Is Barack the Change his Brothers are Waiting For?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]AndyG wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
You’re a riot. It sounds like you actually believe the BS coming out of your keyboard.

Yes yes, Bush is Hitler. Oh no, wait, that’s the other side. To agree with you I have to say Obama is Stalin, right?

I’m pretty sure Tiribulus has already told once that he don’t really give a shit what you think.

And why should he?

Does it make you feel like a big boy to be so cool? I’d probably try to act like a big boy if I were a DC welfare baby like you as well.

Hey rainjack, do you have a post saved on your computer called the “I don’t care what you think because you are a sissy/pussy/foreigner post”? You seem to pull it out on every thread.

Here’s some news, no-one cares what you think because you are a sissy boy, estrogen filled, pussy moron who doesn’t know his head from his arse.
[/quote]

Nice post, Sheila.

62

[quote]mharmar wrote:

Oh, please you can’t be this stupid, Obama is to the right of quite a few of the founding fathers ever heard of Thomas Paine. It is sad that some people think Obama is socialist, the lack of education is brutal on this forum. [/quote]

Did I really just read that?

63

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
In case you two didn’t notice, I copied that from the Economist (OMG, what a liberal rag!).

Rainjack, how are listing his proposed policies “godlike bullshit”? Just wondering.

Keep wondering.

I just love it when liberals call everyone who doesn’t agree with them “closed minded”, or “racist”, or “bigots”.

You have offered nothing that has not been offered up before.

I love when right wingers can’t even recognize an impartial source from typical banter. Throw in some name calling and random other insults, and you’ve got a receipt for some mindless conversation.

Smart guy, if someone starts a conversation with don’t anybody waste your breath trying to tell me otherwise does that make them closed minded? No don’t answer that, throw insults and mindlessness instead, ready, go.

[/quote]

If it is so mindless, why is a liberal elitist such as yourself wasting his time posting?

Please. You are not nuanced, or open minded. You found an article that agrees with you and you posted it.

I have yet to see you post anything but ass kisses about Barry. Were you really what you think you are, you would give equal time to the whole truth - not just a single article that makes you giddy.

McCain is a mealy-mouthed wimp - but that is much more than I can say for Barry.

It is truly sad that one of these two losers is going to be putting 3 USSC Justices on the bench. Barry is not capable of picking his nose, much less making judicial appointments.

64

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
mharmar wrote:

Oh, please you can’t be this stupid, Obama is to the right of quite a few of the founding fathers ever heard of Thomas Paine. It is sad that some people think Obama is socialist, the lack of education is brutal on this forum.

Did I really just read that?[/quote]

He sounds REAL educated himself.

I’d bet he can parrot his professor word for word.

65

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
mharmar wrote:

Oh, please you can’t be this stupid, Obama is to the right of quite a few of the founding fathers ever heard of Thomas Paine. It is sad that some people think Obama is socialist, the lack of education is brutal on this forum.

Did I really just read that?[/quote]

I am afraid so.

66

[quote]rainjack wrote:

a liberal elitist such as yourself[/quote]

Wait, am I an “elitist” or a “welfare baby”??? You’re AWFUL good at name calling.

[quote]
Please. You are not nuanced, or open minded. You found an article that agrees with you and you posted it. [/quote]

Didn’t bother to find the article, huh? Maybe you don’t know what the economist is? I posted a small part of the article that answered a direct question. You’ve posted nothing but name calling. Good work, keep it up.
(Hint: The article wasn’t biased, and the economist is dead center)

Please. Do you have difficulty with reading comprehension perhaps? This is obviously not the place for nuance or depth. I posted one part of one independent article. You followed by calling names and mindless banter. Keep it up, it makes you look so cool!

You sound so cool when you say “Barry.”

67

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:

Oh well, now you know why I try very hard not to get into these discussions.

You never got into the conversation. Period. You spouted some mindlessness and capped it off with don’t anybody waste your breath trying to tell me otherwise.

That you continue to spout ill-thought-out BS is not surprising. Why don’t you give us another long post proving without a doubt that you’re incapable of nuanced thought or a discussion of policy or issues. It suits you well.

[/quote]

I don’t know how many ways I can tell you that you don’t have to accuse me of being close minded. I’m telling you I am and have since the beginning here.

Nuance is the new groovy term for convictionless bullshit and specific policy grows out of one’s world view which is what I’ve been talking about.

The world view of the people who founded this country was that while some form of government is necessary and good, individual citizens were largely capable of governing themselves. Of course there was furious and sometimes violent debate of the specifics, but they ultimately settled on a representative republican democracy as the best vehicle. There were some who didn’t want any centralized federal government at all.

The irony is the campaigns of the early history of this country make the “negative” ones we see today look like an episode of Barney the purple dinosaur. However, regardless of what some of these revisionists want to think, none of them had in mind the tyrannical monstrosity we have today that Barack Obama and his nanny state cohorts are itching to expand even further.

The notion of career politicians was not part of the plan. Average citizens were supposed to serve for a time and then live under the laws they enact. That was government of the people, by the people for the people. Anybody who thinks what were seeing today even vaguely resembles that vision is beyond deluded. A may have no formal education, but you don’t need it to know that much.

68

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
A few quick examples:

-He wants to spend money on public investment (primarily on infrastructure and alternative fuels)

-he has an ambitious and expensive plan for near-universal health-care coverage

-he promises tax cuts for working Americans


[/quote]

Tax cuts? are you serious? inflation is a tax. protectionism is a tax. Not tapping domestic resources is a tax. Capital gains tax is a tax on all of us. taxing the investment class has negative effect on employment rates.

How is he going to pay for socialist health care and all his new great projects without raising taxes on everyone? Not mathmatically possible unless you think our budget deficite can grow a bit.

I am a working american and my taxes will go up significantly.

69

He’s not going to pay for anything. if he enacts those taxes it is going to hurt. A lot.

70

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
mharmar wrote:

Oh, please you can’t be this stupid, Obama is to the right of quite a few of the founding fathers ever heard of Thomas Paine. It is sad that some people think Obama is socialist, the lack of education is brutal on this forum.

Did I really just read that?[/quote]

Same reaction here …

It’s not sad … it’s true.

I’ve heard of Thomas Paine (wtf?) … have you heard of Saul Alinsky?

71

[quote]flyboy51v wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
mharmar wrote:

Oh, please you can’t be this stupid, Obama is to the right of quite a few of the founding fathers ever heard of Thomas Paine. It is sad that some people think Obama is socialist, the lack of education is brutal on this forum.

Did I really just read that?

Same reaction here …

It’s not sad … it’s true.

I’ve heard of Thomas Paine (wtf?) … have you heard of Saul Alinsky?[/quote]

I brought up Thomas Paine because everyone seems to think the founding fathers were huge fans of liassez-faire capitalism, the rich and corporations. I looked up Saul Alinsky is he supposed to be a bad guy? I don’t understand what is wrong with helping the poor, especially when the money used is taken from the rich most of whom didn’t actually earn that money.

You have to realize whenever the gap between rich and poor gets too large the number of poor people is alway more than the number of rich people and usually it ends with riots and a lot of dead rich people. To avoid that the rich should be happy to pay taxes and hope that everyone gets into the middle-class but most are stupid and think too short term.

72

[quote]mharmar wrote:
flyboy51v wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
mharmar wrote:

Oh, please you can’t be this stupid, Obama is to the right of quite a few of the founding fathers ever heard of Thomas Paine. It is sad that some people think Obama is socialist, the lack of education is brutal on this forum.

Did I really just read that?

Same reaction here …

It’s not sad … it’s true.

I’ve heard of Thomas Paine (wtf?) … have you heard of Saul Alinsky?

I brought up Thomas Paine because everyone seems to think the founding fathers were huge fans of liassez-faire capitalism, the rich and corporations. I looked up Saul Alinsky is he supposed to be a bad guy? I don’t understand what is wrong with helping the poor, especially when the money used is taken from the rich most of whom didn’t actually earn that money.

You have to realize whenever the gap between rich and poor gets too large the number of poor people is alway more than the number of rich people and usually it ends with riots and a lot of dead rich people. To avoid that the rich should be happy to pay taxes and hope that everyone gets into the middle-class but most are stupid and think too short term.
[/quote]

If this is an example of education I revel in my ignorance.

73

[quote]
If this is an example of education I revel in my ignorance.[/quote]

How about instead of resorting to attempting to be insulting you actually answer the question, why is it bad for the rich to pay taxes so that poor people can be helped?

74

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
rainjack wrote:

a liberal elitist such as yourself

Wait, am I an “elitist” or a “welfare baby”??? >>>[/quote]

LOL, you really, REALLY don’t get it do ya. It’s the tragic belief in their benefactor’s elitism that makes the self afflicted servile plebeians in the welfare culture so heartrendingly debasing.

The answer is every “welfare baby” is also an elitist. They just trust their lives to the elitism of others.

75

[quote]mharmar wrote:

If this is an example of education I revel in my ignorance.

How about instead of resorting to attempting to be insulting you actually answer the question, why is it bad for the rich to pay taxes so that poor people can be helped? [/quote]

The rich already pay most of the taxes.

76

[quote]mharmar wrote:

If this is an example of education I revel in my ignorance.

How about instead of resorting to attempting to be insulting you actually answer the question, why is it bad for the rich to pay taxes so that poor people can be helped? [/quote]

Ok, I’ll bite.

If someone robs a bank in genuine desperation we put them in prison. If a very wealthy socialist politician, who has the money to help that person privately, tells other people that THEY will go to prison unless they submit to legal robbery in the form of taxation so their money can go to that same person, in some perverted twist of language, that is called compassion.

77

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
mharmar wrote:

If this is an example of education I revel in my ignorance.

How about instead of resorting to attempting to be insulting you actually answer the question, why is it bad for the rich to pay taxes so that poor people can be helped?

Ok, I’ll bite.

If someone robs a bank in genuine desperation we put them in prison. If a very wealthy socialist politician, who has the money to help that person privately, tells other people that THEY will go to prison unless they submit to legal robbery in the form of taxation so their money can go to that same person, in some perverted twist of language, that is called compassion.[/quote]

I get what you’re saying but due to the fact that the rich person benefits from the laws of the nation which they do http://zompist.com/richtax.htm shouldn’t they be happy to help those who don’t benefit from the laws of the nation especially when all it means for them is one less mercedes or yacht. Keep in mind I am talking about really rich people, the type with 7 houses and double the amount of cars, not someone earning 500k a year.

78

[quote]mharmar wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
mharmar wrote:

If this is an example of education I revel in my ignorance.

How about instead of resorting to attempting to be insulting you actually answer the question, why is it bad for the rich to pay taxes so that poor people can be helped?

Ok, I’ll bite.

If someone robs a bank in genuine desperation we put them in prison. If a very wealthy socialist politician, who has the money to help that person privately, tells other people that THEY will go to prison unless they submit to legal robbery in the form of taxation so their money can go to that same person, in some perverted twist of language, that is called compassion.

I get what you’re saying but due to the fact that the rich person benefits from the laws of the nation which they do shouldn’t they be happy to help those who don’t benefit from the laws of the nation especially when all it means for them is one less mercedes or yacht. Keep in mind I am talking about really rich people, the type with 7 houses and double the amount of cars, not someone earning 500k a year.[/quote]

Now were on to the second part. The first part was where I said why stealing one person’s money to give it to somebody else is one of those things that is WRONG, plain and simple.

The second part is that IT DOES NOT WORK. I am coming around to the idea of you not being such a bad guy, but if you try n tell me that the welfare state erected in the United States is successful I will be forced to quickly drop my opinion again.

It has been and continues to be a grotesque unmitigated catastrophe. For the men whose manhood is robbed through condescension, for the women left with fatherless children, for the fatherless children themselves and for the victims of the explosion of criminal activity perpetrated those fatherless children.

It is no mystery to me that the more we spend and the more laws we make the more violent crime we have. The genius of this country WAS that when somebody did what was best for themselves it was also good for everybody else. Somebody else doing for you is a recipe for the very disaster we are now witnessing and these socialist snobs want to expand.

They need these people to need them. The very last thing Barack Obama wants is for people to actually not need his handouts and programs financed by other people’s money. He can talk all he wants, his short voting record and core principles, whatever of them we are able to ascertain expose the lie.

79

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Now were on to the second part. The first part was where I said why stealing one person’s money to give it to somebody else is one of those things that is WRONG, plain and simple.

The second part is that IT DOES NOT WORK. I am coming around to the idea of you not being such a bad guy, but if you try n tell me that the welfare state erected in the United States is successful I will be forced to quickly drop my opinion again.

It has been and continues to be a grotesque unmitigated catastrophe. For the men whose manhood is robbed through condescension, for the women left with fatherless children, for the fatherless children themselves and for the victims of the explosion of criminal activity perpetrated those fatherless children.

It is no mystery to me that the more we spend and the more laws we make the more violent crime we have. The genius of this country WAS that when somebody did what was best for themselves it was also good for everybody else. Somebody else doing for you is a recipe for the very disaster we are now witnessing and these socialist snobs want to expand.

They need these people to need them. The very last thing Barack Obama wants is for people to actually not need his handouts and programs financed by other people’s money. He can talk all he wants, his short voting record and core principles, whatever of them we are able to ascertain expose the lie.[/quote]

I agree from what I know the US Welfare system is pretty messed up but some countries manage to do it well, such as Canada where I am from, Denmark, Norway and Sweden are even better than Canada. While Obama may not be perfect he is still better than McCain who will likely just follow Bush’s example which hasn’t worked.

Personally I think education in the US should be revamped and a universal health care system would help everyone a lot. Education has to be number 1 though every country that has very good upward mobility has a strong educational system and access to the best universities even for the poorest citizens and not always based on scholarships.

It’s funny I agree with a lot of your sentiments but the main problem is while an individual rich person may be happy to help the poor, groups of them like corporations are only interested in the bottomline and how they can exploit the poor to get more money. And while you may not see much of the worst exploitations in the US, you only have to look at many Latin American countries to see what would happen if corporation were to be unregulated here.

To be honest I think the Republicans have managed to fool many Americans into thinking they have their best interests in mind all the while feeding the Military-Industrial Complex and Corporate greed even more than the Democrats who aren’t even close to clean themselves. The Republicans just direct public attention from important issues to unimportant issues like gay marriage and abortion.

80

[quote]mharmar wrote:

I brought up Thomas Paine because everyone seems to think the founding fathers were huge fans of liassez-faire capitalism, the rich and corporations. [/quote]

Tom Paine wasn’t representative of the Founding Fathers, but setting that aside, the Founding Fathers weren’t necessarily fans of the much-abused term laissez-faire, but they certainly were big fans of stout property rights and limited government.

I have no idea who came up with the idea that Founding Fathers were fans of “corporations!” as the modern slander would understand that fandom, nor do I care. Just dumb.

Your statement was, to be charitable, absurd.

As as aside, what is it with Canadians always trying to lecture as to what the American Founding Fathers did or thought?