|
|
On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama.
Why?
|
On April 20 2012 01:00 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:51 liberal wrote:On April 20 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2012 00:24 scaban84 wrote:
Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US.
When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea. Everything about this post is so incredibly wrong that it's all hilarious. Do you genuinely think the debate you're having over the role of government is radical and new? I'll tell you why the rest of Europe doesn't argue so much about that stuff. It's because we did our arguing about it decades ago and arrived upon a consensus which we were all reasonably happy with. America isn't pushing new grounds and it hasn't been since the Revolutionary era. Since then it has been reactionary and primitive, a fledgling nation trying to define itself in a much older world. Europeans disagree on trivial matters?!?! Abortion is apparently a huge debate in America. Flag burning too. Gays in the military. These are not big or complicated questions, they're questions that the rest of the world doesn't begin to care about because they're so incredibly simple and childish. The foundation myth that Americans buy into where they're cutting new ground and pushing new frontiers for human freedom and expression is really quite laughable. The entire history of the 20th Century was the rest of the civilised world arguing over the role of government with relation to economic liberty from the great depression on to the postwar European social democratic consensus in Western Europe and the Soviet bloc in the East. Do you honestly believe that the petty debates between American ideologues have any relevance to the understanding of these questions for a European? Come on now... You are completely twisting his point out of recognition. The "big questions" he was referencing has nothing at all to do with flag burning or homosexuality or the others you brought up. The big questions relate to the role the government should play in a citizens life. You stated that Europe has already decided these questions, so you are agreeing with his central premise, that Europe has answered it's big questions and the US is still debating them. It was a nice editorial though, just don't twist people's comments completely out of context. It just amuses me that the outlook of many Americans seems comparable to that of a teenager now telling their father who grew up in the 80s listening to punk that they wouldn't understand music. The triumph of unabated capitalism has been and gone, hell, we had the East India Company take over entire provinces and act as a private company with shareholders which governed states and levied taxes. We had the development of class consciousness, the struggle for pensions and a basic welfare net and the rest of it over a hundred years ago. Whenever Americans think they're pushing new grounds on the debate about the role of government in the economy I just imagine a silly teenager going "you don't get it!!".
It amuses me how people can't differentiate between corporatism, capitalism, and kleptocracy. The East India Company was not a private company...it was it's own government. It hardly counts as an example of free market failure. Private companies don't have their own armies, they don't levy taxes, and they don't take over provinces.
I get that Europe is doing it's own thing. But the "been there, done that" attitude is just as obnoxious as the "you just don't get it!" attitude.
BTW, you really have it all figured out? How's dat Euro workin for ya?
P.S. Although I will admit the UK is pretty well put together as far as European countries go.
|
On April 20 2012 01:04 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:00 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2012 00:51 liberal wrote:On April 20 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2012 00:24 scaban84 wrote:
Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US.
When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea. Everything about this post is so incredibly wrong that it's all hilarious. Do you genuinely think the debate you're having over the role of government is radical and new? I'll tell you why the rest of Europe doesn't argue so much about that stuff. It's because we did our arguing about it decades ago and arrived upon a consensus which we were all reasonably happy with. America isn't pushing new grounds and it hasn't been since the Revolutionary era. Since then it has been reactionary and primitive, a fledgling nation trying to define itself in a much older world. Europeans disagree on trivial matters?!?! Abortion is apparently a huge debate in America. Flag burning too. Gays in the military. These are not big or complicated questions, they're questions that the rest of the world doesn't begin to care about because they're so incredibly simple and childish. The foundation myth that Americans buy into where they're cutting new ground and pushing new frontiers for human freedom and expression is really quite laughable. The entire history of the 20th Century was the rest of the civilised world arguing over the role of government with relation to economic liberty from the great depression on to the postwar European social democratic consensus in Western Europe and the Soviet bloc in the East. Do you honestly believe that the petty debates between American ideologues have any relevance to the understanding of these questions for a European? Come on now... You are completely twisting his point out of recognition. The "big questions" he was referencing has nothing at all to do with flag burning or homosexuality or the others you brought up. The big questions relate to the role the government should play in a citizens life. You stated that Europe has already decided these questions, so you are agreeing with his central premise, that Europe has answered it's big questions and the US is still debating them. It was a nice editorial though, just don't twist people's comments completely out of context. It just amuses me that the outlook of many Americans seems comparable to that of a teenager now telling their father who grew up in the 80s listening to punk that they wouldn't understand music. The triumph of unabated capitalism has been and gone, hell, we had the East India Company take over entire provinces and act as a private company with shareholders which governed states and levied taxes. We had the development of class consciousness, the struggle for pensions and a basic welfare net and the rest of it over a hundred years ago. Whenever Americans think they're pushing new grounds on the debate about the role of government in the economy I just imagine a silly teenager going "you don't get it!!". It amuses me how people can't differentiate between corporatism, capitalism, and kleptocracy. The East India Company was not a private company...it was it's own government. It hardly counts as an example of free market failure. Private companies don't have their own armies, they don't levy taxes, and they don't take over provinces. I get that Europe is doing it's own thing. But the "been there, done that" attitude is just as obnoxious as the "you just don't get it!" attitude. BTW, you really have it all figured out? How's dat Euro workin for ya? P.S. Although I will admit the UK is pretty well put together as far as European countries go.
Wouldn't trade it for a dollar.
|
The only thing we know about Romney at the moment is that he will do anything for an extra vote, even coming changing his views on popular events 2, even 3 times in the same night...
When Romney finds who he is and what he stands for then decides to let the rest of us know, then I'll judge him but for now he's just whoever he think you'll vote for.
|
It's funny how little people pay attention, and how willing they are to go along with a narrative they don't even know exists.
|
United States43598 Posts
On April 20 2012 00:57 scaban84 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2012 00:24 scaban84 wrote:
Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US.
When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea. Everything about this post is so incredibly wrong that it's all hilarious. Do you genuinely think the debate you're having over the role of government is radical and new? I'll tell you why the rest of Europe doesn't argue so much about that stuff. It's because we did our arguing about it decades ago and arrived upon a consensus which we were all reasonably happy with. America isn't pushing new grounds and it hasn't been since the Revolutionary era. Since then it has been reactionary and primitive, a fledgling nation trying to define itself in a much older world. Europeans disagree on trivial matters?!?! Abortion is apparently a huge debate in America. Flag burning too. Gays in the military. These are not big or complicated questions, they're questions that the rest of the world doesn't begin to care about because they're so incredibly simple and childish. The foundation myth that Americans buy into where they're cutting new ground and pushing new frontiers for human freedom and expression is really quite laughable. The entire history of the 20th Century was the rest of the civilised world arguing over the role of government with relation to economic liberty from the great depression on to the postwar European social democratic consensus in Western Europe and the Soviet bloc in the East. Do you honestly believe that the petty debates between American ideologues have any relevance to the understanding of these questions for a European? You obviously have no experience with US history. Those arguments on the role of government that you so eloquent described as "so decades ago" in Europe were being solved centuries ago on American soil. That is why Europe so recently made a futile attempt at replicating our Federal government, constitution, and Central Banking system. Europeans are just figuring out race relations and immigration. And the only reason Europeans are settled on abortion and gays in the military is because there is not enough diversity to allow controversy. And it barely has a military to speak of.
Er, the EU is not a futile attempt to become more like America.
The debate about the role of Government in the economy is apparently unsolved in America and solved over here according to your first post.
Saying America figured out race relations before we did is not even worth responding to.
Barely having a military is just nonsense. It's classic American ignorance to take something such as the gays in the military argument and come up with hypothetical arguments about what'll happen to unit cohesion as if they're pushing new grounds on the issue when all they'd need to do is phone up some guy from the MoD in London and say "you guys have gays in your army, right? how's the unit cohesion?". You're not new, you're not pushing back frontiers, you're not trying new things, you're lagging a long way behind the rest of the world and the only reason you believe any of the debates you have are relevant to anything ever is because you're too caught up in your own "land of the free" mythology.
|
On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why?
Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush.
|
On April 20 2012 00:30 Sweepstakes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:28 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 23:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
It's not Romney I'm afraid of, it's the donors to his PACs. Imagine what sort of promises he's made... You realize that he donated his salary as governor to charity because HE DOESNT NEED ANYONE ELSE. Meanwhile, Barack Obama STOLE BONDHOLDER ASSETS in the GM bankruptcy and arbitrarily gave an unequal ownership to the UAW. Which campaign were/are they donating to? These GM bonds were owned by pension funds and senior citizens for crying out loud and he gave a stake in assets to which they were entitled to a group that had no right to them. And you are afraid of Romney being beholden to donors? You are fucking kidding, right? Source? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I am just genuinely interested.
Posting on my phone but National Affairs has an excellent article. Being in the securities industry, I could not understand how they did what they did because it flies in the face of everything I knew about bankruptcy. Google The Auto Bailout And The Rule Of Law and you will find it. TLDR the whole article, jump to the section "the bankruptcy" but the whole thing is good.
I think that Obama is a good person but there are several things that have happened on his watch that are mind blowing if you are a serious student of policy. Overall hes been an ok president, I just prefer Romney.
|
On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush.
It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable.
Also, Obama's effect on the debt has been completely negligible compared to what Bush did.
I do agree that the healthcare bill is garbage. Spending billions/trillions of dollars to only get an additional 6% of America health insurance?! That's really the best you can do?! It also screws over doctors and hospitals in a big way. There's a reason they're all fleeing the medicare system.
|
On April 20 2012 01:09 U_G_L_Y wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 00:30 Sweepstakes wrote:On April 20 2012 00:28 U_G_L_Y wrote:On April 19 2012 23:49 xXFireandIceXx wrote:
It's not Romney I'm afraid of, it's the donors to his PACs. Imagine what sort of promises he's made... You realize that he donated his salary as governor to charity because HE DOESNT NEED ANYONE ELSE. Meanwhile, Barack Obama STOLE BONDHOLDER ASSETS in the GM bankruptcy and arbitrarily gave an unequal ownership to the UAW. Which campaign were/are they donating to? These GM bonds were owned by pension funds and senior citizens for crying out loud and he gave a stake in assets to which they were entitled to a group that had no right to them. And you are afraid of Romney being beholden to donors? You are fucking kidding, right? Source? I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I am just genuinely interested. Posting on my phone but National Affairs has an excellent article. Being in the securities industry, I could not understand how they did what they did because it flies in the face of everything I knew about bankruptcy. Google The Auto Bailout And The Rule Of Law and you will find it. TLDR the whole article, jump to the section "the bankruptcy" but the whole thing is good. I think that Obama is a good person but there are several things that have happened on his watch that are mind blowing if you are a serious student of policy. Overall hes been an ok president, I just prefer Romney.
And Romney is better for policy and moral scruples? Okay there.
|
On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush.
Excuses, lol? So Bush had nothing to do with the state of the current US economy? It's pretty expensive to go to war y'know.
|
Yeah, where's the not voting for either option?
|
On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush.
Still, at the end of the day the question people will and should ask is: Was Bush worse?
All this debate of left/right ideology is pretty much pointless when you are given the option of these two parties.
|
On April 20 2012 01:05 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:04 Klondikebar wrote:On April 20 2012 01:00 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2012 00:51 liberal wrote:On April 20 2012 00:45 KwarK wrote:On April 20 2012 00:24 scaban84 wrote:
Yes in Europe "Liberal" and "Conservative" having different meanings than in the US.
When I lived in Europe there was much less diversity of thought, everyone agreed on role of government. They don't seem to understand the US's struggle for independence and our drive to be different than Europe, Europeans disagree on trivial matters whereas we still debate the "big" questions. Conservative to us is having economic liberty and small government, because it has been the norm for such a long time (not so much anymore). In Europe that is a radically new or "liberal" idea. Everything about this post is so incredibly wrong that it's all hilarious. Do you genuinely think the debate you're having over the role of government is radical and new? I'll tell you why the rest of Europe doesn't argue so much about that stuff. It's because we did our arguing about it decades ago and arrived upon a consensus which we were all reasonably happy with. America isn't pushing new grounds and it hasn't been since the Revolutionary era. Since then it has been reactionary and primitive, a fledgling nation trying to define itself in a much older world. Europeans disagree on trivial matters?!?! Abortion is apparently a huge debate in America. Flag burning too. Gays in the military. These are not big or complicated questions, they're questions that the rest of the world doesn't begin to care about because they're so incredibly simple and childish. The foundation myth that Americans buy into where they're cutting new ground and pushing new frontiers for human freedom and expression is really quite laughable. The entire history of the 20th Century was the rest of the civilised world arguing over the role of government with relation to economic liberty from the great depression on to the postwar European social democratic consensus in Western Europe and the Soviet bloc in the East. Do you honestly believe that the petty debates between American ideologues have any relevance to the understanding of these questions for a European? Come on now... You are completely twisting his point out of recognition. The "big questions" he was referencing has nothing at all to do with flag burning or homosexuality or the others you brought up. The big questions relate to the role the government should play in a citizens life. You stated that Europe has already decided these questions, so you are agreeing with his central premise, that Europe has answered it's big questions and the US is still debating them. It was a nice editorial though, just don't twist people's comments completely out of context. It just amuses me that the outlook of many Americans seems comparable to that of a teenager now telling their father who grew up in the 80s listening to punk that they wouldn't understand music. The triumph of unabated capitalism has been and gone, hell, we had the East India Company take over entire provinces and act as a private company with shareholders which governed states and levied taxes. We had the development of class consciousness, the struggle for pensions and a basic welfare net and the rest of it over a hundred years ago. Whenever Americans think they're pushing new grounds on the debate about the role of government in the economy I just imagine a silly teenager going "you don't get it!!". It amuses me how people can't differentiate between corporatism, capitalism, and kleptocracy. The East India Company was not a private company...it was it's own government. It hardly counts as an example of free market failure. Private companies don't have their own armies, they don't levy taxes, and they don't take over provinces. I get that Europe is doing it's own thing. But the "been there, done that" attitude is just as obnoxious as the "you just don't get it!" attitude. BTW, you really have it all figured out? How's dat Euro workin for ya? P.S. Although I will admit the UK is pretty well put together as far as European countries go. Wouldn't trade it for a dollar.
That's because the dollar is the Euro. Of course you wouldn't trade your currency for a nearly identical one. It's failing because it's been imposed on economies that were more suited for the Yuan and that experiment was destined for failure.
|
PS, there was no buyout more leveraged with more layoffs than Chrysler or GM. It had to happen so that that EVERYONE didn't lose their job, but to turn around and feign outrage at what Bain Capital does is quite amusing.
|
Honestly I wouldn't vote for either one. Obama turned out to be more of a speaker than a maker. Mitt Romney is just down right insane. He doesn't really care for his country, he is only doing it because of the power.
On April 20 2012 01:12 SpiffD wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. Excuses, lol? So Bush had nothing to do with the state of the current US economy? It's pretty expensive to go to war y'know.
Which Obama could had stopped, insted he is now waging more wars than Bush did.
|
On April 20 2012 01:15 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. Still, at the end of the day the question people will and should ask is: Was Bush worse? All this debate of left/right ideology is pretty much pointless when you are given the option of these two parties.
Not that I like Bush or approve of his presidency, but I'd still take Bush over Obama. However, that issue is irrelevant because this election is not going to be about Bush.
This election going to be a referendum on Obama. Like it or not, Obama has a record now, and he will not be able to run on nebulous ideas like "hope and change." Either Americans are going to like what he has done over the past 4 years or they're not. I firmly believe that a majority does not, and they are going to vote him out of office in November.
|
On April 20 2012 01:11 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 01:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 01:03 DeekZ wrote:On April 20 2012 01:01 Joedaddy wrote:* Many of the MSM TeamLiquid polls in the US are hopelessly biased in favour of the Democrats and Obama. Fixed. I'm not happy about Romney at all, but I'd vote for almost anyone before I vote for Obama. Why? Do people really not understand how bad and ineffective Obama has been as a president? His signature accomplishments are passing a bad (and likely unconstitutional) healthcare bill and a $1 trillion stimulus package that has been largely ineffective --- all in an atmosphere where the national debt has gone up by $5 trillion, the economy has remained in the toilet, and Washington has turned hyper-partisan (blame republicans if you want, but Obama hasn't crossed the aisle either). There really is hardly anything to like about Obama. Hell, the best that his supporters can do is make excuses for him that inevitably involve blaming congressional republicans and/or Bush. It's widely acknowledged by Economists that the stimulus package did actually improve things. The rate of return on the stimulus is still up in the air but the fact that it made things better is demonstrable. Also, Obama's effect on the debt has been completely negligible compared to what Bush did. I do agree that the healthcare bill is garbage. Spending billions/trillions of dollars to only get an additional 6% of America health insurance?! That's really the best you can do?! It also screws over doctors and hospitals in a big way. There's a reason they're all fleeing the medicare system.
Obamacare will save $210 billion over 2012-2021.
Source: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/121xx/doc12119/03-30-healthcarelegislation.pdf (Table 1)
|
Sad that there's going to be such a biased OP for this topic.
|
Ron Paul 2012.
I will write him in if i have to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
