Obama Watch

[odin_dax]

Major Fuck ups Thus Far...

1. Economic Stimulus Package

2. "Cash for Clunkers"

3. Yale police incident

4. Healthcare plan

Americans, it's time to stop wasteful spending on programs that don't work. Our nation is moving away from state rights and individual rights. Stop the elitists in Washington who think they know what's best for us. Give power back to the states and people, and let our capitalistic society run in a free market.

Lobby your representatives to vote no on healthcare reform! Tell them you don't want to end up like Canada and wait months for important surgery. Tell them you don't want private hospitals to have capped membership. Tell them you don't want to be forced into "End of Life" counseling. If so many government programs fail (especially under Obama), why do we want them to tackle something so big as healthcare? Don't leave medical decisions up to the government! END THE MADNESS!!!!!!

[bankraped]

I think swatting that fly as the biggest mistake he's made thus far.


Then again, I don't keep my eye on US politics.

[NINEBREAKER]

cash for clunkers was a stupid idea. in the disclaimer they say your computer becomes federal property or somehting to that nature. wich is why i told dad to do everything at the libary. and thats how i got money for my el camino

[blastedforums]

Major Fuck ups Thus Far...

1. Economic Stimulus Package

2. "Cash for Clunkers"

3. Yale police incident

4. Healthcare plan

Americans, it's time to stop wasteful spending on programs that don't work. Our nation is moving away from state rights and individual rights. Stop the elitists in Washington who think they know what's best for us. Give power back to the states and people, and let our capitalistic society run in a free market.

Lobby your representatives to vote no on healthcare reform! Tell them you don't want to end up like Canada and wait months for important surgery. Tell them you don't want private hospitals to have capped membership. Tell them you don't want to be forced into "End of Life" counseling. If so many government programs fail (especially under Obama), why do we want them to tackle something so big as healthcare? Don't leave medical decisions up to the government! END THE MADNESS!!!!!!

Ok... While I am not a huge fan of Obama, he was a better choice than McCain. I will not go into that here but rather address these things you listed...

1. Economic Stimulus Package

Despite what you may think, this was needed in one form or another. Bush totally screwed the system over and it needed fixed, BADLY. I do not agree with everything that he did with the money, but a stimulus of some form was required.

2. "Cash for Clunkers"

Product of failing economy and crashing auto makers. This was done purely and blatantly to save their ass. I do not agree with it at all. If America is to claim that they use Capitalism as an economics basis, then use it. Do not half ass it. Let the chips fall, that is what Capitalism is all about, survive or die trying.

3. Yale police incident

This was pure and unadulterated crap. He stuck his nose into business that he had absolutely no business doing. He nor the people that kept commenting about it did not know all the facts. I personally after hearing the tapes and recordings and interviews feel that the cop was within his right because the guy simply would not shut up and answer a simple fucking question or listen to instructions. The cop had no idea if the place was being broken into or not, the professor did not provide identification or listen to the cop that was simply trying to figure out what was going on and protect this arrogant professor from possible intruders.

4. Healthcare plan

Despite your opinions on this no matter what it may be, it needs to be done. Period. The health care system as it stands needs to be torn down and rebuilt. It offers far too few protections and far too many exemptions and clauses that allow these companies to run up the bill on the consumer or even deny coverage all together. They are allowed to deny life saving surgeries to be debated by panel, they are allowed to drop a person once they actually need the coverage to see a doctor. They do not go nearly as far as they need to for patient survival in general.

What I do not agree with is how they are doing this reshaping. They need to do it to force health providers to offer equal and fair coverage and usage to the client. Do I think that there should be a public option? certainly. If a company decides to drop health care coverage they provide costs compensation by ways of levies and taxes if they decide to not provide health insurance if they are able to. The ability would be a bench marked profit margin that goes for all companies.
We already have a basis for public system, Medi-caid/Medi-care. Fix that system and update that system to service all. If health insurance companies want to survive, they create more realistic and affordable plans.

And if you are going to use this far overused example of this woman that had brain cancer, learn the full story at least. Good god man. Everyone that recites that story has absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about and just sound stupid to me when they do.

I will say the same thing about your inclusion of the "End of Life" counseling... learn the program before you open your mouth about it, you just make yourself look dumb.

[odin_dax]

1. Economic Stimulus Package

Despite what you may think, this was needed in one form or another. Bush totally screwed the system over and it needed fixed, BADLY. I do not agree with everything that he did with the money, but a stimulus of some form was required.

It's really hard to jumpstart an economy with a stimulus package that's 1% of GDP. The truth of the matter is that the FED has done all it could, and instead of bailing out companies, bail out the people ripped off by them. Bush didn't screw us over, nor did Obama, they just made it worse. The housing market, not Bush. The auto industry, not Bush. The banking system, not Bush. Enron, not Bush. Do I need to go on?


4. Healthcare plan

Despite your opinions on this no matter what it may be, it needs to be done. Period. The health care system as it stands needs to be torn down and rebuilt. It offers far too few protections and far too many exemptions and clauses that allow these companies to run up the bill on the consumer or even deny coverage all together. They are allowed to deny life saving surgeries to be debated by panel, they are allowed to drop a person once they actually need the coverage to see a doctor. They do not go nearly as far as they need to for patient survival in general.

I agree. The only thing I have a problem with is government intervention.

We already have a basis for public system, Medi-caid/Medi-care. Fix that system and update that system to service all. If health insurance companies want to survive, they create more realistic and affordable plans.

Word.

And if you are going to use this far overused example of this woman that had brain cancer, learn the full story at least. Good god man. Everyone that recites that story has absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about and just sound stupid to me when they do.

I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't use or mention brain cancer.

I will say the same thing about your inclusion of the "End of Life" counseling... learn the program before you open your mouth about it, you just make yourself look dumb.

Ditto.

[blastedforums]

It's really hard to jumpstart an economy with a stimulus package that's 1% of GDP. The truth of the matter is that the FED has done all it could, and instead of bailing out companies, bail out the people ripped off by them. Bush didn't screw us over, nor did Obama, they just made it worse. The housing market, not Bush. The auto industry, not Bush. The banking system, not Bush. Enron, not Bush. Do I need to go on?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I didn't use or mention brain cancer.



Ditto.

Bush deregulated the systems to allow these bubbles and problems to occur. Nearly every analyst concurs that these actions, or more specifically lack of action lead to these 'falls from grace' of these industries.
The only one that cannot be linked is the Auto Industry simply because it was a victim of the economic collapse. However there are many, and I am one of them, that thinks that the Automotive Industry could have done a far better job in the past 30 years than they have. The US is one of the worst countries in the Western World for mileage and vehicle emission standards.
While there is an element of this that falls to the government for regulation, there is nothing to hinder any company from going above and beyond any standards for improvement.

The Canadian example that you are referring to is what I addressed. It was a lady with brain cancer. It is the Republicans battle cry example.

As for the ditto comment on the end... you have read the entire program and even read where they have to have just a counciling session to address their final wishes, and address DNR and terminal type situations. There is nothing that forces them to kill themselves or anything of the sort. It simply sets out the persons wishes in a given situation. So we read the same report on the same program and came to the same conclusion.
Personally I think that it is a good thing in case the person does not have a nearby living relative, or clear present will or living will to refer to.

[odin_dax]

Bush deregulated the systems to allow these bubbles and problems to occur. Nearly every analyst concurs that these actions, or more specifically lack of action lead to these 'falls from grace' of these industries.
The only one that cannot be linked is the Auto Industry simply because it was a victim of the economic collapse. However there are many, and I am one of them, that thinks that the Automotive Industry could have done a far better job in the past 30 years than they have. The US is one of the worst countries in the Western World for mileage and vehicle emission standards.
While there is an element of this that falls to the government for regulation, there is nothing to hinder any company from going above and beyond any standards for improvement.

The Canadian example that you are referring to is what I addressed. It was a lady with brain cancer. It is the Republicans battle cry example.

As for the ditto comment on the end... you have read the entire program and even read where they have to have just a counciling session to address their final wishes, and address DNR and terminal type situations. There is nothing that forces them to kill themselves or anything of the sort. It simply sets out the persons wishes in a given situation. So we read the same report on the same program and came to the same conclusion.
Personally I think that it is a good thing in case the person does not have a nearby living relative, or clear present will or living will to refer to.

I agree with everything you said.

I know the Republicans well, but I never heard them use that example. I was merely speaking in generalities. I'm not a Republican, but they are the closest thing to what I believe in. Obviously, I don't like the direction we're heading. :spam:

The auto industry shot itself in the foot, definitely.


It's nice to have someone educated to talk to...

[blastedforums]

I agree with everything you said.

I know the Republicans well, but I never heard them use that example. I was merely speaking in generalities. I'm not a Republican, but they are the closest thing to what I believe in. Obviously, I don't like the direction we're heading. :spam:

The auto industry shot itself in the foot, definitely.


It's nice to have someone educated to talk to...

I think the auto industry shot itself squarely between the eyes personally.

I am trying to find the ad on youtube...
Ahh finally...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWxcv0Dummk


I just try to stay informed of things that do or could effect me... call me a concerned citizen. However we are a dying breed.

I do not mind debating things, I rather enjoy it. Just stick to facts, or opinions supported by facts.
But yes there does come a time when people hop in and derail things.

But on a further note, While I do not like alot of the things that he has done (sotomayor for one), I do honestly think the country is in better hands with him, and will eventually get back to being a country again (if you get what I mean). I am a fierce independent and do not follow either party, I follow who presents the base case for me and my interests. So far neither one is a majority stake holder in that department. So unfortunately these things boil down as with anything in politics, an argument over which one is the lesser bastard, asshole, incompetent asswipe... that general sentiment.
Both sides always talk a good talk but neither one follows through. So no matter what the citizen is always the one with the shity stick in their hands.
I don't think that for one instant that the founding fathers would look favorably at the politics over the past, oh hundred years. That's a nice round number that covers alot of the screw ups for both sides of the aisle.
Like I said they both have faults, and neither one seems to be very clear about what they are about anymore, long gone is the definitions of the political parties. The Democrats were the 'forward thinking progressive' Party... now they are a smidgen more left than Republicans. The Republicans were the small government, few civil liberties party, as far as I know they are just one of those now and it ain't small government. The Government has never had such an explosion of new posts, positions and pseudo branches and departments as they had under Bush. So just what they hell are they for now? Gun rights and religion (specifically Christians)?
The government needs to be more than gun rights and Christian rule.
I am by no way a fan of religion. There are far too many batshit insane people in nearly all religions, and on all sides, in every part of the globe. But that is another discussion, unless you care to carry it out here.

[Darkhunter]

I predicted this so thats why I never voted for him in the election. I voted for McCain that in my mind was the lesser of two evils and I got shat on by everyone I fucking I knew at the time because everyone had Obamamania running wild.

So now everyone is pissed at him and still shit on me likes its my fault hes elected. I fucking said in THIS forum that this would happen to anyone that would hear it. No one fucking listened. I said it to everyone I knew and I got called a racist. I say it now: Asshole that is now conforming to the ideas of everyone else.

How the fuck do I conform to my OWN idea? I swear most Americans nowadays are:

A) Retarded
B) Descended from Incest
C) Are in Prison or served time so they cant vote

[blastedforums]

I predicted this so thats why I never voted for him in the election. I voted for McCain that in my mind was the lesser of two evils and I got shat on by everyone I fucking I knew at the time because everyone had Obamamania running wild.

So now everyone is pissed at him and still shit on me likes its my fault hes elected. I fucking said in THIS forum that this would happen to anyone that would hear it. No one fucking listened. I said it to everyone I knew and I got called a racist. I say it now: Asshole that is now conforming to the ideas of everyone else.

How the fuck do I conform to my OWN idea? I swear most Americans nowadays are:

A) Retarded
B) Descended from Incest
C) Are in Prison or served time so they cant vote

It is not that I voted for the lesser of the two evils...
What threw me off McCain was his happy introduction of Palin. She had absolutely no clue to anything that she was doing and I cannot stress this enough, she absolutely screamed, 'I'm stupid' from every word that she dared to speak. The only, and I do mean only, news agency that cared for her (and I use that term loosely here) was Fox News. That was a huge hint that this running mate was in way over her head.
That screamed to me that this guy is simply not sane. Lord help the country if anything ever happened to him cause we would be royally and supremely fucked.

[lcnostra]

Major Fuck ups Thus Far...

1. Economic Stimulus Package

3. Yale police incident



The Economic Stimulus Act was voted by the House and passed in 2008, under the Bush Administration. You might want to check your facts there. Also, the police incident happened in Cambridge Mass, at a property belonging to Harvard University, not Yale. Obama shouldn't have gotten involved, but there are more substantial things to critique him on. Please make informed statements about his policies before ripping him apart. When you mention stuff like the stimulus package or confuse to Ivy League schools, you sound like the ilk of mindless conservatives who forward those ridiculous emails amongst themselves. I don't think that's your type...

[odin_dax]

The Economic Stimulus Act was voted by the House and passed in 2008, under the Bush Administration. You might want to check your facts there. Also, the police incident happened in Cambridge Mass, at a property belonging to Harvard University, not Yale. Obama shouldn't have gotten involved, but there are more substantial things to critique him on. Please make informed statements about his policies before ripping him apart. When you mention stuff like the stimulus package or confuse to Ivy League schools, you sound like the ilk of mindless conservatives who forward those ridiculous emails amongst themselves. I don't think that's your type...

Obama was President-elect at the time he pushed it through Congress; however, according to my sources, it was voted on and passed in the House on 29 January, after Obama's inauguration.

Harvard, Yale. Po-ta-to, Po-tat-o. My bad.

"Conservative" doesn't equal "Republican." I don't get their e-mails...

It's the mindless ilk that support such stimulus packages without question. Many don't understand economics, that's why domestic industries get away with pushing import tariffs, not to mention all the other crap the government sneaks in and by the American people.

Obama praised his stimulus package for the decline in the unemployment rate, but will he take the blame when it goes back up? :reporter:

[blastedforums]

Obama was President-elect at the time he pushed it through Congress; however, according to my sources, it was voted on and passed in the House on 29 January, after Obama's inauguration.

Harvard, Yale. Po-ta-to, Po-tat-o. My bad.

"Conservative" doesn't equal "Republican." I don't get their e-mails...

It's the mindless ilk that support such stimulus packages without question. Many don't understand economics, that's why domestic industries get away with pushing import tariffs, not to mention all the other crap the government sneaks in and by the American people.

Obama praised his stimulus package for the decline in the unemployment rate, but will he take the blame when it goes back up? :reporter:

The Economic Stimulus Act was voted by the House and passed in 2008, under the Bush Administration.

However Obama did pass The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That was all his baby. This is what is largely referred to as 'the' stimulus package.
Odin said nothing about the Economic Stimulus Act, in fact he clearly said 'economic package', which is correct. Obama did pass one. He just got them mixed up, that is on him. But just a technicality in the scheme of the discussion.

So yes Obama did indeed pass an 'economic package'. I think I can at least speak for myself in saying that it is this act that I refer to in my replies.

The Economic Stimulus Act, that you are referring to (that was done in February of 2008 and all Bush, long before Obama was even President elect-tisk tisk odin) is largely known as the 'Bail Out Bill', of which we were given TARP programs. This money went largely to banks, whom misused the money for its intended purpose. To free up the credit lock, they instead used it to buy other banks, and give bonuses to themselves.

[odin_dax]

However Obama did pass The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. That was all his baby. This is what is largely referred to as 'the' stimulus package.
Odin said nothing about the Economic Stimulus Act, in fact he clearly said 'economic package', which is correct. Obama did pass one. He just got them mixed up, that is on him. But just a technicality in the scheme of the discussion.

So yes Obama did indeed pass an 'economic package'. I think I can at least speak for myself in saying that it is this act that I refer to in my replies.

The Economic Stimulus Act, that you are referring to (that was done in February of 2008 and all Bush, long before Obama was even President elect-tisk tisk odin) is largely known as the 'Bail Out Bill', of which we were given TARP programs. This money went largely to banks, whom misused the money for its intended purpose. To free up the credit lock, they instead used it to buy other banks, and give bonuses to themselves.

I rushed through the last post because I had a guest here and we were leaving for dinner, but I referring to Obama's package the whole time in my response. :pat:

[blastedforums]

I rushed through the last post because I had a guest here and we were leaving for dinner, but I referring to Obama's package the whole time in my response. :pat:
I figured and even took it at that... though some others forget that he did indeed pass one entirely on his own very shortly after taking office.

Like I said, I pay attention to what is going and and will both correct and stand up for statements.

[lcnostra]

Yes, I understand that; just a point of correction referring to it as if it was the only stimulus package. Most people associate that with the bailouts.

"Conservative" doesn't equal "Republican." I don't get their e-mails...

I never equated the two anywhere in my post, so that's entirely irrelevant. I can converse with a well-read republican. I hate conservatives. I was merely stating that I don't find you to belong amongst the idiots, so a few minor (but nonetheless substantial) semantic points of your argument are worth amending.

Obama praised his stimulus package for the decline in the unemployment rate, but will he take the blame when it goes back up?

