| Forum Index > General Forum |
Hey guys! We'll be closing this thread shortly, but we will make an American politics megathread where we can continue the discussions in here. The new thread can be found here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=383301 | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
BUT on the other hand Romney has profited ENORMOUSLY from our corporatist economic system (not capitalist) and I am extremely suspicious of someone who claims to change a system that's giving him $55,000 a day. I'm also fucking tired of Republican social policy. Give the gays marriage, stay out of a woman's uterus, and quit flirting so hard with theocracy. Even Fox News gets tired of their shit from time to time which is saying a lot. TL:DR I really don't even wanna vote this time around. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7881 Posts
| ||
|
scaban84
United States1080 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:45 paralleluniverse wrote: People were fired means jobs got destroyed. You don't need to be a Nobel Prize winning economist to understand English. The fact that you think this is a simply matter of English reveals your ignorance. If companies lose money they lose jobs, regardless of who does the firing. If I fire someone who doesn't contribute to the profitability of the company, sure 1 person loses a job. But it only happens quicker, and the increase in profit allows growth and job creation elsewhere. Left wing economists don't seem to recognize profit as a factor. That is where they fail. | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote: I'm pleasantly surprised to see 80+% of Teamliquid supporting democrats. Thing is that if you could remove non US posters, it would probably fall a lot, since Republicans are incredibly unpopular / hated in pretty much the rest of the world. Haven't met any European in my whole life who thought they were any good. Lol TL is a very Liberal site, even without the Europeans. Like it would be considered the fox news of liberals if it was a news source. | ||
|
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote: I'm pleasantly surprised to see 80+% of Teamliquid supporting democrats. Thing is that if you could remove non US posters, it would probably fall a lot, since Republicans are incredibly unpopular / hated in pretty much the rest of the world. Haven't met any European in my whole life who thought they were any good. You've hit the nail on the head. TL is an international community, with a large European base. One of the Republican talking points is how Obama is turning the US into Europe. If you are Republican, you generally agree with that sentiment and find it bad, if you are a Democrat, you generally agree and find it good. Makes sense that Europeans would like to be turned into themselves and find it good as well. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:53 feanor1 wrote: Lol TL is a very Liberal site, even without the Europeans. Like it would be considered the fox news of liberals if it was a news source. "the fox news of liberals" The reference you are looking for is MSNBC. | ||
|
Refused.
United States108 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:45 scaban84 wrote: How does this make the facts irrelevant? because you don't agree with the author? Lol. Facts? Many of those articles are sourced directly from Fox News about Obama being a Muslim sympathizer, or homosexual lover, or pro-abortion. I don't understand how any of these have to do with religious intolerance. I guess allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military is attacking Christianity and religious tolerance. Although according to most conservatives you are if you are not putting Christian values over all other faiths than you are being "religiously intolerant". Herp derp | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:53 feanor1 wrote: Lol TL is a very Liberal site, even without the Europeans. Like it would be considered the fox news of liberals if it was a news source. Just call it MSNBC. | ||
|
scaban84
United States1080 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:50 Biff The Understudy wrote: I'm pleasantly surprised to see 80+% of Teamliquid supporting democrats. Thing is that if you could remove non US posters, it would probably fall a lot, since Republicans are incredibly unpopular / hated in pretty much the rest of the world. Haven't met any European in my whole life who thought they were any good. Their views are based purely on Bush being a Republican, not a real understanding of US government/politics. | ||
|
Etrnity
United States88 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:47 Sweepstakes wrote: I'm failing to see how having a president who takes the idea of the separation of church and state seriously (much like our founding fathers) is a bad thing. Religion has no place in American government. The majority of the world seems to agree. You misunderstand, the founding believed that the government should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of people to follow their own religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" That does not mean that we cannot vote or elect based on religion, nor does that mean that our leaders have to be atheists. I'm a Christian and I'm voting for Romney (I would prefer Paul, but he's got no chance). Remember that our country was founded over two-hundred years ago, trying to escape the rule of England. The role of religion was still being figured out back then (as it is today), but the founding fathers favored people being able to have whatever religion they wanted. That's all that separation of church and state means. | ||
|
Sweepstakes
United States92 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:49 scaban84 wrote: I didn't say "leveraged buyouts" create efficiency, I don't know where you got that. Bain's business plan was replacing the management of companies and making them profitable. Efficiency contributes to profit. Profit drives growth, which creates jobs. To say it is job destruction is drivel. Please, just stop. And how do you think Bain put itself in a position to replace management? Hint: LBO Bain is an LBO shop, google it and educate yourself. I'm not being condescending but I've worked in the private equity field and I most likely know a lot more about the subject, feel free to state otherwise. And for those looking for support, here is some good research on the myth that LBOs create efficiencies: http://www.nber.org/digest/mar09/w14331.html Feel free to continue researching Romney's business background. While impressive, it may not be the saving grace for the US that he builds it up to be. | ||
|
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:53 scaban84 wrote: The fact that you think this is a simply matter of English reveals your ignorance. If companies lose money they lose jobs, regardless of who does the firing. If I fire someone who doesn't contribute to the profitability of the company, sure 1 person loses a job. But it only happens quicker, and the increase in profit allows growth and job creation elsewhere. Left wing economists don't seem to recognize profit as a factor. That is where they fail. The part you are ignoring is that often when profits increase, it doesn't actually lead to job creation, it just leads to the people involved having more money or more advanced (expensive) equipment being bought so reduce the number of employees needed in the long run. Everyone seems to agree that increasing the profitability of companies is good, but the discussion really seems to stem from what people think the companies then do with the money. Conservatives say that the money is then used to create more jobs, and Liberals say the money is used to make the people involved richer. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:57 Etrnity wrote: You misunderstand, the founding believed that the government should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of people to follow their own religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" That does not mean that we cannot vote or elect based on religion, nor does that mean that our leaders have to be atheists. I'm a Christian and I'm voting for Romney (I would prefer Paul, but he's got no chance). Remember that our country was founded over two-hundred years ago, trying to escape the rule of England. The role of religion was still being figured out back then (as it is today), but the founding fathers favored people being able to have whatever religion they wanted. That's all that separation of church and state means. When a politician wants to make a law and their reason for said law is that "the Bible says this is the way it should be" that is absolutely violating the separation of church and state. If a law ought to be made you need to be able to provide reasons for it absent a religious text. | ||
|
Thenerf
United States258 Posts
On April 19 2012 17:54 ioFilip wrote: I'm curious how many liquipedians would be in favor of Ron Paul as an alternative to both. I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. My job is over. Good Night! | ||
|
KiaL.Kiwi
Germany210 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:39 Etrnity wrote: http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=106938&utm_source=WallBuilders Mailings&utm_campaign=86f471756b-Given_Inalienable_Right2_29_2012&utm_medium=email Oh god that page is hilarious. Spinning what should be usual behaviour by any politican in a secularized nation into "religious intolerance". I'm not quite sure if you have a similar term, but over here that's what we call that "Realsatire", it's the moment when reality becomes so absurd that you can't parody it any logner. Actual on-topic: like the majority of europeans I'm completly baffled by how the republican party and most of their policies are actually taken serious. Sure, a lot of european politics are domintated by the same neo-con ideology that dominates the republican thoughts, but at least Merkel or Sarkozy try to hide those influences or downplay them. Granted, I wasn't really impressed by Obamas presidency either, but of course I'd rather see him than Romney winning the election. | ||
|
fritfrat
United States50 Posts
Intrade has had Obama at around 60% for a while now- it's interesting that people naturally lean towards thinking that their own ideology is more likely to win. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13849 Posts
I'm voteing for obama this election rommny is so bad that I'm willing to vote a guy whos managed to be both muslum and socialist at the same time. That takes still in my book. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:53 scaban84 wrote: The fact that you think this is a simply matter of English reveals your ignorance. If companies lose money they lose jobs, regardless of who does the firing. If I fire someone who doesn't contribute to the profitability of the company, sure 1 person loses a job. But it only happens quicker, and the increase in profit allows growth and job creation elsewhere. Left wing economists don't seem to recognize profit as a factor. That is where they fail. You're the one who started the wordplay. And no, firing people to increase profitability does not create jobs, because jobs have been destroyed, and virtually all the net benefit and savings gained is internalized within the company. If all companies fired people, then it may be profitable for them in the short term, but it certainly does not create jobs, nor does it make the economy better as unemployed people are too poor to buy their products. Of course it is good for the company to save money and be more profitable. But it's clear that jobs have been destroyed, and what's good for the company is not necessarily what's good for the employees or for the economy. | ||
|
Sweepstakes
United States92 Posts
On April 19 2012 23:57 Etrnity wrote: You misunderstand, the founding believed that the government should not be allowed to infringe upon the rights of people to follow their own religion. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" That does not mean that we cannot vote or elect based on religion, nor does that mean that our leaders have to be atheists. I'm a Christian and I'm voting for Romney (I would prefer Paul, but he's got no chance). Remember that our country was founded over two-hundred years ago, trying to escape the rule of England. The role of religion was still being figured out back then (as it is today), but the founding fathers favored people being able to have whatever religion they wanted. That's all that separation of church and state means. I fully understand this and knew someone would make the point. I see nothing wrong with a President who is simply taking religion out of the public square. I have had no experience with people who's ability to practice their religion has been impacted over the last 4 years. Basically, the issue can be summed up by abortion. I personally believe that if my hypothetical wife wishes to half an abortion than she should be able to. This would be in the best interest of her life and health, and would have zero impact on the Christian down the road who can continue to practice their faith unimpeded. This may come across incorrectly, but I think politicians should govern as if religion does not exist. I just thought of that and I'm sure there are instances where that is wrong but that is a general feeling of mine. | ||
|
Klondikebar
United States2227 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:01 fritfrat wrote: I am not surprised at the voting percentages, because of the europeans voting, but I am surprised at the "who do you think will win" poll! Intrade has had Obama at around 60% for a while now- it's interesting that people naturally lean towards thinking that their own ideology is more likely to win. Incumbent presidents have an obscene win rate. Obama is starting this game with like a 75% chance to win. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
RSL Revival
herO vs sOs
Zoun vs Clem
Replay Cast
The PondCast
RSL Revival
Harstem vs SHIN
Solar vs Cham
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Reynor vs Scarlett
ShoWTimE vs Classic
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
SC Evo League
Road to EWC
Circuito Brasileiro de…
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
