stagnant94
Active Member
true, but what i'm saying is that people don't have different opinions for no reason. and while we have every right to disagree with them we should at least respect that they have different views
The "I hate Mitt Romney" thread :)
- Thread starter Raijin
- Start date
J
Jeremius
Guest
No need to dis a man just because you don't like him, IF he becomes president, he becomes president.
stagnant94
Active Member
look, i don't want to sound like the stereotyped whiny englishman here, but i hate it when some americans feel they have to mention that they 'saved the world' because of a couple of reasons.
1. i lost relatives in the war. hell, my great aunt was tortured by the japanese and a few of my great uncles and great grandparents died fighting. as soon as someone mentions that their country saved europe i can't help but feel as though that is an insult to their memory. i know you did not mean it like that but i mean in case this gets out of hand. you find it a lot on youtube, a few people who have never been close to a real war decide they are going to play the patriotic american and so they go ahead and disrespect people who died or lost people trying to rid the world of facism.
2. it's not necessarily true because people seem to forget that there were other countries fighting. had france not helped england would have been taken over. had Britain not invented the radar and broken the german's code the war would have gone on for another 4 years and so on. obviously there's no real answer here. my point being that people say they saved the world despite the fact that they don't know the whole story. in fact people only ever seem to say it when they are trying to make a point.
whenever i say this to people they always seem to say 'typical oversensitive brit' and they don't seem to realise that it is a sensitive issue over here. we'd just finished world war one in which we'd lost tons of people and then london gets flattened in WW2 and despite all we'd been through and how much we'd suffered people just decide they are going to disregard that and make pointless comments about saving us and don't realise how much we'd sacrificed before saying that we were useless.
the end. i'll probably receive some kind of hate for this
Jersey Dagmar
Just in time for the fiyahworks show! BOOM!
But people can say whatever they want about Obama? It goes both ways.
Pingu
a.k.a Charlie Goodvibes
You're both partially wrong/right depending on how you look at it, and it's an interesting look into past politics so I'll elaborate.
I've studied WW2 in depth over the years and while it is true that the U.S. certainly did contribute in a major way, their motives are up for debate. Personally, I don't believe they were out of compassion or ''doing the right thing'' so it wasn't so much saving as it was the U.S. just looking after its own best interests. The exception would be FDR (Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was president at the time.), who felt Europe and China needed American support from the get go. When the aggresion of Nazi Germany started to take a more serious form, and Japan invaded China in 1938 it was Roosevelt who aided with diplomatic and financial support while remaining officially neutral. It wasn't until early 1941 that he gained congressional support to lend materials to the Allies and it took even longer to gain the support of ''the people''. The majority of the populace was opposed to any kind of involvement with a big percentage backing the America First Commitee (AFC). The AFC was strongly against the U.S. getting involved with the war in any shape or form. The populace soon changed their mind when the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor took place and everyone got behind Roosevelt. Hence why I feel their reasons are questionable; They knew about the war and its atrocities, but it wasn't until they got attacked themselves that the U.S. felt the need to participate. My thoughts on this are also strengthened by people like Pat Buchanan who stated that the AFC did a good job delaying the U.S' aid/participation during WW2, making the Soviet Union take the brunt of the Nazi offensive. In other words; lives were lost but at least they weren't American lives.
My second point is that they didn't save the world from Facism, but rather helped save a large part of Europe from becoming another communist satellite state of the Soviet Union. After Hitlers flawed attacks on Stalingrad (and thus, failing to capture the beating heart of Stalins industry and the Caucasus oilfields) and the defeat during Operation Citadel (the tankbattle of Kursk) the Russians were turning the war in their favor and would've swatted Germany like a fly in the end. Needless to say, Stalin was as bad, if not worse, than Hitler. So if the U.S. did not get attacked by Japan that fateful day in december 1941, the Soviets probably would have made the Germans sign an unconditional surrender (like they did), but with altered terms saying ''and we also get all your current territory''. Thankfully the Allies, including the U.S. ofcourse, were closing in equally fast on the western front and liberated western Europe before the Russians got here. It is because of this that I do feel that the U.S. helped save western Europe from communist opression and dictatorship, not to mention keeping it at bay for years on end during the Cold war. I strongly feel the Cold War was mostly because of the U.S.' own fear of ''the Red Menace'' though, so I won't count that as saving/protecting Europe.
