Curse

DarkNecrid · Nov 05, 2008, 03:39 AM // 03:39

You two are ridiculous and seemingly know nothing about anything about Obama except what the GOP (incorrectly) puts out (HE...HE'S MOSLEM (when he isn't Muslim at all). Seriously.

Soviet America? Socialism? lol

You guys know nothing about the Soviet or Socialism governments, nothing Obama has done has come close to either. America isn't even vaguely close to a Soviet government at all, why the RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GO would you say that? Seriously? Are you dumb? Saying "welcome to Soviet America" is probably one of the dumbest things I've ever seen this campaign, and I've seen people support Ron Paul, a man who wants to remove us from NATO and the UN and remove the FDA and let America poison itself to find out what is bad, and supports the Gold standard, so that is saying something.

Please actually learn what Communism and Socialism are and learn the actual depths of what Obama plans to do, and maybe if you can wrap your minds around it you'll realize it doesn't come close to either system at all. People with actual degrees in Economics have been supporting Obama's plan over McCain's plan, and they are very much so in the subsection of the USA that will be effected by his plan, but they support it because they realize it's for the good of the nation.

Neo Nugget · Nov 05, 2008, 04:04 AM // 04:04

Looks like Barack won by a landslide :O

Master Fuhon · Nov 05, 2008, 04:14 AM // 04:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winterclaw

MMSDome, this is just the beginning. We've been moving towards Soviet America since Wilson. We had far jumps to the left with Roosovelt and LBJ, I don't see us not making another one. As someone from Florida, Obama fought to keep our state's votes from counting in the primaries until he had it wrapped up. How can we trust him to do anything else if he tried to corrupt our democratic system? America, we have a new president that is in it only for himself: Barak "Nick Saban" Obama...

What pisses me off the most is we where one Supreme Court Justice from overturning Roe v. Wade and at least sending it back to the states. As far as I'm concerned, the modern equivilant to slavery is going to be sticking around for a while longer.

I really feel like I need to do a why I hate John McCain, but in short:
1. Too moderate.
2. Shot himself in the foot by voting for the bail out.
3. Didn't raise money thanks to public financing.
4. Didn't go agressively enough after Obama.
5. Didn't act like he wanted it.
6. Wasted his chances at the debates.
7. Pretty much behaved like he had no idea what he was doing and expected to make up for 4 months and a lack of money in 72 hours.
8. Hurt the party as a whole.

At least the Republicans have a chance at filibuster right now, but it's too much to hope one of the moderates like McCain won't switch sides.

I'm glad you wrote this because I haven't been around long enough to look that far back. But I looked back at how George Washington defined what the nation's foreign policy; basically that the U.S. should have no concern for the affairs of Europe. I was starting to get confused on how my foreign policy beliefs differed from being based on a reshaped view of the world.

I'm moderate conservative in alot of beliefs but that was one that I couldn't grasp ever following. George Washington defined the country on the stance that we don't get so involved in WW2. Shortly after entering that war we would have probably left France to deal with Germany, and allowed Russia to deal with Japan. Instead, we took charge of dealing with those countries and redefined the nation's foreign policy on forging alliances with Europe. The U.S. got involved, and the rest of the world reshaped around that involvement.

So in most ways true center in the U.S. gets redefined with every generation towards leaning left. Conservativism is probably going to get pushed out by elections between extreme liberals (Karl Marx types) and moderate liberals. I don't know if I'm ready to equate it to Soviet style government yet. But I see it as moving back in with our parents (old Europe). Unfortunately following Europe doesn't put the U.S. first in much anymore.

Avarre · Nov 05, 2008, 04:15 AM // 04:15

Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeee geeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Arkantos · Nov 05, 2008, 04:19 AM // 04:19

MY PRESIDENT IS BLACK
MY LAMBO'S BLUE
AND I'LL BE GODDAMNED IF MY RIMS AIN'T TOO

owait, I'm in Canada. gg Obama, though.

illidan009 · Nov 05, 2008, 04:27 AM // 04:27

OMGZ OBAMA WINZZZZ???? Not surprising at all...grats to him and all the fanboys.
GG(non derogatory) to John McCain.

xDusT II · Nov 05, 2008, 05:04 AM // 05:04

Arkantos · Nov 05, 2008, 05:12 AM // 05:12

You sir, win.

Queenie · Nov 05, 2008, 05:32 AM // 05:32

[DE] · Nov 05, 2008, 05:37 AM // 05:37

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."

Sounds a lot like Obamas plan to me.

shru · Nov 05, 2008, 05:49 AM // 05:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by [DE]

"Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."

Sounds a lot like Obamas plan to me.

