|
|
Canada11607 Posts
On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing.
You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.)
|
On September 05 2012 08:20 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing. You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.)
Every party has a few bad people in it who try to ruin it for everyone else. The Republicans have the Christian fundamentalists; the Democrats have the gun control morons; the Libertarians have their entire foreign policy.
|
On September 05 2012 08:20 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing. You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.)
Yeah, isn't one of the most important views of the Republican party less control by the federal gov. and more by the states? I guess many Republicans tend to just be against all big government, but it goes without saying that policies and strategies for running a state are different from running the fed.
|
On September 05 2012 08:24 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:20 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing. You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.) Yeah, isn't one of the most important views of the Republican party less control by the federal gov. and more by the states? I guess many Republicans tend to just be against all big government, but it goes without saying that policies and strategies for running a state are different from running the fed.
Indeed, "social conservatism" it goes against the entire conservative ideology of small government and personal freedom.
|
On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why?
Yea, with Obama in power it's not like he'd perform more drone strikes than Bush or find and kill Bin Laden.
|
On September 05 2012 08:33 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? Yea, with Obama in power it's not like he'd perform more drone strikes than Bush or find and kill Bin Laden.
Obama wants to turn America into just an ordinary nation with no power whatsoever; it's part of his anti-colonialist agenda.
|
How fitting that they would trot out Jimmy Carter to give a speech about Obama. Obama is well on his way to sharing the same fate and legacy as Carter.
|
On September 05 2012 08:36 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:33 darthfoley wrote:On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? Yea, with Obama in power it's not like he'd perform more drone strikes than Bush or find and kill Bin Laden. Obama wants to turn America into just an ordinary nation with no power whatsoever; it's part of his anti-colonialist agenda.
Got that in print?
On September 05 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote:
How fitting that they would trot out Jimmy Carter to give a speech about Obama. Obama is well on his way to sharing the same fate and legacy as Carter.
Helping spread diplomacy and peace 'round the world isn't so bad.
|
In more important news, Obama and the democrats have given Florida to Romney today. They removed from their platform support for the proposition that an undivided Jerusalem be Israel's capital. This is particularly bad timing given all of the press out there about Obama's seemingly limp-wristed support for Israel in the face of Iran.
|
On September 05 2012 08:36 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:33 darthfoley wrote:On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? Yea, with Obama in power it's not like he'd perform more drone strikes than Bush or find and kill Bin Laden. Obama wants to turn America into just an ordinary nation with no power whatsoever; it's part of his anti-colonialist agenda.
Sounds great to me. What's the problem?
Additionally I'd like to add that I don't think Obama has any intention of lowering the power of the US on the world stage. Unlike Bush, though, who liked to burn his bridges, Obama tries to build some. That's really the central difference.
On September 05 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote:
How fitting that they would trot out Jimmy Carter to give a speech about Obama. Obama is well on his way to sharing the same fate and legacy as Carter.
I thought you came in to these threads to discuss political strategy and not to voice your inane political views? Or did I not read your defense of your posts correctly?
I mean just to address the quote; What do you have to back up this projection of yours? Nothing? Unless something major happens (Like, it turns out Obama was actually born in Kenya, or he gets shot) Romney shouldn't have a shot in the dark come election day.
|
On September 05 2012 08:37 Praetorial wrote:
Got that in print?
Even better, I've got that in movie-format. I suggest you check out 2016: Obama's America; it's a documentary about Obama's plans for America. I did my research on the documentary, and it is accurage; the logic is undeniable.
|
On September 05 2012 08:37 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote:
How fitting that they would trot out Jimmy Carter to give a speech about Obama. Obama is well on his way to sharing the same fate and legacy as Carter. Helping spread diplomacy and peace 'round the world isn't so bad.
I was talking more about the whole historically failed presidency thing. I'm sure that Obama will do just fine pursuing miscellaneous humanitarian concerns after he's relieved of his presidential duties in January.
|
Canada11607 Posts
On September 05 2012 08:24 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:20 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing. You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.) Every party has a few bad people in it who try to ruin it for everyone else. The Republicans have the Christian fundamentalists; the Democrats have the gun control morons; the Libertarians have their entire foreign policy.
It's more than that. Reagan united social conservatives, economic conservatives, and military interventionists. The Republicans deliberately courted social conservatives and the Republicans are often seen as the default party for many evangelicals. You can't just throw that out and say they're left wing. Romney may be trying to back away from social conservatives and libertarians may have no interest in it, but social conservatism still remains a significant part of the right wing.
On September 05 2012 08:36 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:33 darthfoley wrote:On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? Yea, with Obama in power it's not like he'd perform more drone strikes than Bush or find and kill Bin Laden. Obama wants to turn America into just an ordinary nation with no power whatsoever; it's part of his anti-colonialist agenda.
Anti-colonist? Are you unapologetically imperialist?
|
On September 05 2012 08:36 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:33 darthfoley wrote:On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? Yea, with Obama in power it's not like he'd perform more drone strikes than Bush or find and kill Bin Laden. Obama wants to turn America into just an ordinary nation with no power whatsoever; it's part of his anti-colonialist agenda.
I wish.
|
On September 05 2012 08:36 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:33 darthfoley wrote:On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? Yea, with Obama in power it's not like he'd perform more drone strikes than Bush or find and kill Bin Laden. Obama wants to turn America into just an ordinary nation with no power whatsoever; it's part of his anti-colonialist agenda.
Even assuming the 0% chance Obama had any interest in reducing America's global dominance, he'd easily be overpowered by the rest of the government and corporations and other parties with a vested interest in our hegemony.
