President Obama does it again!

  • Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.

dragonfliet

I write stuffs
Apr 24, 2006
3,754
31
48
41
Oh jesus christ farbereaoiueoqiuroqiwruaopaurei; I'm drunk and you STILL sound completely ridiculous.
 

TWD

Cute and Cuddly
Aug 2, 2000
7,445
15
38
38
Salt Lake City UT
members.lycos.co.uk
What about capping campaign budgets?

And TWD, a country can't function without socialism.

Let's not fall into the trap our libertarian friends make that any kind of government program is socialism. Socialism is where the government controls the means of production and effectively manages the economy. In socialism the government is responsible for the well being of the people instead of people being responsible for themselves. Building a road is not necessarily socialism as long as the means of production are still provided by the free market.
 

Firefly

United Kingdom is not a country.
Let's not fall into the trap our libertarian friends make that any kind of government program is socialism. Socialism is where the government controls the means of production and effectively manages the economy. In socialism the government is responsible for the well being of the people instead of people being responsible for themselves. Building a road is not necessarily socialism as long as the means of production are still provided by the free market.

I really wish England moved further away from this model. But not so far that the fire crews ask for your credit card details before they put out the fire that's burning your house down.

Nothing wrong with having a state funded benefit system but it needs to be tightly controlled and not handed out to anybody who turns up be they foreign or domestic.

You're right though not every government program is based off socialism. Some even appear to contradict those values.
 
Last edited:

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
you claim that I'm ignoring the money he raised.
I'm not. obviously raising more than your opponent helps. but this point is so obvious that I didn't feel there was any reason to go out of my way to address it in the beginning.
You said he would have won without more money.
but I am also claiming that you are ignoring the historical precedence of the 2008 election; historical on both fronts. democrats had the first black man and republicans had the first woman. the combination of first black man (who wasn't a token black man like Herman Cain) plus HORRIBLE woman and inability of John McCain to connect with minorities and young people played AT LEAST as big a role as the money raised.
I honestly don't really care about historical precedence. We shouldn't make historical leaps just because we can. If a person is wrong for the job, they are wrong for the job. McCain's problem from the very beginning was message penetration. Minorities and young people only knew what Obama told them McCain's positions were and that is the position you have to be in to win.
I don't know where you (and people on the right) get off with all this hyperbole when it concerns what Obama does as a politician on his journey toward political power. you think we (on the left-ish side) are supposed to swallow our pride and admit shame in the face of supporting a guy who had some Wall Street help.

why?
I believe my candidate is superior to yours. and it's unfortunate that our election process is so flawed that he must do some things that I dislike in order to get to the place where he might be able to change those things a little bit at a time.

I don't see how this automatically means that I am sacrificing my principles.
we all have to live in the world as it is currently designed.
The irony of what you just posted is that it's probably accurate to say that both Romney and Obama will do things that you agree with, but both of them "must do some thing that [you] dislike".

I also don't know that this was all necessarily directed at you. However, I've been blown away by the number of people in this election cycle condemning Romney for having and raising lots of money during the campaign and crying eagle tears about how the Presidency is bought and paid for by corporations, then wholeheartedly supporting a candidate that does the exact same thing. If you can look past it for one person, to not be hypocritical, you must look past it for any person.
 

Firefly

United Kingdom is not a country.
I think the problem is that in the American system a vote is for a person not a party. That person (theoretically anyone) can go straight to the top.
Money can buy success.

Here if you want the top job you have to start local and work your way up. Even then we vote for a party. It's true the personality of the leader does make a difference but they can't buy their success.
 

Zxanphorian

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Jul 1, 2002
4,480
0
36
34
PA USA
Visit site
I think the problem is that in the American system a vote is for a person not a party. That person (theoretically anyone) can go straight to the top.
Money can buy success.

Here if you want the top job you have to start local and work your way up. Even then we vote for a party. It's true the personality of the leader does make a difference but they can't buy their success.

I don't see that as a problem. If you vote for a party, you are risking creating a true political class, which is part of what the Founding Fathers wanted to steer clear of. A country for the people cannot function without voting for individual people, not parties.

Anyone can run for office, there is no "rich" prerequisite. Even that Joe the Plumber guy is running for Congress. And you are right that there should be working from the local up, or gaining prerequisite experience. Primary elections in the US are not only to whittle down the field to pick a nominee, but they are, in my viewpoint, there for voters to pick who is most qualified for office. The general election should be used for ideology and stance on views or for referendum, as the qualification issue is resolved.

The problem is the GIGO philosophy. If we put forward garbage candidates, we most certainly will get garbage out come election day or in legislation or enforcement of laws. This is why, as I have said in earlier posts, the American electorate must go from low-information, low-engagement voters to high-information, high-engagement voters. That way we can vet the proper candidates, by telling the corporate shills or the batshit insane to gtfo.
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
You said he would have won without more money.

no.
I said he could have raised a lot less than he did and still won.

I honestly don't really care about historical precedence.
well that's just stupid.
because historical precedent matters.

We shouldn't make historical leaps just because we can.
we didn't elect Obama "just because we could."
we elected Obama / Biden because they were superior in every way to McCain / Palin.

