SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Those who voted "third party"....

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Those who voted "third party".... (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=199684)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HundertzehnGustav (Post 1959250)

But the wjhole discussion i spointless.
te world ends in 6 weeks... Obama is , even withoout the elections, the last US president.

I'll take that wager. What are we betting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1959256)

I'll take that wager. What are we betting?

Pancakes. :yep:

my 3 SHIII DVDs...?:D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Armistead (Post 1959196)

The GOP has a big problem, if they become become socially liberal, it could cost them too many congressional seats. Evangelicals play a strong role in the south and mid-west, anyone not in tune with their beliefs would be in trouble. Not saying they would vote Dem, but many would stay home before they voted for a GOP member that was for abortion and gay rights. The GOP may win the White House with a more liberal candidate or platform, but it would cost them many a seat. Not to mention, the GOP can no longer count on NC or Va. anyway. Really, I think the GOP is screwed with no real way to redefine themselves, except to go for the Hispanics.

This is why the GOP needs to let social issues go back to the states. Doing so would not only be constitutional, it would enable them to focus their message much more clearly without being dragged into the mud over issues that divide the national electorate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ. (Post 1959047)

Like many things in life, everything in moderation.

Let's see how long your utopian country lasts. The government has completely stopped regulating business and only enforces laws protecting your basic rights. Watch how fast we revert back to the days of Rockefeller and Carnegie. Watch how fast those monopolies roll right back in. watch how fast the people become ever more strangled in the vice of corporate greed. Government has a duty to regulate. Regulate the lives of certain people. Rockefeller was a U.S citizen. Was it not necessary to force him not to exploit people the way he did?

There is most certainly a fine line between true forms of socialism and assistance. Through taxes people should find comfort that the money they pay to the government will be there to catch them when they fall so they don't die of starvation because they lost their job and can't find another just yet., to build a better community, to do things that wouldn't otherwise be done or would be corrupted by privatized industries. That system is there for you, and i, and any citizen should they fall flat on their arse and need help getting back up. Uncle sam is there to lend you that hand so long as you pay into him. It makes sure that the hard working american citizen who gets laid off because of private industries shipping his job to china, doesn't have to watch him and his family starve in the gutter.

Not to say that there aren't exploiters of the system. I also believe this system should be regulated. You must actively search for a job. You can't just coast on government checks your entire life and expect to not lift a finger again.

but the so called "foundations" Of America that you describe sound an awful lot like 1800s America to me. And believe me, those were not good times to be living in as the average joe, i can assure you. There's a reason things like social security and welfare exist. It's because people just like you and me had to endure the grueling misery of deregulation and the insurmountable hardships it brought. And there are still problems today. Obamacare ensures that people like my sister can't be turned down by insurance companies solely based on pre-existing conditions. That people don't have to bankrupt themselves to get care for their family because no insurance company will take them. While there are parts of the bill that should be repealed the bill is otherwise much, much needed progress.

None of this wouldve happened without government. The way we live today is because of the regulation put forth by the government. While the boundaries for where government should stop regulating are being fueded over (legalization of marijuana and immigration reform, ect), id say government has taken necessary intervention so far with a few exceptions.

Matt, that was a very well written point and I agree with you for the most part.

People on this forum have a misconception on my views.I have stated before that I believe in a safety net and some reasonable regulation but the government is out of control and has been for a long time.Obamacare has a very few good points, such as the pre conditions but it does not warrant screwing up the healthcare system in the manner it will. How do I know this? Unlike 90% of those in congress and prob 98% of American people, I actually read that monstrosity of law after it was passed.

This law was advertised as lowering costs? Well it's 20 new taxes, esp on things such as medical equipment do not lower costs, they raise them.How? Well the costs gets passed down the chain and has ended up with high premiums, which will continue to go up.This law is not about helping people get insurance, it is about making insurance out of the reach of the majority of the population(as it is within reach now) and condition them for the idea of single payer system, which they couldn't get passed.The taxes and regulations are harmful, look at businesses already talking of layoffs.This just defies economic sense but they sold it as "helping people". Want to help people? They should have just made medicare an option for everyone who cant afford health insurance and fund it properly.Those who want their private healthcare, let them keep it.Simple, easy, but this law is about government control and ideology, not helping people get insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen (Post 1959244)

I think that you're engaging in a fair bit of hyperbole there. Romney wasn't going to destroy the world, nor was he going to bring about a horrific scenario. Fiscal conservatism is not an evil thing, although Bubblehead is a very poor spokesman for it.

Will the Best of SUBSIM committee have "Understatement of the Year" award? :D

Sour grapes because Obama won?

Maybe you can accept that a majority of Americans chose the man you hated?

Al Gore won majority vote against bush in 2000, yet Bush was "awarded" the office by a governing body, not meant to decide such things.

Were you complaining then, of course not, your "team" won that time.

Far righties make me giggle. Couldn't steal this one?

Can always move to the republic of Texas? Then you can work for a drug cartel and not have to worry about our inferior negro president anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2 (Post 1959870)

Al Gore won majority vote against bush in 2000, yet Bush was "awarded" the office by a governing body, not meant to decide such things.

Here I have to disagree. Nobody "stole" anything in 2000. Presidents have won the popular vote but lost the election more than once; it's the way the electoral system works sometimes. We can have a discussion on governing bodies and legalities if you like, but the far lefties have been crying "foul" for twelve years now, and the foul wasn't on the right-hand side that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by soopaman2 (Post 1959870)

Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible , etc enough to vote for BHO again, just shows this country, which was once great is not somewhat controlled by the lowest among us.I can somewhat understand 2008, he was "fresh" or seen that way to the majority of people who just don't do their own research or read books etc , they wanted to feel like part of history etc and McCain was a terrible candidate in 2008.

That is a huge misconception that Bush stole the election but that is another discussion.

I would love for some states to secede until the US can get it's act together and would gladly go live in Texas if it cut ties with D.C. Nothing to do with the "inferior negro" president's race but how dangerous and ignorant he is, which reflects his policies.Very poor choice of words on your part by the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 1960545)

Of course they're naive, stupid, ignorant and gullible. They have the audacity to disagree with you.

You made the comment earlier that people (which implies everyone) has a "misconception" on your views. I actually agree with some of your views, but you never quite believe us when we tell you that you make conservatives look bad. You claim a college education, yet you still can't construct a coherent sentence. I keep repeating the old saying "it's not what you say, it's how you say it", but you still keep coughing up the same tired cliches, repeating the hard right party line, and you still have yet to make any real arguments about anything.

You still think you know more than most of the people you deal with, and you still think you know more than most of the American population. That may be true, but to those of us who know how to use reason you are the one who looks naive and gullible.

And, despite your arrogance and overconfidence, you still don't get it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

People on this forum have a misconception on my views.

And then, three posts later.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 1960545)

Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible

I don't think that there is any misconception "on your views". Your view is that anyone that disagrees with your ideology is worthy of contempt. It's hard to respect someone like that.

Quote:

Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible , etc enough to vote for BHO

What is difficult to swallow is someone like you calling anyone naive stupid ignorant or gullible.
In fact it is so laughable it is by nature impossible to swallow:rotfl2:

Quote:

Very poor choice of words on your part by the way.

Soopa said it very well.
Hows them "smelly ethnic" people you don't like eh?:woot:

Poor bubbles you really do hang yourself don't ya:yeah:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 1960545)

Really is a difficult thing to swallow that a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible , etc enough to vote for BHO again

I guess turnout was extraordinary this year, eh?

There is an old Japanese fable about an arrogant feudal lord who sought out the wisest living zen master in all Japan. He asked the master to teach him wisdom. The master started to speak, but the lord imaptiently and with great dismissivenes said "Yes, yes, I know all that! Move on to the widsom!" The master tried to speak again, but got the same dismissive response. This happened several times. The master then asked if the lord wanted some tea. The lord said yes and held out his cup. The master picked up the full tea kettle from the fire and poured tea into the lord's cup. Once the cup was full, the master still continued to pour, causing the very hot tea to overflow the cup and scald the lord's hand. The lord leaped up in anger and surprise and demanded "Why did you keep pouring the tea when the cup was alredy full?" The master smiled at him and said, "I have given you a bit of wisdom: you have now learned it is impoosible for me to fill a cup that is already full."...

I have learned in life to always leave a bit of space in my cup in the event there is wisdom to be poured in...

<O>

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980 (Post 1960545)

a little over half of the voting population is naive, stupid, ignorant, gullible

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings.

Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna (Post 1960585)

I like that post.