BF2S Forums 2012 U.S. election presidential, Mitt Romney vs Barack Obama

I trust in people's personal judgement when it comes to an issue like abortion and believe any sort of legislation preventing it all together or in certain cases will cause a great deal of pain to many people, perhaps unintentionally so. Imagine a court having to rule whether or not someone has been raped within a reasonable time frame for abortion to be committed or someone being accused of rape just so the woman could have an abortion.

Besides this I believe it's a very personal issue people would like to deal with privately. Banning abortion entirely is inhumane (except maybe to the religious extremists in your nation who are, sadly, well represented); doing so selectively I'm sure will make for some shocking news stories. I don't see why trusting your fellow man with a choice like that would go 'too far' while at the same time you trust him/her with owning an entire arsenal of various weapons.

Good thing it's a domestic issue in the US and any legislation will not affect me in the slightest. The entire debate is absolutely ass-backwards & moronic and only really exists because of your religious right. Hurry up and secularize.

personal choices are fine until someone else has to pay for it, then it aint personal anymore now is it?

Frank Reynolds wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Frank Reynolds wrote:

yet they followed his choices....go world?

That's what happens when you lie to the UN.

And when you do descent, you're labelled as the "old Europe" and suddenly French fries are termed "freedom fries"

'murica!

so you blindly follow the UN like some sheep?  no intelligence of your own?  and dont forget afghan...no UN lies there.  so safe to say you are just blaming others for your own mistakes.  no wonder you guys love obama.  makes sense now.

Not believing Iraq has WMD =/= blindly following the UN. The intelligence the UN were presented by Powell was false.

But trust the GOP with the presidency, they'll throw another $2 trillion at the army, which the army doesn't want. Cause that makes sense.

AussieReaper wrote:

But trust the GOP with the presidency, they'll throw another $2 trillion at the army, which the army doesn't want. Cause that makes sense.

i dont trust the GOP...are you a nutter?  i do trust someone who was a business man more than someone who is just a public speaker.  its like voting for the shamwow guy versus the person who runs the company to run your business.

and you people really really really need to get over iraq and bush.  i mean you dont see me constantly blame 9/11 (most of the blame) and the 2008 financial crisis on clinton (because it is his fault), do you?  clinton could have killed or captured bin laden, he had a few chances but because he porked fat chicks he was afraid of wag the dog accusations.  this 30 minute thing is gay, sorry reaper.  and i do blame bush for the handling of it.

btw clinton gets about 40% of the blame for iraq imo.

and facts are not gymnastics.  the fact you seem to pass over them is deplorable.

Last edited by Frank Reynolds (2012-11-06 11:22:52)

So don't blame Bush for the economy because Obama had 4 years to fix it, but blame it on Clinton because Bush wasn't in a position to do anything.

Then blame 9/11 and Iraq on Clinton also, because hey why not?

No, I don't buy it. It wasn't Clinton pushing for the war in Iraq claiming WMD's.

To reply to the many:

Abortion in my honest opinion, should in fact, once again be illegal.  It should be illegal in the pre-Roe v. Wade sense, not entirely banished but not universally a free choice.  The abortion issue was, by in large, acceptable the way it was before Roe v. Wade by where states governed themselves on the issue.  Not only would this end the debate, but in a post Roe v. Wade world and with states able (in theory) able to dictate how strict or loose their abortion laws are, it would allow the abortion debate to pretty much end (with the exception of religious people wanting it banned 100%).  In a state like California where lots of people support pro-choice, people could have as liberal a law as the collective citizens would allow, whereas a place like Oklahoma may ban it outright as per the wishes of the citizens therein.

The saddest thing in my eyes about this entire issue is that people seem to have forgotten a time where states used to govern themselves for the most part.  Everything nowadays has to be federal.  It isn't enough the people in California want pot legalized, they want it legalized EVERYWHERE.  People who want abortion banned in Oklahoma want it banned EVERYWHERE.  Out of this method of thinking you get the present day makings of government groups like the EPA and private groups like PETA and the NRA.  People in Cali may see a need for everyone to drive a hybrid car, but the farmer in Kansas NEEDS his giant diesel truck for his daily life.  People in Florida may want all animals to be our friends like a Disney movie but in Arkansas people slaughter chickens and cows to live.  Guns may be a way of life in North Dakota but in California they aren't necessarily a good thing.

Hence why states rights are so important and why bigger government and regulation is bad.

For voting coverage, does it really matter?

Is there every any talk of changing how your president is elected?  No offense intended, but the current system seems a bit dated, and not very proportional.

Last edited by BVC (2012-11-06 13:54:26)

FatherTed wrote:

Ilocano wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM

saw this already. if they wanted it to actually count romney, they would have the machine show whatever you chose, and the actual count would go for romney. doing it so you literally can't select obama is too retarded to be on purpose.

Like Ohio's "experimental" update.

Is the order of choices randomised on a per-voter basis?  There is a known bias in polls favouring the first option.

I didn't realise people still wanted abortion to be illegal.

What did they do now?