Does it matter which political party you cast a vote for?

You know, I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, had I lived in a swing state though I would have, and it wouldn't have been because he's black. In 2012 though, I am tempted to vote for Obama for the sole fact he's black.

lmao shut up because this statement is asinine. Tell me where this government health care is because I'd fucking love some of that since the main reason so many liberals stayed home in 2010 was disillusionment over the fact there was no public option in Obamacare despite polls consistently showing a majority of Americans wanted it. And this was in act Obama's fault. Sure, Republicans and a few Democrats in the Senate killed it, but released papers have shown Obama made a deal with insurance companies behind doors to keep a public option off the table if they wouldn't start a multi million dollar campaign against the law. Truly ~government health care~

Thank god libertarians only exist on the internet.

 

At least Libertarians believe in something.. We don't pick our vote based on skin color, so yeah, go fuck your mother!

 

Demicons/Republicrats

 

When we bring Clinton into it, I have to bring up one thing.
NAFTA

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199401--.htm

Obama's NAFTA:

https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

Improving "as much as they can"?
No as much as the Elites allow them to to keep the masses squabbling and believing they have a voice.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqUk28OwHs"]Alex Jones becomes a Super Saiyan - YouTube

 

Libertarianism is just a step away from Liberalism. I used to be a "Liberal," when I was in college. You know what happened? I matured and got educated on how the government actually works.

Sure, when it comes to Liberalism; I see the benefit in helping those in need. However, government subsides like liberals believe in (IE pay my college, give me health insurance, pay my rent etc.) Even though the gesture is a positive thing, it still costs us alot of our money of the bottom line. 18 trillion dollars in debt is no joke. Plus when the government steps in, the price of everything always skyrockets because they create a government monopoly. College tuition is a perfect example and now, because of liberals, we're paying for Mexicans to go to college too!!

The other thing is, most Liberals don't believe in the right to bear arms. I totally disagree with that premise. When you add prohibition to guns that means the criminals still obtain guns, but the people defending their home have nothing to protect themselves.

I also feel like Liberalism is typically associated with democrats (Esp Clinton and Obama,) and I think they're just as fake as Bush or any other Goldman Sachs sponsored politician, and yes btw, your hero Obama is bought and paid for by Goldman Sachs. Obama is nothing but an actor, for your Liberal enjoyment.

 

Odin,

Libya had 30,000 bombs dropped on her, with 60,000 Libyans all being--in your words--in the wrong place at the wrong time who will no longer be any where at any time. If that's not a war against Libya, what do you call it?

 

It's not really a fair comparison.
It also wasn't what you can define as a conventional or even unconventional war.
Also, I think less than 100 people were 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'.
To be fair, my earlier comment was far too flippant.

 

Whether conventional or unconventional, the fact remains that Libya was attacked as in war.

In September, the health minister in the new Libyan government said that at least 30,000 people had been killed and 50,000 wounded during the first six months of the war. However, some have estimated that the real figure could be much higher. Where did you get your 100 estimate?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-17429117

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFL5E8GD21O20120514

I rounded up rather than down.

 

Why would you believe the word of Western media over the Health Minister of the country reporting the deaths?

 

Nato was working with the New Libyan government.
It is likely they are the ones that killed so many people, in one way or another.
The health minister is talking about the 'war' they started.
Which, imho, is not the same as 'our intervention.
I don't think it is 'western media' - it is a group that has people on the ground.
Why would Amnesty downplay the civilian casualties due to Nato bombing?

 

The Health Minister was talking about the first six months of the war. Why would he lie about the number of people killed?

 

I did not say she was lying.
The No. includes everybody involved.
Not necessarily civilians.
That's the point.
A war they perpetuated.
The deaths toll mentioned is the deaths that can be attributed to the new Libyan government.
Ofcourse we had a role to play.
I'm not disputing that.
I would not be as flippant to say they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I should not have said it here, either.

 

But while Nato's UN mandate was to protect civilians, the alliance in practice turned that mission on its head. Throwing its weight behind one side in a civil war to oust Gaddafi's regime, it became the air force for the rebel militias on the ground. So while the death toll was perhaps between 1,000 and 2,000 when Nato intervened in March, by October it was estimated by the NTC to be 30,000 – including thousands of civilians.

That was from the BBC.

 

Why would you believe the word of western media?

Is a mandate to protect civilians a war?

You've also gone from saying 30,000 to thousands.

I know what you are trying to say, btw. I get it.

 

This particular media outlet confirms what the Health Minister has said concerning deaths.

A mandate to protect citizens from what?

I did not go from saying 30,000 to a few thousand. When did I do that?

 

Perhaps you just didn't make any distinctions earlier. You seem to have been saying 30,000 civilians had been killed by Nato. Which neither the health minister or Amnesty seem to be saying. I could be wrong, though.

It's a tad convenient that, isn't it?
It's probably not wise to dismiss 'western media' then use it yourself.
They are just repeating what was said not confirming it. Just like my articles.

Being killed.

 

No, I used a Western media news outlet to show you that what you use to support your point is also useful to disprove your point.

Rather than opt for convenience, I'd rather hear from the Health Minister of the country itself.