PDA

View Full Version : Results confirm Israeli Parliamentary Deadlock. =/


Netto Azure
February 13th, 2009, 05:48 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7886779.stm?lss

"The final results of Israel's general election have confirmed that neither of the two main parties can form a government on its own.


With military and overseas ballots counted, the governing Kadima still has 28 seats and the opposition Likud has 27 - well short of the 61 they need."

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/45472000/gif/_45472534_israel_election_res2_466.gif


------------


Well this has been quite the development. For it shows that the Ultra-Nationalist/Right-Wing Conservative Beiteinu Party becomes the "King-Maker" in here since whomever the party supports in the new coalition would certainly push Israel to a Conservative path, therefore making President Obama's attempts at Arab-Israeli peace much harder. =/

Agent Cobalt
February 13th, 2009, 06:20 PM
Awesome. God bless the State of Israel. We might have elected a socialist, but it's good to know that the whole world hasn't gone crazy. Good on them for electing conservatives that will defend Israel and her sovereignty.

Went
February 14th, 2009, 12:45 AM
Seeing things like these, I'm somewhat happy that in my country, the socialist party in the Governemnet is just 7 seats away from majority XD

In my opinion, the two main parties should coaligate and try to make a stable government... or else the country will become another one of these relying in three or four seat parties which can go away at the slightest action of the government and cause crisis every few months :\ And crisis in Israel = crisis in the whole zone.

PD: Obama... socialist? We consider him conservative here *scared*

Agent Cobalt
February 14th, 2009, 02:01 AM
PD: Obama... socialist? We consider him conservative here *scared*

Socialism-
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Socialist-
An advocate or supporter of socialism.

When it comes to economics, social issues, the size of government, judicial nominees and the Constitution, spending and taxes, and foreign policy, I can't think a more radically left president we've had or one more deserving of the title socialist. Maybe Woodrow Wilson (maybe). I don't know what you could possibly see in him that you think is conservative. <=/

Walrein
February 14th, 2009, 02:26 AM
Finally, the time of white gentiles to admit the white Jews as brethren has arrived! A strong country will always be seenm in a better eye by the others. Stay strong white westerners!

Metatron
February 14th, 2009, 02:49 AM
We might have elected a socialist, but it's good to know that the whole world hasn't gone crazy.

Yeah, we've gone crazy, right? Because the last 8 years have going been so well. I mean, throwing away the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, torturing *potential* terrorists through water-boarding, a complete economic-downfall, attempting to "liberate" a country that supposedly had weapons of mass destruction that were never found while genocide is still taking place in Darfur, and no one has bothered stepping in to solve that crisis. Yeah. Right.

I've been hearing that word thrown around alot. Socialism. Americans, for some reason, seem to have a negative view of "socialism" when, ironically, if you ask the average American what socialism even is, they'd have no clue. Personally, I believe that socialism would do the US some good, especially when you have the corrupted CEO corporate spending that we face here on a regular basis, with the general public having absolutely no idea what's going on, or what their tax dollars are paying for. Perfect example of this? Look at general motors; executive CEOs of the company raked in over 18 billion dollars last year, just in bonuses alone. Now they're applying for a government handout payed for by tax payers. If you wanna talk about true socialism, then look at this bailout plan we're faced with now. That's socialism. Taking from the common tax payers in order to invest in large corporations, hoping that the wealth will just trickle down upon everyone else.

Obama isn't socialist. He's not getting rid of social classes in the United states, don't worry. You'll still be able to afford buying that brand new sports car you've always wanted, while children in less fortunate parts of the country are going to bed hungry.

But...getting back on topic, I have mixed feeling about the income of this election. I'd like to see where it goes from here on forward before passing any judgment, though.

Agent Cobalt
February 14th, 2009, 03:45 AM
Yeah, we've gone crazy, right? Because the last 8 years have going been so well. I mean, throwing away the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, torturing *potential* terrorists through water-boarding

Yeah yeah, Bush sucks yadda yadda. Bush caused cancer and eats puppies. WMD, Bush lied people died. Tired old attempts to ignore the Obamessiah's crappy record and blame Bush for everything. First off, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does it say that terrorists captured on the battlefield can't be detained and interrogated? Oh no, waterboarding. Yeah, let's just ask politely when terrorist attacks are going to go off. Those *potential* terrorists are *actual* terrorists. Or haven't you heard that they're captured on battlefields? If not I'm sure you've heard how they get released and we end up capturing them on the same damn battlefields we found them on before? These are real terrorists and they find their way back and return to killing, but I guess you'd rather not keep them in Club Gitmo to get information out of them that could save lives and instead send them on their merry way and risk more innocent dead. Thank God Obama will close our detention center and release our prisoners- oh wait, that'll take at least six months. I guess he doesn't want to rush it. CHANGE.

a complete economic-downfallWhile this definitely happened in the last eight years, that's no reason to have voted for Obam and Biden. Bush inherited a recession and yet nobody used that to defend voting for Bush because of the Eight years of economic turmoil under Clinton. Bush inherited a recession, had to deal with the economic down turn from 9/11 and the destruction of the world trade center, and is now catching blame for an economic crisis he didn't even create and in fact warned about ahead of time. And yet most of his presidency saw economic recovery and a good economy, but forget that, there was a recession at the end of his second term. Just like Katrina I guess; if it happens under your tenure it must be your fault right? If anything the economic crisis should have warned people that Obama's hands on approach was dangerous and shouldn't be supported. Yeah, voting for a guy that promises more government involvement in the economy is crazy regardless of the previous eight years. HOPE.

