Obama has won

[QUENTIN]

While I can appreciate the valiant effort, I think it's time some of you act upon what you no doubt already recognize. Having a meaningful discussion on a subject is next to impossible between people who have a firm grasp of the history, philosophy, competing ideologies, and even on a most basic level terminology of the subject and those who self-evidently have none of that but believe that their third grade level self formed concept of the same counts as being well-versed enough to have a fair counterargument and not be embarrassed to express it. This is not about a difference of opinion, it's about a difference of knowledge and understanding of the matter at hand.

I don't think I agree with the solutions anyone in the thread is suggesting, but some of you have objectively logical and cogent arguments that clearly come from having a more than cursory understanding of what you're discussing, meanwhile you're continuing to carry on debate with people who treat "the free market" the way Islamists treat Allah, those who suggest we return to slavery, and one obvious troll.

I spent hours and pages arguing with Lynn7 and John Galt so I can understand, but if I can offer my suggestion based on that experience: nothing will come of it but lost time.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by creekin111

The poverty rate is somewhere between 11% and 15%. Let's say that on average it's 12 or 13% ( http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news...come/index.htm ). Some of those people are receiving benefits under (b) above. If 85 to 88% of Americans are paying enough into FICA to cover or more than cover (c), then why are the programs going broke? They're going broke because the majority of people who can afford to pay more towards their own retirements are paying in inadequate taxes to cover the benefits they receive. That's why Democrats are so adamantly opposed to any kind of privatization. Why shouldn't people save for their own retirements? Because we want people to have retirement benefits that are outsized relative to what they paid for them. Why, because they're too poor to pay more? No, because we don't want to cut into American consumerism. The entitlements don't exist in their current state to protect the poor from starvation. They exist to protect middle class consumerism from the realities of economics.

I do not agree with this. I think the government did not account for the high rate of inflation and the longevity of people going up so fast and now that they see their errors, they can't make real changes to head off the issues. I also feel the government (ok democrats) feel they have to take care of those who are not smart enough to plan for their own retirement. I don't think the consumerism is correct, not totally wrong though.

The main problem is that democrats can't live with the fact that most of their people are poor financial planners and want the people who are good planners to help them out. I think if we treat people like adults and make them accountable the country will be better off. Some will have to suffer as a result of poor choices and plans, but that is when they should start to rely on family. Government is not meant to replace family. Democrats do not believe in family and the concepts of the family unit.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

II also feel the government (ok democrats) feel they have to take care of those who are not smart enough to plan for their own retirement.

The main problem is that democrats can't live with the fact that most of their people are poor financial planners and want the people who are good planners to help them out. I think if we treat people like adults and make them accountable the country will be better off.

actually, the main problem is that conservatives hate people and want them to suffer and be punished. that is what you're stating here. you are stating that if people aren't 'smart enough', as deemed by Erroneus, a complete fucking nobody, they should suffer.

this is what we've seen in many posts in this thread and we're seeing again, this desire to see people suffer because of their mistakes, or in this case, through no mistake of their own. since there's a million reasons why your perfectly rational retirement plan can go astray at the last second and leave you in deep shit.

you are either wholly naive or a total monster and i hope your parents lose everything and have to move in with you until theyre eighty

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

The main problem is that democrats can't live with the fact that most of their people are poor financial planners and want the people who are good planners to help them out. I think if we treat people like adults and make them accountable the country will be better off. Some will have to suffer as a result of poor choices and plans, but that is when they should start to rely on family. Government is not meant to replace family. Democrats do not believe in family and the concepts of the family unit.

Yeah, THEIR people. People aren't hurting in red states.

[Gordon]

*EDIT*

[Shinigami]

I think this is an interesting discussion. And it's one I don't want to tip in any direction right now. I get the raised hairs on either side, but I want to encourage every schmoe with the patience to continue contributing. The past few pages with Lyrik, Erroneous and Creekin were good eats for me. I just want to give the props in case anybody is getting winded.

Neither one of you is 100% right. Creekin at least has an open mind. Jon, dude, you are not right. You are not wrong either. I don't know where you learned all you learned, but the first thing whoever taught you should have said that economics is by no means an exact science and NO theory is EVER 100% correct and NO theory has ever worked 100%. You might want to open your mind and see the merits of other ideas, because like most things in life the best way is somewhere in the middle. Most of your words read like they are right out of a text book with little to no real world thought.

I think Lyrik knows more about these theories than I do, so I won't go so far in agreeing against him, but I do want to agree with you generally and I haven't noticed any discrepancies to finger point. There is a preference for theorizing and history, but of course there is. If there must be a preference in discussion, there you have it. Maybe the higher level guys are discussing applied theory. There are interesting differences between theory and application, but application is a hard justification to lean on when the discussion is working within the abovementioned parameters. Like Lyrik said, it's none of your business what he does and it's none of our business what you do because it's almost beside the point because it's beside any foundation because we don't know each other, and these discussions can't usually rely on yelp stars to notch arguments. It's a workable system that can debate history, philosophy, ideology - Quentin's list - because there's a shared reality there that exists outside of the board and people need that agreed-upon foundation. I have experience in this and it worked for me is difficult to incorporate. I probably have something approximating Quentin's mentioned 'third grade level self-formed' skill set, and that's why I can't really contribute to topics like this with that skill set alone. It's aside the foundation.Why wouldn't it be frustrating for the other crowd?

Sometimes it's irreconcilable.

In my opinion, Unions had their place a 100 years ago when the businesses had all the power and now they are part of the problem, not the solution. Government controls and regs have taken the place of what unions used to do. There are certain elements about unions that I like, but in general unions are bad for business and bad for the people as they only serve their own best interest and not the true interests of the business and by extension the employees. The most important thing to read about my opinion about Unions is that I am open and like some of the good elements they can and do offer. It is up to you to understand the bad elements and damage they do.

I don't get overzealous with my bleeding heart. I understand there are opportunities out there already going to waste because people aren't utilizing them. The only aspect of the economy I have solid knowledge and experience in is economic mobility, which is less of an aspect than an offshoot, so I always enter these conversations from that perspective and it doesn't always get me anywhere (canned laughter). It's where I have my own foundation. And it's not much. It's how I notice the opportunities around me, and from that vantage there are many, many choices available to people in this market and maybe it's frustrating when more are created when existent ones might suffice. And I'm not being magnanimous this time. This isn't a charity post. I find myself circling this attitude more and more the longer I live; more and more, the longer I find myself getting into, and then promptly out of, dire straits. The thing that threatens my wide-eyed open-minded bleeding heart is fumbling around all of these social potholes and realizing I can find my way out of them, often by utilizing unsophisticated resources. There is a lot of wisdom to this attitude you have, and it's not all cynical. But I try not to get overzealous. I have never had to deal with a criminal record, for example (and that impediment is nothing to sneeze at). I'm not mentally ill or socially inhibited in any severe way. But I have dealt with the straits that another person with my sympathies might list as the reason why we need program a or program b, and I suppose there are some sob stories I don't listen to as well as I used to, having been in those situations, questioning whether they are as insurmountable as my ethics and sympathies would have me assume - provided the person in question is within my young age bracket, in my health range, intelligence range and resourcefulness range (but I repeat myself, so minus 1 intelligence). And already I am making excuses for my particularities, so already I am no longer representative of any general population of people. And there goes my bootstraps speech.

Which brings us 'round to figuring out a way to promote the avenues available and show people how to use what's already right in front of them. And acknowledging that those people who don't utilize their opportunities shouldn't dismiss others who are unable to utilize their opportunities for reasons that need a looking-into. And beyond any of our personal outlooks, when you have citizens struggling, you facilitate. And I'm being the topic's milquetoast today, apparently.

[MovieMaster]

Originally Posted by QUENTIN

those who suggest we return to slavery

Who suggested anything about returning to slavery?

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by The Heart Collector

actually, the main problem is that conservatives hate people and want them to suffer and be punished. that is what you're stating here. you are stating that if people aren't 'smart enough', as deemed by Erroneus, a complete fucking nobody, they should suffer.

this is what we've seen in many posts in this thread and we're seeing again, this desire to see people suffer because of their mistakes, or in this case, through no mistake of their own. since there's a million reasons why your perfectly rational retirement plan can go astray at the last second and leave you in deep shit.

you are either wholly naive or a total monster and i hope your parents lose everything and have to move in with you until theyre eighty

Well first of all l do not think that Erroneous is a good peron he has many opinions on politics and like l have stated before on this thread l dont know everything about American politics but l am willing to learn as l go along
Being Australian your political system is so diffrent from our goverment at times

Also you will get certian members who are very smart and they put there opinions here but we should look not jusge that person on what they write

I feel that at certain points everyone here on this thread have good points and sometimes it is interesting to read

[MovieMaster]

Originally Posted by The Heart Collector

actually, the main problem is that conservatives hate people and want them to suffer and be punished.

You sound like the Glen Beck of liberals but only much more paranoid and unstable.

[Jon Lyrik]

If they really think unions are "outmoded", I have to agree with him. I'm tired of the debate, to be honest, but really, just read Karen Orren's "Beyond Feudalism" study that shows that it took militant unions to stop the centuries-long treatment rooted in English common law of workers as "servants" and employers as "masters". Even recently, people were made to wear diapers when working or face punishment for taking a bathroom break. But I guess stopping the legal treatment of employees as property is impeding on the freedumb of employers.

[The Heart Collector]

Originally Posted by MovieMaster

You sound like the Glen Beck of liberals but only much more paranoid and unstable.

you sound like a downs baby

[Bondgirl]

Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik

If they really think unions are "outmoded", I have to agree with him. I'm tired of the debate, to be honest, but really, just read Karen Orren's "Beyond Feudalism" study that shows that it took militant unions to stop the centuries-long treatment rooted in English common law of workers as "servants" and employers as "masters". Even recently, people were made to wear diapers when working or face punishment for taking a bathroom break. But I guess stopping the legal treatment of employees as property is impeding on the freedumb of employers.

Yes this debate has had its up and downs

I feel have to say why are you talking about slavery and servents when this thread is about Obama winnig the election

Shouldnt you be talking about waht Obama is doing now instead of back tracking into the past or way into the past

i know that Obama is a negro and it is great that he has been able to show current generations of negros that you can make it to the white house and if you studie and get edcated you can acheive but l would like to see waht bama does in the up and coming four years

[Shinigami]

Did I just read that?

[Gordon]

And with that ladies and gentlemen, I declare this thread closed for discussion.

*Edit: Oh yeah, I'm not a moderator.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by Jon Lyrik

Except this isn't about individual problems. This is about systematic issues. People didn't WANT the wage system to become predominant in American society. Problem is, it did.

What people? And why is that?

Um...you can make more than others in a co-op. Just nothing like making 300:1 compared to another worker.

So explain to me how the economy is finite. How does someone making more automatically mean someone is making less?

This should be decided by workplace vote. They can delegate the power if they wish, it's not up to me unless I work there or any bureaucrat.

Vote a delegate from where?

I like how workers don't have skin in the game, apparently.

They do who said they didn't?

On their own, employees DO NOT HAVE THE BARGAINING POWER of employers. This is simply a fact. I am not advocating passing it to a third party. I am advocating equalizing bargaining power for all. They may be able to achieve parity for some time through unions, but it's simply not enough.

Nor should they. Nobody has a right to a job. A free man has no right to associate with another free man.

Orwell was a socialist who fought in the Spanish Civil War, partly on the side of anarcho-communists in Catalonia. I'm sure he would not want to be used for excuses for capitalism.

Again there are different kinds of capitalism which I've already explained.

Restrictions on freedom for whom: workers or bosses?

On both. Individual workers can't negotiate and bosses can't set their wages. Its restricting freedom.

Grassroots socialism is worker-determined, not bureaucrat-determined. Of course, buying enough shares in a company you work for can be impossible. And you once again miss that political economy is about systematic issues, not just individual ones. If most workers cannot buy shares in their company, how can they get a stake in it?

Yes can be impossible but at least you admit it is possible. And of course you can buy shares in a company you don't work for. What do you mean anyway by 'get a stake in it'?

[creekin111]

EDIT.

[MovieMaster]

Originally Posted by The Heart Collector

you sound like a downs baby

That your best?

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by MovieMaster

You sound like the Glen Beck of liberals but only much more paranoid and unstable.

I mean is this guy is begging to get banned or what? Now he's saying you're a "downs baby"? I don't know if we have any conservative moderators but I'm pretty sure they'd be insulted at his language and disrespect towards other posters. That kind of hyperbole & fodder may be OK for MSNBC and liberal blogs but here that shouldn't be tolerated. I guess the best bet is to ignore him.

Someone else suggested it but we really should start an insults thread and any insult posts should be moved there. Any neutral person looking upon that behavior if anything will make them lean against his political views if anything else. But also at the same time it might encourage other right/left posters to post that way if it remains tolerated here. It would just be sad to see a forum like this go down the crapper. I'm already smelling the festering of this forum already and its really starting to turn me off.

I for one don't think liberals (at least consciously) want people to suffer or hate people. I think many of them are well intentioned and want to see this country do well. I think they may be misguided but in no way shape or form do I think they actually want harm to come to people.

Its disturbing that people actually believe non-liberals are evil incarnate. As if they're all shifty eyed, mustache-twisting charlatans sitting in "corporate fat cat" boardrooms with low key lighting, rubbing their hands mischievously thinking of new ways to cause people harm ending in a maniacal laugh. The way some of them talk I suspect it's almost cartoonish.

[SS-Block]

Originally Posted by The Heart Collector

you sound like a downs baby

Originally Posted by Bondgirl

i know that Obama is a negro and it is great that he has been able to show current generations of negros that you can make it to the white house and if you studie and get edcated you can acheive but l would like to see waht bama does in the up and coming four years

Disgusting. Both of you should be thoroughly ashamed.

For the most part, this thread has seen an interesting debate. I wish I could've participated beyond my general idealism and with the more conversant discussions, but I'm not as well-versed as some of you. I've been inspired to do more research.

[bourahioro]

Originally Posted by SS-Block

Disgusting. Both of you should be thoroughly ashamed.

For the most part, this thread has seen an interesting debate. I wish I could've participated beyond my general idealism and with the more conversant discussions, but I'm not as well-versed as some of you. I've been inspired to do more research.

Agreed. People, please stick to the topic or I'm going to close this thread. As well, I've noticed a few insults being tossed around - Some less subtle than others. Please re-read the rules and guidelines.

Thanks.

[Vong]

What topic? It has digressed far beyond it's original purpose.

This is what happens when you allow everyone and anyone to post in this forum: intellectual numbness on the part of those who have the capacity to argue with those who claim to know what they're talking about. It's one thing to have a different opinion on a subject, it's another to completely re-write political theory, economics and even history.

Save this forum for those who are mature enough and know what they're talking about.

This thread also officially jumped the shark with Bondgirl's latest post...

[Badbird]

So, I bailed on this thread a while ago. What's been going on. Hmmm, another conservative Schmoe got banned (that happens a lot...); subject seems to have derailed and devolved greatly; wow, a Heart Collector sighting.


So does anyone else have a few Republican voters so butthurt over the election that they've got anti-Obama yard signs posted? I've spotted two in my area. One about the "Price of gas was "X" the day Obama was elected" - and the other was about the healthcare bill (one side said "respect religious freedom," and the other said something about praying against the mandate, or some such").

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by Badbird

So, I another conservative Schmoe got banned (that happens a lot...)

Of course a conservative got banned, I would bet if the heart collector was conservative he would have been banned too but apparently if your a liberal and on the left you can say what you want in these forums.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by Badbird

So, I bailed on this thread a while ago. What's been going on. Hmmm, another conservative Schmoe got banned (that happens a lot...); subject seems to have derailed and devolved greatly; wow, a Heart Collector sighting.


So does anyone else have a few Republican voters so butthurt over the election that they've got anti-Obama yard signs posted? I've spotted two in my area. One about the "Price of gas was "X" the day Obama was elected" - and the other was about the healthcare bill (one side said "respect religious freedom," and the other said something about praying against the mandate, or some such").

Kinda similar to how Democrats were butthurt over Bush getting elected twice.

http://www.binscorner.com/pages/d/de...rotests-i.html

Now that the tables have turned and its the Democrats turn I see a lot of feigned outrage from them. But of course then it will eventually turn again it will be Republicans saying the same thing to Democrats with their feigned outrage. Its just ludicrous that one sides thinks the other sides holds some sort of virtue over the other. As if they can somehow measure the amount of 'loonies' on one side or the other or completely ignore that one side does it as if their side never has.

And I don't get how this subject has "derailed". Has it devolved that much? Its a pretty broad and general topic to begin with. When you're talking about a president you have to recognize everything that goes along with the man's ideals and his supporters values. If anything this is was a perfect opportunity for a broad and general discussion. It almost seems to me like many refuse to face the issues.

-Yay Obama won.
-But why is that good or why are you expressing relief?

Then you have to start discussing policies, issues, etc. I don't see how this thread is really "off topic" when we're trying to get to the core of why people feel this way.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

Of course a conservative got banned, I would bet if the heart collector was conservative he would have been banned too but apparently if your a liberal and on the left you can say what you want in these forums.

Agree, which side getting banned and not getting banned is absolutely no indication on what side lacks more tact or not. Like you said you could make an argument that more conservatives getting banned means liberals want to eliminate debates by silencing the other side.

[someguy]

lol stop playing the victim card, anyone who's been on here long enough knows there isn't a fucking 'liberal bias' when it comes to banning

moviemaster was trolling, plain and simple

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by someguy

lol stop playing the victim card, anyone who's been on here long enough knows there isn't a fucking 'liberal bias' when it comes to banning

moviemaster was trolling, plain and simple

Who's playing the victim card? Its clear that another poster was calling someone else a 'retard'. He didn't get banned. Why? I think its very fair and reasonable to point that out. There's no liberal bias when it comes to banning? Yes there is and if you don't realize it then you're probably liberal. Likewise same goes for conservatives banning liberals on some other boards because there's bias over there too. It comes with the territory of private message boards and I've seen it many times on both sides from different boards. There is bias if you refuse to recognize it or not. Its unavoidable IMO and nothing against this board in particular that's just the way things are in general. I have no problem with it even if a moderator/admin wanting nobody against their party on their board. That's their prerogative but not to at least acknowledge it as if it doesn't exist at least in the slightest is short sighted.

[electriclite]

Originally Posted by creekin111

Agree, which side getting banned and not getting banned is absolutely no indication on what side lacks more tact or not. Like you said you could make an argument that more conservatives getting banned means liberals want to eliminate debates by silencing the other side.

Not really when you consider this particular forum becomes dead without input from an opposing side.

Opposing viewpoints can be frustrating but far more exciting then a group of "dittoheads" always nodding in agreement.

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by someguy

lol stop playing the victim card, anyone who's been on here long enough knows there isn't a fucking 'liberal bias' when it comes to banning

moviemaster was trolling, plain and simple

use your head he called him a downs baby and he shouldn't get banned? Come on. That constitutes as insulting another member.

[Bondgirl]

First of all l want to apoligize for my post up above

I should thought first before l posted l never ever wanted to affend anyone on this forum

But it looks as though l have
I am not racist in anyway land l was just saying that Obama being president was good for negro men and women because in other words it shows that anyone of any race can be something in this life

Even Obama made this statement a while back that everyone has a right to edcation even me

Anyway l should have worded it better and l feel ashamed now

[someguy]

Originally Posted by creekin111

Who's playing the victim card? Its clear that another poster was calling someone else a 'retard'. He didn't get banned. Why? I think its very fair and reasonable to point that out. There's no liberal bias when it comes to banning? Yes there is and if you don't realize it then you're probably liberal. Likewise same goes for conservatives banning liberals on some other boards because there's bias over there too. It comes with the territory of private message boards and I've seen it many times on both sides from different boards. There is bias if you refuse to recognize it or not. Its unavoidable IMO and nothing against this board in particular that's just the way things are in general. I have no problem with it even if a moderator/admin wanting nobody against their party on their board. That's their prerogative but not to at least acknowledge it as if it doesn't exist at least in the slightest is short sighted.

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

use your head he called him a downs baby and he shouldn't get banned? Come on. That constitutes as insulting another member.

None of us know if this thread was the reason for his banning. You have no proof of this, just like you have no substantial proof of a 'liberal bias' on this board. Feeling it in your bones isn't evidence.

My guess is that this thread has been a long, heated discussion with plenty of people skirting around the rules or breaking them. Bourahiro just came on to calm things down and give everyone a warning. MovieMaster has done plenty of things outside of this thread that could have been responsible for his banning. Neither of us know what the reason is, and it's none of our business.

[creekin111]

Originally Posted by someguy

None of us know if this thread was the reason for his banning. You have no proof of this, just like you have no substantial proof of a 'liberal bias' on this board. Feeling it in your bones isn't evidence.

My guess is that this thread has been a long, heated discussion with plenty of people skirting around the rules or breaking them. Bourahiro just came on to calm things down and give everyone a warning. MovieMaster has done plenty of things outside of this thread that could have been responsible for his banning. Neither of us know what the reason is, and it's none of our business.

Come on its like saying "nobody has substantial proof of racism or bias in our justice system so that means there is no racism/bias." Again like I've said before in this thread everyone pretty much has some level of bias. You've also completely ignored our point about what the Heart Collector has said.

[Bondgirl]

I have to say this waht is the differance between Liberal and consertive
I always here you blokes say these words

I always thought that in America that there was two partys meaning Republic and Demercat

I feel stupid asking this qestion but it is interesting to know

[Shinigami]

Why are we pointing to the Collector's political affiliation as the reason why a movie message board isn't banning him? Dude has been a member for over a decade. If we are going to go down that route, seniority probably counts for more than political affiliation; old curmudgeons who have long since lost interest in most of the board (and most of the schmoes), but come back occasionally to yell at somebody to get off their lawn.

If sometimes schmoes seem to be favored, maybe they are. The schmoes who post the most in the politics forum get along with Heart Collector; if the point of the rules is for group unity, then when schmoes get along with other schmoes sometimes the odd man out gets booted quicker than the affable man in. That's the whole bias of the rules here to begin with. Get along with each other. Looking into it, the board has more progressives than not, and the whole website is generally a socially liberal place - I wouldn't be surprised if a schmoe who was passionately against gay marriage got himself into trouble with board regulars (and possibly even moderators). That's unfair, but I don't think this messageboard is actually a place for our free speech. It's a regulated area for topic-specific speech under certain conditions. None of this victimization has anything to do with this messageboard or its stated rules.

...actually, I'm just reacting to the memories of that bizarre reoccurring schmoe who comes on these boards and starts soapboxing about being persecuted by liberals. I think Creekin has a legit question here and he should feel free to pm a moderator. I just don't know whether this bias - if it exists, is a point worth chasing down. The answer might be obvious and disappointing.

[Gordon]

Guys, he got banned over this completely non-political thread

[ThunderStorm]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Guys, he got banned over this completely non-political thread

I was actually curious about why he got banned, but what I was more concerned about was heart collector calling someone a downs baby

[someguy]

A lot of people skirted or broke the rules in this thread, there's no need to single out one specific person. There's a general warning for everyone now from bourahiro.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by The Heart Collector

actually, the main problem is that conservatives hate people and want them to suffer and be punished. that is what you're stating here. you are stating that if people aren't 'smart enough', as deemed by Erroneus, a complete fucking nobody, they should suffer.

this is what we've seen in many posts in this thread and we're seeing again, this desire to see people suffer because of their mistakes, or in this case, through no mistake of their own. since there's a million reasons why your perfectly rational retirement plan can go astray at the last second and leave you in deep shit.

you are either wholly naive or a total monster and i hope your parents lose everything and have to move in with you until theyre eighty

What are you talking about? What is wrong with living with your errors in life? You father a kid, you should pay for it. You commit a crime, you pay for it. You don't plan for your retirement, you pay for it. See a trend? OH wait, you are successful in life and the demoncrats (lol) want you to pay for others.

Thank you for the kind words. How you are still here amazes me. If my parents did fall on the balls of their ass, I would be happy to take care of them. It would be my duty to do so to the best of my ability. That is that whole point of family. I am not naive. I am smart and that is why I prepare well in advance to the best of my ability. I have life insurance so my family is taken care of should something happen. I have a well balanced portfolio. All my assets are not tied up in my houses or my cars or my rims (lol ok that was a shot) or my "grill" (another shot). Enjoy your angry world there buddy.

Originally Posted by Brando @$$ Fat

Yeah, THEIR people. People aren't hurting in red states.

This is not a red state blue state thing. People are hurting all over, but it is how you deal with it that counts. Some people want the government to fix things. Some know it is not the governments job to fix the individual lives of people.

Originally Posted by The Heart Collector

you sound like a downs baby

How? Just how?

Originally Posted by Bondgirl

Yes this debate has had its up and downs

I feel have to say why are you talking about slavery and servents when this thread is about Obama winnig the election

Shouldnt you be talking about waht Obama is doing now instead of back tracking into the past or way into the past

i know that Obama is a negro and it is great that he has been able to show current generations of negros that you can make it to the white house and if you studie and get edcated you can acheive but l would like to see waht bama does in the up and coming four years

I honestly do not know what all the fuss was about this. Spelling aside (Bondgirl, really?) Her points are true. Maybe you don't like that she said negro instead of African American or black or whatever. That is all silly. The point she was making is that Obama is a hero to future generations of African Americans and all black people world over and what is most important is what he does in the next four years.

Originally Posted by MovieMaster

That your best?

Sadly, that is his best. He can't add anything viable to the conversation, so that is what he does. Typical liberal. Make up a name for what they do not agree with in an attempt to make themselves seem better. We have seen this a lot in this thread.

Originally Posted by creekin111

I mean is this guy is begging to get banned or what? Now he's saying you're a "downs baby"? I don't know if we have any conservative moderators but I'm pretty sure they'd be insulted at his language and disrespect towards other posters. That kind of hyperbole & fodder may be OK for MSNBC and liberal blogs but here that shouldn't be tolerated. I guess the best bet is to ignore him..

It is always ok for some longtime liberal members to say whatever they want and you can not go back at them or complain or you will be banned. That is how they did with a different opinion here.

Originally Posted by bourahioro

Agreed. People, please stick to the topic or I'm going to close this thread. As well, I've noticed a few insults being tossed around - Some less subtle than others. Please re-read the rules and guidelines.

Thanks.

I have been warned a few times. I have never directly said anything that bad and he does it all the time.

Originally Posted by Badbird

So, I bailed on this thread a while ago. What's been going on. Hmmm, another conservative Schmoe got banned (that happens a lot...); subject seems to have derailed and devolved greatly; wow, a Heart Collector sighting.


So does anyone else have a few Republican voters so butthurt over the election that they've got anti-Obama yard signs posted? I've spotted two in my area. One about the "Price of gas was "X" the day Obama was elected" - and the other was about the healthcare bill (one side said "respect religious freedom," and the other said something about praying against the mandate, or some such").

I really have to laugh at all the Anti Obamaers. I also laughed at all the antiBushers.

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

Of course a conservative got banned, I would bet if the heart collector was conservative he would have been banned too but apparently if your a liberal and on the left you can say what you want in these forums.

Ah ummmmm

Originally Posted by creekin111

Agree, which side getting banned and not getting banned is absolutely no indication on what side lacks more tact or not. Like you said you could make an argument that more conservatives getting banned means liberals want to eliminate debates by silencing the other side.

What I have seen is several long time members pound on someone insulting that person and getting away with it. Then the person fights back and gets banned. Not all the time, but most of the time that is how it goes.

Originally Posted by someguy

lol stop playing the victim card, anyone who's been on here long enough knows there isn't a fucking 'liberal bias' when it comes to banning

moviemaster was trolling, plain and simple

Anyone you don't agree with is a troll. Is it possible that there are people that can not handle a mature conversation, but have an opinion?

You are the problem of this site. You are the very example that I spoke of before. You rip apart on people, adding nothing but insults to the thread and then write what you just wrote AGAIN. Your whole post right there had zero to do with Obama. You just make the same point you have said several times in the few years I have been here. Several members know the truth there is a liberal bias.

Originally Posted by creekin111

Who's playing the victim card? Its clear that another poster was calling someone else a 'retard'. He didn't get banned. Why? I think its very fair and reasonable to point that out. There's no liberal bias when it comes to banning? Yes there is and if you don't realize it then you're probably liberal. Likewise same goes for conservatives banning liberals on some other boards because there's bias over there too. It comes with the territory of private message boards and I've seen it many times on both sides from different boards. There is bias if you refuse to recognize it or not. Its unavoidable IMO and nothing against this board in particular that's just the way things are in general. I have no problem with it even if a moderator/admin wanting nobody against their party on their board. That's their prerogative but not to at least acknowledge it as if it doesn't exist at least in the slightest is short sighted.

That is someguy's canned line. I guess he thinks it is the same 2 or 3 people saying it over the years.

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

use your head he called him a downs baby and he shouldn't get banned? Come on. That constitutes as insulting another member.

I think I remember he was banned for a short time.

Originally Posted by ThunderStorm

I was actually curious about why he got banned, but what I was more concerned about was heart collector calling someone a downs baby

Moviemaster made me laugh. I think he has been on and off a few times.

[bourahioro]

http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147567

[ilovemovies]

This thread has gone so completely off topic that I'm amazed it hasn't gotten closed yet.