466 replies to this topic

[Thejusttired]

Just let him troll... you won´t get him....

[process]

Quinn Allard, on 15 August 2012 - 12:26 PM, said:

Im with ya, I didnt like Obama back in 2007, but I was called a Racist for thinking that a community organizer couldnt lead a country in the middle of a war. Now people are waking up, they are still loopy, havnt woken up completly. Everyone should watch Zeitgeist.

I suppose if you ignore everything Obama did after 1990, you could distill him down to a 'community organizer'

Constati, on 15 August 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

First that is funny, and I will say I am not going to convince of my point and your not going to convince of yours. We are on the opposite ends of the political spectrum.

Obamacare is a socialist scheme and from what your telling me you want socialized medicine, if you want a single payer system. I think that it comes down to choice you want to force everyone to "chip in". I would rather have people choose what insurance to buy or not to buy it, and leave the consequence of their decisions to them. So I believe that more competition is the key to better and more affordable insurance. And that does involve profit, but if someone is providing a good service they should be rewarded for their services and that means that they will make more money. And for the last 200 years that is how American has worked.

That's all well and good, until it's time to actually have to pay for it. Those who choose to remain uninsured will have to pay out of pocket, which is extremely unlikely for the vast majority of Americans facing those big ticket medical procedures that many of us will likely encounter at some point in our lives, and the cost of which will ultimately fall to the rest of us via emergency room treatment. The alternative is that those who elect to remain uninsured are simply denied treatment, and I find that inhumane and inexcusable for a first world country.

Constati, on 15 August 2012 - 12:33 PM, said:

And I don't agree with what Romney did in Massachusetts. The last thing I want is a government bureaucrat in charge of my health care. Its been tried all over the world, England, Canada, France, Cuba, I don't see Americans flocking to Canada for health care or anywhere else. So why would we want it here? I would rather be able to choose.

Personally speaking, it's going to take a lot more than healthcare for me to consider leaving the country of my birth. And those other countries are doing better than we are in terms of expenses: http://en.wikipedia....PPP)_per_capita

Quote

So thats a start, show where he hasn't leaned socialist in his policies.

It's impossible to prove a negative. Just saying.

Edited by process, 15 August 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[MrMojoPin]

Just remenber "In mother Russia you do not sleep with bear, bear sleeps with you!"

[SakuranoSenshi]

http://politicalcomp.../uselection2012

For the edification of those who seem to think that Obama sits somewhere next to Karl Marx and Joseph Lenin.

[Monsoon]

Rovertoo, on 14 August 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Wait, what? Why? And Canada's always just been Northern U.S.A anyways.

Wait, what? Dude you have no clue. Sure we pretty much have a Car Salesman for Prime Minister but he was no where near as bad as Bush Jr.

[Osski]

Pht, on 15 August 2012 - 11:58 AM, said:

By the way. It's not capitalism. That's marx's insulting name. Call it what it should be called: free (uncoerced) markets.

Thanks for that.

[Thejusttired]

Osski, on 15 August 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Thanks for that.

you Sir really deserve Romney....

[Ulatec]

Jmb, on 15 August 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

Do have one final question: Who else wants to ditch the Electoral College for direct vote (ie One person/One vote). The Electoral College was fine when we didn't have computers to track the results, but it is now an archaic and outdated system.

How about we just ditch non-consensual forms of government for the same reasons.

[charov]

Gingo, on 15 August 2012 - 05:33 AM, said:

Freedom fighters, please.

Are you kidding me?

Quote

The Red Brigades (Brigate Rosse in Italian, often abbreviated BR) was a Marxist-Leninist organization, based in Italy, which was responsible for numerous violent incidents, assassinations, and robberies during the so-called "Years of Lead". Formed in 1970, the organisation sought to create a "revolutionary" state through armed struggle, and to remove Italy from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Red Brigades attained notoriety in the 1970s and early 1980s with their violent attempts to destabilise Italy by acts of sabotage, bank robberies, and kidnappings

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Red_Brigades

Suure, freedom. Tsk, ignorant.

[Grendel408]

There's two things I know for certain with the coming U.S. elections... Romney and company are the typical evil Republicans... Obama and crew are the floundering Democrats... and I can't even stand to follow the political race... so much slander and political shots to opposing parties has convinced me our government is in need of a revolution... but not in a violent manner to begin another civil war... but to oust the government and reform into something more traditional of the sense we formed from with adaptations to deal with matters current to the world... Basically... we're losing our stance as a strong political power and becoming more like the countries we try and "support."

[Pht]

process, on 15 August 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

I wouldn't say they've profited, as that would imply they have taken more than they need. The benefits the poor receive are necessities, you know, for their survival and well being.

I didn't say had an raise in their living conditions. I said profited; and that they have. The profit margins are insane.

Thejusttired, on 15 August 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

First of all... you use socialism wrong... speaking about any kind of healthcare... thats not socialist.. that´s SOCIAL.... the opposite of egoistic.

Strawman argument. Socialism; where everyone is forced to take care of everyone else regardless of any individual incentives or situations.

Free markets - where people engage in healthcare in their own interest.

Quote

Second... you narrowminded Americans, and for the most part Republicans should really get your eyes out of the friggin bible and across the big blue sea to the east... Learn!!!

just my german 2 cents on that....

Learn to be rude and insult people and use straw man arguments? This is the example you're setting.

... Maybe you should get to know people's reasons for thinking what they do before you try and pick their ideas apart.

Quote

btw.. i really hope you get this white dumbass as next president, to finally completely ruin the almost not existent American society.

I suspect you don't even know what genuine american society is, as it was founded. I don't see how you could, because it's not even taught in schools over here, any more. You have to get your nose into the original sources from the time to pick it up.

Quote

perhaps things may finally improve after that. Some more partys but two would be nice for the beginning. Pseudo democracy you got there atm..

And thank God we only have some elements of a true democracy. Democracies are horrible things. This is supposed to be a constitutional federal republic of states, not a democracy. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule.

SakuranoSenshi, on 15 August 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

It's not something you can 'disagree' about. Nothing you mentioned is Marxism. Feel free to show us anything he did that is.

He took over gm and gave it to the workers unions; did the same with chrysler, has been encouraging people left and right to get onto the state welfare systems (he did, in fact, give several million dollars in reward to a state for increasing it's welfare roles), he's been regulating industries into closure, he just issued an illegal and immoral executive order removing the work requiremets for welfare... he also grew up with marxists and has chosen them and continues to choose them for his friends.

And, in fact, in his very own words:

obama said:

But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

The "It" that doesn't work? ... Free markets.

http://www.whitehous...awatomie-kansas

The man's a marxist; and he's been doing everything he can to bring everything under the umbrella of the government.

Edited by Pht, 15 August 2012 - 04:03 PM.

[SakuranoSenshi]

Umm, no he did not give GM to anybody. You're truly credulous if you believe that. As for your idiocy about regulation... I think I'm just going to ignore you, to be honest. You're either really credulous or a tiresome troll but either way, no.

Edited by SakuranoSenshi, 15 August 2012 - 04:05 PM.

[Pht]

SakuranoSenshi, on 15 August 2012 - 04:03 PM, said:

Umm, no he did not give GM to anybody. You're truly credulous if you believe that.

He did give gm to the unions; to the point that the investors with secured debts, who, by rule of law, MUST be paid back first... were screwed over. The unions were given the bailout; in fact, the non-union members, in, say, delphi? Horribly screwed over.

Quote

The winners and losers of the Government's plan for GM bankruptcy hearing

This is where the administration shows its true colors.

• U.S. Government buys 60% share of the New GM company for $30.1 billion - giving GM the necessary "debtor in possession" funds reserve that the court required in order to consider a Chapter 11 filing
  
• The AWU's, (UAW), received a 17% ownership stake in GM, (65% in Chrysler), in lieu of the money GM owed for union health and pension commitments. At the time this equated to about 40 cents on the dollar, but in reality stock shares could be sold at levels that would not only make the health and pension funds whole - but possibly generate a profit. *Note: Unions made an initial stock sale, (a portion of their shares), right after the IPO, at a rate that generated a $4 billion profit to the funds
  
• Private secured investors were given a settlement agreement at the rate of 29 cents on the dollar *Note: these "private investors" also included investment funds composed of other union pension funds, like the Federated Teachers Association - which naturally screamed murder and went to court - where they failed to find relief - looks like the Obama administration and the UAW had more clout
  
• **It should be noted that established contract law required secured creditors be paid first, but Obama's administration simply ignored this legal requirement and gave the unsecured union creditors first position - leaving whatever might be left for the secured investors.
  
• Common-share stock holders were completely wiped out, when GM emerged from bankruptcy, all shares in the "old" GM were worthless since the "old" GM didn't exist anymore
  
• GM was allowed to retain a $45 billion business-loss tax credit, carried forth from the "old" GM to the "New" GM - a practice unheard of in bankruptcy proceedings, essentially adding a $45 billion "gift" to off-set tax liabilities of the new company.
  
• Delphi, a parts supplier network and GM spinoff, had all GM debt to it cancelled. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner also decided to cut pensions liabilities for salaried non-union employees to expedite GM’s emergence from bankruptcy.

http://gaanderson.hu...-Untold-Details

Pretty much sums it up.

I suppose your ignorance of the facts on the topic are not surprising; the legacy media (abc, nbc, cbs, cnn, ap, reuters, and derivatives) are all in the tank for him. They simply are not going to report on things that they think are against their self interest.

Quote

As for your idiocy about regulation...

It's not idiocy. It's a fact. The federal register - the official record of regulatory changes in which a new rule must be published before it can take effect, has gone, from 68,598 pages in 2009, to 81,405 pages in 2010, to 82,415 in 2001- a new record. This trend is not reversing.

Here's a good writeup on the increase of regulations:
http://www.heritage....three-year-mark

Quote

I think I'm just going to ignore you, to be honest. You're either really credulous or a tiresome troll but either way, no.

Ah ... so ... if someone really disagrees with you ... ignore them.

Great way to expand your worldview, that... ignoring people who don't see the world like you do...

Why are you on the internet, again?

------------

Speaking of obama and marxism:

http://www.newsmax.c...02/08/id/349329

http://www.americant...oung_obama.html

http://frontpagemag....ion-in-america/

Edited by Pht, 15 August 2012 - 04:58 PM.

[Voridan Atreides]

Why did you bring this to our forums!? This topic is troll heaven!

Edited by Voridan Atreides, 15 August 2012 - 04:57 PM.

[Douglas Reichel]

SakuranoSenshi, on 15 August 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

LOL This was too hilarious to pass up! It doesn't. Not even with the most liberal reading realistically possible!

Look, I'm pretty big on supporting that amendment, I think it's abundantly clear what it means and recent court decisions agree with my line of thinking. Now, I don't want to see us arming seven-year-olds in schools "for self defence" or anything, nor do I think unrestricted concealed carry of pistols is a good idea, as it happens but I do think it's pretty obvious that amendment means civilians can have access to small arms, including the kind that would be useful and used by organized militaries. Militaries do not employ nuclear weapons. The USA is the only nation to date to actually use them in war (and has basically had to apologize for that since, let's not re-hash that one though, it was done), not even every nation even has the capability to make them. So, there is no conceivable way to interpret the constitution as meaning I should be able to get a nuclear warhead.

Ah...you're one of those "self-evident" types. If you think it's obvious, it must be true.

Well let's put this in perspective. When that amendment was drafted, the only weapons available were things like axes, swords, bows & arrows, single-shot muzzle-loaders, and cannons of varying sizes. All of which were considered available to all citizens without exception. Yup, even children, because most people were decent marksmen by the age of 10. Of course there were some assumed restrictions in that regard, since no one in their right mind would give a child a cannon, for instance. But there was no active restriction in place because they didn't think anyone would ever be that stupid (boy were they wrong). But that was 200 years ago when the majority of the population weren't psychopaths trying to game the system to obtain weapons that can murder whole villages in minutes. The average assault rifle has less range than cannons of the era, but significantly more destructive power in the same time frame between rate-of-fire and the literal firepower of the weapons.

The constitution in its current form contains definitions and language which is no longer consistent with the state of technology and society today, and it needs to be fixed. Fortunately, it was designed exactly for that. Now, we require stricter definitions and more precise language, with no "implicit" assumptions about what is and isn't permitted or prohibited. Since people are too stupid to be trusted to follow the spirit of such a document, they must be made to follow its letter once that is properly refined.

I merely use the 2nd amendment as an example, but the entire document is riddled with such flaws. Sure, there are a few people who are smart enough to know better, just like back then. But now, the majority are too stupid to know better, and have to be corralled and coerced to keep them in line. And they have to be kept in line, because if they aren't, society pretty much collapses. They're all children now, and the only options are to child-proof the system til they grow up on their own (lottery), or turn all parental on them (tyranny). Personally, I don't want to babysit them for that long. I'd rather just have a system that is that much harder to exploit.

To that end, I choose to call out the members of Mensa for not doing their duty to the species by remaining non-involved as an organization. If they'd get off their high-horses and start coming up with solutions as a group, there might be fewer issues on the verge of cataclysm.

[EmptySkull]

Thejusttired, on 15 August 2012 - 12:46 PM, said:

First of all... you use socialism wrong... speaking about any kind of healthcare... thats not socialist.. that´s SOCIAL.... the opposite of egoistic.

Second... you narrowminded Americans, and for the most part Republicans should really get your eyes out of the friggin bible and across the big blue sea to the east... Learn!!!

just my german 2 cents on that....

btw.. i really hope you get this white dumbass as next president, to finally completely ruin the almost not existent American society.

perhaps things may finally improve after that. Some more partys but two would be nice for the beginning. Pseudo democracy you got there atm..

Hmm still sore from that fight you lost?

Edited by EmptySkull, 15 August 2012 - 05:14 PM.

[GaussDragon]

dwbear, on 15 August 2012 - 09:46 AM, said:

That is the fallacy. You can't increase the debt without spending. You don't have the income you don't spend, What you are saying is that Obama has the smallest increase in gov't spending but it is still an increase when he has a decrease in revenue. Then the Federal Reserve keeps printing money to service the debt ie making our money worth less which in its own right is a hiddin tax on our citizens. It is a direct result of his fiscal policies is that he doesn't have the revenues in the first palce.

Please read my post on page 2. With an economy-wide deleveraging, the nominal amount of spending in both consumption and investment dips noticeably. Long story short, you need to expand the money supply (and semi-synonymously, spending) so that this rubber-band effect doesn't tank the economy into a full-blown depression.

http://www.economist...monetary-policy

http://www.bloomberg...rad-delong.html

http://mainlymacro.b...-and-price.html

[GaussDragon]

Oh, and this was in The Economist today. This is what polarization does to a country -> http://www.economist...estic-terrorism

[Monsoon]

Pht, on 15 August 2012 - 04:22 PM, said:

http://gaanderson.hu...-Untold-Details


http://www.heritage....three-year-mark



Ah ... so ... if someone really disagrees with you ... ignore them.

Great way to expand your worldview, that... ignoring people who don't see the world like you do...

Why are you on the internet, again?

------------

Speaking of obama and marxism:

http://www.newsmax.c...02/08/id/349329

http://www.americant...oung_obama.html

http://frontpagemag....ion-in-america/

Dude, if you want to use sources to try and back up your arguement try to use credible sources GA Anderson, who the F is that? The guy is invisible on Google/Bing, his only credit is as a 'Freelance' writer for the Daily Constitution, which is a publication for the 'Artist Voice' not an investigative journalist site, nothing even close.

The Heritage Foundation, Really? For someone talking about expanding your world view, who then sources a website that....where to begin? How about the front page with the tag, 'Help Us Save the American Dream!' And a picture of Rush Limbaugh right next to it, or maybe we should look at it's board of Directors which includes the likes of Steve Forbes and Edwin Feulner. Right, this site keeps a completely objective stance when posting articles...

NewsMax - Yet another conservative biased site. Not to say the story isn't true or out of context, just that it's spun from a biased point of view.
American Thinker - Possibly even worse than Heritage Foundation and NewsMax combined.
As for Frontpagemag - Wow, seriously, wow. You shall never say, 'ignoring people who don't see the world like you do' while admitting to reading any kind of drivel from this site.

So in the future, my suggestion is either A) Read an equal number of 'leftist' sites to offset all the 'Rightist' sites you obviously read. Or, B ) stick to only sites that owe no allegiance to either side and try to be completely objective. (Sure this second one may be hard to do and require you to read from sites outside of the USA, but this is the option you really should try.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While you're at it, what exactly is wrong with being a Marxist? Sure the guy wasn't perfect and some of his conclusions were wrong, but I can say that about anyone, including Freud, Einstein or Keynes. (Have you even read any of his books, say: Early Writings as opposed to maybe just 'The Communist Manifesto'?)

Personally, I'm a fan of a society that cares for each other and tries to build itself up - over a 'ME FIRST!' society. Keep in mind the world has never had this, no self-described 'Communist' government has actually been one. They're all Dictatorships with a power/class level, that usually includes Politico/Military at the top. Castro certainly took care of himself and his cronies long before looking to his people, of course unlike America they receive free Education and Health Care but at the price of women willing to sleep with you for a meal or a few US greenbacks...Stalin/Mao killed millions, suppressed art, the people's voice and the ability to assembly; So much for 'power to the people' in their countries. China isn't much better today, but you don't see that stopping all those Democracy/Free Market loving Companies from dealing with them. So next time you're wondering, 'why is our economy is such a crapper' maybe that bag full of Walmart 'Made in China' products you just bought, might be your first clue. While your at it, try spending time in Sweden, usually one of the targets for a 'Socialist Country', seriously you go there, you may never move back, and not just because of the Hotness of their women! I lived in Finland for a number of years, the country is far from perfect, but the rich are certainly very rich, free University (and even a subsidy for going! -And yet the students complain?!?!) The Number one ranked educational system in the world, top Ten Country to live in along with just about all those Northern Socialist countries (Norway, Denmark and Sweden.) 5 weeks paid holiday, seriously Finland is dead in July, as most Finns take the ENTIRE month off!


Obama has his flaws, but then again what do you expect when conservatives are purposefully blocking anything good happening to their country in favor of making the sitting President look bad. Yeah, real American of them. With the Romney/Ryan ticket you are guaranteed a 'Take care of the rich and load the debt on the backs of the middle/lower class.'

So if you think Obama is sitting around thinking to himself, 'F the 1%', then chances are those two are sitting around thinking, 'F the 99%'.

Personally, that's not what I believe any of them are thinking, but their actions could certainly reflect those thoughts.

Finally, I don't know why I'm even bothering to post, I should know better then to look at obvious troll magnet threads like this....shame on me! EDIT: In fact, I don't think I'll even bother coming back to this thread. So sorry, I'll probably never read any responses positive or negative.

Edited by Monsoon, 15 August 2012 - 08:53 PM.

[Catamount]

Monsoon, you're right, of course. American Thinker, Heritage, et al, are basically tantamount to linking to Micheal Moore or AE911, but I'd also suggest being careful about your post reaching the level of an ad hominem attack. Keep the argument at the center of your focus.

Look at all those sources on Obama and socialism, for instance. They don't list a body of policies that reflects any desire to turn America into a "socialist" nation, because they can't. So since they can't pin Obama as a socialist/communist/whatever through his actions, they try to do it through desperate attempts at association, and so try to shoehorn the characterization into place by basically using logic by which if Obama ever had a single friend who espoused any such views, or ever said anything that in any way agreed with any aspect of any notion that could by in any way associated with socialism/communism, that he therefore wants to abolish all free market economics and turn the US into the USSR. The sheer desperation of the logic shows the arguments to be the desperate ideologically partisan attacks that they are; focus on those flaws.


I'm always dismayed when I see people who are so incapable of finding real sources for their information, that they end up citing such places, but what's far more worthy of criticism is being swayed by the arguments presented here.




The GM article isn't a whole lot more compelling. Even assuming 100% of it is true, and that's a pretty bold assumption since the only thing cited in the whole article is the picture (when your pictures get more citation than the rest of an essay combined... that's just sad), it basically rambles on about how Obama made a few exaggerated claims about the nature of the GM bailout (oh heavens! That's just groundbreaking for a politician to exaggerate in election ads!), claims GM's profits haven't yet made up for money invested, not exactly anything to write home about, and claims that maybe, just maybe, if nothing had been done for the automotive industry, everything would have turned out just fine, a statement the author justifies by citing an unnamed group of "experts" who purportedly agree, because "there's disagreement among the experts", which is basically tantamount to me saying "The moon is made of cheese. NASA claims it's made of rock, but there is disagreement among 'the experts' on that point". See? I can cite a ridiculous claim and say "the experts" agree, too, if I don't actually have to name them.


The cited articles in the post you responded to make arguments that are just absurd, plain and simple, because at the end of the day, their theses just don't follow from the evidence (if any) that they present.

Edited by Catamount, 15 August 2012 - 09:18 PM.