UMD Libertarians

That’s right…list LOGICAL reasons. Not emotional reasons.

I have yet to meet ONE fucking person who can give me a logical reason to vote for Obama or McCain. So please, enlighten me with your logic.

A vote for Obama = emotional
A vote for McCain = emotional
my logical reason for underscoreunderscoreunderscoreunderscoreunderscore underscoreunderscoreunderscoreunderscoreunderscore is that there just aren’t enough underscore’s in the world
Obama is educated and knowledgeable about law and the constitution, so he can work on "issues at home" such as the economy, the budget, health care, etc.

Biden has a wealth of international policy experience so while Obama is doing the "national" work, Biden can help him on international work.

Additionally, Obama has the ability to unite this country again because it’s been proven that he’s willing to listen to opposing points of view and learn. And at the current moment we are a fractured nation, due in large part to the Republican party (Bush, Rove, Cheney). We need some healing and I believe that, out of the two front-running candidates, Obama has a better chance at achieving that healing.

Also, Obama is a more attuned to environmental issues. And as an environmental engineer, I appreciate his viewpoints on this issue.

Also, from a gay rights perspective (being a gay man), I believe that while he is not the best on gay rights, he is the better choice for me.

It should be noted that I never said that McCain couldn’t do these things or meet my expectations on these issues. I just believe that Obama has a better chance of doing these things, based upon the speeches that I’ve seen, the interviews that I’ve seen, and the data that I’ve seen on both platforms.

This is as logical as I can get

Barack Obama and John McCain are Black and White.
Therefore Barack Obama and John McCain are Penguins!!!
I like Obama’s health care plan and I think it will help me be able to afford health care when I next switch jobs… Instead of being stuck with really expensive Cobra… or losing coverage and having any pre-existing conditions not covered for a full year if it takes more than 30 days to restart my insurance at the next company (which usually requires a 90 day waiting period.)

His tax plan will also be more beneficial to me and will cause less national debt…. Although I’d forgo all his tax cuts if it would balance the budget.
I can’t give you any.
Our current political system is made up of two parties consisting of career politicians who have made it their #1 goal to prevent themselves from losing their power and positions.

As demonstrated over the last 16 years, both parties are pretty much one in the same with both demonstrating, when they are in power, to support war, support domestic spying, support the regulation of free speech, spend taxpayers money while at the same time lining their own pockets and protecting friends, shoving the US’s nose into everyone else’s business.

Also demonstrated over the last 16 years, both sides will cover their asses as well as the other side’s asses to prevent any REAL scandal or investigation to happen because by indicting one, they would indict themselves and vice versa. (although we’ve all heard a shitload of speeches and promises about investigations, nothing really happens does it?)

We now have McCain who is old school washington DC with a supposed "fresh face" VP.
You have Biden who is old school with a supposed "fresh face" P.
Both though have a group of handlers who are embedded for life in DC politics. They also have a congress full of lifetime politicians that will also dictate how things go.
For us older folk who remember previous elections, we’ve heard all the "hope and change" rhetoric from these 2 current candidates before, so it’s not new, it’s not change.

It really doesn’t matter which one wins, obama or mccain. Either of them is just the face on an established oligarchy that has continued to roll on for at least the last 4 decades.
Logically, out of the two major candidates running, Obama is the least likely to continue Bush’s policies.

Or do you need more than that?

Which policies, specifically?
I see only emotion so far. No logic. gg. thx for playing folks.
Obama has the better plan and ability to make the investment into our nation that it needs in the years to come.

Logic is also something that the writer of that cartoon sucks at. That isn’t a valid form of a deductive argument.

Yet he wants to ban handguns/supports gun restrictions.

Apparently he skipped the day they talked about the 2nd amendment.

Isn’t it frightening to know that he was a Constitutional law lecturer for ten years?

I mean, not only is it frightening that a school kept him employed as one for that long, but it’s also frightening that he is actually well versed on the Constitution and outright disobeys it as if it’s just "a damn piece of paper." (ohsnap)

Its just party line BS… we all know that. They both do it. Do you think that George Bush actually thinks crack addict abortions are murder and should be stopped? I mean, I get your point completely and agree that its a shame, but I’m sure you understand that he’s just anti-gun because that is the party’s platform. I also think that some of these anti-gun people justify it by acting like "assault weapons" aren’t covered any more than say a nuclear bomb is covered by the 2nd amendment… not that I agree, but I think that’s their way around it… they’re not ignoring the constitution by banning so called assault weapons, but simply drawing the line somewhere different than you would.
Back to the question at hand, I’m not sure I understand exactly what you mean by a logical reason.

It almost has to be emotional at some point because neither had any experience as president.

I like this, I think I will quote it for posterity.

Now I believe your right to speak negatively against the political system is not free speech and should be made illegal.
It’s simply drawing the line somewhere different than you would so that should be ok right?

That was the point of this thread.

Some Obama supporter started another thread claiming that the only logical solution is to vote for Obama. I found that to be stupidly cute, but naive.

I think this is a valid point.
Some amendments are clear cut. Some aren’t.

The 2nd Amendment protects the rights of citizens to bear arms. It doesn’t protect your right to nuclear weapons. It doesn’t say "all arms without condition". That’s why it’s an Amendment and something the government can change.

It’s a personal line that people draw in the sand and say okay, this is/isn’t reasonable.
Mine starts where I consider weapons to be offensive in nature rather than defensive. You should be able to defend yourself….not shoot 80 people in 2 seconds.

I’m not stating that as my position, simply the position of some of the anti-gun folks. You could play this game all day long though. There are limits to free speech as we know. The classic example is shouting fire in a crowded theater. That is a public threat. Where do you draw the line on any of these protected freedoms?

mccain wants to tax health benefits and cut taxes for big business, while obama will raise taxes for them and close loopholes that allow them to get away with not paying their taxes in full - while keeping my taxes exactly the same

oh and mccain is 72 yrs old, has survived cancer 4 times, and has an idiot running as his vp

Iraq War
Giant douche or turd sandwich

Ron Paul FTW
We only have two choices right, so I hate to say it but vote for the lesser evil Obama, over McSame. McCain would be a war president. He wants to fight against Iran, Pakistan, Russia, and Im sure the list goes on. Bush at least ran on a humble foreign policy, McCain is out of the closet with this crap. And finally, Palin… Palin… Palin…. If thats his VP, think of the rest of the clowns that will be under his administration.

McCain did not favor Bush’s policies regarding the Iraq War. Also, let’s take a moment to point out that the Democrats voted in favor of the war, and Obama votes in favor of the Democratic platform 90+% of the time.

orly? what would he have done differently?

He wants to stay there, which is enough to lose my vote.

Obama didn’t vote for the war. No matter how you try to spin it, that fact will not change.

To the Threadstarter:

No decision on this planet should be made without a balance of "logic" AND emotion. They’re both apart of the decision making process. To ignore one and use the other is unreasonable and ignoring the human condition.

to Dumpy, dooby, Bush and McCain both agreed the Iraq War was necessary, which it wasn’t. That’s enough of a similarity for me, dontcha think?

I’m voting for Obama for mainly 2 reasons. First, Iraq. Second, because as an 18 year registered Republican who walked in the rain to vote for George W. Bush, I feel utterly betrayed by the entire Republican Party for the disasterous problems ahead of us. A vote for Mccain is a thumbs up to 8 failed years by our President, and 6 failed years to a Republican run congress.

Promoting bible school != trillion dollar war

Not that I think it’s a good policy, and I disagree with it, but it doesn’t exactly tip the scales in favor of McCain either.

Obama supports revising the current tax codes- lowering most peoples income taxes, but generally raising taxes across the board- we are $10trillion in debt, and need to get out somehow.

Obama supports alternative energy- solar, wind, geo, and to a lesser extent nuclear- not against nuclear, just wants to be certain it is safe.

Obama wants to bring a quick and proper end to the war in Iraq, and to re focus on the actual problem which is Afghanistan.

Obama doesn’t fear monger like the current administration, and realizes Iran is not the threat that Bush makes it out to be.

Obama wants to be much more diplomatic and try things other than war- McCain is either you’re with us or against us.

Obama wants to end incentives for companies that move american jobs to other countries, and create incentives for them to stay.

I could go on, but i’m sure the only response i’ll get will be retarded, lacking anytype of facts, and loosely based on my post at best.

And McCain votes with Bush 91% of the time.

Of course Democrats voted for the war- Bush and his administration had quantifiable proof that Iraq was a direct threat to our security, was manufacturing WMD, harboring terrorist groups, and planning an attack on US citizens.

Bush was still somewhat new, so the Democrats didn’t assume everything he said was a giant lie- which is the case, obviously.
I will be voting third party since both candidates support the bailout.

Can you please explain to me how Afghanistan affects us? Why do we have to concentrate on fucking Afghanistan?
because McCain has had better ideas about Iraq and Afghanistan.

America needs change
Obama offers change
Ergo, America needs Obama

That is logic. You can’t argue with the pure logical value of my Aristotlian syllogism. GG I win, you lose.

Incorrect. First premise begs the question, "Does America need change?"

You fail at logic. GG. I win. You lose. Thanks for trying.
TAXES
Obama’s tax plan:
Give tax cuts to the poor (under $250,000), increase taxes on the rich.

Pro’s: $700 billion surplus over 10 years. More money in the employees pocket, assuming employer doesn’t cut pay or benefits.

Con’s: Companies may lay off employees because they cannot afford higher taxes or cut pay of existing employees. Possibly less jobs to go around.

Mccain’s tax plan:
Give tax cuts to the rich, keep taxing the poor.

Pro’s: Employers get more money enabling them to expand their business and hire more employees or give raises.

Con’s: $600 billion deficit over 10 years. Employers may pocket cash and buy a 3rd house instead of expanding business and creating more jobs.

Obama
Get out of Iraq as fast as possible and quit spending $10 billion/month. Fight the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Increase funding in national security by securing our ports.
McCain
Increase funding in Iraq, add more soldiers and continue to try and "liberate" the people and spread democracy. Also fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I’m still not really sure who to vote for based on the issues. I’d say were fucked either way. I’ll wait for more debates before I decide, but for now I’d say Obama is the lesser of the two evils and doesn’t come across as stupid like McCain and Palin.

Post #15 and you’re already trying to close it down before anyone answers your challenge.

What a fucking wanker. Just go away for a few weeks. Rest up for all of the "where is your hope and change now" threads you plan to make when Obama is president.

" One on one bitches, first basket wins!"

-shoots before anyone else gets on the court-

"I win! I win! Gooooooin home now."

No, I don’t understand. You make it sound like he’s a puppet for his party, which makes him worse off in my opinion. To me this means he does not have the balls to stand up for something he believes in if its going to hurt his "relations" with his party. Sounds like old school Washington bullshit more than "change."
On healthcare, McCain is the way to go (although I hate both candidates).

McCain wants to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, opposes the idea and seems to believe it would create an unsafe, unregulated health-insurance market. Mr. McCain backs legislation sponsored by Arizona Rep. John Shadegg. Known as the Health Care Choice Act, it would allow individuals living in one state to purchase health insurance being sold to people living in other states. The policy would still have to meet the regulations of the state in which it is being sold, and would be subject to additional federal oversight.

In other words, the McCain-Shadegg reform would allow a person living in New Jersey or New York to buy health insurance that is being sold in and regulated by Pennsylvania or Connecticut.

Mr. McCain recognizes that millions of Americans, many of them uninsured, live in states that impose numerous mandates — there are about 1,900 mandates nationwide — and restrictions that make health insurance unaffordable. Mr. McCain’s proposal would simply let individuals faced with high prices and few options in their own state buy a regulated policy in another state.

