NationStates Jolt Archive

srs thread pl0x. :)

I've been wanting to write something like this for a while ever since I heard about Palin's "real" america rants. Sorry if these thoughts aren't exactly coherent, it's about 12:38 in the morning.


I'm sitting here at the computer thinking to myself of all the things that Obama would bring once he gets elected to office in November. With the way things are going, it is likely that the Democrats will take a fair enough of seats and have majorities in both house and senate.

I think I read this in the Guardian, but the last time we had such a progressive influence in all aspects of the government was during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, and in FDR's before that.

I can only hope for all the sweeping changes that Obama will bring to this country. No longer will our Canadian neighbours to the north laugh at us for substandard treatment of the poor and broken. America will show the world that a nation is only as good as its least fortunate citizen. With troops being pulled out of the Middle East, I'm feeling a great sense of hope that bloodshed and violence will end, and perhaps even the extremists may put down their arms.

No longer will Europe have the best public transportation, the greatest dedication to its citizens, the utmost support for intellectual ideas such as secularism and rationalism. I see the eventual breakdown of ethnic and class discrimination slowly eroding away in the US, replaced by the light of progress and tolerance. I see cosmopolitan cities rise up as all Americans, regardless of creed, colour or religion work together and embrace all immigrants as we all work for the improvement of this country and fulfill our obligations to the rest of the world.

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.

I can't wait. :D

I look foward to the tears of the far right. Their sweet, sweet tears.

Do we all get unicorns to ride off into the sunset with too?

Do we all get unicorns to ride off into the sunset with too?

No, it would be nice if we did though. :)

Technically...

You now have state ownership of industry
Phone tapping on citizens is fine
People sent to the gulags (Gitmo) without trail
Military bogged down in Afghanistan
Proposed loyalty tests in government
Valueless dollar means foreign currency is a better bet.

You're in the Soviet Union already.

*kudos to Tom the Dancing Bug.

I'd advise not to get your hopes up too much. Even though it's probably a shift in the good direction, no man can work miracles. Except maybe Jesus. But he's not running for President this year.

In other words, Obama can't redo completely the fabric of your society over just 4 years. If you want real, lasting change, you have to keep voting in that direction for long enough for the changes to not only take root, but grow into a real, lasting new way to do things.

Still, Obama making left-leaning changes to the United States that would translate into Chavez shutting the fuck up down in Venezuela would be so worth it.

I'd advise not to get your hopes up too much. Even though it's probably a shift in the good direction, no man can work miracles. Except maybe Jesus. But he's not running for President this year.

In other words, Obama can't redo completely the fabric of your society over just 4 years. If you want real, lasting change, you have to keep voting in that direction for long enough for the changes to not only take root, but grow into a real, lasting new way to do things.

True, but this is as good of a start as any. :)

Maybe when people see real, positive results as opposed to the screw ups of the GOP, they'll keep voting people with similar views as Obama into office. Maybe someday it'll become "trendy" to be a liberal progressive running for president.

Still, Obama making left-leaning changes to the United States that would translate into Chavez shutting the fuck up down in Venezuela would be so worth it.

Chavez won't shut up. It's his shtick. He might tone it down a bit, less of the personal stuffs about the president, but he's never going to stop complaining.

And honestly, I don't want him to stop. He's entertaining.

Still, Obama making left-leaning changes to the United States that would translate into Chavez shutting the fuck up down in Venezuela would be so worth it.

Why do you hate him so much?

Chavez won't shut up. It's his shtick. He might tone it down a bit, less of the personal stuffs about the president, but he's never going to stop complaining.

And honestly, I don't want him to stop. He's entertaining.

And it's not like he's doing anything that hasn't been done by a US president before. The whole "Look, the ebil enemies of our regime are getting ready to attack the foundations of everything we stand for!" thing has been overused over the history of mankind.

What's the best way to unite a population and make it forget about local issues? Unite it in its fear of a common (preferably foreign) enemy!

Been done in the 30's in Germany. Been mutually done in the 60's in the West and USSR. Been done after 9/11 in the USA. Been done in Venezuela for the past few years.

In other news, the sky is blue, water is wet, and bears shit in the woods.

Hopefully, Obama will find more better, more valid and lasting reasons to unite the population than the fear of them brown people. And yeah, maybe Venezuela will get there within the next few years, too. But that's stuff for another thread.

I read this in my local paper, I think it hits the whole stupid "Socialism" argument squarely on the head. It's an opinion peice but I love reading the opinion space in my newspaper and sometimes spout my own as well. lol

Money redistribution nothing new in U.S.
(http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/oct/23/money-redistribution-nothing-new-us/)

True, but this is as good of a start as any. :)

Maybe when people see real, positive results as opposed to the screw ups of the GOP, they'll keep voting people with similar views as Obama into office. Maybe someday it'll become "trendy" to be a liberal progressive running for president.

Ah, like the positive results of FDR, which kept us in the great depression longer than we should have been. Thank God for WWII to pull us outta that fiasco. And then we have LBJ's "War on Poverty", which worked wonders and continues to do so, as the Democrats have worked hard on that through-out the years. I mean, just look at Detriot, man, they turned that city around! And all those wars that Democrats have gotten us into over the recent years: WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam. I loved learning about those positive results.

Don't forget, it was a Republican Congress that helped LBJ, a Democrat, get his civil rights deal all squared away, especially, surprise-surprise, in the South.

And no, I'm not a Republican. I don't make a lot of money either. In fact, it's $12,000 a year after taxes. So please refrain from including those in your attacks of me after I leave, as they aren't valid.

I agree with Barringtonia, we already live in what you all seem to be pinning for, yet no one seems to be enjoying it too much. All hail the iron fist of communism!

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.


Actually, Obama's healthcare program is nothing like the health care programs of England or France or the rest of Europe. It's the same Health care program that the senators and Congressmen recieve. You still have to pay for it. It's subsidized, yes. But it isn't a free ride.

How do I know this? My father worked 31 years as a civil servant at an AFB. For his work, he recieved this and a pension. I enjoyed this health care as I grew up, but when I turned 22, I promptly was cut off because he couldn't afford to cover me. I am now an uninsured university student, one of the many minons that exist in this country. I do hope Obama does get elected so he can give people the chance to have this same type of health care, but it is by no means a free ride.

Methinks you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Obama is a politician, and one inheriting one giant SOB of a deficit at that. He's not the messiah, and if he's going to produce some serious change, it probably won't be until the very end of his first term, or in a second one. Too much crap to clean up first.

Socialism?

I'm looking forward to the opportunity to steal everything that's not tied down, because colossal bureaucracy permits such graft. Five cars, a nice penthouse in Manhattan, a few million stashed away in foreign banks and all of it on government time and funding.

Either that or it's a Stalinist system and I'll gladly fill the role of Lazar Kaganovich. Maybe tap Andaras to be the Beria in our game.

Socialism?

I'm looking forward to the opportunity to steal everything that's not tied down, because colossal bureaucracy permits such graft. Five cars, a nice penthouse in Manhattan, a few million stashed away in foreign banks and all of it on government time and funding.


And the difference between that and the current state of affairs is....?

If by Socialism you mean Soviet-style "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", then no, I'm not in favor of that prospect. If, however, you mean Social Democracy, then yes.

And the difference between that and the current state of affairs is....?

I can get away with it. Such is the meaning of Inner Party privilege.

the real chainge obama represents is, sanity! (a somewhat rare commodity in high public office in u.s. and excessively u.s. "influenced" places in recent decades)

yah. wouldn't it be just terrible awful to see real people, places and things prioritised ahead of the illusions of symbolic value for a chainge.

well yes, one person, no matter how powerful the office, CAN only do so much, but the right persons in the right offices, CAN make it so much more probable to achieve.

and of course we're not talking about JUST obama, but a congress that won't have its head completely stuck in the dark and stinkey places of its corporate sponsers.

Nothing will really change. He's all talk. Which is why I call him O-blah-ma.

I can get away with it. Such is the meaning of Inner Party privilege.

While in one sense, I know what you're getting at, in another I have to point out the lack of significant prosecutions over not only the Iraq war, but the work supposedly done there by American contractors, US torture policy the bombing of Cambodia, the covert actions against Nicaragua, etc and so on. Then theres the Brits and their cash for honours, Iraq, exemptions for tonys cronies.....

The title is a bit misleading. Obama is much more of a liberal than a socialist. He may have socialist streaks, and I wouldn't deny that, but that doesn't mean he's a socialist or that he'll create a socialist america.

Socialism?

I'm looking forward to the opportunity to steal everything that's not tied down, because colossal bureaucracy permits such graft. Five cars, a nice penthouse in Manhattan, a few million stashed away in foreign banks and all of it on government time and funding.


you're funny

I'm excited by the idea of a socialist America.
It won't happen anytime soon, but it's a nice idea.

You're in the Soviet Union already.

But we don't have comprehensive social programs - thank god - and thus we arn't socialists. Praise Jesus!

America needs a great deal of wealth distribution - but I doubt that Obama will deliver quickly on that one. The US needs more public housing, job schemes, a taxpayer funded health scheme and access to good education for all. It also needs to get the 1 in 9 young black Americans out of jail and into productive jobs and off the streets.

That's a tall order. Obama also pledged to cut taxes. You can't have it both ways, The abolition of poverty and social justice costs money. But so does subsidising farmers to dump food on the world market, the production of energy inefficient vehicles, land wars in Asia and so on. Cutting Bush's stupid programs and developing better ones would be great - but persuading Congress.....well good luck feller!

srs thread pl0x. :)

I've been wanting to write something like this for a while ever since I heard about Palin's "real" america rants. Sorry if these thoughts aren't exactly coherent, it's about 12:38 in the morning.


I'm sitting here at the computer thinking to myself of all the things that Obama would bring once he gets elected to office in November. With the way things are going, it is likely that the Democrats will take a fair enough of seats and have majorities in both house and senate.

I think I read this in the Guardian, but the last time we had such a progressive influence in all aspects of the government was during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, and in FDR's before that.

I can only hope for all the sweeping changes that Obama will bring to this country. No longer will our Canadian neighbours to the north laugh at us for substandard treatment of the poor and broken. America will show the world that a nation is only as good as its least fortunate citizen. With troops being pulled out of the Middle East, I'm feeling a great sense of hope that bloodshed and violence will end, and perhaps even the extremists may put down their arms.

No longer will Europe have the best public transportation, the greatest dedication to its citizens, the utmost support for intellectual ideas such as secularism and rationalism. I see the eventual breakdown of ethnic and class discrimination slowly eroding away in the US, replaced by the light of progress and tolerance. I see cosmopolitan cities rise up as all Americans, regardless of creed, colour or religion work together and embrace all immigrants as we all work for the improvement of this country and fulfill our obligations to the rest of the world.

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.

I can't wait. :D

This isn't far enough to be socialist, this is just liberal and welfare capitalist.

srs thread pl0x. :)

I've been wanting to write something like this for a while ever since I heard about Palin's "real" america rants. Sorry if these thoughts aren't exactly coherent, it's about 12:38 in the morning.


I'm sitting here at the computer thinking to myself of all the things that Obama would bring once he gets elected to office in November. With the way things are going, it is likely that the Democrats will take a fair enough of seats and have majorities in both house and senate.

I think I read this in the Guardian, but the last time we had such a progressive influence in all aspects of the government was during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, and in FDR's before that.

I can only hope for all the sweeping changes that Obama will bring to this country. No longer will our Canadian neighbours to the north laugh at us for substandard treatment of the poor and broken. America will show the world that a nation is only as good as its least fortunate citizen. With troops being pulled out of the Middle East, I'm feeling a great sense of hope that bloodshed and violence will end, and perhaps even the extremists may put down their arms.

