View Poll Results: In today's election, politicians have more to gain than lose from lying

Voters
19. You may not vote on this poll
  • Agree

    12 63.16%
  • Disagree

    5 26.32%
  • Not Sure

    2 10.53%
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 62

Thread: 2012 - Election Lying

  1. #31
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    There have been plenty of lies from both parties. To say that Obama is less of a liar than Romney isn't much of a compliment and certainly not the basis for a vote.
    That is true. But we should make a distinction as to which party is going essentially ridiculous in its statements.

    Either you're HONEST or a LIAR, you can't be both and just use "degrees" as your decision point.

    Neither of these men deserve my vote.
    No politician is honest. You cannot get into politics without lying. But it's one thing to slightly distort a position and another to flat out saying the exact opposite of what is happing.

    But you're right neither deserves our votes.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  2. #32
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post

    Do you agree that no one can change their beliefs ever?
    I will accept your silence as agreement that the young Obama grew up surrounded by Marxists, Communists, socialists, and progressives.
    Do you agree that he said, in his ghostwritten book that he intentionally sought out the Marxist, the radicals...
    "At Occidental, Columbia and Harvard, Obama tells us he surrounded himself with Marxists professors, structural feminists, Franz Fanon and other radical socialists and big government advocates. After Harvard Obama’s tutelage was with disciples of Marxist Saul Alinsky as he learned the ropes of revolutionary “rules for radicals” in the communities of Chicago. In 1998, Illinois State Senator Barack Obama was not only an honored guest to watch the play The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, he was a spokes person for the play and defended the cultural Marxist worldview of Alinsky."

    A Tale of Two Visions: America

    Yes. I believe that people can change their beliefs. Do you see any evidence that the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama is any less a committed, radical Marxist now than when he attended college? I do not.

    Do you even know who Karl Marx is?
    Yes. He is no longer. He is a long dead European guy who got mixed up with the wrong crowd. He pissed off all his friends. And he wrote a great number of fairy tales. He wanted to be scientific so he wrote as if his economic/historical/philosophical tall tales were based in science.

    The question we must ask ourselves is do you know who he was?

    Marx wanted the end of the state and a society run by a democracy of the worker. There IS NO PERSONAL WEALTH in a Marxist organization. You cannot spread the wealth around because the wealth is entirely communal.
    I do believe you are describing Marx's mythical utopian vision of a communist society. The problem with utopias is that they do not exist. This one least of all.

    Jesus, you talk about Marxism but you demonstrate you have no actual understanding of what Marx actually wrote.
    I admit I am no expert. Marx's collected writings requires 50 volumes. I have read three of his significant works. He is a very bad prophet. But he is a great seductress. Everyone wants something for nothing. Marxism, and the one term Marxist, offer that don't they?

    And in a Marxist organization, taxes are 100%.
    If there is no private property how can there be any taxes upon it? Do you begin to see your mistake? It is as if you cannot see the endings are different from the beginnings.

    In the beginnings Marx had to come up with the rationale and the method to wreck capital formation. He demonized the successful, the wealthy, the owners. Does any of that sound familiar? Can you not just hear Radical Karl saying, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that! Someone else made that happen."

    Marx had his preferred method for wrecking capital accumulation. He advised steeply progressive taxes. The more you had the higher the percentage the government needed to take. Does that sound at all familiar to you?

    Everyone gives everything they make to the society which is then doled back out based on need.
    Now we are back to the end state. Marx foolishly believed that after he wrecked capital, demonized the wealthy, the successful, the wealth creators, that somehow there would be excessive plenty created. Does that seem like a child-like dream to you? In fact he believed that in such a society that each person would strive to generate as much wealth as their skills, talent and hard work would allow. Of course, in this fairy tale the wealth makers would voluntarily give up everything for the state (is it still there?) to distribute to everyone, those I call the takers, based upon their needs.

    Obama deliberately trying to have the middle class pay no more taxes is nowhere in line with what Marx wrote.
    This statement is irrelevant. One does not wreck capital formation by taxing a mythical "Middle Class" less. One wrecks capital accumulation by taxing the wealth creators more.

    Really, stop defining words as you so please.
    Really, learn to read critically. You will be astonished at just how many things become clearer after you learn how.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Since when did Ryan, Romney and Obama merge into a single person?
    How childish.

    Stop defining Marxist as anything you dislike.
    What do you mean? I dislike onions. But I have never describe onions as Marxist.
    I dislike Marxism because it is founded upon deceit, lies, and hubris.

  4. #34
    Discount Philosopher
    specklebang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Last Seen
    06-05-14 @ 08:26 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    11,524

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Regrettably, we are choosing between 2 forms of social engineering.

    The Democraps want to create dozens (if not hundreds) of programs to make societal adjustments. They are so corrupt and so poorly directed, that most money goes to waste or into the pockets of their friends.

    The Repugnantcans want to take over the application of their view of "morality" by creating or changing laws to force you into their (religion based) codes. They also want to waste even more money on "defense" (actually aggression since we're quite well defended) so billions flow to the pockets of their friends.

    They both stand for nothing of value. Just 2 different avenues of theft. Frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. Our country is failing and nobody wants to address that because they don't know how to PERSONALLY profit from being real.

    If they lied but then did the right thing, I could try and forgive. But their lies reveal their character and it's pretty low.


    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    That is true. But we should make a distinction as to which party is going essentially ridiculous in its statements.



    No politician is honest. You cannot get into politics without lying. But it's one thing to slightly distort a position and another to flat out saying the exact opposite of what is happing.

    But you're right neither deserves our votes.

  5. #35
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    IYes. I believe that people can change their beliefs. Do you see any evidence that the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama is any less a committed, radical Marxist now than when he attended college? I do not.
    Name me a Marxist policy he's enacted.

    I see a President who privatized wealth and put the risk on the public.
    I see a President who concentrated wealth and power at the top more so then the previous President.
    I see a President who is pushing policies that essentially are subsidies from the middle class to the Rich and Corporate World.
    I see a President who's defining healthcare bill expands private insurance and sets up private insurance exchanges.
    I see a President who's running up the deficit to reduce corporate taxes with dozens of credits and deductions.
    I see a President who's willing to take big losses to get out of corporate ownership equity positions.
    I see a President who's reorganization plan for GM and Chrysler basically ****ed over the Unions by putting them in a ever decreasing corpus principal position to pay for increasing legacy costs

    But none of that matters because you think he's a Marxist because.....you think he's a Marxist. It doesn't actually matter what has actually happened. Your sole argument for why Obama is a Marxist is a religious one. You do not have actual evidence. You want him to be a Marxist. Therefore he is to you. Even though he's done virtually nothing an actual Marxist would do. Therefore, you redefine Marxism to be anything you dislike, even when it's THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT MARX WROTE. You want him to be, therefore he is to you.

    Yes. He is no longer. He is a long dead European guy who got mixed up with the wrong crowd. He pissed off all his friends. And he wrote a great number of fairy tales. He wanted to be scientific so he wrote as if his economic/historical/philosophical tall tales were based in science.
    Does not show you know what he wrote.

    The question we must ask ourselves is do you know who he was?
    I (and Marx) don't define a Marxist as someone who's policies stratify society even more than it was before. You apparently do.
    I (and Marx) don't define a Marxist as someone who enacts and supports free trade. You apparently do.
    I (and Marx) don't define a Marxist as someone who concentrates power and wealth at the top. You apparently do.

    You have demonstrated your grasp of Marxism is about as deep as the depth of the existing North American Shallow Sea...which no longer exists.

    I do believe you are describing Marx's mythical utopian vision of a communist society. The problem with utopias is that they do not exist. This one least of all.

    WELL I'M DAMN SORRY I ACTUALLY USE THE PROPER DEFINITIONS OF WORDS.
    Know, what? I'm not sorry. I don't go about unilaterally redefining words because it suits my argument. I don't go about changing ideologies because they don't fit what I want them to be. You redefine words, phrases and ideologies as you see fit with no regards for their definitions. You called a class stratifying President a Marxist. That is insane.

    I admit I am no expert. Marx's collected writings requires 50 volumes. I have read three of his significant works. He is a very bad prophet. But he is a great seductress. Everyone wants something for nothing. Marxism, and the one term Marxist, offer that don't they?
    You may have read them, but you demonstrated no understanding. What kind of Marxist screws over the worker in a national union? Oh wait. That's Obama.

    If there is no private property how can there be any taxes upon it? Do you begin to see your mistake? It is as if you cannot see the endings are different from the beginnings.
    More fail. In a Marxist Society (notice I did not say state, go learn why as you clearly do not get it), all of the wealth created is given to the community. Effectively that is a 100% tax. All goods and services produced are not kept by the individual, but instead collectively pooled. If the organization takes everything you make, is that effectively a 100% tax? Absolutely.

    In the beginnings Marx had to come up with the rationale and the method to wreck capital formation. He demonized the successful, the wealthy, the owners. Does any of that sound familiar? Can you not just hear Radical Karl saying, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that! Someone else made that happen."
    Marx also wrote that the workers in a violent uprising would overthrow the elites. All Obama has done is given words bashing some of the wealthy on their low taxes. And Obama's speech, if you read for clarity which you clearly did not was merely that successful people had help. And that they benefit from state owned resources. Marxist ideology by definition does not have such principles because there is no personal success as everything is communal.

    Marx had his preferred method for wrecking capital accumulation. He advised steeply progressive taxes. The more you had the higher the percentage the government needed to take. Does that sound at all familiar to you?
    Marx's preferred method for wreaking capital accumulation was the elimination of the bourgeoisie. That is basic Marxism 101. How do you not know that?

    Furthermore, Switzerland is Marxist by your definition. And states with strong welfare and collective programs such as those in East Europe which have flat taxes aren't Marxist by your definition. More idiocy from your unilateral redefining of words.

    Now we are back to the end state. Marx foolishly believed that after he wrecked capital, demonized the wealthy, the successful, the wealth creators, that somehow there would be excessive plenty created. Does that seem like a child-like dream to you? In fact he believed that in such a society that each person would strive to generate as much wealth as their skills, talent and hard work would allow. Of course, in this fairy tale the wealth makers would voluntarily give up everything for the state (is it still there?) to distribute to everyone, those I call the takers, based upon their needs.
    Look, merely because I call you out for changing words does not mean I back Marxism. I agree with you it's fantasy land bordering on criminally insane. But that does not mean you have the right definitions. And Marx would eliminate the wealth creators, wealth and the merchant class. He did not demonize them as the end goal: He would eliminate them. That alone would create lots of problems.

    This statement is irrelevant. One does not wreck capital formation by taxing a mythical "Middle Class" less. One wrecks capital accumulation by taxing the wealth creators more.
    Wrong. One wrecks capital accumulation in a Marxist view by eliminating those who accumulate capital. How you missed this is really appalling. I don't see how you can reasonable think you can talk about Marxism after failing to understand that basic part of Marxism. And we used to tax wealth far worse then before. Didn't seem to stop capital accumulation. We used to have a 91% top tax rate. And the rich still got rich. Imagine that.

    Really, learn to read critically. You will be astonished at just how many things become clearer after you learn how.
    Jesus Christ. Sounds like you got your education from Fox on what Marxism is.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  6. #36
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    How childish.
    Not at all. If we properly applied your criteria, they are one person. But you always apply double standards.

    What do you mean? I dislike onions. But I have never describe onions as Marxist.
    I dislike Marxism because it is founded upon deceit, lies, and hubris.
    See my post. You defined someone who has taken steps diametrically opposed to Marxism a Marxist purely because you dislike him
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Misterveritis is not lying.
    Imagine that, We do have one point of agreement.

    Misterveritis defines words as he so pleases with no regards for their actual definitions. To lie, you must know what you pass as the truth is wrong. Misterveritis does not lie because what he says he believes to be true.
    Misterveritis has the ability to see both the beginnings and the endings.
    Misterveritis actually knows how to read critically.
    Mistervertis realizes that there are limits to a politicians power, at least in the beginning.
    Misterveritis knows that the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama is a very bad man.

    The core problem with his ideology is that is has no respect, regard or basis in actual facts.
    Sometimes having a better point of view can make all the difference in what one sees. As an example, from your personal experience does the Earth stand still with everything in the heavens rotating about it? If your point of view is from just where you stand of course it is obvious that the Earth stands still and everything in the heavens revolves around the Earth. This is where you are with the one term Marxist Obama.

    To discover deeper truths one must change one's point of view.

    He defines a President who has centralized power and wealth in the elites as a Marxist.
    Point of view error: even a Marxist needs funds for re-election. He is using legitimate taxpayer money, given to his friends to either bail them out or to run mythical green businesses in return for large campaign donations. This does not make him a Marxist. But it does make him just one more corrupt, criminal politician.

    He defines a president who committed the country to saving the backbone of a capitalist economy as a Marxist.
    Point of view error: You see taking the taxpayer's earnings and giving it to public sector unions, throwing out bankruptcy laws, taking ownership of auto companies, and putting the government in the position to drive private competition from the market place so that it can step in and save us as saving capitalism. If you change your point of view what you might see is that he is strengthening his position to rule instead of govern. He is setting the stage for Marxist European socialism here.

    By his definition, if we applied it consistently makes essentially every President of a capitalist country a Marxist.
    Actually no. Obama is the only Marxist. FDR was socialist. The damage Roosevelt did to the country continues to this day. Others, like Jimmuh Carta, were simply bad presidents.

    And if properly apply his definition, presidents who actively move to decentralize power and wealth in a country, (which is far more Marxist then his definition), they are not Marxists. Insane no?
    As long as you brought up insanity isn't the one with an inform grasp upon reality the one who cannot see how increasing the size, scope, and power of an already overwhelmingly powerful central government is doing nothing to decentralize power and therefore increase the wealth of the nation?

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by specklebang View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know. Both of the major parties rely on lies, distortions, exaggerations, deceptions and false promises. This applies equally to both parties. I will accordingly vote for Johnson. I know he can never win but I want the winner from the Repuliucrats to feel as little mandate as possible.
    \
    Those who cut off their own noses to spite their face end up being pretty ugly.
    If you like the way things are or prefer for them to become worse the vote for the one term Marxist.
    If you don't want things to get worse the vote for Romney.
    A vote for Johnson is just the coward's partial vote for Obama.

  9. #39
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by Misterveritis View Post
    Imagine that, We do have one point of agreement.
    Yes, but it doesn't bode well for you.

    Misterveritis has the ability to see both the beginnings and the endings.
    Misterveritis actually knows how to read critically.
    Mistervertis realizes that there are limits to a politicians power, at least in the beginning.
    Misterveritis knows that the one term Marxist, flexible with our enemies, president Barrack Hussein Obama is a very bad man.
    See my above post.

    Sometimes having a better point of view can make all the difference in what one sees. As an example, from your personal experience does the Earth stand still with everything in the heavens rotating about it? If your point of view is from just where you stand of course it is obvious that the Earth stands still and everything in the heavens revolves around the Earth. This is where you are with the one term Marxist Obama.

    To discover deeper truths one must change one's point of view.
    Except that your belief is based on your desire for Obama to be a Marxist so you can attack him on that. Even when it's obvious he's not. When Obama enacts policies that are diametrically opposed, you claim he's setting up for a Marxist takeover. When he enacts even more, it's just a conspiracy. When he actively screws over the groups he'll need, he's even more of a Marxist. Obama is a Marxist to you....because you want him to be one. It's all a giant Conspiracy.

    Point of view error: even a Marxist needs funds for re-election. He is using legitimate taxpayer money, given to his friends to either bail them out or to run mythical green businesses in return for large campaign donations. This does not make him a Marxist. But it does make him just one more corrupt, criminal politician.
    Obama is not taking public money. Second, green businesses don't have the cash to make such contributions (if you knew anything about the industry, you'd realize that). You can look at his contributions. It's public knowledge. Find me large (or frankly any) amounts from green businesses. You won't. Because they aren't there. Your regard for facts is appalling. And by your reasoning, Bush is actually terrible because of the massive no-bid contracts that went out, HUGE amounts came back from those firms. Unlike your imaginary Green contributions (which don't exist if you understood cash flow), Halliburton and DOD firms generated huge amounts in donations.

    Point of view error: You see taking the taxpayer's earnings and giving it to public sector unions
    Such as....if you're thinking of the autobailout, you need to look at just what they have to fund their legacy costs with. Unions at auto manufactures got the shaft from Obama.

    throwing out bankruptcy laws
    Come again? Where did this happen?

    taking ownership of auto companies, and putting the government in the position to drive private competition from the market place so that it can step in and save us as saving capitalism.
    Equity ownership is something they're trying to get out of. Okay, tell me how sponsoring dozens of large private sector competitions for research and new products is "driving private competition from the market place?" How is enacting and prolonging deductions and credits to reduce costs "driving private competition from the market place?" How is setting up private insurance exchanges "driving private competition from the market place?"

    If you change your point of view what you might see is that he is strengthening his position to rule instead of govern. He is setting the stage for Marxist European socialism here.
    OH NOES GIANT CONSPIRACY

    As long as you brought up insanity isn't the one with an inform grasp upon reality the one who cannot see how increasing the size, scope, and power of an already overwhelmingly powerful central government is doing nothing to decentralize power and therefore increase the wealth of the nation?
    You may want to reread what I wrote. You screwed that one up. Badly.

    I pointed out your idiotic argument makes decentralization of power and wealth not Marxist. AKa, giving power to the people and spreading wealth around is not Marxist because you defined a President who is doing the opposite as a Marxist.

    If Action A is Marxist, the opposite is Not.
    Therefore, OBama did A, B is not Marxists.

    Except that action B is far more Marxist then action A. Learn to ****ing read.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: 2012 - Election Lying

    Quote Originally Posted by obvious Child View Post
    Name me a Marxist policy he's enacted.

    1. I see a President who privatized wealth and put the risk on the public.
    2. I see a President who concentrated wealth and power at the top more so then the previous President.
    3. I see a President who is pushing policies that essentially are subsidies from the middle class to the Rich and Corporate World.
    4. I see a President who's defining healthcare bill expands private insurance and sets up private insurance exchanges.
    5. I see a President who's running up the deficit to reduce corporate taxes with dozens of credits and deductions.
    6. I see a President who's willing to take big losses to get out of corporate ownership equity positions.
    7. I see a President who's reorganization plan for GM and Chrysler basically ****ed over the Unions by putting them in a ever decreasing corpus principal position to pay for increasing legacy costs
    When I was a child I spoke as a child...but when I became a man I put away the things of childhood. Until you are able to change your point of view you will be unable to discern what is true and what is not true. I enumerated your list to make it easier to discuss.
    1. What does privatize wealth mean? Are you one of those who secretly believe that the only thing we all belong to is our government? Do you believe that all wealth belongs to the government who then chooses winners and losers?
    2. Same question.
    3. Do you believe that the one term Marxist is taking money from the Marxist-formulated "Middle Class" to give to the rich and to corporations? By what mechanism does he do this? How is the money transferred from one to the other?
    4. Of course you see that. It is a problem of your point of view. In reality his policies will force most insurance companies out of the insurance business. The government, of course, is poised to step in and save the day. Imagine your health care in the hands of some busybody bureaucrat somewhere. This is preparation for the end game.
    5. This is just silly. Show me the corporate tax rate reductions that the one term Marxist has pushed for and signed into law.
    6. I believe this is political posturing before the election.
    7. This is a point of view error. The reality is that the one term Marxist overthrew well established bankruptcy laws to protect union health care plans. Unions and Marxists tend to walk hand in hand.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •