice, since Jesus says to forgive. However, since you now know what insults me, are you still going to continue to label me negatively, or will you stay on subject and merely address the issues at hand? Forgiving does not mean I have to respond to people whose remarks I feel are offensive. By the way, if I ever offend you in my writings, please let me know. I do try to be kind to everyone I write, even though obviously I disagree with many people on this forum.


If by that do you mean will I still call you out when you are saying things that are misinformed? Of course I will. I will try to refrain from using 'negative words' or what can be construed as an insult. But that doesn't mean you can say those things and think what you are saying is accurate. And to reiterate, I did not feel I was being 'unkind' as I was not trying to insult or use 'negative words' merely words that expressed what I saw you exude.
Original post by Christianlady

P.S. And no I'm not PMSing, just in case that thought crossed your mind. I am merely "speaking" my mind about how I feel concerning your description of me.


LOL I'm sorry but the fact that you need to say that is so sad, I can't help but laugh. That is the silliest explanation to think of for a woman for typing what she thinks. It never crossed my mind. I'm sorry that you felt you had to clarify that.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
LOL I'm sorry but the fact that you need to say that is so sad, I can't help but laugh. That is the silliest explanation to think of for a woman for typing what she thinks. It never crossed my mind. I'm sorry that you felt you had to clarify that.


Whenever I get emotional, my husband asks me about when my period is lol. Don't be sorry. It was a partly a joke (I'm gad it made you laugh) but please keep in mind I am a very emotional, literal lady. Now, if you say you will no longer label me any negative adjectives, I would be happy to address the issues you addressed. :smile:
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
I will merely point out that you only take offense because you perceive them as negative.


Do you see them as positive? If someone calls you "naive" or "ignorant", do you say, "Thanks! What a great point for our discussion!"?


If by that do you mean will I still call you out when you are saying things that are misinformed? Of course I will. I will try to refrain from using 'negative words' or what can be construed as an insult. But that doesn't mean you can say those things and think what you are saying is accurate. And to reiterate, I did not feel I was being 'unkind' as I was not trying to insult or use 'negative words' merely words that expressed what I saw you exude.


Thanks for explaining. However, what good does calling a person "naive" or "ignorant" do? Does it educate a person? If you truly think I am those things, instead of negatively labeling me, why not just simply "educate" me, hmm?
Original post by RandZul'Zorander

1. Your reason for voting republican is that it is for 'small government'. Now the Republican party is all for dictating people's lives (what they can and cannot do) and want to increase military spending and 'share' how great America is with the world. Sounds like a really small government huh?


Since you wrote, "I will try to refrain from using 'negative words' or what can be construed as an insult. But that doesn't mean you can say those things and think what you are saying is accurate.", I will take you at your word. However, please note that just because you write something doesn't mean what you write is accurate either.

As for the Republican party, I am curious if you have any members of your family or friends that are Republican? I do, and they do not want to dictate other people's lives nor do they want to invade other countries. They do however, not want the USA to become similar to a socialist or communist state that is responsible for providing for the American people.

2. Your idea that Democrats must therefore be for small government is wrong. Neither party is for a small government, they just want the power to be used differently.


Most Democrats I know very much support welfare systems and government aid/grants, which is my definition of a bigger government. For me, a smaller government = just taking care of making/enforcing laws (legislative/judicial/executive branches) as well as protecting American people, which includes internally (through police and firemen), and defense from foreign invasions (through the military and strengthening our defenses)

3. You don't seem to have anything against Obama, you have said it many times now. He hasn't done anything really bad. He has actually helped the country recover from a difficult time. You acknowledge that he inherited a lot of s*** and yet you want to elect someone who wants to undue all that he's done into office now? I understand you may have concerns about Obamacare, but that is one law, and is hardly a deal breaker, not to mention that it seems to do more good to people than bad. If you read the law it has many good things. As Romney has said, he wants to repeal Obamacare and put something essentially the same in its place, but without the mandate. So he wants to put another program in place without funding. That sounds smart.


As you can see, I don't insult Obama. I respect him even though I disagree with him in certain issues. Thank you for understanding my concerns about Obamacare. However, it is difficult to say that it "seems to do more good to people than bad" because it hasn't been put into effect yet. Time will tell whether it is indeed a good decision. I personally do think Romney may (and again, it's hard to tell) be able to help the USA more than Obama has or can in the future. Please feel free to inform/educate me why you disagree with this?


4. You should not feel insulted by my use of the words ignorant and naive. Ignorant is to be lacking in knowledge. Which you demonstrated and I pointed out. Naive similarly means a lack of experience which you also demonstrated, and I pointed out. I apologize if you took them as offensive but they were properly used and not used to insult you but rather to make a point. If you wish to remain ignorant fine, but don't whine that people were insulting you when they weren't.


I addressed the above already, which is why I'm replying to you. I have to go now, but thanks for the apology. I appreciate it and am happy to discuss with you with mutual courtesy and respect. :smile:

Peace and God bless you
Reply 94
After reading A Presidential Novel and some of the supposed things him and his team has done to get into office, I believe he will succeed.
Reply 95
Original post by Christianlady
I am curious why you hope not? Thanks.

Personally, I am more inclined to vote for Romney, though I really wish I could vote for Ron Paul!


You just said it, i hope they vote for Ron Paul, the only one who speaks sense.
Original post by Christianlady
Do you see them as positive? If someone calls you "naive" or "ignorant", do you say, "Thanks! What a great point for our discussion!"?


I have learned that when in a debate many times it is not used as an insult and therefore not really negative. I have learned that if someone calls me ignorant that they may have information that I don't and so ask why they think I am being ignorant, and work from there.

Thanks for explaining. However, what good does calling a person "naive" or "ignorant" do? Does it educate a person? If you truly think I am those things, instead of negatively labeling me, why not just simply "educate" me, hmm?


You will notice that I said you were ignorant and naive and explained why you were so.

Original post by Christianlady
Since you wrote, "I will try to refrain from using 'negative words' or what can be construed as an insult. But that doesn't mean you can say those things and think what you are saying is accurate.", I will take you at your word. However, please note that just because you write something doesn't mean what you write is accurate either.


I am well aware, and am willing to back up my claims.

As for the Republican party, I am curious if you have any members of your family or friends that are Republican? I do, and they do not want to dictate other people's lives nor do they want to invade other countries. They do however, not want the USA to become similar to a socialist or communist state that is responsible for providing for the American people.


I do know a bunch of Republicans. However I was referring to the party as a whole, and the values that they officially claim. Many in fact do want to invade other countries, and they may not see it as dictating others' lives but that's what they do. You with banning abortions, denying couple's marriage licenses, and other such policies actually dictate people's lives.


Most Democrats I know very much support welfare systems and government aid/grants, which is my definition of a bigger government. For me, a smaller government = just taking care of making/enforcing laws (legislative/judicial/executive branches) as well as protecting American people, which includes internally (through police and firemen), and defense from foreign invasions (through the military and strengthening our defenses)


Support of welfare and government aid, is just as big as controlling what the population can and can't do. As I said its where the power is directed. I would see helping the population as a more worthwhile use of power, as opposed to the wasteful military spending (of course some is needed but most of the budget right now I'm sure isn't), and then relying on the possibility of charity from some people.

As you can see, I don't insult Obama. I respect him even though I disagree with him in certain issues. Thank you for understanding my concerns about Obamacare. However, it is difficult to say that it "seems to do more good to people than bad" because it hasn't been put into effect yet. Time will tell whether it is indeed a good decision. I personally do think Romney may (and again, it's hard to tell) be able to help the USA more than Obama has or can in the future. Please feel free to inform/educate me why you disagree with this?


Looking at what it says it will do, it does seem to do more good than harm. You predict that many small businesses won't be able to handle it, yet many predictors say otherwise. Will there be some that can't? I'm sure there will be a few. However, what about all the people who can't afford to go to the doctor and get well? Is it more important to have some businesses or to allow your people to live?
Original post by ConnorB
I hope so.

I really am not comfortable with (arguably) the most powerful man in the world thinking that Jesus visited America and that Evolution "is a nice theory"


Which candidate are you talking about? I don't think we have a candidate running for president who believes in evolution.
Original post by RandZul'Zorander
Since apparently you aren't going to respond to me anymore I will say a few final things.
1. Your reason for voting republican is that it is for 'small government'. Now the Republican party is all for dictating people's lives (what they can and cannot do) and want to increase military spending and 'share' how great America is with the world. Sounds like a really small government huh?
2. Your idea that Democrats must therefore be for small government is wrong. Neither party is for a small government, they just want the power to be used differently.
3. You don't seem to have anything against Obama, you have said it many times now. He hasn't done anything really bad. He has actually helped the country recover from a difficult time. You acknowledge that he inherited a lot of s*** and yet you want to elect someone who wants to undue all that he's done into office now? I understand you may have concerns about Obamacare, but that is one law, and is hardly a deal breaker, not to mention that it seems to do more good to people than bad. If you read the law it has many good things. As Romney has said, he wants to repeal Obamacare and put something essentially the same in its place, but without the mandate. So he wants to put another program in place without funding. That sounds smart.
4. You should not feel insulted by my use of the words ignorant and naive. Ignorant is to be lacking in knowledge. Which you demonstrated and I pointed out. Naive similarly means a lack of experience which you also demonstrated, and I pointed out. I apologize if you took them as offensive but they were properly used and not used to insult you but rather to make a point. If you wish to remain ignorant fine, but don't whine that people were insulting you when they weren't.


