Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Obama is always learning
lately, he's learned you can't change Washington from the inside.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEuDqBFuFK4&feature=player_embedded
vote for him anyway, k?
It's not his concept that's wrong, you know...
Yes, it is.
Most people don't even know what his concepts are.
Please do explain his views, oh superior intellect.
It's also curious you should go there since Romney didn't explain any of his plans to address the deficit or to stabilize the economy in depth during the convention, and his first day of makeover and relaunch was spent doing damage control for having dismissed 47% of americans as lazy deadbeats.
It's curious that you presume Romney's much different than Obama. Since he's not.
Obama's party held control of the House, Senate, and President's office. You don't think, with all of his popularity, the historical nature of his presidency, and the media's love for him, he could have made the case for any additional changes he wanted and we'd all have heard the argument?
He got the changes he wanted: More government involvement in banking and business in general, more government involvement in healthcare (which was already our healthcare system's biggest problem), additional military action on behalf of the NWO, and hundreds of billions in payoffs to public sector unions whose pensions were bankrupting local governments all over the country.
If you think he wanted some magical, logical, academic, civil changes that he didn't get, I suggest you're probably high. Because he didn't talk about wanting anything more than he got, and he got everything he wanted (save fully socialized healthcare, but he's talked openly about how this is a step in that direction--he couldn't quite get the votes for that).
"It's also curious you should go there since Romney didn't explain any of his plans to address the deficit or to stabilize the economy in depth during the convention, and his first day of makeover and relaunch was spent doing damage control for having dismissed 47% of americans as lazy deadbeats."
1. Willard has had a 59 point plan on his website for a year. The press used to make fun of him as the geek with a 59 point plan, before he won the nomination, and then, serving Ming meant complaining Romney hasn't read his 59 point plan out loud.
2. There is no "damage control" for saying people who want sponge off the government are deadbeats.
3. there is a Mitt Romney Is An Ass thread, and this aint it.
Yell, defining by comparison ^^ you can hardly say one guy has ill defined concepts if the guy you're backing doesn't have any concepts at all... has he made up his mind on healthcare and abortion yet? Pot, kettle, ever heard of it? (loved that you called him Willard btw 
)
And Spock no one who has a decent knowledge of politics expected Obama to do anything more than what he did, except maybe on healthcare reform, but you know how that went. Everything is a process and no matter how good an orator he is, he is still limited.
Also keep in mind he is a Democrat, not a communist, so all this massive change you're terrified of is probably all in your heads. He doesn't want to transform values, just adapt them to today's reality, especially in regards to social issues. The Republican party seems to have lost its touch with the average person in this regard, and if they insist on doing so they will hand this and possibly next election to the democrats, unless something really terrible happens.
That's the way I see it atm.
He doesn't want to "transform values," just "fundamentally change" Amerika. Your political commentary strikes me as rather limited and disappointing.
The Libertarian party wants to adapt values to today's reality, especially in regard to social issues.
The Democratic party, on the other hand, has been hijacked by progressives/socialists/communists. You seem to reject this; Yet, if I asked you where the values of current Democrats (such as leaders, such as Pelosi and Reid) differ from those of communists/socialists, you surely would be unable to tell me. Consider this a challenge. We both know you have absolutely no response to such an inquiry and are BSing right now, insulting everyone here's intelligence. But give it a try. I like to laugh.
The Republican party just won many victories, thanks to Tea Party support, in the most recent election. You predict they're going to lose to Democrats based on "social issues," without addressing the fact that Tea Party support isn't about social issues at all and Tea Party support just won many elections. Good job. Again, limited and disappointing.
As someone who will vote for neither Obama nor Romney, Democrats nor Republicans, you give me a lot of reminders of why I'm doing the intelligent and responsible thing.
"Social issues" are a loser for Democrats because they believe:
if the girl down the street wants to keep her baby, you should pay for it;
if she wants to have an abortion, you should pay for it;
if she wants to bang the whole block wtihout getting pregnant, you should pay for it;
if she wants to become a man, you should pay for it.
Spock I'm sorry but you seem fairly unintelligent to me. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi aren't President, Obama is. And if you think what Obama is trying to introduce into your society is communism, my friend you really haven't got the faintest clue of what you're talking about.
You can say he has alot more social concerns, granted, but it's as big of a stretch to call his agenda communit as it is calling you an open minded citizen of the world. I suggest you and the party you support go on a fact checking mission and start with the definition of the word communist, and then compare it to progressive liberalism; you may be surprised.
"You predict they're going to lose to Democrats based on "social issues," without addressing the fact that Tea Party support isn't about social issues at all" yes that's precisely why you're going to lose. Wanna bet on it?
genesis is learning too
i hope not googling like einstein before saying smart things :}
" I suggest you and the party you support go on a fact checking mission and start with the definition of the word communist, and then compare it to progressive liberalism; you may be surprised."
hey yeah...you're both powermad left wing assholes, but compared to communists, you're definitely a bunch of pussies.
Speaking as a right winger who can either finance your schemes or go to prison.
"And if you think what Obama is trying to introduce into your society is communism, my friend you really haven't got the faintest clue of what you're talking about."
I challenged you to tell us how his values differ from those of communists. You claim there are clear differences. Why are you afraid or otherwise unable to enlighten us?
For someone telling us that you judge my intellect to be lacking, you pussy out of a simple and fundamental question pretty darn quick.
You go on to tell me that progressive liberalism (mind you "progressive" is a hijacked term in Amerika) is sooooo different from communism, yet you fail to point out any such distinction between them. If you can't tell me where Democratic/Progressive values of redistribution and government control end and communist values begin, you're just making my point for me.
I'm not going to lose anything. I'm an innocent bystander to this mess of ignorant sheep voting for their corrupt Democrat/Republican masters, taking this country all the way to the poor house.
lol @ The Yell. For those in power, it's pragmatic to hide their ideology. I think you're right about everyone else. They're just too cowardly to openly state their values and positions.
I challenged one to here. He declined. And he's surely going to continue to.
Communism means that:
1. Private ownership of the means of production is abolished.
2. All production is decided by a collective (central bureaucrats).
Nowhere has Obama suggested he wants communism. Obama wants to raise taxes to pay for more public goods and reward his cronies, and increase regulations to improve consumer safety and protect the environment. It's corrupt and ignorant, but it's far from communism. If you want to insinuate that Obama is committed to an evil ideology, then call him a Fascist. At least an argument, although far fetched, could be made for that.
He has a strong flavor of fascism as Mussolini put it forward, except he's also very hostile to religion except where it is tied to a valued ethnic minority.
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/04/02/il-duce-redux
Yell,
The examples your cited are examples of regulation, not abolishing the private ownership of the means of production. You would be seeing the seizure of private businesses and their transformation in to state owned businesses if there was a communist trend.
Justinian, it may be corrupt, but so is any other ideology. A completely free market would be extremely corrupt as well, perhaps with different settings, such as monopolies. Do you have a corruption-free suggestion?
It's this crazy thing called a middle ground. You know... what exists between what the left likes to frame the right as advocating, and what the right likes to frame the left as advocating. So... cut the crap with the strawman?
Dammit... it is posts like that why I would donate max cap or ten thousand a year if Chris ran for government office as a Republican or Conservative.
Posts like that why I would pay $15,000 a year for 20 hours a week as my campaign manager...
And Posts like that why I think he could be Governor or Senator.... AT THE LEAST!... if he but tried.
Why I think he is better than Erick Erickson, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michelle Malkin, or any other Conservative talking head.
Darn you Chris... why can't you get over your obstinance and be something positive! UGH!
I'm a moderate leftist, I have no problem with a right wing government that doesn't neglect social concerns.
Genesis,
I only meant to say that Obama is corrupt, not that Liberal-Progressivism is corrupt. I also don't favor a pure free-market system, as there are market failures. As to your suggestion on how to reduce corruption, I think the following would help:
1. Eliminate the Patriot Act.
2. Increase transparency.
3. Lift unnecessary legal barriers to entry that possibly reduce competition.
4. Simplify the tax code and reduce the number of exemptions.
5. Review spending programs for their effectiveness and necessity for improving the equality of opportunity.
"Yell,
The examples your cited are examples of regulation, not abolishing the private ownership of the means of production. You would be seeing the seizure of private businesses and their transformation in to state owned businesses if there was a communist trend.
Last edited by Justinian I (Today 12:31:46)"
The difference between an industry converted to government-mandated production for government-mandated prices and government mandated consumption, and industry converted to state-operated production, is so slim, the one is only imposed to lead to the other.
Imperial Forum → Politics → Obama is always learning
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.