|
|
On April 20 2012 05:13 Sweepstakes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 04:36 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 04:35 Doublemint wrote:On April 20 2012 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 03:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 20 2012 03:28 Silidons wrote:On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him. mitt romney was born rich. obama was not. I know Obama wasn't directly born into riches, but iirc his grandparents were extremely wealthy and basically were the ones who supported him financially. I don't see how anyone can think of Obama as an average joe or someone who can even connect with average joes. His background and upbringing were nothing like those ordinary Americans. Hell, the guy has an ivy league education, went to law school, and was a professor -- all of which divorce individuals from the realities of ordinary people. Community organizer I think would be in the category "connecting with average people". I also looked it up not to be wrong, every single potus in the last 30 years was at least college educated, if not ivy league educated (just for the sake of argument - even before that people in the white house used to be smart... and graduating from college.) I don´t see how that is even an issue. I didn't say it was an issue. I'm just pointing out that it's hypocritical to hammer Romney for being out of touch when Obama really isn't any different. In my opinion, a good way to judge how out of touch someone is, is to ask yourself if you'd like to hang out with that person? Who would you rather just hang out and watch TV with, Barack or Mitt? I'd also love to see Mitt fill out a March Madness bracket...
Lol, at what point does trolling start and sarcasm end?
|
What amazes me to no end is the ignorance of simple-minded people who are foolish enough to vote for a president that would raise the national debt even higher without accomplishing anything. It's hard to actually care about the well-being of America when there are millions who want to dig our country into a deeper hole than we're already in. Either they're all hypocrites or they're just too ignorant to understand how bad the economic situation actually is. Even if Obama wins and our debt skyrockets, at least the silly voters will give me something to laugh at because clearly people don't seem to care about America anymore 
|
On April 20 2012 05:19 Mazer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:18 CajunMan wrote:On April 20 2012 05:15 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On April 20 2012 05:11 tome567 wrote:
I think its funny that people from different countries just OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA. people depress me. politics depresses me. most of you people are fucking idiots that just repeat shit along what party you like or what saturday night live shows you.... think for yourselves people. ...Seriously? The reason why "people from different countries just OBAMA" is the fact that Obama has put in tremendous effort into maintaining a positive soft-power US relationship to other countries in multilateral efforts, hence his popularity abroad. It's ironic that you criticize people for not thinking when you yourself are making innumerable assumptions about other people. Which multilateral efforts that thing with Lybia or the fucking of Israel? OOO you must be talking about being flexible with Russia? No? How about alienating Canada you know one of the USA's biggest allies? As a Canadian, I have to ask how he has alienated us because I definitely feel less alienated today than I did ago four years ago.
How bout that whole thing with the largest pipeline in NA? What had been done before then to alienate you so?
|
Ron Paul please.
Otherwise, Obama advances via free win. GG American economy moar 
|
On April 20 2012 05:17 Swagasaurus wrote:
Probably will vote for Obama. Not because I agree with his policies but because I would rather live in a socialist state than a fascist state.
That's like saying "I would rather live under authoritarianism than under authoritarianism."
Unless of course you are defining socialism very loosely.
|
On April 20 2012 05:13 CajunMan wrote:
I know right and the cynicism the Left had to think people would vote for someone just because of the color of there skin was even more depressing.
OH WAIT.
Or maybe they nominated Obama after he proved himself in a brutal, primary against Hilary Clinton. And maybe people voted for him after he repeatedly dominated McCain in debates and didn't have a beauty pageant contestant as a running mate.
Just a thought.
|
On April 20 2012 05:13 Sweepstakes wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 04:36 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 04:35 Doublemint wrote:On April 20 2012 03:38 xDaunt wrote:On April 20 2012 03:32 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On April 20 2012 03:28 Silidons wrote:On April 20 2012 03:19 Zaqwert wrote:
I love the "Romney is out of touch" argument.
Yeah, because Obama, who is worth millions himself, is so much more in touch?
Almost every politician from both major parties have no interest in the common man, other than duping him into voting for him. mitt romney was born rich. obama was not. I know Obama wasn't directly born into riches, but iirc his grandparents were extremely wealthy and basically were the ones who supported him financially. I don't see how anyone can think of Obama as an average joe or someone who can even connect with average joes. His background and upbringing were nothing like those ordinary Americans. Hell, the guy has an ivy league education, went to law school, and was a professor -- all of which divorce individuals from the realities of ordinary people. Community organizer I think would be in the category "connecting with average people". I also looked it up not to be wrong, every single potus in the last 30 years was at least college educated, if not ivy league educated (just for the sake of argument - even before that people in the white house used to be smart... and graduating from college.) I don´t see how that is even an issue. I didn't say it was an issue. I'm just pointing out that it's hypocritical to hammer Romney for being out of touch when Obama really isn't any different. In my opinion, a good way to judge how out of touch someone is, is to ask yourself if you'd like to hang out with that person? Who would you rather just hang out and watch TV with, Barack or Mitt? I'd also love to see Mitt fill out a March Madness bracket...
It's pretty clear that both are out of touch with the average American. I think Obama would probably give you a better conversation though.
Also this:
On April 20 2012 05:23 Game wrote:Ron Paul please. Otherwise, Obama advances via free win. GG American economy moar
|
On April 20 2012 05:25 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:13 CajunMan wrote:
I know right and the cynicism the Left had to think people would vote for someone just because of the color of there skin was even more depressing.
OH WAIT.
Or maybe they nominated Obama after he proved himself in a brutal, primary against Hilary Clinton. And maybe people voted for him after he repeatedly dominated McCain in debates and didn't have a beauty pageant contestant as a running mate. Just a thought.
Your thought would be wrong since it is shown time and time again voters of Obama especially the first time around were extremely ignorant of his policies and his opponents. You know why he got 98% of the black vote it wasn't because he kisses dah babies.
|
On April 20 2012 05:18 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:15 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On April 20 2012 05:11 tome567 wrote:
I think its funny that people from different countries just OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA. people depress me. politics depresses me. most of you people are fucking idiots that just repeat shit along what party you like or what saturday night live shows you.... think for yourselves people. ...Seriously? The reason why "people from different countries just OBAMA" is the fact that Obama has put in tremendous effort into maintaining a positive soft-power US relationship to other countries in multilateral efforts, hence his popularity abroad. It's ironic that you criticize people for not thinking when you yourself are making innumerable assumptions about other people. Which multilateral efforts that thing with Lybia or the fucking of Israel? OOO you must be talking about being flexible with Russia? No? How about alienating Canada you know one of the USA's biggest allies?
Okay, the fact that you can't even spell Libya correctly demonstrates how your misunderstanding of the basic facts.
In fact, thank you for bringing up these points, because they are exactly examples of multilateral efforts: the Libyan Intervention is a joint-effort under NATO, officially approved under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was in fact not proposed by the United States, but by France, the UK, and Lebanon, with zero nations opposed [cite: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37808&Cr=libya&Cr1=］.
You reference Israel, but not any particular incident. If you were presumably referencing the general Israeli-Palestine conflict, it should be noted that Obama is particularly criticized by the right for his efforts to halt Israeli expansion in Palestinian lands, such as the time he called on Israel to return to pre-1967 borders [cite:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0519/Was-Obama-s-speech-too-tough-on-Israel-Republican-criticism-mounts]
You mention "alienating Canada." Please reference actual facts and events rather than completely vacuous and broad claims. Nothing of the sort has really been done. Perhaps you're referencing the Keystone Pipeline, in which case, it is a simple matter of political odds where two countries disagree, not a point of absolute division. Actual relations are quite fine [cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17590857］.
You also don't understand what multilateralism even is. No nation is obviously going to agree with 100% of other nations policy. Rather, Obama's foreign policy has marked a clear departure from the unilateralism of the Bush Doctrine so heavily resented by other nations. Every reasonable person here will agree that Obama has emphasized multilateral solutions and cooperation abroad.
|
On April 20 2012 05:29 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:18 CajunMan wrote:On April 20 2012 05:15 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On April 20 2012 05:11 tome567 wrote:
I think its funny that people from different countries just OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA. people depress me. politics depresses me. most of you people are fucking idiots that just repeat shit along what party you like or what saturday night live shows you.... think for yourselves people. ...Seriously? The reason why "people from different countries just OBAMA" is the fact that Obama has put in tremendous effort into maintaining a positive soft-power US relationship to other countries in multilateral efforts, hence his popularity abroad. It's ironic that you criticize people for not thinking when you yourself are making innumerable assumptions about other people. Which multilateral efforts that thing with Lybia or the fucking of Israel? OOO you must be talking about being flexible with Russia? No? How about alienating Canada you know one of the USA's biggest allies? Okay, the fact that you can't even spell Libya correctly demonstrates how your misunderstanding of the basic facts. In fact, thank you for bringing up these points, because they are exactly examples of multilateral efforts: the Libyan Intervention is a joint-effort under NATO, officially approved under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was in fact not proposed by the United States, but by France, the UK, and Lebanon, with zero nations opposed [cite: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37808&Cr=libya&Cr1=］. You reference Israel, but not any particular incident. If you were presumably referencing the general Israeli-Palestine conflict, it should be noted that Obama is particularly criticized by the right for his efforts to halt Israeli expansion in Palestinian lands, such as the time he called on Israel to return to pre-1967 borders [cite:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0519/Was-Obama-s-speech-too-tough-on-Israel-Republican-criticism-mounts] You mention "alienating Canada." Please reference actual facts and events rather than completely vacuous and broad claims. Nothing of the sort has really been done. Perhaps you're referencing the Keystone Pipeline, in which case, it is a simple matter of political odds where two countries disagree, not a point of absolute division. Actual relations are quite fine [cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17590857］. You also don't understand what multilateralism even is. No nation is obviously going to agree with 100% of other nations policy. Rather, Obama's foreign policy has marked a clear departure from the unilateralism of the Bush Doctrine so heavily resented by other nations. Every reasonable person here will agree that Obama has emphasized multilateral solutions and cooperation abroad.
In that whole big block of jiberjaber I never saw one example of why any other country would like Obama. Care to fill me in? I gave examples of shitty situations we should not be evolved in or hold the position he did. Also I'm not understanding which policy you are referring to your going to need to be more specific then generalizations.
|
Americans please vote for Obama don't let those crazy people rule over all of the 50 kingdoms. Please.
|
China10928 Posts
America might be screwed, I guess I should start brushing up on my Chinese and start learning some Romantic languages.
|
On April 20 2012 05:24 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:17 Swagasaurus wrote:
Probably will vote for Obama. Not because I agree with his policies but because I would rather live in a socialist state than a fascist state. That's like saying "I would rather live under authoritarianism than under authoritarianism." Unless of course you are defining socialism very loosely.
No it's like saying "I would rather live in a country where the state actually tries to make things better (theoretically) for the people by authorities than living in a country where I'd get a shiny boot kicked up my ass everyday.
|
On April 20 2012 05:36 Count9 wrote:
America might be screwed, I guess I should start brushing up on my Chinese and start learning some Romantic languages.
ESPORTS-Sweden is (h)waiting for you : )
|
It doesn't matter who wins, the American people will lose. The only difference between these guys is their tan.
|
On April 20 2012 05:27 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:25 Defacer wrote:On April 20 2012 05:13 CajunMan wrote:
I know right and the cynicism the Left had to think people would vote for someone just because of the color of there skin was even more depressing.
OH WAIT.
Or maybe they nominated Obama after he proved himself in a brutal, primary against Hilary Clinton. And maybe people voted for him after he repeatedly dominated McCain in debates and didn't have a beauty pageant contestant as a running mate. Just a thought. Your thought would be wrong since it is shown time and time again voters of Obama especially the first time around were extremely ignorant of his policies and his opponents. You know why he got 98% of the black vote it wasn't because he kisses dah babies.
Black people have voted heavily Democratic for some time now.
|
Who the hell is willard Romney? Can we have a mod edit the name so that the one he actually uses(Mitt Romney) is in the post.
|
On April 20 2012 05:27 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:25 Defacer wrote:On April 20 2012 05:13 CajunMan wrote:
I know right and the cynicism the Left had to think people would vote for someone just because of the color of there skin was even more depressing.
OH WAIT.
Or maybe they nominated Obama after he proved himself in a brutal, primary against Hilary Clinton. And maybe people voted for him after he repeatedly dominated McCain in debates and didn't have a beauty pageant contestant as a running mate. Just a thought. Your thought would be wrong since it is shown time and time again voters of Obama especially the first time around were extremely ignorant of his policies and his opponents. You know why he got 98% of the black vote it wasn't because he kisses dah babies.
I think we're both forgetting how much people hated the Republicans by the end of the Bush administration. He presided over the Katrina clusterfuck, the Mortgage Crisis and two disastrous, costly wars -- all failures that could be directly attributed to the policies of his administration.
Obama was the right candidate and the right time. I certainly think Hilary would have won over McCain as well.
|
On April 20 2012 05:34 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:29 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On April 20 2012 05:18 CajunMan wrote:On April 20 2012 05:15 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:On April 20 2012 05:11 tome567 wrote:
I think its funny that people from different countries just OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA. people depress me. politics depresses me. most of you people are fucking idiots that just repeat shit along what party you like or what saturday night live shows you.... think for yourselves people. ...Seriously? The reason why "people from different countries just OBAMA" is the fact that Obama has put in tremendous effort into maintaining a positive soft-power US relationship to other countries in multilateral efforts, hence his popularity abroad. It's ironic that you criticize people for not thinking when you yourself are making innumerable assumptions about other people. Which multilateral efforts that thing with Lybia or the fucking of Israel? OOO you must be talking about being flexible with Russia? No? How about alienating Canada you know one of the USA's biggest allies? Okay, the fact that you can't even spell Libya correctly demonstrates how your misunderstanding of the basic facts. In fact, thank you for bringing up these points, because they are exactly examples of multilateral efforts: the Libyan Intervention is a joint-effort under NATO, officially approved under the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was in fact not proposed by the United States, but by France, the UK, and Lebanon, with zero nations opposed [cite: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37808&Cr=libya&Cr1=］. You reference Israel, but not any particular incident. If you were presumably referencing the general Israeli-Palestine conflict, it should be noted that Obama is particularly criticized by the right for his efforts to halt Israeli expansion in Palestinian lands, such as the time he called on Israel to return to pre-1967 borders [cite:http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0519/Was-Obama-s-speech-too-tough-on-Israel-Republican-criticism-mounts] You mention "alienating Canada." Please reference actual facts and events rather than completely vacuous and broad claims. Nothing of the sort has really been done. Perhaps you're referencing the Keystone Pipeline, in which case, it is a simple matter of political odds where two countries disagree, not a point of absolute division. Actual relations are quite fine [cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-17590857］. You also don't understand what multilateralism even is. No nation is obviously going to agree with 100% of other nations policy. Rather, Obama's foreign policy has marked a clear departure from the unilateralism of the Bush Doctrine so heavily resented by other nations. Every reasonable person here will agree that Obama has emphasized multilateral solutions and cooperation abroad. In that whole big block of jiberjaber I never saw one example of why any other country would like Obama. Care to fill me in? I gave examples of shitty situations we should not be evolved in or hold the position he did. Also I'm not understanding which policy you are referring to your going to need to be more specific then generalizations.
What's not to understand? It's extremely simple. Obama fosters policies that cooperate with other countries so that other countries can achieve their goals too, rather than ignoring other countries and proclaiming US dominance, which other countrymen would see as arrogant and abrasive, especially when leading to scenarios that are generally harmful (like the Iraq War). That's why so many people internationally disliked George W. Bush's unilateralism.
"examples of shitty situations" - none of those were situations that Obama was responsible for (I already proved you wrong about Libya, since it was a NATO act, not launched by the US, and the UN resolution itself was not proposed by the US - the Israeli-Palestine conflict is a longstanding conflict preceding Obama and is one exacerbated of Israeli expansion, not the US, and Obama in fact tried to halt this worsening behavior - and your reference to Canada was a nonexistent claim, you didn't actually reference an incident).
Me offering generalizations? These are issues of common knowledge, complemented by the specific facts I provided (such as the Libya incident). Your tendency to dismiss substantive and reasonable discussion as "jiberjaber" indicates that you either aren't actually reading it or aren't understanding the presentation of simple facts, in which case your political thinking here seems extremely immature, making this discussion not a worthwhile pursuit.
[edit]
On April 20 2012 05:27 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:25 Defacer wrote:On April 20 2012 05:13 CajunMan wrote:
I know right and the cynicism the Left had to think people would vote for someone just because of the color of there skin was even more depressing.
OH WAIT.
Or maybe they nominated Obama after he proved himself in a brutal, primary against Hilary Clinton. And maybe people voted for him after he repeatedly dominated McCain in debates and didn't have a beauty pageant contestant as a running mate. Just a thought. Your thought would be wrong since it is shown time and time again voters of Obama especially the first time around were extremely ignorant of his policies and his opponents. You know why he got 98% of the black vote it wasn't because he kisses dah babies.
Your claim that most of those who vote for Obama are uninformed is a blatant fabrication where you offer absolutely no proof (which is becoming a more apparent and consistent trend in your posts). Facts prove that people who tend to vote democrat are usually the more educated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)#Academia
|
On April 20 2012 05:24 liberal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2012 05:17 Swagasaurus wrote:
Probably will vote for Obama. Not because I agree with his policies but because I would rather live in a socialist state than a fascist state. That's like saying "I would rather live under authoritarianism than under authoritarianism." Unless of course you are defining socialism very loosely.
Authoritarianism is characterized by centralized power that is maintained by political repression and the exclusion of potential challengers. This is extremely similar to a fascist ideology but very much different from an actual socialist ideology. Socialism is about common ownership/public ownership and is really more of an economic organization than a social organization like authoritarianism/ fascism.
I have a suspicion that your idea of socialism is probably skewed or just inaccurate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
