Obama v. Romney

Keep in mind.. Right and Left does not always mean Conservative or Liberal. One is more economic, the other social. And also depending on what country your in. Liberals in Russia for example tend to be capitalists.

Tony Blair? That smug, self-serving, multi-millionaire war monger? Thank all the deities that he is long gone and his successor, Gordon Brown. Demond Tutu has joined in the call for him to be prosecuted for war crimes. I for one hope to see him in the Hague soon. He and his wife profiteered off of their political career and now large it, Blair being involved in the EU somewhere, it still goes on today.

What the UK is crying out for is another character like Churchill (or even Thatcher, at least she had balls - "this lady is not for turning"), a proper determined person who doesn't deal in BS. I expect the same can be said of the States, I dont know, like another FDR or Lincoln or someone?

I'll be glad when the election is over! Then we can talk about shoes again...and we will ALL be happy!!!! :P

Lol yeah that guy, Everyone knows American poltics but Americans just aren't exposed to this kinda thing. I've heard David Cameron speak like 3 or 4 times, he seems a lot better than a Romney for sure. The conservatives over here completely ignore the truth and cause and effect at least everytime I've heard your conservative leader he speaks about statistics and logic. That sure would be nice, that's why I have no idea what Khome is talking about. You have one-side obsessessed with fighting socialism, birth records, nonexistant voter fraud, education records, guns, Israel, Iran, and god. That is the side you feel cares about economic prosperity? While in every speech and every ad the Dems talk about raising taxes on the rich, an economic issue through and through

a myth to think capitalism wouldn't be good for the whole of the nation I scoff at that many country's have done it and been pretty well off read a history book

liberals in Russia are capitalist so are most in America what's your point and what does that make Russian conservatives idk communist (wait no that's left wing) czarist? oligarchs *shrug

well you can't exactly put an authoritarian communist party on the liberal side of the chart, now could we?

you must of missed that one chapter of history regarding the Congo free state, but then again maybe we weren't considering the locals of the Congo a part of the whole of the nation, just the colonists from Belgium.

Next..

I like that remark, because it is so not fair, like at all. I'm not going against you, because the authorative governments used in former governments can not be an example of liberalism. But the Congo Republic seriously, if memory serves me their median income translates to 36$ a year. Or the poorest soveriegn nation, you can hardly use them as a comparrison to anything. But its funny thinking of capitalism with rocks, children, leaves and whatever else they can manage to scrounge up. Not that I am that informed so I will retract it if I'm wrong

The Congo Free state was more of an enterprise set up by King Leopold from Belgium. This was over 100 years ago when Africa was being colonized by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, basically all of Europe wanted a piece. Abundance of resources, low population compared to other continents, and of course it's inability to defend itself against invading Europeans. All of that made it a free for all for colonizing and exploitation. (sorry to say). King Leopold then got a wild hair up his ass and said, "I want to make my very own private company to reap the benefits of a high demand product at the time/rubber" and in deed he did! And what better way to abuse his power as king of a powerful European nation than take a colony in Africa (Congo) and make it into his personal investment. It wasn't even for the benefit of the Belgium economy, which is even more shocking. Even more profitable, every hired worker who brought back a basket of severed limbs of locals who caused trouble were given a bonus in their "compensation plan".

Now, who cannot say that is gross form of capitalist abuse?

fast forward to 100 years later, nations like DR Congo, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, etc.. all deeply scarred by the effects of what I just described.

sorry, that was a bit long I guess.

seriously, this thread started out as Obama v. Romney. And look it now... its like tellen a secret in grade 3 and sayin' i like fred, pass it on, after getting thruoh 20 kids it ends up, purple monkey dishwasher ! (lookk it up, the simpsons). But seriosly, back on topic, Obama is the States best spokes person, he is very popular around the world and is less automaton as his rivals. Thata what you need to look for, nothing else matters cause he realy doesnt have the choice how to actualy run the country

that form of capitalism I believe they call exploit capitalism there's another form of capitalism don't remember the name but its mci better for all involved

and the type of capitalism your describing it appears the government was to Much involved aswell as in the case of many colonys (all of then were examples of exploit capitalism except maybe America idk I'm not that enlightened on the subject but it seems once the British got there shit tigethir and started trying to exploit America there was the war of independence)

generally the less government involved the better obviously a standard ammount of regulation is required to make sure exploit capitalism is not so prevalent but nationalizing industry's isn't the way for America the ammount of government involvement in the economy that is good for the economy is going to depend on the cultures society but I'm just talking in general..... to big to fail is a tough question if I was the president I probably would have given them a very cheap long term loan and assigned some oversight to make sure they were not just going to close

I have never seen capitalism thrive in a state of anarchy.
Therefore, I would conclude that capitalism can only exist as an extension of whatever government is in place to permit it. You chose the correct word, exploitation. My main point is that before we go around waving our gospels of capitalism as the only true path, lets keep in perspective that EVERY system of economics, government, religion, philosophy, etc has a very dark side. (there are both black books of communism and capitalism and bla bla bla it will never end)
Less government is a euphemism for "loop holes", so yeah, back to the Romney Obama question.

Romney/Ryan - less government

Obama/Biden - Smarter government

I'll take the last option, and no, Obama is not a socialist. Eisenhower and Nixon were closer to being socialist than any Democrat in the 21st century. If I were alive to vote in an election in the middle of the 20th century, I would most likely vote Republican.

I have never seen capitalism thrive in a state of anarchy touche....I think its a well known fact though that the American government has become painfully stupid and ineffective and therefore making it smaller would reduce these idiotic wastes its just a fact that big government ends up doing stupid shit

and what are these loopholes you speak of

The size of government is not the real issue, we just encamped ourselves through media dialogue to have to pick either one or the other. Like the abortion topic, your either pro life or pro choice, instead of actually forming our own common sense opinion, we are all pigeon holed into one of two categories that do us a huge disservice. You can have 1 or 1000 government offices, but if each one is not being effective, you will have the exact same end result. Government is going to have to exist in this point of history, plain and simple, however it is overly simplistic to just say we have either too much or too few. The issue is too complex to just throw a blanket statement to characterize it all. Maybe its not a matter of how many agencies or government offices that concern us, but maybe what their function is to begin with?
Conservatives love allot of defense department agencies, where as others would want to see more social welfare agencies.
I say the American people are ready for more detailed discussions about the issues that affect their daily lives, and we can move past the buzz words.

loopholes - corporate tax breaks, the ability to take wealth generated here and move it over seas to avoid paying taxes where the wealth was generated to begin with. That seems like robbing those who did the actual work to produce it.

The bigger the government the larger the ability for efficiency. Alex your statement is based on opinion, as is mine. And all of the is because we've yet to understand the importance of doing things effectively. If you can have the government start for-profit firms for example we can create a workforce with 90% private sector (or something that resembles it) jobs with 0% unemployment. This is just one example of the potential of using the government efficiently. But Republicans and Libertarians seem to believe that government intervention is almost entirely wasteful. Now I'm going to deny that there are flaws in that system. But rather than tweaking things to work, we dismiss them.

Capitalism is evil though, giving any power to corporations is counter-productive. In the sense that everyone should follow their Telos and a corporations Telos is 90% make money for their shareholders, which have absolutely no gain to the coutnry or society.

Drew - Ditto

I love discussions like this, it is very refreshing. Thanks to you all

Right that IS capitialism, and it IS counter productive

capitalism is certainly not evil it allows for a feeling of self worth and determination and anyways its just an economic system

more governments intervention tends to be bad communist Russia China Korea Spain not that I'm saying none is required it is definitly required but I think more freedoms the better

lets stop all the stupid shit our American government is doing war on drugs subsidizing tobacco industry's while educating people not to smoke huge defense spending taking away freedoms with petty laws and Infringements of the constitution absolutely idiotic speed limits various subsidys and inefficient welfare programs

having a small government doesn't necessarily mean there are going to be loopholes poor education and corporate tyranny because those are the basics of what government should take care of

after that us taken care of we can have civilized non partisan debate on healthcare reform and other such things (I am for heakthcare other successful country's use it why not us are we really that snobish)

and I definitely haven't pigeon holed myself khome if you were talking to me

I was referring to everybody being grouped into 2 specific categories on each issue by our very watered down political discourse.

How does capitalism bring self worth? That suggests we are what we do, but people don't get to do what they want to do. People do what they get rewarded for doing. The logic capitalism brings is everyone should go to school for finance. Money and stuff don't bring happiness just people are in a cloud of dillusion.

Also as I've said you are focusing on the wrong things. This is nanny state nonsense, example like the soda ban in New York. That is a representation of misuse in power. The federal government shouldn't control that. The federal government on the other hand should be involved in EVERY aspect that effects civil liberties in this country. Including extensive wage regulations, instead of just a minimum. Should have some leeway in controlling pharmacuetical costs, as patents as outrageous prices have inflated the cost of health care to unmanagiable means, hence the requirement of health insurance. There are infinite of examples of this. So I'll leave you with one more, if a corporation can get a better deal outside this country, and this move is detrimental to the welfare of the citizens, the government doesn't have to lower wages, or taxes. Simply make it expensive or impossible to get our business simultaneously replace them. Capitalism NEVER puts people first! If good happens from Capitalism is a byproduct of it, not a goal.

Alex, and I respect your resolve, and the fact that you mostly look for actual truths, however I think you have let yourself by a part of the systematic villiany that shadows the underlying truth of things. The government wastes money does things that are unfair and or bias but it doesn't mean it has to. Take authorative regimes out of your communist examples and tell me would they have down worse or better because of it. As for tobacco they tax it much more heavily than they subsidize it. But why should they even bother with it? It's quite simple because the free market does not have the efficiency to run those industries appropriately. Hope you didn't take offense. Also I'm not implying socialism is the answer.

lol American education I bet drew went to a private school

in such a big interconnected economy its usually quite likely that you can do what you want to do drew unless your a fruitcake who takes visual arts as a major

as for the rest of that post I cant really understand my ADD is acting up