Why does Obama make liberals rage so hard?

[Rothbardian]

I would HOPE that this country learned enough from the Bush experience that we won't make that mistake again. And I don't see the Republican moderates taking over the party anytime soon either.

The libertarians are taking over the GOP.

[Plow]

This right here is the most asinine shit I've ever heard. No they won't care, because they will have the IRS and the Government as their enforcement wing. You HAVE to have insurance. There is no ifs and or buts about it. So, they don't care what kind of health you are in, they will simply raise prices (Where have we seen this before with a legalistic monopoly?).

Rather they raise prices or not, there are more profits to be made the less health care they actually have to pay for. The less people get sick, the less they have to pay for.


This shit is really simple logic.

[Acturus]

Let's put it this way.. Obama has gambled his second term on this one effort, and while the changes are welcome in many cases the overall bill is a failure because it has fines instead of a single payer option. It's going to take a major turnaround to get him out of range of a primary challenge in 2012.

Wooo, 2011, bomb Iran!

[Plow]

stuff

also, I gotta admit I lol'd a little

"keep ur gubmint out r businesses it's r FREEDUM! leave it to the corporations! rah rah fite teh powah!"

"well dur corporationz r kurupt u can't trust them with shit lawl"

[Rothbardian]

also, I gotta admit I lol'd a little

"keep ur gubmint out r businesses it's r FREEDUM! leave it to the corporations! rah rah fite teh powah!"

"well dur corporationz r kurupt u can't trust them with shit lawl"

Well now that I know I'm talking with Elmo, I know what I can expect.

First of all, Corporations are a vestige of Government. They are a Government creation, and the Government protects them via law, regulation, and the "progressive" taxation scheme.

I am opposed to Corporations. I am not opposed however, to joint-stock companies, or any which way you wish to manage and construct your company.

It's actually called Liberty. We are all inherently free and always will be. I have the freedom to break every law. I have the freedom to kill someone. As TJ said:

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

In truth however, it is this:

"Of freedom I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

Freedom and Liberty are two totally different concepts. In any event, you should really read up on Corporatism and Mercantilism.


Besides, if the election was today, Ron Paul would win. Ron will win 2012.

[kuronosan]

I'm sorry Plow, I've seen you make this mistake a few times now.

You're meaning to say "whether" and you keep saying "rather".

And Rothbardian, as intelligent as you sound and as smart as I am sure you are, you are acting like a pompous dick.

It makes it really difficult to follow your argument when every other word is RONPAULWOULDFIXIT, CIVILLIBERTIES, and AMERICUHRIGHTS.

You have the intelligence to make an intelligent argument so quit sounding like every other misinformed redneck in the country.

[Cephius]

Besides, if the election was today, Ron Paul would win. Ron will win 2012.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/...bb639583d8.jpg

[kareface]

I enjoy the ideals behind the ron paul supporters, however the reality is if he ever took office he would be completely impotent. The way he conducts himself now wouldn't work as a president. He would simply reject anything that doesn't agree with his specific point of view and try and pass through things with out compromise, which is great in theory but pointless in practice. He couldn't hope to get anything that he would be elected for passed. Rothbardian comes across as a idealist rather then a pragmatist.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3073/...bb639583d8.jpg

You son of a bitch... Now I'm hungry, brb.

[Norellicus]

There's a difference between a professor misspelling commonly misspelled words or using a touch of shady grammar, and when a "professor" writes like a 12 year old on AOL. Which is why I call bullshit.

I used to think this too, then I got to know the personal lives of some online acquaintances; and the number of people who you would consider plenty intelligent in a face to face encounter that act like complete retards in front of a computer is earth-shattering.

[Xno Kappa]

Ron Paul would be a lame duck President.

[Beckwin]

as an anti-war leftist, I would not vote for Ron Paul. wiping out safety nets and public education is not worth the possibility of "ending" Afghanistan (ending would be pulling out the troops after about a year but then propping up a right-wing dictator with CIA training and allowing corporations to move in, in the name of free trade. I trust the austrians no more than the chicago boys in this regard).

[Kuya]

I wonder if moderate is code word for neo-liberal now a days. That is, judging from Clinton and Obama being called "moderates".

[Kyreth]

The libertarians are taking over the GOP.

I wish. Because it'd be a metric fuckton better than the Palin-ish neoconservatives I keep seeing as Republican poster children.

We could use a Ron Paul kind of candidate pointing the way in 2012, because if it's another fear-and-loathingfest from the Republicans, they're going to crash and burn in spectacular fashion.

[Norellicus]

Sorta offtopic: Arrangement of tags is amusing

[Zoolander]

I don't understand why Obama is even saying he is bailing out the "wall street fat-cats." He is admitting something he should not be. So many people are fucking retarded when it comes to this economic debate..."why didn't they give all that money to regular people like us?!" Yea...do I even need to explain how ridiculous that is?

Part of the problem is most people are too fucking dumb/uninformed/apathetic to understand the economic problems on even its most basic levels, and people tend to fear what they don't understand, especially when their well being is on the line.

Hard core liberals rage because as it turns out, Obama isn't a God that can do as he pleases and actually has to go through the normal legislation process. Crazy stuff.

This "professor" is a joke. His first writing was waaay off base and he sounds like some delusional little child. His second one is just lol..."little prick?" Are you kidding me with that? He really does remind me of a lot of the Marxist figured over history. All idealism and no practicality. Hes just a little naive bitch.

[Kuya]

In truth, that is exactly it. The world is so complex that is requires professionals to run it, like the people in Wall Street. That's why it's stupid to take the impact from common people; they don't understand what's going on, and for them to opine on such complex matters as if they had some idea is foolish. They really should let people with more capacity handle these affairs. The economy is just too important to leave at the hands of the masses, which is why professionals and centralization is required. People will just have to learn to trust our superiors.

[Kuya]

And as for these radical leftists, they don't understand the practical matters of the real world. Politics is about pragmatism, not ideology, so there is no room for them to criticize matters that they don't understand because they're just not serious enough. Obama and his appointees, as real practical people, should be relied on to create incremental reform towards real change, they just require that we stop whinning and let them do their professional work. They know what they're doing.

[Demosthenes11]

I love the shirt i bought in china...
http://www.cnngo.com/explorations/sh...-tshirt-658266

fuck all ya'll obama apologetics - making excuses for president's is awfully republican

[Rhinox]

So Your only instance of Clinton being a liberal president is him trying to pass hillarycare plow? LOL

was Reagan a pacifist liberal President because he decided to pull out of Libya after the baracks where bombed? No.

Was Clinton a Liberal president because he wanted to pass Hillarycare? No

Both were pragmatist when it came to these things.


btw its important to note that the majority of Obama staffers are recycled Clintonista's Including Obama chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel.

[Rhinox]

And as for these radical leftists, they don't understand the practical matters of the real world. Politics is about pragmatism, not ideology, so there is no room for them to criticize matters that they don't understand because they're just not serious enough. Obama and his appointees, as real practical people, should be relied on to create incremental reform towards real change, they just require that we stop whinning and let them do their professional work. They know what they're doing.

which is why the democratic republic is a very flawed system. as opposed to a true democracy.