I can respond to you if christianlady doesnt want to

1) Democrats are far worse at dictating people's lives than the republican party. Democrats want to tell you what kind of car you can drive, what kind of food you are allowed to eat, they don't want you to be able to choose the healthcare plan you want, won't let you choose the school you can send your children to, and even want to dictate the kind of lightbulbs you can buy and the type of toilet you are allowed to have. And the worst thing about democrats is that they violate your economic civil liberties by demanding a bigger share of your income. Without economic civil liberties and private property rights there really are no other civil liberties.
2) Under Obama we are seeing growth of government and the public sector (and the growth of taxes to fund all this crap) on a scale that's never before been seen in American history. So, yes, he is for much bigger government, and wee have the debt to show it
3) The united states and it's economy is WORSE OFF IN EVERY MEASURE since Obama has taken office. More debt, more unemployment, more poverty, whatever the cirteria you want to use, it doesn't matter. Americans were better off before he took office. He took a bad economy and made it WORSE
4) You seem to be the one lacking in knowledge. Your claim that the democrats are the live and let live party or that they grow the government less than the GOP is preposterous. Are you aware that Michael Bloomberg has banned large sodas in new York? :confused:
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Made in the USA
I can respond to you if christianlady doesnt want to

1) Democrats are far worse at dictating people's lives than the republican party. Democrats want to tell you what kind of car you can drive, what kind of food you are allowed to eat, they don't want you to be able to choose the healthcare plan you want, won't let you choose the school you can send your children to, and even want to dictate the kind of lightbulbs you can buy and the type of toilet you are allowed to have. And the worst thing about democrats is that they violate your economic civil liberties by demanding a bigger share of your income. Without economic civil liberties and private property rights there really are no other civil liberties.


I will say it again. Just because the republicans aren't for small government doesn't mean the democrats are. I have never made the claim that democrats are for small government.

Now as for democrats controlling people's lives....democrats don't dictate what care you can drive you still have plenty of choice, nowhere do democrats force anyone into one specific healthcare, I have never seen a democrat say that patents can't choose to send their kids to private school, or lightbulbs or toilets. Do they out standards on such things? Yes but can you honestly say that not having standards is a good thing?

To address your 'economic civil liberties'...what exactly are those? You don't have the right to limited taxes. You just simply don't. If you do then please tell me at why tax rate the government has to stop and where you get this information from. As far as private property goes you have the right to own the property but the government also has a right to tax that property as you are part of its society and are actually on its land.

2) Under Obama we are seeing growth of government and the public sector (and the growth of taxes to fund all this crap) on a scale that's never before been seen in American history. So, yes, he is for much bigger government, and wee have the debt to show it[/


Where did I say Obama was for smaller government? Also the government has had more power than it does now.

3) The united states and it's economy is WORSE OFF IN EVERY MEASURE since Obama has taken office. More debt, more unemployment, more poverty, whatever the cirteria you want to use, it doesn't matter. Americans were better off before he took office. He took a bad economy and made it WORSE


Lol this is simply false. Under Obama unemployment has gone down and taxes have gone down. The poverty issue is a big one and the debt was something that we going to happen no matter who took office and can hardly be blamed on Obama.

Explain to me how the economy would be better if we cut taxes more and then cut the programs which have kept the people still able to function? You wan to cut off help and then also not increase the government revenue. That is preposterous.

4) You seem to be the one lacking in knowledge. Your claim that the democrats are the live and let live party or that they grow the government less than the GOP is preposterous. Are you aware that Michael Bloomberg has banned large sodas in new York? :confused:


I think you need to look at the facts more. And also read what I said because I never said democrats want to grow government less.

However seeing the republicans obsession with military spending and the current trend of invading other countries I think that exemplifies big government as we can't even just stick to our own country but now must dictate other countries as well.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
(edited 11 years ago)

Latest

Trending

Trending