• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama makes Oval Office call to reporters

Oblivous Child,

Would have answered sooner but the place I was at wasn't civilized.

obvious Child said:
Again, calling Obama a Socialist when you cannot for your life define it doesn't produce any meaningful discussion.
Click to expand...
This is beautiful.
You can't call 99% of lib libs, and they can't identify socialism.
Their guiding light.
Grundstein.
Home page.

That's the mentality we have to battle with.
People that play coy in their effort to bring Americans socialism.


And Obama is correct in that he was not the one who started the current federal intervention into the nation's financial market.
Click to expand...
Conservatives opposed TARP.

For those of us with something other then gold fish memory, the TARP was passed under Bush, not under Obama and the first $350 billion was spent under Bush, not Obama.
Click to expand...
Bush was wrong.
What more can I say?
Conservatives don't support the government choosing winners and losers.

YOU on the other hand love all government intervention.

And given how the Iraq invasion planning went on, Bush did live in a bubble.
Click to expand...
Yes, yes... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz... you folks would be stunned to learn war isn't a game of perfect.

Perhaps you should tell me where Clausewitz was flawed in his analysis of war.

It did not help that we had Democrats siding with the enemy... You traitors.
Voting to send troops to war for political expediency and then stabbing them in the back when they need our total support.

And cut the hyperpartisanism out. Or a great many people may start to ignore you. And that includes those on the right.
Click to expand...
Well, well.

First, this is nothing compared to what The Left did to Bush.
Petreaus.
The other generals fighting an immoral, cowardly beast.
To the troops having to fight these sick monsters.
Troops valiently trying to weaken the wackos grip and hopefully rid their twisted poison from the planet.
During a war... A WAR.

AND YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT THIS?

This proves what I have posted on other threads.
You folks don't remember even recent history.

And...
That last bit...
cut the hyperpartisanism out
Click to expand...
Now you want to control the content of people's speech.
Wonder why? Are we ripping libs a new asshole?
It's too easy...

I was a socialist.
I have lived in socialist countries. Many of them.
I learned the Greatness of America from these travels.
We have prospered precisely because we have had a long history of being free.
It's what other places lack, and it is why they also lack the tremendous society America is.

The core values espoused by the Founders was Conservatism.

I will NEVER shy away from defending it, and I won't have some snot try to tell me I cannot make fun of my opponents.

Your world view is perverted, dangerous, and it does the opposite of what you claim it will do.
You and your ilk are the problem.

And Obama is a Socialist.
It's a joke alright... a bad one.
And it's on America.

So, do you speak for everyone on the site?
Libs, Conservatives and the whole enchilada?
I... don't... think... so.

So put up your verbal fisticuffs and quite the whining.

Try to defend your beliefs.
It's a tough road to hoe, and I'm certainly not going to make it any easier for you.

Have a great weekend.:2wave:
Click to expand...
 
American said:
Do I have to remind you as well of this childish diversion of defining socialism. I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Founders did not intend for the government to do what it is doing. Would you like to show me where they did? Have at it. It's common knowledge, do you require proof of common knowledge as well? Is that the way we're going to debate around here now? That every word must be defined and proven?
Click to expand...

The quote in bold is an absurd notion.
1) You are validating an idea that there was a common intention of the founding fathers, which is absurd based on the fact many of them vehemently argued, and some in fact barely could stand the other. Their intentions and their political philosophies barely ever overlapped.
2) If you were to time travel a Founding Father into present day America they would probably be absolutely clueless as what to do. They'll look at the deficit, they'll look at the GPD, and they'll look at modernity's stock market and they will have a deer-in-the-headlights look. Their ideals are not compatible with modernity; we have to understand that.
3) You forget that they sorta wanted George Washington to be king.
 
Orius said:
I find it ironic that people would rather the U.S. slip into a depression than accept government help, all because of paranoia over "socialism" (which can't even be defined, it seems). Obama is right, it didn't start with him and it won't end with him. Are we so easily forgetting that the first bailout came from Bush? The issue is bipartisan. The reason why Republicans are upset right now is because it's not their pet projects that are being inserted into the stimulus packages.
Click to expand...


I would rather be taught to fish than be given one fish if I was hungry.

Government can "help" by getting out of the way. No one with common sense wanted the bailout no matter where it came from.

Any bill that can be passed without reading it should be set on fire.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
Again, calling Obama a Socialist when you cannot for your life define it doesn't produce any meaningful discussion.
Click to expand...

A socialist is a person subsribing to the evil doctrine of "from each according to his means, to each according to how many will vote for me"....er..."...to each according to HIS needs, not the politician's".

Obama with his socialist tax plans and his socialist spending plans and his socialized medicine plans is as close to a pure ivory tower Hahvahd socialist as you can find.


obvious Child said:
And Obama is correct in that he was not the one who started the current federal intervention into the nation's financial market.
Click to expand...

Corrrect. That person is FDR.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
A socialist is a person subsribing to the evil doctrine of "from each according to his means, to each according to how many will vote for me"....er..."...to each according to HIS needs, not the politician's".
Click to expand...
Hahah you're putting a Marxist (which in totality is an ethical agrument) quote in the same sentence as evil. You're funny.

Obama with his socialist tax plans and his socialist spending plans and his socialized medicine plans is as close to a pure ivory tower Hahvahd socialist as you can find.
Click to expand...
Keynesian spending.
 
WillRockwell said:
The definition of socialism is certainly relevant, especially since Republicans have decided to misuse the term. The Founders not only supported government intervention, they started it, by placing the government in charge of social services including the Post Office, road system and public libraries.
Click to expand...

Post office isn't a social service, it's business.

Constitution does not mention libraries under Article 1, Section 8.

The Tenth Amendment makes it perfectly clear that ONLY those powers granted under Article 1, Section 8 are available to Congress.

Nationalizing banks, health care, mortgages, businesses; funding education, welfare, housing, health care, etc etc etc none of that is permitted under the Constitution.

If you disagree you're wrong.

WillRockwell said:
The administration is not trying to practice Communism, just trying to fix the incredible mess left over by conservative Republicans. Why don't you try to help, instead of trying to manufacture bogie men?
Click to expand...

No. This administration is attempting to impose more socialism after the previous gang of leftists imposed theirs.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Trolling and baiting to avoid the discussion.
Click to expand...
Trolling and baiting? He has a damn good point. Zimmer turns tail and runs every time he is asked to define Socialism. If he's going to call someone a socialist, he should probably figure out what that term means. Oh, and you are a Bureaucratic Commie Asshat ;).
 
Arch Enemy said:
The quote in bold is an absurd notion.
1) You are validating an idea that there was a common intention of the founding fathers, which is absurd based on the fact many of them vehemently argued, and some in fact barely could stand the other. Their intentions and their political philosophies barely ever overlapped.
Click to expand...

Right. Their political philosophy was completely in support of a unlimited totaltarian dictatorship.

They built a limited costitutional democratic republic by accident and never noticed the difference.

But not to worry, people like you and Obama are out to rectify that little mistake.


Arch Enemy said:
2) If you were to time travel a Founding Father into present day America they would probably be absolutely clueless as what to do. They'll look at the deficit, they'll look at the GPD, and they'll look at modernity's stock market and they will have a deer-in-the-headlights look. Their ideals are not compatible with modernity; we have to understand that.
Click to expand...

No. They wouldn't be clueless what to do. Aaron Burr would have the right notions.

Arch Enemy said:
3) You forget that they sorta wanted George Washington to be king.
Click to expand...

See? You believe they wanted a dictatorship.

You're wrong.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Hahah you're putting a Marxist (which in totality is an ethical agrument) quote in the same sentence as evil. You're funny.
Click to expand...

Nothing funny about the intherent evil of Marxism.


Arch Enemy said:
Keynesian spending.
Click to expand...

did wonders for making FDR's depression longer and deeper.

Didn't do anything for growing the economy.

Just like all these "stimulus" packages.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Right. Their political philosophy was completely in support of a unlimited totaltarian dictatorship.
Click to expand...
You're trying to say what the collective philosophy of the founding fathers is, and I am just trying to say that it is impossible to label THE IDEAL of the Founding Father.

They built a limited costitutional democratic republic by accident and never noticed the difference.
Click to expand...
You know, they never did include term limits. So you might have a point.
But not to worry, people like you and Obama are out to rectify that little mistake.
Click to expand...
People like me and Obama? Haha, do you even understand what you are typing? Because, we all know Obama and I are both highly supportive of a totalitarian regime. Because, we all know Obama and I are in support of forcing everyone in America to turn in their guns. Because, we all know that I stand in support of the Presidency regardless of whose at the helm, and to question the authority of the Presidency is treason against this country.
Please now, tell me what "people like [me] and Obama" are like.


No. They wouldn't be clueless what to do. Aaron Burr would have the right notions.
Click to expand...
No they would be clueless on what to do. They could not have even imagined the scale, complexity, and bull**** that goes on in modernity's politics.

See? You believe they wanted a dictatorship.

You're wrong.
Click to expand...
haha not entirely.

I believe that we've long since abolished most, if not all, warnings/premonitions of the founding fathers. Not because we wanted to spite them, but because sooner or later we were going to have to accept the forming of political parties, and creating treaties with foreign nations. To deny that these are integral part of the United States' longevity is complete insanity.
 
EgoffTib said:
Trolling and baiting? He has a damn good point. Zimmer turns tail and runs every time he is asked to define Socialism. If he's going to call someone a socialist, he should probably figure out what that term means. Oh, and you are a Bureaucratic Commie Asshat ;).
Click to expand...




This idiotic cry fest of bloviating "but you don't define socialism" is weak. I have defined it at least twice since this idiocy. yet it keeps happening.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This idiotic cry fest of bloviating "but you don't define socialism" is weak. I have defined it at least twice since this idiocy. yet it keeps happening.
Click to expand...
He wants it from the mouth of the accuser... and it has yet to happen.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
why is it important. anyone can google socialism. and anyone can apply it to obama's policies.
Click to expand...
Yet Zimmer remains silent. If I called you a Commie(which I did) and you felt that it was not appropriate, you would ask me to explain why I called you that. Then imagine if I just blew you off and kept calling you a Commie.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This idiotic cry fest of bloviating "but you don't define socialism" is weak. I have defined it at least twice since this idiocy. yet it keeps happening.
Click to expand...

Because "socialism" is a concept that works for many perfectly democratic countries. It is only when you bring in visions of Stalin, Lenin, Marx, goosestepping soldiers, gulags, and Bolsheviks that you get some traction using socialism as a dirty word. You do it to suit your partisan ideology, but for most of the world, "socialism" is as benign a term as "democracy".
 
WillRockwell said:
Because "socialism" is a concept that works for many perfectly democratic countries. It is only when you bring in visions of Stalin, Lenin, Marx, goosestepping soldiers, gulags, and Bolsheviks that you get some traction using socialism as a dirty word. You do it to suit your partisan ideology, but for most of the world, "socialism" is as benign a term as "democracy".
Click to expand...





:lol: and you call yourself a "centrist"
 
EgoffTib said:
Yet Zimmer remains silent. If I called you a Commie(which I did) and you felt that it was not appropriate, you would ask me to explain why I called you that. Then imagine if I just blew you off and kept calling you a Commie.
Click to expand...




I recall zimmer said that he could use any definition he wanted. instead of honest discussion, we get days of baiting.



and if you called me a commie, I would simply laugh, point out I am a capitalist, free market entrepreneur and about as anti-commie as anyone can be.

Now if you support government control of more and more industries, and nationalization of 1/16 of the economy through healthcare, and talk of nationalizing banks, I would say you support socialist ideology, or call you a socialist for short.

Then I would insist you call me "big money dolla" for the next two weeks. :mrgreen:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Now if you support government control of more and more industries, and nationalization of 1/16 of the economy through healthcare, and talk of nationalizing banks, I would say you support socialist ideology, or call you a socialist for short.
Click to expand...

So really, your entire position is to utter the word "socialist" with as much innuendo as possible. I guess that innoculates you from the responsibility of actually having to consider the benefits of national healthcare, or a national bank. Which, by the way, was advocated by Alexander Hamilton, another pinko socialist.
 
zimmer said:
Oblivous Child,

Would have answered sooner but the place I was at wasn't civilized.

This is beautiful.
You can't call 99% of lib libs, and they can't identify socialism.
Their guiding light.
Grundstein.
Home page.

That's the mentality we have to battle with.
People that play coy in their effort to bring Americans socialism.
Click to expand...

1) You've been reported for a rules violation one word into your reply.
2) You reply doesn't address anything you quote. Instead of actually defining it you, use personal insults.

Conservatives opposed TARP.
Click to expand...

So all of the Republicans who voted for TARP and the Republican administration who created it are liberals?

I actually agree with that, but let's see how hyperpartisan you can get.

Conservatives don't support the government choosing winners and losers.
Click to expand...

Well this depends how you define "Conservatives." Historical conservatives have indeed supported the government choosing winners and losers through industrial defense spending. Companies have risen and fallen on government contracts. Furthermore, Conservatives in Europe have supported fee in tariff systems which have chosen winners in renewable over oil. France's conservatives have long sponsored the choosing of nuclear power through government subsidiaries.

YOU on the other hand love all government intervention.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who's more partisan, you or TD. Now, if you could back that claim up, you wouldn't. But you can't, and you won't. I caught Vicco lying about the same thing. He refused to admit he was wrong.

Yes, yes... Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz... you folks would be stunned to learn war isn't a game of perfect.
Click to expand...

Perfect? A 5 year old with a slide ruler and the internet could have planned better.

Perhaps you should tell me where Clausewitz was flawed in his analysis of war.
Click to expand...

He wasn't. Clausewitz was dead on the money.

It did not help that we had Democrats siding with the enemy... You traitors.
Voting to send troops to war for political expediency and then stabbing them in the back when they need our total support.
Click to expand...

And that relates to the issue how?

I know, it doesn't.

