Religous prefer Romney. Non-religous prefer Obama.

[Cow Poke]

He already blew all his political capital on passing Obamacare (another atrocity that got carved up just to get through his own party).

Wasn't Obama (Campaign Obama, that is) talking about "transparency" and how all legislation would be on the internet for 3 days before votes, and no back room deals?

[Darth Executor]

How else did the debt ceiling get raised?

Did you read the article I linked? It got raised because congress reached an agreement without his input (after he cratered one more favorable to the democrats through his dire ineptitude) and at that point it would be political suicide for him to object to a bipartisan agreement. He refused to compromise, then he had no choice but to capitulate (again). But hey, he went to Harvard so he must be a genius.

[nickcopernicus]

Mhmm,

Did you like the video I PM'd you? ;p

Nick:
I haven’t had a chance to. My internet connection varies around 15Kb/s & 46kb/s. That’s not exactly conducive to watching streaming video. It took an hour for me just to play Maddow’s video. You have to love 3rd world countries.

Jaecp:
Yeah, John Stewart did a great piece of that before Glenn left Fox.

My thoughts on the matter is that Glenn was brought on to Fox to push the Overton window farther to the right, that early on he was just doing what his bosses at fox wanted. A guy to make the less crazy stuff seem normal by comparison.

After awhile, and the reason he was "let go" was because he started to believe his own BS.

Nick:
Well fortunately I don’t think anyone is paying attention to Glen Beck these days. I’m not sure what he’s up to; I really don’t care.

Jaecp:
I'm not surprised, not really, and especially not with OC's reaction since, well, I don't see him in this forum for weeks and then he'll make 3 Pro Romney/Anti-Obama threads and give us a few doses of right wing talking points before leaving again.

Nick:
Well, I’ve been absent except for a few appearances here and there from Theologyweb since mid-2008. Honestly, things got kind of boring for a while, and I’ve been pretty busy with work so I don’t have nearly as much time for casual internet use.

Cheers,

Nick

[nickcopernicus]

It wasn't compromise, it was capitulation. What exactly did he get out of it? His only other choice was to let the tax cuts expire and raise taxes on the middle class, which would have confirmed one of the worst stereotypes about Democrats. He played chicken with Republicans, except Obama was riding a kiddie trike and Republicans were riding an Abrams. He already blew all his political capital on passing Obamacare (another atrocity that got carved up just to get through his own party). Like I said, what you see as "compromise" is just incompetence.

Nick:
I see. So, in right-wing-nutjob-land, one can call the ideal of Obama compromising (giving up something you want [such as tax increases for households making over 250,000 pr/yr] in exchange for something else you want [no tax increases for those making less than 250,000 pr/yr]) ...ridiculous and I question the intelligence of anyone who tries to peddle that crap here; but when faced with a counter-example, one needs only to make a claim that would require one to have mind reading abilities.

I'm not sure how much you know of Canadian politics. But let me humbly suggest that you confine yourself to those discussions. Your geopolitical awareness is rife with partisan ignorance.

Cheers,

Nick

[joel]

calling taxes theft, while certainly motivating to people pissed off about guvment is just, well, an angry talking point. Color me not impressed.

No, it's a cold, hard logical conclusion.

1) Taking that which is someone else's without their consent is theft.
2) Taxation is taking that which is someone else's without their consent.
3) Therefore taxation is theft.

If anyone else were to do the same act, it would be recognized by everyone as theft.

There is simply no rational difference between the two. On the contrary, the popular myth that there is a difference is irrational. I can only assume it exists due to groupthink and people not thinking about it carefully. And perhaps an emotional response connected with their idea of the government, as some kind of transcendent thing.

We live in a society. Stuff has to get paid for somehow. Ergo, Taxes.

Non sequitur.
Even if this made any logical sense, it would do nothing to show that taxation is not theft.

So work to get the money spent better.

Which is why I'd work to allow people to spend or not spend their own money. No need for taxation for that.

Yeah, thats why they are liberals my friend. Do you think that the patriotic millionaires are supporting raising their taxes because they only care about their personal wealth?

Perhaps. From what I understand, Buffet makes more money from subsidies than he pays in taxes.
Sure he'll agree to a scheme where he and a million people are all forced to pay a dollar so he can be given a large chunk of the collection.

Also I understand that Buffet is being sued by the IRS for allegedly unpaid taxes. If he was fine with paying more, why doesn't he at least pay what they claim he already owes?

They also want big government to continue and expand the regulatory state, to hamper their competition.
The "Left" has this myth that Big Money hates regulation and wants laissez-fare. The opposite is true. Big Money created the regulatory state.

Though I'm willing to grant to you that some rich people support tax increases because they are statists at heart (that is, the motive you attribute to them).

Okay, your right, I should have check instead of assuming. I have never heard of it. But that wasn't my point, they are asking for what they believe to be a fairer more just system, not a way that you can help if it suits you.

So you do realize that it's not that they, out of the goodness of their heart, want to give more. It's that they want to force other people to give more. And that is what supposedly makes them patriotic.

Obamas plan doesn't even touch the first million a person makes

What? I haven't heard of this. He proposes to raise the threshold for the lowest tax bracket to kick in at $1M? (instead of kicking in at $8,700)
That I would support. Better yet, increase it to $1T.

[Darth Executor]

Nick:

Why am I not surprised that you have difficulty remembering your own name...

I see. So, in right-wing-nutjob-land, one can call the ideal of Obama compromising (giving up something you want [such as tax increases for households making over 250,000 pr/yr] in exchange for something else you want [no tax increases for those making less than 250,000 pr/yr]) ...ridiculous and I question the intelligence of anyone who tries to peddle that crap here;

You have a pretty strange definition of compromise. Obama traded something he did not want for something both sides wanted, after failing to demagogue his opponents into submission. This is not "compromise" outside of the reptilian brain of an ignoramus like you. This is refusal to compromise mixed with demagoguery followed by utter obliteration and humiliation as your opponent gets what they want and you also get what they want. I suppose that if my god fell like that I'd be looking for every excuse to make it sound like he failed because he was too darn nice when in reality he failed because he's an incompetent jackass at just about everything he does other than campaigning.

but when faced with a counter-example, one needs only to make a claim that would require one to have mind reading abilities.

What the blazes are you droning on about? You were the one faced with (another) counter-example where Obama had the chance to compromise, but instead wrecked an existing compromise and ended up getting even less than he would have otherwise.

[JimL]

You have a pretty strange definition of compromise. Obama traded something he did not want for something both sides wanted, after failing to demagogue his opponents into submission. This is not "compromise" outside of the reptilian brain of an ignoramus like you. This is refusal to compromise mixed with demagoguery followed by utter obliteration and humiliation as your opponent gets what they want and you also get what they want. I suppose that if my god fell like that I'd be looking for every excuse to make it sound like he failed because he was too darn nice when in reality he failed because he's an incompetent jackass at just about everything he does other than campaigning.

So, the Republicans wanted the affordable care act? Republicans didn't want to make the taxcuts on the wealthy permanent? Republicans wanted the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act? Republicans wanted to extend unemployment insurance? Republicans wanted the payroll tax cuts? Republicans wanted the stimulus? Republcans wanted the establishment of the new consumer protection agency? Republicans wanted Dodd/Frank? Republicans wanted the auto bailouts? Gee, how did such an incompetent, uncompromising President, faced with a say no to everything congress, ever get any of this passed? Sorry Darth, but the incompetent jackasses are your idols, the Republicans, not Obama. Hes taken them to school these three years and will do so again in his next term.

[Darth Executor]

So, the Republicans wanted the affordable care act? Republicans didn't want to make the taxcuts on the wealthy permanent? Republicans wanted the Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act? Republicans wanted to extend unemployment insurance? Republicans wanted the payroll tax cuts? Republicans wanted the stimulus? Republcans wanted the establishment of the new consumer protection agency? Republicans wanted Dodd/Frank? Republicans wanted the auto bailouts? Gee, how did such an incompetent, uncompromising President, faced with a say no to everything congress, ever get any of this passed?

By having a near (and for a while, actual) veto-proof congressional majority? It would be impossible for him to pass absolutely nothing, no matter how stupid he is. Even someone with a monstrously subhuman intellect like you could have passed something. The fact that Republicans managed to kneecap so many of his disastrous policies is a testimony to his incompetence.

Sorry Darth, but the incompetent jackasses are your idols, the Republicans, not Obama. Hes taken them to school these three years and will do so again in his next term.

Nice grammer moran. I think you're the one who needs to go back to school for another three years.

Republicans aren't "my idols". I agree that they are incompetent, which just goes to show you how useless Obama turned out to be.

[nickcopernicus]

Why am I not surprised that you have difficulty remembering your own name...

