United States Presidential Election 2012 MEGATHREAD
2,907 replies, posted
[img]http://puu.sh/1nC1m[/img]
I love how even Fox Nation said that he needed to say what his fucking plan was.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;38360785]Fascism is statist. And racist as hell.
The actions of Nazi Germany could be considered pretty extreme right-wing, but googling "hitler political spectrum" shows he was center-left by some sources and center-right by others...?[/QUOTE]
Some put more weight on the fact that Nazi Germany restricted the economy in certain ways than they put weight on the fact that Nazism is paternalistic by nature.
It just depends on how you want to prioritize the importance of Hitler's policies and philosophies.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360831]Obama has stated that he supports marijuana legalization, Bobie. He also insists on raising taxes and has called for the "redistribution of wealth." As for green energy, he has given our tax dollars to his Solyndra, green energy company that was lead by one of Obama's biggest campaign donors.
In addition, Obama has made several anti-gun rights statements in the past and sided against two of our closest allies (Israel and the United Kingdom). He sided with Argentina in the Falklands dispute and with Palestine on the Israel-Palestine dispute. He has also supports granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Never mind TARP, which is straight out of the socialist playbook. Obama even said that he wants to nationalize other industries in the same way. Also, don't forget his creating of a universal healthcare system.[/QUOTE]
Most of those things are good?
(Excluding: anti-gun(but I'm sure he's never said anything about that) and siding with argentina (Which I'm also sure he's never said))
Also TARP was signed by Bush, Obama probably voted for it, but it was signed by Bush, is he a socialist?
And how is it socialist or nationalizing at all?? The government didn't buy ALL of the stocks, just some or maybe most of them. That does not give them control over the company.
[QUOTE=Nikota;38360860][img]http://puu.sh/1nC1m[/img]
I love how even Fox Nation said that he needed to say what his fucking plan was.[/QUOTE]
Its Fox News damage control.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38360907]Its Fox News damage control.[/QUOTE]
makes him look bad imo
[QUOTE=laserguided;38360907]Its Fox News damage control.[/QUOTE]
pointing out the multitude of retarded flaws in his campaigning is not damage control
[QUOTE=patq911;38360872]Most of those things are good?
(Excluding: anti-gun(but I'm sure he's never said anything about that) and siding with argentina (Which I'm also sure he's never said))[/QUOTE]
Some sources for [url=http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm]Obama's various anti-gun statements and policies[/url] and for his [url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100162100/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-yet-again-over-the-falklands/]support of Argentina, instead of our closest ally (the UK)[/url].
How are most of those things "good?" I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't consider Obama giving our tax dollars to his campaign financiers to be "good." Nor would I consider his supporting Palestine to be "good," or his giving amnesty to be "good," or universal healthcare to be "good." I also wouldn't consider raising taxes to be "good."
TARP you can argue either way, but Obama handled it horribly. We just threw billions of dollars at these banks and companies without any strings attached. We should have been very specific with what the money could be used for and require that it be payed back (Obama claims that most of it was paid back, but nobody actually believes that).
I hope people actually try to go through with their revolution plots now that Obama has been reelected.
Gonna be fun to watch as it falls apart within minutes.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360831]Obama has stated that he supports marijuana legalization, Bobie. He also insists on raising taxes and has called for the "redistribution of wealth." As for green energy, he has given our tax dollars to his Solyndra, green energy company that was lead by one of Obama's biggest campaign donors.
In addition, Obama has made several anti-gun rights statements in the past and sided against two of our closest allies (Israel and the United Kingdom). He sided with Argentina in the Falklands dispute and with Palestine on the Israel-Palestine dispute. He has also supports granting amnesty to illegal aliens. Never mind TARP, which is straight out of the socialist playbook. Obama even said that he wants to nationalize other industries in the same way. Also, don't forget his creating of a universal healthcare system.[/QUOTE]
gun rights are primarily a left wing or 'liberal' concept at their core, and siding with countries on military disputes can also be considered an exercise of right-wing ideology. the war on drugs has continued at a dramatic rate and marijuana legalization is still extremely sketchy
his universal healthcare system isn't really anything like a nationalized industry at all
Bro, our closest Ally is Western Europe in general.
We don't have favorites, we just love that whole region to death.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360958]
How are most of those things "good?" I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't consider Obama giving our tax dollars to his campaign financiers to be "good." [/QUOTE]
This happens every election. It's systemic, not a problem with Obama specifically. Outlaw campaign financing if you want an end to this sort of bullshit.
There are plenty of crazy left-wing reactions to Obama's re-election:
[img]http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?i=164743[/img]
[img]http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?i=164744[/img]
[img]http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?i=164745[/img]
[QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;38360943]pointing out the multitude of retarded flaws in his campaigning is not damage control[/QUOTE]
Its fox, they're trying to make him look bad instead of blaming republicans as a whole.
[QUOTE=Nikota;38360986]Bro, our closest Ally is Western Europe in general.
We don't have favorites, we just love that whole region to death.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Relationship]I believe you may be mistaken.[/url]
[QUOTE=Pal13;38360934]makes him look bad imo[/QUOTE]
thats the point
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360958]Some sources for [URL="http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm"]Obama's various anti-gun statements and policies[/URL] and for his [URL="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100162100/the-obama-administration-knifes-britain-yet-again-over-the-falklands/"]support of Argentina, instead of our closest ally (the UK)[/URL].
How are most of those things "good?" I suppose it's a matter of opinion, but I wouldn't consider Obama giving our tax dollars to his campaign financiers to be "good." Nor would I consider his supporting Palestine to be "good," or his giving amnesty to be "good," or universal healthcare to be "good." I also wouldn't consider raising taxes to be "good."
TARP you can argue either way, but Obama handled it horribly. We just threw billions of dollars at these banks and companies without any strings attached. We should have been very specific with what the money could be used for and require that it be payed back (Obama claims that most of it was paid back, but nobody actually believes that).[/QUOTE]
I don't have an opinion of him giving money to green companies, I just don't care.
I also don't care about Palestine, but I don't understand why they can't just do something simple like make 2 states inside Isreal, which are like states in the US, they each get half of their version of congress.
Amnesty is always good.
Universal healthcare should have been implements ages ago, we have some of the worst healthcare in the world, example, my family doesn't have enough money to get health insurance, but too much to apply for any help. It's better to just give it to everyone, I cannot understand why anyone would oppose helping people. It's just evil to oppose it. And don't give me "It costs too much wahhhh", I don't care, it's better for people.
Taxes are good, they are used to pay for programs for everyone. Why is college so expensive? Because money grabbing idiots like yourself don't want to spend some extra cash so everyone can get a cheaper education, better social security, better healthcare.
Like I edited into my last post, TARP was Bush, and it has been mostly paid back.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants[/URL]
They're all sourced to be paid back in full except three companies.
TL;DR: I want to help people, and if that means paying more of my money, and other people paying more, then it's better for everyone.
[QUOTE=Bobie;38360983]gun rights are primarily a left wing or 'liberal' concept at their core, and siding with countries on military disputes can also be considered an exercise of right-wing ideology. the war on drugs has continued at a dramatic rate and marijuana legalization is still extremely sketchy
his universal healthcare system isn't really anything like a nationalized industry at all[/QUOTE]
Liberal in the classical liberal sense, yes. The term "liberal" in modern American politics almost always refers to the social democracy (progressive) movement. Classical liberalism falls under the right-wing and is more akin to modern libertarianism. I could be wrong, but siding with a third-world country that has a left-wing government, instead of our closest ally, doesn't strike me as a very right-wing thing to do.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;38359994]I'm not joking
[img]http://puu.sh/1nAJw[/img][/QUOTE]
As much as I hate to pry into your personal life, I have to ask: Is your mother a Romney volunteer?
[QUOTE=Corporal Yippie;38360943]pointing out the multitude of retarded flaws in his campaigning is not damage control[/QUOTE]
when they were praising the same things a few days ago it's nothing short of backpedalling
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38361098]Liberal in the classical liberal sense, yes. The term "liberal" in modern American politics almost always refers to the social democracy (progressive) movement. Classical liberalism falls under the right-wing and is more akin to modern libertarianism. I could be wrong, but siding with a third-world country that has a left-wing government, instead of our closest ally, doesn't strike me as a very right-wing thing to do.[/QUOTE]
No it doesn't! Liberal in the USA generally fucking refers to American Conservatism that likes to pretend it's liberal. American Progressivism isn't a very strong movement anymore and hasn't been for decades; very few Democrats identify themselves as social democrat/progressive anymore and even fewer can back that claim up with voting records.
Classical liberalism falls under American Libertarianism, but liberalism as a whole on the world stage refers to any movement that seeks to bring social justice and equality, things that are not as strongly present in the Democratic or Republican parties as they should be.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38361098]Liberal in the classical liberal sense, yes. The term "liberal" in modern American politics almost always refers to the social democracy (progressive) movement. Classical liberalism falls under the right-wing and is more akin to modern libertarianism. I could be wrong, but siding with a third-world country that has a left-wing government, instead of our closest ally, doesn't strike me as a very right-wing thing to do.[/QUOTE]
libertarianism is fiscally right, and socially left (as the free market, in theory, should not be subject to waste-of-time social right issues)
socialism is fiscally left, and socially left. modern social democracies like those in scandinavia have far less gun control than you would expect, simply because crime rates are so low and education is at such a high standard
you simply associate gun control with the left because that is a portrayal of the democrats (considered left, but are more moderate)
and siding with countries in military conflict is by no means 'left wing'. a liberal take on it would be to just let them sort it out/help bring it to a close rather than just muscle things out with words
there is no 'classic liberal sense'. it is what it is. liberty vs control is what defines left to right
[QUOTE=Bobie;38361167]
there is no 'classic liberal sense'. it is what it is. liberty vs control is what defines left to right[/QUOTE]
I disagree simply because that would make Marxism, Stalin, and Lenin rightists.
[QUOTE=patq911;38361095]I don't have an opinion of him giving money to green companies, I just don't care.
I also don't care about Palestine, but I don't understand why they can't just do something simple like make 2 states inside Isreal, which are like states in the US, they each get half of their version of congress.
Amnesty is always good.
Universal healthcare should have been implements ages ago, we have some of the worst healthcare in the world, example, my family doesn't have enough money to get health insurance, but too much to apply for any help. It's better to just give it to everyone, I cannot understand why anyone would oppose helping people. It's just evil to oppose it. And don't give me "It costs too much wahhhh", I don't care, it's better for people.
Taxes are good, they are used to pay for programs for everyone. Why is college so expensive? Because money grabbing idiots like yourself don't want to spend some extra cash so everyone can get a cheaper education, better social security, better healthcare.
Like I edited into my last post, TARP was Bush, and it has been mostly paid back.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#Participants[/url]
They're all sourced to be paid back except one company.[/QUOTE]
How is amnesty always good? Why should we reward people who clearly have no respect for our laws.
Universal healthcare is the idea that you're entitled to someone else's labor. Under a single-payer system, the majority of Americans would have a much lower standard of healthcare, and only the extremely poor would have an increase in quality. We'd also be paying higher taxes and we'd lose many of our freedoms to the inevitable nanny state mentality that would follow it. At the end of the day, healthcare isn't a federal issue though, if you want universal healthcare, take it up with your state government.
Money grabbing idiots like myself? Was that really necessary? I admit, I haven't really done enough research on reforming our higher education system to have an opinion one way or the other. Nor do I consider myself a "money-grabbing idiot."
Yes, TARP was enacted by Bush, but it was predominately carried out by Obama. My main problem with TARP is how it was carried out though, as I previously explained.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38360999]There are plenty of crazy left-wing reactions to Obama's re-election:
[img]http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?i=164743[/img]
[img]http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?i=164744[/img]
[img]http://www.golivewire.com/forums/img.cgi?i=164745[/img][/QUOTE]
twitter is the same place billionaires, tea partiers and politicians are crying that america died and demand revolution, and the phrase " i'm not racist but it's called the white house for a reason" was making its way through the masses the other week
i think gun rights are a 'swing issue'. you dont really have a consensus on either side, left or right.
[QUOTE=Pal13;38361235]i think gun rights are a 'swing issue'. you dont really have a consensus on either side, left or right.[/QUOTE]
Gun rights should be a non-partisan issue that everyone agrees on, just like other civil liberties, but sadly it isn't. You would be hard-pressed to find Republican support for gun control, something around 93% of all Republicans fully support gun rights. Even most Democrats support gun rights, I saw polls that showed around 56% of all Democrat voters fully support gun rights. Democrat politicians on the other hand...
It's not just in America though, in other countries it's usually right-wing parties that support gun rights. The Conservative Party of Canada recently loosened Canada's gun laws (though not nearly enough). ACT in New Zealand has been calling for getting rid of gun control. The UK Independence Party in Britain (along with a few Tories, like Dan Hannan) have called for getting rid of gun control. As has the Congress of the New Right in Poland and the Liberal Democratic Party in Australia.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38361214]How is amnesty always good? Why should we reward people who clearly have no respect for our laws.
Universal healthcare is the idea that you're entitled to someone else's labor. Under a single-payer system, the majority of Americans would have a much lower standard of healthcare, and only the extremely poor would have an increase in quality. We'd also be paying higher taxes and we'd lose many of our freedoms to the inevitable nanny state mentality that would follow it. At the end of the day, healthcare isn't a federal issue though, if you want universal healthcare, take it up with your state government.
Money grabbing idiots like myself? Was that really necessary? I admit, I haven't really done enough research on reforming our higher education system to have an opinion one way or the other. Nor do I consider myself a "money-grabbing idiot."
Yes, TARP was enacted by Bush, but it was predominately carried out by Obama. My main problem with TARP is how it was carried out though, as I previously explained.[/QUOTE]
I thought you meant political amnesty. Illegal amnesty is ok with me, I don't care. If they want to move here, give them a chance, don't just kick them out.
That's the selfish view of the world, I want to help people. Also singlepayer isn't that good, the French/Nordic system is better, as it's totally universal.
It might be a little extreme to you, but we should help everyone.
Why are you guys still complaining, the election has been over for awhile. I suggest a four year break.
[QUOTE=patq911;38361357]I thought you meant political amnesty. Illegal amnesty is ok with me, I don't care.
That's the selfish view of the world, I want to help people. Also singlepayer isn't that good, the French system is better, as it's totally universal.
It might be a little extreme to you, but we should help everyone.[/QUOTE]
I always hear liberals talking about "helping the poor," yet they always want to use violence to coerce everyone else into "helping the poor," instead of actually helping them personally.
I've volunteered for three different charities over the past few years. One was to help the homeless and poor, another was to help those without health insurance receive kidney transplants, and another was to help sick and injured animals.
If you really want to "help the poor" donate your time and money to "helping" them, but don't try to force other people to do it and think that you're helping just because you voted for a left-wing politician.
[QUOTE=Swazi Spring;38361411]I always hear liberals talking about "helping the poor," yet they always want to use violence to coerce everyone else into "helping the poor," instead of actually helping them personally.[/QUOTE]
If "liberals" want to use violence to help the poor, capitalists have been using violence to keep people poor for centuries.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.