That’s how other industries work. People buy just about everything across state lines, with very few problems.

Mr. Obama ignited the latest feud by telling an audience, "So let me get this straight — he wants to run health care like they’ve been running Wall Street," according to the Washington Post, implying that Mr. McCain would relax insurance regulations.

Mr. Obama opposes interstate sales for two reasons. First, he doesn’t believe a market can work in health insurance. He believes it is necessary for the government to look over everybody’s shoulder to make sure patients are getting the care and coverage the government thinks is appropriate at a price the government considers affordable.
Second, Mr. Obama likes benefit-rich policies that cover virtually everything, but are also very expensive. He wants people to have the types of health-insurance plans that the uninsured can’t afford. He will "solve" the affordability issue by imposing price controls and regulations on insurers and drug companies, and force taxpayers to subsidize the rest of the cost.
I am voting for Ralph Nader because I believe that the United States badly needs reform and I think Nader could institute quite a few reforms before his assassination were he elected President.

There is no logical reason to vote for any of these guys. If the proper choice could be axiomatically deduced, then people would be objectively incorrect — false — for voting otherwise. Do you support the idea that there is an objectively — absolutely — correct choice in this election?

Post lacks deduction. Keep trying.

Horse shit. No decision ought to be made based on emotion. Man should, to the best of his ability, exercise his rational faculties before making any sort of decision or formulating any sort of cognitive thought.

Embracing emotion is unreasonable. Embracing logic is to exercise the virtues of man’s ability to reason. The "human condition" is man’s ability to reason. That’s what separates him from the animals. The virtuous form of this ability to reason is rationality itself, and the viscous form is a lack of rationality, e.g., emotional.
I think he is the best candidate on the ticket, thus I will vote for him to be president.

Try to pick apart that logic, dumpy.

Who is "he"?

Doh! Foiled again.

I think Obama is the best candidate on the ticket, thus I will vote for him to be president.

I thought you meant Hillary Clinton.

He isn’t going to be on the ballot here in Nebraska.

It’s voting, dummy. It isn’t logical.

Again, that’s the entire fucking point of the thread you dumb sack of shit.

Imeanttodothat.jpg

This also isn’t the first time you’ve been told this.
Glad you made a new thread about it though. Is mom away on a trip with her biker club, leaving nobody there to pay attention to you?
THERE IS NO LOGICAL REASON TO VOTE. LOL GOTCHA DUMPY DOOBY, I MEAN *DUMMY* DOOBY LOLOLOLLL shut the fuck up

You realize there is not such thing as a first premise?
At some point you always start with an assumption. Everything from there on is based on logic and can be shown to be true and ergo accepted as fact after it has occurred. However, there is an infinite line of questions that can be begged of all starting points.

Incorrect.

ok, well give me an argument that doesn’t start with an assumption of which no question can be asked of the first statement.
All men are mortal. (major premise)
Socrates is a man. (minor premise)
Socrates is mortal. (conclusion)

You start with an assumption.
There is plenty of evidence to support this, but you cannot PROVE that all men are mortal except for the fact that every man has been mortal. It’s a good assumption and one that has suggested itself to be true. However, there exists no proof that it is 100% certain that every man is mortal or will be mortal. There’s also a huge number of assumptions about the meaning of men, mortal, and socrates being a man.

It begs the questions, Are all men mortal? The answer to which is based on a completely different long argument which is also based on other assumptions.

Man is definitively mortal. If one is not mortal, then one is not man.
my logical reason for voting for noone is the utter impossibility of my vote making a difference in the outcome

what? he’s the one that will tax business that provide healthcare, causing them to possibly stop providing it. you’re completely backwards…

not necessarily.
That is your definition of a description of man. It’s a condition you have to assume to be true and set as a prerequisite to being man. You presuppose the condition into your definition. And leads to the question, what is man?

lol, and don’t you dare say
Man is mortal.
Because then a duck is man.