If and when, I'm sure he will. I doubt you're any fan of the previous administration, but remember whose dog shit all over America's lawn and left Obama to clean it up. Give the guy a chance....

[odin_dax]

If and when, I'm sure he will. I doubt you're any fan of the previous administration, but remember whose dog shit all over America's lawn and left Obama to clean it up. Give the guy a chance....

He blew his chance with all these wasteful programs and spending habits. I remain disgruntled.

[odin_dax]

He blew his chance with all these wasteful programs and spending habits. I remain disgruntled.

Why do you hate conservatives?

[blastedforums]

He blew his chance with all these wasteful programs and spending habits. I remain disgruntled.

I agree that you do need to give him a chance.
He IS trying to fix the ship that had water over the bow.
He at least acknowledges climate change, and a many other things that the previous shit storm completely ignored, the economy included.

While I still do not approve of alot of things that he has done, and am by far more disgruntled, scratch that, I down right hate the previous administration for all their fuck-ups.
Obama is at least trying to turn things around, and it is starting to be seen and is happening, slowly but surely.

[NINEBREAKER]

obama is a fuck up plain and simple.

i have heard rumors than several members of his staff like to bully him.

somehow i feel sorry for the guy. something about him makes me feel bad. like he is unliked and like he has a bad feeling of things. like he feels all alone and has deppression.

ok i know he is unliked. i hope for the best for my country

[blastedforums]

obama is a fuck up plain and simple.

i have heard rumors than several members of his staff like to bully him.

somehow i feel sorry for the guy. something about him makes me feel bad. like he is unliked and like he has a bad feeling of things. like he feels all alone and has deppression.

ok i know he is unliked. i hope for the best for my country

How exactly is he a fuck up?
If he is a fuck up just what was Bush Jr? and how do you feel about what he did?

Good god people this man has been in office barely 7 months... and has to tackle so many things that were completely Bush, yet you are blaming him for.
Like I said, he has done a few things that I do not agree with but I at least understand why he did them. I at least have not formed a lynching mob (like many of you seem to be doing) because he is at least trying to correct things that were so far gone when he came in it is going to take time and a shit load of money to fix.

And just so you know, he is liked by 60 some percent of the country. At last count that is 30 to 40 some percent higher than Bush when he left office where he was in the high teens. Some of his policies are not liked. But he is trying to force this at times ass backwards country into the 21st century. He is going after things that in a large way have been broken for decades.

If you do not like the money that he is spending realize this children...
Bush spent 800 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush spent another 168 Billion on his Economic Stimulus Bill.
There were countless Trillions, yes Trillions with a very capital "T", that were lost in the housing Markets and Resulting Stock Market crash under Bush.
I have no real way to find out just how much this DHS and those modifications have cost us, but estimates are again in the hundreds of billions.
800+168+200+a few trillion=Bush

Obama has spent 787 billion on his stimulus package.
And is forced to spend 15-18 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan because ok Bush, so who really caused this money to be spent?

So just whom has cost this country more?
Bush passed the (Anti) Partiot Act, which shit on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, did we forget that?
Bush passed the DMCA which stripped away buyers rights.
Bush continued the tax breaks for exporting jobs.
Need I go on?

People please, get your facts straight if you are going to speak, otherwise shut up because you have absolutely no clue of what you are speaking about and it is quite clear to me that very few of you know your ass from a hole in the ground.

You want to bash him simply because you watch Fox and what they call a news agency and they make it the 'new fad' to do so.
Do yourself a favor get another source, get a reliable source, get a damned correct source and for gods sakes do some research into it yourself. The info is out there to be searched for, fucking search for it. If you are going to bash him at least have real and legitimate reasons for doing so for fucks sake.

[NINEBREAKER]

How exactly is he a fuck up?
If he is a fuck up just what was Bush Jr? and how do you feel about what he did?

Good god people this man has been in office barely 7 months... and has to tackle so many things that were completely Bush, yet you are blaming him for.
Like I said, he has done a few things that I do not agree with but I at least understand why he did them. I at least have not formed a lynching mob (like many of you seem to be doing) because he is at least trying to correct things that were so far gone when he came in it is going to take time and a shit load of money to fix.

And just so you know, he is liked by 60 some percent of the country. At last count that is 30 to 40 some percent higher than Bush when he left office where he was in the high teens. Some of his policies are not liked. But he is trying to force this at times ass backwards country into the 21st century. He is going after things that in a large way have been broken for decades.

If you do not like the money that he is spending realize this children...
Bush spent 800 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan.
Bush spent another 168 Billion on his Economic Stimulus Bill.
There were countless Trillions, yes Trillions with a very capital "T", that were lost in the housing Markets and Resulting Stock Market crash under Bush.
I have no real way to find out just how much this DHS and those modifications have cost us, but estimates are again in the hundreds of billions.
800+168+200+a few trillion=Bush

Obama has spent 787 billion on his stimulus package.
And is forced to spend 15-18 billion a month in Iraq and Afghanistan because ok Bush, so who really caused this money to be spent?

So just whom has cost this country more?
Bush passed the (Anti) Partiot Act, which shit on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, did we forget that?
Bush passed the DMCA which stripped away buyers rights.
Bush continued the tax breaks for exporting jobs.
Need I go on?

People please, get your facts straight if you are going to speak, otherwise shut up because you have absolutely no clue of what you are speaking about and it is quite clear to me that very few of you know your ass from a hole in the ground.

You want to bash him simply because you watch Fox and what they call a news agency and they make it the 'new fad' to do so.
Do yourself a favor get another source, get a reliable source, get a damned correct source and for gods sakes do some research into it yourself. The info is out there to be searched for, fucking search for it. If you are going to bash him at least have real and legitimate reasons for doing so for fucks sake.

odin pretty much explained it all in his first few posts. obama is just as much of a fuck up as bush jr. and he is continueing the same programs that bush started.

tell me why do you support obama so much?

[blastedforums]

odin pretty much explained it all in his first few posts. obama is just as much of a fuck up as bush jr. and he is continueing the same programs that bush started.

tell me why do you support obama so much?

Major Fuck ups Thus Far...

1. Economic Stimulus Package

2. "Cash for Clunkers"

3. Yale police incident

4. Healthcare plan


Only three of these are real disagreeable points.

The stimulus was required, like it or not. It was required because of Bush and his monumental failure in his policies.

The cash for clunkers started because of the total and complete failure of the American Car maker to produce anything worth a shit in the past 30 years. It was passed because the American automakers ran their business into the ground and they needed to be saved because they shot themselves in the head and failed the American People.

Heathcare like it or not needs to be addressed. It has been a major failing for the past 50 years. They are allowed to run free, charge outrageous fees and premiums and there is nothing that the American citizen can do about it. The cost for my wife to add me to her policy would literally triple the cost of her policy. I am a healthy 33 year old non smoker of decent shape and health with no pre-existing conditions. There is absolutely no reason for this.

The professor thing was and I agree completely and totally stupid action on his part. But I also think that Bush had far more of these of comments, only they were with the leaders of other countries.

I do not like how Obama has addressed Healthcare. I do not think that it goes far enough to protect people. I do not think that either of the plans to come out of either house will do enough to force real and effective change at the core of healthcare.

I do not like Obama's choice of Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Judge. She has made decisions and comments that I just do not and cannot support. Given her history, she seems to side with the minority even when they do not deserve to be supported.

I do not like Obama's continual backing off about ending the Iraq War. But I also do not support a full and immediate pull out. That would create a power vacuum and it would turn into a bloodbath for the citizens of the country.

I do not like Obama's initial and continued bail out of American Companies, it simply does not fit the term of the Capitalist Economy Standard. But I at least understand why it had to be and was done. It was done to save jobs, and to try to stem the blood flow by gaping would that is the current American Economy.

I do not like Obama's stance on digital rights and freedom of information not to mention internet neutrality. He has been entirely too vague in what he thinks on these topics.

There are a number of things that I do not like what he has done, but I can be man enough to admit that it is not because it is just because I subscribe to the conservative mentality that all Democrats are bad. I at least have real, explainable and tangible reasons to go for each opinion, of which I notice that you did not give a single one, you only took the examples of someone else without elaborating on any of them one bit.

Like I said, I am not the one jumping on the 'Obama Hate wagon' so then I must be a defender... But here yes I am defending him, because what you are bashing him about you are not even giving any reason or justification for. Your just doing to to be part of the 'cool crowd'.

I see the disastrous situation that he came into, and I understand what it would take to fix that situation. I also understand that there is a great deal more to this than is being released to the public. You and all these haters do not seem to understand what this takes to overcome, but then again maybe you would have been happier with another conservative in office to continue the Bush policies that got us into this situation to begin with.

I have a free mind to decide for myself and develop reasons for my feelings of things.
What do you have to form yours? It seems to me nothing but that Fox TV station that claims to be news.

[odin_dax]

Listening to FOX News (which I don't do) doesn't mean someone is automatically incorrect or wrong, nor does it mean the information is either.

That said, he made the promise to end the war in Iraq, but as his career took off, he backed off from that. He still ran under that impression, and now he's turned around fully supporting it. Why? Like I said long before the election, no US President is going to back out of a (successful) war over party politics.

You still haven't proven that Bush was the cause of our economic situation. You said he deregulated the system, but how does that make him responsible? He didn't run those companies.

I'm not saying G.W. Bush was perfect, but certainly not the major blame of our current situation, especially since he was a lame duck president his last two years.

[blastedforums]

Listening to FOX News (which I don't do) doesn't mean someone is automatically incorrect or wrong, nor does it mean the information is either.

That said, he made the promise to end the war in Iraq, but as his career took off, he backed off from that. He still ran under that impression, and now he's turned around fully supporting it. Why? Like I said long before the election, no US President is going to back out of a (successful) war over party politics.

You still haven't proven that Bush was the cause of our economic situation. You said he deregulated the system, but how does that make him responsible? He didn't run those companies.

I'm not saying G.W. Bush was perfect, but certainly not the major blame of our current situation, especially since he was a lame duck president his last two years.

Fox news is largely known as the worst source for news. They play and even cater to sensationalism. The pretend Resistance of a non issue. They cater to those that want to hear what they want to hear, not both sides, not neutral points or even facts on many cases. I cannot count the times that Fox did stories and sensationalized them when they were completely and totally false. In my opinion, and what I know about Fox, if a person starts quoting something that they heard on Fox I either ignore them or correct them. There is a very high chance that it is completely fabricated or flat out lie.
Remember that it was Fox that "broke" and continues to push this issue of "birthers" those that do not believe that Obama was even born in America.This screams that these people are complete idiots to me.
As far as Fox being conservative, that is a flat out fact. They are the ultra conservative media source.

As far as Iraq wars, I will agree that he has backed down, I think I even listed this as one of my points of contention with him. But he is leaps and bounds ahead of Bush who flat out refused to set any time table at all. Obama is at least listening to the damn Iraqi Government and allowing them to control their own country for gods sake. He is turning over control to Iraq, Bush flat out refused.

His policies allowed the companies to ruin themselves. This country does not follow the strict Capitalist Economy no matter what anyone says. We use it as a basis, but do not follow the rules entirely. If we did than these companies would be belly up of their own doing. We have in place a series of rules and policies that regulate and govern these companies in what they are allowed to do. When you deregulate, you allow them to do what ever they want. When you regulate, you set very specific rules that they have to abide by.
When the shit started to fly because he allowed these companies to do what they wished because he deregulated them and did not correct the situation quickly you get the housing bubble that crashed, you get foreclosures you get abandoned homes and crashing housing prices. You also get banks that then has these houses that they cannot sell, and that they cannot get rid of. This ties up trillions of dollars so then they cannot make short term loans to businesses. The businesses cannot pay their bills, they cannot pay their staff they go under. People become unemployed. The cycle expands.

The regulations were there to keep these companies from lending money to people that had absolutely no way of paying it back. These banks that lent 2, 3 and 4 hundred thousand dollars to people that could clearly not afford to pay back the load to buy houses. Bush removed these regulations, and when the market started to falter he did not correct the situation, he let it be. That is on him.

These are a few excerpts from Wikipedia about the Bush economic policies and ramifications of them.

The economic policy of the George W. Bush administration was characterized by a combination of tax cuts, expenditures for fighting two wars, and a free-market ideology intended to de-emphasize the role of government in the private sector. He advocated the Ownership society, premised on the concepts of individual accountability, smaller government, and the owning of property. The last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy.

Between 2001 and 2003, the Bush administration instituted a federal tax cut for all taxpayers. (Not a good thing when you are fighting two extremely expensive wars.)

During his first term (2001-2004), he sought and obtained Congressional approval for tax cuts: the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002 and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003. These acts decreased all tax rates, reduced the capital gains tax, increased the child tax credit and eliminated the so-called "marriage penalty", and are set to expire in 2011.

The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council. In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income.

The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP), due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.

Effect of polices Vrs The National Debt year by year
Fiscal year (begins
10/01 of prev. year) Value % of GDP
2001 $144.5 billion 1.4%
2002 $409.5 billion 3.9%
2003 $589.0 billion 5.5%
2004 $605.0 billion 5.3%
2005 $523.0 billion 4.3%
2006 $536.5 billion 4.1%
2007 $459.5 billion 3.4%
2008 $962.0 billion (proj.) 6.8%

The total surplus (the federal Budget) in FY 2001 (the end of Clinton's Presidency) was $128 billion.
A combination of tax cuts and spending initiatives has added almost $1.7 trillion—through budget deficits—to the national debt since then (October 1, 2001 through September 30, 2007).


I think this makes the point and my view very clear and based on solid facts. But if you wish me to continue I will, I just do not feel that it needs expanding if you could not line the ducks up before.
As I said before, I try to stay up to date and educated on things that effect or could effect me. I look at the overall pictures, not just snipits that many people look at.

Going back to this for a moment...
cash for clunkers was a stupid idea. in the disclaimer they say your computer becomes federal property or somehting to that nature. wich is why i told dad to do everything at the libary. and thats how i got money for my el camino
You do realize that Fox broke this completely made up story right?
Again do your own reasearch... read and learn
http://www.examiner.com/x-5738-St-Louis-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m8d1-Video--Glenn-Beck-promotes-paranoia-with-recent-Cash-for-Clunkers-website-myths

[odin_dax]

Well, I'm going to agree to disagree on Bush policies regarding companies that abused their freedom.

Like I said, I don't watch FOX News, but there are many "liberal" outlets that are just as bad. CNN is heavily bias, but at least they let conservatives speak from time to time (but check out air time). I don't like CNN. I know they edit Larry King (like when the Amazing Randi was on), they have ultra liberal die-hards like Paul Begala that continually speak over people (most conservatives don't, if you notice).

It's funny you quoted a liberal newspaper, but they were right on this one. That Beck guy is an idiot. I've seen him say the economy will go up, that one company (I forgot which) stocks will rise because it's his hunch, then it went bankrupt. Yeah, he's worthless.

Then again, Wikipedia isn't the best, most credible source of information either...

[blastedforums]

Well, I'm going to agree to disagree on Bush policies regarding companies that abused their freedom.

Like I said, I don't watch FOX News, but there are many "liberal" outlets that are just as bad. CNN is heavily bias, but at least they let conservatives speak from time to time (but check out air time). I don't like CNN. I know they edit Larry King (like when the Amazing Randi was on), they have ultra liberal die-hards like Paul Begala that continually speak over people (most conservatives don't, if you notice).

It's funny you quoted a liberal newspaper, but they were right on this one. That Beck guy is an idiot. I've seen him say the economy will go up, that one company (I forgot which) stocks will rise because it's his hunch, then it went bankrupt. Yeah, he's worthless.

Then again, Wikipedia isn't the best, most credible source of information either...

Like I said the evidence is there that shows that Bush could and should have done much more than he did to stem the economic tide. He promoted ownership over anything. This is not a liberal or conservative view it is a fact.
The Wikipedia article that I surmised and excerpted from has the information taken from factual documents. If you like I will go to the sources and quote them directly. The overall source is still very much the same. There just happens to be a middle man with wikipedia.

The paper I quotes is pointless, the truth still was that Fox completely made up this story and supported the entire process. It was a fake story, it was a LIE. That is not what a news agency does.

I agree that there are bad liberal outlets. I however do not agree that CNN is one of them, they do tend to favor the liberal forward thinking, but they at least base their statments on facts, not facts of the moment. They also have plenty of conservative coverage. Lou Dobbs, that No Bias no Bull lady ( I forget her name) who is completely and totally conservative and then totally biased so the title is an oxymoron as far as I am concerned.
As far as Larry king, he is not "news" he is a talk show to talk about news.

[odin_dax]

I agree that there are bad liberal outlets. I however do not agree that CNN is one of them, they do tend to favor the liberal forward thinking

Yeah, that's what I said.

[lcnostra]

obama is a fuck up plain and simple.

i have heard rumors than several members of his staff like to bully him.

somehow i feel sorry for the guy. something about him makes me feel bad. like he is unliked and like he has a bad feeling of things. like he feels all alone and has deppression.

ok i know he is unliked. i hope for the best for my country

This has to be the most obtuse statement made regarding this topic. People like you are the reason tabloids stay in business.


Why do you hate conservatives?

Because true conservatism lost its roots years ago. Self-proclaimed conservatives today are largely members of the neoconservative movement. They are strict adherents to the Constitution, completely blind to the fact that our forefathers could not envision all aspects of the future. They are extremely myopic and fail to see that even the forefathers themselves admitted to not knowing what the future holds. The true patriots were intelligent enough to realize that circumstances change, and policies must reflect the best interests of the nation. For neocons, it's party before country -- always. Their obsession with traditionalist policies and party-lines has bred a group of ignorant cowards who refuse compromise or thinking beyond their canonical ways.


Fox news is largely known as the worst source for news. They play and even cater to sensationalism. The pretend Resistance of a non issue. They cater to those that want to hear what they want to hear, not both sides, not neutral points or even facts on many cases.

I couldn't agree with you more. "Fair and balanced" makes me laugh every time. Fox News is for people who want to hear one side, no matter how remarkably retarded the talking point is.

How do these idiots get air time? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df9BjkqWdkk)

[odin_dax]

Because true conservatism lost its roots years ago. Self-proclaimed conservatives today are largely members of the neoconservative movement. They are strict adherents to the Constitution, completely blind to the fact that our forefathers could not envision all aspects of the future. They are extremely myopic and fail to see that even the forefathers themselves admitted to not knowing what the future holds. The true patriots were intelligent enough to realize that circumstances change, and policies must reflect the best interests of the nation. For neocons, it's party before country -- always. Their obsession with traditionalist policies and party-lines has bred a group of ignorant cowards who refuse compromise or thinking beyond their canonical ways.

I'm a conservative and I'm not like that. I don't agree party should always come first, but I do see that in Washington. The problem with that is, both sides do it! You can't honestly tell me Democrats are better. They are actually worse! I'm tired of the elitist Dems telling me they know what's best for me, that I need these programs because I'm too dumb to take care of myself, to have all these rules and regulations that just increase red tape. I'm not happy with the Republicans because they squandered all their stock with control of all branches of government for six years and did nothing significant. Which reminds me, the Dems and Nancy Pelosi voted for many of the war funds, not to mention a lot of things they now yell about.

[blastedforums]

I'm a conservative and I'm not like that. I don't agree party should always come first, but I do see that in Washington. The problem with that is, both sides do it! You can't honestly tell me Democrats are better. They are actually worse! I'm tired of the elitist Dems telling me they know what's best for me, that I need these programs because I'm too dumb to take care of myself, to have all these rules and regulations that just increase red tape. I'm not happy with the Republicans because they squandered all their stock with control of all branches of government for six years and did nothing significant. Which reminds me, the Dems and Nancy Pelosi voted for many of the war funds, not to mention a lot of things they now yell about.

Just a reminder for you...
The Republicans, you know the ones that are raising absolute hell about this "Death Panel" (which by the way is non existent) They are end of life counseling for those that do not have family nearby to handle the final arrangements and terminal decisions. Yeah those propositions that are in the "Public Option" every single Republican voted "YES" to when those exact same terms were introduced into a bill that Modified Medi-Care and Medi-Caid. But yet, now they are raising a shit storm about it?
Or is it that they have totally and completely twisted the wording to instill fear about the public option that will help care for 100% of Americans instead of leaving millions without care.

The Republicans use fear tactics when they want to squelch or instill a bill. It is odd how that works both ways for them. And even more odd that the people of the U.S. do not catch on and call them on their bullshit for doing it.
Who I want to hear from is the Millions without heath care that these bills would help, not the whining, bitching and moaning from those that already have health care. They should have no voice in this discussion, they are covered. However poorly by their self paid health care provider.

The worst that will happen, the insurance companies will be absolutely forced to lower the premiums to keep customers. That is if they wish to survive. So instead of a family of 4 costing (lets just say) 2 grand a month, it will drop significantly if they wish to keep their customers. The same for these exact same providers if they wish to keep their business contracts, they will be forced to lower the outrageous premiums to compete.
I would also say that many Unions would fight and force companies to keep both options open, depending on a members vote. They would be given a choice.

Also just how much does a typical person spend a month on their premium that is automatically taken from their check? I know my wife pays nearly 600 a month. That is a hell of a pay increase if the company did decide to go public option.

I would much rather have to wait for care when it is free than to have no care at all.

Medical Bankruptcy is a major influence in the medical billing charges today. If you have say 3 out of 10 people that go to the emergency room and can pay the bill the hospital is happy. Though I think that they would rather have 10 out of 10 people be covered and be able to pay.

[odin_dax]

Unemployment rose last week. Did the President take credit or credit his economic stimulus package? Just asking because I never heard anything from the media or the White House.

[blastedforums]

Unemployment rose last week. Did the President take credit or credit his economic stimulus package? Just asking because I never heard anything from the media or the White House.

and it was down the week before that... The overall trend is that claims and existing are on the decline.
the president cannot force business to hire people. If businesses are not making money they cannot afford staff correct?
However did you happen to notice that GM is hiring back a little over 1000 people?

The majority of the reports are that we are very near, or at the bottom now.

I realize that you do not like Obama... but given what he has done so far Vrs Bush I will still take Obama. Again, give the man a little time.
You do have to credit him with CARS. The program worked as intended, it sold hundreds of thousands of cars from stagnant or dying dealers. I do not like that it was a public funded program, but it at least did get some money flowing again.

[odin_dax]

and it was down the week before that... The overall trend is that claims and existing are on the decline.
the president cannot force business to hire people. If businesses are not making money they cannot afford staff correct?

Exactly, so how can he take credit for it when things are good?

However did you happen to notice that GM is hiring back a little over 1000 people?

No, I didn't notice that, but what percentage of former GM employees is that, and what percentage of the unemployed is that? I very much doubt 1,000 people will turn an economy around.

The majority of the reports are that we are very near, or at the bottom now.

Which is neither Bush nor Obama.

I realize that you do not like Obama... but given what he has done so far Vrs Bush I will still take Obama. Again, give the man a little time.
You do have to credit him with CARS. The program worked as intended, it sold hundreds of thousands of cars from stagnant or dying dealers. I do not like that it was a public funded program, but it at least did get some money flowing again.

Yes, but didn't we go over this? It costs more to the public to finance these new cars. It might work for the individual, but they still have to take out new loans to pay for these cars. It definitely worked for American car manufacturers, but what does that do if they don't produce economical cars anyway? It's only the beginning of this whole thing...

[blastedforums]

Exactly, so how can he take credit for it when things are good?

Actually I did not hear that he was. So why do you always bring up that he is?


No, I didn't notice that, but what percentage of former GM employees is that, and what percentage of the unemployed is that? I very much doubt 1,000 people will turn an economy around.

so a little over a 1000 people getting their job back because of the CARS program is worthless. Jobs are jobs. They are getting theirs back. Sorry that you do not see that as a good thing. The percentages are meaningless, people got their jobs back man.


Which is neither Bush nor Obama.

Well it may be neither, but Bush it was all down hill. Now either by programs or time lapse they are starting to slow, and some are getting theirs back.


Yes, but didn't we go over this? It costs more to the public to finance these new cars. It might work for the individual, but they still have to take out new loans to pay for these cars. It definitely worked for American car manufacturers, but what does that do if they don't produce economical cars anyway? It's only the beginning of this whole thing...
A few billion is not significant to the GDP budget. Yes it will raise the debt. No one especially me is debating that. But that 3 billion also rendered another 12-15 billion is sales and financing for the economy.
But it also got banks lending, dealerships staff paid, people in the auto plants rehired and to quote this... more efficient vehicles on the road.
Manufactures cannot wake up one day and immediately start making more efficient cars. Unfortunately they require engineering, planning and tooling to make a new vehicle.
I agreed way back when that the American auto manufacturers shot themselves squarely in the head for not changing when times were good. But when times are bad they sure as hell cannot change because they cannot afford it.

Why must you look at everything negatively? With most of your statement there is hardly anything positive in tone. I can at least point out good things...

[odin_dax]

Actually I did not hear that he was. So why do you always bring up that he is?

He did! It was all over the news.

so a little over a 1000 people getting their job back because of the CARS program is worthless. Jobs are jobs. They are getting theirs back. Sorry that you do not see that as a good thing. The percentages are meaningless, people got their jobs back man.

Oh, did you credit CARS for the 1,000 jobs? I thought you were making two separate statements. It's not meaningless for those 1,000 people, but it's almost meaningless for the industry and the economy as a whole.

Why must you look at everything negatively? With most of your statement there is hardly anything positive in tone. I can at least point out good things...

I'm looking at everything from business and economic points of view. Yes, there are some good things, but I look at the overall picture. I'm not being negative because I hate Obama, at least this far into our conversation, but what's the point of pointing out good if the overall is bad? It's not that I'm pointing out the one dark cloud in the sky, it's that you are pointing out the one patch of sky on a cloudy day. Obama's plans don't work. The numbers don't support it. There was a non-partisan report out just recently stating Obama's plans will destroy our economy.

[lcnostra]

Could you please post a link to said report? I'm interested.

[odin_dax]

Obama won the Nobel Peace prize?! What a joke!!!!!

Nominations for the Nobel Peace prize are submitted no later than January 31st; meaning, Obama was nominated for the prize for being in office for only 11 days! Now, don't get me wrong, this isn't political. Writing this isn't to say that he may not one day deserve it, but last I checked, rhetoric is just talk. There is no proof of any action. In fact, the Bush administration has done more in the way of peace than Obama's getting credit for. The fighting in Iraq? Credited to Obama, but why? Bush ordered more troops, and that changed the way of the war. Obama wanted to immediately end it and pull out, he didn't. Afghanistan is worse now more than ever, so Obama deserves the peace prize for that? Obama is popular in Europe? Does he deserve the prize because of that? Or is it that's he black? Or is it that he's not Bush?

The point is, and I'm not racist, is that Obama hasn't done anything to date that is deserving of a peace prize, and especially hasn't done much of anything in way of peace his first 11 days in office. As one Nobel Committee member stated, (paraphrased) "Think of it as faith that he will accomplish a lot for peace."

What a joke. Nobel is just another bullshit prize nowadays.

[Th0r]

Yasser Arafat won the Nobel Peace Prize, which of course speaks volumes in terms of its validity.

[Tarnak]

Obama and Bush... different puppets, same strings.

The people in charge are playing both sides of the aisle. Obamas cabinet is essentially the same special interest and lobby groups that bushes was.

Their objective is to plunge the united states in to a severe economic depression in an effort to consolidate power. Government redistribution of wealth is like taking a pale and a shovel and scooping water from one end of a swimming pool in to the other. It adds nothing to the total water, and a good bit is wasted as it splashes over the side.

People need to wake up and slap yourselves silly before you follow this man in to his socialist hole.

By the time they put the ball and chain on americans we'll be so brainwashed we'll be begging for the bars.

[NINEBREAKER]

http://worldblog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/10/09/2093914.aspx

read that. dose he deserve it?i dont think so

[davey_crockshit]

Tarnak has a very good point.

Obama's major qualification is that he isn't totally owned by Bush administration types. Now that he can put "Nobel Laureate" in front of his name, I'm sure his handlers will do so at every opportunity.

This situation smells like someone is trying to get some cult of personality bullshit started. This is not reassuring.

[True Sounds]

wow! that's incredible a Black MAn in office! that's just want conservatives like condoleeza rice want.(to make black conservatives look better.)bye the way there
s lot's of fun at Finnigans wake!

[iceniner]

Your posts make Finnegan's Wake look intelligible.

[Saturday]

This whole conversation is just regurgitated shit fed to you guys from blogs and news agendas.

The bottom line in all of this is that we live in a Corporatocracy and the best thing any politician can do is be a representative of the peoples' interests in the face of large corporations who thrive on eliminating the right of the indivdual , and would give rights to the "free market" which really means the "exploitative market."

When it comes to politicians being owned and bullied, Obama is the least of the evils. Obama probably did not know how owned he was gonna be as President, so he made a lot of promises and comments that he could never follow through with (gay marriage, pulling out troops in Iraq/Afghanistan).

The whole party system and the voting system and all that shit is really just an antiquated process that gives us the impression that we really have any say over who becomes president. And even if the people choose who the President is, truly, like Obama, he becomes a big business advocate anyway once in office.

[odin_dax]

This whole conversation is just regurgitated shit fed to you guys from blogs and news agendas.

The bottom line in all of this is that we live in a Corporatocracy and the best thing any politician can do is be a representative of the peoples' interests in the face of large corporations who thrive on eliminating the right of the indivdual , and would give rights to the "free market" which really means the "exploitative market."

When it comes to politicians being owned and bullied, Obama is the least of the evils. Obama probably did not know how owned he was gonna be as President, so he made a lot of promises and comments that he could never follow through with (gay marriage, pulling out troops in Iraq/Afghanistan).

The whole party system and the voting system and all that shit is really just an antiquated process that gives us the impression that we really have any say over who becomes president. And even if the people choose who the President is, truly, like Obama, he becomes a big business advocate anyway once in office.

Depends what you mean by "exploitative".

You infer Obama is outside the system and being bullied. I lost hope in political parties long ago. The Republicans had control of every branch of government for years, yet no real conservative values and actions, which is why I voted for them, happened, except maybe tax cuts. (Those didn't help me though.)

Obama is just another cog in the big machine, Saturday. He's no different than any other politician. They all have to make compromises, but they're all in the system. Clinton and Bush are buddy-buddy now, didn't you hear? Like the California, it's all about power. Politicians, overall, don't care about working for the people. They have the best lives in the world: free medical, pay for life after office, earmarks, kickbacks.

The most obvious sign of political failure is seen when Supreme Court justices are voted on. Look at Obama's picks. Seriously?! And, yet, as extreme and inexperienced as they are, the first got in and the second one will. Great...

[iceniner]

I actually voted for Obama, which may come as a surprise to some people. My reasoning was that a boring black man would be a better president than a woman in a red leather vest who would be better off managing a chain of Pottery Barn stores.

He's got a couple more years in office. What he actually does remains to be seen, the leftists still have a fair bit of mandate left.

He doesn't seem to have made things worse but on the other hand he's done little to stem the tide of creeping authoritarianism in this country. Frankly I'm not optimistic.

If either party were actually for what they claim to be for, I would vote for them. That is not the case.

The person the GOP offers us is likely to be a total and complete ass, someone like Mitt Romney. I doubt I am going to vote this time, I am just sick of the lies.

[Raverous]

If I don't like either of the candidates I won't vote, which is why Iv never voted. Neither side can be trusted.

[iceniner]

It's getting so there's no point voting. This country is run by one party and they're no longer accountable to the citizenry.

Obama is not some sort of antichrist. I find all the fear of him rather funny because he's not substantively different in any way from Bush, except less ridiculous.

[Saturday]

Obama is incredibly non-threatening, which is his fault. He should be threatening all of the power interests that he said he would threaten, but as all politicians, he has become owned by these interests. George Dubya didn't become owned by big companies and military interests as he became president, because he was born owned, with his father being one of the major facilitators of the subjugation of the Middle-East (I am aware that its been going on since the Crusades and later Churchhill, etc.)

It is so interesting to me that people who are all for the "free market" usually subscribe to a religion (Chirstianity or Judaism) that is designed to curb and suppress the natural inclinations of a human being. In other words, in terms of business, Capitalists believe (or purport to believe) that people acting freely will always produce the best results for everyone, while they believe in a religion that believes that people are basically inherently evil.

Anyway, im no liberal, but Republicans are basically slightly less emotional, but also slighlty more brainwashed. We are all brainwashed to believe that the US is the greatest country in the world, but this is based off of the suffering of other people and the need for other countries to be third-world and starving for economic growth.

Countries and political parties are just imaginary. They are imposed lines drawn to keep people segregated and easier to manage.

[odin_dax]

There comes a point where I must disagree. Countries and political parties are not just imaginary. A country's border(s) may be, but not the contents within. There are huge differences between neighboring countries. Furthermore, some entry requirements, even between countries on the same continent, are very strict. It is quite cynical to call borders "imposed lines drawn to keep people segregated." Care to support that assertion? Can you honestly say that looking at the US/Mexico border, the US/Canada border, or continental Western Europe?

Political parties in the US may be imaginary judged by the context we're speaking of here, but I can assure you that the instance is not the norm.

Also, capitalists don't believe people acting freely will produce the best result. You're thinking of an economist. And it's actually a true principle. You may be thinking that someone always suffer from an economic system, but that is quite different from the function of an economic market in which that principle is based. In fact, economics and economists are always fully aware people from all income levels exists. Economics isn't the study to make everyone equal, but to make society as a whole better off (in terms of buying/selling). Quite the contrary, economics, markets, capitalism, and basically any system would fail if everyone were equal. Truth be told, we need low income people to work shit jobs. Just the facts of life. We need them as much as we need the rich (overall, not specifically capitalism).

As far as religion goes, Christians and Jews don't believe people are inherently evil, but are prone to act in counterproductive ways that harm society. In this instance, take religion as the study of human behavior only. Does murder hurt society? Yes. Does stealing? Yes. Does greed? Yes. Christianity talks a lot about greed and rich people, because those people often lose sight of Christian practices -- compassion is one example. However, there is no inherent conflict between religion and free-market economics. There's lots of money to be made honestly, and there are many benefits to donate nowadays.

If you want to look at real greed, study some relief societies. Red Cross of America is one example there.

[iceniner]

They are imposed lines drawn to keep people segregated and easier to manage.

And with that, Saturday removed the locks from his car and the doors from his home.

Many of the Republican policies are based on veiled racism. Almost all of the conflicts in the United States, with the exception of abortion, boil down to race.

If only the GOP would actually act on these ideas! Instead they are bringing in even more mexicans, largely for cheap labor and demographic reasons.

It's gotten to the point where I almost hope the Tea Party does get into power, as incompetent and ludicrous as they are (Joe the Plumber!? Come on!) They might actually have the political will to shut down the southern border.

[Saturday]

Christians and Jews don't believe people are inherently evil, but are prone to act in counterproductive ways that harm society..

That kind of sounds like a sugar-coated version of "inherently evil."

Look, we are kind of saying the same thing at certain points. I do agree that some people need to be poor and some people need to be rich, but this is only withing the frame of what we currently do and the system that is currently in place. I believe that people are inherently "evil" so I wouldn't trust anyone to set-up a communist system and expect it not to be immediately eaten away by selfishness, greed, ambition, competitiveness, rivalry, and variation in genetic gifts/curses (no, Dr. King, not every man is created equal, however, this is not based on race, religion, or creed.... the jury is still out on gender).

People that support Capitalism DO believe that people acting freely will generate competition and thus create an atmosphere that fosters efficiency, quality, and excellence. I don't neccessarily disagree with this, but just as with Communist-like philosophies, it has been exploited by selfishness, greed, etc.

Bottom line... I do like Obama, based purely on the fact that I am against the idea of having a president or anything like that because I do not really see myself as the subject of any govenrment, law, or man. However, as presidents go, he has managed to reinstate stem-cell research and it is nice to have someone who is highly academically intelligent, instead of a silver-spoon rich kid, who managed to get C's, even with his family paying his way through life.
Although, I do think that Bush was a more accurate representative of what the average American is like, so he may have given the rest of the world a more realistic look at what goes on here and what to expect from us (them).

[odin_dax]

"Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production. It is a system based on the production of goods and services for exchange rather than use. Private ownership and free enterprise supposedly leads to more efficiency, lower prices, better products. Adam Smith popularized this theory in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations."

In fairness, that is not "people acting freely will always produce the best results for everyone." Capitalism is a theory, Market Equilibrium and Invisible Hand are principles (to which I alluded). The keyword left out in your discussion is "competition." The definitions in economics are very narrow, so I just wanted to point out the confusion. Not arguing.


I'm not going to argue religion in an Obama thread... but you're wrong. Show me one baby that's evil, then we'll talk. Look up John Locke and learn the difference between sin and evil while you're at it. Peace.

I do like Obama, based purely on the fact that I am against the idea of having a president or anything like that because I do not really see myself as the subject of any govenrment, law, or man.

That makes no sense.

[iceniner]

Show me one baby that's evil, then we'll talk [] That makes no sense.

The whole concept of original sin makes no sense whatsoever. It's like a dumb lie a child would come up with.

[Saturday]

I meant that I DO NOT like Obama based on my lack of reverence for imposed authority figures, that was a typo.

[Saturday]

Show you a baby that's evil? That isn't a great example. Acting evil, (which is defined largely by religious morality, so obviously I disagree with about 90% of what is considered wrong or evil) requires action and thought. Show me a baby that doesn't shit its pants...my point being that babies are incapable of a lot of things. They don't crave sex, but that does not mean that humans are not sexual beings.

And I have read Locke, in fact I used to write papers for people at local colleges and many of the papers were comparing Communism with Capitalism, involving many comparisons and endless research of Marx, Locke, Kant, and a bunch of Cold War info

Anyway Odin, I know the academic and philisophical definitions, but I trying to make a distinction between the idea and the actuality.

Also, the word "competition" did show up in my discussion, only I said "competitiveness". I agree, this is not the place to discuss religion. I am an atheist anyway, so I think any discussion about institutionalized religions is a waste of time and only ads further credibiility to already over-emphasized fictional tales.

My basic point is that clearly Capitalism is not working. Worse than Katrina, 911, and global warning has been the rotten core of this countires economy (that is based on fluff) and it has a lot to do with how people acting freely within the market too quickly turns into rampant white collar crime, especially when it is being supported by the government (with lack of regulation) and funded by the government (Bush/Obama stimulus and bailout fiascos).

[odin_dax]

By what measure would you say capitalism isn't working? Even relating to the US Government, I would argue that capitalism is very successful. There are a few exceptions, as with everything, but those exceptions are hardly representative of the whole. As I previously said, there's plenty of honest money to be earned.

And what does 9/11 have to do with capitalism?

[odin_dax]

Show you a baby that's evil? That isn't a great example. Acting evil, (which is defined largely by religious morality, so obviously I disagree with about 90% of what is considered wrong or evil) requires action and thought. Show me a baby that doesn't shit its pants...my point being that babies are incapable of a lot of things. They don't crave sex, but that does not mean that humans are not sexual beings.

It's a perfect example because you just argued my point.

[Saturday]

Alright, I wrote 9/11 in a context of listing shitty things that have happened to the US recently and I said that is pales in comparison to the economic meltdown that has been self-propelled by our greed-driven economy.

And I don't think I proved your point at all about original sin. Babies aren't evil because they aren't capable (physically and probably mentally) of even doing anything evil, but Jeffrey Dahmer was a baby once and you wouldn't say that Jeffrey Dahmer was an evil person, but only from the age of 22 onward. No, people say that he was evil. My point is that using a baby as an example is arbitrary, because if that was a legitimate example, I could also make the argument that humans do not have sex, because babies don't have sex. No, they don't have sex because they are incapable mentally and physically of doing anything like that, just like an evil deed.

You seem to be running out of small things to nit-pick about what im writing. I don't know why you are so surefire about our economy. You do realize that we are basically a crackhead when it comes to borrowing money and when borrowing doesn't work, we fabricate wars in order to generate a need to print money that is not backed by ANYTHING. I would say that this form of capitalism is working for a couple million people and that the other 99% would rather have something closer to Socialism, like Europe, if only their dumbasses knew what Socialism actually is.

[odin_dax]

I'm not nitpicking, just asking questions. Are we not having a discussion? I rather enjoy this subject. Sorry if you think otherwise...

From your responses, it seems you don't know what "inherent" means. The very fact that a baby may or may not be mentally aware is irrelevant. Your counterpoint is also irrelevant because humans aren't sexually mature at birth. Further, it's a natural, hormonal instinct, one which can be controlled. People don't have to have sex just because they are capable. If evilness is inherent, then it must be assumed, by your logic, that one's evilness can be controlled, but doesn't that contradict the definition of inherently evil?

Behavior is learned, and morality is relative. A man alone on an island is absolutely moral, or moral absolutely. If someone comes to the island that his can totally dominate, absolute morality still exists. If the other is stronger, that morality will take control eventually. If the two are equal, as society leads us to believe nowadays, then morality will compromise to serve everyone (or both, in this case).

Greed without charity is a learned behavior. Even Christianity, as you brought up, doesn't say give everything you own away because people are in need. How would you support yourself if you did so? By the same manner, to say that capitalism and economics don't work is a ludicrous assertion since so many people run successful, honest businesses. Why do so many people flock to this country if they wouldn't be better off here?

It's easy to look at the bad examples and shake your head, but it's another to formulate opinions based on them. No news is good news, right? If we heard about all the wonderful things people did everyday, would your opinion be different? The system works, but it's prone to abuse, like everything else.

And, yes, there are even honest politicians out there.

Regarding your last paragraph, what? It's obvious from your posts that you're a Marxist, but how can you sit there and say socialism is any better? Here you say government is bad and corrupt, but you want them in charge of resources? It seems strange to me that in every post you contradict yourself somehow. Are you being spoon-fed by professors? How would you address the issue of free riding?

Here is an interesting snippet:

"The communist societies that have been or are being attempted are really not communist societies at all, although they try to be. The USSR, for example, attempted communism but ended up being way to totaliarianistic--in stead of everyone working for the benefit of the society, there was a group of individuals with total power (Joseph Stalin took this role for a quarter century). Today's China is the same way--there is a centralized bureaucracy that calls all the shots. In both of these cases many people are forced to take part in the society against their own will. The Soviet Union obviously didn't work and China is becoming more prosperous only as they allow their economy to be more capitalistic. Taiwan, China's capitalistic counterpart, is years ahead of China on almost any measure of prosperity.

The fact is that people can't be forced to take part in communism. It simply won't work unless everyone is willing, and even then greed can easily lead to its demise. On the other hand, capitalism can work even if there are some who don't want to pull their weight--the difference is that those that don't pull their weight will suffer the consequences. Just like in communism, capitalism will work better if everyone works hard to produce valuable products. Also just like in communism, a capitalist society where there exists charity and good will will eliminate preventable suffering of all individuals.

So why has France passed a socialistic labor law which makes it very hard to lay off workers? Why does Canada have government sponsered, free health care? Why do some American workers pay over a third of their income in taxes? Why do so many nations tax and then dole out excessive welfare checks?

It seems as though we are doing the very thing that history has proven doesn't work: forcing socialism. How can France expect its workers to work hard if it's nearly impossible to fire them? How can we expect welfare recipients to find jobs if it's easy for them to sit at home and get welfare? I know that there is a real need for welfare among some people, but there are others who smoke and drink and do nothing to better themselves. Socialism is forced on the rest of Americans when they are taxed and their money goes to such people. If this continues, Americans will become more and more lazy and our nation will degenerate to a quasi-socialist, nonproductive society. "

I challenge you to point to one socialist country and tell me how they're better off without capitalism. Socialism may be better. I'm asking with an open mind for you to prove it.

Also regarding your last paragraph, it's obvious you don't know a thing about economics in this country. Sorry.

[odin_dax]

I'm not nitpicking, just asking questions. Are we not having a discussion? I rather enjoy this subject. Sorry if you think otherwise...

From your responses, it seems you don't know what "inherent" means. The very fact that a baby may or may not be mentally aware is irrelevant. Your counterpoint is also irrelevant because humans aren't sexually mature at birth. Further, it's a natural, hormonal instinct, one which can be controlled. People don't have to have sex just because they are capable. If evilness is inherent, then it must be assumed, by your logic, that one's evilness can be controlled, but doesn't that contradict the definition of inherently evil?

Behavior is learned, and morality is relative. A man alone on an island is absolutely moral, or moral absolutely. If someone comes to the island that his can totally dominate, absolute morality still exists. If the other is stronger, that morality will take control eventually. If the two are equal, as society leads us to believe nowadays, then morality will compromise to serve everyone (or both, in this case).

Greed without charity is a learned behavior. Even Christianity, as you brought up, doesn't say give everything you own away because people are in need. How would you support yourself if you did so? By the same manner, to say that capitalism and economics don't work is a ludicrous assertion since so many people run successful, honest businesses. Why do so many people flock to this country if they wouldn't be better off here?

It's easy to look at the bad examples and shake your head, but it's another to formulate opinions based on them. No news is good news, right? If we heard about all the wonderful things people did everyday, would your opinion be different? The system works, but it's prone to abuse, like everything else.

And, yes, there are even honest politicians out there.

Regarding your last paragraph, what? It's obvious from your posts that you're a Marxist, but how can you sit there and say socialism is any better? Here you say government is bad and corrupt, but you want them in charge of resources? It seems strange to me that in every post you contradict yourself somehow. Are you being spoon-fed by professors? How would you address the issue of free riding?

Here is an interesting snippet:

"The communist societies that have been or are being attempted are really not communist societies at all, although they try to be. The USSR, for example, attempted communism but ended up being way to totaliarianistic--in stead of everyone working for the benefit of the society, there was a group of individuals with total power (Joseph Stalin took this role for a quarter century). Today's China is the same way--there is a centralized bureaucracy that calls all the shots. In both of these cases many people are forced to take part in the society against their own will. The Soviet Union obviously didn't work and China is becoming more prosperous only as they allow their economy to be more capitalistic. Taiwan, China's capitalistic counterpart, is years ahead of China on almost any measure of prosperity.

The fact is that people can't be forced to take part in communism. It simply won't work unless everyone is willing, and even then greed can easily lead to its demise. On the other hand, capitalism can work even if there are some who don't want to pull their weight--the difference is that those that don't pull their weight will suffer the consequences. Just like in communism, capitalism will work better if everyone works hard to produce valuable products. Also just like in communism, a capitalist society where there exists charity and good will will eliminate preventable suffering of all individuals.

So why has France passed a socialistic labor law which makes it very hard to lay off workers? Why does Canada have government sponsered, free health care? Why do some American workers pay over a third of their income in taxes? Why do so many nations tax and then dole out excessive welfare checks?

It seems as though we are doing the very thing that history has proven doesn't work: forcing socialism. How can France expect its workers to work hard if it's nearly impossible to fire them? How can we expect welfare recipients to find jobs if it's easy for them to sit at home and get welfare? I know that there is a real need for welfare among some people, but there are others who smoke and drink and do nothing to better themselves. Socialism is forced on the rest of Americans when they are taxed and their money goes to such people. If this continues, Americans will become more and more lazy and our nation will degenerate to a quasi-socialist, nonproductive society. "

I challenge you to point to one socialist country and tell me how they're better off without capitalism. Socialism may be better. I'm asking with an open mind for you to prove it.

Also regarding your last paragraph, it's obvious you don't know a thing about economics in this country. Sorry.

[iceniner]

I challenge you to point to one socialist country and tell me how they're better off without capitalism.

Well, the United States.

Wouldn't it be horrible if our roads, schools, utilities, postal service and military weren't socialist? Child labor laws, 40-hour work week.

Is this some kind of sophisticated reverse-psychology brainwashing that you do? I've wondered before and I wonder even more now.

The single largest employer and institution in the United States is socialist. Half of your tax dollars go to it. Could it REALLY be that you aren't in favor of the military? The war in the Middle East?

it's obvious you don't know a thing about economics in this country. Sorry.

Haaaa!

[odin_dax]

Well, the United States.

Wouldn't it be horrible if our roads, schools, utilities, postal service and military weren't socialist? Child labor laws, 40-hour work week.

Is this some kind of sophisticated reverse-psychology brainwashing that you do? I've wondered before and I wonder even more now.

The single largest employer and institution in the United States is socialist. Half of your tax dollars go to it. Could it REALLY be that you aren't in favor of the military? The war in the Middle East?

I suppose it depends by what measure of socialism you refer to, ice. Sure, the US has socialist elements, but one can only argue we were forced to have FDR's "reforms", which removed all incentives for most people to save for themselves. Social Security isn't purely socialist anyway.

It's hard to argue that the US is a socialist nation as a whole, but I think you could argue the US is socialist when narrowed to government and corporations. When it comes to the people, definitely not.

The question was, are we better off? Half our money to taxes, as you say. I don't think that makes us better off. What if someone dies before retirement and before SS kicks in? Are the rich exempt? (that's actually a good question, because I heard you can get out of SS if you don't put in to it.) Is Social Security enough to live off of? Will it go broke?

What troubles me about Social Security and the Federal Government in general, is the way it forces states to comply or cuts funding. That is not freedom. That doesn't make us better off either. Contrary to popular belief, people got by before these programs.

Off topic, yes, I support the military and the war in Middle East. :trink26:

[iceniner]

Off topic, yes, I support the military and the war in Middle East.

But it IS the topic. You're a socialist. War is by far the country's largest expenditure and it's entirely socialist.

There are two kinds of socialism. There's the kind that helps people, and the kind that hurts people. Right-wingers are in favor of the kind that hurts people.

but I think you could argue the US is socialist when narrowed to government and corporations. When it comes to the people, definitely not.

The US is war-corporatist.

In other words the little people pay into the socialist system but they aren't afforded many of the benefits available in other socialist countries. The corporations benefit.

j5vuci_pt5Q

[odin_dax]

But it IS the topic. You're a socialist. War is by far the country's largest expenditure and it's entirely socialist.

There are two kinds of socialism. There's the kind that helps people, and the kind that hurts people. Right-wingers are in favor of the kind that hurts people.

The US is war-corporatist.

In other words the little people pay into the socialist system but they aren't afforded many of the benefits available in other socialist countries. The corporations benefit.

Supporting a war or military doesn't make me a socialist any more than supporting logging restrictions makes me a liberal. People aren't defined by one example or issue, especially in politics or ideology.

[iceniner]

Supporting a war or military doesn't make me a socialist

Sure it does. The US military is a social program. The fact that 1/4 of US working hours go to support the military means that the United States is a socialist country. To whatever degree you support it, you are a socialist.

Do you have to support, say, school lunch programs to be an evil socialist?

[odin_dax]

Sure it does. The US military is a social program. The fact that 1/4 of US working hours go to support the military means that the United States is a socialist country. To whatever degree you support it, you are a socialist.

Do you have to support, say, school lunch programs to be an evil socialist?

Really, ice, you're being ridiculous in your hasty generalizations. If you want to continue believing I'm a socialist based on this one issue, that's your own fallacious reasoning. I should just start calling you a neocon then.

Back to the main topic...

[iceniner]

Really, ice, you're being ridiculous in your hasty generalizations.

Really, since the US military is a social program, and since the US expends over 1/2 of its budget on the military, it's a simple fact that the US is a socialist country. That is, to whatever extent it's true that US military campaigns are really for the common weal, an idea I find quite suspect.

And, since you are in favor of the single largest socialist program in the world-- dwarfing any other-- it's ridiculous to claim that you're not a socialist.

What kind of social programs are you not in favor of? Education funding, maybe? Roads? Both of these expenditures are tiny compared to the US military budget.

Just to put this in perspective, US military expenditure-- 100% socialist-- approaches the entire Gross Domestic Product of Russia.

[odin_dax]

Really, since the US military is a social program, and since the US expends over 1/2 of its budget on the military, it's a simple fact that the US is a socialist country. That is, to whatever extent it's true that US military campaigns are really for the common weal, an idea I find quite suspect.

And, since you are in favor of the single largest socialist program in the world-- dwarfing any other-- it's ridiculous to claim that you're not a socialist.

What kind of social programs are you not in favor of? Education funding, maybe? Roads? Both of these expenditures are tiny compared to the US military budget.

Just to put this in perspective, US military expenditure-- 100% socialist-- approaches the entire Gross Domestic Product of Russia.

Wow, look at all those fallacies! :blindfold

Okay, I'm going to end this ridiculous tangent you've created, ice, since you have such a hard time understanding. The US military I support because it's necessary for security. It's so important to the nation that the Founding Fathers wrote it into the Constitution. At the very least, I support it as a conservative, not as a capitalist or as a socialist.

I support the war because, as I've said before, we should complete the job. The US was not alone in many wars it has entered over the years, as your video link tries to make claim. We don't need to get into that, because we've had that conversation before.

The US military, it can be argued, isn't socialist because the US military can be seen as a "common good" -- In other words, a commodity, but one that isn't excludable or rival. Also, the US military doesn't run like socialism. Privates aren't equal to captains, and so on and so on. Privates don't gather around with a general and decide what the best course of action should be. There is a top-down organizational structure, hardly representative of a socialist society. Further, the US military is all volunteer. Also, even though we pay taxes, it doesn't go directly into the military. That alone means the US military isn't socialist.

Even you say it's run by corporations! :wtf?:

Now, it would be ludicrous to assume that socialist elements in US life means we live in a socialist country, or that people who support other common goods are socialist. In fact, there comes a point where one must admit that any nation in the world isn't purely capitalist or socialist or communist, etc, but a mixture, to some degree. Indeed, the US is a mixed economy, but that hardly means it's socialist. By all measures, as previously state, the people don't live in a socialist country.

Does everyone need, say, their own fire hydrant? No, because it doesn't make economic sense. Having fire hydrants accessible doesn't make that part of the government socialist. First of all, a common good. Secondly, the proper allocation of resources. It can't get more capitalist than not wasting money by allocating the minimum necessities.

Now, your fallacies. For the 2009 fiscal year, defense spending for the US was 23%, not half. Even it were half, the military is quite large, so of course it would make up a large chunk of the budget, but that's only one area. If US Fed. Government had 1,000 areas to spend money on, and the top 6 made up 99% of the budget, if those top 6 were socialist programs and the other 994 were capitalist endeavors, how would you define the government? By your fallacious reasoning, as socialist. You're wrong to assume that the proportions equal the characteristic. You're generalizing based on expenditures, not actual endeavors. It's the endeavors, weighted equally, that are reflective of the whole.

Now, say the military is socialist, and say I support it. Well, there are many, many socialist ideals I don't support, so how could you say I'm a socialist? How do you reconcile that? It's like me calling you a neocon because of your overbearing and forceful attitude. Are you a neocon? Do you vote Republican? I doubt it, but I'm still going to make that claim using your logic. Are you purely socialist? Are you purely liberal?

By definition, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole."

Or

"1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"

That's not me. I don't believe in those principles. I think it's pretty hard to call me a socialist. Am I purely capitalist? Probably not. Am I purely conservative? No. But I'm not going to call myself a liberal or socialist because I sometimes agree with points outside the ideology. Sorry.

Now, back to the main topic...

[iceniner]

defense spending for the US was 23%, not half.

As I recall, that figure only takes into account part of the entire DOD budget. Among other things, the VA (a social program) costs some 120 billion per year. Here are the figures:

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/us_vs_world.gif

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2010/04/449138.jpg

More than 53% of your taxes go to the military.

The fact is, you pick and choose the types of socialism you support. My guess is, typically you support the types that harm people. You do this even though school lunch programs, welfare, et cetera represent a tiny fraction of military spending.

Why bother trying? I would have thought you'd have learned by now that throwing eggs against a brick wall doesn't work.

But knock yourself out, kiddo.

[odin_dax]

As I recall, that figure only takes into account part of the entire DOD budget. Among other things, the VA (a social program) costs some 120 billion per year. Here are the figures:

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/us_vs_world.gif

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2010/04/449138.jpg

More than 53% of your taxes go to the military.

The fact is, you pick and choose the types of socialism you support. My guess is, typically you support the types that harm people. You do this even though school lunch programs, welfare, et cetera represent a tiny fraction of military spending.

Why bother trying? I would have thought you'd have learned by now that throwing eggs against a brick wall doesn't work.

But knock yourself out, kiddo.

The first photo is the US' percentage of military spending amongst all nations, not percentage of the budget.

Your second photo is linked to a .UK site, so I can only assume that pie chart represents the UK's budget.

And I could care less for your cynical opinion of me. I never stated how I feel about any of those programs. You can make any assumption you want, doesn't make it right. I feel no need to defend myself from your attempts to distract the issue with other points we weren't discussing when the ones we were talking about got too hard for you to discuss.

So, really, you didn't prove anything with your last post. Not only are you prone to fallacy making, but you also can't reference properly. But thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. I knew you didn't have the balls to tackle the matter.

Done making this about me now? Care to get back to the main topic?

[iceniner]

The first photo is the US' percentage of military spending amongst all nations, not percentage of the budget.

Right, that's why it says "USA VS the World."

And I could care less for your cynical opinion of me.

The point is, you are a socialist. You are in favor of social programs. You are just not in favor of the ones that help people, like universal health care. The gigantic bureaucracy of the military is perfectly OK with you.

Done making this about me now?

You made it personal as soon as you told someone far, far more clued than yourself that he didn't know how the US economy worked, a statement I found quite amusing!

http://www.toothpastefordinner.com/061410/my-daughters-a-libertarian.gif

[odin_dax]

Right, that's why it says "USA VS the World."

Right, so what does that have to do with percentage of the USA's budget, which was central to an earlier claim you made? Darrr daaa darrrr.

The point is, you are a socialist. You are in favor of social programs. You are just not in favor of the ones that help people, like universal health care. The gigantic bureaucracy of the military is perfectly OK with you.

So you ignored my entire post on to repeat what you've said earlier. Sorry, in the real world, ignoring rebuttals and fact doesn't make your original, unfounded claim true.

You made it personal as soon as you told someone far, far more clued than yourself that he didn't know how the US economy worked, a statement I found quite amusing!

The only measure of being "more clued" seems to be who agrees with you more. If you think we create wars in order to print more money, you're just as dumb as he is.


You're definitely not on your "A game" today.

[iceniner]

You're definitely not on your "A game" today.

With you, I don't need to be. The C game of a 6th grader would be sufficient to run rings around you. Why? You consistently argue failed positions.

The fact is, you support the single largest social program in the world, one that consumes the lion's share of the US budget. This being the case, you cannot claim that you're not socialist-- that is, and still have the facts match up, something you've shown time and time again doesn't matter to you.

There's a term for that. It's called cognitive dissonance.

I find it very interesting that all of the positions you've argued have been exactly like this one. That is, divorced from any basis in fact.

You posed a challenge to Saturday and I answered it. Your definition of socialism (the Glenn Beck, tea party know-nothing definition) is flawed because it ignores the elephant in the living room, that is to say military expenditure.

You probably even think I'm a liberal, which would be the biggest howling laugh of all.

[odin_dax]

With you, I don't need to be. The C game of a 6th grader would be sufficient to run rings around you. Why? You consistently argue failed positions.

The fact is, you support the single largest social program in the world, one that consumes the lion's share of the US budget. This being the case, you cannot claim that you're not socialist-- that is, and still have the facts match up, something you've shown time and time again doesn't matter to you.

There's a term for that. It's called cognitive dissonance.

I find it very interesting that all of the positions you've argued have been exactly like this one.

You posed a challenge to Saturday and I answered it. Your definition of socialism (the Glenn Beck, tea party know-nothing definition) is flawed because it ignores the elephant in the living room, that is to say military expenditure.

You probably even think I'm a liberal, which would be the biggest howling laugh of all.

If that is your claim, then you can thoroughly respond to my lengthy post. Instead, you just ignore valid points. You used references that were supposed to support one of your claims, but they did not. Until you address my points, you're just a talking windbag. Too scared? The last few posts I challenged you to answer mine, but you have yet to do so.

I can call you liberal as much as you can call me socialist.

So far, your game is F, as in Fail. You failed long ago.

[iceniner]

Why don't you explain what social programs you aren't in favor of. You've already come out in support of the single largest one on the planet!

The last few posts I challenged you to answer mine, but you have yet to do so.

You actually haven't made any points.

So far, your game is F, as in Fail.

Your game is 4, as in 4Chan kiddie.

[odin_dax]

Why don't you explain what social programs you aren't in favor of. You've already come out in support of the single largest one on the planet!

I don't have to. I've already entertained one ridiculous claim with a rebuttal you failed to properly address. Until you do that...

Proper discussions go like this:

Claim (you) -> Rebuttal (me) -> Counter-rebuttal (you)

So far, it's like this:

Claim (you) -> Rebuttal (me) -> Ignore claim, reassert original claim (you) -> Demands proper response (me) -> Distracts Issue (you) -> Answers distraction, demands proper response to first rebuttal (me) -> Asserts original claim again, tries to further distract issue, ignores request for direct responses (you)

At this point, you couldn't run circles around a marble. You're the idiot who claimed the US spends half its budget on military spending, but the only figure you referenced had nothing to do with the US budget, and the figure wasn't even half! Ha, ha, ha, ha!!! I will laugh at that one for awhile. :laughing:

Don't bother me with your ridiculousness until you actually want to have a mature debate. All this bullshit you're writing only shows how weak your position really is that you can no longer debate it. Run your mouth all you want. I'm not at all worried anyone here actually sides with you in this discussion (at least until you can respond to my post). Not saying they agree with me either, but at least I actually respond to the points raised.

Good day.

[odin_dax]

You actually haven't made any points.

Nice edit. You honestly believe that, don't you? I suppose that's much easier for you! Hahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahhahahaahahaha! You're such a joke. Makes me wonder why I waste my time. Hahahahahahahahhahahahahaha!

[iceniner]

If you're quite finished with your childish outburst, what social programs do you not support?

Be specific.

[Saturday]

Whoah, you guys really went off without any chance for me to get back on and get some points in.

I am not a Marxist at all. I have been to Cambodia and I have seen the camps and the Killing Fields and I know what can happen if a society moves in any direction too quickly, even if it is an attempt to rectify social and economic atrocities from past oligarchies, monarchies, and all other forms of inequalities. I am more of a true anarchist than anything, to be honest. I see flaws in everything, but don't neccessarily think there is one solution that fits all problems.

I do not know a thing about our economy? I think you are letting your Patriotism lead you to believe that the US is doing better than it is. Our economic value right now is mainly as a source of consumerism for other countries. These countries (namely India and China) are soon becoming just a consuming as the US, so they will not only no longer need us as their crackheads, there won't be enough resources for them to continue shipping all their shit over here.
I do not believe in government as a whole, any government. That is my principle philosphy, so if you are sensing contadiction, its because sometimes I must have political arguments that presuppose that a complete slate-wiping is impossible and that we have to talk about and deal with the system that is currently in place.
There is corruption at the core of our government and our economy, the same way there is in any other country, but the difference is that the US believes that it is the greatest and that it is operating at a much higher level than it really is. Job loss is still increasing, more and more jobs are being replaced or shipped away. Americans are becoming dumber and dumber every year (even by their own continually lessening standards). The economic meltdown was avoided by basically flooding the market with weightless money printed by the Fed Reserve.
And Iceniner is right, many of the programs in the US are already Socialist and the programs that aren't (or aren't yet) like medical care, are not Socialist because some people make way too much money from exploiting people. I don't know why you can argue against so-called Socialist changes being made in the government. They are undeniably in the interest of people that are dying needlessly, and yet upholding the free-market purity for the sake of further padding a few more billionaires pockets is ridiculous.

[Saturday]

Also, I think we should keep this civil. Some good points are coming out on both sides and I think that everyone is kind of typecasting one another as the stereotypes of either side. I would say that, in the scheme of things, all three of us are fairly moderate.

After all, its hard to take a conversation about respecting authority serious on a website that seems tailor made for people who are dissatisfied with all forms of law enforement, at any level.

[iceniner]

upholding the free-market purity for the sake of further padding a few more billionaires pockets is ridiculous.

It's the American Way.

If you made any mistake here, it was in talking with Odin like you'd talk with an adult. He just doesn't have adult behavior on offer because, like many conservatives, he is stunted at a low level of moral and intellectual development-- he has the mentality of a child. As you know I've been involved in several discussions with him and none of the positions he argued made any sense whatsoever, when examined in detail.

I used to be far more liberal than I am now. Increasingly, this sums up what I think:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4pnFq7NXDFw/Sr4bX_65LLI/AAAAAAAAEdw/0C3peHfXfHU/s400/green%2520swastika.gif

[odin_dax]

Also, I think we should keep this civil. Some good points are coming out on both sides and I think that everyone is kind of typecasting one another as the stereotypes of either side. I would say that, in the scheme of things, all three of us are fairly moderate.

After all, its hard to take a conversation about respecting authority serious on a website that seems tailor made for people who are dissatisfied with all forms of law enforement, at any level.

Quite right. Good call.

[odin_dax]

Whoah, you guys really went off without any chance for me to get back on and get some points in.

I am not a Marxist at all. I have been to Cambodia and I have seen the camps and the Killing Fields and I know what can happen if a society moves in any direction too quickly, even if it is an attempt to rectify social and economic atrocities from past oligarchies, monarchies, and all other forms of inequalities. I am more of a true anarchist than anything, to be honest. I see flaws in everything, but don't neccessarily think there is one solution that fits all problems.

I've seen the movie, but I can't imagine going there... What was it like?

I do not know a thing about our economy? I think you are letting your Patriotism lead you to believe that the US is doing better than it is. Our economic value right now is mainly as a source of consumerism for other countries. These countries (namely India and China) are soon becoming just a consuming as the US, so they will not only no longer need us as their crackheads, there won't be enough resources for them to continue shipping all their shit over here.

My patriotism died long ago. I love my country, but I've been dissatisfied with it long ago. I think all of us agree as to why. It was mentioned long ago...

At one point, China will stop buying our debt. They're already floating their currency, which worries me. My earlier statement was focused on your statement of war and printing of money. That's obviously wrong, but you're spot on with everything else you just said. China and India, if they continue their current trends, along with the US, will eventually "no longer need us", but that's still a long way off. I just did studies on the Indian and Chinese economies, and everything tells me (and the others on the study) the income levels and rural/urban dynamic have years, if not decades, of catching up to do with the US. The US is still a strong consumer market, so China will continue to buy our currency for a number of years. It's my personal opinion China will one day come into a minor civil war after they stop buying US debt. It's only a matter of time. If you want to invest in Yuan, now might be a good time.

I do not believe in government as a whole, any government. That is my principle philosphy, so if you are sensing contadiction, its because sometimes I must have political arguments that presuppose that a complete slate-wiping is impossible and that we have to talk about and deal with the system that is currently in place.

Gotcha.

There is corruption at the core of our government and our economy, the same way there is in any other country, but the difference is that the US believes that it is the greatest and that it is operating at a much higher level than it really is. Job loss is still increasing, more and more jobs are being replaced or shipped away. Americans are becoming dumber and dumber every year (even by their own continually lessening standards). The economic meltdown was avoided by basically flooding the market with weightless money printed by the Fed Reserve.

I'm not as pessimistic as you, but some of the issues you raised are worth noting. Job loss depends on the sector. If we kick all the illegals out and fill their jobs with unemployed workers, problem solved! Haha. Jobs in other sectors are on the increase, and our higher education programs are still some of the best in the world in many different fields.

And Iceniner is right, many of the programs in the US are already Socialist and the programs that aren't (or aren't yet) like medical care, are not Socialist because some people make way too much money from exploiting people. I don't know why you can argue against so-called Socialist changes being made in the government. They are undeniably in the interest of people that are dying needlessly, and yet upholding the free-market purity for the sake of further padding a few more billionaires pockets is ridiculous.

Well, the question was whether or not a country is better off, not whether the US is socialist or to what degree. All the programs you mentioned, I'm against. (I guess that's why he calls me a socialist.) As I mentioned, even in a capitalist society there are streaks of socialism, if you can loosely call it that. My example of fire hydrants is a perfect example. City water is another. There's just no need to privatize everything, and doing so would be a waste, which is purely a capitalist decision. And his whole flawed argument was focused on the US military, which he called purely socialist. I believe I addressed that already.

One of the reasons I am against many of the social programs you mentioned is because of corruption and exploitation. That's why I don't donate to charity. I donate directly to the people, without administrative costs and the same tax deduction.

Thanks for you response. I apologize for my "hard liners." Good discussion!

[iceniner]

I'm increasingly in favor of White Nationalism of the separatist variety. The way that Chinatowns are separatist and that the Jewish communities in major cities keep to themselves. These communities are successful partly because of their insularity and isolation and because they practice a sort of localized socialism, buying from each other and thereby recirculating money within the community.

Nations were originally extensions of the borders of citystates, and were ethnically homogeneous. Putting it bluntly, the walls were there to keep trash out.

Since our politicians are manifestly unwilling to police the borders, nation has become meaningless. We are required to accept all manner of third world filth, and whites are taxed to subsidize illegal mexicans and ghetto blacks. They are bankrupting our economy but for demographic/electorate reasons the politicians are unwilling to do anything about it: Washington is in defacto collusion with the third-world scum.

This is the single thing that I do like about the Tea Party: almost every single one of the Tea Party policies code for race.

I have no problem with social programs when it's people from my own race who are being helped. I have a huge problem when imports from Guatemala, Zimbabwe and Djibouti are leeching from social infrastructure that I am being forced to pay for.

One has to ask oneself how that's different from being robbed at gunpoint.

[Saturday]

Don't have enough time to fully respond to everything, but just wanted to put my two cents in today.

First, I want to say that I think it's hard to argue that the military is socialized when one of its biggest problems is the way in which is has become overly privatized in the last twenty-five, or so, years. It is social in principle, just as anything that a country shares is social on some level. Without socialism, a country would only be bound by common economic interests (best case scenario) or by some sort of militaristic, land-barrier based (and racially based) segregation. This is what causes me to worry about the movement to eliminate or deter socialist principles in our government programs. With our common economic interests (our industries and corporations) becoming increasingly globalized, all we would have left to call ourselves a country would be a commone history and basic territorial protection.
However, as you can see in the case of Iceniner, people are much more tied to other people than they are to the land. Humans are really migratory beings anyway, we werent built to stay in one place for very long. I think our digestive systems (after being introduced to the product of sustainable farming) probably evolved faster than our capacity as a people (who are part of a larger society) to organize and share amongst larger and larger groups of people.

Iceniner, I am not going judge anything you wrote in terms of your personal choices. However, I will say that groups like the Chinese and the Hacidic Jews stick together as enclosed societies and neighborhoods because they share a common religion/culture/history, etc. White people don't really have that as a basis for seperatism. White movements are really based on frustration and hatred, which I am not here to say is justified or not. Also, they operate just like our government, in that there are a handful of them who hold all of the power and the finances and everyone else is replaceable. All I'm saying is that these groups aren't as homely as you might think.

Also, if you are looking for white societies that are insular and reject racial minorities, you can find thousands of them in each state. They're called gated communities. Instead of heiling to some grand wizard/part-time motorcycle mechanic, you'll be waving gingerly to your neighbor Glenn, regional sales manager.

[iceniner]

the military is socialized when one of its biggest problems is the way in which is has become overly privatized in the last twenty-five, or so, years.

It's a social program, the same way it's a social program in communist countries like North Korea. In many communist countries, the theoretically state-run defense contractors function in the same way as defense contractors do in the United States and elsewhere. In fact, the cold war has been described as being a collusion between defense contractors. Of course, you're talking about Blackwater/Xe, which is a defacto arm of the government: it's a corporation that has become so powerful so quickly as to wield considerable political clout.

White people don't really have that as a basis for seperatism

Bullshit. White culture is what Western society was built on. In fact, it is western society. The third-world garbage are parasites.

This isn't going to turn into some sort of argument about racism, I'm familiar with your opinions on the subject, having shared them myself. I don't share them anymore. I reject the leftist lie that all peoples are "created" equal.

They aren't.

[odin_dax]

The difference between "whites" and every other group is that every other group was prosecuted by whites. They live in enclosures, often, because they were nearly forced to by a majority. The difference between Chinese and Jews compared to you, ice, is that they were prosecuted for decades, forced to live in ghettos and face racism, while you want to live in a nicer area with only whites by choice.

And there is no "white" culture, as there is no "white." There are no Europeans either, as defined by race. I think you'll find that the Irish are quite different than the Hungarians, for example. The Spanish from the Swedes, another example. American history is based on WASP history, and evolved over time.

I can understand wanting to live in an area with people like you; that is, people who are of the same income, family situation, education, etc. I wouldn't want to live in Watts with a bunch of ghetto people. It's okay to discriminate to a point. We do it all the time when we shop for fruit. However, there's no excuse for racism. Yes, we are all created equal. We all, more or less, have the same body parts and physical limitations. To judge someone based solely on race or color is absolutely the most ignorant and erroneous way of thinking imaginable. There's absolutely no logical reason to stereotype or hate an entire people. None. Normal people judge others based on character, which is probably why you had no friends growing up or have none now.

For as intelligent and knowledgeable as you claim to be, ice, you act fucking stupidly sometimes. Whenever you tout your superiority, I always have to laugh when you later fuck up and say something as wrong and stupid as you just had. Good job. But, hey, you do that during every conversation if I let you talk long enough. Ha, ha!

And I see you're still having a problem understanding socialism and the military. That's okay, keep truckin'.

I reject the leftist lie that all peoples are "created" equal.

They aren't.

You certainly aren't...

[Th0r]

The difference between "whites" and every other group is that every other group was prosecuted by whites. They live in enclosures, often, because they were nearly forced to by a majority. The difference between Chinese and Jews compared to you, ice, is that they were prosecuted for decades, forced to live in ghettos and face racism, while you want to live in a nicer area with only whites by choice.

You mean persecuted.

Jews aren't some innocent party; they provoke and get a negative reaction. A lot of anti-Semitism is unjust but as a group they've provoked the behaviour for millennia. Perfect example, the persecution of Palestine. Chinese people prefer to live segregated. Hence why Chinatown's exist. My father lived half of his life in Asia and he claims White persecution of Chinese and other Asian national groups were minimal.

Ever heard the word Gweilo, Odin?

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

Just to prove White's aren't the big bad Wolf in the World. Racism and persecution is found everywhere. Get out of the White Westerners are the only persecutors mindset.

It's unhelpful and pointless.

And there is no "white" culture, as there is no "white." There are no Europeans either, as defined by race. I think you'll find that the Irish are quite different than the Hungarians, for example. The Spanish from the Swedes, another example. American history is based on WASP history, and evolved over time.

Oh please. You deny the existence of White culture because you are surrounded by it and have the mindset that a lot of people have.

Christianity and its denominations are examples of White culture. As is food, as is the way we conduct ourselves, as are our languages and the clothes we wear. The designs of the roads we walk and the houses we live in... We are surrounded by White culture. Differences of culture define and seperate racial and sub-racial groups.

I can understand wanting to live in an area with people like you; that is, people who are of the same income, family situation, education, etc.

Then you sympathise with people who are against the destruction of their culture. People like me who despise seeing Islamic Culture invading my country surely? (Oh, and by the way America is next on the conquest list. You'll have the same view as the current one you hold when everyone on the street is wearing the Hijab I'm sure.)

I wouldn't want to live in Watts with a bunch of ghetto people.

What a ignorant way to think...

Ghetto people... My that does sound a bit racist doesn't it. I thought that was something you deplore. Afterall, there's no excuse for racism.

It's okay to discriminate to a point.

Where do you draw the line?

Either be liberal and accepting, non-judgemental and non-stereotypical with everyone or be like that with no one. There's no middle ground. You seem to think it's acceptable to be open minded towards Jews and Chinese who you see as persecuted by Whites but not to African-Americans or should I say Ghetto People who are perhaps the most persecuted racial sub-group in the history of the World. Sure they weren't massacred, but they might as well have been.

Yes, we are all created equal.

My God, that mantra is so fucking old already.

We aren't equal that's a fallacy. Care to explain how the physically capable retard with an IQ of 55 is anywhere near equal to Stephen Hawking? Intellectually he is inferior. Physically he is superior. That does not equal equality.

We are all different and all unique. Unique does not equal being equal.

There's absolutely no logical reason to stereotype or hate an entire people

Hold on a second.

Didn't you just describe every one living in Watt's as Ghetto People. An insult with extremely negative and racist connotations.

That's stereotyping right there.

As well as that the connotations of the phrase 'ghetto people' is inherently racist. That's something I'd expect to hear on StormFront. Not, on Rorta from the mouth of someone who screams the everyone is equal mantra.

For as intelligent and knowledgeable as you claim to be, ice, you act fucking stupidly sometimes.

His argument is so much more logical than yours.

You set yourself up for so many blunders I actually wonder whether you believe the points you argue against and are trying to make the opposing argument look fucking stupid.

All due respect I think this is an argument you'll regret.

You certainly aren't...

Are you one of those people who adopts something when it suits you and drops it the second it's inconvenient.

[iceniner]

White tax money for whites.

You certainly aren't...

You sure got that right, little boy.

[odin_dax]

White tax money for whites.



You sure got that right, little boy.

LOL

[iceniner]

The angry little boy will now commence doing my bidding once again.

[odin_dax]

The angry little boy will now commence doing my bidding once again.

Wow, you're warped. Angry? LOL :bukkake:

Great contribution, ice! LOL

[iceniner]

Some may be interested in these lectures by Dr. Tomislav Sunic.

1g9-xH9W34s

I will say again that I voted for Obama, but it was just because he was the better alternative for the country, far better than a zionist beach bunny MILF from Wassilla, Alaska.

[odin_dax]

I didn't know McCain was a MILF...

[Saturday]

Frankly, Iceniner, I find much of what you say to be well considered and clearly coming from a place where information lives.

However, you seem to be altered by emotion when it comes to race/religion. PEOPLE ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL, but it is not based on their race or religion.

I will say this, I can sense where a lot of your frustration is coming from. I was looking at the census form and when it came to racial definitions, they have every racial variation under the sun. It seems like every island in southeast asia is represented, and yet "Caucasian" is the term given to anyone of European background.

That aside, I have my own opinions about affirmative action and Israel that are very non liberal, but when it comes to general philosophy, I must agree with Th0r and Odin... racism (prejudice based purely on race) is really stupid and closed minded, which is why I am suprised to hear that you are somewhat racist. It makes me think that you havea much more personal relationship with this and you are not using the same intellectual perspective that you take with most other subject-matters.

Israel is really a problem to me, because you don't react to persecution by persecuting a group that is even more disenfranchised (Palestinians and Lebonese). Also, returning to a "homeland" is so arbitrary. America, who so fervently supports Israel, is a stolen homeland of a people that experienced a holocaust (much greater than Hitler's) ... Native Americans. However, we are not reversing the Lousisana Purchase or returning New York State to the tribes that inhabited these areas before they were driven out and systematically killed and assimilated through breeding and forced re-education.

So, here you go, I am at-once being both anti-semitic (in the eyes of most people) and liberal. Seems like a paradox, but if you are criticizing specific things and supporting them with evidence, its not racism, its controversial criticism. Powerful jewish leaders and heads of the anti-defamation league make no secret that they purposely try to exxagerrate the Jewish influence in the US media and economy, to help them leverage support and security for Israel and other interests. They also use the holocaust as the example of the worst genocide in history, when, inreality, it probably wasn't the worst one of this century. This isn't anti-semitic, its just the facts. oh, and by the way, I am half-Jewish, but not religious at all so it really has no impact on me whatsoever.

About affirmative action. I can't think of any other way to help even things out for minorities who have been suppressed by society but also by institutions. However, I think that, unfortunately, no group is ever going to feel equal by receiving a handicap, and white people will never feel they are being treated justly when they are giving up their privledge as compensation for a history that they do not understand.

[iceniner]

However, you seem to be altered by emotion when it comes to race/religion. PEOPLE ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL, but it is not based on their race or religion.

It's based on their genetics. Race is simply a sledgehammer version of more specific genetics. If someone is from, eg, Uzbekistan, you can be reasonably sure that he has certain gene sets and not others.

Denial of this single inescapable fact is the core of the liberal leftist lie. Every single one of their policies, no matter how well-motivated, stems from this root.

What you call frustration I call "being in favor of whites." Other races can flourish or fail as they see fit. I'm in favor of white culture, white government, white education.

For whites.

It's time for other races to stop begging for handouts.

[Saturday]

American Zionists are hilarious, because really the last place in the world they would flourish would be in Jerusalem. Do these puritanical sleazbags even know how much garlic they put in hummus??? They would have to be Italian, Greek, or a complete hippie to take that much garlic.

Not to mention that people over there are generally more orthodox in the way they do things. As much as I hate religion, one thing I hate more is someone who is just playing the part. Pretending to believe in something pretend is worse than really believing it.

[iceniner]

American Zionists are hilarious
Yes, it's fucking absurd, and it just shows you how easy they are to manipulate. Talk about goyim!

The jew-owned media have been working tirelessly on the american public for 70 years now.

when they are giving up their privledge as compensation for a history that they do not understand.

Perhaps we should find out who the black slavers were who sold their countrymen to US cotton plantations, and force their descendants, 400 years later, to pay reparations.

Or would that be ludicrous?

Affirmative action is racist generalization. Why should I pay reparations for the actions of people from whom I wasn't descended?

How about this for an idea: since blacks are so equal, we let them sink or swim like everyone else and stop robbing whites at gunpoint in order to pay blacks money.

[odin_dax]

It's based on their genetics. Race is simply a sledgehammer version of more specific genetics. If someone is from, eg, Uzbekistan, you can be reasonably sure that he has certain gene sets and not others.

Denial of this single inescapable fact is the core of the liberal leftist lie. Every single one of their policies, no matter how well-motivated, stems from this root.

What you call frustration I call "being in favor of whites." Other races can flourish or fail as they see fit. I'm in favor of white culture, white government, white education.

For whites.

It's time for other races to stop begging for handouts.

There is no white race, ignoramus. And there are plenty of "whites" getting handouts.

[iceniner]

There is no white race, ignoramus.

Who is really the ignoramus here, little child?

And there are plenty of "whites" getting handouts.

Why is it so hard for you to understand simple concepts? I'm just curious. How old are you? I asked you before and you never answered.

[odin_dax]

Who is really the ignoramus here, little child?

You.

Talk to me about not understanding simple concepts... Ha, ha, ha!

[iceniner]

Let's talk about why the overwhelming population in US prisons is black.

Blacks in the US commit violent crimes vastly disproportionate to their percentage of the overall population. In fact, this holds true worldwide-- criminal behavior follows blacks wherever they go.

Race is the reason for national borders. It's also the reason for the Tea Party's stance on immigration, one of their few policies that I support.

[Saturday]

Well, Iceniner, it is a vicious cycle (assuming you are asking this question with an actual curiousity for an opposing view).

In the history of the world, darker skinned people have always been considered to be a lesser people. I am not sure for the original reasoning, it's kind of a chicken and the egg thing. However, along with the statistics on black people in prison is the statistics on poor people in prison and you will find that these populations have many of the same trends (ie: black people are generally of lower income). You will find that Caucasian people of the same income levels as the black population in jail have similar levels of incarceration and crime. They are similar, but they are slightly lower, but this is also subject to analysis.

To be in jail, you must be convicted of a crime and racism does play a part in the views of jurors, judges, etc. This is where the vicious cycle comes from. I am not saying that black people are exempt from criticism. In fact, I think a culture of criminality has spawned a lot of unneccessary crime, but it all comes from times when committing crime was neccessary and this has fostered a culture that many black youth grow up in. It's a form of programming that we have all been subject too, but it is esspecailly prevelant in the black community.

[iceniner]

In the history of the world, darker skinned people have always been considered to be a lesser people.

Is it because we think they're subhuman filth that they have produced next to no structures over two stories in all of sub-saharan africa without engineering assistance from whites? Next to no intellectual contributions ever, in 5000 years?

Newsflash: They are considered to be a lesser people because they ARE a lesser people!

To be in jail, you must be convicted of a crime and racism does play a part in the views of jurors, judges, etc.

So it's Evil Whitey's fault. Are you really claiming that blacks don't commit far more violent crimes than whites? Unfortunately for your "Argumentum ad Wicked Whitey," violent crime rates are far higher across the board no matter where blacks live.

This is especially true in every major city in Africa, where you'd better be in an armored car if you want to walk outside at night (again, the fault of Evil Whitey and his biased courts.)

You will find that Caucasian people of the same income levels as the black population in jail have similar levels of incarceration and crime.

This is actually incorrect. Violent crime rates among whites are far lower than those among negroids, even when corrected for income. It's not just whites, by the way-- this is true across the board, no matter the race. No matter the country. Congolese are hated from Algeria to Yemen, and are hated by north africans to such an extent that they are drummed out of town and not allowed to settle even in slums. Maybe the Algerians are wicked too?

You seem to be full of excuses. They don't really commit crimes, we commit as many crimes as they do (if only the courts weren't racist) and when they do commit crimes it's the fault of Wicked Whitey for keepin' da black man down.

Bullshit.

In fact, I think a culture of criminality has spawned a lot of unneccessary crime

Yes. Black culture is toxic. The overwhelmingly dominant black cultural "contribution" glorifies rape, gun violence and murder, as well as dropping out of school to deal drugs, sit on the front porch and drink 40s. But wait-- I thought the courts were racist!? :dunno:

[iceniner]

These are albino congolese. Anyone really feel like claiming that there are no differences between them and whites?

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k155/Kernacktur/1223695327435.jpg

Obviously this is not their fault and I'm not making fun of their faces. I'm just saying.

[odin_dax]

Is it because we think they're subhuman filth that they have produced next to no structures over two stories in all of sub-saharan africa without engineering assistance from whites? Next to no intellectual contributions ever, in 5000 years?

Newsflash: They are considered to be a lesser people because they ARE a lesser people!

Oh, I'm sorry, what has been your great contribution to society?


Nice job derailing my thread, racist troll.

[iceniner]

I like whites. Does that make me racist?

Trolling, surely not nearly as much as you are. You could start by answering the questions Th0r asked you.

Nice job derailing my thread

Sorry, was this supposed to be about the Tea Party's thinly-veiled racist hate and fear of Barack Obama? And of hispanics, re: VDARE? Or is it just the Ayrabbs we're supposed to hate? Or... wait. Are we supposed to keep it on the downlow, yo?

So angry!

[odin_dax]

I like whites. Does that make me racist?

"I like whites" isn't an exclusive statement. However, your previous statements... No sense denying what the rest of us already know, ice. Sheesh! Why do you waste bytes with these nonsensical posts?

Trolling, surely not nearly as much as you are. You could start by answering the questions Th0r asked you.

What questions? Where? Yes, yes, I'm the troll who added all this stuff about race and Jews in an Obama political thread. Quite right.... Douche.

Sorry, was this supposed to be about the Tea Party's thinly-veiled racist hate and fear of Barack Obama? And of hispanics, re: VDARE? Or is it just the Ayrabbs we're supposed to hate? Or... wait. Are we supposed to keep it on the downlow, yo?

So angry!

You have the amazing ability to distract from every confrontational statement you can't directly reply to. (The obviousness of such attempts is another matter.) I suppose you have to.

All these bait statements you hope people will latch onto is quite amusing as well. Well, I'll admit, I'd be bored on this forum if it weren't for you. After all, no one else discusses the only subjects I'm interested in anymore, at least with such depth, or the only amount of depth you can provide. Even though I talk to a brick wall that can't grasp concepts or address them... Ah, well, nevermind. I suppose it's wrong to pick on someone who can't tell the difference between a comparison chart and a budget chart. But to address your indirect, tongue-in-cheek query, I don't hate groups of people. I'd ask where you stand, but it's quite clear.

:stickp4:


Oh, and what was it you provided to society? You didn't answer that last time. I'll give you another chance. :wave:

[odin_dax]

These are albino congolese. Anyone really feel like claiming that there are no differences between them and whites?

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k155/Kernacktur/1223695327435.jpg

Obviously this is not their fault and I'm not making fun of their faces. I'm just saying.

Albino or not, many regional groups have distinguishing characteristics, including facial structure. but there are always exceptions. Even within the Caucasians you can often tell subgroups apart by physical characteristics.

So what's your point? Oh, that's right, justification of racism. Well, I just completely invalidated your obtuse reasoning, or whatever you'd like to call it.

Have a good day. :raincloud

[Th0r]

Basically, the bottom line with Obama was the fact he was a far superior choice to McCain and Palin. If McCain had been elected then the chances of that MILF whore being in control of a Nuclear Football the size of an Attaché case with the power to decimate the World a few times over would have dramatically increased. Obama may not help the situation with the economy, but I'm doubtful he can make it worse. He'd make it worse if he walked into Iran or North Korea. Since Obama actually knows what a doctrine is (More specifically what the Bush Doctrine is. Palin doesn't and I'm doubtful McCain does either.) he probably wouldn't make the idiotic decision of invading Iran, which really would push the USA all the way back to 1932.

If I was in America and had to vote, I'd have voted Obama and I agree with a lot of Republican policies.

What questions? Where? Yes, yes, I'm the troll who added all this stuff about race and Jews in an Obama political thread. Quite right.... Douche.

End of the last page. I really think it'd be worth answering them, since I think I bought up a few highly valid points to say the least. The thing is Odin is you want both sides of the fence. You want to call someone out as a troll, yet you call them a douche. What the fuck man.

I can't think of anything more trollish than calling someone a douche.

White tax money for whites.

I'm quite supportive of that take on Socialism. I'm fed up of seeing tax payers money spent and squandered in my own country. I don't want my tax money paying for other people who don't pay taxes to have a luxurious lifestyle. By the way, that applies for every group; Muslim, Afro-Caribbean, Eastern-European, African, Asian and White peoples in my country. I'm all in favour of re-introducing Victorian or Dark Age-esque poverty back again. It might reintroduce the principals that are key to society such as hard work and whatnot.

Those who do not contribute receive no contributions themselves.

I will say this, I can sense where a lot of your frustration is coming from. I was looking at the census form and when it came to racial definitions, they have every racial variation under the sun. It seems like every island in southeast asia is represented, and yet "Caucasian" is the term given to anyone of European background.

People promote that kind of politically correct nonsensical behaviour out of fear of causing offence and are then surprised when people hold nationalist or racist views. Sadly there's a reason why people turn to radicals. I can't talk for the USA, but in the UK White people are constantly belittled.

We've come to adopt a mindset that threatens the very core of our existence as a society.

We are constantly bombarded with the tales of how other races are more culturally rich than us. How they are better than us intellectually and morally. How they are key to our country and how they are a part of us and the valued part. This is done subtly and constantly using various forms of media to get the view across that White's are trash. Evil, racist, worthless trash.

Israel is really a problem to me, because you don't react to persecution by persecuting a group that is even more disenfranchised (Palestinians and Lebonese). Also, returning to a "homeland" is so arbitrary. America, who so fervently supports Israel, is a stolen homeland of a people that experienced a holocaust (much greater than Hitler's) ... Native Americans. However, we are not reversing the Lousisana Purchase or returning New York State to the tribes that inhabited these areas before they were driven out and systematically killed and assimilated through breeding and forced re-education.

Firstly you must remember the most key thing that Israel wants you to think.

The Holocaust is the greatest crime of all time. Fuck all the people who Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot killed. Fuck all the people Tojo, Saddam Hussein, Menghistu and Kim Il Sung killed.

They were just as worthless as the Palestinians and Lebanese.

Because the Holocaust was the greatest crime of all time, anything and everything else is acceptable as long as Jewish people aren't the victim.

With Israel it's impossible to do anything about it. Jews (Not necessarily Zionists who are the ones I'm picking the bone with here.) are high up in the World with a massive influence of government, legislation, media and the like. No Western nation could ever take action against Israel because of the people at the top or the fact Mossad can fuck with them, big time. No Middle Eastern or Eastern nation could destroy or neutralise Israel because of the fact Israel will call in the Western Nations or alternatively utilise Kidon.

So, here you go, I am at-once being both anti-semitic

It's anti-Semitic when you scream BURN KIKE BURN or OBLITERATE THE KIKE PARADISE THAT IS ISRAEL. It's not when you talk about it in a logical way.

Also most people sadly are what I'd describe as being retarded.

Shame.

They also use the holocaust as the example of the worst genocide in history, when, inreality, it probably wasn't the worst one of this century. This isn't anti-semitic, its just the facts. oh, and by the way, I am half-Jewish, but not religious at all so it really has no impact on me whatsoever.

You're bang on. It wasn't even the worst of the last century. Mao and Stalin have the award for most people massacred last century.

It's interesting that people with Jewish ancestry are turning against Zionism. If only more people did it would create a more distinct segregation between Jew and Zionist.

[iceniner]

One of the core ideas of the Stormfront crowd is that Stalin's upper echelon were jewish, and so therefore the massmurders perpetrated by Stalin were somehow a jewish plot. I think that idea is pretty ridiculous, along with a lot of the Stormfront ideology.

Antisemitism, as in "hatred of people in funny hats," is pretty stupid. There are only 12 million jews worldwide! And the vast majority of hardcore jews keep to themselves and want very little to do with the world of goyim. And some large percentage of racial jews in the US have no connection at all to Israel or to the jewish religion. They don't even keep kosher.

But there are a few jews who dominate world politics and the media to a degree out of all proportion to their numbers. I don't really see even this as any sort of reason to hate. It just shows that they have found a number of effective strategies for getting along in a largely hostile world, strategies that other racial groups would do well to emulate.

Israel's behavior on the world stage and in its local environs is a whole different kettle of fish. They violate UN treaties and Geneva conventions willy-nilly with no seeming appreciation of the irony of the situation. It could be said that they're digging their own graves. Public sympathy is drying up and may very well leave them isolated.

The reasons they do this are understandable: the Chosen People concept is a powerful thing, and when you add to that some justified persecution paranoia you get what I call the Masada Complex, a powerful us-vs-them ideology which their leaders can use to justify all manner of misbehavior.

Very funny how Netanyahu just talked about how easy the United States is to manipulate. Sarah Palin has an Israeli flag on her desk, something that makes me wonder who she's really working for.

Such preoccupation over such a small country and such a comparatively small number of people! It's time for American politicians to put the interests of America first.

[odin_dax]

You mean persecuted.

Quite right.

Jews aren't some innocent party; they provoke and get a negative reaction. A lot of anti-Semitism is unjust but as a group they've provoked the behaviour for millennia. Perfect example, the persecution of Palestine. Chinese people prefer to live segregated. Hence why Chinatown's exist. My father lived half of his life in Asia and he claims White persecution of Chinese and other Asian national groups were minimal.

Ever heard the word Gweilo, Odin?

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

I never touched the issue of Israel or Jews other than speaking out against racism or stereotypes.

Just to prove White's aren't the big bad Wolf in the World. Racism and persecution is found everywhere. Get out of the White Westerners are the only persecutors mindset.

It's unhelpful and pointless.



I don't know where you got the idea that I said Westerners are the only racists in the world.

Oh please. You deny the existence of White culture because you are surrounded by it and have the mindset that a lot of people have.

Can't deny something that doesn't exist, Th0r. Do I deny the history of Western Civ? No. Do I deny a shared history amongst many Christian nations in Western Europe? No.

Christianity and its denominations are examples of White culture. As is food, as is the way we conduct ourselves, as are our languages and the clothes we wear. The designs of the roads we walk and the houses we live in... We are surrounded by White culture. Differences of culture define and seperate racial and sub-racial groups.

If you broadly use the term "white" as you do, you must include other cultures and nations that don't necessarily share the same history and culture to which you're referring. When you do that, your umbrella argument that all "whites" share a same culture is invalidated by observational evidence alone.

Then you sympathise with people who are against the destruction of their culture. People like me who despise seeing Islamic Culture invading my country surely? (Oh, and by the way America is next on the conquest list. You'll have the same view as the current one you hold when everyone on the street is wearing the Hijab I'm sure.)

I'm a firm believer that immigrants should adapt to the local culture. The Hijab is a symbol of female oppression. What makes you think I support that?


What a ignorant way to think...

Ghetto people... My that does sound a bit racist doesn't it. I thought that was something you deplore. Afterall, there's no excuse for racism.

When did I mention race? That's right, I didn't. Why do I want to live in a high crime area when I don't have to or even relate to that lifestyle? Ghettos in America are a hotbed for drugs, random violence and drug violence. That was simply my point.



Where do you draw the line?

Either be liberal and accepting, non-judgemental and non-stereotypical with everyone or be like that with no one. There's no middle ground. You seem to think it's acceptable to be open minded towards Jews and Chinese who you see as persecuted by Whites but not to African-Americans or should I say Ghetto People who are perhaps the most persecuted racial sub-group in the history of the World. Sure they weren't massacred, but they might as well have been.

The focus of my conversation was in America. Sorry if that was confusing, but I'm mainly talking about how minorities are treated. In America's example, Jews and Chinese.

My God, that mantra is so fucking old already.

We aren't equal that's a fallacy. Care to explain how the physically capable retard with an IQ of 55 is anywhere near equal to Stephen Hawking? Intellectually he is inferior. Physically he is superior. That does not equal equality.

We are all different and all unique. Unique does not equal being equal.

Unique just like everybody else? LOL

I think I made it quite clear that we're all created equally physically. Skin pigmentation is no basis for discrimination or racism, or do you say otherwise?


Hold on a second.

Didn't you just describe every one living in Watt's as Ghetto People. An insult with extremely negative and racist connotations.

That's stereotyping right there.

As well as that the connotations of the phrase 'ghetto people' is inherently racist. That's something I'd expect to hear on StormFront. Not, on Rorta from the mouth of someone who screams the everyone is equal mantra.

Again, I didn't mention race. There are many types of people that live in ghettos. If you can prove to me that ghettos have equal crime and drug rates as other areas of cities, then I'll take my statement back. See, I base my statement on statistics, ice bases his on skin color.

His argument is so much more logical than yours.

Then I've given you too much credit...

You set yourself up for so many blunders I actually wonder whether you believe the points you argue against and are trying to make the opposing argument look fucking stupid.

Racism looks stupid.

All due respect I think this is an argument you'll regret.

Not at all.

Are you one of those people who adopts something when it suits you and drops it the second it's inconvenient.

When?

And ice doesn't, is that it? Guess you haven't been reading.

[odin_dax]

End of the last page. I really think it'd be worth answering them, since I think I bought up a few highly valid points to say the least. The thing is Odin is you want both sides of the fence. You want to call someone out as a troll, yet you call them a douche. What the fuck man.

A person can't be both? Sorry, I have no respect for racists and thread hijackers.

I honestly didn't see your post. I must've missed it when this thread started on a new page. I now addressed it.

I can't think of anything more trollish than calling someone a douche.

Bullshit, dude.

You've really lost a lot of respect taking these dim views shared by ice. I'm sure you don't care. I'm just really surprised you're so warp-minded as he is when it comes to race.

[iceniner]

Could the answer be humane repatriation? Returning blacks to their continent of origin and letting them run free on the veldt wearing grass skirts, happily raping and stabbing each other with short spears for all eternity?

Already the structure of civilization put in place by whites all over Africa is crumbling wherever it's been given over to the control of blacks. In many places in Zim and SA, the traffic signals no longer work and the municipal buildings are slowly falling into disrepair, pulled down by jungle vines.

Or is white separatism a better solution? Are we to be allowed to live our lives separately from them, or are we to continue to be robbed at gunpoint in order to provide black children with education that they manifestly neither want nor are suited for in the first place?

The fact is, most Tea Party policies code for race. This coding is unspoken because to speak of race is verboten, and a political third rail. But the reason for the southern border is to keep the Mexicans out. The defacto reason for prisons is to keep murderous blacks locked up and away from humans (anyone who thinks this is not the case needs to explain why the vast majority of the prison population is black).

The reason for the Tea Party's stance on taxation is because they are tired of throwing billions of dollars down the rathole of racist entitlements for blacks.

I hope the Tea Party doesn't get into power, partly because of their zionist stance. But if they do, I expect they will roll back numerous racist policies such as affirmative action.

[Th0r]

Can't deny something that doesn't exist, Th0r. Do I deny the history of Western Civ? No. Do I deny a shared history amongst many Christian nations in Western Europe? No.

White culture and various White subcultures surrounds us. White culture is in what we eat, what we say, what we wear, what we do. Compare what we do with people in Asia, adhering to Asian culture and subculture respective to independent nations. What we do with our time, how we work, what we eat, what music we like etc. All of that is our culture and all over the World peoples culture differ. Our World is incredibly diverse. Every nation has a different subculture which links into a general culture which tends to be linked to the racial group that inhabits the general area, such as a continent.

An example is African culture. Each nation has a different subculture. Some parts of there culture are mixed with others. The same is true with Western culture. In Germany people dress in a slightly different way to the way Americans dress. Overall it's still the same type of clothes.

White culture exists. End of.

Let's go back a step.

I never touched the issue of Israel or Jews other than speaking out against racism or stereotypes.

Despite the fact you brand all people who live in a certain area 'ghetto people'. Oh please.

I don't know where you got the idea that I said Westerners are the only racists in the world.

Well you didn't talk about the racial prejudices that other racial groups have towards White people and any other racial group, so I assumed you were under the impression that White people are the big bad wolves.

If you broadly use the term "white" as you do, you must include other cultures and nations that don't necessarily share the same history and culture to which you're referring. When you do that, your umbrella argument that all "whites" share a same culture is invalidated by observational evidence alone.

That's a moderately valid point.

The White culture originates from Europe as a whole. America is part of the White racial group because you originate from Europe. You share the same culture as us. That can be validated observationally. History is a unique part of every single nation. However history doesn't invalidate the idea of a broad culture. What it can result in is stronger regional and national distinction, but that's not necessarily the case.

When did I mention race? That's right, I didn't. Why do I want to live in a high crime area when I don't have to or even relate to that lifestyle? Ghettos in America are a hotbed for drugs, random violence and drug violence. That was simply my point.

The use of the term Ghetto people initially has massively negative racial connotations.

Considering the majority of the population in Watt's is either Latino or African-American and the fact Watt's has been involved in several major racial riots (1992 LA riots.) it's fairly clear to me that the term Ghetto people was used in a racially negative and derogatory way.

You don't mention things explicitly. You insinuate and you're implicit, allowing you to capitalise on a degree of ambiguity. Race is the issue here and you used the term ghetto people in a way which I perceive as racist and hugely stereotypical. Even then you stereotype all ghetto's in America as being a negative thing, which I suspect ties in with what Iceniner described as veiled racism.

When?

And ice doesn't, is that it? Guess you haven't been reading.

Firstly I took up a opposite position on what I thought was a highly illogical and ill thought out argument originating from you.

You adopted the moral high horse on racism and then used the term ghetto people, which I perceive as very, very thinly veiled racism.

This has nothing to do with Ice's views, but everything to do with yours.

Then I've given you too much credit...

We aren't arguing something that is 100% the same. Or even 50% the same. I agree with some of his points in the same way that in the past I've agreed with some of yours. Does that mean that me and you are arguing something that is exactly the same? Of course it doesn't.

I honestly didn't see your post. I must've missed it when this thread started on a new page. I now addressed it.

That's perfectly acceptable, but I wanted it to be clear that I addressed your points that I thought were illogical at the very least. I probably picked the wrong place to interject.

Bullshit, dude.

Firstly, don't feed the troll. Secondly if he is a troll, why stoop down to his level?

You've really lost a lot of respect taking these dim views shared by ice. I'm sure you don't care. I'm just really surprised you're so warp-minded as he is when it comes to race.

Lost respect from who? You?

If that is the case then sadly I don't care anymore.

Personally Odin, I have respect for someone who can argue a view they believe in despite the fact the majority of people disagree with it in a logical (Tick) and calm (Tick) way. The origins and reasons for people disagreeing and agreeing with the views I hold are debatable and frankly I'm beyond the point of caring.

I have nothing to prove to anyone here now. I came to Rorta when this place was pretty much five years old. I knew no one here and in two years I rose to the top.

I'm beyond the point of caring.

[iceniner]

I actually don't hate blacks the way a lot of people do.

I just don't want to be around them and I'm tired of having my taxes taken to pay for them. I'm tired of racist laws like affirmative action and "hate crimes" legislation. If they want to deracinate hate crimes, they need to charge blacks with hate crimes when they murder and rape whites while chanting racist epithets.

But of course, they aren't held to the same standards of civilized behavior that whites are.

I don't want to be forced to hire blacks for positions they're not qualified for. I don't want my children to be subjected to "education" dumbed down to a level comprehensible by blacks. That's the ultimate effect of "No Child Left Behind" legislation.

I don't want third world trash to be imported by the scow-load and dumped on our shores in the name of equality. I'm sick of having health and other social services overloaded by people who did not pay taxes and are incapable of doing so on an equal footing.

Germane to the conversation on two levels: one definition of insanity is continuing the same behavior and expecting different results.

The funniest thing are claims that there ARE no white culture and race. We are even forbidden to have cultural and racial identity! Meanwhile, hiphop "artists" are paid millions of dollars for jabbering about murdering and raping white women.

And when they do this, it's celebrated as black culture!

[odin_dax]

White culture and various White subcultures surrounds us. White culture is in what we eat, what we say, what we wear, what we do. Compare what we do with people in Asia, adhering to Asian culture and subculture respective to independent nations. What we do with our time, how we work, what we eat, what music we like etc. All of that is our culture and all over the World peoples culture differ. Our World is incredibly diverse. Every nation has a different subculture which links into a general culture which tends to be linked to the racial group that inhabits the general area, such as a continent.

An example is African culture. Each nation has a different subculture. Some parts of there culture are mixed with others. The same is true with Western culture. In Germany people dress in a slightly different way to the way Americans dress. Overall it's still the same type of clothes.

White culture exists. End of.

Let's go back a step.


Well, I'll agree to disagree.

Despite the fact you brand all people who live in a certain area 'ghetto people'. Oh please.

"Ghetto" is a term I didn't come up with. Ghetto people is the same to me as saying, "People who live in the ghetto." As I said in my previous reply to you, I didn't use race. My saying "ghetto people" was without racial connotation, but I see your point. Having cleared up the issue, I think we can move on.


Well you didn't talk about the racial prejudices that other racial groups have towards White people and any other racial group, so I assumed you were under the impression that White people are the big bad wolves.

That's because I was addressing ice's erroneous view that racial groups who live in ethnic areas did so by choice. I wasn't arguing racism in general, nor did I want to on an Obama thread.

That's a moderately valid point.

The White culture originates from Europe as a whole. America is part of the White racial group because you originate from Europe. You share the same culture as us. That can be validated observationally. History is a unique part of every single nation. However history doesn't invalidate the idea of a broad culture. What it can result in is stronger regional and national distinction, but that's not necessarily the case.

Again, agree to disagree.

The use of the term Ghetto people initially has massively negative racial connotations.

Considering the majority of the population in Watt's is either Latino or African-American and the fact Watt's has been involved in several major racial riots (1992 LA riots.) it's fairly clear to me that the term Ghetto people was used in a racially negative and derogatory way.

Being from California, maybe I see the world differently than you. Having been to Watts a few times in my life, maybe I see that area differently. USC is in the middle of Watts. Maybe people live in that "ghetto" -- blacks, Mexicans, Central Americans, South Americans, Caucasians, Asians. Even if the majority is black or Latino isn't the point I was making. I think it's clear, if you read my post again, that I was speaking of subculture and lifestyle. Yes, high crimes rates which I mentioned later are an issue as well.

You don't mention things explicitly. You insinuate and you're implicit, allowing you to capitalise on a degree of ambiguity. Race is the issue here and you used the term ghetto people in a way which I perceive as racist and hugely stereotypical. Even then you stereotype all ghetto's in America as being a negative thing, which I suspect ties in with what Iceniner described as veiled racism.

If that is the case, thank you for pointing that out. I have, or I am, addressing all these points you've raised to clear up the issues you are raising.

Ghettos aren't inherently bad, a few people make them that way. If I can live in an area outside the ghetto for reasons of personal safety alone, then I don't see the negative connotation. Crime statistics speak for themselves. Gun shots ring out every night in San Francisco ghettos. But I should live there in order to not appear stereotypical, or I shouldn't raise these points in order to imply all places to live are equal?

Just to point out, I didn't mention race in that paragraph either, nor did I imply it.



Firstly I took up a opposite position on what I thought was a highly illogical and ill thought out argument originating from you.

You adopted the moral high horse on racism and then used the term ghetto people, which I perceive as very, very thinly veiled racism.

This has nothing to do with Ice's views, but everything to do with yours.

We aren't arguing something that is 100% the same. Or even 50% the same. I agree with some of his points in the same way that in the past I've agreed with some of yours. Does that mean that me and you are arguing something that is exactly the same? Of course it doesn't.

That wasn't clear to me at the time I responded to you. Then again, I just lost a poker tournament online at the time, so I probably wasn't thinking clearly anyhow. My apologies.

Lost respect from who? You?

If that is the case then sadly I don't care anymore.

Well, no... but I perceived things differently when I wrote it, so it doesn't matter. This last post of yours made thing more clear.

Personally Odin, I have respect for someone who can argue a view they believe in despite the fact the majority of people disagree with it in a logical (Tick) and calm (Tick) way. The origins and reasons for people disagreeing and agreeing with the views I hold are debatable and frankly I'm beyond the point of caring.

Yes, but I raised several good, valid points long ago that ice failed to address and were brushed off after multiple challenges for him to respond to those points. Not really a debate if it's one sided. True?

I have nothing to prove to anyone here now. I came to Rorta when this place was pretty much five years old. I knew no one here and in two years I rose to the top.

I'm beyond the point of caring.

I'm beyond the point of caring at this point too. This is an Obama thread which was inserted with multiple off-topic posts about Israel, Palin and Jews, for example. If you could care for a few minutes and move all the off topic stuff to another thread, that would be greatly appreciated. I think the original topic is worth saving.

[odin_dax]

I actually don't hate blacks the way a lot of people do.

You only hate them a little, huh?

I just don't want to be around them and I'm tired of having my taxes taken to pay for them.

I'm sure they're tired of being around you. However, as you failed to address in another post, "you" are paying for all people. If you directed your energy properly, wouldn't you want to figure a way to get people off assistance rather than complaining on how it's spent?

I'm tired of racist laws like affirmative action and "hate crimes" legislation.

I agree, but for different reasons. Affirmative action doesn't judge people on merits. The best should get jobs or college placement. Race shouldn't have any impact on decisions.

If they want to deracinate hate crimes, they need to charge blacks with hate crimes when they murder and rape whites while chanting racist epithets.

But of course, they aren't held to the same standards of civilized behavior that whites are.

Yes, because charges of rape and murder just aren't enough sometimes.

I don't want to be forced to hire blacks for positions they're not qualified for.

It should read, "I don't want to be forced to hire people for positions they're not qualified for." That's the difference between you and me...

I don't want my children to be subjected to "education" dumbed down to a level comprehensible by blacks. That's the ultimate effect of "No Child Left Behind" legislation.

I just hope you don't have children; or, if you do, don't have any more.

I don't want third world trash to be imported by the scow-load and dumped on our shores in the name of equality. I'm sick of having health and other social services overloaded by people who did not pay taxes and are incapable of doing so on an equal footing.

We have a lot of bright people coming over, even from third world countries. The majority of our "imported trash" as you put it, come from China, Mexico, parts of Europe and Russia, and India, hardly third world countries.

The funniest thing are claims that there ARE no white culture and race. We are even forbidden to have cultural and racial identity! Meanwhile, hiphop "artists" are paid millions of dollars for jabbering about murdering and raping white women.

And when they do this, it's celebrated as black culture!

You, me and Th0r, for example, have culture. The most generic culture in the world is black culture because many don't know where they come from. There is no "black" culture as much as there isn't any "white" culture. There's American culture, subgroups of that culture, British culture, subgroups of that. A person of African origins doesn't necessarily relate to people with the same skin tone in any part of Africa. Would you call Jamaicans and Nigerians the same because they're both darker-skinned people?

When you begin to split hairs in subjective places, you lose your argument, ice. Might as well answer "yes" to that last question and make it easier on yourself.

If you look at the science long enough, you will learn a lot about race. There is no "white" genetically, but many Caucasian groups have light skin. Big difference. And not all Caucasians have light skin! Ha, ha, ha!

I'll give you a chance. Define white culture as describing and applying to ALL light skinned people who are not albino or of mixed races. A culture that describes, Americans, Canadians, English, Irish, Icelandics, Russians, Swedes, Australians, Italians, French, etc. etc. etc.

If you want to include all "white" people, add Spanish and Portuguese to the list.

[iceniner]

Now you expect to be treated like an adult?

[thief]

I'm going to share my views on the subject this thread has turned into.

Today there are many diversities in culture... black, white, yellow whatever. It exists, and as humans we have this deep down "dislike" for people outside our tribe. It's natural, we can't help it. I believe that no matter how hard we try and claim to be "non-racist" there is still that part of human nature that will never go away. It's programed into out DNA to feel threatend from outsiders.

Having said that, I wouldn't call myself a raciest... my wife is Brazilian and I live in Brazil. I have adopted Brazilian society and way of life as my own way of life.

TV is changing our way of life. It's dominated by black culture. White kids are listing to Black music and thinking its "cool" to be a "Pimp" or to be a "gansta" and to call their girlfriends bitches. When did you ever see a black kid wanting to be a white kid and say and act like a white kid does? I have never seen it.

We are made to feel as if we are the bag guys and that the blacks have been oppressed for century's and still fighting to get out of enslavement to this day and that my friends has to stop. The president of the USA is black but yet they still blabber on about blacks need to rise up. I don't get that, they have nothing to rise up against... its just hatred for whites.

It's the same with gay marriage. Nowadays you are made to believe that gays and gay marriage is to be accepted, that good family values and morals is wrong and that we should accept gays as been able to have kids. People that's not correct. It's not a healthy environment to grow up in no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

Rant over.

[odin_dax]

Now you expect to be treated like an adult?

I expect you to address any valid response, something you have failed to do over and over again, as perfectly exemplified by this last post of yours.

Instead of circling through hoops about me to distract the issue(s) as you usually do, just respond to the last post of mine.

[iceniner]

Instead of circling through hoops about me to distract the issue(s) as you usually do, just respond to the last post of mine.

No.

Here is what will happen: you will follow me around in anger and childish hurt, churlishly nibbling at my bootheels.

Continue.

[odin_dax]

Exactly, ice, you can't respond intelligently to any valid opposing view, so you resort to personal attacks and distractions.

Coward.

[iceniner]

Thief: Here's how it is.

If, as a white, you express any cultural or racial pride, that's racist.

I have no problem with hispanics who don't behave like an invading army and expect social services in the United States as if it's their right. Brazil is a legitimate and thriving country that might very well arise to become nearly a peer competitor with the US in not too long a time. It's also a multicultural society and it will be interesting to see how it works for them. At the same time they are unabashedly racially conscious and they're not afraid of the fact.

In other words they express racial pride and pride in their heritage, something forbidden to whites worldwide.

I WOULD call myself a racist. Not only that, I'm proud of it. I find it very amusing when disingenous little people attempt to use shrill cries of "He's a racist!" to shut down expression of views that don't fit into boxes that they find politically expedient.

[thief]

Brazil have a HUGE pride and it shows in sports. The world cup for example, when Brazil where playing every single place in all the towns in all of Brazil closed to support Brazil. It's the same with their food, culture and martial arts.

I was told from someone 5 years ago Brazil is the place to be in 10 years, so going on that note there is just five more years to go.

[iceniner]

Thief, how do you think Brazilians would react-- the citizens of Sao Paolo, say-- if imports, poor whites from Eastern Europe, began to be shipped in by the tens or hundreds of thousands? And if the UN told Brazil that it had to accept these people, and Brazil's leaders thought it was perfectly OK? And tax monies paid by Brazilians began to be used to support these people, and Serbo-Croat and Polish began to be taught in schools on government orders?

How do you think that would go? I have my suspicions...

[thief]

Not very well. It would be a loss of culture I guess.
Let me ask my wife and I will get back to you.

[thief]

So, she said,

quote "there is enough poor people here already to look after, without looking after a million more"

and "wouldn't be to content with having the schools learning another language" (They learn some English as it is)

and that "if the people where not so poor it wouldn't be so bad so long as the tax wasn't to high for Brazilians" end quote

[Th0r]

Guys, can we return to the original topic, which was Obama and not race, racism, culture, Brazil and others.

Cheers.

[iceniner]

Also, would their reaction be racist? Or is racism something only whites can do?

In the US, the Tea Party's policies are racist right down the line from the borders to welfare, whose politicians are 100% white, whose rallies are almost 100% white, whose spokesmen are increasingly overtly racist. The Tea Party are also in favor of a racist Jewish state, a state that practices extreme, systematic oppression of a minority group.

When these people shrill "Racism!" I find it extremely amusing. Maybe hilarious would be a better term. Why do they do this? First because it's sometimes politically expedient for them to do so, and second because they feel ashamed of their own internal racial impulses, and the increasingly overt racism of their party, and they transfer these impulses onto external parties where they may be safely hated and reviled.

The entertainment is endless.

[thief]

But we are talking politics here Th0r...

[iceniner]

The thing is, it DOES have to do with Obama. The reasons for the Tea Party's hatred of Obama are racially related right down the line. The guy is a packaged up version of everything that they fear.

The Tea Party represents xenophobic, rural White America. Obama represents The Other, and is engaged in policies that support immigration, welfare and affirmative action-- policies which are against the Tea Party plank because they harm white hegemony.

I support White hegemony. The reason I don't support the Tea Party, and look down on its supporters, is because they are afraid to come out and say the obvious. They say one thing and behave the opposite, and race is the elephant in the living room (except for Zionism, which they support, and for Muslims, for whom no derogatory epithet could possibly be sufficient...)

The Tea Party's criticisms of Obama are pretty close to overtly racist. Presenting Michelle Obama as a golliwog, trying to paint Obama as a lazy negro, etc etc.

Why not just admit it?

http://dawudwalid.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obama-racist-latest.jpg

http://mokellyreport.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/obamamexico.jpg

[odin_dax]

This thread isn't about the Tea Party either. This thread was started to discuss Obama's policies.

Time to lock it up, Th0r. I don't think it's ever going to be saved with responses like those, and since ice obviously wants a soapbox instead of a discussion or debate, as evidenced by his selective replies and off-topic diatribe.

[iceniner]

Yes, let's lock the thread.

[Th0r]

Yeah...