Conquer Club

New Evidence regarding Obama

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby AAFitz on Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:36 am

Phatscotty wrote:Obama's birthplace aside, it is a fact he did not grow up in mainland America and literally grew up in a foreign country for 80% of his time under 18 years old, and Obama did not step a foot into the lower 48 until he was 18 years old.

That's where his unAmericanism comes from. Growing up in America is an invaluable and irreplaceable part of understanding what it means to be an American.


So, you didn't live in America as a kid? At least now that explains your misunderstanding of it.

Suggesting you have to be born in America, and even grow up in America, to be American is the most Un-American idea one could ever state. :lol:
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby maasman on Sat Jun 16, 2012 9:47 am

maasman wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:I honestly see nothing wrong with those principles. Now if they're actually possible can be debated, but they are nice goals.


How do you think they would impact liberty?


What kinds of liberty? Unless I'm missing something please point out where liberties are being restricted.


I don't think I ever got my answer scotty.
Image
User avatar
Major maasman
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Goose Creek, USA

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby huamulan on Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:15 am

Baron Von PWN wrote:
huamulan wrote:You know the Berlin Wall fell down a while ago, right? You can relax now.



http://vbox7.com/play:9f11b767

That's what they want you to think!


My browser tells me that your website is being blocked for my security.

Begone, Soviet Lucifer.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class huamulan
 
Posts: 0
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 7:53 am

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby AAFitz on Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:28 am

Phatscotty wrote:I will even call Obama a Fascist as well



Phunnyscotty,

Im surprised you would go so far. Usually you are so calculated and unbiased with your post. Your statement carries great weight, but ultimately, I do not think that word means what you think it does.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 10:45 am

AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I will even call Obama a Fascist as well



Phunnyscotty,

Im surprised you would go so far. Usually you are so calculated and unbiased with your post. Your statement carries great weight, but ultimately, I do not think that word means what you think it does.


It might help if you knew what I was talking about.

Is this fascist or isn't it? (not the ends.....but the means) Dictator is acceptable as well


Calculated...and then some!
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:13 am

AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Obama's birthplace aside, it is a fact he did not grow up in mainland America and literally grew up in a foreign country for 80% of his time under 18 years old, and Obama did not step a foot into the lower 48 until he was 18 years old.

That's where his unAmericanism comes from. Growing up in America is an invaluable and irreplaceable part of understanding what it means to be an American.


So, you didn't live in America as a kid? At least now that explains your misunderstanding of it.

Suggesting you have to be born in America, and even grow up in America, to be American is the most Un-American idea one could ever state. :lol:


Except I didn't suggest that you have to grow up in America to be an American. :roll: I said that growing up in America is an irreplaceable and invaluable part of understanding what it means to be an American. You went wrong when you for some unknown reason assumed that to mean growing up in America is the only way to understand what it means to be an American.

Why you and others on the left continually insert your own new words to create a new statement and create a new interpretation and new definitions is a little bit.....puzzling
Last edited by Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:16 am

maasman wrote:
maasman wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:I honestly see nothing wrong with those principles. Now if they're actually possible can be debated, but they are nice goals.


How do you think they would impact liberty?


What kinds of liberty? Unless I'm missing something please point out where liberties are being restricted.


I don't think I ever got my answer scotty.


SOCIALISM!!!!!
eagleflag.jpg

(You're so cute that you expect one.)
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:20 am

Phatscotty wrote:Why you and others on the left continually insert your own new words to create a new statement and create a new interpretation and new definitions is a little bit.....puzzling


Is this your admission that you're "on the left"? Because it looks like one to me.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:20 am

maasman wrote:
maasman wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:I honestly see nothing wrong with those principles. Now if they're actually possible can be debated, but they are nice goals.


How do you think they would impact liberty?


What kinds of liberty? Unless I'm missing something please point out where liberties are being restricted.


I don't think I ever got my answer scotty.


In general, Equality (which is a main theme of those principles listed) is constantly at odds with Liberty.

As for specific kinds of liberty.....what are the options here?
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:21 am

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Why you and others on the left continually insert your own new words to create a new statement and create a new interpretation and new definitions is a little bit.....puzzling


Is this your admission that you're "on the left"? Because it looks like one to me.


Yup, especially concerning marriage :roll:

wtf lol join us on earth please
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:22 am

Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:
maasman wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:I honestly see nothing wrong with those principles. Now if they're actually possible can be debated, but they are nice goals.


How do you think they would impact liberty?


What kinds of liberty? Unless I'm missing something please point out where liberties are being restricted.


I don't think I ever got my answer scotty.


In general, Equality (which is a main theme of those principles listed) is constantly at odds with Liberty.


You make very odd statements.

Phatscotty wrote:As for specific kinds of liberty.....what are the options here?


It's wide open - any kind you can think of. So answer his damn question instead of trying to avoid it, you poser.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Woodruff on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:23 am

Phatscotty wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:Why you and others on the left continually insert your own new words to create a new statement and create a new interpretation and new definitions is a little bit.....puzzling


Is this your admission that you're "on the left"? Because it looks like one to me.


Yup, especially concerning marriage :roll:

wtf lol join us on earth please


You do more definition re-interpretation and redefining than anyone on this site, Phatscotty, and that INCLUDES concerning marriage.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:24 am

Woodruff wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:
maasman wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:I honestly see nothing wrong with those principles. Now if they're actually possible can be debated, but they are nice goals.


How do you think they would impact liberty?


What kinds of liberty? Unless I'm missing something please point out where liberties are being restricted.


I don't think I ever got my answer scotty.


In general, Equality (which is a main theme of those principles listed) is constantly at odds with Liberty.


You make very odd statements.

Phatscotty wrote:As for specific kinds of liberty.....what are the options here?


It's wide open - any kind you can think of. So answer his damn question instead of trying to avoid it, you poser.


:lol: Mind your own damn business! Holy shit lmao!!!!
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby maasman on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:28 am

Woodruff wrote:
maasman wrote:
maasman wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:I honestly see nothing wrong with those principles. Now if they're actually possible can be debated, but they are nice goals.


How do you think they would impact liberty?


What kinds of liberty? Unless I'm missing something please point out where liberties are being restricted.


I don't think I ever got my answer scotty.


SOCIALISM!!!!!
eagleflag.jpg

(You're so cute that you expect one.)


I'm an eternal optimist in most cases and I like to think people tend to want to defend themselves.

Phatscotty wrote:
In general, Equality (which is a main theme of those principles listed) is constantly at odds with Liberty.

As for specific kinds of liberty.....what are the options here?


Well, I see nothing in there that legitimately violates any rights or freedoms we currently have. So until you actually say some specific things that these measures would take away from us, this conversation can't really continue.
Image
User avatar
Major maasman
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Goose Creek, USA

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:30 am

I have not begun to say what would or wouldn't be taken away from us. I only asked how those principles square with liberty. If your opinion is that the principles do not impact liberty (or any certain kind of liberty) at all, then that's all I was really asking ya.
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby maasman on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:34 am

I'm pretty sure that if those things existed, I would still be able to walk down the street, go where ever I please on public property, vote for whoever I want, buy guns in the same ways, and the list goes on. So no, equality doesn't mean you don't get liberty, it just means that you get more equality.
Image
User avatar
Major maasman
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Goose Creek, USA

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Baron Von PWN on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:42 am

huamulan wrote:
Baron Von PWN wrote:
huamulan wrote:You know the Berlin Wall fell down a while ago, right? You can relax now.



http://vbox7.com/play:9f11b767

That's what they want you to think!


My browser tells me that your website is being blocked for my security.

Begone, Soviet Lucifer.


Bah, Probably because it's a russian site
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class Baron Von PWN
 
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2009 10:05 pm
Location: Capital region ,Canada

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby stahrgazer on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:44 am

Phatscotty wrote:There is new evidence Obama literally and physically signed up to join a Socialist party in 1996-97.

Image

Image
Obama deadbeated his dues to the New Socialist Party in 1997.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government ... -New-Party

New Party principles
* Full public financing of elections, universal voter registration, proportional representation, free party competition.
* The establishment, defense, and facilitation of worker, consumer, shareholder, and taxpayer rights to democratic self-organization.
* The creation of a sustainable economy based on the responsible and reverent use of our earth's resources-taking no more than we need, replacing and reusing all that we can.
* A society in which we all take seriously our responsibilities as parents, workers and citizens.
* The democratization of our banking and financial system-including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions.
* A Bill of Rights for America's Children, guaranteeing true equality of opportunity, providing equal education for all students, and achieving an adequate standard of health care, nutrition, housing, and safety.
* Community-control and equitable funding of our schools, within which we seek true excellence in public education along with equal opportunity to achieve it.
* Full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal "social wage" to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity.
* A progressive tax system based on the ability to pay.
Rebuilding our cities and metropolitan regions-the cornerstones of a high-wage and ecologically sustainable economy-through community-led programs of comprehensive, democratic, high-wage, and low-waste economic development.
* A community in which residents, neighborhood organizations, businesses, police and local officials work cooperatively as equal partners to provide a safe and secure environment in which to live and work and study.
* A reduction of national military spending to that necessary to the defense of the United States and an end to unilateral military interventions.
* Trade among nations consistent with mutual improvement in living standards, reduced cross-national inequalities, and sustainable development.
* In all aspects of our economy and social life, an absolute bar to discrimination based on race, gender, age, country of origin, and sexual orientation, and absolute security in reproductive rights, fundamental liberties, and privacy.



