Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Obama Had His Chance Time for Change

63 posts in this topic

Posted

I mean, Hope and Change did not outlaw abortion, bus illegals back to Mexico, make it where I pay no taxes, didn't kick all the slackers off of welfare, put God back into everything, bomb Iran and North Korea, let me bring my assault rifle to my kids elementary school...a total failure! He had his chance to do all this and FAILED! Obama sucks!

Hellll yea! Man are you runnin?:cornut:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

now see thats funny. We need more of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

By "change", he meant just like Bush, just like Clinton, just like Bush. You either address the fundamentals of the system or you don't. The end. Whether he is nice, mean, diabolical, a puppet, etc.. It doesn't matter. The system will perpetuate. Most people can't think objectively enough and divorce themselves emotionally to see that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heck yeah, lets fundamentally change the system and turn into a Socialist state!

Or a Fascist state!

How about a Monarchy?

Oh wait, not that fundamental?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heck yeah, lets fundamentally change the system and turn into a Socialist state!

Or a Fascist state!

How about a Monarchy?

Oh wait, not that fundamental?

Not quite. Think bigger than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Heck yeah, lets fundamentally change the system and turn into a Socialist state!

Or a Fascist state!

How about a Monarchy?

Oh wait, not that fundamental?

I'll pretend you're serious because I'm bored.

Socialism.. If Europe is Socialism, then we are basically there. Socialism really means robbing the people and then when the system collapses on people dependent on the system, enforce austerity. Greece was just the start.

Fascism: the merging of the corporation and the state. Again, that is already happening, and has largely already happened. "Intellectuals" try to argue that there is some discrete line between Socialism and Fascism, but there isn't. In reality both lead to the same place, which is an authoritative state, and powerless individuals. What someone draws up on paper has no tangible reality unless it can also be exhibited in real life.

Monarchy.. that is "somewhat" different, but is still an authoritarian state. However, with our current setup, even if there was a dictator or monarch, they would merely be powerless puppets.

It ALL comes down to one dichotomous choice. You believe in individual freedom, or you don't. I'm sure you'll present some petty ridiculous retort, but that was more for the benefit for people that want to learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The idea that there is not a spectrum here is ridiculous... It doesn't come down to "believing in individual freedom or not."

How many people actually think Obama is gunning for Marxism/"real socialism"?

If we are defining socialism as what exists in Europe in present day I think there are some very obvious and very clear differences to draw between it and fascism; if we are discussing on the theoretical/ideological level, there are many comparisons to be made between fascism and marxism, sure, but there are some notable differences (aka limited private ownership in fascism, extreme emphasis on class divisions and social darwinism etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'll pretend you're serious because I'm bored.

Socialism.. If Europe is Socialism, then we are basically there. Socialism really means robbing the people and then when the system collapses on people dependent on the system, enforce austerity. Greece was just the start.

Fascism: the merging of the corporation and the state. Again, that is already happening, and has largely already happened. "Intellectuals" try to argue that there is some discrete line between Socialism and Fascism, but there isn't. In reality both lead to the same place, which is an authoritative state, and powerless individuals. What someone draws up on paper has no tangible reality unless it can also be exhibited in real life.

Monarchy.. that is "somewhat" different, but is still an authoritarian state. However, with our current setup, even if there was a dictator or monarch, they would merely be powerless puppets.

It ALL comes down to one dichotomous choice. You believe in individual freedom, or you don't. I'm sure you'll present some petty ridiculous retort, but that was more for the benefit for people that want to learn.

Every form of government requires a level of dependence or servitude to a state. The alternative isn't individual freedom, it's anarchy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No the government "should" serve the people. But that is only possible with a moral, self-motivated, educated, populace. We have the exact opposite here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Can you actually name a place that does not have that? And what is "moral"? As far as "educated", well, we became the greatest nation on earth because of government mandated schooling for children and laws taking them out of the workplace until a certain age. That meant taking away "individual freedoms".

It's a balance. Always.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Hope and change did not work. Little too much hope and not enough change. Now it's IS time for some change!

You are aware that the economy operates in cycles, and during the beginning of the recession in 07, it was headed for it's natural downturn as it was.

So as that stands, Obama inherited a country 10 trillion in debt, a war on two fronts, and a country that given normal circumstances, would be heading into an economic downturn as it was.

It takes more than three years to solve the kind of aforementioned issues. I'm not saying that he's done the best, but to sit there and try to act like the recession (that was tinkering dangerously another great depression, said by Bush himself) of a country consisting of 400 million people should be totally solved in a such a short matter of time is absolutely moronic. (Yes, three years on a national economic scale is a short amount of time.)

What do you think would be the better idea?

Cut taxes, and the trickle down theory? Yeah, we've seen how well that worked.

Go to the gold standard (as Ron Paul would like to do)? Winston Churchill said, when leaving office, that going to the gold standard was the worst decision he had ever made.

The only President within the past 30 years that the economy has truly grown under is Clinton, a believer in spending money. Under the self proclaimed "fiscal conservatives", such as Bush, Bush Sr. and Reagan, the economy faltered. As close as this country was to a depression, Obama was at least was able to prevent it. Could he have done it better? Of course, but if Romney, Gingrich, or god forbid, Santorum were in office, we'd be heading back to some of the policies that got us in this mess in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Obama has failed. No doubt about that. You can give reasons for this or that but Obama has failed. (One thing Rush was right about.) Dems can offer up an alternative, but whatever, I will vote for someone other than Obama. Hope in one hand and dodo in the other and see which one fills up quickest. Time for the promised change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites