Barack Obama Elected 44th President of the United States

Liche wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Disgusting... but so expected.

so what you wanted McCain to win? you do realize the US is a two party system? the other parties are just to make the election look fair, but its anything but.

Wrong, it's a one party state.

New face, same crap. The 'lesser evil' is not only still evil, but it is also the 'greater evil' in disguise.

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Disgusting... but so expected.

so what you wanted McCain to win? you do realize the US is a two party system? the other parties are just to make the election look fair, but its anything but.

Wrong, it's a one party state.

New face, same crap. The 'lesser evil' is not only still evil, but it is also the 'greater evil' in disguise.

They have two parties, so it is a two-party dictatorship.

Kenzu wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Disgusting... but so expected.

so what you wanted McCain to win? you do realize the US is a two party system? the other parties are just to make the election look fair, but its anything but.

Wrong, it's a one party state.

New face, same crap. The 'lesser evil' is not only still evil, but it is also the 'greater evil' in disguise.

They have two parties, so it is a two-party dictatorship.

The two parties are actually one Party in practice, so it's a one-party state.

this will happend in the next past 4 years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odCGXbkKhrU&feature=rec-HM-fresh+div

Spoiler:

And now the discussion goes RIGHT to the consiracy theory that there's no party, that there's a shadow government, that they're all equally evil, that they just do the same evil in different ways....

Honestly, it's so predictable, especially with groups like yours. Now some people, from the sounds of it Zealot, will say, "You're right, they ARE all corrupt, and you're just deluding yourself if you think otherwise." Blah, blah, blah.

And we never landed on the moon.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And now the discussion goes RIGHT to the consiracy theory that there's no party, that there's a shadow government, that they're all equally evil, that they just do the same evil in different ways....

Which conspiracy theory? Are you sure you understood what Stos claimed?

No one claimed something like there's a shadow government at all.

Officially it's two parties. But in practice they do practically the same shit with very slight variations. The main difference is the greater subtlety of one and so its better reputation world wide.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

Honestly, it's so predictable, especially with groups like yours. Now some people, from the sounds of it Zealot, will say, "You're right, they ARE all corrupt, and you're just deluding yourself if you think otherwise." Blah, blah, blah.

Easy there. Don't jump into conclusions so quickly, specially when you haven't understood the arguement you're addressing and when you have to proof for your claim.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And we never landed on the moon.

Want a debate on this? With pleasure.

For me the simple fact that 40 years after the first supposed landing on the Moon after so many technological advances and after having all nations cooperating in space technology and exploration: 1) we haven't done a multinational moon landing, at least Russo-American 2) there are no regular lunar missions 3) we haven't built or tried to build a base on the Moon. 4) The next mission to the Moon by USA is scheduled in 2018... why the hell? 5)And that all those damn supposed missions to the Moon were during the Vietnam war and shortly after it. Serve as proof that there was no moon landing.

Why would we want to visit the Moon more reularily? Why would we want to build a base there?

Simple: We're talking about colonzing Mars, which is located at least 55 million kilometres away from the Earth when we haven't even stablished a base on the Moon which is not even 1 million km away from us.

We could conduct international experiments in the Moon. We could start working on space construction, we could be deeply analizing the Lunar surface to see what we can exploit from it and so on. Instead of just having a couple of guys spinning around the Earth at a distance of 347km and changing them each year or half a year.

For me the previously mentioned points are strong enough arguements against the claim that we have alreday landed on the moon.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

For me the previously mentioned points are strong enough arguements against the claim that we have alreday landed on the moon.

Construction of a Lunar colony is planned within the next several years.

IN regards to the US political system: While both parties are corporatist and are heavily influenced by the same corporations, they are indeed different parties with different values and beliefs. While it has been uncommon in recent years there have been periods in US history when the governemnt has existed to serve the people rather the capitalist class. While the leaders of both parties are corporatists, the Democratic Party still has some of the ideology of the New Deal coalition and is therefore capable of producing candidates who are more concerned with the welfare of the people than that the capitalist class, unlike the Republican Party.

oligarch wrote:

Construction of a Lunar colony is planned within the next several years.

How stupidly belated.

oligarch wrote:

IN regards to the US political system: While both parties are corporatist and are heavily influenced by the same corporations, they are indeed different parties with different values and beliefs. While it has been uncommon in recent years there have been periods in US history when the governemnt has existed to serve the people rather the capitalist class. While the leaders of both parties are corporatists, the Democratic Party still has some of the ideology of the New Deal coalition and is therefore capable of producing candidates who are more concerned with the welfare of the people than that the capitalist class, unlike the Republican Party.

