Obama Approval Averages 45% in February
Forty-seven percent disapproving mirrors the 50% calling his presidency a "failure"
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- President Obama's average job approval rating for the month of February in Gallup Daily tracking was 45%, with 47% disapproving, unchanged from January.
Obama's job approval in February exceeds the lows seen last summer, when his monthly approval rating dipped to 41% from August through October. That followed a slide from 50% in May after the successful U.S. military mission in Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. However, despite the recent improvement in his score, it has yet to recover to the level seen at the start of 2011, when 49% approved and 43% disapproved.
Apart from the rally in approval after the bin Laden mission, the last time Obama's monthly approval rating averaged 50% or better was two years ago, in February 2010.
The 50% approval mark is a crucial one for presidents in a re-election year. All incumbents who have been elected to a second term had a 50% or higher average approval rating by February of that year, and in the case of all but George W. Bush, they maintained that through Election Day.
Whether Obama can break out of this inauspicious pattern in an election year remains to be seen. But it is noteworthy that no elected president from Dwight Eisenhower through George W. Bush saw his approval rating drop below 50% for this long leading up to his re-election year. Rather, all seven presidents -- including Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush, both of whom lost their re-election bids -- received at least 50% approval at some point late in their third year or early in their fourth year, if not routinely throughout their first term.
Apart from his monthly averages, and aside from the bin Laden rally period, the last time Obama had approval ratings of 50% or better for even several consecutive days in Gallup Daily tracking was in January 2011. Obama's sub-50% approval ratings are continuing thus far in March, with his approval rating registering between 43% and 48% in Gallup's three-day rolling averages.
That half of Americans say Obama's presidency to date has been a "failure" underscores the challenge the president faces in convincing voters he deserves a second term. The 44% today saying Obama has been a success contrasts with the 64% saying this of Bill Clinton just a few months before his re-election in 1996.
Most Democrats consider Obama's presidency a success while most Republicans call it a failure. Independents' views are similar to the national average, with the slight majority calling it a failure.
Bottom Line
President Obama averaged 45% approval from Americans in February, slightly improved over the 41% last summer, but no higher than it was in January, suggesting the rebound from last summer's lows has slowed or stalled. Apart from a brief spike to 50% average approval last May after the killing of bin Laden in Pakistan, Obama has not enjoyed sustained majority approval from Americans since his first year in office -- a dubious distinction in the history of modern presidents.
Obama still has time to correct that, and with 45% average approval last month, he is not far from the mark. Gallup polling also shows him running competitively against his potential Republican challengers in voter preferences for the fall election.
Explore President Obama's approval ratings in depth and compare them with those of past presidents in the Gallup Presidential Job Approval Center.
Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews conducted as part of Gallup Daily tracking Feb 1-29, 2012, with a random sample of 13,999 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.
For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±1 percentage point.
Interviews are conducted with respondents on landline telephones and cellular phones, with interviews conducted in Spanish for respondents who are primarily Spanish-speaking. Each sample includes a minimum quota of 400 cell phone respondents and 600 landline respondents per 1,000 national adults, with additional minimum quotas among landline respondents by region. Landline telephone numbers are chosen at random among listed telephone numbers. Cell phone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods. Landline respondents are chosen at random within each household on the basis of which member had the most recent birthday.
Samples are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education, region, adults in the household, and phone status (cell phone only/landline only/both, cell phone mostly, and having an unlisted landline number). Demographic weighting targets are based on the March 2011 Current Population Survey figures for the aged 18 and older non-institutionalized population living in U.S. telephone households. All reported margins of sampling error include the computed design effects for weighting and sample design.
In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
The questions reported here were asked of a random half-sample of respondents for 27 nights on the Gallup Daily tracking survey.
Melissia wrote:And yet, the Republicans still can't find someone who is an actual viable alternative this primary season.
Should get yourself a Royal family instead. The Queen has always been a more palatable head of state than any of our post war Prime Ministers. That's the trouble with our political system. Anyone who bubbles their way to the surface of the UK political swamp is usually a weasel. There are no inspiring political figures currently in UK government. At least with your system, anyone can theoretically be President (provided they have access to a fat pile of cash to fund their campaign).
Heh. Ron Paul would be rendered impotent even by his own party if he became president because of his nutjob ideas and inanities. Even assuming he did manage to get support, he'd quite literally wreck the country's economy putting his ideas in to play.
He'd be hampered by his own party even more than Obama is hampered by the republican "I'll oppose it because Obama supports it" attitude heh..
As for Newt and Santorum, only in the delusional dreams of extremists are they viable candidates.
How does this compare to George W Bush at the same time in his presidancy?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flashman wrote:
Melissia wrote:And yet, the Republicans still can't find someone who is an actual viable alternative this primary season.
Should get yourself a Royal family instead. The Queen has always been a more palatable head of state than any of our post war Prime Ministers. That's the trouble with our political system. Anyone who bubbles their way to the surface of the UK political swamp is usually a weasel. There are no inspiring political figures currently in UK government. At least with your system, anyone can theoretically be President (provided they have access to a fat pile of cash to fund their campaign).
The head of state is a ceremonial role. It's easy to come across as not being a scum bag when you spend your days waving at people and dossing around in huge ancestral homes.
Melissia wrote:And yet, the Republicans still can't find someone who is an actual viable alternative this primary season.
Should get yourself a Royal family instead. The Queen has always been a more palatable head of state than any of our post war Prime Ministers. That's the trouble with our political system. Anyone who bubbles their way to the surface of the UK political swamp is usually a weasel. There are no inspiring political figures currently in UK government. At least with your system, anyone can theoretically be President (provided they have access to a fat pile of cash to fund their campaign).
Have faith. I am raising the future Empress as we speak. Now that the future Empress is a teenager, the future Empress has a hard time getting up in the morning. Recently the Wife and I burst into her room on a Sunday morning, ripped open the blinds and started singing "Tommorrow" at the top of our lungs. Yes, we are that evil.
Alternatively dropping in a wriggling Rodney the Rocket sometimes works, but usually she just cacoons him in with her.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flashman wrote:
Joey wrote:How does this compare to George W Bush at the same time in his presidancy?
IIRC, Bush was doing quite well as a result of kicking Afghan/Iraqi butt. That was before it all turned sour...
It notes Bush's performance as well. There's also a presidential timeline comparing approval rates to other presidents.
Melissia wrote:Heh. Ron Paul would be rendered impotent even by his own party if he became president because of his nutjob ideas and inanities.
Under the "Anyone But Obama" mandate, if Ron Paul somehow was the general election candidate for the Republicans, they'd have to back his policies of total anarchy as a form of government, emancipation of youths from their parents at the age of one second old, and the commission of the remaining federal budget to re-create the Lazarus Pits from Batman comics in order to continue extending his already impressive life span.
Melissia wrote:Heh. Ron Paul would be rendered impotent even by his own party if he became president because of his nutjob ideas and inanities.
Under the "Anyone But Obama" mandate, if Ron Paul somehow was the general election candidate for the Republicans, they'd have to back his policies of total anarchy as a form of government, emancipation of youths from their parents at the age of one second old, and the commission of the remaining federal budget to re-create the Lazarus Pits from Batman comics in order to continue extending his already impressive life span.
Reminds me of a joke told on the economist's comment section:
Think of the advantages Satan could have in a presidential election over Romney or Obama, I can think of at least 10:
1. 100% Belief in the existance of a Christian God
2. Isnt black
3. Isnt a democrat
4. Why vote for the lesser evil?
5. Pro-slavery
6. Not even remotely black or mormon
7. Hates socialism
8. Likes war
9. Loves money
10. Has close relationships with previous GOP Presidents
The Economist however is still less right wing than the current Republican party in many areas (if you use the definition of right wing where you consider both social conservatism and free market economics are required for being right wing).
Joey wrote:The Economist says that the devil hates socialism? Now that is interesting.
I imagine they are taking the view that of socialism as everyone working together to help one another as opposed to amoral self interest. There are certainly other ways it could be taken.
Melissia wrote:Heh. Ron Paul would be rendered impotent even by his own party if he became president because of his nutjob ideas and inanities.
Under the "Anyone But Obama" mandate, if Ron Paul somehow was the general election candidate for the Republicans, they'd have to back his policies of total anarchy as a form of government, emancipation of youths from their parents at the age of one second old, and the commission of the remaining federal budget to re-create the Lazarus Pits from Batman comics in order to continue extending his already impressive life span.
And yet that would still be better...
I'm going to choose to believe that you're serious.
Melissia wrote:Heh. Ron Paul would be rendered impotent even by his own party if he became president because of his nutjob ideas and inanities.
Under the "Anyone But Obama" mandate, if Ron Paul somehow was the general election candidate for the Republicans, they'd have to back his policies of total anarchy as a form of government, emancipation of youths from their parents at the age of one second old, and the commission of the remaining federal budget to re-create the Lazarus Pits from Batman comics in order to continue extending his already impressive life span.
And yet that would still be better...
I'm going to choose to believe that you're serious.
I am. You can always fix a Libertarian's mistakes. Just let government do what it does best, get bigger.
Melissia wrote:Heh. Ron Paul would be rendered impotent even by his own party if he became president because of his nutjob ideas and inanities.
Under the "Anyone But Obama" mandate, if Ron Paul somehow was the general election candidate for the Republicans, they'd have to back his policies of total anarchy as a form of government, emancipation of youths from their parents at the age of one second old, and the commission of the remaining federal budget to re-create the Lazarus Pits from Batman comics in order to continue extending his already impressive life span.
And yet that would still be better...
I'm going to choose to believe that you're serious.
I am. You can always fix a Libertarian's mistakes. Just let government do what it does best, get bigger.
It's a lot harder to rebuild our nations infrastructure and economy than it is to switch to the gold standard and cut everything while wringing your hands all super villain like.
Melissia wrote:No, that was in the comments section.
The Economist however is still less right wing than the current Republican party in many areas (if you use the definition of right wing where you consider both social conservatism and free market economics are required for being right wing).
Indeed The Economist is very socially liberal, IIRC they're very anti-death penalty and other such things.
Though this may have something to do with it being a British publication.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Joey wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Please wake me when Obama tries to rebuild our nation's infrastructure and the economy.
If he helps, he's increasing the size of the state and is therefore a vicious socialist.
If he does nothing, he's fiddling while Rome burns.
Miright?
Nope. You're pretty much wrong on everything after "If."
How can you critisise someone for not doing anything, while saying that if they do do anything they are increasing the size of the state, which you also regard as "bad"?
Frazzled wrote:Please wake me when Obama tries to rebuild our nation's infrastructure and the economy.
Requoting me doesn't correct your own error. I didn't argue either of your "either/or" statements. You did. Now if you would like to argue with yourself about either of those posts thats fine with me. I'll go get some popcorn.
Frazzled wrote:Please wake me when Obama tries to rebuild our nation's infrastructure and the economy.
You've probably been awake for three years. Infrastructure reconstruction was the most visible portion of the stimulus.
Only a deminimis amount. hence his sudden desire for a capital spending bill in 2011.
if only he had in fact supported a massive capital spending program we might be in a different situation now. But as we all know "shovel ready" didn't really mean shovel ready...
Only a deminimis amount. hence his sudden desire for a capital spending bill in 2011
That's not a word? Also, I don't feel like getting into an economics debate with you, we've done that dance and you have two left feet.
if only he had in fact supported a massive capital spending program we might be in a different situation now. But as we all know "shovel ready" didn't really mean shovel ready...
We have people like you to thank for the half-assing of it. You hated it then, are you changing your mind now?
Only a deminimis amount. hence his sudden desire for a capital spending bill in 2011
That's not a word? Also, I don't feel like getting into an economics debate with you, we've done that dance and you have two left feet.
if only he had in fact supported a massive capital spending program we might be in a different situation now. But as we all know "shovel ready" didn't really mean shovel ready...
We have people like you to thank for the half-assing of it. You hated it then, are you changing your mind now?
You don't want to get into an economics debate with me, thats quite true.
People like me? I am not the President. I am not in the administration. I was not in the Democratically controlled Congress that authorized the plan. I am not in the administration that "half assed" the execution of said plan. I didn't even get an Obama bullet bubble bailout despite my best lobbying efforts. Wo is me!
Only a deminimis amount. hence his sudden desire for a capital spending bill in 2011
That's not a word? Also, I don't feel like getting into an economics debate with you, we've done that dance and you have two left feet.
if only he had in fact supported a massive capital spending program we might be in a different situation now. But as we all know "shovel ready" didn't really mean shovel ready...
We have people like you to thank for the half-assing of it. You hated it then, are you changing your mind now?
You don't want to get into an economics debate with me, thats quite true.
Yep. You've proven too many times in the past that you align yourself with ultraconservative faux economics and ideologies that are utterly incompatible with running an economy. It pulls every debate into foolish and useless extremes.
People like me? I am not the President. I am not in the administration. I was not in the Democratically controlled Congress that authorized the plan. I am not in the administration that "half assed" the execution of said plan. I didn't even get an Obama bullet bubble bailout despite my best lobbying efforts. Wo is me!
Nope, but just like the rest of the invisible hand grass roots gut feeling sheeple of the heady days just after bush got thrown off a cliff you whined and moaned so much that doing the right thing became politically dangerous for the administration. Welcome to democracy, when you act poorly it reflects on all of us.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yep. You've proven too many times in the past that you align yourself with ultraconservative faux economics and ideologies that are utterly incompatible with running an economy. It pulls every debate into foolish and useless extremes.
America beginning to turbo out of recession, solid economic growth, increasing consumer spending/confidence/comfort, and all with gas prices 70 cents higher.
Food for thought: 3/5 of America's population is in the '1%' in terms of global income and wealth distribution.
I'm a believer that Obama gets re-elected. In spite of that, America's doing pretty good.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yep. You've proven too many times in the past that you align yourself with ultraconservative faux economics and ideologies that are utterly incompatible with running an economy. It pulls every debate into foolish and useless extremes.
America beginning to turbo out of recession, solid economic growth, increasing consumer spending/confidence/comfort, and all with gas prices 70 cents higher.
Food for thought: 3/5 of America's population is in the '1%' in terms of global income and wealth distribution.
I'm a believer that Obama gets re-elected. In spite of that, America's doing pretty good.
COnsumer confidence fell in February. Unemployment per Gallup jumped .5%.
2% growth is turboing only to turtle. Reagan recovery rates at ~approx. 5% annually.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yep. You've proven too many times in the past that you align yourself with ultraconservative faux economics and ideologies that are utterly incompatible with running an economy. It pulls every debate into foolish and useless extremes.
America beginning to turbo out of recession, solid economic growth, increasing consumer spending/confidence/comfort, and all with gas prices 70 cents higher.
Food for thought: 3/5 of America's population is in the '1%' in terms of global income and wealth distribution.
I'm a believer that Obama gets re-elected. In spite of that, America's doing pretty good.
COnsumer confidence fell in February. Unemployment per Gallup jumped .5%. 2% growth is turboing only to turtle. Reagan recovery rates at ~approx. 5% annually.
Raegans economic hardship was a joke. A toddler could of sneezed on a piece of paper and had it pass congress and the economy would of recovered. What we're in right now? That's the real gak. Raegan was an actor that had everything done for him by circumstance and 30 years later he's some sort of god.
Gay marriage
Let them wed
There is no compelling reason to exclude homosexual couples from marriage, and several compelling reasons to include them
Jan 4th 1996
MARRIAGE may be for the ages—but it changes by the year. And never, perhaps, has it changed as quickly as since the 1960s. In western law, wives are now equal rather than subordinate partners; interracial marriage is now widely accepted both in statute and in society; marital failure itself, rather than the fault of one partner, may be grounds for a split. With change, alas, has come strain. In the 25 years from 1960, divorce rates soared throughout the west—more than sextupled in Britain, where divorce appears inevitable for the world's most celebrated marriage, that of Charles and Diana Windsor. Struggling to keep law apace with reality, Britain's Tory government is even now advancing another marriage reform, seeking, on the whole sensibly, to make quick or impulsive divorce harder but no-fault divorce easier.
That, however, is not the kind of reform which some decidedly un-Tory people are seeking—and have begun to achieve. Denmark, Norway and Sweden now allow homosexual partners to register with the state and to claim many (though not all) of the prerogatives of marriage. The Dutch are moving in the same direction. In France and Belgium, cities and local governments have begun recognising gay partnerships. And, in the American state of Hawaii, a court case may legalise homosexual marriage itself.
As of today, however, there is no country which gives homosexuals the full right of marriage. And that is what gay activists in more and more places are seeking. Marriage, one might think, is in turbulent enough waters already. Can gay marriage be a good idea—now?
Home, hearth and health
To understand why the answer is yes, first set aside a view whose appealing simplicity is its undoing. “Governments are not elected to arrange nuptial liaisons, much less to untangle them,” writes Joe Rogaly in the Financial Times. “It is a purely private matter.” On this libertarian view, the terms of a marriage contract should be the partners' business, not the state's. With the help of lawyers and sympathetic churchmen, homosexuals can create for themselves what is in all practical respects a marriage; if they lack a government licence, so what?
The government-limiting impulse motivating this view is admirable. But, in truth, the state's involvement in marriage is both inevitable and indispensable. Although many kinds of human pairings are possible, state-sanctioned marriage is, tautologically, the only one which binds couples together in the eyes of the law. By doing so it confers upon partners unique rights to make life-or-death medical decisions, rights to inheritance, rights to share pensions and medical benefits; just as important, it confers upon each the legal responsibilities of guardianship and care of the other. Far from being frills, these benefits and duties go to the very core of the marriage contract; no church or employer or “commitment ceremony” can bestow them at one blow. If marriage is to do all the things that society demands of it, then the state must set some rules.
Just so, say traditionalists: and those rules should exclude homosexuals. Gay marriage, goes the argument, is both frivolous and dangerous: frivolous because it blesses unions in which society has no particular interest; dangerous because anything which trivialises marriage undermines this most basic of institutions. Traditionalists are right about the importance of marriage. But they are wrong to see gay marriage as trivial or frivolous.
It is true that the single most important reason society cares about marriage is for the sake of children. But society's stake in stable, long-term partnerships hardly ends there. Marriage remains an economic bulwark. Single people (especially women) are economically vulnerable, and much more likely to fall into the arms of the welfare state. Furthermore, they call sooner upon public support when they need care—and, indeed, are likelier to fall ill (married people, the numbers show, are not only happier but considerably healthier). Not least important, marriage is a great social stabiliser of men.
Homosexuals need emotional and economic stability no less than heterosexuals—and society surely benefits when they have it. “Then let them 'unchoose' homosexuality and marry someone of the opposite sex,” was the old answer. Today that reply is untenable. Homosexuals do not choose their condition; indeed, they often try desperately hard, sometimes to the point of suicide, to avoid it. However, they are less and less willing either to hide or to lead lives of celibacy. For society, the real choice is between homosexual marriage and homosexual alienation. No social interest is served by choosing the latter.
To this principle of social policy, add a principle of government. Barring a compelling reason, governments should not discriminate between classes of citizens. As recently as 1967, blacks and whites in some American states could not wed. No one but a crude racist would defend such a rule now. Even granting that the case of homosexuals is more complex than the case of miscegenation, the state should presume against discriminating—especially when handing out something as important as a marriage licence. Thus the question becomes: is there a compelling reason to bar homosexuals from marriage?
One objection is simply that both would-be spouses are of the same sex. That is no answer; it merely repeats the question. Perhaps, then, once homosexuals can marry, marital anarchy will follow? That might be true if homosexual unions were arbitrary configurations, mere parodies of “real” marriage. But the truth is that countless homosexual couples, especially lesbian ones, have shown that they are as capable of fidelity, responsibility and devotion as are heterosexual couples—and this despite having to keep their unions secret, at least until recently. Would gay marriage weaken the standard variety? There is little reason to think so. Indeed, the opposite seems at least as likely: permitting gay marriage could reaffirm society's hope that people of all kinds settle down into stable unions.
The question of children in homosexual households—adoption, especially—is thorny. That question, however, is mainly separate from the matter of marriage as such. In settling a child with guardians who are not the natural parents, the courts and adoption agencies will consider a variety of factors, just as they do now; a couple's homosexuality may be one such factor (though it need not, by itself, be decisive).
In the end, leaving aside (as secular governments should) objections that may be held by particular religions, the case against homosexual marriage is this: people are unaccustomed to it. It is strange and radical. That is a sound argument for not pushing change along precipitously. Certainly it is an argument for legalising homosexual marriage through consensual politics (as in Denmark), rather than by court order (as may happen in America). But the direction of change is clear. If marriage is to fulfill its aspirations, it must be defined by the commitment of one to another for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health—not by the people it excludes.
ShumaGorath wrote:Yep. You've proven too many times in the past that you align yourself with ultraconservative faux economics and ideologies that are utterly incompatible with running an economy. It pulls every debate into foolish and useless extremes.
America beginning to turbo out of recession, solid economic growth, increasing consumer spending/confidence/comfort, and all with gas prices 70 cents higher.
Food for thought: 3/5 of America's population is in the '1%' in terms of global income and wealth distribution.
I'm a believer that Obama gets re-elected. In spite of that, America's doing pretty good.
COnsumer confidence fell in February. Unemployment per Gallup jumped .5%.
2% growth is turboing only to turtle. Reagan recovery rates at ~approx. 5% annually.
Raegans economic hardship was a joke. A toddler could of sneezed on a piece of paper and had it pass congress and the economy would of recovered. What we're in right now? That's the real gak. Raegan was an actor that had everything done for him by circumstance and 30 years later he's some sort of god.
Frazzled wrote:if only he had in fact supported a massive capital spending program we might be in a different situation now. But as we all know "shovel ready" didn't really mean shovel ready...
In fact, the stimulus was used to pay the salaries of union workers, who are required to pay union dues, which the unions then donate 90% of to democrat politicians, who send tax dollars to uni... It's a money laundry scheme.
Obama isn't fiddling while Rome burns, he's playing golf and running for re-election. He has been since he was elected.
As for the Republicans blocking Obama from doing anything:
1. Obama is a Socialist Muslim from Kenya. Just what part of his agenda should they sign off on?
2. Obama and the dems controlled the WH and both sides of congress for two years. They didn't get anything done (that was legal) because they couldn't agree amongst themselves. I guess Republican obstructionism is not caving in to democrat wishes? The Senate (democrat controlled) hasn't passed a budget for over 3 years, which is illegal. Dingy Harry has admitted that he has no intention of working with republicans.
Phanatik wrote: 1. Obama is a Socialist Muslim from Kenya
Trololololololol!
But seriously, let's stay on topic instead of dealing in inane fantasies.
