didn't understand how obama was re-elected

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

It is simple, in the election Romney was so hard right that the moderate voters shifted to Obama, as the least offensive option.

His shift to the center was an indication of his desperation and caused a lot of people to figure he was just a shill for Wall Street.

He showed America what a Moron President would be like and he was defeated.

If the Repuib's would nominate a sane person, they might win again.

No, dear. Obama managed to lose 8 million of his 2008 voters by 2012, his popularity is falling faster than the TITANIC. What happened is Karl Rove and the RINOs forced a Northeast Liberal on the GOP, and Romney pissed off the Tea Party and Ron Paul people, who stayed home. Romney wipes his ass with monogramed linen.

 

[Black13]

<--------- Jill Stein

 

[Sean Renaud]

That's an exaggeration, but it's basically true. Probably a majority of people would rather sit around and read porn on the internet than work, especially if they are almost as well off financially loafing as they would be working. And it gets worse before it gets better, if it ever does get better.

Those who really want to amount to something will see loafers almost as well of as workers, and not needing to get out of bed before noon, and they will join the loafers. This will continue until there aren't enough working people to pay the taxes to support the loafers.

That's how Socialism works.

Why would they EVER have it anywhere near as good as the workers who want to make something of themselves? That's not how capitalism works, pushing people out of the work force will necessarily raise wages since companies will have to compete to get workers.

If your calling European programs like Universal Health Care, paid vacation and the like the kind of socialism that kill capitalism why is a simple fact that upward mobility is better in the EU than the US?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Why would they EVER have it anywhere near as good as the workers who want to make something of themselves? That's not how capitalism works, pushing people out of the work force will necessarily raise wages since companies will have to compete to get workers.

If your calling European programs like Universal Health Care, paid vacation and the like the kind of socialism that kill capitalism why is a simple fact that upward mobility is better in the EU than the US?

Is it really better? I doubt it. There are ways of proving it by statistics.

 

[loquere]

He had a great ground operation. Great get out the election day early voting game. Because he understoof that the elderly are Democrats.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Is it really better? I doubt it. There are ways of proving it by statistics.

Yep. Upward mobility in the US is poor. If you don't like Time The Heritage Foundation might not agree with the reason but they agree there is a problem.. Here's another from Fox Business on the states with bad upward mobility. Notice anything about which way they vote? Now take a look at the five best, all but one are pretty solid blue states.

It runs out that people having access to a wider range of tools doesn't kill motivation. It simply doesn't work that way.

Also while some will have to say it in a more elegant way than I can the culture of work has instilled upon something that isn't true. That work is inherently good. It isn't. Results are inherently good. Trading hunting for farming, trading that for other people farming, changing from defend yourself to call the cops, changing from raise an army when the shit hit the fan in favor having a well trained one sitting around, I could name a dozen other things that we would never for a second even consider doing for ourselves none of which has made us less productive as a society.

 

[mercury14]

Why don't you understand?

Most people in the U.S., even though they will vehemently deny it, are communists at heart. They want the state to look after their lives. They want the state to provide them with a house, money and healthcare.

They want that house so they have some place to get out of the weather and sit on their fat asses a play their coveted video game or whatever is hot at the moment.

They want money so they can buy food, of course it would be nice if it was delivered to their doorstep, but a little hike out in the weather isn't all that bad once in a while.

And they want that free healthcare so they can live a long life of sitting around on their fat asses complaining about what they don't have and everyone else does.

So they vote for the person that is most likely to give them their free shit.

Communism isn't a political system where everyone sits around and gets free stuff. You should consider learning what words mean before using them.

 

[mercury14]

No, dear. Obama managed to lose 8 million of his 2008 voters by 2012, his popularity is falling faster than the TITANIC.

So basically you believe that a communist negro named Hussein can go into an election with an 8 million vote handicap and still beat a Republican with a billion dollar war chest. That has to really sting.

 

[Dendroaspis]

Simple.....he got more votes than Romney; what more do you need to understand. If Republicans cannot understand that, then Hilary is a shoe in for the next two terms.

 

[mercury14]

Simple.....he got more votes than Romney; what more do you need to understand. If Republicans cannot understand that, then Hilary is a shoe in for the next two terms.

Psst, the actual question is why he got more votes. There's no need to be so concrete.

 

[nonfictional]

Yep, Republican frustration is palpable. They threw the kitchen sink at Obama, created a Tea Party, tried racism, but nothing really stuck since it was all false anyway. It's probably politically incorrect to do a proper statistical survey of political leanings by IQ group, but if you did you'd find that Republicans tend to have much lower IQ than Democrats. That's already clear from the limited understanding of socialism you see among some folks here. Basically, the smart guys won and the stupid guys lost. That's the way it should always be, is'nt it?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Yep. Upward mobility in the US is poor. If you don't like Time The Heritage Foundation might not agree with the reason but they agree there is a problem.. Here's another from Fox Business on the states with bad upward mobility. Notice anything about which way they vote? Now take a look at the five best, all but one are pretty solid blue states.

It runs out that people having access to a wider range of tools doesn't kill motivation. It simply doesn't work that way.

Also while some will have to say it in a more elegant way than I can the culture of work has instilled upon something that isn't true. That work is inherently good. It isn't. Results are inherently good. Trading hunting for farming, trading that for other people farming, changing from defend yourself to call the cops, changing from raise an army when the shit hit the fan in favor having a well trained one sitting around, I could name a dozen other things that we would never for a second even consider doing for ourselves none of which has made us less productive as a society.

Without question, ghe situation in the US is bad after four years of Obama. However, how does that compare with nations of Europe, which was the question. And, I mean statistics, not opinions of a writer from Time Magazine, which is a big cheerleader for Socialism.

 

[mercury14]

Without question, ghe situation in the US is bad after four years of Obama. However, how does that compare with nations of Europe, which was the question. And, I mean statistics, not opinions from the NY Times, which is a big cheerleader for Socialism.

Stop saying the word socialism. You don't know what it means.

 

[CandiCame]

Stop saying the word socialism. You don't know what it means.

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again- why do Republicans use 'Socialism' as an insult?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I've asked this before and I'll ask it again- why do Republicans use 'Socialism' as an insult?

Probably for the same reason that Democrats use words like Conservative and Christian to convey negative connotations to those with Socialist leanings.

 

[CandiCame]

Probably for the same reason that Democrats use words like Conservative and Christian to convey negative connotations to those with Socialist leanings.

I've not really seen that done though. Democratic leaders usually use conservative to mean conservative and Christian to mean Christian. But Republicans use Socialism to mean... I dunno, Nanny State or something? I don't think they actually mean Socialism. And I'm not one of these people who has a political affiliation to keep up, it's just something I noticed. This is kind of a free country- you can be a Socialist if you want. Hell, you can be a Communist if you want, McCarthy. But anyone who votes along party lines is an idiot.

Do you know why I voted for Obama? Because I agreed with his policies more then I agreed with Romney's policies. And a lot of that was social policies where I felt Obama was more conservative then Romeny. We don't need the government involved in things like whether or not a woman wants to keep a baby or who the fuck I can marry. That's a waste of government money. There are just some things that we don't need big government involved in that Romney wanted to shove down our throats.

People keep acting like Obama is liberal when he's not. He's actually really central. He's too conservative for me in a lot of cases.

 

[mercury14]

I've not really seen that done though. Democratic leaders usually use conservative to mean conservative and Christian to mean Christian. But Republicans use Socialism to mean... I dunno, Nanny State or something? I don't think they actually mean Socialism. And I'm not one of these people who has a political affiliation to keep up, it's just something I noticed. This is kind of a free country- you can be a Socialist if you want. Hell, you can be a Communist if you want, McCarthy. But anyone who votes along party lines is an idiot.

Do you know why I voted for Obama? Because I agreed with his policies more then I agreed with Romney's policies. And a lot of that was social policies where I felt Obama was more conservative then Romeny. We don't need the government involved in things like whether or not a woman wants to keep a baby or who the fuck I can marry. That's a waste of government money. There are just some things that we don't need big government involved in that Romney wanted to shove down our throats.

People keep acting like Obama is liberal when he's not. He's actually really central. He's too conservative for me in a lot of cases.

Obama is a centrist Democrat. But the dimwits on the right believe that anyone who is not expressly a conservative is a socialist, hence they carry on endlessly with their Red Scare tactics.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I've not really seen that done though. Democratic leaders usually use conservative to mean conservative and Christian to mean Christian. But Republicans use Socialism to mean... I dunno, Nanny State or something? I don't think they actually mean Socialism. And I'm not one of these people who has a political affiliation to keep up, it's just something I noticed. This is kind of a free country- you can be a Socialist if you want. Hell, you can be a Communist if you want, McCarthy. But anyone who votes along party lines is an idiot.

Do you know why I voted for Obama? Because I agreed with his policies more then I agreed with Romney's policies. And a lot of that was social policies where I felt Obama was more conservative then Romeny. We don't need the government involved in things like whether or not a woman wants to keep a baby or who the fuck I can marry. That's a waste of government money. There are just some things that we don't need big government involved in that Romney wanted to shove down our throats.

People keep acting like Obama is liberal when he's not. He's actually really central. He's too conservative for me in a lot of cases.

No, they mean it to indicate that Democrats prefer Big Government and that it will tend to Socialism.

“And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will be all about socializing, uh, uh… would be about basically about taking over the government running all of your companies.”
Maxine Waters

[VOICE=Maxine Waters][TONE=Hushed Whisper] I see demons... [/TONE][TONE=Hysterical]

"I saw pictures of Boehner and Cantor on our screens (at the convention). Don't ever let me see again, in life, those Republicans in our hall, on our screens, talking about anything. These are demons!" [/TONE][/VOICE]
Maxine Waters

Do you know why I voted for Obama. The hope that one day, the very people who think he is centrist will actually understand just how socialist their belief system has become that they can actually convince themselves that a man who would make it illegal to not carry health insurance is some sort of political or economic "centrist." My hope is that an economy hopelessly mired in inconsequential growth might impart a greater understanding of what we had under Capitalism and what we now have under "centrism."



PS - Romney wasn't going to send women back to the back-ally coat-hanger. Why the hell do you think he got fewer votes than McCain? He was a NE "Centrist."

 

[miles]

Nobody can beat Santa Claus.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Nobody can beat Santa Claus.

I like the creative use of language. It is not Socialism by definition, but Obama is "centrist" as they use the word, perhaps not as it is correctly defined.

It is also interesting to see, from a Libertarian perspective, that those most certainly on the Left do not see their side using derogatory labels while at once not seeing that Socialist is not a derogatory label but an observance of fact based upon the political proclivity to define every solution in terms of how government can best solve the problem or best benefit "the victims."

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

But the notion that a capitalist form of government can prevent people from hurting themselves by controlling their consumption is false. The idea of government as a paternal authority, as a guardian for everybody, is the idea of those who favor socialism.

And, as you know, for many hundreds of years governments and authorities believed that this really was their duty. Nor did this happen in far distant ages only; not long ago, there was a government in Germany that considered it a governmental duty to distinguish between good and bad paintings — which of course meant good and bad from the point of view of a man who, in his youth, had failed the entrance examination at the Academy of Art in Vienna; good and bad from the point of view of a picture-postcard painter, Adolf Hitler. And it became illegal for people to utter other views about art and paintings than his, the Supreme Führer's.
Ludwig Elder von Mises

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Any advocate of socialistic measures is looked upon as the friend of the Good, the Noble, and the Moral, as a disinterested pioneer of necessary reforms, in short, as a man who unselfishly serves his own people and all humanity, and above all as a zealous and courageous seeker after truth. But let anyone measure Socialism by the standards of scientific reasoning, and he at once becomes a champion of the evil principle, a mercenary serving the egotistical interests of a class, a menace to the welfare of the community, an ignoramus outside the pale. For the most curious thing about this way of thinking is that it regards the question of whether Socialism or Capitalism will better serve the public welfare, as settled in advance -- to the effect, naturally, that Socialism is considered good and Capitalism as evil -- whereas in fact of course only by a scientific inquiry could the matter be decided. The results of economic investigations are met, not with arguments, but with …"moral pathos" …and on which Socialists and (Statists) always fall back, because they find no answer to the criticism to which science subjects their doctrines.
Ludwig von Mises

 

[miles]

I like the creative use of language. It is not Socialism by definition, but Obama is "centrist" as they use the word, perhaps not as it is correctly defined.

It is also interesting to see, from a Libertarian perspective, that those most certainly on the Left do not see their side using derogatory labels while at once not seeing that Socialist is not a derogatory label but an observance of fact based upon the political proclivity to define every solution in terms of how government can best solve the problem or best benefit "the victims."

They don't see the derogatory labels because they've been brainwashed into thinking it's normal....this is precisely why they're blind to liberalism in the media and public schools. It's all they've ever heard and see no reason to question it. It IS centrist to them.

 

[mercury14]

It was the dream of Obama's father, now you shut up.

So?


5 characters