BF2S Forums Democracy Versus Republic Versus Mobocracy

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nope, I believe that more than 50% of the voted public that voted for Obama do not agree that in order to get more you have to earn it. Other than that I pretty much agree with you except for one thing, YOU are not a liberal, AMERICAN. It is a different picture over here. Entitlement is all the rage, and AMERICAN liberals are the tip of the spear with such an ideology.

You did not answer my question regarding Obama and the issues. I said the people that voted for Obama did so for every reason other than the issues. I challenged you to answer honestly if you thought a republican Obama never have been elected over a democratic Biden, I will even throw in democratic Hillary as well. Issues were not the issue. OBAMA, the rock star, the GOD, the black man, was the issue. Or do you think people in the audiances were breaking down in tears at the sight of him because of his health care plan?

Well then we'll have to agree to disagree on the first point. I can't possibly imagine that several tens of millions of adults take issue with the idea of earning a living. It makes no sense.

A black Republican would probably not have been elected because a) a portion of the Republican base (the bible belt and deep south) is racist and would therefore be alienated from their own party and b) a great many wanted change, any kind of significant change, in terms of policy (which McCain did not respresent and that Biden and Hillary would have). Obama was given an easy ride in the press that's for sure, but if you think that he was elected simply because he was black then you're wrong. He won because he represented a fresh departure from the stale policies from which people wanted change (upon which he based his campaign, without adding many details). The Republicans could have put a resurrected Hispanic Jesus Christ up and they woudn't have won.

TheAussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

Our country did not elect a president, we elected a celebrity, a Messiah, we elected him becuase Oprah said so.

I was with you up until this point. You keeping saying Oprah got him elected, as if she is really that powerful...

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

they take issue with entitlement, not earning a living. They feel the are undercomensated for their work, they feel they should be GIVEN perks and benefits that they really do not deserve or earn. Again I give you union mentality as a perfect example. A bolt installer will strike for more money AS IF he were irreplaceable.

The black community would vote for Obama because he is black, that is it, party lines do not matter. His elevation to celebrity and God are examples enough to believe everyone else viewed him as immortal and the bringer of world peace. His election was not based on anything real. Certainly not the issues.

You siad it yourself, he represented change without any details of change. SO how could the issues be the reason for election. No one knew what his stand on anything was.

Our country did not elect a president, we elected a celebrity, a Messiah, we elected him becuase Oprah said so.

He could have ran as a republican and spouted change just as he did as a democrat. He would then have been voted into office just the same. Elected on the issues my ass.

I don't think anyone is going to strike over the installation of bolts. Period. If they did then they probably wouldn't have a company to return to in the morning. All he's entitled to is a fair wage. If he improves/diversifies/increases productivity he can go for a promotion. If his company is not evening giving him an annual raise that matches inflation then he will probably be on the street before long however - hence the necessity for labour rights. Take labour rights too far though and yes - the system fucks up.

Black community vote for Obama? Sure. Black community vote for a black Republican? Not if, as you put it, they're looking for 'perks and benefits they really do not deserve'. The Republican party are kind of completely out of tune with the rough end of the employment spectrum and the lower strata of society - a society they purport to represent and act in the best interests of when elected. I notice the Republican party have now attempted to draw black voters over through their appointment of Michael Steele as party chair incidentally.

Run as Republican and spout change when the Republicans are incumbent? lol - I'd like to see anyone pull that off. Voters know what the Democrat party stand for and by extension what Obama would probably amount to. They saw Clinton leave office with the budget balanced and America in relatively good standing across the globe and saw Bush come to a close with the budget deficit gaping, the economy in tatters and America reviled and derided across the globe. They weren't going to make the mistake of voting Republican for a third consecutive time - that would have sent the wrong message to the Republicans: 'Continue as normal'. The election result is a signal to the Republican party to regroup and reorganise and to come up with some fresh ideas. I do take your point that people obey herd mentality - it is one of the serious flaws of 'free' democracies. If you think a black Republican would have been elected in his stead however then you really do need to revisit your ideas.

lowing wrote:

A black republican would have been elected over an old white guy democrat. My ideas do not need revisited regarding this. Perhaps you need to deal with the reality of the mindset of the black voter.

CameronPoe wrote:

usmarine wrote:

clinton spawned terror for bush to deal with Cam

lol. And what was Lockerbie? Terror for Bush I to deal with? The issue was domestic security - specifically airplane/border security. You didn't really need to go trapsing half way across the world to stop it.

usmarine wrote:

ATG wrote:

usmarine wrote:

one question ATG......

never heard you bitch and moan about this stuff when you had your business and was making good money hiring illegals.  so, if it was the system that took care of you, what is your problem?  its not the systems fault you dont have advanced education.  the system gave you the chance to do that, but YOU made the CHOICE not to.

You're on crack dude.

Here's one from almost three years ago; http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pid=497171#p497171


The system didn't take care of me, I managed to make a living despite of it.

Fuck everybody that defends this fucked up system. Shoot the motherfucking illegal aliens for all I care.

I am on crack?  Why dont you have a degree?  just answer that for me.

usmarine wrote:

no but it helps you diversify in case things go bad.  plus, when you have tons and tons of people going for a handful of jobs, most will take the people with degrees first.  that's a fact.

ATG wrote:

I can't be laid off.

Your other questions I believed were answered in a lengthy pm.


Now, I have no more time for this right now. I have to get to work.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Ididn't say they were going to strike over the installation bolts, I said a bolt installer would strike over is views of entitlement.

If a group of people strike for something that does not fit the 'dynamic equilibrium' process I outlined earlier, and the company cave to demands, then they - and the company - will fall on their own sword. It's quite simple really. If they are not pragmatic and realistic then they deserve what they get. If said bolt installer is not getting enough to pay for food, shelter and other basic necessities then there won't be any bolt installers to employ (unless of course there's a pack of Mexicans waiting at the nearest home depot).

lowing wrote:

We will have to agree to disagree. the black community would vote for the black canidate regardless of issue. They voted racial lines not party lines.

The Clinton administration saw numerous unanswered terrorist attacks. Even given this he weakened our country. He reduce our military capability and sold secrets. He also let Bin Laden go when he was offered up by Syria. Clinton didn't spend money, when he should have done so. He weakened America and set us up for 911.

A black republican would have been elected over an old white guy democrat. My ideas do not need revisited regarding this. Perhaps you need to deal with the reality of the mindset of the black voter.

We will have to agree to disagree. As to Clinton, he is viewed fondly by many. The Republican response to terror has spawned more terror, cost the US untold billions of dollars and untold quantities of American blood to uncertain ends and blackened the US name. Bush didn't catch Bin Laden, even when he had the chance in Tora Bora (even with 7 years to do it). America has pushed the Afghan problem into western Pakistan - an unstable nuclear power. America had always been security-weak pre-911. It could have happened under Reagan, never mind Clinton or Bush (Lockerbie anyone?). You let a group of men onto an airliner with weapons then you're going to get bitten, simple as that. Reagan dropped the ball on domestic security, as did Bush I, as did Clinton, as did Bush II.

I would bet that many black people might view a black Republican presidential candidate as a traitor. At best the vote would be split.

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not sure how the Republican response spawned more terror. Since more terror attacks on the US were conducted under Clinton than Bush. Since 911 no attacks on the US. Compare that to Clinton's watch..

If you mean by spawn more terror because they got pissed off because we actually had the nerve to fight back and take the fight to them instead sitting around and waiting for the next attack, well then I guess you are right.

On US soil:

Clinton - WTC I - 6 deaths

Bush - WTC II - 3000+ deaths

Hmmmm. Jury's out on that one.

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not sure how the Republican response spawned more terror. Since more terror attacks on the US were conducted under Clinton than Bush. Since 911 no attacks on the US. Compare that to Clinton's watch..

If you mean by spawn more terror because they got pissed off because we actually had the nerve to fight back and take the fight to them instead sitting around and waiting for the next attack, well then I guess you are right.

On US soil:

Clinton - WTC I - 6 deaths

Bush - WTC II - 3000+ deaths

Hmmmm. Jury's out on that one. lol at your belief in the fact that the Iraq/Afghanistan missions have prevented the US from being targetted. The US will always be a target. You can't prevent it. 'Fighting them' while simultaneously generating hundreds of thousands of collateral damage civilian deaths thereby inspiring their next of kin to take revenge (when they ordinarily wouldn't have passed much of a thought for the US) and appearing to them as a forceful alien imperialist force is not very wise in the long run. Look past your own nose.

We are digressing anyway. Back on topic.

WTC 1

USS Cole

US Embassy in Tanzinia

US Embassy in Kenya

So the fact that fewer were killed by shear luck and not by design means these attacks do not count?

Tough shit if we piss off terrorists by having the nerve to fight back, leave it to liberal to come up with that bullshit.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-02-10 08:39:58)

CameronPoe wrote:

lowing wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

On US soil:

Clinton - WTC I - 6 deaths

Bush - WTC II - 3000+ deaths

Hmmmm. Jury's out on that one. lol at your belief in the fact that the Iraq/Afghanistan missions have prevented the US from being targetted. The US will always be a target. You can't prevent it. 'Fighting them' while simultaneously generating hundreds of thousands of collateral damage civilian deaths thereby inspiring their next of kin to take revenge (when they ordinarily wouldn't have passed much of a thought for the US) and appearing to them as a forceful alien imperialist force is not very wise in the long run. Look past your own nose.

We are digressing anyway. Back on topic.

WTC 1

USS Cole

US Embassy in Tanzinia

US Embassy in Kenya

So the fact that fewer were killed by shear luck and not by design means these attacks do not count?

Tough shit if we piss off terrorists by having the nerve to fight back, leave it to liberal to come up with that bullshit.

Tanzania and Kenya? How would you prevent that pray tell? Conscript 2 million to police the African continent???

USS Cole is a military target - and there have been 4000+ US military deaths in Iraq plus others in Afghanistan.

But again we are digressing.

PS You don't piss off 'terrorists', you turn ordinary people into people who want to retaliate against you as you pick off small numbers of terrorists and impose a political system in your likeness upon other nations. There is a net gain in terms of anti-US sentiment. Leave it to the short-sighted machissimo testicles-bigger-than-brains right winger to neglect cause-and-effect and view things in such a simplistic and binary manner... Prevention is better than cure (or in this case not cure but actively spreading it around).