"ONCE the McCain campaign said Barack Obama was a ter rorist sympathizer, we should've have known "socialist" was next.
Ever since Obama told "Joe the Plumber" that we should "spread the wealth," John McCain and Sarah Palin have taken to blasting Obama's tax plan as a socialist plot.
Socialism involves collective ownership of the means of economic production and similar institutional "sharing of the wealth." Nothing Obama has proposed comes close to that. (Instead, the Bush administration is virtually nationalizing the banks.)
What McCain calls socialism is actually just old-fashioned progressive taxation - taxing the wealthy at higher rates than the poor. It underlies most of US tax policy - so mainstream that one of its biggest defenders has been . . . John McCain.
Debating in Michigan during the 2000 primaries, McCain warned: "There's a growing gap between the haves and have-nots in America, and that gap is growing, and it's unfortunately divided up along ethnic lines."
That same year, McCain said on "Meet the Press": "Many studies have indicated that . . . the people who need . . . the relief most are working middle-income Americans and that's what I want to give to them." In an ad, he promised: "There's one big difference between me and the others - I won't take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy." Socialist!
In fact, McCain is such a socialist that he voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts, complaining that they unfairly favored the rich "at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief."
The McCain campaign has also bizarrely begun calling Obama's tax credits "welfare." For example, Obama's refundable tax credit for mortgage payments originally went to everyone, even if they didn't work. Responding to the "welfare" charge, Obama has added a work requirement - so now retirees won't benefit from the tax credit. Thanks, Sen. McCain.
It also looks like McCain is pushing a little "welfare" of his own: The centerpiece of his health care plan is a $5,000 tax credit to families. This goes to people regardless of their employment status. Socialist!
Sure, the credit just replaces today's break for employer-provided insurance - but it does potentially go to people who don't pay income tax. Why isn't that socialism?
Conservatives are also calling Obama's health-care plan "socialized medicine." Yet Henry Aaron, a top health-policy expert at nonpartisan Brookings Institution, laughed at this characterization.
He calls Obama's plan "exceedingly moderate," noting that it builds incrementally on existing insurance programs. It won't tell private insurers what benefits they must cover beyond a basic package.
In fact, liberal New York Times columnist Paul Krugman attacked Obama's plan as overly modest (compared to Hillary Clinton's) several times during the primaries.
Unlike places like Britian, which does have socialized medicine, Obama wouldn't put doctors to work for the government. If you like your current policy, you could keep it.
If Obama's plan is "socialist" because it means a bit more government involvement in health care, than America already has socialized medicine for the elderly (Medicare) and the poor (Medicaid).
Maybe all this is why the "socialist" attack doesn't seem to be working. In the most recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll, Obama led on "better on taxes" 48-34. A month earlier, McCain was ahead 41-37.
Could the taunt of "communist" be far behind?"

i.e. get your head out of your ass...

DarkNecrid · Nov 05, 2008, 06:01 AM // 06:01

Quote:

Sounds a lot like Obamas plan to me.

Yea maybe if you:
a) Didn't actually research Obama's plan and just chose the choice words 'spreading the wealth' but not what this actually means.
b) Used that incredibly limiting and very vague definition of Socialism.

I'd tell you how you're wrong but I'm not sure I could fit it all in 2 posts on Guru considering Obama's plans don't come anything close to Socialism beyond a very vague word choice of "spreading the wealth" which already exists in our nation in the form of welfare. To the uneducated, I'm sure "spreading the wealth" OMG THATS TOTALLY IN THE WIKIPEDIA DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM = socialism, sounds rather sound, but then again so does "An apple is a fruit, an orange is a fruit, OMG THEY MUST TOTALLY BE THE SAME." even though an apple and an orange are completely different (but similar in that they are both fruits, just like Socialism and Democracy are both government structures).

But to put it simply a Socialist structure is more akin to Communism in how equal the classes are, albeit in Socialism the state owns the means of production & distribution and it's not Communism's common ownership. Obama is still 100% capitalist (private owned means of production & distribution) with clear class levels (ie: all 3 of them aren't completely RED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GORED ENGINE GOing equal like an egalitarian society.), but I'm sure you're just going to get caught up on "omg spreading the wealth" and ignore the very basics of what is socialism. (hint: it's way more than that simple Wikipedia paragraph.)

[DE] · Nov 05, 2008, 06:16 AM // 06:16

Sorry that you have to defend your new BFF to death but okay...

"All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved."

Obama wants to spread the wealth. The wealthy class is going to get taxed to SHIT. This is fact. Considering there is considerable amount of DISAGREEMENT among socialists over HOW and TO WHAT EXTENT this could be achieved - I would have to say yeah. Sounds a lot like Obamas plan to me.

