On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
There is no such thing as an Objectively extreme political position (ie a political position that is extreme in all societies).
Now there might be some positions that are objectively immoral, or objectively poor at achieving a certain goal, but I don't think we could get solid agreement on that.
The other thing to consider is what a Presidential candidate says they will do, and what they actually end up doing (partially because they may be lying, but partially because they have a limited ability to do what they want.. ie they still have to deal with Congress and the Courts)
Still, I don't think I've ever found a European republican.
This song, for me, symbolizes the Europeans' plea to Americans to vote for Obama:
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
Or it could also be that after Obama took office and the economy was at the "ka splash" point, there was a big backlash to "long forgotten conservative values" that seemed nonexistent during the time between 2000 and 2008. That sudden shift of believes(or let´s say the tea party and afilliates of Reps. made it sound as if it was the majority screaming) alienated many inside but also outside america. I am not sure that independents will be glad to have a pro corporate mormon as president or Ron Pauls extreme measures to cut spending. I am not saying Obama did well, because he definitely did not fulfill the messiah stuff you had hoped for if you followed the media coverage while he was campaigning, just stating that it seems that the right in america got more,how shall I put it, "extreme".
On January 20 2012 00:48 QuXn wrote: well im libertarian,conservative but no chickenhawk neo-con...but still i would never vote for the worst prez in usa history, obama
Take some American History and U.S. government classes. Then, if you still say that, we'll just know you're either stupid or trolling.
On January 20 2012 00:48 QuXn wrote: well im libertarian,conservative but no chickenhawk neo-con...but still i would never vote for the worst prez in usa history, obama
well it sounds like you are a lot of things, history expert not included among those unfortunately
btw can someone sum it up who's still in run for the position? Or guide me to a page/ page which has this information?
So apparently Santorum actually won Iowa by 34 votes.
Santorum is... meh.
I like Paul because he sticks to his beliefs. He's got some good ideas, and some less good ones. I like his ad campaign-- the R(evol)ution thing is pretty awesome. I think in the end I would vote for him.
Huntsman was admittedly my favorite, as he seemed the most open-minded of the bunch. Sad he left and that he had no chance at winning.
Perry does nothing but make Bobby Jindal look good. Oh the irony.
Gingrich is an embarrassment. He tried to impeach Clinton while he himself was cheating on his wife. Nuff said.
Romney is alright, but him appealing to the conservatives with his fairly moderate background makes him seem like a try-hard.
On January 20 2012 01:02 ticklishmusic wrote: So apparently Santorum actually won Iowa by 34 votes.
Santorum is... meh.
I like Paul because he sticks to his beliefs. He's got some good ideas, and some less good ones. I like his ad campaign-- the R(evol)ution thing is pretty awesome. I think in the end I would vote for him.
Huntsman was admittedly my favorite, as he seemed the most open-minded of the bunch. Sad he left and that he had no chance at winning.
Perry does nothing but make Bobby Jindal look good. Oh the irony.
Gingrich is an embarrassment. He tried to impeach Clinton while he himself was cheating on his wife. Nuff said.
Romney is alright, but him appealing to the conservatives with his fairly moderate background makes him seem like a try-hard.
Huntsman dropped his mask when he endorsed Romney, a corporate man to the bitter end..I think Huntsman would've probably been like Obama if he was elected, and if Romney gets elected...well...shit might go extreemly wrong extreemly fast.
Ron Paul seems ok, but lately he's putting kind of a show everyone to be elected or something like that ... I don't know what's up recently...I actually think Ron Paul will win the nomination and the election as well..call it a hunch...noting for you to understand why I say this but...Shit's got weirder and weirder every day so I'd say Ron Paul will win 2012 ... and also my huge paranoia acting up to me is that he is set up to win the election, his term will be a complete disaster...libertarianism would be totally destroyed for a period long enough that we enter in kind of fascist world state - YES, CRAZY TALK, but it's merely my hunch..I won't like act on this...still living life the same way...
Then again, if you ask me...anything is possible, as I'm getting surprised each day of some weird stuff going on...
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
Pretty sure gays do. And probably some more who don't like the widespread discrimination.
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
I don't know if you're just willfully ignorant, but it says right on my post that I'm from the U.S. Not only that, it's well known that the majority of Democrats are supportive of either gay marriage or a legal equivalent, and that the vast majority of Republicans (including every true Republican candidate) is against gay marriage and usually supports a federal ban. Obama has said he's against gay marriage but is for a legal equivalent.
And maybe to your sheltered, naive existence this is an inconsequential issue, but to the millions that are being denied basic rights to a happy life, this is a pretty big issue. You probably would've been one of those pricks back in the Civil Rights era that said, "Who cares about civil rights for black Americans? We have bigger issues to deal with!"
Oh, and to just blindly say that the country is burning down as a consequence of liberal fiscal policies is quite simply bullshit.
Hell, if it came to purely fiscal issues I might actually vote Republican, but on social issues, Republicans are an embarrassment to this country and the idea of actual freedom, equality, and a true separation of church and state, and myself and millions in this country find this to be a huge issue.
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
1. Many people do. 2. How exactly is the country "burning down", and how would it be the "consequence of liberal fiscal policies"?
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt?
None of these politicians running for president actually care about our country and economy, not once have i ever heard any of them say they will try and make big money banks on wall street harder to get money. Kinda sickens me how they claim we live in a fucking free country but if you pose a threat to say a big corporation, they revoke your freedom and pretty much your forgotten about. Take Mark Zuckerberg for example, he was named i think man of the year but really hes a sellout to capitalism but yet is honored like the second jesus. But you never hear of the people who give society secret information on the government or big companies. This is why i always cheer for socialism and democracy because Capitalism is really just killing our planet with oil.
Reminds me of the south park episode of BP going we fucked up the first drill hole, lets drill a hole in the hole!
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
actually wasn't it the repubs that made those liberal policies? at any rate the neo cons really are the same as orthodox liberals. they're a special interest corporatist party. I haven't really seen anyone nearly conservative, except Ron Paul who is more likely a Provincialist with all the "states rights" going on. But on the gay marriage thing: you wouldn't care about gay rights when the country is burning down? It's a dangerous slope where you trade rights for "safety" and "healthy economy". Of course since you are (presumably) not gay, you don't care. When will you care? When it affects you. I wouldn't stop fighting for equality even if we were in a depression. Perhaps I'm just an idealist though.
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt?
When you consider that we're spending more than 40% of what we're taking in as tax revenue, it's pretty obvious that we have a spending problem because we cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Considering what we're spending money on (mostly welfare / social program spending -- just pull up a pie chart), it's pretty clear that our fiscal policy is (and has been since W's administration) liberal.
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt?
When you consider that we're spending more than 40% of what we're taking in as tax revenue, it's pretty obvious that we have a spending problem because we cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Considering what we're spending money on (mostly welfare / social program spending -- just pull up a pie chart), it's pretty clear that our fiscal policy is (and has been since W's administration) liberal.
Are you kidding? We account for 40% of military spending done by the entire fucking planet and you're just going to ignore that and complain about welfare programs?
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt?
When you consider that we're spending more than 40% of what we're taking in as tax revenue, it's pretty obvious that we have a spending problem because we cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Considering what we're spending money on (mostly welfare / social program spending -- just pull up a pie chart), it's pretty clear that our fiscal policy is (and has been since W's administration) liberal.
I get the feeling you wouldn't question your beloved tax cuts, which are, last I checked, fiscally conservative and what got the US into this mess. Not to mention the immense de-regulation that let people in power crash the economy. But....that's freedom right? Not gonna touch the military budget either, are you?
On January 20 2012 00:15 xDaunt wrote: He's incorrect on the point of the candidates being "extreme." All of the republican candidates (other than Paul) are well-within the norms of American political values. Basically this is another case of a European looking at America with a minimal foundation of understanding of American politics and values.
They are extreme positions to hold objectively speaking. If they are commonplace inside of American politics or not is irrelevant to the matter. But I will agree to that, and I think that it's disgusting and sad.
The only reason why you'd think that they are extreme, disgusting, and sad is because you don't really understand them.
Positions such as supporting a federal ban on gay marriage are extreme, disgusting, and sad, objectively speaking.
Europeans are hilarious. They zero in on a couple relatively inconsequential issues and use those to paint their perspective of an entire political party/movement. Let me phrase this in another way that may be easier to understand:
WHO GIVES A FLYING FUCK ABOUT GAY MARRIAGE RIGHTS WHEN THE COUNTRY IS BURNING DOWN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF LIBERAL FISCAL POLICIES?
Oh, and in case you haven't heard, democrats aren't exactly stellar in their record of standing up for gay rights and gay marriage -- Obama included. Sure, there's a vocal segment of the party that is rabidly pro-gay rights, just as there is a large segment of the republican party that really doesn't care one way or another. Pinning this on just republicans is just willful ignorance.
Pretty bold statement/hyperbole. I suppose fiscal conservative policies had absolutely nothing to do with our massive debt?
When you consider that we're spending more than 40% of what we're taking in as tax revenue, it's pretty obvious that we have a spending problem because we cannot possibly raise taxes enough to cover the deficit. Considering what we're spending money on (mostly welfare / social program spending -- just pull up a pie chart), it's pretty clear that our fiscal policy is (and has been since W's administration) liberal.
Are you kidding? We account for 40% of military spending done by the entire fucking planet and you're just going to ignore that and complain about welfare programs?
And social spending accounts for about 2x as much of our budget as military (basically our social spending is about the same as the military budget of the entire planet)
Both of them are far too high. ie fiscally liberal (and tax cuts are also fiscally liberal)
EPT