Hmmm. Most of these principles are those that Founding Fathers held as self evident; many more that they omitted as "obvious" got added in later.

Personally, I do prefer a country that considers citizens to be more important than corporations, and definitely distinguishes corporations from citizenry. I mean, how horrible is it, really, for a "political party" to want people to be able to vote - compared to the party that (shamefully) wants to give a Corporation the right to vote.

How horrible it is to think that things like safe workplaces, wages you can live on, equality to prevent corporations from running across borders to avoid paying taxes or give workers a reasonable standard of living.

Many - not all, but many - companies that are so internationally wealthy, got wealthy to begin with on the backs of taxpayers. Many of these companies got lucrative U S GOVERNMENT research and development contracts back when government contracts were lucrative, which are essentially taxpayer investments in those corporations. So, on taxpayer dollars they were able to develop a product. Then, on tax-paid-for-roads and tax-paid-for-ports they figured out good ways to transport materials back and forth.

Now, they feel they don't need us, and it's true, they don't. But they wouldn't have got where they are today if it weren't for us, and it's "wrong" for US to think, hmmmm, maybe a little loyalty and patriotism should temper your wish to make 1000% more for your ceo compared to your lowest paid worker than you were able to do before US taxes helped you get there?

It's "wrong" for us to think, hey, don't pollute our environment, we know, now, from history, that when you do, you won't pay to clean it up because it's too expensive, so you leave that burden back on the taxpayer when you move on because now we want you to pay back a little of what helped you grow so big.

The Revolutionary war was waged in part, to ensure that common folks got a fair shake, because as things were then, only royalty and their appointees got to reap benefits. So, now, instead of "royalty" we have corporations and their officers, as Kings of Commerce.

A CEO who runs its business into the ground so that thousands of people are laid off, still gets his contractual $250 million dollar bonuses because in the end, all those layoffs and declarations of bankruptcy take away the red lines and put a company back into the black so he met the target... and that's okay, but a peon worker asking for healthcare or time off is not?

Capitalism only works for a country if along with it, goes a huge dose of Patriotism; but when Capitalism replaces god, loyalty, patriotism, or simple human decency, it annihilates a country... and that's what's happened.

Sorry, dudes, it's not Barack (I don't give a rat's tush what his middle name is, he did not pick it, his parents did) Obama's fault that we don't have jobs. It's the fault of his predecessors who changed port impact fee laws and other things to make it so very ridiculously easy for corporations to sell out and move out to places where the people will work for peanuts and yet still sell products here at prices damned close to what it would cost if WE were still making them.

Why is it that athletic shoes made by less-than-dollar-an-hour laborers cost as much or sometimes more than shoes made by New Balance (a store that still makes their shoes here) where the MINIMUM laborer makes ten times as much money?

No. That's not Obama's fault. It's not the New Party's fault. But, it is why we need both.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:48 am

maasman wrote:I'm pretty sure that if those things existed, I would still be able to walk down the street, go where ever I please on public property, vote for whoever I want, buy guns in the same ways, and the list goes on. So no, equality doesn't mean you don't get liberty, it just means that you get more equality.


And how is equality implemented? It costs money right? Don't you have to take money away from one person before you can give it to another? Would you be able to keep more than half of your paycheck? PePer controlling resources on a national level; doesn't that mean you likely won't be able to control your own thermostat in your home (already a reality in some places)? Per democratizing our banking and financial system; won't that likely end up shrinking opportunity for those sectors? Per achieving an adequate standard of health care, nutrition, housing, and safety; how can you do that without making an unequal choice about who and how much is to be taken from one person who earned the money, and to who and how much will be given to another person that did not earn the money. The definition won't be and can't be truly equal, but I will concede you originally stated "what is realistically possible".


and for the ways in which I believe are obvious perversions of liberty.....
Per a guaranteed salary for all adults; I don't think I need to get into that one and how liberty is impacted...do I???
Per Universal health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; Ummmmm see above
A tax system based on the ability to pay???? This is straight up Marxism, Socialism, Communism, whatever you want to call it, which is most definitely not compatible with any kind of liberty. If you want to call it "Change us into Greece" that will work too.

It's HUGE government, will require HUGE borrowing, with that comes HUGE interest payments on our children. Oh, our children would be so lucky to only have so much liberty.

To be shackled by the chains of the previous generations profligate spending and debts is practically equal to an all you can eat liberty buffet!

Thomas Jefferson knew a tad about Liberty.
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Symmetry on Sat Jun 16, 2012 11:58 am

Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:I'm pretty sure that if those things existed, I would still be able to walk down the street, go where ever I please on public property, vote for whoever I want, buy guns in the same ways, and the list goes on. So no, equality doesn't mean you don't get liberty, it just means that you get more equality.


And how is equality implemented? It costs money right? Don't you have to take money away from one person before you can give it to another? Would you be able to keep more than half of your paycheck? PePer controlling resources on a national level; doesn't that mean you likely won't be able to control your own thermostat in your home (already a reality in some places)? Per democratizing our banking and financial system; won't that likely end up shrinking opportunity for those sectors? Per achieving an adequate standard of health care, nutrition, housing, and safety; how can you do that without making an unequal choice about who and how much is to be taken from one person who earned the money, and to who and how much will be given to another person that did not earn the money. The definition won't be and can't be truly equal, but I will concede you originally stated "what is realistically possible".


and for the ways in which I believe are obvious perversions of liberty.....
Per a guaranteed salary for all adults; I don't think I need to get into that one and how liberty is impacted...do I???
Per Universal health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; Ummmmm see above
A tax system based on the ability to pay???? This is straight up Marxism, Socialism, Communism, whatever you want to call it, which is most definitely not compatible with any kind of liberty. If you want to call it "Change us into Greece" that will work too.

It's HUGE government, will require HUGE borrowing, with that comes HUGE interest payments on our children. Oh, our children would be so lucky to only have so much liberty.


So you would presumably support a large inheritance tax on those who have done nothing, and merely been born into extreme wealth? Those who have done nothing to earn their position in society?

I find it interesting that so many of your posts display a deeply ingrained belief that wealth is earned through hard work- indeed that it's a reward for hard work and personal graft. Obviously this is true in some cases, but clearly it isn't in many.

Why not have a tax system that rewards those who work hard, and taxes heavily the extremely wealthy who have done nothing to earn their wealth?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby maasman on Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:25 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
maasman wrote:I'm pretty sure that if those things existed, I would still be able to walk down the street, go where ever I please on public property, vote for whoever I want, buy guns in the same ways, and the list goes on. So no, equality doesn't mean you don't get liberty, it just means that you get more equality.


And how is equality implemented? It costs money right? Don't you have to take money away from one person before you can give it to another? Would you be able to keep more than half of your paycheck? PePer controlling resources on a national level; doesn't that mean you likely won't be able to control your own thermostat in your home (already a reality in some places)? Per democratizing our banking and financial system; won't that likely end up shrinking opportunity for those sectors? Per achieving an adequate standard of health care, nutrition, housing, and safety; how can you do that without making an unequal choice about who and how much is to be taken from one person who earned the money, and to who and how much will be given to another person that did not earn the money. The definition won't be and can't be truly equal, but I will concede you originally stated "what is realistically possible".


and for the ways in which I believe are obvious perversions of liberty.....
Per a guaranteed salary for all adults; I don't think I need to get into that one and how liberty is impacted...do I???
Per Universal health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; Ummmmm see above
A tax system based on the ability to pay???? This is straight up Marxism, Socialism, Communism, whatever you want to call it, which is most definitely not compatible with any kind of liberty. If you want to call it "Change us into Greece" that will work too.

It's HUGE government, will require HUGE borrowing, with that comes HUGE interest payments on our children. Oh, our children would be so lucky to only have so much liberty.

To be shackled by the chains of the previous generations profligate spending and debts is practically equal to an all you can eat liberty buffet!

Thomas Jefferson knew a tad about Liberty.
“It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world.”


Honestly, I think with reduced military spending and better monetary policy we would never have to increase taxes beyond what we already have. We already spend more per student on education than any other country, so money isn't really the problem here. We could reduce our military spending by 75% and still have more than adequate funding that leads the world. The tax system we have currently is already based on ability to pay, so that wouldn't have to be changed.

"It's HUGE government, will require HUGE borrowing, with that comes HUGE interest payments on our children. Oh, our children would be so lucky to only have so much liberty.

To be shackled by the chains of the previous generations profligate spending and debts is practically equal to an all you can eat liberty buffet!"

Every president in the last 30 years has been over spending, save for maybe Clinton. Do you honestly want to call Reagan and the Bushes marxist? My generation is already screwed, and my kids probably will be too by the generations before mine. I'm just lucky enough that I have skills that will be in demand for the long foreseeable future.

We already have a guaranteed salary too called minimum wage. As long as you have a job, you're making a minimum amount of money. Now, this is different than a given salary every year, but it's close enough for my taste since it would be extremely difficult to give everyone the same minimum amount of money if the economy can't bear it.

Most of the things stated there are already in full effect, though maybe too expensive for most. I honestly don't think it would take much to implement most of these things, we would just need to right kind of people in office to get it done.
Image
User avatar
Major maasman
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Goose Creek, USA

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby saxitoxin on Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:45 pm

Phatscotty wrote:
AAFitz wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:I will even call Obama a Fascist as well



Phunnyscotty,

Im surprised you would go so far. Usually you are so calculated and unbiased with your post. Your statement carries great weight, but ultimately, I do not think that word means what you think it does.


It might help if you knew what I was talking about.

Is this fascist or isn't it? (not the ends.....but the means) Dictator is acceptable as well


Calculated...and then some!


I'm not sure that's a very good example, however, I am open to the idea that Obama (and/or Romney) is a fascist.

I'm not open to the idea that Obama is a communist sleeper agent secretly raised in a Comintern training camp by an Ukrainian wet nurse named Olga and then directed through the echelons of American government as part of a grand scheme by the KGB in its dying breath to gain control of the U.S.

One can't be a Fascist-Socialist anymore than one can be a Mormon-Buddhist. So he's one, the other, or neither.

    The New Party's agenda is a fairly typical, mainstream, left-wing platform and is part of the age-old conflict of visions on the proper role of government. It could have good ideas or perhaps they're all terrible. But, it definitely has a very large mountain to climb before getting anywhere close to the realm of communism in the same way your views have a very large mountain to climb before you could be accused of being an anarchist (post-left).
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13413
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby Phatscotty on Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:46 pm

Ah-Ha! you notice I left cutting military spending out! But I did that because I don't think we have a choice of what to cut any longer. Everything needs to be cut unless we want to end up like Europe.

I understand every president over the last 30 years has spent too much. Why you think I am a Ron Paul supporter!

The guaranteed salary didn't say anything about working for it, and we should be able to safely assume it's straight up welfare. It wouldn't make much sense to go with these principles, then cut off a guaranteed salary if you stop working or get fired.... Yes most of the things are in effect, and that's why people are so desensitized to Socialism, because it seems normal (social security, medicare, corporate welfare, more and more wealth redistribution etc)

and about your military numbers.... The interest on our debt is set to surpass military spending in 2019. If we increase spending and borrowing, that will happen sooner. Even if we slash the military, the interest on our debt will still keep growing until it surpasses Social Security spending.

It's inevitable.
Image
User avatar
Major Phatscotty
 
Posts: 3714
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby saxitoxin on Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:54 pm

Phatscotty wrote:The guaranteed salary didn't say anything about working for it, and we should be able to safely assume it's straight up welfare.


Nixon proposed a guaranteed salary; the welfare rolls would be abolished and everyone making under $X would simply get the difference from the government. Nixon actually introduced this to Congress, Obama has not - just signed a vague statement of ideas 20 years ago to get an endorsement in a narrow election campaign. Again, it seems we have a much better case that Nixon was a communist sleeper agent.

Alaska has a guaranteed salary for everyone of around $2,000 per year, paid off oil royalties, that was introduced by a Republican governor.
Pack Rat wrote:if it quacks like a duck and walk like a duck, it's still fascism

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=241668&start=200#p5349880
User avatar
Corporal saxitoxin
 
Posts: 13413
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am

Re: New Evidence regarding Obama

Postby maasman on Sat Jun 16, 2012 12:58 pm

I understand that we've essentially screwed ourselves, but I'm still a firm believer that we can get out of by cutting only the largest uses of tax money. People only cut the small things which have no effect on our debt, while cutting 75% of the military funding would free up 500 billion a year, and would still keep us #1 in spending. If we were to have a balanced budget and then cut 500 billion off the top, the debt could actually get paid off this century. The problem is, there is a 0% chance of any president ever doing this, so I think that eventually we're just going to default on our loans in 20 years and then watch as global war and catastrophe erupt as a result.
Image
User avatar
Major maasman
 
Posts: 543
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 pm
Location: Goose Creek, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users