No longer will Europe have the best public transportation, the greatest dedication to its citizens, the utmost support for intellectual ideas such as secularism and rationalism. I see the eventual breakdown of ethnic and class discrimination slowly eroding away in the US, replaced by the light of progress and tolerance. I see cosmopolitan cities rise up as all Americans, regardless of creed, colour or religion work together and embrace all immigrants as we all work for the improvement of this country and fulfill our obligations to the rest of the world.

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.

I can't wait. :D
Prepare for abject dissapointment.

Prepare for abject dissapointment.

It would seem that far more than the American right are being misled by the rhetoric and mudslinging of the Republicans.

I'd advise not to get your hopes up too much. Even though it's probably a shift in the good direction, no man can work miracles. Except maybe Jesus. But he's not running for President this year.

In other words, Obama can't redo completely the fabric of your society over just 4 years. If you want real, lasting change, you have to keep voting in that direction for long enough for the changes to not only take root, but grow into a real, lasting new way to do things.

Yes he can. Barack Obama is 7 ft tall and defeats Republicans by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume John McCain with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse.

Since I can't find an 80's pop song that captures my cynicism about Obama and the truly narrow policy range of American politics, this article by Naomi Klein will have to suffice:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein

Since I can't find an 80's pop song that captures my cynicism about Obama and the truly narrow policy range of American politics, this article by Naomi Klein will have to suffice:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zGsOqPDkIZY?

(yeah, alright I just like the song)

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=zGsOqPDkIZY?

(yeah, alright I just like the song)

Kinda works. I was leaning more towards "Personal Jesus".

Kinda works. I was leaning more towards "Personal Jesus".
Aye but that's a far pisher song.

Does Barack Obama like Depêche Mode? Now there is a question I want asking. Maybe by someone hard-hitting, like Bill O'Reilly or something.

Since I can't find an 80's pop song that captures my cynicism about Obama and the truly narrow policy range of American politics, this article by Naomi Klein will have to suffice:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080630/klein

That was a horrifically bad article. More bullshit about the 'Chicago machine' and her constant whining about Friedman (seriously, will she ever shut up about him).

It would surely be an interesting turn of events if the US ever becomes a socialist country.

That was a horrifically bad article. More bullshit about the 'Chicago machine' and her constant whining about Friedman (seriously, will she ever shut up about him).

I think you're confusing the "Chicago Machine" with the "Chicago Boys". The "Chicago Machine", as far as I understand it, refers to mayor Daley and his cronies. Klein doesn't mention them at all.

The "Chicago Boys", on the other hand, are an intellectual circle of free market fundamentalists led by Milton Friedman (and through him, Friedrich von Hayek) who, among other things, were the architects of Structural Adjustment. Considering the social and environmental consequences of their agenda, I expect Klein, myself, and some other people will be "whining" about them for some time to come.

Considering the social and environmental consequences of their agenda

Yes, I do, a lot. Klein, on the other hand, spreads disinformation, exaggerations and sensationalist cherry picking about the organisation. This, coupled with her complete misunderstanding of economics, means she has become a plague on modern academia.

Yes he can. Barack Obama is 7 ft tall and defeats Republicans by the hundreds, and if he were here he'd consume John McCain with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse.
I wish they would just stick both of them, and their VPs, in a Shanghai-style cage fight with one pistol in the middle, with the winning pres and winning VP going on to run the country.

My money would probably be on Obama to win it, although I bet Palin would pretty easily kick Biden's arse. An Obama/Palin ticket. Genius.

Yes, I do, a lot. Klein, on the other hand, spreads disinformation, exaggerations and sensationalist cherry picking about the organisation. This, coupled with her complete misunderstanding of economics, means she has become a plague on modern academia.

I don't have the time or the inclination to go to bat for Naomi Klein. But I'm not understanding your point about this article, which argues that Obama is more about the limp "Third Way" crap that Clinton and Blair were espousing than any real changes to US economic and social policy. Are you claiming otherwise?

I don't have the time or the inclination to go to bat for Naomi Klein. But I'm not understanding your point about this article, which argues that Obama is more about the limp "Third Way" crap that Clinton and Blair were espousing than any real changes to US economic and social policy. Are you claiming otherwise?

I'll say that this 'third way' philosophy, in the 21st century, is a meaningless, pigeon hole term. It used to mean something, but now it's so broad that it merely means 'those who are not extreme left or extreme right', in fact, a lot of this 'mixed market' stuff that I have seen Klein argue for in the past, was often referred to as 'third way' economics. I'm also arguing that whatever good point that article had, was obliterated by her irrelevant whinging.

But I'm not understanding your point about this article, which argues that Obama is more about the limp "Third Way" crap that Clinton and Blair were espousing than any real changes to US economic and social policy.
And foreign policy.

See Obama's statements about "American leadership" in both the political and economic world stage, at a time when even the integrity of Bretton Woods is being questioned by foreign politicians.

Reminds me of (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6HcEgntmBL0)...

Obama... Socialist... America?

...

lol.

I'll say that this 'third way' philosophy, in the 21st century, is a meaningless, pigeon hole term. It used to mean something, but now it's so broad that it merely means 'those who are not extreme left or extreme right', in fact, a lot of this 'mixed market' stuff that I have seen Klein argue for in the past, was often referred to as 'third way' economics.

From where I'm sitting it means now what it's meant since the early 90s: neoliberal economics repackaged to appeal to a different political constituency.

I'll say that this 'third way' philosophy, in the 21st century, is a meaningless, pigeon hole term. It used to mean something, but now it's so broad that it merely means 'those who are not extreme left or extreme right', in fact, a lot of this 'mixed market' stuff that I have seen Klein argue for in the past, was often referred to as 'third way' economics. I'm also arguing that whatever good point that article had, was obliterated by her irrelevant whinging.
It's been that way since Mussolini proposed it. The Corporative State, or Third Way basically means... eh... nothing...

Reminds me of (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6HcEgntmBL0)...

That was brilliant.

From where I'm sitting it means now what it's meant since the early 90s: neoliberal economics repackaged to appeal to a different political constituency.

As I always say, 'neoliberal' is a completely meaningless term. It's just bourgeois repackaged (to steal your phrase) for the 21st century (seriously, there's no difference between 'bourgeois economic interests' and 'neoliberal economic interests'). And Klein uses it hideously inaccurately (sorry to digress, but I just have to get this off my chest), equating neoconservatism with it, despite it being the complete opposite (they are neither liberal, nor do they care about small government) and also by equating libertarianism with it (who actually despise interventionist foreign policy, which is also radically different to her use of neoliberal). Anyway, yes Obama wont change anything radically, it's entirely infeasible to think he wont leave the US in a market economy, so I don't know why there's much to complain about there. That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, the problem is not with lack of regulation (the US economy is actually highly regulated in many areas), rather it's how poorly the regulators and the regulations are organised, Obama will change this a little IMO, though he wont be amazing.

Why do you hate him so much?

Because Chavez is an idiot....?

srs thread pl0x. :)

I've been wanting to write something like this for a while ever since I heard about Palin's "real" america rants. Sorry if these thoughts aren't exactly coherent, it's about 12:38 in the morning.


I'm sitting here at the computer thinking to myself of all the things that Obama would bring once he gets elected to office in November. With the way things are going, it is likely that the Democrats will take a fair enough of seats and have majorities in both house and senate.

I think I read this in the Guardian, but the last time we had such a progressive influence in all aspects of the government was during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, and in FDR's before that.

I can only hope for all the sweeping changes that Obama will bring to this country. No longer will our Canadian neighbours to the north laugh at us for substandard treatment of the poor and broken. America will show the world that a nation is only as good as its least fortunate citizen. With troops being pulled out of the Middle East, I'm feeling a great sense of hope that bloodshed and violence will end, and perhaps even the extremists may put down their arms.

No longer will Europe have the best public transportation, the greatest dedication to its citizens, the utmost support for intellectual ideas such as secularism and rationalism. I see the eventual breakdown of ethnic and class discrimination slowly eroding away in the US, replaced by the light of progress and tolerance. I see cosmopolitan cities rise up as all Americans, regardless of creed, colour or religion work together and embrace all immigrants as we all work for the improvement of this country and fulfill our obligations to the rest of the world.

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.

I can't wait. :D

a lot of this i hope happens but the conversations i have heard going on about this supposed socialism from obama is utter bullshit. First, people need to find out what exactly socialism in its truest form is. Then, can a true right winger on this board explain to me why it is so bad to raise taxes a little and try to implement universal health care? How is this so bad? Taxes are already levied on people, there is already some "spreading the wealth" going on (how else do you have public schooling, medicare, health insurance for military and government schmucks and so on...) My question is, where exactly does a right-wing republican draw the line between their so called "capitalistic" state and socialism? Is there a "magic" percentage of taxes, a line you cross that turns a country into a socialistic state? Is it 35%, 40%...what?
The US is not, and never has been as far as i know, a true capitalistic nation. Socialism to a certain degree already exists and always will.

By the way, the US will never have a public transportation system comparable to europe

By the way, the US will never have a public transportation system comparable to europe

I disagree. Ever been to Portland, Oregon?

I disagree. Ever been to Portland, Oregon?


True, and the same can be said for NYC and other major metro areas, but i was thinking in general, as a whole. Exclude some major cities and the rest is a joke

I disagree. Ever been to Portland, Oregon?
More importantly, ever been on public transport in the UK?

More importantly, ever been on public transport in the UK?

Yes I have. It is quite wonderful (well, in the areas that I've been to anyway, Cambridge, London, etc) and there are many delightful and friendly people to chat with.

Maybe we'll get the same sort of system like in Sweden or Norway?

Methinks you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Obama is a politician, and one inheriting one giant SOB of a deficit at that.
Funny thing is that Neocons said that's why there should be a Deficit. So that the government would be too bankrupt to do things.

It's called "Starve the Beast"

Of course they meant small only in a way to help people, telling you what to do in your personal life is a whole different story.

Maybe we'll get the same sort of system like in Sweden or Norway?


Funny thing is that Neocons said that's why there should be a Deficit. So that the government would be too bankrupt to do things other than invest in the military.

It's called "Starve the Beast"

Of course they meant small only in a way to help people, telling you what to do in your personal life is a whole different story.
I took the small liberty of bolding a small addendum of mine.

I can't help but be mesmerized by the lengths of trouble conservatives go to make sure not a single penny more than the strict minimum is spent on useful, helpful social policies, when at the same time they have absolutely no moral qualms about the dilapidation of taxpayer money on frivolous military and war-related expenses. As if those expenditures weren't really "spending" money.

Better tax-and-spend(on useful things), as Obama proposes, than untax-and-spend-anyway(except we'll be spending on bombs and tanks and war planes which will only serve to destabilize the middle east further and make our country less safe than if we'd just burned the trillions of dollars or flushed them down the toilet instead).

I'd just like to point out that the last time a Democrat took the White House with a sitting Democratic Congress, the Republicans reclaimed Congress in the very next election (1994). Before that, when it happened with Carter, we got Reagan in 4 years. Everyone seems to think that something is going to "change" with an Obama presidency, but if he woke up white tomorrow he'd be the same as countless Democrats who have been voted out of office in the past. He's no different on policy than any other Democrat I can think of (indeed, the primary versus Clinton was more about character and background than policy). If he wins--and it's starting to look like he will--I forecast the American public will be just as disillusioned with the Democrats as they are presently with the Republicans. Don't forget that Obama is a member of the Congress that has record low approval ratings along with the president.

