Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
once upon a crime

ANOTHER ROUGH WEEK FOR AMERICAN LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM

Recommended Posts

*Ted Kennedys seat is lost to the conservatives in very liberal massachusetts.

 

 

*1 year anniversary of obama's innaugaration and he cant show anything he

accomplished in his 1st year.

 

 

*The supreme court lifts the ban on political contributions by big business, we all know what

party they will now be contributing to.

 

 

*Hearings on the christmas underwear bomber show the american public the blunders

made and incompantancy thats in charge of terror suspects. All obama appointees.

 

 

*Liberal radio AIR AMERICA went off the air as it went bankrupt due to no listeners or

advertisers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're an idiot. It's a rough week for everyone equally.

 

 

 

Rough week for everyone equally? Sounds like socialism. LOLOLOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im an idiot for stating facts? your obviosly very upset at what i just posted because you just came on here and decided to call me names. that proves you have no argument and that you know what i told you is truth.

 

is it a rough week for obama haters?

is it a rough week for fox news?

is it a rough week for conservatives?

is it a rough week for scott brown?

is it a rough week for air america's competitors?

is it a rough week for big business?

is it a rough week for people who oppose health care?

is it a rough week for the terrorists who are getting treated like american citizens?

 

latest figures show 65% of the american public oppose obamacare, if obamacare is now dead in the water how is it a rough week for everyone equally when 65% oppose what is now crushed? ... think before you decide to call someone an idiot.... dumbass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt call you an idiot because you think I'm mad, I'm calling you an idiot for calling dems socialists. Most Dem officials wouldnt even be socialists if they wanted to.

 

It's a rough week for everyone because the economy still sucks, we've got a war that needs to be wrapped up in 1.5 years, and all you're doing is bickering over two sides of the same coin. Scott Brown's not the answer to any of that shit. He doesnt even understand the issues. People like him because he posed nude in Cosmopolitan magazine.

 

Scott-Brown-naked1.jpg

 

Im not anti-republican, I'm anti-smear. You dont really seem to understand the concept of ethical politics. Loading political campaigns with corporate money isnt good for ANYBODY; Democrats OR republicans. It's great for politicians, but politicians are law students, not business students. They are fucking horrible with money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never said dems are socialists, i said liberalism and socialism had a rough week and gave facts. There are plenty of democrats that are conservative, moderate etc etc and thats why i didnt say democrats, face it the far left of the party took a massive blow this week. why? because the top 3 pelosi, reid, and obama are extremely far left bordering on if not full blown socailists that cut back door deals and payed off people for obamacare votes... and that vote this week was a direct messege to those 3. As for air america, north korea could of bought that station and wouldnt even need to do a format change. :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, you ARE talking about democrats--what little you understand-- because you just said Obama. Obama's not a socialist, therefor you're an idiot.

 

and for the record i also think all politicians are unethical skum, i just love watching them crash and burn as obama and his corrupt cronies are doing right now.

 

If you dont care for politics you might want to stay out of crossfire. I think you're going to be sorely disappointed when Obama successfully restores democracy in the middle east and pulls out of Afghanistan in Summer of 2011, then restores the economy by localizing our industry and greening our economy at the same time. One step at a time tho. One step at a time.

 

And Im not sure why you're so against Obama for this whole health care plan unless you're so young that your parents still pay for yours, In which case Im not sure why you're even trying to talk politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok obama is a socailist hiding under the democratic name.. hey at least i didnt call him a communist like many others have. damm man you need to stop drinking the obama kool aid .. its sad. u think he is still going to do all these things u say? well he's been in for one year and has done nothing, so what makes you think he will do anything this year, he cant even get anything done with the largest majority in decades.

 

you want me to stay out of crossfire? If people with opposite opinions (as me and you have)dont come on here then why would they need a section called crossfire. lol and you call me an idiot after a comment like that. Besides if i didnt come on here who else would you be able to tell how deep obama's cock is shoved down your throat. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahahahahhaa you're insane. Back anything you just said up with reality. Name one thing about his plan that isnt any more socialist than America is already. I dare you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hahahahahhaa you're insane. Back anything you just said up with reality. Name one thing about his plan that isnt any more socialist than America is already. I dare you.

 

for one how about you will be fined if you dont take his government sponsored health care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. That was an idea Montana Sen. Max Baucus brought up but Obama rejected it. It was never taken seriously.

 

That's not even a socialist idea. I asked you to explain how Obama is socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong. That was an idea Montana Sen. Max Baucus brought up but Obama rejected it. It was never taken seriously.

 

That's not even a socialist idea. I asked you to explain how Obama is socialist.

 

 

Actually, I think it's in the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only according to Fox news who says the bill MIGHT fine people. You gotta watch that journalism lingo. Reality is Max Baucus wrote up a plan for the health care, brought it up and Obama praised some of it but rejected the idea of fines.

 

The public health option will only be affordable if enough people buy it so the democrats are trying to think of ways to get people to buy it. Max thought fines might be one way. Another idea was to fine businesses who dont offer it as an option to their employees. Nobody is suggesting it will be in the final bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone who thinks that one year is enough in politics to make any significant changes is lost before the discussion begins.

 

You see how far you can make change when you have to deal with:

 

- major troop deployment and political fracture in Iraq

- Taliban resurgence in Aghanistan

- Possible disintegration of a nuclear armed Pakistan that is supporting the Afghani Taliban

- Rocky trade relationship with China

- Emerging North East Asian community/identity with ROK/PRC/JAPAN

- DPRK continuing to cause instability in the north Western PAcific and testing nukes

- losing influence in Ukraine with the ousting of Yuschenko

- Trying to hold on to Poland which is the pivotal point of the northern European plain

- Trying to hold on to Georgia so Russia doesn't take all of the Caucuses

- Shaping the resurgence of Turkey

- Being told by everyone that the US is responsible for Mid-East peace (Israel/Palestine)

- Emerging AQ activity, Houthi rebellion on the Yemen KSA border

- A resurgent Russia who is now again conducting nuke sub and tac-bomber patrols in the Pacific

- A nuclearising Iran supported by Russia who is destabilising Iraq and Afghanistan

- Narco-insurgency that's creeping across the southern border

- The emerging power of Brazil in South America

 

 

That's just off the top of my head.

 

Try dealing with that AND trying to close Guantanamo, get a health care package (the kind that works just fine in places like Australia, England, New Zealand, Sweden, etc.), trying to get the US economy growing properly again, etc. etc.

 

 

You say that all politicians are scum and you love watching them crash and burn. How many pollies are there in the US Senate and Congress? You know them all well enough to have a credible opinion on their behaviour and virtues? You like to see them crash and burn? That is not exactly wishing the best for your own country, some might say treasonous.

 

 

You lack of understanding of how politics works by thinking that approval rating makes a difference to how effective one can be in office and that a lot can be accomplished in a year (the first year in office as well) is more than clear. Your apparent disregard of the international challenges facing the current administration, that which is hard to compare with any other administration since Roosevelt and maybe Nixon is telling.

 

The cynicism that you approach politics with, which been stated by yourself, indicates that your views, whilst probably internally satisfying, are already tainted and skewed before they are even formed.

 

Got to say dude, it aint easy to take you seriously. You sound rather bandwagonesque, at best.

 

 

 

 

Whether it be Obama, Osama, George Bush or Jesus himself, all who take the leadership are bound by the realities and constraints they are faced with. Personality makes rather little difference in the end. Right now the constraints facing whoever takes the presidency are massive and there is very little room for their personalities to make any difference in their role as president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Brown is not Ted Kennedy.

 

The whole thing is him talking out of his ass. Ted Kennedy enacted universal health coverage in MA already. Scott Brown's rebuttal to Obama's health coverage is he doesnt want the rest of the country to have it because they already do? Is he fucking nuts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Try dealing with that AND trying to close Guantanamo, get a health care package (the kind that works just fine in places like Australia, England, New Zealand, Sweden, etc.), trying to get the US economy growing properly again, etc. etc.

 

 

if he is having to deal with all those things you listed, why doesnt he concentrate on one thing? why try to even think about passing healthcare when he is still killing civilians in iraq and torturing 'enemy combatants' in black spots?

 

most of these foreign policy issues are really non issues. our foreign policy can be changed pretty quick. an immediate withdrawal of US forces from around the world could definitely be completed in one year

 

obama lied about gitmo. he said it would be shut down in one year. why believe anything the guy says? he said 'you can take it to the bank' the first he would do if elected would be to march troops out of the over seas occupation of the middle east and end the war. he hasnt even ATTEMPTED to even THINK about doing this.

 

seriously, anyone that defends this guy is seriously deranged.

as is anyone that has been defending bush for the past 8 years.

 

neither group has any principle, they just want THEIR guy in power. and will do anything possible to make any excuse imaginable to defend their tyrannical policies.

then prance around and talk about how all this was inherited, and he has to much on his plate. when all the things on his plate is of his own doing.

instead of trying to pass healthcare legislation which is unconstitutional in the first place... why not do something he can legally and legitimately do... end the war. bring troops home. change foreign policy. he is commander in chief. he has no authority to pass health care but he can, in an instant, begin withdrawal of occupying forces across the globe, stop using the patriot act, shut down the batfe, end the war on drugs, etc, all by using his legitimate constitutional executive power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if he is having to deal with all those things you listed, why doesnt he concentrate on one thing? why try to even think about passing healthcare when he is still killing civilians in iraq and torturing 'enemy combatants' in black spots?
I bet he wishes it was that easy! However, I know little about domestic US policy and economics so I won't comment anymore on that. But the next point ties in to this one.

 

most of these foreign policy issues are really non issues. our foreign policy can be changed pretty quick. an immediate withdrawal of US forces from around the world could definitely be completed in one year

That's impossible unless you want the US to commit suicide.

 

If the US pulled out of the middle east Iran would soon turn the place in to a mass of total chaos (right now it's managed chaos, which is perfect for the US because it creates dependency on American military supremacy) and oil prices would go up to $300 per barrel and the whole global economy would crash beyond repair.

 

even if the economy did not fuck everything beyond recognition:

 

There would be a MASSIVE arms race in north eastern Asia that would result in one country gaining supremacy and becoming a regional power that would then threaten US security across the pacific. Right now the US has the place fairly well tied up (forget about DPRK, CHina will not allow them to have nukes because that will screw Beijing more than it will screw washington).

 

The extremists would again take Afghanistan and Pakistan and I'm pretty certain that India would not stand by and nukes would fly. You would be amazed to know how close we have come to that int he last few years and even today there is an alert out for another large scale terror attack on Indian interests that REALLY risks causing a serious shitfight in the region.

 

I could go on and on giving you probable scenarios of what would happen if the US went isolationist and all of them would create very serious security concerns for the US. The US has security concerns now but NONE of them threaten their existence.

 

Just because the US might choose to pull out of the world doesn't mean that the world would then leave the US alone. Just the change to the global energy flows would cripple the US in 3 months.

 

obama lied about gitmo. he said it would be shut down in one year. why believe anything the guy says? he said 'you can take it to the bank' the first he would do if elected would be to march troops out of the over seas occupation of the middle east and end the war. he hasnt even ATTEMPTED to even THINK about doing this.

 

Are you saying that the US position in Iraq is the same as 2 years ago?! Surely you don't mean that. Shit there has changed dramatically. It may not have been all O's doing, but things there are changing.

 

seriously, anyone that defends this guy is seriously deranged.

as is anyone that has been defending bush for the past 8 years.

 

It's not my intention to defend or attack anyone, I just feel that there are a lot of structural realities that are completely ignored in these discussions and too many people who focus on personalities, which really are the least relevant variable in the whole picture.

 

 

 

neither group has any principle, they just want THEIR guy in power. and will do anything possible to make any excuse imaginable to defend their tyrannical policies.

 

Apart from the tyrannical bit, I agree.

 

 

then prance around and talk about how all this was inherited, and he has to much on his plate. when all the things on his plate is of his own doing.

 

Um, what? Each Pres. inherits the realities of the past administrations and those of other countries. No Pres. starts fresh.

 

instead of trying to pass healthcare legislation which is unconstitutional in the first place... why not do something he can legally and legitimately do... end the war. bring troops home. change foreign policy. he is commander in chief. he has no authority to pass health care but he can, in an instant, begin withdrawal of occupying forces across the globe, stop using the patriot act, shut down the batfe, end the war on drugs, etc, all by using his legitimate constitutional executive power.

 

I think you "misunderestimate" what the consequences of pulling the troops out of everywhere, regardless of the regional issues would have. If you don't play an active part in the world you will be at the mercy of it...., and the world has no mercy at all.

 

My god, Russia would have a fucking field day, own the middle east and south Asia within a second. IT would be China and Russia fighting over who could pick the bones of what used to be the United States.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I

Um, what? Each Pres. inherits the realities of the past administrations and those of other countries. No Pres. starts fresh.

 

the point i was trying to make is that the obama apologists see no wrong that obama is doing. the obama administration has essentially been giving us bush's third term.

the obamanoids blame any 'mission' he hasnt completed or any initiative he hasnt passed or anything wrong with the economy solely at the feet of former president bush.

 

 

 

I think you "misunderestimate" what the consequences of pulling the troops out of everywhere, regardless of the regional issues would have. If you don't play an active part in the world you will be at the mercy of it...., and the world has no mercy at all.

 

i think you 'misunderestimate' the consequences of US foreign policy in general. do you believe the arabs who flew planes into a building in new york city hate the US for its freedom as well?

sure the US would play an active roll in the world. just like switzerland does. they trade with people. they talk to people, they just dont invade, occupy, bomb or otherwise controlling other countries. what is wrong with this? the US would still retain its power, but it just wouldnt be using it in unjust ways.

 

you know people were saying the same stuff about vietnam that they are about iraq/middle east now. if you pull out, the entire would will implode. i think it all turned out pretty decent. we trade with vietnam now.

 

dont you realize why the world hates the US and why certain people are at war with the US empire? if the US would not of engaged in foreign adventurism and heeded the advice of the founding generation against foreign wars and alliances, most of the problems the US has now would not be happening.

 

iraq policy hasnt really changed at all. obama took out troops from iraq, sent them to 'stan and replaced the iraq troops with contractors. are we out of there yet?

 

a continuation of the the foreign policy that has brought about the US's threats is what is insane. even if some turbulence went down after a gradual withdrawal of troops that are occupying more than 100 countries around the world the lives of soldiers and civilians that are being killed would be saved. soldiers would no longer by occupying countries that never threatened the US nor had means to threaten it at all. even if turbulence resulted from US troop withdrawal... what about the turbulence the US has caused, what about the war crimes and civilian deaths, and the unjust occupation of foreign lands that is going on right now because of US foreign policy? in another words its ok to bomb, murder and coercive people in the name of a mythical 'stability?' murder is never justified. only self defense is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the point i was trying to make is that the obama apologists see no wrong that obama is doing. the obama administration has essentially been giving us bush's third term.

the obamanoids blame any 'mission' he hasnt completed or any initiative he hasnt passed or anything wrong with the economy solely at the feet of former president bush.

Loud and clear mate, loud and clear.

 

That is the problem that believiing that personality mattes. McCain, Bush, Jefferson, Jesus. Makes no difference, they all have to deal wit the dish tey are srved, h eality. You could choose any person on this panet to take chage but hte bottom line they are all costaine by the world/reality they inherit. And that is the most important issue when it comews to judging a leader; what they make of they get.

 

 

 

 

 

Give me a minute for the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, bit more sober so I will do this now.

 

 

If you believe they did that just out of a reaction to foreign policy then you are equally misguided. And no, it wasn't a hatred of freedoms and whatever other bullshit, it was out of a play to dominate Muslim lands in order of a caliphate and to dominate the US. IT is a global insurgency following typical insurgent tactics.[/color]

 

sure the US would play an active roll in the world. just like switzerland does. they trade with people. they talk to people, they just dont invade, occupy, bomb or otherwise controlling other countries. what is wrong with this? the US would still retain its power,
How does the US retain its power when it doesn't have access to energy and has its trade routes blockaded? You seem to think that the world is a benevolent place and that the US is the only bad guy in town. Newsflash, WW1 and WW2 started without any US domination of other countries. Since the US has been top/equal top dog there have been no other wars as catastrophic as WW1&2

but it just wouldnt be using it in unjust ways.
If you're going to bring such an abstract and subjective concept as justice in to this then I'm afraid we will have to talk about something else as that is a nebulous concept (phenomenology) that cannot be defined.

 

you know people were saying the same stuff about vietnam that they are about iraq/middle east now. if you pull out, the entire would will implode. i think it all turned out pretty decent. we trade with vietnam now.

No they weren't they were talking about losing South East Asia to communism, hardly the world. Some would also argue that whilst the US didn't hold South Vietnam they still sapped a lot of power from Russia and China and also showed that they would act to defend other nations as well, thus deterring further communist adventurism. I'm not saying that I subscribe to that argument but I cannot actually refute it either. Secondly that comparison is redundant because Vietnam didn't hold 80% of the the world's strategic energy reserves, the Middle East does and that totally changes the equation.

 

dont you realize why the world hates the US
The world hates the US, does it? Sorry, but this is a pretty ridiculous statement. Look at Coke's profit, Microsoft, McDonalds, NBL, Avatar, Dreamworks, Monster trucks, Sex and the City, KFC, Brittany Spears, Michael Jackson, etc. etc. These entities aren't exactly being boycotted around the world, are they? The world loves the US. Which countries have you actually been to yourself? Or are you making some assumptions here?
and why certain people are at war with the US empire?
People are at war with Yemen an they are hardly an empire. Same goes for the Philippines, Georgia, Congo, etc. If the US stopped being empirical (see what I did there:-) that would not mean that people would stop attacking it, not at all.
if the US would not of engaged in foreign adventurism and heeded the advice of the founding generation against foreign wars and alliances, most of the problems the US has now would not be happening.

You may want to take a look at WW2.

 

iraq policy hasnt really changed at all. obama took out troops from iraq, sent them to 'stan and replaced the iraq troops with contractors. are we out of there yet?

Contractors were going there way before O got in to office, dude. Now, what do you think Iran would do if the US just walked out of there? How vulnerable would KSA then be and what do you think would happen to the flow of energy coming out of the region that the US relies on? Sorry mate but you seem to be either ignorant of or totally avoiding the strategic realities of the region and the consequences to the US if they just walked out of there.

 

Answer this, what would the US do for energy in 2011 if they walked out of the Middle East in 2010? Do yo think nothing would change or that there would be a Shia revival and energy would be used as leverage against the us?

 

a continuation of the the foreign policy that has brought about the US's threats is what is insane.

The threats the US has against it now are paltry and do not threaten the existence of the US. Yeah, a plane flew in to your buildings and people tried to blow up a few planes with about 200 people on them. Hardly an existential threat.

 

Now, look at the US in the post WW1 period. Isolationist, trading and talking to people but not worrying about alliances and adventurism.

 

Hardly stopped the Japanese from looking at the US with hungry eyes, did it?

 

even if some turbulence went down after a gradual withdrawal of troops that are occupying more than 100 countries around the world the lives of soldiers and civilians that are being killed would be saved
Turbulence. You call being cut off from energy supplies and having your shipping trade routes blockaded turbulence? I don't think you properly grasp the basic strategic imperatives of the world, mate.
soldiers would no longer by occupying countries that never threatened the US nor had means to threaten it at all.

It's not whether a country threatens you it's whether they can threaten your interests.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good show, and all that, but I cant believe Christo-F wrote all that. I mean I've been in crossfire for all of 2 days and I already know everything AngelofDeath writes is straight out of an acid frenzy. In a discussion about Van Jones he was trying to convince me and I quote

 

the enviro-anti christ was elected supreme dictator of the united states and made it illegal to sell hybrid cars, organic food, bio-diesel, solar panels

 

Also he had a huge theory about how water conservation was in fact a satanic government plot to enslave us all, and stuff. And that the reason nobody sells 5 gallon toilets is a government conspiracy.

 

...yes im in contempt of anyone telling me what to do. if you sat around and told me what kind of toilet to buy, i'll just laugh. but when you have a bunch of gods in DC sitting around telling me what to buy and putting people in jail that are selling black market toilets that are bigger than the prescribed bureaucratic size, i have a problem...

 

...so you mean to tell me with a straight face, that you can walk into home depot and buy a toilet that requires 5 gallons of water to flush it??

i didnt know you were this ignorant.

 

Then when i asked him to shut up about his federal government toilet conspiracy he had this to say

 

i did not refer to van jones nor do i intend to. i am merely commenting on the leftist ideology that ties all you together.

hahahahahahahaha. the crazy keeps piling up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh and one more thing about this war in Afghanistan (Before i get called a communist or a liberal again): IM GOING TO WAR, BITCHES. That's right. Im willing to bet that obama is going to do exactly what he says he will and wrap Afghanistan up by Summer of 2011. SO MUCH SO that im going to go over there and make it happen.

 

OBAMA NATION. ONE. hahahahhahaha.

Sike nah I just need money for college.

Sike I actually think we've got an 80% chance of pulling this shit off with the aid of 44 other nations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register for a 12ozProphet forum account or sign in to comment

You need to be a forum member in order to comment. Forum accounts are separate from shop accounts.

Create an account

Register to become a 12ozProphet forum member.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×