PDA

View Full Version : Democratic debate?


penchief
12-13-2007, 03:20 PM
What? Nobody's interested?

Watching this debate has reinforced all the reasons why I lean democratic. Compared to the republican debate, the democratic candidates are expressing intelligence, pragmatism, and public-service as opposed to the fear-mongering, resentment, and retribution that exemplifies the message being sent out by the business-suit phonies, the war-mongers, and the economic elitists who represent the republican party.

The job description of representation demands pragmatism and public-service as opposed to being a whore for the oppressive economic policies currently being touted by the right wing in this country.

As a whole, the democratic candidates are head-and-shoulders above anyone the republican party has to offer. The only republican that I would put above a democrat is the famous quasi-libertarian, Ron Paul. And the only democrat I would put Ron Paul above is Hillary Clinton (because, so far, she appears to be a corporate whore, too).

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 03:44 PM
The only 2 honest men were not invited, Ron Paul is the only choice anyway. ;)

penchief
12-13-2007, 03:54 PM
The only 2 honest men were not invited, Ron Paul is the only choice anyway. ;)

IMO, a one-on-one between Ron Paul and Joe Biden (or any other democratic candidate, for that matter) would result in Paul looking impotent because the only appeal that Paul brings to the stage is that his affilitation is as a republican (he agrees with liberals on the ideal of universal liberty and on the counterproductivity of the Iraq occupation).

After that, he's nothing more than a neocon when it comes to corporate influence and economic Darwinism. If he doesn't offer anything different than democrats or neocons, what good is he?

Liberals have been the ones standing up for liberty. That's a vote for the democrats. Neocons have been the ones suppressing liberty via economic elitism. That's a vote for the neocons. What is Paul, a liberal or a neocon?

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 03:56 PM
Liberals stand for the Liberty of controlling everything, no thanks.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 03:57 PM
Penchief contemplates political philosophy...

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-on-ignorance.gif

recxjake
12-13-2007, 04:01 PM
higher taxes, mandates, regulations, more spending, govt run healthcare... yay vote Democrat!

recxjake
12-13-2007, 04:03 PM
The only Democrat with any experience is Richardson.. and he is in 4th place....

Clinton... first lady... Senator
Obama... 3rd year in Senate... has missed a shitload of votes
Edwards... trial lawyer, 2 year Senator

Where exactly is the experience? who has run anything, who had had millions of people depending on their decisions?

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:04 PM
The only Democrat with any experience is Richardson.. and he is in 4th place....

Clinton... first lady... Senator
Obama... 3rd year in Senate... has missed a shitload of votes
Edwards... trial lawyer, 2 year Senator

Where exactly is the experience? who has run anything, who had had millions of people depending on their decisions?



And more importantly, who cares?

Our form of government wasn't written for career politicians. It was written for the citizen statesman.

Presidents aren't supposed to "run" things.

penchief
12-13-2007, 04:08 PM
Liberals stand for the Liberty of controlling everything, no thanks.

I don't agree. Liberals stand for individuals not being oppressed by any means. That's why I'm a liberal. Explain to me why I'm wrong. Neolibertarians seem to be johnny-come-lately republicans to the liberty scene because they've been adversely affected by the the right-wing fascists currently occupying the White House and they want to disown them.

In order to denounce the obvious misconduct of the right-wingers that they enabled, the righties in this country are jumping from authoritarianism to lip-service libertarianism for two reasons:. One, so that they can maintain the status quo, and two: so they don't have to admit that the left was right (that's one reason why they keep trying to sell the ridiculous lie that Bush is a lefty).

recxjake
12-13-2007, 04:08 PM
And more importantly, who cares?

Our form of government wasn't written for career politicians. It was written for the citizen statesman.

Presidents aren't supposed to "run" things.

We don't need a President who has to have on the job training.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-13-2007, 04:10 PM
I don't agree. Liberals stand for individuals not being oppressed by any means. That's why I'm a liberal. Explain to me why I'm wrong. Neolibertarians seem to be johnny-come-lately republicans to the liberty scene because they've been adversely affected by the the right-wing fascists currently occupying the White House and they want to disown them.

In order to denounce the obvious misconduct of the right-wingers that they enabled, the righties in this country are jumping from authoritarianism to lip-service libertarianism for two reasons:. One, so that they can maintain the status quo, and two: so they don't have to admit that the left was right (that's one reason why they keep trying to sell the ridiculous lie that Bush is a lefty).

The only thing the left is correct on is the amount of corruption, but that goes both ways.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:11 PM
We don't need a President who has to have on the job training.



Yeah, I've never been impressed with this talking point.

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:12 PM
The only thing the left is correct on is the amount of corruption, but that goes both ways.



Not to mention what a bunch of enablers they are on this subject. I got an idea, let's create big government, and then complain when it gets corrupted and works against the interests that we set up the big government to monitor in the first place. And then lets create more government to solve the problem of the government corruption!

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

penchief
12-13-2007, 04:12 PM
Penchief contemplates political philosophy...

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/calvin-on-ignorance.gif

And I can read the political cartoon section of the daily paper and find ones that exemplify your political tact, as well. The problem is that you don't address anything with your own thoughts. You always try to label someone with somebody else's thoughts (as this comic demonstrates).

The fallacy is that you seem to think that you have all the answers. If for a moment we pretend that you don't, what does that cartoon mean? Anything?

Taco John
12-13-2007, 04:13 PM
And I can read the political cartoon section of the daily paper and find ones that exemplify your political tact, as well.



You would have to actually understand my political tact in order to accomplish this.

penchief
12-13-2007, 04:54 PM
The only thing the left is correct on is the amount of corruption, but that goes both ways.

There is a huge difference in what the each side thinks American government's role is. The right seems to thing that government's role is to serve privilege and power while the left seems to think that government's role is to serve the people.

Give me an example of corruption on the left that has equated to the right (i.e. Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq occupation, torture, spying on Americans, the wholesale elimination of our civil liberties, governmental secrecy, and just flat out being corporate whores to the max).

I don't think you can. Liberals are the truer defenders of universal liberty while the so-called "conservatives" are the mouthpieces for economic elitism, IMO.

penchief
12-13-2007, 04:56 PM
The only Democrat with any experience is Richardson.. and he is in 4th place....

Clinton... first lady... Senator
Obama... 3rd year in Senate... has missed a shitload of votes
Edwards... trial lawyer, 2 year Senator

Where exactly is the experience? who has run anything, who had had millions of people depending on their decisions?

Excuse me, Joe Biden has no experience? You need to open your ears, son.

penchief
12-13-2007, 05:11 PM
You would have to actually understand my political tact in order to accomplish this.

I understand your tact. It's just that you have not come to terms with your partisan zeal yet. You tout something that you think is embodied only in your ideal of liberty. Yet you overlook that the very same virtue you tout has been touted for centuries by true libertarians, not those of you who just had an epiphany due to the incompetence and dishonesty of George Bush (someone who many neolibertairans (former-republicans) probably endorsed in 2000).

Liberty wouldn't even be an issue for many of you if it weren't for the fact that Bush is such a screw up.

patteeu
12-13-2007, 05:56 PM
What? Nobody's interested?

Watching this debate has reinforced all the reasons why I lean democratic. Compared to the republican debate, the democratic candidates are expressing intelligence, pragmatism, and public-service as opposed to the fear-mongering, resentment, and retribution that exemplifies the message being sent out by the business-suit phonies, the war-mongers, and the economic elitists who represent the republican party.

I see you've got the "Rule of 3" down.

'Hamas' Jenkins
12-13-2007, 06:00 PM
The main reason why I'm a liberal:

I believe in personal liberty. I don't think that economic liberty=personal liberty primarily because money isn't tangible. Money is just an agreement that something *has* some kind of tradeable value, but it's ultimately only supported by speculation.

Money cannot exist without society agreeing that it has a set worth, which is why I have no problem with society/government regulating monetary issues more heavily, because without them, we are back to a barter system.

A person cannot have freedom unless government is removed from their personal decisions. Legislating morality reduces the agency of individuals.

It's in the best interest of a government to have happy, well-adjusted, healthy, productive and intelligent citizens--so why not provide the means that will allow them to attain these things--namely education and health care. That's not to say that government is axiomatically efficient, because it isn't. But at the same time, assuming that government can't do something cheaply and/or efficiently just because it is government is folly.

JMO, flame away.

penchief
12-14-2007, 09:22 AM
I see you've got the "Rule of 3" down.

Yeah, sometimes I want to go further but I have to stop myself.

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 09:27 AM
Liberals stand for the Liberty of controlling everything, no thanks.Ron Paul stands for letting corporate and state interests control individuals. That's way more libertylicious!

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 09:30 AM
The main reason why I'm a liberal:

I believe in personal liberty. I don't think that economic liberty=personal liberty primarily because money isn't tangible. Money is just an agreement that something *has* some kind of tradeable value, but it's ultimately only supported by speculation.

Money cannot exist without society agreeing that it has a set worth, which is why I have no problem with society/government regulating monetary issues more heavily, because without them, we are back to a barter system.

A person cannot have freedom unless government is removed from their personal decisions. Legislating morality reduces the agency of individuals.

It's in the best interest of a government to have happy, well-adjusted, healthy, productive and intelligent citizens--so why not provide the means that will allow them to attain these things--namely education and health care. That's not to say that government is axiomatically efficient, because it isn't. But at the same time, assuming that government can't do something cheaply and/or efficiently just because it is government is folly.

JMO, flame away.BUT SOCIALISM

Our children should be learning in schoolhouses with no air conditioning, like when Dr. KILL Ron YOUR Paul PARENTS was a child! If they can't make enough money to afford that heart transplant, make 'em sell a kidney or a few fingers to learn the value of hard work by God!

HolmeZz
12-14-2007, 01:30 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vUcX_lv5QjY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vUcX_lv5QjY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Hillary walked right into that with her stupid cackle.