Beating Obama 2012 Poll

by **rockfist** on Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:47 pm

Bad Republicans (corporatists) are as bad as Dems. Goldwater Republicans are not.

by **mpjh** on Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:55 pm

I say, let them in. Time the Empire fell. Surest way to chaos and anarchy is to put the Goldwater types in power. At this point, I'm definitely for it.

by **Phatscotty** on Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:57 pm

ViperOverLord wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:You are right. What I meant was, Bush did not do what he said he would. #1 reason I voted for Bush in 2000, he said he was against nation building...

I'm not sure I agree with your context. 'Nation building' was a pretty big buzz term for dems. Then again so was 'quagmire' but the dems can't pull their heads out of their asses fast enough on that one. I would imagine Bush denied the charge, but Bush also said he believed in the spread of democracy. I think he accomplished that in Iraq and Afghanistan. The situation is still tenuous in Afghanistan but I still give him credit. If there was no validity to what he was doing, don't you think Obama would have gotten out of there? I mean Obama doesn't want that war on his record. But he knows things will go to hell in a hand basket if he gets out.

You are probably right. I mostly agree things will go to hell if we leave. I also understand the time to oppose the war was before the invasion. Obama does not have to worry too much about Iraq, inasmuch as everyone KNOWS that is Bush's.

I heard Bush say he was against nation building in the debate against Al Gore. I said to myself "I am against nation building. I will vote for that guy" Then of course, we started nation building on even larger terms. I am not so much opening the discussion about nation building, but more sharing my learning experience of listening to politicians and what they say. Only later did I discover the definitions of pandering and glad-handing. I realize it is up to us to sift through the BS. Hopefully we can get candidates from either party who simply refuse to sling mud and stick to the issues. Of course, there are too many mud slingers currently for that to ever happen.

Maybe someday

by **Phatscotty** on Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:01 am

mpjh wrote:I say, let them in. Time the Empire fell. Surest way to chaos and anarchy is to put the Goldwater types in power. At this point, I'm definitely for it.

The Empires Currency has already fallen over 50% in 10 years. The Empire can not and will not defend it's own borders. Are you sure the Empire has not already started falling? We have outsourced over 50% of our workforce over the last few decades. We do not produce anything close to what we used to 30 years ago. Are you sure,in 2012, the Empire will start to fall? I am not a big fan of ripping my own country, but can we at least get the history of it correct, rather than start scapegoating a potential president 2 years into the future?

At this point, The Goldwaters rise to address the problems, not create them before they were in power...

If I may also ask you to back up your claim about chaos and anarchy. Which events in history led to chaos when a goldwater-like person was in power? Do you have a few examples?

by **rockfist** on Sat Aug 07, 2010 12:23 am

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values... Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it becomes marked: 'Account Overdrawn."

-Ayn Rand

by **mpjh** on Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:28 am

Phatscotty wrote:
mpjh wrote:I say, let them in. Time the Empire fell. Surest way to chaos and anarchy is to put the Goldwater types in power. At this point, I'm definitely for it.

The Empires Currency has already fallen over 50% in 10 years. The Empire can not and will not defend it's own borders. Are you sure the Empire has not already started falling? We have outsourced over 50% of our workforce over the last few decades. We do not produce anything close to what we used to 30 years ago. Are you sure,in 2012, the Empire will start to fall? I am not a big fan of ripping my own country, but can we at least get the history of it correct, rather than start scapegoating a potential president 2 years into the future?

At this point, The Goldwaters rise to address the problems, not create them before they were in power...

If I may also ask you to back up your claim about chaos and anarchy. Which events in history led to chaos when a goldwater-like person was in power? Do you have a few examples?

http://vimeo.com/1715874

by **Phatscotty** on Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:31 am

mpjh wrote:
Phatscotty wrote:
mpjh wrote:I say, let them in. Time the Empire fell. Surest way to chaos and anarchy is to put the Goldwater types in power. At this point, I'm definitely for it.

The Empires Currency has already fallen over 50% in 10 years. The Empire can not and will not defend it's own borders. Are you sure the Empire has not already started falling? We have outsourced over 50% of our workforce over the last few decades. We do not produce anything close to what we used to 30 years ago. Are you sure,in 2012, the Empire will start to fall? I am not a big fan of ripping my own country, but can we at least get the history of it correct, rather than start scapegoating a potential president 2 years into the future?

At this point, The Goldwaters rise to address the problems, not create them before they were in power...

If I may also ask you to back up your claim about chaos and anarchy. Which events in history led to chaos when a goldwater-like person was in power? Do you have a few examples?

http://vimeo.com/1715874

Dude, I don't think you can go any lower than citing a political campaign advertisement as "Evidence" of anything. Hey, if you just want to smear my beliefs and my idols, you can do that, but I am going to engage you in a fact check everytime.

We can breeze over that though right? So, lets just pretend a Goldwater-type was put into power. Let's use a realistic group, like say, the Tea Party. If the TP gets power on the platform of balanced budgets, spending cuts, and at least keeping taxes flat, how would that lead to chaos and anarchy, or rather, what other issues on their platform would lead to said chaos? If it is only your fear of the level of hatred that liberal progressives have for the tea party, that is a valid point.

by **Pedronicus** on Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:06 pm

ViperOverLord wrote: Bush was pretty stalwart when he went into office. People couldn't even deny the great job he was doing before the wars and they would claim it was only because he had great advisors. He was a rock though. By 05 you could see the signs of severe frustration with dealing the gridlock and the propoganda attacks from the media and the dems. He still did a lot in Iraq in 06 but he gave up on the economy about that time. By 07 you could see that he had phoned it in. It was kind of sad to see. He stopped responding to any attacks. He just let people roll over him, he caved to the corruption more and more because otherwise the nuts would just shout impeach and bla bla so he did his best to just start flying under the radar. It was pretty sad to see. But I think its an unlearned lesson for the media to be more fair if they want an effective president.

In America the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience.