View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently April 25th, 2014, 1:43 am



Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next
 GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney 
Author Message
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11849
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
Perhaps some food for thought, and a little perspective:
Image

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


November 8th, 2012, 4:48 pm
Profile
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
TheRealWags wrote:
Perhaps some food for thought, and a little perspective:
Image



So in other words "Fear not what your country has done to you, fear nothing that they may do," and go forward with blinders? Brilliant! Nice non-answer to a well written post BTW.


November 8th, 2012, 4:55 pm
Modmin Dude
User avatar

Joined: December 31st, 2004, 9:55 am
Posts: 11849
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
wjb21ndtown wrote:
TheRealWags wrote:
Perhaps some food for thought, and a little perspective:
Image



So in other words "Fear not what your country has done to you, fear nothing that they may do," and go forward with blinders? Brilliant! Nice non-answer to a well written post BTW.
Nice interpretation, not sure how you got there, but um ok.

And it wasn't a response to your so-called "well written" post; it's on topic is all.

_________________
Go Lions!!! headbang.gif

Joe Fauria, MVP!


November 8th, 2012, 5:00 pm
Profile
QB Coach
User avatar

Joined: August 21st, 2005, 3:36 am
Posts: 3060
Location: London, UK
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
wjb21ndtown wrote:
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
You do realize that it wasn't Obama who created the auto bailout, don't you? It was created under Bush.

There are plenty of things about Obama that are legitimate criticisms, but calling him a socialist simply isn't supported by facts. Here's the definition of socialism (from Merriam-Webster):

Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

None of these has even remotely happened. The auto bailout prevented 1 major us automaker from declaring bankruptcy, and today the govt still has a roughly 30% stake in the company. Thy don't control the company's decisions or the means of production & distribution of the goods. Not to mention that Ford is private and doing just fine.

Even Obamacare isn't the a govt takeover. It's the govt enticing people to purchase insurance. Not from the govt; from insurance companies.

Like I said there are plent of legit reasons to disagree with Obama. Calling him a socialist isn't one of them. It's simply factually untrue.


Obama handled the PURCHASE of GM through the "organized bankruptcy." He LITERALLY MADE GM "Government Motors," Bush had nothing to do with that, and that IS socialist. Obama also HANDED 30% of GM to the LABOR UNIONS, a quasi-governmental agency, FOR NO REASON AT ALL. This NEVER would have been done in any bankruptcy court. Obama also over-saw the largest increase of food stamps and social entitlements in DECADES, also a socialist policy. And finally, Obama SOCIALIZED 18% of our economy when he socialized, not "incentivized," SOCIALIZED health care.

If you think that the Bill that passed was an incentive program, you are part of herd of sheep... That program will have a majority of us on Obamacare in the next few years. Congrats!!!

Again, continuing to claim something is true with no factual basis doesn't make it so. The "purchase" of GM was a loan, and the gov't has already sold some of their share of it, and have said they intend to sell their entire stake in the company. If he were trying to socialize that segment of the economy, why sell any of it? Why not just keep it with the gov't? Again, facts don't support your argument.

As for the health care stuff, how is requiring everyone to purchase insurance from (non-government) insurance companies taking over an industry? Read the definitions of socialism again. Does Obamacare give the government the power to dictate what treatments a patient receives? No it does not. It doesn't eliminate private property, nor is the government taking over the means of production of health care equipment, drugs, etc. It simply does not meet the definition of socialism, despite the ALL CAPS CLAIMS you make.

I'll repeat myself one more time: there are plenty of legit reasons to disagree with and not like Obama. Calling him a socialist is not one of them. It's just not true.

As someone who is fed up with the status quo of republican vs democrat, I see these types of arguments as doing exactly 1 thing. Driving people away from the republican party. I honesty think we're seeing the last few years of the party. I think what's going to happen is exactly what has happened throughout our country's history: the republicans are going to have to change, and that's likely going to mean merging with another party. The reality is that the base upon which the republican party of today is built isn't a winning formula anymore: it takes more than just the white male vote to win. Hell just the white vote won't win anymore in a few years, and right now, that's all the republicans have. Time to reconfigure some things or be doomed to the dustbin of history.

_________________
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." - John Adams

http://www.11points.com/Books/11_Things ... _Do_Anyway

LET'S GO DUKE!

If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one.


November 8th, 2012, 10:51 pm
Profile
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1112
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
Touchdown Jesus wrote:
Rob_Shadows wrote:
UK Lion wrote:
wjb21ndtown wrote:
[Obama has] repeatedly shown that he is a socialist.

He really hasn't.

He may be more to the left than you would like, but statements like the above are as far fetched as me claiming Bush was a facist.


So...a government takover of a major industry isn't a socialist agenda? You do realize that's EXACTLY what the auto bailout was right? You ever look into who actually owns GM right now? But your right...he hasn't shown he's a socialist.

...and then there's the fact that he's admitted to Socialist views in the past, well before he was president. Barack Obama is a Socialist...it isn't slander, it isn't overreaction, it's simply the truth. We've seen the result of a major power built on Socialist economic principles...our Capitalist economy destroyed one in the cold war. Obama's views for the U.S economy are extremely similar to that of the former Soviet Union. Don't want to acknowledge or admit that's true? Fine don't. Doesn't change the fact that it is.

You do realize that it wasn't Obama who created the auto bailout, don't you? It was created under Bush.

There are plenty of things about Obama that are legitimate criticisms, but calling him a socialist simply isn't supported by facts. Here's the definition of socialism (from Merriam-Webster):

Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

None of these has even remotely happened. The auto bailout prevented 1 major us automaker from declaring bankruptcy, and today the govt still has a roughly 30% stake in the company. Thy don't control the company's decisions or the means of production & distribution of the goods. Not to mention that Ford is private and doing just fine.

Even Obamacare isn't the a govt takeover. It's the govt enticing people to purchase insurance. Not from the govt; from insurance companies.

Like I said there are plent of legit reasons to disagree with Obama. Calling him a socialist isn't one of them. It's simply factually untrue.

=D>


November 9th, 2012, 7:11 am
Profile
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1112
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... e_gop.html


November 10th, 2012, 6:43 am
Profile
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3504
Location: WSU
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
Quote:
Again, continuing to claim something is true with no factual basis doesn't make it so. The "purchase" of GM was a loan, and the gov't has already sold some of their share of it, and have said they intend to sell their entire stake in the company. If he were trying to socialize that segment of the economy, why sell any of it? Why not just keep it with the gov't? Again, facts don't support your argument.


On a loan, generally the loaner ends up taking back more money than originally borrowed. In this instance GM shares are at $25/share. For the govt to make money off this and for it be classified as a "loan" under the definition of loan in most circumstances GM stock would need to be sold at over $50/share. The Dow has also gone up since the bailout so relatively the numbers are even worse than I ve listed above. WHile you may not think he is socializing that segment of the economy he is at least heavily regulating it - via a very strict EPA, continuing to advocate union rights, and now with the heavy burden that will be Obamacare which we will get to.


Quote:
As for the health care stuff, how is requiring everyone to purchase insurance from (non-government) insurance companies taking over an industry? Read the definitions of socialism again. Does Obamacare give the government the power to dictate what treatments a patient receives? No it does not. It doesn't eliminate private property, nor is the government taking over the means of production of health care equipment, drugs, etc. It simply does not meet the definition of socialism, despite the ALL CAPS CLAIMS you make.


The main problem with the Obamacare is that it ignores the simplest denominator needed to have successful health care reform. Any health care reform must reduce the cost to PROVIDE the care. Obamacare does not do this, where implemented in Massachussetts "Romneycare" which is small scale "Obamacare" has led to increase in costs by 15% compared to the rest of the US. Its plan for Medicare is to reimburse less by 23% even thought the cost to your doctor of taking care of you is increasing. So your doctor to survive will have to cut his costs somehow - maybe by orderring less tests, imaging, etc only that wont work because there is no malpractice reform in Obamacare and the practice of defensive medicine will have to continue. So while you say that it doesnt tell doctors what treatments they can use it does give the govt power to tell them what treatments they will be paid for. It already does that, Obama just increased its power to do so. Much of the medicare cuts then are spent to expand the number of people qualifying for Medicaid. Close to 20% of people will qualify for Medicaid in Obamacare, surely thats a number that will rise. For those not qualifying for govt care, it will increase your premiums and deductibles to your insurance companies bc it tells an insurance company that they cant turn anyone away or discriminate against people with preexisting conditions. Thats an analogy not unlike forcing a car insurance company to insure a wrecked car or insuring a high risk sports car for the same amount as a minivan. Finally, there are no limits as to which direction or to what degree Obamacare can expand. There is no doubt that the ultimate goal is for this to become a single payer system. A system where the payer makes the rules. That is SOCIALIZED medicine.

