Obama or Romney?: Election 2012 Hub For Xbox Live Announced

I won't tell until they go head to head in Street Fighter...now that would be an entertaining debate.

Bet you obama would pick Dudley or blanka and Romney will pick Dhalsim or Dee-jay

Hmm so it's Obama or not obama... hey?

Romney, because change is good, right? >_>

Ye gods above and below, what twit got the idea of combining politics and video games? Keep that Shit off my game consoles, please!

It's funny, because most people who have a 360 are too young to vote.

HEYOOOOO!

Do you even want them to vote once they are of age? :P

I got enough politics from my parents, so when I move out it follows me! Politics and religion are such touchy subjects these days. You just say one name and some random person will start rage fitting at you.

Tell me about it. And really, there's a time and a place for everything. I have pretty strong ideas about politics, but I keep them compartmentalized away from other stuff where politics aren't relevant. Like, for example, video games.

Seems weird replying to just one person more than once in a single thread but, yes. You're absolutely right about this. If I want to watch the horse race I'll watch the bloody horse race. I've been a proud non-voter since 2004 and I intend to keep it that way.

These days? It's always been like that.

More so now that the "tech" generation is grown up and able to understand it.

Wait, no, whoever gets an economic victory in Civilization.

Theres a chance that Romney illegally raised funds overseas which would make him ineligible to run for President. Im waiting to see how that turns out.

Isn't that the business about why he's refusing to release his tax returns, even though all presidential candidates release them? Or is that a different issue?

Could be related, although that's the first time I've heard about the overseas funds issue (not saying Lupous is wrong).

The main issue with the tax returns that Dems have been attacking Romney on is whether he actually even paid the 13.9 percent rate in years prior to 2010 (where the rate comes from), with some claims (i.e. Harry Reid's) going so far as a zero percent rate for Romney. If this claim is true, then that makes Romney look very bad politically.

no doubt the tax return issue is a problem... but at least he has his own income and has been in charge of several very large companies... the only company that obama has run has had 4 losing years in a row...

Nah, mrboy, the US is doing pretty good. Over 4 million new jobs over the past four years, which has mostly filled the smoking hole Bush the younger left in the economy, and unemployment claims under 370,000 for five of the past six weeks, which means new jobs are being created pretty quickly. And, of course, bin Laden dead and Al Queda on the run. We're doing extremely well right now, all things considered.

you're forgetting the 16 trillion dollar deficit, of which obama "inherited" about half of that. Along with the first credit rating reduction for the US in about the last 40 years. as for job creation, creating that many jobs doesn't do anything when an even larger amount are lost. and when people actually run out of 99 months of unemployment benefits and are no longer collecting, that doesn't really count as a reduction in unemployment. (for me that doesn't really matter, the government is not responsible for making sure people have jobs, they're only responsible for not getting in the way of job creation) as for al queda and osama, if the previous administration is responsible for the everything that is currently bad, then it should also be responsible that is currently good.

mrboy: You can't "forget" something that isn't true. The President inherit far more than just half of that deficit (which is actually about 1.5 trillion; you are confusing "deficit" and "debt", which are very different things). Furthermore, the President has reduced the deficit during his time in office, and has put in place lots of future deficit reduction. Obamacare alone reduces the deficit by several hundred billion over the next ten years.

Also, Bush the younger made Al Queda *stronger* during his administration by treating them as an existential threat to America when they were never anywhere near that big. That gave them a lot more credibility than they deserved, which helped their plots and recruiting. It is President Obama who has been cutting them down and sending them on the run. And I know that if the mission to kill bin Laden had been a disaster, you would have been blaming the President for that. But it succeeded, so you're hypocritically trying to deny him the credit.

I'll admit, I'm very interested in this issue, but I tried to be impartial in my wording in my reply above.

Its a different issue, you cannot receive funds from non US sources.

Ah, OK. I've been doing my best to follow all this, and I like to think I have a fairly good handle on the economics, but some things cross over several issues and that tends to make them confusing.

What the hell does "vote" mean?

Im with George Carlin on this one...This election was bought and paid for 20 years ago, your vote doesnt count anyway, and if i dont vote - than i have every right to complain :)

Agreed. Also seems odd someone would spend 10s of millions of dollars for a job that only pays 450k a year.

$450k is a lot of money to your Average Joe no matter how you spin it, but it really doesn't seem like much for what you actually do. Financially, yeah you'll do pretty well as president, but it won't make you super rich. The way they make their *real* money is through book deals and post-term speeches and appearances and the like. He basically becomes the political equivalent of a reality TV star.

I've been a huge Carlin fan for going on 20 years now, but he was utterly full of Shit on that one. "Yeah, rich Fucks spend lots of money on buying politicians. So don't bother organizing or voting, don't even try."

That wealthy CEO might have more money than you would see in 100 lifetimes, but he still has only one vote. One vote will always be overwhelmed by 1 million votes, and thanks to the internet, organizing people has never been easier.

"At least when I'm done masturbating on election day I'll have a little something to show for it"

I'm from canada! No presidents for me! No queen either(hate that *****)!

Ron Paul

...is a crank who believes in new world order conspiracy theories.

uhhhh thats cause its real, just look at the patriot act, or the National Defense Authorization Act, or the Tri-Lateral Commission, or the Bildergerg Group. It would be nice to have a candidate that acknowledges the fact that theses are all real and all extremely dangerous to the American public.

["uhhhh thats cause its real"]

No, it isn't, and anyone who believes otherwise is a crank. Example: Ron Paul.

Last President who had issues with the Federal Reserve, JFK got headshotted. Not completely supporting Ron Paul but I appreciate him making the Fed, a private bank which prints our money an issue.

Problem there is, Ron Paul knows absolutely nothing about economics (nor the Constitution, but that's a different subject). The Federal Reserve has a very important stabilizing effect on the economy, primarily by preventing serious currency-value swings that would cause frequent economic crashes. The Fed isn't anywhere near perfect and could use some reform, but Ron Paul wants to simply get rid of it all together, which would allow those frequent economic crashes. That would be idiotic. Unless Paul or someone else can suggest a new agency that performs the same function as the Fed, we need to keep it.

I'm going to go out on a limb, even as someone who despises Paul and his creepy personality cult, and say he knows more about economics and the constitution than you do. Your enthusiasm for federal gun control versus his professed ire at the murder of Anwar Al-Awlaki proves it.

"frequent economic crashes"

Like the one that you're trying to pin on Obama's equally lousy predecessor. The one the government created. The one we're still up to our collective asses in.

"Unless Paul or someone else can suggest a new agency that performs the same function as the Fed, we need to keep it. "

Free banking. Free banking is one possible solution. A metallic standard might work, but it would, if anything, put more power in government hands. I'm against that, so I don't support a government-operated metallic standard. Has it ever occurred to you that dirigisme is the problem and not the solution?

oblivion437: You really shouldn't go out on a limb if you're just going to saw it off behind you. Safe gun registration and the like is entirely Constitutional, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring about 200 years of jurisprudence, not to mention the "well-regulated militia" clause of the second amendment. As for your dumb assumption on my opinion of Al-Awlaki, shall I merely roll my eyes at you, or shall I out right laugh in your face?

And 2007 isn't ancient history, so you should be able to remember that the crash was caused by a housing bubble that was badly exacerbated by Bush the younger's "ownership society" legislation. So I'm not "trying" to pin anything on him; it is his responsibility. He killed regulations and let the big banks run wild giving bad loans to anyone without consequences. We had the *opposite* of dirigisme, showing that it actually isn't the problem. You obviously have not been paying attention to what's been going on (a trait you share with Ron Paul).

"Safe gun registration and the like is entirely Constitutional, and anyone who claims otherwise is ignoring about 200 years of jurisprudence, not to mention the "well-regulated militia" clause of the second amendment."

The term 'well-regulated' did not mean 'subject to strenuous federal laws' but well-equipped and ready to fight. The Swiss militia is in this sense very well regulated. Early colonial America was also well regulated. Also, 'a well-regulated militia' is not a clause. It is a statement of intent. They wanted a well-equipped militia on hand to defend the country. Towards that end, private arms ownership was not to be infringed. Even the decision alleged to uphold the National Firearms Act of 1934, US v. Miller, affirms this interpretation. But no one's rights are predicated on laws anyhow. They're prior to laws.

"As for your dumb assumption on my opinion of Al-Awlaki, shall I merely roll my eyes at you, or shall I out right laugh in your face?"

I said nothing of your opinion. Try paying attention next time.

" We had the *opposite* of dirigisme, showing that it actually isn't the problem."

I'm not sure where to begin. Incompetent dirigisme is still dirigisme. In fact, most dirigisme policies are decided by people dangerously underqualified to form private opinions on the matters involved, let alone decide affairs for others. Also, if the banks were making loans that were not paying off, why did they not lose money? Were they allowed to privatize their profits while socializing their losses? Did the government intervene and not allow the inevitable correction? One last question - which branch of government is responsible for legislation?

Once again, I despise Paul and his followers. They're less skin-gratingly wrong than you are. That's not much an accomplishment.

ron paul 2012!

Here's how to end all this! We need a whole new government. The people who wrote the constitution were trying to defend us from the government we currently have. I say we need a French Revolution!