Aside from Europe there was Japan, and I won't have to say a lot about that other than what the U.S. did on august 6th and august 9th 1945 was, and still is, inexcusable in my opinion. As were all discussing here, people that were in the vincinity of either Hiroshima or Nagasaki are still dealing with the aftermath of those events. I'd hardly call that ''saving'' anyone from anything, but this was also a political issue. Though this might sound ridiculous when applying present day logic, at the time, the Japanese emperor was seen as a demi god by the populace. It was because of this that atomic bombings might have been the only way to get Japan to surrender without them feeling that they were losing face, the ultimate disgrace in Japanese Imperial culture. I think more firebombing, as the U.S. had continuously done up until that point, or an invasion would have ensued the same result though. This would have been more costly however, and might've cost more American lives and thus they chose the path they took.
(On a side note; please excuse me for interrupting the debate with a little history, but past politics can be equally interesting.)
Raijin
A Mage that loves a Templar
Were not dissing him were talking about the kind of stuffs that this man does... and how he doesn't care about the poor; the disabled, and not but least the the middle class families. If this man becomes president it will be like George bush JR all over again.
It scares me that you don't even see the horrors that can come out of this if this man becomes the president. Might as well let Sarah Palin be president.
Soloquendi
Pastor of Muppets
The Republican campaign motto should be; "Vote for Mitt. He was the least idiotic of all the idiots who applied for the job".
Seriously, most of their party didn't want him, but didn't have a viable alternative.
Seriously, most of their party didn't want him, but didn't have a viable alternative.
Crooksin
Glue Sniffer
Ron Paul.
Omega Dragon
Active Member
Ugh, I just typed up an entire post and my page accidentally disappeared...
Pearl Harbor - Mother of All Conspiracies
The U.S. sure didn't do a good job fighting against authoritarian communism. It essentially was what it fought against during the Cold War. The only real difference beside their systematic titles was the black market being more tolerable in the U.S.
Not to mention by thinking it could simply "contain" the Soviets, had to have been an obvious mistake to begin with: since the end of WWII, the United States has since had the ability to wipe Russia off the map while the Russians freely carried nukes around the world. Therefore, I cannot help but accept that it was more than likely planned. Not cold. Not warm. Planned.
Damnit, I want to so type much more. Oh well.
In any case:
Medea
The Shadow Queen
I not trying to insult you, Omega. I like Noam Chomsky too. I think he's a genius, but I don't agree with a lot of what he says, and just because you're a genius, it doesn't make you right. Sometimes it just makes you flat-out eccentric. If I believed everything he said I would have to assume that EVERYONE that belongs to government, the military and corporations really were evil, and all conspiring together against the american people. That may be a slight exaggeration of what he says (the Military Industrial Complex and Federal Reserve control everything), but it is in essence what he's trying to say. I just don't believe that it's possible ALL of them are out to get us. It's not that some elements are not out there working against the American public... I just don't think it runs that deep. To me, it's akin to these Ancient Astronaut theorists, or people that actually bought the story that H.A.A.R.P. caused the earthquakes and tsunamis in Japan. These people are all intelligent and educated. I just don't agree with them.
In your first paragraph, you mention that democrats support the Federal Reserve and the bail-outs. Well, I think many democrats supported the bail-outs because it saved thousands of unionized jobs. It's no secret that the big banks were screwing us. The Federal Reserve is a problem, but protecting workers rights is more important, even if it puts the powers that be in debt. And universal health care reform goes all the way back to F.D.R. and Truman. It has been proposed by many presidents since then too, it just never went through congress until now, so the idea for it has been around for decades.
As for the last part of your post, I can say bullplops too. We'll just let people decide on whether they'd rather live in America or China right now. I have a few Chinese friends on online, because I have a fascination with Asian culture and history (I'm 1/4 Asian myself), and all of them hate living there. But they don't DARE say that in their own country, around their own people. One of them even begged me to get him out of China. If I had the money to help him, I would. In America, at least we have the freedom to say our system sucks, if we want to.
Medea
The Shadow Queen
It was the right thing to do Pingu. I hate to say it, but dropping the bombs saved not only thousands of American lives, but also MILLIONS of Japanese lives, in the long run. The Japanese would have refused to surrender, period. It was their mentality at the time. Also, did you know that the Japanese were offered atomic bomb technology before us? They dismissed the atomic bomb technology, and went with the "death ray" idea instead, which they could not implement because it would've taken all the electrical power in Japan at that time to make just one death ray plausible.
There was a plan to drop the bomb on Mt. Fuji, or next to it, with the hopes that it would shock the Japanese people into surrendering. Looking back on it, we should have done that first... but the Japanese were such a strong-willed people, and had such a nationalistic mentality, it was the only way to end the war with as few of casualties as possible we could think of.
Medea
The Shadow Queen
Sorry, that was kind of arrogant of me to say, and I'm the first person to defend European countries from right wing propaganda. It was the combined effort of the Allies that defeated Nazism and Imperial Japan. It would not have been possible if it wasn't for the perseverance of our European allies and Russia, who had to endure hardships most Americans couldn't fathom.
Raijin
A Mage that loves a Templar
BOSTON—For weeks many Beltway insiders had written off the Romney campaign as dead, saying the candidate had dug himself into too deep a hole with too little time to recover. However, with a month to go before ballots are cast, Romney has pulled even with President Obama, and the former Massachusetts governor credits his rejuvenated campaign to one, singular tactic: lying a lot.
“I’m lying a lot more, and my lies are far more egregious than they’ve ever been,” a smiling Romney told reporters while sitting in the back of his campaign bus, adding that when faced with a choice to either lie or tell the truth, he will more than likely lie. “It’s a strategy that works because when I lie, I’m essentially telling people what they want to hear, and people really like hearing things they want to hear. Even if they sort of know that nothing I’m saying is true.”
“It’s a freeing strategy, really, because I don’t have to worry about facts or being accurate or having any concrete positions of any kind,” Romney added.
Romney said he is telling at least 80 percent more lies now than he was two months ago. Buoyed by his strong debate performance, which by his own admission included 40 or 50 instances of lying in one 90-minute period, the candidate said he will continue to “just openly lie [his] ass off” until the Nov. 6 election.
Whether it’s a senior citizen, military family, working mother, businessman, or middle-class American, Romney said, he will lie to every single one of them as often as he can if that’s what it takes to win the presidency.
“The best part is, it’s really easy to lie,” said Romney, who added that voicing whatever untruths come into his mind at any given moment is an easy thing to do because all it requires is opening his mouth and talking. “For example, if someone accuses me of having a tax plan that makes no discernable sense, I just lie and say that I do have a tax plan that makes sense. I also say there is a study that backs up my plan. See that? Simple. None of it is remotely true, of course, but now we’re moving on to the next topic because people are usually too afraid to ask me straight up if I’m lying, because that is apparently not something you ask someone who is running for president.”
Moreover, Romney said, if anyone does accuse him of lying, he will simply say he is not lying, which he noted is just an extension of the overall strategy.
“So, if I’m talking to retirees,” Romney continued, “I lie and say I’ll fight tooth and nail to save Medicare, which causes them to applaud. On the other hand, if I’m talking to the party base, I lie and say we have to cut Medicare, which causes them to applaud. So, you see, my goal here is to get everyone applauding for me, because if everyone is clapping their hands, standing on their feet, and shouting my name, that means they like me and will vote for me.”
Romney’s campaign advisers said that they adopted the strategy of lying a lot after realizing several things: (1) Lying sounds good, especially when the truth sounds bad, (2) the American media doesn’t care if you lie, (3) the American people don’t care if you lie, and (4) it’s okay to lie if you are very, very desperate to become the president of the United States.
“If we’re going to be carried into the White House, it’s going to have to be on a wave of lies,” Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades said. “Most important, Mitt is comfortable when he is lying because then he doesn’t have to say anything bad. And in this last month it’s important that we just let Mitt be Mitt, whoever the hell that is.”
“It’s late in the game, but this campaign has finally found its groove,” Rhoades added. “And that groove is lying. Bald-faced, make-no-apologies, dirty, filthy lying.”
