RakuraiTenjin's Anti-Obama thread

Krynn72

Krynn72

The Freeman
Joined
May 16, 2004
Messages
26,095
Reaction score
926
 
There should be a decree that we spend the remaining week only pissing all over Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.
 
I understand if you guys disagree with me, but trying to silence is ridiculous. There's much more pro-obama on this board and that's fine and dandy. Don't get mad just because there's an opposing viewpoint to him being posted in the same manner things were being posted about other candidates and platforms.

unozero said:
same thread can be made about stern.
Click to expand...

So true. And this is okay- I don't have any problem with him doing it, but there is no reason I shouldn't be allowed to as well.


Absinthe said:
There should be a decree that we spend the remaining week only pissing all over Ralph Nader and Bob Barr.
Click to expand...

This would be awesome. Maybe we'd actually have some decent discussion on this forum.
 
I'm for a "Stern's Anti-McCain thread."


I'd start one, but I dont want to be hypocritical and be a thread spammer, because then I would have to make a "Krynn's Anti-too-many-threads-from-one-person Thread."
 
Krynn72 said:
I'm for a "Stern's Anti-McCain thread."


I'd start one, but I dont want to be hypocritical and be a thread spammer.
Click to expand...

It'd be too hard to discuss individual issues about the candidate. Conversation would get lost and criss crossed in the non stop multi quoting of posts.
 
Multi-quoting is how you discuss individual issues.
 
Yeah and it becomes too hard to discuss multiple issues at once in a thread using that. Just leave it as it is, individual issues merit their own threads. No one that enters the thread late will be able to tell whats going on with specific issues unless they read 50+ pages that such a thread would become. It's a bad idea to merge everything.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Yeah and it becomes too hard to discuss multiple issues at once in a thread using that. Just leave it as it is, individual issues merit their own threads. No one that enters the thread late will be able to tell whats going on with specific issues unless they read 50+ pages that such a thread would become. It's a bad idea to merge everything.
Click to expand...

Unless it's a thread that's about incredibly useless tabloid quality rubbish that nobody (not even the average informed libertarian) cares about. Before you claim that individual issues merit their own threads, why don't you examine if your threads are worth making in the first place. There are better arguments and more pressing issues than the ones you're spamming politics with, and you've completely ignored them. You sound more like a desperate neocon than someone pressing a libertarian agenda.
 
BHC said:
Unless it's a thread that's about incredibly useless tabloid quality rubbish that nobody (not even the average informed libertarian) cares about. Before you claim that individual issues merit their own threads, why don't you examine if your threads are worth making in the first place.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are. I feel a majority of the anti Palin/McCain threads are frivelous, but to some people they are important to hear about and thus have a right to be posted.

Just because you don't like the content or dont feel its important to you doesnt mean it doesnt merit its own thread.


It's funny how just because you disagree you guys want it silenced, but have said nothing about the same type of threads coming from your side of the aisle.
 
We dont want it silenced, we just want it organized and not spammed.
 
It's not spammed. Each topic holds its own merit and discussion. Trust me there's a lot of relevant posts I make in those threads that I easily could have made into even more of their own threads, but I felt they were better placed in the ones I'd already posted.
 
It would also help if the majority of what you posted wasn't regurgitated arguments birthed from the underbelly of a political party which you claim to despise.
 
Obama being slightly down in polls is not in anyway worthy of making a thread about. Nor is a conspiracy theory thread, nor is a lie about Barack wanting to turn the USA into a socialist nation.
 
Krynn72 said:
Obama being slightly down in polls is not in anyway worthy of making a thread about. Nor is a conspiracy theory thread, nor is a lie about Barack wanting to turn the USA into a socialist nation.
Click to expand...

But ofcourse, obama is stalin.
[/sarcasm]
 
BHC said:
It would also help if the majority of what you posted wasn't regurgitated arguments birthed from the underbelly of a political party which you claim to despise.
Click to expand...

How is the Republican party being a sinking ship "despising" it.

The Christian right is ruining the party. It was a coalition of economic conservatives and the christian moral right. one side has garnered too much power.

This is why I push Libertarians.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
How is the Republican party being a sinking ship "despising" it.

The Christian right is ruining the party. It was a coalition of economic conservatives and the christian moral right. one side has garnered too much power.

This is why I push Libertarians.
Click to expand...

You actually wrote that it was a sinking "shit", that has far stronger implications, if I do say so myself. :p

I can't understand why you would want to have anything to do with the modern GOP given your apparent Libertarian status. They're less economically conservative and "focused on morals" than any other United States political party has ever been.
 
probably, it is getting shitty. That said the Democratic party is a BIG shit far outweighing the Republican party.


A Ron Paul revolution would've saved this nation, he has far more charisma than Baldwin or Barr and I believe would've won if it were Ron Paul vs Barack obama, but alas his own party, the Republicans, silenced him in favor of more moral authoritarianism rather than conservative economics.
 
But you're still contradicting yourself. Republicans have proven themselves to be the most irresponsible, big spending, morally corrupt party of our generation.

As for debating the semantics of libertarianism, I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy at the moment. What I will say is that the last thing I think our country needs right now is the dismantling of government assistance programs or lifting restrictions on big business.
 
BHC said:
But you're still contradicting yourself. Republicans have proven themselves to be the most irresponsible, big spending, morally corrupt party of our generation.
Click to expand...
I'm not contradicting myself, this is the reason the Republican party is falling apart, they have cast off conservative economics in favor of moral authoritarianism. The democrats plan of increasing welfare spending and taxes is just as inept and inappropriate. We need LESS spending and LESS government.

BHC said:
As for debating the semantics of libertarianism, I'm afraid I don't have the time or energy at the moment. What I will say is that the last thing I think our country needs right now is the dismantling of government assistance programs or lifting restrictions on big business.
Click to expand...

It's exactly what we need. Things like the 800 billion dollar bailout are destroying the free market.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
probably, it is getting shitty. That said the Democratic party is a BIG shit far outweighing the Republican party.
Click to expand...

Care to back this statement up? It's obvious that we fundamentally disagree on what would repair our economy.

Why would you rather reinstall a party of imposed moral authority, war criminals and irresponsible spenders than a democrat?
 
BHC said:
Care to back this statement up? It's obvious that we fundamentally disagree on what would repair our economy.

Why would you rather reinstall a party of imposed moral authority, war criminals and irresponsible spenders than a democrat?
Click to expand...

War criminals lol. There are no convicted war criminals running, sorry. Yes, the democrats plan to create a welfare state, raise taxes, and threaten the freedom to bear arms. These are the issues that are most important to me.
 
According to the income you claimed in a prior thread, Obama would lower taxes for you. There's no proof the democrats or Obama have any interest in taking away your right to bear arms. Oh yeah, and the idea that democrats are interested in a "welfare" state is another hilarious snippet of republican tabloid-mongering. What are you getting at here?
 
unozero said:
same thread can be made about stern.
Click to expand...

Agreed....if you are going to demand someone keep there posts to 1 thread regarding the Republican candidate, then its only fair to do the same regarding the Democratic candidate...
 
BHC said:
According to the income you claimed in a prior thread, Obama would lower taxes for you. There's no proof the democrats or Obama have any interest in taking away your right to bear arms. Oh yeah, and the idea that democrats are interested in a "welfare" state is another hilarious snippet of republican tabloid-mongering. What are you getting at here?
Click to expand...

Yes, but unfairly raised for others. I plan to make that much in my life and many families living expenses use most of that 250k income, meaning the tax hikes are disastrous for them.

It's a matter of principle.

It's nothing to do with tabloid mongering, increased welfare is the consistent platform of the Democratic party.

Democrats championed the old assault weapons ban and I guarantee you a majority will move to reinstate something similar
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Yes, but unfairly raised for others. I plan to make that much in my life and many families living expenses use most of that 250k income, meaning the tax hikes are disastrous for them.
Click to expand...

How in god's name can you use $250k on living expenses?
 
many families living expenses use most of that 250k income, meaning the tax hikes are disastrous for them.
Click to expand...
lol. 'disastrous for them'. Holy shit. That's hilarious.
 
Awwww the poor 6 figure income earners... The government has always been a better representation of the rich population, so why should they not pay the majority of taxes?
 
yeah, they don't seem to have a problem with donating thousands or millions to the campaigns to get certain people elected.
 
Cornerstone said:
Awwww the poor 6 figure income earners... The government has always been a better representation of the rich population, so why should they not pay the majority of taxes?
Click to expand...

rich are paying the majority of taxes that flow in the system.
 
Guys don't you understand? Losing an additional 3% of a >$250k wage will force many into bankruptcy, most will end up homeless on the streets begging!
 
Hey guys i have an idea:

How about no-one talks about the election or the candidates, ever again?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top