GasBandit
Staff member
That's what the 08 race was, even though Bush wasn't running.
If Romney wins the GOP, I forsee bad things for....
- Thread starter Shegokigo
- Start date
- Status
No, it really wasn't. That was icing on the cake though.
GasBandit
Staff member
The only part of it that wasn't was the part that was trying to paint McCain, up till then a huge RINO and the liberal press's favorite maverick, as being a 1 to 1 equivalency of a third Bush term. Then it all just went back to campaigning against Bush.
Actually, I do remember things being that way, at least in the news around DC. Not that Obama wasn't a charismatic candidate and really roused up support, but there was another side to that, and it very much equated McCain to third Bush term, and that Bush needed to be defeated.
McCain certainly did his part to help that image considering his choices during the campaign.
McCain certainly did his part to help that image considering his choices during the campaign.
And that's why I can't stand the "People were voting against a 3rd term of Bush" crap. If McCain had been his old self and been a somewhat centrist (though centrist isn't really all that centrist) instead of running toward the crazy part of his base, he would have probably beaten Obama. Instead he ran with Palin, embraced Bush's policies, and sang bomb bomb Iran.
Ah, but if McCain had been his old centrist self, would Republicans have voted for him? Or would they have called him soft, whined about flip-flopping, and stayed home?
You must be watching a different last 3 years than I did.
Ah, so when the republicans had a majority and the democrats were stopping bills, the difference is that the bills weren't helpful?
How short is your memory exactly?
I made fun of his statement because it was an ad-hominem attack of the republicans with no substance or value. The same could be said of the democrats or any other political party if one simply assumed a different perspective.
Your statement, at least, has something that can be tested and discussed - whether democrats or republicans are more prone to stopping useful bills from passing or not through the last few decades.
No, the quote thingie, lack of quote tunnels made that turn out wrong. Sorry for the confusion.
Added at: 22:20
The key word here was COMPROMISE. I like how ya did that though
It was a series of statements that led to it, and in the end I stand by how this Republican senate has dealt with their base. Even if that base is mostly imaginary and whipped into a fervor by a crazy media machine.
You must be watching a different last few decades than I did. Are you seriously saying that the republicans are the only ones bad at compromise, and that it's due to low intelligence? I suppose this is something you'll have to learn with more experience watching them wrestle over the next few decades, but I can assure you that the blame rests with both parties, even when it seems as though only one party is stopping up the works.
No, that's not what I'm saying, Stienman. I'm saying, AGAIN, that the last 3 years have been pretty ridiculous. Even when you give the Republican minority what they want, they are pissed off you even tried. Fuck all that.
Both parties are retarded. Only one group is pissing on itself, though.
Both parties are retarded. Only one group is pissing on itself, though.
Necronic
Staff member
How dare you compromise their statements!
Nice: http://romneyandme.com/
fade
Staff member
The more I learn about politics, the less I know. I'm more and more loathe to make sweeping statements, but I do firmly believe that fiscal conservatism and libertarianism are not the best answer. Mostly because of historical evidence. I see the world as having been libertarian for centuries, and it self-organized into haves and have-nots time and time again, to the point where it was usually difficult to tell government from wealthy elite. These days we have strongly regulated central governments, and instead of revolting, the country is calling for reform from the 2 1/2 centuries of libertarianism this country already enjoyed. I see it as a point of pride in the US that we're not resorting to the usual war to take back the resources. Really, I almost see two governments anyway. The "real" one, and the "private" oligarchy already taxing us everyday for things we do and use. That's the tax rate that many of us see as too high. That's the one that has to be cut. Not because I want what mr. ceo has. Because I want to stop sending such a large percentage of what I DO earn to him. By analogy, if I yell at you to stop punching me, it's not because I want to be punching people, too. It's because I really don't like being punched in the face.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't agree that "the country is calling for reform from the 2 1/2 centuries of libertarianism this country has already enjoyed." This country has not had anything approaching libertarianism since at least FDR, probably even farther back than the Civil War. How Libertarian was Andrew Jackson? It's the same as how people kept saying that "capitalism/the free market has failed" in the big economic crash when the truth of the matter is we haven't even given capitalism/the market a chance - it's all mired down in 400 layers of central planning.
Rather, I think the nation has only sustained itself as far as it has because of its libertarian roots. The concept of freedom and liberty (with the requisite accompaniment of personal responsibility) is what made a country that everybody from everywhere else wanted to live, and got us started down the path to broad swaths of prosperity for all, driven by the profit motive of the individual.
Libertarianism didn't give us oligarchy, every system of government ever attempted wound up a de facto oligarchy - the elite powerful rule, and if they weren't already wealthy, they became so very quickly - no matter if the attempt was monarchy, commuism, socialism, despotism or republic. Wealth is humanity's metric expression of power, so naturally, human nature ends up with the powerful being wealthy and vice versa.
Rather, I think the nation has only sustained itself as far as it has because of its libertarian roots. The concept of freedom and liberty (with the requisite accompaniment of personal responsibility) is what made a country that everybody from everywhere else wanted to live, and got us started down the path to broad swaths of prosperity for all, driven by the profit motive of the individual.
Libertarianism didn't give us oligarchy, every system of government ever attempted wound up a de facto oligarchy - the elite powerful rule, and if they weren't already wealthy, they became so very quickly - no matter if the attempt was monarchy, commuism, socialism, despotism or republic. Wealth is humanity's metric expression of power, so naturally, human nature ends up with the powerful being wealthy and vice versa.
fade
Staff member
That's kind of the same thing I said, except I see it that the wealthy end up powerful, not the powerful end up wealthy.
Added at: 20:59
What you see as 400 layers of central control, I see as growing from free market, not growing against it. We haven't given free market a chance, because every time we do, the wealthy form self-protecting "400 layers of central control". I guess I don't see the government and the market as distinct beings.
Added at: 21:04
I should refine that to a timeline.
1. Free market and small/no gov't forms oligarchy
2. Oligarchy forms self-protecting big gov't
3. Big gov't co-opted to serve proletariat.
4. Guillotines.
I'm not saying this is how it has to be or what's happening now. It just looks like this to me historically.
Added at: 20:59
What you see as 400 layers of central control, I see as growing from free market, not growing against it. We haven't given free market a chance, because every time we do, the wealthy form self-protecting "400 layers of central control". I guess I don't see the government and the market as distinct beings.
Added at: 21:04
I should refine that to a timeline.
1. Free market and small/no gov't forms oligarchy
2. Oligarchy forms self-protecting big gov't
3. Big gov't co-opted to serve proletariat.
4. Guillotines.
I'm not saying this is how it has to be or what's happening now. It just looks like this to me historically.
Yes, i mean what other country has lasted for less then 300 years...
Especially all those sub-saharan africans...
GasBandit
Staff member
Yes, you're correct, that's what you said.. I said the vice versa also applies.
And therein lies our disagreement. Or rather, we agree they are currently not, we disagree on whether they should be. It's funny though how when things are going great, government gets the credit, but when things are going rough, the "free market has failed us."
No, you would not be incorrect to say this is how it has to be and how it is happening now. It's just a question of whether it ever actually gets to 4. You can bet the upper eschelons in china and back in the soviet union were not of the same wealth status as their comrades in equality.
I guess what I'm saying is, we as a species currently have no way to eradicate fiscal inequality or decouple wealth and power. It's just a question of what flavor you want your inequality.
Well it is the governments role to regulate the free market... so actually both have failed...
But the free market is supposed to fail all the time, that's how it gets rid of the stuff that's not working... it's like nature that way... once in a while it has to kill off a bunch of dinosaurs... if you don't believe me just google Tulip bubble (mania if that doesn't work).
Added at: 21:57
I'll go with this one if you don't mind: https://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/01/26-3
GasBandit
Staff member
you're going to have to expound on that for me.
That's a dumb thing to say. Do you think if we offered them the trip back to sub saharan africa, they'd go? "No because now it's ruined" No, it was ruined then too. It's always been ruined. It's sub saharan freakin africa.
Additionally, around 500,000 slaves were brought to america before international slave trade was banned in 1807. After that, they were all "home grown" so to speak. Interesting to note, too, that slavery actually persists within africa to this day in places like sierra leone (blood diamonds don't dig themselves after all).
Added at: 16:05
Yeah, that's been going on for less than 100 years. Let's see where you are in another 200, if you make it that far. It might be pretty easy actually... nobody expects scandinavia to be hegemon/global police.
I thought it was pretty obvious it was a jab at it not being all that much time... and plenty of other countries where powerful for longer while being pretty awful, hell, Rome's Empire days lasted more...
Well they went back to Liberia once...
And sure, it's always been the place where they used slave labour to mine diamonds, because we all know how much diamonds meant to pre-feudal societies...
And that totally makes it ok...
GasBandit
Staff member
You who trumpets the scandinavian socialist miracle of the 20th century is lecturing ME that OUR system hasn't lasted long?
You're getting your sentences crossed.
Does it make it ok? No. Does it reveal the irrelevancy in your fallacious insinuation? Yes.
GasBandit
Staff member
STOP SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT ME YOU ASSHOLE
- Status