One has to wonder how many people actually consider you worthy of being a discussion partner.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
A socialist is a person subsribing to the evil doctrine of "from each according to his means, to each according to how many will vote for me"....er..."...to each according to HIS needs, not the politician's".
Click to expand...

lol. At this point, the only person worth discussing Socialism with is Rathi who understands it. Everyone else doesn't know squat.

Obama with his socialist tax plans and his socialist spending plans and his socialized medicine plans is as close to a pure ivory tower Hahvahd socialist as you can find.
Click to expand...

Do you know who Marx is? Perhaps you should read his work before posting again.
 
WillRockwell said:
The definition of socialism is certainly relevant, especially since Republicans have decided to misuse the term. The Founders not only supported government intervention, they started it, by placing the government in charge of social services including the Post Office, road system and public libraries. The administration is not trying to practice Communism, just trying to fix the incredible mess left over by conservative Republicans. Why don't you try to help, instead of trying to manufacture bogie men?
Click to expand...

The only way things get solved is when government stays out of the problem.

Learn your histoire.

The current Mess was largely created by government intervention. Trying to use banks as social programs. Bush and McCain tried to get accountability for these democrat money machines, but during the hearings about it the Dems claimes R's were trying to upset the apple cart.

So, grow up and take responsibility for your misdeeds.

To do so you must first honestly identify what they are and their root cause.

Until that time comes, where ignorance replaces reality, you will continue to walk in the Valley of Darkness.
Yet Zimmer remains silent. If I called you a Commie(which I did) and you felt that it was not appropriate, you would ask me to explain why I called you that. Then imagine if I just blew you off and kept calling you a Commie.
Click to expand...
As The Good Rev noted, I have repeatedly said... apply any definition of socialism you like.

The door is wide open.

I find it utterly hilarious that so many play like oblivious children about the definition of socialism.

I know why this game is played with verve.
With Gusto.

It is fun to watch folks slither about, looking for dark corners to hide from The Lamp that identifies their socialist beliefs/leanings.
 
Last edited:
obvious Child said:
1) You've been reported for a rules violation one word into your reply.
2) You reply doesn't address anything you quote. Instead of actually defining it you, use personal insults.
Click to expand...
I noticed.
I could have danced around and brought Oblivious Child to its logical conclusion but I prefer brevity.
Penalty minutes accepted.

Do you feel good?



So all of the Republicans who voted for TARP and the Republican administration who created it are liberals?
Click to expand...
They are not Conservatives. That the Dems in Congress were hot for it... well, that's socialist intervention.

I actually agree with that, but let's see how hyperpartisan you can get.
Click to expand...
LOL.
I'm a conservative.
I am partisan.

BUT... if I do not accept socialism on any level... then I am hyperpartisan?
I have to accept socialism some of the time to show what a nice lad I can be?

Only to a lib who sees government intervention into the market as a necessity.


Conservatives in Europe have supported fee in tariff systems which have chosen winners in renewable over oil. France's conservatives have long sponsored the choosing of nuclear power through government subsidiaries.
Click to expand...
Maximus or PeteEU came out and just about perfectly explained/compared the parties in the US and EU.

There are virtually no conservatives of the American cut.
I know... believe me.


I'm not sure who's more partisan, you or TD. Now, if you could back that claim up, you wouldn't. But you can't, and you won't. I caught Vicco lying about the same thing. He refused to admit he was wrong.
Click to expand...
Context? I don't know what you're referencing.

See, you know precisely where I stand or could almost predict where I would stand on many issues.

Too bad we do not have a President of the Democrat party and a Democrat party that let the nation know what they have in store for us.
Instead they lie and deceive.
They have to because socialism doesn't win elections.
It's why Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Kerry went into hiding during the last midterms... and why they ran Blue Dogs.

lolreidpelosi.jpg


runandhidemia.jpg


Perfect? A 5 year old with a slide ruler and the internet could have planned better.

He wasn't. Clausewitz was dead on the money.
Click to expand...
Pissing on our generals again.
They marched into Baghdad at a sprint.
The secured oil fields, got the airport.

What did Clausewitz say about battle plans?


And that relates to the issue how?
I know, it doesn't.
Click to expand...
Tough time connecting obvious dots?
You tell me I am hyperpartisan for creating a post about Obama thinking about a question from reporters about his socialist core.

Ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

The context?

I referenced this to what YOU folks have done.
Your folks voting record for the war and behavior during the war.
The latter was traitorous.

Putting party power before national security.

With such posts you reveal a certain penchant for being Oblivious to facts and factoids. It is child like.

Doing so does not let us solve problems, and believe me... you Dems are the problem.


One has to wonder how many people actually consider you worthy of being a discussion partner.
Click to expand...
I don't know, but your constant protestations tells me I'm on the right path.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom