HARMONIC'S PROFILE

author=slashphoenix
I don't think anyone is expecting you to admit you're wrong, harmonic, but it would be nice if it actually inspired you to do some political research, because many of your claims are unfounded or misguided, and many are just mud-slinging.

This is pure trolling.

The only reason you get away with a shit-eating statement like this is because you're in the majority, politically.

Don't accuse me of not having done "political research." You disagree with me. That doesn't mean I'm dumb and you're smart. I would be more than happy to pit my knowledge of history, politics, economics, policy, government, philosophy, against yours in a heartbeat. How about it, tough guy? Let's talk about my years as a financial advisor, having learned the ins and outs of financial regulations. Or how about my years as a public school teacher, having seen the inside of the education system. Let's really figure out who's ignorant, and who isn't.

This claim of YOURS is unfounded, misguided, and mud-slinging. You've run out of ideas and now you're simply trying to tear down my character.

Kentona: Hey, thanks buddy. Indeed, it is.

author=chana
Yes, but be honest, you said :

author=Harmonic
Socialism is a death sentence.

and then you say :

author=Harmonic
government-funded things doesn't require an entire economy be deemed "socialism."

, i.e., but partly yes.

So the answer to your first statement is : NO.

Twisting my words, changing their meaning to fit your argument. Ignoring context. Attempting to "gotcha" me, failing miserably.

"Socialism is a death sentence" = Command, centrally-planned economies with excessive taxation and punitive anti-business policies are a death sentence. As in, a entirely socialistic economy. Every single time it has been tried, it has failed.

Taxation alone isn't socialism. Get that out of your dictionary. Again, we are NOT against taxation, or government-funded essential services. This is obvious stuff.

Yawn. Nothing new/interesting here. No time/energy to argue against the run of the mill Democrat playbook. In summary:

Soli: You've spent the last several years with a certain problem that I'm not going to discuss publicly. I don't wish ill upon you, but I can assure you that by supporting anti-business politicians, your circumstances aren't going to improve.

KA: Obama claims good things, but shrugs bad things. Things happen under his watch. Adults take responsibility, children avoid it.

Shinan: If I gave two shits what Europeans thought of our politicians, I'd have myself deported.

author=Solitayre
What is Romney's ideology? I have no idea, because he changes his mind every time he speaks. He tells workers in PA that protecting American jobs is his highest priority, then tells hispanics in the southwest that the american economy is made stronger by allowing hispanics to work in it. He claims he would cut taxes across the board for everyone, then says he definitely wouldn't cut taxes for the rich. He blasts Obama for his foreign policy but in the third debate said he agreed with pretty much everything Obama had done. He claims to have had a super awesome plan for helping the economy recover, but he wouldn't tell anyone what it was and got evasive when pressed.

Since I've known you for a very long time, I won't force citations out of you, even though you made many claims that pretty much require it.

Protecting American jobs and allowing hispanics to work are two sides of the same coin - economic health. By "protecting American jobs" he means making conditions business-friendly so they are not forced by market conditions to export labor to China. Democrat version of "protecting American jobs" is to install punitive protectionst tariffs and penalties, things that hurt business as well as foreign relations. And, would you rather have hispanics working, creating wealth, using their labor, paying taxes, buying things, or would you have them doing none of that, and instead being taken care of by the government?

As far as the tax thing, I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. Ask Hillary Clinton why she changes accents every time she visits a new town. Shrug.

He blasts Obama because of Obama's tendency to apologize for America's existence to the very people who do not deserve such respect. Obama is Jimmy Carter version 2 as far as foreign policy goes. The middle east is far less stable now than it was 4 years ago. Remember Iran Contra? The MOMENT Reagan was elected, the Shah knew not to fuck around with America and the crisis ended immediately, whereas under Carter, they gave two shits about us, because we had a weak, apologetic leader.

As far as foreign policy's practical manifestations, that often has very little to do with who sits in the White House. After 911, war was inevitable. Ralph Nader would have invaded Afghanistan, else there would have been rioting in the streets. Public opinion + real world circumstances far outweigh personal imperatives brought to the table by the president's personal ideology. Obama is accused of being far more of a hawk than he promised, but that's the real world circumstances. (However, perception is everything, and he somehow has a Nobel Peace prize.)

As far as the economy, neither candidate was clear. However, Obama already had a chance, and with 6 trillion added to the national debt, a huge increase in food stamps and unemployment insurance, a downgrade of our bond rating from AAA to AA, and an incredibly anemic job "recovery" that isn't really a recovery, I'd say someone else deserved a shot, because it's not hard to beat that bad of a fuck up.

Socialism is a death sentence. European countries are dropping like flies. Spain is now joining Greece in the list of nations that have drowned themselves with not enough cart-pullers, and too many freeloaders. The only successful ones have an extremely small and homogeneous population (Scandanavia) or are highly productive and have a huge export economy (Germany.) Most are heavily in debt, some make America's debt per GDP look small by comparison. They're running out of other peoples' money, and the ships are sinking. America is huge by comparison to individual European countries, which is why it is taking longer for us to notice. The visigoths cheer while Rome burns.

author=Solitayre
stuff

You're arguing with a brick wall right now, regarding abortion and gay rights. As I've already stated, I'm not socially conservative. Ask a social conservative about those things. I do not think social issues are nearly as important as economic and foreign issues, therefore, I vote Republican. If we had a good libertarian party, with a machine capable of actually garnering sufficient support, I'd probably vote Libertarian. However, no, Republicans have not "alienated hispanics and blacks." We simply don't manipulate them into voting down party lines. We don't bribe them with entitlements and social engineering initiatives that demographic groups don't think they need until the Democrats tell them they need it. We don't instill a feeling of having been slighted by the rich white man. We play fair, which is why we lost.

author=Solitayre
Romney's record as a governing official is 100% relevant to the conversation of whether Romney would make a strong governing official.

...We weren't talking about whether Romney would make a strong governing official. Again, for the second time, when I said "Merit>identity" I meant policy, ideology is more important than skin color and genitals. Are you going to keep on that same strawman argument, or give it a rest and realize the context?