attempting to "liberate" a country that supposedly had weapons of mass destruction that were never found while genocide is still taking place in Darfur, and no one has bothered stepping in to solve that crisis.Let's see, about 450,000 dead in Darfur, versus the one to three million people killed by and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iraq being a menace to the world, the region, and its own people. Let's see here, Saddam fought a decade-long war against Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, invaded and conquered for a time Kuwait in the Persian Gulf War, carried out genocide against the Kurds, used WMD's on his own people, used them on Iranians, used them on his other neighbors, used them on American troops in the Gulf War, threatened the world's economic security, plundered oil and other resources, agreed to peace agreements ending the Gulf War which he roundly ignored and violated multiple times, ignored and violated international laws for decades, ignored no-fly zones and fired on aircraft, was involved in corrupt UN deals like the Oil for Food program, got who knows how many Iraqi children killed as a result of the sanctions that followed news of his corruption, tried to assassinate an American president, tried to rebuild his WMD arsenal after the war several times resulting in Israeli bombings of weapons factories and America's Operation Desert Fox, gave safe harbor to terrorist groups, gave thousands of dollars to the families of suicide bombers, allowed terrorists fighting Americans in the Afghanistan War to receive medical treatment in Iraq, supported multiple organizations that have supported terrorism, and refused to cooperate with weapons inspectors until it was too late. Sudan's Darfur has Islamists killing black Christians with machetes. Compare the records. Now 450,000 dead in Darfur is 450,000 too many, but honestly now, who's the bigger threat? What a stupid complaint. "Oh, you stopped those badguys, but what about all the others? Why bother stopping Hitler and Mussolini if you still have Stalin over there?" It's such lame way to tear down what we've done. And to the point, yes, five years of war in Iraq and seven years of the War on Terror overall was unpopular, sure. But voting for another Jimmy Carter that thinks the best way to win over the hearts and minds of the world is bombing our allies like Pakistan, a nuclear country with a heavy Islamist and pro-al-Qaeda population, is not only crazy- it's downright stupid. But I guess when Obama makes airstrikes into Pakistan and kills 20 people it's ok. Obama lied people died.

Yeah. Right. And see, none of this even had anything to do with what I said. I called Obama socialist and said I was happy that countries like Israel haven't gone insane and didn't vote for someone like him, and you bring up Bush, like I'm supposed to defend Bush? That's your defense of people voting for Obama? Eight years of Bush? That's like saying Eight years of Clinton was a good reason to vote Bush in 2000. Bush shouldn't matter. Elections are about candidates and not the guy from before who isn't running. Now I know lots of people don't think that and likely voted for Obama because "Bush sucks" and McCain is McBush, but when presented with actual issues, electing Obama isn't the smartest thing to do. But really, I can roll out my red carpet of disagreements I've had with Bush and discuss them all day if I wanted, but it's not going to change how horrible Obama will be or how good/bad McCain could have been.

I've been hearing that word thrown around alot. Socialism. Americans, for some reason, seem to have a negative view of "socialism" when, ironically, if you ask the average American what socialism even is, they'd have no clue.I don't pretend to know what the average America thinks or knows of socialism, nor should that matter. I speak for myself alone. I know what it is and think it's vile. Bringing up the Bush years, bringing up random people or generalizing the citizenry is another attempt at forcing points completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Personally, I believe that socialism would do the US some good, especially when you have the corrupted CEO corporate spending that we face here on a regular basis, with the general public having absolutely no idea what's going on, or what their tax dollars are paying for. Perfect example of this? Look at general motors; executive CEOs of the company raked in over 18 billion dollars last year, just in bonuses alone. Now they're applying for a government handout payed for by tax payers. If you wanna talk about true socialism, then look at this bailout plan we're faced with now. That's socialism. Taking from the common tax payers in order to invest in large corporations, hoping that the wealth will just trickle down upon everyone else. ... so it is socialism then. Obama supports these bailouts. He's been pushing for them since day one. He wants these pseudo-tax cuts to make people more dependent on the welfare state, and he wants to fund key Democrat interests and spread corporate welfare. I never said anything contrary to this quote of yours but you somehow found the need to post it. The only difference here is that you support government intervention and I outright oppose it.

Obama isn't socialist. He's not getting rid of social classes in the United states, don't worry. You'll still be able to afford buying that brand new sports car you've always wanted, while children in less fortunate parts of the country are going to bed hungry.When he advocates increased government control of the private sector, nationalizing (socializing) industries and businesses, the redistribution of wealth, and the confiscation of wealth based on class, not to mention his banter about tax-cuts for people that don't pay taxes AKA welfare checks, then yes I'd say he's pretty socialist. Socialism under the Marxist strain of thought is the transitional state between capitalism and Communism; the way towards Communism. It's not 100% control of everything. It's why Nikita Khrushchev said "You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands." Socialism is a transition which, whether he knows it or not, Obama is pushing us along.

EDIT: Correction, Israel bombed Iraq before the 90's in 1981 and was before the Gulf War. Operation Desert Fox was 1998 though.

Metatron
February 14th, 2009, 05:09 AM
Yeah yeah, Bush sucks yadda yadda. Bush caused cancer and eats puppies. WMD, Bush lied people died. Tired old attempts to ignore the Obamessiah's crappy record and blame Bush for everything. First off, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does it say that terrorists captured on the battlefield can't be detained and interrogated?
Article 5 reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
...Now, you're honestly gonna tell me that water-boarding doesn't fit into all three of those categories?

Bush inherited a recession and yet nobody used that to defend voting for Bush because of the Eight years of economic turmoil under Clinton. Bush inherited a recession.
For real, buddy? You honestly believe that? Have you bothered to take a look at the US's national debt at all recently? Under the Clinton administration those levels remained stable. By the end of Clinton's presidency over 22 million new jobs had been created and unemployment and core inflation had been at their lowest levels in over 30 years. So when you say this recession had been inherited by the Clinton administration, I'd really
like to know where you're getting this information.

On the other hand, your hero Ronald Reagan had increased the United State's national debt from $85 billion at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency, to a whopping $255 billion. If anything, Clinton was left picking up the tab left over from Reagan, and Bush senior's presidency. Check it out here. (http://xmb.stuffucanuse.com/xmb/viewthread.php?action=attachment&tid=4832&pid=13914)

Just like Katrina I guess; if it happens under your tenure it must be your fault right?

No one blames Bush for the events of Katrina. People blame him for the failed response under his administration. Rather than attempting to go through the entire process here with you right now, and throwing out random statistics out into the open, I'd much prefer you just go see the film "Trouble the Water." Powerful stuff, man.

Let's see, about 450,000 dead in Darfur, versus the one to three million people killed by and in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iraq being a menace to the world, the region, and its own people.
You say that after the fact; before invading Iraq, the topic arguement to wage war was that "Saddam Hussein was providing a safe-haven for Bin Laden," as well as the false threat of non-existing weapons of mass destruction. I agree with you; Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, but linking his reign to the events of 9/11...did they ever find those political ties between him and Bin Laden? Nah, I didn't think so.

Sudan's Darfur has Islamists killing black Christians with machetes. Compare the records. Now 450,000 dead in Darfur is 450,000 too many, but honestly now, who's the bigger threat? What a stupid complaint.
450,000 dead, 2.45 million driven out from their homes, and an estimated 10,000 more dying each month from lack of nutrients. The number's still growing, kid.
In bold: I don't appreciate you calling my comments stupid. There have been alot of questionable things you've said in the past that I haven't called you out on, and I never once insulted your opinions, as flawed as I may have thought them to have been at times.

And see, none of this even had anything to do with what I said. I called Obama socialist and said I was happy that countries like Israel haven't gone insane and voted for someone like him, and you bring up Bush, like I'm supposed to defend Bush?
When you make a claim such as "America is insane for electing Obama," then yeah, I do bring Bush into the arguement. Why? What was the other alternative to electing Obama? McCain, who voted with Bush's policies over 90% of the time, and that unintelligent hockey-mom from Alaska who believed she was well equip for dealing with foreign affairs because she could "see Russia from her back yard."

That's your defense of people voting for Obama? Eight years of Bush?
Well, like I said, when the other running candidate has voted with bush's policies over 90% of the time, then yeah, that is my defense. I believed that Obama would be the best candidate to help take the US out of this hell-hole of a mess created under the Bush administration, and apparently the majority of Americans agreed with me. :]

I don't pretend to know what the average America thinks or knows of socialism, nor should that matter. I speak for myself alone. I know what it is and think it's vile.

Vile, huh? What's so vile about a system that would help to more equally spread income distribution in this country? I think it's vile that, in the current state we're in, 10% of the population owns over 70% of the wealth.

Edit: Haha, and I love your choice in avy change. Calling Obama a "snob" That's perfect, especially when considering his roots, background, the fact that he graduated at the top of his class at Harvard University, and John McCain's 8 multi-million dollar homes. haha.

Agent Cobalt
February 14th, 2009, 07:33 AM
Article 5 reads:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
...Now, you're honestly gonna tell me that water-boarding doesn't fit into all three of those categories? Yes I am. These are terrorists and we're dunking them in water. They on the other hand cut our heads off and use real torture. After soaking the terrorists in water to get life-saving information, they get to read their holy books, eat fattening cuisine, and gain weight while anyone caught by al-Qaeda is used and then killed. Now I tell you what would be considered degrading treatment- what happened at Abu Ghraib. But what we do at Gitmo and have done has been routine since the US has existed. Actually it's not; we're way nicer to our enemies than we ever were. FDR would have round them up and had them killed if they refused to talk. Lincoln would have shipped them cross country and jailed for conspiring with the enemy. Washington or any revolutionary statesmen would likely hang them or imprison them in a dirty, smallpox laden cell. No, what we do is anything but torture. And even if we were, and this won't sound nice, it'd be the moral decision to make when faced with the choice of smacking around a murdering Islamist and doing nothing to stop a city from going up in smoke. And I notice you like the Declaration of Human Rights. Do they follow it? How about what really counts- the Geneva Convention? The Geneva Convention makes it clear that terrorists aren't soldiers and have no rights under international laws of war. If this was Korea they'd be lucky not to be mowed down, but now we've tried to civilize ourselves into extinction to the point where we don't even know how to fight a war without shooting ourselves in the foot.

For real, buddy? You honestly believe that? Have you bothered to take a look at the US's national debt at all recently? Under the Clinton administration those levels remained stable. By the end of Clinton's presidency over 22 million new jobs had been created and unemployment and core inflation had been at their lowest levels in over 30 years. So when you say this recession had been inherited by the Clinton administration, I'd really
like to know where you're getting this information. Way to read. I didn't say THIS recession was inherited from Clinton. I said Bush inherited one in 2000-1. Ever hear of the Internet bubble? It's all well and good for Clintonites to take credit for the economic boom under Clinton but nobody likes to take credit for the recession that followed. And I never mentioned the national debt. Debt and recession aren't inherently linked. A recession is just two quarters of negative growth which did happen at the end of Clinton's presidency and which Bush dealt with when he took office.

On the other hand, your hero Ronald Reagan had increased the United State's national debt from $85 billion at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency, to a whopping $255 billion. In anything, Clinton was left picking up the tab left over from Reagan, and Bush senior's presidency. The reason Reagan had to spend so much money was because of the failures of nearly every president since the Cold War began to confront and destroy the Soviet Empire. Reagan indeed spent money. He had to rebuild our military which was ruined after the Detente period, he had to increase aid to anti-communists around the globe, he had to fund SDI, and he had to bankrupt the Russian economy which itself was no bigger than California's. See, there was this little thing called the Cold War America was involved in. I'm sure Bill Clinton knew about it since he was so kind to dodge the draft during Vietnam, and you know, much of the reason Bill Clinton was able to do things like balance the budget and cut spending was because Republicans took back control in Congress and Clinton could no longer get blank checks to social programs. Congress does have the power of the purse after all. Before the Republican revolt in the 90's, Clinton was elected like Obama for "hope" and "change" and like Obama he overreached and the voters sent the Democrats packing. Guys like House Speaker Newt Gingrich demanded tighter control of spending and a shrinking of the welfare state.

No one blames Bush for the events of Katrina. People blame him for the failed response under his administration. Rather than attempting to go through the entire process here with you right now, and throwing out random statistics out into the open, I'd much prefer you just go see the film "Trouble the Water." Powerful stuff, man. His failed response was what exactly? I suggest you actually read the Constitution. The president of the United States has no authority sending aid into any state without first being asked for assistance. Article Four Section Four Clause Two. Presidents need to be requested to send the military, national guard, militias, and defense forces by the state legislature. If they can't ask then the executive branch can. It took quite a while for relief to get to the victims and restore order, but the president isn't to blame. The state legislatures and/or executive branches must consent first, and I seem to remember them taking their sweet time officially requesting aid. Blame morons like Nagin and Blanco would couldn't keep their stuff in order. Honestly, the federal government is there to aid the states when need be, but the states were at fault for being unprepared and slow to respond. And after watching that steaming pile Fahrenheit 9/11, why would I bother watching another one of their productions?

You say that after the fact; before invading Iraq, the topic arguement to wage war was that "Saddam Hussein was providing a safe-haven for Bin Laden," as well as the false threat of non-existing weapons of mass destruction. I agree with you; Saddam Hussein was a cruel dictator, but linking his reign to the events of 9/11...did they ever find those political ties between him and Bin Laden? Nah, I didn't think so. No, the topic argument wasn't Bin Laden in Iraq, but al-Qaeda in Iraq. Remember, we didn't invade Afghanistan for attacking us, but because their regime refused to hand terrorists over to us. The same was true of Iraq. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a fighter in Afghanistan fighting for al-Qaeda. He was injured and was given safe harbor in Iraq and medical treatment, took an active leadership role in the terror group Ansar al-Islam, and led Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad which itself became al-Qeada in Iraq. Al-Qeada also had a presence in northeastern and Kurdish areas of Iraq. And on the WMD issue, oh well. Bad intelligence. Every government believed he had them, according to interviews he purposely lead us on to believe he did thinking we would back down, he constantly used them during his tenure, he constantly tried getting them after being disarmed multiple times, and after 9/11 we really weren't willing to take chances with countries handing off dangerous weapons to terrorists which wear no uniforms or march under specific flags. That's the history, and if you want to ignore it for blame games be my guest, but you won't win. Our supporters in the UK and so on thought they were there. Our opponents in France, Germany, and Russia believed he had them. The Clintons, Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and all the liberal Democrats believed he had them. Multiple intelligence agencies from America to the UK to Jordon believed it. It turned out to be false. That's just how it is.

450,000 dead, 2.45 million driven out from their homes, and an estimated 10,000 more dying each month from lack of nutrients. The number's still growing, kid.
In bold: I don't appreciate you calling my comments stupid. There have been alot of questionable things you've said in the past that I haven't called you out on, and I never once insulted your opinions, as flawed as I may have thought them to have been at times. Do you know how many were driven from their homes in Iran? Kuwait? Iraq and specifically Kurdistan? And that's just the wars, genocides, and military strikes. Likely a million or so suffered from starvation and sickness alone as a result of Saddam's corrupt regime and the sanctions placed on Iraq. You don't think numbers piled up there? The number of graves from Saddam are still climbing even after his death. The graves are still being uncovered, kid. And I didn't call your opinion stupid; I call it stupid to whine about how the US saves some people but not all of them so it's not worth it. That was in general, but if I hurt your feelings then my apologies. But don't cut me any slack. If you think I'm wrong then address me and point out when I'm wrong. I don't mind at all. Look at my posts and you'll see my edits where I correct myself. I just did it in my last post regarding Israel's 1981 Operation Opera. If I'm wrong then correct me; you aren't helping me by not speaking up. I love a challenge and I love sharpening my skills. If you can provide me of evidence where I'm wrong then by all means go for it.

When you make a claim such as "America is insane for electing Obama," then yeah, I do bring Bush into the arguement. Why? What was the other alternative to electing Obama? McCain, who voted with Bush's policies over 90% of the time, and that unintelligent hockey-mom from Alaska who believed she was well equip for dealing with foreign affairs because she could "see Russia from her back yard."The alternative was electing people that actually knew what was going on. The old guy and the chick that kills wolves. McCain, who disagreed with Bush and dissented with Bush every time he could from tax cuts to the war. Palin, that "unintelligent hockey-mom from Alaska" has more experience than Obama and Biden together. She's been a mayor and a governor, executive positions. McCain, Obama, and Biden were Senators and sat around in Congress talking about laws and spending. And way to completely gobble up the lies about Palin. She was joking about seeing Russia from Alaska; she didn't actually say that was foreign policy experience. I mean really, Barack Obama is a moron. He's not smart and is not a good speaker. My God, if you catch him without a teleprompter, you'll feel your brain decaying listening to him repeat "uh...uh...uh" over and over. He's a mental midget. What has he done? He's been a community agitator and worked with corrupt businessmen and fund managers, he's worked with racists and anti-semites, started his political career in the living room of terrorists, and gained power in Illinois like a typical corrupt thug by getting his opponents disqualified and being elected by default. He's done nothing. So on foreign policy... what? He's done nothing. Oh wait, he's bombed our ally Pakistan despite their warning about their sovereignty. He's tried to interfere in a border dispute between India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir, only to be told to back off and mind his own business. He's tried to limit free trade in an economic crisis since he's controlled by "big labor" only to be threatened by Canada and Europe with a trading war. He's been told to stand down by Iran who then launched a rocket carrying a satellite into space. And who is by his side? Joe Biden, the dumbest man in the Senate, the guy that wanted the segregate Iraq along religious and racial lines and divide the country into three to solve the problems there; what a genius. He was wrong on many, many foreign policy issues in his day. McCain on the other hand knew foreign policy, knew well our allies and their leaders, and would have been the best choice to defend this country and fight our enemies. But he's old and Palin's a country bumpkin, so let's elect the two idiots that will ruin our military standing, drown us in debt, raise taxes, put activists in the Supreme Court, and undermine the Constitution whenever they want what with a majority Democrat Congress.

Well, like I said, when the other running candidate has voted with bush's policies over 90% of the time, then yeah, that is my defense. I believed that Obama would be the best candidate to help take the US out of this hell-hole of a mess created under the Bush administration, and apparently the majority of Americans agreed with me. :]A majority of those that voted agreed with you, but I doubt a majority of Americans agree with you. If the same people that voted for Bush of 2004 voted for McCain, he would have won. They didn't, and that's kind of his fault for trying to reach across party lines to make nice with Teddy Kennedy. And you can use that 90% statistic against McCain, but I don't suppose you want to factor in Obama voting nearly 100% along party lines during his tenure. When it comes to actually working with others, McCain did, whether I like it or not.

Vile, huh? What's so vile about a system that would help to more equally spread income distribution in this country? I think it's vile that, in the current state we're in, 10% of the population owns over 70% of the wealth.A system that undermines the individual and empowers the state is no good in my book. A system that undermines the principles that our Founding Fathers fought to oppose and prevent is no good for America. The pursuit of happiness means the pursuit of property rights, and when that ceases to exist you cease to be free. Liberty is a gift of God, socialism is a plague of man that has only ever served to spread human suffering from Fascism to Communism. Governments have no place interfering with free markets without a mandate to defend liberty. Control of the market is something the government should not have. To quote Reagan's "A Time For Choosing Speech," the Founding Fathers "knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy." Socialism doesn't make us equal, it only makes us as equally miserable. The New Deal, the Great Society, the War on Poverty. Government always fails to shrink the gap and has often been proven to increase it. The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression; the War on Poverty increased the amount of poor. Socialism historically is a farce bent on controlling man in any way possible, attempting to recreate man and nature itself. I say free markets for free people, let the money flow where it must, without the vile hand of the state tampering with the transactions of the people. If a man is poor and another rich, who am I to say that rich man should give up his property, his wealth? Using the state to ensure the general welfare is different than promoting the general welfare. If someone is rich, good for them. They're not all fatcats born with silver spoons in their mouths. They all start somewhere. I tell you what, I've never gotten a job from a poor man; I have and am employed by people that know how to manage money. Part of being free is being able to succeed and fail, and when you take that away you're not only taking away economic freedom and self sovereignty- you're taking away choice. I trust my neighbor with his money more than I trust the government with it. At the end of the day he's going to hurt me, not help me. His policies might seem cute to you, but they're damaging my place of employment and ruining business. Socialism doesn't promote anything but centralized control and a misery index.

