466 replies to this topic

[Maire Devylin]

Elsydeon, on 14 August 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

I do not care who the President is (in regards to race, religion, gender, etc.) as long as he/she/it/they/we/other pronoun does a good job.

The stuff President Obama has done that is illegal....

(SNIP WALL OF TEXT)

I work at night and listen to a lot of talk radio (mostly republican stuff) and this basically reads as a transcript from any republican talk radio show when they get on a rant about Obama.

Didn't read all of it but I am guessing you feel he is also a Despot, Dictator, Facist, Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Muslim, non-American who is out to destroy the USA as we know it because he hates this country and wants to turn us into a welfare state so him and his buddies can scam us all for 'green' energy profits all while he dances naked on the Constitution whilst wearing his golf shoes.

Cuz that is how the republican big name voices depict him, constantly.

Not that I am a fan of Obama, but I'm not one of Romney either. Still undecided...

[Mechteric]

What it comes down to for me these days is who is less full of crap. Republicans as of late continue to prove to me they have the most crap.

[RedHairDave]

just throwing in my 2 cents. i live in canada, and i think i can speak for a good part of canada when i say, mitt scares me. Obama did the best he could given that half the government is trying to disrupt the other half at all times in your country. it doesnt even seem to matter if they agree with each other, they seem to have to try to make life harder. i dont know why politics needs to be so adversarial.

i also dont get why anyone but the top 1% of the economic envelope in the usa would vote for mitt, he only seems to care about them. it also seems he is intent on turning most of the rest of the usa into a "indentured servitude" type of thing. its wacky! but also hilarious. if he gets in, at least you have no one but yourself's(usa citizens) to blame

[Snapster]

SakuranoSenshi, on 14 August 2012 - 05:40 AM, said:

Whereas Bush was a saint, obviously.

Honestly, I don't like Obama because I think he made some very poor decisions on economics, though he rather redeemed himself in other places but compared to Bush the man is a genius and 'the best thing since sliced bread'. That's just how bad things were with the previous president.

Romney should be able to give a very elegant concession speech, when the time comes, I am sure. I just wish the options were a bit better. Not that I can vote anyway.

Of course, nobody can make miracles when it comes to economy. Nobody likes being forced to throw away money.

Obama may not be the solution-bringer, but at least he's a doer.

[Snapster]

Maire Devylin, on 15 August 2012 - 05:00 AM, said:

I work at night and listen to a lot of talk radio (mostly republican stuff) and this basically reads as a transcript from any republican talk radio show when they get on a rant about Obama.

Didn't read all of it but I am guessing you feel he is also a Despot, Dictator, Facist, Communist, Socialist, Marxist, Muslim, non-American who is out to destroy the USA as we know it because he hates this country and wants to turn us into a welfare state so him and his buddies can scam us all for 'green' energy profits all while he dances naked on the Constitution whilst wearing his golf shoes.

Cuz that is how the republican big name voices depict him, constantly.

Not that I am a fan of Obama, but I'm not one of Romney either. Still undecided...

As far as I'm concerned, trying to bring changes to a country doesn't mean you hate it... on the contrary. You wish for it to get better. Seems to me some people just don't care for the well-being of others, and that is what is pretty sad.

[Maire Devylin]

Deathsiege, on 14 August 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

All I have to say is, if we elect a mormon as president, I'll move to Canada.

Why? Are the mormon beliefs really more insane than the catholic ones? Why would having a president who, at all times, you would know is wearing his magic underpants be so radically different than a catholic who would have to believe that the Flintstones was not a cartoon but an animated historical documentary, be so much worse?

I don't care what their faith is as long as they remember that, as an American, I have the Freedom From Religion and that includes their religion and its 'morals'.

[Coyotebrother]

I would point out that the Founding Fathers intended for political office (president, senators, congressmen) to be a civic responsibility. Something you took your turn at and then returned to your normal career. It was not their intention to make career politicians out of those who hold these offices. To that end, we could use a Constitutional Amendment that assigns term limits to these positions. This would also limit the influence of money on these politicians, as some would be loathe to compromise their ideals, when there are not millions to be made. Another side benefit is that with term limits, these politicians are then returned to their communities where they must face their peers and answer for what they did while in office.
I say 'Yes' to term limits.

[Snapster]

Maire Devylin, on 15 August 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Why? Are the mormon beliefs really more insane than the catholic ones? Why would having a president who, at all times, you would know is wearing his magic underpants be so radically different than a catholic who would have to believe that the Flintstones was not a cartoon but an animated historical documentary, be so much worse?

