Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[malimbar04]

Unless the republican party starts coming up with some new ideas, and starts making decisions based on logic rather than politics, Obama has my vote this time around.

I've heard a LOT of crap about obama over the recent years that is all blatently untrue, proven to be untrue, and then still spread by the biggest news and news-talk organizations. Even after killing osama bin laden, my mom said he was weak on terror while hannity was talking about how it was all because bushes "enhanced interrogation techniques" (since "torture" would make bush look bad, they had to rename it). Speaking of which, I like that combat troops are finally out of iraq, though I kind've wish he wasn't starting skirmishes over other countries now. I don't have faith that republicans would do better though, and recent history has shown they'd attack just about anyone to control another part of the world. We're not the worlds watchdogs.

After talking over details with other members of my family over health care reform (both brothers, their wives, my mom and my wife work somewhere in healthcare), I like his changes.

The budget and reforms he pushed for in the budget and tax code I thought were logical and fair, while those that the republicans pushed were completely idiotic and a basic accountant could show them their flaws. I'd prefer a switch to the fairtax, but I doubt it'd pass a congress full of people who are trying to give favors to interest groups.

He changed NASA's funding to push robotics and scrap sending humans to mars, which is good just from an efficiency standpoint (it's crazy expensive to send people, cheap to send robots).

He repealed don't ask don't tell. Great.

And, probably most importantly to me, he actually included "nonbelievers" in his speech on religion. It's nice to be recognized as an actual demographic in America, as opposed to HW Bush, who said he didn't think we should even be considered citizens. Ideally I'd like "in god we trust" replaced with the original "e pluribus unum", but this is enough of a step for one presidency.

[Angle]

you make a good case. Anything he do that displeased you?

[Nikov]

Middle-eastern terrorist telling his futuristic Middle-eastern class how not Americans patriotically supporting the troops helped them defeat America. And then the whole class laughs soullessly about it.

Black Professor telling his futuristic Black class how integration and legalising inter-racial marriage helped them defeat America. And then the whole class laughs soullessly about it.

Gay Professor telling his futuristic gay class how laws granting gays basic human rights helped them defeat America. And then the whole class laughs soullessly about it.

That makes no sense

It did to these people.

Voting Democrat Republican helps the Communists win.

It's sad that these tactics are still viable.

Hillariously, this occured in the 1957 Little Rock integration protests, pitting DEMOCRAT Orval Faubus used National Guard troops to prevent black students from going to school, only to have REPUBLICAN Dwight D. Eisenhower overpower him with federal troops leading to school integration.

Next time you want to point at stupid idiots and call them racist bigots, make sure you vet your photo for unintended irony.

[Criptfeind]

I think both of you are drifting quite far from the original point.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Hillariously, this occured in the 1957 Little Rock integration protests, pitting DEMOCRAT Orval Faubus used National Guard troops to prevent black students from going to school, only to have REPUBLICAN Dwight D. Eisenhower overpower him with federal troops leading to school integration.

Next time you want to point at stupid idiots and call them racist bigots, make sure you vet your photo for unintended irony.

I was making reference to the recent commercial that ggamer asked how it was all relevant. I do know about the democrat/republican switch in progressivism since Republicans were liberals since the Civil War and changed following the New Deal and Civil Rights movement.

The party name isn't what I'm concerned about -I even lauded Eisenhower in a post earlier in this thread- but rather I'm concerned about the side that allows idiots and bigots to dictate their policy. Guess which party that is at the moment.

[Tilla]

But but Nikov's point is so much more valid because he used different font settings!

Seriously, it's no news to anyone that Democrats were in fact the less progressive party in the past. However, racists are still racists.

[Starver]

Sir Richard Branson has his own island but I believe it's not sovereign and he pays taxes somewhere. However, all the cool rich kids have tax shelters abroad to not pay taxes in the US anyhow.

Well, I don't know whether he is/is not paying taxes, in general[1], but Sir Richard would primarily be (until the point that he isn't) paying taxes to the UK, which is one way to avoid paying his taxes to the US.


[1] Probably a) avoiding[2] them as much as he is able; b) still paying what he does pay in multiple jurisdictions due to investments and interests he has there for which he can't utterly avoid taxation.

[2] Not evading.  i.e. doing it legally, albeit that some feel it's a little cheaty to be able to spend vast amounts of money to get clever people to save even vaster amounts of money going to tax...

