Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Obama Had His Chance Time for Change


  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#31 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:27 PM

more like 1892


Ah yes, the good old days.

#32 Niner National

Niner National

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,440 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:34 PM

I wasn't even born yet, it couldn't have been the good old days.

#33 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,643 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 01 March 2012 - 12:38 PM

more like 1892


Cool, the incumbent lost that year too.

#34 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 01 March 2012 - 02:10 PM

If you read the history, the in power party was doomed by convention infighting and a lack of interest in the incumbent. The Republican Party if you want to get technical.

So which do you think was more important, the incumbency or the Partys scattering of support for people they really did not like much anyways?

#35 googoodan

googoodan

    Memberest

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,643 posts
  • LocationBayside

Posted 02 March 2012 - 11:49 AM

If you read the history, the in power party was doomed by convention infighting and a lack of interest in the incumbent. The Republican Party if you want to get technical.

So which do you think was more important, the incumbency or the Partys scattering of support for people they really did not like much anyways?


Wowwwww! No poo?
You mean people weren't enamored with the President they voted out? Deep thinking, man. I thought they loved them but didn't know how to read his name on the ballot or something.

#36 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:12 PM

Yeah, um, I'm talking about the convention. They are supposed to all love the incumbent. See: no one running against Obama on the Dem side this year.

#37 Disinfranchised

Disinfranchised

    Disinfranchised

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,718 posts
  • LocationStokeridge

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:05 PM

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:

#38 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:07 PM

now see thats funny. We need more of that.

#39 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 02:59 AM

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.

#40 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 03 March 2012 - 09:27 AM

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?

#41 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,853 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 03 March 2012 - 05:46 PM

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.

#42 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 09:01 AM

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.

#43 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,506 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:10 PM

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).

Edited by mav1234, 04 March 2012 - 08:40 PM.


#44 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,105 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 08:40 PM

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.

#45 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 04 March 2012 - 09:46 PM

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.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com