Note: I never said that Socialism is communism or that it's bad. I'm simply stating what Obama will do.

edit: Also maybe quote something that does more than just bash McCain to shit. Might be a bit more reliable and a little bit less bias.

pumpkin pie · Nov 05, 2008, 06:25 AM // 06:25

just have one thing to say

Weldone Obama! Though I am not American I do pity anyone who has to come after Bush, lots of stuffs to clean up and debt to settle ...

Turbobusa · Nov 05, 2008, 06:27 AM // 06:27

OMG i'm so laughing at the combo breaker pic

mazey vorstagg · Nov 05, 2008, 06:53 AM // 06:53

WAHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

This has been far too long coming and so wonderfully inevitable!!

WAHOO!!

roshanabey2 · Nov 05, 2008, 07:10 AM // 07:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Master Fuhon

I posted a video a few posts up of George Bush preaching isolationism back in 2000. If the rest of the world cared about American politics back then, they would have picked him. Al Gore was talking about taking an involved stance in the world back then. John Kerry ran on isolationist platform and the rest of the world wanted him too.

Americans only pay attention to politics every 4 years, and the rest of the world has just started to pay attention to ours in 2004. I don't worry about them laughing because they laughed when our economy failed, without realizing it would hit them too. They only know about American presidents for a whole 4 years. That's less than college students.

Isolationism fails every time someone preaches it. European nations are turned inward focusing on themselves. They would be vulnerable as anyone to being attacked. The middle east is about countries having no recognition for boundaries, any of these nations could start the next war. Africa is a mess. Obama got jumped on in Democratic primaries for preaching isolationism, he was finally able to win over moderate votes by rethinking things.

I thought declaring Pennsylvania for Obama was pretty huge. Exit polling is no more off than 3%-10% in any of the states. That means that people are lying that they are voting Obama, and really voting McCain by this small of a margin. Doesn't look like enough for McCain to pull it out. Obama will probably take 290-300ish, but I'm interested in seeing if Obama holds his projected 8-9% edge in popular.

Edit: Already at around 290-300ish projected, FL and OH would push that to 340+.
Edit2: Showing my youth, U.S. always goes into isolationism after war times, allowing the rest of the world to degrade on its own. Kind of phony to preach about it while extended in so many countries and at war though.

bad stupid american, lol only a joke..oh well obama won.......... You talk a lot of shit though, 'European countries have turned inward focusing on themselves' WTF! Biggest Bullshit I have ever heard. 'They only know about American presidents for a whole 4 years. That's less than college students.' again WTF are you on, by this you clearly don't know what happens in the outside world. A large population of American's don't even know what happens outside their own state. America is the only country in the world where people think that you have to be amazingly patriotic as presidential candidate, aside from actually being good at what you do,otherwise you would be criticised for it. In the United Kingdom people would laugh at you if you said ' oh, I don't want him to be Prime Minister, he's not patriotic enough.' Every time an American says 'God bless America' the rest of the world laughs at them. You do realise that everyone would of laughed at America if McCain won? America is the only place in the world were cheesy adds work for politics, "Do you want a Socialist America, NO, Vote McCain' In England that would be one more reason not to vote for McCain, note; I'm not saying the Obama adds didn't do that aswell. I don't think Obama is that great but he is better than MCCain, I'm glad he won, it's much better of the rest of the world.

shoyon456 · Nov 05, 2008, 07:42 AM // 07:42

Guess what?

PRESIDENT-ELECT Obama used bipartisanship in working across the isle on the Nuclear Proliferation Bill, for starters

He taught CONSTITUTIONAL LAW for 12 years as the first african-american head of the Harvard Law Review where he graduated as one of the top in his class.

The general (or at least optimistic) view of the role of the president is to PROTECT the constitution. Of course this is a very general statement, but I mean protect its' role in the actions he takes with the country. A clear President who pissed on the constitution is Bush, who suspended habeas corpus in Guantanamo and went to war without justification or consent.

The case for PRESIDENT-ELECT Obama is most clearly made by juxtaposing Sen. McCain's positions with Bush's, who as I said, pissed on the constitution. McCain said himself in an effort to win right-wing conservatives in the primaries "i voted with Bush over 90% of the time." Bush's policies have failed in both foreign and domestic affairs. The prospect of someone who will follow these same policies is not change, and the reason people call him "change" is because he takes a directly contradicting stance on issues that McCain and Bush have commonalities in. For example: Withdrawing troops out of Iraq, Abortion, Who the tax cuts should go to, etc...

Oh, and if you didn't notice its PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA buddy. You can move to Canada if you want, just gives me the ammunition to call you "anti-american" like that knucklehead Palin got into that was on your ticket.

Unlucky Slayer · Nov 05, 2008, 07:56 AM // 07:56

Right then, election is over. Obama won. No need to continue down this path of idiocy.