According to Romney, amidst all the lies, there is only one thing that remains true.
“I literally have no clue where I stand on any single issue at this point,” said Romney, adding that when it comes to women’s rights, gay rights, health care, the middle class, the economy, or the U.S. military, all he knows is how to lie about them. “I understand what other people want. And what I’ve learned, especially in the past week, is that in order to be a viable candidate for the White House, that’s all you really need to know.”
Following the interview, Romney told various reporters that, if elected, he would save the newspaper industry.
Soloquendi
Pastor of Muppets
Ron Paul is not a viable candidate. He's actually more of a Libertarian than Republican. Which means, he sounds good at first, then the crazy comes out.
Raijin
A Mage that loves a Templar
He actually cares for the people, and he tells the truth
That's why he will never be president
Omega Dragon
Active Member
I do apologize since I meant the "slight insult" thing tongue-n-cheek, as the Noam Chomsky thing would typically come from conservatives and paleoconservatives.
As for everything else, well as you figured, I do accept that there are certain factions out to get everyone, but it doesn't necessarily mean I think it's on monolithic proportions either that they're all working together. Like in the average video game you have your different factions, and they all hate eachother, but they also hate you. Well they're not acting like a monolithic organization, but they do view you as the bigger threat.
My thing with the U.S. is that generally that too much has happened to just accept it as mere coincidence, which is what I had typed up earlier before disappearing on me:
Even with its best behavior, the U.S. still has been largely horrible to the world. I don't simply credit this to action alone, but that America was once believed to be the single-last best hope for man through liberty (which, as I still believe myself, keeps me here). That's the problem that makes the United States stick out as a sore thumb more than anything: we are supposed to be this country that promotes liberty, life, & justice for all.
But first, allow me to get a pet peeve out of the way with this statement: anyone should kiss my arse if they think I'll bother referring to the high crime rates or incarceration rates. The fact is, the average state size in the U.S. is akin to the average country in most of Africa and various European countries. IMO, it should be expected that America would have a higher rate due to its mixed heritage & larger population.
But we have so many laws, I have friends themselves put on the no-fly list, being claimed as domestic terrorists. Friends whom considerably disagree with my politics that, unlike me, at least wave the American flag, believe in the military, and despite understanding my problems with government they still feel the need to support it. I'm more than likely on the no-fly list, a domestic terrorist, an enemy of the state, what have you. Yet since I was 18, almost eleven years ago, the most I've done is talk to people like I'm talking to people here, both online and offline.
(It's interesting to note, the DHS has called the founding fathers "terrorists" as well (Link 1 & Link 2), and also have quite the interesting handbook on domestic terrorism.)
Then on the other hand, we had to wage war on "slavery"? Both the North and South were hypocritical, which is why I don't think it had anything to do with slavery and because of the North condoning slavery in its own states forcing my hands to label the entire event as the "War of Northern Aggression", but assuming the best intentions of the union, why couldn't they just try leading a better example? I mean, really; could Abraham Lincoln, et.al not find enough noble men & women across the North to give their slaves the ability to be free in order to make an example of what a good American would do? They could've found someone noble even in the South as not all southerners were slave-owners either. Not to mention, if the Union had allowed the South to secede, and banned slavery in its own states, I'm fairly positive the Confederacy would eventually concede to an overwhelming economical lifestyle just as China has been doing in the past few decades since Nixon opened up trade there.
Then there was the wild wild west. Contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't all that wild until the federal government started moving westward to claim more territories. You had your small town, and people actually knew one-another. Yeah, there were criminals and outlaws, which rather were few & far in between thanks to private militias and the sort. Likewise, the massive conflicts with the "natives" (whom I don't accept necessarily as noble myself) were with the U.S. Army, not the settlements abroad.
Plus, despite all the kids being trained to use a gun, there was ever only one Billy the Kid (whom wasn't really much of a bad guy IMO) - but that's for another subject.
Since then, how many wars in the 20th century has the U.S. been involved in? And how many, in the best-case scenario, was the U.S. on the right side of history? Well, it still looks authoritarian & quite imperialistic.
But you're thinking about all the good we did there, which I do understand but I don't agree about anymore. What good did we really do?
