• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

2012 Presidential Election -Who are you voting for?

Who are you voting for?

  • Democratic- President Barack Obama, IL

    Votes: 76 32.1%

  • Republican- Governor Mitt Romney, MA

    Votes: 107 45.1%

  • Libertarian- Governor Gary Johnson, NM

    Votes: 32 13.5%

  • Green- Jill Stein, MA

    Votes: 6 2.5%

  • Constitution- Congressman Virgil Goode, VA

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • Peace & Freedom- Rosanne Barr, HI

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Justice- Mayor Rocky Anderson, UT

    Votes: 1 0.4%

  • Write in- Congressman Ron Paul, TX

    Votes: 5 2.1%

  • Other

    Votes: 4 1.7%

  • Refusing to Vote

    Votes: 5 2.1%
  • Total voters
    237
Status
Not open for further replies.
waas said:
I'll concede that there exist parallels between modern liberalism and Marxism and while I wholly disagree with some of the points you made above, it's inconsequential. To me,(in the words of Milton Friedman) "you're seeing the hole in the barn door, but not the barn door itself". The parallels you see between Marxism and modern liberalism are merely because they're both left wing ideologies - It's like equating modern conservationism to Fascism or Tory Anarchism. I doubt this debate will go any further, as neither of us seem likely to concede our positions. I just want you to remember that just because two ideologies are slightly similar, doesn't make them congruent.
Click to expand...

When the POTUS believes in, advocates for the government to, allows the government to continue to, and/or institutes 7 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, which is essentially the socialist "playbook", I think it's more than a coincidence of parallels. I believe President Obama has admired the socialist ideal his whole life. That's just my belief though. I could be wrong about that. I don't personally know the guy. I'm just judging off his actions.
 
waas said:
I get the humor in that, but I want to point out how wrong and bigoted that outlook is. Socialism is an odd term and, due to our dear friend William McCarthy, one Americans have turned in to some kind of cuss. I am not a capitalist, and unlike Democrats I don't advocate for a system that promotes the creation of inequality as opposed to otherwise. Obama is not a socialist, far from it, and those who accuse him of being one are wholly incorrect on the matter. It's nonsense, pure and simple.
Click to expand...

Ooooooo......"bigoted". You're corrrect, he's a Marxist!
 
Amigo said:
Ooooooo......"bigoted". You're corrrect, he's a Marxist!
Click to expand...

Either you're joking, or illiterate. Obama is not a Marxist, and if comparing the two men's beliefs side by side is not an effective means of differentiating between them, then I don't know what is. I thought I made this perfectly clear.
 
MarineTpartier said:
When the POTUS believes in, advocates for the government to, allows the government to continue to, and/or institutes 7 of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto, which is essentially the socialist "playbook", I think it's more than a coincidence of parallels. I believe President Obama has admired the socialist ideal his whole life. That's just my belief though. I could be wrong about that. I don't personally know the guy. I'm just judging off his actions.
Click to expand...

The thing is, you're not. You're approaching this with the mindset that he is a socialist, not that he might be. Obama's views are not congruent with mine nor those of the Socialist Party USA. We have done a side by side compariason of the beliefs of both men. There's obviously no chance you'll budge at this point, so I'll merely leave you with an SPUSA public statement concerning the issue.

Socialist Party USA Leader: Obama Isn't A Socialist
 
waas said:
The thing is, you're not. You're approaching this with the mindset that he is a socialist, not that he might be. Obama's views are not congruent with mine nor those of the Socialist Party USA. We have done a side by side compariason of the beliefs of both men. There's obviously no chance you'll budge at this point, so I'll merely leave you with an SPUSA public statement concerning the issue.

Socialist Party USA Leader: Obama Isn't A Socialist
Click to expand...

Of course you nor any other "socialist" person wants to admit President Obama is a socialist. He sucks. Who would want to claim him? That's the beauty of the stance you guys can take. If he doesn't do what you want, you don't have to claim him. If he does, you can. So far, he hasn't so you don't.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Of course you nor any other "socialist" person wants to admit President Obama is a socialist. He sucks. Who would want to claim him? That's the beauty of the stance you guys can take. If he doesn't do what you want, you don't have to claim him. If he does, you can. So far, he hasn't so you don't.
Click to expand...

It only makes sense that we wouldn't claim him. As you say, he hasn't done what we want.
 
Based the imbedded poll, Obama is in deep trouble. Well that is FAIR. under him, the whole country is in deep trouble. I can't understand anybody wanting to keep a man who stated that if he did not do what he promised, especially over the economy, he was a one term president. How dumb he was to make that claim. It's going to be in all kinds of ads.
 
Robert A Whit said:
Based the imbedded poll, Obama is in deep trouble. Well that is FAIR. under him, the whole country is in deep trouble. I can't understand anybody wanting to keep a man who stated that if he did not do what he promised, especially over the economy, he was a one term president. How dumb he was to make that claim. It's going to be in all kinds of ads.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately DP is not a very good representative sample for the country as a whole. For example there's no way Gary Johnson will get 11% of the vote come election day.
 
the makeout hobo said:
Not true. With the exception his policy of letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire for the very wealthy, Obama has not raised taxes, nor does he plan on raising taxes. The stimulus actually contained several tax breaks. Federal taxes right now are lower than they've been for the clear majority of post-war history.
Click to expand...