You are such a fucking wanker.

Well thank you for that update, Anderson Cooper.

I thought that was the point.

No. All men are mortal. That doesn’t mean all mortals are men. Just like all men are mammals but that doesn’t mean all mammals are men.

Besides, all men are mortal. That is a truth above and beyond the definition of man.

I dunno if I’d go that route. If you define man as being mortal by definition… Then you are using circular reasoning in your argument. You might as well say Socrates is a mortal. Therefore Socrates is a mortal.

Right I was pointing out the circular reasoning which you alluded to later on.

Care to prove that all men are mortal?
a) what is man?
b) what is mortal?

I was just showing dumpy that there is no argument which isn’t based off some sort of assumption. There’s an infinite line of questions that can be asked of all arguments. You first must presuppose a truth in order to have logic. You have to say X is true. That is the first assumption you made, otherwise you would have to prove that x is true, and that is an entirely different argument. Which would need to be supported by an argument, which would need to be supported by an argument.

I’m not saying all men aren’t mortal, simply that you cannot prove they are logically without making the assumption part of the definition.

Are you going to start in with some Karnejjian bullshit about how I "contrived" some "fringe" definition of man because I said that man is mortal? Fuck off.

Since beginning Iraq, Afghanistan has turned to shit, terrorist numbers are growing, and they are making very bold attacks against US troops.

Remember, its this group that was responsible for all the terror attacks around the world- none of them came from Iraq.

As expected- your question is answered, you just dismiss it.

If you wonder why everyone calls you an idiot, this is why.

LOL, Karnejjian, I like

Nah I’m just saying that in logic you always have to presuppose something. Nothing starts with a proven fact.
The first statement is x is true. That has to be presupposed to be true. We may accept it as "fact" based on experience and evidence, but it’s an assumption. A very good assumption. Otherwise you need a line of logic showing how x is true. Then a line of logic showing how that’s true. and so on and so on.
LOL IN MATH U HAVE 2 ASSUME THAT THE AXIOMS ARE TRUE. SO IF THE PROBLEM IS 2 PLUS 2, THEN U HAV 2 ASSUME THAT THE 2 IS REALLY 2 LOLLOLOOOLLL CIRUALRLAR REASONING give me a fucking break.

Axiom - 3.Logic, Mathematics. a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

What did I just say, you have to assume it to be true from the start. Nothing circular about that. There is no first premise, there is a first assumption or axiom that you presuppose to be true. Then you use logic to see what happens. It’s generally accepted that an axiom is true, though it has no basis in proof.

WOW! BEST GOD DAMN RESPONSE IVE READ!

Take the fucking red pill and piss off, Neo.
LOL NOTHIGN IS REAL!! PROEV 2 ME THAT UR’E REEL! HAHALOL Jesus Christ. It’s like I’m in a high school epistemology class.

nice.

Obama is our best chance to get the fuck out of Iraq.

And that chance is < 1%

No, he isn’t.
Therealciviczc cannot vote for cuntrag dipshits.
Palin is a cuntrag dipshit.
——————————–
Therealciviczc cannot vote for Palin.

EDIT: Shit, that still isn’t a reason for voting for anyone though.

So McCain is then?

Related posts:

1. Ron Paul Plans ‘Special Announcement’ Rep. Ron Paul, the former Republican presidential candidate who excited a multitude of young voters during the primaries, announced...
2. Obama’s Economic plan = income redistribution Obama's 'emergency' economic plan By: August 1, 2008 10:53 AM EST Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Friday announced an...
3. Good mid-length article on the actual behaviors and biases of the media Why Obama Could be in Trouble By Robert Parry, Consortium News Posted on August 7, 2008, Printed on August 7,...
4. Political Cartoons; post them. @ I could really use some fucking marijuana right now! God damn it Dude, that's the very first strip...
5. russia crisis well, this will be a very interesting turn of events. The United States has been an advocate of Georgian independence,...