I don't care what their faith is as long as they remember that, as an American, I have the Freedom From Religion and that includes their religion and its 'morals'.

One of the most fundamental debate of the whole presidential campaign has been faith. I do believe faith is personal first and foremost and should not intrude into the everyday life of others. That means your job, your kid's school, the government, the hospital. Everything. You can believe in what you want. In God, in life on other planets, in reincarnation, whatever. Forcing your belief on other people simply is against the Constitution, as in Freedom.

[Snapster]

Coyotebrother, on 15 August 2012 - 05:24 AM, said:

I would point out that the Founding Fathers intended for political office (president, senators, congressmen) to be a civic responsibility. Something you took your turn at and then returned to your normal career. It was not their intention to make career politicians out of those who hold these offices. To that end, we could use a Constitutional Amendment that assigns term limits to these positions. This would also limit the influence of money on these politicians, as some would be loathe to compromise their ideals, when there are not millions to be made. Another side benefit is that with term limits, these politicians are then returned to their communities where they must face their peers and answer for what they did while in office.
I say 'Yes' to term limits.

Term limits indeed, but there should be restrictions to ideology limits with what they propose as well. Romney is a dangerous candidate in what he represents for many citizens.

[Gingo]

USA Forever, on 14 August 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Obama is a communist.

He isnt. He very much isnt. You can only call him left in relation to the far right republicans. He's middle right.

USA Forever, on 14 August 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

The communists should give an example of working communism before they try to get the rest of us in on it.

Glad to. Altough, what you mean is socialist, its a step before true communism.

Chile (would have, if the US hadnt assasinated the leader and put their murderous little puppet in power), Cuba (would have worked without Embargo), Madrid (before Franco and his business buddies came barging in), Soviet Union before Lenin's death, East Germany (little factoid: 60-70 percent of east germans want socialism back).

Now, you see, for communism to work, truly work, it needs to be worldwide and needs at least 3-5 generations to start up.

red devil2, on 15 August 2012 - 03:52 AM, said:

communist terrorists.

Freedom fighters, please.

Edited by Gingo, 15 August 2012 - 05:38 AM.

[Maire Devylin]

Snapster, on 15 August 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

One of the most fundamental debate of the whole presidential campaign has been faith. I do believe faith is personal first and foremost and should not intrude into the everyday life of others. That means your job, your kid's school, the government, the hospital. Everything. You can believe in what you want. In God, in life on other planets, in reincarnation, whatever. Forcing your belief on other people simply is against the Constitution, as in Freedom.

I agree completely; however, and sadly, many Americans will cast their vote for the president solely based on his religious views. It's as if they want to return to the dark ages where religious 'morals' ruled. Actually researching the person and their political history is too much for them and well, 'thinking is hard'.

[van Uber]

Maire Devylin, on 15 August 2012 - 05:20 AM, said:

Why? Are the mormon beliefs really more insane than the catholic ones?

Perhaps that is a slippery slope, but the Vatican at least acknowledge evolution. That is a step less insane than claiming Jesus went to the US, native Americans being the lost tribes of Israel and the garden of Eden residing in Missouri.

[Dymitry]

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

Freedom fighters, please.

That can be said of any kind of terrorist then, even of Mr.Breivik. A rapist murderer could go and say "did if for freedom", and he'll be justified as he was fighting for a right cause?

There are right causes and bad instruments to fight them.

[Aym]

Striker1980, on 15 August 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

Not dropping troops in countries that don't produce oil for his dads companies for one thing. (I'm from the UK and yeah, I know Blair wasn't the best for this either but he got his come-up-ance and there aren't many people here with a soft spot for the guy any more).

Not forgetting the names / countries of the world leaders he's just been briefed to meet.

Being eloquent.

Or that your considering electing a political leader that has such strong religious convictions and will be setting policies based upon that. Morals are one thing legislating how others live based upon beliefs the 99% of your countrymen actually find either 'a bit extreme' or worse ridiculous is terrifying.

In order :
1) http://en.wikipedia....serves_in_Libya Also, pretty sure Bush Sr. doesn't own the oil companies...
2) I seem to recall issues where he described the wrong country's history to a head of state, but I do know he called his wife Michael instead of Michelle, so I call it even.
3) Obama is a stuttering mess off of his teleprompter, just like Bush.
4) Barack Obama professes just as much faith as Bush or Romney. Arguably it seems more plausible that Barack is lying about his faith, but that's a wash because I believe they're all liers.


So, besides the misrepresentations and lack of criticism around our current President, what has he DONE to help the image of our nation around the world? You have only given me a list of impressions you have with no evidence to back them up.

Edited by Aym, 15 August 2012 - 06:03 AM.

[Trinen]

I am voting for Comrade Khruschev. He promises to increase the grain harvest, make the trains run on time and bring about the glorious triumph of the People's Revolution. Thank you, Comrade!

[stripped]

Murph, on 14 August 2012 - 05:25 AM, said:

Unfortunately, the European Perspective doesn't get the whole story.

Objection! It's most Europeans not getting the big picture but some do. Just a question of how interested you are in digging through the pile of excrements the european press feeds us to hide the truth..oh, and of course it is "a question of time" you can spend on this.

If I were US-American: Ron Paul for President! For life! (even though I do not totally approve on his plans regarding domestic politics)

[Dymitry]

Aym, on 15 August 2012 - 06:02 AM, said:

In order :
1) http://en.wikipedia....serves_in_Libya Also, pretty sure Bush Sr. doesn't own the oil companies...
2) I seem to recall issues where he described the wrong country's history to a head of state, but I do know he called his wife Michael instead of Michelle, so I call it even.
3) Obama is a stuttering mess off of his teleprompter, just like Bush.
4) Barack Obama professes just as much faith as Bush or Romney. Arguably it seems more plausible that Barack is lying about his faith, but that's a wash because I believe they're all liers.


So, besides the misrepresentations and lack of criticism around our current President, what has he DONE to help the image of our nation around the world? You have only given me a list of impressions you have with no evidence to back them up.

I think you are having a one sided/biased prospective of the Libyan situation. Sure, it is a country with strategical significance for different reasons, including oil. Obama or any other political leader out there is no benefactor, and war is never waged out of principles alone.

However there is a big difference between asserting that a country that by the way has been starved to death and purposely left in the hands of a armed ruthless dictator 10 years before, is housing terrorists ready to strike and wmd that will surely be used to destroy the world. even produce fake informations/propaganda on it and then go in a full blown invasion, in disrespect on international institutions for over 8 years, and imposing and forcing a no flight zone to a government that is bombing over its own civilians to eliminate dissent, with the support of the UN, in an intervention lasted 7 months.
Shall we talk about Afghanistan now?

stripped, on 15 August 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

Objection! It's most Europeans not getting the big picture but some do.

Then enlighten us. I struggle to get the big picture of my country, let alone the European or the US ones.

edit typos

Edited by Dymitry, 15 August 2012 - 06:25 AM.

[Catamount]

CaveMan, on 15 August 2012 - 12:57 AM, said:

long-winded response

I'm perfectly aware of the fact that a specific layout of government wasn't solely responsible for the whole of society's changes once the enlightenment began (and specifically in the last 200-300 years), but what more or less is is the fact that the major change that's come in that time was a change from an oligarchical society, which restricted input on how to run society to a few, to a system in which many now make that contribution, through market economics, civic involvement, advancing science, whatever.

What you're basically suggesting is that we go back to an oligarchical system, and then just hope we get the "good" oligarchs, once we decide to relinquish control, and hope they somehow will promote continuing to have an educated and otherwise free populace, even though that's always a direct threat to them in a system designed to have them make decisions without our input, while trying to maximize it everywhere else (umm, have you seen the troubles increasing education, awareness, and demands for rights are creating for your own example, the Chinese government?). Basically, you're suggesting we erect our society around a massive fundamental contradiction, in which an oligarchical government expects people to get as educated as possible, and use as many freedoms as possible, to try to better their own lives and the state of society, but not ever complain that a group they have no control over effectively arbitrates what freedoms and opportunities they actually get from society, and just take whatever ruling comes down on any issue, without desiring any input, no matter how much they disagree.

I'll tell you what, if you think China is so great, well I bet they wouldn't mind one more person living there. For my part, I saw about half a dozen cities and took part in interacting with a few local levels of government for a foreign adoption over three weeks, and that was about as much as I will ever care to experience of their present society.

Also, last I checked, the US doesn't amount to the whole of the western world, but I'd like to see a source that shows that we do worse than Ancient Rome for wealth disparity, even including their slaves.

Edited by Catamount, 15 August 2012 - 06:54 AM.

[McScwizzy]

ChargerIIC, on 13 August 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Why O Why did you bring the political crap storm here?

[Phelan KellWard]

Is America a democracy or Republic? Also does anyone really know the difference between the two?