So who is paying for ObamaCare, especially since it was only legal because it was considered a tax? Let's not forget that Obama said he would not raise taxes (as you said) does that mean he has spent 3.5 years of his time in office pursuing a new tax? Does it also not bother you that you will be buying teenage girls contraceptive with your tax money? Or does it not bother you that he funneled 716 Billion from your current healthcare system?
 
Oh please. Democrats are pro 'choice' for the same reason Republicans are pro 'guns', VOTES.
 
Alexaddams said:
Oh please. Democrats are pro 'choice' for the same reason Republicans are pro 'guns', VOTES.
Click to expand...

While that may be true for some, I do not think that is true for the majority or even a significant amount of Democrats and Republicans.
 
Obama stating that if he fails he would be a one term president is arrogant at best, thinking that there was no chance he would lose the second no matter what he did, even running up the debt purposely as part of his own agenda for the long run to "level the playing field" here and around the world.
He is the most dangerous president we ever had!
 
gtmt said:
Obama stating that if he fails he would be a one term president is arrogant at best, thinking that there was no chance he would lose the second no matter what he did, even running up the debt purposely as part of his own agenda for the long run to "level the playing field" here and around the world.
He is the most dangerous president we ever had!
Click to expand...

Care to cite any of that? :shock:
 
Alexaddams said:
Oh please. Democrats are pro 'choice' for the same reason Republicans are pro 'guns', VOTES.
Click to expand...

Is impossible that there's a major party in the US that actually supports a women's right to choose?
 
Alexaddams said:
Oh please. Democrats are pro 'choice' for the same reason Republicans are pro 'guns', VOTES.
Click to expand...
Pro choice always takes a human life. Guns however are a right as expressed in the Constitution. Show me where killing the child of a woman is in the constitution? I am pro guns. I have yet to see any democrat argue that we must disarm cops. Matter of fact, were I to argue to disarm cops, they wouild toss a fit. We hear all the time about citizens who are shot to death by cops. Days ago, in Vallejo, CA, for example, the cops shot some guy as reported upwards of 30 times. Course he had that plastic toy that appeared to be a gun. Then 2 days ago, on a CA Freeway, a Highway patrol officer decided to stop some goy for nothing more than "obscured license plates" He went to the perps window where he was dispatched by the perp with shots to the cops head. Course his fellow cops riddled him with bullets.
 
waas said:
Is impossible that there's a major party in the US that actually supports a women's right to choose?
Click to expand...

Yeah, just not to kill.
 
mac said:
Yeah, just not to kill.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, but look at it this way: Should a government really have the power to force a woman to carry a child?
 
waas said:
I don't disagree with you, but look at it this way: Should a government really have the power to force a woman to carry a child?
Click to expand...

Yep, the state government at least (under our Constitution). Even Roe v Wade nods in that direction protecting only first trimester and health of the mother abortions and giving the state the option to allow or disallow the rest. The state even gets to choose the doctor that would determine health of the mother cases (in original Roe).

Especially when the woman has a positive remedy - don't conceive in the first place.
 
clownboy said:
Yep, the state government at least (under our Constitution). Even Roe v Wade nods in that direction protecting only first trimester and health of the mother abortions and giving the state the option to allow or disallow the rest. The state even gets to choose the doctor that would determine health of the mother cases (in original Roe).

Especially when the woman has a positive remedy - don't conceive in the first place.
Click to expand...

While I do support the Roe v Wade ruling, I cannot support anything more than that. When a government unconditionally forces a woman to carry a child(even in the case where rape is not involved) it's going too far.
 
waas said:
I don't disagree with you, but look at it this way: Should a government really have the power to force a woman to carry a child?
Click to expand...

No, but it should have the power to keep her from killing one. Getting pregnant is not the govt's fault.
 
mac said:
No, but it should have the power to keep her from killing one. Getting pregnant is not the govt's fault.
Click to expand...

So it's just a matter of what vocabulary you want to use, then? Preventing her from killing one, and forcing her to carry one, are essentially the same thing. You're saying that you agree with A but not B when they're equivocal.
 
waas said:
So it's just a matter of what vocabulary you want to use, then? Preventing her from killing one, and forcing her to carry one, are essentially the same thing. You're saying that you agree with A but not B when they're equivocal.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same thing. With the exception of rape, no one forced her to get pregnant. No one should be able to kill their unborn child any more than they can kill their born child. Are we controlling women when we say she can't kill her born child?
 
mac said:
No, it's not the same thing. With the exception of rape, no one forced her to get pregnant. No one should be able to kill their unborn child any more than they can kill their born child. Are we controlling women when we say she can't kill her born child?
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying. You came out and claimed you wanted the government to keep women from killing their unborn children, but no, you didn't think it should have the power for force them to carry these children.

I don't disagree with you, but look at it this way: Should a government really have the power to force a woman to carry a child?
No, but it should have the power to keep her from killing one. Getting pregnant is not the govt's fault.
Click to expand...
 
waas said:
That's not what I'm saying. You came out and claimed you wanted the government to keep women from killing their unborn children, but no, you didn't think it should have the power for force them to carry these children.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I disagree with forced conceptions. So, if no one forced her to conceive, then she should not be able to kill her unborn child. If she was not forced to concieve, then the govt is not forcing her to carry by denying the right to kill the unborn child. She brought that on herself (with help of course).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom