Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

President Barack Obama


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic
Author Message
CalebD
Level 1 Judge


Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

An ex-tortured POW endorsing torture is like an anarchist endorsing the WTO, but you're all missing the point. That is that these people are lawyers, politicians.

Sacrifice, in its pure sense and any conceivable intended sense, implies permanence. A goat is permanently sacrificed, not rented out. A politician might vote one way in order to gain political favor with his party leader, but that does not mean he has sacrificed that beleif. The path to power will always involve doing some things you don't personally like, with the intention of fixing them once you have said power.

So in the case of what politicians true beleifs are, you need to look at their actions. McCain, for example, led a campaign that was very much not in his style, it showed the influence of the powerful in his party. I think his consession speech was the only one he wrote all election cycle. It was amazingly good, and left the bickering and negativeness of his campaign in an attempt to unite Americans. It was John McCain, and it was a president-worthy speech.

However, Barack ran a unified campaign throughout. Any inner bickering was quelled, and his message remained consistant. The man is a constitution lawyer, and after Bush removed our civil liberties he is exactly what we need to return them.

On an aside, some of you need to define "radical leftist" before we can argue about whether or not he actually is one. Who knows, we might all agree. If it's a defining level of liberalism, then we need to define what liberalism is, as our founding father's created America as a liberal nation. Both parties are quite liberal when it comes to the free market economy.

If we're talking about stuff like welfare, it's again hard to nail any party down on it. Nixon was not a "radical leftist" by anyone's terms, but he put more funding into welfare and made it work.

So what's a "radical leftist," whoever is more likely to legalize pot? (Obama). This is a serious question, and I'm looking forward to your responses.
Back to top
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stucco wrote:
I don't think the left has changed all that much to suddenly be called the Radical Left. The conservatives have become MUCH more conservative, but view this shift as a change in their opposing party. I was a moderate Republican, a conservative that leaned left on some issues. I am now considered a liberal who has very little in common with the Republican party.
Also, Radical Left is a derogatory term used to scare the public away from an alternate point of view. Call someone a liberal, I think their progressive. Call someone a radical liberal, I imagine boarder-line socialist (despite the socialist presidential candidate laughing at it). Making your opposing party look un-American is the American thing to do!


Radical left isn't just considered a socialist nowadays, they're also called hippies. xD
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craze wrote:
I love how people claim Obama has done radical left actions, yet fail to ever list one.



I never said he was. I think he went along with the far left (the pelosi's etc.) in order to get ahead in the party. He is too intelligent to be radically left.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

YTheAlien wrote:
If Obama was a radical leftist I would be more supportive of him. Radical liberalism rules.



You are confusing liberalism with being Liberal. They are very, very different things.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

McCain is against torture. Where are you getting this crap?
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CalebD wrote:
An ex-tortured POW endorsing torture is like an anarchist endorsing the WTO, but you're all missing the point. That is that these people are lawyers, politicians.

Sacrifice, in its pure sense and any conceivable intended sense, implies permanence. A goat is permanently sacrificed, not rented out. A politician might vote one way in order to gain political favor with his party leader, but that does not mean he has sacrificed that beleif. The path to power will always involve doing some things you don't personally like, with the intention of fixing them once you have said power.

So in the case of what politicians true beleifs are, you need to look at their actions. McCain, for example, led a campaign that was very much not in his style, it showed the influence of the powerful in his party. I think his consession speech was the only one he wrote all election cycle. It was amazingly good, and left the bickering and negativeness of his campaign in an attempt to unite Americans. It was John McCain, and it was a president-worthy speech.

However, Barack ran a unified campaign throughout. Any inner bickering was quelled, and his message remained consistant. The man is a constitution lawyer, and after Bush removed our civil liberties he is exactly what we need to return them.

On an aside, some of you need to define "radical leftist" before we can argue about whether or not he actually is one. Who knows, we might all agree. If it's a defining level of liberalism, then we need to define what liberalism is, as our founding father's created America as a liberal nation. Both parties are quite liberal when it comes to the free market economy.

If we're talking about stuff like welfare, it's again hard to nail any party down on it. Nixon was not a "radical leftist" by anyone's terms, but he put more funding into welfare and made it work.

So what's a "radical leftist," whoever is more likely to legalize pot? (Obama). This is a serious question, and I'm looking forward to your responses.



Obama ran a unified compaign? Thats why his VP said an ad Obama endorsed was "dispicable"? Thats why his chief economic advisor told Canadians not to worry while Obama was bashing NAFTA in Ohio? Sounds like a unified campaign to me.

It is funny that you cite legalizing marijuana as a left position, because if you look at traditional definitions, it is actually a very right-wing position (the democrats and republicans are not good examples of left-wing and right-wing) A radical leftie is someone who is farther to the left than the average leftist. Socialists, communists, the NDP here in Canada, etc. I don't think Obama is actually this far left, but he has been totally unable to stand up to his own party, voting with them 97% of the time.


Liberalism believes in social freedom, not economic freedom, which is something that you obviously do not see. America was founded as a libertarian country, not a liberal country.
Back to top
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The original idea might of been leaning towards a libertarian country, but we certainly aren't one. Nor have we ever really been.

However we are and pretty much always were a liberal country.
Back to top
CalebD
Level 1 Judge


Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:

Obama ran a unified compaign? Thats why his VP said an ad Obama endorsed was "dispicable"? Thats why his chief economic advisor told Canadians not to worry while Obama was bashing NAFTA in Ohio? Sounds like a unified campaign to me.


He got Biden because Biden has foreign policy experience and can crush people in debates, not because him and Barack agree on everything. It was a tactical move. Biden being who he is, was considerably unified with the campaign. On the whole, Barack's campaign lacked the mass infighting that was prevalent in both McCain and Hillary's (who should have just let Mark Penn work his magic from the get-go) campaigns.

And the Canadians shouldn't worry. NAFTA does need a major overhaul, but not because of Canada. The chances of Barack screwing over the Canadians on the deal is slim to none.

coolcreep wrote:
It is funny that you cite legalizing marijuana as a left position, because if you look at traditional definitions, it is actually a very right-wing position (the democrats and republicans are not good examples of left-wing and right-wing) A radical leftie is someone who is farther to the left than the average leftist. Socialists, communists, the NDP here in Canada, etc.


If you had been paying attention, you would notice that I was asking a question. Besides, you cite legalization as right-wing and socialists as left-wing, yet most people would argue that a socialist is more likely to want marijuana legalized than the average person. That way it could be taxed, we wouldn't have to police a black market on the stuff, and we could shrink and reassign our police force to be more effective. Anything that would shrink a police force is generally not right-wing, btw. So the line stays blurry.


coolcreep wrote:
Liberalism believes in social freedom, not economic freedom, which is something that you obviously do not see. America was founded as a libertarian country, not a liberal country.


Your condescending attitude comes across as quite amusing. Please at least look up the term first next time. Economic liberalism believes people generally act in their own best self-interest, and that allowing them to act freely garners the best results. Ian Adams lays this out quite clearly in "Political Ideology Today." (pg. 20) If you can find me a more clear definition for liberal economic policy, let me know.

Libertarianism is a dissenting strain of liberalism, and didn't really come about until post-WWII. I very much doubt our country was designed on post-WWII values.

Rather, the desire for liberty was very much a driving force for our constitution and our declaration of independence, making the United States a liberal country.
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CalebD wrote:
coolcreep wrote:

Obama ran a unified compaign? Thats why his VP said an ad Obama endorsed was "dispicable"? Thats why his chief economic advisor told Canadians not to worry while Obama was bashing NAFTA in Ohio? Sounds like a unified campaign to me.


He got Biden because Biden has foreign policy experience and can crush people in debates, not because him and Barack agree on everything. It was a tactical move. Biden being who he is, was considerably unified with the campaign. On the whole, Barack's campaign lacked the mass infighting that was prevalent in both McCain and Hillary's (who should have just let Mark Penn work his magic from the get-go) campaigns.

And the Canadians shouldn't worry. NAFTA does need a major overhaul, but not because of Canada. The chances of Barack screwing over the Canadians on the deal is slim to none.

coolcreep wrote:
It is funny that you cite legalizing marijuana as a left position, because if you look at traditional definitions, it is actually a very right-wing position (the democrats and republicans are not good examples of left-wing and right-wing) A radical leftie is someone who is farther to the left than the average leftist. Socialists, communists, the NDP here in Canada, etc.


If you had been paying attention, you would notice that I was asking a question. Besides, you cite legalization as right-wing and socialists as left-wing, yet most people would argue that a socialist is more likely to want marijuana legalized than the average person. That way it could be taxed, we wouldn't have to police a black market on the stuff, and we could shrink and reassign our police force to be more effective. Anything that would shrink a police force is generally not right-wing, btw. So the line stays blurry.


coolcreep wrote:
Liberalism believes in social freedom, not economic freedom, which is something that you obviously do not see. America was founded as a libertarian country, not a liberal country.


Your condescending attitude comes across as quite amusing. Please at least look up the term first next time. Economic liberalism believes people generally act in their own best self-interest, and that allowing them to act freely garners the best results. Ian Adams lays this out quite clearly in "Political Ideology Today." (pg. 20) If you can find me a more clear definition for liberal economic policy, let me know.

Libertarianism is a dissenting strain of liberalism, and didn't really come about until post-WWII. I very much doubt our country was designed on post-WWII values.

Rather, the desire for liberty was very much a driving force for our constitution and our declaration of independence, making the United States a liberal country.



Again, you are confusing liberty and liberalism with being liberal. Also, you obviously did not comprehend what I was saying. The belief in small government that did not butt into people's affairs is what America was founded on, that idea was not given the name Libertarianism until recently. Just because the first flames man created were called "grugg grugg" doesn't mean they weren't fire. If you look at the initial policies and the way the country was run, it was very Libertarian. Liberalism is too broad and too misused a term to really get a solid definition, but "liberals" in today's sense certainly do not want to see small government, whereas libertarians do.
Back to top
AppleofEris



Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 553

PostPosted: Wed Nov 12, 2008 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
CalebD wrote:
coolcreep wrote:

Obama ran a unified compaign? Thats why his VP said an ad Obama endorsed was "dispicable"? Thats why his chief economic advisor told Canadians not to worry while Obama was bashing NAFTA in Ohio? Sounds like a unified campaign to me.


He got Biden because Biden has foreign policy experience and can crush people in debates, not because him and Barack agree on everything. It was a tactical move. Biden being who he is, was considerably unified with the campaign. On the whole, Barack's campaign lacked the mass infighting that was prevalent in both McCain and Hillary's (who should have just let Mark Penn work his magic from the get-go) campaigns.

And the Canadians shouldn't worry. NAFTA does need a major overhaul, but not because of Canada. The chances of Barack screwing over the Canadians on the deal is slim to none.

coolcreep wrote:
It is funny that you cite legalizing marijuana as a left position, because if you look at traditional definitions, it is actually a very right-wing position (the democrats and republicans are not good examples of left-wing and right-wing) A radical leftie is someone who is farther to the left than the average leftist. Socialists, communists, the NDP here in Canada, etc.


If you had been paying attention, you would notice that I was asking a question. Besides, you cite legalization as right-wing and socialists as left-wing, yet most people would argue that a socialist is more likely to want marijuana legalized than the average person. That way it could be taxed, we wouldn't have to police a black market on the stuff, and we could shrink and reassign our police force to be more effective. Anything that would shrink a police force is generally not right-wing, btw. So the line stays blurry.


coolcreep wrote:
Liberalism believes in social freedom, not economic freedom, which is something that you obviously do not see. America was founded as a libertarian country, not a liberal country.


Your condescending attitude comes across as quite amusing. Please at least look up the term first next time. Economic liberalism believes people generally act in their own best self-interest, and that allowing them to act freely garners the best results. Ian Adams lays this out quite clearly in "Political Ideology Today." (pg. 20) If you can find me a more clear definition for liberal economic policy, let me know.

Libertarianism is a dissenting strain of liberalism, and didn't really come about until post-WWII. I very much doubt our country was designed on post-WWII values.

Rather, the desire for liberty was very much a driving force for our constitution and our declaration of independence, making the United States a liberal country.



Again, you are confusing liberty and liberalism with being liberal. Also, you obviously did not comprehend what I was saying. The belief in small government that did not butt into people's affairs is what America was founded on, that idea was not given the name Libertarianism until recently. Just because the first flames man created were called "grugg grugg" doesn't mean they weren't fire. If you look at the initial policies and the way the country was run, it was very Libertarian. Liberalism is too broad and too misused a term to really get a solid definition, but "liberals" in today's sense certainly do not want to see small government, whereas libertarians do.


A better way to put this is to say some people want a corrupt system to rule them with an iron fist. Dumb bastards. Those are your normal people. Now those who want a government whose power is limited, we call these people sane, or libertarians as he put it. The choice is quite clear.

BTW, my political stance is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbRom1Rz8OA
Back to top
Craze



Joined: 30 Jan 2005
Posts: 5676
Location: Indiana, U

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:

Again, you are confusing liberty and liberalism with being liberal. Also, you obviously did not comprehend what I was saying. The belief in small government that did not butt into people's affairs is what America was founded on, that idea was not given the name Libertarianism until recently. Just because the first flames man created were called "grugg grugg" doesn't mean they weren't fire. If you look at the initial policies and the way the country was run, it was very Libertarian. Liberalism is too broad and too misused a term to really get a solid definition, but "liberals" in today's sense certainly do not want to see small government, whereas libertarians do.


The country was also founded on an extreme version of state over whole. It failed hard. So really it doesn't matter what this country was founded on.
Back to top
AppleofEris



Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 553

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, because people keep using that as a means to keep gay marriage, abortion, and the legalization of drugs and prostitution from becoming legal. It's time people realize that none of these things hurts anybody else nor does it impede on anyone else's freedoms, therefore it should be allowed. (Abortion being with babies who are still just a clump of cells and can't think or feel yet.)
Back to top
coolcreep



Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 588

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ZeMuppet wrote:
Yes, because people keep using that as a means to keep gay marriage, abortion, and the legalization of drugs and prostitution from becoming legal. It's time people realize that none of these things hurts anybody else nor does it impede on anyone else's freedoms, therefore it should be allowed. (Abortion being with babies who are still just a clump of cells and can't think or feel yet.)


What is this even responding to?
Back to top
CalebD
Level 1 Judge


Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 65

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

coolcreep wrote:
Liberalism believes in social freedom, not economic freedom, which is something that you obviously do not see.


CalebD wrote:

Economic liberalism believes people generally act in their own best self-interest, and that allowing them to act freely garners the best results.


coolcreep wrote:

Again, you are confusing liberty and liberalism with being liberal.


Again? When did I do it the first time? And by me confusing the two, do you actually mean you, coolcreep? Because that is what it looks like, looking over these posts of yours.

coolcreep wrote:

The belief in small government that did not butt into people's affairs is what America was founded on, that idea was not given the name Libertarianism until recently.Just because the first flames man created were called "grugg grugg" doesn't mean they weren't fire.


No, Libertarianism was a new movement with new ideas, hense a new party. Had it been in existence from the country's forming there would be no need to create a new term, we would have one already. You'll note this is quite different from the case of fire. You see, when fire was first invented we did not have the English vernacular that we are using to communicate right now. Through the ages "grugg grugg" became "flamma," and from that we got fire. However, there haven't been large changes in the United State's main language, English, since the country's formation, so the comparison of fire and Libertarianism does not hold. I hope this has helped!

Your general confusion is somewhat understandible. Libertarianism, as an offshoot of liberalism, does have some of the same values. It just lacks all of that equality stuff that was built into our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

I think you're spending more time trying to pick a fight than actually talking about the subject at hand, so this will be my last response in this decaying thread. Have a good one people.
Back to top
YTheAlien



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 75

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2008 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

how stupid do you have to be to write that many words attacking coolcreep, an admitted troll and fakeposter?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> Other - Non-Magic All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 5 of 7

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy