Dubstepforum.com

SCope13 wrote:No and no. I'm sure I agree with you on a lot of what's wrong with Washington. But I can't fathom how you could possibly think that an unregulated free market is anything but ludicrous.

It's the only system that works on a voluntary basis without a monopoly on violence (government), a monopoly that can be used against people by those with money. Marxism doesn't work on the simple basis that people can say 'no'. And if someone says 'no' (doesn't want to pay taxes/doesn't want to live according to how the majority voted.etc) then what? You're gonna throw them in jail? And if they refuse to go to jail? You'll threaten violence? Because someone doesn't want what you want?

If society consisted of nothing but people who can only say 'yes', communism would be a wonderful idea. But people can say 'no' and to use violence against someone because he didn't give the answer you want is tyranny. And no matter how 'utopic' this global communist society will be, there will be people who won't like it.

And what Marxists tend to overlook about voluntaryism is that it enables them to form communes on a voluntary basis and share with each other, for as long as they honor the non-aggression principle. But not forcing your ideals on to rest of society has never been a strength of Marxist thought.

this discussion is nice and all, but completely irrelevant as to who the president will be.

to anyone who doesn't live in the states is wondering, obama will win. no one here really likes romney.

kingGhost wrote:this discussion is nice and all, but completely irrelevant as to who the president will be.

to anyone who doesn't live in the states is wondering, obama will win. no one here really likes romney.

You are overly confident.

The only ones that are gonna vote for Romney will be the Anybody But Obama crowd. A few indies may sway towards Romney, but not enough to sway the vote. The "anti-war left" will still side with Obama because "he's doing EVERYTHING HE CAN" (except sign an executive order to get the troops home, of course, him being the commander in chief and whatnot) and he'll get most of the centrist and youth vote.

The Liberty Movement will either write in Ron Paul or go Constitution party/Libertarian. So Romney's not gonna get ANY help from them either (and only limited help if he picks Rand Paul as his running mate, which I don't think could work either).

Republicans don't like Romney, he used to have a ceiling of 25%, like he did in 2008 and it's only with the departure of Gingrich and Santorum where Republicans started railing behind him as 'the one who can beat Obama'.

SCope13 wrote: Are you kidding? Obama is as big, if not a bigger, war monger than Bush was.

And? How?

AllNightDayDream wrote:

SCope13 wrote: Are you kidding? Obama is as big, if not a bigger, war monger than Bush was.

And? How?

Uses drones like it's his job and kills civilians in the process, used a drone on a US citizen without any sort of trial, authorized the killing of Osama Bin Ladin without a trial, shot hundreds of missiles at Lybia, sent troops into the Congo to get Kony (a year before all this Kony 2012 bullshit), sent more troops to Iraq before finally saying we could get out of there, and says we won't be getting out of Afghanistan for at least another two years. So yeah, he's a really peaceful dude.

Romney is a fucking sociopath, not voting for him. Obama is a pussy liberal so not voting for him either. Stewart Alexander 2012.

SCope13 wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:

SCope13 wrote: Are you kidding? Obama is as big, if not a bigger, war monger than Bush was.

And? How?

Uses drones like it's his job and kills civilians in the process, used a drone on a US citizen without any sort of trial, authorized the killing of Osama Bin Ladin without a trial, shot hundreds of missiles at Lybia, sent troops into the Congo to get Kony (a year before all this Kony 2012 bullshit), sent more troops to Iraq before finally saying we could get out of there, and says we won't be getting out of Afghanistan for at least another two years. So yeah, he's a really peaceful dude.

i dont really support most of those, but to say he's worse than bush is ridiculous. bush started two massive clusterfuck wars, one of which is still ongoing, and the other was ended by obama. obama got involved in lybia and did it right, and was out a few months later. i'd rather have obama using drones than getting involved in full scale war for several years at a time. he didn't send troops to get kony, he sent them in to advise the local forces. and honestly, what he did with osama was a good call...

Phigure wrote:

SCope13 wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:

SCope13 wrote: Are you kidding? Obama is as big, if not a bigger, war monger than Bush was.

And? How?

Uses drones like it's his job and kills civilians in the process, used a drone on a US citizen without any sort of trial, authorized the killing of Osama Bin Ladin without a trial, shot hundreds of missiles at Lybia, sent troops into the Congo to get Kony (a year before all this Kony 2012 bullshit), sent more troops to Iraq before finally saying we could get out of there, and says we won't be getting out of Afghanistan for at least another two years. So yeah, he's a really peaceful dude.

i dont really support most of those, but to say he's worse than bush is ridiculous. bush started two massive clusterfuck wars, one of which is still ongoing, and the other was ended by obama. obama got involved in lybia and did it right, and was out a few months later. i'd rather have obama using drones than getting involved in full scale war for several years at a time. he didn't send troops to get kony, he sent them in to advise the local forces. and honestly, what he did with osama was a good call...

Osama still should've gotten a trial. Never make exceptions. That's when things snowball and rights stop becoming rights, but luxuries.

kingGhost wrote:this discussion is nice and all, but completely irrelevant as to who the president will be.

to anyone who doesn't live in the states is wondering, obama will win. no one here really likes romney.

one term presidents are also pretty #rare

Phigure wrote: dont really support most of those, but to say he's worse than bush is ridiculous. bush started two massive clusterfuck wars, one of which is still ongoing, and the other was ended by obama.

Errr, wrong. It was ended by Bush. He signed a contract with Iraq stating that American forces will leave Iraq by 2012. Obama actually wanted to keep in forces longer than that, but he used Bush's contract as a personal victory.

Phigure wrote:obama got involved in lybia and did it right, and was out a few months later. i'd rather have obama using drones than getting involved in full scale war for several years at a time.

