Presidential Election: 2012

  • Thread starter Omnis
  • 3,780 comments
  • 150,957 views
If I'm not mistaken, fraud is one of the fed's responsibilities. So, no.

Anyway, this debate is really disgusting. You can see right through it if you're not on the Kool Aid.
 
I'm listening to the feed. I like how they're all regurgitating a hazy version of Ron Paul's message that isn't as specific, and somehow isn't quite as broad either. They make it sound good and use key words that grab people's attention without them thinking too hard about what was actually said.
 
I like how Frozzy Rick Santorum doesn't define how long we should stay in Afghanistan, just until America is safe. So by that standard I can BS like Bush did with Iraq but on a level of several years just to keep us their for a defense benefit and nothing more.
 
Omnis
Well Santorum is the same as Bush 2004. Just frothier.
Click to expand...

I don't know why I typed frozzy :lol:, foamy is what I was going for but I must have thought froth and foamy and combined for some weird word. Anyways Huntsman made a good point about Afghanistan but was attacked. I also see a trend for Dems to claim that Romeny won the debate for the night (when he really didn't).
 
Dapper
I just look at evidence. There has been a dynamic shift in political philosophy since Reagan took office, and there has been no benefit for anyone who isn't rich. But keep up the ignoring of facts, it lets the Republican inside smile.

I implore you to find anything substantial that supports Republican ideology, specifically trickle down economics and regulation hampering growth.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/TaxTimeline.htm
Click to expand...
If it looks like a Democrat, & it spews like a Democrat....
 
CSLACR
What is "modern republican ideology"?
Click to expand...
Generally, big, expensive, intrusive government. They tend to attack what they feel are moral issues with America. Domestically, that means a wasteful but ever-expanding drug war, expanding rights violations for citizens and non-citizens alike, and an authoritarian attitude toward right and wrong. Internationally, they favor an immensely powerful and widespread military that operates proactively to make sure no other nation or people has the ability to harm American soil. Republicans' attitude toward the world is fairly imperialistic.

Democrats at the moment have a similar foreign policy, though they're less angry about it and instead try to make legitimate excuses for expanding the role of our military around the world. Domestically, they're less authoritarian than Republicans, a bit more lax on social issues, and they don't tend to push their idea of morality so heavily. What they do instead is fight for the people's safety - what I mean by that is they also support limiting freedom, but in a way that reduces personal responsibility to the point where everybody becomes dependent on government handouts, and they do this under a veil of "safety first".

Both Democrats and Republicans attack our Constitution and personal liberties ferociously, though they attack it for different reasons. Both parties uphold a similar imperialistic, proactive policy with regards to our military and foreign policy.

NOTE: I'm not making this up. It's a trend that has been cruising right along for many decades now. The parties are virtually the same in that they're ruining our way of life in this country.
 
Keef
Domestically, they're less authoritarian than Republicans, a bit more lax on social issues, and they don't tend to push their idea of morality so heavily. What they do instead is fight for the people's safety - what I mean by that is they also support limiting freedom, but in a way that reduces personal responsibility to the point where everybody becomes dependent on government handouts, and they do this under a veil of "safety first".
Click to expand...
How is the "Won't somebody think of the children" stance not pushing morality heavily? They push their morality just as heavily, even calling it immoral to disagree with them, but because it isn't "family values" it appears as a different thing. Someone regulating what my kid can eat and what my kid can watch/play/study is the same in my book, especially since they have the same excuse.

Oddly though, I remember when Hillary was attacking TV companies and Tipper Gore and Lieberman were going after video games. I guess when family values became a Republican talking point it became something for Democrats to ignore. Imagine that, hypocrisy in politics. [sarcasm]That's not the politics I know.[/sarcasm]
 
Keef
I'm listening to the feed. I like how they're all regurgitating a hazy version of Ron Paul's message that isn't as specific, and somehow isn't quite as broad either. They make it sound good and use key words that grab people's attention without them thinking too hard about what was actually said.
Click to expand...

​
 
FoolKiller
How is the "Won't somebody think of the children" stance not pushing morality heavily? They push their morality just as heavily, even calling it immoral to disagree with them, but because it isn't "family values" it appears as a different thing. Someone regulating what my kid can eat and what my kid can watch/play/study is the same in my book, especially since they have the same excuse.

Oddly though, I remember when Hillary was attacking TV companies and Tipper Gore and Lieberman were going after video games. I guess when family values became a Republican talking point it became something for Democrats to ignore. Imagine that, hypocrisy in politics. [sarcasm]That's not the politics I know.[/sarcasm]
Click to expand...
You're right, both of them push their own flavor of morality, but what I was aiming for was to say that Republicans do it in a negative way - punishing crime, drawing hard lines, calling people unamerican, etc. - while Democrats put a positive spin on it - save the whales, what about the children, welfare for all the poor people.

But then, things have gotten muddied recently. It really doesn't matter who believes in what - they're both wrong as can be.
 
I want to leave this country now. After reading and considering how many fools people would actually support this and how in the hell he got this far to begin with, I'm embarrassed and sickened to live here. May his god be wiped from the Earth.
More Zany Rick
 
I would like to think that nobody takes this man seriously but it appears that there are people deluded enough to believe his delusions.

It's absolute madness.
 
ChaosStar79
I want to leave this country now. After reading and considering how many fools people would actually support this and how in the hell he got this far to begin with, I'm embarrassed and sickened to live here. May his god be wiped from the Earth.
More Zany Rick
Click to expand...
Well, that's a bit harsh, I wouldn't go that far. I would just say that I hope he doesn't get elected. This is America - he can pray to whoever he wants to - as long as he doesn't push it on everybody else. But don't worry, he won't. This is still a Romney/Paul race, and will be until the end.
 
Keef
Well, that's a bit harsh, I wouldn't go that far. I would just say that I hope he doesn't get elected. This is America - he can pray to whoever he wants to - as long as he doesn't push it on everybody else. But don't worry, he won't. This is still a Romney/Paul race, and will be until the end.
Click to expand...

I don't mind peaceful religious beliefs as much, I just find them personally kind of sad. But this guy is (at least) Old Testament about his beliefs. Jesus was a much more likeable character to follow after in my opinion, and one who would despise almost every word that came out of Rick's mouth. He ignorantly promotes violence and nation destroying/building, tries to deny lbgt any kind of equal rights, has no concept of right to privacy or freedom in general, and still gets more than 5% of the vote. That should bother everyone. That means that whatever percentage of the vote he gets, either supports this kind of destructive behavior or casts a ballot without doing the research necessary to find out his stances and/or record. I believe everyone should have the right to vote, but as with everything else, personal responsibility needs to be exercised so that this great duty is carried out in an informed and responsible manner.
 
I like how Santorum thinks he's all slick **** now since coming in 2nd in Iowa. He's evolved into Giant Douche.

giant-douche-38682919729_xlarge.jpeg


This race would be a lot better if Paul did better than third.
 
So...I'm confused.

I was just watching CNN Newsroom with Don Lemon, when I heard him mention Ron Paul's name. I rewound the DVR a bit to start from the beginning. Apparently the topic was racism within the GOP president race.

Don played a clip from FOX News of Paul explaining how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 trampled on private property rights here in the US. First of all, the FOX anchor who proposed the questioned to Paul of whether or not the Act of 1964 was constitutional, Chris Wallace, who himself is biased against Paul and is an average establishment-supporting political pundit.

Anyways, Don Lemon laughed a bit and attacked Paul as being racist for saying negative things about the Act of 1964. He attacked all the GOP candidates as being racist, accusing them of not wanting to share their hard-earned money with people who don't work and are lazy (I'm unable to quote off the TV at this time, but he literally worded that similarly, and directly said people who "don't work" and are "lazy"), as if people have some moral responsibility to give free things to people who are too lazy to work for themselves. Mr. Lemon then invited a guest onto the stage, who agreed wholeheartedly with him.

He then brought up a point about Santorum during one of his townhall meetings, saying that Santorum said the word "black" when describing how he wanted to give people the opportunity to work and earn their living. I didn't hear the word "black" when I watched it. Even after Don showed Santorum defending this incident, saying that he simply stumbled while speaking, I had to go back and watch it again. What I heard was a barely-audible tongue twister on Santorum's part, immediately before the word "people". No biggie, people misspeak often. But what Don heard was "black people". His guest also heard "black people", apparently, because after Santorum's explanation was finished the CNN camera showed Don and his guest bursting into laughter, and then basically rambling on about how Santorum is a racist.

I didn't bother telling you above, because I wanted it to be a surprise. Don Lemon is black. His guest was also black.

So let me get this straight. CNN wanted to show how the GOP candidates - all white - are racist against black people, so they have a black pundit do it, and the black pundit invites a black guest to get a second opinion on how the candidates are racist against black people. That...uh...sounds like a faultless plan?

Don also mentioned how 94% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008, as if he was going to prove something with that statistic. :lol:

All that typing and all I did was demonstrate how asinine CNN and this pundit are, and I didn't even talk about how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 actually does trample all over business owners' property rights. See, because just as a person should be able to decide who enters the home they own, they should also be able to decide who enters the business they own, because that business is their private property just like their home. But the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that business owners don't have a right to let in who they want - they have to let everybody in because it's not fair to one group or another if the business owner kicks one of them out.

News flash: Individual rights - life, liberty, property - apply to individuals, not groups, first of all, and you can't restrict one person's rights in order to protect the rights of another. In that respect, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in tremendously, immorally, unconstitutionally flawed, and should be amended or repealed.
 
Keef
News flash: Individual rights - life, liberty, property - apply to individuals, not groups, first of all, and you can't restrict one person's rights in order to protect the rights of another. In that respect, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in tremendously, immorally, unconstitutionally flawed, and should be amended or repealed.
Click to expand...

Would you agree that, in general, the Civil Rights Act has been beneficial to minorities, females and persons with a disability?


Not sure if Lemon's show was taped before this, but I'd say it was an interesting move by Paul last night

 
YSSMAN
Would you agree that, in general, the Civil Rights Act has been beneficial to minorities, females and persons with a disability?
Click to expand...
Benefiting one group at the expense of another actually harms both of them. Unfair legislation like this promotes group warfare, class warfare, racism against groups who are benefiting unfairly, and racism from groups who now feel entitled to special benefits from the rest of society. Affirmative Action is another textbook example of this. Good intentions implemented terribly, because government has no business doling out group rights, because right apply to individuals only.

Property rights dictate that a property owner should be able to decide who they want to deal with, whether it be an employer hiring who they want, or a restauranteur serving who they want, or a bar owner kicking out who they want.


Not sure if Lemon's show was taped before this, but I'd say it was an interesting move by Paul last night

Click to expand...
By posting this video, you, through Paul, have proved my point that racism exists as it does because it is an unintended consequence of unfair, unconstitutional government legislation.

I say "unintended" to give them the benefit of the doubt - there is very strong evidence suggesting these consequences were intended.
 
Keef
By posting this video, you, through Paul, have proved my point that racism exists as it does because it is an unintended consequence of unfair, unconstitutional government legislation.

I say "unintended" to give them the benefit of the doubt - there is very strong evidence suggesting these consequences were intended.
Click to expand...

I'm not big on my famous american legislation but I do try to keep up so apologies if you have already addressed this in this thread but...

Could you give some examples of these racist laws? I'm very curious to know what they are and what your opinion is on them, Keef.
 
As you know, racism against minorities, typically blacks, and women, had been a problem for quite a long time in the US. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution state that "all men are created equal" and that all individuals have the rights to their life, liberty, and "pursuit of happiness", which is better described as a right to their property. But for the longest time, women weren't considered men, literally, because they're women, and therefore couldn't vote and were treated unfavorably in many other ways. Blacks weren't considered people at all - at one time the Three-Fifths Compromise existed, which stated that one black slave equals 3/5 of one white man - and therefore couldn't vote and had no rights. Their rights evolved over time, but by the 1960s white and black segregation was rampant in this country, what with blacks have dedicated bathrooms, drinking fountains, seats on the bus, they couldn't vote, were treated unfairly by police, etc.

The Civil Rights Act attempted to rectify this. It ended government-instituted segregation, such as allowing them to vote and access the same public schools as whites. But it also outlawed private segregation, forcing private employers to hire black employees in the name of fairness, or forcing a restaurant owner to serve blacks even if he didn't want to. This is a problem.

A man's home is his own private property, and he dictates who comes and who goes. His business is also his own private property, and he should be able to dictate who comes and who goes, who gets served, or who gets hired or fired. It is his business, and his right to property comes before the rights of any potential patron because no person is entitled to any service or good. A person being entitled to a service or good violates the rights of the person providing that service or good. I'll say again, no person is entitled to enter or work at any establishment because that would violate the establishment owner's right to property.

Affirmative action is a broad term referring to, as Wikipedia puts it, "policies that take factors including 'race, color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or national origin' into consideration in order to benefit an underrepresented group, usually as a means to counter the effects of a history of discrimination."

In practice, it works like this: An employer has to decide between two candidates for a job. One is white, one is black, and both are equally qualified; the only difference between them is their skin color. Because of affirmative action laws, the employer is forced to hire the black candidate over the white candidate, because if they don't they open themselves up to be sued by the black candidate for racial discrimination, which is a huge deal in terms of court costs, fines, and negative public exposure. But when the black candidate is hired over the white candidate, if the white one were to sue for racial discrimination, the lawsuit would not be taken seriously by anybody in the public or in the government, leaving the white candidate virtually helpless to fight it. That is what I mean by legislated racism. These rules were implemented to benefit one group (minorities in general) at the expense of another (whites). Because, you know, us white people are racists and we owe reparations for slavery or whatever.

No offense, and by "no offense" I mean I'm going to say something offensive and ya'll are going to deal with it like men, but every single sensible white American on this forum knows what I'm saying is true.

EDIT: For the record, many of these affirmative action rules have been implemented by Executive Order, a way the President can write laws, and not by Congress, which means that the American public had no say in whether or not it became a law.
 
Last edited:
Any law that gives rights to a race that take precedent over normal individual rights.

Edit: Mine's simpler. :lol:

To comment of Keef's last bit -
If I'm honest, when I see a woman at the top of a company, I always wonder, did this woman earn her position, or did she get it for other reasons, the most prominent being simply because they wanted a woman up high to make the company look good?
For "minorities", I might ask the same question, but to a lesser degree.

It's not that I don't think either can earn their spot up high in a company, it's the laws and/or PR BS that makes me question it. Nothing else, just that it's now considered "not acceptable" to have a group of all white executive men, even if white men are the most qualified people you have to promote.
 
Last edited:
You know something? That problem of proportional representation in the work place exists in the UK too. Generally, generally, the UK hasn't been as bad as the US when it comes to racism. We've had our fair share of infamy, but not to the extent as the US.

But with the advent of the EU and increased immigration and the integration of other religions, we see this same problem too. Minorities do get better/preferential treatment in a manner that is disadvantageous to white people. But no-one wants to admit this. Because what is apparent is that when a white person says "They get preferrential treatment", the response from the law is usually "Racist. You're saying they don't deserve special treatment?" but vice versa, if a minority says "They get special treatment" then the law/legislative arm of the Government panders to most of their whims so they don't seem like they're excluding minorities. I'm not personally suggesting that whites are being oppresed for the sake of equality, we've got and had a cushy ride as it is, but these things do happen and are apparent. But this isn't the thread for that so..

---

..on topic.

I was more interested in what Ron Paul meant by the drug laws being racist. We 'know' that it's a 'fact' that minorities are arrested and prosecuted more often as a result of crime (Inverted commas because I don't have the exact figures to hand but it's a commonly spouted notion), but is that not the police being racist, and not the law itself? Where is it in the drug law that is specifically targeted/aimed at/oppresive towards minorities? It seems to me that it is the law enforcers like the police who are commiting the racial acts. I'm asking this as an outsider to the full picture.

It was common opinion to Joe Public in the UK that Obama was voted in on the black vote. Whether that's true or not, I think that despite the lingering stench of racism in american history, it's progress that a half-cast man has become President, regardless of whether he has done a good job. In the UK, we've had a woman and a Jew be Prime Minister in the past.

Could you imagine a Jew being elected President? I can't.

---

Addendum: I appreciate your informative post Keef, but I do have a good general knowledge of American politics/history and did know most of the historical points in your post. I certainly don't claim to be an expert so I like asking questions. I was trying to find out more about racism in the law today, as Ron Paul spoke about. But yeah, ta anyway; it always makes for interesting reading about a country which claims to be Land Of The Free (Man) etc. but has had a horrible history of opression.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

GranTurNismo
The Future of Joe Biden
Replies
29
Views
1K
AEKara38
AEKara38
Sanji Himura
  • Poll
The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread
315 316 317
Replies
10K
Views
379K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Sanji Himura
  • Locked
  • Poll
[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016
343 344 345
Replies
10K
Views
391K
Famine
Famine
Jimlaad43
Formula 1 crypto.com (ugh, really?) Miami Grand Prix 2022
11 12 13
Replies
360
Views
19K
NICKname
NICKname
Omnis
Congress 2010 Thread
9 10 11
Replies
303
Views
17K
FoolKiller
FoolKiller

Latest Posts

Back