It was brought to my attention that there was no open politics topic, and to comply with the rules I made one. So there.
Permalink

This guy for president :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4d_FvgQ1csE

"When I'm president, everyone will get a free pony."

Permalink

So, I feel that the Middle East is about to explode, thanks to one Einstein who decided to make an Anti-Muslim film on Youtube. Thanks a bunch you smart fellow for ripping apart the fabric of the modern world.

Much like Gavrilo Princip in WWI...
Permalink

Actually, the Middle East is just the aftermath fo Holocaust. 21.12.2012. Something has to happen.
Permalink

Actually there's is speculation that this isn't just becuase of that video.

And in my opinion, I don't think if it was the video it was a sufficient reason to act like animals.
Permalink

I can understand these people that don't have a lot of hope for their future with the high percentage of people unemployed, BUT the attack on the american embassy was too well organized to be only the fruit of the sudden anger.
Permalink

I agree, I believe thy are just using the video as an excuse.
Permalink

It is quite reminisent of the riots in the UK last year.
They used that man's death as an excuse to loot and burn things.
Permalink

Agreed. Look at the date it happened on. Look at how they managed to get into a high-security and defended area. Plus, people badmouth Islam all the time, so it's not like anything new and profound happened to anger them anyway.
Permalink

So I watched that movie 2016: Obama's America. I left the theater more than a little concerned.
Permalink

Obama will be much more anti-Israel after the elections, the only reason he hasn't been that way recently because he doesn't want to lose votes.
Permalink

My Parents just watched that the other day - They said that what they saw in the movie we already new from Glenn Beck.

Here's a cause for concern the Federal Reserve has initiated QE3, in other words hyper inflation and the economic demise of The United States of America (I pray that Romney can fix this). So buy your LEGO's now before it's $20,000,000 for a single set. I have $513 cash on hand, guess what I'm going to do with it?

--John
Permalink

I fully believe that there are Communists in the US government. I'm not sure what you mean by that last sentence.

(I moved are conversation over here)
Permalink

Nope, He's a D-I-N-O or Democrat in Name Only. He's a muslim, Blacks think he's a "African black" hence the reason they voted for him and will vote for him again (not all Blacks of course, but the majority will), but in truth he's a muslim black.
Permalink

What Hayden means is that the US government is extremely right wing. Even the 'left' is right.
Permalink

Yep, There are always going to be people like that, some people are without even realizing it, because some don't realize that extreme equality IS communist!
Permalink

The colour of his skin should not be in the equation.
If black people vote for him becuase he's black that's their choice.

But any intellegent voter will vote for a candidate not becuase of their hertege but because of their manifesto and policies.
Permalink

That's a big problem. We need an ally in that madhouse they call the Middle East. Another thing that has me worried is that he is reducing our nucleur capabilities so that we'll be on par with North Korea.
Permalink

Bricklink, because it is cheaper?
Permalink

Everybody is right! Muslims are terrorists, Germans are nazi, Koreans are nuclear maniacs and Kazakhstanians are backward shepherds!

I think there was a stereotype about Americans...
Permalink

Oh, please. There was no stereotyping there. The North Korean governmnt hates Western Civilization, and the religious fanatics in the Middle East are always stirring up trouble. These are facts.
Permalink

What is not to hate in western civilization? You are free to do what you want, you have everything you want, you know practically everything that interests you, you may say everything...

But on the other hand, you are told what to desire through advertizing, you have everything you are intended to have, you are given more information that prevents you from being too curious and you may say everything that is politically correct.

North Korea is the only country in the world where smoking is prohibited. Of course the government is opressive, but without democracy, you have less stupid people on the top.

The only thing that you have that others do not is the liberty to leave your country. Which is not a bad idea, if you are not too attached to your local landscape.
Permalink

Is this the reason to why most Americans on MOCpages are supporting an insane mormon for the presidential elections.

If I were you I'd be scared of someone running my country who believes in a talking snake.
Permalink

I dislike both Romney and Obama. My favorite candidate is Gary Johnson. Unfortunately, the media must not like him so he gets very little support. When I tell people I like him they always say, "Who's Gary Johnson?"
Permalink

If these people have so much energy and violence to expend, and they're mad for the reasons you mentioned, they should take ot up with their government instead of murdering any Americans they find. Killing people from the other side of the planet will not give them access to anything. But then there are the ones who hate Westerners for religious reasons. There isn''t much to be done about that because when it comes to religion all forms of logic and reason go out the window.

Political correctness, while annoying, is neccessary to keep the peace. What would happen if everyone went around offending each other? You could make the argument that people should just have thicker skin, but the fact is that they don't.

As for communism, if you had rulers who genuinely cared about the happiness and well-being of the people, it could work very well. I think that the isea of a government like that sounds very good. However, it never works out. People hate being protected from their own stupiduty.
Permalink

Of course the Middle East has always been a powder keg. It comes with the description of "Cradle of Civilization".

From the OPEC Oil Crisis, to now (even before) it's been waiting to cause larger and larger explosions. And a spark may have just given rise to an excuse to attack the embassies, just like how the murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand was the spark that blew the powder keg that was the Balkans.
Permalink

Hur... he gets my vote
Permalink

Yup 0.o
Permalink

I think anyone is better than Obama right now
Permalink

Thats my only concern about the guy :P
Permalink

I hope your not serious
Permalink

I think that this discussion will not lead us anywhere because of the different perception we have. Has a Québécois, from the only provine of Canada who is officialy french, we have more european values and we tend to be more at the left on politics. I don't say that the way of thinking in the States is wrong but we don't have the same view of communism and the way that the society should work.
Permalink

He's clearly mocking modern stereotypes.
Permalink

People these days need to chill the &@#$ out and realize that one dunce does not represent an entire country.

I'm looking at you middle-east rioters.
Permalink

Alright then vote for me.

But seriously though, I am a registered voter, that won't be voting for either Romney or Obama.
Permalink

Not necessarily. There was another incident like this that involved a guy in Florida burning some books.
Permalink

Mortally serious.
Permalink

It has nothing to do with any video or prophet, the Islam countries are a ticking time bomb.
Permalink

yeah :P
Permalink

I think its multiple time bombs, they just keep exploding :P
Permalink

Like saying the Balkan wars were a series of explosions? I was talking about a world-wide conflict ending with a nuclear fallout.
Permalink

I personally don't care what someone's religion is. There are billions of people fooling themselves about one god or another, so it's hard to hold it against people. You'd be hard pressed to find a politician who is not religious.
Permalink

Too true religion is something evry leader should have
Permalink

I think you misunderstood me. I meant that religion (or lack thereof) should not make any difference at all to voters.
Permalink

Political discussions are never really all that great of an idea. But seems like nothing really got out of hand in this instance.
Permalink

Yes. Subjective decisions have never lead to a war or economic crisis before. Exept, like, every time.

Truly religious officials are not capable of objective judgement.
Permalink

No one, religious or otherwise, is capable of objective judgement.
Religious officials are capable of moral judgement, which may or may not be the case with atheist officials.
Permalink

I will not discuss religion any further, but I will say that it adds another variable to impede one's reason.

And I know many, many immoral, yet religious people.
Permalink

Read this quote from a great man.



Does this not worry you at all.

Did you know, Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister who brought the UK into Iraq and Afghanistan consulted with his God before doing so?
Good idea?
Permalink

Depends
Permalink

Although i do respect your opinions here :)
Permalink

... Correct thread?
Permalink

Religion Had played a part in politics for hundreds of years.
Permalink

It also plays a role in the rules.
Permalink

It still links in, but ultimately I agree.
Permalink

Mebbe o.0
Permalink

Wait, I got the impression that you were a Christian...
Permalink

That i am... just not a Morman
Permalink

Wow. Religion AND politics. This is sketchy territory
Permalink

Well, 1 year anniversary of the Occupy Protests didn't go all too well.
Permalink

Not to be rude, but I feel like I need to point out that Christians believe in talking snakes too. Again, no offense meant.
Permalink

Where did you hear that from?
-LB Senior
Permalink

The bible.

Now hush these talks of religion, its against rule 9.2
Permalink

On what? You can't just say: 'depends' and hope your argument builds itself.

Permalink

Sadly, yes.
Permalink

All in favor of "Debate" thread?
Permalink

You shouldn't feel obliged to appologise for you opinion.

They don't appologise to me when I'm told I'm controlled by the devil and when I'm warned that I will be spending the afterlife being raped and tortured.
Permalink

No. Just come to my group. ;)
Permalink

You should not discuss religion in this thread.
Permalink

Agreed, i should not have brought it up
Permalink

no, that will only cause a lot of trouble
Permalink

Why do you say that? some of the worlds greatest leaders were religious.
Permalink

I kind of expected this, but i think this topic is getting out of hand
Permalink

Also some of the world's greatest tyrants were religious.
Permalink

That is why we need a thread where people can choose not to participate.
Permalink

They all had different opinions on whatever there faith was, Hitler for example said that killing jews was doing "the lords work" he just made that up, a lot of people will adapt there religion to fit them, i see that as wrong.
Permalink

That's the thing. Religion can be interpretted in many ways.

But this is getting off topic.

Perhaps we should start another political disscussion. Any suggestions?
Permalink

Tis' true :P


I'll let the admins decide that
Permalink

I don't mean a new thread.

I just mean a new topic for us to discuss.
Permalink

Topic suggestion....is Nick Clegg ever going to do anything?
Permalink

It's important to remember his party is the weaker part of the coalition.

Also, many of the Lib dem policies have not been made because the financial crisis was actually worse than what Gordon Brown and the previous government had said.
Permalink

After 70 years of doing badly, the Lib Dems get a chance and the screw it up by being the Tories pets.
Permalink

What do you guys think of the idea of the European Federation? I am smelling some fish with a side of fake-economic-crisis-to-make-people-desperate.

Also, it makes the whole nineteenth century and both of the world wars completely unnecessary.
Permalink

That would be the most elaborate conspiracy in history.
Europe definitely is in a bad position. The United States hasn't gone under yet since we have a massive economy, but unless someone who is fiscally responsible (Gary Johnson would be the best choice) and willing to make sacrifices gets into office, who knows what will happen.
Back to Europe, what could possibly make you think the financial crisis was a hoax, and who would benefit from that?
Permalink

Nobody has to participate in this one.

And would your "discussion thread" include anything that this one does not?
Permalink

You say U.S.A. has a massive economy and has not "gone under"? True, but as soon as somebody says "so... Where is those trillions of dollars that you owe us?", things will rapidly change.

On to Europe - why did I notice that as a possibility? Greece. Why is it in Europe? Everybody with a brain though that it was just to equalize euro with american dollars, but it might be more elaborate than that. Countires in bad condition (selling themselves and their sources of income, indirectly advised by the european parlament) are easy to assimilate.