Edit: Haha, and I love your choice in avy change. Calling Obama a "snob" That's perfect, especially when considering his roots, background, the fact that he graduated at the top of his class at Harvard University, and John McCain's 8 multi-million dollar homes. haha. And graduating Harvard makes him not a snob? Obama chose to start his career in one of the most corrupt states in America, started his career in the home of two terrorists, worked as a community agitator, taught lessons for ACORN on how to undermine businesses and banks, attended a racist black liberation church for 20 years until it became political suicide, made land deals with corrupt business men like Tony Rezko, thinks average Americans are ignorant bigots and cling to guns and religion, thinks he knows how to spend my money better than I do, and is an elitist snob. McCain served his country for years in the military from the Cuban Missile Crisis to Vietnam, endured years of captivity, brutality, and torture. He's worked with people he disagreed with ideologically for the sake of unity even when he knew it would harm him in the long run. McCain has supported many things I opposed, but there's one thing I won't ever deny about McCain and that's that he's an honorable and honest man, not a two-faced schmuck like Obama. As for his homes, those aren't his but his wive's homes. John McCain actually owns no homes. The McCains signed a prenuptial agreement for their marriage. McCain doesn't own Cindy's property. But you've been wrong on everything else, so why am I not shocked you'd believe the myths of McCain and Palin. And they're not even inhabited by them; other people live in them and Cindy gets some kind of profit from the home values or some such thing if I remember correctly. And let me add, McCain was my last choice for president. I supported Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney. McCain was my last choice besides Ron Paul who doesn't count because he didn't matter. I had many disagreements with McCain on immigration, campaign contribution and finance laws, his position on waterboarding, and so on. If we conservatives had it our way McCain wouldn't have even been on the ticket. If we stuck to the principles we used to have then we would have won because all those people that voted for Bush in 2004 would have actually come to vote instead of staying home refusing to pull the lever for McCain. That being said, McCain was a far better choice than Obama on foreign policy, the economy, Supreme Court nominees, spending, taxes, and so on.

Virtual Chatot
February 14th, 2009, 01:37 PM
I thinks its time for someone who has studied Communist and Socialist economic theory to step it. Socialism is a branch of Anarchy, following the thought process that there should be no government, and that the only governing body should be the people themselves in their communities. ( I.e. the Plymouth colony practiced a form of socialism, but didn't have any real influence by any government ) Now, Communism is a branch of Socialism which states that people are to stupid for Socialism at this time, so a central power has to slowly move the people towards socialism. ( It kinda defeats the whole point of Socialism, as it always ends up creating an even worse government every time it is implemented )

Metatron
February 16th, 2009, 05:00 PM
I thinks its time for someone who has studied Communist and Socialist economic theory to step it. Socialism is a branch of Anarchy, following the thought process that there should be no government, and that the only governing body should be the people themselves in their communities. ( I.e. the Plymouth colony practiced a form of socialism, but didn't have any real influence by any government ) Now, Communism is a branch of Socialism which states that people are to stupid for Socialism at this time, so a central power has to slowly move the people towards socialism. ( It kinda defeats the whole point of Socialism, as it always ends up creating an even worse government every time it is implemented )

...lolwut?

Socialism isn't anarchy. Anarchy is a system which lacks any sort o central government power. Socialism, if anything, is the exact opposite of that; the government is allowed to intervene on several personal issues, such as income and wealth distribution, in an attempt to "spread the wealth," and promote more balanced social classes.

I think maybe you're mistaking *true* communism for socialism. Communism is a system in which the people "run themselves" with a weaker form of central government, if any at all. There are no social classes, and wealth is shared equally. Sadly, the communism we see in today's world is twisted and corrupt =/

Gah, I'm not in the mood to debate anymore. We've completely spammed the hell out this entire thread, and the last several posts have had absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic. Just let me finish up with one more thing:

And way to completely gobble up the lies about Palin. She was joking about seeing Russia from Alaska; she didn't actually say that was foreign policy experience.

....Does it look like she's joking here? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg)

Agent Cobalt
February 17th, 2009, 06:38 PM
....Does it look like she's joking here? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg)

No, but then she said something completely different there, didn't she now? There she actually said that she has had to deal with being an American state bordered by two countries, Canada and Russia. That's different than saying "I can see Russia from my house so I have foreign policy experience" as a joke, or heck, even being serious. You seem to have the latest strand of the Bush Derangement Syndrome virus- Palin Derangement Syndrome. Tell me, what foreign policy experience did Obama, you know... the guy at the top of the ticket, have before being president? Giving a lame speech at Berlin badmouthing his own country? Threatening our ally Pakistan with bombings during a debate in the primaries? Living in Indonesia? Having a Kenyan father? Really now, Palin was a vice presidential candidate and was more qualified to be president than the top of the other ticket.

Melody
February 17th, 2009, 07:31 PM
...lolwut?

Socialism isn't anarchy. Anarchy is a system which lacks any sort o central government power. Socialism, if anything, is the exact opposite of that; the government is allowed to intervene on several personal issues, such as income and wealth distribution, in an attempt to "spread the wealth," and promote more balanced social classes.

I think maybe you're mistaking *true* communism for socialism. Communism is a system in which the people "run themselves" with a weaker form of central government, if any at all. There are no social classes, and wealth is shared equally. Sadly, the communism we see in today's world is twisted and corrupt =/

Gah, I'm not in the mood to debate anymore. We've completely spammed the hell out this entire thread, and the last several posts have had absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic. Just let me finish up with one more thing:



....Does it look like she's joking here? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg)

Really now, Your defense of Socialism and Communism makes you look like an uninformed idiot. It has been proven, throughout history, that Socialism Fails. It is, as Agent Cobalt says, 'A System which spreads misery'. On that, I do agree with him. If someone is poor, it's their own shortcomings which have caused it. The successful have taken risk, and managed their money wisely and they are doing well for it. No need to punish people who are getting things right.

No, but then she said something completely different there, didn't she now? There she actually said that she has had to deal with being an American state bordered by two countries, Canada and Russia. That's different than saying "I can see Russia from my house so I have foreign policy experience" as a joke, or heck, even being serious. You seem to have the latest strand of the Bush Derangement Syndrome virus- Palin Derangement Syndrome. Tell me, what foreign policy experience did Obama, you know... the guy at the top of the ticket, have before being president? Giving a lame speech at Berlin badmouthing his own country? Threatening our ally Pakistan with bombings during a debate in the primaries? Living in Indonesia? Having a Kenyan father? Really now, Palin was a vice presidential candidate and was more qualified to be president than the top of the other ticket.

Agent Cobalt, I know how conservative you are and all, but do you really trust someone like McCain, who dug up all manner of lies about Obama? Seriously, Do you REALLY buy that BS?! I dont. And Palin, well she's a complete idiot to me. She has little concept of how serious she should be acting. That kind of attitude really only spells disaster when it comes to foreign policy. I dare you to come up with some POLITICALLY NEUTRAL references, proving beyond reasonable doubt that those things you belive about Obama is true. News Clips dont count either, since most news agencies DO in fact have political ties as well.

Metatron
February 17th, 2009, 08:05 PM
Really now, Your defense of Socialism and Communism makes you look like an uninformed idiot. It has been proven, throughout history, that Socialism Fails. It is, as Agent Cobalt says, 'A System which spreads misery'. On that, I do agree with him. If someone is poor, it's their own shortcomings which have caused it. The successful have taken risk, and managed their money wisely and they are doing well for it. No need to punish people who are getting things right.


"Uninformed idiot," huh? With 3 classes in political science, 2 semesters in my school's debate club, and a college class on the foundation of political ideologies, I doubt I'm someone you could call "uninformed." I wasn't defending communism in that post, bro; read it again. I even went as far as to say that the "communism" we see in today's world is "twisted and corrupt." Communism will never truly be achieved, as the human mind is too self-centered, and puts their own selfish desires before the well-being of anyone else. It's a beautiful ideology, just a very unrealistic one =/

If you're born with a physical/mental disability, and cannot afford to take care of yourself, well, I guess that must be your fault too, huh? And those born into wealthy families and have their entire future set out on a silver platter in front of them because of their parents successful careers have it just as hard as those born into families without money? Those born into wealth will have greater opportunities in life than those born without, you can't deny that. So how can you honestly say that "poor people deserve to be that way?"

If you're gonna go as far as to try and call me an "uninformed idiot," make sure you cut down on the level of ignorance in your post next time, k?

Edit: Haha, wait a second. Weren't you that dude who used to stalk Theresa not too long ago?

Volkner's Apprentice
February 17th, 2009, 08:09 PM
I agree with Twilight's statement, and I'm also conservative (though perhaps not as frontal as Agent :P, no harm done by being outgoing about it of course!), yet (agreeing with Zazie) I also would like to see if some political arguments went neutral around here. Why do political topics get heated and close all the time? Because people bring in the references, opinions, and get all "ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?" on people. True, that's what politics is and yes, some people are ignorant (I don't mean anyone in this topic, but past ones), yet there are other ways of proving/showing that without the put-downs.

Nevertheless, I love all the work Cobalt puts into his research, since it puts some excellent facts down on the table in addition to his opinion. You try to find ten people on here who would put their time, effort, and brainpower into knowing our Constitution as well as they know the Pokemon games. Not gonna happen. XD (And if anyone who barely likes Pokemon quotes this saying 'well I know them equally!' then I'll again bring up the comment of why in the WORLD do you people join Pokemon forums?)

Agent Cobalt
February 17th, 2009, 08:36 PM
Really now, Your defense of Socialism and Communism makes you look like an uninformed idiot.
Hey now, don't insult him just because he's wrong. I prefer to break their arguments apart with facts as cold and hard as steel.

Agent Cobalt, I know how conservative you are and all, but do you really trust someone like McCain, who dug up all manner of lies about Obama? Seriously, Do you REALLY buy that BS?! I dont.Please, call me Cobalt. And of course I trust John McCain. He's served my country honorably for decades now and regardless of his shortcomings and disagreements I've had with him, he's never let me down. Not as a serviceman, not as a patriot, not as an American. And you're going to need to be more specific here. What lies are you talking about? Because the only problem I had with how McCain ran his campaign was his unwillingness to hit Obama where it hurt until it was too late. Last time I checked, he didn't go after his connections to Reverend Wright, he took a microphone away from a woman at a town hall meeting because she called Obama an Arab and McCain retaliated by calling him a good man, and the list goes on. McCain's problem was that he did NOT want to attack Obama even though it could have won him the election. His problem wasn't that he was too hard or vicious, but that he was far too kind, patient, and courteous to the other side which is exactly why we conservatives didn't want him to be the nominee in the first place.