Nick:

Darth E:
You have a pretty strange definition of compromise. Obama traded something he did not want for something both sides wanted, after failing to demagogue his opponents into submission. This is not "compromise" outside of the reptilian brain of an ignoramus like you.

Nick:
If you don’t even know what the word ‘compromise,’ as it’s used in the English language is, then I’m not sure we can have an intelligent conversation about it. You said Obama traded something he did not want for something both sides wanted. If Obama was on one of the 'both sides,' then he was included in the ‘wanted’ portion. Hence, he traded something he did not want for something he did want.
The extent of your mental gymnastics here deserves a ‘B’ for effort, but an ‘F’ for execution.

Darth E:
This is refusal to compromise mixed with demagoguery followed by utter obliteration and humiliation as your opponent gets what they want and you also get what they want. I suppose that if my god fell like that I'd be looking for every excuse to make it sound like he failed because he was too darn nice when in reality he failed because he's an incompetent jackass at just about everything he does other than campaigning.

Nick:
‘Obliteration?’ ‘Humiliation?’ You mean like how he was ‘humiliated’ with a peace prize? Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. The peace prize is just by a bunch of Viking grunts. Ect ect. Ect.
It would be nice to see you come up with some actual arguments or at least some intelligent commentary on this subject like you did when writing about the US-Denmark comparison.
I certainly don’t mind you having an ultra-right-wing ideology. But your ability to consistently support your ideology leaves much to be desired.

Darth E:
What the blazes are you droning on about?

Nick:
The extension of the Bush-Tax Cuts

Darth E:
You were the one faced with (another) counter-example where Obama had the chance to compromise, but instead wrecked an existing compromise and ended up getting even less than he would have otherwise.

Nick:
You provided a link to some right wing nutjob-written long winded rant. I tend to dismiss those out of hand. If you want to argue something, I have no problem you provide a source. However, links to commentaries don’t impress me.
Cheers,
Nick

[Darth Executor]

If you don’t even know what the word ‘compromise,’ as it’s used in the English language is, then I’m not sure we can have an intelligent conversation about it. You said Obama traded something he did not want for something both sides wanted. If Obama was on one of the 'both sides,' then he was included in the ‘wanted’ portion. Hence, he traded something he did not want for something he did want.
The extent of your mental gymnastics here deserves a ‘B’ for effort, but an ‘F’ for execution.

He did not "trade" anything. He had something taken for him and got nothing in return that he wouldn't have gotten anyway. Only a drooling imbecile would think this is compr...

Nick:

Oh.

‘Obliteration?’ ‘Humiliation?’ You mean like how he was ‘humiliated’ with a peace prize? Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. The peace prize is just by a bunch of Viking grunts. Ect ect. Ect.
It would be nice to see you come up with some actual arguments or at least some intelligent commentary on this subject like you did when writing about the US-Denmark comparison.
I certainly don’t mind you having an ultra-right-wing ideology. But your ability to consistently support your ideology leaves much to be desired.

Actually the peace prize was pretty humiliating because he didn't deserve it, knew he didn't deserve it, and the whole thing turned into a giant running joke (which the Nobel Prize already is). If this is the best example you could come up with then...

You provided a link to some right wing nutjob-written long winded rant. I tend to dismiss those out of hand. If you want to argue something, I have no problem you provide a source. However, links to commentaries don’t impress me.
Cheers,

The fact that you think it was a "rant" shows you haven't even bothered to read it. It was not a rant, it was a humorous piece of writing pouring salt on your village idiot's wounds. But hey, if you wanna go full retard on supporting Obama, be my guest, it only helps me in the long run.

[JimL]

By having a near (and for a while, actual) veto-proof congressional majority? It would be impossible for him to pass absolutely nothing, no matter how stupid he is. Even someone with a monstrously subhuman intellect like you could have passed something. The fact that Republicans managed to kneecap so many of his disastrous policies is a testimony to his incompetence.

First off Darth, you are once again making a fool of yourself, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence and sincerity would have to admit that Obama is a very intelligent person whether they agree with him or not. The fact that Republicans managed to block his policies is testimony to the workings of the democratic process, which given its nature allows for a majority of ignorant sociopaths, should the american people be bamboozeled into putting them into office, a la Hitler in Germany, to do so. The fact that Obama has got as much passed as he has, over and against their obstruction is a testimony to his competence.

Nice grammer moran. I think you're the one who needs to go back to school for another three years.

Republicans aren't "my idols". I agree that they are incompetent, which just goes to show you how useless Obama turned out to be.

Huh! Obama has gotten more done than anyone else in his position could possibly have gotten done. We can thank him for the fact that we have not gone in to a double dip recession like the Europeans who have adopted an austerity policy akin to that of the Fascist Republican agenda.

[Cow Poke]

None of this changes the fact that Obama is just icky, and Romney is less so.

[Darth Executor]

First off Darth, you are once again making a fool of yourself, as anyone with a modicum of intelligence and sincerity would have to admit that Obama is a very intelligent person whether they agree with him or not.

You are free to prostrate yourself before that clown all you want, but I am never going to bow to the absurd idea that Obama is in any way intelligent. He is mediocre at best and definitely outmatched when it comes to the office he currently holds. Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. I don't agree with Bill Clinton but I think he's intelligent.

The fact that Republicans managed to block his policies is testimony to the workings of the democratic process,

Yes, w

which given its nature allows for a majority of ignorant sociopaths, should the american people be bamboozeled into putting them into office, a la Hitler in Germany, to do so.

That sums up Obama's first term pretty well

The fact that Obama has got as much passed as he has, over and against their obstruction is a testimony to his competence.

He hasn't really gotten much of any significance passed. Even Obamacare, his magnum opus, had to be butchered beyond recognition just to get it past the Democrats.

Huh! Obama has gotten more done than anyone else in his position could possibly have gotten done. We can thank him for the fact that we have not gone in to a double dip recession

Except the US is still in a recession that hasn't ended since Ali Bush Bush and the 40 Democrats crashed the housing market.

like the Europeans who have adopted an austerity policy akin to that of the Fascist Republican agenda.

Since you are utterly ignorant of economics, I'm going to take a bit of time from my busy evening to enlighten one of my lessers: austerity policy involves raising taxes and decreasing spending. This in no way matches either Republican policy of low taxes and low spending or Democratic policy of high taxes and high spending.

[OtherCheek]

Intelligent. What does it mean?

Does being "well read" equate to being intelligent?
Does having a good command of the language equate to being intelligent?
Does a pleasant personality equate with being intelligent?
Does being a quick thinker equate with being intelligent?
Does attending law school equate with being intelligent?

Possibly, they correspond with intelligence of the brain. But I think there is something more than these things that equates with intelligence of the soul.

One's degree of intelligence, as I see it, best corresponds with his ability to discern moral truth from error. And on that front, I think Obama has serious deficiencies of intelligence.

[JimL]

You are free to prostrate yourself before that clown all you want, but I am never going to bow to the absurd idea that Obama is in any way intelligent. He is mediocre at best and definitely outmatched when it comes to the office he currently holds. Whether I agree with him or not is irrelevant. I don't agree with Bill Clinton but I think he's intelligent.



Yes, w



That sums up Obama's first term pretty well



He hasn't really gotten much of any significance passed. Even Obamacare, his magnum opus, had to be butchered beyond recognition just to get it past the Democrats.



Except the US is still in a recession that hasn't ended since Ali Bush Bush and the 40 Democrats crashed the housing market.



Since you are utterly ignorant of economics, I'm going to take a bit of time from my busy evening to enlighten one of my lessers: austerity policy involves raising taxes and decreasing spending. This in no way matches either Republican policy of low taxes and low spending or Democratic policy of high taxes and high spending.

You're just in denial Darth. Republicans pushed and continue to push for austerity measures, which in their case means cutting taxes on the wealthy and cutting spending. They lost that battle, we got the stimulus, though Republicans did make it less effective than it could have been, we got unemployment extension, we got tax cuts for the middle class and the poor, as well as for employers, though we had to compromise to get them and continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy for 2 more years, we bailed out the auto industry, saving millions of jobs in the process, and we created nearly 4 million private sector jobs which without all of the above would never have happened, the economy has stabilized and to a small degree the economic recession caused by the international banksters on Wall Street and their Republican cohorts in Congress has revearsed. The austerity agenda of the Republicans on the other hand, which is taking place in the Republican run states is having the opposite effect as they are laying off thousands of public employees, cutting needed spending and are losing private sector jobs. The empirical evidence both in Republican run states as well as that in Europe is that austerity does not work, you can't cut your way out of a recession, it only worsens the economy and the suffering of the people. Not that your world view has anything to do with empirical evidence, but there it is for you to see anyway.