Inane fantasies are the bread and butter of the looney left longing for a still-unrealized Utopia. But wow, you completely smashed me with that brilliant lololol thing. Truly.
Obama is a socialist. His policies are socialist. his friends are socialist, and he said we should judge him by those around him. He's an alinsky-ite.
He was a Muslim as a child. Islamic law says once a muslim, always a muslim.
According to the laws of Kenya when Barry was born to a Kenyan father, Barry is a Kenyan.
Obama would be considered far right wing in any real socailist country. Which is fitting, because he isn't a socialist.
Phanatik wrote:He was a Muslim as a child.
By the time his father and mother met, his father had abandoned religion and his mother was a non-practicing Christian.
Phanatik wrote:Islamic law says once a muslim, always a muslim.
Which is irrelevant because he was never a muslim.
Phanatik wrote:According to the laws of Kenya when Barry was born to a Kenyan father, Barry is a Kenyan.
By that definition he's also swiss because Switzerland gave him honorary citizenship papers. He only spent a few weeks in Kenya in his early life, and that was only to visit relatives; saying he's Kenyan is distorting the facts, not that I expect you to give a damn about any of those.
I'd be glad if Obama was a socialist. And no, socialism is not communism. It's quite different infact.
It looks like this election is coming down to who voters think is the lesser of two evils. Hopefully Santorum will win the primary so Obama can crush him like the little homophobic bug he is.
LoneLictor wrote:I'd be glad if Obama was a socialist. And no, socialism is not communism. It's quite different infact.
It looks like this election is coming down to who voters think is the lesser of two evils. Hopefully Santorum will win the primary so Obama can crush him like the little homophobic bug he is.
I'd be ecstatic if he were a Communist! Romney's the Republican's only hope at this point and most of them are realizing this.
Yeah, Santorum can't win because he kinda dislikes women and women kinda make up 50% of the population which means he's got quite the obstacle to overcome if he wins the primary.
Melissia wrote:Obama would be considered far right wing in any real socailist country. Which is fitting, because he isn't a socialist..
What he would be in Cuba, or perhaps the former Soviet Union is irrelevant. In America, he qualifies as a socialist.
And, of course Barack Hussein Obama, Jr is as common in America as John Smith. I'm sure I knew 50 or 60 Barack Husseins as a child.
Best,
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:Yeah, Santorum can't win because he kinda dislikes women and women kinda make up 50% of the population which means he's got quite the obstacle to overcome if he wins the primary.
You kinda sound like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. But don't let that stop you. You kinda sound like 20% of the population.
LoneLictor wrote:I'd be glad if Obama was a socialist. And no, socialism is not communism. It's quite different infact.
It looks like this election is coming down to who voters think is the lesser of two evils. Hopefully Santorum will win the primary so Obama can crush him like the little homophobic bug he is.
In fact are two words.
No, they are not quite different. Socialism is the gateway drug to communism. You see, you can't just go by the fact they are spelled differently. I hope this helps!
MrDwhitey wrote:I'm so glad you're back posting, Phanatik.
I love it.
Why, thank you. (I think?)
Debates on the internet between people on the right and left usually don't end with one side being swayed to the other side's point of view. I think it must be genetic. So, 2 or 3 rip-roaring threads will do me for at least a year.
First of all, why did you feel the need to quote me twice? Maybe it's because I'm such an important person that you couldn't grasp the sheer awesomeness of me in a single post. Maybe the issue of attempting to debate with me in a single post intimidated you. I can understand this. I tend to intimidate people. I'm a pretty intimidatory person.
Phanatik wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:Yeah, Santorum can't win because he kinda dislikes women and women kinda make up 50% of the population which means he's got quite the obstacle to overcome if he wins the primary.
You kinda sound like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. But don't let that stop you. You kinda sound like 20% of the population.
Regards,
That's definitely a great debate tactic. "You're wrong." Except you used more words (a waste of bandwidth in my opinion) and ended your quotes with "Regards" so it sounded like you were sending me an angry letter. Now, here's my rebuttal to your post.
You kinda sound like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. But don't let that stop you. You kinda sound like 20% of the population.
Phanatik wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:I'd be glad if Obama was a socialist. And no, socialism is not communism. It's quite different infact.
It looks like this election is coming down to who voters think is the lesser of two evils. Hopefully Santorum will win the primary so Obama can crush him like the little homophobic bug he is.
In fact are two words.
No, they are not quite different. Socialism is the gateway drug to communism. You see, you can't just go by the fact they are spelled differently. I hope this helps!
The little homophobic bug? Sounds...personal. lol
Regards,
Socialism is the gateway drug to communism? Here's the definition of socialism that I'm talking about, you're probably talking about the other definition (which is essentially, as you said, the gateway drug to communism): "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".
As for the "little homophobic bug" comment, yes it is personal. For you see, America is personal to me. I was born here. I've spent my life here. The only time I left the country was to go to Canada and I hated it. Everything has maple syrup on it. They have burgers with maple syrup on them there, you know. It's fethed up. That's unAmerican. But what is American to me, is America. And I was born in America. So that's why its personal.
Feel free to quote me twice, as I'm very intimidatory.
WarOne wrote:A few people actually had hope he'd be the outsider needed to fix what is wrong with America.
Put in this context, just left out on its own like this, I hope it becomes clear to everyone what meaningless gibberish this idea really is.
There is no person, full of magical outsiderish properties, that can just come in and fix what is wrong with America. These are all just meaningless buzz terms.
What's needed is structural reform, and a shifting of the focus away from wedge issues and towards long term governance of the country. These are serious challenges that need to be tackled by a hell of a lot more than just one 'outsider'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WarOne wrote:They have four actually.
Viable candidates don't spend periods of the campaign trailing Donald Trump and Herman Cain. Viable candidates don't see the primary devolve into attack ads on each other, because they have so little positive appeal of their own. Viable candidates don't spend the primary season with slowly sinking personal approval ratings.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:Heh. Ron Paul would be rendered impotent even by his own party if he became president because of his nutjob ideas and inanities. Even assuming he did manage to get support, he'd quite literally wreck the country's economy putting his ideas in to play.
It's actually why I think he's maybe the best of the Republican batch. His economic ideas are completely bonkers, but everyone that isn't a disciple of Paul knows that, and any reform in that area would get shut down utterly. On the other hand, I think he might make some progress on civil liberties, and could actually use the presidency for some good in that regard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:The Economist however is still less right wing than the current Republican party in many areas (if you use the definition of right wing where you consider both social conservatism and free market economics are required for being right wing).
The Economist is basically an old fashioned free market for the good of everyone, identify the places where competition fails and regulate to produce competition type deal. What the right wing used to be about, and is still about in some places. The Republicans marched past that place into the loonie fringes of free market uber alles years ago.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Only a deminimis amount. hence his sudden desire for a capital spending bill in 2011.
if only he had in fact supported a massive capital spending program we might be in a different situation now. But as we all know "shovel ready" didn't really mean shovel ready...
What? All those Republican governors making a big show of rejecting Federal funds for infrastructure reconstruction? All that debate over high speed rail? What do you think all of that was?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:In fact, the stimulus was used to pay the salaries of union workers, who are required to pay union dues, which the unions then donate 90% of to democrat politicians, who send tax dollars to uni... It's a money laundry scheme.
Phanatik. Making biccat look reasonable since April 2010.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:What he would be in Cuba, or perhaps the former Soviet Union is irrelevant. In America, he qualifies as a socialist.
Socialism is an actual thing, with a definitive albeit complex meaning.
Of course, the Republican party's level of discourse has devolved to such a stupid, stupid place that socialism is basically like grade 3s yelling that Tommy has cooties. And yes, you should feel embarassed for going along with something so stupid.
And, of course Barack Hussein Obama, Jr is as common in America as John Smith. I'm sure I knew 50 or 60 Barack Husseins as a child.
I mean, come on people, look at the guy. He's black! A black man. Of course he's not American.
You kinda sound like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. But don't let that stop you. You kinda sound like 20% of the population.
Just go look at Santorum's general approval numbers, and then look at his approval number in swing states. Then come back and admit you were wrong, and that Santorum is actually slightly less electable than a house brick. Go on, off you go. We'll wait.
LoneLictor wrote:First of all, why did you feel the need to quote me twice? Maybe it's because I'm such an important person that you couldn't grasp the sheer awesomeness of me in a single post. Maybe the issue of attempting to debate with me in a single post intimidated you. I can understand this. I tend to intimidate people. I'm a pretty intimidatory person.
Phanatik wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:Yeah, Santorum can't win because he kinda dislikes women and women kinda make up 50% of the population which means he's got quite the obstacle to overcome if he wins the primary.
You kinda sound like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. But don't let that stop you. You kinda sound like 20% of the population.
Regards,
That's definitely a great debate tactic. "You're wrong." Except you used more words (a waste of bandwidth in my opinion) and ended your quotes with "Regards" so it sounded like you were sending me an angry letter. Now, here's my rebuttal to your post.
You kinda sound like you don't have a clue what you are talking about. But don't let that stop you. You kinda sound like 20% of the population.
Phanatik wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:I'd be glad if Obama was a socialist. And no, socialism is not communism. It's quite different infact.
It looks like this election is coming down to who voters think is the lesser of two evils. Hopefully Santorum will win the primary so Obama can crush him like the little homophobic bug he is.
In fact are two words.
No, they are not quite different. Socialism is the gateway drug to communism. You see, you can't just go by the fact they are spelled differently. I hope this helps!
The little homophobic bug? Sounds...personal. lol
Regards,
Socialism is the gateway drug to communism? Here's the definition of socialism that I'm talking about, you're probably talking about the other definition (which is essentially, as you said, the gateway drug to communism): "A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".
As for the "little homophobic bug" comment, yes it is personal. For you see, America is personal to me. I was born here. I've spent my life here. The only time I left the country was to go to Canada and I hated it. Everything has maple syrup on it. They have burgers with maple syrup on them there, you know. It's fethed up. That's unAmerican. But what is American to me, is America. And I was born in America. So that's why its personal.
Feel free to quote me twice, as I'm very intimidatory.
Regards,
I quoted you twice because you said two stupid things? Or, I kinda made fun of the way you kinda used kinda, kinda too much.
You might want to see if you can get a shot or take a pill for that case of "intimidatious" you have there. Alas, it didn't ooze its way across the internet to me. But thanks for the heads-up though!
If you would be so kind, please point me in the direction of a real world example of the Leftist Utopia you dream of actually working equally beneficially to the commune?
I'm afraid the connection between little homophobic bug and America and personal is too nebulous this late at night.
I would have to agree with you though about the whole maple syrup thing, eh?
sebster wrote:On the other hand, I think he might make some progress on civil liberties
Let's see...
He opposes abortion, he opposes gay marriage, he views sexual harassment as something that doesn't actually exist, he introduced a bill to ban flag burning, he opposes network neutrality, he opposes transparency in campaign finance, he votes against whistleblower acts, he believes in mob rule (that juries should have the right to judicial activism), he would put Don't Ask Don't Tell back in to the military, and put anti-sodomy laws back on the book making it illegal to be a homosexual again.
To think that Ron Paul gives one gak about civil liberties, nevermind two gaks, is to prove a lack of understanding of Ron Paul. Obama may have been disappointing in some areas but he's still a billion times better than Ron Paul in terms of civil liberties.
By the time his father and mother met, his father had abandoned religion and his mother was a non-practicing Christian.
Phanatik wrote:Islamic law says once a muslim, always a muslim.
Which is irrelevant because he was never a muslim.
We are, however, talking about the guy who went on to state that he came from a Muslim background because his father was a muslim. Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.
Phanatik wrote:Obama isn't fiddling while Rome burns, he's playing golf and running for re-election. He has been since he was elected.
Which, for all we know, EVERY president has been doing.
I remember Bush. Every single day on the news it was "War in Iraq this", and "War on Terror That". You know what was on the news the very last day of his office?
"Most people don't know this, but Bush signed laws that would help protect the nations wildlife reserves."
(At the news people, not you guys) DID YOU EVER THINK THE REASON WE DON'T KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE YOU NEVER TOLD US, YOU S?!?
Moral of the story being; News stations, ANY news stations, only tell you what they wish you to hear.
Phanatik wrote:I quoted you twice because you said two stupid things? Or, I kinda made fun of the way you kinda used kinda, kinda too much.
But, you can put multiple quotes in a post you know. It's quite easy. I'm doing it right now.
Phanatik wrote:You might want to see if you can get a shot or take a pill for that case of "intimidatious" you have there. Alas, it didn't ooze its way across the internet to me. But thanks for the heads-up though!
You're welcome. I should've given you an earlier heads up before the debate started though. You kinda got in over your head.
Phanatik wrote:If you would be so kind, please point me in the direction of a real world example of the Leftist Utopia you dream of actually working equally beneficially to the commune?
A socialist republic seems pretty good. But not a republic in name only like North Korea.
Phanatik wrote:I'm afraid the connection between little homophobic bug and America and personal is too nebulous this late at night.
No, you seem Rick Santorum will have an effect on the future of America. America is personal to me. He will have an effect on America, making him personal to me. Secondly, he would try to prevent me from having gay sex and marrying men, also making him personal to me.
Phanatik wrote:I would have to agree with you though about the whole maple syrup thing, eh?
This could be a Dr. Seuss story. We may be polar opposite, but we still agree on one thing; Canada blows, man.
I take the dog out in the dark, and wind up with something on the bottom of my shoe. That will teach me.
Where was I? Oh yeah...
Holy gak, that happened to me less than four hours ago. I got dog gak on my shoes, cleaned 'em off, then got in a political debate on DakkaDakka. And you did the exact same thing.
We're like twins of fate, entwined by destiny within the relentless currents that is reality.
Little known fact, Macedonia actually did pretty well as a socialist nation. During that time it didn't have economic issues or food shortages or a lack of democracy or anything. It's a real shame the people voted to change it. And yes, the change was peaceful. The politicians heeded to what the people wanted and stepped into the shadow without complaint.
LoneLictor wrote:Little known fact, Macedonia actually did pretty well as a socialist nation. During that time it didn't have economic issues or food shortages or a lack of democracy or anything. It's a real shame the people voted to change it. And yes, the change was peaceful. The politicians heeded to what the people wanted and stepped into the shadow without complaint.
But what did they have?
And, if it was so great, why did the people want to change it?
LoneLictor wrote:Little known fact, Macedonia actually did pretty well as a socialist nation. During that time it didn't have economic issues or food shortages or a lack of democracy or anything. It's a real shame the people voted to change it. And yes, the change was peaceful. The politicians heeded to what the people wanted and stepped into the shadow without complaint.
But what did they have?
And, if it was so great, why did the people want to change it?
Xenos for life!
If Republicans are so great, why did the people elect Obama?
If Ronald Reagan was so great, why was he shot?
If the economy needs to be unregulated, why did people support the increase of taxes in the 20's?
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
Wow, this thread turned into the exact reason I don't post in these threads any more awful quick. Fraz dips his toe into the crazy conservative stalwart pond and suddenly a thirty foot gator bursts out and devours everyone.
ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, this thread turned into the exact reason I don't post in these threads any more awful quick. Fraz dips his toe into the crazy conservative stalwart pond and suddenly a thirty foot gator bursts out and devours everyone.
He opposes abortion, he opposes gay marriage, he views sexual harassment as something that doesn't actually exist, he introduced a bill to ban flag burning, he opposes network neutrality, he opposes transparency in campaign finance, he votes against whistleblower acts, he believes in mob rule (that juries should have the right to judicial activism), he would put Don't Ask Don't Tell back in to the military, and put anti-sodomy laws back on the book making it illegal to be a homosexual again.
To think that Ron Paul gives one gak about civil liberties, nevermind two gaks, is to prove a lack of understanding of Ron Paul. Obama may have been disappointing in some areas but he's still a billion times better than Ron Paul in terms of civil liberties.
Look, don't try to lecture me on the political values of presidential candidates. Just don't.
When I say civil liberties I mean in the common use of the term, the area in which Ron Paul is known to be strong, and that's in limiting government's willingness to place security above the interests of it's citizens. All of the stuff you mention above will simply get bogged down in nothingness as soon as Paul bothers to mention it, whereas there is actually decent support (albeit very limpwristed at the moment) for pulling back on government monitoring, and it's an issue with significant general public support.
Yes, Paul is a crazy man with some very hateful politics. We all know that. But one of the funny things about politics is that it isn't just about the man, but where he fits within the system. Right now that system is poised such that Paul's craziest and most hateful ideas would get no traction, while his one decent idea would maybe get somewhere.
But it's all hypothetical, because Paul has less chance than a housecat of picking up the Republican nomination, and even of a chance of winning the general.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Phanatik wrote:sebster...
I take the dog out in the dark, and wind up with something on the bottom of my shoe. That will teach me.
Where was I? Oh yeah...
So it becomes a bad idea to walk the dog at night. Fair enough.
At which point you can decide to never, ever walk the dog again, or you can think about maybe walking the dog smarter in future.
So when it comes to trying to discuss politics on the internet, it looks like you've chosen the hide inside option. Which probably explains how you came to have such silly political ideas in the first place.
Right now Romney and Gingrich are ahead in that Republican race. Paul and Santorum have been left eating their dust, and Obama could be left facing either the one with a lot of money or the one with a lot of baggage. Either way I have been disappointed with both sides of the American party for some time now.
I felt Obama sounded like a salesman and the McCain was out of touch.
I will wait to see who in the realm of third party comes out if Nader doesn't run. Failing that, who knows.
shasolenzabi wrote:Right now Romney and Gingrich are ahead in that Republican race. Paul and Santorum have been left eating their dust, and Obama could be left facing either the one with a lot of money or the one with a lot of baggage.
Gingrich really doesn't have a run to the candidacy. He had a decent showing in Georgia and nowhere else. He's sitting on 75 votes at present, behind Romney on 332 and Santorum (who is apparently in his dust on 139). I cannot see a list of states he could even plausibly pick up from here to get anywhere near the delegate needed to be a chance of sneaking through some committee chicanery, let alone actually winning the nomination.
Then you've got Santorum, who picks up votes solidly anywhere in the Prairie belt, and is utterly rejected everywhere else.
Paul is, well that guy who always gets about 10% of the vote, no matter what, and who has followers loyal and insane enough to sit through committee meetings in large numbers to give Paul a steady stream of caucus votes. But you can't causus your way to an election, and that's why Paul has a whopping 35 delegates to his name at this point.
All of which leaves Romney. Which is what this primary is. A slow, painful drag as everyone inevitably lurches towards the realisation that Romney is the only electable candidate in the field.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote:That's not the common term as I know it.
Really?
Maybe I've got it swapped in my head with some other term. If so, please forgive my snippiness.
Phanatik wrote: 1. Obama is a Socialist Muslim from Kenya
Trololololololol!
But seriously, let's stay on topic instead of dealing in inane fantasies.
Inane fantasies are the bread and butter of the looney left longing for a still-unrealized Utopia. But wow, you completely smashed me with that brilliant lololol thing. Truly.
Obama is a socialist. His policies are socialist. his friends are socialist, and he said we should judge him by those around him. He's an alinsky-ite.
He was a Muslim as a child. Islamic law says once a muslim, always a muslim.
According to the laws of Kenya when Barry was born to a Kenyan father, Barry is a Kenyan.
Regards,
Hilarious.
From what I've read here in the UK it's going to be unlikely that Obama won't reach a second term, is that right?
Melissia wrote:I dunno if I can say this enough, but Ron Paul is NOT a social liberal. He is very much a conservative.
No. He's a Libertarian. There's a major difference, but you have to look beyond the Democratic talking points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:Little known fact, Macedonia actually did pretty well as a socialist nation. During that time it didn't have economic issues or food shortages or a lack of democracy or anything. It's a real shame the people voted to change it. And yes, the change was peaceful. The politicians heeded to what the people wanted and stepped into the shadow without complaint.
But what did they have?
And, if it was so great, why did the people want to change it?
Xenos for life!
If Republicans are so great, why did the people elect Obama?
If Ronald Reagan was so great, why was he shot?
If the economy needs to be unregulated, why did people support the increase of taxes in the 20's?
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
If Republicans are so great, why did the people elect Obama?
****Something about high gas prices and a recession. That usually happens after an eight year term and the VP is not running.
If Ronald Reagan was so great, why was he shot?
****Because the shooter thought he would impress an actress. You’re either a troll or blindingly ignorant. Reading, its not just for progs!
If the economy needs to be unregulated, why did people support the increase of taxes in the 20's?
****Pay for WWI.
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
****See the statement above about lack of education?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, this thread turned into the exact reason I don't post in these threads any more awful quick. Fraz dips his toe into the crazy conservative stalwart pond and suddenly a thirty foot gator bursts out and devours everyone.
Yet you're posting...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, this thread turned into the exact reason I don't post in these threads any more awful quick. Fraz dips his toe into the crazy conservative stalwart pond and suddenly a thirty foot gator bursts out and devours everyone.
I'm still uneated.
Give hope a chance. Weiner dogs only have 6 inch legs. It takes awhile to get there.
Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since 2010.
Frazzled wrote:
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
****See the statement above about lack of education?
Finland, which is often stated to have the best educational system in the world, is by US measures a socialist country. Implying that all those who believe in socialism lack education is not the proper way to parttake in a debate.
Frazzled wrote: If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it? ****See the statement above about lack of education?
Finland, which is often stated to have the best educational system in the world, is by US measures a socialist country. Implying that all those who believe in socialism lack education is not the proper way to parttake in a debate.
The USSR had an excellent school system. They also sent millions to the gulag.
Frazzled wrote:The USSR had an excellent school system. They also sent millions to the gulag.
Sounds like a good way to keep your numbers up.
Get straight As or it's off to Siberia with you!
I didn't say it was bad.
In an enlightened Frazzled administration: *Secondary education would be funded similar to the UK or German system (whichever is better) *Intensive marketing efforts to promote education and not that PSA nonsense. Inversely marketing/songs etc. that support a lack of education would get hammered. *Don't graduate high school? No driver's license, no government support.
EDIT: I'd be more coherent but I haven't had coffee yet.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
shasolenzabi wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
shasolenzabi wrote:Yeah, I agree Sebster, looks like Romney vs Obama this November
Maybe I've got it swapped in my head with some other term.
I associate it with the varied civil rights movements myself.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:No. He's a Libertarian.
In name only.
Ron Paul wants to control your private life just about as much as any Republican does. These aren't "democratic talking points"; many oft the things I brought up are issues that personally effect me, and all of them are real issues which he must deal with as president.
If he just ignored the issues, I might believe the "he's a libertarian" argument, but he didn't merely ignore them-- he took very strong anti-Libertarian stances on those issues.
Phanatik wrote:
Obama is a socialist. His policies are socialist. his friends are socialist, and he said we should judge him by those around him.
Probably, of course, "everyone is a socialist now." Its really a matter of to what degree.
Keynesians are socialists now? Someone tell Gordon Brown...
Technically, by lose definitions of socialism they always have been. Anyone that pays taxes is a socialist though, so the point is kinda moot. The word doesn't mean a fething thing. It's just there for conservatives to paint people with.
Just because the thread's about American politics doesn't mean we aren't listening...
*cough*cough* Oh, and politics and things and republicans and democrats and poor widows and injustice and freedom and women's rights and all that.
Speaking of Canada blows: Is a Canadian based team even gonna try to win the Stanley cup this season or are you guys content to simply burn down your own cities again?
Frazzled wrote:Lots and Lots of Stuff about Republican Policies and cute lil' Wiener Dogs
You misconstrue my questions, good sir. He catechized, "If socialism works, why don't people support it?" This I catechized, "If republicanism works, why don't people support it?" And then I catechized a plethora more catechizes because your posts appear to seem thrice as acute if you avail a plethora of words and a Thesaurus. You may misconstrue this statement likewise, good sir, thus I humbly suggest you might access a dictionary for an improved comprehension.
Frazzled wrote:Lots and Lots of Stuff about Republican Policies and cute lil' Wiener Dogs
You misconstrue my questions, good sir. He catechized, "If socialism works, why don't people support it?" This I catechized, "If republicanism works, why don't people support it?" And then I catechized a plethora more catechizes because your posts appear to seem thrice as acute if you avail a plethora of words and a Thesaurus. You may misconstrue this statement likewise, good sir, thus I humbly suggest you might access a dictionary for an improved comprehension.
Frazzled wrote:Lots and Lots of Stuff about Republican Policies and cute lil' Wiener Dogs
You misconstrue my questions, good sir. He catechized, "If socialism works, why don't people support it?" This I catechized, "If republicanism works, why don't people support it?" And then I catechized a plethora more catechizes because your posts appear to seem thrice as acute if you avail a plethora of words and a Thesaurus. You may misconstrue this statement likewise, good sir, thus I humbly suggest you might access a dictionary for an improved comprehension.
Whats so awesome is that, that is not my quote.
Well yeah, I kinda trimmed it down. But here it is in it's entirety.
Spoiler:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:I dunno if I can say this enough, but Ron Paul is NOT a social liberal. He is very much a conservative.
No. He's a Libertarian. There's a major difference, but you have to look beyond the Democratic talking points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:Little known fact, Macedonia actually did pretty well as a socialist nation. During that time it didn't have economic issues or food shortages or a lack of democracy or anything. It's a real shame the people voted to change it. And yes, the change was peaceful. The politicians heeded to what the people wanted and stepped into the shadow without complaint.
But what did they have?
And, if it was so great, why did the people want to change it?
Xenos for life!
If Republicans are so great, why did the people elect Obama?
If Ronald Reagan was so great, why was he shot?
If the economy needs to be unregulated, why did people support the increase of taxes in the 20's?
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
If Republicans are so great, why did the people elect Obama?
****Something about high gas prices and a recession. That usually happens after an eight year term and the VP is not running.
If Ronald Reagan was so great, why was he shot?
****Because the shooter thought he would impress an actress. You’re either a troll or blindingly ignorant. Reading, its not just for progs!
If the economy needs to be unregulated, why did people support the increase of taxes in the 20's?
****Pay for WWI.
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
****See the statement above about lack of education?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, this thread turned into the exact reason I don't post in these threads any more awful quick. Fraz dips his toe into the crazy conservative stalwart pond and suddenly a thirty foot gator bursts out and devours everyone.
Yet you're posting...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, this thread turned into the exact reason I don't post in these threads any more awful quick. Fraz dips his toe into the crazy conservative stalwart pond and suddenly a thirty foot gator bursts out and devours everyone.
I'm still uneated.
Give hope a chance. Weiner dogs only have 6 inch legs. It takes awhile to get there.
Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since 2010.
Frazzled wrote:
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
****See the statement above about lack of education?
Finland, which is often stated to have the best educational system in the world, is by US measures a socialist country. Implying that all those who believe in socialism lack education is not the proper way to parttake in a debate.
The USSR had an excellent school system. They also sent millions to the gulag.
Wait, first you claim that people who support socialism lack education, then you state that the USSR had an excellent school system, implying that your own statement isn't true. Make up your mind!
Frazzled wrote:
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
****See the statement above about lack of education?
Finland, which is often stated to have the best educational system in the world, is by US measures a socialist country. Implying that all those who believe in socialism lack education is not the proper way to parttake in a debate.
The USSR had an excellent school system. They also sent millions to the gulag.
Wait, first you claim that people who support socialism lack education, then you state that the USSR had an excellent school system, implying that your own statement isn't true. Make up your mind!
USSR was communist. Go big or go home!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:
Frazzled wrote:Lots and Lots of Stuff about Republican Policies and cute lil' Wiener Dogs
You misconstrue my questions, good sir. He catechized, "If socialism works, why don't people support it?" This I catechized, "If republicanism works, why don't people support it?" And then I catechized a plethora more catechizes because your posts appear to seem thrice as acute if you avail a plethora of words and a Thesaurus. You may misconstrue this statement likewise, good sir, thus I humbly suggest you might access a dictionary for an improved comprehension.
Whats so awesome is that, that is not my quote.
Well yeah, I kinda trimmed it down. But here it is in it's entirety.
Spoiler:
Frazzled wrote:
Melissia wrote:I dunno if I can say this enough, but Ron Paul is NOT a social liberal. He is very much a conservative.
No. He's a Libertarian. There's a major difference, but you have to look beyond the Democratic talking points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LoneLictor wrote:
Phanatik wrote:
LoneLictor wrote:Little known fact, Macedonia actually did pretty well as a socialist nation. During that time it didn't have economic issues or food shortages or a lack of democracy or anything. It's a real shame the people voted to change it. And yes, the change was peaceful. The politicians heeded to what the people wanted and stepped into the shadow without complaint.
But what did they have?
And, if it was so great, why did the people want to change it?
Xenos for life!
If Republicans are so great, why did the people elect Obama?
If Ronald Reagan was so great, why was he shot?
If the economy needs to be unregulated, why did people support the increase of taxes in the 20's?
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
If Republicans are so great, why did the people elect Obama?
****Something about high gas prices and a recession. That usually happens after an eight year term and the VP is not running.
If Ronald Reagan was so great, why was he shot?
****Because the shooter thought he would impress an actress. You’re either a troll or blindingly ignorant. Reading, its not just for progs!
If the economy needs to be unregulated, why did people support the increase of taxes in the 20's?
****Pay for WWI.
If socialism doesn't work, why do I support it?
****See the statement above about lack of education?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, this thread turned into the exact reason I don't post in these threads any more awful quick. Fraz dips his toe into the crazy conservative stalwart pond and suddenly a thirty foot gator bursts out and devours everyone.
Yet you're posting...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:Wow, this thread turned into the exact reason I don't post in these threads any more awful quick. Fraz dips his toe into the crazy conservative stalwart pond and suddenly a thirty foot gator bursts out and devours everyone.
I'm still uneated.
Give hope a chance. Weiner dogs only have 6 inch legs. It takes awhile to get there.
Frazzled, taking short dogs on long walks since 2010.
In that case, your attempt to use five dollar words only makes you incoherent.
He say, "If socialism works, why didn't they support it?"
I say, "If republicanism works, why didn't people support it?"
Then I use lots more questions and big words to try sound smart.
Phanatik wrote:
Obama is a socialist. His policies are socialist. his friends are socialist, and he said we should judge him by those around him.
Probably, of course, "everyone is a socialist now." Its really a matter of to what degree.
Keynesians are socialists now? Someone tell Gordon Brown...
Technically, by lose definitions of socialism they always have been. Anyone that pays taxes is a socialist though, so the point is kinda moot. The word doesn't mean a fething thing. It's just there for conservatives to paint people with.
Socialism is the economic belief that society is best served by state control of industry, to variable degrees.
Only in the US is it a prejorative. And what does "anyone that pays taxes is a socialist" mean?
Phanatik wrote: Obama is a socialist. His policies are socialist. his friends are socialist, and he said we should judge him by those around him.
Probably, of course, "everyone is a socialist now." Its really a matter of to what degree.
Keynesians are socialists now? Someone tell Gordon Brown...
Technically, by lose definitions of socialism they always have been. Anyone that pays taxes is a socialist though, so the point is kinda moot. The word doesn't mean a fething thing. It's just there for conservatives to paint people with.
Socialism is the economic belief that society is best served by state control of industry, to variable degrees. Only in the US is it a prejorative. And what does "anyone that pays taxes is a socialist" mean?
No. Not really. It never has meant pure state control (that was co opted into communism which itself actually doesn't mean anything either) and the word has never really had a unified meaning at all. From the beginnings it's meant little more than "Noun with collectivist traits of some sort"; take your pick of whatever you want the noun to be. It could be anything and everything. By it's most basic definition incorporated business is socialist. Militaries are socialist. States themselves as they are considered in modern days are socialist enterprises. The word is worthless in modern times.
I mean Christ, Anarchism is considered a socialist philosophy. The purely anti governmental and anti control ideal of anarchism is somehow considered through the lens of a collectivist resource management concept. That's idiotic.
They had an article on The Daily Show Thursday in which they interviewed two different American Socialist activist groups (Democratic Socialists of America and Socialist Organizer Party) and both said that the other was not socialist at all, while both also said that Obama was absolutely not a socialist, though for different reasons. They also talked to a conservative political commentator that said that not only was Obama a socialist, but that he was also a fascist.
Joey wrote:The Economist says that the devil hates socialism? Now that is interesting.
Possibly because socialism works. So therefore the devil make sure it doesnt. With socialism comes increased corruption and greed.
I think you have missed out on understanding the real bugbears of socialism Joey, a socialist in real terms is someone who says 'others must pay'. Real life socialism seldom prohibits wealth accumulation for the socialist elite, it simply tries to replace or superimpose one elite on another one. The plight of the people rarely has any value other than as a meal ticket to get socialists in power.
Now real selfless socialism would be something worth the struggle. Won't happen though.
This is not a theological comment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Poppabear wrote:And the Republicans do better?
Yea, Obama is the best you guys got at the moment. Hate to break it to you but the other side is just full of misfits and tards.
I so fear thats true.
Obama in a second term, with no further election to concern himself with will be dangerous.
Orlanth wrote:Obama in a second term, with no further election to concern himself with will be dangerous.
I would say it's awesome rather than dangerous. Then again, he's done a lot of things which I approve of (insert people accusing me of being a leftie commie socialist here, regardless of my arguments for a regulated free market and arguments against government ownership of anything, but these people don't give a damn about facts or truth or honesty and such) soooo....
Orlanth wrote:Obama in a second term, with no further election to concern himself with will be dangerous.
I would say it's awesome rather than dangerous. Then again, he's done a lot of things which I approve of (insert people accusing me of being a leftie commie socialist here, regardless of my arguments for a regulated free market and arguments against government ownership of anything, but these people don't give a damn about facts or truth or honesty and such) soooo....
Don't really have much to contribute, but I appreciate that link quite a bit. Thanks.
The only alternative the GOP ran other than bland was various kinds of crazy, so really we should all be thankful none of the truly, deeply insane are going to win the GOP presidency. We should all be very worried that so many truly, deeply crazy candidates got so far, of course.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:The USSR had an excellent school system. They also sent millions to the gulag.
A powerful, incredible point, if one is willing to completely and utterly ignore the basic differences between a democratic society that chose a broadly socialist model, like Finland, as opposed to a totalitarian state with a socialist model, like the USSR.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:I didn't say it was bad.
In an enlightened Frazzled administration: *Secondary education would be funded similar to the UK or German system (whichever is better) *Intensive marketing efforts to promote education and not that PSA nonsense. Inversely marketing/songs etc. that support a lack of education would get hammered. *Don't graduate high school? No driver's license, no government support.
This sounds pretty solid, though I'd think that a decent qualification in some kind of trade school should be an option instead of highschool graduation. I mean, we all know some people, and that while they might be great people, the only way they're graduating highschool is by making highschool so easy that it means nothing to graduate from it. It doesn't mean they're useful, it just means they'd be better of spending that time learning a trade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:With socialism comes increased corruption and greed.
You probably need to take a closer look at the capitalist economies of South America before you make that kind of a statement. Corruption is a product of culture, and of accountability.
I think you have missed out on understanding the real bugbears of socialism Joey, a socialist in real terms is someone who says 'others must pay'.
No, it isn't. That's just easy, name calling politics.
Obama in a second term, with no further election to concern himself with will be dangerous.
People said that about Clinton too. It was nonsense then, and it's nonsense now.
Sebster I don't know why you bother day in and day out with the same tired repetition. They say the same things every time a thread like this comes up. It's never real, it's never true, it's always intellectually lazy. But the fact that despite you entering these threads and repeatedly setting the record straight they continue doing it should be indicative of something. Their unwillingness to ever bend to reality likely being the most important thing. Why keep trying?
ShumaGorath wrote:Sebster I don't know why you bother day in and day out with the same tired repetition. They say the same things every time a thread like this comes up. It's never real, it's never true, it's always intellectually lazy. But the fact that despite you entering these threads and repeatedly setting the record straight they continue doing it should be indicative of something. Their unwillingness to ever bend to reality likely being the most important thing. Why keep trying?
It's kinda fun. Especially when you get something like biccat claiming Adam Smith believed the relationship between the employer and the employee is always equal.
I like Sebster's approach. It's good to see someone sticking up for reality without flying off the handle all the time. He's got more patience than I do.
Orlanth wrote:
Obama in a second term, with no further election to concern himself with will be dangerous.
Because, clearly, all rational projections show the Democrats retaking the House, and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote:
This sounds pretty solid, though I'd think that a decent qualification in some kind of trade school should be an option instead of highschool graduation. I mean, we all know some people, and that while they might be great people, the only way they're graduating highschool is by making highschool so easy that it means nothing to graduate from it. It doesn't mean they're useful, it just means they'd be better of spending that time learning a trade.
Yes, a thousand times yes.
Further, the college prep element of high school needs to be dialed back significantly. Some schools in the US do a better job than others, but in general things like exchange programs with community colleges are fairly rare.
The US education system is highly flexible, but that flexibility makes it an absolute mess.
Hell, it was easier for my to apply to U Sydney (thanks Australearn) than to U Chicago.
ShumaGorath wrote:Sebster I don't know why you bother day in and day out with the same tired repetition. They say the same things every time a thread like this comes up. It's never real, it's never true, it's always intellectually lazy. But the fact that despite you entering these threads and repeatedly setting the record straight they continue doing it should be indicative of something. Their unwillingness to ever bend to reality likely being the most important thing. Why keep trying?
Why keep posting then Shuma? Clearly the great wide world is craving your keen understanding a knowledge of the Great Triuth. go forth young man and spread your wisdom to the unwashed masses!
S?!?
