Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login 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!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/08 16:12:37
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Oh yes, there is, and he don't cotton to no cat people.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
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.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/08 17:57:51
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
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.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
Really...ok...
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/03/08 19:28:23
Subject: Re:Obama Approval Averages 45% in February
We can do without the name calling and digs please. Thanks.
... one day the cat peope will rise up. Be prepared.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
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.
-Ph
"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "
MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received."
Phanatik wrote: 1. Obama is a Socialist Muslim from Kenya
lolololololol!
But seriously, let's stay on topic instead of dealing in inane fantasies.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/03/09 02:50:25
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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,
"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "
MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received."
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.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
If he were a socialist/communist we'd have some actual variety in our political discourse...
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
Regards,
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/09 03:17:53
"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "
MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received."
2012/03/09 03:23:25
Subject: Re:Obama Approval Averages 45% in February
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
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,
"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "
MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received."
I like his support for the guy who says that if aliens came, Jews and whites would sell blacks off to pay the national debt. Awesome.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
2012/03/09 03:33:24
Subject: Re:Obama Approval Averages 45% in February
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.
Best,
"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "
MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received."
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.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2012/03/09 03:49:51
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
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?
Best,
"Stop worrying about it and just get naked." - Mrs. Phanatik
"To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." -Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Frazzled - "When the Great Wienie comes, you will have a favored place among his Chosen. "
MachineSpirit - "Quick Reply has been temporarily disabled due to a recent warning you received."
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/03/09 03:55:09
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
I've never feared Death or Dying. I've only feared never Trying.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Hive Fleet Aquarius 2-1-0
S?!?