• FOX: Majority of Likely Voters Agree 'Socialist' Accurately Describes Obama
    557 replies, posted
[QUOTE]Hah, Obama is quite far away from being a Socialist. Judging from his actions within office, it is clear cut that he is simply a democrat leaning left, but few of his actions can even be considered Socialist. In my opinion, he would make more drastic sweeps of change if he was not blocked by several factors, drastic sweeps that may classify as Socialism to a larger majority. But since little has actually changed with him in office, it is fairly unlikely that he will attempt any actual overhaul within his final stay in office. All those that classify him as a Socialist at this moment are simply ignorant of politics and ideologies, and are unable to comprehend the sublte and major differences between different people, countries, and systems. Needless to say I believe that Obama has the people's best interests at heart, yet he has been waylaid by people with some motives not quite humanitarian and quite damaging to the US. But that's to be expected within a Capitalist system that has been twisted mainly by corruption[/QUOTE] Another brilliant opinion by another PhD! OMFG!
Kdabr, this is a forum. An internet forum is a place where people can get together and discuss things, which means that people exchange both opinions and facts. You are doing neither, you are simply wasting your time and our time posting needless comments attempting to aggravate people.
I havent seen a fact anywhere in this entire thread, except a bunch of "OMG OBAMA = SOCIALIST" and "WE SHOULD GIVE EVERYONE WELFARE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SUPPORT A FAMILY AND NOBODY WILL WORK" "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -Winston Churchill The Greatest Man to Ever Live He said this before England was an abusive welfare state :)
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374097] He said this before England was a welfare state :)[/QUOTE] unless you fucking suck at definitions, all first-world modern states are welfare states
Touche. Fix'd
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374097]I havent seen a fact anywhere in this entire thread, except a bunch of "OMG OBAMA = SOCIALIST" and "WE SHOULD GIVE EVERYONE WELFARE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SUPPORT A FAMILY AND NOBODY WILL WORK" "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -Winston Churchill The Greatest Man to Ever Live He said this before England was a welfare state :)[/QUOTE] It's fun to simply throw quotes around at absolutely random times which are absolutely irrelevant without an actual explanation, which you do not provide. The facts are out there, people have seen what has happened, they have read, and they have been affected by the events themseleves. You must be truly ignorant to demand facts that should already be known to you, we are not talking nuclear physics with complicated equations here. We are not talking about some centuries old historical account of a war. We are talking about what has happened in the past few years, and we take what has happened and form a reasonable logical conclusion. You spit out these quotes and idiotic sayings and then come back and make the exact same mistakes you accuse people of.
an abuse welfare state are you even english
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374097]I havent seen a fact anywhere in this entire thread, except a bunch of "OMG OBAMA = SOCIALIST" and "WE SHOULD GIVE EVERYONE WELFARE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SUPPORT A FAMILY AND NOBODY WILL WORK" "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -Winston Churchill The Greatest Man to Ever Live He said this before England was a welfare state :)[/QUOTE] you're embarrassing yourself, just stop posting. on a side note, here's another quote from winston churchill. congrats on idolizing a white supremecist [LIST] [*][B]I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right.[/B] I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place. [LIST] [*]To the [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission"]Peel Commission[/URL] (1937) [/LIST] [/LIST]
[QUOTE]You must be truly ignorant to demand facts that should already be known to you[/QUOTE] You dont understand how to form a historical argument, do you? You post an opinion followed by supporting evidence. [QUOTE]You spit out these quotes and idiotic sayings and then come back and make the exact same mistakes you accuse people of. [/QUOTE] It's because I am no longer taking this seriously. I just love Churchill. [QUOTE]I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place.[/QUOTE] He has a good point :/ I agree with everything he says, so long as the word "race" is replaced with the word "soceity" And who says the quotes/sayings are idiotic? They are oh so witty. Unwad your panties and enjoy some quality lines.
alrighty then
You get a heart for just accepting my declaration of nottrulygivingafuck rather than posting something about how fucking retarded I am or how I need to take this more seriously
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374300]You dont understand how to form a historical argument, do you? You post an opinion followed by supporting evidence. It's because I am no longer taking this seriously. I just love Churchill. He has a good point :/ [B]I agree with everything he says, so long as the word "race" is replaced with the word "soceity" [/B] And who says the quotes/sayings are idiotic? They are oh so witty. Unwad your panties and enjoy some quality lines.[/QUOTE] Correct me if i'm wrong but you find nothing wrong with imperialistic expansionism that strips the conquered of their culture? Just because a society is less "civilized" than ours doesn't give us the right to impose our will on them. EDIT: Or from the specific examples he gives, you don't find it wrong to pretty much wipe out an entire civilization/group of people?
Not really? Humans have awfully animalistic tendencies... [QUOTE]Or from the specific examples he gives, you don't find it wrong to pretty much wipe out an entire civilization/group of people? [/QUOTE] This has been happening throughout history...and while I personally wouldn't do it, I'm not going to say that it was evil... EDIT: It is no more evil than the rest of human nature :/
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374417]Not really? Humans have awfully animalistic tendencies...[/QUOTE] Yea those fuckin injins and aborigines are fuckin savages. Gawddamn red man will tomahawk you for nothin But really, you've gotta be trolling now, no sane person supports imperialism. That's not even neo-imperialism, it's just imperialism. [QUOTE]This has been happening throughout history...and while I personally wouldn't do it, I'm not going to say that it was evil...[/QUOTE] Genocide: not all that bad :downs: really fuck you
I don't support it...I'm indifferent towards it...It happened hundreds of years ago...and it can never be undone
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374471]I don't support it...I'm indifferent towards it...It happened hundreds of years ago...and it can never be undone[/QUOTE] GJ backpeddling. You specifically said that imperialism wasn't wrong and that imperialistic genocide "wasn't evil". That's not the kind of thing you just go "meh" to
It is no more evil than human nature. Humans do bad things...like start wars, steal things, and murder people. Had the Apache been as organized as the Europeans, they would have done the same thing
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374540]It is no more evil than human nature. Humans do bad things...like start wars, steal things, and murder people. Had the Apache been as organized as the Europeans, they would have done the same thing[/QUOTE] Civilized people shouldn't do that sort of thing, human nature stopped being an excuse about 50,000 years ago. And who are you to say they would have done the same thing, there's no way to know the Apache would have been imperialistic conquerors like the europeans. To say it's human nature to massacre people is just fucked up.
It isn't human nature to massacre people. But it is human nature to take what you want, and to stop those who get in your way
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374617]It isn't human nature to massacre people. But it is human nature to take what you want, and to stop those who get in your way[/QUOTE] So it's human nature to take what you want and stop people in your way. And by stop you mean kill. And the people in your way are numerous when you're building an empire. So it's human nature to massacre people.
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374540]It is no more evil than human nature. Humans do bad things...like start wars, steal things, and murder people. Had the Apache been as organized as the Europeans, they would have done the same thing[/QUOTE] There were civilizations throughout history that were capable of being imperialistic yet they weren't.
Which? Im just curious...No examples come to mind
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374697]Which? Im just curious...No examples come to mind[/QUOTE] "Indirectly, yes... absolutely" I saw your before edit post. How is what happened to the indians or africans an indirect massacre?
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374617]It isn't human nature to massacre people. But it is human nature to take what you want, and to stop those who get in your way[/QUOTE] But all civilization is founded on the belief that the baser elements of human nature need to be controlled. Civilization is founded on the principle that, while people may naturally want to steal, it is necessary to forfeit our ability to steal in order to be safe from being stolen from; that we must rise up above our own base human nature if we expect those around us to do the same. [editline]01:34AM[/editline] [QUOTE=kdabr;23374697]Which? Im just curious...No examples come to mind[/QUOTE] Switzerland for the past 5-600 years, the Roma, great plains Indians
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374697]Which? Im just curious...No examples come to mind[/QUOTE] Well, individual Indian tribes traded with each other and managed to coexist. And while the vikings [i]were[/i] imperialistic some of the time (namely the invasion of Ireland) they traded with the indians and didn't try to attack them. I don't know if you want to count the Mesopotamians or not, since there really wasn't any other notable civilization around at the time.
[QUOTE=kdabr;23374300]You dont understand how to form a historical argument, do you? You post an opinion followed by supporting evidence.[/QUOTE] I already gave you my answer to this. What is going on now is in the face of everybody, we should all be on the same page as to what the major facts are. We all see the actions that Obama has made and thus we can all create logical and rational explanations of his behavior. Don't try teaching me, or anybody else, how to write a historical argument, for this is not your run of the mill US History class where students have to write about something that happened decades ago. In that case one would need to follow a format, a format that allows both sides to understand the issue. Yet again, at this moment in time, rational and logical beings should be able to process opinions with what is going on right now and what has happened within the span of a few years. If you lack the capacity to do so, then you will find it very hard to understand many things in life. And even if you were right, you certainly are not holding up your example of how to make an argument. Now to get onto what truly irks me about some Facepunch members. Those that attempt to bring human nature into their arguments and attempt to explain all the horrible things humanity has done with that argument. First of all, you have no idea what human nature is. Not a fucking clue. Nobody does. We know what a human needs and what a human does, but researchers and pschologists and sociologists have not even come to a conclusion yet as to what human nature is. It's all a bunch of theories. Many of which have been disproven by examples of peoples who do not exhibit what you love to call human nature. What we know about human nature is simple, that we have needs and those needs can be fulfilled and humans, once those needs are fulfilled, can live well. The Native American societies that existed before being basically wiped out by the Europeans are a great example of this. They were societies that lived in peace, with very few conflicts. They fulfilled their basic desires in peaceful ways, and they organized together in ways to help each other. [QUOTE=kdabr;23374617]It isn't human nature to massacre people. But it is human nature to take what you want, and to stop those who get in your way[/QUOTE] No, it is not. What the Native Americans did was they went to nature to get what they wanted, such as food, water, and materials for all types of food. They did not massacre animal populations, and they did not murder en massse such as the Europeans. They worked together to be able to get what they wanted, and they could not even concieve of a system where all people fought against each other to get the things they wanted. Oh, you want evidence as well? Go read a fucking history book. And not an American one, please, one that shows what really fucking happened and what really was. So, be careful when you bring human nature into your arguments. It is futile and infantile, and highly ignorant of countless centuries of studies into human mind and human interactions.
good post guy above me Humans aren't naturally violent. We're naturally empathetic, and that's not just some wide-eyed idealism. Empathy has a solid biological and evolutionary basis. Prehistoric humans survived better when working together than when alone, so this system where the pain of another causes similar pain in anyone who witnesses it ultimately became ingrained into human instinct, serving to motivate early humans to look out for each others' well being.
[QUOTE]Oh, you want evidence as well? Go read a fucking history book. And not an American one, please, one that shows what really fucking happened and what really was.[/QUOTE] Not quite "history", anthropology moreso, but anyways go read Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's a classic and it's a great read about the history of civilization over the past 16,000 years or so. Does well to explain imperialism and how civilizations developed.
[QUOTE=Xen Tricks;23374854]Not quite "history", anthropology moreso, but anyways go read Guns, Germs, and Steel. It's a classic and it's a great read about the history of civilization over the past 16,000 years or so. Does well to explain imperialism and how civilizations developed.[/QUOTE] Anthropology, yes that is the better term. Interesting, I shall check that out. Another book that also deals with imperialism and creation of civilizations is called: ´´A Peoples History of the United States´´ by Howard Zinn. Focuses mainly on the United States, but deals with fundamental issues that have been faced centuries starting with Columbus and ending with present day issues of globalization, and neo imperialism. A good read, plenty of strong evidence to back up the fantastic arguments of the author.
[QUOTE=Rimor Animus;23374905]Anthropology, yes that is the better term. Interesting, I shall check that out. Another book that also deals with imperialism and creation of civilizations is called: ´´A Peoples History of the United States´´ by Howard Zinn. Focuses mainly on the United States, but deals with fundamental issues that have been faced centuries starting with Columbus and ending with present day issues of globalization, and neo imperialism. A good read, plenty of strong evidence to back up the fantastic arguments of the author.[/QUOTE] I was actually talking to the moron, but if you're interested in it as well that works. And i've heard about that book, but I don't remember much about it. I have a vague recollection of something bad about the author, but i'll check it out anyways.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.