| 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 | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On July 31 2012 13:00 Zooper31 wrote: How in gods name did what he say shit on individualism? That's beyond upsurd. How can he get trouble for saying taxes fund roads? I honestly don't know why anyone replies to xdaunt anymore. It's become clear through the course of this thread that he sees things through a different lens. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8744 Posts
On July 31 2012 13:06 Risen wrote: I honestly don't know why anyone replies to xdaunt anymore. It's become clear through the course of this thread that he sees things through a different lens. He most definitely does, but so what? I find it quite refreshing to have a view inside his "conservative" bubble, and occassionally step out of the of my own. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 31 2012 12:30 Defacer wrote: Ugh, when you put it that way, I see what you're saying. To quote his point: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together." If he just cut to the chase and kept it as simple as that, it would have just been another day on the campaign trail. However, I do understand the desire to address the increasingly diehard anti-government rhetoric that is consuming GOP ... he just did a crappy job. Yes and no. The idea that is communicated by that quote is the same one that he made in his speech. It is just as offensive for the very same reasons. The difference is that it likely would have gone predominantly unnoticed had Obama kept it that short rather than expounding upon it like he did. Yet keeping it short just wasn't in the cards. Obama truly believes in this communal salvation business. And he's not the only one. There's a growing segment of left wing democrats that are right there with him. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 31 2012 13:21 xDaunt wrote: Yes and no. The idea that is communicated by that quote is the same one that he made in his speech. It is just as offensive for the very same reasons. The difference is that it likely would have gone predominantly unnoticed had Obama kept it that short rather than expounding upon it like he did. Yet keeping it short just wasn't in the cards. Obama truly believes in this communal salvation business. And he's not the only one. There's a growing segment of left wing democrats that are right there with him. Communal salvation? That's a stretch. How about just acknowledging that success and wealth doesn't exist in a vacuum? I can't remember who said it, but there's no such thing as wealth without society. You don't get rich by mining precious stones alone in the wilderness. If I concede there are definitely some left-wing deadbeat voters out there that expect a hand-out for everything, will you concede there are some right-wing deadbeat voters that blame the government and Obama for ALL their problems? | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 31 2012 13:06 Risen wrote: I honestly don't know why anyone replies to xdaunt anymore. It's become clear through the course of this thread that he sees things through a different lens. Without xDaunt, there'd be nothing to discuss. He's been defending indefensible positions since the beginning. I kid, I kid! Seriously, he's alright. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On July 31 2012 13:37 Defacer wrote: Without xDaunt, there'd be nothing to discuss. He's been defending indefensible positions since the beginning. I kid, I kid! Seriously, he's alright. I just can't help but feel like anyone who holds those views secretly knows how ridiculous they're being but wants to troll the rest of the country. It's frustrating that some people can be so selfish. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
The "you didn't build it" thing may have been driven into the ground, but I honestly don't think it has the same kind of lasting effect that a botched trip like this would. Now it's going to be difficult for anyone - even conservatives - to claim that Romney is strong on foreign policy. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On July 31 2012 14:16 Risen wrote: I just can't help but feel like anyone who holds those views secretly knows how ridiculous they're being but wants to troll the rest of the country. It's frustrating that some people can be so selfish. They're not viewed as ridiculous because they involve a different idealogy altogether, one which doesn't paint selfishness as as being an overtly bad thing. I used to think the exact same thing as you up until fairly recently, but trust me, no one is "trolling" anybody. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On July 31 2012 14:16 Risen wrote: I just can't help but feel like anyone who holds those views secretly knows how ridiculous they're being but wants to troll the rest of the country. It's frustrating that some people can be so selfish. Libertarianism really isn't about being selfish though. It's about believing that government inevitably creates more harm than good. I used to think this myself, and to some extent still do. Now I am frustrated by social conservatives who want to use the power of government to create a ridiculously unfair society. But xdaunt is clearly not one of those. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On July 31 2012 11:57 xDaunt wrote: I laugh every time that I see this rebuttal. The quote looks even worse when one reads everything in context, because it becomes obvious that it isn't just a throwaway line. I don't know how you function, seriously Obama's "gaffe" wasn't a gaffe at all. If you want to crucify Obama for stating the obvious (i.e you worked hard and benefitted from a great entreprenurial society) then go right ahead, but it's a losing fight. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On July 31 2012 14:54 Signet wrote: Libertarianism really isn't about being selfish though. It's about believing that government inevitably creates more harm than good. I used to think this myself, and to some extent still do. Now I am frustrated by social conservatives who want to use the power of government to create a ridiculously unfair society. But xdaunt is clearly not one of those. Yes and no. Most Libertarians (I consider myself somewhat of a Libertarian, but with a realistic and alternative twist), at least those that are for capitalism (as i'm still not sure what the point of libertarian socialism is), would argue that it's selfishness that drives our actions, and thus our economy and all of it's sucesses. Therefore it is not something to be demonized, but encouraged, within reason. Of course as you say, it also believes that most government interventions interfere with this, and thus should be kept to an useful minimum. And I agree completely. It's really a bad combination and I'm not sure how the Republican Party plans to survive when the younger generations become a majority. Hopefully it'll shift towards a more straight moderate libertarianism, and away from this convoluted christian-theocratic neo-con anarchy shit, but I'm not sure. On July 31 2012 15:20 Risen wrote: So you're fine with withholding rights from gays, misleading the public intentionally and sabotaging things intentionally then painting their sabotage as the other party's failure? I am fiscally conservative and I use common sense for my social viewpoints. I will never vote Republican, the party that should be my party, because of how bigoted and snakelike they are. If you vote Republican you're saying you value money more than equal rights, something I can't get behind. That's why I say any Republican is a selfish prick. You're voting to keep others oppressed, so fuck you. I hate most Democratic economic policies, but I hate lying pieces of shit more, so I'm forced to vote for third party candidates and Democrats. THAT is why I can't stand people like xDaunt. I must have misinterpreted what you said, I thought you were challenging the principles of fiscal/economic conservatism on the basis of selfishness, and not Republican selfishness in a general sense. I don't disagree with what you're saying, see above. edit: for the record, I'm not a republican and I've only ever voted once for a republican candidate because I believe election recalls should be about illegal acts and not policy differences. I just tend to agree with them on various principles. | ||
|
Risen
United States7927 Posts
On July 31 2012 14:32 1Eris1 wrote: They're not viewed as ridiculous because they involve a different idealogy altogether, one which doesn't paint selfishness as as being an overtly bad thing. I used to think the exact same thing as you up until fairly recently, but trust me, no one is "trolling" anybody. So you're fine with withholding rights from gays, misleading the public intentionally and sabotaging things intentionally then painting their sabotage as the other party's failure? I am fiscally conservative and I use common sense for my social viewpoints. I will never vote Republican, the party that should be my party, because of how bigoted and snakelike they are. If you vote Republican you're saying you value money more than equal rights, something I can't get behind. That's why I say any Republican is a selfish prick. You're voting to keep others oppressed, so fuck you. I hate most Democratic economic policies, but I hate lying pieces of shit more, so I'm forced to vote for third party candidates and Democrats. THAT is why I can't stand people like xDaunt. Edit: What it comes down to for me is that Republicans show their real worth by holding other people back. They're not good enough to succeed on their own without holding other people down. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
Their scare tactics (and tactics in general) are quite transparent and amusing. And how they get religion to fit into policies, and at the same time smack-talk muslim teocracies and what not is quite hilarious. You can't actually listen to much of what they say, because it really makes no sense. But that's their thing, hiding their skeletons in plain sight. Anyway. GL to you all. | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