On September 05 2012 08:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:24 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:20 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing. You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.) Every party has a few bad people in it who try to ruin it for everyone else. The Republicans have the Christian fundamentalists; the Democrats have the gun control morons; the Libertarians have their entire foreign policy. It's more than that. Reagan united social conservatives, economic conservatives, and military interventionists. The Republicans deliberately courted social conservatives and the Republicans are often seen as the default party for many evangelicals. You can't just throw that out and say they're left wing. Romney may be trying to back away from social conservatives and libertarians may have no interest in it, but social conservatism still remains a significant part of the right wing. Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:36 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:33 darthfoley wrote:On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why? Yea, with Obama in power it's not like he'd perform more drone strikes than Bush or find and kill Bin Laden. Obama wants to turn America into just an ordinary nation with no power whatsoever; it's part of his anti-colonialist agenda. Anti-colonist? Are you unapologetically imperialist?
He does not need to be apologetic about a plain-as-day fact. We are the world's most powerful nation by far. Of course we have imperialistic policies through corporatism, foreign policy, etc. as any ultrapowerful nation in history has.
|
On September 05 2012 08:41 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:24 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:20 Falling wrote:On September 05 2012 08:17 NonCorporeal wrote:On September 05 2012 08:14 Funnytoss wrote:On September 05 2012 07:57 NonCorporeal wrote:
I'm disappointed that Todd Akin screwed over Missouri like he did. Every single person running against Claire McCaskill in the primaries had a 10+ point lead on her, but now Todd Akin made stupid remarks about abortion and he refused to step down (letting someone else take his place). That being said, he's still a far better choice than Claire McCaskill (but that's not saying much); and I'll still vote for him come November. This is really why we need to utilize primaries, so we get true fiscally conservative and libertarian candidates representing the Republican Party, not these left-wing Christian nutjobs like Akin or Santorum. Given that you describe Akin and Santorum as "left-wing", I shudder to think of what your definition of "right-wing" must be. Santorum's economic policies and historical policies as governor were decidedly left-wing. Additionally, no true right-winger would advocate for big government; big government is left-wing, ergo, Santorum is left-wing. You may not like social-conservatism within the states, but it's certainly part of right wing politics since Reagan (at the very least.) Every party has a few bad people in it who try to ruin it for everyone else. The Republicans have the Christian fundamentalists; the Democrats have the gun control morons; the Libertarians have their entire foreign policy. It's more than that. Reagan united social conservatives, economic conservatives, and military interventionists. The Republicans deliberately courted social conservatives and the Republicans are often seen as the default party for many evangelicals. You can't just throw that out and say they're left wing. Romney may be trying to back away from social conservatives and libertarians may have no interest in it, but social conservatism still remains a significant part of the right wing.
Just because a Republican does something, doesn't make it right wing though. Conservative and Republican are two entirely different things. Christian fundamentalism goes against the conservative ideology. Right-wing implies that one values the individual over the state, capitalism, and small government. Wanting to ban gay marriage goes against the ideas of small government.
On the other hand, left-wing implies that one values the state over the indvidual, socialism, and big government. Would it not make sense that big government policies are more in line with the left?
|
On September 05 2012 08:40 NonCorporeal wrote:Even better, I've got that in movie-format. I suggest you check out 2016: Obama's America; it's a documentary about Obama's plans for America. I did my research on the documentary, and it is accurage; the logic is undeniable.
Oh, I saw that one.
The one that predicts global warfare and economic collapse, with the backdrop of darkened clouds and ominous music...
I'll just step away now...
|
On September 05 2012 08:15 NonCorporeal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2012 08:08 Mutality wrote:On April 19 2012 18:24 murphs wrote:
Dear America,
Vote Obama.
Sincerely,
Rest of the fucking world. couldn't have said it better. You want America to be weak and defenseless? Why?
You know, I really don't understand this attitude. Obama is many things, many of which I disagree with, but he's definitely a hawk (which, coincidentally, I disagree with). And not a retarded, country invading, quagmire starting hawk. His policies have been pragmatic, focused but aggressive, and have generally left America in a better position foreign-policy wise. He doesn't piss everyone off, but still kills a lot of people.
And this is coming from a guy who's pretty pacifist, and who you would describe as wanting the US to be "weak and defenseless". I do not agree with the aggressive nature of Obama's policies, but describing him as weak and defenseless is silly. I'm coming from the opposite side of the fence as you are on this, and I'm telling you I think Obama has had a very aggressive, military based foreign-policy.
He just doesn't start new ground based invasions. Which seems like a good thing, as you guys have yourselves a bit of a situation as a result of those wars. Short of wishing Obama started more ground wars against perceived threats, I really don't know what more a hawk could ask for (targetted assassinations, drone bombings, torture-based interrogation, successfully carpet bombing an unfriendly dictator into oblivion and essentially guaranteeing a victory for a rebellion against him, etc.). Nuking Iran, maybe? I think there's a pretty good worldwide consensus that that would start a shitstorm with unforseeable consequences, though...
Anti-Obama people are weird. Not everything he does is inherently bad. It's particularly interesting that right-wing folk perceive his actions negatively when he does right-wing things....
|
Democrats are starting off strong, guns-a-blazin' with women's issues and energy policy... wonder if they'll save enough for the rest of the week lol.
|
Ballin, Obama has downsized the military, talked about "bringing troops home from Europe, South Korea, etc.," and abandoned one of our closest allies (Israel). I wasn't just referring to the military though, Obama is purposely trying to bankrupt America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
