Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/8/13 04:36 AM, LemonCrush wrote: How about I don't buy insurance (if i choose), AND don't take your tax dollars, and I take responsibility for my choice and reap the consequences should something happen to me?

Except it's fallacy to assume that you're choice to not become insured reaps only consequences to you. Because should you need to use medical care (like say the ER, and odds are you will one day), when you use these services, and don't pay for them, the provider will jack up the costs of those services and justify it as trying to recoup the money they didn't receive from people like you who aren't paying. That then hurts me. Society is a connected thing that way.

---

Y'know, when someone comes out and says things like "Obama is a dictator" and "Bush was a liberal" I have this nagging voice in my head that tells me that the person saying those things is a troll and has no interest in having a real honest discussion about anything.

---

At 5/9/13 01:51 AM, Feoric wrote: Hmm, yeah, that's an excellent point, considering PPACA is largely in part an expansion of Medicaid. I guess you're right.

So, what is the point again?

Fortunately, Eric Cantor might be able to help us out. He has scheduled a vote for next week on a bill to repeal Obamacare. This will be I believe the 38th time House Republicans do this.

Good.

---

At 5/9/13 01:53 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Except it's fallacy to assume that you're choice to not become insured reaps only consequences to you. Because should you need to use medical care (like say the ER, and odds are you will one day), when you use these services, and don't pay for them, the provider will jack up the costs of those services and justify it as trying to recoup the money they didn't receive from people like you who aren't paying. That then hurts me. Society is a connected thing that way.

Uh, it only consequences people other than myself, because the government forces you to subsidize my medical bills if i can't pay.

I'm saying this should not be the case. your money should not be tied to my welfare in any way.

---

At 5/9/13 02:04 AM, LemonCrush wrote: So, what is the point again?

...oh, why didn't you just ask the first time? It serves no purpose other than to make a big stack of paper. It literally does nothing else.

---

At 5/9/13 01:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: No, it actually really does. When you say a majority hates a President who was re-elected by a CLEAR majority, you are demonstrably wrong.

That might not necessarily be the case. True, Obama won with about 51% of the vote against Romney's 47%, but you have to remember that turnout in America is very low; only 58.1% of all eligible voters turned out to vote. In other words, Obama won only about 29.7% of the total number of eligible voters. That leaves about 70.3% of eligible voters who either voted for someone else or who just couldn't be arsed to get out and vote.

And let's not forget who he was running against: Mr Mitt "Moneybags" Romney, the friendly corporate kill-drone. People might have hated Obama, but nothing makes a person look better than standing next to Mitt Romney.

---

At 5/9/13 01:50 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which I pointed out a few times actually. Are you reading the whole post before hitting reply?

Yes??

No, it really doesn't. Fitting the definition of the word makes someone a dictator, when they don't, they aren't. Obama doesn't, so he isn't.

Yeah, it does

Only if you don't know what a dictator is or does. Clearly you don't know what one is or does. Especially if you're going to try and argue that words don't have definitions.

Eh, no. See, unless you wanna say people like Mussolini isn't a dictator...

I don't see him as a complete Bush clone, he's done better in some areas, but has had an alarming amount of carry over, yes.

And he has done NOTHING to end that "carry over" and in important issues like civil rights, fiscal policy and foreign policy he has done nothing but go exactly in line with Bush, and expanded what Bush did. Obama could turn all of that around if he wanted to. He and he alone made the choice to continue the wars (and start new ones), keep gay marriage illegal, continued the drug war, spending money we don't have, and stealing taxpayer dollars to subsidize his political pals.

You have not proven your accusation at all. Posting the equivalent of "nu uh" does not make it so.

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain cell. Do you also want proof that the sky is blue?

You absolutely implied he had unilateral power, and if he was a true dictator, he would have it. See? Your argument falls apart more and more all the time.

Yeah, I didn't imply that.

Nope, Congress absolutely declared war on Iraq for one. But please, let's not let facts get in the way of a good fantasy.

No they didn't. They turned over power to the executive branch to carry out the UN resolutions. Which is illegal and unconstitutional.

If he was a dictator as you charge, there would be no oversight. You have absolutely made erroneous outright statements or implications to try and say the office has more power then it does in this area.

But this doesn't match up with dictatorships in history.....

What? Who did that? What does that have to do with your charge Obama is a dictator?

nothing. That's kind of my point.

At what point in time? I'd need a year to glean from, because Hitler didn't start out as the supreme power in Germany, he changed the rules with public assent to make himself the supreme leader or "Fuhrer. I see what you're trying to do here and I won't play into the trap. It's trying to compare apples to oranges.

Even when he was "supreme leader" he still had a (false) "checks/balances" system, just like we have here

The actions you've pointed out do not meet that criteria. Just because conservative news sources say something a lot doesn't mean it's true. Same with Liberal sources really.

they certainly do match the actions of dictators throughout history.

One again, the poor reading comprehension. I EXPLAINED what the actual topic under discussion is, it's whether or not somebody should be allowed to raise rents based on voting for a President the land lord doesn't like. You are one of these rabid dogs that hears the name Obama and starts running off at the mouth with all the bullshit, over used, mis-informed conservative talking points. Also it IS relevant to mention prior presidents actions because most of the things you object to Obama doing are continuations of prior administrations, and no one has charged them with being dictators yet this president gets hit with it all the time. It's false, and it's ridiculous.

Of course the topic started as something else. But that is not the discussion you and i are having.

As for Obama's continuation, that does not absolve his role in it. As i said, if he wanted, he could bring the troops home. He could close Gitmo. He could champion gay right. He could cut your taxes instead of raising them. He has decided not to.

There is no point that I can see.

Then why are we talking at all?

Oh fuck, are you really gonna slippery slope me now? Really?

No?

Because they aren't. There are degrees of bad. It's like saying killing someone is the same no matter the circumstances, it isn't. Gitmo is bad, but there's no way you can confuse it with Auschwitz, don't try to play the "I'm smarter then you, conspiracy!" crap with me bud. It's not relevant and it don't work.

it's not a conspiracy, just the truth. YOU may not think prison camps are reprehensible just because ours don't kill people. i do.

Yeah, it really does. German and Russian camps were used to kill, Gitmo isn't. Therefore those camps are worse. It's simple math.

I disagree.

LOL! You're whole defense for any time you get proven wrong really is "nu uh". You don't win by repeating bullshit over and over again. Wrong is wrong, and you are wrong here.

Do you even know what the beliefs of a neo-con is? Do you really believe that they're anything but liberal? in what way? Bush interpretation of the constitution is pretty damn liberal as was his econ policy. They're statists. Statism is progressivism. Progressives claim themselves as liberals.

Then by definition, he isn't a dictator. Tangent debate over, let's get back on topic then.

You aren't familiar with the concept Oligarchy huh?

Nope, bad reading comprehension again. I'm bringing up the other guy who did the EXACT same things, and was NOT called a dictator, yet Obama is. I'm pointing out the bias and the absurdity of those making the charge.

Bush was called a dictator! Were you fucking asleep for his entire presidency?

I never charged he wasn't. He is guilty for his own actions.

Agreed

When you quote the garbage they and other completely biased neo-con "news" sources spout all day long, then it's a reasonable assumption I think to believe you partake of them :)

I'll put forth the challenge I put to someone else (who chickened out, by the way): Which neo-con policies or concepts do I subscribe to or believe in? Since I'm such a big neo con, you probably have a huge list, huh? How about you trim it down and just post a couple of them?

No, it actually really does. When you say a majority hates a President who was re-elected by a CLEAR majority, you are demonstrably wrong.

Hitler was elected too. The clear majority is made up of idiots.

That's opinion, not backed up by empirical data. You just really can't admit when you make a mistake can you?

No it's fact. There's video of it. "Ma'am why do you support obama?" "Do you see the color of my skin?" It's racism pure and simple.

They certainly didn't elect him based on policies...I know because most of the country spent 8 years bitching about the policies of war and corporate welfare.

He's not so much "my guy". This isn't football, much as people have now turned their politics into. I don't have a "team" I have people I agree with more then others, and that's how I cast my vote.

So, you didn't vote for Obama?

---

At 5/9/13 02:24 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: And let's not forget who he was running against: Mr Mitt "Moneybags" Romney, the friendly corporate kill-drone. People might have hated Obama, but nothing makes a person look better than standing next to Mitt Romney.

Right. Because Obama and Romney are nothing alike lol

---

At 5/9/13 02:30 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Right. Because Obama and Romney are nothing alike lol

Personality wise, yes, they are nothing alike. Say what you want about Obama's policies, he's a pretty charming, likable guy. Bush was a likable guy as well. Romney just reeks of insincerity. He looks like a corporation that actually came to life and decided to run for president.

---

At 5/9/13 02:38 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Personality wise, yes, they are nothing alike. Say what you want about Obama's policies, he's a pretty charming, likable guy. Bush was a likable guy as well. Romney just reeks of insincerity. He looks like a corporation that actually came to life and decided to run for president.

When i hear/see Obama speak, I see nothing but insecurity. Like a kid who will say/do anything to make his parents happy.

---

At 5/9/13 02:55 AM, LemonCrush wrote: When i hear/see Obama speak, I see nothing but insecurity. Like a kid who will say/do anything to make his parents happy.

Some people see what they want to see I guess.

---

At 5/9/13 03:09 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Some people see what they want to see I guess.

He has flip-flopped on so many issues. Has a huge past of saying one thing to one group, and something different to another. When he speaks, he never takes a firm stand on any issue. Plus his insane daddy issues.

Plus his posture and body, or rather "face" language (?). Not an ounce of strength in him

---

At 5/9/13 11:13 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Plus his posture and body, or rather "face" language (?). Not an ounce of strength in him

I heard Obama never sat up straight in school. Tell tale sign that you should never be President, imo.

---

At 5/9/13 12:40 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 5/9/13 11:13 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Plus his posture and body, or rather "face" language (?). Not an ounce of strength in him

I heard Obama never sat up straight in school. Tell tale sign that you should never be President, imo.

That's what they teach in Hitlers Fascist camps.

---

At 5/9/13 11:13 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 5/9/13 03:09 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Some people see what they want to see I guess.

He has flip-flopped on so many issues. Has a huge past of saying one thing to one group, and something different to another. When he speaks, he never takes a firm stand on any issue.

So in other words he is a politician.

---

At 5/9/13 12:40 PM, Feoric wrote: I heard Obama never sat up straight in school. Tell tale sign that you should never be President, imo.

I didn't say he slouched, I said he had a weak body language

---

At 5/9/13 12:47 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So in other words he is a politician.

Well, yes, and that's basically the problem.

I don't vote for politicians who lie or change their positions in exchange for power or money

---

At 5/9/13 01:48 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 5/9/13 12:47 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: So in other words he is a politician.

Well, yes, and that's basically the problem.

I don't vote for politicians who lie or change their positions in exchange for power or money

Politicians job is to delude people. A good Politician is well versed in the art of deception.

---

At 5/9/13 02:10 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Politicians job is to delude people. A good Politician is well versed in the art of deception.

Do some research on Eisenhower or Washington

---

At 5/9/13 02:05 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Uh, it only consequences people other than myself, because the government forces you to subsidize my medical bills if i can't pay.

In other words "you're right avie, totally right. But I'm a contrarian and think that somehow me restated what you say differently is arguing".

I'm saying this should not be the case. your money should not be tied to my welfare in any way.

But I'm fine with it being so. My money is a function of government, I provide a service to society through my job, and I enjoy the benefits and protections of that society, I'm cool giving something back. Especially when I know people who have a tough time getting healthcare and have limited options. If I didn't like these things, then I should probably go find a nice cave somewhere, start getting my own food and shelter and opt out of the implied social contract of being governed and participating in that government completely.

---

At 5/9/13 09:12 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

If I didn't like these things, then I should probably go find a nice cave somewhere, start getting my own food and shelter and opt out of the implied social contract of being governed and participating in that government completely.

Tyranny by majority.

Last I checked, you can't opt out.

---

At 5/9/13 02:24 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: That might not necessarily be the case. True, Obama won with about 51% of the vote against Romney's 47%, but you have to remember that turnout in America is very low; only 58.1% of all eligible voters turned out to vote. In other words, Obama won only about 29.7% of the total number of eligible voters. That leaves about 70.3% of eligible voters who either voted for someone else or who just couldn't be arsed to get out and vote.

Which to me means I don't need to really give a fuck about their opinion. You have the right to vote, you have the right and ability to change things, you chose not to do so. I don't want to hear the excuse of "but my choice was between two assholes", no it wasn't. There were other candidates you could have chose. Because you won't do research and try to find a better option I should feel bad or think I need to take your opinions into account when you don't want to participate? Yeah, sorry, I don't buy it. Those people can stick it. The people who cared are the ones who voted, and they voted for Obama, ergo, I feel I'm right in saying the majority is NOT against this president as Lemon charged.

And let's not forget who he was running against: Mr Mitt "Moneybags" Romney, the friendly corporate kill-drone. People might have hated Obama, but nothing makes a person look better than standing next to Mitt Romney.

Arch-Conservatives who hate all things Obama were willing to vote for Romney. Go back to your own numbers. Obama had a clear majority, but by no way a landslide. To say "oh Romney was simply un-electable and that's why he lost" isn't quite the message those numbers send me.

---

At 5/9/13 09:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I don't want to hear the excuse of "but my choice was between two assholes", no it wasn't.

That I would say is a matter of opinion.

---

At 5/9/13 09:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Which to me means I don't need to really give a fuck about their opinion. You have the right to vote, you have the right and ability to change things, you chose not to do so. I don't want to hear the excuse of "but my choice was between two assholes", no it wasn't.

Kind of difficult to break through when the system is rigged while the media ignores you.

---

At 5/9/13 09:16 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which to me means I don't need to really give a fuck about their opinion. You have the right to vote, you have the right and ability to change things, you chose not to do so. I don't want to hear the excuse of "but my choice was between two assholes", no it wasn't. There were other candidates you could have chose. Because you won't do research and try to find a better option I should feel bad or think I need to take your opinions into account when you don't want to participate? Yeah, sorry, I don't buy it. Those people can stick it. The people who cared are the ones who voted, and they voted for Obama, ergo, I feel I'm right in saying the majority is NOT against this president as Lemon charged.

I'm not arguing that either, I would just caution against using the term "clear majority", when in fact only you have slightly less than 30% of all eligible voters going for the winning candidate. The electoral system of America is too messed up to be completely credible when it comes to the "popular will". Just 12 short years ago Bush took the win without even winning the popular vote, and turnout was even lower in that election.

I think it's unfair to blame people for staying home when the system is set up in such a way that it innately discourages participation.

But I digress. I'd stick to approval rating polls (even though they are flawed as well).

Arch-Conservatives who hate all things Obama were willing to vote for Romney. Go back to your own numbers. Obama had a clear majority, but by no way a landslide. To say "oh Romney was simply un-electable and that's why he lost" isn't quite the message those numbers send me.

Well, it should. Given Obama's approval ratings at the time of the election, along with the economy being where it were, you would normally have expected the race to be a hell of a lot tighter. Very few incumbents have weathered worse numbers and emerged victorious in their re-election campaign.

Obama survived this election because the Republican field was universally weak this time around, with Romney being the least awful out of the lot of them. The Republicans ran a terrible campaign with a terrible candidate. Simple as that.

---

At 5/9/13 09:12 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But I'm fine with it being so.

Then volunteer it. i don't see why the guys with guns have to force it on everyone.

---

At 5/10/13 12:53 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Then volunteer it. i don't see why the guys with guns have to force it on everyone.

Because the smarter among us realize that without the government leverage in there very few people would actually donate to charities. People are very shitty with thier own money. The average American would watch their future go down in flames if it meant they could do so from the deck of a cruise ship. They would watch others starve if it meant they could do so on a 50" TV. They would watch the streets crumble around them if it meant they could take two extra trips to Red Robin annually. You want these people dictating our welfare and economy?

---

At 5/10/13 10:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 5/10/13 12:53 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Then volunteer it. i don't see why the guys with guns have to force it on everyone.

Because the smarter among us realize that without the government leverage in there very few people would actually donate to charities. People are very shitty with thier own money. The average American would watch their future go down in flames if it meant they could do so from the deck of a cruise ship. They would watch others starve if it meant they could do so on a 50" TV. They would watch the streets crumble around them if it meant they could take two extra trips to Red Robin annually. You want these people dictating our welfare and economy?

That's the reality that Americanism has afforded for people "within it's boarders" and jurisdictions not unlike if you were in Hitlers Reich. America has bread whole generations of fat, lazy self entitled cunt's.

---

At 5/10/13 10:45 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Because the smarter among us

You've always been a stupid fuck, Cam.

realize that without the government leverage in there very few people would actually donate to charities.

Legislating morality.

People are very shitty with thier own money. The average American would watch their future go down in flames if it meant they could do so from the deck of a cruise ship.

A cruise ship provided by Government backed monopolies.

They would watch others starve if it meant they could do so on a 50" TV.

Yes, those mass swaths of the American population who were dropping dead without food, which happened...

Oh wait... it never did.

:They would watch the streets crumble around them if it meant they could take two extra trips to Red Robin annually.

Even though several people where I used to live VOLUNTEERED paving several streets since the Government left them unattended for years, only to be told they weren't allowed to by said government.

You want these people dictating our welfare and economy?

Rather them than a Government that kills people in needless war, drives a near 20 Trillion dollar deficit, bails out Corporations, puts people in prison for non-violent offenses, and writes so many laws that the average person commits two to three felonies a day.

---

At 5/10/13 12:53 PM, Memorize wrote: You've always been a stupid fuck, Cam.

At 5/10/13 12:53 PM, Memorize wrote: drives a near 20 Trillion dollar deficit

Look at this guy, calling other people stupid when he himself doesn't even know the difference between "debt" and "budget deficit." Have a good look.