Quote from: RightIsRight on November 12, 2012, 03:50:12 PM
All politicians get their income through taxation.

True words.

The way I've always heard it has been that Obama enjoyed being with older white men (the more grandfatherly the better) and liked ......


Read more http://hillbuzz.org/where-could-reporters-hear-stories-about-barack-obamas-gay-life-in-chicago-93707

Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 12, 2012, 09:21:16 AM
Right and wrong, good and evil, these concepts can be subjective, but they can also be objective, when defined in terms of violence and force.

What is peaceful and voluntary is good, what creates victims, or involves violence, is bad.

But, you switched terms from "evil" to "bad".

A hypothetical for you...

Two people are stranded on a deserted island and only have enough food for 2 weeks. A rescue ship is due 4 weeks or so.

If they share the food equally, they both die.

If one hoards the food for himself, he lives the other dies.

If one voluntarily goes without food so the other can live, he dies.

Each of these scenarios involves a "victim", but none involve "violence". Since each involves a victim that means that they all must be "bad", even though in two of the scenarios half of the castaways survive.

Now, before you (or anyone else) jumps in and says, "Yes, they are all 'bad'". Consider the following.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth in Him should not die..."
John 3:16

Was that good or bad?

My point? The concepts of good and evil are more subjective than objective.
 

I think he is a good family man. He seems to be a good husband and father and isn't banging an intern in the Oval Office (that we know of).

I think he believes he is doing the right thing for America but according to his philosophy the right thing is to unilaterally disarm the US, coddle the Islamists, reduce American power and influence, and introduce a socialist economic system.

Quote from: Yawn on November 12, 2012, 06:23:58 PM
And what do his gay lovers think?

rotf, that would be the main question!  Inquiring minds want to know!   

Quote from: Darth Fife on November 13, 2012, 12:37:52 AM
But, you switched terms from "evil" to "bad".

A hypothetical for you...

Two people are stranded on a deserted island and only have enough food for 2 weeks. A rescue ship is due 4 weeks or so.

If they share the food equally, they both die.

If one hoards the food for himself, he lives the other dies.

If one voluntarily goes without food so the other can live, he dies.

Each of these scenarios involves a "victim", but none involve "violence". Since each involves a victim that means that they all must be "bad", even though in two of the scenarios half of the castaways survive.

As long as no violence is used, then are not dealing with a situation that can be judged ethically.

Sure it is a tragedy, and sure there are "victims" in a fuzzy sense of the word, but no one has been victimized by the violent actions of another, unless the food was taken by force.

Quote

Now, before you (or anyone else) jumps in and says, "Yes, they are all 'bad'". Consider the following.

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son so that whosoever believeth in Him should not die..."
John 3:16

Was that good or bad?

My point? The concepts of good and evil are more subjective than objective.

The murder of Jesus was immoral, bad and evil.

I completely disagree about the subjectivity of ethics.

What is good or bad, in terms of individual preference, is completely subjective. What is good and bad, or right and wrong, in terms of inter-personal relationships, is not subjective. All we have to do is use the notion of inalienable self ownership, and the ethics of a situation become clear.

What is immoral is all those acts that violate our fundamental right to be free from violence and coercion.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 11, 2012, 11:51:27 AM
That is, do you think he honestly wants to better the world with his actions?

Or is he an Evil Socialist who actively works to screw everyone over for his own gain?

Discuss.

He is a destructive anti-American Marxist who never had the intelligence or drive to engage in the system he obsesses on destroying.  If he was a "good person", he would have represented himself honestly during the past 4 years, and the campaign.

Quote from: Solar on November 12, 2012, 06:16:40 AM

Personally, I'm angrier than ever before, the left stole this election, so it's time to fight!

This is the ultimate irony.

The party that calls itself supporters of "personal responsibility" never takes personal responsibility for its own defeats.

When have you ever said "it was our fault.  We lost because we were ineffective/didn't connect well to the people/were technologically backwards/etc."?

No.  It's always the media, the Left, voter fraud, stupid Americans, etc, etc.

Is he a good person?  Of course not.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 12:51:36 PM
This is the ultimate irony.

The party that calls itself supporters of "personal responsibility" never takes personal responsibility for its own defeats.

When have you ever said "it was our fault.  We lost because we were ineffective/didn't connect well to the people/were technologically backwards/etc."?

No.  It's always the media, the Left, voter fraud, stupid Americans, etc, etc.

You could be right but I would like you to clear up an item for me.  OK?

Whose fault might it be if a person's home was invaded and their personal stuff stolen?  Let me guess based on your post.  You would blame the home owner for not protecting his property better.  Got it.  Thanks.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 13, 2012, 12:51:36 PM
This is the ultimate irony.

The party that calls itself supporters of "personal responsibility" never takes personal responsibility for its own defeats.

When have you ever said "it was our fault.  We lost because we were ineffective/didn't connect well to the people/were technologically backwards/etc."?

No.  It's always the media, the Left, voter fraud, stupid Americans, etc, etc.

You push for less voter ID laws, and you say the election is valid?  Try again.

Obama is a great president!
and I am sure corporate America secretly thinks so too!

They are just afraid to say it out loud.
Look how quickly you guys built a gallows for Justice Roberts when he voted for Obama care.

"Obama's policies so bad for economy, corporate profits managed to increase 77.9%"

Top 5 presidents when it comes to corporate profits going UP!

5. John Kennedy (a 7.3 percent increase in corporate profits)
4. Calvin Coolidge (8.8 percent increase)
3. Bill Clinton (9.2 percent)
2. Warren G Harding (17.7 percent)
1. Barack Obama (a 77.9 percent increase in corporate profits)
stats from Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-policies-so-bad-for-economy-corporate-profits-managed-to-increase-77-9

Man, he is JUST tanking this economy.  the corporations can't handle this much longer.

If Obama is hell bent on tanking the country, YAWN, this is not a good start.

Maybe your off the mark?  Kind of like the landslide predictions.

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 13, 2012, 03:05:36 PM
Obama is a great president!
and I am sure corporate America secretly thinks so too!

Business want a better economy; not a bad one.  Your "demand-and-supply" mentally damaged brain is wrong yet again.

Quote
They are just afraid to say it out loud.
Look how quickly you guys built a gallows for Justice Roberts when he voted for Obama care.

He didn't vote.  He re-wrote the law like he was a legislater.  It isn't his job to re-write bills.  If not for corrupt judicial activism, liberals would be extinct.

Quote
"Obama's policies so bad for economy, corporate profits managed to increase 77.9%"

Top 5 presidents when it comes to corporate profits going UP!

5. John Kennedy (a 7.3 percent increase in corporate profits)
4. Calvin Coolidge (8.8 percent increase)
3. Bill Clinton (9.2 percent)
2. Warren G Harding (17.7 percent)
1. Barack Obama (a 77.9 percent increase in corporate profits)
stats from Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-policies-so-bad-for-economy-corporate-profits-managed-to-increase-77-9

Man, he is JUST tanking this economy.  the corporations can't handle this much longer.

If Obama is hell bent on tanking the country, YAWN, this is not a good start.

Wrong. You don't understand what a "profit" is, except for the pejorative context you're little liberal brain has been trained to understand.

Quote
Maybe your off the mark?  Kind of like the landslide predictions.

Wrong.  Normal, productive Americans took Romney in a landslide.  Poor voter ID laws and unions put Obama back on office.

QuoteObama is a great president!
and I am sure corporate America secretly thinks so too!

They are just afraid to say it out loud.
Look how quickly you guys built a gallows for Justice Roberts when he voted for Obama care.

Have you seen the HATE from the Left directed towards those corporations just trying to survive under the weight of Obamacare?

Your statement is proof you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Quote from: a777pilot on November 13, 2012, 02:21:59 PM
You could be right but I would like you to clear up an item for me.  OK?

Whose fault might it be if a person's home was invaded and their personal stuff stolen?  Let me guess based on your post.  You would blame the home owner for not protecting his property better.  Got it.  Thanks.

It's rather odd that you consider losing an election to be akin to having your house being robbed.

(BTW - according to conservative-logic, if your kid gets cancer, it's your fault and you should pay; if you can't, too bad  )