Which brings me to the second point - who would gain? Every larger nation with a stable economy. Federations tend to speed up assimilation of minorities, as I have heard. But you do not see how easy it is to lose a third of your national territory, since all of the wars are being waged here. It is normal to be wary with my nation's history.

But as Ivan Cankar once wrote:
"Za hlapce rojeni, za hlapce vzgojeni, ustvarjeni za hlapèevanje!"
Permalink

You see, nobody who is more reserved about their religion (like me) can debate normally in this thread if we include religion.

And religious debates will (if they will) be open as soon as an administrator answers here or notices that there is an administration group.
Permalink

You make some interesting points. The decision to include Greece in the Union was questionable, but it is hard to see someone doing it for the reaaons you stated. Maybe I just don't understand, like you said. But this just seems hard yo believe.

Permalink

Yo yo yo, it is hard to beilive if you do not pay attention to it, man! Yo yo!
Permalink

Greece... Middle East... Asia... America...

World Order is collapsing in a way.
Permalink

Oops, that should have been to. The Y and T are next to each other on this tiny touch screen.
Permalink

Now THAT'S going to be a blood bath XD

Permalink

I'm relativeley worried. But I feel safe on my island here.

We've been promised a referendum on the EU if there is a major treaty change. But the government is pro-EU and the people are mostly stupid. So my faith in an 'out' vote is limited.

I just don't want to see a Super State.
Permalink

Dunno, the name sounds cool
Permalink

Intellectual oligarchy! It is probably the best system from today's perspective.
Permalink

A super state his benefits, we'd be a superpower, rival the us and china, better traffic, led dpendance,
However it has many more downfalls like loss of culture ,identity and national pride.

Permalink

While I would love that, and the stupid people would probably agree after watching ads (because that seems to be how they "learn" about Politics - through ads)...

But it would not only be hard to go through with, but there is no perfectly objective system for measuring intelligence.
Permalink

Useually I think sentiment is pointless. But in this case I think the UK would be better outside of the EU.

My theory is; the larger the state the less democratic it is.
Permalink

The more people the more complicated the process is.
Permalink

Precisley.

Though the EU would be able to comete with China and the USA I think some nations would be better off out.

Look at Switzerland and Norway for example.
Permalink

Which pony? Just not Pinkie pie...
Permalink

Look at mafia and oil for example.
Permalink

O.o ??? Oh, I geyat it ;)

Permalink

David Cameron is to appear on the Letterman Show tonight. I'm very interested in hearing the views of everyone on this.

@Americans/everyone else- without looking on the Internet, do you know who David Cameron is?
Whatever your answer, I'd still like to know what you make of this.
Permalink

I'm sure I've heard of him, but I can't remember who he is. I think he's British and as a result I'm thinking that he's from Doctor Who (a show that I don't watch).

Permalink

Haha! I knew someone will say that.

He's the Prime Minister!

Is that an example American ignorance or British insignificance?
Permalink

Dunno...

Is the fact that everyone in the US is called American but other North South Americans are not called such a sign of human ignorance?
Permalink

In a way, yes. However, because the US has America in her name that is why we call her citzens so.

If there was a nation called the United European Nations we would call them Europeans. This would refer to citezens of this throretical nation and those who lived on teh European continent.
Permalink

It was actually a rhetorical question.

Generally, people are not that knowledgeable about other countries unless they have some sort of interest in that countries. It's ignorance, yes, but it wouldn't seem that way to most people outside of the country that they're ignorant about.
Permalink

That's possibly just the American public educational system.

Here in Britain we do very much research in other nations' cultures and history.
Permalink

We do world history, not so much current politics, at least not where I've been.
Permalink

Cameron? The Titanic guy?
Permalink

Nope. He's Canadian.

David Cameron is the British PM.
Permalink

Can you tell me who the governor of California is? Or, the Speaker of The House of Representatives?
Permalink

Except the history is a very very basic overview.
We really do need to be made aware of current events as well. What's happening right now will shape the world we're going to live in. On the subject of education, does anyone else think that the department of education needs to go?
Permalink

Dunno. This stuff doesn't affect my school as much, as I go to a private school.
Permalink

Do you guys think that if you were to have a time machine, and you traveled back in time to a time before the time machine was created, would you create a paradox and you (and the time machine) would cease to exist?



I think you would.
Permalink

Permalink

Sorry, I was thinking this was the debate topic. My bad.
Permalink

I believe you're thinking about James Cameron.
Permalink

Jerry Brwon is the govenor. I'm not too sure who the Speaker is.


Permalink

The speaker is some idiot probably. A lot of the members of the congress are.

Anyways, did anyone hear about Obama paying people with free cell phones, to protest against Romney!? Ridiculous...

Also I heard about a couple who put up a handmade pro-Romney sign in the front yard, and people kept tearing it down and started threatening violence on them, just because they put up a sign in their front yard to show that they support Romney.

What is America coming to!?

If Obama is re-elected, I doubt that he will continue to support Israel. Tensions are alright becoming quite tight, especially with the Iran crisis.

Too bad AA is gone, I would love to involve some more Israeli politics to this thread :P
Permalink

Better question:

What is America already, for decades?
Permalink

We need one.
Permalink

We do, MR. MOD. So we can continue theorizing about hypothetical situations.
Permalink

The administration is discussing the subject of the debate thread.
Permalink

John Boehner isn't perfect, but he is better than Nancy Pelosi.

Yep, it's ridiculous. The good thing is, there aren't enough stupid people that can be bought with cell phones, to get barry reelected.

That's just sad.

I'm wondering the same thing. There are still true Americans here in the US.

Obama doesn't support Israel at all! He has never supported Israel and never will!

Sorry for my ignorance but what is the AA?
Permalink

"You have to pass it to find out what's in it." Are you kidding me?

He's an Israeli who used to be a member of this group, but he's no longer an FOL. He was great to talk to.
Permalink

Pelosi said that. And we still don't know what is in that tax.

Thank you!
Permalink

Have you guys seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJnAp3YxCCw
It's a parody of "Somebody That I used to Know" about Obama.
Permalink

I have to admit I much prefer Obama.

But having said that I am pro-Israeli to a degree.


What do you think of Iran, Flare?
Permalink

Why do you think that Obama will not continue to be allied with Israel? Why do you think Romney will? (I'm asking because I don't know).

About the smear/tearing down signs, neither would have been directly authorized by Obama, the first would be some campaign group, the second would be by individuals. Anyway, I suspect that those are just rumors and not true.

Permalink

I think that the government is controlled by religious fanatics who want to first wipe Israel off the map, and then America, and then make the entire world follow Islamic laws.

They probably will do more radical things than that, though.
Permalink

Obama has never been a fan of Israel. People who watch his interactions with Israel itself, and his behavior to Israel's enemies, will clearly show that he isn't a fan of Israel, and once re-elected, will just become more against Israel. If he was openly against Israel and for the Muslim nations surrounding Israel right now, then he probably wouldn't be re-elected.
Permalink

I agree.

Alot of people I know are against support for Israel. But I would much rather live under western culture than Shah'ria.

Permalink

Agreed.

Does anyone know why Israel is waiting before they bomb Iran? I heard they were waiting for US approval, but I kind of doubt that that is the reason. They have the means to carry out the operation, so if that's what they want to do, why wait? Not that I'm advocating bombing the crap out of all your enemies, but it seems that's what everyone is dead set on doing.
Permalink

Because if we don't have the support of the most influential nation in the world then we'll probably be condemned for doing it.

Also, if we have the US supporting us, Iran might (might) think twice before attacking us.

Anyone aware that here in Israel, gas masks are being handed out and they're teaching people about what to do in case of an attack?

Its pretty obvious that something is going to happen some time soon.

I already have my own gas mask. :3
Permalink

I heard Israel had already taken out Syrian nuclear capabilities before. But it wouldn't be reported that much in the West.

If Iran was to attack I think the US and EU would get involved.
Permalink

Iraq. And yes, that was at least 10 years ago I think.
Permalink

There are people here saying that why should we dictate whether or not another nations had nukes when we have them.

My answer to them is: 'Would you allow a severly mentally ill person to cary around loaded gun?'
Permalink

Why does nobody ever put themselves into Islamist skin? Israel was made after the second world war without asking anybody that lived there. We were learning about that in history class, but I do not remember it to the greatest detail, but it seems like there is actually a second side to the Middle East.

Of course, American propaganda will take the opportunity and make the whole western civilization believe everything they say, just becasue it is more probable than bombing your own country.
Permalink

Who was there before the muslims?

Keep in mind the British created Isreal which was then ruled by London. So if we're for Isreal belonging to the muslims why not say America should be controlled by the native aamericans.
Permalink

The reason that Isreal is a big deal is because the people already living in the area have political power.

The white conquest of the Americas was not because there was really nothing that the natives could do. At this point there's next to no way that they could take over the United States/Canada.

Same for Australia and other portions of the world.

Conquests and territory are sticky matters...
Permalink

This nation was there, that nation there... No Jew was there after the world war and BEFORE Israel was conquered by muslims?

And even if - this was a sudden change and is far more problematic.
Permalink

There were Jews before that.
Permalink

I know.

What I was saying is that there were families that lived all their lives there. ANd their grandparents before them. For a thousand years.

Just a thing to be considered. A slower process or an actual military defeat would be better than a political event that CAUSED military defeats. Jews got a chessboard with check on the enemie's king.
Permalink

Jewish people had been returning to the land of Israel since the end of the 19th century. What do you mean "without asking anybody who lived there"!? There were Jews that lived there, that definitely wanted a country of their own, and there were Arabs there, that also wanted a country of their own, except they didn't want the Jews around.

Two countries were created - a Jewish state AND an Arab state. The Jewish state was much smaller and was comprised of the areas of less value. The Jews were happy to receive land. The Arabs complained that they didn't get the whole thing. After the Independence War and the following wars (that were initiated by the Arabs mind you, not the Israelis), the Israeli territory grew and there was no longer such thing as an Arab State in the land of Israel.

Israelis have much improved the land and made it a much better place to live in. Now the Arabs want to take all the land that WE IMPROVED, that maybe that a couple of them were sitting in for a few hundred years without trying to make it a better place.

/endrant
Permalink

That's why Israel has earned my respect as a country.


Permalink

That's very true.

Exodus is a great book about the independence of Isreal (not the one in the Torah/Bible, the one by Leon Uris).

We should move on to another topic.

How about discussing Putin/Russia.
Permalink

When I was in Russia, he had some men take a bunch of schoolkids hostage on the first of September. All in all a nice guy.
Permalink

A big fan of music too, I hear. ;)
Permalink

I'm gonna watch the Presidential Debates tonight. I don't like either candidate, but I'd like to see how it goes.
Permalink

Could people please explain why they do not like Obama and why they like Romney to me? Nearly everything about Romney + Ryan seems so detrimental to me...
Permalink

Indeed, Romney seems very much out of touch with the average American. Unless they're all rich snobs, in which case I take it back.
Permalink

Every single one of us likes throwing money out of car windows and laughing at poor people (Mexicans).
*Sarcasm*.
Permalink

Tell me about it :1
Both of the candidates are not fit to be president in my opinion, though I would rather have Romney than Obama...
Permalink

Do you realize that Romney would give money to the rich, increasing debt? He'd also receive money from that.
Permalink

On a more 'less' serious note, I think this very intelligent American women would like to keep Obama in office :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
Permalink

She makes a lot of sense too, not.
People like this is why America is going down the t0ilet :1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhep2QOzM2s&feature=related
Permalink

Are you kidding me? This is not your typical Obama supporter.

Has anyone considered that she might be doing this for the Romney campaign?

Anyway...

That doesn't make Obama bad.

Permalink

I know, it's just most African Americans vote for Obama because he is the same ethnicity of them. I'm not saying Obama is bad, I jsut don't really prefer any of the candidates...

Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prtKw0y2WgU&feature=related
Permalink

Some of Romney's policies are good. However, many of them are so...well...
Permalink

I agree...
Permalink

I dislike both candidates. I'm a Johnson fan, but unfortunately his campaign hasn't picked up much steam.

As for why people dislike Obama:
I live in the reddest state in the whole country, so I get to hear all sorts of anti-Obama crap. Most of it is not even true, and it drives me up the wall when people are so slanderous. That being said, there are some facts that are beyond doubt and need some thought. For one thing, Obama has been in office for four years, and things aren't going so well. I realize that he inherited a problem, but he hasn't really done much about it. He also is adding to the national debt at an alarming rate, especially for someone who called our spending under Bush "unpatriotic". Romney doesn't sound like he'll be much better, which is disappointing, but it might be fair to give him a shot. After all, our current President has had a chance. Another thing that is concerning is the decrease in our nuclear capabilities. Don't get me wrong, I'm not the "Let's bomb the snot out of our enemies!" kind of guy, but I'd like to think that if worse came to worse America could defend herself.

Again, I'm not a Romney fan either, but I think that when it comes down to a choice you have to choose Romney. It's hard to argue with Obama's record.
Permalink

In what way is being successful bad? It's a GOOD thing that he is rich. It shows that he can manage money, although I'll be the first to say that spending your money and someone else's are entirely different things. Still, nobody should be criticized for earning more money than someone else - if you think that way, you're a socialist.
Permalink

I'm glad you understand that most of the stuff about Obama isn't true.

However, there are two reasons big he hasn't been able to fix the economy.
One is that he started with Healthcare. It's practically political suicide to do so, but he actually managed to do it.
Second is that after doing so the house was filled with Republicans.

Now he may have had faulty economic plans...


But if you listened to the debate and checked fact-checkers, you'd see that Romney totally butchered the truth. The guy is dishonest and his economic policies are bad.

He wants to (in essence) spend government to give rich people less taxes (including himself). Economists have proved that that really doesn't work.
Permalink

chuck norris is anti obama, true story
Permalink

I'm all for success, and definitely want to be rich someday, but I feel that rubbing your wealth in the faces of those whom you wish to rule is bad form. Then again, Obama botched his latest showing, so either of them are fairly equal in my books.
Permalink

You mean the debate?
Permalink

Yep.
Permalink

But Romney acted unfairly.

He kept denying things he said in the past which Obama brought up and saying that Obama's plan did things it didn't.
He also kept interrupting and had to get the last word in when it counted.
Permalink

In what way does he "rub it in"? I think it's impossible to hide that you're loaded, even if you wanted to for some bizarre reason.

Permalink

He says that he doesn't have to help 47% of US citizens (the poorest). He wants to give tax cuts to the rich.
Permalink

I'll take your word for it, I only caught a few segments.
Permalink

It's more how he believes that money makes a man better. Granted, smart and competent people are more likely to be well off, but there are a lot of heartless incompetent corporate businessmen as well. (And businesswoman, for all you overly feminist people.) Looking down on someone for being middle-class is not a good reason, for income can be affected by infinite intangibles.
Permalink

From what I remember, he talked about LOWERING taxes for everyone regardless of income.

I agree that his interruptions were annoying. He seemed like he had to bulldoze over Obama and Jim Whatshisname (who was doing the questions), and he definitely insisted that he get the last word. Then again, you don't make it to that stage if you're a pushover, but I think he went a little over the top.

As for Romney denying past statements, I didn't follow Romney closely enough to know what he said in the past. Did his tax plan actually cost $5 trillion in revenue? Obama kept saying it did, but Romney made it a point to shoot that claim down.
Permalink

I mean before that. He's been changing his stance all the time. Also, as I said, a fact checker could tell you that he's either lying or changed his stance again. The guy doesn't have anything solid to stand on.
Permalink

He is definitely notorious for changing his mind.
Permalink

I showed this to some friends (one of whom is extremely interested in politics) and they really got a kick out of it.
Permalink

Every brony will vote for him when he runs again.
He'll be elected.
Bronies will learn the heard way that real life horses are high maintenance and many will find them disgusting.
MLP will die.
I will be happy.
Others will be happy.
He'll be known as the greatest president in history.
Permalink

Obama has made the US look weak. Thats the reason why the Muslim states are growing in power.

I think Romney should be elected for at least this reason... think of it this way: "Have things improved in the last 4 years? No? Lets try someone else."
Permalink

If the U.S.A. has anything to do with islam world, have you noticed any revolutions happen in the past year?
Permalink

Revolution -> Dictators that were against radical Islam and relatively western are overthrown -> Muslim Brotherhood takes over
Permalink

Romney keeps changing his policies and/or lying to us. We don't even know what it is he wants.

Medicare has improved. That's something nobody could do.
Permalink

What? Romney doesn't keep changing his policies, I don't know what you're talking about.

Obamacare is one step towards a socialist US.

And if there is anyone who is wishywashy with his policies, its Obama. He's lied so many times, its unbelievable.
Permalink

Proof?

And watch the debate and go to fact-checking websites. He lied so much there.
Read articles on Romney's policies. He's changed policies so many times.
Permalink

Buy gold with it, hopefully.
Permalink

Actually, he did. His tax plan did cost that.
Permalink

During the debate, Obama was flimsy, while Romney knew how to answer. Obama is nothing without his teleprompter.

Note Romney actually cares about the constitution, and he thinks that the government should only have power according to the rules given in the constitution and the rest of the power is given to the states. Obama wants to make a massive central government which controls everyone's lives.
Permalink

Probably guns and ammo. I can't eat gold but I can hunt and kill something with a gun.
Permalink

Why is the constitution such a hot topic? Changes is progress. Stagnation is caring about the past exclusively. Even so, why do you think that Obama doesn't care about the constitution? He does NOT want Socialism. Universal healthcare exists in Canada and Europe and it's a good thing for poor people.

Healthcare is NOT mentioned in the constitution.
Permalink

Gold can buy you food. Guns can't.
Permalink

The constitution is the basis for the free country of the United States. Healthcare is not mentioned, because each citizen should be responsible for himself and not depend on the government to provide services.

As JFK said, "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

Permalink

So you're saying only things mentioned in the constitution should happen?

So you're saying that the people such as Janitors, who do essential jobs but earn little pay, don't deserve healthcare? That those who cannot find jobs don't deserve healthcare?
Permalink

Ammunition can buy you food as well. I can defend myself with a gun, but I'm not trained in the art of using gold coins in defense.
Permalink

Healthcare provided by your employer is different than healthcare provided by the government.
They don't deserve healthcare payed for by everyone else. If they can't find a job they need to learn and better themselves.
Permalink

A large number of people are not born into the middle class. They have no opportunities to go to college. Even middle class families sometimes have trouble sending people to college. And going back to college when you're 30 and peniless? Not a chance. Likewise, many companies will not pay for your health insurance.

If nobody helps those who can't help themselves, it reflects badly on all of us.
Permalink

So? Most of the most successful men never went to college. Not to mention the fact that most of them started with only a couple of dollars in poor homes.

Let me ask you a question. Did they have health care 150 years ago?

If they choose to be lazy and not help themselves, then they don't deserve to be helped with the expense going to others.
Permalink

So you're saying that because they didn't have health care 150 years ago, it's not a good thing if government provides it today? We didn't have a number of things 150 years ago that government provides today.

Most of the most successful men didn't go to college? That's not at all true. Yes, some people created marvelous inventions which made them incredibly rich, but most people are intelligent enough or don't have ideas like that.

These people who don't get healthcare are not all lazy. They're often less intelligent, or born into a bad situation. It's hard to break out of poverty. Without training, it's hard to get a good job which provides healthcare.

And would you want to live in a country without any janitors? Without any people doing layman's work? We couldn't function if everything was dirty and we don't have robots that can fulfill those jobs yet. If their companies don't give those people healthcare, then they're screwed. They receive a pittance of a salary, one that's barely enough to live on.
Permalink

Guns can get you food without paying for it.



It is funny how all of you talk about socialism without actually knowing, even if you know what it is, how it reflects on people and its theoretical basis.

I remember how my mother asked a man, when we lived in Russia, how life was in socialism and he said it was better then. And truly - statistics prove massive drops of life expectancy when changing to cappitalist order. I think that many people became unemployed, it was easier to take hoard money... As if anybody needs mountains of money... LEGO is one thing, but having less is like writing a found poem. +5 skill
Permalink

My view on most everything is becoming more and more Libertarian. Basically, if something can be left to the private sector it should be. Competition on things such as insurance or schools keeps prices down and innovation or new ideas flourish. Also, if the government doesn't interfere in buiseness it's easier for people to start up new ones, which is good for the economy. Incompetant people should be allowed to fail; the government bailouts took money from the useful institutions via tax dollars and used it to prop up incompetant failures, so that they could compete with the people who knew what they were doing. Does anyone else think that there is something wrong with this picture?
Permalink

The problem with your ideas is, that if the government starts giving free money and services to the poor, then it means that they don't need to work as hard themselves, because they receive free things for the government. These people will NOT be encouraged to work hard to earn a living, and more and more people will stop working to be content just to receive services and money from the government. So pretty much the people who have gone to the trouble of getting an education and a good job will be PAYING THE POOR AND UNEDUCATED TO DO NOTHING.

A janitor doesn't have to stay a janitor. He chooses to be a janitor. He could become something else, if he wanted to. He could save up, get another job, beg, steal, anything to get money to get himself a better location in life. Telling people "Don't worry, we'll just give you money" isn't going to encourage anybody to work harder.
Permalink

LOL I'm not going to be participating in this thread any more, all this arguing is distracting me from building my MO's entry!! :P
Permalink

You still don't get it.
These people CANNOT MAKE A LIVING. They lack the skills to do so. Again, you don't see my point. People like Janitors, Lunch Ladies at schools, and other laymen have jobs which require no skills but they're essential to making our lives better. You're saying that
they don't deserve healthcare.
At Deus, I wasn't talking about Socialism. I just don't see such a huge problem with it.
Permalink

I didn't say that. I just don't think its fair for taxpayers to pay for these peoples' healthcare... its not the government's business if people get healthcare or not.



Thats your problem - that you don't see a problem with socialism. America was founded to be, like, totally not socialist, yet you think its good to change to become the type of country that has always brought nations down.

And now I'm out of the conversation, for reasons in previous post
Permalink

Your extremist worldview is pretty nice, but why not just castrate/kill all incompetent people?
Permalink

I said that people who are incompetent, stupid, and such should be taken care of. Or are you talking to Flare?
Permalink

I was quoting him...
Permalink

Is that a bad thing?
Permalink

That's what I've been saying. Socialism is given such bad press because of the Soviet Union and Communist China.
Permalink

Yes it is a very bad thing!!!
Socialism has failed in every other country it has been implemented in. And NO IT WILL NOT WORK IN THE USA!!!

The Founding Fathers set up the United Sates of America so that we couldn't be ruled by the government, so that we would be a free people that could do what we want to.

Socialism will send that and this country down the toilet.

The Founding Fathers created the constitution so that if the government grew to big and invasive in our personal lives, we could bare arms against our government and reset it.

If Obama is elected for 4 more years there is going to be the first civil war in the USA! (What everyone calls a the civil war in the USA, was a war between the north and the south, nothing more.)

--John

P.S. I'm going to be gone most of today so I won't be able to reply to whatever you say.
Permalink

There was a war in the US and it's known as the Civil War. The Southern States wanted to secede.

India is socialist and failing because of its huge size. It's still improving.

People act like the founding fathers are some sort of Gods. They weren't. What they wanted was to be better than Britain. Britain was not socialist. They owned slaves. We don't. Progress happens, yet at the same time people want to stop any chance of progress.

Obama does not want Socialism.

The whole reason that the USA seceded from Britain was because they were protesting taxes. Do you know why these taxes were implemented? Because Britain fought a war for the colonies, saving them from the French and Natives. And what did the colonists do? They complained and complained. Britain repealed the tax but instituted another, because they were in debt from a war. And we kept complaining. The founding fathers founded a country whose sole reason for existence was that the people were too selfish to pay for a war fought to save them.
Permalink

Communism did nto fail because there was something wrong with it, it failed because the revolutions were triggered by individuals.

Communism is practically defined by perfection, so it is impossible to criticize.


"Mutual helpful relationships benefiting all citizens are the mother of all world's evil!"

- This is what you sound like.
Permalink

Me or them?
Permalink

If I meant a specific person, I would quote him or her. I meant them.
Permalink

Socialism and communism both sound great, until you realize that people won't work as hard if they are guaranteed a share.

Take Plymouth Colony as an example. The first two years of its existence, Plymouth used a community farm system to grow its food; everyone would work in the same field and get a share of the crop. The colony nearly starved. People decided that they were too sick to work, or that they weren't going to work as hard. Too little food was produced. So the guys in charge got together and decided, maybe each person should be held accountable for themselves, and they should have their own plots of land to tend. Big surprise, people started to work harder! When their success depended only on them, they worked much more, and in a more productive way. That year there was a surplus of food, and we had a Thanksgiving.

Lesson learned: People love to get something for nothing, and that doesn't work. You can have all these nice-sounding ideologies, but you can't change human nature. People want a free ride whenever they can get it, but the ride isn't free. Someone, or everyone, is paying.

Don't get me wrong, helping people out is great! Excessive entitlements and handouts are NOT good. Maybe our welfare recipients could clean up our community. Maybe we could raise the age limit on Medicare. I have a special needs sister, and she isn't going to have a high-paying job. Obviously, she cant't support herself. Should that task fall to my parents alone? Only partially - some assistance from the government makes sense, but it's not the responsibility of the rest of the nation to pay for someone else's kid. There's a fine line here.
Permalink

You're right. The USA isn't controlled by the government. It's controlled by the media.

Oh wait. There is the slight peice of legestration known as the Patriot Act.

I admit the US constituition is better than mine. But it is a bit of a joke. The First Ammendment is contradicted by the Assane inccident.


Are you insane? That's rediculus. There will only be a civil war if Fox wanted it in modern America. Be thankful you don't live here. Britain is much more controlling than the US.



Both nations had slaves. But the UK abolished slavery and even defeated it at home and around her empire. No Civil War was nessessary.
The US on the otherhand...
Permalink

I wasn't indicating that the UK didn't have slaves, I was saying that the founding fathers weren't some sort of perfect beings/gods (which is how they seem to be viewed today by many people in the US).
Permalink

Thanks to William Wilberforce. At least, if I remember correctly. Although the issue of slavery was a major factor contributing to the outbreak of the Civil War, I do think that there were other issues between the states. No matter, you have made a legitimate point of which I agree.
-LB Senior
Permalink

Sadly, they are percieved to be different to who they actually were.

What great men.
Permalink

Indeed, far from it. They were remarkable men, but fallible humans nonetheless. Blind acceptance in popular ideology and assumptions will prove dangerous when faced with greater issues.
-LB Senior

Permalink

+1
Permalink

Denmark has socialized welfare and education as well as high taxes and it's one of the happiest places on the planet along with Singapore and a community in Mexico.
Permalink

The problem is not even necessarily human nature, ti could be the effect of the modren society. I would ask some primitve tribesmen if they want to have anything.

And if cappitalism improves effort (most people who work hard, as far as I see, get little or no money, while people who are "educated", meaning they have either forged their diploma or cheated to get one, are not really helping any progess and are stealing from those who are skilled and/or dedicated), it has many, many negative sides. You can not bribe anybody if nobody has anything. You can not impede legal prosedures if you ahve no land to sue your neighbour for. You can not take up a position just for its sallary if there are no sallaries.

And the colony you mentioned... WHat would happen if people almost died of hunger? Would they just not work the next year? Communism requires a change of mentality, which was sadly unsuccessfully attempted by "communist" dictators.


I would agree, but what is their suicide rate?
Permalink

Statistically it does. And you can not just ignore it, it would make you the same as my country's media.
Permalink

Statistically it does. And you can not just ignore it, it would make you the same as my country's media.

Well, I do not know much about the subject, but happy people do not commit suicide...
Permalink

I think Suicide isn't just caused by general unhappiness, it's caused by stuff like depression.
Permalink

So it is not caused by general unhappiness, just general unhappiness? Suicide is a like a fad, like parties, like fashion. Mostly people who have everything do it, especially throughout history.
Permalink

They almost starved two years in a row. Their mentalities did not change.

As for the argument about the system being better without people owning property, that's what the Native Americans did. Even still, they were often having disagreements or fighting wars.

Also, if people don't get money for doing a better job than someone else, what will drive innovation? Would people work extra hard to improve on an existing idea or try to create something new if there wasn't an incentive? If everyone is the same, there is no need for excellence.

Permalink

Singapore and Mexico? Singapore has awful air, and Mexico is getting more and more lawless.

Anyway, isn't welfare fairly socialist as it is? I might just be biased because I think it's too easy to get it. And do you mean that they've made all the schools equal? That's terrible! Once again, if there is no competition, why would a school try to be better? Or could they even try at all if everyone is meant to be the same? Even here in the "free" country of the United States the government prevents schools from straying from the norm.
Permalink

I don't know much about their education system, but statistics show...that they have similar results to ours.

As for healthcare, insurance companies practically abuse their customers. Without government regulation, they have free reign to hide all the numbers and do what it is that they do.
Permalink

And other mental illness. Frankly, you have to be seriously sick in the mind to ignore that most basic of survival instincts.
Permalink

Let's talk about insurance. Let's say I own an insurance company and you do too. I charge high rates and give poor coverage. Your company is easy to work with and you perform well. All the government needs to do is stay out of the way; it won't be long before people figure out that your company is good and mine is bad. People will switch to your company and my evil and abusive company will die. People will only use good companies! The customers will keep the bad guys in check.

Obviously we need some basic regulations on the industry as a whole, just to make sure that not every buisness is mean, but for the most part the intelligent customers will do it for us.
Permalink

But it doesn't work out that way. It's incredibly hard to get information out of insurance providers. Market forces somehow don't affect them the way that they should.
Permalink

A few thousand people may get screwed over, but people do tell about their experiences. A friend of my family had his house burn down, and we had insurance similar to his. When he told us we should change our plan, we did, and just in time too. A little over a year later, our house was hit with a tornado and we were very pleased with our insurance.

Permalink

There is more to communism than just equality andthere is more to incentive than money. It is true though, that it was not successful yet. Now tell me, as we have an empiristic view over the current situation - does cappitalism work? With the high tensions, growing gap between wealth and poverty and with WW3 on the horizon, I think it did splendid.
Permalink

I guess that there is an incentive to help people. But that can be somewhat rare, and besides, who's going to fund research?

Capitalism has not been handled perfectly, I'll admit. But I think what we have now is better than where we'd be with communist control. Look at medicine and communication alone. Would these things have prospered under such a regime? I think not, because the government can't come up with everything. In fact, the government screws up lots of simple stuff.

Just out of curiosity, who would run your ideal communist nation?
Permalink

Big businessmen screw many things up too.
Permalink

At least they screw stuff up with their own money. And people are usually more careful with their own money than some else's.

For example, the government gave $150 million to repair a damaged village in Afghanistan. They hired a contractor who took 20% overhead. This guy hired another guy. He hired another contractor, who hired another, who hired another...
When all was said and done, there was enough money to buy some wooden beams. After the beams were purchased, they turned out to be the wrong kind. The villagers used them for firewood. If there is one thing the US government is good at, it's wasting money.
Permalink

That's not their fault. It's the contractor's. They do waste money, but so businessmen. The difference is that businessmen can close down the business and make a few million/billion and retire, screwing their employees for life.
Permalink

You don't think the government could have monitored what they were doing? And they wouldn't even have to do that if they didn't always hire friends and relatives to do everything, and instead went to the best workers like how the market is supposed to work.

And you can even argue that we shouldn't have been there in the first place.
Permalink

Well, I guess technology developed much slower in communist countries than in capitalism. Especially space travel. Oh, wait.

Capitalism develops popular technology like cellular phones, cars and televisions, because other things are harder to amintain when popularity is the only true government.

And who would lead the communist society? The answer is:
Look up the word you are debating. It is obvious now, if it was not before, that you do not know what communism means. Also look up capitalism, it might show you what you are defending.
Permalink

Hmm... How should I start?
Permalink

They probably knew, but when nobody has to be blamed and you get a few currency units out of it, why help?
Permalink