1. edit: triple post
  2. Originally posted by Ross1441:[..]

    Thank you. That's what people are starting to see. It's not 1950 any more.

    The Republicans didn't lose because the voters are stupid (again: absurd), it's because they isolate themselves so badly from modern society on many issues. If you are:

    - A non-christian religion
    - Black
    - Latino
    - Gay
    - A woman

    Any of the above and you would have to be stupidly disconnected to vote Republican in my opinion. The only voter they have left is the white Christian male who watches TV.

    Notice my list there. You talk about small government. How is telling people they can't get married not big government? How is talking about "legitimate rape" and suggesting the rapist father gets custody right not big government? They're big government when it suits them. Frauds.


    They didn't win, because the dems are better at getting out the vote (including illegal methods) and because we have reached the point where the takers outnumber the makers.
  3. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]

    A fiction novel vs. a critical analysis of a whole political system?

    Dude, you're seriously ridiculizing yourself if you ask me.


    PS. Order Das Kapital and read it asap, you're 3 years late already! (I read Atlas Shrugged back in 2009). I can help you with the Amazon purchase if you want


    Why read it? I already know everything I need to know about Marx, and Che, and Mao and your other heroes. In fact I'm seriously considering publishing a book myself.
  4. Originally posted by fabian:[..]

    You forgot 'social human being that actually cares about someone that did't recieve as much blessings as you did'

    Good night.


    The best way to help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in there poverty, so they will do everything they can to get out of it-Ben Franklin.

    Also every study shows the right are more charitable per capita. They just prefer to do it themselves. Gov don't need to be the middleman.
  5. Oh stop being so Melancholy. It's not like that! You said yourself that America was built on liberal values (whatever version of liberalism exists in your mind, that is). This is progression. Why is that a bad thing? Lots of great stuff has happened over the last few days. Just look at Washington. A shining example for other states to follow. And it's all state law, not federal (note: not big gov).

    This is not a simple battle of left vs right. There's a reason that model is slowly going out of the window. I don't much care for President Obama. I think there are better people for the job, but he far better represents a progressive stance than Mitt Romney did.

    If you can ask yourself where you want your country to go, and your answer is nowhere, you want it to stand still, then fine, our argument would go on forever and is therefore futile. I want progression and so I go with the most progressive person for the job.
  6. Originally posted by wtshnnfb01:[..]


    Why read it? I already know everything I need to know about Marx, and Che, and Mao and your other heroes. In fact I'm seriously considering publishing a book myself.

    Why read it? Because you said "I'll read it, when you read Atlas Shrugged." 7 minutes ago, and since I read Atlas Shrugged 3 years ago, you're actually 3 years and 7 minutes late to fulfill your statement.


    PS. You know nothing. My heroes are Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Albert Einstein. I'm sorry that you are as narrow minded as you're proving to be, because you actually suck while you could be a great guy to discuss with.
  7. It's funny coz I'm not American.
  8. Originally posted by Ross1441:Oh stop being so Melancholy. It's not like that! You said yourself that America was built on liberal values (whatever version of liberalism exists in your mind, that is). This is progression. Why is that a bad thing? Lots of great stuff has happened over the last few days. Just look at Washington. A shining example for other states to follow. And it's all state law, not federal (note: not big gov).

    This is not a simple battle of left vs right. There's a reason that model is slowly going out of the window. I don't much care for President Obama. I think there are better people for the job, but he far better represents a progressive stance than Mitt Romney did.

    If you can ask yourself where you want your country to go, and your answer is nowhere, you want it to stand still, then fine, our argument would go on forever and is therefore futile. I want progression and so I go with the most progressive person for the job.

    Thing is I don't want progression at the national level. I believe in the 10th amendment give the power to the states. Its likely that a state exist for whatever your beliefs are.
  9. Originally posted by LikeASong:[..]

    Why read it? Because you said "I'll read it, when you read Atlas Shrugged." 7 minutes ago, and since I read Atlas Shrugged 3 years ago, you're actually 3 years and 7 minutes late to fulfill your statement.


    PS. You know nothing. My heroes are Mohandas Karamchand Ghandi, Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Albert Einstein. I'm sorry that you are as narrow minded as you're proving to be, because you actually suck while you could be a great guy to discuss with.

    Why read I don't need to read Marxist propaganda to know its shite. Also, could you be any more generic with your heroes?

  10. And so you should be.

    Your constitution declares that laws can be made at a federal and state level. Only when the two conflict doesn't federal law supersede state law. Obama isn't going to change that.

    That really is my last word in here.