You made mention of healthcare equipment, pharmaceuticals, etc. Obamacare does not affect them. I wonder if it knows what a disproportionate amount of health care dollars go to them in the USA as compared to Europe. Why does it cost so much less for an MRI in Europe? Why does the same orthopaedic implant cost 3-5x less in Europe? You would think if it was about fairness and decreasing costs, those issues would be addressed first.

Would you want to go through 7-11 years of additional training AFTER college to go into that field? Do you think the best will go into medicine in the coming years? Do you know that there is already an impending physician shortage even before Obamacare? Whatever denial you have about this will likely end when the quality of your care noticably and inevitably declines. Heck you can even go to a County or VA hospital to check out what govt care is like if you dont believe me.

Ronald Reagan 1961, prior to his political career:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs




Quote:
I'll repeat myself one more time: there are plenty of legit reasons to disagree with and not like Obama. Calling him a socialist is not one of them. It's just not true.

As someone who is fed up with the status quo of republican vs democrat, I see these types of arguments as doing exactly 1 thing. Driving people away from the republican party. I honesty think we're seeing the last few years of the party. I think what's going to happen is exactly what has happened throughout our country's history: the republicans are going to have to change, and that's likely going to mean merging with another party. The reality is that the base upon which the republican party of today is built isn't a winning formula anymore: it takes more than just the white male vote to win. Hell just the white vote won't win anymore in a few years, and right now, that's all the republicans have. Time to reconfigure some things or be doomed to the dustbin of history.


You are so angry at the republican party that you only see things as Republican vs Democrat but yet you dont see how far to the left this President is. He is extremely intelligent and a great speaker and thats enough to sway people that dont actually think about his ideas. Yesterday when discussing the fiscal cliff he stated that he wasnt going to let "teachers and students pay for this alone," a propaganda statement made to play on emotions. It sounded great but when the top 1% of earners pay 40% of the countries taxes, pay 30% of charitable contributions have more advanced degrees, worked longer hours, invest almost all the money that helps businesses and the economy grow and took on more debt/risk when they were younger how can anyone not just laugh in Obama s face? What he really said was - we re going to force the successful to carry us alone just like they always have but we need more now. Guess it doesnt sound as good and makes the rest of us just look greedy and lazy.

Another thing I dont understand about Obama is why in this economy, when he openly says that more tax revenue is needed would he increase the investment tax? History has shown that when this tax rate goes up its revenue goes down and vice versa. Now back to his tax plan - continue the Bush tax cuts for middle class but for 390k and above there will be an increase. Raises trillions less than just reverting to the Clinton tax plan. That makes me really wonder if Obama s plan is to raise revenue like he says it is. I can understand someone saying that taxing the middle class more would hurt the economy but if he wanted to help the economy he wouldnt have increased the investment tax. The two things when occurring together dont make sense unless Obama s real plan isnt to increase revenue or promote the economy but rather to restructure society. Push everyone towards the middle financially.

Anyway I do agree with the underlying sentiment in your last paragraph that the Republican Party lost this election because of social issues. Gay rights, abortion, race and immigration issues, etc. Even if some people viewed the economy as a bigger problem, the GOP stance on those issues makes them look outdated, out of touch, insensitive, etc and I can understand why voters would not trust them.


November 10th, 2012, 11:54 am
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 403
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
GM is a public company. The government owns equity (not sure of the makeup - common or preferred, or both), just like a lot of other people. It is not government motors. The definition of "loan" has zero to do with it. It is a PUBLIC company.

Regulation does not = socialism. To make that link is... absurd.

ACA is not the first step to a single-payer system, and it is uncertain whether it will reduce or raise costs. One thing we know is, without it healthcare costs would continue to rise dramatically like they have been... so it is not legitimate to say it is ACA that is the cause if healthcare costs go up another 25-30-whatever % ... they were certainly going to go up anyway! ACA is definitely going to drive some consolidation in the business (hospitals, insurance companies) in attempt to get more cost efficiency. It is also going to drive a LOT more quality medical management, as hospitals, physician networks and insurance companies are forced to work together to drive expenses out of insuring higher risk members by moving people into those proactive medical management practices.

I am SO glad that ACA is going to stay the law of the land... because the further we go, the more people are going to stop whining about it & appreciate the benefits to themselves and their families & friends. I believe access to healthcare is a fundamental right in an enlightened society. And I'm glad that the majority of voting Americans agree with me.


November 10th, 2012, 5:48 pm
Profile
League MVP

Joined: February 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm
Posts: 3504
Location: WSU
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
if you say so but your friend obama disagrees:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpAyan1f ... _embedded#!


November 10th, 2012, 6:11 pm
Profile
Walk On

Joined: September 11th, 2010, 10:19 pm
Posts: 403
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
Is that supposed to be a gotcha or something? I never said Obama didn't prefer a single-payer system. That's common knowledge. But that's not what was delivered, and there's no plan to completely trash ACA and move to a single-payer system.

That's an old video. As long as you're busting out old videos, why don't you play us the ones of Romney talking about how the insurance mandate is about "personal responsibility", and that the current system of people going to emergency rooms for free healthcare is more like socialism. I know you've seen them - they were all over the airwaves during the silly season.

Of course Obama learned quickly that it would be far too disruptive to a massive supply chain to have a government takeover of healthcare ... the rationale was the same as the auto bailout to save another massive supply chain. And it's the same reason he didn't force the restructuring of the financial industry when he had the chance AND the rationale. His actual record shows clear concern to not disrupt American business.

You fear Obama in spite of his multiple actual acts to preserve and keep intact important American industries. It is simply weird.


November 10th, 2012, 7:05 pm
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
Wow. A lot to discuss here and I doubt I'll get to all of it.

First of all, my initial inclinations were correct. Conservatives would not come out in force to vote for a moderate like Romney, Evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon, and Obama's demonizing of the rich would hurt Romney's chances. Exit polls showed that all of those initial assumptions were correct and the voter turnout results reaffirmed them. Now you know why I opposed the Romney nomination so intensely. It ended exactly how I feared it would.

Unfortunately, I bought into the hype as the campaign rolled along, moreso out of hope rather than objective analysis. While some conservatives switched their anti-Romney positions and chose to vote for him, far too many did not. The same thing goes for Evangelicals. While I would have voted for a ham sandwich over Obama, far too many conservatives thought otherwise. It's time for the GOP establishment to stop forcing their candidates down our throats (Romney, McCain, Dole, etc.) and nominate a "true" conservative.

As I've said before, the GOP is too nice. They must get into the mud like the Dems do on a regular basis to win elections. The two main words missing from Romney's campaign were "socialist" and "liar". There are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples to support each.

What I found funny in this thread is that the Dems/Socialists often quote the "textbook" definition of socialism. You do realize that there are over a dozen types of socialism now, don't you? Have any of you ever heard of Democratic Socialism or Fabianism? What I like to point out is that there is little to no difference between the Democratic platform in the US and the Democratic Socialist platform from the Democratic Socialists in Europe. Perhaps UK Lion could shed some light on this issue. They are both for more government. They are both for higher taxes. They are both for more regulation. They are both for an increased entitlement society. They are both for increased Global Warming regulations. They are both for abortion, gay rights, immigration, multiculturalism, and an assortment of other social issues. They are both for increased debt and deficits. They are both for more government control of businesses. They are both for the redistribution of wealth.

The only major difference between the two is that the Democratic Socialists of Europe admit who and what they are, while those in the US do not. Basically, those in Europe are honest, while those in the US are pathological liars.

In the end, the primary problem with this country is that there are now more "Takers" than "Makers. The electorate will vote for those that offer the most free stuff. Cloward-Piven anyone? Or John Galt? Time will tell, but it's gonna get even uglier from here on out.