And Palin, well she's a complete idiot to me. She has little concept of how serious she should be acting. That kind of attitude really only spells disaster when it comes to foreign policy.I dare you to come up with some POLITICALLY NEUTRAL referencesYou're going to lecture me about neutrality when it comes to news sources but base your opinion of Palin, not on a fair portrayal from the media (which doesn't exist), but a news system from newspapers to liberal news channels that tried to destroy her character since the day she was announced? The network of anti-Palin goons and biased drones with thrills running up their legs for Obama? Where do you get your news, if you don't mind me asking? I'd like to know, because I can't think of any form of media (paper, radio, tv) that has no agenda except Fox News which itself is slanted towards its conservative base. Did you get your opinion from Palin from DrudgeReport? Talk radio? Honestly, if you base your opinion on Palin by the liberal anchors attacking her over her newborn son or her daughter's pregnancy, or based on hack job sliced edited interviews, then where's the neutrality in that? Here I am in a different world than you or Vega because I actually know the stories behind the misgivings about the woman I proudly voted for. I have to defend Palin for things she didn't do or say or things blatantly false about her qualifications. On the other hand-

I dare you to come up with some POLITICALLY NEUTRAL references, proving beyond reasonable doubt that those things you belive about Obama is true. News Clips dont count either, since most news agencies DO in fact have political ties as well.I have to prove every claim I make about Obama because if I challenge his credibility then I'm drinking the anti-Obama/media/insert aggressor kool-aid. If I want to attack Palin or McCain then that's typical because one speaks funny and the other can't use a computer, and really they're idiots and deserve it, but if I don't jump on the Obama bandwagon then I must have to explain myself and my comments about Obama. McCain can be mocked and joked about by the Obama campaign because he can't use a computer because he can't use his arms right because of the war injuries he incurred during his torture in Vietnam, but how dare the McCain campaign or even a McCain supporter bring up something real and scary like Obama starting his political life in the home of two terrorists that worked in a terrorist group that killed police officers and bombed our capital. It's funny that *that* is the controversial thing to bring up. Forget that it's true and kind of important, it has to be wrong because Obama is cool and young and smiles a lot and he's not Bush, so forget all the horrible and even disgusting things in Obama's background or that his campaign has been a part of; McCain is McBush and anything we say about him is funny and true. Mock McCain's war injuries and call him unpatriotic, that's fine, but don't bring up real things about Obama that hurt people's feelings and are uncomfortable to discuss or you're a biased liar that needs to show his sources because Obama couldn't possibly have a dark past and criticism has to be "all manner of lies." It is funny though- I can't trust that guy that risked his life for his fellow airmen and Americans, but I can trust the Chicago thug, community agitator, friend of Vietnam-era terrorists, and basically committed treason by undermining our laws by trying to secretly negotiate with Iraq officials to keep troops there until the election so he could keep it as a campaign issue. This reminds me a fight I got into where an Obama-supporting mod at another site kept calling me out because he didn't like what I had to say about his past and his associations, and he basically forced me to give a list of citations proving it; of course he didn't demand it of the pro-Obama members or those making dubious claims of McCain, but that's the way it is I guess. I did give him a page of citations and he excused himself as not caring either way; he just "didn't want me getting away with making things up."

Heheh, where was I? I was letting off my frustration about the double standards regarding the last election, and I went off on a tangent. My bad. Anyway, you tell me which claim you want me to back up and I'll get to it. I've had a lot to say about Obama and I wouldn't know where to start. His terrorist buddies that bombed the capital and the Pentagon? Him threatening Pakistan with bombings if not invasion? Go ahead and ask.

Zorua
February 17th, 2009, 08:41 PM
I agree with Twilight's statement, and I'm also conservative (though perhaps not as frontal as Agent :P, no harm done by being outgoing about it of course!), yet (agreeing with Zazie) I also would like to see if some political arguments went neutral around here. Why do political topics get heated and close all the time? Because people bring in the references, opinions, and get all "ARE YOU SERIOUS!?!?" on people. True, that's what politics is and yes, some people are ignorant (I don't mean anyone in this topic, but past ones), yet there are other ways of proving/showing that without the put-downs.

Nevertheless, I love all the work Cobalt puts into his research, since it puts some excellent facts down on the table in addition to his opinion.

I disagree with Zazie about calling Vega a misinformed idiot, especially since you(general) aren't supposed to judge people's knowledge at all. It's sort of an arrogant and immature thing, especially when it's something concerning politics. No one really needs to heat up like this.

It's like this: If you don't have anything logical to say, other than your post just being a giant paragraph to diss another member, just don't say anything at all. It isn't logical and it never was and it never will be.

Amachi
February 17th, 2009, 08:47 PM
Way to go off-topic everyone.

http://i190.photobucket.com/albums/z18/amachizzle/2s93es4.gif

locked