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.

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.

Phanatik wrote:Best,

TWO CAN PLAY AT THAT GAME

Sincerely,

I dunno if I can say this enough, but Ron Paul is NOT a social liberal. He is very much a conservative.

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...

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...

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.

LoneLictor wrote:A socialist republic seems pretty good. But not a republic in name only like North Korea.

I meant, can you provide an example from history that what you want would actually work?

In any case, I think you're alright! You got style.

Your servant sir,



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lictor,

You mean the webway.

Xenos, don't ya know.

Phanatik wrote:

LoneLictor wrote:A socialist republic seems pretty good. But not a republic in name only like North Korea.

I meant, can you provide an example from history that what you want would actually work?

In any case, I think you're alright! You got style.

Your servant sir,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Republic_of_Macedonia

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?

Xenos for life!

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?

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.

I'm still uneated.

LoneLictor wrote:Canada blows, man.

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.

Melissia wrote: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.

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.

sebster wrote:When I say civil liberties I mean in the common use of the term

That's not the common term as I know it.

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:

Melissia wrote:

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.

Yeah, I agree Sebster, looks like Romney vs Obama this November

shasolenzabi wrote:Yeah, I agree Sebster, looks like Romney vs Obama this November

Bland vs. the Bland in 2012 HURR!

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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

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!

Frazzled wrote:

shasolenzabi wrote:Yeah, I agree Sebster, looks like Romney vs Obama this November

Bland vs. the Bland in 2012 HURR!

Vote C'Thulhu, why settle for any lesser evil?

biccat wrote:

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

Bland vs. the Bland in 2012 HURR!

Vote C'Thulhu, why settle for any lesser evil?

Agreed.

sebster wrote:Really?

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.

Frazzled wrote:

shasolenzabi wrote:Yeah, I agree Sebster, looks like Romney vs Obama this November

Bland vs. the Bland in 2012 HURR!

I think Obama could have strengthened his ticket by dumping Biden (omygawsh, really? Biden??) and nominated Romney as his v.p. Obama + Obama Lite.

Regards,

Frazzled wrote:I didn't say it was bad.

Neither did I.

I still voted Nader last two prez elections.

shasolenzabi wrote:I still voted Nader last two prez elections.

I voted for Nader at least once. I think in the 1996 election.

Frazzled wrote:

shasolenzabi wrote:I still voted Nader last two prez elections.

I voted for Nader at least once. I think in the 1996 election.

Ah, yes, back in his more fit days. Last election he looked in bad health.