My only solace is the fact that the ignorant Obama voters are going to get exactly what they voted for - a massive recession. I'll be fine, but those at the lower end of the skills spectrum (Obama voters) will be hurt the most by his economic incompetence. Being the vindictive person that I am, I can't wait to laugh in their face and take great joy in their suffering. Perhaps a few of them will finally wake up, but that might be too much to ask for. Just look at Detroit. That's where the country is headed by libtard policies.

_________________
Image


November 12th, 2012, 5:37 am
Profile
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1112
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
slybri19 wrote:
The only major difference between the two is that the Democratic Socialists of Europe admit who and what they are, while those in the US do not.

1. I agree that there are similarities between the Social Democrat parties in Europe and the Democrat party in the US. The Democrat party is slightly more right wing/towards the centre than most European Social Democrat parties, but that's because your politics generally skews more right than ours.

2. I think you're reading too much into names that parties have retained for historical reasons. Whilst most European Social Democratic parties started out life as genuine socialist parties, the vast majority no longer are. All have accepted capitalism and the free market model.

3. The UK example is the Labour party (named because of its roots in the trade union movement) - they were a socialist party (in the early 80s, some Labour party members split and formed a new party, The Social Democrat Party, and they were more right wing than Labour were at that time!). The late 80's/early 90's saw a shift from that position, though, culminating in the election of Blair as leader and his removal of "clause 4" from the Labour party constitution - clause 4 essentially stated that the party was committed to public ownership. Whilst in practice, the Labour party had not been socialist for some time before the ditching of clause 4, its removal was the point the party formaly rejected its socialist past and accepted capitalism and the free market model. Google "Labour clause 4" if you're interested.

4. Notably, the name didn't change. They didn't move from "Labour" (with its socialist/trade union connections) to (say) the "Democrat Party". Too much value in the brand to ditch it. Similar in continental Europe, Social Democrat parties (the continental equivalent of Labour) have ditched socialism but not the "Social" part of their party names. The last thing Labour would want would be a new party being formed, even more to the left of them, sucking away votes Labour could previously take for granted (this is occuring somewhat to the Conservative Party, thanks to the UK Independence Party (essentially, a single issue anti-European Union party) having been formed recently and becoming somewhat succesful) - so they need to keep the pretence going that ensures those left wing votes stay with them, whilst in reality they ditched socialism ages ago so that they can gain the votes of the centre left and centre that are now the large majority of their support (and essential to ever win power).

5. So overall, it's the European parties (IMO) that are the less honest ones. In order to retain the traditional support they have on the far left, they have retained their names that indicate their support for socialism despite not actually supporting socialism.


November 12th, 2012, 6:46 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
UK Lion, thank you for your timely response. As you stated, "I agree that there are similarities between the Social Democrat parties in Europe and the Democrat party in the US." That is the truth, but you attempted to blur the distinctions or similarities beyond that initial statement. For instance, which Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist parties are calling for the elimination of the private sector? None. Yet, according to the American definition of the term, that is the end all/be all of the definition of socialism.

Government control of the private sector is a more appropriate term of the definition of socialism/fascism, but the left doesn't want to address that issue? Why? I know why, but the vast majority of the ignorant American population do not, hence the re-election of an idiot like Obama.

_________________
Image


November 12th, 2012, 7:11 am
Profile
Commissioner of the NFL – Roger Goodell
User avatar

Joined: August 7th, 2004, 4:47 am
Posts: 10943
Location: Sterling Heights, MI
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
In case many of you didn't know, the massive layoffs have begun, mainly due to Obamacare. I tried to tell everyone about reality, but ideology apparently trumped the truth. Enjoy your suffering libtards. I will personally smile at your difficulties since you brought them upon yourslf.

_________________
Image


November 12th, 2012, 7:19 am
Profile
3rd Round Selection

Joined: October 19th, 2005, 1:24 pm
Posts: 1112
Location: Nottingham, England
Post Re: GAME DAY THREAD: Obama vs. Romney
slybri19 wrote:
For instance, which Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist parties are calling for the elimination of the private sector? None. Yet, according to the American definition of the term, that is the end all/be all of the definition of socialism.

Exactly - none of the mainstream European Social Democrat parties are socialist anymore. So whilst there are similarities to the US Democrats, that doesn't mean the US Democrats are socialists. The European Social Democrats are socialist in name only.


November 12th, 2012, 7:21 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.