Once again, the democratic party is simply subtler, lighter and apparently nicer than the republican one. But they do the same shit anyway.

And, why would the democrats be worse tha n the republicans? Precisely for giving te appearance that they're nicer, because they manage capitalism in a way that deceives people much more effectively.

Kenzu wrote:

Stos wrote:

Liche wrote:

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Disgusting... but so expected.

so what you wanted McCain to win? you do realize the US is a two party system? the other parties are just to make the election look fair, but its anything but.

Wrong, it's a one party state.

New face, same crap. The 'lesser evil' is not only still evil, but it is also the 'greater evil' in disguise.

They have two parties, so it is a two-party dictatorship.

No, democracy just has to have people choosing the leader.

and just because they are capitalists, that doesn't make them evil. please don't hate others just because their views are different then yours, just because they don't see things the same as you, it is no reason to call them evil.

[quote="Liche"]
No, democracy just has to have people choosing the leader.[/qute]

What the hell?

Liche wrote:

and just because they are capitalists, that doesn't make them evil.

Who claimed so?

Liche wrote:

please don't hate others just because their views are different then yours, just because they don't see things the same as you, it is no reason to call them evil.

What if they view things the way we do and still act that way?

A large portion of the New Deal coalition had an ideology similar to that of Old Labour, in which the industry would be publicly controlled, because of this the Democratic Party is capable of producing social democrats, not that it always or even often does.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

Liche wrote:

No, democracy just has to have people choosing the leader.

What the hell?

Liche wrote:

and just because they are capitalists, that doesn't make them evil.

Who claimed so?

Liche wrote:

please don't hate others just because their views are different then yours, just because they don't see things the same as you, it is no reason to call them evil.

What if they view things the way we do and still act that way?

wow you seriously think people think like you? the human mind is greedy, and the concept of having power of others is appealing to most people. it is a known fact. you also have megalomaniacs who think they should be in charge of everything. and just yesterday some guy was like "how can you be a socialist, socialism is bad" and he refused to listen when I tried to explain the concepts of socialism.

and your statement about who says capitalists aren't evil reminds me of the lady that said "If democrats had brains, they'd be conservative" actually, your personality in general reminds me of that lady.

you are right, all others are wrong.

Huzzah for the all mighty Zealot_Kommunizma!

Liche wrote:

wow you seriously think people think like you?

Once again, where did I state so?

Liche wrote:

the human mind is greedy, and the concept of having power of others is appealing to most people. it is a known fact.

Now your question could be applied: Do you think everyone thinks like you?

It's not a proven fact that the human mind is greedy for lots and lots of persons are not greedy and many stop being so eventually. Greed is a mechanism of self defense in a hostile social environment, simple as that.

Liche wrote:

you also have megalomaniacs who think they should be in charge of everything.

So?

Liche wrote:

and just yesterday some guy was like "how can you be a socialist, socialism is bad" and he refused to listen when I tried to explain the concepts of socialism.

I wonder how the discussion took place.

Liche wrote:

and your statement about who says capitalists aren't evil reminds me of the lady that said "If democrats had brains, they'd be conservative" actually, your personality in general reminds me of that lady.

you are right, all others are wrong.

What? Are you even reading what you're replying to?

I asked "And who the hell said capitalists are evil?"

Liche wrote:

Huzzah for the all mighty Zealot_Kommunizma!

Post by post you're getting more ridiculous.

See? Didn't I say it was Zealot?

Oh, and it was what Stros was saying. YES I added shadow for the comedic value, to sound sarcastic, but that's because most who say that do in fact think that. I had HOPED I wouldn't need to explain that little point, but, well, there you go.

And you DID say what I said in the second bit you quoted, just with different words.

Oh, and now for the moon. No multi-national nore return trips?Maybe becasue Nasa has SHIT for money, and can only dole out so much. Hm, also tying into that as well as wel as why we haven't gone in so long? There's nothing there. It'd be a waste of money. Regular missions? For what? More rocks? Most of the rocks are like the other rocks. Are there different types? Yes. Are they going to spend money when the onl benifit is something to write in a journal? Uh, no. This IS a capitalist society, after all. Also, what does 'Nam have to do with it? What? Can the government not do something OTHER than spend on war? Oh wait! Were'nt they in a Cold War with the Ruskies back then? Weren't the Russians not also trying to get there? Wasn't it called a space RACE? One would THINK that evil capitalist America would want to beat their good, loving Russian enemies in whatever way possible.

Why Mars? Look, an actual COLONY wouldn't start for a LONG time. Earlier than a moon colony? Yep. Why? Well, it HAS been FORTY YEARS. MAYBE technology has gotten a BIT better since then. (Just a little.)

Oh, and I'm pretty sure oligarch was right about the colony. 2020 I think was the start date. Would have, like, three people. Of course they'd have to ship supplies there constantly, and with a four week journey to get there it's be a little expensive to make anything HUGELY important. At least with a Mars colony they'd be able to somewhat sustain themselves. Assuming of course that they actually DO find water at the poles. If not then, well, a colony would be pretty much thrown out the window.

Space station? International relations and weather. Maybe a few tests on the effect of long term space living. Kind of important, if a long journey is planned. And, uh, most of these men and women have families, so rotating them is kind of nesesarry, usually.

Oh, and as I've said before, you're completely against any thought other than all American parties are the same, and evil. Uh... read above.

Tyrong Kojy wrote:

And now the discussion goes RIGHT to the consiracy theory that there's no party, that there's a shadow government, that they're all equally evil, that they just do the same evil in different ways....

Good refutation.

Zealot_Kommunizma wrote:

WeiWuWei wrote:

Could you, perhaps, elucidate? I don't like either party, but I at least recognize that we're all more ideologically linked to the Democratic Party than to the Republican Party.

I'm very confused right now.

I'm ideologically dissociated to both parties, I'd say in an equal manner.


Why would I want McCain? I think he would destabilize USA more than the Democrats. I think Republicans are pretty bad at building the smokescreen that USA is the paradise and that all its actions are ok, something Democrats achieve with more ease.

When it comes to capitalist politicians I prefer the most incompetent and the ugly real face instead of the one with more subtle ways and that wears a mask.

I hope to have clarified your doubt my friend.

Yeah, I had a feeling that that was what you were getting at.

I'd choose the openly evil group of Capitalists [Republicans] over the reactionary wolves in sheep's clothing [Democrats].

Zealot, the guy said: "Damn! now that McCain lost, America is gonna be socialist" and I said "how so?" and he said "because Obama f***ing won!" and I said "how is he gonna make it socialist" "because he IS socialist" "how so?" "because hes a communist!" "do you know what communism is?" then the guy sidetracked and I stopped there, not wanting to escalate things (we were at some Christian big huge thing with many conservatives).

Christians are very much republicans to.
They like Palin much cause she wants rules from the bible like anti-abortian, anti-gay marridge etc etc etc.

CoolKidX wrote:

Christians are very much republicans to.
They like Palin much cause she wants rules from the bible like anti-abortian, anti-gay marridge etc etc etc.

the bible says we all sin. it says abortion is a sin, and gay marriage is a sin. but since jesus died for us, we can and will fall for such temptations.

I dont understand why there is so much contempt for Obama when his policies are closer to socialism than McCain's.

If people bought into his change slogan, it means the people want change, however broad that might be, and aren't satisfied with the status quo. When they realize that he has not the power to make radical change, they will look for something different.

So in all honestly, I believe Obama's the guy who can spark the revolution.

calinis wrote:

I dont understand why there is so much contempt for Obama when his policies are closer to socialism than McCain's.

If people bought into his change slogan, it means the people want change, however broad that might be, and aren't satisfied with the status quo. When they realize that he has not the power to make radical change, they will look for something different.

So in all honestly, I believe Obama's the guy who can spark the revolution.

That may very well be the smartest thing I've ever seen you say...

(Doesn't mean I agree with all of it)

MightyObserver wrote:

calinis wrote:

I dont understand why there is so much contempt for Obama when his policies are closer to socialism than McCain's.

If people bought into his change slogan, it means the people want change, however broad that might be, and aren't satisfied with the status quo. When they realize that he has not the power to make radical change, they will look for something different.

So in all honestly, I believe Obama's the guy who can spark the revolution.

That may very well be the smartest thing I've ever seen you say...

Calinis, I'll explain your first point: Keynesianism is fundamentally NOT socialism. It's mixed economics.

I agree with you(somehow) on the second and third bits. Obama may very well be America's Kerensky...

I'm not surprised Obama is so over estimated.

Zeronos, as for Keynesianism, it is not even mixed economics it's simply more regulated capitalism, just that.

The only difference between Keynesianism and pure Capitalism is that the former has no problem with federal deficit spending.

That's about it.

I'm with Zealot. Keynes - as well as FDR, who he influenced - was most certainly not a proponent of Socialism, nor even of a mixed economy. He was motivated by reactions within the Capitalist system and sought to fix those reactions - namely, the Great Depression and its effects - but he most certainly didn't want to get rid of Capitalism.

He was a "reformer", if that even means anything in this context.

---

I'm waiting for Barack to fuck up big time. Then we'll see how loyal his personality cult really is.

he wont fix the econimc crisis lol