It just seems that Romney can't go a day without pissing somebody off, whether it be half of Britain or the Palestinians. It's actually surprising how bad this trip has gone, with the British media lampooning him and Palestinian officials and leaders calling him racist. It's like Palin all over again. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 31 2012 10:51 ticklishmusic wrote: I think part of the reason Obama's foreign tour worked out well (apart from his massive personal appeal) was because he wasn't running against an incumbent. Trying to show foreign policy chops against an incumbent who has arguably done pretty well on that front has much more risk than reward. Did NO ONE in the Romney campaign consider this? Or perhaps Obama simply cares about what happens in the rest of the world ^^ and doesn't want USA to be an island. Not like he's a Republican who's #1 job is to hide their inadequacies by making 'everything' about something it's actually Not. One problem I have is the "trying to show" part. Why not just put your mouth where your foot is and say what you ACTUALLY mean, instead of trying to put on a show. I guess he said what he meant, and, obviously someone who thinks that way should not be elected into office, that is, unless you really want to be an island and laugh at all the foreign countries. Imo he showed complete inadequacy. He showed the world what he thinks of it, and what he thinks of himself, and that he has no intention to do any good internationally. At best he will do what he is advised. At worst he will also do what he is advised. Not a well rounded politician at all. I detect no passion in such statements. Maybe passion for his own country, but bullying is not a great way to be passionate. | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On July 31 2012 15:16 1Eris1 wrote: Yes and no. Most Libertarians (I consider myself somewhat of a Libertarian, but with a realistic and alternative twist), at least those that are for capitalism (as i'm still not sure what the point of libertarian socialism is), would argue that it's selfishness that drives our actions, and thus our economy and all of it's sucesses. Therefore it is not something to be demonized, but encouraged, within reason. Of course as you say, it also believes that most government interventions interfere with this, and thus should be kept to an useful minimum. And I agree completely. It's really a bad combination and I'm not sure how the Republican Party plans to survive when the younger generations become a majority. Hopefully it'll shift towards a more straight moderate libertarianism, and away from this convoluted christian-theocratic neo-con anarchy shit, but I'm not sure. True. I guess I was thinking of it more in terms of -- a libertarian probably doesn't view a policy of government non-intervention in the economy as being selfish, even if the economic actors themselves are selfish. The future of politics when Gen X and the Millennials are the critical voters will be interesting, and I can't see it possibly not being an improvement over the shitfest we're stuck in now. I'm also hoping for libertarian R vs progressive D since I find both of these ideologies at least morally defensible. Lots of people think the GOP will effectively implode once enough current seniors die, then reinvent itself without its more vile aspects. But I can also see it playing out where the Republican party becomes more extreme and paranoid over time, libertarians start trickling over to the Democratic party (which in turn causes the Democrats to make some concessions on economic policy) while socially conservative Democratic groups trickle over to the GOP, and it's effectively temperamental conservatives versus a coalition of everybody else - with the latter having financial advantages but less group cohesion and possibly smaller numbers. I think that if many liberals really internalized just how socially conservative our lower class is in its politics (and for that matter the elderly), they'd be less inclined to want anything resembling a European welfare state. Not necessarily all or most liberals, but enough that their party could afford to make a few economic accommodations for a libertarian bloc. That's a more cynical future, but things don't always turn out the way we want... | ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
On July 31 2012 15:20 Risen wrote: So you're fine with withholding rights from gays, misleading the public intentionally and sabotaging things intentionally then painting their sabotage as the other party's failure? I am fiscally conservative and I use common sense for my social viewpoints. I will never vote Republican, the party that should be my party, because of how bigoted and snakelike they are. If you vote Republican you're saying you value money more than equal rights, something I can't get behind. That's why I say any Republican is a selfish prick. You're voting to keep others oppressed, so fuck you. I hate most Democratic economic policies, but I hate lying pieces of shit more, so I'm forced to vote for third party candidates and Democrats. THAT is why I can't stand people like xDaunt. Edit: What it comes down to for me is that Republicans show their real worth by holding other people back. They're not good enough to succeed on their own without holding other people down. Ah ha, now I see what you were saying. Misunderstood the first time. That's a valid point - although there is some level of terrible economic policy where I'd vote for a modern-day conservative Republican over a Democrat who was, say, socially tolerant but wanted to implement actual Soviet-style socialism. That leads to human suffering, too. Luckily (hah) the Republicans' economic record isn't any better than the Democrats', and over-regulated welfare state capitalism isn't nearly the failure that true leftist economics was. | ||
|
Cutlery
Norway565 Posts
On July 31 2012 15:52 Signet wrote: Ah ha, now I see what you were saying. Misunderstood the first time. That's a valid point - although there is some level of terrible economic policy where I'd vote for a modern-day conservative Republican over a Democrat who was, say, socially tolerant but wanted to implement actual Soviet-style socialism. That leads to human suffering, too. Luckily (hah) the Republicans' economic record isn't any better than the Democrats', and over-regulated welfare state capitalism isn't nearly the failure that true leftist economics was. I wonder if you know what went on in sovjet, how you can draw the comparisons, and how you define this failure. I just wonder. I read this alot, but I doubt many of them actually know of what they speak. I can assure you that your lefties are very different from the former Sovjet. Former Sovjet should rather be compared to 'former' anything, when building infrastructure and industrialization was happening. But Sovjet was much more 'ravaged' by war. And eventually they broke. While alot of bad also went on "behind the curtains", this is not unique to this kind of socialism, but rather how a few people up top were given far too much power. These things, supposedly, could never happen in a democracy, even if it were to adapt extreme socialist policies (which you're not CLOSE to doing). Remember that, in their attempt they became a superpower. Somewhere things went too far; doesn't mean everything is worth tossing in the bin. It is still part of history, history from which we can learn. I know not nearly enough. But history has taught us, and will teach us, in what ways our democracy and capitalism has 'underperformed' and might at some point fail aswell. Without taking the lessons from Sovjet, both the good and the bad, I'm not sure we can hope to rebuild something better, when needed. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
On July 31 2012 15:52 Signet wrote: Ah ha, now I see what you were saying. Misunderstood the first time. That's a valid point - although there is some level of terrible economic policy where I'd vote for a modern-day conservative Republican over a Democrat who was, say, socially tolerant but wanted to implement actual Soviet-style socialism. That leads to human suffering, too. Luckily (hah) the Republicans' economic record isn't any better than the Democrats', and over-regulated welfare state capitalism isn't nearly the failure that true leftist economics was. Obama's policies don't even approach Canadian-style socialism. Anyway, I'll just chill up here with my Canadian Pension Plan (secure for the next 75 years), universal healthcare and 6.2% unemployment rate. | ||
|
Critter
United States196 Posts
On July 31 2012 16:33 Defacer wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 31 2012 15:52 Signet wrote: Ah ha, now I see what you were saying. Misunderstood the first time. That's a valid point - although there is some level of terrible economic policy where I'd vote for a modern-day conservative Republican over a Democrat who was, say, socially tolerant but wanted to implement actual Soviet-style socialism. That leads to human suffering, too. Luckily (hah) the Republicans' economic record isn't any better than the Democrats', and over-regulated welfare state capitalism isn't nearly the failure that true leftist economics was. Obama's policies don't even approach Canadian-style socialism. Anyway, I'll just chill up here with my Canadian Pension Plan (secure for the next 75 years), universal healthcare and 6.2% unemployment rate. Can I join you? In all seriousness a few friends and I are looking into immigrating and would love some advice! Just seems like everything there fits us better, especially considering the current political climate down here. Quite serious, PM me. The only thing I really have to say about the election is that I'm glad the Dems have finally, officially announced their support of equal rights as a group. I don't understand how Republicans can get away with arguing 'traditional marriage' when it's pure descrimination. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  46503Bisu 1701Horang2 1011firebathero  726Mini 475Light 378EffOrt  375Killer 346Stork 339ggaemo 327[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games singsing2285 B2W.Neo1147 hiko1079 DeMusliM493 Lowko366 monkeys_forever115 ArmadaUGS89 Mew2King72 KnowMe27 ZerO(Twitch)15 fpsfer  1Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Big Brain Bouts
Fjant vs Bly
Serral vs Shameless
OSC
The PiG Daily
Maru vs Rogue
TBD vs Classic
herO vs Solar
ByuN vs Solar
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
SHIN vs Bunny
ByuN vs Shameless
WardiTV Invitational
Krystianer vs TriGGeR
Cure vs Rogue
SC Evo League
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Artosis vs TerrOr
spx vs StRyKeR
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