The irony of what you just posted is that it's probably accurate to say that both Romney and Obama will do things that you agree with, but both of them "must do some thing that [you] dislike".
sure.
like I said, candidates in this day and age have to do what they have to do in order to get elected. it's unfortunate, but it's not a problem with our respective candidates as much as it is a problem with the system.

condemning Romney for having and raising lots of money during the campaign and crying eagle tears about how the Presidency is bought and paid for by corporations, then wholeheartedly supporting a candidate that does the exact same thing. If you can look past it for one person, to not be hypocritical, you must look past it for any person.
I can disagree with the system while still supporting my candidate.
it's not hypocrisy.

until the system changes we have to deal with it.
 

Hermskii

www.Hermskii.com
Apr 13, 2003
875
3
18
56
Houston
Hermskii.com
I don't recall anyone saying he w
I don't know where you (and people on the right) get off with all this hyperbole when it concerns what Obama does as a politician on his journey toward political power. you think we (on the left-ish side) are supposed to swallow our pride and admit shame in the face of supporting a guy who had some Wall Street help.

why?
I believe my candidate is superior to yours. and it's unfortunate that our election process is so flawed that he must do some things that I dislike in order to get to the place where he might be able to change those things a little bit at a time.

I don't see how this automatically means that I am sacrificing my principles.
we all have to live in the world as it is currently designed.


Wait wait wait! You (Jacks:SmirkingRevenge) are "on the left-ish side" you say?

"OK"

That is all I will say about that.

This next week is going to be very interesting. The Supreme Court will decide about Obama Care. I think they are also laying down a judgement about Arizona's Anti Illegal Alien/Immigration Law "AND" the Congress will vote on The Attorney General and whether or not Eric Holder will be held in contempt in regards to his dealings with the failings of the Fast and Furious program.

I have a feeling that this coming week will one of the most exciting weeks in politics this country has ever seen. I can't wait!
 

Crotale

_________________________ _______________
Jan 20, 2008
2,535
12
38
Anywhere But Here
democrats had the first black man and republicans had the first woman. the combination of first black man (who wasn't a token black man like Herman Cain) plus HORRIBLE woman and inability of John McCain to connect with minorities and young people played AT LEAST as big a role as the money raised.

Actually, aside from what I am about to note, I agree with what you are saying here. McCain would have lost even if he had someone other than Palin, so her being there was simply an added liability for him nationally speaking (even though she actually brought in more of the GOP conservative base electorate than he did).

Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman to run on a national ticket, as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984. Not sure if you knew this already.
 

dotnetbeast

Mood Muzik
Feb 14, 2006
6,189
60
48
Washington D.C.
I blame you for not providing nearly enough breasts to save this otherwise doomed topic. lol,,:mad:

Because I want this thread to die.


Who gives a shit about politics?
Seriously.


I don't give a fuck. Call me a thread crapper, give me an infraction, but this thread needs to die.
 

Jacks:Revenge

╠╣E╚╚O
Jun 18, 2006
10,065
218
63
somewhere; sometime?
Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman to run on a national ticket, as Walter Mondale's running mate in 1984. Not sure if you knew this already.
oh.
you're right of course. Palin was not the first woman on a national ticket.
it was a little before my time but I've obviously learned about Ferraro.

it just doesn't stick as well since I didn't live through it.
and also I was referring to the Republicans and Democrats separately. Mondale / Ferraro were the liberals. Palin was the first conservative woman to achieve her parties nomination for VP.

What on earth do you mean by that?

don't play dense Hal.

Herman Cain didn't stand a chance from day one.
token black guy all the way.

the reason there's a difference between Cain and Obama is simple.
Obama is serious. no one with a lick of sense believed Cain would go anywhere. Cain himself might have thought he was serious but he was the only one who did. and even that notion is suspicious; I think he knew exactly what he was doing (like Donald Trump); more than anything he was just raising his profile and making money.
 

Sir_Brizz

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 3, 2000
26,020
83
48
no.
I said he could have raised a lot less than he did and still won.
Ehhh.....
yes, and the point is that he didn't need half those dollars.
So you were saying "He could have raised less than half of his money" in other words and effectively, he could have raised less money than McCain/Palin and still won. Which I disagree with and, historically speaking, is wrong.
well that's just stupid.
because historical precedent matters.
Historical precedent makes people feel good but it doesn't actually do anything valuable for the country, which is all I really care about out of our President.
we didn't elect Obama "just because we could."
This was not stated nor implied. I just don't see "historical precedence" as a useful gauge for how important a particular election cycle is. Should we have Hobo Joe running for President this year because it would set a historical precedence?
I can disagree with the system while still supporting my candidate.
it's not hypocrisy.
Hypocrisy is disagreeing with the system, and then berating one candidate for utilizing that system while giving the other candidate a pass simply because you like him. If you don't like Romney, fine. There are probably many positions he has now or has previously held that you can reasonably disagree with without even approaching the "money raised" topic.

It has nothing to do with supporting your candidate. It has to do with being a hypocrite (and I can't think of a single instance where you have done that whether you have or not, which is why I stated in my post that it wasn't necessarily directed at you).