So we did rescue Afghanistan from the hands of a terrorist organization, only whom we earlier funded in the 1980s; we rescued Iraqis from the hands of a brutal dictator, within what, six weeks or months? Yet we completely dismantled their state, and despite feeding them, they still got blown up whether by themselves or al Qaeda. Yet we remain there, continuing to deplete our own resources for another country? Our soldiers probably are feeding some poor couple right now, I know we're equipped for that, but why can't we do that here at home?
Y'know how many homeless people are in our cities? Enough to create their own little country, I'd wager. So why can't we keep care of our own people first? People whom may well have the chance of being outstanding citizens, or a long-lost brother?
Yeah, but not the Individual Mandate (as far as I know, I'll admit on this). That was given huge inspiration from The Heritage Foundation to the Gingrich-Clinton era, which was adopted by Mitt Romney, and now Obama.
I know it'll sound cliche'd, and insulting, though I don't mean to be insulting about it (we all have our breaking point, after all, and there's nothing that can be done about that): these kinds of things are what made me change. For years I had considered myself a conservative, as 2007 came around I had begun leaning to libertarianism thanks to a friend I talked to back then (an Australian libertarian that I would like to say thanks to but know I never will, she was awesome) and how Iraq had been a nation-building operation all-along.
Then comes 2008, and the economy itself crashing, seeing Democrats AND Republicans both supporting bailing out "too big to fail" banks. I'm like, "what? you want to punish these guys for being unprofitable by helping them punish the people? Fine, whatever. Do whatever the hell you want."
But I did get enjoyment from all the so-called conservatives whom previously bashed Bush for "not being conservative enough" by defending his voting for the TARP because of a Democrat-owned congress in spite of the three following facts: firstly, that he said so himself - that in order to save this (supposedly) free market, it has to be destroyed - or whatever the exact quote was; secondly, that his administration helped create it; and thirdly, even if congress does override something, a veto is still recorded... right? Yeah...
But okay, I'll assume for a moment the scenario was that the government needed to step in, against my better judgment. But then I must ask, why not just write every family a six-seven digit check? It'd at least have played out better, and people could've chosen not to support such unprofitable institutions with that instead.
No problem.
I'm not saying by a long shot I would rather live in China and I know how people would rather move here; but no one can take away that the Chinese government has been moving away from authoritarianism. Is it slow? Yes, but it's certainly gradual enough that, with everything else equal between all countries, it may well be in our generation's lifetime (well I don't know which generation you're in; I'm part of Gen-Y, unfortunately) that America will be a full-fledged police state while China could be the asylum for freedom.
I also know that last part isn't quite entirely true, and not because of the usual "<insert private group> is censoring me because of <blah blah blah>" crap. I pretty much mentioned how and why in a previous paragraph above.
EDIT........
Oh, and one thing I forgot to expand on from my earlier post about corporations saying multiple things: if you knew a candidate you supported was going to lose votes because of your support, would you not show others support of another candidate? Definitely not all corporations, but maybe the more powerful corporations and wealthier CEOs do this.
Yes, I admit it's even possible Warren Buffet supports high taxes to get people on board with Romney with such a theory. But again, I don't mean to speak of it as monolithic activity either. Just something that happens, sometimes it could be a team effort and other times it may not be. It's not like they're all necessarily ethical, after all.
Second edit.......
Here's perhaps another reason to think about it, written by the libertarian-socialist George Orwell in his book, 1984: "After the revolutionary period of the fifties and sixties, society regrouped itself, as always, into High, Middle, and Low. But the new High group, unlike all its forerunners, did not act upon instinct but knew what was needed to safeguard its position. It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called ’abolition of private property’ which took place in the middle years of the century meant, in effect, the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before: but with this difference, that the new owners were a group instead of a mass of individuals. Individually, no member of the Party owns anything, except petty personal belongings. Collectively, the Party owns everything in Oceania, because it controls everything, and disposes of the products as it thinks fit. In the years following the Revolution it was able to step into this commanding position almost unopposed, because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization. It had always been assumed that if the capitalist class were expropriated, Socialism must follow: and unquestionably the capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport— everything had been taken away from them: and since these things were no longer private property, it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc, which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist programme; with the result, foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent."
Omega Dragon
Active Member
BOSTON—For weeks many Beltway insiders had written off the Romney campaign as dead, saying the candidate had dug himself into too deep a hole with too little time to recover. However, with a month to go before ballots are cast, Romney has pulled even with President Obama, and the former Massachusetts governor credits his rejuvenated campaign to one, singular tactic: lying a lot.
“I’m lying a lot more, and my lies are far more egregious than they’ve ever been,” a smiling Romney told reporters while sitting in the back of his campaign bus, adding that when faced with a choice to either lie or tell the truth, he will more than likely lie. “It’s a strategy that works because when I lie, I’m essentially telling people what they want to hear, and people really like hearing things they want to hear. Even if they sort of know that nothing I’m saying is true.”
“It’s a freeing strategy, really, because I don’t have to worry about facts or being accurate or having any concrete positions of any kind,” Romney added.
Romney said he is telling at least 80 percent more lies now than he was two months ago. Buoyed by his strong debate performance, which by his own admission included 40 or 50 instances of lying in one 90-minute period, the candidate said he will continue to “just openly lie [his] ass off” until the Nov. 6 election.
Whether it’s a senior citizen, military family, working mother, businessman, or middle-class American, Romney said, he will lie to every single one of them as often as he can if that’s what it takes to win the presidency.
“The best part is, it’s really easy to lie,” said Romney, who added that voicing whatever untruths come into his mind at any given moment is an easy thing to do because all it requires is opening his mouth and talking. “For example, if someone accuses me of having a tax plan that makes no discernable sense, I just lie and say that I do have a tax plan that makes sense. I also say there is a study that backs up my plan. See that? Simple. None of it is remotely true, of course, but now we’re moving on to the next topic because people are usually too afraid to ask me straight up if I’m lying, because that is apparently not something you ask someone who is running for president.”
Moreover, Romney said, if anyone does accuse him of lying, he will simply say he is not lying, which he noted is just an extension of the overall strategy.
“So, if I’m talking to retirees,” Romney continued, “I lie and say I’ll fight tooth and nail to save Medicare, which causes them to applaud. On the other hand, if I’m talking to the party base, I lie and say we have to cut Medicare, which causes them to applaud. So, you see, my goal here is to get everyone applauding for me, because if everyone is clapping their hands, standing on their feet, and shouting my name, that means they like me and will vote for me.”
Romney’s campaign advisers said that they adopted the strategy of lying a lot after realizing several things: (1) Lying sounds good, especially when the truth sounds bad, (2) the American media doesn’t care if you lie, (3) the American people don’t care if you lie, and (4) it’s okay to lie if you are very, very desperate to become the president of the United States.
“If we’re going to be carried into the White House, it’s going to have to be on a wave of lies,” Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades said. “Most important, Mitt is comfortable when he is lying because then he doesn’t have to say anything bad. And in this last month it’s important that we just let Mitt be Mitt, whoever the hell that is.”
“It’s late in the game, but this campaign has finally found its groove,” Rhoades added. “And that groove is lying. Bald-faced, make-no-apologies, dirty, filthy lying.”
According to Romney, amidst all the lies, there is only one thing that remains true.
“I literally have no clue where I stand on any single issue at this point,” said Romney, adding that when it comes to women’s rights, gay rights, health care, the middle class, the economy, or the U.S. military, all he knows is how to lie about them. “I understand what other people want. And what I’ve learned, especially in the past week, is that in order to be a viable candidate for the White House, that’s all you really need to know.”
Following the interview, Romney told various reporters that, if elected, he would save the newspaper industry.
And this is why you cannot get better news than from The Onion. Guaranteed, the best.
J
Jeremius
Guest
Politicians will say anything to get elected. Leave it alone and do not vote for him if you hate him. I personally wont at all, because I hate politics.
Omega Dragon
Active Member
No one should really "like" politics, and I'd have to call someone out a liar that claims they even remotely enjoy politics. I'll take this moment and suggest looking into Voluntaryism, Agorism, Panarchism, and even Mutualism: each of which may have one economical stripe or another, but the means & goal are really the same: to work inside the current framework without giving it legitimacy to bring it down peacefully.
