Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Here's A Poll

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2009 2:18:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/12/2009 1:58:37 PM, FreedomFighter24 wrote:
Do you honestly think Barrack Obama isn't a Radical?

Irrelevant really. "Radical" is a loaded term used against libertarians and the likes. In which case no, he is not "radical." He is, however, going to drastically expand the size of government. Big time. And he's going to get away with it too. He can get away with murder because he's charismatic and articulate and the people will cheer him on no matter what. Though it seems more and more people are finally seeing through the facade.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
crackofdawn_Jr
Posts: 1,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2009 2:58:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/12/2009 2:18:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/12/2009 1:58:37 PM, FreedomFighter24 wrote:
Do you honestly think Barrack Obama isn't a Radical?

Irrelevant really. "Radical" is a loaded term used against libertarians and the likes. In which case no, he is not "radical." He is, however, going to do many radical things that are radical and definitely relevant. His radicallness is radically awesome because of how radical he is.
.
There are three types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics"
-Mark Twain

"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success"

"Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so.
Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow."
- William Shakespeare

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man."
- Adolf Hitler
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2009 3:19:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/12/2009 2:58:22 PM, crackofdawn_Jr wrote:
At 5/12/2009 2:18:17 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 5/12/2009 1:58:37 PM, FreedomFighter24 wrote:
Do you honestly think Barrack Obama isn't a Radical?

Irrelevant really. "Radical" is a loaded term used against libertarians and the likes. In which case no, he is not "radical." He is, however, going to do many radical things that are radical and definitely relevant. His radicallness is radically awesome because of how radical he is.
.

I think you missed the point. He is "radical" by the dictionary definition, but not by the widely accepted implied meaning.

.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Chuckles
Posts: 274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2009 3:20:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
not radical, but i'm not in favor of expanding the government that much.
there wasn't much of any good choice for the election, but at least the white house press conferences will feature correct grammar and complete sentences...
"Pumas are wretched beasts with enourmous salty genitals."-MadMonkey889

: At 5/5/2009 9:47:22 PM, rogerklotz wrote:
:That's obviously changed by the government. The Atlanteans probably had something to do with it.
: QUIT USING LOGIC

: At 4/25/2009 3:09:34 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
:God is GOING to have His way with you.
: At 5/5/2009 11:41:18 AM, Volkov wrote:
:When both sides can agree and disagree without someone quoting Proverbs, then the debate comes worthwhile
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2009 4:20:59 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I don't believe he is, in the sense of it being a bad thing. He wants change, but not extremely radical change.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2009 4:23:17 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/12/2009 1:58:37 PM, FreedomFighter24 wrote:
Do you honestly think Barrack Obama isn't a Radical?

*80's California surfer voice:

"Nah dude ... he's like ... totally radical."
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2009 4:59:20 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/12/2009 4:57:21 PM, FemaleGamer wrote:
I don't care, as long as he doesn't make laws about it, I am fine.

I'm sure he won't, saying that HE DOESN'T MAKE LAWS
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2009 9:08:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Obama's not a radical, and neither is Bush. The epithet "radical" is reserved for the reasonably consistent.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 2:42:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/12/2009 9:08:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Obama's not a radical, and neither is Bush. The epithet "radical" is reserved for the reasonably consistent.

Good point. Who among the fine politicians can be considered a radical then?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 6:45:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Um... Um...

In the US, I don't think there's a single radical politician whose had enough success to even get his name out. Last one we had, was, perhaps, Goldwater?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 6:53:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
We've had several nutjobs, including a former Western premier who went by the nickname of 'Bible Bill' and evangelized half the province. Though I wonder if that is just the norm in the US.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 7:06:03 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Anyone who seriously believes the Bible is automatically removed from the title "radical" if it has anything to do with consistency. The Bible all by itself has so many contradictions it more than uses up a radical's limit, and living in a country like the US or Canada while espousing such adds a few on top of that :).
People dead center politically can be nutjobs, nutjobbery and radicalism are two different things. Example: Geolaureate :).
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 7:20:01 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
I couldn't agree more with that example.

But, you said that the last US radical may have been Goldwater, and I'm wondering why you think he was a radical. Was it because of his waffling and inconsistency between libertarianism and conservatism, or is it another reason entirely?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 3:41:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/13/2009 7:20:01 AM, Volkov wrote:
I couldn't agree more with that example.

But, you said that the last US radical may have been Goldwater, and I'm wondering why you think he was a radical. Was it because of his waffling and inconsistency between libertarianism and conservatism
What waffling? If you can find a significant amount of it, I'll retract that example :)
As far as I know he was consistent. He pandered sometimes, as is kind of necessary to have a career, but in what he actually wanted, as far as I can tell--
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 4:13:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/13/2009 3:41:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What waffling? If you can find a significant amount of it, I'll retract that example :)
As far as I know he was consistent. He pandered sometimes, as is kind of necessary to have a career, but in what he actually wanted, as far as I can tell--

Hm, I should have used a better term than 'waffling'. I'm not sure he was that consistent though, but I guess you can call it 'pandering', in a way. One of the major things I know that was pretty contradictory was his support for abortion rights and homosexuality and etc, but he opposed more rights for African Americans at the same time. The one thing I liked about Goldwater was his commitment to the non-religious Republican Party, which is honestly how it should be.
Other than that, he was pretty... 'radical'.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 4:20:30 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/13/2009 4:13:24 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/13/2009 3:41:14 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
What waffling? If you can find a significant amount of it, I'll retract that example :)
As far as I know he was consistent. He pandered sometimes, as is kind of necessary to have a career, but in what he actually wanted, as far as I can tell--

Hm, I should have used a better term than 'waffling'. I'm not sure he was that consistent though, but I guess you can call it 'pandering', in a way. One of the major things I know that was pretty contradictory was his support for abortion rights and homosexuality and etc, but he opposed more rights for African Americans at the same time.
Woah woah woah. Are you sure about this, or are you confusing his dislike of the Civil Rights Act (which can be, and often is today by libertarians, opposed on the grounds that it attacks the property rights of employers, restaurant owners, and so forth) for racism? His exact words on the bill, at least according to Wikipedia, were the common libertarian sentiment "You can't legislate morality--" i.e., require private property owners to be racially tolerant :0.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2009 4:27:50 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/13/2009 4:20:30 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Woah woah woah. Are you sure about this, or are you confusing his dislike of the Civil Rights Act (which can be, and often is today by libertarians, opposed on the grounds that it attacks the property rights of employers, restaurant owners, and so forth) for racism? His exact words on the bill, at least according to Wikipedia, were the common libertarian sentiment "You can't legislate morality--" i.e., require private property owners to be racially tolerant :0.

I got it from a documentary film I watched a little while ago on Goldwater, I can't remember its name at the moment, but it discussed his views on the Civil Rights bill, and they weren't too friendly. He was popular in the South for that exact reason. But then again, documentaries aren't always unbiased, and after reading his specific objection on Wikipedia I'm inclined the believe it was probably biased. This documentary had one of his relatives in it though, so I can't be sure.
ClayMeister
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2009 6:33:52 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Sen. Barack Obama's platform is his politics of "understanding." Obama has been careful not to define the issues upon which he runs; rather, he explains that it is time to "move forward," to discard "ideology," to reach a new "common ground" built on an "understanding" of broad-based values. Of course, this is pure Grade A pap, since Obama fails to define those values, except in broad generalities. Yes, he's for the flag (but not against burning it – he voted against the flag-protection amendment), motherhood (as long as taxpayers foot the bill for day care and abortion on demand remains legal) and apple pie (he has not had to vote on apple pie). But where does he stand?
Obama is a liberal, and a rather radical liberal at that. According to Obama's new best seller, "The Audacity of Hope," Obama hates Ronald Reagan: He was "disturbed … by Ronald Reagan's election in 1980 … unconvinced … by his John Wayne, 'Father Knows Best' pose, his policy by anecdote and his gratuitous assaults on the poor." (31)

He loves Jimmy Carter: "a Democrat who – with his emphasis on human rights – seemed prepared to once again align moral concerns with a strong defense." (288)

Despite his protestations to the contrary, he dislikes President Bush: "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty." (45) He repeats "war for oil" slander: "Is cheap oil worth the costs – in blood and treasure – of war?" (310)

He slimes Rush Limbaugh: "If Rush Limbaugh's listeners enjoy hearing him call me 'Osama Obama,' my attitude is, let them have their fun." (122) As Limbaugh has explained repeatedly, it was Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., who first mislabeled Obama "Osama." Limbaugh is making fun of Kennedy, not Obama, when he references the misnomer.

Obama insults evangelicals: "Their fervor has gone mainstream. There are various explanations for this success, from the skill of evangelicals in marketing religion to the charisma of their leaders." (202)

He suggests that the Bible tolerates homosexuality: "For many practicing Christians, the same inability to compromise may apply to gay marriage. I find such a position troublesome, particularly in a society in which Christian men and women have been known to engage in adultery or other violations of their faith without civil penalty. … I [am not] willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount." (222)

He rehashes worn-out liberal anti-religious arguments: "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests that slavery is all right and eating shellfish is an abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?" (218) Then, after all of that, he also attempts to capitalize on his own religious journey: "I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth." (208)

Obama is a fervent believer in global warming and wants dramatically to raise fuel efficiency standards as well as taxes on oil companies. He wants to raise the minimum wage and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit. Though he says he's for free trade, he voted against CAFTA. He wants to spend billions more dollars on early education, though Head Start has been a debacle. He wants to heavily regulate health care and, in doing so, essentially nationalize it. He wants to raise taxes across the board.

He cites as his economic guru Warren Buffett and quotes him as stating, "[Billionaires] have this idea that it's 'their money' and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don't factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do." (191) This is Marxist trash. "Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social power," Marx wrote in "The Communist Manifesto." Viewing private property as social property is a mandate to tyranny. Yet that's precisely how Obama views private property: "I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success." (193)

These are not the words of a moderate. They are the words of a man who fits right in with his radical base. The hatred for Reagan, Bush and, in particular, the revulsion he feels at traditional religion, is palpable. Those who endorse Obama must look beyond his fraudulent rhetoric before signing off on his agenda.
As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Do you really believe that what you believe is really real?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2009 9:55:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 5/15/2009 6:33:52 PM, ClayMeister wrote:
These are not the words of a moderate. They are the words of a man who fits right in with his radical base. The hatred for Reagan, Bush and, in particular, the revulsion he feels at traditional religion, is palpable. Those who endorse Obama must look beyond his fraudulent rhetoric before signing off on his agenda.

Lol, you really think Obama is a radical, based on him disliking the policies of Reagan, Bush and the constant enroachment of religion upon the government? Not to mention his support for abortion and the right to free speech?

That doesn't seem radical to me, it seems like a run-of-the-mill social liberal. Get your head out of the sand; Obama isn't a radical, if you want a radical, look up Jack Layton. He'll make you sh*t your pants if you think Obama is bad.
Lifeisgood
Posts: 295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2009 9:04:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Could anyone here define 'radical' please?
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." - Abraham Lincoln
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/13/2009 9:32:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 6/13/2009 9:04:46 PM, Lifeisgood wrote:
Could anyone here define 'radical' please?

At 5/12/2009 9:08:05 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Obama's not a radical, and neither is Bush. The epithet "radical" is reserved for the reasonably consistent.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.