Is Obama a good president? - Armor Games Community

242	65787

offline

Krill11

98 posts

Peasant

Posted June 1, '12 6:09am UTC

That, for one, is not Communism. In Communism, everyone works unless you have a disability. That is fearmongering.

You are very, extreamly right, until that last part. it is not communism, but socialism.

Difference?
Is this

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 1, '12 7:50am UTC

OK Mage, excuse me but doesn't it just seem like you are grasping at straws here? You are trying to tear apart posts, and using a Rather annoying Dominance technique.

What makes it seem that I'm grasping at straws? I will try to tear apart arguments that I think have flaws. If you find that annoy, tough.

And please re-look up straw man, I think you have the wrong definition.

His statement "oh, bush doomed us all but it's ok, Obama is out savior." is creating a false view and attacking it. Thus a straw man. I committed and apologized for this action myself when I accused him of getting his facts from Fox News.

B. Anti Lives
-The bush thing is COMPLETELY over exagerated. Trilloin dollor debt?

Actually Obama's spending is less. The Bush thing isn't over exagerated.

Red is republican spending and the blue is democrat spending.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/slowest-spending.png

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-deficit-barack-obama-spending-stimulus-budget-historic-trends.php

but to save countless American citizens, and the truth is, is that they (the sect, not the country's citezens) Did, in fact, have nukes, or at leased were trying to get nukes which is one of the reasons why we went to war in the first place. (USA Today newspaper: Source) Speaking for most americans, I Don't Think we would want to have new york Nuked!!!

You seem to have forgotten your link there. Last I heard the WMD point was flimsy at best.

C. Pro Terrorism
- Just ask yourself this question, What would have happened to the USA if we hadn't gone to war? The reason 911 happend is because they wanted us to cower behind the Ocean and have us stay out of their way, too keep us from figuring out their real plans.

They wanted more than that, if it was just a matter of wanting us out of the way then attacking was a profoundly stupid thing to do. Our retaliation was more fear motivated than anything, which as the name implies is what terrorists go for.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that doing nothing would have been the correct course of action, just that the course taken was wrong.

[quote]OK Mage, excuse me but doesn't it just seem like you are grasping at straws here? You are trying to tear apart posts, and using a Rather annoying Dominance technique.[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhat makes it seem that I'm grasping at straws? I will try to tear apart arguments that I think have flaws. If you find that annoy, tough.\r\n\r\n[quote]And please re-look up straw man, I think you have the wrong definition.[/quote]\r\n\r\nHis statement "oh, bush doomed us all but it's ok, Obama is out savior." is creating a false view and attacking it. Thus a straw man. I committed and apologized for this action myself when I accused him of getting his facts from Fox News.\r\n\r\n[quote]B. Anti Lives\r\n-The bush thing is COMPLETELY over exagerated. Trilloin dollor debt?[/quote]\r\n\r\nActually Obama's spending is less. The Bush thing isn't over exagerated.\r\n\r\nRed is republican spending and the blue is democrat spending.\r\n\r\n[img]http://talkingpointsmemo.com/images/slowest-spending.png[/img]\r\n\r\n[url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-deficit-barack-obama-spending-stimulus-budget-historic-trends.php]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/05/federal-deficit-barack-obama-spending-stimulus-budget-historic-trends.php[/url] \r\n\r\n[quote]but to save countless American citizens, and the truth is, is that they (the sect, not the country's citezens) Did, in fact, have nukes, or at leased were trying to get nukes which is one of the reasons why we went to war in the first place. (USA Today newspaper: Source) Speaking for most americans, I Don't Think we would want to have new york Nuked!!![/quote]\r\n\r\nYou seem to have forgotten your link there. Last I heard the WMD point was flimsy at best.\r\n\r\n[quote]C. Pro Terrorism\r\n- Just ask yourself this question, What would have happened to the USA if we hadn't gone to war? The reason 911 happend is because they wanted us to cower behind the Ocean and have us stay out of their way, too keep us from figuring out their real plans.[/quote]\r\n\r\nThey wanted more than that, if it was just a matter of wanting us out of the way then attacking was a profoundly stupid thing to do. Our retaliation was more fear motivated than anything, which as the name implies is what terrorists go for.\r\n\r\nI don't think anyone is suggesting that doing nothing would have been the correct course of action, just that the course taken was wrong.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 1, '12 11:11am UTC

Then take a look a one of the more stable countries, Germany. Whats the difference? Germany stopped spending money, while Greece thought that spending more money would fix everything. Now travel back to America and look whats happening. Now, when i say stop spending,

Again, please go and READ UP. The EU is trying to solve the crisis by pumping in MORE money. Spending. Not saving. Also, the Greek and American crisis were sparked off differently. The sub prime crisis was caused by risky and wild lending and bad policies by financial corporations. The EU crisis is caused by yes, too much welfare spending (However, Obama is spending no way as extravagently, relatively), loss of competition, bad policies resulting in the entrance of countries who were not ready to enter the EU entering (Such as Greece, faking their accoutns).

Also, ''spending money'' is a crude term. It's called expansionary fiscal policy, and it IS a valid way of solving problems. Aggregate expentiture, the measure of national income, i.e GDP, consists of G [Government spending] + I [Investment], C [Consumption] and (N-X) [ Imports - Exports]. By increasing G you increase national income by boosting economic growth, causing the aggregate demand curve to shift left.

Also, it would be vastly hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of spending to solve economic woes, when the Republicans have done so, spending their way through the 1980s. In fact, Ronald Reagan, the Republican folk hero, increased spending by up to 60% in his two terms. Republicans say they're outraged that Obama would "borrow and spend" his way to a new behemoth government. But they borrowed and spent their way through the '80s and the current decade. And they love big government â" when it's at the Pentagon.

, I do understand that some things wont be paid for, but that doesnt me you go ahead and cut the military! Geez... of all the things to cut, he chose the military... *sigh* NASA is understandable, but not the military...

Invetions that came from Nasa spending.

Also, I don't see why the Republicans should be upset in spending less for the military. The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billions of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. Buying more guns and bombs does nothing for the economy, except stockpiling tons of weapons, unlike investing in education and healthcare, which ensures higher productivity per worker.

And rather recently, their have been some Obama/left media attacks on Romney that blew up in Obama`s face. Like the fact of the dog (why this is relevant to the election, ask Mr. Obama) that Obama said Romney put in its crate and tied it to the roof of his car. Meanwhile, Obama has a book where he admitted to eating dog. Well that was smart.

Santorum and Gingrich did it first. Not Obama.

[quote]Then take a look a one of the more stable countries, Germany. Whats the difference? Germany stopped spending money, while Greece thought that spending more money would fix everything. Now travel back to America and look whats happening. Now, when i say stop spending, [/quote]\r\n\r\nAgain, please go and READ UP. The EU is trying to solve the crisis by pumping in MORE money. Spending. Not saving. Also, the Greek and American crisis were sparked off differently. The sub prime crisis was caused by risky and wild lending and bad policies by financial corporations. The EU crisis is caused by yes, too much welfare spending (However, Obama is spending no way as extravagently, relatively), loss of competition, bad policies resulting in the entrance of countries who were not ready to enter the EU entering (Such as Greece, faking their accoutns). \r\n\r\n\r\nAlso, ''spending money'' is a crude term. It's called expansionary fiscal policy, and it IS a valid way of solving problems. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_expenditure]Aggregate expentiture[/url], the measure of national income, i.e GDP, consists of G [Government spending] + I [Investment], C [Consumption] and (N-X) [ Imports - Exports]. By increasing G you increase national income by boosting economic growth, causing the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggregate_demand]aggregate demand curve[/url] to shift left. \r\n\r\nAlso, it would be vastly hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of spending to solve economic woes, when the [url=http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/03/05/63361/it-only-looks-different-both-parties.html]Republicans have done so[/url], spending their way through the 1980s. In fact, Ronald Reagan, the Republican folk hero, increased spending by up to 60% in his two terms. Republicans say they're outraged that Obama would "borrow and spend" his way to a new behemoth government. But they borrowed and spent their way through the '80s and the current decade. And they love big government â�" when it's at the Pentagon.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote], I do understand that some things wont be paid for, but that doesnt me you go ahead and cut the military! Geez... of all the things to cut, he chose the military... *sigh* NASA is understandable, but not the military...[/quote]\r\n\r\nInvetions that came from [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off]Nasa spending[/url]. \r\n\r\nAlso, I don't see why the Republicans should be upset in spending less for the military. The 2009 U.S. military budget accounts for approximately 40% of global arms spending. The 2012 budget is 6-7 times larger than the $106 billions of the military budget of China, and is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. Buying more guns and bombs does nothing for the economy, except stockpiling tons of weapons, unlike investing in education and healthcare, which ensures higher productivity per worker. \r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]And rather recently, their have been some Obama/left media attacks on Romney that blew up in Obama`s face. Like the fact of the dog (why this is relevant to the election, ask Mr. Obama) that Obama said Romney put in its crate and tied it to the roof of his car. Meanwhile, Obama has a book where he admitted to eating dog. Well that was smart.[/quote]\r\n\r\n[url=http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/santorum-team-doggedly-resurrects-romneys-seamus-tale/]Santorum and Gingrich did it first[/url]. Not Obama.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 1, '12 11:20am UTC

Socialism is slightly diffident than communism. I'm not saying he is a communist, I'm saying that some of his ideas could push us a little too close to the communist line.

Since when has Obama supported common ownership of property? He hasn't. He has advocated distributing wealth more efficiently, and closing the rich poor gap, but he doesn't advocate a revolution (which is a hallmark of a Communist movement), or a complete dismantling fo businesses.

Nor is Socialism a bad thing. You just think it is.

Do some reading? I'm not f***ing retarted. I basically just found the definition of communism, I don't care enough to look it up in detail. I know what communisum is. I have no dessire to waste more time looking up all of this "reading".

No. What you know about Communism, is NOT Communism, but a STAGE of Communism. The road to Communism does call for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, but the theory assumes it ends in a stateless, classless society. Saying that you KNOW about Communism, when you can't get such basics right shows a lack of academic rigour or dearth of knowledge. So yes, by all means, read more.

And think, name one large, sucsessful country that is run with no government. Exactly. When I say communism, I'm referring to the soviet union or china like government set ups. And I relize that I may have said Something a little confusing so let me re-phrase

That's not Communism. No country on Earth has ever came close to being a true Communist state as advocated by Marx. What Mao or Stalin had was a dictatorship, and an abomination for true Communists.

Liberal- bigger national government
Conservative- more state power
To make nicho happy, this only works with America. I don't see how saying whats right here is left their is relevant to Obama, but whatever.

I don't see a difference here. Giving the state government more power instead of the national one, is still the same - Giving the government more power, just that it is a different government. Nothing has changed, except that power seems to be decentralized from Washington, but concentrated MORE and centralised MORE in the hands of state governments.

Also, as mentioned earlier, the Reps seem perfectly contented with big government spending when it comes to the military. Hypocrites.

Lastly, Liberalism is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

[quote]Socialism is slightly diffident than communism. I'm not saying he is a communist, I'm saying that some of his ideas could push us a little too close to the communist line.[/quote]\r\n\r\nSince when has Obama supported common ownership of property? He hasn't. He has advocated distributing wealth more efficiently, and closing the rich poor gap, but he doesn't advocate a revolution (which is a hallmark of a Communist movement), or a complete dismantling fo businesses. \r\n\r\nNor is Socialism a bad thing. You just think it is.\r\n\r\n[quote]Do some reading? I'm not f***ing retarted. I basically just found the definition of communism, I don't care enough to look it up in detail. I know what communisum is. I have no dessire to waste more time looking up all of this "reading".[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo. What you know about Communism, is NOT Communism, but a STAGE of Communism. The road to Communism does call for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, but the theory assumes it ends in a stateless, classless society. Saying that you KNOW about Communism, when you can't get such basics right shows a lack of academic rigour or dearth of knowledge. So yes, by all means, read more.\r\n\r\n[quote]And think, name one large, sucsessful country that is run with no government. Exactly. When I say communism, I'm referring to the soviet union or china like government set ups. And I relize that I may have said Something a little confusing so let me re-phrase[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat's [b]not[/b] Communism. No country on Earth has ever came close to being a true Communist state as advocated by Marx. What Mao or Stalin had was a dictatorship, and an abomination for true Communists.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Liberal- bigger national government\r\nConservative- more state power\r\nTo make nicho happy, this only works with America. I don't see how saying whats right here is left their is relevant to Obama, but whatever.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't see a difference here. Giving the state government more power instead of the national one, is still the same - Giving the government more power, just that it is a different government. Nothing has changed, except that power seems to be decentralized from Washington, but concentrated MORE and centralised MORE in the hands of state governments.\r\n\r\nAlso, as mentioned earlier, the Reps seem perfectly contented with big government spending when it comes to the military. Hypocrites.\r\n\r\nLastly, Liberalism is a political ideology or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and the free exercise of religion.\r\n\r\nI don't see anything wrong with [i]that[/i].

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 1, '12 11:28am UTC

Anyway, first off 911 is not a war against a Country, true, but it was
A. Anti american
- It was a sect who believed that all americans are evil, and should be wiped off the face of the earth, in the fastest way possible. Good for Americans, not so much...

That doesn't explain why America invaded Iraq when they had clear cut indications that Saddam was neither housing Al Qaeda operatives, and had already let in IAEA inspectors who declared there were no nuclear weapons.

Also, the Taliban offered to give up Osama, yet the Americans refused, and invaded.

Not race, but just not American. Race has nothing (or shouldn't) have anything to do with it. Either you are human Or A very cool alien!

(If the latter, could I get your Autograph?)

Race, or country card, either way, it was implying something unpleasant. Also, no I can be non-American, but still a human, so what's the point of your redundant statement?

Also, yes, Bush spent 3 trillion dollars.

- Just ask yourself this question, What would have happened to the USA if we hadn't gone to war? The reason 911 happend is because they wanted us to cower behind the Ocean and have us stay out of their way, too keep us from figuring out their real plans.

If you recall in history, the same tactac was used for Pear Harbor. And since we have learned that if we had cowarded then, then Hitler would have focused on Europe, and then when that front was dominated, focus all power on USA: and with no allies to back us up. And he promised to share America with Japan!

More terrorists attacks, but no where on the scale of fighting of WWII, given that Al-Qaeda has a paltry few thousand members.

[quote]Anyway, first off 911 is not a war against a Country, true, but it was\r\nA. Anti american\r\n- It was a sect who believed that all americans are evil, and should be wiped off the face of the earth, in the fastest way possible. Good for Americans, not so much...[/quote]\r\n\r\nThat doesn't explain why America invaded Iraq when they had clear cut indications that Saddam was neither housing Al Qaeda operatives, and had already let in IAEA inspectors who declared there were no nuclear weapons.\r\n\r\nAlso, the Taliban offered to give up Osama, yet the Americans refused, and invaded.\r\n\r\n\r\n[quote]Not race, but just not American. Race has nothing (or shouldn't) have anything to do with it. Either you are human Or A very cool alien!\r\n\r\n(If the latter, could I get your Autograph?)[/quote]\r\n\r\nRace, or country card, either way, it was implying something unpleasant. Also, no I can be non-American, but still a human, so what's the point of your redundant statement?\r\n\r\n\r\nAlso, yes, Bush spent [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/07/AR2008030702846.html]3 trillion dollars[/url]. \r\n\r\n[quote]- Just ask yourself this question, What would have happened to the USA if we hadn't gone to war? The reason 911 happend is because they wanted us to cower behind the Ocean and have us stay out of their way, too keep us from figuring out their real plans.\r\n\r\nIf you recall in history, the same tactac was used for Pear Harbor. And since we have learned that if we had cowarded then, then Hitler would have focused on Europe, and then when that front was dominated, focus all power on USA: and with no allies to back us up. And he promised to share America with Japan![/quote]\r\n\r\nMore terrorists attacks, but no where on the scale of fighting of WWII, given that Al-Qaeda has a paltry few thousand members.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 1, '12 11:33am UTC

And no, Obama is NOT a socialist. Even the actual Socialist Party of America denies so.

Next, not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.

Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life.
Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values.

Here's more of their actual statement:

In a statement published in the Socialist Party NYC website today, Stewart Alexander -- 2012 Socialist Party USA Presidential Candidate -- said that the first thing that came to mind post-SOTU is the phrase ''too little, too late.''

''After spending the last few years coddling the banks and the richest 1%, Obama has the nerve to now call for 'economic fairness.' To him, this means tweaking payroll taxes and making a rhetorical call to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich,'' he wrote.

So yes, Obama HAS cuddled and helped the rich. Definitely not Socialist.

And no, Obama is NOT a socialist. Even the actual Socialist Party of America [url=http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-14/politics/Obama.socialist_1_socialist-agenda-democratic-socialists-health-care-bill?_s=PM:POLITICS]denies so[/url]. \r\n\r\nNext, not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.\r\n\r\nSome of the socialist agenda is already part of American life.\r\nSocial Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values.\r\n\r\nHere's more of their [url=http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/01/new_york_social.php]actual statement[/url]:\r\n\r\n[i]In a statement published in the Socialist Party NYC website today, Stewart Alexander -- 2012 Socialist Party USA Presidential Candidate -- said that the first thing that came to mind post-SOTU is the phrase ''too little, too late.''\r\n\r\n''After spending the last few years coddling the banks and the richest 1%, Obama has the nerve to now call for 'economic fairness.' To him, this means tweaking payroll taxes and making a rhetorical call to reverse the Bush tax cuts for the rich,'' he wrote.\r\n[/i]\r\n\r\nSo yes, Obama HAS cuddled and helped the rich. Definitely not Socialist.

offline

goumas13

4,752 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 1, '12 7:59pm UTC

Just one little thing: you can slash the welfare state all you want but this has very little to do with export competitiveness. Cuts in public spending are not necesserily beneficial for the economy.

Investing in public services could be one solution to the deficit crisis. Instead of cutting jobs and decreasing wages, the State could try creating them. Jobs are not created by bullying people on benefits into jobs that simply don't exist. Instead there are several areas where public sector jobs urgently need to be created.

The problem in a successful nation is not welfare per se, but how's it's done.

offline

pickpocket

5,952 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 1, '12 8:17pm UTC

That's not Communism. No country on Earth has ever came close to being a true Communist state as advocated by Marx. What Mao or Stalin had was a dictatorship, and an abomination for true Communists.

You just called it communism the previous post.

And no, Obama is NOT a socialist. Even the actual Socialist Party of America denies so.

I'm not calling him socialist nor am I calling him communist. I'm saying that some of his ideas represent a form of communism.

Also, it would be vastly hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of spending to solve economic woes, when the Republicans have done so, spending their way through the 1980s. In fact, Ronald Reagan, the Republican folk hero, increased spending by up to 60% in his two terms. Republicans say they're outraged that Obama would "borrow and spend" his way to a new behemoth government. But they borrowed and spent their way through the '80s and the current decade. And they love big government ï¿½ï¿½" when it's at the Pentagon.

The difference is that we actually had some money to spend then. And don't give us crap about who we have in our party. You have Clinton, carter and Jackson. Jackson's my favorite democrat, he named you all @sses forever.

More terrorists attacks, but no where on the scale of fighting of WWII, given that Al-Qaeda has a paltry few thousand members.

If we hadnt gone to war, it would have ruined America's name. What would England have done if big Ben was blown up? What would France have done if the tower was blown to bits? It's just like mi3 really. The kremlin was attacked, and almost sparked a war. It was stopped only by Tom cruise.

No. What you know about Communism, is NOT Communism, but a STAGE of Communism. The road to Communism does call for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, but the theory assumes it ends in a stateless, classless society. Saying that you KNOW about Communism, when you can't get such basics right shows a lack of academic rigour or dearth of knowledge. So yes, by all means, read more.

Now this confuses me. You say I know no communisum, and that I only know a stage. Yet you say that real communisum has no government, and you say that this no government is not real communisum. I know communisum in the terms of china and soviets, as I have said multiple times. Why? Because, you said so yourself,

No country on Earth has ever came close to being a true Communist state as advocated by Marx.

Therefor, this forum of communisum means nothing to me. For us americans, communisum is what I have said. It is large government systems that destroy the different classes. Once again, this could be good or bad depending on yor views.

Nor is Socialism a bad thing. You just think it is.

Now it is you who must read, because I never said it was bad.

read more

Given that I'm 15, I have a life and I don't study politics, I'm not going to be reading this stuff because it's "fun".
Get a new comeback.

[quote]That's not Communism. No country on Earth has ever came close to being a true Communist state as advocated by Marx. What Mao or Stalin had was a dictatorship, and an abomination for true Communists.\r\n[/quote]\r\nYou just called it  communism the previous post.\r\n[quote]And no, Obama is NOT a socialist. Even the actual Socialist Party of America denies so.\r\n[/quote]\r\nI'm not calling him socialist nor am I calling him communist. I'm saying that some of his ideas represent a form of communism.\r\n[quote]Also, it would be vastly hypocritical to accuse the Democrats of spending to solve economic woes, when the Republicans have done so, spending their way through the 1980s. In fact, Ronald Reagan, the Republican folk hero, increased spending by up to 60% in his two terms. Republicans say they're outraged that Obama would "borrow and spend" his way to a new behemoth government. But they borrowed and spent their way through the '80s and the current decade. And they love big government ï¿½ï¿½" when it's at the Pentagon.\r\n[/quote]\r\nThe difference is that we actually had some money to spend then. And don't give us crap about who we have in our party. You have Clinton, carter and Jackson. Jackson's my favorite democrat, he named you all @sses forever.\r\n[quote]More terrorists attacks, but no where on the scale of fighting of WWII, given that Al-Qaeda has a paltry few thousand members.[/quote]\r\nIf we hadnt gone to war, it would have ruined America's name. What would England have done if big Ben was blown up? What would France have done if the tower was blown to bits? It's just like mi3 really. The kremlin was attacked, and almost sparked a war. It was stopped only by Tom cruise. \r\n[quote]No. What you know about Communism, is NOT Communism, but a STAGE of Communism. The road to Communism does call for a temporary dictatorship of the proletariat, but the theory assumes it ends in a stateless, classless society. Saying that you KNOW about Communism, when you can't get such basics right shows a lack of academic rigour or dearth of knowledge. So yes, by all means, read more.[/quote]\r\nNow this confuses me. You say I know no communisum, and that I only know a stage. Yet you say that real communisum has no government, and you say that this no government is not real communisum. I know communisum in the terms of china and soviets, as I have said multiple times. Why? Because, you said so yourself,\r\n[quote]No country on Earth has ever came close to being a true Communist state as advocated by Marx.\r\n[/quote]\r\nTherefor, this forum of communisum means nothing to me. For us americans, communisum is what I have said. It is large government systems that destroy the different classes. Once again, this could be good or bad depending on yor views. \r\n[quote]\r\nNor is Socialism a bad thing. You just think it is.\r\n\r\n[/quote]\r\nNow it is you who must read, because I never said it was bad.\r\n[quote]read more[/quote]\r\nGiven that I'm 15, I have a life and I don't study politics, I'm not going to be reading this stuff because it's "fun".\r\nGet a new comeback.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 1, '12 8:22pm UTC

And rather recently, their have been some Obama/left media attacks on Romney that blew up in Obama`s face. Like the fact of the dog (why this is relevant to the election, ask Mr. Obama) that Obama said Romney put in its crate and tied it to the roof of his car. Meanwhile, Obama has a book where he admitted to eating dog. Well that was smart.

The two situations aren't even compatible. In one case we are dealing with a pet while in the other we are dealing with food.

This would be like attacking someone for mistreating a pet pig then trying to retaliate by pointing out the other person eats bacon.

offline

BRAAINZz

787 posts

Nomad

Posted June 1, '12 10:54pm UTC

@ nicho, maybe a few too many posts in a row...

I'm not calling him socialist nor am I calling him communist. I'm saying that some of his ideas represent a form of communism.

And...

Now it is you who must read, because I never said it was bad.

Yes you did, earlier in the thread.

You just called it communism the previous post.

No he didn't. He sayed that they were an utter failure of communism.

Now this confuses me. You say I know no communisum, and that I only know a stage. Yet you say that real communisum has no government, and you say that this no government is not real communisum. I know communisum in the terms of china and soviets, as I have said multiple times. Why? Because, you said so yourself,

If you believe China and the U.S.S.R. to be communism, then you seriously need to read a little more. They stopped the moment that they had taken over. Albeit, some of the other communist ideas sprouted forward, they (Mao Zedong & Josef Stalin) felt that they liked power more and the country devolved into a Dictatorship.

Given that I'm 15, I have a life and I don't study politics, I'm not going to be reading this stuff because it's "fun".
Get a new comeback.

Little did you know, I'm also Fifteen.

Next Comeback Please...

@ nicho, maybe a few too many posts in a row...\r\n\r\n[quote]I'm not calling him socialist nor am I calling him communist. I'm saying that some of his ideas represent a form of communism. [/quote]\r\n\r\nAnd...\r\n\r\n[quote]Now it is you who must read, because I never said it was bad. [/quote]\r\n\r\nYes you did, earlier in the thread.\r\n\r\n[quote]You just called it  communism the previous post.[/quote]\r\nNo he didn't. He sayed that they were an utter failure of communism. \r\n\r\n[quote]Now this confuses me. You say I know no communisum, and that I only know a stage. Yet you say that real communisum has no government, and you say that this no government is not real communisum. I know communisum in the terms of china and soviets, as I have said multiple times. Why? Because, you said so yourself, [/quote]\r\n\r\nIf you believe China and the U.S.S.R. to be communism, then you seriously need to read a little more. They stopped the moment that they had taken over. Albeit, some of the other communist ideas sprouted forward, they (Mao Zedong & Josef Stalin) felt that they liked power more and the country devolved into a Dictatorship. \r\n\r\n[quote]Given that I'm 15, I have a life and I don't study politics, I'm not going to be reading this stuff because it's "fun".\r\nGet a new comeback.[/quote]\r\n\r\nLittle did you know, I'm also Fifteen. \r\n\r\nNext Comeback Please...

offline

pickpocket

5,952 posts

Shepherd

Posted June 2, '12 12:35am UTC

The two situations aren't even compatible. In one case we are dealing with a pet while in the other we are dealing with food.

This would be like attacking someone for mistreating a pet pig then trying to retaliate by pointing out the other person eats bacon.

That's what Im saying. He also attacked Romney's wife which is just uncalled for.

Little did you know, I'm also Fifteen.

Little did you know, I wasn't talking to you.

No he didn't. He sayed that they were an utter failure of communism.

Even you said it. It may be a failure but that doesn't mean it's not.

Yes you did, earlier in the thread.

I said if you go far enough left, you get a form of communisum. I didn't say Obama is a communist, because he is not. He is a liberal. I also never once brought up socialism.

offline

Krill11

98 posts

Peasant

Posted June 2, '12 2:43am UTC

Oh, and by the way, socialism, in its form today, just doesn't work. The way that it has been tested, you can test it yourself, simply doing it by in your class, as I have seen it done.

There was a class learning about socialism, and of course, it appealed to them. so they tried it with their grades. it would be class averaged, and so as the people who cared, and tried hard got the same grade as the guys who didn't work really. so the grades started to go down, because the guys who did care were discouraged by the guys who did nothing, while the guys who did nothing, basically stayed the same, if not worse and stopped trying as hard, grade slowly went down to the BIG FAT EFF!!!!
(And yes that is how you spell F)

I also never once brought up socialism.

No you didn't I Did.

PS. Don't put the blame for something I did on someone else!!

(By the way, sorry Mage, that was kinda uncalled for, sorry 'bout that)

Brought to you by Krill11

Oh, and by the way, socialism, [b]in its form today[/b], just [b]doesn't work[/b]. The way that it has been tested, you can test it yourself, simply doing it by in your class, as I have seen it done. \r\n\r\n[i]There was a class learning about socialism, and of course, it appealed to them. so they tried it with their grades. it would be class averaged, and so as the people who cared, and tried hard got the same grade as the guys who didn't work really. so the grades started to go down, because the guys who did care were discouraged by the guys who did nothing, while the guys who did nothing, basically stayed the same, if not worse and stopped trying as hard, grade slowly went down to the BIG FAT EFF!!!![/i]\r\n(And yes that is how you spell F)\r\n\r\n[quote] I also never once brought up socialism.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo you didn't I Did.\r\n\r\nPS. Don't put the blame for something I did on someone else!!\r\n\r\n\r\n(By the way, sorry Mage, that was kinda uncalled for, sorry 'bout that)\r\n\r\n[i]Brought to you by [b]Krill11[/b][/i]

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 2, '12 5:49am UTC

You just called it communism the previous post.

I didn't. I called it a stage towards true Communism.

The difference is that we actually had some money to spend then. And don't give us crap about who we have in our party. You have Clinton, carter and Jackson. Jackson's my favorite democrat, he named you all @sses forever.

No, US debt first reappeared in the 1970s, before Reagan. In fact, from 1981 to 1989 under Reagan, nominal debt held by public nearly tripled.

Economist Mike Kimel also notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.

If we hadnt gone to war, it would have ruined America's name. What would England have done if big Ben was blown up? What would France have done if the tower was blown to bits? It's just like mi3 really. The kremlin was attacked, and almost sparked a war. It was stopped only by Tom cruise.

I don't think citing a movie or a computer game enhances your arguments' credibility one bit, given their all fictional. Furthermore, why should America care so much about it's name? Throughout the Cold War, it was already well known as a supporter of dictatorships if they served its national agenda, primarily in Latin America. Lastly, the Iraq war vastly decreased America's prestige overseas, and destroyed whatever goodwill others had towards it.

Now this confuses me. You say I know no communisum, and that I only know a stage. Yet you say that real communisum has no government, and you say that this no government is not real communisum. I know communisum in the terms of china and soviets, as I have said multiple times. Why? Because, you said so yourself,

What's so confusing? The dictatorship phase which all ''Communist'' movements got stuck at, is a legitimate phase. Unfortunately, this stage proved to be more than temporary in all ''Communist'' regimes we've seen so far in history. Real Communism has NO government, or minimal government, culminating in a stateless society.

What you see in Russia and China is NOT Communism.

Now it is you who must read, because I never said it was bad.

No, you have implied throughout that it was bad, by using it as a pejorative.

Given that I'm 15, I have a life and I don't study politics, I'm not going to be reading this stuff because it's "fun".
Get a new comeback.

I don't see how reading a little news and articles each day can't fit into such an equation. Nor do I do it solely out of ''fun'', if one lacks such knowledge in today's world, one can expect only to be taken as a laughing stock in society. It's not a comeback, but merely a statement that you need to read more before trying to argue, since you're arguing with false knowledge.

Therefor, this forum of communisum means nothing to me. For us americans, communisum is what I have said. It is large government systems that destroy the different classes. Once again, this could be good or bad depending on yor views.

It's NOT Communism. Such ''real-life'' examples taken to be ''Communism'' are just dictatorship which you Americans falsely call ''Communism''. Don't smear the good name of Communism.

[quote]You just called it  communism the previous post.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI didn't. I called it a stage towards true Communism.\r\n\r\n[quote]The difference is that we actually had some money to spend then. And don't give us crap about who we have in our party. You have Clinton, carter and Jackson. Jackson's my favorite democrat, he named you all @sses forever.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, US debt first reappeared in the 1970s, before Reagan. In fact, from 1981 to 1989 under Reagan, nominal debt held by public nearly [b]tripled[/b].\r\n\r\nEconomist Mike Kimel also notes that the five former Democratic Presidents (Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, and Harry S. Truman) all reduced public debt as a share of GDP, while the last four Republican Presidents (George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, Ronald Reagan, and Gerald Ford) all oversaw an increase in the country's indebtedness.\r\n\r\n[quote]If we hadnt gone to war, it would have ruined America's name. What would England have done if big Ben was blown up? What would France have done if the tower was blown to bits? It's just like mi3 really. The kremlin was attacked, and almost sparked a war. It was stopped only by Tom cruise.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't think citing a movie or a computer game enhances your arguments' credibility one bit, given their all fictional. Furthermore, why should America care so much about it's name? Throughout the Cold War, it was already well known as a supporter of dictatorships if they served its national agenda, primarily in Latin America. Lastly, the Iraq war vastly decreased America's prestige overseas, and destroyed whatever goodwill others had towards it. \r\n\r\n[quote]Now this confuses me. You say I know no communisum, and that I only know a stage. Yet you say that real communisum has no government, and you say that this no government is not real communisum. I know communisum in the terms of china and soviets, as I have said multiple times. Why? Because, you said so yourself,[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhat's so confusing? The dictatorship phase which all ''Communist'' movements got stuck at, is a legitimate phase. Unfortunately, this stage proved to be more than temporary in all ''Communist'' regimes we've seen so far in history. Real Communism has NO government, or minimal government, culminating in a stateless society. \r\n\r\nWhat you see in Russia and China is NOT Communism.\r\n\r\n[quote]Now it is you who must read, because I never said it was bad.[/quote]\r\n\r\nNo, you have implied throughout that it was bad, by using it as a pejorative. \r\n\r\n[quote]Given that I'm 15, I have a life and I don't study politics, I'm not going to be reading this stuff because it's "fun".\r\nGet a new comeback.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't see how reading a little news and articles each day can't fit into such an equation. Nor do I do it solely out of ''fun'', if one lacks such knowledge in today's world, one can expect only to be taken as a laughing stock in society. It's not a comeback, but merely a statement that you need to read more before trying to argue, since you're arguing with false knowledge. \r\n\r\n[quote]Therefor, this forum of communisum means nothing to me. For us americans, communisum is what I have said. It is large government systems that destroy the different classes. Once again, this could be good or bad depending on yor views.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIt's NOT Communism. Such ''real-life'' examples taken to be ''Communism'' are just dictatorship which you Americans falsely call ''Communism''. Don't smear the good name of Communism.

offline

nichodemus

14,991 posts

Grand Duke

Posted June 2, '12 5:52am UTC

Oh, and by the way, socialism, in its form today, just doesn't work. The way that it has been tested, you can test it yourself, simply doing it by in your class, as I have seen it done.

Democracy never works well in a class, yet it does in real life. Stating your class as a setting for such social experiments is quite absurd.

And no, socialism has worked in various forms today. Look at the Scandinavian nations.

Also as stated, Obama is no Socialist.

offline

MageGrayWolf

9,462 posts

Farmer

Posted June 2, '12 8:10am UTC

That's what Im saying. He also attacked Romney's wife which is just uncalled for.

I wasn't really getting that impression. It seemed more like you were saying how Romney was attacked for mistreating a pet dog but Obama is just as bad for eating dog meat, so Obama would have no room to talk.

I'm saying that you can't compare the two. Obama would have room to say how strapping a dog to a roof of a car and driving off is a bad thing to do. Him eating a dog isn't a bad thing and wouldn't leave him with no room to talk.

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → WEPR → Is Obama a good president?