[Max White]

~Snip

Mccarthyism, we hardly knew ye. I miss the days of calling something communist just because you didn't like it, and also because you had no idea what the hell communism meant.

[RedKing]

Yeah, the Eisenhower/Faubus thing is not impressing anyone, Nik. Let's consider how Eisenhower would be received by today's Republican Party. He:

--implemented Federally-mandated racial integration, trumping the "state's rights" argument
--mobilized a state's own National Guard troops to enforce that policy against the wishes of said state's Governor and legislature
--expanded Social Security
--spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (billions once adjusted for inflation) to build a national highway system
--supported Egypt *against* Israel, Britain and France in the Suez Crisis of 1956 (probably the last American President to really oppose Israel on anything of import)
--tried to stay the hell out of Vietnam because Matthew Ridgeway (correctly) predicted it would take a massive mobilization to have the desired effect
--got out of Korea without a clear victory
--warned against excessive military spending at a time when the Cold War was in full swing
--did all of this with a Congress controlled by the other party for 6 out of his 8 years

In other words, Ike was one dope motherf*cker. And he'd be tarred as a "big-government socialist who's weak on defense" by today's GOP.

[Andir]

*all posts*

I've read through this entire thread and you are the #1 person on my list standing out as the one who needs to take a step back from the computer and put a good, hard thought to what it is you are doing.  You (and those like you) are the problem with politics today.  Voting for the other most popular party so ______ doesn't win while using snarky tones and ad hominem attacks.  (Fill in the blank with your standard tripe. /der)

How about stopping all that bullshit and voting for the person that matches your ideals rather than voting for the person that is closest to defeating the person that doesn't?

IE:  Stop voting negatively.

(You are not the only one doing it, but you are the most vocal/snarky right now.)

[Vector]

So, did you actually have some politics to talk about, or were you just looking for the #1 person on your list to publicly call out and use as an example for the rest of us?

[Andir]

So, did you actually have some politics to talk about, or were you just looking for the #1 person on your list to publicly call out and use as an example for the rest of us?

I did talk politics.   I stated what I thought was wrong with it.

Edit:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politics

4: the political opinions or sympathies of a person
5a : the total complex of relations between people living in society
5b : relations or conduct in a particular area of experience especially as seen or dealt with from a political point of view

[Lord Shonus]

Yeah, the Eisenhower/Faubus thing is not impressing anyone, Nik. Let's consider how Eisenhower would be received by today's Republican Party. He:



--spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (billions once adjusted for inflation) to build a national highway system

The federal highway system is first and foremost a weapon of war. It was built to help vastly speed the movment of huge amounts of men and material beyond the capabilities of the overworked rail network, just like Hitler's Autobahn. The massive economic and civilian convienince benefits were a side effect.

--got out of Korea without a clear victory

UN forces in Korea *gained* a clear victory. No, they didn't conquer and destroy North Korea, but they smashed both the North Korean and PRC invasions, returning things to the status quo ante bellum. It was not a total victory, but it was the same sort gained by Coalition forces in 1991.

Several of your points are good, but those two don't fit.

[Nikov]

Yeah, the Eisenhower/Faubus thing is not impressing anyone, Nik. Let's consider how Eisenhower would be received by today's Republican Party. He:

--implemented Federally-mandated racial integration, trumping the "state's rights" argument
--mobilized a state's own National Guard troops to enforce that policy against the wishes of said state's Governor and legislature
--expanded Social Security
--spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars (billions once adjusted for inflation) to build a national highway system
--supported Egypt *against* Israel, Britain and France in the Suez Crisis of 1956 (probably the last American President to really oppose Israel on anything of import)
--tried to stay the hell out of Vietnam because Matthew Ridgeway (correctly) predicted it would take a massive mobilization to have the desired effect
--got out of Korea without a clear victory
--warned against excessive military spending at a time when the Cold War was in full swing
--did all of this with a Congress controlled by the other party for 6 out of his 8 years

In other words, Ike was one dope motherf*cker. And he'd be tarred as a "big-government socialist who's weak on defense" by today's GOP.

All those things sound pretty good to me, save the Suez crisis, which reading into looks like a big elaborate tangled web of lies. So maybe you don't understand today's GOP like a member of today's GOP does.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

But this is with several decades of hindsight about the state of affairs back then. That can alter a person's perspective on the matter greatly.