| 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 | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On September 27 2012 16:46 Lmui wrote: Nice ad. Before we get the "out of context" comments, I'd say only the first quote is out of context (it relates to changing health insurers). If you look up the context of the other quotes, they do not change the meaning of Romney's statement, they're accurate. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On September 27 2012 09:40 Darknat wrote: For me this election is about whether or not the United States turn it's back on it's heritage: the American Dream. Do you want the government doing everything for you or do you want the government out of your lives? A vote for Obama is a vote against the American Dream and a vote for Romney is a vote for the American Dream. Reminds me of this: American Dream is such a delusionnal bullshit: hey poor people, keep sucking your shitty life, your shitty pay, your shitty working condition, your absence of good education, your absence of healthcare, and keep dreaming that one day you might become a millionaire. Of course, one person out of few thousand gets there. The others keep dreaming. And the rich owners of your country don't have to worry: people are even gonna vote for them, against their most basic interest. "It's called the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe in it". | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 27 2012 14:10 Kaitlin wrote: The so-called "greatest generation" has earned their benefits. The "entitlement generation", which is the younger generation of today is full of "entitled moochers" who think they are the "greatest generation". They are wrong. I know that. You know that. It's "The American Dream" that doesn't know that. You don't get 47% without the elderly. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but yea if romney loses the baby boomer edge he's toast. stick a fork in him. | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
EDIT: lolz dat ninja edit. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On September 27 2012 17:39 kmillz wrote: I have to say I am humbled by alot of the talk on here and thank alot of you for some feedback on many issues, I feel more educated and while I still hope for a Romney win, I have learned alot from both sides and will strive to keep an open mind from now on. My primary concern in politics is to get less government involvement, fairness on all levels, and protecting our freedoms. I am not as optimistic about Romney winning as I was before, but if he doesn't win I hope Obama makes some postitive improvements for country and is willing to come up with something that can combat our struggling economy  This is a fair and understandable response. I do not particularly like government involvement, and I do hope that if Obama wins, he can actually improve the economy. I do not have the same hope if Romney wins, however - and the GOP social policies really clash with mine. So I will vote for Obama, and cross my fingers. | ||
|
Irre
United States646 Posts
| ||
Souma
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 27 2012 23:11 Irre wrote: Why do republicans feel the need to make these sweeping generalizations about Obama when they have no factual basis for them, or they are LITERALLY THE OPPOSITE. The one that bothers me the most is we need to elect Romney to preserve our FREEDOMS. WHAT FREEDOMS DO WE NOT HAVE NOW THAT OBAMA IS PRESIDENT??? In fact, if Romney wins, we could see rights taken away for many citizens. Repeal DADT, Repeal Roe V Wade, Amendment banning Gay Marriage. This isn't even approaching the cuts to federal programs, the tax cuts to grow our deficit, the real chance we will go to war with Iran ASAP.. I think you mean reinstate DADT.  Obama repealed DADT. | ||
|
Focuspants
Canada780 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On September 27 2012 23:33 Focuspants wrote: I never understood the logical process behind believing that the Republicans are for freedoms, and the Democrats are for taking them away. Obama hasnt really taken away any freedoms, and the Republicans are talking about limiting or removing so many social rights and benefits from people. How can a republican voter reconcile their thirst for freedom, and their support for taking freedoms away from women, homosexuals, etc... The Republicans are also notorious for actually growing the size of government while spouting off about reducing its size. The only difference is their government spending and growth rarely ever benefits the average person, it always benefits the rich/corporations. Because left and right don't agree on what freedom means. Republican's (and ultra liberal right-wing in general) definition of freedom is, in the liberal (as refering to liberalism, not to the American left wing) tradition, purely negative and formal. Basically, according to this interpretation of the concept of freedom, you are free as long as you can, in theory, do whatever you want. So, to take the example of one of the most radical proponent of that definition, namely Ayn Fucking Rand, having to wear a helmet when you ride a motorbike is a breach to your freedom. You can argue that according to this definition, an animal in the jungle is perfectly free, even if it has the most miserable, dangerous and ruthless life. Of course it also mean that an exploited worker, sweating 12 hours a day for no money, with no perspective to find another job and harassed by an abusive boss is "free" as long as he can leave his job (the fact that in fact he can't because otherwise he starve doesn't enter into consideration). In contrast, the Republican tradition (I know it's reversed, since republicanism as a philosopical movement would match with a social-democrat ideology), you are free when you are protected by the City from bad fortune. You are free when you have access to culture, to education, when you are not fearing to catch a horrible illness and die lonely, etc... It's a substantial and positive definition of freedom. It means paying taxes, having to have a healtcare, or being obliged to wear a helmet when you ride a motorbike is not limitating your freedom in any way. It also mean that your exploited worker is basically not much more free than a simple slave, or that animals are certainly not more free than men. You have to realize that this comes from very far away, at least the XVIth century, with the separation between the neo-roman and neo-athenian liberalisms during the Italian Renaissance. The American conception of "freedom" leans in general very strongly towards the first definition, but the Republicans are pushing it to an extent where it basically becomes meaningless (just like Marxists have pushed the second definition to an equally meaningless extent). "Freedom" is great when you are amongst the strongest animals of the jungle. Romney and his billions certainly belongs to those. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
| ||
|
XenOmega
Canada2822 Posts
On September 27 2012 23:51 Biff The Understudy wrote: Because left and right don't agree on what freedom means. Republican's (and ultra liberal right-wing in general) definition of freedom is, in the liberal (as refering to liberalism, not to the American left wing) tradition, purely negative and formal. Basically, according to this interpretation of the concept of freedom, you are free as long as you can, in theory, do whatever you want. So, to take the example of one of the most radical proponent of that definition, namely Ayn Fucking Rand, having to wear a helmet when you ride a motorbike is a breach to your freedom. You can argue that according to this definition, an animal in the jungle is perfectly free, even if it has the most miserable, dangerous and ruthless life. Of course it also mean that an exploited worker, working 12 hours a day for no money, with no perspective to find another job and harassed by an abusive boss is "free" as long as he can leave his job (the fact that in fact he can't because otherwise he starve doesn't enter into consideration). In contrast, the Republican tradition (I know it's reversed, since republicanism as a philosopical movement would match with a social-democrat ideology), you are free when you are protected by the City from bad fortune. You are free when you have access to culture, to education, when you are not fearing to catch a horrible illness and die lonely, etc... It's a substantial and positive definition of freedom. It means paying taxes, having to have a healtcare, or being obliged to wear a helmet when you ride a motorbike is not limitating your freedom in any way. It also mean that your exploited worker is considered as basically a slave and absolutely not free. You have to realize that this comes from very far away, at least the XVIth century, with the separation between the neo-roman and neo-athenian liberalisms during the Italian Renaissance. The American conception of "freedom" leans in general very strongly towards the first definition, but the Republicans are pushing it to an extent where it basically becomes meaningless. "Freedom" is great when you are amongst the strongest animals of the jungle. Romney and his billions certainly belongs to those. You can also read Isaiah Berlin on his distinction between positive freedom and negative freedom. But the quoted post sums it up pretty well | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On September 27 2012 23:57 JinDesu wrote: Biff, you may have a typo in there. You mention Republicans in both parts. No no no. It's just the names "republicans" and "liberals" in US politics is really confusing and arbitrary. "Republicans" (american right wings) are ultra liberals coming from neo-roman liberal tradition. "Liberals" (american Democrats) are the heirs of the republican neo-athenian liberal tradition. It's just that the american terminology is very confusing because republicans have nothing to do with republicanism and that liberals are less liberal than the republican on econnomic issues. So basically it's reversed. The only thing that makes sense in those appelations is that on societal issues (tradition, values etc...) the Democrats are liberal and the Republican conservative. So in a way the really, really liberal people are the so-called "libertarians". | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
On September 28 2012 00:01 Biff The Understudy wrote: No. "Republicans" (american right wings) are ultra liberals coming from neo-roman liberal tradition. "Liberals" (american Democrats) are the heirs of the republican neo-athenian liberal-tradition. It's just that the american terminology is very confusing because republicans have nothing to do with republicanism and that liberals are less liberal than the republican on econnomic issues. So basically it's reversed. My apologies - you wrote Republicans (US right wings) vs Republican Tradition. I misread. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On September 28 2012 00:05 JinDesu wrote: My apologies - you wrote Republicans (US right wings) vs Republican Tradition. I misread. You welcome. It is confusing :p | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8182 Posts
On September 27 2012 23:59 XenOmega wrote: You can also read Isaiah Berlin on his distinction between positive freedom and negative freedom. But the quoted post sums it up pretty well Except Berlin is super biaised towards the liberal tradition since for him republicanism and later enlightements are basically responsible, via the French revolution, of totalitarianism. A really outdated idea in my opinion, you can't just puts arrow between completely different streams of thought and historical events and pretend that things are that simple. Quentin Skinner has a much more subtle approach to the question I think. I like his work very much. If I remember, he is the one that introduced the term neo-roman | ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
On September 27 2012 07:44 kmillz wrote: On September 27 2012 02:18 Mazer wrote: You're just lying to yourself over this one and it's kinda disgusting. No I actually believe what I said, I am not lying to myself, and I think your opinion is disgusting too Here's the summary: "The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.” You're an ignorant fool for buying into the "you didn't build that" spin. Cheers. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Signet
United States1718 Posts
It is generally the case that "likely voters" are about 2 points more R-leaning than registered voters. But conservatives' claimed distaste for Romney could be masking that, even though they fully intend to vote for him. | ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Mixu vs TBD
Spirit vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
Patches Events
OSC
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Shuttle
BeSt vs Rush
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Afreeca Starleague
Leta vs ggaemo
Jaedong vs Queen
GSL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