I'd just like to point out that the last time a Democrat took the White House with a sitting Democratic Congress, the Republicans reclaimed Congress in the very next election (1994). Before that, when it happened with Carter, we got Reagan in 4 years. Everyone seems to think that something is going to "change" with an Obama presidency, but if he woke up white tomorrow he'd be the same as countless Democrats who have been voted out of office in the past. He's no different on policy than any other Democrat I can think of (indeed, the primary versus Clinton was more about character and background than policy). If he wins--and it's starting to look like he will--I forecast the American public will be just as disillusioned with the Democrats as they are presently with the Republicans. Don't forget that Obama is a member of the Congress that has record low approval ratings along with the president.

Aahhhh. You say the cutest darn things. :fluffle:

Maybe we'll get the same sort of system like in Sweden or Norway?

Unless our population somehow becomes a lot lower or we discover a ton of valuable natural resources, don't count on it. We couldn't afford that kind of system, although realistically Sweden's tax model is vastly superior to ours; corporations in the US pay a much higher real tax rate (one of the highest in the world) and get a lot less in return for that money.

Aahhhh. You say the cutest darn things. :fluffle:

Uhh.. what part of what I said wasn't true?

I look foward to the tears of the far right. Their sweet, sweet tears.Sweet, as pus often is.

srs thread pl0x. :)

I've been wanting to write something like this for a while ever since I heard about Palin's "real" america rants. Sorry if these thoughts aren't exactly coherent, it's about 12:38 in the morning.


I'm sitting here at the computer thinking to myself of all the things that Obama would bring once he gets elected to office in November. With the way things are going, it is likely that the Democrats will take a fair enough of seats and have majorities in both house and senate.

I think I read this in the Guardian, but the last time we had such a progressive influence in all aspects of the government was during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, and in FDR's before that.

I can only hope for all the sweeping changes that Obama will bring to this country. No longer will our Canadian neighbours to the north laugh at us for substandard treatment of the poor and broken. America will show the world that a nation is only as good as its least fortunate citizen. With troops being pulled out of the Middle East, I'm feeling a great sense of hope that bloodshed and violence will end, and perhaps even the extremists may put down their arms.

No longer will Europe have the best public transportation, the greatest dedication to its citizens, the utmost support for intellectual ideas such as secularism and rationalism. I see the eventual breakdown of ethnic and class discrimination slowly eroding away in the US, replaced by the light of progress and tolerance. I see cosmopolitan cities rise up as all Americans, regardless of creed, colour or religion work together and embrace all immigrants as we all work for the improvement of this country and fulfill our obligations to the rest of the world.

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.

I can't wait. :D

No, I can't say that I am...

Uhh.. what part of what I said wasn't true?
Well, since you asked, these two parts:
if he woke up white tomorrow he'd be the same as countless Democrats who have been voted out of office in the past.
+
If he wins--and it's starting to look like he will--I forecast the American public will be just as disillusioned with the Democrats as they are presently with the Republicans.

Perhaps those conditionals say something about "true" and/or "false".

I'd just like to point out that the last time a Democrat took the White House with a sitting Democratic Congress, the Republicans reclaimed Congress in the very next election (1994). Before that, when it happened with Carter, we got Reagan in 4 years. Everyone seems to think that something is going to "change" with an Obama presidency, but if he woke up white tomorrow he'd be the same as countless Democrats who have been voted out of office in the past. He's no different on policy than any other Democrat I can think of (indeed, the primary versus Clinton was more about character and background than policy). If he wins--and it's starting to look like he will--I forecast the American public will be just as disillusioned with the Democrats as they are presently with the Republicans. Don't forget that Obama is a member of the Congress that has record low approval ratings along with the president.

Thankfully, the vast majority of us aren't Libertarians.

srs thread pl0x. :)

I've been wanting to write something like this for a while ever since I heard about Palin's "real" america rants. Sorry if these thoughts aren't exactly coherent, it's about 12:38 in the morning.


I'm sitting here at the computer thinking to myself of all the things that Obama would bring once he gets elected to office in November. With the way things are going, it is likely that the Democrats will take a fair enough of seats and have majorities in both house and senate.

I think I read this in the Guardian, but the last time we had such a progressive influence in all aspects of the government was during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, and in FDR's before that.

I can only hope for all the sweeping changes that Obama will bring to this country. No longer will our Canadian neighbours to the north laugh at us for substandard treatment of the poor and broken. America will show the world that a nation is only as good as its least fortunate citizen. With troops being pulled out of the Middle East, I'm feeling a great sense of hope that bloodshed and violence will end, and perhaps even the extremists may put down their arms.

No longer will Europe have the best public transportation, the greatest dedication to its citizens, the utmost support for intellectual ideas such as secularism and rationalism. I see the eventual breakdown of ethnic and class discrimination slowly eroding away in the US, replaced by the light of progress and tolerance. I see cosmopolitan cities rise up as all Americans, regardless of creed, colour or religion work together and embrace all immigrants as we all work for the improvement of this country and fulfill our obligations to the rest of the world.

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.

I can't wait. :D

I disagree completely. I think you are a Canadian at heart. What ever happened to the ideas of accountability, limited government, free-markets, and meritocracy.

What obligations to the rest of the world do you speak of?

Thankfully, the vast majority of us aren't Libertarians.

If we all were, I think it would be great. None of this pinko tripe. Give me limited government and plenty of liberty over any other choice.

If we all were, I think it would be great. None of this pinko tripe. Give me limited government and plenty of liberty over any other choice.Almost, if they weren't so preoccupied with misappropriating some type of deific authority.

If we all were, I think it would be great. None of this pinko tripe. Give me limited government and plenty of liberty over any other choice.

Please note I italicized the L. I did this because I was talking about the American Libertarian party, which styles itself as libertarian but really isn't. At all.

I'm excited for this damn election to be over.

I'm excited for this damn election to be over.

Yeah, seriously, not to whine or anything, but hasn't this been going on for like a year? Up north we managed to wrap things up in little over a month. Seems like your elections just drag on forever. Then again, the democratic race for candidacy did take several months.

Yeah, seriously, not to whine or anything, but hasn't this been going on for like a year? Up north we managed to wrap things up in little over a month. Seems like your elections just drag on forever. Then again, the democratic race for candidacy did take several months.

Tell me about it. I used to live in the UK. It's like four weeks there.

While in one sense, I know what you're getting at, in another I have to point out the lack of significant prosecutions over not only the Iraq war, but the work supposedly done there by American contractors, US torture policy the bombing of Cambodia, the covert actions against Nicaragua, etc and so on. Then theres the Brits and their cash for honours, Iraq, exemptions for tonys cronies.....

Yeah, but a lot of that involves being in the right place at the right time. I'm looking more for the kind of don't ask, don't tell graft that requires nothing more than knowing how to make money appear and disappear regardless of your actual position.

God, I love studying accounting.

I disagree completely. I think you are a Canadian at heart. What ever happened to the ideas of accountability, limited government, free-markets, and meritocracy.

What obligations to the rest of the world do you speak of?

I dont understand why everyone seems to think that all the founding fathers wanted a "limited government. Because at least half of them wanted a big, powerful government, and some even wanted a King again...

Well, since you asked, these two parts:

+


Perhaps those conditionals say something about "true" and/or "false".
Whether you agree or disagree with a prediction does not make them objectively "false" any more than my believing in them makes them true.

My point still stands: Obama is no different on policy than any other Democrat. He and Hillary had virtually no disagreements on policy, and the primary between them focused more on character and background issues than policy. They disagreed on virtually nothing yet the party somehow managed to be sharply divided over which one should win the nomination. If elected, the only thing that will change (and granted, this has been a long time in coming) is the skin of the man behind the desk in the Oval Office. In the grand scheme of things he's not going to make any serious changes to how this country works. Educated, articulate Democrats have run for (and won) the Presidency in the past: Obama brings nothing new to the table aside from his ancestry, and that's a fact.

As for the second part, traditionally, the most restrained governments (on both the state and federal levels) have been divided ones. With a Democratic Congress that will blithely pass any and all of his proposed bills, he has the potential to be as damaging as Bush was for the first 6 years of his presidency. It is my firm and unshakable conviction that the best option in a two party system is to keep the government arguing with itself. Carter had a 25 seat majority in the Senate and a huge advantage in the House and it didn't bring us any closer to an Enlightened Utopia: neither will Obama, mark my words.

That was a horrifically bad article. More bullshit about the 'Chicago machine' and her constant whining about Friedman (seriously, will she ever shut up about him). (Hydeland said this about my pin up gal of the Left - Naomi Klein.):mad:
Hydesland I challenge you to a duel for insulting this fine example of Canadian womanhood. I leave the choice of weapon in your hands.
I personally favour flogging each other with wet rhubarb till one of us cries, "Hold enough."
I had to put up with Naomi crying into her pillow all night!!!

Lol @ Merkinz defnishun of soshulizem.

Whether you agree or disagree with a prediction does not make them objectively "false" any more than my believing in them makes them true.

My point still stands: Obama is no different on policy than any other Democrat. He and Hillary had virtually no disagreements on policy
Virtual is not the same as absolute. There are differences, however minor.

Further, the Democratic party is full of differing voices. Remember, the Democratic Party--and the Republican Party--are comparitive in size to entire coalitions of parties in other democracies, only combined into one party. As such, there are a lot of different viewpoints.

The overall line that comes out is not necessarily the exact view shared by each individual Democrat. Not even close.

, and the primary between them focused more on character and background issues than policy. They disagreed on virtually nothing yet the party somehow managed to be sharply divided over which one should win the nomination. If elected, the only thing that will change (and granted, this has been a long time in coming) is the skin of the man behind the desk in the Oval Office. In the grand scheme of things he's not going to make any serious changes to how this country works. Educated, articulate Democrats have run for (and won) the Presidency in the past: Obama brings nothing new to the table aside from his ancestry, and that's a fact.
No, it's not. You're ignoring the differences he brings in terms of character, in how he would manage the government. He's a different sort of politician, not your average power-monger.

As for the second part, traditionally, the most restrained governments (on both the state and federal levels) have been divided ones. With a Democratic Congress that will blithely pass any and all of his proposed bills, he has the potential to be as damaging as Bush was for the first 6 years of his presidency. It is my firm and unshakable conviction that the best option in a two party system is to keep the government arguing with itself. Carter had a 25 seat majority in the Senate and a huge advantage in the House and it didn't bring us any closer to an Enlightened Utopia: neither will Obama, mark my words.
He has the potential to be damaging, sure, but he also has the potential to be extremely helpful.

Honestly, Melkor, while I can see where you're making your assumptions, you're making them without looking at the qualitative differences between Obama and a lot of recent Democrats, both candidates and actual Presidents.

Besides which, I can guarantee you that he'll still be far better for us, both in terms of international view, prestige, and domestic policy than John McCain ever would be. If nothing else, we've still got that.

Name three differences between Obama and any other Party-line democrat, please. You talk about how he's a "different sort of politician" but there's nothing in his record or rhetoric to back that statement up.

I had a giggle at the "not your average power monger" part though, thanks for making me smile. If he desired no power, he would have no interest in the Presidency. I don't think people realize how vain Obama really is: he's written two books--both about himself--and has been on the cover of GQ no less than five times. He smokes but takes pains to conceal it, and he has clearly been groomed for a shot at the presidency since at least 2006. IIRC he was on Newsweek's first issue in 2005 or 2006, which tells me he's had his eye on the Oval Office for a few years now. "Not your average power monger" indeed. He sure seems like quite the reluctant candidate. :rolleyes:

I had a giggle at the "not your average power monger" part though, thanks for making me smile.
Didn't he start his career in Chicago's city politics? I don't think you last very long there if you don't have a power monger in you...

srs thread pl0x. :)

I've been wanting to write something like this for a while ever since I heard about Palin's "real" america rants. Sorry if these thoughts aren't exactly coherent, it's about 12:38 in the morning.


I'm sitting here at the computer thinking to myself of all the things that Obama would bring once he gets elected to office in November. With the way things are going, it is likely that the Democrats will take a fair enough of seats and have majorities in both house and senate.

I think I read this in the Guardian, but the last time we had such a progressive influence in all aspects of the government was during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, and in FDR's before that.

I can only hope for all the sweeping changes that Obama will bring to this country. No longer will our Canadian neighbours to the north laugh at us for substandard treatment of the poor and broken. America will show the world that a nation is only as good as its least fortunate citizen. With troops being pulled out of the Middle East, I'm feeling a great sense of hope that bloodshed and violence will end, and perhaps even the extremists may put down their arms.

No longer will Europe have the best public transportation, the greatest dedication to its citizens, the utmost support for intellectual ideas such as secularism and rationalism. I see the eventual breakdown of ethnic and class discrimination slowly eroding away in the US, replaced by the light of progress and tolerance. I see cosmopolitan cities rise up as all Americans, regardless of creed, colour or religion work together and embrace all immigrants as we all work for the improvement of this country and fulfill our obligations to the rest of the world.

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.

I can't wait. :D

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin

After McCain falls down, that's what you should be looking for.

I see rainbows emanating from the ass of your post...it's really weird.

Does the idea of Socialism appeals, at all, to Americans? Or is the US still scared that Socialism is a back-door for Communism? Would it be bad if one of the most powerful nations in the world becomes a socialist country? What say you, US posters?

Name three differences between Obama and any other Party-line democrat, please. You talk about how he's a "different sort of politician" but there's nothing in his record or rhetoric to back that statement up.

1. Obama has been practicing a strategy that encourages everyone everywhere to vote for him, in a grassroots way rather than the usual 50 +1 strategy.

2. Obama has, for the most part, not been practicing negative rhetoric, and when he does, his negative rhetoric has a different feel to it, in that it's more a case of "This is how it is" versus "He's an evil terrorist!"

3. He's more willing to compromise than a lot of Democrats are. Senator Clinton continuously talked about fighting Republicans rather than working with them, for example.

I had a giggle at the "not your average power monger" part though, thanks for making me smile. If he desired no power, he would have no interest in the Presidency. I don't think people realize how vain Obama really is: he's written two books--both about himself--and has been on the cover of GQ no less than five times. He smokes but takes pains to conceal it, and he has clearly been groomed for a shot at the presidency since at least 2006. IIRC he was on Newsweek's first issue in 2005 or 2006, which tells me he's had his eye on the Oval Office for a few years now. "Not your average power monger" indeed. He sure seems like quite the reluctant candidate. :rolleyes:

Well, I tried, anyway. :(

I had a giggle at the "not your average power monger" part though, thanks for making me smile. If he desired no power, he would have no interest in the Presidency. I don't think people realize how vain Obama really is: he's written two books--both about himself--and has been on the cover of GQ no less than five times. He smokes but takes pains to conceal it, and he has clearly been groomed for a shot at the presidency since at least 2006. IIRC he was on Newsweek's first issue in 2005 or 2006, which tells me he's had his eye on the Oval Office for a few years now. "Not your average power monger" indeed. He sure seems like quite the reluctant candidate. :rolleyes:

Oh, NOES. The Presidential candidate seeks publicity!! THE EBIL ONE!!

Does the idea of Socialism appeals, at all, to Americans? Or is the US still scared that Socialism is a back-door for Communism? Would it be bad if one of the most powerful nations in the world becomes a socialist country? What say you, US posters?If it happens, it happens. I'm in no position to stop it.
If it becomes a mess, we'll fix it. Or, we'll royally fuck it up trying to fix it.
Take your pick. :p

Does the idea of Socialism appeals, at all, to Americans? Or is the US still scared that Socialism is a back-door for Communism? Would it be bad if one of the most powerful nations in the world becomes a socialist country? What say you, US posters?

To be frank, the vast majority of Americans--and even the majority of left-winged Americans--not only dislike the idea of socialism and see it as equivalent to Communism, but outright hate it and fear it.

During the Cold War, we ingrained this belief into our society and emphasized everything that made us different from the Soviet Union. Unfortunately that resulted in continuing the harsh right-wing slant our politics has taken.

You can see it exemplified clearly in posters like Melkor Unchained, or Wilgrove, who claim to be some sort of Libertarian, when they're really not, because real libertarianism doesn't work the way the libertarianism of the American Libertarian party does. The American Libertarian party completely ignores social libertarianism and focuses purely on economic libertarianism. (And even there it falters, by propping up the concept of state's rights and other ridiculous notions better left behind.)

With that said, I do believe that the majority of Americans, if they were shown the benefits of certain socialistic policies, such as universal health care, they'd happily go for it. But there's this ingrained fear that one would have to overcome first. Think of it as, for example, a person who has a phobia of shots, but needs to get a lot of shots to treat an illness. They don't wanna do it, but once it's done, they'll be glad for it.

Obama is not all that and more. I doubt he will effectively be able to do anything and confidence in him would be lost quickly. I predict the same if McCains wins too, actually.

Name three differences between Obama and any other Party-line democrat, please. You talk about how he's a "different sort of politician" but there's nothing in his record or rhetoric to back that statement up.

Exactly. We're in the midst of the usual election year smokescreen - it is, as always, the "most important election in our lifetime," just as it will be in '12 and '16, and the candidates are all unprecedented in some aspect or another. We all believe that, right? :tongue: The only real certainty is that, no matter the outcome next month, the pendulum will swing back in due time. That said, I do love the season.

Does the idea of Socialism appeals, at all, to Americans? Or is the US still scared that Socialism is a back-door for Communism? Would it be bad if one of the most powerful nations in the world becomes a socialist country? What say you, US posters?

To hell with socialism.

I'd rather die on the streets than accept a damn government handout. I have pride in myself.

To hell with socialism.

I'd rather die on the streets than accept a damn government handout. I have pride in myself.

Well, luckily not everyone is so stubborn and foolish.

Well, luckily not everyone is so stubborn and foolish.

A pity most people seem to have lost their dignity and sense responsibility.

A pity most people seem to have lost their dignity and sense responsibility.

Because dignity and sense of responsibility do so much when your dead.


Really, not everyone who is poor is lazy or wants to be poor. Some people, you know, just have bad luck, and that $500 a week really helps until you find a new job, because you need to, you know, eat.

To hell with socialism.

I'd rather die on the streets than accept a damn government handout. I have pride in myself.

Have you ever been in the position of "die on the streets or accept a government hand-out"?

Have you ever been in the position of "die on the streets or accept a government hand-out"?

Probably not.


Look, principles are great, until youre dead. Then they mean jack fucking shit.

Have you ever been in the position of "die on the streets or accept a government hand-out"?
I can tell you that my family has been, and there is nothing particularly nice about having to accept welfare. It's not actually doing anyone any favours - it's a wretched way of surviving, and quite frankly anyone who can stand it for more than a few weeks scares me.

That's why I can't understand why some people who argue for an expansion of the welfare state present it as though they're doing someone a favour, as though they're helping the poor. Whatever reasons there are for supporting an extension of welfare payments, that one isn't one of them.

I can tell you that my family has been, and there is nothing particularly nice about having to accept welfare. It's not actually doing anyone any favours - it's a wretched way of surviving, and quite frankly anyone who can stand it for more than a few weeks scares me.

That's why I can't understand why some people who argue for an expansion of the welfare state present it as though they're doing someone a favour, as though they're helping the poor. Whatever reasons there are for supporting an extension of welfare payments, that one isn't one of them.

Oh please. Its nothing tlo be proud of, I know, but it is helping people who are down on their luck. Because then they can eat.

If anything what you say refutes the conservative boogyman that people on welfare are just lazy and dont want to get a job.

Oh please. Its nothing tlo be proud of, I know, but it is helping people who are down on their luck. Because then they can eat.
People can earn enough money to eat anyways. Welfare isn't for that, it's to allow people to keep a roof over their head etc without having to sell off all their posessions.

All I'm saying is that it really, really sucks. I know quite well that very few people would choose to lose everything over getting welfare money, but it does chew away at your person. It did for my father, and we were barely eligible for anything anyways, being newbies to the country.

And I know (because we're going through the same shit all over again right now) that having experienced it once, there is no way it'll happen again. There are modems being sold on ebay, savings run down, grandparents begged for money and all the rest of it. That's better than having to look into the mirror and see a welfare recipient.

If anything what you say refutes the conservative boogyman that people on welfare are just lazy and dont want to get a job.
Well, given that in Europe there are people who stay on welfare for years, and that there is a weird correlation in Australia between a cut in the period you could receive welfare for, as well as the amount you received, and a spike in claims for disability pensions, these people do exist.

But it's all fine and dandy for some people to stand there and say "we must pay more welfare", and imagine they're doing people a favour. It's different to actually be humiliated enough to have to take it. That's all I'm saying: welfare is a bad thing, a horrible thing. That the alternative might be even worse doesn't change that.

I would abolish the dole except for short-term cases (a couple of months max) and replace it with a guaranteed job. In Australia we have "work for the dole" programs. That's no way to build self esteem. Encourage the private sector to provide jobs but if they won't or can't, then provide 3-month contracts doing things like earning carbon credits (tree planting), developing eco-tourism, paid adies for the elderly and disabled, teacher-training programs. Park ranger jobs for indigenous people and people in remote areas (but they would have to reach minimum set targets - no more "sit down money".)

The government could and should have a role and it might cut down the selfish individualist ethos where some people feel superior to their own community and don't commit to it.

I would abolish the dole except for short-term cases (a couple of months max) and replace it with a guaranteed job. In Australia we have "work for the dole" programs. That's no way to build self esteem. Encourage the private sector to provide jobs but if they won't or can't, then provide 3-month contracts doing things like earning carbon credits (tree planting), developing eco-tourism, paid adies for the elderly and disabled, teacher-training programs. Park ranger jobs for indigenous people and people in remote areas (but they would have to reach minimum set targets - no more "sit down money".)

The government could and should have a role and it might cut down the selfish individualist ethos where some people feel superior to their own community and don't commit to it.

Yah, but part of the problem is that the natural rate of unemployment these days is fucking massive. There really isn't the jobs.

Personally, I would look to try and get something like a three day week. That way you could soak up a lot of unemployed. Bugger inefficiency.

Otherwise you end up having to create madey up jobs for people. And no-one feels good about that.

(Or then again, we could just promote laziness).

I don't think laziness is an option. People want to do meaningful work - but maybe a four day week could do something.

Education is a traditional way to soak up unemployment as is the military - but then you have to think of creative ways to employ the military that doesn't annoy the rest of the world. Disaster relief is one thing that springs to mind.

I don't think laziness is an option. People want to do meaningful work - but maybe a four day week could do something.

Education is a traditional way to soak up unemployment as is the military - but then you have to think of creative ways to employ the military that doesn't annoy the rest of the world. Disaster relief is one thing that springs to mind.

This is all true. The bottom line though is that there are too many people for the jobs needed.

If you want full employment, it has to be rationed somehow. I really don't have the answer, which is why I said we should look into laziness. Some people do hate work. Christ knows, a lot of them get jobs under the current system.

Whether you agree or disagree with a prediction does not make them objectively "false" any more than my believing in them makes them true.
It does, actually, in terms of information value.
Not about agreeing or disagreeing, simply about absolute value of existence.
Since neither of those instances came to pass, and rely on unsubstantiated circumstance - as in, not having come to pass - that safely puts them in the category of not true, even if they aren't decidedly going to be false in the FUTURE. For now, though, they're obviously false, being conditional.

Does the idea of Socialism appeals, at all, to Americans? Or is the US still scared that Socialism is a back-door for Communism? Would it be bad if one of the most powerful nations in the world becomes a socialist country? What say you, US posters?
I say the cowards in this country need to come to terms with what degrees of necessary socialism already exist in this country, but ....
i want too much.

Well, given that in Europe there are people who stay on welfare for years, and that there is a weird correlation in Australia between a cut in the period you could receive welfare for, as well as the amount you received, and a spike in claims for disability pensions, these people do exist.
Welfare is less easy available in the United States. It would be possible for the US to expand its welfare system without going as far as much of Europe and Australia.
But it's all fine and dandy for some people to stand there and say "we must pay more welfare", and imagine they're doing people a favour. It's different to actually be humiliated enough to have to take it. That's all I'm saying: welfare is a bad thing, a horrible thing. That the alternative might be even worse doesn't change that.
That seems reasonable. It's true, having any welfare at all means that something, somewhere, went wrong. That may be why US politicians are so wary of it; increasing welfare admits that not everything is getting ahead with their own gumption.

Hold on to your wallets, boys and girls. The liberals (socialists) are back in town.

Hold on to your wallets, boys and girls. The liberals (socialists) are back in town.

I would, if the free market hadn't stolen and burned my wallet into a small pile of monetary dust.

Obama is not socialist.

Hold on to your wallets, boys and girls. The liberals (socialists) are back in town.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

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

Please do yourself a favour and learn something. You'll be better for it.

Hold on to your wallets, boys and girls. The liberals (socialists) are back in town.

trollin' trollin' trollin'

I'd rather die on the streets than accept a damn government handout. I have pride in myself.

Now I remember why I don't mind people getting government handouts. It means there's nobody dying all over the streets and making the place look untidy.

Although, I have to say, I can't see your logic. Surely, whether or not you take the handout, if you're in a position to be dying on the streets you're still a total loser.

To be frank, the vast majority of Americans--and even the majority of left-winged Americans--not only dislike the idea of socialism and see it as equivalent to Communism, but outright hate it and fear it.

During the Cold War, we ingrained this belief into our society and emphasized everything that made us different from the Soviet Union. Unfortunately that resulted in continuing the harsh right-wing slant our politics has taken.

You can see it exemplified clearly in posters like Melkor Unchained, or Wilgrove, who claim to be some sort of Libertarian, when they're really not, because real libertarianism doesn't work the way the libertarianism of the American Libertarian party does. The American Libertarian party completely ignores social libertarianism and focuses purely on economic libertarianism. (And even there it falters, by propping up the concept of state's rights and other ridiculous notions better left behind.)

With that said, I do believe that the majority of Americans, if they were shown the benefits of certain socialistic policies, such as universal health care, they'd happily go for it. But there's this ingrained fear that one would have to overcome first. Think of it as, for example, a person who has a phobia of shots, but needs to get a lot of shots to treat an illness. They don't wanna do it, but once it's done, they'll be glad for it.

Thanks for that, Ky. It´s sad that so many Americans fear, in a way, socialism.

trollin' trollin' trollin'

According to you, anyone with a conservative viewpoint is a troll.
According to me, you're an uninformed fool!

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

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

Please do yourself a favour and learn something. You'll be better for it.

Son, I paid enough when the last liberal/socialist was in office. You weren't alive yet.

According to you, anyone with a conservative viewpoint is a troll.

Not at all. Just idiots who dont have anything intellegent to say, post blatantly false things, cant back up their arguements, and generally dont know what the fuck their talking about are trolls.

The fact that conservatives are more likely to match the above criteria is of no fault of mine.

According to me, you're an uninformed fool!

Case in point. Hold on, let me get my fire and acid.

Wilipedia????
You're kidding, right? You consider that a reliable source??
Fnordgasm 5 needs to broaden his horizons a tad..............

Son, I paid enough when the last liberal/socialist was in office. You weren't alive yet.

This has what to do with you not knowing the definition of the terms youre throwing around?

Wilipedia????
You're kidding, right? You consider that a reliable source??
Fnordgasm 5 needs to broaden his horizons a tad..............

Buwhahaha.

Not at all. Just idiots who dont have anything intellegent to say, post blatantly false things, cant back up their arguements, and generally dont know what the fuck their talking about are trolls.

The fact that those conservatives are more likely to match the above criteria is of no fault of mine.



Case in point. Hold on, let me get my fire and acid.

"....what the fuck their talking about"....should be spelled like this, junior.....
" "what the fuck they're talking about...." ".
Seems like you, again, are wrong. Do you have a tough time with English?

Buwhahaha.

Welcome to my ignore list.

"....what the fuck their talking about"....should be spelled like this, junior.....
" "what the fuck they're talking about...." ".
Seems like you, again, are wrong. Do you have a tough time with English?

Funny, considering this is probably the first post of yours with proper capitalization and punctuation.

Welcome to my ignore list.

Ouch. Straight through the heart.

I prefer to toy with trolls before I put them on ignore, but since you beat me to it, cutting my fun short...

srs thread pl0x. :)

I've been wanting to write something like this for a while ever since I heard about Palin's "real" america rants. Sorry if these thoughts aren't exactly coherent, it's about 12:38 in the morning.


I'm sitting here at the computer thinking to myself of all the things that Obama would bring once he gets elected to office in November. With the way things are going, it is likely that the Democrats will take a fair enough of seats and have majorities in both house and senate.

I think I read this in the Guardian, but the last time we had such a progressive influence in all aspects of the government was during Lyndon B. Johnson's administration, and in FDR's before that.

I can only hope for all the sweeping changes that Obama will bring to this country. No longer will our Canadian neighbours to the north laugh at us for substandard treatment of the poor and broken. America will show the world that a nation is only as good as its least fortunate citizen. With troops being pulled out of the Middle East, I'm feeling a great sense of hope that bloodshed and violence will end, and perhaps even the extremists may put down their arms.

No longer will Europe have the best public transportation, the greatest dedication to its citizens, the utmost support for intellectual ideas such as secularism and rationalism. I see the eventual breakdown of ethnic and class discrimination slowly eroding away in the US, replaced by the light of progress and tolerance. I see cosmopolitan cities rise up as all Americans, regardless of creed, colour or religion work together and embrace all immigrants as we all work for the improvement of this country and fulfill our obligations to the rest of the world.

And no hospital nor doctor will ever turn another soul away due to his or her inability to pay, as I hope America will finally stand together with the rest of the industrialised world and give its citizens the inalienable right of universal healthcare.

I can't wait. :D

Wow, you are very VERY foolish... You honestly think some sort of Marxist utopia is going to be created just because Obama becomes president? You need a reality check, bud... If Obama and congress even tried to enact what you were talking about, the U.S. would begin to tear apart. Bare in mind, you live in a country that is EXTREMELY diverse based off region... I could see the U.S. not becoming so united if that happened. American politicians have to remain fairly centrist to maintain relative harmony.

If, however, this did happen at the states were too cowardly to threaten reprisal against the Federal Government, then I'd move in with my extended family in Israel and never look back.. I'd use my Jewish ethnicity to gain citizenship in Israel, become literate in Hebrew (I can speak it, but I can't read it or write it very well), and I would never even visit the U.S. again... I refuse to be associated with a Marxist country in any way, shape, or form.

If it's one man in history I wish I could have punched in the face, it's Karl Marx.

Wow, you are very VERY foolish... You honestly think some sort of Marxist utopia is going to be created just because Obama becomes president? You need a reality check, bud... If Obama and congress even tried to enact what you were talking about, the U.S. would begin to tear apart. Bare in mind, you live in a country that is EXTREMELY diverse based off region... I could see the U.S. not becoming so united if that happened. American politicians have to remain fairly centrist to maintain relative harmony.

If, however, this did happen at the states were too cowardly to threaten reprisal against the Federal Government, then I'd move in with my extended family in Israel and never look back.. I'd use my Jewish ethnicity to gain citizenship in Israel, become literate in Hebrew (I can speak it, but I can't read it or write it very well), and I would never even visit the U.S. again... I refuse to be associated with a Marxist country in any way, shape, or form.

If it's one man in history I wish I could have punched in the face, it's Karl Marx.

Quit hatin' on mah homie Karl Marx!

Hate on Lenin and Stalin all you want, but leave Marx out of it. If Marx had been alive at the time, he would have been one of the USSR's fiercest critics.

Even so, your irrational and ignorant hatred of Marx shouldn't cause you to fret, because "American liberal" and "socialist" shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. You can hardly consider the American Democrats left of centre in any meaningful way.

You're kidding, right? You consider that a reliable source??
Fnordgasm 5 needs to broaden his horizons a tad..............
I would say you do as well.

"Liberalism" is correctly defined in the wiki article. Even though in the modern US it has come to mean "left of centre", that really doesn't accurately describe it. Early liberal thinkers like J.S. Mill, Locke or Rousseau really weren't "socialist" in any meaningful sense (certain contentions regarding the latter notwithstanding).

And so in most of the world, "liberal" is associated with individualism, usually in economic matters. In Europe, calling someone "liberal" means precisely the opposite of the left wing. In Australia, the Liberal Party is actually conservative.

And since this is an international forum, with a lot of people on here who know their history of political thought, when you equate liberalism and socialism you're bound to get corrected. No point getting all offended about it.

Quit hatin' on mah homie Karl Marx!

Hate on Lenin and Stalin all you want, but leave Marx out of it. If Marx had been alive at the time, he would have been one of the USSR's fiercest critics.

Even so, your irrational and ignorant hatred of Marx shouldn't cause you to fret, because "American liberal" and "socialist" shouldn't even be used in the same sentence. You can hardly consider the American Democrats left of centre in any meaningful way.

I'm a religious man and any person who calls for the end of religion is immediately on my black list. I hate communism even on paper... So yes, I will hate on Marx like I'm sure you hate on Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. Just because I hate Marx doesn't make me irrational or ignorant considering I currently have a 4.0 GPA in graduate school.

The fact that most Democrats are centrist or only slightly left (on the grand scheme of things) is why I doubt any of this is going to happen. Most Americans (the GOP included) are centrists, which makes any swing to the far right or left highly unlikely. My rant is mostly talking about if this kid's socialist dream came true in America.

I'm a religious man and any person who calls for the end of religion is immediately on my black list. I hate communism even on paper... So yes, I will hate on Marx like I'm sure you hate on Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. Just because I hate Marx doesn't make me irrational or ignorant considering I currently have a 4.0 GPA in graduate school.

The fact that most Democrats are centrist or only slightly left (on the grand scheme of things) is why I doubt any of this is going to happen. Most Americans (the GOP included) are centrists, which makes any swing to the far right or left highly unlikely. My rant is mostly talking about if this kid's socialist dream came true in America.

There is a difference between hating a person and idea based on social prejudices, and actually going the extra mile to understand that person's philosophy and rationally critique them. I have an entire boatload of criticisms for Karl Marx, just like I have a couple boatloads for Milton Freidman or Adam Smith.

I know you are ignorant of what Marx actually said from your listed reasons for your hatred of him. I do not doubt your intelligence, only the breadth of your knowledge.

There is a difference between hating a person and idea based on social prejudices, and actually going the extra mile to understand that person's philosophy and rationally critique them. I have an entire boatload of criticisms for Karl Marx, just like I have a couple boatloads for Milton Freidman or Adam Smith.

I know you are ignorant of what Marx actually said from your listed reasons for your hatred of him. I do not doubt your intelligence, only the breadth of your knowledge.

At heart, the most damning critique of Marx is that underpinning everything he said was a claim of objective, scientific rationality. It's deterministic, and I don't like determinism.

I'm a religious man and any person who calls for the end of religion is immediately on my black list. I hate communism even on paper... So yes, I will hate on Marx like I'm sure you hate on Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. Just because I hate Marx doesn't make me irrational or ignorant considering I currently have a 4.0 GPA in graduate school.

The fact that most Democrats are centrist or only slightly left (on the grand scheme of things) is why I doubt any of this is going to happen. Most Americans (the GOP included) are centrists, which makes any swing to the far right or left highly unlikely. My rant is mostly talking about if this kid's socialist dream came true in America.

Sorry but possessing a 4.0 GPA does not imply you´re rational and all knowing. Irrationality and ignorance have nothing to do with your intellectual capacity.
Hitler was considered a brilliant person, and look at what happened. 6 million Jews lost their lives and the 20th century saw one of it´s more devastating wars.

To be frank, the vast majority of Americans--and even the majority of left-winged Americans--not only dislike the idea of socialism and see it as equivalent to Communism, but outright hate it and fear it.

During the Cold War, we ingrained this belief into our society and emphasized everything that made us different from the Soviet Union. Unfortunately that resulted in continuing the harsh right-wing slant our politics has taken.

You can see it exemplified clearly in posters like Melkor Unchained, or Wilgrove, who claim to be some sort of Libertarian, when they're really not, because real libertarianism doesn't work the way the libertarianism of the American Libertarian party does. The American Libertarian party completely ignores social libertarianism and focuses purely on economic libertarianism. (And even there it falters, by propping up the concept of state's rights and other ridiculous notions better left behind.)

With that said, I do believe that the majority of Americans, if they were shown the benefits of certain socialistic policies, such as universal health care, they'd happily go for it. But there's this ingrained fear that one would have to overcome first. Think of it as, for example, a person who has a phobia of shots, but needs to get a lot of shots to treat an illness. They don't wanna do it, but once it's done, they'll be glad for it.

indeed. as a European observer, at least from what i see round here and elsewhere on the net and on TV, etc, so many of you Americans really do have a total fear of socialism that so often ends up with people doing the old three monkeys routine (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). there seems to be a strange notion that socialism = totalitarianism and endless bureaucracy. that said there are equally as many with informed and rational critiques of the left wing model, but so often there is still this underlying fear.

i'm not trying to provoke anyone, its just a wee observation - one that confuses me frequently as much of the EU is socialised compared to US standards, but the majority of the EU is rather prosperous and happy with our very mild socialism.


as a side note, i was watching The Wizard of Oz the other day for the first time with my g/f, and i was highly amused when the Wicked Witch's soldiers came into view wearing what was a stark immitation of a stereotypical USSR soldier's uniform, complete with fur hat and red epaulettes with yellow lining...

as a side note, i was watching The Wizard of Oz the other day for the first time with my g/f, and i was highly amused when the Wicked Witch's soldiers came into view wearing what was a stark immitation of a stereotypical USSR soldier's uniform, complete with fur hat and red epaulettes with yellow lining...
http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/img/photo/23_ph.gif
?
I don't think you're talking about the same thing that I'm seeing...

Wow, you are very VERY foolish...

Pot, kettle, black.


You honestly think some sort of Marxist utopia is going to be created just because Obama becomes president? You need a reality check, bud... If Obama and congress even tried to enact what you were talking about, the U.S. would begin to tear apart. Bare in mind, you live in a country that is EXTREMELY diverse based off region... I could see the U.S. not becoming so united if that happened. American politicians have to remain fairly centrist to maintain relative harmony.

Doubt it. Care to support any of this?

If, however, this did happen at the states were too cowardly to threaten reprisal against the Federal Government, then I'd move in with my extended family in Israel and never look back.. I'd use my Jewish ethnicity to gain citizenship in Israel, become literate in Hebrew (I can speak it, but I can't read it or write it very well), and I would never even visit the U.S. again... I refuse to be associated with a Marxist country in any way, shape, or form.

If it's one man in history I wish I could have punched in the face, it's Karl Marx.


Good riddence to you then.

I'm a religious man and any person who calls for the end of religion is immediately on my black list.

Looks like I should be on your blacklist too.

I hate communism even on paper... So yes, I will hate on Marx like I'm sure you hate on Adam Smith or Milton Friedman. Just because I hate Marx doesn't make me irrational or ignorant considering I currently have a 4.0 GPA in graduate school.

Which on the internet means jack shit. Im the Prime Minister of Germany. See, I can make claims like that over the internet too!

The fact that most Democrats are centrist or only slightly left (on the grand scheme of things) is why I doubt any of this is going to happen. Most Americans (the GOP included) are centrists, which makes any swing to the far right or left highly unlikely.

GOP is starting to swing far right...

My rant is mostly talking about if this kid's socialist dream came true in America.

And you know hes a "kid" how?

At heart, the most damning critique of Marx is that underpinning everything he said was a claim of objective, scientific rationality. It's deterministic, and I don't like determinism.

His supporters have, over the years, dwelt far to much on Marx's scientism. Marx's theory's might have the ring of determinism, but that's an extremely vulgar interpretation of historical materialism. In his own words, "Man makes history, but not in conditions of his own choosing."

"Liberalism" is correctly defined in the wiki article. Even though in the modern US it has come to mean "left of centre", that really doesn't accurately describe it. Early liberal thinkers like J.S. Mill, Locke or Rousseau really weren't "socialist" in any meaningful sense (certain contentions regarding the latter notwithstanding).

So when the wiki article states thats American Liberalism is a genuine branch of liberalism they are correct?

So when the wiki article states thats American Liberalism is a genuine branch of liberalism they are correct?

Classic liberalism had its left and right wings. Modern American liberalism draws more from the left wing of classic liberalism, like Rousseau and Tom Paine.

Classic liberalism had its left and right wings. Modern American liberalism draws more from the left wing of classic liberalism, like Rousseau and Tom Paine.

Yes, I know. I'm just sick and tired of hearing that American Liberals stole the name liberal or misuse the term when there was actually a historical progression of thought of some liberals of accepting more and more intervention in the economy.

So when the wiki article states thats American Liberalism is a genuine branch of liberalism they are correct?
Weird as it might be, it's an outcome of a gradual evolution of that "left" liberal line of thought, rather than some people simply stealing a word. The thing that originally distinguished liberals from other thinkers is now so commonly accepted that pretty much all of us are liberal in some way, shape or form. So really no one should be calling himself a "liberal" and just leave it at that. And the same is true for "conservative" as well - but I suppose given how US politics is dominated by this senseless system that puts neocons, religious nuts and libertarians in the same party, maybe they are perfect terms for Americans to define each other with.

Sorry but possessing a 4.0 GPA does not imply you´re rational and all knowing. Irrationality and ignorance have nothing to do with your intellectual capacity.
Hitler was considered a brilliant person, and look at what happened. 6 million Jews lost their lives and the 20th century saw one of it´s more devastating wars.

Sorry Nanatsu-Kun, but...

Godwin.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/MTG%20Forum/Hitler.jpg

I'd advise not to get your hopes up too much. Even though it's probably a shift in the good direction, no man can work miracles. Except maybe Jesus. But he's not running for President this year.

In other words, Obama can't redo completely the fabric of your society over just 4 years. If you want real, lasting change, you have to keep voting in that direction for long enough for the changes to not only take root, but grow into a real, lasting new way to do things.

If jesus ran for office I'm fairly sure he'd lose lmao . . .for one thing the religious right wouldn't think he was christian enough.

GOP is starting to swing far right...

Starting too????? wha?

Which on the internet means jack shit. Im the Prime Minister of Germany. See, I can make claims like that over the internet too!

Gee, Angela at least get your title right your're the Chancellor of Germany :p Sorry KoL had to call you on it

Yeah, seriously, not to whine or anything, but hasn't this been going on for like a year? Up north we managed to wrap things up in little over a month. Seems like your elections just drag on forever. Then again, the democratic race for candidacy did take several months.

It has been going on for at least two years.

http://thewizardofoz.warnerbros.com/img/photo/23_ph.gif
?
I don't think you're talking about the same thing that I'm seeing...

no, not the monkeys lol. the guards at the castle

Wilipedia????
You're kidding, right? You consider that a reliable source??
Fnordgasm 5 needs to broaden his horizons a tad..............

Yes, because Wikipedia *really* lies about the diffences between liberalism and socialism. Obviously every single editor and and contributor to wikipedia are involved in a vast conspiracy to trick the world into believing that socialism and liberalism are not identical like you think but in fact at opposing sides of the political spectrum!

It's a good thing you're not fooled, isn't it?

Sorry Nanatsu-Kun, but...

Godwin.
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/MTG%20Forum/Hitler.jpg

Nani ka?:confused:

Sorry Nanatsu-Kun, but...

Little heads up - It should either be Nanatsu-Chan or Nanatsu-Chama.

Just so you know. :D

Wow, you are very VERY foolish... You honestly think some sort of Marxist utopia is going to be created just because Obama becomes president? You need a reality check, bud... If Obama and congress even tried to enact what you were talking about, the U.S. would begin to tear apart. Bare in mind, you live in a country that is EXTREMELY diverse based off region... I could see the U.S. not becoming so united if that happened. American politicians have to remain fairly centrist to maintain relative harmony.

If, however, this did happen at the states were too cowardly to threaten reprisal against the Federal Government, then I'd move in with my extended family in Israel and never look back.. I'd use my Jewish ethnicity to gain citizenship in Israel, become literate in Hebrew (I can speak it, but I can't read it or write it very well), and I would never even visit the U.S. again... I refuse to be associated with a Marxist country in any way, shape, or form.

If it's one man in history I wish I could have punched in the face, it's Karl Marx.
Why? Karl Marx is not responsible for the perversions to his philosphical, governmental, and economic arguments and views that others did.

In fact, Karl Marx should be thanked for being the progenitor of the kind of thought that brought us things today like an eight hour workweek, being able to organize for jobs, and all the good stuff like that.

Thanks for that, Ky. It´s sad that so many Americans fear, in a way, socialism.
You're very much welcome lass.

And it is a bad thing, but as I said, we can get over it in time. We just need to handle it carefully rather than force feeding it down our throat as a lot of people here would seem to want.
indeed. as a European observer, at least from what i see round here and elsewhere on the net and on TV, etc, so many of you Americans really do have a total fear of socialism that so often ends up with people doing the old three monkeys routine (see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil). there seems to be a strange notion that socialism = totalitarianism and endless bureaucracy. that said there are equally as many with informed and rational critiques of the left wing model, but so often there is still this underlying fear.

i'm not trying to provoke anyone, its just a wee observation - one that confuses me frequently as much of the EU is socialised compared to US standards, but the majority of the EU is rather prosperous and happy with our very mild socialism.

It's a case of fundamental misunderstandings, and a simple lack of knowledge. I mean, let's face it: how many people are going to actually know what daily life is like in countries that are on other continents? It's hard enough to get people aware of what happenings in other towns sometimes.

I do believe if everyone engaged themselves in honest critical thinking and set aside their irrational fears, we'd get through it easily. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, so we'll have to take another tack.

