simulation wrote:

I have no axe to grind on the subject

Nor do I

pbmax wrote:

The problem with socialists is that they don't understand that everyone has different abilities, motives and priorities.

This is in no way true. Why would you think that?

pbmax wrote:

Honestly, I don't really care what other countries think of the US. When other countries don't agree with us, its usually a sign that we are doing the right thing. Only about half of the world's countries are considered "free" so its logical that other countries- especially dictatorships- will never be pleased with what we do.

Lots of Americans do care and I think you know that it's not just dictatorships, and I think it's worth explaining where some of the animosity comes from.

There's a big difference between believing in god and God. I'd like to think there are lots of Christian republicans who believe but without the dogma, and beliieve in a capitalist free market because they think that it can work for everyone rather than because they've been conditioned to hate and fear the alternative. If there are any reading this, then this post is about those irrational and fanatical others who have lost you more support and trust than George Bush and the theory of evolution combined.

There's a huge correlation between people who are easily brainwashed into thinking that the 2000 year old play "Ode to the roman sun god" is factually based and somehow more qualified to answer their questions than real people, and those easily brainwashed into thinking that communism is evil and socialism is un-democratic or un-American or whatever. You can't get more close minded than picking a religion at random just because it happens to be the main one where you live, then taking it literally, thereby assuming that either: you got really lucky / that there's something about where you live that lends itself to divine understanding of the universe / or you don't really care much about the truth. The people who believe in God (and by that I mean people who take the bible literally and marginalise other religions) are extremists who are the very same people who would be blowing stuff up if they happened to have been born in a different country. If they'd grown up with the Koran preached to them daily, then fed propaganda and half truths about the evil capitalist empire of America and their allies then they'd believe that instead, unless they're arrogant enough to believe that spiritually good people are only born in the places that share their fairy tales. There's a word for people like that: suggestible. Tell them Islam or socialism are evil enough times (twice) and they'll believe you.

If someone from the future had told me that the party, and especially the public face of the party dragging my naive government into an unjust war will be so stupid that it will become possible for a black man with socialist tendencies to be the next president of the US despite the presence of a very large racist right wing cult that don't even have to hide (no not all of them), I would have laughed, then pissed myself laughing when I realised it was true.

I'm glad the election is almost here, I'm running out of things to say and I can't let pbmax clog the threads with his archaic doctrine and right wing propaganda, and I'm sure stoney liberal ramblings are far more entertaining to read. That reminds me, pbmax: Stop calling the American Democrat party the Liberal Democrats. That's the name of the main third party in Britain who usually hold the middle ground between Labour on the left and the Tories on the right. Do you even know what liberal actually means? It means generous and/or open-minded. You're a creationist despite all evidence to the contrary. You're a free market capitalist despite all the disadvantages and problems. You believe that Bush was a good president despite… everything. And what's worse; you try to convince others that those laughable piles of bullshit are even worth one second of rational thought. How dare you sir. I bite my thumb at thee cad! Bad republican.

Wow, look at all those words. Freedom, democracy, peace y'll

I actually enjoy these conversations very much... they often spark some interesting discussions and that's why I reply and/or post here so often.

That said, I want to say that even though things sometimes get heated, especially between me and pbmax, I have great respect for the guy (esp. enjoy playing a few rounds of ETQW from time to time!) and anyone else who dares to click that reply button here and speak their minds.

In the U.S., we're often taught that politics are supposed to be private. Speaking openly about politics is taboo in a lot of ways beyond the carefully-fashioned blurbs you hear on the nightly news channels. We get in trouble if we talk about politics at work, shunned if we do it around the church crowd, or often silenced if we try to discuss things with any depth among friends.

The daily mantra that avoids the conversation sounds something like this: "Politics are boring!" "I don't have time to learn about this stuff." "American Idol/[insert sporting event here] is on soon."

Yet here at D3W, we draw a diverse, international crowd and have a lot of great perspectives offered to any given topic.

I guess I basically want to say thanks to those who do take the time to read and/or participate because regardless if I agree with any person's point of view, I always appreciate their willingness to share it and contribute to the discussion at hand. That thanks goes especially to folks like pbmax because his views are so different from my own. I don't write to talk to bunch of "yes men" who will agree with me... I often write hoping someone will offer a different viewpoint which challenges me to better understand the topic and my views about it.

I've always said that we'd be surprised how much we really have in common if we could just get past all the bullsh*t and the miniscule diversions.

Obama will probably win, but some polls are showing that McCain is gaining. Election night should be fun.

So in another week, all this back and forth will be over. Or will it....? :wink:

pbmax wrote:

Or will it....? :wink:

I hope you don't point towards another endless vote recount...

So far the discussions have been very interesting. I hope id software will release something November 6th to prevent us from falling into a black discussion hole.

If Obama wins there will be a recount. If McCain wins there will be a riot.

Either way, this isn't going away after the fourth.

rich_is_bored wrote:

If Obama wins there will be a recount. If McCain wins there will be a riot.

I doubt it. There may be trouble in certain districts but nothing on the level of the 2000 debacle, and I don't see Obama's supporters as the type that will riot if he loses.

Quote:

Either way, this isn't going away after the fourth.

At least the annoyingly misleading ads on television from both political parties will stop

pbmax wrote:

Its not the governments job to decide the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. That kind of thinking is MARXIST. Obama wants to turn the Constitution inside out.

my advice? call the fbi and let them burn! so burn me too for growing up in a communistic reigned country. so nuke them all: my mom my dad and my sisters!

qwertz123 wrote:

pbmax wrote:

Its not the governments job to decide the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. That kind of thinking is MARXIST. Obama wants to turn the Constitution inside out.

my advice? call the fbi and let them burn! so burn me too for growing up in a communistic reigned country. so nuke them all: my mom my dad and my sisters!

In my opinion you come from a socialist country, not from a communist country.

Well, it's official...Barack Obama won the election.
Source: CBS News

Will he do the United States proud? Or will he completely disappoint us? Let's hope it's not the latter.

I believe Obama wants to better the USA. To make it a place you can be proud to call home, and not a place where I as a Swedish person likes to point and laugh at.

Kristus wrote:

a place where I as a Swedish person likes to point and laugh at.

Careful! It's addictive

This is so freakin' important, I'm making a new thread.

In this 2001 interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOtdbqjDHJI , Obama says:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k.

Well, not too much here to argue with. But wait, he then goes on...

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."

Hmmmm, Obama wants the Supreme Court to make redistribution of wealth the law of the land. You can't get any more socialist than this. But wait, there's more...

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf..."

You're damn right the Constitution limits the power the government. That's what makes it such an important and historical document. But I guess Obama knows more than the Founding Fathers did. And what does Obama want the Federal and State governments to do on our behalf? Socialized healthcare perhaps? Socialized welfare perhaps? Direct transfer of wealth from those that earn it to those that didn't?

Its not the governments job to decide the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. That kind of thinking is MARXIST. Obama wants to turn the Constitution inside out.

"...and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

You mean like ACORN, Obama?

"I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way. You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, the court … engaging in a process that essentially is administrative"

There's the Constitution getting in the way again of Obama's redistribution scheme. Are check and balances the next thing to go?

FYI, the American people across all economic levels are totally against wealth distribution:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Ameri ... onomy.aspx

FYI, Obama WAS a member of a socialist political party: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=78945

This man is a leftist socialist radical way beyond mainstream. Combine this with his ties to anti-American people like Rashid Khalidi (a PLO opperative), William Ayers (domestic terrorist) & Jeremiah Wright, you simply cannot deny that Obama is a far left socialist that does not like the principles that made this country great.

Ah, it's always fun to watch Americans speak of "leftist" politics.

pbmax, you say you're not going to vote for McCain, yet you seem to go so far out of your way to make Obama look bad. Oh, sure, everyone else here is already doing a fine job tearing into McCain and Palin, but your stance on Obama seems pretty biased. Are you sure you're not voting for McCain? I mean, it's no big deal if you are. Just don't say that you're not voting for the old windbag when it's clear that you like to attack Obama as much as he does.

Pbmax, you're either too gullible or too biased. This "interview" is edited to hell and beyond in a way to get a lot of quotes out of context. It's actually been available as a full video online for a long time; do you seriously think something like this would be overseen for so long?

But hey, desperate times, desperate measures I guess.

Kristus wrote:

Ah, it's always fun to watch Americans speak of "leftist" politics.

Indeed! Whenever I read/watch american politics I have to "adjust" my mind to understand it. Over here, there's no problem in being called a socialist, and some people consider it an honour, but across the pond that's worse than being called a terrorist. I wonder how much longer will McCarthyism last.

DISCLAIMER: I'm replying to Kristus, a fellow European, on the prevalent political american thinking since the end of the second WW. I have absolutely zero interest in debating the (current) american elections.

zeh wrote:

Pbmax, you're either too gullible or too biased.

At worst as people that THINK the president of the US can solve their problems. At worst like countries who say the USA is NOT the political & economical center of the world (last couple weeks proved it was & is).

Quote:

This "interview" is edited to hell and beyond in a way to get a lot of quotes out of context. It's actually been available as a full video online for a long time; do you seriously think something like this would be overseen for so long?

no different then anything anyone else has done. Or anyone else here does on a regular basis.

I do not like mccain either. I do not like oboma either. So what, because there's two main characters on this circus you can't feel that they BOTH are HORRIBLE in the role they want? Oboma didn't let mccain dig his own grave like he would have is all.

evilartist wrote:

pbmax, you say you're not going to vote for McCain, yet you seem to go so far out of your way to make Obama look bad.

I'm not voting for McCain.

People really have no idea who Obama is and what he's capable of especially with a liberal democrat controlled congress. People should be afraid of this guy. His comments about the Supreme Court, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers send chills up my spine.

The Constitution IS the United States. Its one of the most important documents ever written in all of human history and should be treated as such. Its what makes America different from all other countries.

Socialism should be a four letter word in the US, and I'm not surprised that its considered a badge of honor in Europe- where unemployment rarely falls below single digits. The current unemployment rate here is still only 6.1% despite the worsening economy.

pbmax wrote:

Its one of the most important documents ever written in all of American history

Fixed

pbmax wrote:

Socialism should be a four letter word in the US, and I'm not surprised that its considered a badge of honor in Europe- where unemployment rarely falls below single digits. The current unemployment rate here is still only 6.1% despite the worsening economy.

You're a christian aren't you? Jesus preached socialism. Funny thing about Americans who oppose socialistic ideas. They seem to always see things in black and white. If something is federal, then suddenly it's communism. By your standards, Sweden as well as the major parts of Europe is all communism.

I'm going to respond to your post in reverse order.

pbmax wrote:

The Constitution IS the United States. Its one of the most important documents ever written in all of human history and should be treated as such. Its what makes America different from all other countries.

I agree, very much so. Yet, if you truly feel this way about the Constitution, then why have you supported Bush all of these years while he has shredded Habeas Corpus, defiled our rights to privacy, curtailed freedoms of speech by firing, censuring, rounding up or otherwise silencing dissenting voices, etc.? Why did I spend hours writing critiques of your stance on marriage trying to point out that it was an issue of equal rights as defined by the Declaration of Independence and then validated by the Constitution. George W. Bush has shat on the Constitution more than any other president in U.S. history. Not even in the time of the World Wars was there such a retraction of inalienable rights and freedoms. Yet through it all, you were his cheerleader. That makes me wonder if either you don't understand the tenets of the Constitution well or if you're just professing your adoration for it because it gives you shielding from which to launch biased balls of shit and fear towards a guy you don't like.

Let's side-step that, though, and proceed with what matters and take a look at how McCain differs from Bush... the comparison is instructive:

He doesn't mind the government spying on people. In fact, he has his own version of a telecom spying program. He is all for the war in Iraq and doesn't want us to leave even though Iraq is saying GTFO in a few months. McCain is against gay marriages although he has said he has no problem with making the legal part equal. Kudos to the Senator from Arizona. McCain is also for closing Gitmo, which I also applaud. However, he feels the Bush-concocted quasi-military tribunals are sufficient due process even though they have been criticized and ridiculed by human rights and legal rights agencies across the globe for their unfairness and blatant partiality.

So, yeah, McCain gets some things right... and he'll be far better safeguarding the Constitution than Bush ever was... but he's still lacking in enough areas that curdle my stomach... far more than the silly claims and, I'm guessing, imagined fears you hold about Obama.

And as for the other, more important topic:

pbmax wrote:

People really have no idea who Obama is and what he's capable of especially with a liberal democrat controlled congress. People should be afraid of this guy. His comments about the Supreme Court, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers send chills up my spine.

Okay let's put out the simple argument first and then we'll deal with the deeper issue here.

One: A tax cut for the wealthy is wealth redistribution that you seem to be okay with. A tax cut for the less-wealthy is wealth redistribution that you are not okay with... even though they are just different flavors of the same thing.

Two: You make a huge assumption here:

Quote:

Direct transfer of wealth from those that earn it to those that didn't?

Well, I could say the same thing about Bush and his tax cuts for the filthy rich. Did the CEOs really EARN those billions in tax cuts? No, they didn't. Even so, they got those cuts. So, now it's time to be fair and give a tax cut to those that were left out 4 and 8 years ago.

Or, if you DO believe those CEOs earned those tax cuts, then, hey, same response... now it's time to be fair and give a tax cut to everyone else who didn't get much of one. Unlike CEO pay that has inflated exponentially in the last eight years (even though CEO performance and business performance in general has gone down or companies bankrupted or otherwise imploded due to poor management) workers' real wages have gone down significantly.

And let's also be honest... the "rollback" of the tax level that Obama wants is to the Reagan era... a very nice and friendly time for the wealthy by most historical accounts. So, no, he's not saying the rich need to give up their mansions and sell their yachts... he's just saying, "Bush went too far and now it's time to be fair."

And now the tough issue: Race, rights and liberty.

Okay, since you and I are not black, we can only imagine the context and experiences that inform Obama's views. However, with a bit of effort, we can come up with a framework that will help us understand what his words mean. Let's begin.

Quote:

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k.

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."

Okay, what Obama is saying here is that when slavery was outlawed not too long ago, there wasn't a magic wand that was waved where suddenly blacks had all the same advantages as whites. There wasn't a magic pill that was handed out to blacks where their bank accounts swelled to similar sizes of the established white majority. Black folks weren't suddenly peppered throughout the halls of government able to have a voice in public and political life.

No, despite the abolition of slavery, things didn't change much for black women and men. Even though the law changed, blacks were still considered to be inferior citizens in the daily social and economic practices of the day.

In other words, think of whites and blacks starting on a scale from 1 to 10 in terms of wealth and comfort and the ability to, as the Declaration of Independence says, pursue life, liberty and happiness (opportunities). At the time Columbus "discovered" America and slaughtered all those pesky natives that were on "his" land, consider that to be zero. Consider present day to be 10.

Whites hit maybe a 3 or 4 by the time slavery was abolished because they were gaining wealth, land, holding positions of power, could make decisions about their communities, could seek out educational opportunities, etc.

Consider, then, blacks starting at zero at abolition. They've now gained "life" in the list prescribed by the Declaration of Independence. Although, that "life" is a precarious right, since white folks get their jollies off of seeing blacks humiliated and hanged right and left. Few could read though, thanks to it being previously illegal. No one owned any land, and none was certainly given up by white folks to make room for the ex-slave tenant. There was no wealth to bequeath to future generations. And blacks certainly didn't have any way to make much of an impact in their government.

So, mind you, we're just passing the Civil War but already whites have had decades to gain footholds on the best jobs, they control all echelons of government, and have instituted a country-wide mindset that blacks are inferior and subhuman.

By the time the 1960s and '70s rolled around, whites (well, white men), by and large, had access to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and could make a decent living by working hard (or so we're told). Let's put them down as a 6 or maybe even an 8 on our scale of wealth and comfort as we approach present day.

Blacks struggle for years and by the end of the civil rights movement they mange to carve out a bit of "liberty" and add it to their "life" right. Let's put them at maybe 2 or 3 on the scale because the pursuit of happiness is not bestowed on them in any way... as with all things, they must fight tooth and nail for every inch... unlike their white counterparts who now enjoy the legacies of wealth, land, jobs and a social structure that still puts them first of the line and top of the pile in everything.

So here you have decades upon decades of one group getting every possible benefit, often at the expense and the very humanity of black folks, and yet there's some expectation that all standards should be equal, even though rights, experiences and liberties have never ever been.

Fast-forward to present day. Whites are at 10. Blacks are at, hmm... 5, maybe? They aren't being killed and are no longer enslaved. Their pursuits of happiness (opportunities) are still hindered by deep institutional racism, since the hiring and firing of most jobs are still controlled by white folks, homes and neighborhoods are often exclusive and/or suffer from "white flight" if others move in, there are still plenty of barriers to an equal education and dozens of other obstacles exist and are still very real.

So back to Obama's comment... what he's trying to point out is the overwhelming social and economic advantages of whites over blacks are still very real even today. He's saying that the Warren Court, while making things like segregation against the law, the reality of separateness and inferiority still remained in the hearts and minds of the U.S. American public.

Quote:

"To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf..."

Here he's saying that the Constitution is defensive... it ensures certain rights can't be denied. He observes that the document does not spell out the role of government beyond this "protection of rights" mandate.

Quote:

But I guess Obama knows more than the Founding Fathers did. And what does Obama want the Federal and State governments to do on our behalf? Socialized healthcare perhaps? Socialized welfare perhaps?

Silly, wild, baseless and assumptive questions here... that's not at all what Obama was saying or even alluding to.

Quote:

Its not the governments job to decide the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens.

Oh really? Then why did Bush decide the acceptable wealth of the extremely rich should increase and draft and pass legislation to do exactly that? The ONLY difference between Bush and Obama here is that they are simply choosing different individual citizens.

Quote:

That kind of thinking is MARXIST.

No, it's not. It's American. It's been American for every single decade that we have adhered to a tax system. It was American then and it's American now.

Quote:

"and one of the... tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court focused[,] I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.

He's saying that the Civil Rights movement got all involved in making sure that the law was just and equal but that they forgot about the reality which was and still to this day, remains very unjust and unequal. That's all he's saying.

You and the FOX News anchors that have pushed and twisted this statement into racist, ignorant, fear-mongering bullshit are too mind-numbingly stupid to understand his point. You've gotten it completely wrong.

Quote:

You mean like ACORN, Obama?

Thank you for proving my point. This makes no sense and you clearly have no idea what he was talking about.

In case you need to review it, here's the opening to the Declaration of Independence, my emphasis added.

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are ccustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

pbmax wrote:

The Constitution IS the United States. Its one of the most important documents ever written in all of human history and should be treated as such. Its what makes America different from all other countries.

Does this sound like implied superiority of people born under a specific flag?

pbmax wrote:

This is so freakin' important, I'm making a new thread.

With all due respect, I'm seeing more political threads here than threads on Doom3. How about consolidating all these threads into one?
It's hard digging through the political threads (I'm getting a bit tired of them) when using 'view new posts'.

Thanks!

BloodRayne wrote:

pbmax wrote:

This is so freakin' important, I'm making a new thread.

With all due respect, I'm seeing more political threads here than threads on Doom3. How about consolidating all these threads into one?
It's hard digging through the political threads (I'm getting a bit tired of them) when using 'view new posts'.

Thanks!

Different topics different threads - you could as well suggest to consolidate all topic which handle Doom3.
And it's not as hard as you picture it - there are about 4 to 6 active political threads.

I understand you personally aren't as interested in them as others, so leave it to others and focus on what you have fun with. There is no forced click on political threads rule established.

I understand your point and respect that.. but for the record, there are nine active political threads, just in the first page when you click on 'active topics', all with the same rehashed arguments.

Anyways I'll let you guys to it, never mind me. :mrgreen:

pbmax wrote:

I'm not surprised that its considered a badge of honor in Europe- where unemployment rarely falls below single digits. The current unemployment rate here is still only 6.1% despite the worsening economy.

The latest Eurostat report (Sep 2008) says unemployment remains stable at 6.8% in the European Union. The same EU (EU-27) that includes all the newer eastern european countries btw. Not to mention that people who are unemployed in Europe receive social protection for a lengthier period than in the US. Some European countries (not all are part of the EU) that have a lower unemployment rate than the US: UK, Norway, Netherlands, Switzerland, San Marino, Denmark, Luxembourg and Ireland.

If you're truly interested in the European unemployment phenomenon there's plenty of research on the subject. A quick google turned up this one which has 2004 values but provides much of the background that shaped unemployment rates in Europe since the middle of the last century. I'll give you a taste of the first paragraph:

article wrote:

Anybody attempting to explain the evolution of unemployment in Europe over the last 30 years must confront the following set of facts: First, high unemployment is not a European trait. Until the end of the 1960s, unemployment was very low in Europe and the talk then was of the "European unemployment miracle."

Kristus wrote:

Ah, it's always fun to watch Americans speak of "leftist" politics.

Yep, quality entertainment :lol:

This is getting funnier by the day. You're not talking with any kind of substance any more, you're just throwing out a lot of generalised right wing crap. This is exactly the kind of attitude that has ruined the reputation of the US. But it will get better because support for the Christian conservative fascist movement is waning, hence the desperate cries of the dying republican campaign and the likes of you being forced to show their true colours. You've been brainwashed into thinking that other religions, other countries and other political attitudes are inferior. The US will get its reputation back and be considered an equal again, but only if the people like you who live there continue to diminish. For the last time socialism is not evil and capitalism isn't the light of God. FYI, most people are intelligent to realise that the things you hold so dear (God and all God related fiction therein, a market where the rich keep getting richer at the expensive of the others, a humorous sense of American superiority) are a steaming pile of horse manure.

wal wrote:

FYI, most people are intelligent to realise .....

I have no axe to grind on the subject, just an interest in the numbers:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99945,00.html

I'm not American so I have no idea how reliable stuff reported by Fox News is but those numbers are similar to others I've seen before. Just don't make assumptions about the "intelligence" of "most people"

Most people don't believe in God (not god).
Most people don't believe in a totally free market.
Most people don't believe in American superiority.

wal wrote:

This is exactly the kind of attitude that has ruined the reputation of the US.

Honestly, I don't really care what other countries think of the US. When other countries don't agree with us, its usually a sign that we are doing the right thing. Only about half of the world's countries are considered "free" so its logical that other countries- especially dictatorships- will never be pleased with what we do.

Quote:

You've been brainwashed into thinking that other religions, other countries and other political attitudes are inferior.

I don't give a sh*t what a person's religion is. And, yes, other political attitudes can be inferior such as socialism, Marxism and fascism. Other countries can be inferior. Would you rather live in Cuba or America? Why do Cubans risk their lives on homemade rafts to reach the shores of Florida? Perhaps because they know Cuba is inferior to the US? Countries can be inferior, but the people are equal.

Quote:

For the last time socialism is not evil and capitalism isn't the light of God.

I never said socialsm was evil- its just plain wrong and doesn't work. Capitalism does work when its combined with equal opportunity. Everyone has a chance to participate, each according to their own abilities and desires. The problem with socialists is that they don't understand that everyone has different abilities, motives and priorities. Thus, they view it as unfair that a CEO makes 2 million per year while a factory worker makes $45,000. On that note, why don't liberals ever complain that Hollywood actors can make 20 million per movie?

Is it fair that Kobe Bryant can do a 360 dunk and I can't? Is it fair that Obama is more gifted in public speaking than I am? Is it fair that Bill Gates is able to run a multi billion dollar company where as I would probably fail at it?

Life isn't fair. People are born with different gifts, strengths, beauty & abilities. Socialists don't want to see this. They want to punish success so that everyone is equally miserable. In my opinion, fair is giving everyone the freedom to pursue their hearts desires, what ever that may be.

Quote:

FYI, most people are intelligent to realise that the things you hold so dear (God and all God related fiction therein, a market where the rich keep getting richer at the expensive of the others, a humorous sense of American superiority) are a steaming pile of horse manure.

No, you're wrong here.

The "highly religous" are much more charitable:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/111013/World ... thers.aspx

73% of Americans believe in God without any doubt:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/23470/Who-Be ... oesnt.aspx

Americans, across all economic status, reject wealth redistrubution and favor an overall improved economy instead:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/108445/Ameri ... onomy.aspx

Surprise! Conservatives actually donate a lot more time and money to charity than liberals:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... l_giv.html

Quote:

Surprise! Conservatives actually donate a lot more time and money to charity than liberals:

Thats because most are very religious and think they can purchase their way into Heaven.

Quote:

The problem with socialists is that they don't understand that everyone has different abilities, motives and priorities. Thus, they view it as unfair that a CEO makes 2 million per year while a factory worker makes $45,000. On that note, why don't liberals ever complain that Hollywood actors can make 20 million per movie?

The problem with capitalism is that they don't view a CEO making $100 million dollars a year a problem when a factory worker makes $20,000 a year or less. Somewhere, somehow it was decided that a person who has meetings and does paperwork all day has 'earned' the right to more money than someone breaking their back everyday for 40 years providing a service that usually helps the lives of everyday people. Not only will a construction worker have to question his financial retirement stability, but he may be lucky if he can even move. I know far to many people who can barely move and cant bend down from bad knees and fused backs due to brick laying or jack hammering for 30-40 years and they all made crap pay while the 'hard working' CEO can run a company to the ground and then get paid millions to resign. They worked so hard for their money after all.

pbmax wrote:

I never said socialsm was evil- its just plain wrong and doesn't work.

http://internationaltrade.suite101.com/ ... _countries
For being socialistic governments that doesn't work, the Scandinavian countries sure are living it up when it comes to GNP. Also remember that USA got a few insanely rich people, and a lot of really quite poor people. Which this doesn't take in to account.
You can become really really rich in these socialist countries too. But people on the bottom aren't left out to the wolves.

None of these countries are even close to the dogmatic state of communism. But they are what you equate as communism when you speak.

Deadite4 wrote:

Somewhere, somehow it was decided that a person who has meetings and does paperwork all day has 'earned' the right to more money than someone breaking their back everyday for 40 years providing a service that usually helps the lives of everyday people.

That of course is a very gross oversimplification which is not only missing the point but also pure populistic talk as it is so very fashionable nowadays.

I would however agree that CEOs should build their wealth long term via ownership rather than insane payments, especially those coming from share price dilution via stock options. Golden parachutes should also get abandoned.

Neither unfettered socialism nor free capitalism work for most people since both are slowly corrupted by those in charge. I'm not a fan of government but in a perfect world they have a role in a capitalistic society since the poor and uneducated always get exploited. Since we don't live in the perfect world, the government ends up being an extension of the corporations so frankly the average Joe and Joan don't stand a chance.

You guys freely banter around unemployment rates but unfortunately those numbers are cooked by governments to hide the truth. For example unemployment rates in Canada and the US exclude people who no longer qualify, or who have effectively taken themselves out of the workforce. Similarly inflation rates overlook important indicators which hide the real numbers. New job start numbers don't account for full-time workers moving to part-time jobs or skilled workers moving into unskilled jobs. Balanced budgets are another fraud since governments manipulate the numbers to show whatever they want to show. I've worked in government and have friends who currently do, so these statements aren't paranoid assumptions.

As long as you have greed and the lust for power, our world is pretty much the domain of the rich and powerful, while the rest of us serve as slaves for the factories. Obama isn't going to change a damn thing, and in the end he's really no better than McCain. I think you only have to live through one or two elections to know all these guys are snake oil salesmen who play the popularity contest like a symphony. Nothing new here, more lies, more corruption, and the rest of us have to suck on it.

Quote:

That of course is a very gross oversimplification which is not only missing the point but also pure populistic talk as it is so very fashionable nowadays.

yes I agree it is grossly oversimplified. I absolutely realize that CEO's do more than meetings and some paperwork, but then again calling the poor/lower middle class lazy when in fact most are the physically hardest working people in this country, just getting shitty pay is also grossly inaccurate.

The fact is people who work the hardest and on a daily basis risk their lives and health often get the lowest pay in the current US society. My comment does not miss the point of pointing out the gross inequalities of payscale versus hard work. The hardest working does not equal more money.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

pbmax wrote:

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

I was once in the same room with Yassir Arafat. Last year I was in the same room with Sheikh Mohammed in Dubai. Last month I was in the same plane with Till Schweiger. Three years ago I wrote a valuation report of the multi family home where Mohammed Atta was living in Hamburg. Right now I'm in the same room with two cats. Next week I plan to be in the same nightclub with the Playmate of the month. Next month I intend to be in the same gym class with at least 5 B-class-vip people. Two years ago I shared the same hiking path with a music producer (if I only could remember his name). In 2000 I was sitting face to face with Heidi Klum at an Italian restaurant (but not at the same tables). Up till three months ago a mildly popular actress was living in the flat above mine.

I'm guilty and you have finally convinced me all people should withdraw support from Hussein Obama and purify their souls.

That's a fun game.

Quote:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

McCain is a socialist! Gee! I wonder what his VP Sarah Palin thinks about it?

Quote:

A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that “we’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

What a marxist.

Socialist is the new terrorist.

Obama bin Palin for president?

back on topic, here's the fact checker on your video:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... bshel.html

Deadite4 wrote:

back on topic, here's the fact checker on your video:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-c ... bshel.html

You mean pbmax and other fellows got mislead, eventually on purpose by the McCain campaign people?

So, how long was it again till the mudslinging ends?

1 week from today.

Deadite4 wrote:

The hardest working does not equal more money.

That in fact is true. It is true since ever so long since we invented smart work and scale effects.
It is very satisfying to built something with your own hands, no doubt about that. There is also no shame in working for the big three in Detroit all your life and now feeling left behind by the fact that the product you've built doesn't sell anymore (for a plentitude of reasons). And it is morally understable that CEOs cashing in big time right now are hated all around.

A good CEO is worth his money, even if it's in triple digit millions. This is true as for so long as he is creating more jobs, pay raises... and so on. For those who fail and for failing companies in a harsh environment there shouldn't be excess compensation beyond what the corporate financials allows.
I'd therefore advocate cheap loans for CEOs to acquire coporate stocks, not only for CEOs but for every employee. Tying up your fate with the fate of the company you work for typically creates responsibility and positive long term perspectives.

A good example might be Dr. Wendelin Wiedeking, the CEO of Porsche with a salary in excess of 100m Euros. When he took over Porsche was at the brink of insolvency and he underwrote the contract by issuing all his personal belongings as collateral in case the company went bust. He was denied ownership in Porsche supposedly from the Porsche and Piech (VW) family, but he received a ~ 1% share of profits, which is where all his insane pay check comes from.

From 1993 to 2007 he turned the company around and increased the shareholder value from 300 millon to 25 billion Euro in 2007 (divide that by 2 for now, like any good stock it currently goes dirt cheap assuming the world as we know it will survive). I have visited the Porsche factory in Stuttgart Zuffenhausen and I tell you people are proud to work there for the most part (there is alway this one disgruntled employee).

Warren Buffett has built his wealth through his investment vehicle Berkshire Hathaway and runs on a fixed salary of 100.000 USD per year ever since. All he's got is tied up in Berkshire, no bonuses, no stock options, no otherwise share value dilutions. I bet any employee who grabbed a bunch of shares along the road sees no reason to complain about the shameless riches of Buffett.

It all boils down to eating what you cook. Look, two weeks ago the bonus pool held in cash for the eomployees of (former) Wall Street giant Morgan Stanly exceeded the total market capitalization of the company. At the same time they have been looking desperately for a strategic investor to strengthen their balance sheet. This would have been a perfect opportunity for Morgan Stanley to acquire all outstanding shares and hand them over to the employees instead of diluting the shares. It's of course an academical point to debate since they need a larger safety net beyond emplyees holding shares, but in my opinon it would have sent a strong signal to everyone involved.

People here have an old saying that a small business earns you a better living than a large shovel. If employees would hold larger positions in the companies they work for, they would surely make a better living while working with a shovel. In return companies would need to figure out ways to bring employees into ownership. I also don't think labor unions would welcome such turn of events. There is no botting fishing with satisfied employees. This should be the final result of all union work, but as it seems they often don't want to render themselves useless (in most cases they are far from being useless of course).

The mudslinging is what drives me away from american politics. I'm most interested in each party's nominee campaigns where you can often see the different issues at stake. Doesn't mean there won't be some mud being slung around (Obama-Hillary) but it's not that frequent as each party is afraid of giving the other some free ammo. Unfortunately, because of the dual-party system in America this means you only get a true campaign once every 8 years as in between, one of the parties has virtually no discussion and simply nominates the current president.

The Communist-fear also means both parties occupy a much smaller segment of the total political spectrum we have here in Europe. Sure, there are probably one or two members of the Communist party over there but the prevalent political thinking is such that Obama can be labeled as a marxist when over here he'd be, at best, part of a central party. I think this reduced contrast between both parties is much to blame for driving the campaigns away from issues and into character attacks, negative ads, etc. and ultimately drive people away from (american) politics.

More on McCain's attack which claims pretty much the contrary of what was actually said, now picking up on the main stream media.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gLBa ... wD943LJ8G1

Quote:

Republican John McCain is misreading seven-year-old comments by rival Barack Obama about "redistributive change" to argue that the Democrat's tax policy is built on "taking your money and giving it to someone else." (...)

McCain: "In a radio interview that was revealed today, he said that, quote, One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it didn't bring about a redistribution of wealth in our society."

Obama never said that, according to an audio file circulated by Naked Emperor News, a Web site with many postings critical of Obama. Fox News also posted a partial transcript of the interview.

What Obama called a tragedy was the civil rights movement's focus on the court, rather than on "political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

Taking quotes out of context is one thing, but that attack takes it to a new level when mixing words together.

BNA! wrote:

BloodRayne wrote:

pbmax wrote:

This is so freakin' important, I'm making a new thread.

With all due respect, I'm seeing more political threads here than threads on Doom3. How about consolidating all these threads into one?
It's hard digging through the political threads (I'm getting a bit tired of them) when using 'view new posts'.

Thanks!

Different topics different threads - you could as well suggest to consolidate all topic which handle Doom3.
And it's not as hard as you picture it - there are about 4 to 6 active political threads.

I understand you personally aren't as interested in them as others, so leave it to others and focus on what you have fun with. There is no forced click on political threads rule established.

This is true, but a lot of the messages sound more like private messages between goliath and pbmax being posted.

The term terrorist is subjective. There are plenty of factions that use violence as a means to an end and are not labeled terrorists. So what are the rules? It's simple. A person is labeled a terrorist when their motives are not yours.

rich_is_bored wrote:

The term terrorist is subjective. There are plenty of factions that use violence as a means to an end and are not labeled terrorists. So what are the rules? It's simple. A person is labeled a terrorist when their motives are not yours.

It always boils down who proclaims the sovereignty of interpretation for himself and how far the population is willing to let the interpreters go.

TelMarine wrote:

This is true, but a lot of the messages sound more like private messages between goliath and pbmax being posted.

And we're caught in the middle, which is a pretty interesting place to be considering the silliness of many posts.

I strangely enjoyed reading this.

I myself haven't got enough - legit - information to make an executive decision. Though from what I have heard it would seem Obama is moving in the right direction. One hopes he doesn't get assassinated by ignorance before he can do anything worth while.

simulation wrote:

I have no axe to grind on the subject

Nor do I

pbmax wrote:

The problem with socialists is that they don't understand that everyone has different abilities, motives and priorities.

This is in no way true. Why would you think that?

pbmax wrote:

Honestly, I don't really care what other countries think of the US. When other countries don't agree with us, its usually a sign that we are doing the right thing. Only about half of the world's countries are considered "free" so its logical that other countries- especially dictatorships- will never be pleased with what we do.

Lots of Americans do care and I think you know that it's not just dictatorships, and I think it's worth explaining where some of the animosity comes from.

There's a big difference between believing in god and God. I'd like to think there are lots of Christian republicans who believe but without the dogma, and beliieve in a capitalist free market because they think that it can work for everyone rather than because they've been conditioned to hate and fear the alternative. If there are any reading this, then this post is about those irrational and fanatical others who have lost you more support and trust than George Bush and the theory of evolution combined.

There's a huge correlation between people who are easily brainwashed into thinking that the 2000 year old play "Ode to the roman sun god" is factually based and somehow more qualified to answer their questions than real people, and those easily brainwashed into thinking that communism is evil and socialism is un-democratic or un-American or whatever. You can't get more close minded than picking a religion at random just because it happens to be the main one where you live, then taking it literally, thereby assuming that either: you got really lucky / that there's something about where you live that lends itself to divine understanding of the universe / or you don't really care much about the truth. The people who believe in God (and by that I mean people who take the bible literally and marginalise other religions) are extremists who are the very same people who would be blowing stuff up if they happened to have been born in a different country. If they'd grown up with the Koran preached to them daily, then fed propaganda and half truths about the evil capitalist empire of America and their allies then they'd believe that instead, unless they're arrogant enough to believe that spiritually good people are only born in the places that share their fairy tales. There's a word for people like that: suggestible. Tell them Islam or socialism are evil enough times (twice) and they'll believe you.

If someone from the future had told me that the party, and especially the public face of the party dragging my naive government into an unjust war will be so stupid that it will become possible for a black man with socialist tendencies to be the next president of the US despite the presence of a very large racist right wing cult that don't even have to hide (no not all of them), I would have laughed, then pissed myself laughing when I realised it was true.

I'm glad the election is almost here, I'm running out of things to say and I can't let pbmax clog the threads with his archaic doctrine and right wing propaganda, and I'm sure stoney liberal ramblings are far more entertaining to read. That reminds me, pbmax: Stop calling the American Democrat party the Liberal Democrats. That's the name of the main third party in Britain who usually hold the middle ground between Labour on the left and the Tories on the right. Do you even know what liberal actually means? It means generous and/or open-minded. You're a creationist despite all evidence to the contrary. You're a free market capitalist despite all the disadvantages and problems. You believe that Bush was a good president despite… everything. And what's worse; you try to convince others that those laughable piles of bullshit are even worth one second of rational thought. How dare you sir. I bite my thumb at thee cad! Bad republican.

Wow, look at all those words. Freedom, democracy, peace y'll

I actually enjoy these conversations very much... they often spark some interesting discussions and that's why I reply and/or post here so often.

That said, I want to say that even though things sometimes get heated, especially between me and pbmax, I have great respect for the guy (esp. enjoy playing a few rounds of ETQW from time to time!) and anyone else who dares to click that reply button here and speak their minds.

In the U.S., we're often taught that politics are supposed to be private. Speaking openly about politics is taboo in a lot of ways beyond the carefully-fashioned blurbs you hear on the nightly news channels. We get in trouble if we talk about politics at work, shunned if we do it around the church crowd, or often silenced if we try to discuss things with any depth among friends.

The daily mantra that avoids the conversation sounds something like this: "Politics are boring!" "I don't have time to learn about this stuff." "American Idol/[insert sporting event here] is on soon."

Yet here at D3W, we draw a diverse, international crowd and have a lot of great perspectives offered to any given topic.

I guess I basically want to say thanks to those who do take the time to read and/or participate because regardless if I agree with any person's point of view, I always appreciate their willingness to share it and contribute to the discussion at hand. That thanks goes especially to folks like pbmax because his views are so different from my own. I don't write to talk to bunch of "yes men" who will agree with me... I often write hoping someone will offer a different viewpoint which challenges me to better understand the topic and my views about it.

I've always said that we'd be surprised how much we really have in common if we could just get past all the bullsh*t and the miniscule diversions.

Obama will probably win, but some polls are showing that McCain is gaining. Election night should be fun.

So in another week, all this back and forth will be over. Or will it....? :wink:

pbmax wrote:

Or will it....? :wink:

I hope you don't point towards another endless vote recount...

So far the discussions have been very interesting. I hope id software will release something November 6th to prevent us from falling into a black discussion hole.

If Obama wins there will be a recount. If McCain wins there will be a riot.

Either way, this isn't going away after the fourth.

rich_is_bored wrote:

If Obama wins there will be a recount. If McCain wins there will be a riot.

I doubt it. There may be trouble in certain districts but nothing on the level of the 2000 debacle, and I don't see Obama's supporters as the type that will riot if he loses.

Quote:

Either way, this isn't going away after the fourth.

At least the annoyingly misleading ads on television from both political parties will stop

pbmax wrote:

Its not the governments job to decide the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. That kind of thinking is MARXIST. Obama wants to turn the Constitution inside out.

my advice? call the fbi and let them burn! so burn me too for growing up in a communistic reigned country. so nuke them all: my mom my dad and my sisters!

qwertz123 wrote:

pbmax wrote:

Its not the governments job to decide the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. That kind of thinking is MARXIST. Obama wants to turn the Constitution inside out.

my advice? call the fbi and let them burn! so burn me too for growing up in a communistic reigned country. so nuke them all: my mom my dad and my sisters!

In my opinion you come from a socialist country, not from a communist country.

Well, it's official...Barack Obama won the election.
Source: CBS News

Will he do the United States proud? Or will he completely disappoint us? Let's hope it's not the latter.

I believe Obama wants to better the USA. To make it a place you can be proud to call home, and not a place where I as a Swedish person likes to point and laugh at.

Kristus wrote:

a place where I as a Swedish person likes to point and laugh at.

Careful! It's addictive