Including on 16 year old American citizens?

Phigure wrote:didn't send troops to get kony, he sent them in to advise the local forces.

"Philanthropy" is not the job of the US army. It's to defend the country from invading forces. "Iraq" was fought in the name of philanthropy. America has no business judging what's best for black Africans and using their great, western, democratic christian might to help black Africans who, according to America, are too stupid to help themselves.

Phigure wrote:and honestly, what he did with osama was a good call...

If you don't treat your enemies the way you want to be treated if you were in their position, they'll start treating you the way you're treating them. What happened to Bin Laden is analogues to execution.

Bottomline. Obama commited more troops, to more countries in 4 years than Bush did in 8. If he were the peace president, he wouldn't have done that. And you can blame Republican majorities all you want, he's the head of the American army. Troops go where he wants them to go. He also didn't consult with congress for any of these things (while he can move troops at will, he can't innitiate any military conflicts without congress' consent) Rather, he got this "authority" from the UN, an organization that is not responsible to the Americans citizens that he's supposed to represent.

Genevieve wrote:

Phigure wrote:didn't send troops to get kony, he sent them in to advise the local forces.

"Philanthropy" is not the job of the US army. It's to defend the country from invading forces. "Iraq" was fought in the name of philanthropy. America has no business judging what's best for black Africans and using their great, western, democratic christian might to help black Africans who, according to America, are too stupid to help themselves.

Phigure wrote:and honestly, what he did with osama was a good call...

If you don't treat your enemies the way you want to be treated if you were in their position, they'll start treating you the way you're treating them. What happened to Bin Laden is analogues to execution.

Bottomline. Obama commited more troops, to more countries in 4 years than Bush did in 8. If he were the peace president, he wouldn't have done that. And you can blame Republican majorities all you want, he's the head of the American army. Troops go where he wants them to go. He also didn't consult with congress for any of these things (while he can move troops at will, he can't innitiate any military conflicts without congress' consent) Rather, he got this "authority" from the UN, an organization that is not responsible to the Americans citizens that he's supposed to represent.

SCope13 wrote:this discussion is nice and all, but completely irrelevant as to who the president will be.

to anyone who doesn't live in the states is wondering, obama will win. no one here really likes romney.

this

Also, Osama not getting a trial is like the last thing I would worry about living in the US

AxeD wrote:

SCope13 wrote:this discussion is nice and all, but completely irrelevant as to who the president will be.

to anyone who doesn't live in the states is wondering, obama will win. no one here really likes romney.

this

Also, Osama not getting a trial is like the last thing I would worry about living in the US

You mis-quoted dude. I didnt say that.

yes sadly obama will be back in office as even if ron paul gets the nomination it'll be tied up in courts from the rnc and romney so no republican has a chance
not like it makes a diff shit is already determined years ahead of time

not saying i like obama - just saying he will win a second term. romney isn't nearly charismatic enough.

I don't like either of them, Obama is just the lesser of two evils. Still not going to vote for him though.

The two largest conflicts of the last 10 years were originated by Bush. Obama simply had to deal with the reality laid before him, just like the financial crisis. He didn't agree with the wars and neither do I, but at the point Obama came in office it would be irresponsible to leave Iraq and Iran to be fought over like leftovers for rabid dogs. You've got to play with the cards dealt to you. We really do have a responsibility to those citizens who want to enjoy certain western freedoms, like elections or education. When you live in a country where extremists will poison more than a hundred young school girls simply for wanting an education you have little hope for your society to settle its affairs on its own. So is it true Obama isn't afraid to be aggressive? Of course, but he is not a warmonger like Bush (which isn't really even fair to say since he was just the talking puppet of Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld & Co.) who began conflicts longer lasting than Vietnam on a whim of a shitty non-source.

Now, even I am a little queasy about the president ordering hits on citizens and enemies without trial, but you'll have to excuse me while you guys cry a river about Osama's lack of representation. Same with Aw-Laki, and his son who was following in his footsteps. The first and foremost duty of the federal government is to protect its citizens from aggressors, and that's precisely who they were. Is there collateral damage? Absolutely. But that's the ugly reality of political conflict. It's easy to condemn it and say it is wrong, but as our strikes become more precise and discriminate, we are marginalizing collateral damage and the lives of a few international terrorists and their associates are sacrificed for the safety of thousands of citizens, of both the western and eastern worlds. Like I said before I flinch at the thought of it, but someone has to make the decisions and deal with the people who want to terrorize our society. Furthermore, I don't think such measures would be necessary if the previous administration hadn't brazenly marched to full scale war.

On a related note, I have a question to pose. If you notice that there are certain neighbors of yours who are killing indiscriminately and committing all colors of atrocities on innocent people, is standing by and watching the right thing to do? Or should you intrude into their affairs to make things right? Earlier this week the Syrian government went door to door shooting men, women, but mostly children at point blank range with no sense as to who or why they were chosen. It is similar in a way to the situation in Libya before the international community stepped in, or Rwanda right before it got even more tremendously ugly. But if you are the biggest kid on the playground and you see these things going on, and you know there are certain measures you can take to stop or slow it, would/should you do it? I believe resoundingly yes. We should be citizens of the world and protect universal freedoms before we consider ourselves citizens of our own state looking out for ourselves.

Oh look, Obama supporters suddenly talking like Bush supporters. Haven't seen that before.

SCope13 wrote:I don't like either of them, Obama is just the lesser of two evils. Still not going to vote for him though.

if Nebraska's a swing state, please take my vote and give it to Obama.

If you recognize Obama is the lesser of two evils, but don't vote for him, you are effectively giving the opposition more power. That's when you really need to just stfu and don't have any right to complain about affairs, you make matters worse by giving a soulless asshat like romney the feasibility of attaining the presidency.