Do we all get unicorns to ride off into the sunset with too?

funny, i wand a pink one :p

anyway, first of all america as a whole is not ready for a black president i dont mind but he will be shot within a few weeks of his election,

and i say those who are less fortunate did it to themselvs, and can get out of it all those homless people could get the graveyard shift at mc'donalds (they have no payments to make so they get to keep all of their money) and open a savings account and save money untill they have about several grand only take a few months to get a cheap apartment

Little heads up - It should either be Nanatsu-Chan or Nanatsu-Chama.

Just so you know. :D

That's what you think. :D

I can't wait for Socialism in the United States! I mean, why would I ever want to work hard or achieve? That's for losers. I can just be mediocre and let the government take care of the rest. They know best, after all.

That's what you think. :D

Yes, I do think, Gallo-San. ;)

That's what you think. :D

It is -chan or -chama, Gallo-senpai. The prefix -kun is used for children and good but not entirely intimate friends. (male too)

It is -chan or -chama, Gallo-senpai. The prefix -kun is used for children and good but not entirely intimate friends. (male too)

See? I've been learning. Yuki-Chan has been a great help with learning how to address people. :)

I can't wait for Socialism in the United States! I mean, why would I ever want to work hard or achieve? That's for losers. I can just be mediocre and let the government take care of the rest. They know best, after all.

It must be nice not knowing anything.

It is -chan or -chama, Gallo-senpai. The prefix -kun is used for children and good but not entirely intimate friends. (male too)

It's also used as a shorten form of the honorific kohai - because using kohai directly is considered somewhat rude.

It's also used as a shorten form of the honorific kohai - because using kohai directly is considered somewhat rude.

Kohai, if the person has given you his/her consent, can be used directly. I gave you consent some time ago, didn't I?:wink:

Kohai, if the person has given you his/her consent, can be used directly. I gave you consent some time ago, didn't I?:wink:

I have a poor memory, Nanatsu-kohai.

I have a poor memory, Nanatsu-kohai.

hehe! :D

I have a poor memory, Nanatsu-kohai.

Yes, because you're an ailing, old man.:D

Yes, because you're an ailing, old man.:D

Indeed. I'm about to trade in my cane for a walker.

Indeed. I'm about to trade in my cane for a walker.

That means I'm gonna have to start blending your food, making your meals into purée.

Indeed. I'm about to trade in my cane for a walker.

Or an electric wheelchair. :D

Or an electric wheelchair. :D

We'll soup it up and make it capable of doing 100mph.

We'll soup it up and make it capable of doing 100mph.

Pimp my Wheelchair! :D

http://www.pushingthelimits.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/chopper02.jpg

We'll soup it up and make it capable of doing 100mph.

And put a honker on it. The gods forbid you're stuck in sidewalk traffic.:D

Pimp my Wheelchair! :D

I want this to be my other one.

http://www.guzer.com/pictures/wheelchair_tank.jpg

I want this to be my other one.
*snip*

Johnny Five is alive! :D

And put a honker on it. The gods forbid you're stuck in sidewalk traffic.:D

I'll use the interstate.

I'll use the interstate.

And cause a huge accident.

And cause a huge accident.

Nah - the police will pull him over first. :p

Nah - the police will pull him over first. :p

Oh no, Galloism is a scary character. Not even the police would dare touch that.:p

Nah - the police will pull him over first. :p

I *am* the police, foo!

Oh no, Galloism is a scary character. Not even the police would dare touch that.:p

But Gallo-San is my slave! :)

*Cracks whip*

Oh no, Galloism is a scary character. Not even the police would dare touch that.:p

I look like this IRL:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/nazgul.jpg

But Gallo-San is my slave! :)

*Cracks whip*

Oh hohohoho, you got that one wrong. So so wrong...:D

Oh hohohoho, you got that one wrong. So so wrong...:D

That's what I want you to think. :)

I look like this IRL:

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/nazgul.jpg

I bet you do, and you're probably even scarier than the Nazgul king.

I look like this IRL:
*Snip*

Nah - this is you.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/sports/specialevents/blog/Dr.%20Evil.jpg

Nah - this is you. <snip>

My boss and I, when we were younger.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/vaderburgerking.jpg

I just wanted to use that picture

Technically we already have a few socialist programs in America. Also Tax rates have nothing to do with socialism.

Technically we already have a few socialist programs in America. Also Tax rates have nothing to do with socialism.

Don't forget America is also a Corporate Welfare State. Privatized profits, Socialized losses.

My boss and I, when we were younger.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/vaderburgerking.jpg

I just wanted to use that picture

Yes, you wanted to do that, and fucking disturb me in the process.:(



The King freaks me out...

The King freaks me out...

He is extremely freaky, but I will protect you. I've hired the hamburgler to keep The King away.

Obama is going to do all that in eight years (assuming he could be elected to two terms)
Wow....Just wow....Sounds like you need some rationalism your self.

He is extremely freaky, but I will protect you. I've hired the hamburgler to keep The King away.

The Hamburgler also freaks me out. I like the McD's Purple character. What's it's name?

The Hamburgler also freaks me out. I like the McD's Purple character. What's it's name?

Grimace. He has Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

:D

Obama is going to do all that in eight years (assuming he could be elected to two terms)
Wow....Just wow....Sounds like you need some rationalism your self.

If he gets half of it done he will be my favorite president since F.D.R.
A quarter of it will make him the best president we have had in thirty years.

Grimace. He has Irritable Bowel Syndrome.

:D

:eek:

The Hamburgler also freaks me out. I like the McD's Purple character. What's it's name?

You folks tempt me too much... :D

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z138/TheDarkDoom/mcdonald2vx0.gif

You folks tempt me too much... :D

http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z138/TheDarkDoom/mcdonald2vx0.gif

That gif always cracks me up!:D

That gif always cracks me up!:D

Yep, I have used it many times before. :D

Yep, I have used it many times before. :D

That would've been an amazing AV to use on NSG, IF gifs were supported.:(

That would've been an amazing AV to use on NSG, IF gifs were supported.:(

Something for LG, I think. I like my little Zero-Kun avatar for now. :)

Something for LG, I think. I like my little Zero-Kun avatar for now. :)

I like mine, it denotes my personality.:D
But that gif also proves that America is, in some ways, prepared for Socialism.:tongue:

I like mine, it denotes my personality.:D
But that gif also proves that America is, in some ways, prepared for Socialism.:tongue:

Oh, it does. :D

It must be nice not knowing anything.

Of course. I'm just a simpleton, obviously. How dare I have doubts that the government can spend the nation's wealth more efficiently than private citizens? Dissent will be a thing of the past in the new Soviet States of America. So will getting rich, since everyone knows that wealth and success can only come from oppressing others.

In all seriousness: To be fair, at least the leftists here are straightforward about the fact that Obama is bringing Socialism. I suppose that level of honesty worth something. I just don't care for that ideology. I'm one of those CRAZY people who likes less government. ;)

Well, I would say that Barack is a Socialist, but his agenda will not be put into place, the Dems are not that radical.

I hope that you're right, but I'm not sure that you will be. If the Dems control congress and the Senate, and then the White House, they might think that the Americans elected them because they want socialism (as opposed to because we're just all really tired of Bush and his stupidity). Chances are, they'll do everything BUT fight NAFTA, which is one of the only things I like about Obama. x_x

I hope that you're right, but I'm not sure that you will be. If the Dems control congress and the Senate, and then the White House, they might think that the Americans elected them because they want socialism (as opposed to because we're just all really tired of Bush and his stupidity). Chances are, they'll do everything BUT fight NAFTA, which is one of the only things I like about Obama. x_x

I would have to say that the American people as a whole do not in fact want socialism, rather they were seduced by the rhetoric of Change.

I would have to say that the American people as a whole do not in fact want socialism, rather they were seduced by the rhetoric of Change.

I agree entirely. Nationstates is the only place I know where there is a large percentage of people in favor of Socialism. It's a wacky place. >.>

I agree entirely. Nationstates is the only place I know where there is a large percentage of people in favor of Socialism. It's a wacky place. >.>

I've noticed

Of course. I'm just a simpleton, obviously. How dare I have doubts that the government can spend the nation's wealth more efficiently than private citizens? Dissent will be a thing of the past in the new Soviet States of America. So will getting rich, since everyone knows that wealth and success can only come from oppressing others.

OMG TRUST THE PRIVATE SECTOR!!!!


The private sector is just as incompentend and more corrupt than the govnerment.

In all seriousness: To be fair, at least the leftists here are straightforward about the fact that Obama is bringing Socialism. I suppose that level of honesty worth something. I just don't care for that ideology. I'm one of those CRAZY people who likes less government. ;)

If you really think Obama is a socialist, you either dont know anything about his policies or socialism. Or both.

Turn of Limbaugh and look up the facts, k? I wish Obama was a socialist. Itd make me like him more. But hes not.

Well, I would say that Barack is a Socialist, but his agenda will not be put into place, the Dems are not that radical.

Same as above. Turn of the Right Wing Noise Machine and get some real information.

OMG TRUST THE PRIVATE SECTOR!!!!


The private sector is just as incompentend and more corrupt than the govnerment.



If you really think Obama is a socialist, you either dont know anything about his policies or socialism. Or both.

Turn of Limbaugh and look up the facts, k? I wish Obama was a socialist. Itd make me like him more. But hes not.



Same as above. Turn of the Right Wing Noise Machine and get some real information.

Way to generalize. Who seriously listens to Limbaugh? I HAVE looked up the facts. Perhaps from your perspective of normal he's not Socialist, but from mine and many Americans, he IS Socialist.

And I never said blindly trust the private sector, but I honestly trust it more than the government.

Way to generalize. Who seriously listens to Limbaugh? I HAVE looked up the facts. Perhaps from your perspective of normal he's not Socialist, but from mine and many Americans, he IS Socialist.


Then you have a serious misunderstanding of socialism.

And I never said blindly trust the private sector, but I honestly trust it to be efficient more than the government.

Awwww.

That, and I trust in myself to succeed. I've been working my way up from having nothing, but I don't expect the government to give me a handout. I wouldn't accept it. If I can't succeed on my own, what's it worth? If I fail, I fail. I won't blame anyone else. Maybe it sounds crazy, but that's how I see the world.

We must the defeat the Stalinists so that we can save our Obamaists land.

*Sigh*

We must the defeat the Stalinists so that we can save our Obamaists land.

*Sigh*

Crazy person, you. =p

Way to generalize. Who seriously listens to Limbaugh? I HAVE looked up the facts. Perhaps from your perspective of normal he's not Socialist, but from mine and many Americans, he IS Socialist.

And I never said blindly trust the private sector, but I honestly trust it more than the government.

What do you think socialism is?

What do you think socialism is?

Quite a bit further to the left than the healthy balance that I would personally like.

Crazy person, you. =pI am what I am.:p

What do you think socialism is?A person who is in favor of public ownership and sharing of work and the goods produced.

Quite a bit further to the left than the healthy balance that I would personally like.

That's not an answer. What about Obama do you think is socialist? That he supports more welfare? The US already spends huge money on social welfare.

That's not an answer. What about Obama do you think is socialist? That he supports more welfare? The US already spends huge money on social welfare.True, at this point, the main differences between American and European esque 'liberalism' are that there are that healthcare and dental sectors have not been nationalized, yet.:rolleyes:

Though the concept of general taxe increases to give greater 'breaks' (really government handouts) to the poor. Though since 40% of US residents do not pay taxes as it is there would be a a need to greatly increase taxes, to the point the rich pay 3/4 of their income to the government when they already pay half.

That's not an answer. What about Obama do you think is socialist? That he supports more welfare? The US already spends huge money on social welfare.

We spend too much money on welfare, in my opinion. As to your question, there are several things that I find Socialist. Some examples are the fact that he's gone right out and said that he's in favor of wealth redistribution, or "spreading the wealth around," he wants to spend another trillion dollars of taxpayer's money on new government programs, he wants to expand government, and he's in favor of raising the capital gains tax (even though the last time they did the government actually lost money) for the purpose of "fairness."

He also supported the bailout. Granted, so did McCain and Bush, but I don't care for either of them, either. x_x

Though since 40% of US residents do not pay taxes as it is

Where did you hear this? I heard this before and it was shown to be false IRRC.

Way to generalize. Who seriously listens to Limbaugh? I HAVE looked up the facts. Perhaps from your perspective of normal he's not Socialist, but from mine and many Americans, he IS Socialist.

And I never said blindly trust the private sector, but I honestly trust it more than the government.

Good ol' Rush!
The voice of reason that balances out the day after laughing my head off reading this.

We spend too much money on welfare, in my opinion. As to your question, there are several things that I find Socialist. Some examples are the fact that he's gone right out and said that he's in favor of wealth redistribution, or "spreading the wealth around," he wants to spend another trillion dollars of taxpayer's money on new government programs, he wants to expand government, and he's in favor of raising the capital gains tax (even though the last time they did the government actually lost money) for the purpose of "fairness."


That doesn't make him a socialist. He still supports free private competitive markets, you need to learn the difference between welfare capitalists and socialists.

Obama is not considered socialist by any serious political analyst, the experts at Political Compass for instance placed Obama centre right: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Where did you hear this? I heard this before and it was shown to be false IRRC.I make a standard generalization in that by paying for a good you are giving more money then you get with the good, bad example I know but the most simplistic one I can think of.

What, it is really is that some 40 percent of the American populace have a net gain from taxes or do not pay taxes at all.

That doesn't make him a socialist. He still supports free private competitive markets, you need to learn the difference between welfare capitalists and socialists.

Obama is not considered socialist by any serious political analyst, the experts at Political Compass for instance placed Obama centre right: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

All right, all right. Let me rephrase to make everyone happy. He's far closer to Socialism than I can stomach.

That doesn't make him a socialist. He still supports free private competitive markets, you need to learn the difference between welfare capitalists and socialists.

Obama is not considered socialist by any serious political analyst, the experts at Political Compass for instance placed Obama centre right: http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

I don't believe that Obama is anything short of a communist.

I make a standard generalization in that by paying for a good you are giving more money then you get with the good, bad example I know but the most simplistic one I can think of.

What, it is really is that some 40 percent of the American populace have a net gain from taxes or do not pay taxes at all.

What point are you trying to make though? :p

All right, all right. Let me rephrase to make everyone happy. He's far closer to Socialism than I can stomach.

Yes, that's a far better way of phrasing it.

I don't believe that Obama is anything short of a communist.

Then you either have no clue what Obama's policies are, or have no clue what communism is.

All right, all right. Let me rephrase to make everyone happy. He's far closer to Socialism than I can stomach.

Seems like anyone with a conservative point of view on the forums gets eaten for lunch by tons and tons of closed-eyed rants.
Obama has been ranked as the USAs most liberal senator, Biden ranking third. Todays liberals are those who make corporate CEOs out to be monsters, simply because they outearn most others.

What point are you trying to make though? :pThat he has to stop saying he will TRULY lower taxes for approx. 95% of Americans.:)

As well, that as a good old fashioned free market man that I be allowed to conduct my affairs in private, with as little taxes as needed to prevent the French from coming to my door.

That he has to stop saying he will TRULY lower taxes for approx. 95% of Americans.:)


I agree that this is the case, but I believe this is due to the financial crisis making it an impossibility to lower taxes.


As well, that as a good old fashioned free market man that I be allowed to conduct my affairs in private, with as little taxes as needed to prevent the French from coming to my door.

Unfortunately, 'as little taxes as needed' are at least currently, rather high.

I agree that this is the case, but I believe this is due to the financial crisis making it an impossibility to lower taxes.



Unfortunately, 'as little taxes as needed' are at least currently, rather high.Let us avoid a New New Deal of we might face a far longer crisis. It is better to let the free market learn a hash lesson and make the Feds realize the error of their ways, e.g. Fannie and Mac.

Socialism is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as a system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods; the building of the material base for communism, which is therein defined as the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of production and substinence.

Now tell me I don't know anything about socialism....or how it is so closely linked to communism........and the end of free market capitalism, as practiced successfully in the United States.

Let us avoid a New New Deal of we might face a far longer crisis. It is better to let the free market learn a hash lesson and make the Feds realize the error of their ways, e.g. Fannie and Mac.

I don't think its worth it. Yes the free market will eventually correct itself, but with horrifying consequences.

Seems like anyone with a conservative point of view on the forums gets eaten for lunch by tons and tons of closed-eyed rants.
Obama has been ranked as the USAs most liberal senator, Biden ranking third. Todays liberals are those who make corporate CEOs out to be monsters, simply because they outearn most others.

Liberal does not equate to Communist...

Socialism is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as a system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods; the building of the material base for communism, which is therein defined as the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of production and substinence.

Now tell me I don't know anything about socialism....or how it is so closely linked to communism........and the end of free market capitalism, as practiced successfully in the United States.

If you link Obama to any of this, then yes, you don't anything about socialism.

I don't think its worth it. Yes the free market will eventually correct itself, but with horrifying consequences.Social Darwinism will do a bit of good.:tongue:

If you link Obama to any of this, then yes, you don't anything about socialism.

I link NObama to all of this......and I DO know alot about the differences between socialism/communism and the freedom of a free market capitalist society.
I'm one of very few who actually part-times as a Prof. of Political Sciences at a local college, now in my seventeenth year there. All across academia, those with viewpoints that are not politically left of center are chastized and many times not granted tenure if they try to teach, rather that indoctrinate. These forums have shown me that indoctrination not only exists, but flourishes.
Scary deal when individuals all march hand-in-hand in one direction, fearing to be the dissenting voice. Glad our Founding Fathers weren't quite that selfish.

I link NObama to all of this......and I DO know alot about the differences between socialism/communism and the freedom of a free market capitalist society.
I'm one of very few who actually part-times as a Prof. of Political Sciences at a local college, now in my seventeenth year there.

I don't believe that.


All across academia, those with viewpoints that are not politically left of center are chastized and many times not granted tenure if they try to teach, rather that indoctrinate. These forums have shown me that indoctrination not only exists, but flourishes.
Scary deal when individuals all march hand-in-hand in one direction, fearing to be the dissenting voice. Glad our Founding Fathers weren't quite that selfish.

I fail to see how this anecdotal rant has anything to do with whether Obama is a socialist or not.

I don't believe that.



I fail to see how this anecdotal rant has anything to do with whether Obama is a socialist or not.


Why talk to you if you don't believe me? Good night!

Why talk to you if you don't believe me? Good night!

I can still debate with you without believing in your credentials. Good night to you too.

I link NObama to all of this......and I DO know alot about the differences between socialism/communism and the freedom of a free market capitalist society.
I'm one of very few who actually part-times as a Prof. of Political Sciences at a local college, now in my seventeenth year there. All across academia, those with viewpoints that are not politically left of center are chastized and many times not granted tenure if they try to teach, rather that indoctrinate. These forums have shown me that indoctrination not only exists, but flourishes.
Scary deal when individuals all march hand-in-hand in one direction, fearing to be the dissenting voice. Glad our Founding Fathers weren't quite that selfish.

Of course, It's a Liberal-Commie Conspiracy and we're all in on it. :rolleyes:

Of course, It's a Liberal-Commie Conspiracy and we're all in on it. :rolleyes:

........but as long as there are those with a little sense, you'll not win.

Way to generalize. Who seriously listens to Limbaugh? I HAVE looked up the facts. Perhaps from your perspective of normal he's not Socialist, but from mine and many Americans, he IS Socialist.

And I never said blindly trust the private sector, but I honestly trust it more than the government.
Why?

You can control government by voting for people for office, by protesting, or using research and resources to pinpoint governmental abuse, or even run for office yourself.

You can't control private industry. Private industry does whatever it can to earn profit. That's the whole point. Unfortunately, that "whatever it can" covers a lot of abuses, including hiding or misreprensenting information, refusing to pay out on legally obligated things, etc tec etc...

........but as long as there are those with a little sense, you'll not win.

Paranoid much? Better adjust your tinfoil hat there, professor.

Good ol' Rush!
The voice of reason that balances out the day after laughing my head off reading this.

Yeah, hows his perscription drug addiction doing? And ask him how the under aged carribean prostetutes are.

I don't believe that Obama is anything short of a communist.

Thats because you dont know his policies or what communism is.

I'm one of very few who actually part-times as a Prof. of Political Sciences at a local college, now in my seventeenth year there.

No, no youre not. And if you are, its for a community college in some little backwater bayou in Louisiana were they teach that the south won the Civil War.

Why?

You can control government by voting for people for office, by protesting, or using research and resources to pinpoint governmental abuse, or even run for office yourself.

You can't control private industry. Private industry does whatever it can to earn profit. That's the whole point. Unfortunately, that "whatever it can" covers a lot of abuses, including hiding or misreprensenting information, refusing to pay out on legally obligated things, etc tec etc...

If your first point is true, explain why we still have so much corruption in politics? With two parties of robber barons who get to choose who has a chance to hold public office, how much control of the American people really have? As for your second point: first of all, since when did earning a profit become evil? Second of all, private industry is controlled by the need for profit and efficiency, as they must produce goods and services that people actually want or need. Monopolies screw this balance up, but that's why we have anti-trust laws. They just need to be enforced, which hasn't been happening lately.

Now tell me I don't know anything about socialism....or how it is so closely linked to communism........and the end of free market capitalism, as practiced successfully in the United States.
I don't think people are accusing you of not knowing socialism, they're accusing you of not knowing liberalism.

As for capitalism in the States, it's probably closer to the ideal there than in most places, but it's hardly a place where free markets rule, and hasn't been for a long time.

Socialism is defined by the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as a system in which the producers possess both political power and the means of producing and distributing goods; the building of the material base for communism, which is therein defined as the absence of classes and by common ownership of the means of production and substinence.

Now tell me I don't know anything about socialism....or how it is so closely linked to communism........and the end of free market capitalism, as practiced successfully in the United States.

Okay, you don't know anything about socialism.

Okay, you don't know anything about socialism.

But hes a professor of political science!

But hes a professor of political science!

And I'm Mickey Mouse

And I'm Mickey Mouse

So you did register to vote through ACRON.

Okay, you don't know anything about socialism.
I think the definition there is pretty good. You've just got to keep in mind that a socialist would define "producer" as the guy who puts together widgets with his bare hands, and the guy who designed the machines and the factory as something else (usually some kind of oppressive parasite).

And I'm Mickey Mouse

I'm Batman! (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=n4qgTk8Vfyc&feature=related)

So you did register to vote through ACRON.

No, that one was a fake

Okay, the other guy's gone. Nothing to see here folks, move along. These aren't the droids we're looking for. Lets all go the religion thread.

Why talk to you if you don't believe me? Good night!I remember you.
Why didn't you keep your first nation name?

"american hieritage dictionary" is written by the same idiologs who want you to believe that makiavellianism is freedom and everything that isn't makiavellianism is procustianism or worse. two of the biggest big lies in all of human history.

market forces aren't going to make anyone free, bring peace to this world, nor opportunities for everyone to find gratification. procustianism wont do that either of course. only not destroying the kind of strainge, wonderful interestingness everything would otherwise be, can or will do that.